Hot Stove 2013-2014

[jacksonianmarch]

Mike Trout is looking at a 10 yr $400 mil deal when he's a FA. Remember, he hits FA at age 26, 4 years from now.

[jacksonianmarch]

Hell, he might be the first player to get a 11+ year deal

[Palodios]

If Mike Trout continues his current pace, he'll end up being one of top 5 players to ever play the game. I doubt there are many teams who would mind paying 40 million a year for his 26-36 seasons. So much prime in there -- 12 years seems more realistic.

[Bellhorn04]

Mike Trout is looking at a 10 yr $400 mil deal when he's a FA. Remember, he hits FA at age 26, 4 years from now.

 

I'm not buying $400 million. This bubble of insanity is going to pop at some point, and I think it'll be before it gets there.

[mvp 78]

I'm not buying $400 million. This bubble of insanity is going to pop at some point, and I think it'll be before it gets there.

 

I've heard that before. "No one will get another ARod contract again!" There's just insane amounts of money in the game now.

[Spudboy]

Still, MLB is a business.

 

Generally, it is not smart business to go in debt to this extent unless there are tangible assurances that the investment will pay off.

 

As good as Trout me be, I doubt that he will ever return a $400. mil investment.

 

Who knows?

[Bellhorn04]

I've heard that before. "No one will get another ARod contract again!" There's just insane amounts of money in the game now.

 

Agreed. But that money ultimately comes from us, and it's a zero-sum game. Wealth is not being created, just changing hands. It can't keep spiraling upward indefinitely. There's always a pop and a crash somewhere along the line.

[mvp 78]

Still, MLB is a business.

 

Generally, it is not smart business to go in debt to this extent unless there are tangible assurances that the investment will pay off.

 

As good as Trout me be, I doubt that he will ever return a $400. mil investment.

 

Who knows?

The owners aren't really in debt though. These guys are flushed with Scrooge McDuck amounts of cash. I don't see any crash coming before Trout gets a new deal.

[mvp 78]

Agreed. But that money ultimately comes from us, and it's a zero-sum game. Wealth is not being created, just changing hands. It can't keep spiraling upward indefinitely. There's always a pop and a crash somewhere along the line.

Well, owners keep getting the public to pay for new stadiums and people keep paying their cable bill. People have been bitching about player contracts ever since Yaz's big deal. The money has just skyrocketed ever since and hasn't slowed down.

[User Name]

I'm willing to bet a steak dinner right now that Trout won't sniff 400 mill from the Angels or the open market. I agree with Bellhorn, the bubble will pop eventually.

[Palodios]

Pujols was the best player in the game.... At 1b and 32 years old. He got 240 million. Trout is the best player, will spend the contract at cf and will only be 26 at free agency. Those prime years are key to him getting higher number of contract years. Plus, he won't be stuck to AL bidders like Pujols and Cabrera would be for DH duties at 42 and 43 years old.

[mvp 78]

I'm willing to bet a steak dinner right now that Trout won't sniff 400 mill from the Angels or the open market. I agree with Bellhorn, the bubble will pop eventually.

 

There's been too many steak dinner bet in these parts mister. His deal will easily be $325M+ unless he suffers some catastrophic injury in the next two years. 400 might be pushing it, but he'll sign for more than Miggy just did.

[User Name]

Pujols was the best player in the game.... At 1b and 32 years old. He got 240 million. Trout is the best player, will spend the contract at cf and will only be 26 at free agency. Those prime years are key to him getting higher number of contract years. Plus, he won't be stuck to AL bidders like Pujols and Cabrera would be for DH duties at 42 and 43 years old.

 

He'll get 10 years, but not at 40 per.

[Palodios]

He'll get 10 years, but not at 40 per.

 

Alex Rodriguez's first contract is the best comparison here, because he was a top tier player at a premier position. He got 10/252 in 2000 at age 25. 2000 -> 2016, using the average rate of inflation, we're looking at 360 million dollars. Baseball inflation is arguably much higher than national inflation, especially with so many teams locking up their stars.

