Far too many times, Ive described free agency as “paying players in their 30s for what they did in their 20s for some other team.” I stand by that, and I think its primary purpose is PR. It sends a message to fans that money will not be a factor. The reality too often is ironic, in that it makes money a factor negatively.
There are very few sure things in free agency, and even they often want contracts long enough to surpass the player’s own usefulness. Does anyone think Juan Soto is going to be useful in 2040? I think that’s why many teams like to backload these deals. Less money upfront gives them the ability to surround the superstar talent with better players while he is still at the top of his game. The later expensive years when said star is much less, might as well pay HIM more because the team is less likely to go anywhere anyway. And if you get a title or two early on, it was worth it. But if not, you have probably wasted 10-15 seasons. (A bit harsh, since I’m only considering a title as a successful season.).
That’s why I prefer the extensions to younger players - far less crippling. Campbell’s AAV is utility infielder money. And while he might have a few years of high-paid minor league activity (in theory), he’s probably only a financial problem for 2-3 years max, and not even a steep one. By the time he starts making $10-12 mill or more, that could easily be setup reliever money. The same cannot be said about Soto, or even Bregman or Alonso and their much shorter deals…