User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5360 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, March 28, 2014
Miguel Cabrera and Tigers agree on eight-year, $248 million extension
Miguel Cabrera, the best hitter in baseball, will also be the best-paid player in the game when the slugger and the Detroit Tigers finalize what multiple reports say would be the biggest contract extension in baseball history based on average annual value.
Cabrera and the Tigers have agreed on an extension that would keep an Olde English “D” on Cabrera’s chest through 2023. It’s worth $248 million over eight years and kicks in after Cabrera finishes his old deal, which still has two years and $44 million remaining.
The extension is worth $31 million per year, which would be the highest yearly salary for any deal in history, eclipsing Clayton Kershaw’s seven-year deal with the Dodgers that’s worth $215 million, or $30.71 million per year.
GregD
Posted: March 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM | 138 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: contract extension, miguel cabrera, tigers
Tags: contract extension, miguel cabrera, tigers
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OTP 2016 Sep 26: A single for Donald Trump - He doesn’t have to hit a home run to send Hillary to the showers
(1232 - 9:35am, Sep 29)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: OT: August 2016 Soccer Thread
(628 - 9:33am, Sep 29)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: Steven Matz To Undergo Surgery To Remove Bone Spur From Elbow
(6 - 9:26am, Sep 29)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)
Newsblog: Cracked: Baseball Is Carefully Crafted To Skirt The Limits Of Human Ability
(5 - 9:25am, Sep 29)
Last: GregD
Newsblog: The Other Weird Thing About the Home-Run Surge | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 9:23am, Sep 29)
Last: Ron J
Newsblog: Anthony Rizzo and Ben Zobrist were forced to swap positions (and gloves) for a single play | MLB.com
(1 - 9:20am, Sep 29)
Last: Cargo Cultist
Newsblog: Theo Epstein Agrees To 5-Year Extension With Cubs
(24 - 9:19am, Sep 29)
Last: zonk
Sox Therapy: Ten Moments That Won A Division
(6 - 9:08am, Sep 29)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
Sox Therapy: Looking Ahead - Playoff Roster
(26 - 8:49am, Sep 29)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER 9-29-16
(2 - 8:37am, Sep 29)
Last: Jose Remains The Most Absurd Thing on the Site
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-29-2016
(2 - 8:28am, Sep 29)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com
Sox Therapy: The Most Annoying Man In The World
(6 - 8:11am, Sep 29)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)
Newsblog: Tebow homers on first instructional league pitch
(39 - 7:59am, Sep 29)
Last: Rickey! Filipino Diving Team
Newsblog: White Sox will retain Robin Ventura if he wants to return: report - Chicago Tribune
(16 - 6:12am, Sep 29)
Last: Cooper Nielson
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1997 Ballot
(8 - 5:05am, Sep 29)
Last: bjhanke
(1232 - 9:35am, Sep 29)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: OT: August 2016 Soccer Thread
(628 - 9:33am, Sep 29)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: Steven Matz To Undergo Surgery To Remove Bone Spur From Elbow
(6 - 9:26am, Sep 29)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)
Newsblog: Cracked: Baseball Is Carefully Crafted To Skirt The Limits Of Human Ability
(5 - 9:25am, Sep 29)
Last: GregD
Newsblog: The Other Weird Thing About the Home-Run Surge | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 9:23am, Sep 29)
Last: Ron J
Newsblog: Anthony Rizzo and Ben Zobrist were forced to swap positions (and gloves) for a single play | MLB.com
(1 - 9:20am, Sep 29)
Last: Cargo Cultist
Newsblog: Theo Epstein Agrees To 5-Year Extension With Cubs
(24 - 9:19am, Sep 29)
Last: zonk
Sox Therapy: Ten Moments That Won A Division
(6 - 9:08am, Sep 29)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
Sox Therapy: Looking Ahead - Playoff Roster
(26 - 8:49am, Sep 29)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER 9-29-16
(2 - 8:37am, Sep 29)
Last: Jose Remains The Most Absurd Thing on the Site
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-29-2016
(2 - 8:28am, Sep 29)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com
Sox Therapy: The Most Annoying Man In The World
(6 - 8:11am, Sep 29)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)
Newsblog: Tebow homers on first instructional league pitch
(39 - 7:59am, Sep 29)
Last: Rickey! Filipino Diving Team
Newsblog: White Sox will retain Robin Ventura if he wants to return: report - Chicago Tribune
(16 - 6:12am, Sep 29)
Last: Cooper Nielson
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1997 Ballot
(8 - 5:05am, Sep 29)
Last: bjhanke
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't think anyone faults the players for making these deals. The GM's are the people being criticized.
