Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eddie83

They asked Mancini and Santander to defer money

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

A lot of the Davis money is deferred.  The O's will be paying Davis for many years to come.

As for why, it's simple, future money is worth less.

He still gets $17 million which is probably more than they will pay Santander and Mancini combined. If they wanted them together to defer 3 million dollars and pay it on 2022. Why not ask CD to do the same thing. I know future money is worth less...But to me its a detriment if its counted against their available money for payroll. Hopefully when the Orioles are sold the Angelos' family will have to payout Davis with an escrow that doesn't affect the new group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roll Tide said:

He still gets $17 million which is probably more than they will pay Santander and Mancini combined. If they wanted them together to defer 3 million dollars and pay it on 2022. Why not ask CD to do the same thing. I know future money is worth less...But to me its a detriment if its counted against their available money for payroll. Hopefully when the Orioles are sold the Angelos' family will have to payout Davis with an escrow that doesn't affect the new group

I'm guessing Davis would say no.

If they sell the team whatever money that is left on the Davis deal will be accounted for in the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm guessing Davis would say no.

If they sell the team whatever money that is left on the Davis deal will be accounted for in the price.

Well thats good! Maybe they asked Davis....But why would he say no? They already collected more money than they will ever be able to spend. Honestly, It likely improves his tax situation as he likely can keep more later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Well thats good! Maybe they asked Davis....But why would he say no? They already collected more money than they will ever be able to spend. Honestly, It likely improves his tax situation as he likely can keep more later

As a pessimist I'll reply with why would he say yes?  It's not his problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

He still gets $17 million which is probably more than they will pay Santander and Mancini combined. If they wanted them together to defer 3 million dollars and pay it on 2022. Why not ask CD to do the same thing. I know future money is worth less...But to me its a detriment if its counted against their available money for payroll. Hopefully when the Orioles are sold the Angelos' family will have to payout Davis with an escrow that doesn't affect the new group

The situation is fundamentally different. These were offers to players who are negotiating new contracts for 2021. They declined, as is their right.  Davis has a contract, though, what incentive does he have to agree? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

As a pessimist I'll reply with why would he say yes?  It's not his problem.

 

5 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

The situation is fundamentally different. These were offers to players who are negotiating new contracts for 2021. They declined, as is their right.  Davis has a contract, though, what incentive does he have to agree? 

 

Taxes benefits .... Lets say they go to Chris and say we are offering to defer $7 million dollars. And I'm not a tax guy but, I assume the more you make the more taxes you pay. Davis has made all of the money he is going to make in professional baseball with this contract.

So he pays taxes this year on 10 million and then add 1.5 million to his 3.5 per year payments after he is retired or playing independent baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

The situation is fundamentally different. These were offers to players who are negotiating new contracts for 2021. They declined, as is their right.  Davis has a contract, though, what incentive does he have to agree? 

And .... Why anyone would defer money on a 1 year deal on their contract before free agency is beyond me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

And .... Why anyone would defer money on a 1 year deal on their contract before free agency is beyond me

No one did!  😭

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone expecting this ownership group to spend money when the time comes might be very mistaken.  Under the SQ I am thinking it's more likely you get to enjoy our homegrown talent for 4-5 years before they are shipped off.  I follow the Pirates too, those alarms are going off here too.  Its heartbreaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Frobby said:

MASN is not that much of a cash cow these days.    Between the arbitration decision hiking the rights fees and the lost revenue from cord cutting, it’s way less profitable than it used to be.    That, plus playing games with nobody in the stands, has cost the team a lot of money.     

Yeah there are like 20 RSN's in the league, 19 of them are cash cows and make money hand over fist for teams, but the O's have the only one that doesn't make any money. Wait a minute, they actually own 2 RSN's with a combined market of 4th largest, and THAT RSN isn't making any money. Story checks out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Anyone expecting this ownership group to spend money when the time comes might be very mistaken.  Under the SQ I am thinking it's more likely you get to enjoy our homegrown talent for 4-5 years before they are shipped off.  I follow the Pirates too, those alarms are going off here too.  Its heartbreaking.

Its certainly possible.   I'm a cheerleader for 2022's core, and do expect $$$ spent when time, but we'll never know the real financials, and granted it is a unique situation.

