Dodgers Show How It's Done

[rog]

None of us here like the Dodgers.  Some hate them, and others just hate to lose to them.

But I have to give them credit for a cagey move with their trade today.  The Giants took a significant step toward salary control last night when they shed Matt Moore.  But today the Dodgers far outdid them.

The Dodgers traded Adrian Gonzalez, Scott Kazmir, Brandon McCarthy, former Giants draft pick Charlie Culberson, $4.5 million and $750K in international bonus pool money for Matt Kemp.  At first glance one might wonder why the Bums gave up all that for a former Dodger whose career could be over or close to it.

The answer is they want to get below the salary cap -- quite possibly to position themselves for the potential free agent class a year from now.  If the Dodgers exceeded the cap this season and then went on to do so next, they would pay 50% in luxury tax.  Signing Harper, Machado or re-signing Kershaw might cause them to go far over the cap, so being able to pay a 20% luxury tax (if they don't exceed this season) could save them a ton of "wasted" money compared to paying 50%.

The overall trade is close to cash-neutral, but acquiring Kemp allows the Dodgers to spread his cap hit over two seasons.

It's a great deal for the Braves too.  They get two pitchers who have been successful plus a decent reserve, cash and international bonus money for essentially nothing.  A win/win trade.

Gonzalez and Kemp are both expected to be waived by their respective new teams.  (Any interest in Kemp after he clears waivers?  He could conceivably become the new Pat Burrell.  Or trade Belt and pick up the waived Gonzalez until Chris Shaw is ready.)

This trade is another example of the whiz kids developing a strong win/win situation.  This is child's play for them.  As Don can tell us, The Whiz Kids used to be the old Phillies team.  Now the whiz kids are shaping the game far more than one team did in the old days.

Wouldn't it be shocking if the Dodgers had a lower salary cap payroll than the Giants this season?  All by giving up a lot for nothing.  Who woulda thunk it?

[klaiggeb]

And to me it looks something like "Insider Trading."

Or collusion, at the very least.


Trading for a guy they WEREN'T going to keep.

That smells BAD.

Why do the Dodgers ANY favors?

If they don't want to pay the guy, or play the guy, MAKE THEM cut him.

But to trade him to a team KNOWING they weren't going to keep him?

How in the world could the commissioner all this to happen?

boly

[rog]

I understand your thoughts here, Boly, but it wasn't insider trading. ANY team in the Dodgers' position can or could make the same type of move. We suggested here on our board that if the Giants picked up less than all of Stanton's contract, part of the difference be made by the Marlins' taking on Span's salary and/or Hunter's.

The only trade I can remember the Commissioner overturn was a Vida Blue trade (at least I think it was). In this case, the trade helped both teams. The Braves essentially got something for nothing, and the Dodgers got rid of a serious salary problem. ANY two teams could do the same. In fact, I'll bet the Dodgers ran similar opportunities past other teams, or at least were planning to if they couldn't work something out with the Dodgers.

By the way, in this case BOTH teams took on older players with very good careers with the plan of releasing them. The Dodgers two teams released similar players at similar stages of their careers. The Dodgers benefited because the the way the contracts were written, the Dodgers are able to spread Kemp's salary cap hit over TWO years instead of just one for Gonzalez.

If the league is going to put a salary cap in place, should it penalize teams for finding creative ways to avoid it? The practice of dumping salary by combining it with other assets the receiving team wants has gone on for some time, especially since the salary cap came into play.

What the Dodgers are doing here isn't avoiding the luxury tax indefinitely. If they can land the right free agent (maybe re-signing their own Clayton Kershaw), they'll likely jump back into it next year. The difference is that they'll pay "only" 20% tax instead of 50%.

The "cheap" Giants have gone into the luxury tax each of the past three seasons. Unless they dumped a lot of salary they would have paid a LOT of luxury tax if they had acquired Giancarlo Stanton. You don't think the Giants'desire to now say out of the luxury tax this year is to reduce the percentage they'll have to pay in 2019 if they sign one of the big fish (none of whom is Trout as far as I know. Trout is worth at least $400 million and quite possibly more.).

By the way, collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." Economic collusion (which this would fall under) is "collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market structure of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole."

The Dodgers and Braves didn't collude to do anything, such as control prices. After the 1985 season baseball DID collude by not offering any players a raise. That's how Chris Speier came to the Giants. He would have stayed with the Cubs, for whom he had played well for two seasons, but GM Dallas Green wouldn't give him a raise. Chris said "Give me one dollar." Green said no.

Baseball paid many millions for its proven collusion.

There is nothing to prevent the Giants or any other team from doing what the Dodgers and Braves did. It kind of gets me that when something creative like this happens, we challenge it. As a Giants fan, I wish the Dodgers hadn't been able to do it. As a baseball fan, I applaud the Dodgers and Braves for their creative thinking. We talked about the Giants using the very principles used the deals. I don't think there was any collusion involved.

And salary dumps have been going on for a long time. We've suggested the Giants do it, both giving and receiving.

[rog]

The discussion I see at MLB Trade Rumors about the deal is positive. No mention of collusion. It mentions it could help set up a lively off-season a year from now.

[klaiggeb]

There isn't any discussion, but there should be!


This entire transaction sucks like politicians suck; under the table deals and not even borderline integrity.

boly

[rog]

This deal was far from under the table. My guess is that the Dodgers approached other teams with similar proposals. I think it was just that the Braves and Dodgers were an excellent mesh for the deal. Heck, if Kemp were to lose weight so he could field again, maybe the Dodgers would keep him. Maybe there's another California team that needs power.

While this deal wasn't traditional, it appears to be totally on the up-and-up, and was simply the result of two smart teams having a wise discussion.

Except that it was the Dodgers making the good trade, I'm sorry at your disgust with the deal. I haven't found a word against the deal anywhere I've read. People seem to think it was a smart deal for both teams.

The Braves needed players. The Dodgers needed to cut their 2018 luxury tax salary. That Kemp's salary could be spread over two years with regard to the salary cap put the Braves in great position to take advantage of the Dodgers' salary cap problem.

This is really the way the salary cap is supposed to work. This deal spread playing capability to the lesser team with the lesser payroll. What's wrong with that?

The Dodgers Opening Day payroll last season was $241 million. At $122 million, the Braves' was just over half that. The Braves got some good players, and the Dodgers completed a fabulous plan that helped them cut the $45 million they needed to cut to get under the cap. That's a tough assignment, but the Dodgers pulled it off.

Seriously, this is the way the cap is supposed to work. Ideally no team would be over the cap, and talent would be spread more evenly over the league. This trade was a step in that direction.