PDA

View Full Version : Interesting quote from KW


Iwritecode
10-22-2004, 02:20 PM
I did not know Magglio and KW were taking shots at each other.


http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/report/CHW/7814140

Just thought that this deserved it's own thread...

Justafan
10-22-2004, 02:23 PM
I never would have thought KW would call out Magglio like that. This is just an ugly mud slinging contest right now. It's a sad way for Magglio to leave the organization.

Soxzilla
10-22-2004, 02:29 PM
I have to settle with KW on this one (going by reports), he is handling it just like I would if I were in his shoes ... thinking of the best interests of the TEAM.

Flight #24
10-22-2004, 02:31 PM
I never would have thought KW would call out Magglio like that. This is just an ugly mud slinging contest right now. It's a sad way for Magglio to leave the organization.
Huh? KW's at fault here? He was asked about comments by Maggs that he was taken for granted, & gave some examples of how they didn't do that. Nowhere does he actually say anything about Maggs at all. He didn't even call him an ungrateful b**ch, which is what likely came to mind if KW's got his facts stright.

The guy who turned down a very good contract offer, then if refusing to let his employer check on his medical status and whining about said employer seems a lot more like the "bad" guy here.

Iwritecode
10-22-2004, 02:36 PM
Steff was on KW's case for almost this exact same thing last year at Soxfest.

I see another finger-waving in his future... :tsk:

Justafan
10-22-2004, 02:36 PM
Huh? KW's at fault here? He was asked about comments by Maggs that he was taken for granted, & gave some examples of how they didn't do that. Nowhere does he actually say anything about Maggs at all. He didn't even call him an ungrateful b**ch, which is what likely came to mind if KW's got his facts stright.

The guy who turned down a very good contract offer, then if refusing to let his employer check on his medical status and whining about said employer seems a lot more like the "bad" guy here.
No, you misunderstood me. I said it's a sad way for the Magglio era to end. I do not fault either one of them, it's just a sad way for a player who has meant as much to the fans as Magglio has to go out.

Flight #24
10-22-2004, 02:39 PM
No, you misunderstood me. I said it's a sad way for the Magglio era to end. I do not fault either one of them, it's just a sad way for a player who has meant as much to the fans as Magglio has to go out.
OK, sorry. I guess I'm just so used to anything and everything being twisted around and used to attack the team that I jumped the gun!

cornball
10-22-2004, 02:45 PM
No, you misunderstood me. I said it's a sad way for the Magglio era to end. I do not fault either one of them, it's just a sad way for a player who has meant as much to the fans as Magglio has to go out.
Seems like the Sox have bent over backwards for Mags in the past year. Only for Mags to turn down a contract and now ignore the Sox concerns regarding his knee.

Doesn't seem like he wants to stay here...does it? Sad way for Mags and his new agent to say good bye to an organization that has been so good to him.

mweflen
10-22-2004, 03:48 PM
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let's see him get the 5 year 70 mil contract we offered after the Wee Willie Whack Job his knee took this year. I bet he'd kick himself if he were able...

Justafan
10-22-2004, 03:51 PM
You guys are something else. Lets bash the best RF the team has ever had and DEFEND the likes of JR.

mweflen
10-22-2004, 03:56 PM
You guys are something else. Lets bash the best RF trhe team has ever had and DEFEND the likes of JR.
Who defended Satan on this thread? No one I saw...

We're bashing the best RF the team has ever had, who was offered a contract worth 14 mil per year for 5 years, after he said that's what he wanted (I believe the quote was "Tejada money") and then turned it down. Now, he's gimpy and crying about it.

"T.S." is what I say to that. He used to be my favorite player. Now, he can go suck a lemon.

Paulwny
10-22-2004, 03:59 PM
You guys are something else. Lets bash the best RF trhe team has ever had and DEFEND the likes of JR.
I agree, the JR defenders call his decisions good for business but, when Maggs wants to make a carrer move to better him and his family financially he ungrateful and greedy.

Justafan
10-22-2004, 04:12 PM
I agree, the JR defenders call his decisions good for business but, when Maggs wants to make a carrer move to better him and his family financially he ungrateful and greedy.
It's called wanting it both ways.

Flight #24
10-22-2004, 04:15 PM
I agree, the JR defenders call his decisions good for business but, when Maggs wants to make a carrer move to better him and his family financially he ungrateful and greedy.
It's not greedy because he turned down the Sox offer, it's greedy because he asked for X, they either gave him X or came REALLY close to it, and then he turned it down anyway.

Now, when they're trying to make him another offer, he refuses to let them examine his knee, but claims he's still worth the same $$$.

