Official Offseason Thread

BeanieAntics said:
What was the rationale from teams who have done it in the past like the Cardinals or Yankees?
Click to expand...

Isn't the benefit so you can add more to this year's payroll where you might have the space, and then have the contract go down in later years, where you'd have players who will start to get more expensive (Ex: Acuna, Albies, etc)
 
Enscheff said:
No, I’m saying 4/100 in equal installments is less costly than 4/100 in payments of 30/30/20/20. It’s a simple present value of money calculation. Same reason the Nats always defer money.
Click to expand...

I don't think its correct to say that there is no benefit to front loading a contract just because the luxury tax hit is the same or because 30 million in 2020 is more valuable than 30 million in 2023. For competitive teams who aren't operating near the LT threshold (meaning the AAV-Luxury tax hit rule isn't much of a factor) I think there is a tangible benefit to paying an older player more money earlier and less money later.

But I do understand that from a raw value perspective it doesn't matter. Like, if you save 8 million in value in 2023, that's just 8 million in value that you lost in 2020 by frontloading the contract as opposed to evenly distributing the payout. I get that.

But... if we can absorb the cost of Donaldson at 33 million in year 1, that more or less makes this a complete team that can compete for a WS (minus maybe a RH outfield bat) in 2020, meaning I'd be less concerned about the loss of immediate flexibility. In 2023, we'd be paying Donaldson 15 million (~1.5 win valuation at that time, probably) instead of 25 or 30 million, providing us more flexibility during that year when we may have more needs to address than we do now.

Maybe you're right that a front loaded contract to Donaldson doesn't make sense for a reason I didn't previously consider, but I don't think its correct to say that there is literally never a benefit to frontloading a contract. I may be wrong on that account as well, but intuitively it doesn't feel correct. And it confuses me why other teams would have done it in the past, if there was no perceived benefit in it.

Is there a benefit to backloading a contract, to either team or player? Would a frontloaded contract actually benefit the player, going by the same present money rationale you're using? These are serious questions I'm asking because you're speaking like you have more authoritative knowledge on this than I do. But it feels more contextual than that rather than the universal way you described them. At least to my intuition, it does. But I'm open to changing my mind on that.
 
Perhaps the player wanted it front loaded? Perhaps the player was willing to take less overall in exchange for front loading it, and the team determined the discount was worth the potential profits of the cash?

Front loading is a benefit to the player, exactly opposite of backloading being beneficial to the team.
 
$5 now is more valuable than $5 a year from now. Invest the $5 rather than paying to to the player, then pay him $5 a year from now and pocket the interest earned on the $5.

This is a financial fact that isn’t really open for debate.
 
NYCBrave said:
Isn't the benefit so you can add more to this year's payroll where you might have the space, and then have the contract go down in later years, where you'd have players who will start to get more expensive (Ex: Acuna, Albies, etc)
Click to expand...

That was my rationale as well.

But I'll reel back my initial suggestion until Enscheff responds. Its generally my observation that he doesn't speak universally or authoritatively on a subject unless he has a well thought out rationale behind it. Given the fact that my rationale was largely intuitive rather than empirical, its very possible that he's right and frontloaded contracts never make sense and the teams that did give them out were dumb dumbs.
 
BeanieAntics said:
That was my rationale as well.

But I'll reel back my initial suggestion until Enscheff responds. Its generally my observation that he doesn't speak universally or authoritatively on a subject unless he has a well thought out rationale behind it. Given the fact that my rationale was largely intuitive rather than empirical, its very possible that he's right and frontloaded contracts never make sense and the teams that did give them out were dumb dumbs.
Click to expand...

If a team can afford $30M in 2020, they could pay $25M, invest the extra $5M for 4 years, then pay the player $25M in 4 years and keep the earnings made by the $5M.

That’s the whole point in the Nats deferring so much money in a contract.
 
Enscheff said:
Perhaps the player wanted it front loaded? Perhaps the player was willing to take less overall in exchange for front loading it, and the team determined the discount was worth the potential profits of the cash?

Front loading is a benefit to the player, exactly opposite of backloading being beneficial to the team.
Click to expand...

Why is front loading a benefit to the player if it is a detriment to the team? Why does the same time/money calculation not also apply to him?

At this point I'm asking, not arguing. I'll concede the ground to the more knowledgeable on this subject.
 
Enscheff said:
If a team can afford $30M in 2020, they could pay $25M, invest the extra $5M for 4 years, then pay the player $25M in 4 years and keep the earnings made by the $5M.

That’s the whole point in the Nats deferring so much money in a contract.
Click to expand...

Okay so my initial read of your response was correct. I thought that I had misread it after your second response seemed to indicate a different argument, which confused me. But that makes sense. If you pay 100 million dollars backloaded, you can invest the initial savings and subtract the yield from whatever future earnings you owe the player.

