Byrd

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73629:date=Dec 31 2009, 03:09 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah...for this contract, it doesn't bother me too much. 3/15, no matter how you slice it, isn't all that much. If he was getting 3/30 and it was 6/10/14 or some shit, I would be losing my head. But 3/5.5/6.5? Whateves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I won't freak, but here's the thing: does anyone really believe Byrd is going to be the starter come 2012? We'll be paying him $6.5 million to be a shitty bench player in 2012 so we get the "benefit" of having him as the starter in 2010.

Sigh.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=73619:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73617:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73614:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Also, you're paying more for a player as his skills (usually) decline. This makes them hard to unload, if necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But if that is the case, it still doesn't hurt. Let's take Byrd for example. Let's say he completely sucks ass in 2012. The Cubs can pay 1.5 million dollars to deal him ( 1.5 million dollars in 2012 dollars, I might add), and they would be no worse off whatsoever than if they were paying him 5 million a year instead.

Even if you are PLANNING to ditch a guy in his 3rd year, backloading would still take a bite out of that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming the market for talent is always on a steady incline.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


No, it's got nothing to do with the market for talent. There is simply NO upside to paying the extra 1.5 million dollars in Byrd's 2012 contract year in 2011 or 2010. None. WHATEVER the market is for him in 2012, we have 1.5 million dollars to put down in a deal for him that we would not have if we had paid him that 1.5 million in 2010 or 11.


Unless I am misunderstanding you. If you are instead saying that it's possible contracts will be down across the board in 2012, then you sort of have a point. Because that is possible. But it's far more likely that salaries (due to inflation at the very least) will be up in 2012. I will grant that backloading is a bad idea if the value of the dollar goes down, or if player revenues go down, but both of those, while possible, are bad bets.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=73632:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:16 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73619:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73617:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73614:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Also, you're paying more for a player as his skills (usually) decline. This makes them hard to unload, if necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But if that is the case, it still doesn't hurt. Let's take Byrd for example. Let's say he completely sucks ass in 2012. The Cubs can pay 1.5 million dollars to deal him ( 1.5 million dollars in 2012 dollars, I might add), and they would be no worse off whatsoever than if they were paying him 5 million a year instead.

Even if you are PLANNING to ditch a guy in his 3rd year, backloading would still take a bite out of that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming the market for talent is always on a steady incline.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


No, it's got nothing to do with the market for talent. There is simply NO upside to paying the extra 1.5 million dollars in Byrd's 2012 contract year in 2011 or 2010. None. WHATEVER the market is for him in 2012, we have 1.5 million dollars to put down in a deal for him that we would not have if we had paid him that 1.5 million in 2010 or 11.


Unless I am misunderstanding you. If you are instead saying that it's possible contracts will be down across the board in 2012, then you sort of have a point. Because that is possible. But it's far more likely that salaries (due to inflation at the very least) will be up in 2012. I will grant that backloading is a bad idea <i>if the value of the dollar goes down, or if player revenues go down, but both of those, while possible, are bad bets.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't both of those things already just happen? Like...in a really big way?

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=73633:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:18 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73632:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:16 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73619:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73617:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73614:date=Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Also, you're paying more for a player as his skills (usually) decline. This makes them hard to unload, if necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But if that is the case, it still doesn't hurt. Let's take Byrd for example. Let's say he completely sucks ass in 2012. The Cubs can pay 1.5 million dollars to deal him ( 1.5 million dollars in 2012 dollars, I might add), and they would be no worse off whatsoever than if they were paying him 5 million a year instead.

Even if you are PLANNING to ditch a guy in his 3rd year, backloading would still take a bite out of that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming the market for talent is always on a steady incline.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


No, it's got nothing to do with the market for talent. There is simply NO upside to paying the extra 1.5 million dollars in Byrd's 2012 contract year in 2011 or 2010. None. WHATEVER the market is for him in 2012, we have 1.5 million dollars to put down in a deal for him that we would not have if we had paid him that 1.5 million in 2010 or 11.


