Stanton & Marlins discussing $325M, 13-year deal?

[mauf]

I wonder how much of the money is back loaded and whether it'll be an incentive for Stanton to not use the opt out at the time it comes up. It could be something like 5/$100m and 8/$225m in terms of money paid out.

 
Let's assume those numbers are close to right.
 
From the Marlins' perspective, they are running the risk of being saddled with Stanton for 8/225 when he's worth a lot less than that. The benefit is that they extend their control of Stanton for three years, at a cost of around $60-70mm (depending on what you think Stanton would earn in arbitration the next two years).
 
I don't think that's a good risk/reward balance for the Marlins. But hey, it's not my money, and it's not my team that will suck for the next decade if Stanton isn't a star.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It all depends on what the Marlins are hoping for. If they just want the next five years and to walk away, allowing another team to take the risk of overpaying for him in his 30's, then they should front load the contract so it's something like 5/175 followed by 8/150. That would all but guarantee that he opts out and signs somewhere else. If they really want him to stick around until he's 38, the safest way to distribute the risk is to make the yearly salary match the AAV.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

I said it over on the Lester thread. I really like the idea of putting in a player opt out option that allows the teams to pay for the players best years. It's not a guarantee, but it seems that in any case where the player opted out, it was in the team's best interest to let the player leave.

 
And for the 2nd time, you are proving that you do not understand risk management.
 
1) Player the with opt-out clause overperforms expectations for 3-4 years and can opt-out. He rips up last 3-4 years to receive more money/years. His team either takes on additional salary commitment or loses the player to another team, in both cases missing out on the opportunity to pay the player under the original (now below-market) terms.
 
2) Player with the opt-out clause underperforms or is chronically injured for 3-4 years and can opt-out. He does not exercise it. The team remains on hook for back end of the deal, which is by definition a worse risk/reward proposition than the current FA market (otherwise the player would opt out!).
 
In what scenario does the opt-out ever help the team? They would only win if an underperforming player illogically opted out of his contract - unlikely!

 

[moondog80]

 
And for the 2nd time, you are proving that you do not understand risk management.
 
1) Player the with opt-out clause overperforms expectations for 3-4 years and can opt-out. He rips up last 3-4 years to receive more money/years. His team either takes on additional salary commitment or loses the player to another team, in both cases missing out on the opportunity to pay the player under the original (now below-market) terms.
 
2) Player with the opt-out clause underperforms or is chronically injured for 3-4 years and can opt-out. He does not exercise it. The team remains on hook for back end of the deal, which is by definition a worse risk/reward proposition than the current FA market (otherwise the player would opt out!).
 
In what scenario does the opt-out ever help the team? They would only win if an underperforming player illogically opted out of his contract - unlikely!

 
 
How about the scenario where the Yankees had let A-Rod walk away after opting out?  Or Sabathia?
 
More generally, in your scenario 1, just because a player has been below market for the first few years of a deal, that doesn't mean he will continue to perform that way.  In fact, it's likely he won't, because players decline as they get older.  But since the FA market is not rational, there's often a team that will offer a contact will turn out to be a solid return on investment only in a wildly optimistic scenario.  So, the play is to get the 3 or 4 great years, then let the Yankees think they can get 10 more exactly like that and sign him to a new deal. 
 
Put another way...maybe you can live with 5 years of decline if you think you will get 5 great years at the front end.  But once you have 3 years in the book and maybe are looking at 2 more good ones and 5 bad ones, you're now better off getting out if you can.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
How about the scenario where the Yankees had let A-Rod walk away after opting out?  Or Sabathia?
 

 
And again, pointing to two examples using hindsight doesn't prove the point you think it does.  In ARod's case, Hank was just stupid.  But everyone on the planet knew that NY wouldn't let him walk away for nothing.  With Sabathia, the deal he signed at the time was very reasonable.  The fact that he starting falling apart a couple of years later doesn't change that fact.

 

[moondog80]

 
And again, pointing to two examples using hindsight doesn't prove the point you think it does.  In ARod's case, Hank was just stupid.  But everyone on the planet knew that NY wouldn't let him walk away for nothing.  With Sabathia, the deal he signed at the time was very reasonable.  The fact that he starting falling apart a couple of years later doesn't change that fact.

 
Well, there aren't many examples of players in mega-deals using opt-outs at all.  Are CC and A-Rod the only two?  That would make it two-for-two in favor of the opt out being good for the team (had they let the guy walk).
 
What if the Red Sox had given Manny and opt out?  Since they put him on waivers every year, I don't think they would have regretted it. 
What if the Twins gave Joe Mauer an opt out at 30?  That would have been last year when he was coming off two seasons of OPS+ 140 and 142, 5 years and 112 mil left on his deal.  He might have taken it.  And right now, I'll bet the Tiwins wish they could get out of the deal.
 
 
Jason Giambi.  Mark Teixeira.  Carlos Lee.  Todd Helton.  Lots have guys have a great first few years, when an opt-out seems like worth considering, with the drop off coming shortly thereafter.

 

[moondog80]

delete, sorry

 

[mauf]

 
Let's assume those numbers are close to right.
 
From the Marlins' perspective, they are running the risk of being saddled with Stanton for 8/225 when he's worth a lot less than that. The benefit is that they extend their control of Stanton for three years, at a cost of around $60-70mm (depending on what you think Stanton would earn in arbitration the next two years).
 
I don't think that's a good risk/reward balance for the Marlins. But hey, it's not my money, and it's not my team that will suck for the next decade if Stanton isn't a star.

Actually, as I reflect on this, I can see where the Marlins are coming from.

In my experience, when you pitch a deal like this to a CEO, he's going to ask two questions: how do we win, and how do we lose? (The questions might not be posed in those exact words, but you get the idea.)

How do the Marlins win? They get the age 27-29 seasons of a HOF-caliber player, after which they either (a) back up the Brinks truck on an even larger deal, and start planning to build a statue of the guy outside the stadium; or (b) let someone else overpay for his decline years, and say goodbye with no hard feelings from a fan base that won't blame you for not being willing to pay more than $220mm.

How do they lose? Either (a) he suffers a career-ending injury and you lose $X (contract value less insurance proceeds), or (b) he struggles with nagging injuries and/or ineffectiveness and is not worth anywhere near his salary. To ease our owner/CEO's concerns on (b), our intrepid GM probably makes the case that Stanton will almost certainly be worth 1.5 to 2.0 WAR through his mid-30s, so barring a career-ending injury (which is a separate issue and can be mitigated through insurance), and assuming continued growth in player salaries, the realistic worst-case scenario is a $5-7mm per year overpay, plus a couple of ugly years on the back end.

I still don't pull the trigger on the deal, but I can see how an owner/CEO who has watched Stanton up close on a regular basis and has grown fond of him could talk himself into this deal without being a total fool.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Well, there aren't many examples of players in mega-deals using opt-outs at all.  Are CC and A-Rod the only two?  That would make it two-for-two in favor of the opt out being good for the team (had they let the guy walk).
 

 
But they didn't let them walk, and the fact that the team desperately needed to keep them obviously factored into their decisions to opt out.  I don't understand this argument, which has been made multiple times in multiple threads, that if NY had let them leave it would've benefited them and therefore this proves that opt outs benefit the team. 
 
Put it this way.  Let's say in 2007 NY had the best prospect in baseball playing 3B in AAA.  He was like the next can't miss superstar player.  Do you think that would've factored into ARod's decision?
 
Options have value, period.  The option holder owns something of value.  The grantor of the option gave up something of value.  It's really not more complicated than that.

 

[Seabass]

https://twitter.com/MartinoNYDN/status/534436393242861568

 

[Oil Can Dan]

The only thing I'll say on the questionable value of the opt-out for the club is that it's pretty valuable if it's the difference between coming to terms and not coming to terms.

