Taveras to Nationals - Beane saves $400K by switching to Geico
by ru155 on Feb 15, 2010 1:57 PM PST
Email
PrintAP -
WASHINGTON -- Outfielder Willy Taveras has agreed to a minor league contract with the Washington Nationals.
If added to the 40-man roster, Taveras would receive a contract for the $400,000 major league minimum, with Oakland responsible for the remainder of his $4 million salary.
The Athletics acquired Taveras on Feb. 1 from Cincinnati with infielder Adam Rosales for infielder Aaron Miles and a player to be named, then immediately designated Taveras for assignment. He was released Feb. 9.
Taveras hit .240 with one homer and 15 RBIs for Cincinnati last season and has a .276 average with eight homers, 124 RBIs and 194 steals in five major league seasons. He led the major leagues with 68 steals for Colorado two years ago.
So Beane completes his swing through Cincy by passing the buck (or about 3.6M of them) onto the Nationals. Not a terrible pick up for the Nationals - they're a little thin in the OF and maybe they get lucky as Taveras figures out how to connect bat to ball again. Essentially it's the last hurdle the front office was looking to clear before skipping down to AZ on a hope and a prayer.
We can start writing our score-sheets with pen as the A's appear set to make their way to P&C Day. For those of us who won't be making it down to Scottsdale, we won't be reading up on the scouting reports but rather the team's medical blog. If we can break camp with a healthy crew, we're in for a dark-horse championship season. Defense wins championships - wrong sport but whatever - it's the company line for this season. Plus, being back in the bottom 5 for payroll has me feeling all 2001-y. A patchwork team with some stellar (and a few glass) arms in the rotation. A rack of top shelf relievers that gets me so giddy, I might bring back the Club Foot Stomp. The sun is coming people - but the snow is still the last party guest to leave here in D.C.
Now if i can only figure out which A's Jersery to get w/ the MLB.com 20% discount and my Tax Refund....
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
it's the Nationals
I don’t think this will be a problem.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
+1
"I mean, come on, man. I'm a vet. Don't talk to me like that. If they do, I'll just smile." Nnamdi Asomugha
by s0sNe@kYbUtY? on Feb 15, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah this is wrong
Cubs pay $1M for us to take Miles.
A’s trade Miles’ $2.7m salary for Tavares’ $4m and Rosales (loss of $1.3m) which including the $1m from Chicago is -$300k
Then the Nats sign Tavares and pay the prorated league minimum for Tavares based on days on the MLB roster.
Therefore if Tavares makes the opening day roster and stays on the Nats through out the year Beane will actually make 100k out of the proposition.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Feb 15, 2010 3:18 PM PST reply actions
Oh wow......
baseball math is so much fun.
"I mean, come on, man. I'm a vet. Don't talk to me like that. If they do, I'll just smile." Nnamdi Asomugha
by s0sNe@kYbUtY? on Feb 15, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
For any teachers out there......
This could be made into a great multiple part word problem, SAT stylie…..
"I mean, come on, man. I'm a vet. Don't talk to me like that. If they do, I'll just smile." Nnamdi Asomugha
by s0sNe@kYbUtY? on Feb 15, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
that can't be right, can it?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Except you have to include the cost of Rosales as well,
unless he’s playing for free which would be pretty awesome. I think he’s making 400k but I didn’t look very hard.
Also, the $1m isn't really part of the deal, that's money already in the bank.
So really, if Taveras makes the Nationals, Beane upgraded Miles to Rosales for $1.3m.
Not so
The A’s added Miles and his $2.7 million salary during the offseason. He doesn’t count as any sort of sunk cost, he was an acquisition.
The actual equation would be: Miles + Fox for $2.7 million minus $1 million for a total cost of $1.7 million.
Miles ($1.7 million) to Cincy for Taveras ($4 million) + Rosales for a total cost of $2.3 million.
Essentially, the A’s released Santiago Casilla, traded Jeff Gray plus 2 meh prospects (Morla & Spencer) and burned $1.9 million ($2.3 million – $400 K) to acquire Rosales and Fox.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wait
Are we transferring the money we received along with Miles to Cincy? Not sure that’s actually the case. I thought we received Mile & Fox + $1 million which doesn’t necessitate we spend that money on Miles or that they were going to pay Miles that money, just that they were giving the A’s a million as part of the deal.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
The $1 million was cash
But prior to the Taveras trade, the least Miles would have cost the A’s would have been $1.7 million. That’s a bad money contract and I think for this kind of calculation you need to use the lowest possible number to represent Miles.
Assuming that Taveras makes Washington’s 25 man roster and factoring the in a minimum of 5 more years of low-cost team control over both Miles and Fox… dropping the $1.9 million was still a good deal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Although...
There is a PTBNL or cash incentives attached to the Miles/Taveras deal, going from the A’s to Cincy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Any way you look at it the A's lose money in the combination of trades
It’s just a matter of how much and whether the combined return was worth it.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
wow
that is some pretty bad mathing, guys. you’re overcomplicating things.
assuming taveras makes the nats, beane owes $3.6M. beane has $1M cash from the cubs. therefore, the cost of rosales and fox was $2.6M [cash – taveras salary obligation].
fox cost $1.7 [$2.7 in miles salary – $1M cash], and rosales cost $900k [$4M in taveras salary – $2.7M in miles salary – $400k paid by nats].
by NRC on Feb 15, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't think so
Fox + Miles put the A’s in the hole $1.7 million because Miles was a bad contract.
So the A’s had $1.7 million in bad contract on the books before they even looked at Cincy. Swapping Miles for Taveras only increases the amount of bad money in the roster by $2.3 million. $2.3 million is true cost associated with going from an A’s roster that included Miles to one that included Rosales. You can kick $400K off that cost if Taveras makes a big league roster.
The monster at the end of this blog.
as i understand it
the a’s got 1M cash from chicago and assumed the obligation to pay miles entire salary.
then they traded that 2.7M obligation to cincinati for taveras and his 4M oblgiation, increasing payroll by 1.3M (900K if taveras makes nats). the cash is irrelevant to this calculation.
if chicago is paying 1M of miles salary for cincy, then im wrong, but i dont think thats the case.
I think you have to include the cash in the calculation
And all this is why Ponzi schemes happen boys and girls!
The monster at the end of this blog.
why do you include the cash?
dont the a’s still have it?
Because it shows the true cost/loss/whatever of having Miles on the books
The monster at the end of this blog.
How so?
If Cincy assumes the entire contract, why are we giving up a million off the books?
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
We're talking cost
Simplified example:
Pre-Aaron Miles, the A’s have $10 million invested in player salaries. Once they acquire Miles and the cash they still need to make an additional investment of $1.7 million to make payroll.
I’m saying that that additional $1.7 outlay is the cost associated to Aaron Miles. That is the figure you get to deduct when you start talking about Taveras’ contract. The $1.7 million was spent regardless of the name of the player attached to it; be it Miles or Taveras or Pujols. In our case it goes to Taveras, which means the cost to acquire Rosales is the additional $2.3 million outlay to balance the books yet again… minus whatever Taveras makes on a pro-rated contract.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Except
That $1million we got with Miles isn’t applied to Miles. We were on the hook for $2.7million for Miles. So in acquiring Taveras’ $4million contract, you’re subtracting the unpaid portion of Miles ($2.7million), leaving us with only an additional $1.3million net gained in that trade. The $1million gets applied to the payroll (or potentially not applied to the payroll) entirely separate from all transactions. So if Taveras gets his $400k, the net balance would only be $900k.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Nope
You only separate the $1 million in cash from Miles if you take it completely out of the payroll structure and re-invest it in scouting or strippers or something else.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That million can be allocated toward the payroll any way the A's want.
In the trade it wasn’t attached to Miles at all. What makes you think it is? That money is certainly not going to Cincy. It’s certainly not disappearing. You’re taking it out of Miles’ money, but in reality it’s being taken out of the overall payroll. Now if the trade were “the Cubs pay $1million of Miles salary” then I’d follow your logic. But the trade (as far as I’ve read it) is you get Miles AND you get a million.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Going back to my simplified example
The A’s already had $10 million invested in payroll pre-Miles. If we play it out as you suggest (calling it $2.7 million for Miles) than the A’s would have their original $10 million investment PLUS the $1 million in cash from Chicago sitting around looking pretty in the payroll account.
