+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 271
  1. #226

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yanksfanintoronto View Post
    Please find a way to dump Ellsbury
    Here is one proposal:

    Three years of outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury at $68.5 million
    Two years of righthander Dellin Betances with a 2018 salary of $5.1 million
    Two years of center fielder Aaron Hicks with a 2018 salary of $2.825 million
    for
    Three years of reliever Mark Melancon at $48 million (subject to opt-out)
    One or two years of DH / third baseman Pablo Sandoval at the league minimum

    Replacing Ellsburyís contract with Melanconís, the Yankees save roughly $7 million AAV over the next three seasons. Melancon and Betances swap bullpens while the Giants fill out their outfield with Ellsbury and Hicks. The Yanks also shed the combined 2018 salaries of nearly $9 million for Betances and Hicks.

    The Yankees could afford Yu Darvish or another higher-tier starter.

    The trade would leave the Yankees with an outfield of Brett Gardner, Giancarlo Stanton and Aaron Judge with Clint Frazier, Estevan Florial, Billy McKinney and Jake Cave waiting in the wings.

    Although Melancon can opt out of his contract after this season, the former Yankee could provide insurance against the potential departure of David Robertson, another converted closer, when the latter's contract expires after this season. Robertson and Melancon are right-handed relievers, born 11 days apart, selected by the Yankees in the 2006 draft (along with Dellin Betances).

    Pablo Sandoval, a wild card at the league minimum, is a DFA candidate but could serve as a DH option or play third base until the touted prospects are ready. With no designated hitter and the recent addition of Evan Longoria, the Giants have no room for Sandoval. Then again, the Yankees might not have room for Sandoval on their 40-man roster.

    The Giants would field a lineup of C Buster Posey, 1B Brandon Belt, 2B Joe Panik, SS Brandon Crawford, 3B Evan Longoria, LF Jacoby Ellsbury, CF Aaron Hicks and RF Hunter Pence to go with a shallow starting rotation impressively topped by Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija.

    The keys, of course, are Melancon's questionable health and the off-setting salaries of Ellsbury and Melancon, who each have full no-trade clauses. I donít know the status of Sandovalís limited no-trade clause.

  2. #227

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Nooooo. Not giving up Betances and Hicks just to move Ellsbury, not to mention taking on Melancon as well.

  3. #228

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by albo4lyfe View Post
    Nooooo. Not giving up Betances and Hicks just to move Ellsbury, not to mention taking on Melancon as well.
    The San Francisco Giants might be reluctant to add $16 million to the payroll and receive only Jacoby Ellsbury, Aaron Hicks and Dellin Betances in return.

  4. #229

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    The San Francisco Giants might be reluctant to add $16 million to the payroll and receive only Jacoby Ellsbury, Aaron Hicks and Dellin Betances in return.
    Agree. Giants are not doing that deal

  5. #230

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    The San Francisco Giants might be reluctant to add $16 million to the payroll and receive only Jacoby Ellsbury, Aaron Hicks and Dellin Betances in return.
    That's an easy call for the Giants. Particularly after what good, yet nothing special relievers have gotten so far. Hicks also has 3 years of control left? Yeah, they'd have to be stupid to say no to such a proposal. Again, no interest in moving Betances and Hicks just to move Ellsbury as much as I want to move him.

  6. #231

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    The San Francisco Giants might be reluctant to add $16 million to the payroll and receive only Jacoby Ellsbury, Aaron Hicks and Dellin Betances in return.
    16M is a lot for Betances, Hicks, and Ellsbury? What!?!?!? Wade Davis alone got more than that per year.

  7. #232
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn

    Re: The 197M thread.

    According to RAB, the Yankees are $22M under the threshold. Figure they have around $15M to spend, so they can save around $7M for mid-season pickups.

  8. #233
    NYYF Legend

    flymick24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The urinal right next to you

    Re: The 197M thread.

    If they want to make anymore moves this winter without actually subtracting positive value from the major league roster, they pretty much need to find any takers for Ellsbury and save even a couple mill
    help feed the hungry:

    www.thehungersite.com

  9. #234

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ny27xwschamps View Post
    Our pen depth wont really lose anything if we moved Betances and Warren really tho would it?
    ...

    Still would have Kahnle, Green, Robertson and Chapman, with arms like Heller, German and Carroll coming soon.
    Why move Betances though when his value is lower and the team has him controlled for two years? Robertson and Warren are the only relievers the Yankees should be listening on unless someone wants to value Betances like he would've been mid-season or before last year. They got Robertson pretty inexpensively and probably won't be able to afford him next year. If someone offers a lot for him they should consider it. The salary relief opens some options. Make someone blow you away, but keep your ears open. Betances is a guy you need to get right, no one will pony up enough to make it worth dealing him unless you don't believe he can bounce back.

