Are the Megadeals Worth It?

It cost the Yankees $360 million to keep their franchise player in pinstripes.  The Mets will be paying two 40-year-old pitchers a combined $80 million next season.  Carlos Correa just signed a 13-year deal with the Giants that will keep him in San Francisco until he's 41, while Trea Turner will spend the next 12 years in Philadelphia.  And, of course, we aren't too far removed from the Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Mookie Betts and Mike Trout megadeals.  

That's obviously become the trend.  When superstars hit free agency, they cash in big time.  A lot of money for a lot of years.  And, now that the precedent's been established, those contracts are only gonna keep getting bigger.  It's not crazy to think that we're only a few years away from the first $500 million player.

But are these contracts worth it?  Teams are making quite an investment in a player who they know they'll be paying way above market value for at the end of the deal.  Of course, the whole point is to pay him for the player he is now and hope he can stay productive enough long enough for them to not regret it.  But, as history as shown us, these massive contracts often do not work out.

The most recent example is Albert Pujols and the Angels.  When he left the Cardinals, he was the hottest free agent on the market.  He ended up signing a 10-year deal with the Angels.  No one would consider that a "good" contract.  Injuries and age caught up with Albert and the Angels wanted to work in other players, relegating him first to DH duty, then to a bench player (after they needed the DH spot for Ohtani), then, ultimately, releasing him during the final year of his contract.

Albert, of course, was reborn after signing with the Dodgers and looked like his old self last season, when he ended his career with a farewell tour in St. Louis.  But the point remains, the Angels regretted paying a bench player so much money during the final years of his contract.  Just like how the Yankees regretted paying Alex Rodriguez so much money at the end of his career.

Teams obviously know the risk they're taking.  They're paying these guys through their peak years and into their 30s, when their production will obviously be expected to decline.  There are obvious exceptions (Verlander just won the Cy Young at 39), but that's still an awful lot of money.  And fans, understandably, will expect someone who's making so much money to be worth that salary.  Which is another reason why these contracts don't age well.

I absolutely get why teams do it.  If you've got the money and need and the player has the interest, why not go for him?  And, yes, it's true that only a handful of teams have the money to even offer these types of contracts, which gives them even more incentive to do it.  They (and their fans) expect to reach the World Series and think a player of that caliber is all they need to put them over the top, so the mindset is to go get him, whatever the cost.

Of course, every team going after the same free agent feels the same way, and the "losers" then have to pivot to Plan B.  But that can often turn out to be a blessing in disguise.  Because it lets them take the money they planned on giving to that marquee player and spread it out among others.  That's always a consideration, too.  Especially with the luxury tax.  Which means teams usually end up with a combination of high-priced free agents and low-cost rookies with no in between.

There's obviously plenty of risk for the players too.  Yes, they're cashing in big time, but they're also deciding where they want to spend the next decade playing baseball.  It has to be the right fit, and so much more goes into it than just the amount of money being offered.  That's why Aaron Judge accepted $360 million for nine years from the Yankees instead of $400 million for 10 years from the Padres.  He wanted to be in New York and that was important to him.

At the same time, though, this might be the only time in their careers that these guys will be free agents.  They know this, and they have every right to cash in.  And, if a team is willing to offer them a 12-year contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars, what are they gonna do?  Say no?  Especially if they're a player like Judge or Correa (or the Harper/Machado year) and their value will never be higher.

Still, everyone knows it's the player who'll reap the long-term benefits.  They'll be paid the same as dwindling 40-year-olds as they are now, when they're superstars in their prime.  And they're still getting it whether they remain productive stars for the duration of the contract or not.  Obviously everyone would prefer if they stay as productive as possible as long as possible, but even if they're not, even if age and injuries catch up to them, that salary isn't changing.

So, even though the system benefits the player, it's not changing.  This is the first and possibly only time that the player has all the leverage.  And team owners and GMs know that these superstar players, who don't become available very often, can be the difference maker.  At the very least, they'll create a buzz that leads to increased ticket and merchandise sales.  Which makes it worthwhile for the team, too, at least in the short-term.

An added wrinkle in some of the newer megadeals like Correa's are full no-trade clauses.  Some don't even have opt-outs.  Of course, things can always change by mutual agreement, but full no-trade clauses and no opt-outs bind the player to their new team that much more.  Which is great if everything works out.  But if it doesn't, they're stuck with each other and the team is on the hook.

Although, who knows?  Maybe the long-term contract will work out.  The Phillies sure reaped the benefits of the Harper signing with their World Series run this season.  The team they beat in the NLCS?  Machado's Padres!  But there's also the strong possibility that at least one of these megadeals ends the way Albert Pujols' tenure with the Angels did.  As a huge waste of money.  That's the risk you run, though, if you get the player you wanted that badly.