Stinnett traded...

[REDREAD]

Originally posted by Bill
Larue is eligible for arbitration right? With the current extreme cost-cutting taking place, I am not sure that Larue is even safe. particularly if Sardinha shows he can put the bat on the ball occasionally at the major league level.

I wouldn't doubt it Bill.. this does kind of make sense.. if Sardinha can get a few hits, the FO can proclaim "he's turned the corner".. kind of like they did with Larson last year.

Allen has made moves to pinch less money than LaRue's salary.. I wouldn't be surprised to see LaRue shopped. And if LaRue does come back for 2004, the odds of him coming back for 2005 are extremely small, IMO.

[Ga_Red]

2/09/07

[M2]

No reason crying over losing Stinnett, but if the Reds traded him AND cash, then they ought to get a serviceable prospect in return. I'm with buckeyenut, channel thoughts of Ryan Madson in the hopes that maybe it comes true.

[pedro]

Originally posted by Ga_Red
"...if the Reds committ to the same payroll for next year..."

Be serious.

CL SAID the Reds lose 12 million in 2003.
CL SAID the Reds must break even.

The math:

Budget for 2003.............57 million
Shortfall for 2003...........12 million
Breakeven for 2003.......45 million
less attend in 2004..........3 million

Normal BUDGET 2004......42 million
Less 2003 shrtfall............12 million

Actual Budget for 2004....30 million dollars.
=============

Count on it!

could you name your sources?

[Bill]

According to Hal, the Reds are sending 250k to cover the buyout, thus the savings are reduced to just the last month of the season salary wise. Does 250k buy a good prospect? Still, this is Stinnett we are discussing and we were expecting more back for giving the sox 300k and a setup man.

Phillies cash in


The Reds gave more than back-up catcher Kelly Stinnett to the Philadelphia Phillies for a player to be named later. The club didn't announce it, but the Reds sent the Phillies $250,000, the amount the Phillies need to buy out Stinnett's contract after the season.

The Phillies are paying the last month of Stinnett's $1.3 million salary for this year. Stinnett and the Reds had a mutual option for 2004 at $750,000, with the team owning Stinnett's contract able to buy out next year's portion at $250,000 — the money the Reds sent to Philadelphia with Stinnett and his catcher's gear.

Now the Reds will get a player for their $250,000, rather than hand the cash to Stinnett and get nothing in return.

[GAC]

Originally posted by GradyHatton
I'm wondering why I keep hearing (John Fay and Chris Welsh today, Kevin Kelly yesterday) and reading that Corky Miller is likely to be Stinnett's replacement as backup catcher in 2004. With all due respect to Jason LaRue, Johnny Bench he ain't. I should think that Miller and possibly others would go to ST competing for the starting job. LaRue has a great arm and has improved some previous defensive liabilities but coming in today at .229 I'm not ready to hand the keys to the catcher's box over to him just yet. Maybe woy or Raisor can supply some "catcher's ERA" or "OBPSP (?)" or other conclusive stats to bring me around.

It was earlier in the season, and I don't recall if it was SD or Raisor; but they posted some stats showing that Corky and LaRue are about equal on the offensive line of things; but LaRue is far superior from a defensive standpoint.

[buckeyenut]

Originally posted by Bill
They dealt their best pitcher because he was about to get a raise. Larue is not due what Williamson would have netted but I see them viewing a secondary FA market filled with cheap alternatives. They are "rebuilding" and won't win next year anyway. I could definitely see them trading him if htey get back some cheap young talent. It is not like they have not tried in the past.

I'm sorry, but this is a crock.

They dealt their "best pitcher" because he was a closer and because we have four options in our pen right now for closer in Reidling, Graves, Reitsma and Wagner. They dealt Willy because he will make 5M or more next year and because someone in this organization determined that he could not be a starter.

The biggest thing that upsets me about that deal is they didn't try Willy in the rotation. I still firmly believe, although there are many who disagree with me, that he is a potential #1 as a starter. But for this team, if you aren't gonna try Willy as a starter, it made absolute perfect sense to deal him.

LaRue is 1-2M and your organization does not have depth at C. He is also above average and by far the best option in your organization. I repeat, these are the types of guys you don't get rid of. Cheap and above average.

Now, if LaRue was slated to make 5M, then yeah, I might dump him.

[Bill]

Larue is making 1.25 mill this season. He will be making more than 1-2 mill as you suggest, conversely Willy won't be getting a raise to the level of 5 mill.

Your other point with Larue is they don't have catching depth- Miller is your starter and as pointed out, they should be able to get a cheap replacement of the FA market, then there is Sardinha. On the other hand, pitching is so rich, that they can afford to move Willy for essentially cash? Now there is your crock.

[redrum]

Willy can expect somewhere between 3.5-4.5 million in arbitration. It would probably have been in the upper range of that had he finished the year as the Reds closer.

[Krusty]

And with Willy's inconsistency as a closer, do you think he would be worth that kind of money if he was still a Red?

[westofyou]

Actual Budget for 2004....30 million dollars.

The Devil Rays "operating budget"is 31 million (20 million MLB)and is holding the bottom down in MLB this season, your suggestion is that the Reds will bottom that out, is that the MLB total?

Or total basbeall budget?

Ever see this?Whenever "competitive balance" is debated, the debaters inevitably turn to published information about team payrolls to support their positions. This sounds straightforward... but unfortunately, "team payroll" is a fluid concept. The four most widely reported measures each use different methods and can lead to different conclusions.

The four measures are (1) the Opening Day payrolls reported by the AP and USA Today a week or so into the season; (2) the August 31 payrolls reported by MLB after the season; (3) the August 31 average team salaries reported by the MLBPA after the season; and (4) the luxury tax payrolls reported by MLB after the season.

The first three have a lot in common. Each begins with the salary of every player on a club's 25-man roster, or its major league disabled list, as of the stated date. Each computes each player's base salary in the same way: the actual amount he is paid during the season, plus a pro-rated share of his signing bonus and the discounted present value of any part of his salary which is deferred to a future year. Each has a common flaw: by taking a snapshot of the roster as of a specific date, it ignores the effect of midseason player moves.

The MLBPA's formula has a more serious flaw which renders it essentially useless for meaningful team-to-team comparison. Its averaging method involves dividing the club's total payroll by the number of players on its roster-plus-DL. However, the size of the disabled list varies widely from team to team. In 2002 just 26 players were used to compute the Kansas City and Oakland averages, while San Diego's average was based on a 36-man roster. Thus while the August 31 payrolls for Oakland and San Diego were virtually identical, Oakland's reported average was $450,000 higher. Given the other information available, that's an unacceptable variance.

Here are each club's 2002 payrolls as computed by the three other methods:

                         Opening Day        Aug. 31    Luxury Tax
Team                         Payroll        Payroll    Difference      Payroll   Difference

Anaheim Angels          $ 61,721,667   $ 62,757,041   $ 1,035,374  $ 69,449,444  $ 7,727,777
Arizona Diamondbacks    $102,820,000   $103,528,877   $   708,877  $106,590,086  $ 3,770,086
Atlanta Braves          $ 93,470,367   $ 93,786,065   $   315,698  $103,035,498  $ 9,565,131
Baltimore Orioles       $ 60,493,487   $ 56,504,685  ($ 3,988,802) $ 64,351,025  $ 3,857,538
Boston Red Sox          $108,366,060   $110,249,535   $ 1,883,475  $106,060,766 ($ 2,305,294)

Chicago Cubs            $ 75,690,833   $ 74,950,543  ($   740,290) $ 81,104,031  $ 5,413,198
Chicago White Sox       $ 57,052,833   $ 54,534,084  ($ 2,518,749) $ 57,800,783  $   747,950
Cincinnati Reds         $ 45,050,390   $ 46,310,698   $ 1,260,308  $ 54,663,420  $ 9,613,030
Cleveland Indians       $ 78,909,448   $ 74,888,365  ($ 4,021,083) $ 82,693,915  $ 3,784,467
Colorado Rockies        $ 56,851,043   $ 56,509,185  ($   341,858) $ 72,300,867  $15,449,824

