So good to see Mark fire back at another person overvaluing prospects… saying gonsolin and Ruiz was too much to offer in a trade for Jose Ramirez… a 28 YO w 3/33 left on his contract and has three out of four top 3 MVP finishes… unbelievable
Agreed… they do have the resources to get it done… maybe even buehler and Ruiz but LA fans might balk at that and Cleveland prob wants pieces w little service time
Dodger fans might overvalue Ruiz and Gonsolin in this case, but the Dodgers hang up if Cleveland wanted Buehler for Ramirez. And that’s not because Ramirez isn’t any good, he absolutely is.
But Buehler isn’t going anywhere. He’s literally the Dodgers’ postseason number one.
Yea but those are stars with one year of control this is a superstar with three of control left not even close to comparable. It would take a ton to pry Ramirez from the much more then you think Dodger Dog.
The problem is that JRam is not for sale. You are not paying market rate when the man is in no way on the market. That would be like a man offering you $100 for your wife or daughter “because that is what he paid for a comparable prostitute” last week. Market doesn’t matter. Cleveland wants to keep JRam.
Sorry that I have to get extreme but it seems that some people just don’t get it. I keep seeing trade scenario after trade scenario for people who just aren’t available for anything except a huge overpay. Ramirez is one. Plesac is another. How many trade ideas involving Plesac have we all seen?
Disturbing analogy aside, I agree. I think fans don’t understand, that to get Ramirez, their team has to overpay. He would be a great piece for a lot of teams to acquire, but fans aren’t looking at it from Cleveland’s perspective. You really have to ask yourself why would they trade him unless it was a huge overpay. Other than being overwhelmed, they have no reason to move him.
“If you’re spending $210MM on payroll, you shouldn’t be worried about spending another $5MM (if that) in luxury tax fees for going over the threshold”
I still dont think most people understand how little the hit is in yr 1 – The biggest use of the CBT line is Gms using it to massage over the fan base so they dont have to spend wild to appease them ; it seems to have worked after a couple years ….
It also can have symbolic meanings ….Im of one who thinks Friedman values a sub 200 mill payroll ring more than a +200
Exactly right about how little it is. Given those numbers, with the threshold at $208M, adding $5M onto a $210M payroll, $7M over, the 22.5% tax hit would be $1.575M.
If a team can afford a $215M payroll, they can afford an additional $1.575M tax hit for one year. Obviously the problem to avoid is not exceeding the threshold for multiple seasons. But clearly a one year tax hit is not something that would make owners “absolutely terrified”.
I think part of the discussion that is missed in these cases is that you’d need to add that cost on to the player you’re signing that puts you over the top. So lets just say the tax hit is 5m…is that player you’re signing worth 5m more than the contract you’re offering them? You can like a guy a lot at $x, but if that’s effectively $x+5 this year, perhaps that players is a lot less attractive.
The issue was how little it costs the first time over the threshold. A $5M hit sounds like a lot. But to incur that big a penalty, at the 22.5% rate for first-timers, the payroll would have to be more than $22.2M over (which actually computes to a $4.995M hit).
If signing one guy causes a $5M hit then you’re paying that guy north of a $22M AAV. If a team is willing to pay that much, for a supposed all-star caliber player, they should be willing to pay the additional $5M tax hit.
Actually it’s even less than $11M. A $250M payroll would be $42M over. A 22.5% hit would $9.45M.
The problem with a $250M payroll in not the tax hit. Not sure if it changes for 2021, but last season $250M was the threshold that added an additional surtax and loss of draft choice penalties.
What would a team with a $250M payroll in year one need to sacrifice in year two to get back under the $208M soft cap? A $35M+/yr superstar, two $21M stars, four $10M+ contributors?
Paring back $42M+ would be pretty painful and upsetting to any fan base. And if a team didn’t do it, they would incur 2nd year penalties.