That aside, if the player then 'over performs' his contract and then opts out, well the club just got more valuable years at a price they were comfortable with in the first place. If he under performs, well, you were stuck w/o the opt-out on the remaining years anyway but theoretically you're paying less than you otherwise would because the option held value for that player when he signed.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

Sure, if it's the difference between signing a player or not, you do what you want to do. But the opt-out is never good for the team, even if you end up simply extending at the same price, because you are taking on additional risk of underperformance, which is cumulative and increases dramatically over the course of any long-term contract.
 
Rudy said above: "An opt-out potentially helps a team avoid those decline years, and would only be exercised if the player outperforms his salary for the first few years. So, if he Yankees had let A-Rod and CC go, they would have avoided those lousy years at the end. However, it's a potentially big PR hit and most teams aren't going to have capable replacements ready, so you've got to be disciplined. "
 
CC Sabathia is the PERFECT example of why the opt-outs are terrible for teams. CC performed as expected or better in the front half of his deal, up until the opt-out. The opt-out forced the Yankees to buy his age 36 and vest an option for age 37 (2016-2017) during the winter of 2011. Without the threat of losing him, there is no way that the Yankees would have done that then - they would have had several more years to watch CC and plenty of opportunity to extend him later. You can argue that the Yankees got unlucky that CC is showing his age earlier than expected, but you are often going to see teams "get unlucky" when they are forced to guarantee player commitments on the bad side of a risk/compensation curve. 
 
Put another way, the player opt out forces the team to buy additional decline years at free-agent rates in order to get the player's peak to slightly-past peak seasons. In the absence of the opt-out, they get those peak to slightly-past peak seasons for no additional commitment.
 
ARod is probably the single biggest contract blunder in the history of baseball, in that the Yankees negotiated against themselves for post opt-out deal. You can definitely blame their newly inexperienced ownership for blinking in the game of chicken, but I also think Cashman should have had ARod void the opt-out when they traded for him in the first place. That's when the Yankees had the most leverage.

 

[moondog80]

 
But they didn't let them walk, and the fact that the team desperately needed to keep them obviously factored into their decisions to opt out.  I don't understand this argument, which has been made multiple times in multiple threads, that if NY had let them leave it would've benefited them and therefore this proves that opt outs benefit the team. 
 
Put it this way.  Let's say in 2007 NY had the best prospect in baseball playing 3B in AAA.  He was like the next can't miss superstar player.  Do you think that would've factored into ARod's decision?
 
Options have value, period.  The option holder owns something of value.  The grantor of the option gave up something of value.  It's really not more complicated than that.

 
It's not zero-sum.  Just because the option holder owns something of value doesn't mean that value comes at the expense of the grantor.  The expense is to a third party, in this case the new team who signs the guy to a stupid contract.
 
I don't remember the 3B landscape in 2007, but do you really think that the Yankees, with 25 mil in newfound payroll, could not have gotten another decent 3B?  The fact that it would have benefited them doesn't prove that it always benefits the team, but that it can benefit the team.  The opt out gets you off the hook for the decline, which, at the time of the opt-out, is often in the near future, much moreso that when the deal was signed.

 

[LondonSox]

Well fair play no can or should turn down that offer. Now what else you got, because otherwise you have a really nice ferrari parked outside a house with no groceries. 

 

[moondog80]

 
Put another way, the player opt out forces the team to buy additional decline years at free-agent rates in order to get the player's peak to slightly-past peak seasons. In the absence of the opt-out, they get those peak to slightly-past peak seasons for no additional commitment.

 
 
It forces them to buy additional years?  They can't just say no?  Teams say no all the time at the expense of a short-term PR hit.   The Red Sox let Pedro and Ellsbury go.  The Cardinals let Pujols go.  Along with Giants, they are the two most successful franchises this century.  Life would have gone on for the Yankees without CC and A-Rod, even in the short term.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
 
It forces them to buy additional years?  They can't just say no?  Teams say no all the time at the expense of a short-term PR hit.   The Red Sox let Pedro and Ellsbury go.  The Cardinals let Pujols go.  Along with Giants, they are the two most successful franchises this century.  Life would have gone on for the Yankees without CC and A-Rod, even in the short term.

 
Yes, but without the opt out they would have the player on a better deal than they just signed as a free agent.  By definition that means the player had value to the team at the time of the opt out, and the team is losing that value when he opts out.  If CC was worth so much as a FA when he opted out, if he were still under his old contract the Yankees could have traded him for value instead of losing him for nothing, which they would do under your plan. 
 
And if they don't trade him they still have him for much cheaper than he would get as a FA.

 

[CreightonGubanich]

 
It's not zero-sum.  Just because the option holder owns something of value doesn't mean that value comes at the expense of the grantor.  The expense is to a third party, in this case the new team who signs the guy to a stupid contract.
 
I don't remember the 3B landscape in 2007, but do you really think that the Yankees, with 25 mil in newfound payroll, could not have gotten another decent 3B?  The fact that it would have benefited them doesn't prove that it always benefits the team, but that it can benefit the team.  The opt out gets you off the hook for the decline, which, at the time of the opt-out, is often in the near future, much moreso that when the deal was signed.

 
I think it has been pointed out to you multiple times that whatever value a team may realize by getting out of a contract this way, it has to be less than the value they would have had if the opt out never existed. In other words, if a player has a great first three years, then opts out of his contract with Team A, signs with Team B for more money and then declines, Team A would still have been better off simply trading the player after three years. If a player opts out, he forfeits what is by definition a below market contract. Team A is better off without the opt out, because they are in a position to trade that below market contract for compensation if they truly believe the player is going to decline. With the opt out, even if they own a crystal ball, they lose the player for nothing.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

 
 
It forces them to buy additional years?  They can't just say no?  Teams say no all the time at the expense of a short-term PR hit.   The Red Sox let Pedro and Ellsbury go.  The Cardinals let Pujols go.  Along with Giants, they are the two most successful franchises this century.  Life would have gone on for the Yankees without CC and A-Rod, even in the short term.

 
The opt out forces a team to pay the market rate for the player again IF they want to keep him, while offering complete protection to the player for underperformance of the contract value. No upside for the team.
 
Let's say the Yankees were convinced that they didn't want CC past 2011, and that CC's contract did not contain an opt out clause. CC's market-rate but relatively low risk contract would have value in the marketplace, and the Yankees could (in principle) trade CC to recoup that value. With the opt-out, they lose that built-up value for nothing and have to pay the market rate in order to continue benefitting from his services.

 

[moondog80]

 
I think it has been pointed out to you multiple times that whatever value a team may realize by getting out of a contract this way, it has to be less than the value they would have had if the opt out never existed. In other words, if a player has a great first three years, then opts out of his contract with Team A, signs with Team B for more money and then declines, Team A would still have been better off simply trading the player after three years. If a player opts out, he forfeits what is by definition a below market contract. Team A is better off without the opt out, because they are in a position to trade that below market contract for compensation if they truly believe the player is going to decline. With the opt out, even if they own a crystal ball, they lose the player for nothing.

 
That's a good point about the trade possibility that I hadn't considered.  I'm not sure how high the trade value would be, since we're talking about giving up prospects and taking on what is still a substantial amount of money.  But I'll grant that would you could most likely at least get enough to recoup the value of the lost compensation pick (if a team would sign Stanton to deal better than what he has now, they'll give something up to sign him to one two years shorter).  Still, if a player demands an opt-out at age 30 and I believe that he'll sign elsewhere without one, I'd give it to him (provided I like the rest of the terms of the deal). 

 

[Plympton91]

 
It's not zero-sum.  Just because the option holder owns something of value doesn't mean that value comes at the expense of the grantor.  The expense is to a third party, in this case the new team who signs the guy to a stupid contract.
 
