Agree, this seems like a terrible deal. When I first heard it rumored, I couldn't believe it, and now that it's happened, I'm floored.
Seems when you lock someone up longterm, well prior to their free agency window, the trade off is as follows-- team offers the player more years than is norm for a young player... player then takes slightly less than he would have been worth had he hit free agency in trade for the financial security of a longer deal.
The Giants locked Bumgarner up to a really nice deal that goes into his first years of free agent eligibility. I also remember the Brewers doing similar for Braun a few years ago. This Stanton deal makes no sense because they're paying him at the upper range of his potential free agent value (unless they expect he'll become a .340 hitter to go along with his power by the time he hits free agency), and are guaranteeing more years than anyone would have ever considered... not to mention giving him no trade and opt out clauses.
All said this is a head scratcher, but much of what the Marlins have done during their existance makes little sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by familytoad
Alex, I agree I cannot see how this would work out for either the Marlins or Giancarlo ....who seems like a good guy, and he's obviously talented, but we've seen a hundred contracts with inflated value go wrong, and essentially none that have paid off.
|
The only mega deal (mega at time of signed, but not mega by the time it was up) I can remember that more than paid off (controversy aside) is Barry Bonds when he signed the biggest contract ever at I think 7 years and $42M prior to the 1993 season. His production over the course of the deal was amazing, and it segued into a couple relatively affordable extensions.