Follow the money - was this a big salary dump?

[dagger]

I'm not very charitable towards ownership to begin with, so maybe I'm being paranoid.

But this week's trades removed almost $15 million in full-season salary. With proration, the team saved about US$5m. They already saved about US$4m dumping Pillar earlier.

But next year, with no Stroman and Sanchez, you're talking about what (help me Schad) $20m in savings? Giles was supposed to go and I imagine he will over the winter, and Smoak is an FA. Aside from a $1m guarantee for Galvis, $2.9m on Gurriel's contact, and $12 million as Grichuk's extension as it kicks in, the Jays have hardly any salary commitments. There are few arbitrations, with the disposable likes of Drury, Tepera and Devon Travis the headliners. Most of the salaries on the 25-man roster will be pre-arb scale. Right now, with Tulo's $14m payment for 2020, the Jays have $34 million in salary commitments and depending on winter signings, can largely fill out the 25 man with players on pre-arb scale. You could almost roll out a team for $50 million, and with a Shoemaker, Phelps or two, maybe get away with $60 million. If I thought they would chase good free agents this winter, I'd say this is a strategy. If I thought good free agents would sign with a bottom feeder (i.e. we overpay and they are happy to come) I'd think this is a strategy.

But at this point, this just feels like Rogers has decided to make money the way it does best - squeezing the very last drop of juice out of the fans.

[Schad]

I sincerely doubt it. Again, we didn't actually save anything by trading Sanchez; we could have just non-tendered him. Stroman was going to get traded regardless.

We also sent money with Stroman, and (inexplicably, IMO) kept Galvis, who we'll either have to pay $1m to buy out, or keep as a fairly expensive backup. Those two are the tipoffs that we weren't doing it to wring out a few extra bucks.

[vaff87]

No. They could have just nontendered Sanchez in the offseason.

[Schad]

It is true that we'll have a crazy-low payroll going into 2020, however. Assuming that we non-tender Travis and Shoemaker, and trade Giles, including arb players (which at this point is Tepera and Drury, unless we bring Maile back for some reason) we'll have a committed payroll of $32m* + min deals + possibly an extra $4.5m for Galvis.

I'd expect that we'll actually spend quite a bit, though probably on shorter-term deals rather than blowing the doors off. Rogers is cheap, but not Marlins-cheap, and they'll want Excitement! to try to boost revenues.

*Forgot that we're still paying Tulo $14m next year.

[BigLeagueChew]

Have already done the big salary dump.

[LBJSeizedMyID]

It is true that we'll have a crazy-low payroll going into 2020, however. Assuming that we non-tender Travis and Shoemaker, and trade Giles, including arb players (which at this point is Tepera and Drury, unless we bring Maile back for some reason) we'll have a committed payroll of $32m* + min deals + possibly an extra $4.5m for Galvis.

I'd expect that we'll actually spend quite a bit, though probably on shorter-term deals rather than blowing the doors off. Rogers is cheap, but not Marlins-cheap, and they'll want Excitement! to try to boost revenues.

*Forgot that we're still paying Tulo $14m next year.

My god this management is terrible for letting Tulo go for nothing. These guys can't get anything right

[Lukeem]

It is true that we'll have a crazy-low payroll going into 2020, however. Assuming that we non-tender Travis and Shoemaker, and trade Giles, including arb players (which at this point is Tepera and Drury, unless we bring Maile back for some reason) we'll have a committed payroll of $32m* + min deals + possibly an extra $4.5m for Galvis.

I'd expect that we'll actually spend quite a bit, though probably on shorter-term deals rather than blowing the doors off. Rogers is cheap, but not Marlins-cheap, and they'll want Excitement! to try to boost revenues.

*Forgot that we're still paying Tulo $14m next year.

since our outfield is kind of filled with adding fisher to the mix (filled I know is a bit generous since I don’t have a tonne of confidence in any of them)

Catcher I’m guessing Jansen and McGuire get a chance to prove something since signing a free agent catcher by the time they are free agents is rarely a good investment.

I don’t see them spending money to block vlad bo or Biggio

Do they spend money at first base or bring back smoak and allow Tellez some reps


That’s potentially all on pitching

Which makes sense with how young and unproven our pitchers are but I don’t see shatkins spending on most the list of free agent sps that are big names that are past prime

But how much do you think jays spend in free agency like upwards of 100 mill in two year contracts (50 mill per) to bring the payroll to a respectable amount ?

[dagger]

My thinking is that payroll is driving a lot of this. I get Schad's point that the Jays aren't Marlins-cheap, at least not on a recurring basis, but also remember the immortal words of Paul Beeston who told the fans the team would spend when they came out in sufficient numbers, rather than the other way around. To me, that's the essence of Rogers' ownership of the team. Its a publicly owned corporation and it is unwilling to go into the hole to support a team in a manner that brings recurring losses during a rebuild.

Contrast that with MLSE where Bell and Larry T can drive the consensus towards greater spending to actually make money. The Raptors went about $18 million into the luxury tax without a guarantee they would make it back with a good playoff run. The fact they did make it back, in spades, is to their credit. I don't begrudge them anything, including the high price of playoff tickets. And had Kawhi and Danny Green returned, the team was poised to go much, much deeper into the luxury tax, again without a guarantee of a long playoff run to offset the upfront guarantee. But then Bell and Larry T didn't make a bad bet on the NHL. We've seen Rogers Media trimming all kinds of staff to cut costs - right down to Bobcat at Fan590. They haven't spared a single sport they cover, sacking on-air personnel and writers galore.

When the Jays are good again, Rogers will probably start to spend big again, but how convenient it is that right now they can run out a team next year with just a $75 million (?) payroll that happens to align nicely with their diminished revenue streams.

[Schad]

I think that payroll is the lagging indicator here. We had two types of players: those who were old and diminishing, and those who were approaching free agency. Sure, we could have spent heavily in free agency, but that doesn't make much sense at a time when we're assembling a team full of rookies; instead, we've opted to use the money to grease the skids in trade.

I'm sure that Rogers is happy that we're spending much less, but spending less also happens to be the logical move in the screwy economics of the modern MLB. We didn't have much choice but to go into full rebuild mode, and because we had no long-term contracts save Tulo, Grichuk and Gurriel, that meant a transitional period where our payroll was always going to be really low unless we did something silly.

[KL78192020]

No. They could have just nontendered Sanchez in the offseason.

But this way they can pretend they got something for him and leave people guessing.