 

Why is the dumb owner rule so strong for a guy like Max Scherzer, but not so significant for a guy with Babe Ruth/Michael Jordan/ type potential?

[Station 13]

Tommy Johns claims another, David Hernandez tears his elbow.

[rjortiz]

The bubble has to burst at some point. It always does.

 

The Phillies got around the same total as comparable teams, which suggests the bubble is peaking. There has to be some uncertainty with the Astros being blacked out in 60% of Houston because of a carriage fee dispute. Forbes claimed that CSN Houston hasn't even been able to deliver full payment for the first year of the contract. The Dodgers are still involved in a dispute, and the Padres just settled theirs.

 

Many analysts have predicted that the bubble will finally pop when consumers refuse to pay higher cable bills. Without those customers, they'll have a hard time avoiding losses on those mega contracts. Other regional sports networks will follow in an inability to pay the terms of their contracts, and some teams that took an equity stake into those networks are going to face huge losses. The teams that haven't signed TV contracts yet will get substantially lower deals than originally expected. I'll bet a new TV contract was at least a partial factor behind some huge contracts.

 

It actually seems the Red Sox have avoided getting involved in this bubble. No ridiculous contracts so far. Kudos to them if they have recognized the bubble. However, there doesn't seem to be a great track record of businesses recognizing a bubble, and adapting their strategies. Most likely there will be some teams that will continue to throw huge money around, while hoping they've finally found the bubble that never pops. Haha, I'll bet we'll be forced to bailout MLB, sports networks, and satellite providers as "Too Big to Fail."

 

Forgot to add the possibility of a la carte television, whether it comes from DirectTV or by legislation. If that happens, then it will be a total disaster for MLB.

Edited March 28, 2014 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

I'm willing to bet a steak dinner right now that Trout won't sniff 400 mill from the Angels or the open market. I agree with Bellhorn, the bubble will pop eventually.

 

Absolutely agree with this. How many of these young stars have actually reached free agency? He'll get a huge deal, but not $400 million.

[User Name]

Alex Rodriguez's first contract is the best comparison here, because he was a top tier player at a premier position. He got 10/252 in 2000 at age 25. 2000 -> 2016, using the average rate of inflation, we're looking at 360 million dollars. Baseball inflation is arguably much higher than national inflation, especially with so many teams locking up their stars.

 

Why is the dumb owner rule so strong for a guy like Max Scherzer, but not so significant for a guy with Babe Ruth/Michael Jordan/ type potential?

 

This is failthought. Scherzer would not be tearing down every salary record in the history of organized sports. Trout is probably going to get around 350 million, and he may just be worth it. However, 350 million is certainly not 400 millon, which was my argument. I don't even get when/how the comparison applies.

[Northern Star]

Words fail me on how f***ing stupid the Tigers are. They learned nothing from the ridiculous deal they gave Prince and just went and did something even more stupid. Don't they have any clue about how most players break down after 35? Why tie so much money into a fading player? Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

 

As a working stiff these deals made me angry - not so much the dollars as the guaranteed nature of them. But now I just sit back and lol and watch the disasters unfold.

[rjortiz]

Alex Rodriguez's first contract is the best comparison here, because he was a top tier player at a premier position. He got 10/252 in 2000 at age 25. 2000 -> 2016, using the average rate of inflation, we're looking at 360 million dollars. Baseball inflation is arguably much higher than national inflation, especially with so many teams locking up their stars.

 

Why is the dumb owner rule so strong for a guy like Max Scherzer, but not so significant for a guy with Babe Ruth/Michael Jordan/ type potential?

 

The exact same reason why Scherzer was not applicable to Verlander, Hernandez, and Kershaw. Rodriguez was a free agent. Trout will most likely sign with some arbitration years left on his contract. There's a price that young players are paying to avoid risk multiple years from free agency, and it will bring Trout's bottom line down.

