Felix Contract Details & The State Of The Payroll
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 19, 2010 8:17 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Stats
Email
PrintIMPORTANT UPDATE! According to Geoff Baker, the 'Silva' cost is actually $3.5m in 2010 and $5.5m in 2011, which would give us another $2m of flexibility over what is projected here.
Also, add $500k for Figgins' 2010 and 2011. Forgot about his signing bonus.
-----
Saw this on Twitter first, but since I have this Pravda link handy:
Per terms of the reported deal, Hernandez would receive a $3.5 million bonus, and salaries of $6.5M in '10, $10M in '11, $18.5M in '12, $19.5M in '13 and $20M in '14.
There are also some award bonuses, where Felix earns $1m for winning the Cy Young, $500k for coming in second, and $250k for coming in third. Now here there's a little uncertainty. Cot's is saying those would be one-time awards, but what I'm being told is that this may instead be similar to the old JJ contract, where all future salaries increase by the amount of the award. So, for example, if Felix were to win the Cy Young next season, it would be worth $5m, not $1m. But I'm not sure. This is just something to keep in mind until we find out.
Anyway, signing bonuses tend to be spread out over the course of a deal, so what's most important right now is that, for 2010 and 2011, we can probably pencil Felix in to make $7.2m and $10.7-11.7m. That seem low to anyone else? Remember that previous estimates put him around $10m and $15m in the same two years. In the short term, this is tremendous. The Mariners have found a way to get Felix paid while, in a way, actually saving money relative to what was expected. Unless I'm missing something, this means the M's have about $2.8m of extra offseason wiggle room that I didn't think they'd have. Maybe we have room for Sheets after all. (It's also a big boost in 2011.)
So where do we stand in payroll terms? Here's my best attempt at getting everything figured out:
I made some educated Kotchman/League arbitration guesses, and also had to guess with a lot of the $400-500k numbers, but this should be close. Remember that last year the Mariners had an Opening Day payroll of $98.9m. If you assume a similar budget in 2010, that would leave the team with about $9m left to spend, which exceeds my off-the-cuff estimate of $4-5m.
That's...that's really interesting is what that is. Obviously we can't know what the 2010 budget might be, and we can't know how the team factors in things like performance and award and signing bonuses, but barring some surprise, the Mariners have flexibility. Ben Sheets is out there. Erik Bedard is out there. Some interesting hitters are out there. We know the M's still have to add at least one more piece, and we know that they'd also like to add a pitcher. And based on the table above, it turns out they have a little more to work with towards those ends than I thought they did.
That's neat.
101 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Felix is cool and all but I don't see what this has to do with traffic.
...and now I'm here
Fantastic
One other ‘out there’ I wanted to throw, uh.. out there… is Hudson. Francisco Liriano just avoided arbitration with the Twins, settling on something very close to Lopez’s salary. The rumor may be stale but Liriano’s cost was something of an unknown up to now and it may be that both teams were waiting on salary negotiations to end before moving ahead with anything.
Certainly, we can afford Hudson at this point. We can even afford to add one of the right handed 1B/OF types on top of that.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 19, 2010 8:53 PM PST reply actions
I don't see one in the table
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 19, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
That probably makes Sheets a little out of reach then
Because our “RHB” will probably be 1+ mil. I guess it depends on what other teams offer him.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
So has Sheets worked his way up from the "scrap heap base salary + big incentives" contract?
2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4
I'm just thinking his asking price is pretty high and a lot of teams seem to be looking at him
It’ll be interesting to see what he ends up getting.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
Adam LaRoche's asking price was high as well
and the number of teams looking does not correspond to the number of teams bidding. The Jays for example, had scouts on site but were definitely not going to bid on him. The rangers sent their pitching coach but it seems unlikely that they can tender a contract as they’re sort of between ownership groups.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 20, 2010 6:32 AM PST up reply actions
Didn't Sheets have a throw session today?
Any word on how that went, or whether the M’s were there?
Here you go
Don’t know if the M’s were involved.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 19, 2010 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
Reports are he reached 91 with the sinker
threw 3 20-pitch ‘innings’; first one was all FB, second was 50/50 FB/CB, third one he topped out at 88 and seemed ‘gassed’ according to MLB fanhouse source. If you try to look into it you’ll find a lot of people being anonymous and not saying anything out of the ordinary.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 19, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like his FB normally averages 93 or so
curve comes in at 80. So he’s a little low, but it is January still.
Frankly, there seems to be so much interest in him I have a hard time picturing a scenario where he comes to Seattle on a deal we like.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 19, 2010 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
He probably won't be
It doesn’t sound like we were at his throw session (If we were there it hasn’t been mentioned anywhere at least) so that might indicate the team is looking elsewhere. I just hope he doesn’t end up with the Rangers.
Or never mind
Apparently we did send a scout to watch him throw.
Thanks for not mentioning that anywhere, major news outlets.
Hat tip to seattlesundevil for the link, by the way
Here’s the choice quote from the article
"I was impressed," said Seattle Mariners scout and former Major League catcher John Stearns, following Sheets’ outing. "Ben was free and easy, throwing the ball really well with not too much effort. He had good velocity. I was especially impressed with his curve ball. He’s got a plus Major League curve ball with a lot of depth to it.