Detroit Tigers          $ 55,048,000   $ 54,390,870  ($   657,130) $ 67,589,693  $12,541,693
Florida Marlins         $ 41,979,917   $ 40,822,536  ($ 1,157,381) $ 45,369,104  $ 3,389,187
Houston Astros          $ 63,448,417   $ 65,412,960   $ 1,964,543  $ 74,384,060  $10,935,643
Kansas City Royals      $ 47,257,000   $ 49,362,709   $ 2,105,709  $ 50,973,807  $ 3,716,807
Los Angeles Dodgers     $ 94,850,952   $101,504,889   $ 6,653,937  $112,274,884  $17,423,932

Milwaukee Brewers       $ 50,287,333   $ 49,259,130  ($ 1,028,203) $ 50,455,737  $   168,404
Minnesota Twins         $ 40,225,000   $ 41,309,031   $ 1,084,031  $ 45,931,954  $ 5,706,954
Montreal Expos          $ 38,670,500   $ 37,901,032  ($   769,468) $ 35,814,751 ($ 2,855,749)
New York Mets           $ 94,633,593   $ 94,395,575  ($   238,018) $102,182,193  $ 7,548,600
New York Yankees        $125,928,583   $133,429,757   $ 7,500,992  $167,592,745  $41,664,162

Oakland Athletics       $ 39,679,746   $ 41,942,665   $ 2,262,919  $ 58,143,776  $18,464,030
Philadelphia Phillies   $ 57,955,000   $ 59,593,741   $ 1,638,741  $ 64,505,697  $ 6,550,697
Pittsburgh Pirates      $ 42,323,598   $ 46,059,984   $ 3,736,386  $ 55,967,080  $13,643,482
St. Louis Cardinals     $ 74,098,267   $ 76,227,801   $ 2,129,534  $ 88,378,549  $14,280,282
San Diego Padres        $ 41,425,000   $ 41,791,170   $   366,170  $ 57,943,130  $16,518,130

San Francisco Giants    $ 78,299,835   $ 78,426,572   $   126,737  $ 88,488,058  $10,188,223
Seattle Mariners        $ 80,282,668   $ 86,084,710   $ 5,802,432  $ 92,310,287  $12,027,619
Tampa Bay Devil Rays    $ 34,380,000   $ 34,728,540   $   348,540  $ 36,249,505  $ 1,869,505
Texas Rangers           $105,302,124   $106,915,180   $ 1,613,056  $122,887,987  $17,585,863
Toronto Blue Jays       $ 76,864,333   $ 66,814,971  ($10,049,762) $ 58,963,374 ($17,900,959)

Sources:


Opening Day salaries: Associated Press (4/4/02)
August 31 salaries: Associated Press (10/11/02)
Luxury tax salaries: USA Today (11/13/02), adjusted to remove $7,734,310 of benefits per team



Although the AP's Opening Day payroll information is unofficial, it's quite accurate. When I've been able to verify published salary figures against the official data, 99% of the salaries matched and the differences were usually just a few thousand dollars.
Opening Day payrolls, not MLB's official figures as of August 31, are the best measurement of which, if any, clubs truly "can't afford to compete." They reflect each club's offseason budgeting and roster management, the process through which the club decides whom to trade, whom to non-tender and whom to pursue in the free agent market. Once the season begins, payrolls tend to vary with the club's fortunes. Contenders acquire high-earning veterans for the stretch drive--an intelligent strategy, since MLB's 2001 financial disclosures show that making the playoffs was worth a collective $45.5 million to the eight qualifiers--while teams that have fallen out of the race dump salaries. (Can you spot the Raul Mondesi trade in Columns 1 and 2?) A spectacular example of the latter phenomenon occurred in 1995, when the New York Mets slashed salaries by 46% in midseason to finish with the lowest payroll in the majors.

