OK GM's, your LF addition for 2015 is...

[Oxtung]

No, your proposed moves are exactly the type that will result in a few more wins next year at the expense of future sustained success. Rebuilding teams that lock up decline years will keep rebuilding.

 

You sign players over 28 when you are in your window to compete. That is the tradeoff contending teams make, gain in the short term with cost on the backend. As I suggested, the Twins have the opposite calculus.

 

I agree that Cabrera is probably the best player, but the Twins are much better served to sign a one or two year deal and maintain roster flexibility.

 

Or the Twins could sign Melky Cabrera and front load the contract, since they'll be way under budget next season, then he won't be a weight around the Twins towards the end of that contract and he still might be movable.  There are options other than "don't sign expensive FA's".

[USAFChief]

No, your proposed moves are exactly the type that will result in a few more wins next year at the expense of future sustained success. Rebuilding teams that lock up decline years will keep rebuilding.

 

You sign players over 28 when you are in your window to compete. That is the tradeoff contending teams make, gain in the short term with cost on the backend. As I suggested, the Twins have the opposite calculus.

 

I agree that Cabrera is probably the best player, but the Twins are much better served to sign a one or two year deal and maintain roster flexibility.

I think worrying too much about "future sustained success" is exactly the wrong approach. I think that's the approach most likely to keep you rebuilding.

 

Get the best players you can. If, for example, you are paying Melky Cabrera $10M and a rookie forces him off his position, now you're paying $10.5M for a player better than Cabrera, which doesn't kill you. If the rookie doesn't force him off his position, you still have Cabrera. If you do nothing, and wait for the rookie, you stand a good chance of ending up with neither when the rookie flames out, or gets hurt, or never makes the big leagues. Not to mention, you might be able to unload at least some of Cabrera's salary if at some point you no longer need him. If not, it's only money...no team ever loses because they spent money. Or at the least, it causes way fewer problems than not spending. There is no salary cap in MLB.

 

Continually shopping at the dollar store for cheap one year FAs isn't the answer...we should all know that by now.

[DJL44]

Or the Twins could sign Melky Cabrera and front load the contract, since they'll be way under budget next season, then he won't be a weight around the Twins towards the end of that contract and he still might be movable.  There are options other than "don't sign expensive FA's".

 

In a world without a salary cap there is no reason to front load a contract due to the time value of money.

[Mike Sixel]

From a practical perspective, I'd bet the Twins have a self-imposed budget, so front loading could make sense from that perspective.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In a world without a salary cap there is no reason to front load a contract due to the time value of money.

There are plenty of reasons to front-load a contract.

 

For example, the Twins are $25m+ under their self-imposed cap going into 2015. Giving a guy like Melky ~$20m of that and then paying him ~$5-7m for three additional seasons gives you flexibility to trade the player down the road or it allows you to fill more holes in 2016-2018 because Melky is paid so little.

[kab21]

There are plenty of reasons to front-load a contract.

 

For example, the Twins are $25m+ under their self-imposed cap going into 2015. Giving a guy like Melky ~$20m of that and then paying him ~$5-7m for three additional seasons gives you flexibility to trade the player down the road or it allows you to fill more holes in 2016-2018 because Melky is paid so little.

 

This is only true if you actually operate with a spend it or lose it budget.  A banker like Pohlad definitely understands the time value of money.  Front loading a contract like this could increase the actual value of the contract by 5M (or more) dollars.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is only true if you actually operate with a spend it or lose it budget.  A banker like Pohlad definitely understands the time value of money.  Front loading a contract like this could increase the actual value of the contract by 5M (or more) dollars.

Sure, and that should be a consideration.

 

On the other hand, if the Pohlads are worried about future depreciation of the dollar then they should carry over under/over-spending from season to season, which means they should have about $40m on the books to overspend in the next few years.

 

I don't have a problem doing one or the other but I have a problem with doing both. If you underspend one year but don't reinvest that money later then you shouldn't care about dollar devaluation in front-loaded contracts.

[kab21]

Sure, and that should be a consideration.

 

On the other hand, if the Pohlads are worried about future depreciation of the dollar, then they should carry over under/over-spending from season to season, which means they should have about $40m on the books to overspend in the next few years.

 

I don't have a problem doing one or the other but I have a problem with doing both.

 

Future depreciation of the dollar?  This is not at all what time value of money means.  Time value of money means that Pohlad can invest that 15M extra frontloaded into Melky's contract somewhere (they're bankers) and have 18-20M in a few years when it's time to pay Melky. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Future depreciation of the dollar?  This is not at all what time value of money means.  Time value of money means that Pohlad can invest that 15M extra frontloaded into Melky's contract somewhere (they're bankers) and have 18-20M in a few years when it's time to pay Melky. 

I know what time value of money means. I thought my point was pretty clear without going into an economics lesson. There are several ways paying money today costs more than paying money tomorrow.

 

The point stands. If the Pohlads aren't carrying over profits/losses from year to year, I don't have much sympathy for them worrying about the valuation of $5m today versus $5m tomorrow.

[Mike Sixel]

We have previously heard they do not carry money over year to year........so, yes, there are reasons (if you care about winning, and not just money) to front load contracts.

 

Does anyone think they are banking all this money right now, and will go out and sign 4 super high priced FAs in the future?

[DJL44]

I doubt Melky Cabrera gets more than a 3 year deal anyway. He's already had a 50 game suspension for steroids and his next one will be 100 games. I also don't trust the Twins medical staff to keep a guy with his medical history healthy.

