Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Max the Nat

Funny thing is even after Scherzer gets his last payment from the nats in 14 years the mets will still be paying Bonilla for another 7 years
 
I'd like to see that list in terms of quality start %. I could be wrong but I bet Scherzer is way lower, highly doubt he cracks the top 10.

I don't know where he ranks against others but here's his QS stats the past couple years:

2012: 63% (20 out of 32 QS)
2013: 78% (25 out of 32)
2014: 67% (22 out of 33)
 
I'd like to see that list in terms of quality start %. I could be wrong but I bet Scherzer is way lower, highly doubt he cracks the top 10.

6 and 3 is not really quality..even if it's labeled that.
 

Thanks Kaline!

So that means 2012 he was tied for 24th, 2013 he was tied for 4th and 2014 he was tied for 18th.

But I do agree that QS can be misleading. It doesn't always tell the entire story of that particular game.
 
You're welcome guys.

I'm certainly torn on this. Wanted Scherzer to stay, but at that money with the already high payroll makes it difficult. For that reason I don't see them signing Price long term without trading someone to fit in.
 
The more i read about it, the more i like the contract. its complicated but works out nicely for both sides.

Still preferably wouldnt have wanted him to sign with us, but still.
 
You're welcome guys.

I'm certainly torn on this. Wanted Scherzer to stay, but at that money with the already high payroll makes it difficult. For that reason I don't see them signing Price long term without trading someone to fit in.

I'm with you on this, KC. I really liked Max as a player and person (at least public persona). He seemed much more likeable than most other professional athletes. A few of his performances as a Tiger, particularly the one after his brother's death, were legendary. I'll miss him as a Tiger, but think this is for the best for him and the organization. I would have loved him to come back here to finish out his career, but didn't want us to give him the years and dollars he got. One nice thing with this is that I'm in D.C. regularly for business and have become a little bit of a Nats fan as a result, so it isn't like he'll be playing for the enemy in my mind now.

I'm curious to see what happens with Price. I'd love us to lock him up long-term, but it seems fairly unlikely right now. I happen to think he's more worthy of a contract like Max's, so maybe that can serve as a framework for a long-term extension before FA. I doubt it though, I think he's gonna test the market and may well find more elsewhere.
 
I'm with you on this, KC. I really liked Max as a player and person (at least public persona). He seemed much more likeable than most other professional athletes. A few of his performances as a Tiger, particularly the one after his brother's death, were legendary. I'll miss him as a Tiger, but think this is for the best for him and the organization. I would have loved him to come back here to finish out his career, but didn't want us to give him the years and dollars he got. One nice thing with this is that I'm in D.C. regularly for business and have become a little bit of a Nats fan as a result, so it isn't like he'll be playing for the enemy in my mind now.

I'm curious to see what happens with Price. I'd love us to lock him up long-term, but it seems fairly unlikely right now. I happen to think he's more worthy of a contract like Max's, so maybe that can serve as a framework for a long-term extension before FA. I doubt it though, I think he's gonna test the market and may well find more elsewhere.


I am thinking that Ilitch does not want to pay anything towards a luxury tax going over the
number whatever it is, 178MM 189MM. There is a bottom line for him.
 
"This isn't quite like one of those NFL contracts that's actually only worth half as much as it appears to be, but it does mean that Scherzer's contract is a bit of an illusion. He's going to get all $210 million, but with the payments being spread out over such a long period of time, inflation all but guarantees that the $105 million in deferred money he will receive will actually be less valuable than it would be if he was getting all of it over the life of the contract.

FanGraph's Dave Cameron crunched some numbers, and estimates that Scherzer's new contract—$210 million spread out over 14 years—is about as valuable as a seven-year, $170 million contract when adjusted for inflation."
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is even after Scherzer gets his last payment from the nats in 14 years the mets will still be paying Bonilla for another 7 years

LOL I remember the deal... What were the numbers I forget?
 
"This isn't quite like one of those NFL contracts that's actually only worth half as much as it appears to be, but it does mean that Scherzer's contract is a bit of an illusion. He's going to get all $210 million, but with the payments being spread out over such a long period of time, inflation all but guarantees that the $105 million in deferred money he will receive will actually be less valuable than it would be if he was getting all of it over the life of the contract.

FanGraph's Dave Cameron crunched some numbers, and estimates that Scherzer's new contract?$210 million spread out over 14 years?is about as valuable as a seven-year, $170 million contract when adjusted for inflation."


Which is as valuable as to the offer DET made (6/$144 Mil or 6/$160 Mil, I had seen both), just one year longer.
 
LOL I remember the deal... What were the numbers I forget?


The NY Mets owe Bonilla $1.19 million per year until 2035. It will have cost the Mets $29.8 to have released Bonilla from his $5.9 Mil contract.
 
