Report: Angels Drop Out on Beltre

Taking money from payroll and putting it in payroll does nothing to help the team win more games for 5 years.

It’s possible that Beltre will still be productive at 37 but it’s a risky $13 million bet.

I do not believe that ownership is in such dire financial straits that the only way they could afford to bump the payroll to cover a potential dead weight contract is by stashing money in the piggy bank for 5 years. If I am correct and Wolff can reach into his wallet to pull the cash on a moment’s notice then all the fiscal brilliance of the 6/78 plan has been rendered moot. you will have spent 5 years short-changing the roster and are now hoping that a 37 year old Beltre doesn’t suck OR if he does suck, that ownership will allow the payroll to increase to the point where paying off Beltre’s remaining year (via the piggy bank or Wolff’s wallet) does not interfere with the quality of the construction of the 2016 roster.

If ownership doesn’t approve the payroll bump, you are sitting with the very real possibility of having to pay off Beltre’s bad contract while limiting your availability to maintain or improve the 25 man roster based on a shortage of payroll funds AND the decision to not invest the savings of the 6/78 plan into amateur talent for the farm system.

The 5/80 plan can be sustained over the length of the deal with a payroll no greater than $75 million and it would have a negligible impact on the team’s ability to sustain the existing roster. It also offers a better chance at avoiding over-paid/under-performance on the part of Beltre.

Worst case scenario… the downside to the 5/80 plan is that you might miss out on Beltre’s age 37 season. The downside to 6/78 is a possible fire sale trade to get under budget.

It’s all unrealistically hypothetical and when it comes to the baseball business, I thinks it’s safe to assume that there is a lot of very relevant factors that we not privy to.

My point, originally, was that IF these were the two options…

Undoubtedly, in fact Beltre won’t sign a 6-year deal for less than 70M.

We are assuming that Beltre is relatively useless in year six and either is bought out or stays on the roster and sucks/is below-average. The problem I have is that when he’s bought out, the remainder of his contract must be paid to him. Obviously, if it’s front-loaded I wouldn’t have an issue with that, but most contracts are not that dramatically front-loaded, for whatever reason.

For the sake of making this make more sense, I am going to use a 5/80 and 6/80 contract instead of the 6/78 contract (it’s the same logic except instead of Beltre “paying the A’s $2 mil to play for them in 2016”, he’s now “playing for free in 2016” instead). Now, assuming that the A’s have to pay Beltre $13 mil before year six when they buy him out or have him on the roster at age 38, the team will have to physically write him a check for $13 million (or pay him his weekly salary all season for that same amount). Nico’s argument is that to offset that, the A’s should take the yearly savings between the 5/80 contract and the 6/80 contract ($3 mil a year) and put it in the “bank” so when 2016 comes they can pay Beltre off and come out even. This is a sound financial move.

My problem with the logic is this: by giving Beltre 6/80 instead of 5/80, the A’s are gaining the advantage of paying almost $3 mil a year less but paying the exact same total dollars. By simply putting that $3 mil in the bank, the A’s are basically tossing that advantage in the garbage and are treating it like they’ve given Beltre 5/80.

It seems that the common perception is that this team has a relatively small window…likely only a few years at most. A team trying to push themselves over the edge from potential contender to certain contender should not be tossing advantages in the garbage. It would be poor baseball management for the A’s to allow that extra $3 mil to sit in the bank untouched if it was needed to make a crucial addition to the team to try to contend. The A’s should and likely would, in that scenario, dip into that fund to make whatever acquisitions were necessary to ensure the team stays competitive.

This seems like good baseball strategy to me; however, this then creates a problem in 2016, when the team’s window has likely closed and Adrian Beltre isn’t worth anything near his salary. At this point, the team would have to either carry his dead (assumed) weight on the payroll or buy him out. That $15 mil in the “bank” that Beane had dug into could easily be gone by this point, meaning the A’s would have to pay Beltre’s $13 million out of that year’s player budget. Here’s my point: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS STRATEGY. What I have a problem with is the idea that it would make more sense for the A’s to put the money in the “bank” and leave it to collect nominal amounts of interest while the team could potentially need it to make acquisitions. Basically, it’s not the idea of 6/80 I have a problem with; it’s how people are saying we should do the 6/80 that I have a problem with. If we do the 6/80, spend the money each year and pay him to go away if needed, but by simply saving the money, the team would be throwing away the advantage gained by giving Beltre the extra year.

I may have changed my opinion between my initial post and this one; this is how I feel about it right now, so if I’ve confused anyone I apologize.

I also apologize for the massive block of text that’s squished over to the right due to the replies. Sorry guys.

The difference between 5/80 and 6/78 is Beltre PAYING THE A’s $2 million to play for them for a 6th year.

Somehow I don’t see Beltre cutting a check to the A’s. I mean… who would you even make it out to? Billy Beane? The “Oakland Athletics”? Lew Wolff?

If you’re worried about having to pay $13 million in year 6, then why don’t you frontload the contract so he’s only making $7 or $9 million in year 6? Hell, pay him $15 million a year in years 1-5 and $3 million in year 6.

I’m guessing that 6th year is still a guaranteed year and not the buy-out of an option year. If it is indeed meant to be in reference to a guaranteed year than kindly list, in alphabetical order, the baseball players who have signed a comparable contract.

and see if they’ll buy you lunch.

Not without ruining the holiday spirit.

Your proposal is much more about making a multi-millionaire richer than it is about putting a winning team on the field. 6/78 or 5/80 adds the same player to the line-up, only your plan creates the illusion that it would be easier for ownership to finance the deal if they could open a savings account in the process.

I call it an illusion because while the benefits of saving are real you are exaggerating the relief it creates for Wolff to cut the checks. The A’s have the financial resources to sign Beltre without having to resort to the piggy bank. All 6/78 really accomplishes is to add another year of salary for a player that we expect to offer diminished performance.

Put the yearly savings back into the team and the plan has merit as a way to improve the on-field product. Anything else is a wasted opportunity with a potential dead weight contract at the end.