Unless I am misunderstanding you. If you are instead saying that it's possible contracts will be down across the board in 2012, then you sort of have a point. Because that is possible. But it's far more likely that salaries (due to inflation at the very least) will be up in 2012. I will grant that backloading is a bad idea <i>if the value of the dollar goes down, or if player revenues go down, but both of those, while possible, are bad bets.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't both of those things already just happen? Like...in a really big way?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Yes, and other than Collusion and the biggest depression since 1929, can you think of another time it's happened? And if the Cards are offering Holliday over 100 million, does it sound to you like it's going to continue?

[PcB]

6.5 in the last year of his deal? I've had enough of Jim Hendry's shit, he needs to go now.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=73592:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:05 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73587:date=Dec 31 2009, 12:57 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 31 2009, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BT, do you like or dislike this move?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The best I can muster is that I don't hate it. I do fear it's possible he is on the downside of his career, but I don't think 5 million a year is a bad price at all. Even if he is our 4th outfielder by year 3, five million is very doable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's about how I feel.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->6.5 in the last year of his deal? I've had enough of Jim Hendry's shit, he needs to go now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Really? 5 mill is ok, but 6.5 is "shit"? I'm not thrilled with this signing, but I think this is about what Byrd is worth.

[Ace]

I will admit: I feared much, much worse.

But I still don't want Byrd as a starter on this team at all, at any price.

[Clapp]

6.5 million? Meh. Will make that back just in the revenue generated from winning the world series the next 2 years.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=73647:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:57 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->6.5 million? Meh. Will make that back just in the revenue generated from winning the world series the next 2 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's not EVEN REMOTELY BAD BACKLOADING!

Stop selling your point...

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73651:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's not EVEN REMOTELY BAD BACKLOADING!

Stop selling your point...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of a three year deal is more than 100% greater than the first year, that's a whole lot of backloading.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=73652:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73651:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's not EVEN REMOTELY BAD BACKLOADING!

Stop selling your point...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of a three year deal is more than 100% greater than the first year, that's a whole lot of backloading.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of the deal is only a $1.5 million deviation from the mean, I don't think it's much backloading personally.

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=73654:date=Dec 31 2009, 03:14 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 31 2009, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73652:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73651:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's not EVEN REMOTELY BAD BACKLOADING!

Stop selling your point...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of a three year deal is more than 100% greater than the first year, that's a whole lot of backloading.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of the deal is only a $1.5 million deviation from the mean, I don't think it's much backloading personally.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Exactly...you're desperate to kill this deal, so you're looking for a mouse hole.

Here are some facts, Ace:

1) We're not going to self-develop every player.

2) We are occasionally going with players who are over 17 years of age.

3) Stuff goes on that we don't see.

4) Contract negotiation is more than the sum of its legalese.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73654:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:14 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 31 2009, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73652:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73651:date=Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 31 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73628:date=Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 31 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The deal is backloaded out the ass: $3 mill in 2010, $5.5 in 2011, and $6.5 in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's not EVEN REMOTELY BAD BACKLOADING!

Stop selling your point...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of a three year deal is more than 100% greater than the first year, that's a whole lot of backloading.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the third year of the deal is only a $1.5 million deviation from the mean, I don't think it's much backloading personally.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's a fair point (though, "$1.5 million" is relative, imagine if the mean was $1 million - would you not then say it was a heck of a lot of backloading? It's all relative, to me anyway).

To me, when a guy is getting double the salary in the last year of his deal compared to his first, that's heavily backloaded. Very, very few contracts fall into that category.

[cherp]

I liked Byrd as a prospect coming up - but it never materialized. I'll tell you this - if the option was Podsednik in CF, then the Cubs made the right choice even given the years and $ involved. Pods is a complete piece of shit in CF. He's below average defensively in LF, but awful in CF.

I'll give Byrd a chance - not the worst deal ever. I would have liked it better if it were 2/10 or even 1/7...but 3/15 isn't awful.