Rumor: Bogaerts has gone to San Diego

[TNTwinsFan]

If the asking price for Correa approaches 12/$360m I'd say do it. $30m AAV is pretty reasonabe all things considered.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

One fun thing about long-term free agent contracts is the team can depreciate them and shelter money from taxes. They get double counted as an expense and an asset.

Player contracts are like “capital expenditure” but they aren’t depreciable assets in the taxation sense. They’re just expenses.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Player contracts are like “capital expenditure” but they aren’t depreciable assets in the taxation sense. They’re just expenses.

Roster Depreciation Allowance - The ability to amortize sports franchise (greenberglawoffice.com)

"Under the American Job Creation Act of 2004, sports owners could depreciate all tangible property acquired in connection with the franchise under IRS Section 168 and amortize all intangible assets such as players’ contracts, sponsorship agreements, luxury suite contracts, and various other intangibles – including the franchise itself – over a fifteen year period under IRS Section 197."

"The tax sheltering effects are clearly apparent in reviewing the consolidated statements of operations for the Brooklyn Basketball, LLC, owner of the Brooklyn Nets. Taking the fiscal year of 2006, not only are the players’ salaries totaling $58,896,983.00 deducted from income, but also “depreciation and amortization” are deducted in the amount of $41,032,427.00.[3] The consolidated statements represents an actual cash loss of $27,075,307 (operating loss of $14,439,939 and interest expense of $12,635,368), but a total loss of $68,107,734. At a marginal tax rate of 35%, that constitutes $23,837,706 in tax savings."

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

4 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Roster Depreciation Allowance - The ability to amortize sports franchise (greenberglawoffice.com)

"Under the American Job Creation Act of 2004, sports owners could depreciate all tangible property acquired in connection with the franchise under IRS Section 168 and amortize all intangible assets such as players’ contracts, sponsorship agreements, luxury suite contracts, and various other intangibles – including the franchise itself – over a fifteen year period under IRS Section 197."

"The tax sheltering effects are clearly apparent in reviewing the consolidated statements of operations for the Brooklyn Basketball, LLC, owner of the Brooklyn Nets. Taking the fiscal year of 2006, not only are the players’ salaries totaling $58,896,983.00 deducted from income, but also “depreciation and amortization” are deducted in the amount of $41,032,427.00.[3] The consolidated statements represents an actual cash loss of $27,075,307 (operating loss of $14,439,939 and interest expense of $12,635,368), but a total loss of $68,107,734. At a marginal tax rate of 35%, that constitutes $23,837,706 in tax savings."

 

Wow! It’s rough being super-rich! Thanks for sharing!

[purplesoldier4u]

9 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

He got 11 years, $280 Million from SD.  From the beginning I've said offer Correa 8 years, $275 Million.  With a two year opt out he might take that and go for another bite at the apple when he's 30 (Boegarts' current age).  If in two years one of Lewis, Martin, Lee (or Miller) isn't ready to take over full time at SS it would be time to blow it up anyway.

I wonder how high SD's spending to revenue is? 65%? 70%? Their owners are willing to spend the money to win it all. Good for them and the Padres fans!

[Doctor Gast]

9 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

For the record, this shouldn't be posted as a rumor. If someone is actually going to a team and it's being confirmed, that's just a thread.

Sorry, since I got it from MLB Trade Rumors, I thought it'd belonged in the same category here. I'll make a note of that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Sorry, since I got it from MLB Trade Rumors, I thought it'd belonged in the same category here. I'll make a note of that.

Yeah, no worries. I'm just trying to lay out why the section exists and how to use it.

[dxpavelka]

4 hours ago, purplesoldier4u said:

I wonder how high SD's spending to revenue is? 65%? 70%? Their owners are willing to spend the money to win it all. Good for them and the Padres fans!

Lots of owners are willing to spend money to win it all.  Far fewer actually win it all.

[mikelink45]

12 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So, the owners should keep the money and not pay players?

That is a big interpretive stretch. Perhaps make tickets cheaper and payback the fans. Help the minors. Help college ball. Spread the money throughout the team. There are more ways to spend than one magastar contract. 

[mikelink45]

10 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Okay ... so ... how do you guarantee Lewis or Lee to become the next Pena? And if they don't become that, what then? I really dislike this philosophy of putting our eggs into a basket that is completely unproven. It could prove to be steady, but it more likely will prove to be unstable and lands broken eggs all over the sidewalk. A Correa contract will NOT hamstring us. With so many young players on the roster, a new TV deal around the corner, the rising cost of doing business, the smart money is to sign Correa and IF either Lewis or Lee become something, they slot in in another position, or they become trade bait for quality pitching and not has been pitching. I think we need to stop putting our eggs into the 'if' basket of prospects.

Ask Angel fans if Pujols contract impacted their team. 

[Squirrel]

7 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

Ask Angel fans if Pujols contract impacted their team. 

Lol ... you are comparing Correa to Pujols? And that wasn't my question. Seriously ... how do you guarantee Lewis or Lee to become the next Pena?

[mikelink45]

3 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Lol ... you are comparing Correa to Pujols? And that wasn't my question. Seriously ... how do you guarantee Lewis or Lee to become the next Pena?

No guarantees - they did not guarantee Pena would be as good as he is, but give the young player a chance.  Who can tell me Correa will not get hurt or that he will not decline younger than we expect.  

[Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

No guarantees - they did not guarantee Pena would be as good as he is, but give the young player a chance.  Who can tell me Correa will not get hurt or that he will not decline younger than we expect.  

Who can tell that of any player out there, though. Lee or Lewis could get hurt, too, and not be what we expect them to be. I mean ... every single player could get hurt (and almost was last year). Making decisions based on 'but they could get hurt' will never get you anywhere. Always playing for the future with prospects will not get you anywhere, either. So your answer is, never give out a big contract and hope for the prospects? I just disagree that that is a good philosophy in this case. 

And the comparison with the Angels and Pujols ... the Angels spend to spend and do it stupidly. Was it silly for them to give Trout what he got? Players get hurt and players age. But you take on the contract for who they are right now. I guess I'm not as confident as others that Lewis or Lee will come even close to what Correa is right now, or would even be adequate for what we need now. We aren't going to get Rodon ... now, there's where I think spending on years is a bad idea. Pitchers are not as durable as position players. Also, Pujols was what ... 4 years older when he signed with the Angles than Correa is now.

[mikelink45]

7 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Who can tell that of any player out there, though. Lee or Lewis could get hurt, too, and not be what we expect them to be. I mean ... every single player could get hurt (and almost was last year). Making decisions based on 'but they could get hurt' will never get you anywhere. Always playing for the future with prospects will not get you anywhere, either. So your answer is, never give out a big contract and hope for the prospects? I just disagree that that is a good philosophy in this case. 

And the comparison with the Angels and Pujols ... the Angels spend to spend and do it stupidly. Was it silly for them to give Trout what he got? Players get hurt and players age. But you take on the contract for who they are right now. I guess I'm not as confident as others that Lewis or Lee will come even close to what Correa is right now, or would even be adequate for what we need now. We aren't going to get Rodon ... now, there's where I think spending on years is a bad idea. Pitchers are not as durable as position players. Also, Pujols was what ... 4 years older when he signed with the Angles than Correa is now.

I laid out my thoughts in the Forum - I appreciate all the arguments for signing Correa, but I am afraid I will not swing over to the other side unless the years are much less than what the contracts have been.  

Being from Frostbite Falls you should realize Rocky and Bullwinkle had a great start, but they only lasted five years!

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

I laid out my thoughts in the Forum - I appreciate all the arguments for signing Correa, but I am afraid I will not swing over to the other side unless the years are much less than what the contracts have been.  

Being from Frostbite Falls you should realize Rocky and Bullwinkle had a great start, but they only lasted five years!

And I won’t be persuaded otherwise, either, and feel it would be a huge mistake not to sign him for as many reasons I’ve stated over the months. We are at an impasse ?

[Steve Lein]

21 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You'd rather pay a pitcher (who I think is older) 180 million over six years? Brave.

You think Rodon is getting 6yr/$180MIL?! Ludacris.

I mean, I know some of the contracts this year have been a bit higher than expected, but he's not getting as much guaranteed as Jacob DeGrom did. If he gets more than $130MIL I'd be surprised.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Steve Lein said:

You think Rodon is getting 6yr/$180MIL?! Ludacris.

I mean, I know some of the contracts this year have been a bit higher than expected, but he's not getting as much guaranteed as Jacob DeGrom did. If he gets more than $130MIL I'd be surprised.

You'd rather pay 130 million for Rodon?

[Steve Lein]

Just now, Mike Sixel said:

You'd rather pay 130 million for Rodon?

If the Twins aren't getting Correa, absolutely.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Steve Lein said:

If the Twins aren't getting Correa, absolutely.

Which would you rather sign? 

[Steve Lein]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Which would you rather sign? 

Correa, 100%. I just think the odds on that are extremely low already. Correa obviously wants to get paid over choosing his preferred destination, if the Twins would even be that. SF will outbid anything the Twins put together.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Steve Lein said:

Correa, 100%. I just think the odds on that are extremely low already. Correa obviously wants to get paid over choosing his preferred destination, if the Twins would even be that. SF will outbid anything the Twins put together.

The genesis of the post you responded to was that the twins should sign Rodon, as he was less risky than CC..... I'd be good with either, but I prefer CC. 

[Steve Lein]

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The genesis of the post you responded to was that the twins should sign Rodon, as he was less risky than CC..... I'd be good with either, but I prefer CC. 

I also technically think they could afford to sign both (a large chunk of a Rodon salary comes off the pitching staff books after this season).

Say $32.5MIL for Correa and $25MIL for Rodon. Make the Carlos' happen!

Edited December 9, 2022 by Steve Lein

[Joey Self]

I just glanced through this thread, and didn't see the answer to this question (sorry if I missed it): 

Are the Red Sox now a likely bidder for Correa? 

JcS

[Mike Sixel]

19 minutes ago, Joey Self said:

I just glanced through this thread, and didn't see the answer to this question (sorry if I missed it): 

Are the Red Sox now a likely bidder for Correa? 

JcS

Given that refused to pay their last three stars, no. Perhaps the richest owners in the game, not spending. 

[mikelink45]

20 hours ago, Squirrel said:

And I won’t be persuaded otherwise, either, and feel it would be a huge mistake not to sign him for as many reasons I’ve stated over the months. We are at an impasse ?

But that is okay.  We don't make the decision, we just think about it. 

[Squirrel]

56 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

But that is okay.  We don't make the decision, we just think about it. 

I wish I did make the decision in this case … you wouldn’t like me for it, though … ? 

[mikelink45]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

I wish I did make the decision in this case … you wouldn’t like me for it, though … ? 

I would just shake my head and still support you.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:27 PM, Doctor Gast said:

Sorry, since I got it from MLB Trade Rumors, I thought it'd belonged in the same category here. I'll make a note of that.

You know what? I retract my former comment. This section is new and I'm just feeling out how it should work.

Bogaerts was considered a Twins target by pretty much everybody. This absolutely should be in the rumors section.

Now when deGrom signed, not so much. The Twins were never linked to him... but many considered Bogaerts a real option, which means him coming off the board should be posted as a rumor.