Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 271 to 285 of 285
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,322

    Deals you would take back

    He's probably mentioning it because there's plenty of rumors floating around about Stanton moving. I personally think he's overrated and is owed 300 million dollars, not saying I wouldn't love to have him on the Jays and he is having a great season but for a guy so pricey and often injured his value isn't as high to me as some might think.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    37,527
    yea if you trade for Stanton and he suddenly has a drop off or a major injury before the opt out, you are gonna be stuck with a Pujols like contract for years

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    17,635
    But the man hits bombs!

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    33
    The RA Dickey trade.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    The Dickey trade wasn't even comparable. He was a reigning Cy Young winner on a 1 year deal making less than Steve Pearce did this season.

    Stanton is a probable MVP owed $ 298 million. He's a great player but the difference between 1 year and 5 million and 9 years and $298 Million is a different stratosphere

    To me if the Marlins offered him for "just" Vlad, (which they would be certifiably insane to do) you do it. He's a full year younger than Josh was when we got him and probably 20-30% better to boot.

    I just can't see a new ownership moving him. Why crater your franchise and alienate your fans 5 minutes after you buy it? They owe a lot of money in carrying charges on the purchase, they need that contract for depreciation purposes and to drive ticket sales. From an asset appreciation standpoint and taxation they have 5 years to pay that debt down because of the structure of the tax law. Trading Stanton now is like burning $500 million in a bonfire.

    The only way they could risk it is if the return in trade, made them an immediate World Series contender and raised attendance enough for those 5 years to make up for it. That would need to be a hell of a package... It just doesn't make sense financially.

    It's why Lurie built the team up when he bought it only to tear it down after the tax advantages were over.
    Last edited by mikepelfrey; 08-17-2017 at 06:11 PM.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    37,527
    if ur the new ownership you definitely entertain the thought of moving him. Why be straddled with a 300 million contract on a player that has been injured all throughout his 20s. I mean that contract would have been hard to move prior to this season. Now that hes on fire, his value is as high as its ever going to be with this contract.

    The Marlins don't have a single legit starting pitcher and no bullpen to speak of. They are far away from being competitive so the smart thing to do is move Stanton and his huge contract and start from the scratch

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by bomber0104 View Post
    if ur the new ownership you definitely entertain the thought of moving him. Why be straddled with a 300 million contract on a player that has been injured all throughout his 20s. I mean that contract would have been hard to move prior to this season. Now that hes on fire, his value is as high as its ever going to be with this contract.

    The Marlins don't have a single legit starting pitcher and no bullpen to speak of. They are far away from being competitive so the smart thing to do is move Stanton and his huge contract and start from the scratch
    No you dont. For tax reasons alone they can't afford to. I realize this is all over your head but for depreciation and amortization rules alone trading him now would cost the Marlins approximately $30M in tax deductions alone before even considering the loss of ticket and concessions revenues. The tax laws give franchise owners special tax breaks for a period of 5 years after the transfer which makes trading Stanton extremely cost prohibitive for them. That ability to "write off" much of their operating revenue for the next 5 years allows them to pay off much of the debt they incurred to buy the franchise.

    Do you even have a clue on what the carrying charge is on a billion dollars? Stanton contract is no less than 30% of the asset value of the purchase price. If their payroll is 150 million, trading him using double declining balance amortization, they'd lose at least 12M after tax dollars a season for 5 years through tax benefits alone if not more considering the holding company is likely a corporation. In which case that number easily doubles to 25M a season for 5 years and then add tickets and concessions losses on top of that.

    Then consider the franchise value...It's 1.1 Billion with Stanton. Without him it's gotta be considerably less... So considering all this they literally can't afford to move him, at least not until they pay down some of that outstanding debt. Remember his contract is probably the biggest piece of collateral they have, so any possible trade has to make up for that. Ask any capable CPA, they'll tell you I'm absolutely correct.

    The only possible way to trade him would be to increase revenues by at least as much as 20-30% of their operating revenue. The only way I know to do that is to be an instant contender. Or go the long term capital improvements route and build a new stadium or their own regional TV network.

    on edit: and now here we are a mere 7 hours after i wrote the original post word comes out the jeter group is looking fir more investors because they are cash poor. trading Stanton doesnt help because his salary doesnt add revenues it does lessen expenditures but as i explained his salary does nothing about the carrying charges. trading him just makes it harder to earn those revenues they need.... to cover those carrying charges
    Last edited by mikepelfrey; 08-18-2017 at 12:55 PM.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    37,527
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepelfrey View Post
    No you dont. For tax reasons alone they can't afford to. I realize this is all over your head but for depreciation and amortization rules alone trading him now would cost the Marlins approximately $30M in tax deductions alone before even considering the loss of ticket and concessions revenues. The tax laws give franchise owners special tax breaks for a period of 5 years after the transfer which makes trading Stanton extremely cost prohibitive for them. That ability to "write off" much of their operating revenue for the next 5 years allows them to pay off much of the debt they incurred to buy the franchise.

    Do you even have a clue on what the carrying charge is on a billion dollars? Stanton contract is no less than 30% of the asset value of the purchase price. If their payroll is 150 million, trading him using double declining balance amortization, they'd lose at least 12M after tax dollars a season for 5 years through tax benefits alone if not more considering the holding company is likely a corporation. In which case that number easily doubles to 25M a season for 5 years and then add tickets and concessions losses on top of that.

    Then consider the franchise value...It's 1.1 Billion with Stanton. Without him it's gotta be considerably less... So considering all this they literally can't afford to move him, at least not until they pay down some of that outstanding debt. Remember his contract is probably the biggest piece of collateral they have, so any possible trade has to make up for that. Ask any capable CPA, they'll tell you I'm absolutely correct.

    The only possible way to trade him would be to increase revenues by at least as much as 20-30% of their operating revenue. The only way I know to do that is to be an instant contender. Or go the long term capital improvements route and build a new stadium or their own regional TV network.

    on edit: and now here we are a mere 7 hours after i wrote the original post word comes out the jeter group is looking fir more investors because they are cash poor. trading Stanton doesnt help because his salary doesnt add revenues it does lessen expenditures but as i explained his salary does nothing about the carrying charges. trading him just makes it harder to earn those revenues they need.... to cover those carrying charges
    yea no i'm not an expert on tax laws.. I'm just relaying what the reporters are saying and it makes sense from a baseball perspective

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    That's the problem with reporters, they fail to look at the big picture. They assume that after spending so much they need to cut costs, and they do, but not until after the accelerated amortization period runs out. Right now, The key is to generate as much revenue as possible to pay down the acquisition debt as much as they can while the tax breaks cover the revenues from being taxed at normal rates. Otherwise the interest on any financed loans, ie the carrying charges, will cripple them when the tax breaks end.

    That's why the Dodgers are being watched by MLB because their debt ratio after their sale a few years ago is so high. The Dodgers had to win and raise revenues and fortunately they have but the Marlins aren't as much of a revenue earner as the Dodgers are. So their situation is a lot more dicey. But for the Dodgers right now they have huge revenues, yet with a high payroll and the tax breaks they end up paying off a large chunk of their debt and still show a tax loss.The IRS knows full well it's not a "real" loss, but it's legal and it's how you get business to invest in the infrastructure. Why do you think franchise values always go up. It's because they use the tax laws to their advantage. The Marlins have been bad for years but Loria still made over $800 Million profit on the sale, not bad For 15 years. He originally bought the Expos Then MLB took them over and brokered the sale and trade of the Red Sox for the Marlins using Loria as middleman.

    Most fans don't understand that side of the game but we really should. It's why Triumphator is so critical of Rogers because from a pure financial viewpoint they should be running the Blue Jays as a big market club with a corresponding payroll but Rogers doesnt. They divert those revenues elsewhere.. Its likely how they got the NHL tv deal. For Rogers shareholders Its smart business but Its kind of unfair to Blue Jay fans. They count on the fact that fans in general aren't nuanced to the financial aspects of the game.
    Last edited by mikepelfrey; 08-19-2017 at 06:07 AM.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepelfrey View Post
    That's the problem with reporters, they fail to look at the big picture. They assume that after spending so much they need to cut costs, and they do, but not until after the accelerated amortization period runs out. Right now, The key is to generate as much revenue as possible to pay down the acquisition debt as much as they can while the tax breaks cover the revenues from being taxed at normal rates. Otherwise the interest on any financed loans, ie the carrying charges, will cripple them when the tax breaks end.

    That's why the Dodgers are being watched by MLB because their debt ratio after their sale a few years ago is so high. The Dodgers had to win and raise revenues and fortunately they have but the Marlins aren't as much of a revenue earner as the Dodgers are. So their situation is a lot more dicey. But for the Dodgers right now they have huge revenues, yet with a high payroll and the tax breaks they end up paying off a large chunk of their debt and still show a tax loss.The IRS knows full well it's not a "real" loss, but it's legal and it's how you get business to invest in the infrastructure. Why do you think franchise values always go up. It's because they use the tax laws to their advantage. The Marlins have been bad for years but Loria still made over $800 Million profit on the sale, not bad For 15 years. He originally bought the Expos Then MLB took them over and brokered the sale and trade of the Red Sox for the Marlins using Loria as middleman.