The Taillon return bothersome at first glance, though I know most of the clubs have a view of alternate site data, and we don't know if all these 19 and 20 year olds were A ball breakouts.   Pittsburgh really couldn't have paid him $1M to pitch half a year, and if he's any good at all, you have a view of 29 other clubs minor leaguers first halves, and maybe a lot more than this on paper.

It'll be easy to build a case to punt '22 too if the Best Guys are meh or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

As a pessimist I'll reply with why would he say yes?  It's not his problem.

And on top of it, clearly Davis is about Davis. Why would he do anything to help an organization that he won't retire from even though it's clear to everyone to he's an embarrassment on a major league field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

And on top of it, clearly Davis is about Davis. Why would he do anything to help an organization that he won't retire from even though it's clear to everyone to he's an embarrassment on a major league field?

Davis wouldn’t even put in time during the off-season to at least try and fix his swing. Even worse he lied about working out to the media.

The only saving grace is Davis donations to University of Maryland Children’s Hospital. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

And on top of it, clearly Davis is about Davis. Why would he do anything to help an organization that he won't retire from even though it's clear to everyone to he's an embarrassment on a major league field?

Because the Orioles knew what they signed up for 🙄... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • One last thought. When the reserve clause died in court and all players could become free agents every year, the players union was smart and agreed to a service requirement. It was good for salaries and good for the sport to control supply/demand, even if it seemed like a giveaway by the players. If there was a non-performance clause built into free agent contracts that gave some level of relief to owners, it would benefit salaries and the sport. Small to mid size teams would have more ability to chase top talent because the affect of a bad contract would be less calamitous to their limited payroll means if it was discounted by some percentage for non-performance. Ask Scott Boras if he’d rather have three teams bidding for his client or six. Our very own Albert Belle contract made insuring contracts fairly cost prohibitive (though it kinda seems like we’re keeping Davis on the roster for some reason other than insanity). But that practice of insuring contracts showed that there’s more money to spend on players if you give owners some level of protection from disaster contracts like Davis. Owners used to pay huge amounts to insure contracts before they became cost prohibitive. So if it’s good for competitiveness by allowing smaller teams to be more aggressive, and it’s good for player salaries, and it’s good for owners by protecting their investments, by what principle is a player entitled to the full value of a contract that they have essentially defaulted on for non-performance? 
    • By the way, I agree that Davis’ contract was insanely stupid long before he showed us how stupid it was by his performance. Angeles victimized himself. But I’m talking more generally about non-performance of contracts. I think the top earners would fare even better if not for the associated risks by ownership. They aren’t playing with Monopoly money. The risk builds a discounting into what owners will spend. And smaller market teams are less able to take risks because the affect of one Davis-like contract on their smaller payroll is huge. On what principle should players receive the full value of a contract they unable to satisfy competently? We’re rained out tonight....I wouldn’t be asking otherwise. Wait, did you call me noob?  
    • How about a 10 minute deep cleaning between each use of a bathroom stall.  That would be a smarter measure to stop the spread of Covid.  (Or even hourly cleaning of bathroom stalls).  How many Covid infections have really been spread by "outside food"?
    • “Congratulations Mr. O’Corn, I’m thrilled to hire you as my new GM. I’ve always had a real respect, I mean that most sincerely. Obviously we all want to win, I want to win a championship. And I know you want a long career in baseball. and you’d like to keep your kids in school here in Baltimore. Now tell me, should I give you $123 million to work with or $100 million? Which is going to give you a better shot at delivering me a World Series champion?”
    • A catcher can block the plate once he has possession of the ball. Just not before.  Here is the full text of Rule 7.13(2): Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.  If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.
    • Tony - I’m not a HIPAA lawyer, but you shouldn’t assume that because the O’s were authorized to disclose he had myocarditis that they are authorized to provide further details or updates.   Even within the organization, except on a need to know basis.    Still, I do find the situation weird and mysterious.  If I were Kjerstad, I’d want Oriole fans to know that I had a good reason for being out.    I hope he will be OK and gets on the field as soon as he can.    
    • MFYs have had numerous examples of big contracts gone bust (the "Fat Toad" comes to mind, LOL). No sweat; just move on to the next.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...