Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

This is nuts to me.

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... 875874-996


The Angels may have spent nearly $330 million on Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson this offseason, but because both agreed to take less money up front, the initial blow to their payroll won't be nearly as tumultuous as one would've expected.

A source confirmed a CBSSports.com report stating that the Pujols deal is significantly backloaded and actually adds up to $240 million through his 10 years as a player, then pays him an extra $10 million as part of his 10-year personal service agreement.

Pujols is slated to be paid $12 million in 2012, then $16 million in 2013 -- which is what he made in each of the last four years of his previous contract with the Cardinals. The remaining eight years start at $23 million in 2014, then increase by $1 million each season -- ultimately paying him $30 million in 2021, his age-41 campaign.


I know it doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I just can't believe that Albert Pujols is only going to be making 12 million a year.


The Angels are really going to regret this contract in a few years.
 

vwnut13

Active member
Apr 19, 2009
8,004
0
Vermont
Makes the Alex Rodriguez contract seem a little better.


Why would a team backload a contract so heavy, especially $30m a year in the TENTH year of a contract.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
vwnut13 said:
Makes the Alex Rodriguez contract seem a little better.


Why would a team backload a contract so heavy, especially $30m a year in the TENTH year of a contract.


THEN 10 more years on top of THAT!
 

James52411

New member
Administrator
May 22, 2010
4,531
0
Tallahassee, FL
I understand that teams want to delay spending money into the future for all sorts of reasons, but logically it makes more sense for the long-term competitiveness of a team to front-load the contract and have less money into a declining player later in career.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
James52411 said:
I understand that teams want to delay spending money into the future for all sorts of reasons, but logically it makes more sense for the long-term competitiveness of a team to front-load the contract and have less money into a declining player later in career.


Exactly what I was thinking. I was saying to my friends/coworkers when all of the contract negotiations were happening those few days, that if the Cardinals were to actually snag him, I hope to God that the contract is extremely FRONT loaded, that way when his decline happens, which may be sooner rather than later, it wouldn't kill the team so much.

There's no way on Earth I would have back loaded his contract.
 

VandyDan

New member
Dec 5, 2011
865
0
1. Present Value of Money--cash now is worth more than cash later, generally. So the extra they'll have now due to the lower salary is worth more than the excess later. Additionally, they might think (with good reason) that their short term success will yield much money and will thus allow them to swallow that hit better. Say I buy an asset from you for $100, payable over ten years, thinking it will generate profit of $200 in ten years. It makes sense for me to pay you $7 now and next year and pay you $13 in years 9 and 10 (instead of simply 10/year), because the short term savings allows me greater access to other assets/hedges etc. The collective profitability of all my assets may well be able to pay for the higher priced years AND yield profit, while also allowing me to purchase more assets in the first two years.

2. If he starts to play poorly, he might re-negotiate the deal. No one with AP's pride would want to be known as the biggest financial burden in MLB history.

3. He could get injured, in which case they'll probably have insurance on his contract, making them not have to swallow as much.

Just my guesses as to why the benefit to backloading. I still think it is too much, but I'm sure the Angels think that their profitability as a team will increase by at least 150%, and certainly above league-franchise average over that ten year span.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
VandyDan said:
2. If he starts to play poorly, he might re-negotiate the deal. No one with AP's pride would want to be known as the biggest financial burden in MLB history.


Albert Pujols is one of the most hard headed people in the world from everything I have heard about him. There's NO way in my opinion he would ever re-work this contract. He's sitting on a gold mind, and would pretty much tell someone to stick it up their rear if that was ever brought up to him.
 

Wes

OG
Administrator
Sam Banks said:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120103&content_id=26258766&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&partnerId=aw-7920552108229875874-996


The Angels may have spent nearly $330 million on Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson this offseason, but because both agreed to take less money up front, the initial blow to their payroll won't be nearly as tumultuous as one would've expected.

A source confirmed a CBSSports.com report stating that the Pujols deal is significantly backloaded and actually adds up to $240 million through his 10 years as a player, then pays him an extra $10 million as part of his 10-year personal service agreement.

Pujols is slated to be paid $12 million in 2012, then $16 million in 2013 -- which is what he made in each of the last four years of his previous contract with the Cardinals. The remaining eight years start at $23 million in 2014, then increase by $1 million each season -- ultimately paying him $30 million in 2021, his age-41 campaign.


I know it doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I just can't believe that Albert Pujols is only going to be making 12 million a year.


The Angels are really going to regret this contract in a few years.

I actually don't think so. They're going to field a contender every year. If they win just one championship during the Pujols era it's an easy success in my mind. They're carving out a massive market share in the southern California market and are going to be raking in a disgusting amount of money that dwarfs the player payroll in their television deal.
 

Zymco

New member
Nov 14, 2008
4,540
0
Bellflower, California
Both of them taking front loaded contracts essentially allowed them to sign both. Obviously it looks silly considering the long term ramifications. But all three of their overpriced outfielders will be coming off the books in the next three seasons. In that sense you might think it makes some sense to compete now and budget later on. An approach of lets get the player we want now and pay for it later. With that being said, I wouldn't give a 10 year contract to anyone.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
Wes said:
Sam Banks said:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120103&content_id=26258766&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&partnerId=aw-7920552108229875874-996


The Angels may have spent nearly $330 million on Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson this offseason, but because both agreed to take less money up front, the initial blow to their payroll won't be nearly as tumultuous as one would've expected.

A source confirmed a CBSSports.com report stating that the Pujols deal is significantly backloaded and actually adds up to $240 million through his 10 years as a player, then pays him an extra $10 million as part of his 10-year personal service agreement.

Pujols is slated to be paid $12 million in 2012, then $16 million in 2013 -- which is what he made in each of the last four years of his previous contract with the Cardinals. The remaining eight years start at $23 million in 2014, then increase by $1 million each season -- ultimately paying him $30 million in 2021, his age-41 campaign.


I know it doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I just can't believe that Albert Pujols is only going to be making 12 million a year.


The Angels are really going to regret this contract in a few years.

I actually don't think so. They're going to field a contender every year. If they win just one championship during the Pujols era it's an easy success in my mind. They're carving out a massive market share in the southern California market and are going to be raking in a disgusting amount of money that dwarfs the player payroll in their television deal.




I say this, and I love the guy, and I love what he's done for St. Louis........but when the hammer drops and it comes out that he's on HGH, and he's about 5 years older than he actually claims, it isn't going to be a good situation. (both of which I believe to be truths)
 

RZimm11

New member
Feb 4, 2009
2,652
0
I don't know who it was, but when the deal was going on, I heard this on MLB network I believe.

By back-loading the contract, it is essentially like a fake no-trade clause. They don't want to give an actual no-trade clause to the player, but by making the contract so high in the later years, it will be basically impossible to trade him even if the team wanted to. Works out for both sides, team doesn't have to "give in" on the no-trade demand most players want, and the player gets his security later on.

Makes sense, so if his production starts to decline in the 6-10 years or so, nobody will want to pay $30 mil to him anyway.

And Sam, loving the Jericho sigs! My wife's in love with him and jumped off the couch when he showed up!
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
RZimm11 said:
I don't know who it was, but when the deal was going on, I heard this on MLB network I believe.

By back-loading the contract, it is essentially like a fake no-trade clause. They don't want to give an actual no-trade clause to the player, but by making the contract so high in the later years, it will be basically impossible to trade him even if the team wanted to. Works out for both sides, team doesn't have to "give in" on the no-trade demand most players want, and the player gets his security later on.

Makes sense, so if his production starts to decline in the 6-10 years or so, nobody will want to pay $30 mil to him anyway.

And Sam, loving the Jericho sigs! My wife's in love with him and jumped off the couch when he showed up!


Thanks man.

Digging the HHH and VS Ginters.




You need to participate in the 300+ page Pro Wrestling thread we have here......

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=82247&start=5025
 

P_Manning 18

New member
Aug 7, 2008
6,121
0
ThoseBackPages said:
ljw29 said:
Didnt the mets just finish paying Bobby B?


just STARTED in 2011 actually.


Beginning on July 1, 2011, the Mets will pay former player Bobby Bonilla $1.19 million a year for 25 years as part of a buyout of the $5.9 million the team owed him in 2000.

What a country.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
P_Manning 18 said:
ThoseBackPages said:
ljw29 said:
Didnt the mets just finish paying Bobby B?


just STARTED in 2011 actually.


Beginning on July 1, 2011, the Mets will pay former player Bobby Bonilla $1.19 million a year for 25 years as part of a buyout of the $5.9 million the team owed him in 2000.

What a country.


I just can't believe that. I could totally see it from the Yankees though, haha.


I thank Mr. Bonilla though. If it weren't for him getting hurt in 2001, Pujols more than likely wouldn't have made the big club out of Spring Training. Not many people remember that.
 

P_Manning 18

New member
Aug 7, 2008
6,121
0
Sam Banks said:
[quote="P_Manning 18":3fxsmju7]
ThoseBackPages said:
ljw29 said:
Didnt the mets just finish paying Bobby B?


just STARTED in 2011 actually.


Beginning on July 1, 2011, the Mets will pay former player Bobby Bonilla $1.19 million a year for 25 years as part of a buyout of the $5.9 million the team owed him in 2000.

What a country.


I just can't believe that. I could totally see it from the Yankees though, haha.


I thank Mr. Bonilla though. If it weren't for him getting hurt in 2001, Pujols more than likely wouldn't have made the big club out of Spring Training. Not many people remember that.[/quote:3fxsmju7]

And LaRussa kept looking for reasons to send him back down.... but he just kept on hitting. And the rest is history.
 

Leaf

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,855
0
Baseball is completely out of hand.
Things have to change.....
They have to.
BG
 

Members online

Top