you wouldn't download a car

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:There's also an expectation that a strong team performance in the short-term will lead to increased revenues in subsequent seasons.

Interesting theory, but I would bet good money that to the degree bringing in a big-time free agent increases ticket and merchandise sales, it does so in the immediate aftermath of the signing, with diminishing returns in every year that goes by following the signing... rather like the player's performance itself nine times out of ten.

Barry Jive wrote:you wouldn't download a car

?

JFLNYC wrote:Pujols is hurt.

Assuming health for a 30+ year old slugger is always a good idea right?

JFLNYC wrote:Pujols is hurt.

Which, unlike the freak Howard injury, would have been nearly impossible to predict. With that Barney Rubble gait

To put this another way: how much better would Howard's contract look if it looked like this:

2012: $30M
2013: $28M
2014: $26M
2015: $24M
2016: $15M
2017: $15M

Would $18M more on the payroll have hurt in 2012-2013? Sure. Would it have turned out that the highest-paid seasons would have been a couple of injury-recovery seasons (including this year)? Yes.

But: you wouldn't have this millstone around your neck going forward, and it's fairer to the player, who gets his money upfront, and who will likely take less flak for his inevitable decline if his salary also declines (it may even take some pressure off of him and result in better performance, in a can't-be-proven alternate reality way of thinking).

Duplicate post

mozartpc27 wrote:Structuring a contract this way is like buying a car on a payment plan where your monthly payment goes up to its highest levels as the car's value moves to zero. I understand the time value of money, but you wouldn't buy a car like that... why sign a player on that philosophy?

I would, if a bank was silly enough to allow to me to backload and not charge for the convenience.

Grotewold wrote: With that Barney Rubble gait

fuck

mozartpc27 wrote:To put this another way: how much better would Howard's contract look if it looked like this:

It would be worse for the organization. Demonstrably worse. But you might feel better about it.

in all seriousness though, the fact that the Angles are apparently getting bit in the ass by the Pujols deal ahead of schedule doesn't really impact the fiasco level of the RyHo deal.

Attempts to rationalize the contracts of professional athletes is good practical exercise for coming to an understanding about why economics has much more psychology than physics in it

Howard's current ISO is the highest it's been since 2009, fwiw

Soren wrote:in all seriousness though, the fact that the Angles are apparently getting bit in the ass by the Pujols deal ahead of schedule doesn't really impact the fiasco level of the RyHo deal.

it provides a context to view ryan's deal in, imo. i mean this entire thread is about other outrageous contracts. yes, the impact on the phils doesn't change, but the value of the deal is different if there are 100 other guys in the league making the same amount versus only 5 other.

if you front-loaded Howard's shitty contract it still wouldn't help against the luxury tax

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:To put this another way: how much better would Howard's contract look if it looked like this:

It would be worse for the organization. Demonstrably worse. But you might feel better about it.

Is it that clear-cut to you that spending $58M in 2016-2017 on an asset that won't be worth half that at that time is worth only having to spend $40M on it in 2012-2013?

The time value of money is relative, first of all; just because baseball may anticipate, for example, a 20% rise in revenues over a 5 year period doesn't mean the Phillies will (what if the bottom falls out of ticket sales and merchandise?); nor does it paint the whole picture. Is it better for the team's overall health to spend $40M today and $48M in 2016-2017 for the same asset that is rapidly diminishing in value over the same period; or will it be better to have an extra $20M to spend on new players in 2016-2017, rather than sinking that money into essentially a dead property?

moz, if the owners feel like it, they can put extra money in escrow or something earlier in the deal. frontloading the deal doesn't effect the luxury tax or salary budget picture, and it costs the owners more because money gets cheaper over time

Houshphandzadeh wrote:moz, if the owners feel like it, they can put extra money in escrow or something earlier in the deal. frontloading the deal doesn't effect the luxury tax or salary budget picture, and it costs the owners more because money gets cheaper over time

but how would that LOOK?!!!???!11

Houshphandzadeh wrote:moz, if the owners feel like it, they can put extra money in escrow or something earlier in the deal. frontloading the deal doesn't effect the luxury tax or salary budget picture, and it costs the owners more because money gets cheaper over time

Fair enough, although of course when we talk about payroll and budgets, we're always talking about what someone is owed, without any assumption (why would there be?) that there is some pool of money outside the budget earmarked for salaries.

I see your point, however.

Soren wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Pujols is hurt.

Assuming health for a 30+ year old slugger is always a good idea right?

Don't get your knickers in a twist. Not defending his deal. Just putting his production this year in context.