SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018-19 Non-Red Sox Offseason Thread
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 28, 2019 16:25:47 GMT -5
That seems like a reasonable deal, compared to Machado. I’m definitely surprised. A 300/10 would seem like a better deal for all involved. How do you figure that would be better for Harper? If you assume a 7% rate of return on investment, getting $30 million a year for 10 years is worth $507.7 million at the end of 13, and $25M/13 is worth $503.5M through 13. Throw in the fact that, as a 35-year-old, he'd probably line up for another contract, and there's an argument that he'd have been better off with 10/$300. On the other hand, there's value to the union (and therefore the other players) to him pushing that "largest ever contract" number higher. And doing with a lower AAV means the pundits can't attack him for hurting his team, because he's actually getting a smaller % of the overall payroll.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 28, 2019 16:42:27 GMT -5
A couple things to remember based on reports:
1. Apparently Harper had higher AAV contracts on the table but valued the length of the deal. Per Boras anyway. It legit might be "25M or 30M a year, my great-grandchildren are now taken care of, so what's the difference?"
2. No deferred money in this deal, whereas $100M of the Nats deal was deferred. That makes a huge difference in present-day value.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 28, 2019 16:46:54 GMT -5
Passan's saying 13/330. $25M AAV for Bryce Harper is a steal. Yea it is, but 13 years is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 28, 2019 16:50:43 GMT -5
If you assume a 7% rate of return on investment, getting $30 million a year for 10 years is worth $507.7 million at the end of 13, and $25M/13 is worth $503.5M through 13. Throw in the fact that, as a 35-year-old, he'd probably line up for another contract, and there's an argument that he'd have been better off with 10/$300. Do you honestly think that he could get more 10 million a year as a 35 year old veteran? And even if could, is that number high enough to offset the security he gets from this deal? 13 years is a long time, there's a chunk load of years where any significant injury could happen. He could get into a freak accident and have to amputate his arm 2 years into the contract, then what? And even if your answer to both questions is "yes", on a philosophical level I have to wonder, seriously? Are we penny pinching on a guy making Walter White money?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 28, 2019 16:55:59 GMT -5
A couple things to remember based on reports: 1. Apparently Harper had higher AAV contracts on the table but valued the length of the deal. Per Boras anyway. It legit might be "25M or 30M a year, my great-grandchildren are now taken care of, so what's the difference?" 2. No deferred money in this deal, whereas $100M of the Nats deal was deferred. That makes a huge difference in present-day value. Deferred money does help athletes not go broke, go ask Bobby Bonilla if he likes it. Also how does that play on taxes? Does it push you into lower tax brackets? I've never had to worry about like 5 million vs 25 million yearly. Would he still need to pay the jock tax on those deferred payments?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 28, 2019 16:56:50 GMT -5
If you assume a 7% rate of return on investment, getting $30 million a year for 10 years is worth $507.7 million at the end of 13, and $25M/13 is worth $503.5M through 13. Throw in the fact that, as a 35-year-old, he'd probably line up for another contract, and there's an argument that he'd have been better off with 10/$300. Do you honestly think that he could get more 10 million a year as a 35 year old veteran? And even if could, is that number high enough to offset the security he gets from this deal? 13 years is a long time, there's a chunk load of years where any significant injury could happen. He could get into a freak accident and have to amputate his arm 2 years into the contract, then what? And even if your answer to both questions is "yes", on a philosophical level I have to wonder, seriously? Are we penny pinching on a guy making Walter White money? Who knows what the economy of baseball will be like in 2029? So weird to even talk about years like that. Also, the much bigger issue than the risk of amputation is whether he settles in as a 3 win player or goes on and has some more 9 win seasons. I tend to think that 9 win season was a fluke. The Phillies better hope for a bunch of 6 win seasons at the front end of that deal if they want to avoid disaster. Harper's 2nd best season was a typical Xander Bogaerts season, 4.8 fWAR. He played 159 games last season and would have been 6th on the Red Sox in fWAR. They also better hope that his defense rebounds A LOT from last year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 28, 2019 17:03:37 GMT -5
If you assume a 7% rate of return on investment, getting $30 million a year for 10 years is worth $507.7 million at the end of 13, and $25M/13 is worth $503.5M through 13. Throw in the fact that, as a 35-year-old, he'd probably line up for another contract, and there's an argument that he'd have been better off with 10/$300. Do you honestly think that he could get more 10 million a year as a 35 year old veteran? And even if could, is that number high enough to offset the security he gets from this deal? 13 years is a long time, there's a chunk load of years where any significant injury could happen. He could get into a freak accident and have to amputate his arm 2 years into the contract, then what? And even if your answer to both questions is "yes", on a philosophical level I have to wonder, seriously? Are we penny pinching on a guy making Walter White money? Matt Holladay got 13 million for his age 37 season, so its not crazy.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 28, 2019 18:04:36 GMT -5
the 13 years is strange and tells me this was more about Harper beating out the Stanton deal, which is good for him and good for the players union. Don't care how Boras wants to spin it, the Phillies had the leverage and won the negotiation by allowing for a lower AAV, which helps an organization immensely.
