PDA

View Full Version : Amount Reds owe Rolen in '10 less than 11 million



Strikes Out Looking
08-03-2009, 04:46 PM
According to the MLB chat with Reds Asst. GM Bob Miller, the amount the Reds will pay Scott Rolen next year is less than the 11 million that has been previously reported. He didn't say how much less.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090803&content_id=6221554&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

Chip R
08-03-2009, 04:52 PM
According to the MLB chat with Reds Asst. GM Bob Miller, the amount the Reds will pay Scott Rolen next year is less than the 11 million that has been previously reported. He didn't say how much less.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090803&content_id=6221554&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin


$10,999,999.99

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2009, 04:53 PM
Amount owed to Rolen in 2009 = $4M ($3M more than owed to EE).

Amount owed to Rolen in 2010 = $11M ($6.25M more than owed to EE).

Isn't there also $4M bonus they have to pay him in 2010?

If so, they owe him $19M from now until the end of 2010 ($13M+ more than EE). I thought Toronto sent them $4M to include Stewart. To me that pays for the remainder of Rolen's 2009 salary, but I don't see how that effects 2010 and the bonus they owe him.

Caveat Emperor
08-03-2009, 04:53 PM
Apparently the Reds are going to apply for a tax break under the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 04:58 PM
Amount owed to Rolen in 2009 = $4M ($3M more than owed to EE).

Amount owed to Rolen in 2010 = $11M ($6.25M more than owed to EE).

Isn't there also $4M bonus they have to pay him in 2010?

If so, they owe him $19M from now until the end of 2010 ($13M+ more than EE). I thought Toronto sent them $4M to include Stewart. To me that pays for the remainder of Rolen's 2009 salary, but I don't see how that effects 2010 and the bonus they owe him.

Jays are paying all of 2009 I believe.

The Cards are responsible for the bonus of 4 million next year.

Brutus
08-03-2009, 04:59 PM
Amount owed to Rolen in 2009 = $4M ($3M more than owed to EE).

Amount owed to Rolen in 2010 = $11M ($6.25M more than owed to EE).

Isn't there also $4M bonus they have to pay him in 2010?

If so, they owe him $19M from now until the end of 2010 ($13M+ more than EE). I thought Toronto sent them $4M to include Stewart. To me that pays for the remainder of Rolen's 2009 salary, but I don't see how that effects 2010 and the bonus they owe him.

Someone said it was reported the bonus is still being covered by St. Louis under the previous trade.

So if you prorate the $4 mil given to Cincinnati by Toronto (assuming that figure is accurate), against what is still owed this year to Rolen (somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 mil), then you have $11 mil minus $2.7 mil = roughly $9.3 mil.

So basically the Reds wind up paying Rolen, give or take, $4 mil more than what they were due to pay Encarnacion.

nate
08-03-2009, 05:01 PM
Is this in addition to the Jays picking up Rolen's salary this year?

Why won't they just say how much?

Brutus
08-03-2009, 05:06 PM
Is this in addition to the Jays picking up Rolen's salary this year?

Why won't they just say how much?

It's usually policy not to comment on the financial matters. Much of what is reported with cash dealings is not often disclosed by the teams directly.

But if that's the case about the Jays picking up the rest of the 2009 salary, then the Reds are only going to be paying roughly $2 million more than they would have paid Encarnacion.

UKFlounder
08-03-2009, 05:14 PM
I thought Rolen was still owed about $4 million for this year and the Blue Jays were picking it up. Where did the $1.3 million come from? What did I miss?

Next year - he's owed $11 million, and EE about $3.5 million = about $6.5 million more for Rolen.



Someone said it was reported the bonus is still being covered by St. Louis under the previous trade.

So if you prorate the $4 mil given to Cincinnati by Toronto (assuming that figure is accurate), against what is still owed this year to Rolen (somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 mil), then you have $11 mil minus $2.7 mil = roughly $9.3 mil.

So basically the Reds wind up paying Rolen, give or take, $4 mil more than what they were due to pay Encarnacion.

Strikes Out Looking
08-03-2009, 05:15 PM
I read Miller's comments to mean the Reds aren't paying the entire amount owed to Rolen for 2010. Maybe the Jays are kicking in next year as well.

Brutus
08-03-2009, 05:29 PM
I thought Rolen was still owed about $4 million for this year and the Blue Jays were picking it up. Where did the $1.3 million come from? What did I miss?

Next year - he's owed $11 million, and EE about $3.5 million = about $6.5 million more for Rolen.

Sorry, that was a mistake. I got my figures mixed up.

