57 replies to this topic

[Rudy Pemberton]

 
Prince was 28 when he signed his deal.  Pujols was 32, but he was in his own class for most of the last decade.  I think the better question is, why would Braun get a Pujols/Fielder type offer when he's 33?  And this assumes that their only options were to extend him in 2011 or let him get to FA 4 years later.  There was a lot of middle ground.

He got 5 / 105 extension, which isn't close to what Pujols or fielder got, and he's comparable to those guys. It's a good gamble for the brewers because if he continues on this trajectory, and salaries keep going up, they can't come close to affording him. If he gets busted for PED's or hurt, it's a bad deal. Given how great Braun has been, locking him up was defensible. Way more defensible than Howard; who isn't nearly as good and got more money.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Agree with Rudy on Braun. The extension looks bad partly because the big money years come in his age 32-36 years when there's a good chance he won't be worth that much. But you have to balance that against the bargain the Brewers are getting for the next three years: ages 29-31 for a total of just over $30M. If you take all the guaranteed money they owe him from here on out ($125.5M according to FG) and pro-rate it to reflect a realistic hypothetical decline curve, you get something like this:
 
29 - $28M
30 - $25M
31 - $21M
32 - $18M
33 - $14M
34 - $10M
35 - $6M
36 - $3.5M
 
Which looks entirely reasonable.

EDIT: I dropped a ten in my original calculation--the correct remaining amount, including 6th-year buyout, is $125.5M not $115.5M. That makes the contract a little stiffer, but still not excessive for a player of Braun's caliber IMO.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 20 February 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[glennhoffmania]

Agree with Rudy on Braun. The extension looks bad partly because the big money years come in his age 32-36 years when there's a good chance he won't be worth that much. But you have to balance that against the bargain the Brewers are getting for the next three years: ages 29-31 for a total of just over $30M. If you take all the guaranteed money they owe him from here on out ($115.5M according to FG) and pro-rate it to reflect a realistic hypothetical decline curve, you get something like this:

 

29 - $26M

30 - $24M

31 - $20M

32 - $15M

33 - $12M

34 - $9M

35 - $6M

36 - $3.5M

 

Which looks entirely reasonable.

Again, why?  Why do we include the contract they previously signed when evaluating the new one?  They already had him through age 32 at reasonable money.  Basically they took a bargain of a contract and turned it into a far less attractive contract by tacking on 5 more years at market rate.  They didn't have to do this to continue reaping the benefits of the older contract.  I see no reason to smooth the total guaranteed money over the length of the two deals and then say it really isn't a bad deal.  They could've paid him $30m over the next three years and, as he starts to decline, let him walk if they wanted.

 

To be clear, I don't mean to make this a big deal.  I'm just curious and surprised by some of the reaction.  If the Sox signed Pedroia or Ellsbury to this kind of deal four years in advance to lock them up through age 36 after signing them to a very team-friendly, pre-arb deal I'd bet that plenty of people here would be scratching their heads.

[MakMan44]

I don't know about Pedoria. I think it's the same thing with Braun, they wanted to make a Brewer for life. Why they did it so soon into the contract and why they did the worst half of the contract at market value are good questions but I think their intentions are pretty clear

[Savin Hillbilly]

Again, why?  Why do we include the contract they previously signed when evaluating the new one?  They already had him through age 32 at reasonable money.

 

Correction: they had him through age 31 at outrageous, unreasonable money.

 

They didn't have to do this to continue reaping the benefits of the older contract.

 

Right, of course not. Clearly they did this because they felt Braun was a player worth building around long-term, and this contract is what it would take to wrap him up long-term right now.

Imagine for a moment that Braun was, due to some quirk in his contract, suddenly a free agent right now, heading into his age-29 season. Could he command a $125M contract? Hell yeah. Probably a good deal more than that. And if you *could* sign him for $125M you certainly wouldn't get eight years for it.

Now imagine that the Brewers do nothing and wait till he's an FA after his age 31 season. Is he going to get 5/$91 with a $4M option? Quite possibly. It's not that big a contract for a superstar who's still in his early 30s. If you're the Brewers, is it worth taking the risk that he'll sign that contract with somebody else in order to make sure you don't negate the fantastic bargain you're getting for his next three years? It's a valid question, and obviously the answer depends on how much you see him as a cornerstone piece. The Brewers have pretty clearly indicated that they do. That decision is certainly open to question, but it's one thing to say they made a mistake in wrapping him up long-term (which I think may well be true) and another to say they paid too much to do so (which I think clearly isn't).

[Rudy Pemberton]

 
To be clear, I don't mean to make this a big deal.  I'm just curious and surprised by some of the reaction.  If the Sox signed Pedroia or Ellsbury to this kind of deal four years in advance to lock them up through age 36 after signing them to a very team-friendly, pre-arb deal I'd bet that plenty of people here would be scratching their heads.

Neither of those is in Braun's league, though, an the Sox have a lot more money than the brewers.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Neither of those is in Braun's league, though, an the Sox have a lot more money than the brewers.

 

Agreed. Braun is a top 10-15 player. Ellsbury of 2011, sure, but who knows if we'll ever see that again. Considering the Angels just gave a 32 year old, inferior player with injury and drug issues 5/$125, thru age 37, I don't think it's at all crazy to think Braun would have gotten a much bigger deal if he hit the market.

[glennhoffmania]

Agreed. Braun is a top 10-15 player. Ellsbury of 2011, sure, but who knows if we'll ever see that again. Considering the Angels just gave a 32 year old, inferior player with injury and drug issues 5/$125, thru age 37, I don't think it's at all crazy to think Braun would have gotten a much bigger deal if he hit the market.

 

Well this will be my last post on the topic but I just wanted to address this one point.  Of course he may get a much bigger deal if he hits the market.  If they signed him to this kind of deal the year before he hit FA I wouldn't blink.  I just didn't like the idea of doing it four years in advance.  If another year or two went by and he was still healthy and producing, I'd approach him then.  Yeah the price may go up but it should still be a lot less than if he reached FA.  My biggest issue with this deal was how early they did it, essentially taking on 9 years of risk that he stays healthy and productive for only 5 additional years of service.  If he tears up a knee or gets caught using PEDs before the extension even kicks in the Brewers could be fucked.

[ToeKneeArmAss]

While it's not the winner in terms of absolute dollar value, the deal the Mets gave to Bobby Bonilla to go away ranks in the upper echelons of idiocy IMO, if not at the pinnacle.

 

It's one thing to pay more than a player ends up being worth, but it takes a different level of stupidity to piss away almost $36MM* in return for an absolute guarantee of zero on-field return.

 

I pity Mets fans.

 

 

* $29.8MM in deferred payments, plus the $5.9MM 'savings' invested with Madoff.