Look at it this way: Take $300 million and divide it by 11. That's $27.3 million per season. Sure, paying that when he is 40 years old is probably going to look very bad.
But suppose team owners and management are thinking this way instead:Take $300 million and divide it by, say, 6 productive years. Most players are heading downhill after 35 (some earlier, but say that's average). That's
$50 million per season! Outrageous, yes?
But let's also say that could be the true value of Trey Turner over the next six seasons AND it's comparable to what others of these free agents of his caliber and age are getting. Then it's not so out of whack.
The good news for baseball organizations is that, instead of actually paying Turner $50 million per year for six years, they are paying him $27 million over 11 years. Financially speaking, that's advantageous because, in the meantime, you are able to invest the $23 million per year difference and make some money on it, reducing your overall cost.
As I said, some guy theorized this and it has stuck with me. He was trying to say,
"You don't worry about the back ends of these contracts. Ballclubs obtain the value of them up front and pay for much of it in arrears."
That's the theory.
