Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Post New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 100  Next >

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS

Avatar

Posted: 8/29/2008 10:38 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


i just dont see us trading rick..it woudl be a PR nightmare...if Rick decided to elave on his own accord due to money or whateveri thin the STL fans would be upset but ultimately understand....i woudlnt, but i think the PR woudl be ok...I think Skip,Mather,Duncan,Jay,Robinson,Barton,Stavy,Haerther,Stavy,Marti are the pieces i think we may have a possibility of seeing moved before Rick or Luddy...or Rasmus...

If the Pads wanna deal..i'd talk with them

Khalil Greene, Antonelli (2b prospect in AAA), maybe Mike Adams (MLHP), Cla Meredith (MRHP)...

what woudl that take?

Skip/Duncan/Boggs/another higher level SP like Ottavino or Herron

i'm not certain we would take a guy in Headley that hasnt played 2b before as our starting 2bman ...doesnt seem to be TLR's way fo doign things...he is a great talent but isee no future here for in him..

Posted: 8/29/2008 11:19 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



thejager wrote:

i just dont see us trading rick..it woudl be a PR nightmare...if Rick decided to elave on his own accord due to money or whateveri thin the STL fans would be upset but ultimately understand....i woudlnt, but i think the PR woudl be ok...I think Skip,Mather,Duncan,Jay,Robinson,Barton,Stavy,Haerther,Stavy,Marti are the pieces i think we may have a possibility of seeing moved before Rick or Luddy...or Rasmus...

If the Pads wanna deal..i'd talk with them

Khalil Greene, Antonelli (2b prospect in AAA), maybe Mike Adams (MLHP), Cla Meredith (MRHP)...

what woudl that take?

Skip/Duncan/Boggs/another higher level SP like Ottavino or Herron

i'm not certain we would take a guy in Headley that hasnt played 2b before as our starting 2bman ...doesnt seem to be TLR's way fo doign things...he is a great talent but isee no future here for in him..

Jager,

I think you are right on time, Rick will be in St. Louis until he decides to leave.  The pads won't give Antonelli up for what you listed much less Khalil and Antonelli.  You will have to dig deeper to get both of those players.
Avatar

Posted: 8/29/2008 12:41 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


I love seeing Antonellis BB:K ratio, however, for as good as he was in single and double A he sure did struggle in AAA. Wonder what it would take to get him.
Avatar

Posted: 8/29/2008 12:57 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



RCWarrior wrote:
thejager wrote:

i just dont see us trading rick..it woudl be a PR nightmare...if Rick decided to elave on his own accord due to money or whateveri thin the STL fans would be upset but ultimately understand....i woudlnt, but i think the PR woudl be ok...I think Skip,Mather,Duncan,Jay,Robinson,Barton,Stavy,Haerther,Stavy,Marti are the pieces i think we may have a possibility of seeing moved before Rick or Luddy...or Rasmus...

If the Pads wanna deal..i'd talk with them

Khalil Greene, Antonelli (2b prospect in AAA), maybe Mike Adams (MLHP), Cla Meredith (MRHP)...

what woudl that take?

Skip/Duncan/Boggs/another higher level SP like Ottavino or Herron

i'm not certain we would take a guy in Headley that hasnt played 2b before as our starting 2bman ...doesnt seem to be TLR's way fo doign things...he is a great talent but isee no future here for in him..

Jager,

I think you are right on time, Rick will be in St. Louis until he decides to leave.  The pads won't give Antonelli up for what you listed much less Khalil and Antonelli.  You will have to dig deeper to get both of those players.

i think you are rigth about having to give up more...though Skip's value is probably riding pretty high right now for a team desperate for a CFer...combien that with his low low price and Khalil's big price and sunsequent chirpings of SD's desire to cut payroll a lot and i think we might be able to strike a bargain...