Any fan, whose team had a $250M payroll, should be happy that their team was willing to spend that kind of money to win. That said, their first year penalty would be $9.45M, not that onerous
Shedding $42M in salary is not a one year proposition. Second year penalties are 30%. If they were to shed half the overage, $21M, their penalty would be $6.3M, for an overall cost, payroll plus penalty, for $235.3M.
Any team that can afford a $250M payroll, can handle a $235M+ payroll, and no fan should be upset if their team were in that position. Of course, any team should continue to try and shed any overage to reset the penalty.
But even if they fell short in the 3rd year, say $10M short, a wealthy team could easily handle it. At $10M over, their payroll plus penalty in the 3rd year would be a total of $222M. Hard to believe any fan would be that upset about any of these scenarios
Tad, you make some good points. Even in years two and three, the penalty is not as onerous as I thought. Providing the numbers/examples was very helpful in illustrating the penalty.
Regarding fan reaction, I’m not as confident as you that fans are understanding when their club sheds payroll. Comments from fans of the Cubs and Red Sox among others can get pretty spicy.
Why would the Jays trade their 26 year old Left Fielder for a 27 year old 3rd baseman? They would not include him in a trade for Lindor why would they now change their mind.
Ramirez has three years of control left totally different then Lindor he has a lot more value so naturally it would take a lot more to pry him away from Cleveland then Lindor.
The reason that they might is because a left fielder is a lot easier to replace in Free Agency then one of the best third baseman in the game. If they did the trade above they could then sign Brantley to replace Gurriel. They would be a much better team with Ramirez and Brantley then keeping Gurriel. I just don’t think that Cleveland would trade Ramirez unless they get blown away by an offer they can’t refuse.
Of course it would be what it would take to pry those two. Cleveland would want to fleece the Jays in a lopsided trade like that. If Quantrill was highly thought-of he’d already be in a starting rotation (he’s not). Take Gurriel out of the deal and take Quantrill out of the deal and you have a much more even trade.
you can’t ask a question if you don’t see the chat until its over. I guess you could just sit and watch the chat board and wait like my cat does at the window.
Tying the DH to starting pitching has always made more sense to me. If the DH is truly there to represent the pitcher and bring their ‘designated hitter’ it never made sense to me that they were not tired together in some way.
I’d say if the pitcher completes five (5) innings of a scheduled nine (9) inning game (four (4) for a seven (7) inning game) than the DH remains in the game for the duration.
If the pitcher doesn’t complete the required innings, than there are two (2) options at (or before) the next point the DH is scheduled to come to the plate.
1-pitcher hits or a pinch hitter can be utilized
2- double switch – whereby the DH moves to a fielding position, the then prevailing pitcher is subbed for another fielder and assumes that spot in the batting order.
*pitcher would still be subject the three (3) batter minimum (if the rule stays in effect). And might also require some tweaking of the rule itself.
This would require traditional NL substitution strategy and also put an onus on players who DH still having the ability to actually be able to field a position to keep their bat in the game. It would also get rid of the one inning starter BS…
That’s one of the reason’s I dislike the DH. In the NL you had to have pinch-hitters on the bench. And it could be interesting to see how the manager could get to the pitcher’s spot in the lineup to use one of those guys. Sometimes it was a gamble when the pitcher, was starting to lose it, and his spot was due up in the next inning.
In the AL, the manager just takes his pitcher out whenever he feels like it. The roster has more pitchers and fewer bench guys. I think that rule of the 3-batter minimum was caused by the DH, since it allows for more pitching substitutions; another rule I dislike. It’s kind of a dumbed-down version of the baseball I grew up with.
@tad2b13, the 3 batter rule was put in place, because it is annoying watching a nationally televised game, which is a 3 minute commercial break instead of 2 minutes. A perfect example of that is, a starting pitcher comes in to start the inning, faces one batter, gets pulled for a reliever, he faces one batter, gets pulled for another reliever, you just had 9 minutes of commercials and only 2 batters faced. That is annoying.
