He's being paid $10M up front, which I'm just going to say counts towards 2013... so:

2013: $25M ($15 + $10 "up front")
2014: $15M
2015: $23M
2016: $30M
2017: $30M

Man that's crazy.

That is a potential millstone when added together with CJ, Weaver and Pujols.

And a whopping $2 million out of $125 to his charity. I could have sworn Katie told SI they needed a big payday so they could do Jesus' work?

Yeah. So much for that theory of the Angels getting a couple good years and trading the back end of that contract. They'll be paying $75M to Weaver, Pujols & Hamilton in 2016. That's got to be good for Ranger fans.

IS this a NO-TRADE contract, because it reflects the Angels view of Josh backsliding, get two good years out of him, then trade/dump him.,

Full no trade.

Unreal

You'd think the Angels would have inverted the contract, to make an easier flip after year three or so.
By the time the last two-three years do come, considering Josh won't emplode, he may retain value,
for a mid to large market team. He might have one more big payday. All speculation- wierd barometer.

Backloading reduces the present value of the contract. Other things equal, that's good from the team's perspective.

A lot of people are assuming that the Angels can't sustain a large payroll. I don't see why. They have large tv contract. I'd imagine they sell their seats at a higher price than the Rangers. (Tickets to the Rangers are incredibly cheap due to the location in Arlington. Compare Rangers ticket prices to those of the Yankees and you'll see that this is true.)

I don't take a lot of solace in the argument that the Angels are sacrificing the future to win now. They have a lot of resources and none of us knows whether they are really unable to sustain a large payroll.

"And a whopping $2 million out of $125 to his charity. I could have sworn Katie told SI they needed a big payday so they could do Jesus' work?"

This is stupid on so many levels.

For instance?

For a prolonged period of time? The Yankees have won how many championships with said model, their own station, and a LA international signing market that was bereft of any real structure to deter big spending all in the current luxury tax era?

1.

There's the model and the Yankees were somewhat able to supplement a huge payroll and compounding taxes, in terms of long term sustainability of performance, by keeping their farm decently stocked, shrewd LA dealings, and moneywhipping everyone they wanted.

Now, with the structure of the draft, LA international market and escalating player contracts - you think it's feasible LAAAAA can succeed where NY only did once before cutting bait? Make no mistake, Arte is in it to win it but I don't see where this model is altogether sustainable given his team isn't near the caliber of those Yankee teams in relation to the rest of the league while taking on foolish contracts AND giving out no trade clauses (in addition to those contracts being damn near impossible to shed when the "assets" depreciate well beyond equitable value).

Yeah, I don't see them succeeding in the long run.

Well said and ditto for the Dodgers!

Welp, for instance do you know that Josh isn't giving any of the money in his paycheck to charity? Also, for instance, how many other contract include any money sent directly to a charity? For instance do you think its possible that Josh was waiting for the biggest contract possible tor make the bigget impact possible on those he contributes to?

I don't think it's that the LAA can't afford to keep paying the high salaries but in 2014 the salary cap begins and I believe the cap is 180 million ( I could be wrong but I think that;s close) and you get taxed for every dollar over that cap. So if you have a payroll of say 200 Million then add on the 20 million in Cap tax (what ever that comes out to). Also Trout will eventually want a new contract and I have a feeling it won't be cheap! Now you got Hammy, Cj, Weaver, Pojuls weighting you down then try to add in Trout for lets say 22 million a yr avg and you have over 120 million a yr in 5 players and another 20 players to pay and try to keep it under the cap.
Also with the cap they go with avg of the life of the contract so singing a 4 yr 100 million contract = 25 mill a yr reguardless of how it pays out. at least this is my understanding of how it works. This is also why the Yankees are cutting payroll like they are, they want under that cap!

For instance?

1) Basic Reasoning- He didn't get $125 Million when he signed. You used this number in making your point. Did you expect him to give money now based on future earnings?

2) Financially - He will get a $10MM signing bonus. Not sure if you are aware, but there is this thing called income taxes, FICA, other deductions (MLBPA) that come into play. My guess is Josh sees about 1/2 of that bonus. If he have 2MM of that to charitable causes, that's 40%. Guessing that's more than most.

3) Morally - Obviously you are giving 50% of your income to charity, right? Because if you're not, then shut the F up.

3b) Morally part 2 - its funny, I've always found that the ones who TAKE the most are the ones complaining that others don't give enough. The ones that GIVE usually stay quiet and do their part. Gee, I wonder which you are.

4) Tax planning - Can't deduct more than 50% of AGI against income in a current year. Hamiltons would be wise to layer their giving for maximum impact.

5) Hypocrisy - you're the idiot that would post this crap online anonymously, but if you met Josh face to face you'd pee your pants and beg for an autograph. Then you'd go and try and sell it while bagging on the guy.

Anyhow, your comment was objectively stupid. I've said plenty of stupid things before, so I know what they look like. So, admit it and move on.

There is no salary cap. The luxury cap began in 2003 and it increases to 189 million. Repeat offenders accumulate a greater percentage as the number of years over the cap mount. The Angels under their current payroll aren't at that number but they don't seem to be structured to avoid it in the coming years. The previous franchises that have laid the groundwork in setting the template of an exhorbitant payroll with little regard to the luxury tax were better structured than the Angels.

Some may think the Angels could skirt right beneath the luxury tax but I think they'll blow right by it in the coming years. If so, I don't see them succeeding in the long run or even the short term (win a WS). Barren farm + albatross contracts + non championship caliber starting pitching + revamped draft + LA international market limits = Angels are in trouble in the long haul regardless of their TV contract under said model. Great looking team on paper, but not championship caliber.