What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*2014-15 Hot Stove Thread: The Padres won it I guess (3 Viewers)

What are the Red Sox doing? Seems like they've got to be in on at least one, if not two, or the available studs (Shields, Hamels, Zimm, Stras?)? There's no way they roll into the season with the current rotation and that over-crowded outfield.
I'm guessing one more smaller OF trade happens like Craig or possibly Victorino but not much more. The rotation doesn't look great but I've read from a few places like Fangraphs that it actually rates out as average to above average starting 5. It doesn't have the stud but at this point is would it surprise you at all if Porcello ended up having a better season than say Shields? Would you want to pay Shields his rumored asking price of like 125 million? Even 110 million?

Hamels has the no trade to the Red Sox so it basically makes Hamels value less for the Red Sox than say the Padres. For the Padres he is what a 4/90MM left, for the Sox I think it would end up being 5/110. So at this point it's would appear they have no desire to trade Swihart and Betts to the Phillies for Hamels and his 5/110 contract. Someone will have to budge for those two teams to make a deal, seems more likely Hamels gets moved to SD for like Hedges and stuff.
Hard to imagine they'll fetch anything in return. Ive always assumed they'll move JBJ. He seems like the odd-man out with the most perceived value?
Possibly... There doesn't seem to be any real spot for him now or in the future. Problem is I also don't know how much value he has if any. Gold glove type CFer which is great but has had close to a full seasons worth of ABs now and has a line of .196/.268/.280 ... I mean it might be hyperbole but it's probably not a stretch to say he was close to one of the worst hitters in the major leagues. What does that get you? Maybe some sort of depth reliever or AAAA type SP depth?

 
What are the Red Sox doing? Seems like they've got to be in on at least one, if not two, or the available studs (Shields, Hamels, Zimm, Stras?)? There's no way they roll into the season with the current rotation and that over-crowded outfield.
I'm guessing one more smaller OF trade happens like Craig or possibly Victorino but not much more. The rotation doesn't look great but I've read from a few places like Fangraphs that it actually rates out as average to above average starting 5
Fangraphs starting pitching WAR projection has them as best rotation in the AL East, and 5th in the majors. Porcello is projected for 3.0 WAR which is better than Zimmermann and Hamels, and just behind Shields. They may very well be in on some of these guys but it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see them play the first 1/3 of the season with what they got.

 
Dexter Fowler to the Cubs

:confused:
For Valbuena and Dan Straily. Making room for Bryant? Weird deal. Maybe they're thinking Baez needs more time in AAA. Alcantara to 2B.
I don't think they are sending Baez down - sure he strikes out a lot but he is going to hit 30-40 home runs too

Make a lot more sense to move Alcantara to LF - Coghlan is just a 4th OF anyway.
41.5% of the time is more than a lot.

 
What are the Red Sox doing? Seems like they've got to be in on at least one, if not two, or the available studs (Shields, Hamels, Zimm, Stras?)? There's no way they roll into the season with the current rotation and that over-crowded outfield.
I'm guessing one more smaller OF trade happens like Craig or possibly Victorino but not much more. The rotation doesn't look great but I've read from a few places like Fangraphs that it actually rates out as average to above average starting 5
Fangraphs starting pitching WAR projection has them as best rotation in the AL East, and 5th in the majors. Porcello is projected for 3.0 WAR which is better than Zimmermann and Hamels, and just behind Shields.They may very well be in on some of these guys but it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see them play the first 1/3 of the season with what they got.
Seems weird that they would spend all that money on offense and then try to cheap out on pitching. I'll be surprised if they don't sign/trade for a bigger name.

 
Paying out $15mm over 14 years is better than $30mm a year for 7 years, obviously. But who knows what Scherzer could've gotten if he didn't take deferred money.

Nats should take April off just to make the NL East somewhat interesting next year.

 
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?

 
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
Time Value of Money

Money today is worth more than money received at a later date due to inflation.

 
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzers contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
present value
 
The part I don't get with Scherzer is the talk about the $50 million signing bonus. What's the point of that???