But as I pointed out above, the 3-batter rule was a reaction to teams carrying so many pitchers on the roster. With more pitchers and less bench guys, the managers can make a lot of one-batter substitutions. And the reason why they can carry so many pitchers is because of the DH. Without the DH a team has to have at least a couple more bench guys to pinch hit.
The 3-batter rule is arbitrary, and directly affects strategy, unlike the limitation on mound visits. Both were instituted to speed up the game, and it’s unfortunate that one of them has a negative effect on strategy. A better rule would be a limit on the number of pitchers on the roster
Eventually it’s going to happen to every team where a RP comes in and has nothing. And that team is going to have to suffer through a minimum of 3 batters crushing the ball, with game being lost, and the manager helpless to do anything.
I know commercials can be annoying, but I love baseball. I can put up with some annoyance to keep baseball as the more interesting game I grew up with. With the talk of banning shifts, along with the 3-batter rule, and the universal DH, it becomes a game with less strategy that I find far less interesting. In that case I wonder if I can remain a fan.
So good to see Mark fire back at another person overvaluing prospects… saying gonsolin and Ruiz was too much to offer in a trade for Jose Ramirez… a 28 YO w 3/33 left on his contract and has three out of four top 3 MVP finishes… unbelievable
fax dodger fans thinking Ruiz and Gonsolin is way to much for JRam
Yea my proposal last week was
Lux Ruiz White Knack +lottery ticket and I said It was probably a smidge low-
Lux Ruiz Gonzo and hes ours tho !
Ruiz and Gonsolin is a good start. But they’d need to include at least Lux or Gray or two of Pages, Cartaya, Hoese, Busch or Beeter.
Agreed… they do have the resources to get it done… maybe even buehler and Ruiz but LA fans might balk at that and Cleveland prob wants pieces w little service time
Dodger fans might overvalue Ruiz and Gonsolin in this case, but the Dodgers hang up if Cleveland wanted Buehler for Ramirez. And that’s not because Ramirez isn’t any good, he absolutely is.
But Buehler isn’t going anywhere. He’s literally the Dodgers’ postseason number one.
Buehler? Now that is crazy right there.
Dodgers aren’t dealing Buehler in any scenario. I’d imagine a deal would look something like Lux, Ruiz, Gonsolin, and a lottery ticket like Rodriguez.
Based of what other stars are getting traded for, that package is an extreme overpay.
Yea but those are stars with one year of control this is a superstar with three of control left not even close to comparable. It would take a ton to pry Ramirez from the much more then you think Dodger Dog.
They dont have 3 yrs tho and are nowhere near as cost controlled
The problem is that JRam is not for sale. You are not paying market rate when the man is in no way on the market. That would be like a man offering you $100 for your wife or daughter “because that is what he paid for a comparable prostitute” last week. Market doesn’t matter. Cleveland wants to keep JRam.
Classy.
Thank you for that disturbing comparison.
Sorry that I have to get extreme but it seems that some people just don’t get it. I keep seeing trade scenario after trade scenario for people who just aren’t available for anything except a huge overpay. Ramirez is one. Plesac is another. How many trade ideas involving Plesac have we all seen?
Hudson6:
Disturbing analogy aside, I agree. I think fans don’t understand, that to get Ramirez, their team has to overpay. He would be a great piece for a lot of teams to acquire, but fans aren’t looking at it from Cleveland’s perspective. You really have to ask yourself why would they trade him unless it was a huge overpay. Other than being overwhelmed, they have no reason to move him.
It’d be interesting to see beeter and bieber on the same team.
“If you’re spending $210MM on payroll, you shouldn’t be worried about spending another $5MM (if that) in luxury tax fees for going over the threshold”
I still dont think most people understand how little the hit is in yr 1 – The biggest use of the CBT line is Gms using it to massage over the fan base so they dont have to spend wild to appease them ; it seems to have worked after a couple years ….
