Hasn't played in MLB for over two decades, gets $1.2M a year until 2035 | Hacker News Reader

Hasn't played in MLB for over two decades, gets $1.2M a year until 2035

cnn.com

18 pointsMilnerRoute16 comments

There is a better article here: https://www.espn.co.uk/mlb/story/_/id/37938979/bobby-bonilla...

That one also mentions Bonilla is not the only one to benefit from this type of arrangement in MLB. Tbh the popularity of such deals is a clear sign of economic weakness.

There's two brothers out there who don't own an NBA team, never did, but nonetheless receive something like 1/7 of a team's share of television revenue every year. Pretty sweet deal.

https://huddleup.substack.com/p/the-greatest-business-deal-i...

OK the NBA finally bought them out a while back -- total take, $800 million.

In 2015 the Oakland A's signed Billy Butler from Kansas City to a three-year, $30 million contract.

His performance tanked, they couldn't trade him to another team, and in the last year they ended up paying Billy Butler $10 million to not play for them.

It was a big deal because the payroll for the entire team was just $80 million...

Ken Griffey Jr is something like the 3rd highest paid player on the Reds roster this year. He hasn’t played for them since 2008 and in 2016 went into the hall of fame as a Mariner, but the Reds owe him deferred salary through 2025.

This happens a lot in any professional sport. Sometimes remuneration and performance diverge substantially over the life of the contract. Football (soccer) fans should be familiar with the current predicament of Chelsea, for example, with lots of presumed-superstars on massive wages who are utterly underperforming but are very hard to sell.

This happens every year in professional sports leagues in the US. For a recent example from the NBA, John Wall got a $40M salary from the Houston Rockets for the 2021-22 season and didn't play a single game.

I can't shed any tears. Not only because the A's owner is more than rich enough to have a higher payroll but is intentionally cheaping out in advance of uprooting the team. But also because I look at sports like football, where a player can get injured and often get no more money.

Nice, congrats to him. Sounds like an example of someone negotiating a good contract.

Total fluke. Apparently the byproduct of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. I didn’t find the explanation in the article all that clear as to how/why but this seems more like luck than good negotiating.

Madoff's involvement is tangential, in the sense that investing in his scheme was the reason they opted for a deferred-payment scheme, but that's it. What is surprising is how long the contract is.

You're not giving Bonilla (and possibly his agent) enough credit. He has another deal like this one with the Orioles that pays him $500k a year.

Analogous to golden parachutes and rubber rooms.

The only way to prevent this is by evening the playing field, and that requires rules and regulations.

Bonilla's situation isn't at all the same as a golden parachute. He agreed to take less money upfront in exchange for more money overall, it's not like he got money for being released from the team. I'm also not sure why there would be to be regulations against this, as the only one who this harmed was the billionaire who thought he was getting a better return by deferring the payments.

It's true. If the Madoff investment paid off, the billionaire would be happy too. Not just Bonilla. The billionaire took a risk and choose poorly. That's called "life in the big city."

Who benefits by "preventing this"? Lots of people just want to exercise power over things that they have nothing to do with by implementing "rules and regulations" that serve to benefit nobody.

Very interesting, would love to find a deeper dive on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com