Are long term, big money contracts worth it?

[StephenCurry30]

Do you guys think that giving an absurd amount of money to a guy for an absurd amount of years is worth it? It seems like for whatever reason, this never works out.. Sure you might get a few good years, but the end of these contracts is killer. Or in some cases, the whole contract is a killer (Ellsbury, Pujols, Crawford, Vernon Wells).

 

Newest guy who got a huge deal is Jason Heyward (8 years $184 million) in year 1 of the deal, he is hitting .226, with no power (1 home run, .293 slg% and .617 OPS). This just reminds me of the other colossal deals that have failed. I am a big fan of the J-Hey kid and think he has to improve some, and to be fair, he is still an outstanding outfielder.

 

But this begs the questions, are you for or against these lucrative long term deals. if you had the chance to sign, say Mike Trout for 10 years 320 million, would you?

 

I am really starting to think its better/smarter to build within and make small level free agent signings, like Napoli/Koji level signings.. or low risk high reward signings (Ortiz/Andrew Miller). these deals just KILL you. We had to give up one of the best 1B in baseball just to get rid of the cancerous contract of Carl Crawford.. Hopefully David Price doesn't make this another name in the list of failed long term deals.

[mvp 78]

Depends on the player. It was well worth it for Manny. It remains to be seen if it will be worth it for Price.

 

If I was a GM and Trout or Harper were on the market, I'd make room on my payroll for them. An every day player like that has a ton of marketing potential.

 

Ask a Rangers fan and see if they thought having ARod around was a good idea.

[Slasher9]

Manny is the only LTC / High AAV guy i can think of that was actually "worth it" over the course of contract.....

most of the time you just have a shell of the player for most of the contract years.

[StephenCurry30]

Manny was worth it, but for every Manny it seems like there is 10 Pablo Sandovals, Prince Fielders,Vernon Wells, Barry Zitos.. etc, etc.

 

These bad contracts just don't result in you having a s***** player, it results in the s***** player blocking a good player. Imagine if Pablo blocked Travis Shaw this year.. Like Prince Fielder is blocking Joey Gallo.

[User Name]

Pujols' firsts contract, Matt Holliday has been a sound investment for the Cards, Cabrera's pre-extension contract was great (extension just kicked in), Beltre's contract was a pretty big commitment that has panned out great, Fat Sabbath's pre-extension contract was great too. The problem is always paying for player's decline years, with Beltre being the notable exception.

[StephenCurry30]

Pujols was also very young when he got his contract, I feel like it would be different if these guys were that age when they hit free agency. For example, if Xander hit FA and got 6 years 120 million right now.. I think that would be okay, luckily we don't have to commit that money at the moment, but a lot of guys hit Fa around age 28-30, and get big money. One thing I've noticed is a lot of the guys who rely on speed don't pan out when they sign for big money.. Chone Figgins, Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury being the poster boys.

 

Also don't understand teams freaking out and overpaying random role player level players. Guys like Gary Matthews Jr for example, why on earth would a team think he is worth 10 million a year?

[StephenCurry30]

And what do you do with guys who are being payed an ass load of money but are so awful and killing the team and aren't tradable. For example, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder and Carl Crawford. All three of these guys suck and are stealing AB's from young players

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

I believe Mussina was worth it, and so was Arod prior to the extension.

 

When Harper comes on the market he will only be 26 which is pretty unique for a free agent. Usually you are signing a free agent for what they have done, not what they will do. Harper on the other hand will just be entering his prime.

[harmony]

The two teams I follow -- Seattle and Boston -- had widely contrasting offseason with the Mariners making frequent precision moves while the Red Sox dished out money and highly regarded prospects to rein in the big names and David Price and Craig Kimbrel (after spending big on Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval and Rick Porcello in the previous 12 months).

 

Perhaps the moves have given the Red Sox an edge with the league's best record to date, a game and a half ahead of the Mariners (not dissimilar to the two-game margin the Sox held over the M's at the close of the 2015 season). Cool Standings give the Red Sox a league-best 91.7 percent chance of advancing to the postseason while the Mariners are a distant third at 65.0 percent.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx

 

The Mariners already had the hefty long-term contracts of Robinson Cano, Felix Hernandez, Kyle Seager and Nelson Cruz but shed the $9 million salary of Mark Trumbo while committing no more than $8 million each to new acquisitions Adam Lind, Wade Miley, Joaquin Benoit, Steve Cishek, Leonys Martin, Chris Iannetta, Nori Aoki and Dae Ho Lee. None of the new additions requires a long-term commitment but the flip side is that few remain under team control for more than a year or two.

 

On some levels the Red Sox and Mariners are similar teams this season but the Sox have a far brighter long-term prognosis based on their youth and a healthy farm system, qualities that the aging Mariners sorely lack. Seattle must win now because the window is likely closing ... again.

[Maxbialystock]

The Yankees do them all the time and still manage to keep winning. I generally prefer not to do them, but agree there are exceptions. Manny was certainly one. ARod in 2004 might have been one, but he went to the Yankees and the Sox won the WS that year without him--also in 2007 and 2013. Lester probably would have been one. AGon should have been, but wasn't a good fit in Boston.

[sk7326]

Short answer for UFAs ... almost always no.

 

HOWEVER ... you have to see what the decline is, and whether you can live with it, and what phase your team is in.

