Brewers made 1 year offer to Cobb

[TJseven7]

And so are pitching prospects so there's a lot of finger crossing to go around.

[82brewcrew82]

Can’t up their payroll because signing free agents pitchers is a crapshoot and the brewers are smart enough to realize that. Not blue.

Stop it, just stop it. You interject to every thread your hatred for signing free agent pitchers. It's annoying! (totally in blue)

[pacopete4]

Can’t up their payroll because signing free agents pitchers is a crapshoot and the brewers are smart enough to realize that. Not blue.

Stop it, just stop it. You interject to every thread your hatred for signing free agent pitchers. It's annoying! (totally in blue)

enjoyed this

[coolhandluke121]

Yeah and that stearns blurb really screams our budget is lower than we hope. We are essentially capped til 2021 if thats the case. :-/

 

Really thought 110 was realistic.

 

But the main reason they can't go to 110 is because of previous bad financial decisions. They're still paying guys like Garza, whom they never should have signed in the first place, and Ramirez, whom they had no business keeping after 2012 under the circumstances (they clearly needed to rebuild, he was aging, and his salary was going way up every year).

 

All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

[TJseven7]

Yeah and that stearns blurb really screams our budget is lower than we hope. We are essentially capped til 2021 if thats the case. :-/

 

Really thought 110 was realistic.

 

But the main reason they can't go to 110 is because of previous bad financial decisions. They're still paying guys like Garza, whom they never should have signed in the first place, and Ramirez, whom they had no business keeping after 2012 under the circumstances (they clearly needed to rebuild, he was aging, and his salary was going way up every year).

 

All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

 

I was told defered money saves teams money. Now I'm being told we are broke because defered money? Something doesn't add up. (Not saying its your stance luke)

[82brewcrew82]

All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

So are you saying unequivocally that you think Cain will be worth what he is being paid five years from now?

[istanbultaye]

Yeah and that stearns blurb really screams our budget is lower than we hope. We are essentially capped til 2021 if thats the case. :-/

 

Really thought 110 was realistic.

 

But the main reason they can't go to 110 is because of previous bad financial decisions. They're still paying guys like Garza, whom they never should have signed in the first place, and Ramirez, whom they had no business keeping after 2012 under the circumstances (they clearly needed to rebuild, he was aging, and his salary was going way up every year).

 

All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

 

I was told defered money saves teams money. Now I'm being told we are broke because defered money? Something doesn't add up. (Not saying its your stance luke)

 

Deferred money is tricky balance. Clearly, in the short term it keeps some payroll flexibility available. But, it has to get paid sometime, and when the bill hits it's taking away down the road... when the player is no longer with the team. I think they have $10m in deferred salaries this year when I looked a few days ago.

[monty57]

I was told defered money saves teams money. Now I'm being told we are broke because defered money? Something doesn't add up. (Not saying its your stance luke)

 

Deferred money is tricky balance. Clearly, in the short term it keeps some payroll flexibility available. But, it has to get paid sometime, and when the bill hits it's taking away down the road... when the player is no longer with the team. I think they have $10m in deferred salaries this year when I looked a few days ago.

 

The argument is not that deferred contracts save money, but that they save purchasing power. That theory on an individual basis is sound, but teams abuse it, using deferred contracts so they can afford to sign more players today, when it will necessarily mean that they will not be able to afford more players in the future when the deferred money is paid out.

 

It's a liability on the books with no corresponding asset (unfunded liability), therefore the liability has to be paid out of current revenues (or borrowed), leaving less money to go elsewhere.

[Roderick]

 

Deferred money is tricky balance. Clearly, in the short term it keeps some payroll flexibility available. But, it has to get paid sometime, and when the bill hits it's taking away down the road... when the player is no longer with the team. I think they have $10m in deferred salaries this year when I looked a few days ago.

 

I have ARam $3.0, Krod $2.0, Lohse $2.33, Garza $2.0

 

Deferred salaries are an important tool to use when negotiating salary. Because I think alot of the agents want the biggest dollar total to publicize. So if you want to get the agent on your side, give them that big total, but defer the crap out of it. I am talking about the non-interest earning deferments obviously.

 

As a financial guy, I'm sure Mark A and crew have no problem budgeting properly so that tomorrow is not unduly paying for today. I'm sure the Brewers operating budgets is detailed for many years out.

[monty57]

As a financial guy, I'm sure Mark A and crew have no problem budgeting properly so that tomorrow is not unduly paying for today. I'm sure the Brewers operating budgets is detailed for many years out.

 

I'm a "financial guy" too, and the only way I know how to do this would be to fund the liability with a corresponding asset that is appreciating at the level of inflation plus any interest earned in the deferral.

 

Otherwise, the deferred payments have to either come out of future earned revenue or be borrowed.

 

By "operating budgets," are you assuming that the Brewers will pay deferred money out of non-payroll expenses like concessions? That would seem odd. Deferred contracts mean that future payrolls will be less than they could be if the deferrals were not present. The payroll may be higher in five years than it is today, but if there is deferred money involved, it is lower than it could have been if the deferred money wasn't there. There's really no other way around it.

[torts]

edited for correction

 

the deferred money is most likely just set aside from this seasons earnings (and subsequent seasons) and then distributed across the deferred years per contract (either with interest, or without). There is without doubt value in structuring contracts like this for baseball franchises in a "spend more now" mode or else you wouldn't see it done in a non-cap league (where in cap leagues is where the true value lies with deferred earnings).

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I am kind of surprised to see this is no longer locked... but not surprised to see posts deleted. this forum is quiet possibly the most confusing when it comes to post/data integrity. I understand deleting posts that are inflammatory or derogatory, but I think some mods take it a bit far. There was some decent discussion within those posts you deleted

 

the deferred money is most likely just set aside from this seasons earnings (and subsequent seasons) and then distributed across the deferred years per contract (either with interest, or without). There is without doubt value in structuring contracts like this for baseball franchises in a "spend more now" mode or else you wouldn't see it done in a non-cap league (where in cap leagues is where the true value lies with deferred earnings).

 

This is the thread that got locked: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=36521

[torts]

the deferred money is most likely just set aside from this seasons earnings (and subsequent seasons) and then distributed across the deferred years per contract (either with interest, or without). There is without doubt value in structuring contracts like this for baseball franchises in a "spend more now" mode or else you wouldn't see it done in a non-cap league (where in cap leagues is where the true value lies with deferred earnings).

 

This is the thread that got locked: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=36521

 

thanks, I removed that first paragraph as a result!

[monty57]

edited for correction

 

the deferred money is most likely just set aside from this seasons earnings (and subsequent seasons) and then distributed across the deferred years per contract (either with interest, or without). There is without doubt value in structuring contracts like this for baseball franchises in a "spend more now" mode or else you wouldn't see it done in a non-cap league (where in cap leagues is where the true value lies with deferred earnings).

 

I had a long post typed, but didn't want to bore people to death :-)

 

Deferred salary is essentially a loan from the player to the team. Like any loan a business takes, they invest the money from the loan in an attempt to get a higher return on their investment than the loan costs them.

 

Teams wouldn't do this just to stick it in a savings account. The value is that they can add more payroll in a year they are trying to win, with full knowledge that at some point in the future they will need to pay for it. It is possible they pay for it with increased ticket sales and maybe playoff revenue, but it's also possible it blows up and the team stinks even with the additional player. It's also possible that the team gets "greedy," and even with increased revenues they just add more payroll and don't address the unfunded liability. A lot of smart people have been beaten by debt.

 

Like credit cards, bank loans, or "no money down" promos, this is a financial tool. That tool can be used wisely or it can be used foolishly. Either way, it's a liability (debt) and that debt eventually needs to be repaid.

[coolhandluke121]

 

I was told defered money saves teams money. Now I'm being told we are broke because defered money? Something doesn't add up. (Not saying its your stance luke)

 

I don't remember them saying it saved the team money, at least not in any significant way. It might have complex escrow and tax implications, but I always thought it was understood that it's the quintessential example of kicking the can down the road. It's basically just "we can't spend that much this year, but we want to pay this guy, so let's defer it".

 

I think the best part of the article was when Stearns said everything has a cost, and whatever you pay now is something you can't pay later. I think they did the right thing by saving so much for later. Change happens fast, and they'll soon be glad they did.

[coolhandluke121]

All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

So are you saying unequivocally that you think Cain will be worth what he is being paid five years from now?

 

I have no idea where you're getting that. It's not appropriate to suggest people said things they didn't say in order to diminish their argument.

 

It's also silly to put it in those terms; clearly, the question is whether he's worth the contract they gave him over 5 years, not whether he's worth the last year of his deal. I believe there's better than a 60% chance he will be; I put the odds on Arrieta, Cobb, and Darvish all quite a bit lower than that.

 

No, I'm glad because they are trying to win without making the type of impulsive decisions that impatient casual fans like Mark Attanasio would make. It's easy to set up for the future when you tank, and it's easy to win more than 85 games if you build a great future and then mortgage it every chance you get. On the other hand, it's very hard to be as good as they are and still be set up remarkably well for the short and long-term future, especially when you're a small market team, but they're walking that line beautifully.

[Roderick]

As a financial guy, I'm sure Mark A and crew have no problem budgeting properly so that tomorrow is not unduly paying for today. I'm sure the Brewers operating budgets is detailed for many years out.

 

I'm a "financial guy" too, and the only way I know how to do this would be to fund the liability with a corresponding asset that is appreciating at the level of inflation plus any interest earned in the deferral.

 

Otherwise, the deferred payments have to either come out of future earned revenue or be borrowed.

 

By "operating budgets," are you assuming that the Brewers will pay deferred money out of non-payroll expenses like concessions? That would seem odd. Deferred contracts mean that future payrolls will be less than they could be if the deferrals were not present. The payroll may be higher in five years than it is today, but if there is deferred money involved, it is lower than it could have been if the deferred money wasn't there. There's really no other way around it.

 

I'm an accountant and this is not rocket science (would any rocket scientists think accounting is hard?). The tax reporting books will have a deferred liability from year earned. So they time the deductions so that they are not rollercoastering the net income and net loss for owner tax reporting. NBD.

 

So the biggest issue is cash flow. I assume quite a bit of non-payroll planning is coordinated with player deferred payments. Last year not as much deferred payroll, so we can fund the concourse improvements. This year is maybe mostly taken up by deferred payroll. Next year, when deferred payroll goes down to $2.0M, they will pay for the brunt of the spring training facility (haven't read on timeline of project), etc. Just to give some very simple examples.

[MrTPlush]

It isn’t saving or costing a team anything directly. It definitely is costing the player though as having that money today is way more valuable than having it 5 years from now. Though I am sure this is taken into consideration if they are looking for the best deal possible.

[82brewcrew82]

I have no idea where you're getting that. It's not appropriate to suggest people said things they didn't say in order to diminish their argument.

 

It's also silly to put it in those terms; clearly, the question is whether he's worth the contract they gave him over 5 years, not whether he's worth the last year of his deal. I believe there's better than a 60% chance he will be; I put the odds on Arrieta, Cobb, and Darvish all quite a bit lower than that.

 

No, I'm glad because they are trying to win without making the type of impulsive decisions that impatient casual fans like Mark Attanasio would make. It's easy to set up for the future when you tank, and it's easy to win more than 85 games if you build a great future and then mortgage it every chance you get. On the other hand, it's very hard to be as good as they are and still be set up remarkably well for the short and long-term future, especially when you're a small market team, but they're walking that line beautifully.

C'mon now. I never attributed anything to you that you didn't say. I asked you a question based on a statement you made, nothing more. Which you already know because you answered the question in your second paragraph.

 

What is the difference between the Ramirez signing and the Cain signing. Both were aging players at a position of need in attempt to keep a marginally talented team competitive. Neither were likely to hold the value of their contract through the entirety of said contact. ALL players are judged on what they are getting paid at the time they are performing. What's silly is paying players for past performance which is essentially what the contract is doing knowing full well that the back end is probably going to be a loser.

 

I don't think they are walking any line except the one that walks directly into mediocrity. They did mortgage a large part of the future. They just didn't go far enough to make it worth it. They did impulsively sign a big ticket free agent because they thought they could get pitching for Santana. They just weren't impulsive enough to finish it off. No, they aren't threading a needle, they are hitting it with a sledge hammer.

[Brewer Fever]

Cobb's not too inspiring Orioles debut today...

 

IP: 3.2

H: 10

R: 8

ER: 7

BB: 1

K: 0

HR: 2

 

Not the kind of debut that makes you feel bad about not getting a guy who some here considered "must-have". Zero strikeouts is definitely concerning.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I think the 1-year deal tells a story. The Brewers didn’t want to be locked into these guys for multiple years based on what we have currently and coming up as well as it probably shows they didn’t think all that highly of Cobb as a rotation changer. Good for them for sticking with their guns. Hopefully it will all work out for them.

 

This. I think the story is the Brewers lime their pitching and only want to add the top-end guys. Like it or not, we will see hoe it plays out over 2-3 yrs.

[adambr2]

Cobb's not too inspiring Orioles debut today...

 

IP: 3.2

H: 10

R: 8

ER: 7

BB: 1

K: 0

HR: 2

 

Not the kind of debut that makes you feel bad about not getting a guy who some here considered "must-have". Zero strikeouts is definitely concerning.

 

 

You literally said this 2 weeks ago:

 

"It's silly to draw conclusions on a player's season after 3 innings. It's silly to predict Cy Young and silly to call someone is a bust. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Sweeping comments dramatically positive or negative at this point make the person saying them look like a fool."

 

I'm not saying you're wrong about Cobb and I'm not saying we will regret not getting him. But you can't tell everyone how silly it is to draw any conclusions after one game and then play the "I told you so" game after 1 game with people who wanted Cobb.

[Brewer Fever]

Don't believe I drew any conclusions. Do you see me calling Cobb a bust? Just said it wasn't a good start. Hard to argue with that. Good try though.

 

In fact, I'll go so far as to say I think he'll wind up having an average year. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this winds up being his worst start in 2018. My stance on Cobb is (and has been) that it's no big deal we didn't get him. If you're going to invest, invest in difference makers, even at premium prices. I don't think Cobb is a difference maker. At least one person here clearly pegs Cobb as a difference maker, which to me is very odd.

[adambr2]

Don't believe I drew any conclusions. Just said it wasn't a good start. Hard to argue with that. Good try though.

 

You said 'Zero strikeouts is definitely concerning.' After you told everyone that sweeping comments at this point either positive or negative make someone look like a fool.

 

But fine if you want to get mad at me for pointing out the inconsistency.

 

Anyway, after a very abbreviated spring, not too surprising that Cobb was rusty, against a good lineup to boot. Time will tell whether this was a good investment or not.

[adambr2]

Depends on if he gets his split change back. If he does I think he could be as much of a difference maker as any other 2018 SP free agent. For 2-3 years anyway.