Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:43:25

Dumb move to backload it imo. If he has to be traded in a year or two it will make it that much harder.

by **ReadingPhilly** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:45:39

Monkeyboy wrote:Hmmm, if they plan to sign machado/harper, why would they backload it when our homegrown guys will need to be signed at that point. I know it's AAV that counts, but I don't get why they would make it that way unless they plan to sign both Machado and Harper for big money with 2 year buyouts or they plan to overpay for a bunch of 2nd tier guys on 2 year contracts. I'm tired, so I'm probably missing something.

Because offering those guys $40-60M in year one is a huge selling point.

by **Squire** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:58:37

ReadingPhilly wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Hmmm, if they plan to sign machado/harper, why would they backload it when our homegrown guys will need to be signed at that point. I know it's AAV that counts, but I don't get why they would make it that way unless they plan to sign both Machado and Harper for big money with 2 year buyouts or they plan to overpay for a bunch of 2nd tier guys on 2 year contracts. I'm tired, so I'm probably missing something.

Because offering those guys $40-60M in year one is a huge selling point.

Plus with market interest rates actually creeping up the net present value of the McCutcheon is actually reduced (a little of course).

by **LastTrain** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 16:26:24

JFLNYC wrote:Dumb move to backload it imo. If he has to be traded in a year or two it will make it that much harder.

Not really. It just means the Phils have to send money in the deal. And as with the NPV point made above, it works out relatively well for the Phils to pay a lump sum at the end instead of starting on that portion of the payment today. Plus, sending money in a deal has a psychological twist that typically helps net a better prospect return. That said, maybe the trade return still peaks at a fair return while the lack of sending cash makes it a poor return, but I don't think it really hurts much to backload. I guess it could hurt theoretically if there's an internal cash-based salary cap that differs from the CBT cap, but we don't really have any way of knowing that.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 17:08:38

LastTrain wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Dumb move to backload it imo. If he has to be traded in a year or two it will make it that much harder.

Not really. It just means the Phils have to send money in the deal. And as with the NPV point made above, it works out relatively well for the Phils to pay a lump sum at the end instead of starting on that portion of the payment today. Plus, sending money in a deal has a psychological twist that typically helps net a better prospect return. That said, maybe the trade return still peaks at a fair return while the lack of sending cash makes it a poor return, but I don't think it really hurts much to backload. I guess it could hurt theoretically if there's an internal cash-based salary cap that differs from the CBT cap, but we don't really have any way of knowing that.

If you have to send more money because the deal is back-loaded then, by definition, a trade would be more expensive in order to get back the same level of prospect(s). All other things being equal, it costs more to trade a player with more salary left than one with less. It may not be much more expensive and the expense may be lessened by the NPV factor, but it's going to be more expensive to trade him.

by **Grotewold** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 17:12:02

All due respect, Jfly, you don't think Klentak and the rest of the brass considered that? There's probably another reason behind it

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 17:17:40

Grotewold wrote:All due respect, Jfly, you don't think Klentak and the rest of the brass considered that? There's probably another reason behind it

I do, and if it means we get Machado and/or Harper it's well worth the expense. Either way it's not going to make a great deal of difference so I probably shouldn't have even bothered to opine on the subject.

by **bleh** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 17:24:20

The money you'd send in the trade is just the money you saved from backloading the deal. Like if backloaded = $10, $15, $20 and frontloaded = $20, $15, $10. You include $10 million and you're paying the same amount as though it was frontloaded which would be $35 of the full $50.

by **swishnicholson** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 21:27:12

JFLNYC wrote: Either way it's not going to make a great deal of difference so I probably shouldn't have even bothered to opine on the subject.

But imagine a board where we all felt that way.

[shudder]

by **BigEd76** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 21:37:53

TheCUTCH22
I am so pumped for this opportunity with the @phillies! Can’t wait to rock that Philly uni and go to battle with my teammates! S/O to @geniesofficial for this vid! Let’s Gooo!
https://www.instagram.com/p/BrU_0OlBEls/

by **LastTrain** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 22:03:22

JFLNYC wrote:
LastTrain wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Dumb move to backload it imo. If he has to be traded in a year or two it will make it that much harder.

Not really. It just means the Phils have to send money in the deal. And as with the NPV point made above, it works out relatively well for the Phils to pay a lump sum at the end instead of starting on that portion of the payment today. Plus, sending money in a deal has a psychological twist that typically helps net a better prospect return. That said, maybe the trade return still peaks at a fair return while the lack of sending cash makes it a poor return, but I don't think it really hurts much to backload. I guess it could hurt theoretically if there's an internal cash-based salary cap that differs from the CBT cap, but we don't really have any way of knowing that.

If you have to send more money because the deal is back-loaded then, by definition, a trade would be more expensive in order to get back the same level of prospect(s). All other things being equal, it costs more to trade a player with more salary left than one with less. It may not be much more expensive and the expense may be lessened by the NPV factor, but it's going to be more expensive to trade him.

Well, no. "More money" and "more expensive" need context and are probably misnomers, since it's money that hasn't been spent but certainly would have been by that point if front-loaded. The total cost isn't lessened by the NPV factor, it's more than negated. If you're really going to go with your side of this point, I think you should sample using real numbers and see where it leads. That's not intended as a demeaning dare or a challenge, and if you've moved on from the discussion that's fine.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 22:26:38

You’re probably right and I have moved on but it’s worth noting that your tone has been pretty condescending.

by **The Dude** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 22:35:08

If we’re honest that is a pre req tone here much of the time

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 00:27:04

I think I sound condescending in posts sometimes, but that pretty much never happens IRL. That might be why people think I'm super nice IRL but not so much on the board. I suck.

by **swishnicholson** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 00:37:13

Monkeyboy wrote:I think I sound condescending in posts sometimes, but that pretty much never happens IRL. That might be why people think I'm super nice IRL but not so much on the board. I suck.

At least on the board you have an endearing smile.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 00:38:23

swishnicholson wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:I think I sound condescending in posts sometimes, but that pretty much never happens IRL. That might be why people think I'm super nice IRL but not so much on the board. I suck.

At least on the board you have an endearing smile.

but my dental care could use some work

by **MoBettle** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 00:49:59

Seems like a billion dollar company should be smart enough to figure out how to make paying $20 million 2 years from now cost a lot less than paying $20 million now.

Will that impact luxury tax though?

by **ReadingPhilly** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 01:02:54

by **SwingOnThis** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 09:35:43

JFLNYC wrote:You’re probably right and I have moved on but it’s worth noting that your tone has been pretty condescending.

No offense but that's a bit funny coming from you.

by **JFLNYC** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:07:16

SwingOnThis wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:You’re probably right and I have moved on but it’s worth noting that your tone has been pretty condescending.

No offense but that's a bit funny coming from you.

Guilty as charged. The irony didn’t escape me and no offense taken. I can be condescending and I’m not proud of it.

Archived

Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil

Re: Phillies Sign Andrew McCutchen: 3 yrs/$50 mil