Author Topic: The Dodgers File for Bankruptcy (Read 4550 times)

How the hell is Marquis Grissom owed nearly three million dollars? He hasn't played for the Dodgers in nearly ten years. Does a team sometimes work out extended payment plans with players? Why the hell would a player accept such an arrangement?

Oh, if anyone wants Scott Boras' email address, HMU.

Noe · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2011, 06:41:22 pm »

Quote from: chuck on June 27, 2011, 06:38:34 pm

How the hell is Marquis Grissom owed nearly three million dollars? He hasn't played for the Dodgers in nearly ten years. Does a team sometimes work out extended payment plans with players? Why the hell would a player accept such an arrangement?

Oh, if anyone wants Scott Boras' email address, HMU.

"Que?" - Bobby Bonilla

chuck · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2011, 06:46:39 pm »

Quote from: Noe in Austin on June 27, 2011, 06:41:22 pm

"Que?" - Bobby Bonilla

I know, they're paying that guy two million a year for the next millenium. Again, why would a player accept that sort of arrangement? Does the MLB do a sort of FDIC-style guarantee on player salaries? The two teams in question are in very real financial trouble and all of their creditors have good reason to be very concerned.

HudsonHawk · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2011, 06:47:09 pm »

Quote from: chuck on June 27, 2011, 06:38:34 pm

How the hell is Marquis Grissom owed nearly three million dollars? He hasn't played for the Dodgers in nearly ten years. Does a team sometimes work out extended payment plans with players? Why the hell would a player accept such an arrangement?

Oh, if anyone wants Scott Boras' email address, HMU.

Such arrangements are common. And players agree to such an arrangement for several reasons, not the least of which is they get paid more money to do so.

HudsonHawk · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2011, 06:52:22 pm »

Quote from: chuck on June 27, 2011, 06:46:39 pm

I know, they're paying that guy two million a year for the next millenium. Again, why would a player accept that sort of arrangement? Does the MLB do a sort of FDIC-style guarantee on player salaries? The two teams in question are in very real financial trouble and all of their creditors have good reason to be very concerned.

It's not guaranteed, per se, but MLB has rules about funding deferred salary. Not bulletproof, but teams can't just make deferred deals without an approved plan on how they're going to fund them. Obviously, such a deal is only as good as the credit of the one backing it.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2011, 08:26:18 am »

Hey guys, what's blue and white and in the red all over?

Lurch · « **Reply #15 on:** June 28, 2011, 09:12:42 am »

Quote from: chuck on June 27, 2011, 06:46:39 pm

I know, they're paying that guy two million a year for the next millenium. Again, why would a player accept that sort of arrangement? Does the MLB do a sort of FDIC-style guarantee on player salaries? The two teams in question are in very real financial trouble and all of their creditors have good reason to be very concerned.

As I understand it, they are preferred creditors (as required by MLBPA), so likely to get almost all of it in bankruptcy court

chuck · « **Reply #16 on:** June 28, 2011, 09:17:35 am »

I wonder what the average interest rate is at which players loan money to clubs. How many points over prime, I mean. It must be usurious for a player to do it.

BizidyDizidy · « **Reply #17 on:** June 28, 2011, 09:28:49 am »

Quote from: chuck on June 28, 2011, 09:17:35 am

I wonder what the average interest rate is at which players loan money to clubs. How many points over prime, I mean. It must be usurious for a player to do it.

I did the calculation before on Bonilla with the met's - it was 7.5% money.

MusicMan · « **Reply #18 on:** June 28, 2011, 10:03:30 am »

Quote from: BizidyDizidy on June 28, 2011, 09:28:49 am

I did the calculation before on Bonilla with the met's - it was 7.5% money.

The reasoning there was that Bernie Madoff was getting the Wilpons twice that return on their investment.

strosrays · « **Reply #19 on:** June 28, 2011, 02:13:15 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on June 28, 2011, 10:03:30 am

The reasoning there was that Bernie Madoff was getting the Wilpons twice that return on their investment.

Of more interest to me than the interest is what convinced the Mets Bonilla was worth gazillions in the first place? He was for awhile a pretty good ~~player~~ hitter and all, but I don't know if they thought he had some accompanying intangibles, or what. He definitely had some tangibles that should have caused them to pause.

I don't think it is 20-20 hindsight to say that even back then most people thought paying Bobby Bo that much over that length of time was a pretty risky proposition. Sort of like sinking money into a Ponzi scheme. But then, it was the steM.

Astroholic · « **Reply #20 on:** June 28, 2011, 03:04:43 pm »

Quote from: strosrays on June 28, 2011, 02:13:15 pm

I don't think it is 20-20 hindsight to say that even back then most people thought paying Bobby Bo that much over that length of time was a pretty risky proposition.

see one Lee, Carlos.

HudsonHawk · « **Reply #21 on:** June 28, 2011, 07:07:29 pm »

Quote from: strosrays on June 28, 2011, 02:13:15 pm

I don't think it is 20-20 hindsight to say that even back then most people thought paying Bobby Bo that much over that length of time was a pretty risky proposition. Sort of like sinking money into a Ponzi scheme. But then, it was the steM.

I don't remember what I thought at the time, but now, 5 years/$29MM for a 28 year old four time All-Star doesn't seem all that outrageous.

Bench · « **Reply #22 on:** June 28, 2011, 09:37:25 pm »

Quote from: HudsonHawk on June 28, 2011, 07:07:29 pm

I don't remember what I thought at the time, but now, 5 years/$29MM for a 28 year old four time All-Star doesn't seem all that outrageous.

Imagine what Albert Belle would get!

Andyzipp · « **Reply #23 on:** June 29, 2011, 11:19:21 am »

Quote from: strosrays on June 28, 2011, 02:13:15 pm

I don't think it is 20-20 hindsight to say that even back then most people thought paying Bobby Bo that much over that length of time was a pretty risky proposition. Sort of like sinking money into a Ponzi scheme. But then, it was the steM.

Or signing Carlos Lee to a bazillion year deal with a no-trade clause?

Randy Watson · « **Reply #24 on:** June 29, 2011, 01:45:12 pm »

Quote from: Andyzipp on June 29, 2011, 11:19:21 am

Or signing Carlos Lee to a bazillion year deal with a no-trade clause?

His contract doesn't need a no trade clause. Its salary structure versus Lee's age = no trade clause.

Andyzipp · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2011, 01:46:49 pm »

Quote from: Randy Watson on June 29, 2011, 01:45:12 pm

His contract doesn't need a no trade clause. Its salary structure versus Lee's age = no trade clause.

But it had one anyway.

Lurch · « **Reply #26 on:** June 29, 2011, 01:47:37 pm »

Quote from: Randy Watson on June 29, 2011, 01:45:12 pm

His contract doesn't need a no trade clause. Its salary structure versus Lee's age = no trade clause.

Not fully accurate. If not for the no trade clause, the Astros could have potentially eaten some of the salary and found a taker for the remainder.

MusicMan · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2011, 02:45:47 pm »

Quote from: Andyzipp on June 29, 2011, 01:46:49 pm

But it had one anyway.

It was the only way to be sure.

Reuben · « **Reply #28 on:** June 29, 2011, 02:57:17 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on June 29, 2011, 01:47:37 pm

Not fully accurate. If not for the no trade clause, the Astros could have potentially eaten some of the salary and found a taker for the remainder.

We'll find out if they can. Didn't his no-trade protection expire, either mid-way through this year or at the end of it?

Lurch · « **Reply #29 on:** June 29, 2011, 03:07:06 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on June 29, 2011, 02:57:17 pm

We'll find out if they can. Didn't his no-trade protection expire, either mid-way through this year or at the end of it?

IIRC, only to be replaced by the 10-5 veto power he now gets

geezerdonk · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2011, 03:20:21 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on June 29, 2011, 03:07:06 pm

IIRC, only to be replaced by the 10-5 veto power he now gets

Plus he has the cold cuts veto for the buffet menu.

Reuben · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2011, 04:16:25 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on June 29, 2011, 03:07:06 pm

IIRC, only to be replaced by the 10-5 veto power he now gets

I thought he waived that, to get the NTC for the first 4 years.

Andyzipp · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2011, 04:40:12 pm »

Quote from: geezerdonk on June 29, 2011, 03:20:21 pm

Plus he has the cold cuts veto for the buffet menu.

That veto power grows more limited over the life of the contract. He does, however, maintain right of first refusal over any mayonaise-based condiments, including but not limited to various aiolis.