Adding Miles took the A’s payroll from $10 million to $12.7 million. $1 million of that came from the Cubs; the other $1.7 million came out of Wolff’s pocket.
Therefore the financial cost of acquiring Miles was $1.7 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
thats right.
and miles was then flipped for taveras, giving the a’s $14M in payroll and $1M in cash. therefore the cost of acquiring fox, rosales, and taveras was $3M. and if taveras makes the nats, its down to $2.6M. $1.7M for fox and $900k for rosales.
Again... not quite
The cost of acquiring Rosales was not
$4 million. It was $4 million (Taveras) – the $1.7 million (Miles) = $2.3 million.
You’re tacking $4 million on the the original $10 million payroll. By the time the Cincy trade happened the A’s payroll was already $11.7 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wait though.
Wouldn’t the cost of Rosales/Taveras for Miles still include the full $2.7 million. The cost of Miles may be $1.7 million, but the cost Rosales is independent of the original cost of Miles since the cost to Cincy is irrelevant to what the A’s originally paid? I’m finally seeing where you’re going, but I’m not sure there’s a consistency here.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
How is the cost of Miles related to the cost of Rosales?
In the Rosales deal, Miles still costs $2.7 million to Cincy. It’s like buying a stock at $1.7 a share and then selling it for $2.7 a share. The two deals are independent transactions with different cost/value assessments. Or am I completely missing something still?
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
It's true
Cincy is saving $1.3 million in the deal. But what Cincy is saving does not necessarily equal what it is costing the A’s to make the deal.
Aaron Miles never cost the A’s $2.7 million… they were using the Cubs money to pay part of that contract. That is why (I think) you can’t say the A’s are dealing away $2.7 million of dead money for $4 million of Cincy’s dead money plus Rosales. Oakland only had $1.7 of its own money invested in the bad contract to Miles.
The monster at the end of this blog.
ok
but now that they have taveras, they “only” have 3M of their own money invested in him.
1.7 for fox. 1.3 for rosales.
You're counting the $1 million in cash twice
And you can’t do that.
The A’s chose to take their $1.7 million bad money investment and trade it for Rosales plus $4 million in bad money.
The monster at the end of this blog.
but they didnt trade 1.7M, they traded the whole 2.7M. thats what the reds are paying miles.
the a’s kept the 1M cash and got back 4M obligation. their net is -3M. equal to 1.7M for fox and 1.3M for rosales.
The only way
the A’s could be invested in Miles at $1.7 million is if you add in the $1 million from Chicago. Which is what they did.
The A’s had $1.7 million of their own dollars invested/earmarked/piggy banked for Aaron Miles. They traded that obligation for Rosales and the $4 million contract of Taveras.
What the Reds are saving in the deal (Taveras – Miles = $1.3 million) is not equal to what the A’s are invested in for Taveras minus what they were invested in for Miles. That total is $2.3 million.
I got nothing left. Either you see why I’m doing the math this way or not
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wait a minute...
The A’s got $1 mil plus Aaron Miles for $2.7 mil, from the Cubs. Then they traded the $2.7 mil salary of Miles for the $4 mil salary of Taveras. That transaction in itself cost the A’s $1.3 mil. When you add that negative $1.3 mil to the positive $1 mil the A’s got earlier from the Cubs, the net loss in all of that was $300 thousand.
Of course that’s before guessing any of the other salaries involved. My point here is that getting Aaron Miles and then flipping him for Willy Taveras only cost the A’s $300K. Tell me if I’m wrong.
"To tell the truth, I'm not excited to go to Cleveland, but we have to. If I ever saw myself saying I'm excited going to Cleveland, I'd punch myself in the face, because I'm lying" - Ichiro
by Philip Christy on Feb 15, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
In the event that you want a longer answer
If you’re including both the Chicago and Cincy trades, then you have to begin at the beginning, when we didn’t have either Miles or Taveras on our books. If we want to look at the total cost, then it’s presumably $2.6M (Taveras’ $4M – $400K paid by the Nats – $1M in cash from the Cubs.)
If you’re JUST looking at the Cincy trade (and the cost of getting Rosales,) then that’s $900K.
Oh yeah.
You’re right. But if Rosales makes the team then he’ll get $400K too, right? Making it now a negative $3 mil again.
Wow, these trades don’t look as hot now, at least not for that price.
"To tell the truth, I'm not excited to go to Cleveland, but we have to. If I ever saw myself saying I'm excited going to Cleveland, I'd punch myself in the face, because I'm lying" - Ichiro
by Philip Christy on Feb 16, 2010 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree.
Ignore the salaries of Rosales and Fox, they’re making the minimum. If those roster spots went to Petit and McPherson, for example, we’d still be paying them each $400K, so that’s not really an additional cost.
In any case, we got two major league players with a smidgeon over one year’s ML service time between them for three meh prospects and $2.6M. That’s a bargain.
no
the way you’re calculating it assumes that the a’s pass through the $1M to the reds.
think about it this way – what if the a’s hadnt gotten $1M from the cubs? what would fox have cost then? ($2.7M). what would rosales have cost? ($1.3M).
the only way the $1M affects this is to reduce the cost of fox to $1.7M. it doesnt affect the cost of rosales.
if taveras makes the nats the 1.3M the a’s paid for rosales is reduced to 900k.
I'm doing the exact opposite
I’m factoring the $1 million in cash from the Cubs as staying in the payroll account. I’m looking at how the payroll gets bumped at each increment. The cost associated with each payroll bump is amount of cash that is coming out of Oakland coffers. Adding Miles only cost the A’s $1.7 million out of pocket because the Cubs were picking up the rest!
Since the A’s had already invested $1.7 million into the this-guy-sucks roster spot it only cost them an additional $2.3 million to change the name on the jersey from Miles to Taveras.
The monster at the end of this blog.
but
the cubs arent “picking up the rest” of miles salary. rather, they gave the a’s $1M and the a’s assumed the obligation to pay miles $2.7M. at that point, the a’s had invested $2.7 in the this-guys-sucks roster spot. they also had $1M in cash. none of miles salary had been paid yet. the a’s still had to cut him checks every month.
when they swapped for taveras they assumed an additional $1.3M for that spot. that was the cost of rosales.
or look at it from the reds end. the reds were obligated to pay taveras $4M. they traded that obligation for the obligation to pay miles $2.7 and adam rosales (“AR”). you do the algebra: $4M = $2.7 – AR → AR = $4 – $2.7 = $1.3M. if you try to balance the equations with your number it doesnt work.
My numbers work just fine
I don’t agree that the equation you lay out is the right way to do the math.
Let’s leave it at that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wow... that made you sound like a douchebag
And I haven’t used that word in years!
I can only assume that you’re arguing that NRC is right… ‘cause you didn’t actually say anything other than I was wrong. To me it looks like he’s using the $1 million twice, or at least, something to that affect.
Is my mistake in thinking the A’s would set aside whatever amount of money they owe in payroll at the time of whatever transaction? Example: the A’s have a player budget (XX dollars to spend on payroll in 2010) and a checking account from which they actually pay the players. So when they have a roster with total payroll cost of $10 million they take $10 million from their player budget and put it in the checking account. Then when they add a player to the roster at a $5 million contract they’d add $5 million to the checking account.
Is that incremental approach inaccurate?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Jeez, what's with everyone lately?
I didn’t say “Grover, you’re a raging fucktard,” I said you got some math wrong. Forget accounts and algebra and all that, it’s needlessly cluttering things up.
Start with the Chicago trade. Miles’ salary was $2.7M. We got $1M in cash. The cost of acquiring Fox was $1.7M plus the three guys we sent to Chicago, ($2.7M-$1M.)
What account that cash went into is irrelevant. It’s ours, we kept it. Move on.
In the case of the CIncy trade, we sent a guy making $2.7M away in exchange for a guy making $4M. Assuming the Nats end up paying $400K of Taveras’ salary, the cost of acquiring Rosales was $900K, ($4M – $2.7M – $400K.)
Something about you're original comment made me think that response
You just said it cost the A’s $1.7 million to acquire Miles.
We agree on that.
And yes, the A’s are moving a $2.7 million contract to land Taveras.
However, the A’s were never going to pay Aaron Miles $2.7 million. They didn’t owe him that much! They owed him $1.7 million.
The A’s get to subtract their cost for Miles from the cost for Taveras. That is $4 million – $1.7 million.
$2.3 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Grover, you're wrong :P
Aaron Miles’ salary is $2.7M. It doesn’t matter where the checks are coming from, his salary is $2.7M.
