The Official 2017-2018 Hot Stove Thread

[ukyah]

i have no problem with players making as much as they can in a season, but i do find guaranteed contracts ridiculous. i am fine with a contract being guaranteed for the current season, due to the potential for injury, but guaranteed contracts for 3, 4, 5-10 years is stupid. it hamstrings the team unfairly. i am aware that the union would have to be broken, by ownership, for this to change. it's not going to happen.

[AngelsLakersFan]

35 minutes ago, ukyah said:

i have no problem with players making as much as they can in a season, but i do find guaranteed contracts ridiculous. i am fine with a contract being guaranteed for the current season, due to the potential for injury, but guaranteed contracts for 3, 4, 5-10 years is stupid. it hamstrings the team unfairly. i am aware that the union would have to be broken, by ownership, for this to change. it's not going to happen.

I would like to see time spent on the DL not count towards the luxury tax.

 

[krAbs]

9 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I would like to see time spent on the DL not count towards the luxury tax.

 

That would be amazing. Let Pujols ride the DL till his contract is up.

[Ohtaniland]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I would like to see the system changed to where top flight free agents are getting significantly less, while quality young players are paid more in line with their current production. Payrolls can and would stay generally the same, but the share of that payroll would tend to go towards more productive players.

They need to establish a salary cap. I have nothing but great respect for Mike Trout but I’ll be pissed off if he gets a $450M contract that carries him through his declining years. 

[Stradling]

I don’t know the solution, but it would be nice to make something work both ways.  For example, maybe what the NBA did a few years ago where teams were allowed to amnesty a contract.  So, the player will still get paid, but it doesn’t go against the payroll.  So if Arte truly felt like Albert was hurting the team, he could pay him his contract and let him go, but the team could still go out and sign players.  Maybe you can only amnesty one contract at a time.  So if Albert was amnestied this year, they couldn’t amnesty another contract until his original contract expires. 

I also like the idea of either ALF suggested where time on the DL doesn’t count against the threshold.  Or maybe time on the DL is covered by the union or something like that.  Maybe the union charges higher union dues.  Or it is a split cost.  

Bottom line is owners can’t simply walk away from contracts they signed.  However if that contract is so bad it hampers your ability to compete, then you can still pay it, and improve the team.  

[VariousCrap]

22 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

They need to establish a salary cap. I have nothing but great respect for Mike Trout but I’ll be pissed off if he gets a $450M contract that carries him through his declining years. 

 

I don't think you need to worry about that.  That ain't happening.

[Stradling]

Regardless of how much money Trout gets the money at the end of the contract will be higher than he’s worth.  At least if he is an Angel you can be thankful that he has given the team a 55 WAR and it has only cost the team $43 million so far.  So they have paid about $780k per win so far when the going rate per win is what about $6 or 7 million on the free agent market.   My guess is some won’t remember how much of a bargain he has been when he is overpaid at the end.  Jealousy is a bitch.

[happybat4]

Make a veterans minimum like the NBA so older guys get more but it doesn't hurt cap space. 

Aldi Granderson signed a one year 5 million deal. How is he making more than Howie Kendrick? 

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

Make a veterans minimum like the NBA so older guys get more but it doesn't hurt cap space. 

Why give teams even more incentive to ignore mediocre veterans? 

[happybat4]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

Why give teams even more incentive to ignore mediocre veterans? 

I think it would do the opposite. Teams care more about the cap hit than they do the salary. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, OHTANILAND said:

They need to establish a salary cap. I have nothing but great respect for Mike Trout but I’ll be pissed off if he gets a $450M contract that carries him through his declining years. 

The luxury tax is more than effective enough at restraining teams in the long run. The real issue is, why do teams like the Marlins and the Astros get credit for tanking so bad, and putting such a garbage product on the field year after year? 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

I think it would do the opposite. Teams care more about the cap hit than they do the salary. 

I was just assuming that the veterans minimum would be significantly higher than the regular minimum.

[Angel Oracle]

56 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t know the solution, but it would be nice to make something work both ways.  For example, maybe what the NBA did a few years ago where teams were allowed to amnesty a contract.  So, the player will still get paid, but it doesn’t go against the payroll.  So if Arte truly felt like Albert was hurting the team, he could pay him his contract and let him go, but the team could still go out and sign players.  Maybe you can only amnesty one contract at a time.  So if Albert was amnestied this year, they couldn’t amnesty another contract until his original contract expires. 