And in the same sense, a player can invest extra earnings from a frontloaded contract and collect interest to make more future earnings. Gotcha.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Why is front loading a benefit to the player if it is a detriment to the team? Why does the same time/money calculation not also apply to him?

At this point I'm asking, not arguing. I'll concede the ground to the more knowledgeable on this subject.
Click to expand...

Disregard this. I thought you were saying something that you weren't.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Why is front loading a benefit to the player if it is a detriment to the team? Why does the same time/money calculation not also apply to him?

At this point I'm asking, not arguing. I'll concede the ground to the more knowledgeable on this subject.
Click to expand...

Huh? It most certainly does apply to the player. That’s why the player wants the money now in a front loaded contract rather than 5 years from now in a back loaded contract.

That’s why signing bonuses exist. That’s why the Nats defer so much cash in exchange for guaranteeing a larger sum.
 
Enscheff said:
Huh? It most certainly does apply to the player. That’s why the player wants the money now in a front loaded contract rather than 5 years from now in a back loaded contract.

That’s why signing bonuses exist. That’s why the Nats defer so much cash in exchange for guaranteeing a larger sum.
Click to expand...

Yeah I typed that before I saw your last response. I was misreading your argument.
 
The only time I can imagine paying a player more up front being beneficial to a team is if they are trying to avoid luxury tax payments down the road. For us it makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Again, for the 6th time, yearly salary for luxury tax purposes uses the average salary over the term of the contract, regardless of when the money is actually paid.

There is no benefit for the team to front load a deal.
 
Enscheff said:
Again, for the 6th time, yearly salary for luxury tax purposes uses the average salary over the term of the contract, regardless of when the money is actually paid.

There is no benefit for the team to front load a deal.
Click to expand...

But what if there's a luxury tax situation.
 
Dosh Jonaldson
9:21 What could possibly be keeping me or the Braves from making a deal. Why so stingy on the 4th year?
Mark P
9:21 The Braves apparently don't have much money left to spend. And, like many teams, could be wary about guaranteeing big money to Donaldson's age-37 season (notwithstanding how good as JD has been in his career)

This is the first mention I’ve heard about the Braves not having enough payroll space for JD. Have there been any other bits of data backing this up?
 
Enscheff said:
Dosh Jonaldson
9:21 What could possibly be keeping me or the Braves from making a deal. Why so stingy on the 4th year?
Mark P
9:21 The Braves apparently don't have much money left to spend. And, like many teams, could be wary about guaranteeing big money to Donaldson's age-37 season (notwithstanding how good as JD has been in his career)

This is the first mention I’ve heard about the Braves not having enough payroll space for JD. Have there been any other bits of data backing this up?
Click to expand...

It’s interesting to hear the phrase “don’t have much money left to spend.” Its all relative, but we have a gaping hole at 3rd, potentially need another outfielder, and possibly a 5th starter.

You can argue we’re going into the season with our outfield and starting pitching complete and filling out those positions with what we already have, but we’re seriously considering Donaldson, or someone on his level. And I think it’s safe to assume that that player will cost ~25 million.

Don’t have much money left to spend does not equal 25 million. Either someone doesn’t consider 25 million “much”, or someone’s blowing smoke.

My guess is we have enough in the kitty for a big bat somewhere, preferably third, then we’ll fill in the edges with fringe players, and leave a little left over for a mid season acquisition. But I doubt “we don’t have much money left to spend.” It we didn’t then we wouldn’t have splurged on the bullpen, and to a lesser extent on Hamels.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
Dosh Jonaldson
9:21 What could possibly be keeping me or the Braves from making a deal. Why so stingy on the 4th year?
Mark P
9:21 The Braves apparently don't have much money left to spend. And, like many teams, could be wary about guaranteeing big money to Donaldson's age-37 season (notwithstanding how good as JD has been in his career)

This is the first mention I’ve heard about the Braves not having enough payroll space for JD. Have there been any other bits of data backing this up?
Click to expand...

I haven’t read anything about it...not on page 6, at least.
 
Ballots for HoF are starting to trickle in and it’s nice to see Andruw getting quite a bump in the amount of ballots he’s on. Last year he finished with 7% of the vote. This year, through 23% of ballots known, he’s sitting at 26%. Few more years he could actually make it in.
 
Skeeter31 said:
Ballots for HoF are starting to trickle in and it’s nice to see Andruw getting quite a bump in the amount of ballots he’s on. Last year he finished with 7% of the vote. This year, through 23% of ballots known, he’s sitting at 26%. Few more years he could actually make it in.
Click to expand...

If there was a HoF for defense he would be in no doubt....but the way that he tailed off at the end of his career was stunning, and I think that will keep him out of the HoF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top