Red Sox sign Ranger Suarez. 5 years $130 Million

[drewski6]

4 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

 

If it is true, and Bloom was not given the opportunity to offer a no trade clause, it's hard for me to think that was a botch. Of course, he could have botched other aspects of the talks and hardened Breggie against coming back to BOS, and that's not a good thing, at all. If "bay all accounts" he did that, he made a mistake, but that does not mean he "botched" a signing that could never have happened, unless Breggie dropped the no trade clause.

One could argue the animosity Brez caused made it more difficult for Breggie to drop the no trade clause demand, and maybe there is truth to that, and indirectly, that was a botch.

To me, I don't know. I'm not throwing anyone under a bus before knowing.

Brez seems to have some faults with communication and interpersonal relationships. That's kind of a human trait we all share to some degree.

My only issue with this is all of your disclaimers like "if true" or that you dont know

When I have seen Alex Speier, Buster Olney, Tyler Milliken, Jarred Carrabis, AJ Pierzynski all put their names on the line to say something along the lines of yes, Breslow made the negotiations more frustrating than they needed to be and made it easier for Bregman to take the cubs offer.

Beyond that, your post here is very reasonable. And it may be too far to call it a botch.  But this happened:

If "bay all accounts" he did that, he made a mistake, but that does not mean he "botched" a signing that could never have happened, unless Breggie dropped the no trade clause.

One could argue the animosity Brez caused made it more difficult for Breggie to drop the no trade clause demand, and maybe there is truth to that, and indirectly, that was a botch.

And the only reason I can think of why you have a good take on what happened (your post is a good take), but you are not fully willing to accept that this happened is because you are trusting Joe over Google.  And thats silly.  Always fact check but ESPECIALLY when it comes from Joe Brady and/or Twitter.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Net present value can easily be higher taking more money in the future if it’s a lot more money.  You’re not the only person who understands how to discount back cash flows to present day.

What we ARE talking about is the CUBS offered MORE NPV to Bregman than the SOX. That's what is reported. The SOX reportedly DEFERRED a ton of money decades out to lower that NPV beyond what Bregman wanted. The CUBS DEFFERED LESS.

The SOX didn't offer MORE money later on, so that example doesn't matter. 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I thought it was implied that if you’re taking money later, rather than sooner there is a premium attached to it.  That’s how it works the majority of the time, but there are certainly times like this that make sense for a lot of people. 
 

it’s like the age old question of taking the monthly payments or the one time payout when you hit the jackpot.  We can math this all day but fact is there are people choosing one and some the other.

With the jackpot, the payments are different. If you take the payout, it's less cash. If you take the payments, you get more cash. It's also a completely different argument as many lottery winners should probably NOT take the lump sum as they are likely to screw up early on and lose the vast majority of it. However, if they were to take yearly payments, they could still rely on a known income stream. If they were more sophisticated investors and weren't average joes, it would be certainly a different discussion.

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

What we ARE talking about is the CUBS offered MORE NPV to Bregman than the SOX. That's what is reported. The SOX reportedly DEFERRED a ton of money decades out to lower that NPV beyond what Bregman wanted. The CUBS DEFFERED LESS.

The SOX didn't offer MORE money later on, so that example doesn't matter. 

Exactly correct, but my "yes and" is a question

Why? Why defer so much more. Your theory is that they really didnt want him like a guy who cant dump a girl so he starts acting bad to get her to dump him.

Okay, maybe.  

But I have heard that the red sox thought their offer was best when it clearly wasnt and they were just too dense to read the room or open their ears

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I’m sure no one else out there wanted to offer Ohtani money.  The bluejays offered $700 million, but it’s known that Ohtani SPECIFICALLY requested that any team paying him structure it with massive amounts of money deferred because he wanted whatever team he played for to have the financial flexibility to build a team around him.

He was offered 491M the first year and 1M the next 9 as notin's example suggested? That was my question, not whatever you're answering.

[moonslav59]

35 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the only truth we have right now. Dismissing it right now doesn't make sense unless there are other reports that suggest it may not be the truth (and not simply message board conjecture).

I'm thinking it very likely happened. I wonder if it mattered.

[mvp 78]

Just now, drewski6 said:

Exactly correct, but my "yes and" is a question

Why? Why defer so much more. Your theory is that they really didnt want him like a guy who cant dump a girl so he starts acting bad to get her to dump him.

Okay, maybe.  

But I have heard that the red sox thought their offer was best when it clearly wasnt and they were just too dense to read the room or open their ears

1. CBT flexibility

2. To get to a known AAV that fit the Red Sox internal model

3. They wanted him enough to take the offer that was presented, no more apparently

 

One story I heard, I guess Boras did try to up the negotiations last year and go back to the Sox with another offer that was higher that didn't exist or something. When Boras went back to them this year after the Cubs offer, the Sox believed they were bidding against themselves again and weren't willing to budge. We don't know how flatfooted the Sox were by the Cubs signing Bregman. I'd say "at least somewhat." 

[moonslav59]

10 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

My only issue with this is all of your disclaimers like "if true" or that you dont know

When I have seen Alex Speier, Buster Olney, Tyler Milliken, Jarred Carrabis, AJ Pierzynski all put their names on the line to say something along the lines of yes, Breslow made the negotiations more frustrating than they needed to be and made it easier for Bregman to take the cubs offer.

Beyond that, your post here is very reasonable. And it may be too far to call it a botch.  But this happened:

If "bay all accounts" he did that, he made a mistake, but that does not mean he "botched" a signing that could never have happened, unless Breggie dropped the no trade clause.

One could argue the animosity Brez caused made it more difficult for Breggie to drop the no trade clause demand, and maybe there is truth to that, and indirectly, that was a botch.

And the only reason I can think of why you have a good take on what happened (your post is a good take), but you are not fully willing to accept that this happened is because you are trusting Joe over Google.  And thats silly.  Always fact check but ESPECIALLY when it comes from Joe Brady and/or Twitter.

Assuming all accounts are 100% accurate, my point is that as long as Brez was not allowed to budge on the no trade clause, any "botching" didn't matter- this time, but would still be concerning.

Maybe the no trade clause could have been overlooked by Breggie, if he had felt respected, and Brez gave back some on the deferred money, but if Brez has no leeway on that, I come to the same "the botching didn't matter in this case," because the Cubs would have gotten him no matter what, and again, I'd still be concerned about Brez's techniques interfering with future signings, especially those I think are worth overpaying for.

I am fully open to the idea Brez made some mistakes on this and likely several other talks. IMO, we were never going to give what the Cubs gave, and that the reasons were not of Brez's choices. That does not put him above criticism for things he did wrong, but I don't think Breggie was going to be a Sox, as long as that Cubs offer was out there.

[JoeBrady]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

where the Red Sox wanted to stretch the deferring over decades was the Reporting.

IMHO, ten years is plenty.  Players will want see some money in the bank at some point.  But past that, I'd like to see the offer sheet.  It is both amounts and duration.  Deferring $5M/year for 15 years might be more favorable to the player than deferring $10M/year for 10 years.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

1. CBT flexibility

2. To get to a known AAV that fit the Red Sox internal model

3. They wanted him enough to take the offer that was presented, no more apparently

 

One story I heard, I guess Boras did try to up the negotiations last year and go back to the Sox with another offer that was higher that didn't exist or something. When Boras went back to them this year after the Cubs offer, the Sox believed they were bidding against themselves again and weren't willing to budge. We don't know how flatfooted the Sox were by the Cubs signing Bregman. I'd say "at least somewhat." 

Exactly, and if we assume the Sox model of not budging from their top offer was in play, we were likely never going to get Breggie as long as the Cubs offered what Brez was not allowed to offer and never would have been, even if he did everything right.

Bloom got serious grief for bidding against himself on Masa. It's not always easy to know when that is happening. In hindsight, we all think, how can you not have known. Now, in hindsight, we are saying he should have known it was not a csae of bidding against himself. 

[Hugh2]

18 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

What we ARE talking about is the CUBS offered MORE NPV to Bregman than the SOX. That's what is reported. The SOX reportedly DEFERRED a ton of money decades out to lower that NPV beyond what Bregman wanted. The CUBS DEFFERED LESS.

The SOX didn't offer MORE money later on, so that example doesn't matter. 

I meant the cash, the Sox are paying out or would be paying out more Cash to him in the future.  I never once said the NPV of their deal was more, obviously the Cubs offer was superior.

  

[Hugh2]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

With the jackpot, the payments are different. If you take the payout, it's less cash. If you take the payments, you get more cash. It's also a completely different argument as many lottery winners should probably NOT take the lump sum as they are likely to screw up early on and lose the vast majority of it. However, if they were to take yearly payments, they could still rely on a known income stream. If they were more sophisticated investors and weren't average joes, it would be certainly a different discussion.

If you take the payments it’s often more in principal, but if you want an apples to apples comparison you have to discount those cash flows back to a present day value using a discount rate, I know with financial instruments they often use the risk free rate or something like that [LIBOR was standard back in the day]. So if the principal of future payments is equal to principal in present day the payments are never enticing so they HAVE to be higher.

you literally just made my argument.  How many pro athletes f*** up in life and go broke? That crap happens.  There is a lure to taking more money in the future.  That was my only argument, I was never trying to say the NPV of Boston’s deal was superior.  
 

just because pro athletes are already paid, doesn’t mean that they don’t make financial decisions like that too. 

[JoeBrady]

49 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the only truth we have right now. Dismissing it right now doesn't make sense

I have no issue with people deciding which version to believe, but we don't have two versions, and might not have one version.  Some guy says he heard that Bregman was displeased with certain facets of the negotiation.  Has anyone thought that Bregman might not be dealing directly with Breslow?  If that's the case, then it is Boras feeding info to Bregman (which could be untrue), Bregman talking with an alleged MLB insider, who then talked to a reporter.

[JoeBrady]

37 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

The argument is Joe Brady saying that we dont know what happened because he wants to sow doubt and manipulate,

Why would I want to do that?  No one here has 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd hand knowledge of what went on.  I fine with believing Bregman objected to the no-trade.  What else do we know?  If someone can tell me what the RS offered, at least in the ballpark, then we'll know more.

But it won't matter.  If the CBT offer was $135M/5, then Breslow didn't value Bregman as much as the Cubs.  

[JoeBrady]

30 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

he wanted whatever team he played for to have the financial flexibility to build a team around him.

I can think of two other reasons.

1. I know that CA is looking to change their tax laws, but if the law is taxing Ohtani on his $2M instead of the PV $42M, then Ohtani is saving about $40M over the course of the contract.
2. This is probably sure to start a fight, but IF Ohtani has a gambling problem, it is POSSIBLE that he feels more comfortable only getting $2M a year in cash.

[JoeBrady]

24 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

go back to the Sox with another offer that was higher that didn't exist or something.

He did the same thing with JDM, twice.

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe the no trade clause could have been overlooked by Breggie, if he had felt respected

I wonder if the Sox and Cubs offered the same amount, if he still went to the Cubs because of the no trade stipulation. Would he take a certain amount less AND a no trade clause? IDK. 

It was reported that he wanted this to be his last contract and that it was important that he didn't have to disrupt his family again. 

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Exactly, and if we assume the Sox model of not budging from their top offer was in play, we were likely never going to get Breggie as long as the Cubs offered what Brez was not allowed to offer and never would have been, even if he did everything right.

Bloom got serious grief for bidding against himself on Masa. It's not always easy to know when that is happening. In hindsight, we all think, how can you not have known. Now, in hindsight, we are saying he should have known it was not a csae of bidding against himself. 

Bloom got grief not for bidding against himself on Masa, but picking the wrong player. Nobody else in the league was even in the conversation on the guy. All the unnamed scouts at the time laughed at the deal. We were hopeful they were wrong. They weren't. 

[JoeBrady]

17 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

if we assume the Sox model of not budging from their top offer was in play, we were likely never going to get Breggie as long as the Cubs offered what Brez was not allowed to offer

That's 100% accurate.  Can we all agree on what the two problems wre:

1. The Red Sox don't give out no-trade clauses.
2. The RS offered less PV money.

Is there a 3rd problem that I am not seeing?  On point 1, if this is JH's rule, there is nothing that Breslow can do about that.  On point 2, maybe there is some grey area.  Like I have mentioned, if there is a $5M difference over the life of the contract, one could argue give in and give him the extra $1M per.  If the difference is $4M/year, there is nothing that Breslow can do about that.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I wonder if the Sox and Cubs offered the same amount, if he still went to the Cubs because of the no trade stipulation. Would he take a certain amount less AND a no trade clause? IDK. 