 
The Flying Elvis said:
rodg12 said:
The part I don't get with Scherzer is the talk about the $50 million signing bonus. What's the point of that???
It is counted within the full value of the reported contract... It's just language and a way for teams to help skirt stuff for luxury tax purposes I think.
Nah. Signing bonuses are added to the contract value to calculate AAV for luxury tax purposes. It's not even really a signing bonus. He doesn't get $50 million right now. I'm just shuked as to why they're calling it that.

 
dparker713 said:
Anarchy99 said:
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
Time Value of Money

Money today is worth more than money received at a later date due to inflation.
But for luxury tax purposes, it would still count as $210 million even if things were adjusted for inflation or the devaluation of money?

 
Obviously Strasburg is a top 10 pitching talent. But he is only signed for two years and then is going to be very expensive.

 
Obviously Strasburg is a top 10 pitching talent. But he is only signed for two years and then is going to be very expensive.
Betts is promising, but he's no guarantee.
No doubt. And the fact that he isn't a sure thing is the only reason such a deal is possible. Otherwise nobody would give up a cost controlled all-star caliber player like Betts for 2 years of Strasburg.
 
dparker713 said:
Anarchy99 said:
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
Time Value of Money

Money today is worth more than money received at a later date due to inflation.
But for luxury tax purposes, it would still count as $210 million even if things were adjusted for inflation or the devaluation of money?
Maybe, but is that really what Passan is talking about?

 
dparker713 said:
Anarchy99 said:
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
Time Value of Money

Money today is worth more than money received at a later date due to inflation.
But for luxury tax purposes, it would still count as $210 million even if things were adjusted for inflation or the devaluation of money?
Maybe, but is that really what Passan is talking about?
In this article, he is just talking about the NPV of the deal: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--max-scherzer-s-7-year---210-million-deal-with-nats-contains-historic-deferrals-164857543.html

Also, comments about the signing bonus and deferrals enabling Scherzer to avoid taxes:

To make up for the loss with the deferrals – because of inflation and lost interest-earning opportunity, future money is worth less than present – Scherzer will receive $50 million in the form of a signing bonus spread over multiple years, the source said. The benefit to structuring the contract as such is that because his permanent residence is outside the District, Scherzer will not be subject to a state income tax on money earned in Washington, D.C.

The Home Rule Act, established in 1973, exempts nonresidents from paying state income taxes at the capital’s 8.5 percent rate. In practice, it means Scherzer would save more than $4.25 million of the $50 million bonus he’ll receive in Washington, D.C. – though just how much of that would be subject to tax elsewhere depends on the state in which he earns the money and where he resides. Additionally, none of the $105 million in deferred money would be subject to state taxes, potentially saving Scherzer another $8.92 million. All told, the lack of state income tax in D.C., when compared to playing in tax-heavy states, could save Scherzer eight figures. One source said the tax advantages could end up at more than $20 million, offsetting much of the money lost via deferrals.
 
dparker713 said:
Anarchy99 said:
I am not a math and finance guy, so someone explain to me the following statement . . .

"Due to the deferrals, Passan notes that the total value of Scherzer’s contract will come out to less than $210 million. He estimates $185 million."

$15 million x 14 years = $210 million. How does that make it $185 million?
Time Value of Money

Money today is worth more than money received at a later date due to inflation.
But for luxury tax purposes, it would still count as $210 million even if things were adjusted for inflation or the devaluation of money?
Pretty sure the only thing that matters for luxury tax purposes is AAV.

 
Gonna take a lot for Strasburg. Cubs would have to give up Russell+ I would imagine
We should do it.
Probably would take Russell ++...I think we should hang on to our prospects... kick the tires for sure though.
Is Russell that shortstop guy?
http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=milb&player_id=608365#/career/R/hitting/2014/ALL
Dreamy. :wub:

 
Gonna take a lot for Strasburg. Cubs would have to give up Russell+ I would imagine
We should do it.
Probably would take Russell ++...I think we should hang on to our prospects... kick the tires for sure though.
Is Russell that shortstop guy?
http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=milb&player_id=608365#/career/R/hitting/2014/ALL
Dreamy. :wub:
Kris Bryant is dreamy

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top