PDA

View Full Version : Dempster Defers Portion of 2010 Salary



Tehjosha
05-28-2010, 05:53 PM
Ryan Dempster will defer $3MM of his $12.5MM salary this year at little or no interest to give the Cubs the flexibility to make moves, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Dempster will receive $1MM of the deferred money by February 2011, $1MM by February 2012 and the final $1MM by February 2013. The rest of his contract is unchanged, so Dempster will still make $13.5MM in 2011 and retain his $14MM player option for 2012.

Via Rosenthal's twitter. Can't link to twitter her at work.

Tehjosha
05-28-2010, 05:59 PM
Eh, just saw that this was being discussed in the IGT. Delete if needed.

Ron!n
05-28-2010, 06:00 PM
It probably deserves its own thread anyway.

Classy act by a classy guy.

jiggin
05-28-2010, 06:17 PM
wow...what a great guy, seriously.

if the cubs had 24 other guys like him I would expect the following players to be signed in the off-season:

Joe Mauer, Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Carlos Pena, J.J. Hardy, Derek Jeter, Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, Brandon Inge, Mike Lowell, Carl Crawford, Michael Cuddyer, Adam Dunn, Brad Hawpe, Magglio Ordonez and Jayson Werth, Josh Beckett, Brandon Webb, Cliff Lee, Matt Cain, Roy Halladay, Aaron Harang, Ted Lilly, Brian Fuentes, J.J. Putz, Mariano Rivera, Huston Street and Kerry Wood.

Man...the cubs are going to be AWESOME!

Tabou71
05-28-2010, 06:24 PM
wow, talk about a nice change of pace. he is a competitor...very classy. hes earned more respect from me.

Tabou71
05-28-2010, 06:27 PM
btw, if im not mistaken, didnt sutcliffe do this back in the 80s when they were fishing for dawson?...i remember my friend and i would read the paper every day to hear the latest about getting him, and they mentioned one time sutcliffe offered a reduction...anyone know for sure?

BcEuAbRsS
05-28-2010, 06:28 PM
So this means we have to make a move right?

Ron!n
05-28-2010, 06:34 PM
So this means we have to make a move right?
Probably and hopefully.

Although i wonder how big of a salary this means we can take in. All reports have indicated that we have enough salary to add pieces, but add Dempster's 3 million to that and could we be going after something big?

Bearsfan54
05-28-2010, 06:48 PM
Cliff Lee?
Or maybe Heath Bell

Ron!n
05-28-2010, 06:50 PM
Cliff Lee?
Or maybe Heath Bell
Well we already have enough starting pitching and as far as Bell goes, SD isnt selling and our pen has definitely improved.

CUBDOM4life
05-28-2010, 06:50 PM
Wow.

RedHeadsRule
05-28-2010, 07:06 PM
I've wanted a reliever for a while now, but if Cashner is coming up soon, I'd maybe hold off on trying acquire one. A Cashner-Marshall-Marmol combo to end a game has a chance to be very good.

I'd really like a new second baseman, but I have no idea who is available.

StrandedCub
05-28-2010, 07:09 PM
To be honest, I don't see many places we have openings for. Obviously a RP, but the BP has pitched much better of late. And as mentioned, if Cashner is coming up soon then I am not sure I really want to waste much on a RP.

Second base is the only other place that we can upgrade... But again, who is out there that is actually better than what we already have?

Vandelay16
05-28-2010, 07:15 PM
Dan Uggla?

Mell413
05-28-2010, 07:33 PM
Classy move by Dempster. There are not many teams that are out of contention. So I'm not sure who is available at the moment. Soria might be possible. A Marshall/Soria/Marmol bullpen sounds great but I don't think it's an effective use of resources. The bullpen has been pitching well latel

The Mariners are underachieving so Lee may be available, but I don't think starting pitching is a huge concern, but anytime an ace becomes available I think you have to consider it.

The biggest problems now are Lee and Ramirez. Although Lee has been hitting better lately. Aramis isn't going anywhere so I think we are stuck with him. Realistically 2B is the only offensive position you can upgrade. So maybe Uggla. I wonder how big the team is thinking here.

gocubs2118
05-28-2010, 07:36 PM
Doesn't it seem like Uggla is on the trading block every year but is never traded?

Acronym
05-28-2010, 07:37 PM
What a great guy. It'll be sad to see him leave when his contract is up.

If the Cubs got Uggla I would cream myself. Even though I still kind of hate him for that ASG '08 fiasco.

Also, he kind of looks like Rex Grossman, and that grinds my gears.

NORTH10
05-28-2010, 07:41 PM
Class act guy. He realizes this organization gave him another chance; now he is returning the favor.

There are not many players in baseball who would do this...almost none.

Brad IBCB
05-28-2010, 07:44 PM
More reason to like this guy.

turnaround3
05-28-2010, 08:52 PM
Dan Uggla?

I have been calling this name for a month and a half now.

Cubby
05-28-2010, 09:07 PM
Get Cliff Lee. The only place we can improve is 2B, but no one that's better is available besides Uggla. But there's a reason he's never been traded, mecause the Marlins ask for WAY too much. So just get an ace in Cliff Lee. NOW!

Acronym
05-28-2010, 09:12 PM
Get Cliff Lee. The only place we can improve is 2B, but no one that's better is available besides Uggla. But there's a reason he's never been traded, mecause the Marlins ask for WAY too much. So just get an ace in Cliff Lee. NOW!

The starting pitching outside of a couple games has been phenomenal, and is the only reason this team isn't in the cellar right now.

We need offense, and bad. Dan Uggla + a very solid RP would put this team right in it.

fabian555
05-28-2010, 09:47 PM
Hey, Alfonso,Aramis,Carlos Z. ( How much are u guys giving back????????? To help out.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 09:55 PM
Hey, Alfonso,Aramis,Carlos Z. ( How much are u guys giving back????????? To help out.
While I appreciate Dempster's self-sacrifice. It's entirely unfair to hold other players to the same standard.

Do you make it a habit of paying your employer or skipping paychecks?

Matchstckman
05-28-2010, 09:56 PM
It's being reported now that this happened in the off-season and was to get Nady. Still cool though.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:13 PM
While I appreciate Dempster's self-sacrifice. It's entirely unfair to hold other players to the same standard.

Do you make it a habit of paying your employer or skipping paychecks?

I don't make millions of dollars, but he really isn't paying his employers, he's still getting the money, Just over a longer period of time. Yes he loses the interest but seriously, he's making millions. It's not like he deferred his whole salary. You can't compare lower/middle class to high class when talking about deferring money. That's just about as stupid is as stupid does.. :pity:

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:19 PM
I don't make millions of dollars, but he really isn't paying his employers, he's still getting the money, Just over a longer period of time. Yes he loses the interest but seriously, he's making millions. It's not like he deferred his whole salary. You can't compare lower/middle class to high class when talking about deferring money. That's just about as stupid is as stupid does.. :pity:
It's entirely irrelevant. It's his money, and he's by definition losing value by deferring it. He may be able to afford to, that does not mean he is required to.

High income or not, your money is your money and you can do with it as you wish. It's incredibly presumptuous of you as a fan expecting a player to do something like this. It's akin to telling a public official(or a military member for that matter) that your taxes pay their salary so they must do whats in your best interest.

Dmac
05-28-2010, 10:22 PM
btw, if im not mistaken, didnt sutcliffe do this back in the 80s when they were fishing for dawson?...i remember my friend and i would read the paper every day to hear the latest about getting him, and they mentioned one time sutcliffe offered a reduction...anyone know for sure?

That was actually discussed at the last Cubs convention. Dawson and Sutcliffe were on one of the seminar panels that I went to. They talked about when Dawson signed with the Cubs, and then he told Sutcliffe that he was still waiting for the money he promised him to sign with the Cubs. Sutcliffe chimed in that he never said he was going to pay any money that he wanted them to sign Dawson, and that he would chip in some money if he had to to get him in a Cubs uniform. So no, he didn't end up paying any money, or deferring any of his salary.

Tehjosha
05-28-2010, 10:23 PM
It's being reported now that this happened in the off-season and was to get Nady. Still cool though.

Little less exciting if this is true. Still leaves more wiggle room if we need it, though.

jiggin
05-28-2010, 10:26 PM
Little less exciting if this is true. Still leaves more wiggle room if we need it, though.

and how is that? Isn't that wiggle room being spent on Nady?

maybe in future seasons when Nady is gone....but...but...but...

Dmac
05-28-2010, 10:29 PM
While I appreciate Dempster's self-sacrifice. It's entirely unfair to hold other players to the same standard.

Do you make it a habit of paying your employer or skipping paychecks?

While I agree with your first sentence, your second one doesn't make much sense really. He isn't paying his employer, and he isn't skipping a paycheck. If my employer came to me and said there was a business opportunity within the company, and they asked me if I wanted to contribute ten percent or so of my check for a year and promise me I would get it all back the next year, and possibly more, I would consider it. Especially if I could afford it and it could possibly make my company better and more profitable, which would make my bonus better. In fact, alot of people do anyway in 401k and buying stock in their companies.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:31 PM
and how is that? Isn't that wiggle room being spent on Nady?

maybe in future seasons when Nady is gone....but...but...but...
In essence what it did was make 2011-2013 a touch tighter with little benefit.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:33 PM
It's entirely irrelevant. It's his money, and he's by definition losing value by deferring it. He may be able to afford to, that does not mean he is required to.

High income or not, your money is your money and you can do with it as you wish. It's incredibly presumptuous of you as a fan expecting a player to do something like this. It's akin to telling a public official(or a military member for that matter) that your taxes pay their salary so they must do whats in your best interest.

That's actually a big misconception, because as a military member, I pay taxes too.

Yes your money is your money, but when your making 100+ times more than the average person, deferring money is not that big of a deal. Especially when you're trying to win a championship.

I don't think anyone is really trying to force them to do it. But if you aren't performing to your contract I mean seriously is it that bad that you couldn't adjust to help the team win a championship.

By no means do I think they should have to. They signed a contract, its Hendry's fault if they don't have the money. But sometimes it's good to help out to try to win a championship. Especially in Ramirez's case since he's clearly on the downhill path.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:34 PM
While I agree with your first sentence, your second one doesn't make much sense really. He isn't paying his employer, and he isn't skipping a paycheck. If my employer came to me and said there was a business opportunity within the company, and they asked me if I wanted to contribute ten percent or so of my check for a year and promise me I would get it all back the next year, and possibly more, I would consider it. Especially if I could afford it and it could possibly make my company better and more profitable, which would make my bonus better. In fact, alot of people do anyway in 401k and buying stock in their companies.
The key here is little to no interest. He is in effect delaying salary for up to 3 years, which is going to lose value due to the dual forces of inflation eats away at it from below and no opportunity to grow it.

This isn't a business opportunity, Dempster stands to benefit nothing at all. A 401k is an entirely different matter, as is buying stock. For all intents and purposes, he's loaning the Cubs money.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:35 PM
In essence what it did was make 2011-2013 a touch tighter with little benefit.

I don't believe one bit the Cubs are gonna be hurt over a million dollars/year for 3 years..

Matchstckman
05-28-2010, 10:37 PM
I don't believe one bit the Cubs are gonna be hurt over a million dollars/year for 3 years..

Hurt? No. But think about the fact that they needed Dempster to do this to give Nady his relatively small $3m contract. That extra $1m won't matter for free agents making huge money like Gonzo or Fielder, but say we want to sign a solid reliever or bench player. $1m could make a big difference.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:37 PM
The key here is little to no interest. He is in effect delaying salary for up to 3 years, which is going to lose value due to the dual forces of inflation eats away at it from below and no opportunity to grow it.

This isn't a business opportunity, Dempster stands to benefit nothing at all. A 401k is an entirely different matter, as is buying stock. For all intents and purposes, he's loaning the Cubs money.

I disagree. He could benefit from a championship. And if more players did this, they would be commended for their efforts to try to win it and not just being greedy money hungry players that they are. Every team should lower salaries and then lower ticket prices. Stop killing the fans pocket for the sake of the game. Pretty soon they are going to out price the game, it's almost there for me.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:39 PM
Hurt? No. But think about the fact that they needed Dempster to do this to give Nady his relatively small $3m contract. That extra $1m won't matter for free agents making huge money like Gonzo or Fielder, but say we want to sign a solid reliever or bench player. $1m could make a big difference.

Prolly just waste the money on a player like Grabow so I'm not worried about it :D. (sarcasm). I understand that. But with the amount of money the Cubs make off the fans every year, if 1M is going to stop them from signing a reliever. Then maybe they should reconstruct their team.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:39 PM
That's actually a big misconception, because as a military member, I pay taxes too.

Yes your money is your money, but when your making 100+ times more than the average person, deferring money is not that big of a deal. Especially when you're trying to win a championship.

I don't think anyone is really trying to force them to do it. But if you aren't performing to your contract I mean seriously is it that bad that you couldn't adjust to help the team win a championship.

By no means do I think they should have to. They signed a contract, its Hendry's fault if they don't have the money. But sometimes it's good to help out to try to win a championship. Especially in Ramirez's case since he's clearly on the downhill path.
Of course you do, so do judges and police officers. That you pay taxes is irrelevant(and given that any taxes you pay are paid off money you received from tax income, it's doubly so.) The point is that just because you got paid in some small portion by me(be it from ticket sales or tax income), you do not owe me anything. I 'bought' the service and get what I get, be it entertainment, an impartial trial, or national security.

The point is that it's an unfair expectation to expect players to give money back because of their performance. For one thing that will *HEAVILY* damage their future negotiations, it also angers the union, and it is in opposition to their best interest. The only thing it really does is make hapless fans feel better because the player has a face and the corporation that owns the team does not, so it's easier to directly hold the player accountable.

Beyond that, how do you define "performing to your contract?" Unless teams agree to sharply increase pay when players have career years, I can't find *ANY* justification for a player reducing his pay when he has a poor one. Your stance is one acting in the favor of heavy ownership control. Why should the player have to pay up when they perform under expectations but ownership not have to when the player exceeds expectations?

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:41 PM
I disagree. He could benefit from a championship. And if more players did this, they would be commended for their efforts to try to win it and not just being greedy money hungry players that they are. Every team should lower salaries and then lower ticket prices. Stop killing the fans pocket for the sake of the game. Pretty soon they are going to out price the game, it's almost there for me.
The teams are certainly interested in lowering salaries, but they aren't ticket prices. Ticket prices may be too high for some people, but teams are still selling out. They do not care if you personally can afford a ticket, they just care about selling as many tickets at as high a price as possible. It's all they ever cared about.

If every cub drops his salary and the Cubs win more...Ticket prices go up, the players get poorer, and Ricketts gets richer, and that's all that happens.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:41 PM
Kirel, I agree with you man. I'm just saying more players should do this to try to win a Ring. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:43 PM
The teams are certainly interested in lowering salaries, but they aren't ticket prices.

If every cub drops his salary and the Cubs win more...Ticket prices go up, the players get poorer, and Ricketts gets richer, and that's all that happens.

I agree. I'm just saying I wish both would happen. I don't even get to go to many games at all. 1 every year or so. But what happened to the love of the game. And being for the people. Everyone now a days is just about getting themselves richer and richer even though they are already extremely rich. I'll get off my soapbox about this topic.

KOENIG
05-28-2010, 10:49 PM
It's nice to see at least 1 player on this year's Cubs more concerned about winning a World Series this year than just getting paid. I wish Piniella and Hendry felt the same way.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 10:53 PM
I agree. I'm just saying I wish both would happen. I don't even get to go to many games at all. 1 every year or so. But what happened to the love of the game. And being for the people. Everyone now a days is just about getting themselves richer and richer even though they are already extremely rich. I'll get off my soapbox about this topic.
The reality of it isn't that the players are trying to get richer, it's that the fan market will bear a hell of a lot of money.

Players demand higher salaries as ticket prices(and other income) rises, not the other way around. I think it's a mistake to get upset at the players or the team, get upset at your fellow fans for regularly and willingly paying high prices.

I know, it sucks, I can't exactly afford to go to games either. But clearly enough people can that the team still sells plenty of tickets.

semperfi
05-28-2010, 10:55 PM
The reality of it isn't that the players are trying to get richer, it's that the fan market will bear a hell of a lot of money.

Players demand higher salaries as ticket prices(and other income) rises, not the other way around. I think it's a mistake to get upset at the players or the team, get upset at your fellow fans for regularly and willingly paying high prices.

I know, it sucks, I can't exactly afford to go to games either. But clearly enough people can that the team still sells plenty of tickets.

I blame management for continuously screwing over the fans. But then again, the fans are so stupid to continue to buy season tickets out of "loyalty" that the teams just charge what ever they want.

Kirel
05-28-2010, 11:02 PM
I blame management for continuously screwing over the fans. But then again, the fans are so stupid to continue to buy season tickets out of "loyalty" that the teams just charge what ever they want.
Its reasonably simple economics.

The team charges the price that allows them to sell the most units at the highest price. Thats all I expect from team management. They are not actively out to screw you, they just aren't interested in you at all.

Jilly Bohnson
05-28-2010, 11:35 PM
As if I needed more reason to like Dempster. Didn't Chipper Jones do this before too? Or am I just crediting him with it thanks to my pre-existing man-crush on him?

giventofly
05-29-2010, 12:00 AM
As if I needed more reason to like Dempster. Didn't Chipper Jones do this before too? Or am I just crediting him with it thanks to my pre-existing man-crush on him?
Yeah, Chipper did it too.

Jilly Bohnson
05-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Yeah, Chipper did it too.

Figures. The man's a saint.*


*Minus the whole cheating on his wife thing

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 12:08 AM
Well we already have enough starting pitching and as far as Bell goes, SD isnt selling and our pen has definitely improved.

You are correct. We do already have enough starting pitching........BUT.......If there is anyway to trade Zambrano AND cash for Cliff Lee, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Zambrano is only 28, but from what I've seen the last few years, is on a downhill slide in production already. He's never been worth $18-$19 million per year that's for sure. If you look at other aces.........Lincecum for instance.......he's making $13 million this year and just won back-to-back cy-young awards. Why is Zambrano so much more expensive? Good question.

cubbybear2290
05-29-2010, 12:15 AM
Figures. The man's a saint.*


*Minus the whole cheating on his wife thing

You have just angered Tim......oooppsss my bad I mean St. Tebow. lol

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 12:27 AM
Of course you do, so do judges and police officers. That you pay taxes is irrelevant(and given that any taxes you pay are paid off money you received from tax income, it's doubly so.) The point is that just because you got paid in some small portion by me(be it from ticket sales or tax income), you do not owe me anything. I 'bought' the service and get what I get, be it entertainment, an impartial trial, or national security.

The point is that it's an unfair expectation to expect players to give money back because of their performance. For one thing that will *HEAVILY* damage their future negotiations, it also angers the union, and it is in opposition to their best interest. The only thing it really does is make hapless fans feel better because the player has a face and the corporation that owns the team does not, so it's easier to directly hold the player accountable.

Beyond that, how do you define "performing to your contract?" Unless teams agree to sharply increase pay when players have career years, I can't find *ANY* justification for a player reducing his pay when he has a poor one. Your stance is one acting in the favor of heavy ownership control. Why should the player have to pay up when they perform under expectations but ownership not have to when the player exceeds expectations?

This comment made me laugh, especially the part about define "performing to your contract". Well let's see here........Soriano signed an 8 year $136 million contract. The reason he got that contract was because in the year prior to signing with the Cubs, he became the first ever player to join the 40/40/40 club. He had 41 SB, 46 HR, 41 2B the prior year with Washington. Since signing that HUGE contract, he has had a high of only 19 SB (half of what he got in his contract year)--his HRs have dropped dramatically every year since signing his contract, and his doubles have also dropped every year EXCEPT 2007 when he had 1 more. This IS NOT performing to your contract. Had he put up the numbers that he has put up since joining the Cubs in his contract year, he would've NEVER got such a big contract. Same thing goes for Carlos Zambrano. Zambrano signed a 5 year $91.5 million contract in 2007. In his "contract year" he went 16-7 with a 3.41 ERA. He had 115 BB and 210 K's. Since signing that contract his best numbers have been 18-13 in 2008, 177 K's (2008), 3.77 ERA (2009). His number of games started per year has dropped every year, while his K's have also dropped and his ERA has gone up. I think for this exact reason........ALL CONTRACTS SHOULD BE INCENTIVE BASED.

Matchstckman
05-29-2010, 12:41 AM
This comment made me laugh, especially the part about define "performing to your contract". Well let's see here........Soriano signed an 8 year $136 million contract. The reason he got that contract was because in the year prior to signing with the Cubs, he became the first ever player to join the 40/40/40 club. He had 41 SB, 46 HR, 41 2B the prior year with Washington. Since signing that HUGE contract, he has had a high of only 19 SB (half of what he got in his contract year)--his HRs have dropped dramatically every year since signing his contract, and his doubles have also dropped every year EXCEPT 2007 when he had 1 more. This IS NOT performing to your contract. Had he put up the numbers that he has put up since joining the Cubs in his contract year, he would've NEVER got such a big contract. Same thing goes for Carlos Zambrano. Zambrano signed a 5 year $91.5 million contract in 2007. In his "contract year" he went 16-7 with a 3.41 ERA. He had 115 BB and 210 K's. Since signing that contract his best numbers have been 18-13 in 2008, 177 K's (2008), 3.77 ERA (2009). His number of games started per year has dropped every year, while his K's have also dropped and his ERA has gone up. I think for this exact reason........ALL CONTRACTS SHOULD BE INCENTIVE BASED.

Ugh.

Kirel
05-29-2010, 12:42 AM
This comment made me laugh, especially the part about define "performing to your contract". Well let's see here........Soriano signed an 8 year $136 million contract. The reason he got that contract was because in the year prior to signing with the Cubs, he became the first ever player to join the 40/40/40 club. He had 41 SB, 46 HR, 41 2B the prior year with Washington. Since signing that HUGE contract, he has had a high of only 19 SB (half of what he got in his contract year)--his HRs have dropped dramatically every year since signing his contract, and his doubles have also dropped every year EXCEPT 2007 when he had 1 more. This IS NOT performing to your contract. Had he put up the numbers that he has put up since joining the Cubs in his contract year, he would've NEVER got such a big contract. Same thing goes for Carlos Zambrano. Zambrano signed a 5 year $91.5 million contract in 2007. In his "contract year" he went 16-7 with a 3.41 ERA. He had 115 BB and 210 K's. Since signing that contract his best numbers have been 18-13 in 2008, 177 K's (2008), 3.77 ERA (2009). His number of games started per year has dropped every year, while his K's have also dropped and his ERA has gone up. I think for this exact reason........ALL CONTRACTS SHOULD BE INCENTIVE BASED.
There is a fundamental flaw in incentive based contracts: They do not actually give teams payroll flexibility, they in fact reduce it. No matter if the payroll is guaranteed or not, you have to be able to pay it if it comes due, so while they may save money one year, they can't spend it on players to improve the team that season. And on the other hand that means if Soriano has a really, really good year the Cubs may well end up paying him 25 million. Which could well break the team if they underestimated performances. You don't want a situation where you can't get deals, and you don't want a situation where management is actively trying to lose to stay within payroll. Incentive only contracts cause both problems.

Also, your definition leaves a tremendous amount of trouble. So Zambrano got his contract for a 3.41 ERA. If you give another pitcher the same contract for a 2.4 ERA season, does that mean if both guys put up a 3.41 ERA the next year our theoretical pitcher gets his salary cut but Zambrano doesn't? What happens if the player is traded from Chicago to Colorado? Or what if he's dealt to San Diego? Is it even fair to change what you pay Zambrano based on how well the team plays(wins) or the defense plays(ERA)? What if a hitter loses 20 homers but his OBP jumps 50 points? Way too many issues here.

Incentivized contracts basically mean:

1. Players make less
2. Fans spend the same
3. Owners make more.
4. Teams are far less certain and cannot maximize payroll.

I'm not entirely sure why you think its a good idea. Its a terrible idea. It does nothing but harm.

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 01:12 AM
There is a fundamental flaw in incentive based contracts: They do not actually give teams payroll flexibility, they in fact reduce it. No matter if the payroll is guaranteed or not, you have to be able to pay it if it comes due, so while they may save money one year, they can't spend it on players to improve the team that season. And on the other hand that means if Soriano has a really, really good year the Cubs may well end up paying him 25 million. Which could well break the team if they underestimated performances. You don't want a situation where you can't get deals, and you don't want a situation where management is actively trying to lose to stay within payroll. Incentive only contracts cause both problems.

Also, your definition leaves a tremendous amount of trouble. So Zambrano got his contract for a 3.41 ERA. If you give another pitcher the same contract for a 2.4 ERA season, does that mean if both guys put up a 3.41 ERA the next year our theoretical pitcher gets his salary cut but Zambrano doesn't? What happens if the player is traded from Chicago to Colorado? Or what if he's dealt to San Diego? Is it even fair to change what you pay Zambrano based on how well the team plays(wins) or the defense plays(ERA)? What if a hitter loses 20 homers but his OBP jumps 50 points? Way too many issues here.

Incentivized contracts basically mean:

1. Players make less
2. Fans spend the same
3. Owners make more.
4. Teams are far less certain and cannot maximize payroll.

I'm not entirely sure why you think its a good idea. Its a terrible idea. It does nothing but harm.

You are COMPLETELY WRONG in your "THEORY" of incentive based contracts and the reason I said that ALL contracts should be Incentive based (which they should be). First off, I wasn't saying this as a way for teams to "save money" like you are talking about. Players should earn what they are played. I don't agree with players have 1 amazing year and getting a contract like Soriano or Zambrano, then not having to do a damn thing cause they know that money is coming to them regardless of how they perform. You are wrong about the "problems" that incentive-based contracts cause. Soriano had a year that NO ONE else has ever had. He got a contract for $17 million per year because of that incredible year. An incentive based contract would make that $17 million the most he could earn IF he performed like he did in that 40/40/40 season. If his steals dropped to 19, his HRs dropped to 33, and his 2Bs went to 42 like they all did, His salary for that year should be $14-15 million. If he wants the full $17 million he has to work as hard as he did for his contract year, EVERY YEAR. Incentives don't do anything negative. To the contrary, if a player knows he won't get his full contract unless he gets certain numbers, you better believe that player is going to do everything in his power to accomplish those numbers. Soriano is still getting $19 million this year. He is having a pretty good season, but his Steals are going to be 8 for the year if this pace keeps up and his HRs will be down from his contract year too.

CubbieSteve
05-29-2010, 01:19 AM
Time for Soriano to man up and do the same


But like I said earlier, this might have made Dempster my favorite Cub. Pretty awesome.

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 01:32 AM
There is a fundamental flaw in incentive based contracts: They do not actually give teams payroll flexibility, they in fact reduce it. No matter if the payroll is guaranteed or not, you have to be able to pay it if it comes due, so while they may save money one year, they can't spend it on players to improve the team that season. And on the other hand that means if Soriano has a really, really good year the Cubs may well end up paying him 25 million. Which could well break the team if they underestimated performances. You don't want a situation where you can't get deals, and you don't want a situation where management is actively trying to lose to stay within payroll. Incentive only contracts cause both problems.

Also, your definition leaves a tremendous amount of trouble. So Zambrano got his contract for a 3.41 ERA. If you give another pitcher the same contract for a 2.4 ERA season, does that mean if both guys put up a 3.41 ERA the next year our theoretical pitcher gets his salary cut but Zambrano doesn't? What happens if the player is traded from Chicago to Colorado? Or what if he's dealt to San Diego? Is it even fair to change what you pay Zambrano based on how well the team plays(wins) or the defense plays(ERA)? What if a hitter loses 20 homers but his OBP jumps 50 points? Way too many issues here.

Incentivized contracts basically mean:

1. Players make less
2. Fans spend the same
3. Owners make more.
4. Teams are far less certain and cannot maximize payroll.

I'm not entirely sure why you think its a good idea. Its a terrible idea. It does nothing but harm.

You make me laugh a lot when you try to sound like you know what you're talking about with an Incentive based contract. Obviously incentive based contracts aren't going to be uniform around the league like your extremely stupid scenario with Zambrano having a 3.41 ERA and "another pitcher" getting the same contract for a 2.40 ERA starter. Why would you give the same contract to a better pitcher? You can't really be that ignorant........can you? That brings up a great point............Should Zambrano be making $8.75 million more than a guy like Tim Lincecum, who just won back to back cy-young awards and has a career 2.91 ERA? Absolutely not. Lincecum should be making a base salary of around $15 million per year with another cy-young giving him that money and less of a year giving him less money.

You talking about paying someone based on team stats like Wins is absolutely rediculous. This is not how an incentive-based contract would be structured. It would be structured based on things in that pitcher's control........ERA, ER, K's, BB's, etc..... If you are going to comment on my posts, at least know what you're talking about first.

And about your "incentive contracts basically mean": 1,2,3,4.......blah blah blah........this is hillarious too.

First off; Players would only make less $$ if they performed less. If they kept their performance on par with when they signed the contract, they would make the exact same. (e.g. If Zambrano continued having a 16-7 record with a 3.41 ERA and 210 Ks with 115 BB's, he would still make his money. But if he had a year with only 9 wins like last year and only 150 K's, he'd obviously make less (what he earned)).

Secondly; We aren't even talking about what the fans spend so not quite sure where this came from. Who cares if the fans spend the same. They'd actually be getting their money's worth for once. With the players actually having to EARN their money rather than get it no matter how they perform, fans will see players give it 110% at all times instead of the lackluster performances we constantly see (e.g. Soriano watching a fly ball at the plate admiring what he thought was a HR, Hanley Ramirez jogging after a ball that he kicked instead of sprinting, Nyjer Morgan taking his glove off mad that he missed a fly ball when the ball was still in play, etc...) These plays wouldn't happen if they had to play hard to earn their paycheck.

thirdly; Owners wouldn't make more money at all unless their players performed under their expectations. Then the Players are making less in turn giving the Owners more to spend on their team the next season. If the players play hard and do their jobs like a professional is supposed to, they will earn what they are worth. Simple as that.

Lastly; Teams can still maximize their payrolls. They give a player a contract based on what he did the prior year (e.g. Soriano's $17 million / year). They plan on paying that $17 million per year. If the player doesn't perform and they save $2-3 million, GREAT. That can go towards signing a player in the off-season. Your arguements make absolutely no sense what-so-ever dude. Get a clue.

Kirel
05-29-2010, 01:42 AM
You make me laugh a lot when you try to sound like you know what you're talking about with an Incentive based contract. Obviously incentive based contracts aren't going to be uniform around the league like your extremely stupid scenario with Zambrano having a 3.41 ERA and "another pitcher" getting the same contract for a 2.40 ERA starter. Why would you give the same contract to a better pitcher? You can't really be that ignorant........can you? That brings up a great point............Should Zambrano be making $8.75 million more than a guy like Tim Lincecum, who just won back to back cy-young awards and has a career 2.91 ERA? Absolutely not. Lincecum should be making a base salary of around $15 million per year with another cy-young giving him that money and less of a year giving him less money.

You talking about paying someone based on team stats like Wins is absolutely rediculous. This is not how an incentive-based contract would be structured. It would be structured based on things in that pitcher's control........ERA, ER, K's, BB's, etc..... If you are going to comment on my posts, at least know what you're talking about first.

And about your "incentive contracts basically mean": 1,2,3,4.......blah blah blah........this is hillarious too.

First off; Players would only make less $$ if they performed less. If they kept their performance on par with when they signed the contract, they would make the exact same. (e.g. If Zambrano continued having a 16-7 record with a 3.41 ERA and 210 Ks with 115 BB's, he would still make his money. But if he had a year with only 9 wins like last year and only 150 K's, he'd obviously make less (what he earned)).

Secondly; We aren't even talking about what the fans spend so not quite sure where this came from. Who cares if the fans spend the same. They'd actually be getting their money's worth for once. With the players actually having to EARN their money rather than get it no matter how they perform, fans will see players give it 110% at all times instead of the lackluster performances we constantly see (e.g. Soriano watching a fly ball at the plate admiring what he thought was a HR, Hanley Ramirez jogging after a ball that he kicked instead of sprinting, Nyjer Morgan taking his glove off mad that he missed a fly ball when the ball was still in play, etc...) These plays wouldn't happen if they had to play hard to earn their paycheck.

thirdly; Owners wouldn't make more money at all unless their players performed under their expectations. Then the Players are making less in turn giving the Owners more to spend on their team the next season. If the players play hard and do their jobs like a professional is supposed to, they will earn what they are worth. Simple as that.

Lastly; Teams can still maximize their payrolls. They give a player a contract based on what he did the prior year (e.g. Soriano's $17 million / year). They plan on paying that $17 million per year. If the player doesn't perform and they save $2-3 million, GREAT. That can go towards signing a player in the off-season. Your arguements make absolutely no sense what-so-ever dude. Get a clue.
Wow, I don't think it's even worth replying at this point. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said in my post.

I will say every word of your post makes me wonder if your grasp of economics hasn't exceeded the "I got a dollar in my pocket" stage.

I will ask, though, since I think the answer might be amusing....

What if Zambrano has a 3.00 ERA, 250 Ks, and walks only 85. Does he still only get his cap amount? If so, what's in it for the player?

CUBDOM4life
05-29-2010, 02:02 AM
You are completely clueless dude. If you think there is ANY TEAMS out there right now, that would pay Zambrano $15 million per year, you are smoking crack........seriously. Zambrano has been their "ACE" for what?.....5-6 years now? In 2007 he had a decent year (18-13 with a 3.95 ERA in 216 IP...(2 more innings than previous year and 33 less K's).......In 2008 he was decent (14-6 with a 3.91 ERA in 30 games (188 IP).....He had 130 K's........In 2009 he was decent again ( 9-7 with a 3.77 ERA in ONLY 28 games (169 IP)........He actually had 152 K's this year in less innings that previous year)........This year he is absolutely dreadful (as Simon Cowell would say). He is 1-3 in 15 games with a horrible 6.46 ERA. He has 35 K's in 30.2 IP. At this rate he'll K about 120 this year. If you haven't noticed, his numbers have gone down almost every year, esp IP.

If I don't know anything about arbitration answer me this..........Is Lincecum better than Zambrano? If the answer is YES, which it should be if you know anything about baseball, than why is Zambrano worth $15 million in arbitration, but Lincecum is only worth $9 million after winning back to back cy-youngs and having a career 2.90 ERA? You are ignorant dude.

You REALLY need to read up on arbitration. To be honest, you are the one who looks ignorant and clueless.

Vandelay16
05-29-2010, 02:07 AM
I think something may be done here soon. A trade for a second baseman or a SP.
And someone please ban Jayson14.

Kirel
05-29-2010, 02:12 AM
You REALLY need to read up on arbitration. To be honest, you are the one who looks ignorant and clueless.
Basic economics might not be a bad idea either.

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 02:23 AM
Lincecum wasn't awarded anything. He agreed to a contract extension.

The entire point of arbitration is to keep players from making what they are worth by limiting their options.

And I never said Zambrano was worth 15 million in arbitration. I said he was worth 15 million in free agency. Really, really big difference in a free market and a closed one.

I know Lincecum wasn't awarded anything. That's what I said already. I said he requested $13 million in arbitration and ended up getting the $9 million that his team though he was worth. And Zambrano wouldn't be worth $15 million / year in free agency or arbitration. I notice you found the edit button. You find Hendry 1 team interested in Zambrano right now for $15 million per year and I'd say trade him immediately. Zambrano is dreadful.

Kirel
05-29-2010, 02:28 AM
I know Lincecum wasn't awarded anything. That's what I said already. I said he requested $13 million in arbitration and ended up getting the $9 million that his team though he was worth. And Zambrano wouldn't be worth $15 million / year in free agency or arbitration. I notice you found the edit button. You find Hendry 1 team interested in Zambrano right now for $15 million per year and I'd say trade him immediately. Zambrano is dreadful.
Just take his payroll and have to give nothing up? I'm guessing he'll find at least half a dozen teams willing to take the chance. Maybe more. Now a fair prospect return..that may be a different story. Prospects have value too and Zambrano is somewhat below his contract value anyway, exchanging prospects for him is not a great move.

And if I had edited anything more than a few seconds after posting, the post would say "last edited by Kirel at " whatever time I edited it.

dabears2010
05-29-2010, 02:34 AM
Zambrano is the 5th best starter on the Cubs, if that. Wells struggled today, but usually he is a very consistant pitcher, Lilly is also better than Z. Dempster is way better than Z. Silva has pitched far better also. Gorzellanny is inconsistant, but still has shown much more than Z has. I don't see ANY team paying $15 million for a team's 4th or 5th best starter. Not any smart team at least. Maybe the Yankees if they're in a pennant race and desperate will overpay him like that. To be honest with you, I'd take an unproven Andrew Cashner over Zambrano.

Doogolas
05-29-2010, 02:40 AM
Lincecum signed a two year contract in which he gets $11.5MM per year. That's just ahead of where the middle ground on his arbitration askings would have been. So in all likelihood he's making +$1MM out of the deal he signed. Arbitration contracts are pretty much always smaller than what a guy will get outside of arbitration. Zambrano is nowhere NEAR arbitration. He signed a physical laid out contract that covered years well beyond what he had left in arbitration.

Comparing Lincecum's contract to Z's now is comparing apples to oranges. Because one is an MLB contract and one is, what essentially amounts to, an arbitration contract.

1908_Cubs
05-29-2010, 09:07 AM
We have a winner winner chicken dinner in the race to become number 64 on the dreaded, "list". DaBears, come on down!

Assman22
05-29-2010, 09:19 AM
I too am waiting for Soriano to pony up part of his salary. Hopefully this starts a trend with some of the overpaid Cubbies.

GOCUBSGO20
05-29-2010, 11:31 AM
Wish the Cubs would have used this money more wisely. Kelly Johnson and Jonny Gomes sure would look nice right now. Hopefully once Nady gets healthier, he will be more productive. However, I do not get the point of signing him when they knew he wasnt going to be healthy for the first couple months which has cost us defensively.

Jilly Bohnson
05-29-2010, 02:49 PM
Well, first we have to get some things straight.

Zambrano's contract covered his last year of arbitration and his first four of free agency. Lincecums contract covers his team controlled first and second years of arbitration. Arbitration years are, as a rule of thumb, valued at 40%, 60%, and 80% of the players free agent value.

Zambrano, in his first two years of arbitration earned 3.76 million and 6.5 million. Lincecum will earn 8 million and 13 million in his first two. It seems to me Lincecum is earning quite a bit more than Zambrano did when you compare the relevant portion of their careers so it's a bit more apples to apples. By the time Lincecum hits his 8th service year(2014 I think) if he's still pitching as well as he is now and the market doesn't implode, my guess is that he'll be earning something around 25 million. He'll be worth 35-40 million.

This reminds me, what's the rule of thumb for a super 2? Is it 20%, or something less intuitive?

Doogolas
05-29-2010, 03:19 PM
This reminds me, what's the rule of thumb for a super 2? Is it 20%, or something less intuitive?

Also Lincecum is really getting $10MM and $13MM because of the signing bonus.

ReJo
05-30-2010, 12:23 PM
Use the money to sign Pedro Martinez as the set up man.

Yagyu+
06-26-2010, 10:18 AM
As long as we're playing archivist and bringing back old threads...

...did the Cubs do anything with the money that Dempster deferred?

If we did, I completely missed it.

Matchstckman
06-26-2010, 10:19 AM
As long as we're playing archivist and bringing back old threads...

...did the Cubs do anything with the money that Dempster deferred?

If we did, I completely missed it.

That money went to the Nady deal.

Yagyu+
06-26-2010, 10:37 AM
That money went to the Nady deal.

I thought the Silva trade covered Nady and Byrd for this season?

Matchstckman
06-26-2010, 10:41 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5230978

Yagyu+
06-26-2010, 10:42 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5230978

Ah ha.

Thank you, sir. You're a scholar and a gentleman.