  10. #235

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by albo4lyfe View Post
    That's an easy call for the Giants. Particularly after what good, yet nothing special relievers have gotten so far. Hicks also has 3 years of control left? Yeah, they'd have to be stupid to say no to such a proposal. Again, no interest in moving Betances and Hicks just to move Ellsbury as much as I want to move him.
    Aaron Hicks has four years and 41 days of MLB service, leaving two years of team control, according to Baseball Reference, Roster Resource and Cot's Baseball Contracts:

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...icksaa01.shtml

    https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-new-york-yankees/

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...XPAvRQ/pubhtml

    The Yankees would be trading high on Hicks, who posted a combined 0.8 fWAR in his first three years of cumulative MLB service before his breakout 2017 season.

    On other forums I proposed a similar trade but substituted one year of Adam Warren with a 2018 salary of $3.315 million for the two years of Dellin Betances. One poster responded that the Giants would insist on Betances.

  11. #236

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    Aaron Hicks has four years and 41 days of MLB service, leaving two years of team control, according to Baseball Reference, Roster Resource and Cot's Baseball Contracts:

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...icksaa01.shtml

    https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-new-york-yankees/

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...XPAvRQ/pubhtml

    The Yankees would be trading high on Hicks, who posted a combined 0.8 fWAR in his first three years of cumulative MLB service before his breakout 2017 season.

    On other forums I proposed a similar trade but substituted one year of Adam Warren with a 2018 salary of $3.315 million for the two years of Dellin Betances. One poster responded that the Giants would insist on Betances.
    That's why I asked because I couldn't remember off the top of my head if Hicks had 3 years of control or less left. Yes, the Yankees would be trading high on Hicks, except that I feel that Hicks is finally starting to put his considerable talent to work. He has not been the healthiest guy so far and he also has not been given the most opportunities until last year. However, he has always had the talent and the pedigree. The point is that he's our starting centerfielder, and I don't see him going anywhere, particularly in a lopsided deal that does not benefit us.

    The Giants can insist on whomever; it's just not happening--that trade would not help us. I'd much rather the Yankees eat 50 million of the remaining 68 million just to move him than give up important pieces like Betances and Hicks just to move him. Ellsbury is an albatross, but he's not Pujols either.

  12. #237
    NYYF Cy Young


    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dunstable, MA

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    Aaron Hicks has four years and 41 days of MLB service, leaving two years of team control, according to Baseball Reference, Roster Resource and Cot's Baseball Contracts:

    The Yankees would be trading high on Hicks, who posted a combined 0.8 fWAR in his first three years of cumulative MLB service before his breakout 2017 season.

    He did have a 3.3 in 2017 so this is a good time to trade Hicks and we can move Gardy to CF with Ells/Frazier in LF. Is this right? (I don't want to move Betrances and we will work with him this Spring) I would move Gardy first. I don't think we can't move Ells because of the contract.

    If we traded Hicks. Ells would play CF with Gardy as backup.
    Last edited by bucky; 01-14-18 at 09:49 AM. Reason: Ells to CF

  13. #238

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by bucky View Post
    He did have a 3.3 in 2017 so this is a good time to trade Hicks and we can move Gardy to CF with Ells/Frazier in LF. Is this right? (I don't want to move Betrance and we will work with him this Spring) I would move Gardy first. I don't think we can't move Ells because of the contract.
    I'd move Betances, he's not really needed.. I wouldn't "Give" him away tho.. but with Kahnle, Green, Robertson and Chapman, we don't need Betances.

  14. #239
    NYYF Cy Young


    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dunstable, MA

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ny27xwschamps View Post
    I'd move Betances, he's not really needed.. I wouldn't "Give" him away tho.. but with Kahnle, Green, Robertson and Chapman, we don't need Betances.
    OK. He is still a good arm out of the pen. I feel we would be selling low base on how he performed at the end of the season. I do feel he can be the dominate pitcher we once saw. I love our pen. I feel Roberson is our seconday closer because it's a double with a runner at first with Betances. I hope to see Green become our long reliever and possibly become a SP (I really like him). I wouldn't change anything except possibly a LHP to replace Shreve.

    My post was the idea of trading Hicks when his value is high and we got him low.

  15. #240

    Re: The 197M thread.

    What I don't understand is why don't they try to get under the cap next year? They got like 43 million coming off the books next year.
    [SIZE=3]NYY Triforce[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Phil Hughes[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Joba Chamberlain[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Ian Kennedy[/SIZE]

  16. #241

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by ppa79 View Post
    What I don't understand is why don't they try to get under the cap next year? They got like 43 million coming off the books next year.
    No you have to reset the luxury tax this year in order to not face a penalty to sign Harper or Machado

  17. #242
    NYYF Legend

    BomberBrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Eastchester, NY

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by ppa79 View Post
    What I don't understand is why don't they try to get under the cap next year? They got like 43 million coming off the books next year.
    If the Yankees want to be active in free agency next offseason, and all signs point to that being the case, the penalties are more severe if you were a taxpayer the prior season.