 

To use a beat to death example. I am very certain the 6 year deal the Cubs signed Lester to will be a loser at the end, in that Jon Lester will not be a 25 million dollar pitcher by the time he is 37 or whatever. However, he will justify his salary for a little while ... and then you take the plunge (using your scouts and medical people) that a guy with his mechanics and history of durability will provide enough value and a mid-rotation guy that you don't look at his salary and start to tear up. That might end up being a net loss $$/win-wise, but there is enough out-front output for you and your team to be able to live with the back end.

[southpaw777]

Ive mentioned on another forum about locking up Xander Bogaerts on a 12 year 200M deal, butying out arb years amd locking him up til hes 36.

Betts as well, but I take care of Xander first since hes probably the better all around player and probably will be.

I know he has BorASS for his agent, but something tells me if he was offered a deal like that he would sign it.

Thoughts on this or any other player?

[a700hitter]

i would do it for both of them in a heart beat.

[mvp 78]

i would do it for both of them in a heart beat.

 

Without a doubt.

[southpaw777]

If the Sox resigned Lester, even at 25m per, they would have got a bargain IMO. Why?

Because in his 6 years under control he was far and above worth much more than what he was paid. If you look at it like that, and it would have to be your own guy, then Lester wouldve been a great deal for the Sox.

Manny was well worth it.

Not too many are worth it if you didnt draft them. If you draft them and get great production the first six years, and you can afford it. then that team had better offer a solid deal IMO. The Lester offer was a friggin joke, and IMO, they should have just not offered anything.

[mvp 78]

Short answer as always is "it depends."

[Bellhorn04]

Tough call. The Sox locked up Pedroia on a genuinely team-friendly deal, and as soon as he starts breaking down people are freaking out about it and wanting him traded.

 

There's virtually no way to win on long-term contracts any more. The risk factor will always be huge.

[Bellhorn04]

It seems like a good idea now because these guys are kicking ass, young and healthy. But they will break down eventually too.

[Bellhorn04]

I would think more in terms of a 6 or 7 year offer. The extra appeal to the player is that they could still hit free agency in prime years.

[Kimmi]

I love both players and hope that they are both with the Sox past their control years, but I just can't fathom a 12 year deal.

 

So for me, that would be a 'no'. I would try to lock them both up with shorter extensions, , going with a higher AAV. With the possibility that neither one would accept a deal locking them up now for fewer years, the best plan continues to be to develop the farm and hope that the next wave of players is ready or nearly ready when the current wave leaves.

 

That said, I would rather give a 12 year deal to one of our young arb players than sign a free agent to 8 year deal.

[Kimmi]

I would think more in terms of a 6 or 7 year offer. The extra appeal to the player is that they could still hit free agency in prime years.

 

Agree with your posts Bell.

[Kimmi]

I am not a fan of long term contracts, and by long term, I mean anything longer than 4 years. I know it's sometimes a necessary evil, and there are a select few who are worth breaking the bank for. Trout would be one of them if we were in need of an outfielder, which we aren't.

 

It is always better to build from within and fill the holes with smaller free agent signings or trades. It always begins with a strong farm.

[Spudboy]

I'm with Kimmi and Bell.

 

I would add that in any business it is not a good idea to make a long term investment in something that will be declining in value.

 

There are things that you can make such investments in. Say, for example, you run a company that manufactures semiconductors. Well, a large investment in a deionized water system, a Liquid N2 system, and air scrubbers will pay for themselves.

 

A shortstop and a speedy outfielder are likely to wear out and perform to a lesser standard. Not a good idea.

[cp176]

Kind of like buying a car. You want that beemer you won't be paying something less. Out of the gate. depreciation begins.

[moonslav59]

On the old BDC site, I did an analysis of all the biggest FA signings over the last several years. It wasn't pretty.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

On the old BDC site, I did an analysis of all the biggest FA signings over the last several years. It wasn't pretty.

 

Careful, UN? will attack you for bringing up that old site that shall not be named.

 

☺

[Youk Of The Nation]

Careful, UN? will attack you for bringing up that old site that shall not be named.

 

☺

 

This is obviously not the same thing, please don't try to start arguments. They happen enough on their own, we don't need prompting.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

This is obviously not the same thing, please don't try to start arguments. They happen enough on their own, we don't need prompting.

 

I was teasing, it was a joke.

[S5Dewey]

Forgive me, but I keep reminding myself that baseball is first and foremost a business. We fans would like to think otherwise but at the end of the day to the owners it's all about the money.

 

As to whether it's worth it to sign these players to a long term contract, one would think it must be worth it in a financial sense or they wouldn't continue to do it. These guys didn't get rich by making bad investments or by making investments without a cost/benefit analysis.

 

Of course, I think the whole salary thing is skewed to begin with when entertainers of any kind are making more money than someone would if they discovered a foolproof cure for cancer,

[southpaw777]

YOTN,

My thread "Locking up the future" was specifically about Sox young players and locking them up. There was no need to put it in a thread that is meant for overblown FA deals around MLB...

I Wanted to talk about guys like Betts, bogey, vaz, swihart. moncada..the RED SOX PROSPECTS that are making a name for themselves in Boston and the future ones in my thread. Not friggin pujols, Harper, ARod and Manny. Thats what THIS thread is for.

Is it remotely related? Maybe a little. But the main context is about young Sox players that could be our future and securing that future, not 32 yo players making 30m per and whos contract was good or bad...

I understand the whole "clutter" thing and agree, but this, IMHO, is a bit much....

Edited June 1, 2016 by southpaw777