The Dodgers and infielder Miguel Rojas have agreed to a contract extension that will keep Rojas in Los Angeles through at least the 2024 season, according to Daniel Alvarez-Montes of El Extrabase (Twitter link and link to the Spanish-langugage full story). Rojas was already set to earn $5MM in 2023, but this new deal reworks that money into a $3.5MM salary and a $1.5MM signing bonus. Rojas will then earn another $5MM in 2024, and the Dodgers hold a $5MM club option on Rojas for 2025, with a $1MM buyout.
All told, it adds up to another $6MM in guaranteed money for the Beverly Hills Sports Council client. Rojas had previously been playing on a two-year, $10MM deal signed when he was a member of the Marlins, and that extension covered the 2022 and 2023 seasons.
Breaking into the majors with the Dodgers in 2014, Rojas was dealt to the Marlins during the 2014-15 offseason and then established himself as a leader on and off the field in Miami. Rojas moved from a utility role to regular duty as the Marlins’ shortstop, and his consistently strong defense provided value to club even if his offense was generally below average. Rojas had a 91 wRC+ from 2015-21, but he dropped to a 73 wRC+ in 2022 on the heels of a .236/.283/.323 slash line over 507 plate appearances.
Wrist problems may have contributed to Rojas’ underwhelming season, as he underwent surgery on his wrist back in October. Reports circulated last month that Rojas was also going to undergo another procedure, and the infielder told reporters (including the Orange County Register’s Bill Plunkett) today that he had a loose piece of bone removed from his right hand three weeks ago. The surgeries won’t appear to have set Rojas back, as he is already hitting off a tee and has expressed interest in playing for his native Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic if healthy.
Despite the injuries and the 2022 numbers, the Dodgers still traded for Rojas in January, as L.A. dealt Jacob Amaya (a strong-fielding prospect with some questions about his bat) to Miami in the straight-up swap. With Trea Turner now a Phillie and Gavin Lux slated to take over as the everyday shortstop, adding Rojas gives the Dodgers a capable veteran who can perhaps fill in at short if Lux has any trouble adjusting, and otherwise serve as depth around the infield.
The extension is a nice early birthday present for Rojas (who turns 34 later this month) and it also underscores the Dodgers’ belief that the veteran can be a key contributor to the roster. Shorter-term extensions have been a favored tactic for president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman as of late, as Los Angeles also inked such players as Max Muncy, Blake Treinen, Daniel Hudson, and Austin Barnes to deals that give the Dodgers up to two years of extra control. In the first three of those instances, the Dodgers made an early guarantee on a 2023 club option, and added another club option year to the back end of the contract.
Rojas’ deal is a little different since he was already under contract for 2023. From a luxury tax perspective, the extension slightly raises Rojas’ tax number from $5MM to $5.5MM, which is the new average annual value of what is technically a two-year deal (since his 2023 salary was reworked) for accounting purposes. While Los Angeles had soared over the Competitive Balance Tax threshold in each of the last two seasons, there was some thought that the club might look to duck under the line and reset its tax penalty status, with an eye towards going back into CBT territory next winter. But, with the Dodgers now projected to be slightly over the $233MM threshold, Friedman said this week that the Dodgers were “doing all we can to win a championship this year,” rather than keep an eye on the tax bill by trading players.
I’m guessing this reduces his luxury tax number from $5M to $3M. Is that enough to for them to squeak under the luxury tax threshold
Number stays the same aav is the same
Another way to cheat in this system that doesn’t work to reduce the revenue disparity in baseball.
Otherwise they would never give the guy an extension until he actually played for them.
Hamilton College accounting certificates at work.
It’s not like Rojas played in LA before or anything
@Reds, nope, not cheating at all, the move raises their luxury tax liability!!
Blatant adjustments like this are bad in my view. Manipulating after the fact if not checked early will let the genie out of the bottle. Without a hard cap like other sports, the tax thresholds should not be allowed to be tinkered with. Just my take.
Lol, what an ignorant take. This RAISES their CBT payroll number.
@dewey, the only blatant move was to lock up an additional season!! Tax liability went up!!
The signing bonus is now spread over 3 years, but still applies to the AAV. They also added another million in the buyout, so they only save a couple hundred thousand.
Even if so, they know to the penny what it takes to be under. Teams have capologists now in those large markets.
Subtract $500k because the signing bonus is spread over 3 seasons. Add $500k because of the buyout on the option is spread out over 2 seasons if the Dodgers buyout the 3rd year. If the Dodgers pick up the team option then its exactly the same as it was also.