"It looked to me like he was healthy, and health is the key issue here. I’m going to give him a strong recommendation to our organization."
I doubt the Rangers are able to do it unless the team changes hands
they seem to be in a financial limbo of sorts, just treading water but unable to make any more commitments.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 20, 2010 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
Can someone explain the signing bonus to me?
I don’t get why it exists. If it’s spread out over the length of the contract, how is that any different than simply increasing their yearly pay by that amount?
The signing bonus, I believe, is paid up front
But for payroll purposes it is prorated.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 19, 2010 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
But for payroll tax purposes its probably not prorated right?
Do normal businesses do stuff like this? I feel like the M’s try to stick to their budget so much but really they break it all the time and pretend like it didn’t happen.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2010 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
Yes they do.
Amortizing of assets over many years is common practice even though the real cost may only occur once.
Its not an asset though and a salary doesn't depreciate
I don’t really care though. Its just messed up.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
Felix Hernandez is absolutely an asset
And salary can be seen to depreciate due to inflation.
Probably also so that he gets some of the cash up front
Instead of spread out over the course of the year/season like I assume his salary would be. With it, Felix could buy a new home, get a car, etc.
The bonus being reported is about the same as he made all of last season.
Has Z or anyone made any public statements about the 2010 payroll?
Saying that it will be inline with the 2009 payroll…. or whatever
He will not say anything public about the payroll
Doesn’t want to give away information.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 19, 2010 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
Do GM's ever get a bonus for coming in
under the payroll set forth by ownership?
I doubt it.
Coming up under payroll & getting a bonus wouldn’t be worth fielding a less competitive team than what may otherwise be possible & risking your job.
Plus it could pretty easily create a rift between the GM and everyone else in the organization.
And fans if the team sucked and that information leaked.
...and now I'm here
That is how most businesses work though.
It wouldn’t shock me, but it seems unlikely. Payroll is generally the first place businesses look to get more efficient, since it often makes up more than half of their total budget. But since baseball payrolls are so widely publicly known, something like wins per million or even marginal wins per million would be probably be a better bonus structure.
holy shit its christmas.
As per Dave,
He will have pre-assigned salaries from 2010-2014 (I have confirmed this to be true). In 2015 (and any seasons beyond that in which he’s still with the organization), he’ll have his salaries determined by arbitration, just as any normal arbitration eligible player would. If he played a full season in the majors next year and stayed in the majors after that, he’d be free agent eligible after 2015. That’s extremely unlikely, so in all likelyhood, he’ll still be under club control in 2016 as well. In a case where he’s up with the team at the start of the 2011 season, the M’s would have essentially bought out his first year of arbitration with this deal.
So we could still bring on Sheets and an affordable, position-playable RHB?
If yes, Z is simply the best. I want a Z jersey.
I can't stop missing Harden on our team.
That would have been amazing.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2010 11:09 PM PST reply actions
$2.8m of extra offseason wiggle room
That’s probably close to what we’re going to end up paying Griffey in 2010.
Lopez has a 2011 salary of $2.75 million
I can’t tell if you left off on purpose because there is a good chance he won’t be here or you forgot. Either way I figured I would point it out
It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge
Actually, it's a team option for $4.5M
I was curious about it earlier but hadn’t had time to look it up until now.
Looks like $4.25. The $250,000 buyout is a sunk cost anyway
(not that any cost is sunk when it comes to keeping Jose Lopez around!)
by seattlebruin on Jan 20, 2010 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
Jose Lopez doesn't have the plague people
Most underappreciated player on the M’s blogosphere.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
He is pretty much the least fun position player to watch on our team
by Dewey N on Jan 20, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I would say he's perfectly appreciated
People just don’t like him.
Something just occurred to me.
Five years of John Lackey (age 31): $82.5 million
Five years of The King (age 23): $80 million.
Griffey!
He wasn't a free agent
if he were a free agent his contract would be much bigger. There was no competition. You can’t make a direct comparison.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 20, 2010 6:36 AM PST up reply actions
Ackley's in our Budget?
I thought Ackley’s money wasn’t counted towards the budget until he actually made it to the big league team. I don’t remember seeing Ackley in any previous budget discussions.
Clarification on Major League contract
I thought all that meant was that he gets put on the 40-man roster and will start using up his 3 option years (i.e. he’s guaranteed to be in the major leagues by 2013).
While Ackley’s contract is in Seattle’s budget somewhere, I generally thought that the M’s only counted people on the 25-man roster against our “published” budget.
Not sure on the answer to that one
but it’s likely they count the entire 40-man roster against the budget since the guys not on the 25-man will typically be making peanuts compared to the players in the big leagues
by seattlebruin on Jan 20, 2010 8:57 AM PST up reply actions
Bedard!
I would love to see Bedard sign for a reasonable price. Sure, he’d probably get hurt. But, the few times during the season when we could roll out Felix, Lee, Bedard as 1,2,3 would be pretty sweet.
Olney says limited no trade clause
My Mariners blog - SodoMojo, Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!
