Originally Posted by
moonslav59
I agree, the Porcello signing was not "long term", but my point was about how much of the contract is within prime or just barely post prime.
I was "not for" the Price signing, but I realized that FA gambles have to be made in order to save the farm. Signing mid level free agents to 2-4 year deals is less risky, but the impact has less of a chance at helping as well. The 2013 championship showed that theory can work, but it's still hard to justify the Vic and Dempster signings.
Stanton is a once in a generation type player. He is signed from ages 28-37. To me, that is only maybe 2 seasons past prime, 2 seasons barely post prime, and 6 in prime. At $25M a year against the luxury tax, I could envision him giving us 4-6 $30M+ value seasons and maybe even a couple $40M+ value seasons. That would more than make up for his post prime seasons. My biggest concern is his injury history, not a flop. The other downside to Stanton is that not only are we risking a decline from Stanton, and taking up $25M on the luxury tax for 10 years, but we'd lose the rest of our current farm top prospects. I am not "for" trading for Stanton at any cost, but I think we need to look into it.
Betts will be 25 next season. If we extended him this winter to 10 years, we'd have him from ages 25 to 34. Virtually every season would be in prime or 8 in prime and two is barely post-prime years. This is way different than any 8-10 year FA deal ever signed. Way different.
I'm not saying both of these deals don't have a high risk, but I'd look into both, especially Betts. In my opinion, Betts will not sign this winter after a "bad year", although maybe he will be thinking "what if,..." and go for the security.
Who knows. I'd kick the tires on both.