I also like the idea of either ALF suggested where time on the DL doesn’t count against the threshold.  Or maybe time on the DL is covered by the union or something like that.  Maybe the union charges higher union dues.  Or it is a split cost.  

Bottom line is owners can’t simply walk away from contracts they signed.  However if that contract is so bad it hampers your ability to compete, then you can still pay it, and improve the team.  

Or use a soft luxury tax threshold, like the NBA's soft salary cap, where when you re-sign your own FA player it doesn't totally go against the cap? 

Promotes paying well, while also helping to preserve team chemistry.  

[Dtwncbad]

Everyone wants a solution. I don't see anything that really needs to be solved. I'm fine leaving it alone.

Let the players and owners make a deal they both agree to.  I will just watch the games and pull for the Angels.

Generally speaking, I really don't care how much they make.

[jordan]

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

8 minutes ago, jordan said:

 

If Jeff Passan was smart that would've been obvious to him. In a post steroid league it doesn't make sense that players salaries are restricted for essentially the first 7 or 8 years of their career only to be unlocked when their utility becomes questionable. 

[Tank]

On 1/13/2018 at 10:41 AM, JarsOfClay said:

Angels are too complacent.  Jim Johnson is a joke.  And besides Parker, the rest of the bullpen is too inconsistent.

They really needed a sure thing like Reed but they just blew it.

please show any kind of proof you have that the angels 'failed' to get him, that reed wanted to come here but the team turned him down. take your time.

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

I don’t know the solution, but it would be nice to make something work both ways.  For example, maybe what the NBA did a few years ago where teams were allowed to amnesty a contract.  So, the player will still get paid, but it doesn’t go against the payroll.  So if Arte truly felt like Albert was hurting the team, he could pay him his contract and let him go, but the team could still go out and sign players.  Maybe you can only amnesty one contract at a time.  So if Albert was amnestied this year, they couldn’t amnesty another contract until his original contract expires. 

I also like the idea of either ALF suggested where time on the DL doesn’t count against the threshold.  Or maybe time on the DL is covered by the union or something like that.  Maybe the union charges higher union dues.  Or it is a split cost.  

Bottom line is owners can’t simply walk away from contracts they signed.  However if that contract is so bad it hampers your ability to compete, then you can still pay it, and improve the team.  

Yeah I agree that they should implement a “paid in full” or a “final settlement” agreement clause that allows teams to get out of fiscal obligations early to not impact their future budgets. Can’t see where this shouldn’t be able to happen if both sides agree to the settlement. 

[Angel Oracle]

One thing is for sure: there has never been this many top FAs still unsigned on January 16.    Pitchers and catchers report in just about 4 weeks.

[disarcina]

SI says that many teams are waiting out this year's F/A crop and waiting for the better pickin's in next year's F/A class.

Also, I think even without that -- owners are paying some of the elite guys more than ever but that's a very limited few.  The other guys - like lumbering corner infielders (Hosmer/ Moustakas) are seen as not good investments -- teams figure they can pay some up and comer a lot less and differential is not that great at the margins --- a .285 BA with 35 HRs , 105 RBI for those high priced guys vs.  .265 BA , 23 HR and 85 RBI means for the younger 'under club control guy at the MLB minimum of $500,000 or less) means if you sign the high priced guy you are paying about $10 million plus a year for  20 more points in the BA, about 25 more rbi's and maybe 15 more HRs with, perhaps, the glove side being a wash.

Teams / GMs figure save that money and spend it on pitching.............

[moccasin]

I am very happy that this is happening now. The current system is just stupid, and there needs to be changes made.

Why do teams get to employ players at league minimum for 3 years?

Why do teams that throw out their expensive players find the most revenue, through the revenue sharing system?

The number of tanking teams right now is ridiculous and it's looking like the NBA now.

 

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, hangin n wangin said:

I blame Mike Scioscia for this.

He's probably working with the Russians...

[Chuck]

The prices are really coming down. Is it possible JD Martinez makes the same or less than Justin Upton?

 

Source: Boston's offer to J.D. Martinez is in the range of five years, $100 million.

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) January 17, 2018

[tdawg87]

If he does I expect a few pages of bitching.

[jordan]

These remaining FAs just are not going to get what they expected.  I think with this report coming out, maybe we see some of the top FAs begin signing soon to much, much lesser deals.  If Boston isn't going to spend when the whole world knows they need offense, then surely some dominos begin falling.