Article: Twins To Sign Lance Lynn

[yarnivek1972]

I said it before and I will say it again ... I think Lynn was probably the best free agent pitcher this year. Sorry, Darvish. If I were in charge, Lynn would have been my #1 target.

 

It's a minor sticking point that he is only signed for one year because if my opinion is proven true, the Twins won't be able to afford him next year. Lynn will go off and be Ervin Santana II elsewhere. But hey, we had Kenny Rogers for one good year too, right?

It’s worth noting that the Twins have an exclusive 7 month or so negotiating period with him.

[amjgt]

Wonder if Lance is pissed now that Cobb signed 4 years 56 million?

Would you prefer Lynn 4/56 or 1/12?

I bet it’s a mixed bag on here

 

I think Lynn wanted to bet on himself but I would think two weeks ago 4/56 would’ve been pretty enticing.

[Squirrel]

Wonder if Lance is pissed now that Cobb signed 4 years 56 million?

If he pitches really well this year, probably not. If he doesn’t, well, yeah maybe. In other words, if he’s pissed now, he may not be next year.

[kab21]

 

Would you prefer Lynn 4/56 or 1/12?
I bet it’s a mixed bag on here

I think Lynn wanted to bet on himself but I would think two weeks ago 4/56 would’ve been pretty enticing.

Definitely 1/12 for me. 2/30 would have been best but I am not entirely trusting of Lynn and 4/56 can quickly become a Nolasco/Hughes situation. Perhaps it becomes an Ervin situation but 4 years is a risky contract for Lynn.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd probably prefer Lynn at 1/12 than 4/56. I know I'd prefer Lynn at 4/56 than Cobb at 4/56... 

[jorgenswest]

Definitely 1/12 for me. 2/30 would have been best but I am not entirely trusting of Lynn and 4/56 can quickly become a Nolasco/Hughes situation. Perhaps it becomes an Ervin situation but 4 years is a risky contract for Lynn.

The Ervin situation is good relative to Nolasco/Hughes but it could turn out to be 2 good years out of 4.

[amjgt]

Out of 3.5

 

We didn’t have to pay him that first half year

[yarnivek1972]

Out of 3.5

 

We didn’t have to pay him that first half year

Are you certain that is how that works? I think I heard that fines are given to MLB Charities programs. Could this be the same scenario?

[kab21]

 

Out of 3.5

We didn’t have to pay him that first half year

The player doesn't receive the money but I think it is still paid (and donated?).

This certainly could be a 2.5 good years out of 4 situtation. I am not optimistic about Ervin after the surgery combined with his age.

[amjgt]

I believe that's how fines work, but not suspensions. 

[amjgt]

 

Are you certain that is how that works? I think I heard that fines are given to MLB Charities programs. Could this be the same scenario?

 

SportTrac looks to consider it not part of payroll:

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-twins/payroll/2015/

[yarnivek1972]

SportTrac looks to consider it not part of payroll:

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-twins/payroll/2015/

If I am right, it wouldn’t be. It would be a charitable donation that either the player or the team could write off.

[amjgt]

For sure the player is suspended without pay. Being forced to give it to charity wouldn't be without pay because if would severely diminish their taxable income and they basically wouldn't owe any taxes on the rest of the money they earned.

 

If the team is still forced to fork over the money (which I'm highly skeptical of), then it would be THEM that get to donate it.

[yarnivek1972]

For sure the player is suspended without pay. Being forced to give it to charity wouldn't be without pay because if would severely diminish their taxable income and they basically wouldn't owe any taxes on the rest of the money they earned.

 

If the team is still forced to fork over the money (which I'm highly skeptical of), then it would be THEM that get to donate it.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t done that way. I’m sure it’s part of the CBA. Sure, it would make more logical sense for it to be a donation from the owners. But there are a lot of things in the CBA that don’t make sense.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm virtually certain that salary forfeited by suspension doesn't go anywhere. If you think about it, it is very different from a fine -- that is money that has to go somewhere (and no one wants it to go to the team, because that would create an incentive for teams to fine players).

 

Forefeited salary, on the other hand, is just the team's money that doesn't go anywhere. The player doesn't have to return a check or send the check along to somewhere else -- he just doesn't receive a check, it is never written.

[amjgt]

Yeah, remember a few years back when the Yankees were hoping A-Rod would get suspended...... so they didn't have to pay him.

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm virtually certain that salary forfeited by suspension doesn't go anywhere. If you think about it, it is very different from a fine -- that is money that has to go somewhere (and no one wants it to go to the team, because that would create an incentive for teams to fine players).

Forefeited salary, on the other hand, is just the team's money that doesn't go anywhere. The player doesn't have to return a check or send the check along to somewhere else -- he just doesn't receive a check, it is never written.

 

I could find a place for the money if the players and the team can't figure this out themselves.

[Mr. Brooks]

Doesn’t mean it isn’t done that way. I’m sure it’s part of the CBA. Sure, it would make more logical sense for it to be a donation from the owners. But there are a lot of things in the CBA that don’t make sense.

According to Vice Sports, it goes back into the owners pockets.

 

 

"As currently constructed, MLB's drug policy—whether for performance-enhancers like steroids or recreational drugs like cocaine or marijuana—places the salaries of suspended players right back in the pocketbooks of their employers."

 

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/ez33km/how-mlb-profits-from-players-with-addictions

[USAFChief]

 

According to Vice Sports, it goes back into the owners pockets.


"As currently constructed, MLB's drug policy—whether for performance-enhancers like steroids or recreational drugs like cocaine or marijuana—places the salaries of suspended players right back in the pocketbooks of their employers."

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/ez33km/how-mlb-profits-from-players-with-addictions

As it should be.