It also can have symbolic meanings ….Im of one who thinks Friedman values a sub 200 mill payroll ring more than a +200
Cap:
Exactly right about how little it is. Given those numbers, with the threshold at $208M, adding $5M onto a $210M payroll, $7M over, the 22.5% tax hit would be $1.575M.
If a team can afford a $215M payroll, they can afford an additional $1.575M tax hit for one year. Obviously the problem to avoid is not exceeding the threshold for multiple seasons. But clearly a one year tax hit is not something that would make owners “absolutely terrified”.
Yup about 11 mill on a 250 for first timers – If your spending 250 I cant Imagine the 11 is the hurdle that slows you down
But really as long as the bell rings true to most people its effectively doing the job that it was intended too
I think part of the discussion that is missed in these cases is that you’d need to add that cost on to the player you’re signing that puts you over the top. So lets just say the tax hit is 5m…is that player you’re signing worth 5m more than the contract you’re offering them? You can like a guy a lot at $x, but if that’s effectively $x+5 this year, perhaps that players is a lot less attractive.
1984wasntamanual:
The issue was how little it costs the first time over the threshold. A $5M hit sounds like a lot. But to incur that big a penalty, at the 22.5% rate for first-timers, the payroll would have to be more than $22.2M over (which actually computes to a $4.995M hit).
If signing one guy causes a $5M hit then you’re paying that guy north of a $22M AAV. If a team is willing to pay that much, for a supposed all-star caliber player, they should be willing to pay the additional $5M tax hit.
Cap:
Actually it’s even less than $11M. A $250M payroll would be $42M over. A 22.5% hit would $9.45M.
The problem with a $250M payroll in not the tax hit. Not sure if it changes for 2021, but last season $250M was the threshold that added an additional surtax and loss of draft choice penalties.
What would a team with a $250M payroll in year one need to sacrifice in year two to get back under the $208M soft cap? A $35M+/yr superstar, two $21M stars, four $10M+ contributors?
Paring back $42M+ would be pretty painful and upsetting to any fan base. And if a team didn’t do it, they would incur 2nd year penalties.
Angels & NL West:
Any fan, whose team had a $250M payroll, should be happy that their team was willing to spend that kind of money to win. That said, their first year penalty would be $9.45M, not that onerous
Shedding $42M in salary is not a one year proposition. Second year penalties are 30%. If they were to shed half the overage, $21M, their penalty would be $6.3M, for an overall cost, payroll plus penalty, for $235.3M.
Any team that can afford a $250M payroll, can handle a $235M+ payroll, and no fan should be upset if their team were in that position. Of course, any team should continue to try and shed any overage to reset the penalty.
But even if they fell short in the 3rd year, say $10M short, a wealthy team could easily handle it. At $10M over, their payroll plus penalty in the 3rd year would be a total of $222M. Hard to believe any fan would be that upset about any of these scenarios
Tad, you make some good points. Even in years two and three, the penalty is not as onerous as I thought. Providing the numbers/examples was very helpful in illustrating the penalty.
Regarding fan reaction, I’m not as confident as you that fans are understanding when their club sheds payroll. Comments from fans of the Cubs and Red Sox among others can get pretty spicy.
Jays offer Groshans, Gurriel, kirk and Kloffenstein for Ramirez and Quantrill are we close?
Why would the Jays trade their 26 year old Left Fielder for a 27 year old 3rd baseman? They would not include him in a trade for Lindor why would they now change their mind.
Ramirez has three years of control left totally different then Lindor he has a lot more value so naturally it would take a lot more to pry him away from Cleveland then Lindor.
The reason that they might is because a left fielder is a lot easier to replace in Free Agency then one of the best third baseman in the game. If they did the trade above they could then sign Brantley to replace Gurriel. They would be a much better team with Ramirez and Brantley then keeping Gurriel. I just don’t think that Cleveland would trade Ramirez unless they get blown away by an offer they can’t refuse.
Way too much for Ramirez and Quantrill.
