Report: Dempster agrees to terms on 11/18

[UMFan83]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

those are modest increases throughout

[Electron Blue]

We all pretty much knew it was going to be a 4-year deal anyway. Even if it's a player option (as it appears to be), it's not much of a disappointment... unless we think there's much chance of him being an ace the next three years, which I'm not seeing much confidence in in this thread...

[17 Seconds]

Awful signing.

[C.C.]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract.

 

Not really.

[Cubswin11]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Agy0WpWCaDWAEch1S7gN_UwRvLYF?slug=ap-cubs-dempster&prov=ap&type=lgns

 

 

He gets a $4 million signing bonus, $8 million next year, $12.5 million in 2010 and $13.5 million in 2011. Dempster has a 2012 option for $14 million.

Nice to know there is an option on the 4th year, it's potentially only a 3 year deal if he doesn't do well. Should be interesting what type of option it is team? player? vesting?

 

It's a player options, it's more protection for Dempster. If Dempster is still pitching like an ace after three years, he can opt out and still get another good contract at age 35.

 

CHICAGO (AP)—Pitcher Ryan Dempster and the Chicago Cubs agreed Tuesday on a $52 million, four-year contract that includes a player option to 2012.

S

Still isn't an awful deal, the first 3 years are reasonable even if you factor in Dempster regressing some, kind of wish that it was at least a vesting option however. IMO that 4th year player option will determine if this deal is a success or failure. When you consider that Marquis is making nearly 10 mil this year, this should be a good deal for the production we should get out of Dempster, even if he falls back to a little better than league average.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Cubswin11

[SouthSideRyan]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

Backloading is way smarter than frontloading.

[17 Seconds]

I'm pretty sure it's a player option, making the contract even worse. If he sucks he picks it up, if he's good he opts out.

[17 Seconds]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

Backloading is way smarter than frontloading.

 

Explain

[Wheelimus]

I like the 4th year being a player option. It gives Ryan an incentive to perform well in the first 3 years hoping to opt out of the 4th and score one last big contract at 35. I won't cry if he opts out in 3 years because he's performed so well he thinks he can do better. \:D/

 

Glad to remove one question from the rotation. Now Jimbo, go magically change Jason Marquis into Jake Peavy.

[daske17]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

Backloading is way smarter than frontloading.

 

This may be a dumb question, but why are contracts not spread out evenly over their duration? One would think that it wouldn't inhibit additional spending and would provide some value in case a player needs to be traded later in the contract.

[cubsfan26]

I'm pretty sure it's a player option, making the contract even worse. If he sucks he picks it up, if he's good he opts out.

 

 

Yeah the Cubs probably had to make the 4th year his option. Since he was taking alot less money to stay with the Cubs. It can't be an awful contract yet though. Because we don't know what we will be getting from Dempster. Even if he's somewere in the middle of last year and his career numbers, it would still be a respectable deal for us. If Dempster can somehow keep his era in the 3.50s range, this deal could be a steal for us. But of course if Dempster ends up with a 4.70s era then it would be a awful contract.

Edited November 18, 2008 by cubsfan26

[jersey cubs fan]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

Backloading is way smarter than frontloading.

 

Explain

 

Essentially, it's much better for the team to be able to pay a 5 year $50 contract with payments of $1m, $1m, $1m, $1m, $46m than 10/10/10/10/10.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp

 

The problem comes up when a team does this irresponsibly, and/or when ownership is changing. Arizona through out a bunch of backloaded deals that won them a World Series, but nearly bankrupted the team.

[CubColtPacer]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract).

 

Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference.

 

Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall.

 

So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

[jersey cubs fan]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract).

 

Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference.

 

Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall.

 

So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

 

Most teams are going to see the value of players under contract in future years be less than it is this year. The damage does not necessarily occur when those payments rise. The damage comes when you have people like Soriano or Fukudome not performing and you have to replace them, and when you have guys like Marmol or Soto, who you can count on for cheap performance, needing a big raise.

 

In other words, the damages have not yet been paid. The damage will be bigger in 2010 and 2011, when guys are performing at lower levels, still receiving higher payments and new big contracts will need to be offered.

[Banedon]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract).

 

Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference.

 

Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall.

 

So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

 

Most teams are going to see the value of players under contract in future years be less than it is this year. The damage does not necessarily occur when those payments rise. The damage comes when you have people like Soriano or Fukudome not performing and you have to replace them, and when you have guys like Marmol or Soto, who you can count on for cheap performance, needing a big raise.

 

In other words, the damages have not yet been paid. The damage will be bigger in 2010 and 2011, when guys are performing at lower levels, still receiving higher payments and new big contracts will need to be offered.

 

But that's not backloading that's the problem there. That's signing bad/mediocre players to too much money for too much time. Those are really seperate issues. Backloading by itself isn't a bad thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract).

 

Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference.

 

Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall.

 

So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

 

Most teams are going to see the value of players under contract in future years be less than it is this year. The damage does not necessarily occur when those payments rise. The damage comes when you have people like Soriano or Fukudome not performing and you have to replace them, and when you have guys like Marmol or Soto, who you can count on for cheap performance, needing a big raise.

 

In other words, the damages have not yet been paid. The damage will be bigger in 2010 and 2011, when guys are performing at lower levels, still receiving higher payments and new big contracts will need to be offered.

 

But that's not backloading that's the problem there. That's signing bad/mediocre players to too much money for too much time. Those are really seperate issues. Backloading by itself isn't a bad thing.

 

I'm not saying it is. But this isn't backloading by itself, it's backloading contracts to less than stellar players for absurd amounts. It's covering up your mistakes from earlier this decade by overpaying for pretty good players who clearly won't be worth what they are going to get in the future.

