A Few Observations on the Rays 2010 Payroll

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 5:00 AM EST Comment 37 comments

Chris O'Meara - AP

First, whoever decided on the exact payroll figures since 2006 is a fan of checks ... and checks:

Rayspayrollbyyear_medium

Here are the 2010 payroll numbers as told by Cots with some lame duck estimates for arbitration and incentives thrown in. The Rays rarely go to arbitration, so I would guess most of these cases are settled before the alternative becomes a reality. It would seem to me the wild card in this is B.J. Upton's potential case. His representation, headed by Larry Reynolds, has spoken numerous times about how the baseball pay structure is not set up for the exceptional talents like Upton. I'm going to go ahead and guess he's not a fan of arbitration. Jason Bartlett's case is also interesting, although the Rays seemingly handled a similar outlier performances with Dioner Navarro last season and Carlos Pena following 2007.

Player	2010 $
Pena	10.125
Crawford	10.75
Burrell	9
Wheeler	3.5
Shields	2.5
Navarro	2.3
Bartlett	4
Price	1
Balfour	1.5
Aybar	1.35
Gross	1.3
Kapler	1.05
Niemann	0.4
Longoria	0.95
Cormier	0.7
Choate	0.5
Upton	2
Garza	2
Howell	1
Sonny	0.4
Zobrist	0.4
Chavez	0.4
Joyce	0.4
Riggans	0.4
Filler	0.4

This $58M payroll is ridiculously top-heavy. You don't need quintiles in order to figure out that the top five salaries take up more than half the projected sum. The Rays' three highest paid players each have assignment bonuses in the case of a trade. Carlos Pena will be paid $0.75M if dealt; Carl Crawford half a million; and Pat Burrell $200K.

Speaking of which, each of the triumvirate is eligible for free agency following the 2010 season. Nearly 30 million combined in 2010 potentially gone in 2011. Cannot wait to read the rosterbatory Fanposts by new users as that off-season comes ever closer. "SHOULD THE RAYS SIGN DEREK JETER???" isn't a question asked enough.

Such great flexibility comes with its price, as that's a decent amount of talent to replace. The other cost is a strict budget for 2010. Depending on what happens with the arbitration cases and a potential Pat Burrell deal, the Rays are looking at probably $4M < x < $8M to spend if they simply match last year's opening day payroll. That's not much, but probably enough to add a few relievers and a catcher.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A $60 million dollar payroll for a team expected to contend in the ALEEE, is a tremendous success

I can see Crawford staying if he accepts no more than a three year deal. Any longer than that would seem to have diminishing effects

by sternfan1 on Nov 30, 2009 7:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can't wait for you to slam our payroll issues when we start losing games.

by Suttree on Nov 30, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would Carl do this?

I know it makes sense for the team, but Carl and his agent already took a ridiculously team friendly contract once, there’s no reason for them to do it again unless he’s the nicest guy around with the dumbest agent.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True--but do you want a 33 yo CC making $15mil?

by sternfan1 on Nov 30, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not particularly.

Depends on how much damage the turf has done to his knees.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The new stadium is going to have a series of trampolines in the outfield

Think Slamball, but with people snagging fly balls.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if the Rays do trade Burrell for Bradley

i wonder if they will use the savings this year or next year. My guess is, they will probably allocate all funds to this year since they would’ve done that with Burrell anyways. This way if he works out, they have a free player next year. And if not, they will replace him the way they would’ve had to do so with Burrell. If Bradley does work out, the Rays will have that much more wiggle room next year.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 30, 2009 8:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

There will be zero savings this year or next year.

Burrell and Bradley are paid the exact same amount this season and the Cubs aren’t paying for Burrell and Bradley this year, the deal would be a wash money wise for this season. The Rays will not make the trade unless the Cubs eat nearly all of next years salary, so we’re not saving money on the trade, we’re just getting Bradley next year for free or nearly free if the deal is finished.

Tools Whore

by Tyler on Nov 30, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's what i meant

but the Rays look at payroll typically in 2 or 3 year window—so they theoretically could view the one year they would pay of Bradley (if that would be the terms of the trade) as a budget for two seasons, thus giving them another 5 or so mil to spend this year, if they wanted to do it that way. But then they would have to rely on Bradley working out not just this year but next year, which would put a 5 mil risk on next season’s salaries…a risk that probably is too much, but would give them financial flexibility if they so desired.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 30, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I liked when the downturn (2007?) happened and people said that Stu & Friends were reneging on their promise

to raise payroll 10% each year. Funny how that works.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 8:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If your assessment is right and the Rays have between 4 and 8 MM to utilize

is that enough to fill the gaps and make the push from winning 85ish games to 95?

Signature space available for rent - Got to pay the bills somehow

by Buc Wild on Nov 30, 2009 10:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

We were a 90 win team last year that got a bit unlucky and ended up at 85

We are fielding a tweaked version of the team next year that has only lost Kaz, really. If we are still a 90 win team on paper and get lucky, then yes, we could win 95 games. I like the moves we are making to add bullets to the bullpen. That was probably our biggest issue last year.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That, and the blackhole behind home plate.

Signature space available for rent - Got to pay the bills somehow

by Buc Wild on Nov 30, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Catchers don't have to hit, relievers are supposed to get guys out

Different job descriptions.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, Catchers don't have to hit. They don't have to be a black hole in the lineup either.

