Are $100 million deals worth it?

Printable View

11-21-2008, 08:58 PM
Wassit3

Are $100 million deals worth it?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...=si_topstories
11-22-2008, 12:12 AM
BrewCrewFan255

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

You know what, after thinking about it, no they aren't. Basically because the amount of risk and pressure your putting on that player. If they got over 100 million for 5 years, your team's 1 pitch or 1 play away from loosing 100 million. If your the Yankees, of course you can hand out 100 million dollar contracts, but if your a team like the Royals, Rays, Marlins, Brewers etc, all the small market teams, you just simply can't hand that kind of money out. The Brewers never gave anyone over 100 million dollars in there franchise. CC would be the first one if he did sign. You know why? Just like I said, the amount of risk involved isn't worth it, use money on your younger players and work it that way. Giving out money is what the Yanks do, and not any other team.
11-22-2008, 01:03 AM
Pavelb1

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

You know what, after thinking about it, no they aren't. Basically because the amount of risk and pressure your putting on that player. If they got over 100 million for 5 years, your team's 1 pitch or 1 play away from loosing 100 million. If your the Yankees, of course you can hand out 100 million dollar contracts, but if your a team like the Royals, Rays, Marlins, Brewers etc, all the small market teams, you just simply can't hand that kind of money out. The Brewers never gave anyone over 100 million dollars in there franchise. CC would be the first one if he did sign. You know why? Just like I said, the amount of risk involved isn't worth it, use money on your younger players and work it that way. Giving out money is what the Yanks do, and not any other team.

I'd assume some kind of insurance is involved.
11-22-2008, 01:07 AM
BrewCrewFan255

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

There's really no insurance in baseball, it's all guranteed contracts for the most part.
11-22-2008, 01:07 AM
dickay

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

I'd assume some kind of insurance is involved.

actually this is incorrect. the mets for awhile would give no contract beyond 3 years because nobody would insure it. There is also a max dollar figure if I recall correctly. They've gone against that train of thought a bit in recent years, but I think there are definetly limits to what you can get insurance on.
11-22-2008, 01:09 AM
dickay

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

and IMHO...for a hitter it's worth it. For a pitcher, too much risk of injury...but for a guy like Santana who's proven you gotta do it. Doesn't always work out, but in the end I'll roll the dice for the right guy. I disagree greatly with some of the grades given on these deals.
11-22-2008, 01:14 AM
HoustonGM

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

There's really no insurance in baseball, it's all guranteed contracts for the most part.

There is insurance...the contract is always guaranteed in that the player will always get the full amount (unless, of course, theres a clause in there that says otherwise, such as Magglio ordonez's contract which had a clause that would void the contract if he missed X time with a knee injury in the first two years of the deal)...but...in cases of injury, often times an insurance company will pay out the rest of the contract to the player (or a portion of it), saving the team money.
11-22-2008, 01:18 AM
dickay

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

There is insurance...the contract is always guaranteed in that the player will always get the full amount (unless, of course, theres a clause in there that says otherwise, such as Magglio ordonez's contract which had a clause that would void the contract if he missed X time with a knee injury in the first two years of the deal)...but...in cases of injury, often times an insurance company will pay out the rest of the contract to the player (or a portion of it), saving the team money.

yes, two different things. the contracts are guarenteed but the teams do get insurance against their liabilities. However, as I mentioned I know i've heard there are limits and risks no insurer will take, and I've heard that deals longer than 3 years over a certain dollar value is one of them. The insurer may insure some of the risk up to a point, but not all.
11-22-2008, 01:19 AM
HoustonGM

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dickay

yes, two different things. the contracts are guarenteed but the teams do get insurance against their liabilities. However, as I mentioned I know i've heard there are limits and risks no insurer will take, and I've heard that deals longer than 3 years over a certain dollar value is one of them. The insurer may insure some of the risk up to a point, but not all.

Yeah there's definitely limits and conditions, and I wouldn't even begin to know what they are, but I'm sure they change depending on the particular insurance company, the player, contract specifics, etc. Each contract probably has different insurance clauses and rules.
11-22-2008, 01:18 PM
bucher34

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Worst contract ever -- Barry Zito, Carl Pavano, or Mike Hampton?
11-22-2008, 02:45 PM
ragecage

Re: Are $100 million deals worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucher34

Worst contract ever -- Barry Zito, Carl Pavano, or Mike Hampton?

I would say Carl Pavano just based on the fact he didnt pitch much. But you can make a great case for Zito and Hampton, but Zito still has a chance to rebound, based on watching that 84 MPH fastball I doubt it.