The $1M we got from Chicago came from Chicago to Oakland. It didn’t go to Cincinnati. It’s still here.
But the A's weren't on the hook for $2.7 million
Were they? The Cubs were chipping in $1 million.
Cincy isn’t chipping in any cash. The A’s are on the hook for the entire $4 million nut unless some team (Washington) adds him to their big league roster.
The monster at the end of this blog.
No
The A’s were on the hook for the full $2.7. The $1 million that they got was just in addition to the players. It wasn’t something that got transferred over to Cincy in the trade.
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
I never said the million went to Cincy
The A’s were never on the hook for $2.7 million. Aaron Miles had a contract that was going to pay him $2.7 million but $1 million was going to be paid by the Cubs.
Let’s try this another way. If Aaron Miles had stayed in Oakland all season, how much would the A’s have had to pay him out of their own pockets?
$1.7 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Again, you're needlessly overcomplicating this.
One aspect of the trade that brought Miles and Fox here was that Chicago paid Oakland $1M.
It doesn’t matter what uniforms Miles and Taveras end up putting on, we got one million dollars out of it.
OK... simple
The only way the A’s would have owed Aaron Miles $2.7 million is if they had pocketed the cash that came from the Cubs. Therefore (simply speaking):
The Cubs owed Miles $1 million.
The A’s owed Miles $1.7 million.
The A’s then traded Miles to Cincy for Taveras, who is owed $4 million.
The A’s went from investing $1.7 million in a bad contract to investing $4 million in a bad contract.
The monster at the end of this blog.
No.
Are you doing this intentionally?
Stop describing the $1M as anything other than a payment from Chicago to Oakland. It’s where you’re going wrong. Please pay extra attention to the bolded parts.
The Cubs owed Miles $2.7M.
They traded Miles to Oakland. In that deal, they agreed to send $1M to Oakland.
Following this trade, Oakland owed Miles $2.7M. Including the cash received from Chicago, it was a net investment of $1.7M. Miles was still owed $2.7M. He was still owed this $2.7M by his employer, the Oakland Athletics. That the Cubs threw in cash in the trade is irrelevant.
Oakland traded Miles to the Reds. Miles and his $2.7M salary left for Cincinnati. The $1M stayed in Oakland.
If we are going to look at the Cincy deal as a standalone, then the $1M has to be completely ignored. It came over in the Cubs trade, it didn’t leave in the Reds trade. We traded a $2.7M salary for a $4M salary, net effect $1.3M, (potentially less up to $400K if Taveras goes on Washington’s roster.)
If we are looking at the Cubs and Reds deals together, then we need to ignore Miles’ salary, as we never ended up paying any of it, but we DO need to count the $1M, because we got it from Chicago and didn’t give it away. The net effect there is $3M, again potentially less the $400K the Nats might pay.
by Nate on Feb 16, 2010 1:41 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Nate
I paid special attention to the bold parts as you requested. Ironically, you’re practically quoting me. I don’t understand why you think I can’t comprehend the words I say… while at the same time believing that if you say them I’ll be awashed with Enlightenment.
As for the million in cash, I’ve tried every way I can think of to describe how it affects these transactions. Somehow in doing so people think I’m saying that pile of money ends up in Cincy. It doesn’t. I never said that it did. But for some reason multiple people are hearing something different and I don’t know where I’m failing to communicate properly. I apologize for that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
People think you're saying that pile of money ends up in Cincy,
because you keep suggesting that it lowers Miles’ cost but doesn’t lower Taveras’. Depending on how you want to define “cost”, it either does both or neither.
Just in your previous post, you said the A’s traded a $1.7M player away for a $4M player. Miles’ cost is $1.7M only if you count the Cubs’ cash as reducing his cost. Taveras’ cost is $4M only if you don’t count the Cubs’ cash as reducing his cost.
We traded a $2.7M salary for a $4M salary. If you want to apply the cash to these player’s salary, we traded $1.7M of payroll burden for $3M of payroll burden. There is no correct math that says the Cincinnati trade increased how much money the A’s will be spending in 2010 by $2.3M.
Sticking to the A's perspective...
Oakland was going to pay Miles $1.7 million, with the rest of his contract being covered by the cash from the Cubs.