I don't remember the 3B landscape in 2007, but do you really think that the Yankees, with 25 mil in newfound payroll, could not have gotten another decent 3B?  The fact that it would have benefited them doesn't prove that it always benefits the team, but that it can benefit the team.  The opt out gets you off the hook for the decline, which, at the time of the opt-out, is often in the near future, much moreso that when the deal was signed.

Which is better, have the player opt out of the contract and sign with another team free and clear.

or

Have the player not opt out and then trade the player to the team that would have signed him for a couple prospects.

The opt out does not benefit the team unless they got a player to sign for less overall money/years.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Scenario A: player signs for 8 years at $160m.

Scenario B: player signs for 8 years at $150m but can opt out after 3 years.

Isn't that how it would generally go? O

 

[Lowrielicious]

The opt out does not benefit the team unless they got a player to sign for less overall money/years.

 
Well yeah. Why else would you offer an opt out?
 
The only other reason would be if another organisation offered the same money/years but wasn't willing to include the opt out.

 

[moondog80]

So what do you feel like Stanton was asking for without an opt out? 15/$450?

It's possible Stanton wanted the opt out as a hedge against the Marlins sucking for the next 5 years.

 

[nvalvo]

It's possible Stanton wanted the opt out as a hedge against the Marlins sucking for the next 5 years.

 
This is how I see it. The opt out was a condition of him signing *at all,* not quibbling over years and AAV. His deal is almost certainly the second largest ever (in real terms: largest in nominal terms). He doesn't need more money — he wants some assurance that he'll have a chance to play for a contending team. 

 

[Lowrielicious]

So what do you feel like Stanton was asking for without an opt out? 15/$450?

Is that so crazy?
 
6/150 for ages 25-30 (assuming the 325 is split evenly over the 13 years) - which would be a bargain for 35+ HR, 950 OPS.
Then eyeing a 9/300 mill deal as a free agent at age 30.
 
For comparison
 
In 2000 at age 30 griffey got 9 years 116 mill.
in 2012 age 28 fielder got 9 years 214.
 
A 300 million initial offer to a top free agent (even an "older" one at 30 years of age) in 2020 might not even be enough to get his agent to return your phone calls.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

 
That's a good point about the trade possibility that I hadn't considered.  I'm not sure how high the trade value would be, since we're talking about giving up prospects and taking on what is still a substantial amount of money.  But I'll grant that would you could most likely at least get enough to recoup the value of the lost compensation pick (if a team would sign Stanton to deal better than what he has now, they'll give something up to sign him to one two years shorter).  Still, if a player demands an opt-out at age 30 and I believe that he'll sign elsewhere without one, I'd give it to him (provided I like the rest of the terms of the deal). 

 
The opt-out can be assigned a monetary value, based on reasonable projections and risk profiles of any given player. No front office would just randomly give one out without pricing its price and risk structure into their calculations.
 
Judging from media reports, Giancarlo's opt-out option does not add a huge premium to the deal, because it is in year 5 of a 13 year contract, which itself may be backloaded. Stanton would be walking away from a lot of guaranteed years and dollars to exercise it, which he will only do if he remains a top player from now until then with a demonstrated ability to avoid injury. In that case, the Marlins will be sad to see him go but will have received five years of excess value on the contract. Not a bad deal for them.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

If the opt out is after year 5, Stanton will have 10/5 rights, so a trade would be more difficult. I still think the opt out can be a good idea for aging pitchers, but less so for hitters, who don't seem to fade quite so precipitously after 30.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

 
And in the Lester thread, multiple people pointed out how this doesn't work for the team.  If it were to be intended to help the team, it would be structured as a team or mutual option.

The player option very likely provides a discount to the team as well. Without that option the contract would likely be higher. Look at the possible candidates to benefit from such a clause:
 
Player: Obvious benefit to the player
Old Team: Potential benefit / Potential detriment (although I have yet to find an example where the remaining years of a contract would be exceeded by the player's production)
New Team: Potential benefit, but more likely a detriment.
 