Remember, 3 season with the Rays, 2 of them among the worst offensive output in the history of the Rays. That’s not good.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 30, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you're right, but if you're going to have a drain on the offense anywhere, I'll take it at catcher.

If 4-8 is all we have to spend, though I think that number has room for expansion if playoff revenue is within reach, then I’d rather get a relief ace (preferably righty that can get out both). Navi hasn’t been good by any stretch of the imagination, but how many catchers are? In 2009, the average catcher for all of MLB slashed .254/.321/.396 for a .717 OPS or a .317 wOBA if you prefer that. Yes, Navi was at the exact center of that black hole of suck (would Red Matter be a good nickname for Navi), but on a limited payroll at least he has been relatively durable. If Zaun/Navi costs 3M between them, that leaves up to 5M that we can use to get 1-2 proven stud relievers. We’ve picked up a lot of flotsam so far with the hope that one of these guys will be above-average. Now I want a guy that we can run out there in high leverage.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Catchers don't have to hit ... but when you're one of the worst hitting catchers and your defensive value isn't equal to Yadier Molina, issues are to be had.

Oh, and when you make nearly $2M.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Props to Yadi

Mound Visit

by Mound Visit on Nov 30, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a 90 win true talent team.

They won’t be able to add more than a win or two on the free agent market given their needs and budget restraints. Trades and progression from guys like Upton, Burrell (or Bradley, I suppose) and upgraded bench/rotation/bullpen will have to pick up the slack.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Percival's name isn't on that list

I like that

2009 Rays Baseball: Welp.....we'll try again in 2010
2009 FSU Football: Seriously, Bobby. Go Away.

by JMB on Nov 30, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's mind boggling to me that Wheeler is our 4th highest paid players.

Pay rolls in Baseball seem to have no rhyme or reason

by behn on Nov 30, 2009 11:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thus is the life of teams with mostly cost controlled players.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gabe Gross is arb-eligible, right?

Isn’t he a non-tender candidate to save 1.3 million(or is it too late for that). I can’t for the life of me figure out why the Rays would keep him AND Kapler. I still don’t get how they even plan to get Brignac, Rodriguez, and Joyce enough playing time(Briggy and Rodriguez are blocked up the middle, and while Joyce should play full-time against righties, who knows if they want Zobrist to get some time in RF still).

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 30, 2009 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes. Same with Navarro.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be more apt to keep Navarro

Gross meanwhile is absolutely useless to this team at this point.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 30, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gross probably has trade value albeit minimal.

That or if they deal Crawford they can plug the Gabe^2 platoon into that gap and let Joyce play full time.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also: the deadline to offer arb is tomorrow night at midnight.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like it's going to be another all-nighter

CAN WE ORDER CHINESE????!!?!?1

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Say no to Gross

by sternfan1 on Nov 30, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tomorrow is the deadline to offer arb to FA's

the deadline to offer arb to arb eligibles is the contract offer date, which I believe is Dec. 14th this year. So the Rays big decisions aren’t til then. Unless you think the Rays might offer arb to Shouse, Bradford, Percival, or Isringhausen? Ummmm…. I think not.

I do think you’re understating some salaries above.

Price will have his prorated signing bonus figured in to make his stated salary more like 1.9MM – normally that would be a procedural quibble, but in Price’s case his bonus was also paid over the course of the deal, so this is more of an actual real time cost.

Niemann’s salary was $650 K in ‘09 – he can’t take a cut of more than 20%, and I doubt the Rays cut him at all.

I agree Gross could be non-tendered – so his 1.25 MM could be off the books.

I’d also suggest some of your arb projections seem somewhat low. A 100K raise for Balfour in his last arb year? Choate is also in arb, and his majors salary was a (prorated) $650K. Cormier with a 50K raise in arb 2? I think Howell is likely looking at more than $1MM. Even Garza, and possibly BJ could be looking at somewhat larger numbers. The differences here aren’t likely extraordinary, but they could add up to a decent added chunk.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 30, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't see the need for Gross there

Couldn’t Fernando Perez and Kapler be the platoon for the few months until DJ is ready?

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 30, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gross is a better player than Perez.

And it’s pretty clear they don’t trust Perez’ wrist or shoulder injuries.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

But I don’t think he’s worth bringing back even for 1.3 million since I really don’t see any way his role is big enough to make it worthwhile.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 30, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we're going to bring him back for 1.3 million.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice little write up on the Rays

http://mvn.com/aroundthemajors/2009/11/tampa-bay-rays-offseason-thoughts-part-one.html

by FLBoy84 on Nov 30, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I linked in the hot stove thread, but yeah, I thought that was a pretty nice write up

More of an overview for the less initiated, but spot on in all regards.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 30, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last date for former Club to offer salary arbitration to receive compensation

is tomorrow at midnight. That will be big for possible free agents the Rays can pick up without surrendering a draft choice in 2010 for clubs that decline arbitration to their free agents. Last day for teams to tender 2010 contracts to unsigned players is December 12. That will also be a huge day as that will be the day the Rays must make decisions on Gross, Navarro, Balfour etc.

by rickrays on Nov 30, 2009 6:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs