I wish that the player's association would agree to a limit on years of contract.  NOT salary, but the overall length.  If the team wanted to give a guy 300 million over 8 years, so be it....but these 10-13 year deals are just impossible for teams because then you have a 35 year old guy who is over the hill and eating up a roster spot.  The teams are stuck with them because you are not going to release a guy making 30 million bucks. 

Won't happen, but I wish they would agree to limit the contracts to 7 or 8 years max.  I could care less what they make per year or overall.  I just hate watching all these old dudes who don't contribute anything.

Somebody would give most of them a contract anyway.  Not for the same kind of money, obviously.  But they'd get a deal if they wanted one, and they'd get far too many chances to make good.  It's good for marketing if nothing else.  And really, 37 isn't THAT old.  He can still be productive the whole way through this deal if he stays reasonably healthy.

The guys who get signed into their 40s are the ones who get really hard to watch.

Let's look at it this way.  For me, the best comparison to Stanton so far in his career would be Reggie Jackson.  In his age 37 season he really dropped off a cliff, though he did get a little bit back in his age 39 and 40 seasons.  But in his age 36 season he led the AL with 39 homers and OPSed .907.  So say Giancarlo drops off after his age 35 season.  If he turns in 11 good years, he's effectively being paid about $29.5 million per productive season.  That's basically market value for a top player these days.

Some of the guys that get these huge contracts (Prince Fielder, Pujols to name two) were a bit older when they got them.  They had less trade value than a young superstar like Stanton.  I think Miami could have gotten a huge return on trading him.  The Cardinals probably would have parted with Miller, Rosenthal, maybe a few more guys including Kolten Wong.  Miami could have loaded up on even more young and proven talent to go along with the current talented roster.  Seems overboard to invest so much in a corner outfielder.

The length of the contract is nuts, but if there's any hope of ever establishing any kind of fan base in Miami (and I'm not sure there is at this point) - at some point they have to stop shipping everyone good out before they get expensive and give fans some sense that they aren't constantly going to have the rug pulled out from other them when they get invested.  Trading Stanton would be business as usual for that franchise - business as usual hasn't been working.

Posted by AlCheez on 11/19/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):
The length of the contract is nuts, but if there's any hope of ever establishing any kind of fan base in Miami (and I'm not sure there is at this point) - at some point they have to stop shipping everyone good out before they get expensive and give fans some sense that they aren't constantly going to have the rug pulled out from other them when they get invested.  Trading Stanton would be business as usual for that franchise - business as usual hasn't been working.

That's true in some sense, but I am not sure 13 years and 325 million is going to work very well either.  If they had traded him and gotten a big haul in return, it would increase their chances of winning, which always makes fans happy. 

They've played the "get good for a while, dump everyone because we can't pay them, rinse, repeat" game before - hasn't really panned out.  This isn't an established baseball market - they don't have this big lapsed fan base that is waiting to come out to the park when the team is winning.  They've been in Miami 21 years - a whole generation of potential fans has grown up rightly believing that the team is basically a farm team for everyone else.  At some point that has to change if baseball is going to survive in Miami.

13 years is absurd, but if it was an 8 year deal for a similar average value, no one is batting an eye at it except for the fact that it's out of character for the Marlins.  And if things haven't changed in Miami by the time you would start to worry about that deal going really bad, they probably won't be in Miami any more to deal with it.

I don't think Stanton even considers signing an 8-yeard deal for the same AAV.  As a much younger player, why would he sign a shorter deal than Pujols or A-Rod?

Marlins won the WS in 2003.  They were 28th of 30 teams in attendance.  In 2004 they were 26th.  Even when they win, nobody shows up.  They're already locked into one of the worst media contracts in the league.  Winning just doesn't earn them the revenue it does elsewhere.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting he would have.  I was saying that the handwringing is over the part of the contract that is almost a decade away.

I'm not sure why winner is so sure the Cardinals were lining up to trade for him.    Or that anyone was offering "a big haul" for him.

If it had been made clear he was available, I think teams would have been offering a lot for him.  Can't imagine the Cardinals wouldn't have put together a substantially better package than they did for Heyward.

I'd imagine that some other teams would have kicked the tires as well.  At least the Orioles and Cubs, Royals could have been an interesting dark horse with a lot of young talent they could swap.  I think Detroit would love to have him, but they probably don't have the young players and prospects to work out a trade.  Yankees could have been another dark horse, looking for a new face of their franchise with Jeter being gone.  Certainly they would have the money to keep him around.

All of that said, I'm not sure it's a baseball decision, which is what winner77 doesn't seem to understand.  His operating assumption was this: "If they had traded him and gotten a big haul in return, it would increase their chances of winning, which always makes fans happy. "  I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation in Miami.  Winning hasn't brought fans in; they've won 2 WS, and nobody came.  They need to attempt a new tactic.  Maybe keeping some players of Stanton's caliber will give people in Miami something to actually connect to.  The turnover on that team has always been incredible; that could make it harder for people who aren't already Miami baseball fans to build any kind of connection to the team.  From a baseball perspective, in Miami's financial situation, a contract like this is a massive handcuff, and it's going to be tough to build a winner around.  But at the end of the day, the team is trying to make money first and foremost; winning games is secondary to that goal.  I think this is more an attempt at the former, willfully ignoring the latter since focusing on that aspect has worked so poorly for them in the past.

I guess that's kind of what I mean(the first sentence).  I never heard that the Marlins were entertaining offers.   I'm curious why winner thinks they were.   And why the Cards were the big player.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2014 2:11:00 PM (view original):
I guess that's kind of what I mean(the first sentence).  I never heard that the Marlins were entertaining offers.   I'm curious why winner thinks they were.   And why the Cards were the big player.

I don't know if they were or not, but you have to think they got inquiries about it because he was "****** off" at ownership after the latest fire sale a few year ago.  The reason I mention the Cards is that they have a stockpile of young talent, and even if they lost some of it (which sadly, they did when Taveras died) they had more of it coming through the system.

MLB network did an excellent breakdown of the best farm systems, and the Cards are at or near the top of every scout's list.  I just saw them as a real potential trade partner for Stanton IF they had decided to trade him.

Posted by AlCheez on 11/19/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):
They've played the "get good for a while, dump everyone because we can't pay them, rinse, repeat" game before - hasn't really panned out.  This isn't an established baseball market - they don't have this big lapsed fan base that is waiting to come out to the park when the team is winning.  They've been in Miami 21 years - a whole generation of potential fans has grown up rightly believing that the team is basically a farm team for everyone else.  At some point that has to change if baseball is going to survive in Miami.

13 years is absurd, but if it was an 8 year deal for a similar average value, no one is batting an eye at it except for the fact that it's out of character for the Marlins.  And if things haven't changed in Miami by the time you would start to worry about that deal going really bad, they probably won't be in Miami any more to deal with it.

I can see the logic in signing him long-term, and the logic in trading him.  I just look at it as "what would I do" and my leaning would be to have traded him.  I do understand why they signed him, but 13 years seems crazy to me.