[rjortiz]

Words fail me on how f***ing stupid the Tigers are. They learned nothing from the ridiculous deal they gave Prince and just went and did something even more stupid. Don't they have any clue about how most players break down after 35? Why tie so much money into a fading player? Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

 

As a working stiff these deals made me angry - not so much the dollars as the guaranteed nature of them. But now I just sit back and lol and watch the disasters unfold.

 

Dave Cameron pointed out that the Tigers owner is 84, and that we should really evaluate the deal as the Tigers signing Cabrera through Ilitch's age-93 season. It's a horrible deal, but I don't think Ilitch is too worried about Cabrera 10 years from now.

[User Name]

The exact same reason why Scherzer was not applicable to Verlander, Hernandez, and Kershaw. Rodriguez was a free agent. Trout will most likely sign with some arbitration years left on his contract. There's a price that young players are paying to avoid risk multiple years from free agency, and it will bring Trout's bottom line down.

 

Even if he did sign in FA (although your point regarding an extension, which will most likely happen, is fair) it's almost impossible he'll sign a deal above 10 years and an AAV of around 40 million.

[seabeachfred]

The bubble has to burst at some point. It always does.

 

Bell---as long as that TV money keeps flowing like water into the coffers of Major League teams those clubs who want to spend to win will continue to do so and what makes this ominous are those who do not spend. It could put the latter group into deep do-do unless their scouting and development staff does an A+ job of getting good young talent and processing them into sound Major League players.

[seabeachfred]

Pujols was the best player in the game.... At 1b and 32 years old. He got 240 million. Trout is the best player, will spend the contract at cf and will only be 26 at free agency. Those prime years are key to him getting higher number of contract years. Plus, he won't be stuck to AL bidders like Pujols and Cabrera would be for DH duties at 42 and 43 years old.

 

I don't know if the bubble will burst or not----I just alluded to the vast amounts of TV money that had enriched the coffers of the owners. I will say this, though. If it reaches the heights of $400 million for Trout, the Angels had better be the ones to pay it because if they let this guy get away their fan base will disappear in droves. There's already a lot of discontent in Anaheim and cancellations of season tickets up the gazoo. Then, again, if they won the WS in one of these coming years before Trout reaches FA they might get a reprieve.

[seabeachfred]

Words fail me on how f***ing stupid the Tigers are. They learned nothing from the ridiculous deal they gave Prince and just went and did something even more stupid. Don't they have any clue about how most players break down after 35? Why tie so much money into a fading player? Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

 

As a working stiff these deals made me angry - not so much the dollars as the guaranteed nature of them. But now I just sit back and lol and watch the disasters unfold.

 

Because there are teams called the Yankees and the Dodgers who would sell their collective souls to the devil for a chance to win a title.

[Northern Star]

Because there are teams called the Yankees and the Dodgers who would sell their collective souls to the devil for a chance to win a title.

 

Except there's pretty good statistical evidence that younger and cheaper is the way to go. Most of these teams have a limit to the depth of their pockets - why tie up so much loot in just one player when you need much more than one guy to get you to a title shot.

[rjortiz]

Except there's pretty good statistical evidence that younger and cheaper is the way to go. Most of these teams have a limit to the depth of their pockets - why tie up so much loot in just one player when you need much more than one guy to get you to a title shot.

 

The Dodgers and Yankees (and the Red Sox) are able to tie up a lot of loot to many different players. The dichotomy between spend big or go young is only relevant to small market teams. Big market teams can choose either one, or both at the same time if they want.

[rjortiz]

Because there are teams called the Yankees and the Dodgers who would sell their collective souls to the devil for a chance to win a title.

 

Yankees passed on a similar deal for Robinson Cano. No one was going to a 33 year old 1B a potential 10/308 contract. This might go down as the worst contract in MLB history, especially if he's able to trigger one of those vesting options.

[East Bay Evans]

Mike Trout getting for a six-year, $144.5 million contract extension. Average annual value being $24 million.

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/28/report-angels-and-mike-trout-close-to-agreement-on-contract-extension/

[User Name]

Soooo......no 400 mill?