PDA

View Full Version : Tigers, Willis agree to 3 year extension


Sockinchisox
12-20-2007, 12:22 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3163167

3 yrs, 29 mil w/incentives to make it worth more than 30 mil.

rdivaldi
12-20-2007, 12:24 PM
I wonder if that pretty much guarantees that they won't be able to keep Cabrera?

jabrch
12-20-2007, 12:28 PM
I wonder if that pretty much guarantees that they won't be able to keep Cabrera?


Why would you say that? Illitch can afford it if he wants to...

Sockinchisox
12-20-2007, 12:28 PM
I wonder if that pretty much guarantees that they won't be able to keep Cabrera?

It might all depend on if they can dump Inge and Thames.

Noneck
12-20-2007, 12:32 PM
Why would you say that? Illitch can afford it if he wants to...
Afford? No such thing as poor ownership anymore. Willing to spend is more like it.

Oblong
12-20-2007, 12:42 PM
The trade wouldn't have been made unless they were confident they could sign Cabrera. Ilitch was told of that when he suggested to Dombrowski to go after him. This signing has nothing to do with Cabrera.

Considering that $10 million seems to be the going rate for mediocrity these days, I think it's a fine deal. They had him for 2 more years anyway so it's just buying his first year of FA.

jabrch
12-20-2007, 01:02 PM
Afford? No such thing as poor ownership anymore. Willing to spend is more like it.


Ownership hardly ever was "poor".

Being able to afford something, however, is a factor of budget. All GMs would love to spend more, but are constrainted by some budget. Althought some have never hit the ceiling of their spending yet.

Noneck
12-20-2007, 01:44 PM
Ownership hardly ever was "poor".

Being able to afford something, however, is a factor of budget. All GMs would love to spend more, but are constrainted by some budget. Althought some have never hit the ceiling of their spending yet.
That is all dependent on the type of budget and the goals one has. The Tigers seem to want to increase their capital budget and feel as tho this increase will help future worth. Others are able to do the same. And I am not talking about GM's here, just ownership.

"Poor" owners probably not but it appears the very rich as are all in ownership today.

jabrch
12-20-2007, 02:06 PM
The Tigers seem to want to increase their capital budget

To nitpick, Operating budget - not capital budget. The latter would involve building a new stadium, not signing a player.


"Poor" owners probably not but it appears the very rich as are all in ownership today.

There is no doubt about that. The values of these franchises alone make these people extremely wealthy, even if that was all they owned, which we know to not be the case. That said, they still have operating budgets that are based on revenues and profit margins that they make, and in many cases that determines what they can spend. Very few organizations spend operating dollars from a capital budget. Baseball discourages that practice by not allowing for significant portions of team's to be financed via debt for a reason.

Tekijawa
12-20-2007, 02:41 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Little-Caesars-Logo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Little-Caesars-Logo.jpg)

Pizza Pizza!

Noneck
12-20-2007, 02:49 PM
The values of these franchises alone make these people extremely wealthy, even if that was all they owned, which we know to not be the case. That said, they still have operating budgets that are based on revenues and profit margins that they make, and in many cases that determines what they can spend. Very few organizations spend operating dollars from a capital budget. Baseball discourages that practice by not allowing for significant portions of team's to be financed via debt for a reason.

You whet my appetite for knowledge. Who determines the profit margins? Ownership? Also as you explained to me before the values of the franchises make the investors very wealthy but only when they sell their stock. But they rarely sell so this just affects their net worth on their books not what they can spend? If this is correct, it is income they are not able to spend but they don't care because they came into ownership with more money than they could possible spend and are in ownership mainly for prestige.

It's Dankerific
12-20-2007, 02:54 PM
You wet my appetite for knowledge. Who determines the profit margins? Ownership? Also as you explained to me before the values of the franchises make the investors very wealthy but only when they sell their stock. But they rarely sell so this just affects their net worth on their books not what they can spend? If this is correct, it is income they are not able to spend but they don't care because they came into ownership with more money than they could possible spend and are in ownership mainly for prestige.

nothing stops an owner from taking a tax-free low interest loan against his stake instead of selling it. the debt service is less than income tax, especially when you can reinvest it in something else. buy, borrow, die

TheCommander
12-20-2007, 05:05 PM
You wet my appetite for knowledge.