Sounds a lot like the Hokey Pokey.
That’s what it’s all about.
Luxury tax number went up, it wasn’t cheating the system, and every team should be able to figure out their player payroll without a “capologist.”
@cainer18, no, it raises their luxury tax number! Just secures the guy for an extra season.
So what does this do to the Dodgers’ CBT amount?
I think it may squeak them under the CBT number, but then they can really make 0 moves whatsoever
They were already $5 million over before this.
I don’t think it should change at all. Signing bonuses count toward the luxury tax to prevent that kind of cheating. The AAV is the same, so he should still count as 5M for the tax.
False. Club options not guaranteed. The AAV is not the same…
ok, thanks for the knowledge.
You’re right! The AAV is not the same – it’s slightly higher because his 2024 year is treated as $6M due to the presence of the buyout
I get why he would sign it financially and to stay on that juggernaut of a team (and coming off a down year offensively) but, unless he has a down year hitting again I think he left quite a bit of earnings on the table. He will have plenty of good hitters around him in that lineup for what it’s worth.
He’s terrible
He’s slotted to be a backup. It’s a pretty good guaranteed extension for a mid 30s .230 hitting backup.
He doesn’t have to be a backup. He’s actually been quite decent, excluding last year (still had over 2 War). If Elvis Andrus is expected to get more than 5m than he should be able to as well. If he has a good season he would make at least 8mil.
The Dodgers are not going to have 34 year old Rojas start at SS over Lux. Lux had been blocked by Seager and Trea Turner at SS, for the last 3 years. Lux has nothing left to prove after hitting .396 his final year in AAA and now should get his shot to finally take over his natural position instead of being moved all over the infield and outfield just to keep his bat in the lineup like last season.
The Dodgers have also said Rookie Miguel Vargas will be at 2nd base. They think so highly of his bat they will give him plenty of time to develop at the easier infield position. With the signing of JD Martinez, DH is no longer a primary option for Vargas. mlb.com/news/miguel-vargas-to-start-at-second-for-…
That leaves Muncy at 3rd who is having his first full offseason to recover from major surgery. When he’s right he’s a .250 mid 30 HR guy who signed a 2 year extension.
Not to mention Chris Taylor, the Swiss army
knife of position players, who looks to take over a permanent outfield position with the departure of Bellinger.
That leaves Rojas the slotted backup infielder to take over the role from Alberto who departed via free agency.
I mean to say skill-set wise he is not a backup. He is gonna get a decent amount of playing time unless he stinks. Just watch.
“a 230 hitting backup”. Nice sample size to pick from. Look at the last few years not just one. He is not a backup. He is a utility player. He would be starting on many teams. There is more than bat skills to his game but he is, usuallly, a decent hitter.
I mean, he’s healthy, he’s a .260-.280 batter with a slightly above average OBP and no power. That’s not a ‘decent hitter’. He’s a low-tier regular, given he is still a great defender. He does the job, but nobody is paying him big bucks, especially now when he’s about to turn 34 years old.
At 34 with already questionable offense, he needs to take what he can get. He’s not Justin Verlander. Rojas will only get less valuable as he slows down.
Why?
He took the guarantee.
Luxury tax is the only reason for this
Tax number stays the same
False. Club options aren’t guaranteed money. You are wrong.
I think options count toward the tax, though. I could be wrong. You sound sure, but that’s my understanding.
Player options count cause they are guaranteed. Club options are not guaranteed. I am sure. Also it’s obvious because there’s no other reason the dodgers would do this
No options are guaranteed, the only guaranteed money is whatever the buyout is. So, he has a $1m buyout that gets added to his $5m salary for ‘23, thus making his guaranteed money $6m.
Rols, the buyout of the option is guaranteed. Its $11 million guaranteed.
Ur right the number goes up because the buyout is guaranteed.
Just to help clarify this issue, this is from CBS’ article on the Competitive Balance Tax and addresses both issues:
“Additionally, there is no loophole when it comes to signing bonuses or player options, as those are factored into the AAV calculations.
Oddly, this isn’t the case for club options. They’re excluded from the multi-year calculations, and are treated as essentially one-year deals.”
Here’s the link:
cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-luxury-tax-breaking-dow…
Glad rols1026 admitted they were wrong. Oh, wait…
Thanks Clip.
Its really very simple. Guaranteed money including signing bonuses are included in CBT calculations. Rojas is now guaranteed $11 million for 2023 and 2024. That is an AAV of $5.5 million. $500k more than it was prior to this extension.
