Mooney: Cubs are Interested in Shin-Soo Choo

[treebird]

the only way backloading is bad is if you are doing it because you can't actually afford the contract you are signing and will have no ability to pay the increased salary down the road. in those cases, the solution is to just not sign players to contracts that are hopelessly too large.

 

that is basically never the situation though (excepting the marlins), so just always backload. even if you just pretend that the salary is frontloaded and put the extra money in a cd every season you're coming out ahead.

[WrigleyField 22]

ALWAYS ALWAYS BACKLOAD

True you can always backload, but that doesn't necessarily help this years team. You can take the time value of money savings and kick that back into payroll, representing small incremental gains, but you have to actually save that money money to realize the benefit and not just kick it down the road by also spending the savings now.

[Guest]

If you're working with a debt ceiling, then backloading can be bad.

[WrigleyField 22]

the only way backloading is bad is if you are doing it because you can't actually afford the contract you are signing and will have no ability to pay the increased salary down the road. in those cases, the solution is to just not sign players to contracts that are hopelessly too large.

 

that is basically never the situation though (excepting the marlins), so just always backload. even if you just pretend that the salary is frontloaded and put the extra money in a cd every season you're coming out ahead.

While the CD example is true, the fact is that you don't necessarily have that money now. You're CD would be less than the full year's salary and incrementally less based on when you have the cash flows to contibute the money towards saving. That doesn't make backloading bad. And I would agree modest backloading is probably always advisable, but when you move past 10% increases it should be more used as a planning mechanism. Anything under 10% I'm okay just considering as flat. 50% increases between year one and two as I suggested are cash flow planning mechanisms and not shrewd investment decisions.

[WrigleyField 22]

Also, when you move past normal backloading, these players, while mostly dumb are often smart enough to be surrounded by an agent and financial advisor who will recognize their client being abused and will fight for a a true value of a contract the accurately reflects their value (and their cut).

 

Front loading would only be advisable if you have an owner running year to year budgets and will pocket any money you don't diligently spend now.

[Backtobanks]

I do 4/60 and structure it like this 10, 15, 17.5, 17.5. Gives us plenty of flexibility for rounding out the rotation and BP. INF probably pretty much set. Sign Sweeney for a few million. Schierholtz probably gets a little bump and find another RH platoon partner. LF -Choo, CF- Sweeney/Lake, RF- Schierholtz/TBD.

 

 

Wouldn't it make sense to front load the deal given the projected payroll for the next couple of years is relatively low?

 

Why would that make sense? They don't have much space the next couple years, but do have theoretical space in 3-5 years.

 

17.5 is quite a bit of money for Choo when he's 34 years old and 35 years old.

 

I was thinking of the 25+ million they might have to pay when they try to trade him after the 2015 season.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

you are truly the worst.

[TruffleShuffle]

I was thinking of the 25+ million they might have to pay when they try to trade him after the 2015 season.

 

i'm sure you could come up with a realistic 5-team trade scenario.

[Banedon]

I do 4/60 and structure it like this 10, 15, 17.5, 17.5. Gives us plenty of flexibility for rounding out the rotation and BP. INF probably pretty much set. Sign Sweeney for a few million. Schierholtz probably gets a little bump and find another RH platoon partner. LF -Choo, CF- Sweeney/Lake, RF- Schierholtz/TBD.

 

 

Wouldn't it make sense to front load the deal given the projected payroll for the next couple of years is relatively low?

 

Why would that make sense? They don't have much space the next couple years, but do have theoretical space in 3-5 years.

 

17.5 is quite a bit of money for Choo when he's 34 years old and 35 years old.

 

I was thinking of the 25+ million they might have to pay when they try to trade him after the 2015 season.

 

No you weren't.

[davell]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

[Guest]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

[pitchcs]

Yikes....Choo I guess, because it's the least amount of $$?

 

Didn't realize Ellsbury has 52 SB against 4 CS. Impressive.

 

All three will be entering their age 30/31 seasons and two come with past injury history. Cano is easily the best player but he's bound to have a significant drop off in the next couple years and 10 years is insane. Not gonna happen and I'm happy with that. I think $40M is a pretty big difference between Choo and Ellsbury compared to what they actually bring to the table.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

 

I guess Ellsbury.

[davell]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

Well yeah, but what if we don't win the posting or if system changes, he just wants to play elsewhere?

[davell]

My answer would actually be Cano. It'd give us inventory to trade from, with Alcantara and a lefty power bat to go with Rizzo, since our entire big 4 are RH.

[Guest]

The last I looked, the metrics had Choo's defense as being pretty much horrific. I'm not sure I want to be paying that kind of money for him on an NL team over the next six years unless we're convinced of the adoption of the DH.

 

-- edited to add

 

Yep.

[CubInOK]

I just want sin choo choo to be a thing.

[SouthSideRyan]

The last I looked, the metrics had Choo's defense as being pretty much horrific. I'm not sure I want to be paying that kind of money for him on an NL team over the next six years unless we're convinced of the adoption of the DH.

 

-- edited to add

 

Yep.

 

Well, he has been playing CF this season. I'm comfortable with him being below average in RF.

[Guest]

The last I looked, the metrics had Choo's defense as being pretty much horrific. I'm not sure I want to be paying that kind of money for him on an NL team over the next six years unless we're convinced of the adoption of the DH.

 

-- edited to add

 

Yep.

 

Well, he has been playing CF this season. I'm comfortable with him being below average in RF.

He was equally horrific in a corner in 2012.

[sneakypower]

he was also startlingly -17 in RF last year, but i thought i remembered him playing hurt?

 

edit: what tim said

[Guest]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

Well yeah, but what if we don't win the posting or if system changes, he just wants to play elsewhere?

Ellsbury would be the most palatable of those choices to me, but I'd probably pass on all three at those levels of commitment.

[SouthSideRyan]

he was also startlingly -17 in RF last year, but i thought i remembered him playing hurt?

 

edit: what tim said

 

He was perfectly cromulent prior to that in a corner. I don't buy him as -double digits in a corner.

[SouthSideRyan]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

Well yeah, but what if we don't win the posting or if system changes, he just wants to play elsewhere?

Ellsbury would be the most palatable of those choices to me, but I'd probably pass on all three at those levels of commitment.

 

And if we lose out on Tanaka, we do what exactly? Have an 85M payroll and suck again?

[SouthSideRyan]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

Well yeah, but what if we don't win the posting or if system changes, he just wants to play elsewhere?

Ellsbury would be the most palatable of those choices to me, but I'd probably pass on all three at those levels of commitment.

 

And if we lose out on Tanaka, we do what exactly? Have an 85M payroll and suck again?

[Guest]

So, from early reports we've got Ellsbury asking for at least 7/140, Choo 6/100+, and Cano 10/300? Preferences?

Tanaka

Well yeah, but what if we don't win the posting or if system changes, he just wants to play elsewhere?

Ellsbury would be the most palatable of those choices to me, but I'd probably pass on all three at those levels of commitment.

 

And if we lose out on Tanaka, we do what exactly? Have an 85M payroll and suck again?

Paying too much for less than stellar FA's or sucking are the only two choices?