I think you mean "whet." :wink:

Noneck
12-20-2007, 05:27 PM
I think you mean "whet." :wink:
Yes I did and Slip Mahoney I am.

soxfanreggie
12-20-2007, 11:43 PM
With what he's shown over the last 5 years, compared to what I've seen other starters get, this could be considered a steal, especially if he starts producing like he has before.

cards press box
12-20-2007, 11:58 PM
I wonder if that pretty much guarantees that they won't be able to keep Cabrera?

I don't think the Willis signing and the Tigers' contract negotiations with Cabrera are related but I would be surprised to see Cabrera sign a contract for longer than two years. If he becomes a free agent two years from now, he would be like a young Manny Ramirez hitting the open market. That's a major opportunity and I can't see Cabrera giving that up absent a really giant contract extension.

thedudeabides
12-21-2007, 12:10 AM
The trade wouldn't have been made unless they were confident they could sign Cabrera. Ilitch was told of that when he suggested to Dombrowski to go after him. This signing has nothing to do with Cabrera.

Considering that $10 million seems to be the going rate for mediocrity these days, I think it's a fine deal. They had him for 2 more years anyway so it's just buying his first year of FA.

I have a source who's a prominent figure on the Chicago sports scene, who says Cabrera is not going to resign. He'll play it out and become a free agent. That is why they're signing Dontrelle.

I don't name drop normally, he's saying they're just saving face in the trade.

BadBobbyJenks
12-21-2007, 03:04 AM
I would have waited to see at least A game from a guy who has been declining in AAAA the last 3 seasons, but that is just me.

jabrch
12-21-2007, 09:39 AM
Who determines the profit margins? Ownership?

Absolutely. But I have a hard time imagining that any of these people, who are all extremely wealthy from outside interests, are making anything that would be considered substantial off of this. Their profits have been in the appreciation of their teams; and a large part of this is vanity. If they wanted to make more money, they'd invest in more of what made them filthy rich to begin with.

Also as you explained to me before the values of the franchises make the investors very wealthy but only when they sell their stock. But they rarely sell so this just affects their net worth on their books not what they can spend? If this is correct, it is income they are not able to spend but they don't care because they came into ownership with more money than they could possible spend and are in ownership mainly for prestige.

In most cases, that's it...In the case of the Sox, it is DEFINITELY true. Each of the people who own shares were wealthy beyond most people's wildest dreams before the Sox. JR made it in real estate - so did Malkin, . Einhorn in media. Muchin as the name partner of KMZ, Mazer in Chemicals, Pinsky and Brozowski in investments, Walsh in construction, Stern on the CBOT, Takiff in Law and other interests...etc. These guys don't really care if this investment pays them X or Y.

nothing stops an owner from taking a tax-free low interest loan against his stake instead of selling it. the debt service is less than income tax, especially when you can reinvest it in something else. buy, borrow, die

That's not true. There are very strict rules as to what debt a franchise can take on, and what they can and can not pledge as collateral.

Short of pulling money out of their own pockets, there isn't much more that this ownership group can spend. What little money they make on an annual basis wouldn't make much a difference to the payroll.


The Sox need to find ways to increase revenues if they want to spend more, not reduce the limited payouts and executive salaries or take on debt to fund operations.

balke
12-21-2007, 09:56 AM
One thing I don't get, or maybe its something the Tigers are thinking... why would you want Willis so much in the AL? He'd be a great commodity in the NL where he can hit. I guess the same goes for Garland and Sabathia though. I just think its a small shame that pitchers who can hit play in the AL.

His ERA in the AL central, coming to the Cell is probably going to get close to 4.40. I don't know if this was such a great deal for the Tigers, unless they think they can trade him back to the NL down the line. Either way, I think this is a good thing for the Sox. Hopefully they are able to touch him up a bit.

Comparing that to Vazquez though, i guess it could be a really good deal. Putting a good team behind Willis could do wonders for him.