Deferred Money

[wildcat83]

I didn't start a new thread about this yesterday because a part of me refused to believe this wasn't a April Fools joke. Apparently the Nationals offer to Harper contained deferred payments all the way through the year 2072.

 

When we get to the new collective bargaining agreement, is there a possibility that MLB could limit the amount of money/years can be deferred on contracts? Allowing contracts to be deferred out 50+ years could affect competitive balance in the present if some do and some don't. You would think players would not sign those types of deals, but you never know. Seems odd to not restrict at least the total number of years out you can go.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-says-he-was-ready-to-go-back-to-nationals-reportedly-got-offer-that-wouldve-paid-him-in-2072/

[clancyphile]

I didn't start a new thread about this yesterday because a part of me refused to believe this wasn't a April Fools joke. Apparently the Nationals offer to Harper contained deferred payments all the way through the year 2072.

 

When we get to the new collective bargaining agreement, is there a possibility that MLB could limit the amount of money/years can be deferred on contracts? Allowing contracts to be deferred out 50+ years could affect competitive balance in the present if some do and some don't. You would think players would not sign those types of deals, but you never know. Seems odd to not restrict at least the total number of years out you can go.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-says-he-was-ready-to-go-back-to-nationals-reportedly-got-offer-that-wouldve-paid-him-in-2072/

 

Personally, I would not object to having the long-term deferred money. I think MLBPA should fight to make sure that the team ensures that the money is going to be there (maybe through insurance, etc.) - but thinking of Hack Wilson (the single-season RBI leader) and how he died penniless, and other athletes who lose the fortunes they had from big contracts... deferred money could be a lifesaver.

[JosephC]

If I was a player, I would completely reject pretty much any mention of a deferred payment unless the amount of the deferral was something ridiculous...say literally five times the amount of the payment I would receive today and was delayed for 5 years. And even if they offered me 10 times the amount of money I would make today, I would still reject it if the payments were happening more than 10 years down the road. Just on basic principle, why would I want someone else to hold MY MONEY and make money off of MY MONEY. Then there are always the other unknowns. In the deferred payments until 2072 situation...well that does nothing for me if I develop cancer and die in 2035. What happens if World War III breaks out in 2040 and brings an end to professional sport leagues? What if, in 2030, they decided to tax all income over 500k at an 80% rate? Give me my money now, thank you very much!

 

I'm pretty sure Boras got a good laugh out of the National's proposal and didn't give it much of any consideration. I wouldn't have either.

[folly412]

Getting even more obnoxious than the Bobby Bonilla deal. Interesting note in the story below on tax implications though. Could be appealing to some players if they can get a reasonable interest rate on the deferrals plus compound it by moving to a tax-free state once they retire, at least until states catch up to the trick.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/16650867/why-mets-pay-bobby-bonilla-119-million-today-every-july-1-2035

[BrewFan130]

Can’t say I’d want anything to do with deferred money myself, but I’m perfectly okay with teams offering terms with deferred payments for as many years as they want. These athletes are adults and have financial advisors to help them work through these decisions. I do think the money needs to be guaranteed, afterall the financial situation of teams can change dramatically over 30 years. I think some people might think it’s impossible for a MLB team to go belly up, but nobody can predict the future especially decades down the road. I guess the only possible way I’d be interested in a deferred payment was if it was interest bearing.

[HiAndTight]

I didn't start a new thread about this yesterday because a part of me refused to believe this wasn't a April Fools joke. Apparently the Nationals offer to Harper contained deferred payments all the way through the year 2072.

 

When we get to the new collective bargaining agreement, is there a possibility that MLB could limit the amount of money/years can be deferred on contracts? Allowing contracts to be deferred out 50+ years could affect competitive balance in the present if some do and some don't. You would think players would not sign those types of deals, but you never know. Seems odd to not restrict at least the total number of years out you can go.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-says-he-was-ready-to-go-back-to-nationals-reportedly-got-offer-that-wouldve-paid-him-in-2072/

 

 

There are a lot of ways you could talk about this impacting the CBA, but I'm pretty sure with regard to the luxury tax, they figure the deferred money as you would for a signing bonus in the NFL. Just take the total amount and divide it by the years in the deal. So for the Nats for example, Scherzer has a ton of money deferred, I believe it may be up to 10 million a year. So if he's getting 15 million this year with 10 deferred, for luxury and CBA related issues, they use the 25 million dollar figure.

 

This would only NOT be a comical deal if for instance, it was the same deal he signed with the Phils, but they added on 25 million and paid him a million a year in deferred money. I'd only be interested if it was a bonus to get me to sign on, a pension type arrangement.

 

This was obviously not that and really kinda insulting how they did the whole thing. It KINDA reminds me of the Brewers and Molitor. Just tell the guy you appreciate everything he's done, celebrate him and wish him luck. Don't insult him just so you can say, "hey, we tried." They were better off paying Corbin half as much. They have the pitching and they still have plenty of offense.

[dlk9s]

I've been deferring money my whole life.

[JimH5]

Anyone with a Pension plan is earning deferred money.

 

It's part of the compensation that you're earning now, to be paid at a later date.

[Roderick]

I didn't start a new thread about this yesterday because a part of me refused to believe this wasn't a April Fools joke. Apparently the Nationals offer to Harper contained deferred payments all the way through the year 2072.

 

When we get to the new collective bargaining agreement, is there a possibility that MLB could limit the amount of money/years can be deferred on contracts? Allowing contracts to be deferred out 50+ years could affect competitive balance in the present if some do and some don't. You would think players would not sign those types of deals, but you never know. Seems odd to not restrict at least the total number of years out you can go.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-says-he-was-ready-to-go-back-to-nationals-reportedly-got-offer-that-wouldve-paid-him-in-2072/

 

Personally, I would not object to having the long-term deferred money. I think MLBPA should fight to make sure that the team ensures that the money is going to be there (maybe through insurance, etc.) - but thinking of Hack Wilson (the single-season RBI leader) and how he died penniless, and other athletes who lose the fortunes they had from big contracts... deferred money could be a lifesaver.

 

I would think that an athlete could sell his deferred compensation. It is known and contracted and earned. The pay would be to the player, but I'm sure JG Wentworth would put up the legal paperwork to make sure they got the dibs on the money. It's my money and I need it now!!! Then they can blow that. Tax attorneys?

[HiAndTight]

I didn't start a new thread about this yesterday because a part of me refused to believe this wasn't a April Fools joke. Apparently the Nationals offer to Harper contained deferred payments all the way through the year 2072.

 

When we get to the new collective bargaining agreement, is there a possibility that MLB could limit the amount of money/years can be deferred on contracts? Allowing contracts to be deferred out 50+ years could affect competitive balance in the present if some do and some don't. You would think players would not sign those types of deals, but you never know. Seems odd to not restrict at least the total number of years out you can go.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-says-he-was-ready-to-go-back-to-nationals-reportedly-got-offer-that-wouldve-paid-him-in-2072/

 

Personally, I would not object to having the long-term deferred money. I think MLBPA should fight to make sure that the team ensures that the money is going to be there (maybe through insurance, etc.) - but thinking of Hack Wilson (the single-season RBI leader) and how he died penniless, and other athletes who lose the fortunes they had from big contracts... deferred money could be a lifesaver.

 

 

MLB has one of the best retirement programs in....well the world. You play in the bigs one day, you get life insurance for life. That right there for a couple in their 60's right now could have a value of 30+K a year.

 

Beyond that, Hack Wilson would have been pulling a pension of over 200K in today's game. So players won't die penniless. They may not die wealthy if they waste their money, but they'll always have enough to get by better than the average person.