Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
Aren't these deals pretty much always about paying for the top-line production in the first half of the contract by overpaying over the back half? Even when a contract isn't specifically backloaded, that's how they work and it's how they're made to work. No, nobody's going to want to trade for Trea Turner in 6 years (I guess unless they're the Mets). It's really, really not the point of these deals.
And "even if" he only gives them 25 WAR over the next 4 years instead of 40, there's still a big premium for 6 WAR a year over the 1-2 you get from an average starter. We fit WAR at "replacement level" because presumably you can find a player in your own minor league system or as a cheap free agent or in a minor league trade who can produce 0 WAR for you, but it's a bell curve - 0 WAR guys are more plentiful than 1 WAR guys, 1 WAR moreso than 2 WAR, and so on. You *kind* of pay for WAR but it's not linear like that.
|
You are not the guy that I got the theory from, but your first paragraph pretty much dovetails with it. However, regarding your second paragraph, I think I agree with monkeyman on the WAR requirement; if the theory holds, and Turner is actually worth $50 million per year for six years (with five years of deferred payments after that), then his performance better be truly outstanding in those six seasons.