Quote:
Originally Posted by jd1020
You don't seriously believe teams back load contracts to invest the money saved, do you?
|
A) In fact, they do. If only via a shell game, they most assuredly do. When Bill DeWitt and crew only spend $100 million of their dollars on the Cardinals, instead of $110, they're leaving that extra $10 million somewhere else. Now some of that could be baseball investments (more money in latin scouting, more money in the draft pool; both of which are sources for low-cost talent). Even more of that is very likely in 'conventional' non-baseball investments.
But either way, the money doesn't vanish; it is otherwise used. When you're talking about money of that scale, it isn't difficult at all to make quite a bit more off of it, even in conservative investment vehicles. That money makes ol' Bill DeWitt an even wealthier man and all the more willing to eat a few $$ come payroll time.
B) Besides, now you're arguing about the intelligence of how the money saved is
spent; which is a different story entirely. How the money is eventually spent or otherwise invested is completely different from how a contract should be structured from an economic standpoint. Even if DeWitt turns around and spends that $10 million on hookers and blow, the
contract itself was still far more economically sound than front-loading it.
Oh, and getting beyond
all that, you continue to ignore the inflationary nature of baseball salaries.
There are times when someone can cite a position as being 'an opinion' and thus capable of some gray area or reasonable disagreement. This, however, is not one of those time. From any logical economic perspective, it never EVER makes sense to front-load a contract absent a salary cap.
You are just flat wrong.