http://mweb.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24807164/stanton-and-marlins-close-on-record-deal-word-is-325m-13-years?v=1&vc=2

Giancarlo Stanton and the Marlins are closing in on a landmark deal, believed to be for $325 million over 13 years, sources connected to the team told CBSSports.com.

Stanton's record deal will have a no-trade clause and is expected to include an opt-out clause as well, allowing him to exercise a right to leave after a number of years.

Only language remains to be finalized, sources said.

Edited November 14, 201412 yr by kydoty

So much for they won't sign him, and should trade him.....because that deal is not tradeable for years, if ever. 

Ugh.  I don't care how good the player is (and Stanton is very good), this is the type of deal that seems like it will end poorly.

Not unlike Mauer and the Twins the Marlins nearly have to sign him. The money isn't that big a deal at his age and they will no doubt insure it against major injuries.

These teams make so much money it's kind of nice to see some of it going to a very good player and he is still very young. Still a ways from his prime, imo.

Ugh.  I don't care how good the player is (and Stanton is very good), this is the type of deal that seems like it will end poorly.

 

And? The last year or two of a long term deal is the price you pay to get a guy signed to a long term deal. It is possible that they could not agree on a 7 year deal.....do you just pass on re-signing him, or pay the extra money? 

 

Also, I would assume that contracts are going to keep going up (which seems reasonable given the last few decades), so that future number isn't as big as it currently looks.

 

edit:

I take almost all of that back....he'll only be 34 when this is done (give or take, depending on the actual terms, maybe 36). Guys that comp like him were still largely very good to great at that age. See the link I posted below.....

Edited November 14, 201412 yr by mike wants wins

And the Marlins expect to pay at least $25m of that $325m contract before trading Stanton.

The Marlins step-up!  Considering how quickly they improved from terrible to simply below average this move is justified--the Marlins have lots of room in their budget to pay Stanton!  This level of committment will show others that the Marlins are playing to win and not just lining their pockets with easy profit.  The path to the top of the NL East isn't blocked by Washington others can win there consistently--if they set their focus.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/giancarlo-stanton-300-million-contract-not-as-crazy-as-it-sounds-111414

So much for they won't sign him, and should trade him.....because that deal is not tradeable for years, if ever. 

 

Correct.  Allegedly it has a no-trade clause. 

Unfortunately, the Twins did not follow the Marlins' model of rebuilding:  That "horrible" team with the smallest budget in the majors won 7 games more than the Twins in 2014 with much younger players and now they have a foundation to build upon and compete.  Say what you want about the Marlins, but it is a better-run franchise than our Minnesota Twins...

Edited November 14, 201412 yr by Thrylos

Unfortunately, the Twins did not follow the Marlins' model of rebuilding:  That "horrible" team with the smallest budget in the majors won 7 games more than the Twins in 2014 with much younger players and now they have a foundation to build upon and compete.  Say what you want about the Marlins, but it is a better-run franchise than our Minnesota Twins...

I'd wait until either team breaks .500 before declaring either one "better-run". The Marlins haven't made the postseason since 2003. Yeah, they won the WS that year but that's still 12 seasons ago.

Contracts like this bug me a lot every time I consider buying a season ticket package or taking my family to a single game.  

 

This stuff is getting silly as hell.

Contracts like this bug me a lot every time I consider buying a season ticket package or taking my family to a single game.  

 

This stuff is getting silly as hell.

You're not bidding against Stanton, you're bidding against other people who want to buy tickets.  The contracts wouldn't exist without the fans of course, but ticket prices are based on what the market bears.

 

Millionaires against billionaires, and the billionaires are more adept at marketing.

You're not bidding against Stanton, you're bidding against other people who want to buy tickets.  The contracts wouldn't exist without the fans of course, but ticket prices are based on what the market bears.

 

Millionaires against billionaires, and the billionaires are more adept at marketing.

 

Sure, as they reap profits off a stadium built for them with public money.  It's not as simple as "what the market bears".

These "mega contracts" would be an interesting case study.  I'm too lazy to do the research but it sure seems like many of them turn out badly for the team.  I guess this one is different in that the player is still young.

When does the salary bubble burst? a 13 year sports contract? Really? I'd actually be pissed if the Twins did anything remotely similar to that again.

-just one opinion

Just think if Arron Hicks played to his perceived status the past two seasons in the bigs. 

I honestly don't know that anyone in any sport deserves $25M per season! And don't give me traditional hype or commentary about the market setting itself, entertainment industry, etc etc. Just think about any team in any major sport and tell me how you build a team or justify 2 or 3 players eating up, potentially, half of your entire payroll? Even the NY and LA teams can't sustain $250-300M payrolls.

 

Perhaps Stanton is a picture of health and consistency all the way through age 34, is a pillar of the community, even helps clean up the stadium and do laundry to "earn" the full $25M per season. But remember way back when, when we were all shocked that the best player in the game, A-Rod, earned the first $25M per year deal. We were stunned then, even though he was the best player around as well as the games misleading poster child for all that was good in baseball.

Step 1: Calculate Stanton's wins above replacement for next 13 seasons. My guess 50.5.

Step 2: Create an average monetary value per win over that time span. In a recent Fangraphs article gauging Trout and Pujols' combined value the author used 7.25 million per win and this was over the course of the next seven years. Over 13, that number could be higher due to inflation.

Step 3: Multiply 50.5 and 7.25. 366 million and change.

Step 4: Compare this number to the contract number.

Step 5: Forget all of this because he will opt out in the middle and cash in on successful seasons by signing a 10 year contract with some other team so he can make over 500 million in his career.

 

That was a lot of typing on an ipad screen just to be sarcastic.

Your headline gave me my laugh for the day.  Thanks

Sure, as they reap profits off a stadium built for them with public money.  It's not as simple as "what the market bears".

With a suitable definition shaped by enlightened self-interest on the part of the team, ticket prices are exactly as simple as what the market bears.  These guys do not leave money on the table.

I'd wait until either team breaks .500 before declaring either one "better-run". The Marlins haven't made the postseason since 2003. Yeah, they won the WS that year but that's still 12 seasons ago.

 

The Marlins have won 2 World Series titles.  This is more success than the Twins had since '91.  I'd rather have rebuilding teams than teams that compete on weak divisions and go one and out in the post-season against better teams.  

With a suitable definition shaped by enlightened self-interest on the part of the team, ticket prices are exactly as simple as what the market bears.  These guys do not leave money on the table.

And further shaped by leveraging taxpayers into paying their largest capital investments for them which leaves them more money to spend on players. Essentially it's double dipping at fan expense that leads to this.

The Marlins have won 2 World Series titles.  This is more success than the Twins had since '91.  I'd rather have rebuilding teams than teams that compete on weak divisions and go one and out in the post-season against better teams.  

I'd rather see a competitive team year in and year out and watch the same players for more than two seasons.

And further shaped by leveraging taxpayers into paying their largest capital investments for them which leaves them more money to spend on players. Essentially it's double dipping at fan expense that leads to this.

"What the market will bear" includes, to me, the financing of stadiums, etc. There are 30-something markets in the US who are capable of supporting MLB teams. If yours decides not to support one with taxes for a stadium and another will, the team moves. That's part of what the market "bears." It's not just a matter of ticket prices or salaries or other revenues/costs. 

 

It may or may not be "fair," given the billionaire status of the owners that benefit and other arguably more urgent needs for tax dollars, but it is all part of establishing the "market."

 

As long as someone else is willing to provide stadium money and other tax breaks for teams, the current host communities have to do the same or lose their teams.  

 

Owners have every right to leverage this. And fans/taxpayers have every right to complain about it. But it won't change.

As for the Stanton contract, I have no problem with it. I'm surprised the Marlins made the deal and I was even more surprised Stanton agreed to it until I saw the no-trade and opt-out provisions. Those additions make it a no-lose deal for him.

 

It's the kind of deal the Angels should be looking to make with Trout and, fellow Twins fans, IF Buxton and/or Sano live up to the full promise of their potential, it won't be many years before the Twins will be needing to give some pretty thoughtful consideration to whether they are willing to do something similar... perhaps X 2.

seOwners have every right to leverage this. And fans/taxpayers have every right to complain about it. But it won't change.

I think we all know the realities, but I don't agree with the notion that these things are a true reflection of the "market". We are talking about a situation protected by anti-trust laws, with publicly financed infrastructure, and built-in competitive disadvantages.

 

Ticket prices and contracts aren't a true market reflection because a true market doesn't really exist in baseball. If you want to see what the market wants for ticket prices - go check stub hub, not the teams site.