That's the ungrateful and dishonest part. The greed came into play when he got what he wanted and then suddenly decided he wanted more.

Ol' No. 2
10-22-2004, 04:19 PM
It's not greedy because he turned down the Sox offer, it's greedy because he asked for X, they either gave him X or came REALLY close to it, and then he turned it down anyway.

Now, when they're trying to make him another offer, he refuses to let them examine his knee, but claims he's still worth the same $$$.

That's the ungrateful and dishonest part. The greed came into play when he got what he wanted and then suddenly decided he wanted more.I, for one, have never heard the actual figures for the Sox offer. If you say they came REALLY close, you must know. Please post the exact figures.

Flight #24
10-22-2004, 04:22 PM
I, for one, have never heard the actual figures for the Sox offer. If you say they came REALLY close, you must know. Please post the exact figures.
That's based on numerous comments that the Sox came up to Maggs 5-yr/70mil request, but he declined due to deferred $$$. Since the CBA prohibits deferrals beyond 2 years after the contract ends, unless you think they were doing something like deferring all of yr 1 to yr 7, the next impact of the deferral was likely to be <5mil.

I'd call 5mil on a 70mil deal to be pretty close.

Ol' No. 2
10-22-2004, 04:27 PM
That's based on numerous comments that the Sox came up to Maggs 5-yr/70mil request, but he declined due to deferred $$$. Since the CBA prohibits deferrals beyond 2 years after the contract ends, unless you think they were doing something like deferring all of yr 1 to yr 7, the next impact of the deferral was likely to be <5mil.

I'd call 5mil on a 70mil deal to be pretty close.I had this discussion with jabrch on another thread. Depending on how much was deferred, the net value lost could be as much as $10M.

munchman33
10-22-2004, 08:12 PM
I had this discussion with jabrch on another thread. Depending on how much was deferred, the net value lost could be as much as $10M.
Poor baby.

RKMeibalane
10-22-2004, 08:19 PM
Fearless Prediction #9:

Neither Frank Thomas nor Magglio Ordonez will be with the White Sox when the 2006 season beings. You can take that to the bank.

johnny_mostil
10-22-2004, 08:41 PM
Fearless Prediction #9:

Neither Frank Thomas nor Magglio Ordonez will be with the White Sox when the 2006 season beings. You can take that to the bank.
Frank will be 38 years old, and with his recent health history, and I don't see him getting a bucketful of bucks anywhere; but, on the other hand, KW seems bound and determined to run him out of town so he can get guys like Timo enough at bats to merit Hall of Fame attention after their careers.

Flight #24
10-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Frank will be 38 years old, and with his recent health history, and I don't see him getting a bucketful of bucks anywhere; but, on the other hand, KW seems bound and determined to run him out of town so he can get guys like Timo enough at bats to merit Hall of Fame attention after their careers.

Is that still true? I know it was the case, but that was when Frank was making, IIRC 10-12mil/yr and the Sox were at a much lower payroll total. Now that Payroll's bumped up and Frank's at a lower rate, I'd be surprised if even though he may not like him, KW doesn't realize the value of a Frank Thomas.

Now I'd fully expect that when the team has a buyout or the salary becomes 10-12mil that Frank won't see that $$$, but at that point, I'd also bet that they come to an agreement to keep him on the Sox at a reasonable rate, again - making him a good value.

But Frank at 12mil - as much as I love the guy, when you can almost get a Beltran for that much, I might be looking at what else I could do to cut that down.

Ol' No. 2
10-22-2004, 11:16 PM
Poor baby.No one ever suggested we would have to take up a collection to support his kids. Even if he never earned another dime in his life, he's still pretty much set. But a net $60M is hardly "REALY CLOSE" to $70M, which was the original point.

voodoochile
10-23-2004, 08:55 AM
No one ever suggested we would have to take up a collection to support his kids. Even if he never earned another dime in his life, he's still pretty much set. But a net $60M is hardly "REALY CLOSE" to $70M, which was the original point.
What's the net of 70M over 5 years with no deferred money?

I'm assuming the 10M figure you are using is current value. The 70M contract already loses some value based on current value. Is the deferred money really a 10M difference to current value?

FightingBillini
10-23-2004, 09:01 AM
I had this discussion with jabrch on another thread. Depending on how much was deferred, the net value lost could be as much as $10M.
I dont know anything on the topic, but how does he lose money if he is garaunteed to get it back within 2 years after the contract ends?

voodoochile
10-23-2004, 09:09 AM
I dont know anything on the topic, but how does he lose money if he is garaunteed to get it back within 2 years after the contract ends?
It's all about current value.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now because of inflation.

