Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 250
  1. #196
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,645
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah, it was Meche. It's a pretty rare occurrence. I still think back-loaded contracts make sense because you're guaranteeing that the team pays less money in the short run and most teams see their payroll over a period of years rather than one year at a time.

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    3,771
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I can only think of one time in the last 10 years who retired with money owed him. I actually forgot his name. He was a guy the Royals outbid the Cubs on the year the Cubs got Lilly. I doubt that is a thought it backloaded contracts.
    Yeah, I think it's the players association that would frown on front-loaded contracts. Inflation would only hurt the player at the end of a deal. For the Cubs now, it would mean getting the bulk of the money out of the way when there's ample payroll space and he's most likely to earn it, and then be paying peanuts at the end of the deal. With inflation, it would make aging long-term contract players too easy to simply cut and absorb whatever paltry salary they're still owed.

  3. #198
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,879
    vCash
    1500
    Again....how would someone like Michael Bourn help this "rebuilding" team...he turns 30 in a couple weeks.

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    4,861
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldChamps1908 View Post
    Again....how would someone like Michael Bourn help this "rebuilding" team...he turns 30 in a couple weeks.
    Helps us win now. Wouldn't block any future prospects (Almora) and we have money to spend.

    Front load his contract and it becomes tradeable in a couple years and its fine. It's looking more and more like teams are shying away from his asking price. It's possible he could fall right to us on our terms.

  5. #200
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,879
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JBears79 View Post
    Helps us win now. Wouldn't block any future prospects (Almora) and we have money to spend.

    Front load his contract and it becomes tradeable in a couple years and its fine. It's looking more and more like teams are shying away from his asking price. It's possible he could fall right to us on our terms.
    I understand what you are saying and I get it..but the current franchise philosophy is not win now...it's rebuild.

    I guess I am just wondering why we wouldn't throw a young buck out there and see what happens considering we are looking at another 100 loss season anyway.

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    Because we're not just rebuilding.

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,292
    vCash
    7100
    Quote Originally Posted by Rynoplasty View Post
    Yeah, I think it's the players association that would frown on front-loaded contracts. Inflation would only hurt the player at the end of a deal. For the Cubs now, it would mean getting the bulk of the money out of the way when there's ample payroll space and he's most likely to earn it, and then be paying peanuts at the end of the deal. With inflation, it would make aging long-term contract players too easy to simply cut and absorb whatever paltry salary they're still owed.
    I tend to think front-loading hurts the team more than the player. Not so much in MLB as in the NFL, but if you put the big money years at the front of the contract, then the player ends up demanding a re-working of the contract after those years more often than not.
    On Cam Newton:

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    So it's official.

    This jerk off is going to be the first QB taken in the first round (or maybe the first 5) in the modern era to throw less than 300 passes at DI level. and he might go #1 overall.


    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nfl scouting is a joke.

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,147
    vCash
    1500
    And then you tell them no. That would not be a big concern for me
    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  9. #204
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    20 minutes from the field of dreams
    Posts
    1,125
    vCash
    1500
    Me either, load up the first couple of years, then when People like Rizzo and Shark get more expensive then the money will be available to them as these older contacts will be team friendly. This only works though when you are way under budget like most of us believe the Cubs currently are.

  10. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    70,047
    vCash
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by homestarunner93 View Post
    I tend to think front-loading hurts the team more than the player. Not so much in MLB as in the NFL, but if you put the big money years at the front of the contract, then the player ends up demanding a re-working of the contract after those years more often than not.
    O lance briggs you say?

  11. #206
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldChamps1908 View Post
    I understand what you are saying and I get it..but the current franchise philosophy is not win now...it's rebuild.

    I guess I am just wondering why we wouldn't throw a young buck out there and see what happens considering we are looking at another 100 loss season anyway.
    No, we're not.

  12. #207
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,645
    vCash
    1500
    You can't say for sure that none of the Cubs position players will fall off a cliff ala Byrd and Soto but, given that we know what happened to start last season, I think it's safe to say this is a better team to start 2013 than they had to start 2012. As long as they get average production out of center field and catcher to start the season and as long as the bullpen improvements hold up, this definitely looks like a team who can win more than 28 games by the end of June (a .363 winning pct).

  13. #208
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,879
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidH View Post
    No, we're not.
    Really?

    Don't be a homer. Be real.

  14. #209
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,147
    vCash
    1500
    losing 100 games is actually pretty hard to do
    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  15. #210
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,879
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    losing 100 games is actually pretty hard to do
    Not last season..

    Ok so maybe not 100...but we will most likely lose over 90 next season IMO.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •