It was an astonishing figure that Ken Rosenthal reported. On some level the figures are always astonishing, but this one was especially so. Allow me to jog your memory:
Would Giancarlo Stanton turn down the biggest contract in professional sports history?
The Miami Marlins apparently intend to find out.
The two sides are discussing a deal that would be for at least 10 years and at least $300 million, according to major-league sources.
There used to be some talk that Clayton Kershaw would become the first $300 million man, and then he signed for about seven-tenths of that. Miguel Cabrera came close, but now it's Stanton who's threatening to break through the barrier. It's astonishing, really, for multiple reasons. There's the raw amount of money. There's the team said to be considering the raw amount of money. There's the player said to be considering the raw amount of money, what with Stanton's reaction a few years back to the Marlins' most recent fire sale. The snarky way to explain this is that it would take $300 million for the Marlins to convince anyone to trust them. Why sign with that team if you don't have to?
But the Marlins have insisted for a long time that they're committed to keeping Stanton around. Maybe, finally, they're going to turn over a new leaf. We can't predict where the Marlins are going to go. We know only that they have some talent now, and that they might soon sign their brightest star to a contract worth almost a third of a billion dollars. That seems like a lot. But, is it crazy, or is it entirely reasonable?
It seems entirely reasonable. If you want a math-y explanation, Dave Cameron has you covered, with something he wrote a couple months ago. Not only does Cameron make the case for a $300 million contract -- there's even a hint of an argument for a $400 million contract. That won't happen, but it does help to establish the limits of reason here. Stanton's worth a hell of a lot of money. What I'm going to do is try to explain the thinking without leaning so much on dollars per WAR. You don't have to get that complicated to understand why Stanton could set a new contract record.
Stanton, last year, made $6.5 million. He has two more years of arbitration eligibility, and obviously, last year he was fantastic. He's projected here to make $13 million in 2015. Let's keep things simple and say that Stanton should earn about $30 million or so over the next two seasons, before his would-be free-agent years. The Marlins are looking to sign Stanton beyond the next two years, so any contract has a foundation of two years and $30 million. Onward.
Something we just saw the other day: The Tigers signed Victor Martinez to a four-year contract worth $68 million. That'll take Martinez through his age-39 season. Martinez is coming off a career year in which he posted a wRC+ of 166, meaning his offense was 66 percent better than average. Stanton, meanwhile, just posted a wRC+ of 159, which for all intents and purposes is equal. Now think about the two big factors: Martinez is 11 years older than Stanton, and Martinez is a designated hitter. Stanton's still got youth, and Stanton's still got defense.
Moving on, consider that Miguel Cabrera signed an eight-year extension worth $248 million. He signed that last March, and it was to kick in two seasons later, similar to what we'll see with a given Stanton contract. Over the three years before signing his extension, Cabrera posted a 178 wRC+. Over his own last three years, Stanton has posted a 151 wRC+. But, not only does Stanton have more defensive value than Cabrera, that contract covers Cabrera's eight seasons through age 40. If Stanton were to sign a 10-year contract, beginning right away, it'd cover his seasons through age 34. The first two years of Cabrera's contract would be the last two years of Stanton's contract. That's where there's a huge difference in value. The Tigers are paying for Cabrera's decline. The Marlins want to pay for Stanton's peak, and early decline.
Based on some initial evidence, players these days aren't aging like they used to in the recent, steroid-y past. Players don't seem to stay good as long into their 30s, and they appear to hit their peaks pretty quickly. If the pattern holds true -- and it's fairly intuitive -- it's far better to spend big on younger guys than older guys. So there would be a huge difference between signing one star through age 34, and signing another star through age 40. The former could remain productive throughout. The latter stands a great chance of becoming a liability.
Let's get back to what Stanton represents. He just turned 25 a week ago, and he's been one of the best hitters on the planet. Though he wasn't quite as good as usual in 2013, he was clearly fighting through injuries, and he answered any questions with his most recent MVP-caliber campaign. Between the ages of 22-24, Stanton ran a 151 wRC+ over more than 1,600 plate appearances. Going back to 1950, 19 other players have batted at least 1,500 times between the ages of 22-24, posting a wRC+ of at least 140. Their average has been a 152 wRC+, with a 148 median.
Obviously, it's a group of great players. Names include David Wright, Ken Griffey Jr., and Reggie Jackson. Miguel Cabrera, too, is in there. How did those players go on to do between the ages of 25-29? They averaged a 150 wRC+, with a 151 median. Exactly the same, in other words, with no drop-off in overall play outside of just hitting.
More broadly, how did those players go on to do between the ages of 25-34? This would cover a 10-year contract extension. The group averaged a 145 wRC+, with a 146 median. Cabrera isn't yet 34, and neither is Wright, but they're close enough, so the numbers shouldn't change much. The worst hitter out of the group over those 10 years is Don Mattingly, with a 119 wRC+ that means he was still 19 percent better than average. Next-worst: 28 percent better than average. The cautionary tale might be Darryl Strawberry, but he was fantastic through age 30, and he had some, say, other issues, that Stanton probably won't have.
Players who compare well to Stanton in his youth have mostly gone on to remain outstanding for several more seasons. I don't think I need to defend the statement that Stanton is on a Hall-of-Fame trajectory, and while it seems true that players these days are aging differently, Stanton's already achieved an incredible peak, and his decline shouldn't begin in earnest for the better part of a decade. Bets don't get much safer, as long-term contracts go. Stanton's extraordinary, he's young, and last year, save for a freak accident, he stayed healthy. Health was the one concern.
So Stanton's worth a big average annual value, and he's young enough to be worth a long commitment. Put those together, and factor in that there's more money in the game than ever, and reaching the $300 million mark isn't a challenge. It's entirely defensible, and we could see something happen today, or tomorrow, or next week. It'll just depend on how well the Marlins are able to convince Stanton that they're going to function like an actual baseball team.
And that's the only way this would make sense, anyway. Last year's opening-day payroll was $46 million. The year before, $51 million. A team that cheap absolutely cannot afford a monster contract like the Stanton proposal, because a team that cheap needs to be almost impossibly efficient. It can't pay almost market rate for a superstar, no matter how super or starry. The Marlins can only rationalize this if they're going to try to win, and try to win for more than a few months at a time. We know the Marlins have the money. They need to start investing it, for any of this to make sense.
And there's your real story, should a contract materialize. Stanton's worth $30 million a year, for as long as 10 or more years. That's the unsurprising part. The Marlins, then, would have to be thinking about acting like the rest of the major leagues. That's the surprising part.
