The 2006 Thread, Current topic: Center Field

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Frontloaded contract works for me, makes it easier to resign our young studs in 07 and 08

 

4/48

2006: 15 mil

2007: 14 mil

2008: 10 mil

2009: 9 mil

 

Teams don't like front loaded contracts. For the most part, they want to hang on to cash as long as they can for interest purposes, etc. Even with other contracts coming up, they can always pay the money aside if they know they have it in the early years and will be tighter in later years.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think, since we don't know how Giles is going to feel about it, what we should be determining here is the absolute maximum we'd be willing to pay - as in, at what point does his cost outweigh what he brings to this team? I'd say something close to what's already been suggested, but I'd be willing to go a little more. Like, for example, 4/52, with a team or mutual option for a fifth year (what's the harm? If he's not worth it by then, don't exercise it; and it makes the deal sound a little better). What do you guys think? (as a maximum, I mean)

 

I could go 4/52 if it would take that. I'm weary of adding the fifth year, but with the drought of great FA, I'm not sure this team with the payroll it will have would be handcuffed by it.

[CubsWin]

So long as the 5th year is a mutual option, what's the harm?

[UBlink]

Frontloaded contract works for me, makes it easier to resign our young studs in 07 and 08

 

4/48

2006: 15 mil

2007: 14 mil

2008: 10 mil

2009: 9 mil

 

Teams don't like front loaded contracts. For the most part, they want to hang on to cash as long as they can for interest purposes, etc. Even with other contracts coming up, they can always pay the money aside if they know they have it in the early years and will be tighter in later years.

 

Players don't like back loaded contracts. For the most part, they want to get the cash as soon as they can for interest purposes, etc. The real negotiations will be over the present value of the contract.

 

The only ones who really prefer the backloaded contract are the agents, because for a given present value, a backloaded contract sounds more impressive, since the total dollars and length of the contract are what are reported in the media.

[Tim]

So long as the 5th year is a mutual option, what's the harm?

Because just about any time there's an option, there's also a buyout.

[Tim]

Frontloaded contract works for me, makes it easier to resign our young studs in 07 and 08

 

4/48

2006: 15 mil

2007: 14 mil

2008: 10 mil

2009: 9 mil

 

Teams don't like front loaded contracts. For the most part, they want to hang on to cash as long as they can for interest purposes, etc. Even with other contracts coming up, they can always pay the money aside if they know they have it in the early years and will be tighter in later years.

 

Players don't like back loaded contracts. For the most part, they want to get the cash as soon as they can for interest purposes, etc. The real negotiations will be over the present value of the contract.

 

The only ones who really prefer the backloaded contract are the agents, because for a given present value, a backloaded contract sounds more impressive, since the total dollars and length of the contract are what are reported in the media.

Younger players like backloaded contracts because they head into their next contract coming off as high a salary figure as possible, thus raising arbitration figures or expected salary rates for the next deal.

 

For an older player, I'm not sure it is as big of a deal.

[Geech]

So long as the 5th year is a mutual option, what's the harm?

Because just about any time there's an option, there's also a buyout.

 

I don't really think that's a deal-breaker, though.

[CubsWin]

So long as the 5th year is a mutual option, what's the harm?

Because just about any time there's an option, there's also a buyout.

So then we twist the numbers around to fit the buyout in. What is the difference between a guaranteed 4 years, 50 million with no buyouts and a 5 year, 62 million deal where 46 million of that is paid in the first 4 years with a 4 million dollar buyout on the 5th year mutual option?

 

I don't really think it is going to fool Giles or his agent. They are going to look at the guaranteed money in any contract and go from there, but on the slight chance that Giles' agent suffers from vanity...

[CuseCubFan69]

So long as the 5th year is a mutual option, what's the harm?

Because just about any time there's an option, there's also a buyout.

 

I don't really think that's a deal-breaker, though.

 

I thought you said "a deal-Baker". It made me smile for a minute..thanks!

[Roast]

It seems to me that the consensus is a 4/48 - 4/50 contract. The biggest disagreement seem to be on how to spread out the money. am i right?

[USSoccer]

It seems to me that the consensus is a 4/48 - 4/50 contract. The biggest disagreement seem to be on how to spread out the money. am i right?

 

Pretty much. I haven't seen anyone go higher that $52m or lower than $32m, but most posts have been in the 44-42 range. Structure woould be more important than overall value, though, since a creatively constructed contract can make or break a signing.

[Roast]

It seems to me that the consensus is a 4/48 - 4/50 contract. The biggest disagreement seem to be on how to spread out the money. am i right?

 

Pretty much. I haven't seen anyone go higher that $52m or lower than $32m, but most posts have been in the 44-42 range. Structure woould be more important than overall value, though, since a creatively constructed contract can make or break a signing.

 

Alright, this is how i'm gonna do it then.

 

I'll go set up a poll now to decide what size contract to give him, or at least narrow down the choices if nothing else. After we get a winner, we will decide how to structure the decided upon ammount.

[UK1679666180]

I think Giles alone brings the Cubs up a couple of notches offensively, more so than any player avail.

 

You have to be concerned about the years, it isn't a situation like Alou, IMO. There's much less of an injury history, reversed park factors, he isn't coming off of one of his best years, and OBP doesn't slump.

[Roast]

Just want to remind everyone to GO VOTE IN THE POLL IN THE POLLS FORUM.

 

 

I will go with first to 15 this time because its such a wide poll.

[Roast]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

[USSoccer]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

Sounds good to me

[Jazz]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

yup

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

[CubfaninCA]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

Better find a way to get Marcus Giles then. Brian Giles is a pretty big longshot.

[Roast]

I've had two yays and two nays. But no counter offers.... What do you guys think we should offer? (that will get it done)

[Geech]

I would probably start at 4/48.

[USSoccer]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

[Roast]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

[Tim]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Allright so it was decided we need to go with less years.

 

How about something along the lines of...

 

3/36 with a 12 Mil team option for the 4th year?

 

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

 

How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances?

what does everyone else think bout that?

I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast.

 

I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.