And That

I continue to not understand the inability to spell DiFelice's last name correctly. He's the new Branyan. No one is saying he's a world beater but ever since he learned the cutter a few years back, he's been a very good pitcher. The Brewers have limited resources - they should not (and in this case, did not) shrug someone off because they top out at 88 MPH. If he can be effective and cheap out of the pen or as a spot starter, that's really valuable to the club. He probably won't even make the club out of spring training, but if he stays healthy, it's likely he will help the '09 Brewers more than hurt them.

I have the salary total at ~$88.6 mil, which includes a $3.5 mil salary for Gagne. If he doesn't make the team, or get his $2 mil of reachable incentives, the total would go down by that amount. I also included the $750K that Looper is likely to receive between starts 19 and 30. http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/b753524d40bf9ea2df5b96eb20741c5291eb2e2.jpg The listed opening day payroll last year was $80.9 mil, though figuring in salaries likely to be paid during the year, it was closer to $84 or 85 mil.

I love him, I love him I do Signed, Katuluu

I've listened to "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who about a million times and it's still as good as ever.

He was a college senior that had no more eligibility to play in college.

firecoryprovus.com?

Also please consider not posting a transaction if it isn't likely to be talked about. Livan Hernandez signing a minor league deal doesn't strike me as a hot topic around here. And if someone thinks it is a hot topic, they'll probably post something other than just a link or cursory sentence in the lead post. Please do not post just to post.

It means that Scarpetta must be on the big league roster to stay after camp breaks in 2012. No, Scarpetta will have 4 options. He must be on the big league roster in 2013. Here is the rule that applies to Scarpetta via Cots: A player may be eligible for a fourth option year if he has been optioned in three seasons but does not yet have five full seasons of professional experience. A full season is defined as being on an active pro roster for at least 90 days in a season. (If a player is put on the disabled list after earning 60 or more days of service in a single season, his time on the DL is counted.) The 90-day requirement means short-season leagues (New-York Penn, Northwest, Pioneer, Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Arizona Rookie, Dominican and Venezuelan Summer Leagues) do not count as full seasons for the purposes of determining eligibility for a fourth option. How could they fear lossing Scarpetta in the rule five if he does not have enough minor league years to therefore being eligable for rule v selection? He was eligible for the Rule 5 this past season because his original contract was voided. The Rule 5 works off of original contracts, which are usually renewable through six years of minor league service. Since his original contract was voided, he became eligible.

If he elects for free agency... does he think he has a leg up on Dillard, DiFelice, Coffey, either Morlan or Julio, Aguilar, Bateman, Smith, or Mendoza? If not, I'd elect for free agency, too. And that's why I have so big a problem with this transaction. Guys who throw like Pena don't grow on trees. Guys like Gwynn who do grow on trees, you get rid of.

Josh Fields signed with the Mariners today. All the Brewers' selections move up one. Yay! This totally makes up for getting nothing for Sheets.

This is a good break (er, tear?) for Mat Gamel for sure. He was already going to get a lot of work and a long look by the Brewers in spring, and now he's gonna get even more work and even a longer look. That said, I hope he starts the year in AAA. A McGehee/Lamb platoon wouldn't be a terrible thing for a few weeks if Hall needs some rehab time at the beginning of the season. It's fun to be talking about real on-field baseball events again, even though it means Bill Hall is injured.

Yes... part of what the IRS does is interpret federal law and form it into code. It would be within it's scope authority to essentially repeal the repayment clause, assuming Congress won't fight them on it. They'll work with the Congress and the Treasury and make a decision on how exactly they'll apply all these new rules into the code.

Here's a good blog to read for some information... he agrees with me on some points, not on others. He mentions that the IRS will rule on whether the non-repayment will apply to the $7500 credit for the '08 law. That is probably true, but as I said, to have any sort of fairness doctrine in the scope of the law, I have a tough time believing they'll make you repay it. It's also still possible you'll be able to file for the $8000 credit this year, but I would tend to doubt it.

Since the credit in the stimulus package is more or less a modification of existing law, I believe the striking of mandatory repayment applies to the whole law. Most of the articles/blogs I've read would seem to agree with this. It also makes some logical sense (not that law always does) to have some degree of fairness - it wouldn't make sense to have one part of the law to require repayment and another part of the law to not require it. From CNN Money... Note that the original home buyer tax credit law applied to purchases from 4/9/08-7/1/09. This is an extension and augmentation of current law. The bill increases the size of an existing temporary and refundable first-time home buyer credit to $8,000, up from $7,500. It also removes the requirement under current law that the credit be paid back if the buyer stays in the home for at least three years. And it would extend the credit's expiration date to Dec. 1, 2009, from July 1. But please don't take my word for it... I'm an accountant, but I don't do anything directly with taxes. And I use TurboTax to do my own. The actual language in the law will be made available shortly.

The $8000 credit can't be claimed until you do your taxes next year - it's a credit based on '09 income. At least I'm fairly sure that's the case.

I thought it was decent... "Do you know what's better than a triceratops? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHER DINOSAURS."

There's really just one credit here... first time home buyers who purchased between 4/9/08-12/31/08 get a tax credit of (up to) $7500 and homes purchased between 1/1/09-12/1/09 get (up to) $8000. The repayment requirement is no longer valid on either version of the credit and both versions are refundable. This is, AFAIK, the final law.

Rather than try to summarize the deal, I'll let Troy Renck tell the story: He signed a one-year deal for $4.75-million with a $750,000 buyout on a $6 million club option for 2010. Even if the Brewers exercise the club option, Looper can void it and still walk. His buyout increases to $1 million if he starts 30 games or 180 innings this season. He can make an additional $750,000 in incentives for games started this year, beginning at 19 starts and finishing at 30. Looper also got some trade protection. He will receive $750,000 if traded this season and $250,000 if dealt in 2010. By my estimate, that means he'll receive $62,500 per start between starts 19-30, inclusive. This all means the deal could be worth as much as $12.25 million over two years, or as little as $5.5 mil for one year.