[DJL44]

We have previously heard they do not carry money over year to year........so, yes, there are reasons (if you care about winning, and not just money) to front load contracts.

 

Just like they've stated that they don't carry money over, the Twins also don't front-load free agent contracts so I guess it's futile to argue that they should do either one.

[Mike Sixel]

Just like they've stated that they don't carry money over, the Twins also don't front-load free agent contracts so I guess it's futile to argue that they should do either one.

 

Probably true, but as others remind me, they had never signed deals like Nolasco before.....so there is hope.

[drjim]

Or the Twins could sign Melky Cabrera and front load the contract, since they'll be way under budget next season, then he won't be a weight around the Twins towards the end of that contract and he still might be movable.  There are options other than "don't sign expensive FA's".

 

He wouldn't do that, union wouldn't like it, and Twins probably have no interest. Other than that it is probably a good option.

[Brock Beauchamp]

He wouldn't do that, union wouldn't like it, and Twins probably have no interest. Other than that it is probably a good option.

While we agree that it probably won't happen, the union shouldn't have any objections to such a deal. Any way you shake it, the player is receiving more money than he is via a regular or back-loaded contract.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean the union wouldn't object, it only means they shouldn't object.

[drjim]

I think worrying too much about "future sustained success" is exactly the wrong approach. I think that's the approach most likely to keep you rebuilding.

 

Get the best players you can. If, for example, you are paying Melky Cabrera $10M and a rookie forces him off his position, now you're paying $10.5M for a player better than Cabrera, which doesn't kill you. If the rookie doesn't force him off his position, you still have Cabrera. If you do nothing, and wait for the rookie, you stand a good chance of ending up with neither when the rookie flames out, or gets hurt, or never makes the big leagues. Not to mention, you might be able to unload at least some of Cabrera's salary if at some point you no longer need him. If not, it's only money...no team ever loses because they spent money. Or at the least, it causes way fewer problems than not spending. There is no salary cap in MLB.

 

Continually shopping at the dollar store for cheap one year FAs isn't the answer...we should all know that by now.

 

I disagree, long term sustained success should be the primary motivating factor for decisions made by the Twins in the upcoming offseason. There is no indication that this is going to be a short window, and in that situation errors of commission are much more costly than errors of ommission. He is probably the *best* LF available, but that is a testament to the poor quality of the fas, not how good Cabrera is. 

 

Part of it is that I just don't trust Cabrera and don't think he is worth the contract he is going to get. He is injury prone, steroid tainted, has had two good seasons, one great season (steroid enhanced), doesn't hit for a lot of power, doesn't walk a bunch (though also doesn't k too much either). I don't buy that skillset is worthy to invest in long term.

[Major League Ready]

Don't ask me how but I would like to get Joc Pederson from the Dodgers.   He is batting 300 (AAA), has 32 bombs and just stole his 30th base of the season.  Normally, no way would a guy like this be available but he is blocked big-time in LA.

[drjim]

While we agree that it probably won't happen, the union shouldn't have any objections to such a deal. Any way you shake it, the player is receiving more money than he is via a regular or back-loaded contract.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean the union wouldn't object, it only means they shouldn't object.

 

The importance has probably decreased since arbitration doesn't matter for free agents, but I suspect the issue is that they want a market set at certain ages for certain positions. Frontloading contracts depresses the market in later years of a career.

[drjim]

Don't ask me how but I would like to get Joc Pederson from the Dodgers.   He is batting 300 (AAA), has 32 bombs and just stole his 30th base of the season.  Normally, no way would a guy like this be available but he is blocked big-time in LA.

 

LA is much more likely to trade Kemp or Either than Pederson.

[Major League Ready]

You are probably right but who is going to take Kemps contract.  He is signed through 2018 or maybe even 2019.  I guess LA could pay a big chunk but that contract is a big problem.  Then, does it make sense for a contender to trade away Either.

 

No doubt this is a long-shot.  I was looking for ways to position the team long-term as opposed to taking on another long-term contract destined to be a problem when this team is finally ready to contend. 

[Oxtung]

He wouldn't do that, union wouldn't like it, and Twins probably have no interest. Other than that it is probably a good option.

It's already being done. I found 4 big contracts last season that were front loaded in a quick search. See David wrights deal. Other than the twins feelings on the subject there is no reason they couldn't front load a big signings contract.

[drjim]

It's already being done. I found 4 big contracts last season that were front loaded in a quick search. See David wrights deal. Other than the twins feelings on the subject there is no reason they couldn't front load a big signings contract.

 

I imagine there is some flexibility for 8 year extensions signed with the current clubs that go deep into decline years. 

 

Did you find any 3-5 year free agent contracts that included this? That would be the comp, right?

 

EDIT: Your last sentence is certainly factually correct, I wouldn't dispute that. I do think a player probably wouldn't do it and the union wouldn't be happy, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent it.

[Oxtung]

I imagine there is some flexibility for 8 year extensions signed with the current clubs that go deep into decline years. 

 

Did you find any 3-5 year free agent contracts that included this? That would be the comp, right?

 

EDIT: Your last sentence is certainly factually correct, I wouldn't dispute that. I do think a player probably wouldn't do it and the union wouldn't be happy, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent it.

I'm not sure what to tell you. I show you an instance where it has already been done and you still say it won't happen.

[drjim]

I'm not sure what to tell you. I show you an instance where it has already been done and you still say it won't happen.

 

You are talking about really different scenarios. I'm curious if it has ever happened with a free agent signed from outside the organization.

 

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying I can never recall it actually happening and don't think it will happen (for the reasons I have stated).