2025 Major League Baseball Thread

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I could easily see Harper or Mike Trout getting a $300 million deal. Both are scheduled to become free agents when they are 26 (Trout in 2017, Harper in 2018). I don't think a 10-year, $300 million deal is out of line for either of them if they stay healthy and are among the best players in the league when they hit free agency. Part of what makes the A-Rod deal so terrible is that it doesn't expire until he's 42, but with Trout or Harper they'd only be 36 when a 10-year deal would end so it's reasonable to think they'd still be playing at a high level throughout the contract.

It's not happening. Trust me. No team is going to make that type of investment. 185 million (or around that number) is possible, but nowhere near 300 (or even 275 which is what A-Rod's contract is).

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

It's not happening. Trust me. No team is going to make that type of investment.

Factoring in inflation a $300 million deal in 2017 would be worth roughly the same as the $252 million deal Albert Pujols got this spring.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I could easily see Harper or Mike Trout getting a $300 million deal. Both are scheduled to become free agents when they are 26 (Trout in 2017, Harper in 2018). I don't think a 10-year, $300 million deal is out of line for either of them if they stay healthy and are among the best players in the league when they hit free agency. Part of what makes the A-Rod deal so terrible is that it doesn't expire until he's 42, but with Trout or Harper they'd only be 36 when a 10-year deal would end so it's reasonable to think they'd still be playing at a high level throughout the contract.

Harper has to figure out how to play consistently to even reach $100.

[Clark Kent]

In the past year Pujols got over $250 million and Joey Votto got over $240 million. Both Harper and Trout could easily top $300 million in their first free-agent contract. The Dodgers just threw around $260 million to acquire Gonzalez and what's left of Beckett and Crawford.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

In the past year Pujols got over $250 million and Joey Votto got over $240 million. Both Harper and Trout could easily top $300 million in their first free-agent contract. The Dodgers just threw around $260 million to acquire Gonzalez and what's left of Beckett and Crawford.

Again, no team in there right mind is going to spend $300 million on a player. People thought Puljos would get $300 million and that didn't happen.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Again, no team in there right mind is going to spend $300 million on a player. People thought Puljos would get $300 million and that didn't happen.

But you're thinking of 300 million now at the end of their contracts if Trout and Harper are as good as Arod was there is no reason they couldn't get 300 million dollar contracts.

If you adjust that 2000 contract for inflation in 2011 that 252,000,000.00 would be worth 328,613,056.00

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by supersix4

But you're thinking of 300 million now at the end of their contracts if Trout and Harper are as good as Arod was there is no reason they couldn't get 300 million dollar contracts.

If you adjust that 2000 contract for inflation in 2011 that 252,000,000.00 would be worth 328,613,056.00

It's not the question of them being good or not. It's the matter that a team isn't going to tie that much money up on one player. That's the type of contract that could paralyze a team (When the Rangers signed A-rod to that huge ass contract, the reason they were bad for such a long time was due to the fact that they had all that money tied to him, they couldn't get anyone else).

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by supersix4

But you're thinking of 300 million now at the end of their contracts if Trout and Harper are as good as Arod was there is no reason they couldn't get 300 million dollar contracts.

If you adjust that 2000 contract for inflation in 2011 that 252,000,000.00 would be worth 328,613,056.00

Exactly. People don't factor in the extreme inflation in MLB. Salaries grow MUCH faster than nearly any other occupation. There will be $300 mill players in MLB, and sooner than many think. Then $350 mill players, and so on.


Since the advent of free agency in 1975 the average MLB salary is up over 6,600%. I'm fairly sure that's a bit higher than inflation over that span.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

It's not the question of them being good or not. It's the matter that a team isn't going to tie that much money up on one player. That's the type of contract that could paralyze a team (When the Rangers signed A-rod to that huge ass contract, the reason they were bad for such a long time was due to the fact that they had all that money tied to him, they couldn't get anyone else).

300 is nothing to the learners they are way richer than even your yanks (and actually espn wrote an article saying the yankees were probably worth over 2billion so he could buy the yankees in cash, and still be worth over a billion ) not sure about the giants lol, but they paid zito so they must have money

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by supersix4

300 is nothing to the learners they are way richer than even your yanks (and actually espn wrote an article saying the yankees were probably worth over 2billion so he could buy the yankees in cash, and still be worth over a billion ) not sure about the giants lol, but they paid zito so they must have money

Tell that to the Rangers.

[Navster]

Originally Posted by supersix4

300 is nothing to the learners they are way richer than even your yanks not sure about the giants lol, but they paid zito so they must have money

Only 2 more years and he's off the books

He's only making $19M this year, and $20M next year, easily one of the worst contracts in sports history

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Tell that to the Rangers.

Ok... Tom Hicks was worth about 1 billion (he owned the rangers in 2000) so ted learner alone could buy almost 4 tom hicks

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

It's not the question of them being good or not. It's the matter that a team isn't going to tie that much money up on one player. That's the type of contract that could paralyze a team (When the Rangers signed A-rod to that huge ass contract, the reason they were bad for such a long time was due to the fact that they had all that money tied to him, they couldn't get anyone else).

I bet there would be a greater chance of a contract that big happening soon if the Boss were still around. The Yankees payroll grew consistently under him, peaking at around $210 mill. Since his stepping aside and later passing the team seems to have settled into a payroll in the $190'ish million range. The current management just doesn't seem inclined to throw out many $200 mill contracts, let alone $300 mill.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

I bet there would be a greater chance of a contract that big happening soon if the Boss were still around. The Yankees payroll grew consistently under him, peaking at around $210 mill. Since his stepping aside and later passing the team seems to have settled into a payroll in the $190'ish million range. The current management just doesn't seem inclined to throw out many $200 mill contracts, let alone $300 mill.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't have doubted George if he was still around.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Perhaps, but I wouldn't have doubted George if he was still around.

except on Randy Johnson, Igawa, Pavano, Marte, Farnsworth

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by supersix4

except on Randy Johnson, Igawa, Pavano, Marte, Farnsworth

Don't get me started.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Don't get me started.

lol you can counter with... Oh wait the O's didn't sign anyone worth noting under Angelos I'm sure he feels very validated now.

[Hatter]

1-0 for the Braves bottom 6. Pitching is singlehandedly keeping them from collapsing again right now.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

No player will ever get a contract even close to what A-Rod got. It was a terrible deal.

No it wasn't. Why do people always say that? The postseason has been mostly forgettable but he was amazing for the Rangers and won two more MVP's with the Yankees. 3 MVP's during that contract.

Overall: 159 games per season

.304 .400 .594 154 OPS+

125 R 47 HR 130 RBI 19 SB (19-4) average over the life of that contract. Huge numbers and only missing 20 total games in seven seasons.


Because of the postseason it wasn't a slam dunk but to say it was terrible is pretty harsh. Those Yankees teams outside Jeter pretty much sucked in the postseason from 2004-2007.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Hatter

No it wasn't. Why do people always say that? The postseason has been mostly forgettable but he was amazing for the Rangers and won two more MVP's with the Yankees. 3 MVP's during that contract.

Overall: 159 games per season

.304 .400 .594 154 OPS+

125 R 47 HR 130 RBI 19 SB (19-4) over the life of that contract


Because of the postseason it wasn't a slam dunk but to say it was terrible is pretty harsh. Those Yankees teams outside Jeter pretty much sucked in the postseason from 2004-2007.

I agree all-n-all I'd have made it (had he never done roids) because that was a huge appeal.