What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2020: We'll Play Ball, I Guess.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slap Shot said:
Nah, the onions were worn on their belts.
Click to expand...

thatsthejoke.jpg
 
Apparently both sides have hammered things out, and believe it or not, we actually have a deal.

Now....let's see if we can get a full "season" in.
 
Not exactly a surprise, but Minor League Baseball is canceled for 2020. MLB officially notified MiLB it will not be providing players to the clubs.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
Not exactly a surprise, but Minor League Baseball is canceled for 2020. MLB officially notified MiLB it will not be providing players to the clubs.
Click to expand...

Tell me again how every argument for canceling MiLB does not directly refute the as-sine decision to open MLB?
 
Agreeing to give 1.2 million per year over 25 years instead of $5.9 right away because they thought Bernie Madoff would turn that $5.9 million into over $30 million goes way past just looking dumb.
 
bronconick said:
Agreeing to give 1.2 million per year over 25 years instead of $5.9 right away because they thought Bernie Madoff would turn that $5.9 million into over $30 million goes way past just looking dumb.
Click to expand...

If you go to FanGraphs they did a painful point by point analysis of the deal showing that the net effect was neutral for the Mets and positive for Bonilla's feelings. That is the operational definition of a good deal.

The math works, I dunno how. If you care about it go hunting.

I am all for the annual joke, though. Anything that embarrasses the Ponzis is God's work.
 
Kepler said:
If you go to FanGraphs they did a painful point by point analysis of the deal showing that the net effect was neutral for the Mets and positive for Bonilla's feelings. That is the operational definition of a good deal.

The math works, I dunno how. If you care about it go hunting.

I am all for the annual joke, though. Anything that embarrasses the Ponzis is God's work.
Click to expand...

Mathematically, the deal should have been a great deal for the Mets and a really bad deal negotiated by Bonilla's agent, with a couple of provisos.

The deal was good for the Mets and bad for Bonilla because of the time value of money. The Mets didn't have to pay Bonilla his first payment for 10 years. Thus, they had the luxury of investing the money and building up the returns for 10 years without having to make a payment. So, instead of paying him say $6 million in 2001, they pay him $1.2 million a year starting in 2011. If they take that $6 million and invest it, by the time they start making payments they might have $12-14 million in their fund, and when the series of $1.2 million dollar payments were done, they'd still have cash left over.

Bonilla, on the other hand, could have taken the $6 million in 2001 and invested it. 35 years later, if you compared that sum with what he would get if he took $1.2 million per year for 25 years and invested it, he'd have been much better off taking the lump sum up front.

The two provisos are these. First, it's a good deal only if you can invest the money and get a decent return. From 2001 until the recession in about 2008 the Mets probably could have gotten a real good return. From then until they started paying Bonilla in 2011, not as great.

Second, don't invest your money with some guy telling you he'll do better than 6-8%. He's right, he'll to better, but you won't.
 
SJHovey said:
Mathematically, the deal should have been a great deal for the Mets and a really bad deal negotiated by Bonilla's agent, with a couple of provisos.

The deal was good for the Mets and bad for Bonilla because of the time value of money. The Mets didn't have to pay Bonilla his first payment for 10 years. Thus, they had the luxury of investing the money and building up the returns for 10 years without having to make a payment. So, instead of paying him say $6 million in 2001, they pay him $1.2 million a year starting in 2011. If they take that $6 million and invest it, by the time they start making payments they might have $12-14 million in their fund, and when the series of $1.2 million dollar payments were done, they'd still have cash left over.

Bonilla, on the other hand, could have taken the $6 million in 2001 and invested it. 35 years later, if you compared that sum with what he would get if he took $1.2 million per year for 25 years and invested it, he'd have been much better off taking the lump sum up front.

The two provisos are these. First, it's a good deal only if you can invest the money and get a decent return. From 2001 until the recession in about 2008 the Mets probably could have gotten a real good return. From then until they started paying Bonilla in 2011, not as great.

Second, don't invest your money with some guy telling you he'll do better than 6-8%. He's right, he'll to better, but you won't.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.
 
SJHovey said:
Mathematically, the deal should have been a great deal for the Mets and a really bad deal negotiated by Bonilla's agent, with a couple of provisos.

The deal was good for the Mets and bad for Bonilla because of the time value of money. The Mets didn't have to pay Bonilla his first payment for 10 years. Thus, they had the luxury of investing the money and building up the returns for 10 years without having to make a payment. So, instead of paying him say $6 million in 2001, they pay him $1.2 million a year starting in 2011. If they take that $6 million and invest it, by the time they start making payments they might have $12-14 million in their fund, and when the series of $1.2 million dollar payments were done, they'd still have cash left over.

Bonilla, on the other hand, could have taken the $6 million in 2001 and invested it. 35 years later, if you compared that sum with what he would get if he took $1.2 million per year for 25 years and invested it, he'd have been much better off taking the lump sum up front.

The two provisos are these. First, it's a good deal only if you can invest the money and get a decent return. From 2001 until the recession in about 2008 the Mets probably could have gotten a real good return. From then until they started paying Bonilla in 2011, not as great.

Second, don't invest your money with some guy telling you he'll do better than 6-8%. He's right, he'll to better, but you won't.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a great deal for someone like Bonilla who already had made a lot of money. It’s hard to be a guaranteed stream of payments like that.
 
Following the news of Washington reviewing their name in the NFL, Cleveland announces they're reviewing the Indians name.

Bring back the Spiders!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top