Trea Turner is a Philly

[zappa1]

Trea Turner signs 300 million, 11 years with the Phillies.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by zappa1

Trea Turner signs 300 million, 11 years with the Phillies.

Feels a bit light actually. I guess to get 11 years you had to give up some on aav. I really like this for the Phillies.

[kq76]

I absolutely love Trea Turner's style, but this contract is not going to age well. He's already 29 (turns 30 June 30), his speed is going to decline, he doesn't have great plate discipline, and you're giving him 11 years? I feel like this contract is more like 6-8 years, 300 million. And that makes for a completely different AAV.

[dsvitak]

Welp..he's going to miss Bryce Harper for about the first 90 games.

He's not a bad player...he disappeared in October, unlike Harper.

[zappa1]

The main thing the Phils had a need with losing Segura. Stott can play 2nd even though he was drafted as a ss. Also he's a hitter for average that the Phils lacked. I'm happy.

[thehef]

As a life-long Dodger fan and a big fan of Turner's game, I hate to see him go. But the writing - that someone was going to way over pay for 4 or 5 years of top productivity - was on the wall.

At least in Turner's case, he went to a team that's just coming off a WS appearance. His predecessor at SS in Los Angeles, Corey Seager, went with the just take the money approach - a few million more over the course of a decade or so - and relinquished the chance to perennially contend for a championship... I mean things may change in Texas, but playing in LA is close to a guarantee of October baseball. Tejas? Not so much...

[monkeyman576]

This is going to end up being a Albert Pujols level bad contract.

[Déjà Bru]

Repeating myself from the 2023 MLB thread (I'm allowed because I'm old), it could be that "The Phillies are cognizant of the risk at the back end of the contract. Basically, they are paying for whatever good seasons Turner has left and spreading it over all 11 years."

Some former forum member once posited that theory and it has stuck with me. Think of it this way: They are deferring payment of many millions to future years for success and riches today and tomorrow. Turner has to wait for his money in exchange for helping win pennants now. That's not a bad financial gambit.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Repeating myself from the 2023 MLB thread (I'm allowed because I'm old), it could be that "The Phillies are cognizant of the risk at the back end of the contract. Basically, they are paying for whatever good seasons Turner has left and spreading it over all 11 years."

Some former forum member once posited that theory and it has stuck with me. Think of it this way: They are deferring payment of many millions to future years for success and riches today and tomorrow. Turner has to wait for his money in exchange for helping win pennants now. That's not a bad financial gambit.

I don't see how you mean. This is not a backloaded contract at all. It is spread evenly. The odds he will be worth $27M per year in his year 35 seaosn is extremely low and it will be very hard to trade him at that point.

[BIG17EASY]

According to some things I've read this morning on The Athletic and a few other places, there seems to be an industry belief that Turner's contract will age a bit better than some of the other monster deals because he'll remain a solid to plus defender into his later years because of his speed. Even if he can't play shortstop in the second half of the contract, he'll probably still be a plus defender in left field or at second base, so he'll have more value than guys like Pujols (2022 excluded) and Cano at the end of their deals. Of course, this assumes no serious lower body injury. If he does maintain that defensive value, if you combine that with Deja Bru's point about the later years being comparable to deferred payments for what he provides in the next 4-5 years, I think this deal has a chance to be pretty solid for the Phillies. And it pains me to say that as a Mets fan.

[monkeyman576]

Also I suppose you have to consider in 2030 $300M will probably be like an average contract.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I don't see how you mean. This is not a backloaded contract at all. It is spread evenly. The odds he will be worth $27M per year in his year 35 seaosn is extremely low and it will be very hard to trade him at that point.

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.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

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.

Yeah, if you get 40 WAR over 6 years then maybe it's worth it. But what if you only get 25 WAR.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Yeah, if you get 40 WAR over 6 years then maybe it's worth it. But what if you only get 25 WAR.

Now, THERE's the true risk in management's mind, perhaps. If Trey Turner tanks tremendously (say that three times fast) in the early part of this contract, then it will be "a Albert Pujols level bad contract" for sure. Imagine the last years of this contract without the huge success and pennants part up front.

[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.

[monkeyman576]

You're saying it would be worth it if you only get 25-30 WAR from Turner over the entire 11 years and do not win a world series?

[Déjà Bru]

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.

[zappa1]

Teams with money to spend take chances all the time. Phillies think they are that close after almost pulling the 6th seed thing off. It's not like they are rebuilding, so go for it. Take that chance I say. They're trying to win now because they came that close. I figure they could get 7 productive years out of those 11. If he stays healthy. But there's if's in every contract, no?