It was reported that he wanted this to be his last contract and that it was important that he didn't have to disrupt his family again. 

The opt out made the no trade clause less important, last year.

I happen to think it was an essential aspect of Breggie's demands. I could be wrong. If we could never give that to him, then the rest is kinda moot.

(It still matters, if Brez is a clown, and it could matter the next close talks we are in, but in this case, Breggie was a goner, when we said no to the no trade clause.)

The same might be said about the deferred money. That might have been an unmovable object on JH's demand. Maybe not.

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I can think of two other reasons.

1. I know that CA is looking to change their tax laws, but if the law is taxing Ohtani on his $2M instead of the PV $42M, then Ohtani is saving about $40M over the course of the contract.
2. This is probably sure to start a fight, but IF Ohtani has a gambling problem, it is POSSIBLE that he feels more comfortable only getting $2M a year in cash.

With CA, I believe he's getting taxed the 2M now, but will move out of state once the big payments kick in. At that point, he won't be taxed at the higher CA tax rate unless the law is changed. (It failed the last time a SF Giants fan tried to push it through https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240sjr14 )

He's getting enough endorsement $$$ so he's not exactly hurting for cash in the meatime. 

[Hugh2]

14 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I can think of two other reasons.

1. I know that CA is looking to change their tax laws, but if the law is taxing Ohtani on his $2M instead of the PV $42M, then Ohtani is saving about $40M over the course of the contract.
2. This is probably sure to start a fight, but IF Ohtani has a gambling problem, it is POSSIBLE that he feels more comfortable only getting $2M a year in cash.

I don’t think it has anything to do with CA law because reportedly Ohtani was asking other teams to structure the deal the same.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, JoeBrady said:

That's 100% accurate.  Can we all agree on what the two problems wre:

1. The Red Sox don't give out no-trade clauses.
2. The RS offered less PV money.

Is there a 3rd problem that I am not seeing?  On point 1, if this is JH's rule, there is nothing that Breslow can do about that.  On point 2, maybe there is some grey area.  Like I have mentioned, if there is a $5M difference over the life of the contract, one could argue give in and give him the extra $1M per.  If the difference is $4M/year, there is nothing that Breslow can do about that.

Agreed. I also agree that we can't just blame "Breslow." If you're mad, just blame the FO as a whole. It's too hard to parse out who made what decision with all the cooks in the kitchen. 

[mvp 78]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

I don’t think it has anything to do with CA law because reportedly Ohtani was asking other teams to structure the deal the same.

That's where he plays now and their taxes are pretty high, so his contract ultimately is impacted by CA law. 

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

But what if I don't like that reporting because it doesn't agree with my argument? 

You’ll grasp at straws, and throw spaghetti against the wall, and see if something sticks.

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

or if it might not be true.

 

Have you seen any reporting to the contrary?🤔

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Have you seen any reporting to the contrary?🤔

No.

See how easy it is to actually answer.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Old Red said:

You’ll grasp at straws, and throw spaghetti against the wall, and see if something sticks.

Same ole - same ole rag.

[JoeBrady]

21 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

With CA, I believe he's getting taxed the 2M now, but will move out of state once the big payments kick in. At that point, he won't be taxed at the higher CA tax rate unless the law is changed. (It failed the last time a SF Giants fan tried to push it through https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240sjr14 )

He's getting enough endorsement $$$ so he's not exactly hurting for cash in the meatime. 

Certainly not hurting for cash, but that puts an extra $40M in his pocket.  And that's without consideration of Japanese/US tax rates.  Some countries won't tax you depending how much of the year you spend abroad.  It's probably a non-issue, but it would be worth hiring an accountant to find out.

[JoeBrady]

13 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Have you seen any reporting to the contrary?🤔

The only ones that could make a contrary report would be Bregman and Breslow.  GMs usually don't address issues like this.