He is actually owed roughly another $3.7 mil this year. I guess the question is whether the Jays are picking up the tab on that in addition to throwing in $4 million or if that's all they're covering.

Encarnacion makes $4.75 mil next year.

So without any regard to whether the Jays are covering an undisclosed further amount next year, the difference is $6.25 mil.

nate
08-03-2009, 05:48 PM
We're gonna need a spreadsheet before this is over.

BCubb2003
08-03-2009, 05:59 PM
Rolen might be getting three different checks every payday. I hope he has direct deposit.

RedLegSuperStar
08-03-2009, 07:10 PM
I thought they weren't adding payroll? Per Bobby C

alexad
08-03-2009, 09:09 PM
I heard them say on Saturday the Jays were going to give Around
7 million toward salary

Team Clark
08-03-2009, 11:54 PM
I heard them say on Saturday the Jays were going to give Around
7 million toward salary

That's my understanding as well.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 12:09 AM
That's my understanding as well.

So when it's all said and done, presumably the Reds just upgraded 3B for $2 mil more than what they were on the hook for in Edwin Encarnacion next season.

That, to me, drastically changes the complexion of the deal.

Team Clark
08-04-2009, 12:12 AM
So when it's all said and done, presumably the Reds just upgraded 3B for $2 mil more than what they were on the hook for in Edwin Encarnacion next season.

That, to me, drastically changes the complexion of the deal.

Potentially, yes. Until all the details are released or discovered we just will not know. Oddly enough I saw Wayne Krivsky tonight at GABP. There wasn't one person who did not ask him questions about Volquez and the Rolen trade. Probably made him feel awkward.

Will M
08-04-2009, 12:31 AM
So when it's all said and done, presumably the Reds just upgraded 3B for $2 mil more than what they were on the hook for in Edwin Encarnacion next season.

That, to me, drastically changes the complexion of the deal.

the deal is a head scratcher if Bob C isn't going to add more to the payroll (ie free agent starter, trade for SS,etc). if the deal didn't add as much to the payroll as we first thought then it makes more sense. ie, we still have financial room to add more talent to the major league team for 2010.

VR
08-04-2009, 12:53 AM
I thought Rolen was still owed about $4 million for this year and the Blue Jays were picking it up. Where did the $1.3 million come from? What did I miss?

Next year - he's owed $11 million, and EE about $3.5 million = about $6.5 million more for Rolen.

Math check ;)

WVRedsFan
08-04-2009, 01:04 AM
Potentially, yes. Until all the details are released or discovered we just will not know. Oddly enough I saw Wayne Krivsky tonight at GABP. There wasn't one person who did not ask him questions about Volquez and the Rolen trade. Probably made him feel awkward.

This is the one time in my life I wish he (Krivsky) hadn't been fired. Then everyone could blame him for contracts to Harang, Arroyo, Gonzalez, Codero, and others who everyone keeps telling is strangling the cash flow for other players and in the same breath givng Jocketty the devil for not doing anything. I could add in the Freel and Narron extensions and a lot of other stuff, but it's late and I'm too mad to even discuss rationally.

Scott Rolen salary is no big deal. He's tons better than the young Edwin Encarnacion at 34. If we can afford the players mentioned above without wringing our hands, then we can afford Rolen. Of course Walt made that deal. That makes all the difference in the world.

dougdirt
08-04-2009, 01:07 AM
This is the one time in my life I wish he (Krivsky) hadn't been fired. Then everyone could blame him for contracts to Harang, Arroyo, Gonzalez, Codero, and others who everyone keeps telling is strangling the cash flow for other players and in the same breath givng Jocketty the devil for not doing anything. I could add in the Freel and Narron extensions and a lot of other stuff, but it's late and I'm too mad to even discuss rationally.


Krivsky isn't entirely responsible for those moves.... Bob had a LOT of pull and say on player signings.

WVRedsFan
08-04-2009, 01:49 AM
Krivsky isn't entirely responsible for those moves.... Bob had a LOT of pull and say on player signings.

As every owner does. But, in the final evaluation, Wayne will be responsible for those deal as will Jocketty for the Taveras, Dunn, and Griffey deals. That doesn't excuse either man. And my guess is that Bobby C asked for the expertise from his GM's on all of this. If either GM had been strongly, I mean strongly against any of this, I think Cast would have listened.