After about 30 years any amount of money drops to near zero value today.

Today a dollar will buy you 1.00 worth of stuff.

Next year, it will only buy you about .95 worth of stuff because of price increases.

After 7 years on a large contract, there can be a substantial drop in net current value.

Flight #24
10-23-2004, 09:09 AM
I dont know anything on the topic, but how does he lose money if he is garaunteed to get it back within 2 years after the contract ends?
Basically, a dollar in 1 year is worth less than a dollar today because at the time you receive that dollar (intoday+1year), your "original" dollar would be worth more based on interest.

So I could pay you a dollar today and it would be worth $1.08 (with interest) ina year, or I could pay you a dollar in a year. In the 2d case, you lost .08.

johnny_mostil
10-23-2004, 09:16 AM
But Frank at 12mil - as much as I love the guy, when you can almost get a Beltran for that much, I might be looking at what else I could do to cut that down.
$12M for one year is not the same as $14M for 5-6 years. The odds that even Beltran will produce consistently for half a decade aren't good.

Ol' No. 2
10-23-2004, 12:49 PM
What's the net of 70M over 5 years with no deferred money?

I'm assuming the 10M figure you are using is current value. The 70M contract already loses some value based on current value. Is the deferred money really a 10M difference to current value?If you just consider the first year, that money can be deferred for 7 years. If you discount at 10%/yr (not an unreasonable figure for business investment), a dollar deferred for 7 years is worth only 51 cents in present value. So if they deferred $5M of the first year money, the net loss is about $2.5M. Deferrals from subsequent years show a smaller net loss since they're not deferred for as many years (just discount them from when they're paid to when they're earned, not to present value). But also, there was a clause for the final year (similar to Thomas' "diminished skills" clause) that allowed the Sox to defer more money if he didn't make certain performance targets. Without knowing all the details, you can't get an exact figure, which is why my original estimate was in the neighborhood of $5-10M.

Flight #24
10-23-2004, 01:05 PM
If you just consider the first year, that money can be deferred for 7 years. If you discount at 10%/yr (not an unreasonable figure for business investment), a dollar deferred for 7 years is worth only 51 cents in present value. So if they deferred $5M of the first year money, the net loss is about $2.5M. Deferrals from subsequent years show a smaller net loss since they're not deferred for as many years (just discount them from when they're paid to when they're earned, not to present value). But also, there was a clause for the final year (similar to Thomas' "diminished skills" clause) that allowed the Sox to defer more money if he didn't make certain performance targets. Without knowing all the details, you can't get an exact figure, which is why my original estimate was in the neighborhood of $5-10M.The question is what a bank will charge you to bring that forward, and 10% seems high given the relatively stale nature of baseball and the relatively low risk of default. Someone (jabrch?) posted $50k/1mil in cost/yr, So your $5m/7years would cost 1.75mil. Ballparking a $5mil total over the contract (assuming there's nothing ludicrous like deferring all $14mil or anything), I'd say they were in fact extremely close. Or at least close enough to warrant a counteroffer from Maggs, which is something that apparently never happened.

Also - the CBA prevents DSC-type deferrals, IIRC. All $$ have to be paid within 2 ears of contracts end, so if you defer the whole $14mil of yr5 for 2 years, that's a cost of $1.4mil.

Daver
10-23-2004, 05:36 PM
Teams cannot defer over twenty percent of a years salary in any given year of a contract.

Ol' No. 2
10-23-2004, 05:56 PM
Teams cannot defer over twenty percent of a years salary in any given year of a contract.That would have to be a new provision in the CBA. If you recall, Thomas had $4M of his $10M deferred BEFORE they invoked the "diminished skills" clause.

Ol' No. 2
10-23-2004, 06:04 PM
The question is what a bank will charge you to bring that forward, and 10% seems high given the relatively stale nature of baseball and the relatively low risk of default. Someone (jabrch?) posted $50k/1mil in cost/yr, So your $5m/7years would cost 1.75mil. Ballparking a $5mil total over the contract (assuming there's nothing ludicrous like deferring all $14mil or anything), I'd say they were in fact extremely close. Or at least close enough to warrant a counteroffer from Maggs, which is something that apparently never happened.

Also - the CBA prevents DSC-type deferrals, IIRC. All $$ have to be paid within 2 ears of contracts end, so if you defer the whole $14mil of yr5 for 2 years, that's a cost of $1.4mil.What a bank charges you is irrelevant, as is their credit-worthiness. They're not BORROWING the money. They're freeing up money to invest elsewhere. $50k per million per year is 5%. Few, if any, businesses do their financial projections based on that kind of return. Long-term, the stock market has returned better than 10%, so it would be pretty tough to attract investment capital if you returned less than that. That's NOT a high figure.