Actually it’s probably pretty close to what it would take to pry Ramirez and Quantrill. It’s certainly not way too much.
Of course it would be what it would take to pry those two. Cleveland would want to fleece the Jays in a lopsided trade like that. If Quantrill was highly thought-of he’d already be in a starting rotation (he’s not). Take Gurriel out of the deal and take Quantrill out of the deal and you have a much more even trade.
That wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to pry Ramirez from the Indians.
Not enough.
How do you find out in advance that a chat is scheduled so you can be prepared to participate?
I would guess that specific times depend largely on availability and the need to prioritize coverage of any major breaking news.
They get literally hundreds of questions from fans during each chat and can only answer so many, so your chances of “participating” are fairly low.
you can’t ask a question if you don’t see the chat until its over. I guess you could just sit and watch the chat board and wait like my cat does at the window.
Imagine thinking Tanaka is worth $14 million a year!
Tying the DH to starting pitching has always made more sense to me. If the DH is truly there to represent the pitcher and bring their ‘designated hitter’ it never made sense to me that they were not tired together in some way.
I’d say if the pitcher completes five (5) innings of a scheduled nine (9) inning game (four (4) for a seven (7) inning game) than the DH remains in the game for the duration.
If the pitcher doesn’t complete the required innings, than there are two (2) options at (or before) the next point the DH is scheduled to come to the plate.
1-pitcher hits or a pinch hitter can be utilized
2- double switch – whereby the DH moves to a fielding position, the then prevailing pitcher is subbed for another fielder and assumes that spot in the batting order.
*pitcher would still be subject the three (3) batter minimum (if the rule stays in effect). And might also require some tweaking of the rule itself.
This would require traditional NL substitution strategy and also put an onus on players who DH still having the ability to actually be able to field a position to keep their bat in the game. It would also get rid of the one inning starter BS…
Because relief pitchers are better hitters than starters?
No. Teams don’t carry enough bench players these days to constantly pinch hit…..
jorge:
That’s one of the reason’s I dislike the DH. In the NL you had to have pinch-hitters on the bench. And it could be interesting to see how the manager could get to the pitcher’s spot in the lineup to use one of those guys. Sometimes it was a gamble when the pitcher, was starting to lose it, and his spot was due up in the next inning.
In the AL, the manager just takes his pitcher out whenever he feels like it. The roster has more pitchers and fewer bench guys. I think that rule of the 3-batter minimum was caused by the DH, since it allows for more pitching substitutions; another rule I dislike. It’s kind of a dumbed-down version of the baseball I grew up with.
@tad2b13, the 3 batter rule was put in place, because it is annoying watching a nationally televised game, which is a 3 minute commercial break instead of 2 minutes. A perfect example of that is, a starting pitcher comes in to start the inning, faces one batter, gets pulled for a reliever, he faces one batter, gets pulled for another reliever, you just had 9 minutes of commercials and only 2 batters faced. That is annoying.
angelsfan4life:
But as I pointed out above, the 3-batter rule was a reaction to teams carrying so many pitchers on the roster. With more pitchers and less bench guys, the managers can make a lot of one-batter substitutions. And the reason why they can carry so many pitchers is because of the DH. Without the DH a team has to have at least a couple more bench guys to pinch hit.
The 3-batter rule is arbitrary, and directly affects strategy, unlike the limitation on mound visits. Both were instituted to speed up the game, and it’s unfortunate that one of them has a negative effect on strategy. A better rule would be a limit on the number of pitchers on the roster
Eventually it’s going to happen to every team where a RP comes in and has nothing. And that team is going to have to suffer through a minimum of 3 batters crushing the ball, with game being lost, and the manager helpless to do anything.
I know commercials can be annoying, but I love baseball. I can put up with some annoyance to keep baseball as the more interesting game I grew up with. With the talk of banning shifts, along with the 3-batter rule, and the universal DH, it becomes a game with less strategy that I find far less interesting. In that case I wonder if I can remain a fan.