In every case that I can come up with (small sample size caveate not withstanding) the player option, when exercised benefits (or is at least a lateral move) for both the player and the old team, but not the new team:
J.D. Drew with LAD: He signs a 5/$55 million deal with an opt out after 2 years. He then signs a 5/$70 million deal with the Red Sox. The FanGraphs values are as follows:
2005 (LAD): $8.8
2006 (LAD): $15.3
2007 (BOS): $7.5
2008 (BOS): $18.1
2009 (BOS): $21.2
2010 (BOS): $9
2011 (BOS): -$1.9
2009 would have made the Drew contract worthwhile for the Dodgers.
 
Alex Rodriguez with the Rangers: 10/$252 million with an opt out after 7 years. He signs new contract for 10 years/$275
2001 (TEX): Not available
2002 (TEX): $27.5
2003 (TEX): $25.6
2004 (NYY): $20.8
2005 (NYY): $29.9
2006 (NYY): $14.5
2007 (NYY): $39.5
Opt out
2008 (NYY): $27
2009 (NYY): $18.1
2010 (NYY): $15
2011 (NYY): $18.2
2012 (NYY): $8.7
2013 (NYY): $2.4
2014 (NYY): DID NOT PLAY
 
By all accounts, the Yankees would have benefited from letting A.Rod walk.
 
C.C. Sabathia with the Yankees 7/$161 million with an opt out after 4 years. He signs new contract for 5/$122 million
2009 (NYY): $27.6
2010 (NYY): $19.7
2011 (NYY): $29.5
2012 (NYY): $20.9
Opt Out
2013 (NYY): $13.5
2014 (NYY): $0.8
It's looking pretty likely that letting Sabathia go would have also been the right choice.
 
A player that had an opt out clause that didn't use it was Vernon Wells - I think we all saw that contract as ridiculous from the start, but the value of the opt out clause comes in play when the team gets a discount on the deal as a result of the contract. They get the player for a rate that is presumably less than market value, and then in the event the player opts out the team can allow the player to leave for a different contract.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

I think you are looking at this wrong.
 
As you say, the Dodgers would have been better off keeping Drew for the full term of the original contract, as they would have gotten 2007-2009 Drew, a combined Fangraphs value: $46.8M ($15.6M AAV), for his original $11M AAV contract. Great value for them! Instead they lost out on that surplus value and would have had to roughly match Boston's 5 year / $70M offer. Drew approached fair value for the Boston contract and won a world series, but he was a more valuable under his original contract.
 
Now look at ARod. If he did not have the opt-out, he would have played out his original 10/$252M until its expiration in 2010. He continued to be highly productive and approaching the value of his contract through that entire period. At no point would he have been a giant albatross. In that scenario, the Yankees might have extended him in 2010, but it would not have cost them nearly as much as the 10/$275 deal they paid out for him in Fall 2007. They certainly should have let him walk rather than sign him for 10/$275 in 2007, it was the opt out that gave ARod the leverage renegotiate the contract.
 
Finally, CC Sabathia. At the time of the opt out, the Yankees essentially had him on a 3 year/$23M AAV commitment. That is a great deal! Short-term, fair value commitment to an ace starter starting the mid/late portion of his career. Put it this way, you would not be able to sign anyone comparable to Sabathia for only 3 years.
 
You are pointing to the NEW contract that the player signed as justification that the team should be happy to let them walk. However, the way to evaluate the effect of the opt-out clause is to notice that the original contracts all look pretty team-friendly by the time the opt-out is reached - the contracts tend to have aged a few years and aren't top-dollar anymore. The team benefits from this surplus value and lower risk of underperformance - the opt-out vaporizes this value and results in re-ups at market prices.

 

[mauf]

Exactly.

It's not that opt-outs couldn't work in theory; it's that in practice, clubs never seem to get a discount commensurate with the value of the opt-out. The Sabathia, Drew, and A-Rod contracts were hardly considered below-market when they were handed out; the opt-outs turned those deals into "heads I win, tails you lose" propositions.