Daver
10-23-2004, 06:11 PM
That would have to be a new provision in the CBA. If you recall, Thomas had $4M of his $10M deferred BEFORE they invoked the "diminished skills" clause.
It is in the new CBA, as part of the section that defines the 60/40 rule.

Ol' No. 2
10-23-2004, 06:24 PM
It is in the new CBA, as part of the section that defines the 60/40 rule.Then assuming 20% of each year is deferred, and a discount rate of 10%, then the NPV is $45.3M compared to a NPV of $53.1M with no deferral. That amounts to about a little less than 15% net reduction in value. I'll leave it up to you to decide if this is a big difference or not. It's really a matter of opinion.

batmanZoSo
10-23-2004, 10:20 PM
:KW
"We're the ones who were there for you when you were at your worst! We're the ones who sacrificed our lives for you!" [flips over buffet table]

Flight #24
10-23-2004, 10:43 PM
What a bank charges you is irrelevant, as is their credit-worthiness. They're not BORROWING the money. They're freeing up money to invest elsewhere. $50k per million per year is 5%. Few, if any, businesses do their financial projections based on that kind of return. Long-term, the stock market has returned better than 10%, so it would be pretty tough to attract investment capital if you returned less than that. That's NOT a high figure.
We're talking about this from Maggs perspective. So it's "If I were to get a loan on the $2.8mil/yr, how much would it cost me"?.

I highly doubt a guy with Maggs income history and likely asset base is going to get a 10% rate on a loan.

Even if it is 10%, the cash flows work out to be:

2005: $11.2mil/1.1 = $10.18 (Assume Maggs gets paid at the end of the year so he gets minimum value on his $$$)
2006: $11.2mil/1.1^2 = $9.26
2007: $11.2mil/1.1^3 = $8.41
2008: $11.2mil/1.1^4 = $7.65
2009: $11.2mil/1.1^5 = $6.95
2010: 0
2011: $14mil/1.1^7 = $7.18

Total = $49.64mil
Undeferred: $53.07mil

Difference = $3.43mil (6.5%)

If Maggs rate goes down so does the difference. I'd call that pretty close.

Ol' No. 2
10-24-2004, 12:12 AM
We're talking about this from Maggs perspective. So it's "If I were to get a loan on the $2.8mil/yr, how much would it cost me"?.

I highly doubt a guy with Maggs income history and likely asset base is going to get a 10% rate on a loan.

Even if it is 10%, the cash flows work out to be:

2005: $11.2mil/1.1 = $10.18 (Assume Maggs gets paid at the end of the year so he gets minimum value on his $$$)
2006: $11.2mil/1.1^2 = $9.26
2007: $11.2mil/1.1^3 = $8.41
2008: $11.2mil/1.1^4 = $7.65
2009: $11.2mil/1.1^5 = $6.95
2010: 0
2011: $14mil/1.1^7 = $7.18

Total = $49.64mil
Undeferred: $53.07mil

Difference = $3.43mil (6.5%)

If Maggs rate goes down so does the difference. I'd call that pretty close.Oops. Your numbers are correct. I did the calcs for a number of scenarios and grabbed the wrong column.

But I stand by the 10% discount rate. He's not going to be borrowing the difference. For him, it's lost investment as well. Whether 6.5% is a little or a lot depends on your viewpoint. Why should he take less if someone is offering a contract with no deferred money?

Also, there's more to the contracts than just salary. Teams will offer marketing rights in which a player can use the team's logos and uniforms in their endorsement deals. Have you seen the Kerry Wood commercial in which he wears a generic black hat and a uniform with no markings on it except "Kerry Wood" written on the back. It's not that easy for anyone except a serious fan to even identify him. That makes it a lot less lucrative. I have no idea what kind of terms were or weren't in the Sox offer, but the point is, there's more than just salary involved.

I guess the bottom line is that while I was disappointed he rejected the Sox offer, I'm not going to throw stones. It's easy to say you would have taken the offer, but until you've actually been there....

Daver
10-24-2004, 01:10 AM
Also, there's more to the contracts than just salary. Teams will offer marketing rights in which a player can use the team's logos and uniforms in their endorsement deals. Have you seen the Kerry Wood commercial in which he wears a generic black hat and a uniform with no markings on it except "Kerry Wood" written on the back. It's not that easy for anyone except a serious fan to even identify him. That makes it a lot less lucrative. I have no idea what kind of terms were or weren't in the Sox offer, but the point is, there's more than just salary involved.
Your dead wrong on this.

