pierremvp1 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I'd like to know more about how these 410M in county bonds are structured. Especially the 91m bond given by JP Morgan that the writer states is going to cost 1.2B by 2047. How are these bonds structured? The reason the total cost is so high is because there are NO payments due until 2026. IIRC, even with steadily increasing payments starting in 2026, by 2029 they are still piling up accrued interest but at a steadily slower rate until amortization finally starts in 2030 when the payment is 8 mill. Payments then increase geometrically and peak in 2042 at 118 mill. These kinds of negative amortization bonds with no payments for as long as 20 years have been used by municipalities all over the country and are a ticking time bomb. Politicians love 'em -- no current cost or even near-term cost, but very high costs to be paid many years or decades after they are out of office. Loria and the Marlins had NOTHING to do with how any stadium-related bond was structured, those decisions were made entirely by the city and county politicians. I appreciate the info on the bond structure. It's even worse than I thought. I agree the final decision was all on the politicians....Loria had no vote here, nothing to affix his signature to anyway. I'm not convinced though that him or his team of attorneys had NOTHING to do with it. Seems to make more sense that they'd be in the ear of the politicos reminding them how it was attractive to them politically.........without reminding them that the whole sordid deal was also financially positive for Loria.....and a ticking time-bomb for the local community. Worse even then failing to sign Stanton, god forbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I hate Loria because: a. he is a liar. b. he lets incompetance remain in power c. he is a blowhard. d. he does things that simply alientates his already small fanbase regularly. Loria as an owner is under .500 If he truly cared about winning as he claims, he would replace the baseball people making decisions for ones that at least try something else. Whether its Beinfest's fault or not ( I personally think he deserves at least half the blame for simply having horrible drafts for basically half a decade straight); you cannot simply say, "I care about winning" and then keeping the people responsible for putting together said team year after year when you dont win. Exactly. You don't say 'well, that team we put together sucked, let's try something else' and then proceed to keep everyone except your manager (who has the least amount of influence on the team's makeup) employed. Beinfest/Hill/whoever has either been badly hamstrung by Loria's refusal to spend in the draft (don't forget that he was lowballing the hell out of Andrew Heaney in June), or they are terrible at scouting/player development. It has to be one of those things. It does appear to be mostly the latter, as throughout the last 8 years or so the team has generally drafted 'signability' guys over talent (see: Kyle Skipworth, Chad James, etc.). He doesn't care about winning. He's actually put himself in the perfect situation where he makes more money by losing due to revenue sharing, and he's far from the only one (Pittsburgh has been guilty of this before, based on leaked financial documents). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokersgoon Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 That passan article was alright. till he fucked up and included the players who were traded w/ huizenga at the helm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Passan probably just got confused after he saw that the Miami Marlins won the 1997 World Series on some promotional junk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Seems to make more sense that they'd be in the ear of the politicos reminding them how it was attractive to them politically The politicos had zero need of anyone connected to the Marlins reminding them of anything. They already had their team of bond underwriters regaling them with wonderful success stories about numerous other massively-deferred-payment bond issues they had put together for other cities and counties in the immediately previous years -- this deal wasn't their first ride on that train. Probably more like their 100th ride. Or 500th. Money and credit markets were very tight when the county needed to get the financing done. Offering the structure they did with a longer maturity and no ability to pre-pay made the package more attractive to potential investors. Even at that, the deal almost fell apart. Samson was the point-man on everything stadium-related. The guy is a lawyer and I doubt dumb enough to say anything other than something like "Well, that's your decision and responsibility, I'm sure you'll do whatever you think is best" upon being told what the plans for bonding structure were. Assuming that he was ever told anything about it before it was a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Capozzi's rundown of what Loria said today: http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/2013/02/25/marlins-owner-jeffrey-loria-speaks-out-on-fan-reaction-reyes-buehrle-stanton/ - Loria calls Reyes a liar for saying Loria told him to buy a house in Miami. - Not selling the team - Not a fire sale, a "restart" - No offer to Stanton will be made till at least after this season is over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Capozzi's