|
|
|
Post by danredhawk on Feb 28, 2019 18:11:34 GMT -5
A couple things to remember based on reports: 1. Apparently Harper had higher AAV contracts on the table but valued the length of the deal. Per Boras anyway. It legit might be "25M or 30M a year, my great-grandchildren are now taken care of, so what's the difference?" 2. No deferred money in this deal, whereas $100M of the Nats deal was deferred. That makes a huge difference in present-day value. Deferred money does help athletes not go broke, go ask Bobby Bonilla if he likes it. Also how does that play on taxes? Does it push you into lower tax brackets? I've never had to worry about like 5 million vs 25 million yearly. Would he still need to pay the jock tax on those deferred payments? There are reports the Nationals deal wanted to defer that 100 million into Harper's 60's... If that's true than there is no comparison between the two deals - the additional present value of the money is absurd. I know taxes come into play, etc. But, hypothetically, If Harper took the 130 million difference (in present cash) and invested it for a 5% return, between the end of the contract and his 60th b-day (21 years), he'd generate an extra 232 million dollars. That should also keep him from going broke... If the deferred deal was something like 5 million a year for 20 years and he invested that money (5 mill each year) into a similar 5% return he'd only generate an additional 90 million or so. The Nats deal was an entirely different ballpark...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 28, 2019 18:49:06 GMT -5
Deferred money does help athletes not go broke, go ask Bobby Bonilla if he likes it. Also how does that play on taxes? Does it push you into lower tax brackets? I've never had to worry about like 5 million vs 25 million yearly. Would he still need to pay the jock tax on those deferred payments? There are reports the Nationals deal wanted to defer that 100 million into Harper's 60's... If that's true than there is no comparison between the two deals - the additional present value of the money is absurd. I know taxes come into play, etc. But, hypothetically, If Harper took the 130 million difference (in present cash) and invested it for a 5% return, between the end of the contract and his 60th b-day (21 years), he'd generate an extra 232 million dollars. That should also keep him from going broke... If the deferred deal was something like 5 million a year for 20 years and he invested that money (5 mill each year) into a similar 5% return he'd only generate an additional 90 million or so. The Nats deal was an entirely different ballpark... I get all that, but most of these guys aren't like that and a lot of states the taxes are 50% for athletes. finance.yahoo.com/news/former-nba-star-antoine-walker--life-after-losing--110-million-214644672.htmlYea it's less money, but if you can lose 110 million by age 38 anything is possible. It's like the lottery yea the smart play is the lump sum, but so many people aren't smart.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 28, 2019 18:49:52 GMT -5
These deals help the Sox chances with signing their FA's IMO. They were looking for a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 28, 2019 18:58:21 GMT -5
Matt Holladay got 13 million for his age 37 season, so its not crazy. Yeah but Holliday was still healthy and somewhat productive and unless I'm mistaken here he got 13 for a year and then fell off the cliff. It's a stretch to assume Harper will remain healthy AND good enough when he's that old. Thing is, any contract is a compromise. You either pay more for less time or you pay less and buckle up for more years. It would be a conversation if he got like 7 years, but 13? 13 years is a ridiculously long time. Donald Trump could get reelected next year and his successor could then get reelected and you STILL have Bryce Harper under contract for the subsequent election. LeBron James Jr. would be entering his 7-8th year in the league. Puff Daddy will be 63 years old. The NES will be on its 47th birthday. Paparazzi by Lady Gaga would be on the verge of being a quarter century old, that's the distance between us right now and Kurt Cobain still being alive. That's how long this contract is.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Feb 28, 2019 19:07:48 GMT -5
Matt Holladay got 13 million for his age 37 season, so its not crazy. ...that's the distance between us right now and Kurt Cobain still being alive. Sigh... God bless Kurt.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 28, 2019 19:59:44 GMT -5
10 million/yr in 2030 is not going to be expensive, in fact it will probably be a platoon player.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 28, 2019 21:30:36 GMT -5
There are reports the Nationals deal wanted to defer that 100 million into Harper's 60's... If that's true than there is no comparison between the two deals - the additional present value of the money is absurd. I know taxes come into play, etc. But, hypothetically, If Harper took the 130 million difference (in present cash) and invested it for a 5% return, between the end of the contract and his 60th b-day (21 years), he'd generate an extra 232 million dollars. That should also keep him from going broke... If the deferred deal was something like 5 million a year for 20 years and he invested that money (5 mill each year) into a similar 5% return he'd only generate an additional 90 million or so. The Nats deal was an entirely different ballpark... I get all that, but most of these guys aren't like that and a lot of states the taxes are 50% for athletes. finance.yahoo.com/news/former-nba-star-antoine-walker--life-after-losing--110-million-214644672.htmlYea it's less money, but if you can lose 110 million by age 38 anything is possible. It's like the lottery yea the smart play is the lump sum, but so many people aren't smart. The thing is, if you're smart enough to realize that you might blow all the money, you're smart enough to pay someone to make sure that doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 28, 2019 21:50:56 GMT -5
How do you figure that would be better for Harper? If you assume a 7% rate of return on investment, getting $30 million a year for 10 years is worth $507.7 million at the end of 13, and $25M/13 is worth $503.5M through 13. Throw in the fact that, as a 35-year-old, he'd probably line up for another contract, and there's an argument that he'd have been better off with 10/$300. On the other hand, there's value to the union (and therefore the other players) to him pushing that "largest ever contract" number higher. And doing with a lower AAV means the pundits can't attack him for hurting his team, because he's actually getting a smaller % of the overall payroll. Pretty much. If Harper wants to play in 2029, I’d expect him to be able get better than 3/30. I expect contracts will continue to increase and he’d likely be worth more than 10 million a year in his mid 30s.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 28, 2019 21:52:27 GMT -5
A couple things to remember based on reports: 1. Apparently Harper had higher AAV contracts on the table but valued the length of the deal. Per Boras anyway. It legit might be "25M or 30M a year, my great-grandchildren are now taken care of, so what's the difference?" 2. No deferred money in this deal, whereas $100M of the Nats deal was deferred. That makes a huge difference in present-day value. Deferred money does help athletes not go broke, go ask Bobby Bonilla if he likes it. Also how does that play on taxes? Does it push you into lower tax brackets? I've never had to worry about like 5 million vs 25 million yearly. Would he still need to pay the jock tax on those deferred payments? For one thing, Danredhawk explained how this works. I assume you know how inflation works as well, yes? Also, the highest tax bracket is $500k ($600k for married filing jointly). Tax brackets are not a consideration here. He's paying the same amount of tax (assuming a similar system of taxation) no matter what. If you think you're going to blow the money, the answer to that is to form a trust, not give your employer a break by paying you less money later. There is literally no logical reason to take the same amount of money over a longer period of time, which is why the Phillies deal looks worse until you know that the Nats were actually going to pay him a bunch of that money in deferred payments. ------ Separately, Nightengale reporting the Giants offered 12/310, but were told they'd need to go to $335M because of California taxes. Morosi reporting that the Dodgers offered roughly 4/180. If true, that's the offer he'd have taken if he were solely focused on maximizing his financial return, so it looks like the long-term commitment was, in fact, what he cared about. Also, that's absolutely bonkers - $45M per? Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 1, 2019 6:54:34 GMT -5
Deferred money does help athletes not go broke, go ask Bobby Bonilla if he likes it. Also how does that play on taxes? Does it push you into lower tax brackets? I've never had to worry about like 5 million vs 25 million yearly. Would he still need to pay the jock tax on those deferred payments? For one thing, Danredhawk explained how this works. I assume you know how inflation works as well, yes? Also, the highest tax bracket is $500k ($600k for married filing jointly). Tax brackets are not a consideration here. He's paying the same amount of tax (assuming a similar system of taxation) no matter what. If you think you're going to blow the money, the answer to that is to form a trust, not give your employer a break by paying you less money later. There is literally no logical reason to take the same amount of money over a longer period of time, which is why the Phillies deal looks worse until you know that the Nats were actually going to pay him a bunch of that money in deferred payments. ------ Separately, Nightengale reporting the Giants offered 12/310, but were told they'd need to go to $335M because of California taxes. Morosi reporting that the Dodgers offered roughly 4/180. If true, that's the offer he'd have taken if he were solely focused on maximizing his financial return, so it looks like the long-term commitment was, in fact, what he cared about. Also, that's absolutely bonkers - $45M per? Jesus. That is interesting regarding the SF offer and taxes. Even with the city income tax added to the PA state income tax, it’s still much lower than California’s 13 percent income tax. That does not appear to be something NBA players consider though.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 1, 2019 9:48:42 GMT -5
It doesn't add up that the Dodgers would offer 4/180 but not 13/335. If you don't think Harper is going to be worth 9/$155 four years from now (seriously, that's 17M AAV) then there's no way he's worth 4/$180 in the short term. I have trouble believing that's true.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2019 9:53:52 GMT -5
It doesn't add up that the Dodgers would offer 4/180 but not 13/335. If you don't think Harper is going to be worth 9/$155 four years from now (seriously, that's 17M AAV) then there's no way he's worth 4/$180 in the short term. I have trouble believing that's true. They only have one more year of paying Matt Kemp (who signed at age 27), so maybe they didn't want to get stuck with anyone long term again.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 1, 2019 9:56:48 GMT -5
It doesn't add up that the Dodgers would offer 4/180 but not 13/335. If you don't think Harper is going to be worth 9/$155 four years from now (seriously, that's 17M AAV) then there's no way he's worth 4/$180 in the short term. I have trouble believing that's true. They only have one more year of paying Matt Kemp (who signed at age 27), so maybe they didn't want to get stuck with anyone long term again. I mean, they don't want to "get stuck" with someone they're willing to pay $180 million dollars over four years? But that would be good thinking on their point. The Matt Kemp contract really tied their hands, which is why they didn't sign any other contracts or remain competitive in the later years of it. EDIT: Seriously, the Matt Kemp deal kind of shows how wrong your constant "that contract will kill them at the back end!" refrain with literally every long-term contract is. Kemp isn't productive anymore, but they're rich and have won six straight division titles anyway. Kemp stopped helping awhile ago, but he's not hurting, either. The problem with the Kemp contract is that he wasn't productive at the FRONT end. If the Dodgers think Harper is going to so productive in the front end that he's worth 4/$180 to do it... but aren't willing to do the long-term deal he wanted because they got "burned" by finishing in first place in every single year of the back end of Matt Kemp's contract, that's some insane reasoning right there.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 1, 2019 10:02:41 GMT -5
It doesn't add up that the Dodgers would offer 4/180 but not 13/335. If you don't think Harper is going to be worth 9/$155 four years from now (seriously, that's 17M AAV) then there's no way he's worth 4/$180 in the short term. I have trouble believing that's true. They could agree that he's worth 4/180 now and will be worth 9/155 four years from now, but it matters that they don't actually get to split up the AAV that way for tax purposes. He'd be almost 26M on the books every year, and it's very possible that he's not worth 9 years of 26M four years from now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2019 10:07:00 GMT -5
They only have one more year of paying Matt Kemp (who signed at age 27), so maybe they didn't want to get stuck with anyone long term again. I mean, they don't want to "get stuck" with someone they're willing to pay $180 million dollars over four years? But that would be good thinking on their point. The Matt Kemp contract really tied their hands, which is why they didn't sign any other contracts or remain competitive in the later years of it. EDIT: Seriously, the Matt Kemp deal kind of shows how wrong your constant "that contract will kill them at the back end!" refrain with literally every long-term contract is. Kemp isn't productive anymore, but they're rich and have won six straight division titles anyway. Kemp stopped helping awhile ago, but he's not hurting, either. The problem with the Kemp contract is that he wasn't productive at the FRONT end. If the Dodgers think Harper is going to so productive in the front end that he's worth 4/$180 to do it... but aren't willing to do the long-term deal he wanted because they got "burned" by finishing in first place in every single year of the back end of Matt Kemp's contract, that's some insane reasoning right there. Come on. Maybe they simply don't want to waste money. I said nothing about it hurting them so much that they couldn't finish in 1st place. Same thing as the Red Sox. They were paying Pablo Sandoval while winning 119 games so they must want to waste more money on the next Sandoval so they can win more championships. That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 1, 2019 10:13:22 GMT -5
They're not going to give 4/$180 to someone who they think is "the next Sandoval" in the first place, though. Kemp, Sandoval, Ellsbury, too. Individual contracts can go bad, but single bad contracts don't kill teams as long as they're otherwise smart. And if a team thinks Bryce Harper is 4/$180M good in the short term - I mean, that's insane AAV - then it doesn't add up that they're terrified of paying him $25M down the road instead. If you're looking at basically 50% higher than the previous average contract, they're saying "we think Harper is an all-time, elite, Hall of Fame level player." 13/$330 is a way more team-friendly deal than that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2019 11:01:47 GMT -5
Maybe they've decided that they do have the budget to pay him $45 million for 4 years but that at some point between year 5 and 13, they wouldn't have the budget to still be paying him $25 million per year because they'll be paying a lot more for their own players. Maybe they think there's a lot more risk in years 5-13 than there is in years 1-4 which doesn't sound that dumb to me. Maybe they don't believe the DH is coming to the NL and that he can only play in the field for 4 more years.
The Red Sox paid a premium to get guys on shorter deals just a few years ago because they knew they could afford it then, but wouldn't be able to afford the longer terms because of all the young guys that would be getting expensive.
The Dodgers don't have to be terrified of something to make a decision that doesn't make sense to you.
I mean are you saying the team is just plain stupid or do you know someone is outright lying?
Frankly, deals like this make way more sense than 13 year deals to me.
The Dodgers wouldn't even budge to go to 5 years.
|
|
|