Just like the bull spread around here about Castellini being the one who picked Dusty when Krivisky said he was his man...it's easy to pass the blame when you like or dislike someone. The truth is it has been a disaster for so long that there's plenty of blame to go around. For everyone. Plus tax.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 03:24 AM
the deal is a head scratcher if Bob C isn't going to add more to the payroll (ie free agent starter, trade for SS,etc). if the deal didn't add as much to the payroll as we first thought then it makes more sense. ie, we still have financial room to add more talent to the major league team for 2010.

I don't personally ever think it's a head scratcher to make a move that improves the ball club. Even if it's the only move made for next year, at least it upgraded the team. Sure, I would not really prefer to trade top prospects unless it's a commitment to put the team into a position to win, but even if fewer deals follow than expected, this was better than doing nothing at all.

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 03:58 AM
So when it's all said and done, presumably the Reds just upgraded 3B for $2 mil more than what they were on the hook for in Edwin Encarnacion next season.

That, to me, drastically changes the complexion of the deal.

That actually evens it out on the money/value side quite well. Basically, depending how you value each player, the Jays, with no money added, got around $7-9M more in value in that trade than the Reds.

With around $7M added, that means that the deal was about even, depending on how you value each player.

And one thing that the extra cash does, other than give the Reds more payroll flex, is if they don't use it all for adding talent to the 25 man roster, they can use some of it to pick a player who is asking above slot in next years draft.

Considering that the Red will be picking in the top 10 again, that could be very big.

We are all assuming that Strasburg and Harper will go 1-2, but if Strasburg is not signed, teams might shy away from such high priced picks, especially if they are represented by Boras. Depending on what these two players demands are, they might slip to the Reds. Long shot, but maybe.

UKFlounder
08-04-2009, 07:03 AM
D'oh!


Math check ;)

membengal
08-04-2009, 08:39 AM
Well gosh, I sure do hope the Reds are winning the "ledger" wars. That's why we watch the games...

nate
08-04-2009, 09:30 AM
If the Jays are paying all of Rolen's salary this year and $7mm next year, this goes from "eh" to "good" as far as I'm concerned.

I have to see how it nets out again, payroll-wise but that's not a bad deal.

BRM
08-04-2009, 09:41 AM
If the Jays are paying all of Rolen's salary this year and $7mm next year, this goes from "eh" to "good" as far as I'm concerned.

I have to see how it nets out again, payroll-wise but that's not a bad deal.

Is it $7M next year or is it $7M total between this year and next?

alexad
08-04-2009, 03:24 PM
Is it $7M next year or is it $7M total between this year and next?

I understood it to be $7 million for both years.

membengal
08-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Reading this thread is like hanging out on the Memphis Grizzlies message board, where all the talk is about money and how much money Grizz owner Mike Heisley is saving and wondering what the overall plan is.

Just sayin'.

BRM
08-04-2009, 04:24 PM
Like M2 said awhile back, fans don't show up to watch cost savings.

UKFlounder
08-04-2009, 04:26 PM
But, in all fairness, the immediate aftermath of the trade saw a lot of talk about how much salary the Reds were adding for an old guy, and so it's a bit natural for the opposite reaction to show up, especially when it appears the Reds will not pay as much as originally thought.

The origination of all the salary talk was not about saving it or being cheap, but, rather, about adding too much.


Like M2 said awhile back, fans don't show up to watch cost savings.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Ok..because I'm not in the mood to go back and read all this mess, basically the Jays pay all of his salary in 2009, and $7m of the $11 in 2010?

Chip R
08-04-2009, 04:40 PM
Ok..because I'm not in the mood to go back and read all this mess, basically the Jays pay all of his salary in 2009, and $7m of the $11 in 2010?


I think that's about right.

BRM
08-04-2009, 04:41 PM
Ok..because I'm not in the mood to go back and read all this mess, basically the Jays pay all of his salary in 2009, and $7m of the $11 in 2010?

I think the Jays are paying $4M of the 2010 money, leaving the Reds on the hook for $7M.

membengal
08-04-2009, 04:41 PM
So, the Reds win the salary war then? Because that's what I am rooting for. I want them to have as healthy a balance sheet as possible!

Go Reds accountants, go!

BRM
08-04-2009, 04:43 PM
So, the Reds win the salary war then? Because that's what I am rooting for. I want them to has as healthy a balance sheet as possible!

Go Reds accountants, go!

:laugh:

I'm with you here mem. We do seem to spend a lot of time talking payroll lately.

membengal
08-04-2009, 04:48 PM
BRM:

We do, and it is regrettable. It means that Cast has successfully won the PR war that this is a small market team, and has gotten us, the zealots, to buy into re-defining winning (at least to some extent). When you have a small market mindset as a fanbase, you look at trades like that for Rolen and take solace in "evening out the money" etc. It's just such a craptacular mindset for a fan, I rue seeing it take hold of this fanbase, but what is it exactly we are left with otherwise?

