What exactly are the $50 million in deferrals this off-season. I'm not saying they don't have them but what are they? There's no question Max was underpaid on a yearly basis the seasons he pitched for the Nats. As was pointed out by Natsinpwc the deferrals are money in the owners pockets at the time that they made money on. It's not really fair to say we have to pay the deferrals so we can't sign somebody.
Stras 24, Max 15, Corbin 10. Max gets 15 a year through 2027, Stras gets 24 through 2026, then 27+ interest from 2027 to 2029.
Brad Hand and Rafael Soriano fall off this year.
The deferrals come directly out of team cash flow, so they absolutely impact the ability to spend next year. They're also not "money in the pocket" when their intent is to prevent negative cash flows, as was likely the case ten years ago. Wasn't like the team had the money in the bank, it just prevented them from having to borrow. Additionally, both Strasburg contracts had interest payments included, meaning they had to add back interest for paying 1/3rd of his salary after the contract ended, so even if they did invest it all the investment gains would go back to deferral payments.
Deferrals aren't a historic item either. Brad Hand has over 60% of his contract deferred before the '21 season. One reason why they were able to get Riley Adams for him was the Nats picking up all of Hand's deferrals. Without that, no chance the Blue Jays make the trade.
Every large contract they've ever done has had deferrals, Werth's came during the contract, but the reason they rushed to tank and salary dump in mid '21 was they knew a large bill was coming, and they'd have to take years off of competing in order to cover the payments.
Boras really knew how to work the old man when it came to these things, I get really concerned about what he could do to Mini Me if the team actually tries to spend. Another $100 million for deferrals just to bring in Pete Alonso or Tyler O'Neill would just be another guarantee of more tank years, and they've already tanked half the seasons they've owned the team.
I work in corporate finance, and can assure you no sensible business would do this. Shareholders would scream at the huge liability cutting into company value. Moreover, it requires spending cash without offsetting revenue. No one's going to Nats Park now to see Max, so there's no business benefit to the cash spent on him now, or over the next three years. But the Lerners have questionable ethics and are running a family business as cheaply as they can, and don't have to answer to shareholders.
