I don't think it's anything like that. A contract is just part of a larger payroll. The goal is to fit as many wins as possible under that payroll. Take a player signed for $82M over 5 years. Say you project him at around 3, 2.5, 2, 1, 0.5 over the next 5 years:
backloaded at 7, 15, 20, 20, 20 you're paying the following per WAR:
year 1 = 2.333
year 2 = 6
year 3 = 10
year 4 = 20
year 5 = 40
say you do the reverse and frontload it
year 1 = 6.666
year 2 = 8
year 3 = 10
year 4 = 15
year 5 = 14
With the frontloaded contract you've avoided any albatross seasons where the projected production relative to salary will make it difficult to accrue enough WAR to make the potseason. The years where he's paid 20M, he provides production enough to warrant it. When the production dips, so does the financial burden, so you have the cash to replace his wins. It's very difficult for a mid-tier team to compete in years where they're paying 20M for near replacement level production.
And you might be able to get out of the frontloaded contract:
total contract = 9M/WAR
out after year 2 = 7.3M/WAR (likely only possible if frontloaded)
out after year 3 = 8M/WAR (likely only possible if frontloaded)
For a player, it makes sense to get as much money as possible up front (the leon's example applies to them). They might even take less money overall for a frontloaded deal. That would make it a no-brainer if the team has enough money under the budget in year one to frontload.