    Most fans don't understand that side of the game but we really should. It's why Triumphator is so critical of Rogers because from a pure financial viewpoint they should be running the Blue Jays as a big market club with a corresponding payroll but Rogers doesnt. They divert those revenues elsewhere.. Its likely how they got the NHL tv deal. For Rogers shareholders Its smart business but Its kind of unfair to Blue Jay fans. They count on the fact that fans in general aren't nuanced to the financial aspects of the game.
    Probably one of your best posts. Couldn't agree with you more.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Daboyz View Post
    Probably one of your best posts. Couldn't agree with you more.
    Its criminal is what it is, its 100% legal but its absolutely unfair and morally bankrupt.Fans who support their teams deserve better

    the more I think about it, the more I realize english soccer has it right, baseball should have relegation of some sort

    have a 16 team Senior league that competes for the World Series and a 14 team junior league and each year the 4 worst Senior league teams get moved down and the 4 best junior league teams move up

    that way theres real incentive to win, in both leagues
    Last edited by mikepelfrey; 10-17-2017 at 10:43 PM.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,149
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepelfrey View Post
    Its criminal is what it is, its 100% legal but its absolutely unfair and morally bankrupt.Fans who support their teams deserve better

    the more I think about it, the more I realize english soccer has it right, baseball should have relegation of some sort

    have a 16 team Senior league that competes for the World Series and a 14 team junior league and each year the 4 worst Senior league teams get moved down and the 4 best junior league teams move up

    that way theres real incentive to win, in both leagues
    I like that idea as well but it would never fly with owners. They would cry small market despite the massive advantages given to the actual small markets. I doubt English footy started like that. They probably had a league and purchased the minor leave and had to integrate. The competition between the bottom teams of the original league and the top teams of the purchased league was likely very close. I would be interested in finding out more about how that developed.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario
    Posts
    28,561
    The Jays are in such a frustrating period. Just pick a ****ing direction and stop half assing it. Estrada, Happ, JD... Im going to be FURIOUS if we mismanage assets. That's literally the whole name of the game as the GM of a ****ing team.

    I don't have a problem with them using the assets to rebuild and attain prospects. Just like I didn't have a problem with AA using prospects to attain great MLB talent. I just want a clear vision.

    I CANNOT believe Shapiro said, "If we didn't play for these fans we would have traded JD by now." I could be wrong but I saw this quote somewhere... and that's SHOCKING.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    10,730
    Quote Originally Posted by TO Rapz View Post
    The Jays are in such a frustrating period. Just pick a ****ing direction and stop half assing it. Estrada, Happ, JD... Im going to be FURIOUS if we mismanage assets. That's literally the whole name of the game as the GM of a ****ing team.

    I don't have a problem with them using the assets to rebuild and attain prospects. Just like I didn't have a problem with AA using prospects to attain great MLB talent. I just want a clear vision.

    I CANNOT believe Shapiro said, "If we didn't play for these fans we would have traded JD by now." I could be wrong but I saw this quote somewhere... and that's SHOCKING.
    Unfortunately, he has two jobs. One is do what he's told by ownership (keep the butts in the seats) and two is to build a winner. They can't commit to #2 as fully as they want because they're handcuffed by #1. I also read the same quote.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,017
    Quote Originally Posted by TO Rapz View Post
    The Jays are in such a frustrating period. Just pick a ****ing direction and stop half assing it. Estrada, Happ, JD... Im going to be FURIOUS if we mismanage assets. That's literally the whole name of the game as the GM of a ****ing team.

    I don't have a problem with them using the assets to rebuild and attain prospects. Just like I didn't have a problem with AA using prospects to attain great MLB talent. I just want a clear vision.

    I CANNOT believe Shapiro said, "If we didn't play for these fans we would have traded JD by now." I could be wrong but I saw this quote somewhere... and that's SHOCKING.
    Think about it: If Shapiro wants a rebuild and trades JD what do you think will happen with attendance? Rogers is in the business to make money and with those other large contracts the Jays must put together a competitive team to try to be somewhere in the "black." Trading JD waves the white flag to fans.

    We're not sure what Roger's take is on this either. Are they willing to decimate this team and restock the farm and potentially sacrifice the fan base?

    We can only wait and see if Shapiro has the same "magic" that he had in Cleveland or if it works in this division.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •