Tom Ricketts SUUUUUUUCKS

[CubinNY]

The Cubs have only two players signed past 2026- Dansby and Shota.

They could have used deferrals to get Bregman and still stay under the tax. 
 

Ricketts is playing the long game and getting ready to go to the mattresses during the next bargaining session.

They are more concerned with that then with winning 

[thawv]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

The Cubs have only two players signed past 2026- Dansby and Shota.

They could have used deferrals to get Bregman and still stay under the tax. 
 

Ricketts is playing the long game and getting ready to go to the mattresses during the next bargaining session.

They are more concerned with that then with winning 

It's a lot easier for the fan to realize that they didn't purchase the team to win baseball games.  They purchased the team to make money.  Winning is a secondary bonus.  

[Derwood]

4 hours ago, thawv said:

It's a lot easier for the fan to realize that they didn't purchase the team to win baseball games.  They purchased the team to make money.  Winning is a secondary bonus.  

See also: every other owner of sports teams

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, CubinNY said:

The Cubs have only two players signed past 2026- Dansby and Shota.

They could have used deferrals to get Bregman and still stay under the tax. 
 

Ricketts is playing the long game and getting ready to go to the mattresses during the next bargaining session.

They are more concerned with that then with winning 

Deferrals don't effect the tax as far as I'm aware?

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Stratos said:

Deferrals don't effect the tax as far as I'm aware?

Exactly. 

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Deferrals don't effect the tax as far as I'm aware?

They do not.  But they still cost the owner money. And Ricketts doesn’t want to pay that money at any time. Which is why they will never got a top FA. And why they will lose Tucker. He isn’t just worried about the LT line. He is worried about every dollar he has to spend. Which adds to why he sucks. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Deferral amounts have to be escrowed, so on top of there being no difference from a CBT standpoint, there's not an enormous difference from a cashflow standpoint either.

[CubinNY]

They lower the AAV and thus count less towards the luxury tax. Cash flow my ass. The Ricketts have a fire house of cashflow. 

Edited February 16, 2025 by CubinNY

[Transmogrified Tiger]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

They lower the AAV and thus count less towards the luxury tax. Cash flow my ass. The Ricketts have a fire house of cashflow. 

By multiple reports they offered Bregman a very similar AAV to what he signed for, so I don't think deferrals would have been a differentiator outside of Bregman/Boras getting to brag about a pre-deferral number.  The point about cash flow is not that the Cubs are short on cash flow, it's that one of the reasons you might think teams defer is not nearly as significant in practice due to having to escrow those amounts.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Some strong stuff from Rosenthal today 

Quote

If not now, when? Lately, with Ricketts, the answer seems to be “never.”

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6139283/2025/02/16/red-sox-alex-bregman-draft-cubs-payroll?source=user-shared-article

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Some strong stuff from Rosenthal today 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6139283/2025/02/16/red-sox-alex-bregman-draft-cubs-payroll?source=user-shared-article

They came in fourth in a four team competition. It wasn’t even a serious offer. 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

By multiple reports they offered Bregman a very similar AAV to what he signed for, so I don't think deferrals would have been a differentiator outside of Bregman/Boras getting to brag about a pre-deferral number.  The point about cash flow is not that the Cubs are short on cash flow, it's that one of the reasons you might think teams defer is not nearly as significant in practice due to having to escrow those amounts.

I don’t know about the Bregman contract or if the Cubs could have offered more if they did some deferred money. But I would bet Tucker’s next contract will have deferred money in it. If the Cubs stick to what appears to be a refusal to defer money they will not have a chance at Tucker. It is a very good way to lower the AAV and still give the player a larger sum or money than a team not deferring money. It will be, once again, the Cubs trying to compete while they have a hand tied behind their back. I just do not understand this ownership and the way the insist on doing business and hurting their chances at getting top players. 

[squally1313]

So the agreed upon argument here is that the player and their whole team of representation just has no concept whatsoever concerning the time value of money or how to do a present day value calculation huh

[CubinNY]

9 hours ago, squally1313 said:

So the agreed upon argument here is that the player and their whole team of representation just has no concept whatsoever concerning the time value of money or how to do a present day value calculation huh

He took deferrals from Boston, officer. 

[squally1313]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

He took deferrals from Boston, officer. 

At a nominal dollar value that was way higher than anyone anticipated but, hey, when you run the numbers back to what they’re actually worth and what they count against the tax for, AAV wise, it was basically right in line with what everyone was expecting. 
 

basically, I’ll Venmo you $10 today, or I’ll Venmo you $12 five years from now. Which one would you rather take? 

[squally1313]

Red Sox, present day value: 3 years, $95m, $31.6m/year, opt out option after year 1

Cubs offer: 4 years, $115m, $28.75m/year, no opt out after year one. 
 

deal one is better for reasons that had nothing to do with deferrals. 

[Rcal10]

14 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

At a nominal dollar value that was way higher than anyone anticipated but, hey, when you run the numbers back to what they’re actually worth and what they count against the tax for, AAV wise, it was basically right in line with what everyone was expecting. 
 

basically, I’ll Venmo you $10 today, or I’ll Venmo you $12 five years from now. Which one would you rather take? 

I understand your point and you are not wrong. But the fact is deferrals seem to be working now. They work for the team and the player. Bregman’s deal with the Cubs was right in line with this one. But he went to the Red Sox. Personally I think he did because it allows him a chance to have a better year in Boston than he wound in Wrigley. I think most big mega deals now will need to be a little creative. Seems to be the way they are going. The end result money will obviously matter, but if the Cubs line in the sand on contracts is deferrals it does have them playing at a disadvantage. The good thing is, I read that while they didn’t do it here it is not that much a rule as it is a preference. So maybe they will offer something like that if they need to, in the future. 

[squally1313]

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I understand your point and you are not wrong. But the fact is deferrals seem to be working now. They work for the team and the player. Bregman’s deal with the Cubs was right in line with this one. But he went to the Red Sox. Personally I think he did because it allows him a chance to have a better year in Boston than he wound in Wrigley. I think most big mega deals now will need to be a little creative. Seems to be the way they are going. The end result money will obviously matter, but if the Cubs line in the sand on contracts is deferrals it does have them playing at a disadvantage. The good thing is, I read that while they didn’t do it here it is not that much a rule as it is a preference. So maybe they will offer something like that if they need to, in the future. 

So….this isn’t a real concern. 

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, squally1313 said:

So….this isn’t a real concern. 

It was originally when Jed seemed to suggest the team was not interested in deferrals. That comment has been lightened up a little. And I still do believe any contract Tucker does sign next year will have deferrals. So less of a concern because they Cubs may be willing to use them. Also, what is not being discussed here is the Cubs did not offer Bregman an opt out after year one. Which seems to mean they were good with him at $30M in ‘26 as well. That is actually a good sign that they may be willing to be over the LT next year knowing how much comes off the books in ‘27. Which could bode well for any Tucker contract. If they were willing to be over in ‘26 with Bregman I am sure it won’t be a problem with Tucker. 

[squally1313]

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

And I still do believe any contract Tucker does sign next year will have deferrals

Kyle Tucker isn’t going to demand that he doesn’t get some of his salary for another 15 years. This isn’t some bargaining chip, it’s just math that all involved parties are more than able to comprehend. 

[Rcal10]

34 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Kyle Tucker isn’t going to demand that he doesn’t get some of his salary for another 15 years. This isn’t some bargaining chip, it’s just math that all involved parties are more than able to comprehend. 

I’m done discussing this with you any longer, here. It is getting boring. If you want to revisit this conversation in private when Tucker actually becomes a free agent I would be happy to do so. I would even be willing to put my money on his next contract having deferred money. So you just let me know if you want to put your money where your mouth is. 

[mul21]

23 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Kyle Tucker isn’t going to demand that he doesn’t get some of his salary for another 15 years. This isn’t some bargaining chip, it’s just math that all involved parties are more than able to comprehend. 

He certainly could demand that as many who are signing in CA or NY or other high income tax states have done for the simple fact that they can collect that money later when they're living in a low/no income tax state.  There are real advantages to doing that for the player but other than reducing the CBT number, I really don't see any for ownership.

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, mul21 said:

He certainly could demand that as many who are signing in CA or NY or other high income tax states have done for the simple fact that they can collect that money later when they're living in a low/no income tax state.  There are real advantages to doing that for the player but other than reducing the CBT number, I really don't see any for ownership.

Yes, lowering the CBT number is the advantage for the owners. I think it is a bigger owner advantage than a player advantage. Do you really think Bregman getting $2M a year for 10 years AFTER he makes hundreds of millions of dollars in his career, makes that big a difference to him if he has to pay 5% taxes on that $2M yearly? Even if the state tax is 10%. Do you rally think saving $200,000 on state tax, years after he retires after earning $300M in his career is the difference maker? If state tax was such a big deal why doesn’t anyone sign in California? Why not Texas from the start. Do you really believe all these players are going to move to states without a state income tax to save a few hundred thousand dollars a year after then already made $300M plus? I don’t. The deferred money is used as an owners tool, not a players tool, IMO. Lowering hr CBT is a huge advantage for owners. And it also allows players and agents to inflate the contract value. 

[mul21]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Yes, lowering the CBT number is the advantage for the owners. I think it is a bigger owner advantage than a player advantage. Do you really think Bregman getting $2M a year for 10 years AFTER he makes hundreds of millions of dollars in his career, makes that big a difference to him if he has to pay 5% taxes on that $2M yearly? Even if the state tax is 10%. Do you rally think saving $200,000 on state tax, years after he retires after earning $300M in his career is the difference maker? If state tax was such a big deal why doesn’t anyone sign in California? Why not Texas from the start. Do you really believe all these players are going to move to states without a state income tax to save a few hundred thousand dollars a year after then already made $300M plus? I don’t. The deferred money is used as an owners tool, not a players tool, IMO. Lowering hr CBT is a huge advantage for owners. And it also allows players and agents to inflate the contract value. 

Yeah, because these guys are competitive and want to squeeze out every last dollar they can while they have a chance.  And you do realize that the team has to put the current value salary in an escrow account annually, so they aren't just banking the money.  Boston has to put that extra $9 million deferred (really probably something like $6-8 million depending on the payout structure) aside this year and it gets paid out as the contract stipulates.

[squally1313]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Lowering hr CBT is a huge advantage for owners. And it also allows players and agents to inflate the contract value. 

 But these two offset right? On the ownership side, they have to pay a nominal premium vs would it cost up front and so after you discount the amounts you end up with AAV/CBT numbers in line with what everyone was projecting. On the players side, they get to brag about the numbers on the contract, but getting $20m in 5 years vs getting $15m tomorrow and having their investment team go get 8% annual return puts him in (roughly) the same financial situation in 2030. 

Everyone assumed Bregman was trying to beat Devers' annual salary, even if just by a little bit. Ultimately Boston's CBT number on Devers is $29.3m and for Bregman it's $31.7m. Yes, they got to 'lower' the CBT number from $40m to $31.7m. But the $40m is essentially a fake number anyways, besides bragging rights or whatever.