 

[natpastime162]

Exactly.

It's not that opt-outs couldn't work in theory; it's that in practice, clubs never seem to get a discount commensurate with the value of the opt-out. The Sabathia, Drew, and A-Rod contracts were hardly considered below-market when they were handed out; the opt-outs turned those deals into "heads I win, tails you lose" propositions.

 
It's also easy to forgot the bind teams are put in from an on-field standpoint.  A-Rod led the league with a 9.6 WAR in 2007.  I want to know where they go to replace that production.  The everyday roster was set short of maybe an outfielder.  Where is this magical land of 7.0+ WAR players?

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

If the opt out is after year 5, Stanton will have 10/5 rights, so a trade would be more difficult. I still think the opt out can be a good idea for aging pitchers, but less so for hitters, who don't seem to fade quite so precipitously after 30.

 
The contract has a full no-trade provision in it already.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

So MLBN is reporting that the contract pays 107 million in the first 6 years, then 218 million in the final 7 years. So they've made it less likely that Stanton will opt out by back loading the crap out of the contract. He's going to have a pretty difficult decision to make in late 2020.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

So MLBN is reporting that the contract pays 107 million in the first 6 years, then 218 million in the final 7 years. So they've made it less likely that Stanton will opt out by back loading the crap out of the contract. He's going to have a pretty difficult decision to make in late 2020.

Not necessarily. Right now, the top players get $30 million per year. In 2020, they will get more and Stanton could be at the height of his powers.

 

[santadevil]

I just read that on ESPN.
 
My 6 years from now guess, he opts out and signs 8 year, $252M contract....with the Montreal Exprays!

 

[gammoseditor]

That makes the contract much better for the Marlins.  If he does opt out, they just got a steal for the next 6 years.  The opt out would have much more value to Stanton if the contract wasn't so backloaded.

 

[mauf]

So MLBN is reporting that the contract pays 107 million in the first 6 years, then 218 million in the final 7 years. So they've made it less likely that Stanton will opt out by back loading the crap out of the contract. He's going to have a pretty difficult decision to make in late 2020.

 
With these details, the contract makes more sense for the Marlins. The first 6 years are an absolute steal. In exchange for getting that steal, they're writing a really, really expensive insurance policy. 
 
Assuming he remains healthy and reasonably productive, Stanton will opt out. He might not match the AAV he would get from the Marlins, but he'll fetch more than $218mm guaranteed on a 9-10 year deal, and players almost never turn down guaranteed money for the chance to become a free agent after the age of 35.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Man, less than $20m/year in his prime... he should try to see if he can get a PayDay loan for the back half. 

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

He's getting Russel Martin money for the first six years! That's just plain stupid.
Does anyone think if he was a Boras client he would have ever signed this deal?
I think he got very bad advice.

 

[mauf]

He's getting Russel Martin money for the first six years! That's just plain stupid.
Does anyone think if he was a Boras client he would have ever signed this deal?
I think he got very bad advice.

 
If he was a Boras client, he would have gone to arbitration this year -- and he would've risked losing close to $300mm if it turns out he's not the same player after taking a pitch to the face, or if some other misfortune should befall him in the next couple of years.
 
That might have been a decent gamble for Scott Boras, but it would've been a foolhardy one for Giancarlo Stanton.

 

[soxhop411]

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS 12m12 minutes ago
Giancarlo breakdown: 6.5M, 9M, 14,5M, 25M, 26M, 26M, 29M, 32M, 32M, 32M, 29M, 25M, 25M team option/10M buyout #marlins

 

[santadevil]

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS 12m12 minutes ago
Giancarlo breakdown: 6.5M, 9M, 14,5M, 25M, 26M, 26M, 29M, 32M, 32M, 32M, 29M, 25M, 25M team option/10M buyout #marlins

 
Math doesn't work. I come up with $321
 
$4M signing bonus maybe?

