Comments on: Bloops: A-Rod objects to Rangers’ bankruptcy plan This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: 2010 Trade Deadline Possibilities - Page 30 - Message Board Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:29:30 +0000 [...] [...]

By: Yanks7 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:10:57 +0000 From now on, I betcha their agents will insure any deferred payments will be listed as gauranteed in any future contracts. Why do they pay those attorney/agents so much anyway? Go Yanks!

By: Michael E Sullivan Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:02:05 +0000 Paying Alex Rodriguez 25 mil a year or Carlos Beltran 14mil a year doesn't hurt your team. Paying some random mid market guy who turns into a scrub $5 million hurts your team. A-Rod's contract was probably too high, but only because it's unlikely they couldn't have gotten him for less. In terms of the wins he got them per dollar, it was high but hardly unreasonable. He's put up 64.2 WAR over the course of the contract while getting paid 252mil, that's not much higher than average in terms of $/WAR. Now, the yankees extension is a bit more problematic. They'll do fine for a couple more years, but it's highly unlikely that his all-star to mvp level production will continue for another 6 years, and they need that level of production to justify what they are paying him.

I agree with you JT, I hope ARod gets his money, or if he doesn't, only because there's a legitimate inability to pay, not some legal fiction owner-class collusion bullshit. It's not like ARod will go hungry, but you can damn well bet that the owners who bankrupted the Rangers won't end up working at McDonalds either.

By: BSK Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:07:31 +0000 I think it really depends on how the deferred money works. What if the Mets invested that money, either financially or in talent elsewhere, to the point of profiting on the deferred payments? Pretty wise. Unlikely, especially seeing as how well the Mets do with investments lately (both on and off the field), but I'm sure there is the possibility of teams profiting off deferred payments.

By: Johnny Twisto Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:56:00 +0000 Warren Buffett's magic pixie dust strikes again.

By: Basmati Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:30:12 +0000 Wow I wish I could leave my company and get paid 1/5th of my salary for the next 25 years!

These pay structures are crazy and surely going to cost someone big before too long?

Going back to A-Rod I can't believe he got a contract that agreed to pay him $20m at age 41 when that was 10 years away. I know he's good but he could be a complete liability by 2017.

By: Mike Gaber Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:17:12 +0000 If you want to talk about absurd Deferred Compensation Contracts, how about the one the Mets are going to be paying Bobby Bonilla starting in 2011.
This from the Wikipedia on Bobby Bonilla

The New York Mets placed Bonilla on unconditional waivers in 2000. He spent the 2000 season playing for the Atlanta Braves. The Mets agreed to pay out the remainder of Bonilla's contract by deferring the $5.9 million that he was due. The Mets will pay him 25 equal payments of $1,193,248.20 every July 1 from 2011 until 2035.
~~~~ ~~~
That comes to roughly about $29,831,200.00 and he hasn't played in the Major Leagues since 2001.
I think the $1,193 Million the Mets will be paying Bonilla each year for 25 years will count towards the salaries paid all their players when computing the Luxury Tax.

By: Johnny Twisto Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:30:51 +0000 I didn't remember who the disagreement was with. I did not think "argument" was a bad thing.

You make a good point about a possibility for conflict of interest. The money is being deferred from a particular time, and it wouldn't seem fair for the Yankees (or whoever) to have to pay Rodriguez money that the Ranger didn't pay him in 2002. Of course, if they knew they had to be on the hook for the deferred payments, then they could take that into account when choosing to trade for him. I suppose the deferment agreements are separate from the original contract, and simply state that a particular party (the current team) will pay part of the agreed money in the future. Anyway, I guess it's not much more likely that an owner would offer to increase future payments to a former player than for one to simply offer any player on another team money.

By: JeffW Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:55:09 +0000 Deferred money should be the bane of any franchise. You are setting in motion a chain of events that, when they reach fruition, will leave your team with no room for new contracts.

Win now, at all costs. We'll figure out how to pay for it later. It shows absolutely no foresight.

Maybe, when a player gets traded, the deferred money he is owed should also go. After all, it is part of the contract. When the player goes, his contract goes with him, right?

If anything, isn't being owed money by more than one club a conflict of interest? What if an unscrupulous owner (nah...there's none of them out there...) offered to increase the deferred money he owed a player, in order to get that player to "let up" a bit in a key series against his club?

It's not so far-fetched, when you look at some of the crap that was going on 100 years ago. And owners, like their big business brethren, are likely no more scrupulous than they were back then.

Johnny Twisto (#1), please don't characterize our prior discussion as an argument (if it is me you are referring to), as that was never my intent. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as we do so with mutual respect.

By: Rich Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:04:06 +0000 1) Need to figure out a way to ban this annoying "Max" guy

2) I love how generous people without money are. How do you know Arod doesn't need the money so that he CAN donate a huge portion of it?