Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

All out this offseason?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#16 Patrick G

Patrick G

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 08:07 AM

If Cano is signed long term with the Cubs, 7-8 years, that contract would make sense to be a huge frontloaded contract. If he's making 10 mil during his declining years, I'd be more for that than what Soriano did. The Cubs have alot of money available now and would still allow for them to be competitive now, and able to spend the older he gets.

#17 chirogerg1

chirogerg1

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:14 PM

One of the main reasons teams backload contracts is because of inflation. With that, the later years of the contract are worth about the same real money, even if the face value is higher. It has happened, but it is very rare.



#18 Okiecubhawk

Okiecubhawk

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:44 AM

One of the main reasons teams backload contracts is because of inflation. With that, the later years of the contract are worth about the same real money, even if the face value is higher. It has happened, but it is very rare.

If that is case then it would make even more sense to frontload a huge deal because in the later years you would be saving even more money.  I do like the idea of a frontloaded Cano deal.  That being said I still think its unlikely.  If he were to get 10 years and 250 million how much of that would have to be paid in the first five years to make it livable in the long run? If you paid him 30 million per for the first 5 (which is a lot) that still leaves you paying him 20 million per for the last five.  I just don't see any way Cano is playing in anything but a Yankee uniform.



#19 Patrick G

Patrick G

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:05 PM

I don't think Cano is going to get 10/250. Not sure off hand but the long term contracts seem to not pan out and with the Yankees still responsible for alt of Arod, not sure they would be willing to do that type of deal. I honestly see 6-8 years for about 160-200. If the Cubs could get him for 6 years 150 mil with 30 a year for the first 3 years and 20 the next 3 would be nice and maybe an option for a 7th year. Most likely not going to happen but nice to dream

#20 chirogerg1

chirogerg1

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:48 PM

 

One of the main reasons teams backload contracts is because of inflation. With that, the later years of the contract are worth about the same real money, even if the face value is higher. It has happened, but it is very rare.

If that is case then it would make even more sense to frontload a huge deal because in the later years you would be saving even more money.  I do like the idea of a frontloaded Cano deal.  That being said I still think its unlikely.  If he were to get 10 years and 250 million how much of that would have to be paid in the first five years to make it livable in the long run? If you paid him 30 million per for the first 5 (which is a lot) that still leaves you paying him 20 million per for the last five.  I just don't see any way Cano is playing in anything but a Yankee uniform.

 

 

If a player is going to get a 5 year, 100 million dollar contract, they would rather have all 100 million on day 1, because that's when that money is worth the most. Teams want to pay it later on because the money will be worth less at that time.



#21 SlamminSammy

SlamminSammy

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:38 AM

It is never better to frontload a contract than backloading it.  It has some to do with inflation but a lot to do with the ability to invest the savings now.  A million dollars saved this year, when invested could easily turn into a lot more money five years from now.



#22 Patrick G

Patrick G

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:18 AM

It is never better to frontload a contract than backloading it.  It has some to do with inflation but a lot to do with the ability to invest the savings now.  A million dollars saved this year, when invested could easily turn into a lot more money five years from now.

 

So how is it better to pay someone more in their declining years than actually paying them more for their higher production seasons?



#23 Okiecubhawk

Okiecubhawk

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:51 PM

 

It is never better to frontload a contract than backloading it.  It has some to do with inflation but a lot to do with the ability to invest the savings now.  A million dollars saved this year, when invested could easily turn into a lot more money five years from now.

 

So how is it better to pay someone more in their declining years than actually paying them more for their higher production seasons?

 

Yep.  I think on the mega deals it would always be better to frontload.  Especially in the scenario the Cubs find themselves in now.  A lot of money available now and the next few years with not many impact free agents available.  Wouldn't it be better to overpay for Cano or Ellsbury in the first few years when the money is available (and their production will likely be at its peak) and then still have the extra budget room in the later years of the deal (when their production will be less but still better than what you think you could get out of a home grown player at that time)?



#24 chirogerg1

chirogerg1

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:48 PM

Yep.  I think on the mega deals it would always be better to frontload.  Especially in the scenario the Cubs find themselves in now.  A lot of money available now and the next few years with not many impact free agents available.  Wouldn't it be better to overpay for Cano or Ellsbury in the first few years when the money is available (and their production will likely be at its peak) and then still have the extra budget room in the later years of the deal (when their production will be less but still better than what you think you could get out of a home grown player at that time)?

 

But you are paying more real money in that case than you would if the contract was backloaded



#25 SlamminSammy

SlamminSammy

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:00 AM

Ok lets give two hypothetical 5 year contracts worth 100M total

 

1.  Backloaded: 15, 15, 15, 15, 40

 

2. Front loaded:  40, 15, 15, 15, 15

 

In the backloaded case you have 25 M extra saved in the first year.  this 25 M can be invested lets say you collect 10% on that 25M from investing it every year. thats an extra 10 million or so dollars that can be gained by saving the money in the short term.  In order for the front loaded contract to be better than the backloaded contract, it would have to be worth at least 10 million dollars less than the backloaded version in this case.

 

This doesnt even take into account other factors like the increasing value of a win or the specific things that can be done with the saved money.  if the 25 million saved is used to buy a jumbotron which will more than pay for itself and bring in revenue for years, the saved money is now worth a lot more.



#26 SlamminSammy

SlamminSammy

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:02 AM

There is one thing the Ricketts most definitely are, and that is they are savvy investors.  money saved for them today will always be invested and make more money for the cubs.



#27 Kygavin

Kygavin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Twitter:@kygavin
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 13 August 2013 - 02:45 PM

Injury risk aside I like Ellsbury as long the contract is not longer than 4 years.  I also like the idea of Choo as a target.  However, I think he would be a strict platoon player.  IMO Ellsbury should be the main target and Choo as a fallback plan.  As far as Cano goes I just don't see anyone other than the Yankees landing him without going way overboard on money and years.  We don't want that again here (Soriano).  I would also like to see the Cubs go hard after Brian Mccann because him and Castillo platooning would give the Cubs some pretty nice production at catcher.  If they get both Ellsbury and Mccann then you are set at 1st, SS, C and CF.  I don't know who the right handed outfield bats are though.  You still have Schierholtz so in reality you are looking at an outfield of him, Lake and possbly Ellsbury/Choo or player X in CF.  Still a couple of gaping holes at 2nd and 3rd to deal with. 

 

I think with a couple of good signings and new guys stepping up the offense has a chance to compete.  However, that is stil counting on a lot of things to go the right way.  Do Rizzo and Castro improve?  Can Olt actually provide a servicable bat at 3rd next year?  If he can then maybe a Valbuena/Barney 2nd base dead zone next year is more livable.  Who splits with Schierholtz?  Is what Junior Lake is doing real or a mirage?  Who ends up in center field? 

 

Sooo many questions about next years offense.....

Id rather have Saltalamacchia as a platoon guy with Welly. He will be a ton cheaper and leave the Cubs with a solid platoon. 

Salty career vs RHP: 260/325/464 (including 289/349/515 this year)

Welly career vs LHP: 303/383/409



#28 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 13 August 2013 - 03:45 PM

The thing about Salty is that he's a 1st Half player, his stats have always been better out of the gate, and tapering off after the break (although, he has been more consistent this year). The Cubs might want that, because over the past 2-3 years, we've seen tons of slow starters on the field (Ramirez, Byrd, Soriano, etc.) that bring us down early, especially when they are expected to produce.

 

McCann is better defensively than Salty and can hit LHP better than Rizzo. So, if we were to sign him to a contract, I can see some 1B work in the future. Welly's 1st year of arbitration eligibility is next year, so we may only be looking at a 3 year platoon.



#29 Kygavin

Kygavin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Twitter:@kygavin
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:27 PM

The thing about Salty is that he's a 1st Half player, his stats have always been better out of the gate, and tapering off after the break (although, he has been more consistent this year). The Cubs might want that, because over the past 2-3 years, we've seen tons of slow starters on the field (Ramirez, Byrd, Soriano, etc.) that bring us down early, especially when they are expected to produce.

 

McCann is better defensively than Salty and can hit LHP better than Rizzo. So, if we were to sign him to a contract, I can see some 1B work in the future. Welly's 1st year of arbitration eligibility is next year, so we may only be looking at a 3 year platoon.

No point platooning with Rizzo. That will only stunt his growth. he has to play everyday and hasnt hit LHP that bad this year. Slash line isnt pretty but he is 3rd in the NL with homers off of a LHP by a LH hitter. 



#30 Okiecubhawk

Okiecubhawk

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 12:22 PM

 

The thing about Salty is that he's a 1st Half player, his stats have always been better out of the gate, and tapering off after the break (although, he has been more consistent this year). The Cubs might want that, because over the past 2-3 years, we've seen tons of slow starters on the field (Ramirez, Byrd, Soriano, etc.) that bring us down early, especially when they are expected to produce.

 

McCann is better defensively than Salty and can hit LHP better than Rizzo. So, if we were to sign him to a contract, I can see some 1B work in the future. Welly's 1st year of arbitration eligibility is next year, so we may only be looking at a 3 year platoon.

No point platooning with Rizzo. That will only stunt his growth. he has to play everyday and hasnt hit LHP that bad this year. Slash line isnt pretty but he is 3rd in the NL with homers off of a LHP by a LH hitter. 

 

I don't platooning Rizzo either.  At some point he either has to hit left handed pitching consistently or the Cubs move on and look elsewhere for a first baseman.  That point isn't for several years and in the meantime you play him everyday.  Having Mccann really gives the Cubs one of those "good problems to have situations" as you are stuck with trying to find enough at bats for him, Castillo and Rizzo -- as long as Castillo continues to hit like he is now.  That is the one thing that may make the Cubs not even consider Mccann more than anything -- the fact the Castillo has emerged as damn good bat at catcher.  How can you justify taking at bats away from him?  I would argue that IF the Cubs are competitve next year and into 2015 and beyond how can you not want to have two catchers that can both mash and you don't have to worry about lefty righty splits?  Plus as you mentioned Mccann could give Rizzo an occasional rest at first. Which leaves you able to carry an extra outfielder or slick gloved infielder instead of looking for a player that is specifically a power bench bat.  As we all know catching is probably the most physically demanding position to play over 162 games.  You need two that you can rely on and I think Mccann will be the best option out there next year.  Of course the hardest part might be convincing him to come be part of a platoon.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).