LG read someplace the Giants payroll target for 2020 is around $140 M. Now, $140 M is a whole lot of money and quite a bit more than some teams are planning to pay their players, so if that's what the Giants feel they can spend, I should not begrudge them. It's the rationale that bugs me. They don't want to get boxed into a corner with more big, longterm contracts. Again, I don't know what "cap" Giants ownership has given Farhan to work with. Attendance is down dramatically over the past two seasons. Spending more money in preceding years has admittedly not resulted in winning and a sold out ballpark. I have a sneaking suspicion, based on nothing more than suspicion, that perhaps a side project or two may not be progressing as smoothly as drawn up. Maybe there's a reason why family members of the financial heavy hitters in the ownership group have recently become dramatically more involved? But all that aside, the Giants are still widely believed to be one of the most financially successful teams in MLB and should be able to afford a payroll close to the CBT target of about $210 M. So I'm still working with the theorem that the Giants can easily afford whatever the CBT threshold is for a given season.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting the Giants need to saddle up with a bunch of contracts that get all the way up to the CBT, not just this year but for 5-7 years down the road, but you have to remember their current payroll obligations are not static going forward either. $140 M is a full $70 M under that target. On top of that, there is at least another $18 M coming off the books after 2010 and another close to $70 M coming off after 2021 and yet another $13 M after 2022. I mean, how much payroll flexibility is enough? Working off the CBT as the "cap", my target for 2020 would be more in the range of $180 M which still gives them $30 M of payroll freedom this year, close to $50 for 2021 and almost unlimited amounts for 2022.
Not that they should spend money just to meet a minimum target, but if there is a player(s) who can help this team now and for 3-5 years into the future, there is no reason to hold back to maintain payroll "flexibility" now or into he future. Just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to believe the spending "limit" will be, to some extent, a function of what players the Giants have a shot at signing. The obvious example is Gerrit Cole. I think it is highly likely the "limit" would be raised if Cole could be signed for a number that works for the Giants. Conversely, the payroll number could come in below the "limit" if the Giants are unable to get the players they want.
ReplyDeleteFurther, if the Giants were to sign a high impact player like Cole, it might lead to another big spend with the idea of being more competitive in 2020.
Are the Giants not concerned about the significant downward spiral of attendance?
ReplyDeleteAccording to MLBTR (Steve Adams, yesterday): "At this point, there’s little indication that the incumbent Giants are a serious player for Bumgarner" who would be an attendance draw for them. Although not in the same draw category, everyday player Pillar obviously had a sizable following, and to a smaller extent, Vogt. Fans don't come to see the bullpen, the Giants only real strength last year.
The Core (3) have attracted fans but a predictable regression in their contribution won't help forever.
In any event the days of 42,000 fans are long gone. Last year only 2 home games (one against LAD, the other opening day) drew over 40,000. Three home games in September drew less than 27,000.
We don't know where the pain begins but an average of 27,000 will be a drastic reduction, by far the lowest attendance in this century.
The Giant must do something to make us fans want to come to the park. Amy G ain't gonna do it.
Sorry Doc, my post may have been misinterpreted. The beat writer tweeted that someone from the Giants told him their payroll currently stands at $140 mil, which is more then the number given by cots. He speculated that maybe they are factoring in some incentives that they expecting certain players to meet. This gives them more flexability to spend then last year. I agree with Scott that the spending limit should be a function of what players they have a shot at signing. I don't want a repeat of what seemed to happen in 2018 when Evans went all in and traded for Cutch and Longoria and didn't do anything else significant because they were up against the CBT. Those moves were good but they needed to do more.
ReplyDelete