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

 
If he was a Boras client, he would have gone to arbitration this year -- and he would've risked losing close to $300mm if it turns out he's not the same player after taking a pitch to the face, or if some other misfortune should befall him in the next couple of years.
 
That might have been a decent gamble for Scott Boras, but it would've been a foolhardy one for Giancarlo Stanton.

 
I dunno, I think even if he were a Boras client, Stanton would have still gone for this deal and Boras wouldn't have fought him too much since it still set a historic mark. I suppose Boras might have tried to push him to get to the $500 million mark just for the symbolism, and maybe pre-broken face Stanton would have gone along with it if he knew he would be resigning himself to baseball purgatory in Loria Land, but after an accident like that I don't know if he'd think differently. And then of course there is this potential thing about Boras being implicated in the PED coverup stuff...if Boras were Stanton's agent perhaps he would want to cash in now while he still can.
 
and then there is poor Mike Stanton, you can't even google him without getting Giancarlo first. He should sue for residuals.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

He's getting Russel Martin money for the first six years! That's just plain stupid.
Does anyone think if he was a Boras client he would have ever signed this deal?
I think he got very bad advice.

No one would turn this money down. He's still getting $315M. The only reason you factor in the backloading is for the opt-out. You can think about the first six years as $100+M in actual salary plus a bunch of deferred money added on to the later years.

If there wasn't an opt-out, the contract would be more level. The contract is structured to discourage him from opting-out. But at the end of the day, from Stanton's perspective, no matter what happens, he's going to get $315M. Not a bad way to spend the next 13 years.

 

[Van Everyman]

Possible I missed this upthread but is there any reason with the opt-out that he still couldn't be moved in a year or two to a team like the Red Sox who probably wouldn't find this contract particularly odious? Assuming that Loria fails to field a competitive team around him and he waives the no-trade that is.

 

[Hagios]

Antoine Walker went through $110M in salary in less than 15 years. $300M might not get Stanton to Social Security.

 
Walker lost his money through some bad real estate deals (I'm assuming he was leveraged?). That could happen to Stanton no matter how much money he makes.
 
I don't understand why the league doesn't give the players better financial planning advice. Something like "Take half your paycheck and put it in T-Bills and never touch the principle. Feel free to spend the other half on as much bling and as big a posse as you want. No matter what you do, do not ever, ever start a business, invest in anything, or allow yourself to get leveraged."

 

[Seabass]

He's getting Russel Martin money for the first six years! That's just plain stupid.
Does anyone think if he was a Boras client he would have ever signed this deal?
I think he got very bad advice.

He signed the largest contract in the history of sports. I don't see how you can say "he got very bad advice" when that's the case. 
 
To Rudy's point, I think arbitration played a small role in the backloading, but there are also reports that Stanton pitched the idea to the Marlins so they'd have more money to surround him with additional talent.
 
Van Everyman -- Stanton's not getting traded to the Red Sox in the next year or two or five. He can waive his no-trade clause at any point and be dealt, but I don't see how that happens any time in the near future.

 

[NDame616]

Possible I missed this upthread but is there any reason with the opt-out that he still couldn't be moved in a year or two to a team like the Red Sox who probably wouldn't find this contract particularly odious? Assuming that Loria fails to field a competitive team around him and he waives the no-trade that is.

 
He has a NTC. He can be moved at anytime during the contract as long as he OKs it. Putting the opt out where it is makes his contract much less desirable, but in theory he could be traded at anytime if he OKs it

 

[DourDoerr]

 
 No matter what you do, do not ever, ever start a business, invest in anything, or allow yourself to get leveraged."

And don't ever divorce.
 
With all the local tv money still flowing,  and Kershaw and Trout taken care of, how long does the Stanton deal set the high end of the market?

 

[soxhop411]

who the fuck asked this question?

 
"Giancarlo, do you feel embarrassed about making $69,000 a day, way more than the nat'l avg?"