Skip + Boggs + Ryan +Jay + Ottavino or Herron
for
Khalil (and all of his contract), Antonelli, Meredith (and all fo his contract), and Adams

2009:
Rasmus/Ankiel/Pujols/Luddy/Glaus/Yadi/Greene/Pitcher/Kennedy or Barden
Carp/Waino/Piniero/Loop (re-sign)/Welle (re-sign)
Perez/franklin/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Thompson
LaRue (re-sign)/Mather or Duncan/Barton/Barden or Kennedy/Antonelli or Freese

LaRue (vs Larue .85mil)= +1.15mil
Welle (vs Welle 1mil)=  +4mil
Loop (vs Loop 5.5mil)=   +4.5mil
Ank (vs Ank .9mil)=     +9.1mil
Luddy (arb 7mil vs .411mil)= +6.589) 
Khalil 6.5mil (vs Izturis)= +3.65
Meredith .415 and FA after this year so add FA signing at 3mil(vs Springer)= -.1mil
Adams minimum (vs Villone)= -.3mil

total= +28.589 mil 
(then add other raises and Mulder buyout should put us pretty close to what we paid this year, actually quite a bit less if you include all the extra money we spent on Edmonds,Spiezio,Clement)


2010:
Rasmus/Ank/Pujols/Luddy/Wallace/Greene/Yadi/pitcher/Antonelli
Carp/Waino/Loop/Welle/Garcia
Perez/Franklin (option)/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Todd or Thompson
FA C or Anderson/Mather/Barton or Jay/Barden or FA MI/Freese or T. Greene

Luddy (vs Luddy arb 7mil)= +3mil
Wallace minimum (vs Glaus)= -10.9mil
Franklin= +.25mil
FA C at 2mil (vs LaRue)= +0mil
Antonelli (vs Kennedy 4mil)= -3.7mil

total= +11.45 mil (then add other raises puts us quite abit lower than 2009 and able to make an acquiaition if need be)

Posted: 8/29/2008 4:22 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



bodomchild wrote: I love seeing Antonellis BB:K ratio, however, for as good as he was in single and double A he sure did struggle in AAA. Wonder what it would take to get him.

Antonelli went through what Colby did I'm sorry to say.  Matt was told he was going to be the second baseman during the winter and when he was sent down to AAA wanted to take a vacation from baseball.  You will see a different Matt Antonelli this next year and he will be in San Diego from the start.  Matt played on the Ohio Warhawks with my son Cory for a few years and is a super kid.  He's a big leaguer.

Posted: 8/29/2008 4:24 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



thejager wrote:

i think you are rigth about having to give up more...though Skip's value is probably riding pretty high right now for a team desperate for a CFer...combien that with his low low price and Khalil's big price and sunsequent chirpings of SD's desire to cut payroll a lot and i think we might be able to strike a bargain...

Skip + Boggs + Ryan +Jay + Ottavino or Herron
for
Khalil (and all of his contract), Antonelli, Meredith (and all fo his contract), and Adams

2009:
Rasmus/Ankiel/Pujols/Luddy/Glaus/Yadi/Greene/Pitcher/Kennedy or Barden
Carp/Waino/Piniero/Loop (re-sign)/Welle (re-sign)
Perez/franklin/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Thompson
LaRue (re-sign)/Mather or Duncan/Barton/Barden or Kennedy/Antonelli or Freese

LaRue (vs Larue .85mil)= +1.15mil
Welle (vs Welle 1mil)=  +4mil
Loop (vs Loop 5.5mil)=   +4.5mil
Ank (vs Ank .9mil)=     +9.1mil
Luddy (arb 7mil vs .411mil)= +6.589) 
Khalil 6.5mil (vs Izturis)= +3.65
Meredith .415 and FA after this year so add FA signing at 3mil(vs Springer)= -.1mil
Adams minimum (vs Villone)= -.3mil

total= +28.589 mil 
(then add other raises and Mulder buyout should put us pretty close to what we paid this year, actually quite a bit less if you include all the extra money we spent on Edmonds,Spiezio,Clement)


2010:
Rasmus/Ank/Pujols/Luddy/Wallace/Greene/Yadi/pitcher/Antonelli
Carp/Waino/Loop/Welle/Garcia
Perez/Franklin (option)/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Todd or Thompson
FA C or Anderson/Mather/Barton or Jay/Barden or FA MI/Freese or T. Greene

Luddy (vs Luddy arb 7mil)= +3mil
Wallace minimum (vs Glaus)= -10.9mil
Franklin= +.25mil
FA C at 2mil (vs LaRue)= +0mil
Antonelli (vs Kennedy 4mil)= -3.7mil

total= +11.45 mil (then add other raises puts us quite abit lower than 2009 and able to make an acquiaition if need be)
Skips value is that of a platoon player, his average against lefty's is not gonna allow someone to play him all the time IMO.
Avatar

Posted: 8/29/2008 6:50 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 




----RCWarrior wrote: ---------------

thejager wrote:

i think you are rigth about having to give up more...though Skip's value is probably riding pretty high right now for a team desperate for a CFer...combien that with his low low price and Khalil's big price and sunsequent chirpings of SD's desire to cut payroll a lot and i think we might be able to strike a bargain...

