Manny Machado's record deal with the Padres was a record for about two days. Then Bryce Harper signed with the Phillies for the "stupid" money Philadelphia's owner was promising. His 13-year, $330 million deal was the largest free agent contract in history, and it made baseball fans everywhere wonder what type of money Mike Trout would command once he finally became a free agent after next season.
We'll never find out the answer to that question, though. Because Trout's never going to be a free agent. Instead, he signed a 12-year extension worth $426.5 million, making him the richest player in baseball history and likely keeping him in an Angels uniform for his entire career. (Something tells me this contract will turn out better for the Angels than the Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton deals did.)
Trout's extension made headlines not just because of the dollars and the years. It's also because he's the best player in baseball and every team was salivating at the chance to throw ridiculous money at him when he reached free agency. But instead of testing the open market, he opted to sign an extension (with two years left in his existing contract).
And he's not the only one. To no one's surprise, Clayton Kershaw re-signed with the Dodgers instead of becoming a free agent over the winter. And since Trout's mega-extension was announced, Jacob deGrom re-upped with the Mets, Luis Severino signed an extension with the Yankees, and Ronald Acuna, Jr., did the same thing with the Braves. And I'm sure they won't be the last.
After the two worst offseasons to be a free agent in history, players now seem to be doing everything they can to avoid becoming free agents. I'm sure free agency as an institution isn't completely dead. But the long-term extension seems to be baseball's newest trend. For marquee players at least.
For the Angels, Dodgers, Mets, etc., it makes complete sense to do whatever you can to keep your franchise icon. And, don't forget, the Nationals did make Harper an offer (even if it was a token offer). Granted, some teams don't. The Orioles didn't with Machado because they knew there was no chance they'd re-sign him. But the big-market teams (and even some smaller-market clubs) you'd expect to at least try and keep their biggest names around. Especially when the finances aren't likely to be an issue.
In his press conference, Trout talked about how much he loves being an Angel and how much he loves LA and how it's the only place he wants to play. The money sure must be nice, too.
I have no doubt that Trout's remarks were sincere. If he didn't like playing in Anaheim, he wouldn't have signed an extension. And, after playing in a grand total of three playoff games over his first seven seasons, there's no question he wants to win in Anaheim. He's already basically a god in Southern California. Just imagine what it'll be like if the Angels win a World Series between now and 2030.
Although, I also have to wonder how much the tepid free agent market of the past two winters impacted his decision. Not just Trout's decision. Acuna's and deGrom's and Severino's, too. (I'm not counting Kershaw because it seems unlikely he was going anywhere even if he had become a free agent.) Did they sign extensions because they really want to be there? Or because it offered the safety that free agency doesn't?
No matter how you slice it, free agency hasn't been kind to even the best players over the last two winters. Last year, J.D. Martinez didn't sign until mid-February, even though everyone knew he was going to the Red Sox. This year was supposed to be the great free agent winter of Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. They both got their mega-deals. They just had to wait until March to get them. (Meanwhile, Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel are still unsigned.)
That had to enter into the back of their minds. How could it not? And who's to say how volatile the free agent will be in the future? So why take that financial risk if they don't have to? Especially when they've got a good thing going? Of course, it's possible that they could've gotten more money and/or more years from somebody else had they become a free agent. But can you blame them for taking the sure thing? And, as a cherry on top, not alienating the fan base that's grown to love them.
Who's next? Kris Bryant? He's still got three years left on his rookie contract, but you know he'll get paid big time once he hits free agency after the 2021 season. You know the Cubs will want to keep him, but what will that take? He already turned down a $200 million extension, and there's probably some bad blood over those two weeks he spent in Triple A to start the 2013 season, delaying his free agency by a year.
If I had to guess, I'd say Bryant opts for free agency (which doesn't necessarily mean he'll leave the Cubs). The new CBA will be in affect by then, so you'd figure the issues players currently face in free agency will have been resolved. And even if they're not, there's no way Kris Bryant won't get paid a ridiculous amount of money by somebody.
Should he sign an extension and avoid free agency entirely, though, it'll really mark a shift. Instead of pitting deep-pocketed teams against each other for their services, the players are taking the safe route and getting paid by their current teams. It's good for the players, it's good for the owners, and it's good for the fans (at least those in their home cities). Is it good for baseball, though? That's an entirely different question.
No comments:
Post a Comment