Hey, take it to the Boras thread.
Like the Cano deal, it's a contract that will almost certainly hurt the team in the second half of it, but letting him go as a free agent would probably cripple the team in the short-term. The Yankees decided that they didn't want to take that risk, and it's really iffy as to whether or not they made the right choice - but for them the calculus is different because they want to be a contender now *and* 10 years from now, and figure to have the budget to do that. The Tigers' budget is more like almost everyone else's, where there's going to be a "success cycle", so there's a decent chance that 10 years from now they'd be on the down end of that anyway, and paying more then to get a good shot at a ring in the next few years is probably *more* worth it than it would have been for the Yankees.
So, in summation, I'm more or less okay with this deal, especially if the Tigers *do* win the World Series in the next few years.
Nah. It's not possible to sign a position player to a contract dumber than giving a massive contract with a massive player option to a pitcher.
Plus I don't see any mention of a player option in there.
I completely see this argument. The counter is that fans are ####### fickle assholes and will turn on Miggy if he becomes a perceived albatross. It's an old, old story.
I...I...cannot dispute this. But hey, maybe Cabrera will have a Big Papi tiwlight. I mean, he can't get LESS mobile than he was last year.
I hope it works out for all involved. It's no fun when a beloved icon has to have one of those messy divorces from a team requiring few years of separation before the nostalgia can heal the wounds. Plus, if Miggy can keep from becoming an anchor it will mean he is putting up some massive career numbers which baseball geeks like myself can't help but love.
After the precipitous fall of Pujols, I think I'm done trying to figure what players -- based on body type, personal care habits, durability history, skillset, etc -- will age well and which won't.
I guess the only thing I'd add on the Miggie contract -- he still had this year and next left on his current deal... I don't think that I'd have extended him until at least next year.
"According to CBSSports.com, which earlier reported Detroit and Cabrera were closing in on an agreement, the new deal also includes two additional vesting options worth $30 million apiece for years 11 and 12 that could bring the total of the deal to $352 million."
This is probably the latest in the long line of "worst deals ever" (from a GM's perspective). Interestingly enough, most of the coverage indicates that rival execs have no issue at all with the AAV of the deal; all of them, understandably, think the timing, total value and length of the deal is absurd.
Trout... what? 10/400?
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10684892/miguel-cabrera-detroit-tigers-agree-10-year-deal-worth-almost-300-million
Naw, it looks like we'll be hearing from all types of dopes today.
Did they not read about the Pujols deal? Don't Illitch and Moreno golf together?
The Zito and A Soriano contracts reflected the opposite.
Only if he dramatically declines before hitting free agency.
If Trout remains anything close to what he's been the last two years--that is to say, if he hits free agency as an established 8-win-a-year player--if he were to hire Scott Boras, Boras would ask for a $1 billion contract with a straight face. And get more than half of that.
Yeah 'cause that is like the most common ever post in your head - which matters I guess.
Back in reality:
* The owners do screw over players when they are chattel before free agency.
* Some lucky players get to screw over the owners in deals like this.
* Both sides however are wealthy enough that it is hard to feel too sorry for them, though since the players are the talent I favor them, especially since the owners also screw over the public with the generally ridiculous Stadium/Blackmail efforts.
Basically it is a business, and on the business side everyone is looking out for #1. When one side treats it like a business does not make the other side suddenly have the halo of "good".
This ignores the value teams often get from having the players on the team for the later years. Just because they are overpaid does not make them worthless.
But it is better to think of the total dollar amount and the total years, and not worry about correlating individual seasons' values to those seasons' annual salary.
That's exactly what they are. Well, I'd say more like $40M a year for six years, but... that's what they are.
The problem with Pujols' contract is that he steeply declined immediately after signing it. If the Tigers can get even three years of MIGGY production and three years of still-pretty-good decline (or MIGGY production for only 110 games a year, like the Braves got for most of the second half of Chipper Jones' career) this contract will turn out all right for them.
But the specific problem here is that Cabrera does not take care of himself at all, and is a much greater risk of rapid decline than even Pujols or A-Rod were.
Not exactly, they are that plus free years for the team at the end...
Nope. I think the worst deal ever signed in any sport is still the NY Islanders/DiPietro deal:
On September 12, 2006, DiPietro signed a 15-year, $67.5 million contract with the Islanders, topping former teammate Alexei Yashin's contract signed before the start of the 2001–02 season of 10 years.
He'd played a total of 143 regular season games in his career before that deal, and had 58 wins (and 1 playoff win).
He had won zero awards, was never an all-star before then, wasn't in the top 10 in any stat before signing that contract.
The dollar amount doesn't seem that big, but he was the 2nd highest paid player on the team, 8th highest paid goalie in the league, and 44th overall in salary that year (2006-07).
Everyone knew that it was too long and too much on what was a middling goalie at best.
FTW...
Maybe even get Broderick to play Mozeliak in the film adaptation. Aaron Eckhart as Scott Boras is a no brainer. Giancarlo Esposito could play Rubén Amaro Jr. Pitt can return as Beane. Bob Odenkirk can play somebody prominent.
Who wouldn't see this?
There are non-rich guys getting beaten up by the winner-takes-all system as it exists. At this level of obscene wealth, it doesn't really cost the winners much to help out those who who get abused by the system.
I have often wondered what this generation of ballplayers will do with all their crazy money once they retire.
Ooooh man, you mean poor widdle Stephen Strasburg has to survive on just a signing bonus and four million dollars a year while he's paying his dues before he's eligible to get his big megadeal?
Yeah, he's a ****ing slave under this unbearable collective bargaining agreement. I'm crying a river, because I don't know how in the world he can even possibly survive.
Wait, are you saying he could afford to keep Doug Fister after all?
Probably the same as the previous generation of ballplayers...lose it all?
Because one example is representative of every one in the set.
Based on that, I'd assume that ALL Nationals fans are raving idiots.
Thankfully, I know that isn't the case.
They're not all raving...
(I kid, I kid! It's Friday!)
In your mind, exactly how much money should the typical first year player taken in the middle rounds of the draft be making? Just how high do the minimum and average MLB contracts need to be before guys like you stop whining? This ought to be good.
Cliff Robinson was on Survivor this season, so of course I had to look up his financial situation......$62 million in career salary, yet declared bankruptcy in 2009 with a net worth of negative $5.3 million.
Market rate for their services outside of a draft system designed by management and a player's union that doesn't represent them specifically to pay them less than those market rates? You know, capitalism? Freedoms and why the terrorists hate us and stuff. Is it really so hard to think "man, ball players should get paid for what their work is worth?"
Dude. Joey. There are no rational thoughts in his head. (I hesitate to use the term "mind" in relation to brute animals.)
A wordy dodge, which roughly translates to "I'd rather just keep whining than ever answer this question."
Please do not quote Joey B. posts.
That is all.
A-Rod's going to spend it all on legal fees.
Maybe Pujols and/or Cabrera could put together a group to buy the Oakland A's and run the team like the SF Bay area can support two frontline franchises. (why don't teams give ownership stakes in lieu of salary? Is it prohibited, or is ownership prospering so much that these guys are really not overpaid?)
Who said I was talking about MLB contracts?