Skip + Boggs + Ryan +Jay + Ottavino or Herron
for
Khalil (and all of his contract), Antonelli, Meredith (and all fo his contract), and Adams

2009:
Rasmus/Ankiel/Pujols/Luddy/Glaus/Yadi/Greene/Pitcher/Kennedy or Barden
Carp/Waino/Piniero/Loop (re-sign)/Welle (re-sign)
Perez/franklin/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Thompson
LaRue (re-sign)/Mather or Duncan/Barton/Barden or Kennedy/Antonelli or Freese

LaRue (vs Larue .85mil)= +1.15mil
Welle (vs Welle 1mil)=  +4mil
Loop (vs Loop 5.5mil)=   +4.5mil
Ank (vs Ank .9mil)=     +9.1mil
Luddy (arb 7mil vs .411mil)= +6.589) 
Khalil 6.5mil (vs Izturis)= +3.65
Meredith .415 and FA after this year so add FA signing at 3mil(vs Springer)= -.1mil
Adams minimum (vs Villone)= -.3mil

total= +28.589 mil 
(then add other raises and Mulder buyout should put us pretty close to what we paid this year, actually quite a bit less if you include all the extra money we spent on Edmonds,Spiezio,Clement)


2010:
Rasmus/Ank/Pujols/Luddy/Wallace/Greene/Yadi/pitcher/Antonelli
Carp/Waino/Loop/Welle/Garcia
Perez/Franklin (option)/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Todd or Thompson
FA C or Anderson/Mather/Barton or Jay/Barden or FA MI/Freese or T. Greene

Luddy (vs Luddy arb 7mil)= +3mil
Wallace minimum (vs Glaus)= -10.9mil
Franklin= +.25mil
FA C at 2mil (vs LaRue)= +0mil
Antonelli (vs Kennedy 4mil)= -3.7mil

total= +11.45 mil (then add other raises puts us quite abit lower than 2009 and able to make an acquiaition if need be)
Skips value is that of a platoon player, his average against lefty's is not gonna allow someone to play him all the time IMO.

---------------------------------------------

yet it seems like people are all for paying Ankiel for that detriment from the left side...plus Skips value/price is very economical...and his ability to hit lefties has gotten better..still anemic, but if iwere looking for a solid Cfer and got a bunch of other cheap young decent pieces and i could offload a bunch of money and a FA to be it might be worth losing one prospect who had a pretty bad jump from AA-AAA until the last month or so (if my memory serves me on Matt)...and a decent middle reliever LHP... not sayign it's gonna happen, but if it is true that the Pads want to cut salary then it might have some legs... and Skip's worth i dont think is as a platoon guy..he was that to start the year, but i think he is growing into a viable starting OFer
Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2008 12:17 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



thejager wrote:
2009:
Rasmus/Ankiel/Pujols/Luddy/Glaus/Yadi/Greene/Pitcher/Kennedy or Barden
Carp/Waino/Piniero/Loop (re-sign)/Welle (re-sign)
Perez/franklin/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Thompson
LaRue (re-sign)/Mather or Duncan/Barton/Barden or Kennedy/Antonelli or Freese

LaRue (vs Larue .85mil)= +1.15mil
Welle (vs Welle 1mil)=  +4mil
Loop (vs Loop 5.5mil)=   +4.5mil
Ank (vs Ank .9mil)=     +9.1mil
Luddy (arb 7mil vs .411mil)= +6.589) 
Khalil 6.5mil (vs Izturis 2.85mil)= +3.65
Meredith .415 and FA after this year so add FA signing at 3mil(vs Springer 3.5mil)= -.1mil
Adams minimum (vs Villone .6mil)= -.3mil

total= +28.589 mil 
(then add other raises and Mulder buyout should put us pretty close to what we paid this year, actually quite a bit less if you include all the extra money we spent on Edmonds,Spiezio,Clement)
Jager, I think you are playing fun with numbers here.  I mean, I think you are taking the $30 million number for what we have coming off of the books next year, and assuming that you are only adding $28+ million above, and so that is close enough.  But you are including in your total money that was supposed to be subtracted out by the $30 million.  I included those salaries in blue above.  So that is a $13.3 million swing (you are really adding $41 million to the $70 million payroll).  If you don't believe me, list out the 25 man roster for next year and plug in your salaries.  You are looking at around a $115 million payroll there.



