Only a few teams could afford him.   So they can't dump him wherever they want anyway.   It's a limited market.

I think he is a GOOD player, but not a great one.  A lot of this is an investment in his marketability, which is quite high.  Nobody can argue that they will make money based on that, regardless of how he plays.

That said, could you imagine the haul they could have gotten by trading him with his stock SO high right now?  I really think the Cards would have given up a lot, the Orioles, Cubs, Mets not that far behind.  Personally, I would have maxed out at 8 years and 200 million.  Had he turned it down, I would have traded him.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2014 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Only a few teams could afford him.   So they can't dump him wherever they want anyway.   It's a limited market.

With the way TV contracts are nowadays, I'd estimate maybe half the league could afford him now.

There's a difference between "could take salary" and "will take salary".    Limited market. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):
There's a difference between "could take salary" and "will take salary".    Limited market. 

True.  Might depend how how many years of this deal he plays before they try to deal him.  If 5 years and 125 mil are off the books, and 8 years and 200 remain....might open that market up a bit more.

I think it's the 25m per year(no idea how the deal is structured) that would scare off a lot of teams.   Agents obviously start with "Stanton is making 25m and my client has been better in each of the last three seasons....." and try to negotiate from there.   

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2014 5:03:00 PM (view original):
I think it's the 25m per year(no idea how the deal is structured) that would scare off a lot of teams.   Agents obviously start with "Stanton is making 25m and my client has been better in each of the last three seasons....." and try to negotiate from there.   

But that applies to all agents, not just agents of Stanton's teammates. I don't think that makes a difference.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2014 5:03:00 PM (view original):
I think it's the 25m per year(no idea how the deal is structured) that would scare off a lot of teams.   Agents obviously start with "Stanton is making 25m and my client has been better in each of the last three seasons....." and try to negotiate from there.   

But that applies to all agents, not just agents of Stanton's teammates. I don't think that makes a difference.

Also, teams aren't dumb (for the most part). If Stanton's production falls off so far that there are many people better than him, no one will use his salary as a negotiating point. It's not like Garret Jones' agent is pointing to Ryan Howard's contract and asking for $25 million per year because Jones was better than Howard in 2014.

I think if you were to letter grade Stanton right now, it would be something like....

Average - B
Power - A++++
Speed - B
Arm - B+
Defense - B+

Of course, that is just my opinion and not really thought out that much, but he does not jump out to me as a great overall player.  I think he is a POTENTIALLY great OFFENSIVE player, who has a few very good seasons already under his belt.  But, for a 13 year deal worth this kind of money.....I would want the total package player. 

Honestly, if they can get him to waive the no-trade clause, he's probably more tradeable now with this contract than he was with 2 years of team control left.  $25 million a year is par for superstars these days, and usually those guys are signed to big years in their late '20s or even early '30s.  Guys like Pujols, Cabrera, etc. are making the same kind of money into their '40s.  Stanton's contract goes through age 37, and if he opts out it only goes through age 30.  And only pays something like $17 million/yr average.  That would be compulsively team-friendly for a guy of his caliber through his peak years.

I don't know how people can say he's not a great overall player.  I think that's short-sighted.  You don't have to do everything well to be a great overall player.  Stanton plays better defense than Ted Williams did, at least by reputation.  And runs at least as well, probably better.  Was Ted Williams not a great overall player?  Stanton is the best power hitter in baseball right now, and he's 24.  He missed the last 3 weeks of the season and still easily led the NL in HRs and TB (also SLG), almost certainly would have led baseball in HR if he hadn't been beaned in the face.  He also had a .395 OBP.  He could sit in the dugout on defense and be an elite RF.

Uh, let's calm down on the Ted Williams' comparison. 

Is Bumgarner the next Koufax because he had a great post-season?     Slow down, Sparky.

All of that being said, I don't know that this deal makes sense for anybody.  For the Marlins, if they aren't going to try to get him to waive that no-trade clause (and from a PR perspective, I'm not sure they can afford to trade him now anyway), it's a crippling expenditure.  They have no income.  It's really ugly.  $25 million is probably more than 1/3 of their available salary assuming no profit.  Granted, the early years are actually very low.  He's giving up money the next 2 years compared to what he would have gotten in arbitration.  But you still can't sign anybody to deals longer than 3 years for meaningful money, because in the 4th year the Stanton contract gets big, and at that point their young guys - Yelich, Ozuna, Eovaldi, Alvarez, Cosart, Fernandez - are all in arbitration, and that's basically the salary right there.  So as much as he tried to allow them to build a contract that would let them build around him, the reality is that unless they have some incredibly optimistic revenue forecasting, they're still handcuffed by the years in terms of signing free agents.  Right now they're going hard after Adam LaRoche.  He's a nice piece, and he'd give Stanton better protection than he had this year.  But that team isn't just an Adam LaRoche or 2 away from being a WS contender, even with all those young arms.

From Stanton's perspective, at his age, $25 million a year isn't enough.  Especially since he only gets like 1/3 of it before the opt-out.  With a more balanced deal, it's not terrible - he'd get to balance security with the opportunity to cash in big after his age 30 season.  But now, if he opts out, he's massively underpaid through his 20s relative to his production leading into this contract.  Frankly, I don't think he signs this deal without the pitch that shortened his season.  I think the sudden reality of the possibility of a career-ending injury made 1/3 of a billion dollars guaranteed sound too good to pass up.  But the reality is that his expected career salary is almost certainly lower now than it would have been a week ago because of this contract.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2014 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Uh, let's calm down on the Ted Williams' comparison. 

Is Bumgarner the next Koufax because he had a great post-season?     Slow down, Sparky.

Did I say Stanton was the next Ted Williams?  I don't think so.  I don't think I even implied that.

I said Stanton is a great player.  Ted Williams was the example to demonstrate that you don't have to be able to run and catch to be an elite player.  I'm not saying Stanton is as good as Ted Williams.

Although, I don't think the gap between Stanton and the next best sluggers right now is substantially smaller than the gap between Williams and guys whose careers overlapped significantly with his - Mantle, DiMaggio, Mays, Musial.  I still think I'd rather have Trout than Stanton, but he's about the only player in baseball you wouldn't trade for Giancarlo right now based on talent alone.  That's more a product of the rest of the talent in baseball, which always fluctuates a bit.  But at any time in the live ball era, I think Stanton is one of the best players in the game.

I'll be damned if you didn't compare him to Williams again in a roundabout way.

Stop that.