You typically don't fill in AAA rotations with 40-man roster moves. Green was acquired because the Brewers think he could pitch for them at the major league level. We had plenty of pitchers in AAA/AA before acquiring Wright and Green, not sure where the "didn't have any pitchers" thing comes from. Narron, Gulin, Narveson, Holliman, Ginter, Welch and Brae Wright will all get shots in the AAA rotation and they were here before the two aforementioned pitchers got here.

Link to JS Blog. Another starting pitcher to throw at the wall. Green has a good changeup, but doesn't profile much above a bottom of the rotation pitcher. He still has 2 options left, I think. Had a 5.32 ERA last year in AAA as a 23 year old. Pena was a strange choice to DFA, IMO. He has an option, a live arm and will probably be lost on waivers because if he clears waivers, he could elect to become a free agent. Pena had big control problems last year in the second half but by all accounts is still a well-regarded prospect.

I was using the assumption that new home buyers carry a greater foreclosure rate than people on their 2nd or 3rd home. While the national average as a whole may be less than 5%, the percentage for new home buyers would be higher. I would need to confirm that. That makes intuitive sense, though I still doubt the historic foreclosure rate for first time homebuyers approaches 5%. The historic foreclosure rates are normally less than 1.5% (and for the most part, less than 1.0%). I'd like to see more data. I just feel that targeting the supply of new foreclosures is more important than increasing the demand to purchase them. Treating the cause of foreclosures is definitely more important than getting foreclosed homes off the market. But once foreclosed homes hit the market, it is very important to get them off the market as soon as possible. Vacant homes don't increase in value (or do so very slowly) in a normal, or even fertile real estate market and for the most part decrease in value. In this market, they are devaluing very quickly. While their new price points will be lower (deflationary) when they are purchased anew, at least they'll be off the market. Foreclosed homes on the market drive the market down. We need to stem the flow of foreclosed homes, no doubt. On the flip side, home values for most everyone are going to keep going down unless homes come off the market. That's the idea behind the tax credit.

What happens for those that are buying a house and already claimed the credit on their return? Again, the language in the stimulus bill isn't official so I can only guess. As of this moment I would guess that if you already filed and the home you bought falls in the buying timeframe of the credit in the stimulus bill, you'll have to wait until '10 to claim the additional credit on your '09 taxes. But... it's not clear if they'll let you claim the additional credit or not. And if you bought the house before the applicable timeframe listed in the stimulus (it might start at Jan. 1 of '09, or go back to June of '08, or any time else), you're just entitled to the original tax credit of $7500. Though I don't think they'll make you repay it. This will all be much more clear by Monday at the latest. Edit: To be clear... my most conservative opinion is that you shouldn't count on any more than $7500, but the odds of having to repay it are very low.

I guess I have to ask... why would you make the assumption of a 5% foreclosure rate for those receiving the credit? The national foreclosure rate has never been that high. I would peg the foreclosure rate linked to those receiving the credit much closer to historical averages in the 1.5% or so range. Like I said, banks won't give people money right now unless they are exceptionally sure of the probability of collection. Furthermore, the vast majority of current foreclosures have to do with subprime lending. That's not happening anymore, either. The foreclosure rate might rise another couple times in the next 6-12 months, but 5% for existing mortgages seems quite high. I don't think new mortgages are going to get anywhere near that. I agree with you that the other side of the equation - people with current mortgages that are slipping close to foreclosure - needs to be handled immediately. I don't think banks are making a great enough effort to work with people on the verge of foreclosure. They are modifying some loans, but a lot of those modifications aren't helping, or are not helping enough. I understand that it isn't a bank's duty to guarantee home ownership, but with all the TARP money flying around, I would think they'd be more strident in their efforts to get people through this economic downturn and then collect on the rest of the loan down the line... even if the balance sheet looks a little worse in the mean time. And this is where the FDIC needs to step in, to work with the banks (do not read: give them more free money/loans at will) to keep people in their homes that can even just barely afford to live there. It's a terribly complicated mess - home sales need to increase, home foreclosures need to decrease, and both of these things need to happen as the economy gets a bit worse. Like I said, the homebuyers tax credit isn't going to be a cure-all, but the economy needs all the nudges in the right direction it can get. And if the banks and the government can step in and push back the tide of impending foreclosures, the rest of the economy will be better for it in the long run.

85-77.

why is the solution to make it temporarily easier for people who cannot afford homes to purchase them? I don't think this statement is on target. Due to the tightening of the credit markets, I believe those people who can not afford a loan to buy a house are not going to be getting a loan from the banks. On the flip side, those people who can pass credit muster (if even just barely), might need some incentive to make a huge financial commitment in this kind of economy. And I think that's where the credit is targetted - people on the fence who can afford it but due to the economy, are hesitant to make the investment. I drive down the street and on any block, it's not unusual to see 2-4 houses for sale. There's a ton of imbalance in the real estate market. The government needed to do something, IMO, to get some of those houses on the market. This is a modest carrot for medium-income home buyers and I think it'll work to some degree. It won't be a real estate cure, but it may help to get the ball rolling. If I bought my house in July of 2008 I can claim the $7500 tax credit on my '08 taxes (ie, right now) and it won't have to be repaid? With the caveat that the bill isn't done so I have no firm basis of reference, I believe that is correct. I have a tough time believing any of that $7500 will have to be repaid. But I might be wrong about the retroactive-ness of the proposed credit to the extent of getting any additional tax credit above the $7500, or to the repayment piece of the previous credit. It's all educated conjecture.