These extension projections are a really interesting exercise. One question that has been nagging me: Is there any point to front-loading at least some of these extension contracts. It seems the Twins have salary space now and for another couple of years, with a lot of players projected to become more expensive later on. I'm not convinced the market is right to go out and spend big on a star FA pitcher. If they do sign some front-loaded extensions, the Twins give themselves salary flexibility down the line. Moreover, after a few years players with front-loaded contracts may have added value on their remaining years, giving them additional trade appeal. Players who didn't work out as well as hoped could be let go after a few years with less of an impact on the year-to-year salary target. Again, that gives the front office some flexibility down the line. I could see a front-loaded extension increasing the risk of potential problems with player makeup/motivation. But teams face a similar risk with any regular extension. Do front-loaded (or even just salary balanced) extensions happen much? And are there other reasons it might work or not work?