End o’ story, no need to bring up $2.7 million in the conversation.
So my mistake was in not recognizing that like any basic algebric equation the $1 million had to be applied to both sides. OK. I just wish someone had asked me earlier where the million bucks went rather than accuse me of giving the money away! I had absolutely no idea why folks were thinking that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
To be fair
they/we had absolutely no idea why, in the version you were giving, the million bucks the Cubs gave us disappeared from the equation after sending Miles to Cincy. The options seemed to be A) you forgot about the $1M, or B) you thought it went to CIncy.
Think about it this way
The A’s have a bank account that has 5 million dollars in it. With this bank account they will pay the 25th man on the roster. Assume players get paid after the season and cash transactions are immediate and full.
The Cubs gave the A’s a million dollars and the rights to Aaron Miles. There was now 6 million dollars in the account. After 2010, the A’s paid Miles 2.7 million dollars for his 2010 services. At the end of the year, the A’s would have 3.3 million dollars in that bank account.
Since the A’s traded Miles for Taveras, the A"s bank account still has 6 million dollars in it. After the 2010 season, the A’s will pay Taveras his 2010 salary of 4 million dollars. After 2010, the A’s will have 2 million dollars in it.
3.3 – 2 = 1.3. The A’s have 1.3 million dollars less in their bank account after 2010 with Taveras than they would have had with Miles.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
That I agree on
However. After all the moves were made the net cost to the payroll not currently invested in a player playing for the A’s is 900k.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Hmm...
yeah, I can see where my math looks messy. I was removing players no longer on the roster still being paid by the A’s from the beginning of these transactions to the end. Meaning, not including Rosales, Grey, Fox, etc. But including money gained from the Cubs and what we ultimately paid for Tavares while subtracting Miles. Clearly looking it this way mostly doesn’t fly or have much relevance and, well, only makes things really messy and confusing.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
the cost of acquiring fox and rosales = (- 2.7)M miles obligation +1M cash – (-2.7)M miles obligation + (-4)M taveras obligation + 400k nats payment = – 2.6M
like is said earlier, the cost of acquiring fox was 1.7M and the cost of acquiring rosales was 900k (1.3M if taveras gets cut).
This is correct.
Fox – 1.7M
Rosales – 900k
We spent $2.6M to get both players not including their salaries.
Final answer!
You include the cash because the money was sent to offset the increased cost
It’s part of the overall equation. It doesn’t just disappear because the A’s keep it.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Feb 15, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
which dont factor into the acquisition cost
we only consider taveras’ salary for the nats because it affects how much the a’s owe him
Not really
The salaries for Fox and Rosales are fixed and don’t really have an impact on figuring out the bad money investment. We’re basically talking about 2 separate ways of looking at the moneys, we’re not sure which one is most correct. What happens if you subtract $400K from both equations? You still have the same difference between the two approaches.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm with grover on this.
Except I can’t believe the $1m from the Cubs hasn’t been spent on drugs and hookers already.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
If you skimp on the drugs,
it leaves more money for hookers.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
But if you skimp on the hookers, you need more drugs.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Wait. I thought the thread was about how much you save with GEICO.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think you get to save Dennis Haysbert.
Or maybe that was 24.
Always the summers are slipping away.
Find me a way for making it stay.
In Soviet Unit
Dennis Haysbert saves YOU.
by Nate on Feb 16, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well done :)
Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."
Or if you're a victim in The Unit.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
Wow. That middle infield
will carry the Nationals to the World Series (of suck).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Next time you sneeze, don't pinch your nostrils shut
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Any news on the blue ribbon panel yet?
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Yes.
They’ve chosen Aqua. There was a long debate over Navy and Royal but they just felt Aqua made their summer and spring clothes really pop. Now that that’s taken care of, they can start getting their hands dirty looking at the A’s stadium situation. They’ll get back to us in a year or two.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
..........
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Darn. I was hoping that Cerulean would pull a dark horse victory.
Always the summers are slipping away.
Find me a way for making it stay.
They are affiliated with Pabst then?
Sounds like another instance of Selig trying to strong arm us with his Cream City “values.”
omg.
Another post on the financial aspect of the Tavares deal and I may have to eat a bullet.
Nick Swisher is handsome.
I didn't think anything could inspire me to write one.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