Team logos are marketed through MLB, and are limited to MLB sponsors, or team sponsors in local markets, as decreed by MLB. Money generated through the use of a team logo is shared revenue, an individual player that wants to endorse a product that is not a sponsor of MLB or a team would have to pay a share of his income from the endorsement to MLB to use a team logo. Most endorsement deals involving players are handled by the teams marketing dept. or by MLB's marketing people. The MLB office leaves no stone unturned when it comes to generating profit for the league office, as well as the owners.

Ol' No. 2
10-24-2004, 01:24 AM
Your dead wrong on this.

Team logos are marketed through MLB, and are limited to MLB sponsors, or team sponsors in local markets, as decreed by MLB. Money generated through the use of a team logo is shared revenue, an individual player that wants to endorse a product that is not a sponsor of MLB or a team would have to pay a share of his income from the endorsement to MLB to use a team logo. Most endorsement deals involving players are handled by the teams marketing dept. or by MLB's marketing people. The MLB office leaves no stone unturned when it comes to generating profit for the league office, as well as the owners.Sorry, but I don't think that's correct. Recall the A-Rod (almost) deal last winter? Because he was giving back money, the CBA rules required that he get something of equivalent value in return. Part of that value was in the Red Sox allowing him to use the team logos in his endorsement deals. That's not marketing a logo, it's just using it as part of another advertisement.

Daver
10-24-2004, 01:48 AM
Sorry, but I don't think that's correct. Recall the A-Rod (almost) deal last winter? Because he was giving back money, the CBA rules required that he get something of equivalent value in return. Part of that value was in the Red Sox allowing him to use the team logos in his endorsement deals. That's not marketing a logo, it's just using it as part of another advertisement.
Read the CBA, and the agreement signed by all the owners of MLB, they do not have the authority to allow a player to use a logo for personal gain. Alex Rodriguez agreed in terms, to a reduction in salary, the MLBPA stepped in to remind the commisioner that under the terms of the CBA a player cannot have his salary reduced, and MLB was forced, under their own terms of shared revenue, to deny the trade because of that.

Ol' No. 2
10-24-2004, 11:08 AM
Read the CBA, and the agreement signed by all the owners of MLB, they do not have the authority to allow a player to use a logo for personal gain. Alex Rodriguez agreed in terms, to a reduction in salary, the MLBPA stepped in to remind the commisioner that under the terms of the CBA a player cannot have his salary reduced, and MLB was forced, under their own terms of shared revenue, to deny the trade because of that.See the following ESPN articles:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1690537

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1689026

WhiteSoxFan84
10-25-2004, 02:39 PM
It's pretty simple, how far did we go w/ Magglio? Nowhere, good riddance. He was never a vocal leader and never will be. He is very productive but how many games did Magglio win for the Sox (walk-offs or GW RBIs)? I don't recall more than 1 or 2. Frank Thomas alone since Maggz has been in the big leagues has had over 10 and was the main reason (along with amazing+overacheiving SP) we won 95 games in 2000. If Thomas can be a little more positive as he has been improving on in the last couple of years (even though you continue to hear from reporters that he's evil - you see him smiling and laughing along with other players in the dugout? I do), I think he can lead this team once more.

Magglio hiring agent Scott Boras proves what kind of man he is, a selfish prick. Carlos Beltran FIRING Boras shows what kind of man he is, a team player who wants to win (and of course will make the big bucks no matter who his agent is) and not go play for the highest bidder for the sake of making more money. If KW can land Beltran somehow, someway, he will have shown off Maggz and Boras without saying a word, and Sox fans will be asking them selves, "Maggli-Who"?

Flight #24
10-25-2004, 02:44 PM
Carlos Beltran FIRING Boras shows what kind of man he is, a team player who wants to win (and of course will make the big bucks no matter who his agent is) and not go play for the highest bidder for the sake of making more money.
Is this true? I haven't seen it, if true, that's an awesome sign. And IMO good for baseball if players move away from agents who focus almost exclusively on the monetary aspects of the deal.

Paulwny
10-25-2004, 04:03 PM
Magglio hiring agent Scott Boras proves what kind of man he is, a selfish prick. Carlos Beltran FIRING Boras shows what kind of man he is, a team player who wants to win (and of course will make the big bucks no matter who his agent is) and not go play for the highest bidder for the sake of making more money. If KW can land Beltran somehow, someway, he will have shown off Maggz and Boras without saying a word, and Sox fans will be asking them selves, "Maggli-Who"?
Beltran hasn't fired Boras yet, he still is his agent. Rumor has it that he'll be fired at the end of the series. We shall see.