Thus when MLB's Blue Ribbon Economic Panel Report used August 31 payrolls to contend that "small market teams" (in fact, low payroll teams) "couldn't compete," it improperly relied upon tainted data. Any claimed causal connection between a low payroll and a poor record is inherently suspect where, as here, the payrolls were measured after each club had already adjusted its payroll to reflect its midseason record.

In the context of payrolls and competitive balance, note that three of the four clubs with the lowest Opening Day payrolls finished with winning records. Two, Oakland and Minnesota, won their divisions. Meanwhile, Milwaukee lost 106 games while outspending the Twins and Athletics by $10 million, and Detroit lost 106 while spending $5 million more than the Brewers. These clubs can afford to compete--they just don't know how.

However, one problem with the use of Opening Day payrolls is that many players' salaries can't be fully calculated as of Opening Day. Incentive clauses can boost the earnings of players selected to the All-Star team or awarded Gold Gloves. In addition, players viewed as injury risks often receive incentive-laden contracts accompanying relatively low base salaries. David Wells was last season's incentive-bonus champion, earning $4 million beyond his base salary of $2,250,000. Even for the Yankees, that's not chump change. A better way of computing team payroll would be to attribute each player's total compensation to the club with which he started the season.

For predicting each club's future, though, the luxury tax payroll is the tool to use. The luxury tax payroll differs from the regular payroll in two major ways. First, it includes the cost of player benefits--$7,734,310 per club in 2002, which was subtracted from the figures above. More importantly, for luxury tax purposes each year of a multi-year contract is valued at the average annual value of the contract, regardless of how the salaries are actually distributed. For example, the contract of a player earning $3 million in 2003, $4 million in 2004 and $5 million in 2005 will be valued at $4 million for each of these seasons.

A club's luxury tax payroll is, therefore, a good indicator of how much free money it is likely to have in upcoming seasons. Where the luxury tax payroll far exceeds the actual payroll, the club has a large number of players in the early years of back-loaded contracts. In an extreme case like the Yankees, such contracts will absorb an ever-larger share of George Steinbrenner's resources even as their principal rivals--the Red Sox and Blue Jays--shed bloated contracts and reload. For Oakland, which has the second highest differential because the they bought out the arbitration-eligible seasons of their best young talent, the exodus of players when they become eligible for free agency is likely to continue.

For those interested in performing their own analyses, a spreadsheet with team-by-team payroll information can be downloaded from my Web site.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ne...19pappas.shtml

[gm]

Dane Sardinha = first to the show from his (Red's) draft class

(I'm sorry princeton, but I'm having trouble remembering the pitcher you chose that year. Good luck re: Kelley vs. Moye)

[Ga_Red]

2/09/07

[CougarQuest]

From Tony Jackson, Cincinnati Post

While the identity remains unknown of the player to be named the Reds are getting in the Stinnett trade, it probably won't be anyone who is close to being ready for the major leagues, or even a top-level prospect. The Philadelphia Phillies wanted Stinnett badly, but he still is a backup catcher making $1.3 million this season, with a buyout of $250,000 on his $750,000 mutual option for next year. After trading him, the Reds have no one left on their roster with a buyout clause for next season, which should create a little more payroll flexibility.

[CougarQuest]

From the Dayton Daily News

The Reds gave more than back-up catcher Kelly Stinnett to the Philadelphia Phillies for a player to be named later. The club didn't announce it, but the Reds sent the Phillies $250,000, the amount the Phillies need to buy out Stinnett's contract after the season.

The Phillies are paying the last month of Stinnett's $1.3 million salary for this year. Stinnett and the Reds had a mutual option for 2004 at $750,000, with the team owning Stinnett's contract able to buy out next year's portion at $250,000 — the money the Reds sent to Philadelphia with Stinnett and his catcher's gear.

Now the Reds will get a player for their $250,000, rather than hand the cash to Stinnett and get nothing in return.