PDA

View Full Version : Bobby Bonilla will be back on the Mets’ payroll for the next 25 years



Revering4Blue
07-03-2010, 12:09 PM
No, I'm not making this up.


SAN JUAN, P.R.—One year from today, the Mets will add to their payroll a 47-year-old, past-his-prime power hitter who has a reputation as a malcontent—a player who has been retired from professional baseball for nine years and won't play another game again.

Nevertheless, starting on July 1, 2011, Bobby Bonilla will remain on the franchise's payroll for 25 years, collecting an annual salary of $1,193,248.20. Those are the terms the Mets agreed to Jan. 3, 2000, when they bought out the final year of Mr. Bonilla's contract.

"That beautiful thing," he said here Monday.

This unusual arrangement between him and the Mets, though, is characteristic of his time with the team—4˝ years marked by controversy and unmet expectations. By the time Mr. Bonilla departed, the Mets were so eager to be rid of him that they agreed to defer payment—with interest—of the $5.9 million they owed him in the final year of his contract.

http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/Bobby_Bonillas_Retirement_Plan_Is_Better_Than_Your s/2827501

Way to go, Steve Phillips!

Vottomatic
07-03-2010, 12:12 PM
No, I'm not making this up.



http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/Bobby_Bonillas_Retirement_Plan_Is_Better_Than_Your s/2827501

Way to go, Steve Phillips!

Geez. That's unreal.

If I'm the Mets, I offer to pay him now for a lesser amount and see if he'd take it over 2 or 3 seasons. He might be dead in the next 10 to 15 years and never get it.

Reds
07-03-2010, 12:57 PM
what a waste of payroll. that's absurd

Knightro28
07-04-2010, 01:33 AM
Absurd, moronic, insane, dimwitted, unwise decision by Steve Phillips (if he was the guy who signed off on this).

double21d
07-04-2010, 07:21 AM
Bonilla became a cancer on that team and had to be let go. With no takers, they decided to pay him later rather than have him be a burden on the payroll when the Mets were competitive. I'm sure the accounting geniuses in NY figured out how much money to put away 10 years ago to make sure this is paid off.
Many teams do this. Don't the Reds owe Ken Griffey Jr. deferred money from his contract that he signed in 2000?

double21d
07-04-2010, 07:28 AM
This is from the Feb. 11 Cincinnati Enquirer:

Griffey will be paid $12.5 million per season for each of the next nine years of the contract. Reds Chief Operating Officer John Allen said more than half the total money is deferred over 16 years, from 2009-2024. A balloon payment of $16.5 million is due in the final year.

BigJohn
07-04-2010, 09:24 AM
That was my thought exactly!!!!!!!!

Magdal
07-05-2010, 03:13 PM
To me, it's all insanity.

Kingspoint
07-05-2010, 04:11 PM
what a waste of payroll. that's absurd

It's common, not absurd. Clubs and players have been making 25-year contracts out of "reported" contracts for the last 45 years. It's just good business sense for both sides. It ends up being a lot cheaper for the team and it guarantees the player a nice annual salary. Prudent players have been setting their contracts up like this is all sports for over 40 years.

Krawhitham
07-05-2010, 08:20 PM
It's common, not absurd. Clubs and players have been making 25-year contracts out of "reported" contracts for the last 45 years. It's just good business sense for both sides. It ends up being a lot cheaper for the team and it guarantees the player a nice annual salary. Prudent players have been setting their contracts up like this is all sports for over 40 years.

5,900,000 VS 29,831,205

I do not care what kink of gorilla math you use, the Mets are not saving money.

In today's baseball deferred contract are silly, MLB demands each team put the deferred money in the bank each year. All of the money deferred on JR's contract is already in the bank, so it does not give teams anymore money to use on other players. That rule stems from when TB ran out of money and could not make payroll and MLB had to cover it payroll

Donder
07-05-2010, 09:18 PM
5,900,000 VS 29,831,205

I was wondering if I was the only one who caught this. That difference is ludicrous. Can it possibly be right? If it is this has to one of the worst financial decisions any club has ever made.

Kingspoint
07-05-2010, 10:46 PM
5,900,000 VS 29,831,205

I do not care what kink of gorilla math you use, the Mets are not saving money.

In today's baseball deferred contract are silly, MLB demands each team put the deferred money in the bank each year. All of the money deferred on JR's contract is already in the bank, so it does not give teams anymore money to use on other players. That rule stems from when TB ran out of money and could not make payroll and MLB had to cover it payroll

The teams get to keep the interest on the money. That's a lot of interest.