Division Opponents in 2014-2015 Offseason

[Edgy MD]

Giancarlo Stanton, facial fractures and all, is the subject of much rumoring in the last 24 hours or so, with regard to a possible nine-year extension in the neighborhood of $300 million or more. I've got a Fox Sports report right here putting the package at $320 million over 12 years, which is a lot, you know, for a guy who wears a mass transit hat for a living.

Twelve years!!

Marlins GM Whathisface has denied that the two sides are close. Stanton has expressed public pissedoffedness in the past over his team's propensity to trade off his more highly paid teammates, sometimes all on the same day.

Does he think things will be different this time?! I don't know!



Two scary scenarios for a fan --- that your team has a player that good and won't lock him up, and that your team has a player that good and does lock him up, at the market rate.

[MFS62]

I would be very hesitant to offer any kind of long term deal to someone who has yet to prove there won't be (long term) effects from that beaning.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

The Braves seemingly had the 2B spot filled after they promoted Tommy LaStella and played him virtually every day after pulling the plus on the disaster that was Dan Uggla.
But the Braves today traded LaStella to the Cubs (who seemingly have middle IF prospects coming out of their ears) in exchange for pitcher Arodys Vizcaino. Vizciano had previously been a Braves' prospect until they dealt him to Chicago for Paul Maholm in mid-2012. After the trade Vizciano missed all of 2013 to injuries and this year relieved in just five games for the Cubs after spending most of the year in the minors.
There was also some money that changed hands - not cash money but 'international trade slot money' that was swapped (in the Braves favor). IOW, Atlanta gained some ceiling for future international signings while Chicago gave up some.

[Lefty Specialist]

Hard to figure that trade for the Cubs unless a lot more dominoes are falling.

[Frayed Knot]

Hey man ... Heyman, and others, are reporting that the Marlins/Stanton deal is all set to happen at 13/$325

Be hard to find a deal for 10 years or longer that worked out for the club in the long run.
- Jeter's, signed around age 27, did.
- ARod played well enough for most of his original deal, but it was too high in money at the time (essentially the same per/year terms as this one but signed 14 years ago when finances aren't what they are today).
- Tulowitski was similarly young like ARod & Stanton but has been too injured so far
- and many of the other decade-long deals were signed to guys too old: Pujols, Cano, ARod V 2.0, Votto, Cabrera where it certainly looks like the club will regret them before too long.

Stanton just turned 25 last week.

[Guest sharpie]

Jason Heyward and Jerome Walden to the Cards for Shelby Miller and minor leaguer Tyrrell Jenkins. Looks like a great trade for St. Louis.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11892064/atlanta-braves-trade-jason-heyward-jordan-walden-st-louis-cardinals-shelby-miller-tyrell-jenkins

[TransMonk]

What are the odds that Stanton ends this contract as a Marlin? I'm guessing somewhere between "slim" and "none".

[Edgy MD]

Hard to say where we'll be when we find out. I'll be 60 when that contract is completed.

[TransMonk]

I thought the same when they signed Reyes. It only took one year for them to move on from him.

I hope I'm wrong...the Marlins could use a long-term hero. But that is a lot of dough.

[Frayed Knot]

Except that in this case Stanton has himself a complete N-T clause and the opt-out after Year #6 of the deal is apparently for the player only -- so while there's always the chance that he won't finish this entire contract with the Fishies in Miami, it can't end just on a change of heart by Loria and/or Marlin mgmt.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Love those mid-deal opt-outs-- they completely forestall any chance that the team can ever get a year of the player's service at below-market rates.

[Edgy MD]

Jayson Werth rendered in tinned fish.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

You don't want to know how much Re2pect the New York Canstruction folk gave to a certain Captain.

[Frayed Knot]

Braves to meet with Jon Lester

[Frayed Knot]

Adam LaRoche [35 y/o; .259/.362/.455 in 2014] may be swapping NL East locations as the Marlins appear to be targeting him as their first upgrade in the Stanton-contract era.
33 y/o Garret Jones [.246/.309/.411] did most of the heavy lifting at 1B for Miami this past year.

[Frayed Knot]

Just a bit of backloading (more like middle-loading) on Stanton's deal

2015:$6.5M,
2016:$9M,
2017:$14.5M
2018:$25M
2019:$26M
2020:$26M
2021:$29M
2022:$29M
2023:$32M
2024:$32M
2025:$32M
2026:$29M
2027:$25M
2028:$25M club option ($10M buyout)

[Ceetar]

The back 10 is very like A-Rod's except for Stanton being 3 years older.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: The back 10 is very like A-Rod's except for Stanton being 3 years older.

Yeah, except that this contract was done some 13 years later (really more like 16 years since we're talking about the back ten) so you need to factor in the inflation over that time.
And besides, it wasn't the original 10-year contract w/ARod that was the problem, it was the second 10-year deal at which point ARod was some seven years older at the time of the signing.

[Edgy MD]

Hasn't been a lot of wage inflation in the last 10 years, Great Recession and all.

[Frayed Knot]

Inflation in baseball seems to move in fits and starts, sometimes related to the economic world in general but at other times seemingly independent of it.
My overall point was that when ARod signed that first deal w/Texas it was paying him ~$25/yr at a time when no one else was getting close to that (I think Manny at $20/per was the leader in the clubhouse at the time) and it took almost all of the first seven years of that deal for the top market to catch up to him to a point where it made opting-out a reasonable gamble; nice timing on Boras's part. Stanton's deal at its signing, though huge in aggregate, is only at a per/yr par with a number of current players rather than 20-some percent ahead of the pack the way Rodriguez's was.
So while Ceetar's right in that the raw numbers of years 4-13 look a lot like ARod's initial deal, in a way they're not the same because he's starting out running more or less even with the front of the pack rather than a lap ahead of everyone.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Stanton is an outstanding player, to be sure. But am I alone in thinking that a 13-year deal to a guy who hasn't even won an MVP is a bit nuts?

Edited November 21, 2014 by Guest

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

It's insane. I think if you're lucky enough to get a player like Stanton when he's young, take the gift of his cheapness then trade him. I saw at least one analysis that suggested based on career trends, relative $, inflation etc., it's actually a good deal for the team but that's based on some awfully huge assumptions.

[Edgy MD]

I think a 13-year deal to anybody may be nuts, and in particular a 13-year deal to somebody who finished the season with his face smashed. But the MVP standard seems a little arbitrary.

Meanwhile, I spoke too soon, or more accurately, I spoke too broadly. The drag on salary growth is more over the last five years than the last 10.

Average MLB Salary, 2005-2014
2014 $3,825,266
2013 $3,632,706
2012 $3,438,241
2011 $2,219,777
2010 $3,278,359
2009 $3,260,059
2008 $3,131,041
2007 $2,926,342
2006 $1,937,004
2005 $1,825,756

I slapped this together, but "1" represents 2005 and "10" represents 2014. Data certainly demonstrates the fits-and-starts phenomenon. We get one big start and one big fit.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I think a 13-year deal to anybody may be nuts, and in particular a 13-year deal to somebody who finished the season with his face smashed. But the MVP standard seems a little arbitrary.

I understand what you are saying about the awards, especially ones voted on by writers. But what I was getting at was that the huge contracts of the past were handed to guys who had amassed considerable accomplishments -- Pujols, and even SkankRod. Stanton is an extraordinary masher, but do you put him at those levels yet?

The idea of the Marlins, which struggle to attract fans even in a beautiful new park, devoting $30 million a year to one player just seems odd, especially given the team's history.

[Edgy MD]

I think Stanton has had considerable accomplishments, yeah. Pujols, for instance, had seven historical years to start off his career, but had only won one MVP because the award was Barry Bonds' to lose.

Jimmie Foxx was an astounding player from the age of 19, but his career coincided with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig (and Hornsby's back end too). Who knows when his first MVP would have come?

Stanton may not be the best bet over 13 years (and if he's great, he has that out clause, so the Marlins really can't win), but he's a better bet than Clayton Kershaw, MVP or no.

[seawolf17]

The more I read about this deal, though, the more sense it makes for both sides. From Grantland: "And then there�s A-Rod, who signed his first 10-year deal heading into his age-25 season. If A-Rod had signed for 13 years, his contract, like Stanton�s, would have run through his age-37 season. And it would have worked out well: PED suspension aside, Rodriguez was still worth a roster spot in 2013."

It's a six year, $107M deal at first, and then there's either an opt-out or a seven-year, $218 "option" after that. Obviously, if he gets hurt or something, the Fish are screwed, but when you put it in those terms, it's not entirely awful, and they do have a ton of financial flexibility on the front end.

[Ceetar]

Stanton doesn't finish the season on the DL, he's the MVP this year. I had him above Kershaw in the IBWAA awards (with McCutchen first)

He's worthy. And he's also a good defender and won't lose as much value as say A-Rod, via defense, at the tail end of that contract. somewhat stationary/aging outfielders aren't as big an impediment as stationary SS or even 3B.

That sorta thing can be a drain on the wrong franchise though, but I'd put the odds at 85% that Stanton opts out and signs a new, more crippling contract.

[Frayed Knot]

I understand what you are saying about the awards, especially ones voted on by writers. But what I was getting at was that the huge contracts of the past were handed to guys who had amassed considerable accomplishments -- Pujols, and even SkankRod. Stanton is an extraordinary masher, but do you put him at those levels yet?

Stanton's makes more sense in a lot of ways than Pujols, or Cano, or ARod (second one anyway) because he's just hitting his prime (theoretically anyway). Doesn't mean it can't still backfire (see: Tulowitski, Troy) but the odds are better.

The idea of the Marlins, which struggle to attract fans even in a beautiful new park, devoting $30 million a year to one player just seems odd, especially given the team's history.

That's really the big question: whether the Marlins can now afford to put enough players around him to make it all worth while.
It'll be easy now when they've got all those young (read: cheap) players [Fernandez, Yelich, Ozuna, etc.) and while Stanton's per/year numbers are still relatively low. Then there's the history where no team wins when one player is eating up more than X% of the total payroll and how high can the Marlins take that payroll? And finally there's doubt about whether the city of Miami will ever be a good pro sports town in this sport or any other.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Stanton's makes more sense in a lot of ways than Pujols, or Cano, or ARod (second one anyway) because he's just hitting his prime (theoretically anyway). Doesn't mean it can't still backfire (see: Tulowitski, Troy) but the odds are better.

I think the Cano deal will be a disaster down the road. The Tigers were lucky to sort of get out of the Fielder deal.

An ambitious sportswriter could look at all the really long-term deals to see what percentage of them worked out.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: He's worthy. And he's also a good defender and won't lose as much value as say A-Rod, via defense, at the tail end of that contract. somewhat stationary/aging outfielders aren't as big an impediment as stationary SS or even 3B.

I'll disagree here. A poor fielding shortstop has as much value as a solid fielding first baseman or left fielder --- and much more than a poor-fielding one --- and can certainly slide to another position.