rundown of what Loria said today: http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/2013/02/25/marlins-owner-jeffrey-loria-speaks-out-on-fan-reaction-reyes-buehrle-stanton/ (Your intention to sign Giancarlo Stanton) We are hoping that that moment will come but Giancarlo needs to play this year. He is here for certainly the foreseeable future and we will cross that bridge at the appropriate moment. (Your reaction to his comments after the trade) I love Giancarlo. He’s a great young talent and I wish him nothing but the best. I have nothing but fond admiration for him. I don’t have any negative feelings. I understood that. But I’m going to wish him a great season. My wife and I saw him in France… (Loria said he met in Paris and had dinner in the Eiffel Tower.) (But a lot of fans think it will be only one more year) I don’t have any comments about that? One more year? He will be here this year and I’m hopefully he will come here the next year… I would love to see him be the centerpiece of this ball club. He’d the young giant in the ball club but you can’t make promises in this game because strange things happen all the time… Loria said the team won’t make Stanton an offer this year. “I dont think this is the year to go to Giancarlo with an offer. We have to let him play it out, let him feel more comfortable.� Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 "I'm hopeful he will come here the next year" when he's under club control till 2016. hahahahahahaha. JEEZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 "I'm hopeful he will come here the next year" when he's under club control till 2016. hahahahahahaha. JEEZ There's this new thing in baseball known as a "trade." I'm fuzzy on the definition, but you should look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 That's pretty dumb if they decide to wait to offer Stanton an extension. There's no reason to do so unless they are waiting to see if his knees blow out and he misses most of the year. I think that's the wrong side of the bet, though. It's more likely that he has a monster season and his price tag goes up a ton by next offseason. This is the type of thinking that separates the Marlins from the Rays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Yeah, I don't agree with waiting a year either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Our thinking: sign to an extension after a while, but he may be too expensive then. Rays thinking: (Random woman) "Oh I'm pregnant!" (Rays) "We'd like to sign your future child right now to a 29 year $450,000 deal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 It makes perfect sense. He has a monster year, they say hes too far out of their price range, and trade him. This is all just preliminary "justification" when they trade him instead of offering him big money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 That's pretty dumb if they decide to wait to offer Stanton an extension. There's no reason to do so unless they are waiting to see if his knees blow out and he misses most of the year. I think that's the wrong side of the bet, though. It's more likely that he has a monster season and his price tag goes up a ton by next offseason. This is the type of thinking that separates the Marlins from the Rays. Then they will offer him something way below market value and claim they cannot afford him because he is too good. I'd say the chances of Stanton being traded by the first year of arbitration are now over 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Oh, and 10/200! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierremvp1 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 That's pretty dumb if they decide to wait to offer Stanton an extension. There's no reason to do so unless they are waiting to see if his knees blow out and he misses most of the year. I think that's the wrong side of the bet, though. It's more likely that he has a monster season and his price tag goes up a ton by next offseason. This is the type of thinking that separates the Marlins from the Rays. Then they will offer him something way below market value and claim they cannot afford him because he is too good. I'd say the chances of Stanton being traded by the first year of arbitration are now over 50%. We'll see how things go. The Marlins half of that 50/50 though should realize it makes Stanton more valuable to be signed asap, and the longer-term the better. Only AFTER a contract is signed can it be insured against. I'm sure they realize this, as I'm sure Stanton's agents are offering their own advice. My figure of 10/150 gets more attractive to the Marlins and less attractive to Stanton with each passing healthy day, though I think we'll have not too many more passing days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 That whole part of the interview screams 'An extension is irrelevant because we're dumping his ass soon anyway'. Why else would you make vague claims like 'well, we hope he's here next year' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinsLou Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Stanton would never sign a 10 year contract which would make him a free agent again at 32. That would not give him a real opportunity to score big on a second major payday. Think close to 7/$85 if they do it right now. Next offseason, it's probably 6/$100. If Loria intends on keeping him (ha), he is gambling roughly $15 million bucks by not signing him this offseason compared to next. This is unacceptable for a team with no payroll moving forward, no other candidates for a buyout, low salaries the next 3 years where they could front load the deal making Stanton completely cost effective when Yelich and friends might be good, and for an owner who wants to model itself after Oakland and Tampa, whom would each have bought him out already in a second. You're doing it wrong. Conversely, if you sign him to a beneficial 7 year deal right now, his trade value would only increase with a team knowing future salary constraints and/or trading him right now would bring the largest package back since he is pre-arbitration and makes nothing. This is a complete failure on player personnel. This is Miguel Cabrera 2004, and it's happening all over again. This ownership is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeroFishOne Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 The whole Stanton part of that interview pretty much shows in my eyes that Stanton will not be a long term part of the Marlins. You really don't even have to read between the lines. And the Buehrle part of the conversation was a little strange as well. I understand te reasoning for signing him but I am befuddled by the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 He said nothing on Stanton this year?? He's an embarrassment. Just freaking trade Stanton already and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Capozzi's rundown of what Loria said today: http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/2013/02/25/marlins-owner-jeffrey-loria-speaks-out-on-fan-reaction-reyes-buehrle-stanton/ - Loria calls Reyes a liar for saying Loria told him to buy a house in Miami. - Not selling the team - Not a fire sale, a "restart" - No offer to Stanton will be made till at least after this season is over fuck yo ninja edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierremvp1 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Stanton would never sign a 10 year contract which would make him a free agent again at 32. That would not give him a real opportunity to score big on a second major payday. Think close to 7/$85 if they do it right now. Next offseason, it's probably 6/$100. If Loria intends on keeping him (ha), he is gambling roughly $15 million bucks by not signing him this offseason compared to next. This is unacceptable for a team with no payroll moving forward, no other candidates for a buyout, low salaries the next 3 years where they could front load the deal making Stanton completely cost effective when Yelich and friends might be good, and for an owner who wants to model itself after Oakland and Tampa, whom would each have bought him out already in a second. You're doing it wrong. Conversely, if you sign him to a beneficial 7 year deal right now, his trade value would only increase with a team knowing future salary constraints and/or trading him right now would bring the largest package back since he is pre-arbitration and makes nothing. This is a complete failure on player personnel. This is Miguel Cabrera 2004, and it's happening all over again. This ownership is a joke. I hear you. You're right. I realize a 6-7 year deal is what we should expect, and hope we get that. It's just wishful thinking to dream about a 10 year deal because it's unlikely to think the franchise could justify that 2nd long-term mega-deal....and I just want him on the team as long as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Stanton would never sign a 10 year contract which would make him a free agent again at 32. That would not give him a real opportunity to score big on a second major payday. Think close to 7/$85 if they do it right now. Next offseason, it's probably 6/$100. If Loria intends on keeping him (ha), he is gambling roughly $15 million bucks by not signing him this offseason compared to next. This is unacceptable for a team with no payroll moving forward, no other candidates for a buyout, low salaries the next 3 years where they could front load the deal making Stanton completely cost effective when Yelich and friends might be good, and for an owner who wants to model itself after Oakland and Tampa, whom would each have bought him out already in a second. You're doing it wrong. Conversely, if you sign him to a beneficial 7 year deal right now, his trade value would only increase with a team knowing future salary constraints and/or trading him right now would bring the largest package back since he is pre-arbitration and makes nothing. This is a complete failure on player personnel. This is Miguel Cabrera 2004, and it's happening all over again. This ownership is a joke. He'd sign 10/200 million in a heartbeat if the Marlins were dumb enough to offer something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 The whole Stanton part of that interview pretty much shows in my eyes that Stanton will not be a long term part of the Marlins. You really don't even have to read between the lines. And the Buehrle part of the conversation was a little strange as well. I understand te reasoning for signing him but I am befuddled by the explanation. Based on Loria's past behavior, I would not be surprised if Loria thinks he's "done" with Stanton after reading those tweets that surfaced after the firesale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 They're not waiting a year. Stanton is just not signing here long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.