Please Boston
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 20, 2010 8:40 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting...
…I’ve been following a thread on MC (link, if anyone’s curious – ‘current’ data’s in the first post) that’s been discussing this for a while. Seems like the principal difference is in how signing bonuses are accounted for.
Do we actually know how the FO deals with signing bonuses when figuring out how much they have to spend this year? It’s nicer for us to think we have ~$9MM left, of course, but if they actually account for it all in the initial year (even though they may not pay out that way – which does have some advantages)… then we’ve about shot our wad.
PI has a page as well, with a third dataset...
http://prospectinsider.com/payroll.php
It’ll be interesting to see how these three great analyses converge (or see where and why they diverge). What a great blogosphere we’ve got here, guys… I doubt any other team out there has as much excellent information and analysis.
I believe it is MLB policy to prorate signing bonuses for these purposes
Even when paid in an up-front lump sum.
But I have no specific knowledge as to how the Mariners deal with this.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
MLB prorates it for luxury tax purposes
That’s about all I know.
No, we can afford the pitcher they think we dont need,
But in reality is just as valuable to our win total.
Is it appropriate to list Ackley's contract here, given that he isnt on the 25 man roster?
I would think he would be accounted for in a different budget.
Significant differences between this post and Prospect Insider’s:
They have $17M for Ichiro not 18, $9M for Bradley not $10.33 (and then the same $5.5 for silva).
Any thoughts on these figures?
PI seems to be ignoring the signing bonuses
Not sure on Ackley so I’d rather err towards yes.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Well this is interesting
In Bradley’s case, the Cot’s baseball contracts website, which I’ve used for the majority of my calculations here, says the Mariners are paying the Cubs an extra $5.5 million this year and $3.5 million next. But I’m told that was actually reversed. In reality, the Mariners are paying $2 million less this season for Bradley than next. So, it would appear that they gave the Cubs $3.5 million for him this year and will hand over $5.5 million next year. That is what I’m going with for 2010 — an extra $3.5 million — and initial reports after that deal indicate that this is how the money has been disbursed.
$2m more than I thought?
It's hard to fathom that with all Z and company
have gotten done this off-season, the best off-season in Mariners history, that there could be even more to come.
Some modifications:
Ichiro should probably be more like $17M not 18, based on Churchill, Baker, and others.
Everyone seems to agree on $7.2M this year for Felix, that is 6.5M + .7M a year in bonus. The mariners actually saved themselves several million for this year by making this deal, pushing some of that cost into the future.
Gutierrez is a big question mark, do we use Jeff’s $2M figure, or user $5.125M, the average value of the contract? I would think that something less than $5M is most correct, but not sure what.
Bill Hall should be a net 0 now, based on the Baker info, everyone agrees.
Silva is $3.5M this year, according to the Baker info, everyone agrees.
I believe Ackley should be either 0 or a very low number. $6M of his payment is a signing bonus which should be accounted for in the draft budget, not the 25 man payroll. If you want to apply the rest of his contract to the major league roster then it will come out to like 500k a year.
Using the numbers that are best for the remaining payroll, I come out with $84-85M, which involves only $2M for Gutierrez. Using a conservative $5M for Gutierrez, I come to $87-88M.
Also it looks like Bradley should be $9M and Figgins $8.5M
Why would we have to pay part of Bradley’s signing bonus, that money should actually be paid by Chicago, as they signed him, regardless of how it is prorated in accounting. If we were covering part of the signing bonus, that would be as part of the money we are sending them.
Figgins should probably be $8.5M, accounding for prorating the bonus.
Forgot about Figgins' signing bonus
Anyway, I am showing these strictly in MLB luxury tax terms. For those purposes, I believe Ichiro will be counted at $18m, Bradley at $10.3m, and so forth. Nobody outside the organization has any clue as to how the Mariners handle these things so it’s all just guesswork.
No way does Guti get the average value of the contract. It’ll be backloaded like Felix’s, for the same reason.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
The take-home message from all this:
Lots of people are trying to pinpoint the Mariners’ exact payroll. Forget it. You can’t do it. All you need to know is that there’s a lot of flexibility remaining.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Yes this is true.
But if youre down to 10 million remaining, having it actually be 7 million or 12 million is significant.
It really looks to me after studying this and all of the posts today on it by Jeff, Geoff Baker, Jason Churchill, etc, that we are really only at around $85M committed! (WIth $2M for Gutierrez, and prorating signing bonuses)
Thats a pretty significant amount left over! The Felix deal freed up several million for this year, and the info about the Bradley deal that Baker reported opened up another two million that we thought was spent.
We could get Sheets and still have some left over. Or Washburn with enough left over to get another impact player!
Ecxept that even if we pinpointed how much they are counting on their payroll this year,
we still don’t know what their budget is. We still won’t know if there’s a lot left over or very little.
by nathaniel dawson on Jan 20, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah if the payroll is accounting witchcraft
and the total payroll isn’t a fixed number then the best you can come up with is probably +/- 5 million. That is so big that it tells you how many players we can sign but can’t really tell you the exact quality we can afford.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 5:59 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
