I totally get that argument. I've made it myself often.
Certainly Stanton and/or Betts could flop, get injured or give us just 1-3 years of prodution and then be an albatross for 7-8 years, but my point here is that the risk is significantly less for Stanton and Betts.
Stanton:
$25M a year is less than the $31M Price got.
Most of the biggest FA signings were 30-33 year olds. Price was 30-31 for his first season. He'll be 36-37 his last season. Stanton is 27. That's 3 years more in prime than Price, and his final year would be the same age as Price's final year (36). That is a dramatic shift in in-prime percentage of his deal.
I know the risk is there for Stanton to decline, and that is a contributing factor in making a final decision, but to me,m the biggest downside of Stanton is not the risk of him falling short of lofty expectations, but the fact that he'd eat up $25M on the budget AND cost us the rest of our already depleted farm.
Betts:
Comparing a Betts extension to a 30-33 year old FA signing is apples to oranges. A better comp would be to extensions given by Tampa Bay to their young stars + 3 years.
Betts is 24. Extending him 10 years would be from ages 25 to 34. To me, age 34 is NOT much post-prime.
Sure, the risk of unmet expectations is real, but I've never seen a player like Betts in my life. The kid moved to the OF and became an instant GG defender in CF then RF. He's having a "down year", but he's still right up their in WAR.
Kick the tires. Don't go way overboard, but both of these two are very very special players...much more "special" than Price was at the time- someone I said was "about the best FA SP'er to come on the open market in a decade".