Registered User
I agree. Under the age of 28, the longest deal you want to sign for any player is 5 years, after that you will be safer for a 3 year deals,
Thinking about it, 28 might be the last year you would get every dollar out of a 5 year deal from the player (if they stay healthy), they say thou there are two peaks, one at 27-28, and the next one at around 31 years old...
Usually players drop off at 35-36.
Registered User
Funny part about Griffey, is that his extension with Cinci looks totally different than his deal with Seattle.
1996-2001?
And in 2001, he was injuried.
Registered User
I agree with Ohms, contarcts longer than 4 years is a poor idea.
Signing players when they are young (griffey, pujols, utley) is the execption.
It really shows with pitchers though long-term pitcher contracts are bad, only the very rare exception do they work out, and then usually only with very rare talents. (like maddux and martinez)
Even the Mussina deal wasnt really all that great, after 3 years he dropped off dramatically, look at his 2005 and 2006 stats and remeber the contarct had him making 19 Million in each of those years.
Registered User
Man you hate admitting when you're wrong on something. I agree, in most cases a shorter term deal is better for the team. But thats not the case all the time, and certainly signing guys longer than three years doesn't, as you put it, 'never' work out.Pretty much all of them could have been signed for shorter terms for more money... and then after the 3rd year, resigned probably for less.
Now you claim that it would've been smarter to sign 'most' of those listed short term and resign them for less. I disagree. If you look at most of the salaries on those deals, thats a double edged sword. The way salaries have escalated in recent years, getting a guy long term can be a win/win. Take Utley and the recent Longoria deals. If they get seriously hurt and don't produce, thats a loss. But if they perform they will soon outperform their contract value with relation to the escalating market making it a great deal for the teams involved.
At least join me and admit the word 'never' is probably a bit strong here lol.
Registered User
You guys make it sound like everyone is getting these long term deals. I see it as almost 1 to 1. For every long term deal that works out, there's a long term deal that busts.It really shows with pitchers though long-term pitcher contracts are bad, only the very rare exception do they work out, and then usually only with very rare talents. (like maddux and martinez)
I'll agree that more probably bust than boom, 1 to1 ratio isn't quite accurate but it's more accurate that the terminology 'very rare exception. Frankly not many get these long term lucrative contracts. I also agree I wouldn't want to do them, or would be very hesitant at the least. But for sake of discussion, lets at least be accurate.
Registered User
This is actually what I do in historical play, I sign players to a 7 year deal, then do a 3 year extension (Team Option) and they are signed to a discount, but I do this when they are 25 or less....Originally Posted by dickay
I save millions of dollars by doing this
Registered User
This is actually what I do in historical play, I sign players to a 7 year deal, then do a 3 year extension (Team Option) and they are signed to a discount, but I do this when they are 25 or less....
I save millions of dollars by doing this
Registered User
While it maybe 1:1 most of the ones that work out are hitter contracts, young or very good hitters can be worth signing to a 5+ year contarct.
Pitchers are a whole differnt story, there are far too many issues to justify giving a pitcher a 6 year deal.
E=I*R
The thing is, I don't look at the deals as "boons" or "busts". What I'm mostly referring to is the value of the players contributions in comparison to the costs of the contract during each year of the contract. Typically, with a long term deal, you're getting the player at a slight discount for a year or two, but by the end of the contract the team is paying a premium for the player. So, in my opinion, those deals never (I should say rarely) are a good deal for the team.
The only exceptions that I see are truly exceptional players, and some arbitration eligable players. Those cases can certainly change the dynamic, but their hardly typical contract situations.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
I typed in about 8 or 9 which have worked out (mussina i suppose is arguable so remove him) and you can probably add Nomar's contract with the sawx to that list. He was signed on the cheap long term to avoid arbitration and was a great deal for the sawx for quite a few years. So give me 16-18 that haven't worked out. If it's so 'rare' you can surely find 2-1 against my list with little to no problem. 4 year contracts and longer.
Hates Your Favorite Band
I'll start...
Mike Hampton
Barry Zito
Johnny Damon (Yankees)
Carl Pavano
Chan Ho Park
Julio Lugo with Red Sox (so far)
Albert Belle - Orioles
Mo Vaughn (angels)
Kevin Brown
Those are just the big ones that come to mind...but it seems more balanced; I don't see the busts outweighing the booms all that much. But maybe someone else can add a ton more?
o
Darren Dreifort, Russ Ortiz, Denny Neagle
Registered User
Thats my point, they dont' outweigh all that much when we're talking the big ones. If i'm not mistaken, Damon was a 3 year deal so he wouldn't count. You can add Matt Clement to the list, but Pavano & Clement weren't huge contracts but I believe they were both 5 years at around 10 mil per a piece if i'm not mistaken..so they'd make the list.
o
Damon was 4 years, $48 million.
Valentine Lake Horror
Matt Clement has been a major disappointment. I dont know if his deal qualifies as one of the worst ever, not being a mega-contract, per se. But the Sox signed him, after 3 decent years with the Cubs. After going a very ordinary 13-6, 4.57 (99era+ for the elitist stat geeks) in 2005, the last two years combined, he earned 19.3 million with a 5-5 record, 6.61 era (72 era+). Pretty much a bust.
Reply With Quote