    If they sign a free agent who was offered a qualifying offer and they were a taxpayer this year they would lose their 2nd and 5th round picks an $500,000 in international pool money. If you aren't a tax payer the penalty is a third round pick.

  18. #243

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyy42 View Post
    No you have to reset the luxury tax this year in order to not face a penalty to sign Harper or Machado
    Maybe Machado, but are they really going to sign Harper when they just traded for Stanton?
    [SIZE=3]NYY Triforce[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Phil Hughes[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Joba Chamberlain[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]Ian Kennedy[/SIZE]

  19. #244

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by ppa79 View Post
    Maybe Machado, but are they really going to sign Harper when they just traded for Stanton?
    He said Harper or Machado.
    Poor ownership can hold a baseball team down for years!

  20. #245

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by bucky View Post
    OK. He is still a good arm out of the pen. I feel we would be selling low base on how he performed at the end of the season. I do feel he can be the dominate pitcher we once saw. I love our pen. I feel Roberson is our seconday closer because it's a double with a runner at first with Betances. I hope to see Green become our long reliever and possibly become a SP (I really like him). I wouldn't change anything except possibly a LHP to replace Shreve.

    My post was the idea of trading Hicks when his value is high and we got him low.
    You don't sell Betances at a bargain basement price. You do, however, shop him, because it's clear he's not the pitcher we hoped he'd be. However, there are bound to be people out there that will want to fix him and pay a little more for him.

  21. #246

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Will someone explain exactly how the penalty works? As I understand it by going below the 197M cap this year the tax reduces from 50% to 20% but that is a % tax on what amount, the amount the Yankees are over 197M in 2019? So if the Yankees payroll is $247M in 2019 then the tax is 20% of 50M instead of 50% of 50M? Or, is the tax on the full 247M?

  22. #247

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by YankeeSTH View Post
    Will someone explain exactly how the penalty works? As I understand it by going below the 197M cap this year the tax reduces from 50% to 20% but that is a % tax on what amount, the amount the Yankees are over 197M in 2019? So if the Yankees payroll is $247M in 2019 then the tax is 20% of 50M instead of 50% of 50M? Or, is the tax on the full 247M?
    You have the description correct. The penalty is 20% of 50M, based on the amount of overage above the threshold, not the total salary.

    Now there is a surtax applied to teams who have a payroll that exceeds the luxury tax threshold by more than $20M. Between $20M and 40M and there's a surtax of 12%, above $40M and it jumps to 42.5%, and 45% if you repeat it again. For example, assuming the threshold stays at $197M in 2019 (it will probably be higher), if we had a payroll of $238M, we'd pay a total tax of $8,625,000 -> comprising of the flat 20% of $8.2M plus the additional surtax of $425,000 on the excess $1M.

    If we didn't reset this year, we'd pay a total of $20,925,000 -> comprising of the flat 50% tax of $20.5M plus the 45% tax on the $1M ($425,000).

    Additional thing to consider going forward is that the luxury tax penalties going forward will include loss of draft picks

  23. #248

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by ppa79 View Post
    Maybe Machado, but are they really going to sign Harper when they just traded for Stanton?
    I'd go after Harper. He's a much better player than Machado in my book. They could make the positions work. If Andujar and Torres pan out this year too you could have your infield set. Gardner's spot frees up if they don't take the team option, Frazier could be traded for pitching. Harper is also still young enough to play some CF decently when you want to put all three of Stanton, Judge and Harper in the OF.

  24. #249
    NYYF Cy Young


    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dunstable, MA

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by primetime714 View Post
    I'd go after Harper. He's a much better player than Machado in my book. They could make the positions work. If Andujar and Torres pan out this year too you could have your infield set. Gardner's spot frees up if they don't take the team option, Frazier could be traded for pitching. Harper is also still young enough to play some CF decently when you want to put all three of Stanton, Judge and Harper in the OF.

    Harper is better than Machado but Harper plays RF and we just got Stanton and will get around 400M. We have to sign Judge and Sanchez in that span. I am excited to see Andujar (Didi at SS) and Torres. I do believe Andujar is better than Moran at 3rd. I will be watching both this year.

  25. #250

    Re: The 197M thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by bucky View Post
    Harper is better than Machado but Harper plays RF and we just got Stanton and will get around 400M. We have to sign Judge and Sanchez in that span. I am excited to see Andujar (Didi at SS) and Torres. I do believe Andujar is better than Moran at 3rd. I will be watching both this year.
    Harper can play any OF position even CF. Judge or Stanton will also probably backup 1B in the future (both played 1B in high school and are too big to be OFs forever). And then you have the DH to rotate the OFs at. Stanton also has an opt-out that he might take if the market escalates. Offensively Trout is the only player that is a clear better bet to produce than Harper going forward.

    Yankees minor leagues is packed with pitching and with a complete offense they'll have plenty of trade chips to work with to add to the rotation. And if Andujar or Torres doesn't work out they can get cheap vets or defensive players

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts