Have any of the big, multi-year deals ever helped a team? I'm thinking of anything from Bregman to Soto. (Not calendar year, just the range of the deal)

I can't think of any, so that's why I am asking.
I don't get why team still fall for this stuff. Let 'em walk.

Ohtani has worked out. Freddie Freeman too and probably a couple of the starting pitchers. I can't remember if Mookie Betts was a trade or free agent from Boston.

Soto has played pretty well, but the team is doing awful, and this could look even worse if he regresses.

Really none of the deals for Correa, Springer, Bregman, or Valdez worked for the team as far as former Astros go. Cole has been very good for the Yankees, but he missed a lot of time with injury too.

But to your point, there's probably a much longer list of busts and injury declines than there are of success stories for big time veteran free agent signings.

I'd guess 80 to 90% of long-term deals turn out to be big mistakes

very, very few players can provide high-level performance year after year

without injury or father time catching up...or lack of motivation kicking in

it is remarkable how GM's fall for this over and over and over again

The Scherzer contract with Washington was an overwhelming success, but your point remains (and is valid)

that contract was cancelled out by the Strasburg contract

from 2020 to 2026...he pitched in a total of 8 games for the Nationals

and was paid $245 MM

he was still paid the full amount despite retiring early -- something the owners need to address in the next CBA

Remember this when all of you are clamoring for a salary cap because you think it will bring competitive balance.

If anecdotally 80% of these contracts end up hurting the rich teams that give them out... why are we so keen to institute a cap?

It's just my opinion, but all that will end up happening if we have a cap is that players will take discounts to play on good teams with strong fan bases. You can't force a guy to sign in Tampa and play in a crap stadium in front of 5000 fans.

AggieEP said:

---

Remember this when all of you are clamoring for a salary cap because you think it will bring competitive balance.

If anecdotally 80% of these contracts end up hurting the rich teams that give them out... why are we so keen to institute a cap?

It's just my opinion, but all that will end up happening if we have a cap is that players will take discounts to play on good teams with strong fan bases. You can't force a guy to sign in Tampa and play in a crap stadium in front of 5000 fans.

---

Good point.

New rule - No team's 3 largest contracts can be total over $60M.

Take that rich teams!

Quote:

---

If anecdotally 80% of these contracts end up hurting the rich teams that give them out...

---

By virtue of being rich, the contracts don't hurt them

redline248 said:

---

Quote:

---

If anecdotally 80% of these contracts end up hurting the rich teams that give them out...

---

By virtue of being rich, the contracts don't hurt them

---

You don't think it hurts the Dodgers to play a sub-replacement level player everyday? Forget the money, the Dodgers have 4 top 25 prospects that are outfielders and instead of calling one of those guys up they keep running Tucker out there. The pain of missing on a big deal is as much linked to being forced to play the guy as it is to any limitations it might create with the rest of the payroll.

It's the same thing the Padres are dealing with regarding Xander Bogaerts. Money is an issue, but playing a negative WAR player in the lineup everyday is a far bigger problem.

It doesn't take much critical thinking to look at the standings this year and see the parity in the league with teams of all payroll sizes both winning and losing. Who cares of the Dodgers are good, their bills will come due soon and we'll all laugh at them when they are paying money to declining stars and sink into mediocrity. There was a time when all the fans thought the Yankees would be good forever because of their payroll, but they haven't won anything since 2009.

Quote:

---

You don't think it hurts the Dodgers to play a sub-replacement level player everyday?

---

I do not, and it's because they are rich they can afford to pay him, play him and surround him with other expensive players

I think it's easier to remember the poor ones.

All of the following worked out good to great or are working out well.

Harper
Machado
Alvarez
Altuve (the first 2)
Acuna (even with the injuries)
Judge
JRam (both)
Wheeler (first one)
Nola
Hader (so far so good)
Scherzer
Verlander
Kershaw
Beltre
Pujols (first one)
Posey
Arenado (even with the fall off)

Farmer1906 said:

---

I think it's easier to remember the poor ones.

All of the following worked out good to great or are working out well.

Harper
Machado
Alvarez
Altuve (the first 2)
Acuna (even with the injuries)
Judge
JRam (both)
Wheeler (first one)
Nola
Hader (so far so good)
Scherzer
Verlander
Kershaw
Beltre
Pujols (first one)
Posey
Arenado (even with the fall off)

---

This list includes many contracts that fall outside the parameters of what fans are talking about when they think about big free agent signings. Some like Acuna are on bargain basement pre-arb extensions. And intentionally, or unintentionally your list also includes 14 separate teams which would seem to make the point that almost anyone could sign a guy to a long expensive contract.

To make this comparison really about the true mega deals that get the attention of fans we need to set the total dollars at 200 million and above. Once you get to that level and do the analysis you'll see that these mega deals usually work out just ok over the length of the deal. It's not fair to call the Arennado deal good, because he's now stacked 4 terrible years on the end of 4 great years. That's ok. Judge is an all time great, but he's getting paid not to play this year. Seager is the same. Tucker is just about the worst regular in the league this year.