Webs- My question is this,and I could not tell from Clips “clip”-What happens to the 2025 amount if they pick up the option Year?Is it the $5M salary,or is it reduced to $4M since they have paid the extra minimum guarantee of $1M over the 2023-2024 years?
And I still can’t understand the Marlins mindset/strategy in trading an excellent shortstop (Rojas) while they’re moving around so many infielders to new positions. A hope and a prayer?
And what did they get in return from the Dodgers? A 23 year old Jacob Amaya, an 11th round pick with some potential offensive upside. Peculiar.
Yeah, I question Ng’s moves too. Arraez is an excellent contact hitter, but his defense is bad, and he doesn’t run well.
Coop, I think Arraez will do well there but end up at 1B or DH. The defense at 2B was why he moved, I think from views of others who have seen him play the field.
Well, his defense was better at 1B, I’ll say that Reds. Obviously, if he DH’s, then defense isn’t an issue. I had heard that they were planning on playing him at 2B, which prompted my comment. Thanks.
Why do you keep spreading that BS? Arraez defense has been above average at 2B for the last 3 years. Give the BS a rest.
Not according to the metrics. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, I guess.
He is right. DRS is the metrics. OAA only measures what happens to the ball in play up until the ball is caught and that is not all of defense. UZR is zone based so it’s useless until the shift is eliminated. Only DRS takes into account the whole defensive picture. If you are using anything else, you are missing the facts entirely.
UZR is not useless, it just doesn’t fit your desired results nor does it support your argument.
Coop, UZR is based entirely on balls being hit into a particular zone and bases its stat on whether a fielder should have gotten to that ball on average. It does not take shifts into account at all and when 33% of plays had an extreme shift in 2022, meaning that a player from another position was in that zone, that makes it useless in measuring whether or not the player at the position that is in that zone should or should not have caught the ball.
UZR also dings the position that is in that zone when another player makes the play on the ball. So the RF, 2B, or 1B is dinged when another position is shifted over into shallow RF and makes the play on a ball. The player that makes the play gets credit for an out of zone play which gives them the highest boost to their defense score.
I could go on, but anyone can see how UZR is not worth considering for any season in the past couple of decades.
If you want to start using it in the future when the shift is banned, be my guest. Trying to use it now just shows stubbornness and that you are unwilling to admit that it doesn’t fit your desired result nor does it support your argument.
Seems weird to me too in view of the subsequent move of Jazz to CF.
They are not moving Jazz to CF for someone that grades out as a negative defensively. Arraez had a +4 DRS last season and +8 over the last 3 seasons. He is decent defensively.
Amaya is said to have an elite glove himself with significantly higher offensive upside than Rojas. Almost every baseball analyst I’ve heard has rated this trade as a win for the Marlins. I think you are severely over evaluating the value that Rojas provides at short as a 33 year old with diminishing defense.
Good to know. Still, given the Marlins current needs and moves, seems strange for an underwhelming prospect, I guess we’ll find out. I’d love the Marlins to “win” this trade.
Update to the article says it raises the CBT.
Everyone says their explanation of the CBT impact is the only true and correct one. Could it be that nobody really knows for certain?
The guarantee is now $11 million over 2 years. That makes the AAV $5.5 million. The CBT hit went up a half million.
Then your explanation of the CBT impact really is the only true and correct one. I didn’t think my point needed proving but there you’ve gone and done it anyway.
@websoulsurfer
No the AAV is 5 Million for 23 and 24 the club option and buyout counts for the 25 budget and is pretty much ignored for 23 and 24 caps. Check out Roster resource they provide a break out for CBT by year and player. So for this year, there is no actual change. They basically tacked on another year of 5M for a solid fielding multi positional player with the potential of adding another year.
Its not a bad idea to have Rojas as back up if Lux and/or Vargas falls through. I think people have been spoiled with amazing SS market but next year you are looking at Rosario and maybe Baez as your top SS available next year unless you move Manny back to SS which he really hasnt played since he left the dodgers. Just a handful of games in 19.
This article says the CBT is going up.
“From a luxury tax perspective, the extension slightly raises Rojas’ tax number from $5MM to $5.5MM, which is the new average annual value of what is technically a two-year deal (since his 2023 salary was reworked) for accounting purposes.”
On MLB Network they said that its a 2 year deal with $11 million in guaranteed money. That means $5.5 million AAV unless the option is picked up.
Yes, the article says this. But is the article correct?