This user banned by Cardinal Nation Moderators. Rest in peace.

Posted: 8/30/2008 12:43 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



easton714 wrote:
Indianole15 wrote:

You're stupid

Classy.  At least you used the correct variation of "you're".

Sorry, i get angry when speaking about the cardinals and the way our GM has handled certain situations.

Lohse has stated he wants to come back, and we turned his career around.

No, we haven't.  He has been pretty much what his numbers indicate.  He gives up a ton of hits and he doesn't strike out many.  He has been well below average since the all-star break and has regressed back towards his career averages.  He was terrific before the ASB, but he was not able to sustain it.  Now, Lohse and Looper have similar numbers...and Looper would be cheaper.

I realize he's regressed, but not many pitchers stay that hot for so long. He still has good numbers and pitched a good game last night, our rotation has always been in question of at least 1 or 2 pitchers each season unlike other teams. Looper would be cheaper, but Looper doesn't have the age factor in his defense or the upside.

Why wouldn't he sign with STL even with a lower contract than he expects?

That is a naive question.  Scott Boras is his agent.  Scott Boras clients do not sign for "lower contract[s] than he expects"...or they would not be Boras clients in the first place.

Correct, but he has stated he wants to come back. We don't necessarily have to give his asking price, except he's still a solid pitcher that would at least solidify our rotation for 3-4 years.

we need to keep him Waino, and Carp and let the rest of the rotation fight. That's what we need to be successful.

Our long term success does not hinge on Kyle Lohse.

No it doesn't, but in order to maintain a steady rotation we need to lock up guys who we are sure of instead of signing pitchers(such as clement) who are only a chance.

Why would we get rid of arguably our best starter this year?

Why would we get rid of Wainwright or Wellemeyer?

We don't, they've had great success this year as well. At the same time, why would we get rid of a guy who was a last minute pickup and was considered for the all star game?

that's ridiculous. He's proved himself already.

Proved himself to be what, exactly?

That he can pitch, and he wants to work hard in the offseason to prove he can pitch.

Name the last time besides carp we've had a pitcher with that kind of numbers in the first half.

Wainwright....this year.  And what has Lohse done SINCE the first half?

You proved me wrong.

Have garcia or boggs proved themselves? Not quite yet, they don't deserve a shot at the rotation just yet.

You are dramatically overestimating Kyle Lohse's abilities.  He is an average starter.  He showed flashes of being above average, but he has come back down to earth.

I would be interested in bringing Lohse back (because he has shown flashes of being successful under Duncan)...but not for more than three years and not in excess of $10MM AAV.  With Boras as his agent, neither are likely.

I agree, but once again we can't keep taking chances on guys like Garcia and Boggs when they're not major league ready. I disagree though that he is an average starter. We watched an average starter in Jeff Weaver become a hero, and Lohse has way more upside under the proper system than Weaver.

My fault if i angered anyone with the whole stupid comment, i'm just pretty set on the fact that i want to have a stable rotation for a while instead of being the team that acquires 1 or 2 unsure pitchers each year and hopes that they can flourish.

Avatar

Posted: 8/30/2008 3:10 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 




----AustinCardinal wrote: ---------------

thejager wrote:
2009:
Rasmus/Ankiel/Pujols/Luddy/Glaus/Yadi/Greene/Pitcher/Kennedy or Barden
Carp/Waino/Piniero/Loop (re-sign)/Welle (re-sign)
Perez/franklin/McC/Meredith/Adams/TJ/Thompson
LaRue (re-sign)/Mather or Duncan/Barton/Barden or Kennedy/Antonelli or Freese

LaRue (vs Larue .85mil)= +1.15mil
Welle (vs Welle 1mil)=  +4mil
Loop (vs Loop 5.5mil)=   +4.5mil
Ank (vs Ank .9mil)=     +9.1mil
Luddy (arb 7mil vs .411mil)= +6.589) 
Khalil 6.5mil (vs Izturis 2.85mil)= +3.65
Meredith .415 and FA after this year so add FA signing at 3mil(vs Springer 3.5mil)= -.1mil
Adams minimum (vs Villone .6mil)= -.3mil

total= +28.589 mil 
(then add other raises and Mulder buyout should put us pretty close to what we paid this year, actually quite a bit less if you include all the extra money we spent on Edmonds,Spiezio,Clement)
Jager, I think you are playing fun with numbers here.  I mean, I think you are taking the $30 million number for what we have coming off of the books next year, and assuming that you are only adding $28+ million above, and so that is close enough.  But you are including in your total money that was supposed to be subtracted out by the $30 million.  I included those salaries in blue above.  So that is a $13.3 million swing (you are really adding $41 million to the $70 million payroll).  If you don't believe me, list out the 25 man roster for next year and plug in your salaries.  You are looking at around a $115 million payroll there.

---------------------------------------------
i have already done this multiple times..and it is actually at the bottom of this page of this thread as well... what i was doing was looking at the price difference of players we might get in a Pads trade....below this is part of what i wrote about the payroll next year...

then add:
LaRue=2mil
Ankiel=10mil
Looper=8mil
Welle=5mil
Greene=6.5mil
Adams=minimum .3mil
Meredith=3mil
=34.8mil

subtract:
Skip=.399
Ryan=.396
=.795

=34.005mil

the payroll i have below with assumed normal pay increases to league minimum players...is 65.9mil...and if you add TLR (which no one really does) it goes to about 69.9

65.9 + 34.005 = 99.905mil

where are my numbers wrong?
I guess I should add Barden's money in and maybe Freese and Antonelli..but then you gotta get rid of a MRP money..but still we are looking at about 1mil max for all of that worked out..and even that might be way too much..

now you can add TLR if you want and add Mulder's buyout if you want...but i think if you do that then i think you have to factor into 2008's payroll Edmonds/Clement/Spiezio and TLR's money...which no one does..not to mention all the callups and their money...i added that money up in another post earlier in this thread i think (or maybe a different one)..which comes close to about 110mil for this years payroll...still even if you add in everything..you add about 1.5+5.5+1...which still puts us under 109mil...which is under what we spent last year...if yo uinclude the extra expenses that dont go into that 99mil dollar payroll

"
(no stars= from website other numbers other than those in parentheses are from website too)
(*=rookie so i am guessing at the minimum salary)
(**=guys we will undoubtedly re-sign)
(***=will get small raise due to service time right?)
(*****=FA)


TLR= 4mil

Pujols= 16m
Molina= 3.25m
**Ludwick=
**Ankiel=
Kennedy= 4m
Glaus= 11.25m
*Rasmus= .39m
***Skip= .396m (.399)
***Ryan= .393m (.396)
***Mather= .39m (.393)
*****FA SS=
*****FA C=
*****FA MI=
Carp= 14m
Waino= 2.6m
**Welle=
Piniero= 7.5m
*****FA SP=
***Thompson= .414m (.417)
Franklin= 2.5m
***Perez= .39m (.393)
***Johnson= .398m (.401)
*****FA LHP=
***McClellan= .39m (.393)
*Motte= .39m
***Barton= .39m (.393)
***(Duncan)= .439m (.442)
***(Kinney)= .39m (.393)

=69.9 million or 65.9mil without TLR

mlbcontracts.blogspot.c...0115041890.html
Avatar

Posted: 8/31/2008 11:56 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


This is what I think you had in mind (no, I don't count LaRussa's salary):


C -  Molina        3.25
1b - Pujols         16
2b - Kennedy    4
3b - Glaus          11.25
SS - Greene      6.5
OF - Rasmus       .4
OF - Ankiel            10
OF - Ludwick       (2.5 - should be arbitration eligible, I think)

Inf - Barden      .4 
Inf - kid             .4
OF - Duncan      .5
OF - Mather       .4
C  - LaRue          2

SP - Carpenter   14
SP - Wainwright  2.6
SP - Piniero       7.5
SP - Wellemeyer  5
SP - Looper         8

RP - Franklin       2.5
RP - McClellan     (.4)
RP - Garcia          (.4)
RP - Motte          (.4)
RP - Adams         .4
RP -  Meredith     3

CP - Perez  (.4)

Dead Money - Mulder  1.5 (buyout)


Total salary: 103.7 million.

So it is closer to what you were saying than what I thought. But I don't see any way that LaRussa goes into a season without a veteran on his bench.  I think we'll either see Miles or Lopez on or bench next year, or someone similar.  So you can add 2-3 million to the total.  Also, I don't see him going into the season with Franklin being his only veteran in the bullpen, either.  I think you can add one vet to that list, probably Springer.  So that's another 3.5 to 4 million.

Then again, I don't see them signing Looper (though I'd probably like them to), so that drops us down under the $100 million mark.  They surely have room to maneuver, though.  Hopefully we can find us a quality SS this offseason.



This user banned by Cardinal Nation Moderators. Rest in peace.

Posted: 9/1/2008 12:44 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


Actually 3 millon of Albert's money and 2 millon of Carpenter's is deferred, so you can take 5 million off those totals. Only 8 players are under contract for next season and only 5 others are eligible for arbitration. Flores is a candidate to be non-tendered, which would leave Ankiel, Ludwick, Wellemeyer and Miles to deal with. Ludwick cannot be a free agent until after the 2011 season when he will be 33. Ankiel and Wellemeyer can both be free agents after next season, so the club needs to consider multi-year deals for them. The club may also count Mulder's buyout against the season since it will happen shortly after the season.

Posted: 9/1/2008 7:42 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


Ah yes, the infamous deferred money.    So since the check is post dated or we put it on the credit card we really aren't spending it until later?
Avatar

Posted: 9/1/2008 4:14 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



CariocaCardinal wrote: Ah yes, the infamous deferred money.    So since the check is post dated or we put it on the credit card we really aren't spending it until later?


That would be the definition of deferred...
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 9:36 AM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



bodomchild wrote:
CariocaCardinal wrote: Ah yes, the infamous deferred money.    So since the check is post dated or we put it on the credit card we really aren't spending it until later?


That would be the definition of deferred...
It is still a payroll obligation, though.

Deferred does not mean that you ignore the obligation until you have to physically pay it.  It just means that you can pay current payroll obligations with future dollars (i.e. cheaper).  Intelligent businesses set that money aside immediately. 

Ask any business that has accrued deferred federal income taxes what it is like if you ignore the obligation until it is due...




This message was approved by the Easton Eye Test™.

Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 12:20 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 


all of it? i doubt that
Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 12:32 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



thejager wrote: all of it? i doubt that

Huh?  You doubt what?

Businesses (good ones) reserve for deferred liabilities.

If we are going to just wipe out the non-current portion of the obligation just because it is not current, then I would expect every single payroll projection/summary/analysis in the future to contain these deferred salary payments as current payroll obligations...and, therefore, offsetting against other potentially available salary dollars.

So...nobody would be able to complain if the team were to argue that we could not go after (or extend) a certain player because, with the deferred salaries then coming due, there just wouldn't be enough room in the payroll for new contract dollars.

No matter when they are paid, these are 2008 payroll obligations.  We are simply being loaned back a portion of the salary with zero interest.




This message was approved by the Easton Eye Test™.

Last edited 9/2/2008 12:34 PM by easton714

Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 2:39 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



easton714 wrote:
bodomchild wrote:
CariocaCardinal wrote: Ah yes, the infamous deferred money.    So since the check is post dated or we put it on the credit card we really aren't spending it until later?


That would be the definition of deferred...
It is still a payroll obligation, though.

Deferred does not mean that you ignore the obligation until you have to physically pay it.  It just means that you can pay current payroll obligations with future dollars (i.e. cheaper).  Intelligent businesses set that money aside immediately

Ask any business that has accrued deferred federal income taxes what it is like if you ignore the obligation until it is due...

sure they may take them into account..but spreading out that deferred money over time afetr the player has since left (while not cheaper than the actual salary if interest is accrued which i am nto sure if it does for these players that choose to do it) does limit the actual payroll affects for any given season no?

i may have read your post i responded to slightly wrong...but it seemed liek you said that deferred money woudl be set aside immediately...to which i responded i doubt they set it it ALL aside right away... and since you are the expert on business (and i mean this) explain why you would want to defer the money, if you were going to set it ALL aside from the beginning..seems to be better business to not have any interest acrued no matter how slight (but i am not sure if interest is accrued on their salaries if the players defer them ao i am not sure about this) ...sure you can have the option in case something horrible happens...but deferred money to me usually is reported to when the parent club needs extra cash for their immediate needs, right? Then doesn't that raise the potential active funds for the payroll of any given season? Isn't that what all of this discussion is about? Available funds for the 2009 season? Regardless if it is set aside or not that money is able to be spent in that year..so either you can up the potential payroll figures because of the excess due to the deferment or you can lower the price of the player's salary who has deferred some money right when calcualting their yearly salaries right?  You seemingly are good at all of this so i am asking for honest answers here Easton, not sarcasm or insults.

How would you figure in deferred money to a payroll calculation for any given year. Let's say Albert defers 2 mil per year and Carp defers 2mil per year.
To me that is 4mil off of any year in which that deferred money is..well, deferred right? Sure you might have to keep back some of that to pay it off in the long run, but if you keep it all back then why stretch it out?  I am thinking that in a few years we may be under what we have been dishing out for our total salary so we will be able to addd soem extra to that deferred money fund later in bigger amounts instead of in years where we are having trouble staying around 100-110mil. Even if we put away 1mil per year for the deferrment then we would pay off the deferrment relatively quick (depending on how long it is stretched out and barring any pay increases)  I am curious.

Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 3:07 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



thejager wrote:

sure they may take them into account..but spreading out that deferred money over time afetr the player has since left (while not cheaper than the actual salary if interest is accrued which i am nto sure if it does for these players that choose to do it) does limit the actual payroll affects for any given season no?

i may have read your post i responded to slightly wrong...but it seemed liek you said that deferred money woudl be set aside immediately...to which i responded i doubt they set it it ALL aside right away...

You certainly wouldn't HAVE to do so, but it would be smart to do so.  If *I* were doing it, I would take the cash flow savings generated from the deferrals and sit the money in interest-bearing short term investments (bonds, money markets, etc.), which would compound the time-value savings once the deferred money is paid off.

and since you are the expert on business (and i mean this) explain why you would want to defer the money, if you were going to set it ALL aside from the beginning..seems to be better business to not have any interest acrued no matter how slight (but i am not sure if interest is accrued on their salaries if the players defer them ao i am not sure about this) ...sure you can have the option in case something horrible happens...but deferred money to me usually is reported to when the parent club needs extra cash for their immediate needs, right? Then doesn't that raise the potential active funds for the payroll of any given season? Isn't that what all of this discussion is about? Available funds for the 2009 season? Regardless if it is set aside or not that money is able to be spent in that year..so either you can up the potential payroll figures because of the excess due to the deferment or you can lower the price of the player's salary who has deferred some money right when calcualting their yearly salaries right?  You seemingly are good at all of this so i am asking for honest answers here Easton, not sarcasm or insults.

How would you figure in deferred money to a payroll calculation for any given year. Let's say Albert defers 2 mil per year and Carp defers 2mil per year.

All current year salaries, including deferrals, would be expensed, on the income statement (profit and loss), as payroll in the given fiscal year.  Then, on the balance sheet, I would log a corresponding liability for the deferred (long term) portion.  Functionally, think of this as an unsecured, interest free loan from the player to the team.

That way, the financial benefit of the deferral is on cash flow and not profitability.  In other words, doing it that way would have tax benefits to the organization (i.e. the entire amount of the player's salary, including the deferral, would be tax deductible in the current fiscal year).


To me that is 4mil off of any year in which that deferred money is..well, deferred right? Sure you might have to keep back some of that to pay it off in the long run, but if you keep it all back then why stretch it out?  I am thinking that in a few years we may be under what we have been dishing out for our total salary so we will be able to addd soem extra to that deferred money fund later in bigger amounts instead of in years where we are having trouble staying around 100-110mil. Even if we put away 1mil per year for the deferrment then we would pay off the deferrment relatively quick (depending on how long it is stretched out and barring any pay increases)  I am curious.

I am not saying that we wouldn't be able to use the cash flow savings to spend in other areas in the short term.  I simply, as a financial analyst by trade, am weary of the trend to backload contracts and defer payroll.  I don't think, in general, that it is smart business...unless you reserve against the increased future liabilities.  If you can do that, you can come out ahead.  If not, you are rolling the proverbial dice. 

I create and analyze budgets, forecasts, and financial results for a living.  I just don't like committing future revenue towards current obligations.  That is a slippery slope to walk.




This message was approved by the Easton Eye Test™.

Last edited 9/2/2008 5:40 PM by easton714

Avatar

Posted: 9/2/2008 3:45 PM

Re: TRADES/RUMORS/TRADE IDEAS 



easton714 wrote:
thejager wrote:

sure they may take them into account..but spreading out that deferred money over time afetr the player has since left (while not cheaper than the actual salary if interest is accrued which i am nto sure if it does for these players that choose to do it) does limit the actual payroll affects for any given season no?

i may have read your post i responded to slightly wrong...but it seemed liek you said that deferred money woudl be set aside immediately...to which i responded i doubt they set it it ALL aside right away...

You certainly wouldn't HAVE to do so, but it would be smart to do so.  If *I* were doing it, I would take the cash flow savings generated from the deferrals and sit the money in interest-bearing short term investments (bonds, money markets, etc.), which would compound the time-value savings once the money is deferral is paid off.

and since you are the expert on business (and i mean this) explain why you would want to defer the money, if you were going to set it ALL aside from the beginning..seems to be better business to not have any interest acrued no matter how slight (but i am not sure if interest is accrued on their salaries if the players defer them ao i am not sure about this) ...sure you can have the option in case something horrible happens...but deferred money to me usually is reported to when the parent club needs extra cash for their immediate needs, right? Then doesn't that raise the potential active funds for the payroll of any given season? Isn't that what all of this discussion is about? Available funds for the 2009 season? Regardless if it is set aside or not that money is able to be spent in that year..so either you can up the potential payroll figures because of the excess due to the deferment or you can lower the price of the player's salary who has deferred some money right when calcualting their yearly salaries right?  You seemingly are good at all of this so i am asking for honest answers here Easton, not sarcasm or insults.

How would you figure in deferred money to a payroll calculation for any given year. Let's say Albert defers 2 mil per year and Carp defers 2mil per year.

All current year salaries, including deferments, would be expensed, on the income statement (profit and loss), as payroll in the given fiscal year.  Then, on the balance sheet, I would log a corresponding liability for the deferred (long term) portion.  Functionally, think of this as an unsecured, interest free loan from the player to the team.

That way, the financial benefit of the deferral is on cash flow and not profitability.  In other words, doing it that way would have tax benefits to the organization (i.e. the entire amount of the player's salary, including the deferral, would be tax deductible in the current fiscal year).


To me that is 4mil off of any year in which that deferred money is..well, deferred right? Sure you might have to keep back some of that to pay it off in the long run, but if you keep it all back then why stretch it out?  I am thinking that in a few years we may be under what we have been dishing out for our total salary so we will be able to addd soem extra to that deferred money fund later in bigger amounts instead of in years where we are having trouble staying around 100-110mil. Even if we put away 1mil per year for the deferrment then we would pay off the deferrment relatively quick (depending on how long it is stretched out and barring any pay increases)  I am curious.

I am not saying that we wouldn't be able to use the cash flow savings to spend in other areas in the short term.  I simply, as a financial analyst by trade, am weary of the trend to backload contracts and defer payroll.  I don't think, in general, that it is smart business...unless you reserve against the increased future liabilities.  If you can do that, you can come out ahead.  If not, you are rolling the proverbial dice. 

I create and analyze budgets, forecasts, and financial results for a living.  I just don't like committing future revenue towards current obligations.  That is a slippery slope to walk.


great response...very cool info... i agree, i think it is a slippery slope...still, i think if we are getting a good chunk of deferment it woudlnt surprise me if we use some of that to offset "extra" expenses each year with regards to thigns like contract buyouts, september callups, extra moves during the year from memphis etc. 

Another question though, dont you think Mulder's buyout shoudl be included in THIS year's budget not next year's?  I mean if you picked upthe option then sure it shoudl go in that year's budget...but if you pay to not have him on the team it seems liek it shodul go with the previous year's budget.  Also, would you include as payroll coaching staff and GM slaires for total payroll for the team for the year? In my total calculations of this year's budget (barring D. Duncan, coachign staff, Moz salary, etc.) i got out to around 110ishmil...if you add in Mulder then it goes up a bit...also, it would be interesting to see exactly how much we shelled out toeach player we calledu , since dont they just geta pro-rated amount due to the minimum salary, not the full amount for the rest of the year once they get the call right even if they go back down?  Also, calculating all the bonuses etc. would be an interesting read for total salary for the 2008 year. anyways...

Post New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 100  Next >