So, to the money wars, then. And go balance sheet!

The Grizzlies, btw, are "profitable" while playing in front of 7,000 fans a night during NBA season. It can be done, but, man, it ain't pretty. And I always wondered, might they be more profitable if the team would look into the whole "spending to win" thing. People do love a winner.

Or so I hear.

As a Reds/Grizzlies/Bengals fan, I technically wouldn't know...or at least, I knew once upon a time, but the passage of the decades has dimmed those memories.

nate
08-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Ok..because I'm not in the mood to go back and read all this mess, basically the Jays pay all of his salary in 2009, and $7m of the $11 in 2010?

I'm ultra unclear but I know the Jays are paying the rest of his salary this year. Then the $7mm figure came up so it's either:

A.) $7mm total = $4mm this year and $3mm next year
B.) $7mm next year, $4mm this year
C.) something else

Hopefully, someone with a better grasp on the number salad can clarify.

paulrichjr
08-04-2009, 05:01 PM
Reading this thread is like hanging out on the Memphis Grizzlies message board, where all the talk is about money and how much money Grizz owner Mike Heisley is saving and wondering what the overall plan is.

Just sayin'.

You and I are in the same boat. It's sad to like both the Reds and the Grizzlies. Luckily my sons like other basketball teams so they at least get to have some fun. I didn't even get to enjoy football this year with the Vols.

Scrap Irony
08-04-2009, 05:24 PM
I'm reading it as the Reds will owe Rolen about $2 or 3 million more than they owed EdE for 2010.

Why should we care?

Because the payroll is probably static at somewhere between $75-80 million, if we know what Cincinnati paid for Rolen, we can figure out how much cash the Reds can spend on other needs. We can also analyze the deal itself a bit better, as the cash back is a part of the deal.

(I'm guessing you knew that already and were simply complaining about the cash itself, though.)

Team Clark
08-04-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm ultra unclear but I know the Jays are paying the rest of his salary this year. Then the $7mm figure came up so it's either:

A.) $7mm total = $4mm this year and $3mm next year
B.) $7mm next year, $4mm this year
C.) something else

Hopefully, someone with a better grasp on the number salad can clarify.

Option A is my understanding.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 05:59 PM
I'm ultra unclear but I know the Jays are paying the rest of his salary this year. Then the $7mm figure came up so it's either:

A.) $7mm total = $4mm this year and $3mm next year
B.) $7mm next year, $4mm this year
C.) something else

Hopefully, someone with a better grasp on the number salad can clarify.

I also believe it's Option A.

It's my understanding that works out to approximately $3.7 mil remaining this year and then $3.3 mil next year (leaving roughly $7.7 for the Reds to pay in 2010).

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2009, 06:14 PM
I also believe it's Option A.

It's my understanding that works out to approximately $3.7 mil remaining this year and then $3.3 mil next year (leaving roughly $7.7 for the Reds to pay in 2010).

Rolen only is owed roughly $4M (of his $11M) the remainder of 2009. That means if they gave $4M for 2009, that was probably to pay the remaining 2009 salary. If they gave $3M for next year that would mean the Reds owe Rolen $8 mil in 2010 ($11M - $3M).

2009 = $4M owed to Rolen - $4M given by Jays = $0 owed by Reds to Rolen.

2010 = $11M owed to Rolen - $3M given by Jays = Reds on the hook for $8M in 2010 to Rolen ($3.25M more than EE would have made).

nate
08-04-2009, 06:14 PM
I also believe it's Option A.

It's my understanding that works out to approximately $3.7 mil remaining this year and then $3.3 mil next year (leaving roughly $7.7 for the Reds to pay in 2010).

And minus what they would've paid EE + the two prospects.

pedro
08-04-2009, 06:17 PM
I'm reading it as the Reds will owe Rolen about $2 or 3 million more than they owed EdE for 2010.

Why should we care?

Because the payroll is probably static at somewhere between $75-80 million, if we know what Cincinnati paid for Rolen, we can figure out how much cash the Reds can spend on other needs. We can also analyze the deal itself a bit better, as the cash back is a part of the deal.

(I'm guessing you knew that already and were simply complaining about the cash itself, though.)


We really don't know this for sure though do we?

Maybe ownership pony's up and this is just the first step?

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Rolen only is owed roughly $4M (of his $11M) the remainder of 2009. That means if they gave $4M for 2009, that was probably to pay the remaining 2009 salary. If they gave $3M for next year that would mean the Reds owe Rolen $8 mil in 2010 ($11M - $3M).

2009 = $4M owed to Rolen - $4M given by Jays = $0 owed by Reds to Rolen.

2010 = $11M owed to Rolen - $3M given by Jays = Reds on the hook for $8M in 2010 to Rolen ($3.25M more than EE would have made).

$3.7 is the prorated amount for 2009, to be technical ($11 / 12 semi-monthly payments = $916,667 * 4 remaining = roughly $3.7 mil)

Otherwise, $11 mil with one third of a season remaining. So if $7 mil is the amount being paid by the Jays, about $300K would theoretically carry over, unless they're technically paying what's left plus $3 mil extra.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-05-2009, 10:30 AM
$3.7 is the prorated amount for 2009, to be technical ($11 / 12 semi-monthly payments = $916,667 * 4 remaining = roughly $3.7 mil)

Otherwise, $11 mil with one third of a season remaining. So if $7 mil is the amount being paid by the Jays, about $300K would theoretically carry over, unless they're technically paying what's left plus $3 mil extra.

When the trade went down, the Jays had played 101 games. Based on his $11M salary, that works out to $67,901 per game. Through 101 games that would mean he had "earned" roughly $6.85M of his $11M salary. The amount left on his contract for 2009, would then at least be $4M or more (not $3.7M) and it appears that's what the Jays gave the Reds. $4M. 2009 slate wiped clean.

Now, we just need to know what the Reds are getting for 2010. Let's say it's $3M. OK, so now the Reds are on the hook for $8M of Rolens's 2010 contract, which makes him only $3.25M more expensive than EE would have been.

I have no problem with that had it been him for EE straight up.

WMR
08-05-2009, 10:50 AM
Maybe we're not giving Jocketty enough credit. Maybe he told Bob straight up, we're going for it in 2010 and we're going to spend some money in FA (or I walk).

The only way this deal makes any sense is if they add the corresponding pieces to give this team a real chance to compete in 2010.

If they're planning on making additional significant moves then I can better get behind the Rolen deal with these new cash considerations coming to light. It's still a bad trade, but I can at least get behind the plan.

edabbs44
08-05-2009, 11:05 AM
We really don't know this for sure though do we?

Maybe ownership pony's up and this is just the first step?

Agreed, that's why I am in the "wait until OD 2010" school.

The trade looks a lot better if more additions are made. If not, it can be filed under "Major moves that make no sense in the big picture" right next to the Cordero signing.

IslandRed
08-05-2009, 12:07 PM
Short-term, it works for me. For a payroll bump of about $3 million (net of EE and Toronto's cash) next year, we turned a projected black hole into one of the better third-sackers in MLB. On a wins-per-dollar basis, most free-agent moves around the league won't turn out that well.

That doesn't mean I'm happy Zach Stewart is gone.

Brutus
08-05-2009, 03:17 PM
When the trade went down, the Jays had played 101 games. Based on his $11M salary, that works out to $67,901 per game. Through 101 games that would mean he had "earned" roughly $6.85M of his $11M salary. The amount left on his contract for 2009, would then at least be $4M or more (not $3.7M) and it appears that's what the Jays gave the Reds. $4M. 2009 slate wiped clean.

Now, we just need to know what the Reds are getting for 2010. Let's say it's $3M. OK, so now the Reds are on the hook for $8M of Rolens's 2010 contract, which makes him only $3.25M more expensive than EE would have been.

I have no problem with that had it been him for EE straight up.

Well, that's not how it's calculated though. The number of games is not factored in when a player's salary is prorated, although doing it the actual way probably means we're closer to $4 mil than $3.7.

It has to do with the number of days active a player is on the 40-man roster. For instance, the season is actually calculated by the number of total days between the first day of the season and the last day of the regular season. That works out to 180 days this year, if my math is correct.

If my math continues to be correct, Scott Rolen was on the Jays for 116 days, meaning he's been paid for 116 of 180 or 64.4% of his contract. At $11 mil, this means he's actually been paid $7,084,000 (when I say actually been paid, it means the Jays are already on the hook for that much as he gets paid on a semi-monthly basis so probably has not received that amount in full yet). So yeah, he would have close to $4 mil remaining (minus almost .1).

According to the CBA, that's how it's actually distributed and also how prorated salaries are given to rookies with a league minimum when they are called up (paid at prorated league minimum per the number of days they're on an active roster).