Riddle me this: If the Dodgers pick up the extension for 2025, what is is their CBT charge for his contract in that year?
its worth 11 million dollars guaranteed but for tax purposes club options and their subsequent buyouts are excluded from AAV because then you cant properly account for it. If not, the amount would improperly calculate in 2025 basically dinging them twice for the 1M buyout … half a mil each in 23 and 24 then 1m again in 25. See the quote above from yankee clipper and the link to the article from CBS regarding CBT calculations.
“Oddly, this isn’t the case for club options. They’re excluded from the multi-year calculations, and are treated as essentially one-year deals.”
Once the option is due then it becomes a one year deal for the year of the option so if they exercise it is worth 5M if not then 1M for 2025. so AAV would be 5M, 5M, 1M which is your 11 Million guaranteed if not exercised. If it were a player option that would be different.
Exactly my point. The statement in the article may very well be incorrect, and the intricacies of how the CBT works aren’t fully known outside of MLB. This causes fans to ask “how can this extension make sense?” when the answer is known to the people making these decisions and who understand the complete rules, and not to the general public.
Not sure how whether the option is team or player makes a difference. In either case whether the player plays out his contract or it’s ended by either party the AAV is either increased or decreased, depending on how much was guaranteed in the out years of the contract. Then add performance bonuses to the mix and the hairball gets even larger.
Blue, you would think you could go look it up like the authors of the article did and like the many other authors that have come to the same conclusion have.
For the CBT it’s considered a 2-year deal with an $11 million guarantee. A $5.5 million AAV.
The buyout is part of the 2 year deal. The option year is calculated as a 1 year deal of the total minus the buyout which was part of the guarantee.
Read the CBA, not an article that gives an opinion. The exact verbiage is in there.
I looked at the cba and here is the quote from it from page 119 where it says that the club option is not a guaranteed year. and if you read page 118 under section 2 only guaranteed years are used to calculate AAV.
”
(i) A “Club Option Year” shall mean a championship season
covered by a Uniform Player’s Contract in which the amount
payable pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Contract becomes due or
guaranteed at the election of the Club or by reason of specified
performance by a Player. Club Option Years shall not be considered “Guaranteed Years.” In addition, any other championship
season included in a Multi-Year Contract that is not a Guaranteed
Year shall be treated as a Club Option Year”
regarding buyout it becomes a signing bonus at the time the club option is decided upon so in this case it would be year 3 making aav in year 1 and 2 5M and in year 3 would be 1M “signing bonus” assuming option is not picked up. page 120 of the cba
“(A) If a Uniform Player’s Contract contains a Club Option
Year or a Player Option Year that is not deemed a Guaranteed
Year pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) above and the Player is
to receive consideration upon the non-exercise of that option
or the nullification of a championship season (“Option Buyout”), then such Option Buyout shall be deemed a Signing
Bonus. If a Uniform Player’s Contract contains an Option
Buyout for a Club decision not to exercise a Club Option Year
and an Option Buyout for a Player decision not to exercise a
Player Option Year (or to nullify a championship season) that
is deemed a Signing Bonus pursuant to this subparagraph
(b)(i), then the higher Option Buyout payment shall be deemed
the Signing Bonus”
Good information, thanks for looking it up. It certainly should work this way. Sheds some light on what happens with opt-outs as well. Presumably only the years before the opt-out are considered for AAV and the years after (assuming it isn’t exercised) are treated as if it was a new contract.
Not sure about the logic here. It increases the CBT hit slightly. He will start the season at 34 so his performance on the field and at the plate will regress. He is more likely to get hurt as he ages. So why?
Seems a little low. Rojas could start for at least 1/4 of the teams in baseball and improve their projected WAR at SS, or back up the entire IF for the third quartile and improve their roster. Maybe the guarantee cemented it for a guy who’s ‘only’ made $20m in his career?
Another clueless move by Friedman. Taking L after L lately…
Nice work Los Karens
Lousy post Misogynist 49
This should have been Red Sox SS 2023. Rojas’ stats lower due to Marlins park. Elite glove.
His OPS+ over the last 4 seasons is 87. Take out 2020 and its 82. OPS+ is park adjusted. Playing in Fenway wouldn’t have helped him. His hitting is in a free fall.
Rojas = starter vs. LHP only.
Potentially perfect platoon with Lux.
The IQ of this board is at an all time low
Conspiracy theorists, false narratives fear not, this is your home
Remember when we all use to talk about baseball? Crikes
Range is more important than it has been in a long time due to eliminating the shift.
Defensive replacements and utility guys are probably going to provide more value now than in the recent past.
Good grief. What in the hell is AF thinking. Totally unnecessary extension.
I still like the Dodgers even though they lost a third of last years rotation and position players.