[cubsfan26]

What a surprise, a backloaded contract. Our payroll is going to be like $450M for 11 players in like 5 years.

 

The Cubs are already paying most of the cost of those backloaded deals as of this year. Our free agency players (excluding the arbitration players) received 16.15 million in raises from 08 to 09 (I'm counting each signing bonus in the first year, both in the past and with Dempster's contract).

 

Those same players next year? (now counting Dempster) 4.225 million in raises. A huge difference.

 

Between 2010 and 2011, the players under contract then actually go down by .15 million overall.

 

So as you can see, most of the damage from backloading has already been paid. So unless another several hugely backloaded contracts come around, the Cubs payroll situation isn't really going to get much worse than it is right now, which the Cubs seem able to absorb at the moment.

 

Most teams are going to see the value of players under contract in future years be less than it is this year. The damage does not necessarily occur when those payments rise. The damage comes when you have people like Soriano or Fukudome not performing and you have to replace them, and when you have guys like Marmol or Soto, who you can count on for cheap performance, needing a big raise.

 

In other words, the damages have not yet been paid. The damage will be bigger in 2010 and 2011, when guys are performing at lower levels, still receiving higher payments and new big contracts will need to be offered.[/quote]

 

 

It all depends on how much lower levels they will be performing at. How much damage it causes will depend on if we can get a few regulars come up through the farm or not. If Flaherty is our everyday 2b, Vitters our everyday 3b or 1b, Hak-Ju Lee is our starting SS, then Samardzija/Cashner/Dae Eun Rhee are making a impact pitching wise. There's no doubt at some point we will have to have a rebuilding type season or two unless the farm starts producing. But right now, this is the price we will pay to win now and be a contender year after year.

[David]

I like the 4th year being a player option. It gives Ryan an incentive to perform well in the first 3 years hoping to opt out of the 4th and score one last big contract at 35. I won't cry if he opts out in 3 years because he's performed so well he thinks he can do better. \:D/

 

Glad to remove one question from the rotation. Now Jimbo, go magically change Jason Marquis into Jake Peavy.

 

 

orrrrr... he could suck for 3 years and decide he's much better off taking that option than going on the market.

[UMFan83]

Asked about the loss on Tuesday, Dempster suggested the Cubs were not prepared for the postseason, a stunning concept considering they were swept by Arizona only one year earlier.

 

"I think maybe we underestimated how prepared you have to be, how ready you have to be, especially in a five-game series," Dempster said. "It's like a short heavyweight bout. Ding, the bell is ringing, you've got to go."

 

The Cubs were knocked out quickly. Dempster also suggested the players were overconfident because of their great home record at Wrigley Field throughout the season.

 

"It almost felt like it was just going to be a given that we win Games 1 and 2 and move on and go from there," he said. "You've still got to play the games. You've got to put the uniform on and go out there and compete. If anything, we've learned that."

 

What the hell?

[CP_414]

I like the 4th year being a player option. It gives Ryan an incentive to perform well in the first 3 years hoping to opt out of the 4th and score one last big contract at 35. I won't cry if he opts out in 3 years because he's performed so well he thinks he can do better. \:D/

 

Glad to remove one question from the rotation. Now Jimbo, go magically change Jason Marquis into Jake Peavy.

 

 

orrrrr... he could suck for 3 years and decide he's much better off taking that option than going on the market.

 

Yeah, but how is that any different than just giving Dempster a 4/52 deal? He wasn't going to accept a 3 year deal, so the option doesn't really matter unless he is really good. I would much rather he signed a 3/39 deal, but that wasn't realistic.

[haubrich91]

I don't like that 4th year option at all. Should've been both player and team, not just player.

 

He could pitch like absolute garbage, or not even pitch at all if he's injured; and accept that $14M option. I would've let him walk.

[David]

Asked about the loss on Tuesday, Dempster suggested the Cubs were not prepared for the postseason, a stunning concept considering they were swept by Arizona only one year earlier.

 

"I think maybe we underestimated how prepared you have to be, how ready you have to be, especially in a five-game series," Dempster said. "It's like a short heavyweight bout. Ding, the bell is ringing, you've got to go."

 

The Cubs were knocked out quickly. Dempster also suggested the players were overconfident because of their great home record at Wrigley Field throughout the season.

 

"It almost felt like it was just going to be a given that we win Games 1 and 2 and move on and go from there," he said. "You've still got to play the games. You've got to put the uniform on and go out there and compete. If anything, we've learned that."

 

What the hell?

 

It's just a bunch of player-speak nonsense.

 

They went out, played baseball, and lost. Now they have to come up with things to justify it and to "explain" it to the press.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm really confused that people are upset about the option since it's been reported as a 4 year deal the whole time.

[17 Seconds]

Asked about the loss on Tuesday, Dempster suggested the Cubs were not prepared for the postseason, a stunning concept considering they were swept by Arizona only one year earlier.

 

"I think maybe we underestimated how prepared you have to be, how ready you have to be, especially in a five-game series," Dempster said. "It's like a short heavyweight bout. Ding, the bell is ringing, you've got to go."

 

The Cubs were knocked out quickly. Dempster also suggested the players were overconfident because of their great home record at Wrigley Field throughout the season.

 

"It almost felt like it was just going to be a given that we win Games 1 and 2 and move on and go from there," he said. "You've still got to play the games. You've got to put the uniform on and go out there and compete. If anything, we've learned that."

 

What the hell?

 

What a moron, and if it's true that they were over confident then that's pathetic