The NY Mets owe Bonilla $1.19 million per year until 2035. It will have cost the Mets $29.8 to have released Bonilla from his $5.9 Mil contract.

Jackie_ae7e53_140788.jpg
 
Which is as valuable as to the offer DET made (6/$144 Mil or 6/$160 Mil, I had seen both), just one year longer.

There are a lot of assumptions with that article. First, he assumes a 7% rate of return on the entire amount. The article says investors should expect a 6-7% return bue anybody who invests in the stock market can tell you that you might make more but there is an equally good chance that you make less or lose money. The bottom line is Max is guaranteed to make $210M from the Nats over the next 14 years regardless of what happens. If he signed a 6 years @ $144/$160M contract the only guarantee is he would get that amount. What return he could get with that money is just hypothetical.
 
There are a lot of assumptions with that article. First, he assumes a 7% rate of return on the entire amount. The article says investors should expect a 6-7% return bue anybody who invests in the stock market can tell you that you might make more but there is an equally good chance that you make less or lose money. The bottom line is Max is guaranteed to make $210M from the Nats over the next 14 years regardless of what happens. If he signed a 6 years @ $144/$160M contract the only guarantee is he would get that amount. What return he could get with that money is just hypothetical.


7% is the proven inflation adjusted average of return on stocks since the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929. 10% minus 3% for average inflation = 7% And that is the average for stocks. Even Real Estate averages out to 7% inflation adjusted average. There is nothing wrong with expecting 7% of inflation growth in you money, as an average and it isn't just hypothetical.

The difference between the Nats' offer and the Tigers' offer is $9-11.7 Mil. Let's say $9 Mil. If Max invests the difference ($750,000) on a monthly basis over 6 years and given the average 7%, he would have $68.9 Mil in 6 years. In 14 years, the length of the $210 Mil contract, he would have $118.4 Mil for a total of $208.4 Mil, park adjusted, and that is only if he stopped contributing after year 6.

FYI...In the past 2 years, my 401k has seen a 38.1% increase in market value just due to the change in the market based on my portfolio. I do not expect that for the rest of my life, but it is possible for short periods. Just like the market down turn in 2008-2009. But during down turns, is when shares increase are a must.

Now, back to what I had previously mentioned about the Nats. If they invest $750,000 a month ($9 Mil a year) over the next 7 years in an annuity or some other investment vehicle, they would have $83.3 Mil accrued at the start of Scherzer's 8th year. Based on owing him $105 Mil over the next 7 years, that $83.3 Mil will almost cover the full $105 Mil over those 7 years, because it would still be drawing interest.

Certainly it is possible for both scenarios to lose money, just as it is possible for both scenarios to double the money at 15-20%.
 
7% is the proven inflation adjusted average of return on stocks since the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929. 10% minus 3% for average inflation = 7% And that is the average for stocks. Even Real Estate averages out to 7% inflation adjusted average. There is nothing wrong with expecting 7% of inflation growth in you money, as an average and it isn't just hypothetical.

The difference between the Nats' offer and the Tigers' offer is $9-11.7 Mil. Let's say $9 Mil. If Max invests the difference ($750,000) on a monthly basis over 6 years and given the average 7%, he would have $68.9 Mil in 6 years. In 14 years, the length of the $210 Mil contract, he would have $118.4 Mil for a total of $208.4 Mil, park adjusted, and that is only if he stopped contributing after year 6.

FYI...In the past 2 years, my 401k has seen a 38.1% increase in market value just due to the change in the market based on my portfolio. I do not expect that for the rest of my life, but it is possible for short periods. Just like the market down turn in 2008-2009. But during down turns, is when shares increase are a must.

Now, back to what I had previously mentioned about the Nats. If they invest $750,000 a month ($9 Mil a year) over the next 7 years in an annuity or some other investment vehicle, they would have $83.3 Mil accrued at the start of Scherzer's 8th year. Based on owing him $105 Mil over the next 7 years, that $83.3 Mil will almost cover the full $105 Mil over those 7 years, because it would still be drawing interest.

Certainly it is possible for both scenarios to lose money, just as it is possible for both scenarios to double the money at 15-20%.

I was looking at it from Max's perspective more so than the Nat's perspective. That said...I really doubt the Nats are going to be investing money in the stock market so they can pay Max 8 years down the road. My guess is they are just pushing the money into the future...going all in now for a championship! Of course that is just a guess!
 
So now Morosi is saying Illitch was done with Max when he turned down their offer in spring. Never perused after
 
So now Morosi is saying Illitch was done with Max when he turned down their offer in spring. Never perused after
I don't doubt that. It sure felt that way right after Max turned down our offer and the team went public with that info.
 
Back
Top