The vast majority of players that are drafted by MLB never play a game in the majors, so they don't get "minimum" MLB contracts (never mind "average"). They are still subjected to the inability to earn more money because of the system currently in place. They are stuck with the team that drafted them (and the minor league salary forced upon them) for seven years.
And what do you mean by "first year player taken in the middle rounds"?
Has any player drafted in the "middle rounds" ever played in the majors in their first year?
I have often wondered what this generation of ballplayers will do with all their crazy money once they retire.
Probably the same as the previous generation of ballplayers...lose it all?
Beat me to it. They will probably just find more creative ways to do it (i.e. start your own video game company and lose a bunch of the state's money in the process).
That said, a star player who invested wisely could become more wealthy than some team owners, and could easily become part of an ownership group if he wanted to after retirement. We saw Jordan do that in basketball.
Cripes, they could just drag him down to Paco's Body Art and get the same thing for $49.95.
It is prohibited.
(why don't teams give ownership stakes in lieu of salary? Is it prohibited, or is ownership prospering so much that these guys are really not overpaid?)
It is prohibited, but I think the second part of your statement is also true. Teams have enough money to pay their players in cash, and the ones that don't probably can't afford to give up the equity either.
Plus, what happens to that ownership stake when a player gets traded or signs with a new team?
strasburg was the very last draftee to get a decent contract. the number 1 and 2 picks get a reasonable bonus, but after that, almost no one gets much of anything.
would you care to explain what percent of incoming money should go to the actual players?
would you care to explain why you think it is wonderful that younger minor leaguers have to live like refugees crammed in a small room and not have enough food to eat? the rookie league guys/low A ball guys are eligible for food stamps and mediciad in a lot of places.
Is he the guy who used to be Mike Esposito?
Not according to Jon Heyman.
When he's not covering AC/DC in dirty bars, Maury does good work on the business of baseball...
So if you think that the MLBPA ought to be open to minor leaguers as well, go ##### to Tony Clark and the MLBPA about it.
On the assumption that he continues to battle Miggy for MVP honors (or whoever replaces Miggy in the other-than-Mike-Trout MVP camp)? 40 mil per for 10-12 years, or 45 mil per for 7 years. Anything less than 7 years is 50 per.
You mean for an extension now, or when he hits free agency if he maintains something close to his current level the next three years?
If it's the latter, my opening demand is 20 years, $1 billion, and point out that
(a) Trout's remaining career is going to be worth over 100 wins,
(b) $50 million a year is a bargain for his prime, which you're getting several years of,
(c) each win is worth millions of dollars and the cost per win is only going to increase over the next 20 years;
(d) that's only considering his on-field performance; his superstar power is worth a lot more than that for marketing;
(e) Of course the last five years or so of the contract is just deferred money, but with Trout's extreme skillset and the fact he takes very good care of himself, he can be expected to be productive into his early 40s.
The actual figure I'm expecting to settle at is 15 years, $650 million, which is fairly well supported by the above arguments.
If we're talking about what I would ask for to sign an extension right now, if Trout really wants to sign an extension, I'd aim for a 10 year contract that gets him back out on the market at 32, at $40 million a year minus an appropriate discount to cover the arbitration years the Angels would be buying out. So it would be around 10 years, $350 million.
But I would advise Trout not to sign away a single year of free agency, to sign a contract covering only his team-controlled years and hit the market.
Followup question: What is the most you would offer Trout to sign an extension right now? I would offer 20 years, $400 million. I think Trout would be tempted to sign that if he has any inclination to play for anything other than every last possible dollar, and it would be likely to be a bargain for the Angels.
Either/or but mostly now.
I would demand ONE MILLION DOLLARS and then give a maniacal laugh.
I assume that $150/6y ask would include buying out arb years at 30mil per.
6/120. Very quick back of the envelope that gets me there like this;
2015 - 2 million
2016 - 10
2017 - 18
2018-2020 - 30
That alone is #### you money and sets me and my family for life. That leaves me as a free agent heading into my age 29 season where I sign my 10/350 deal. It's enough to protect me from career ending injury or something like that and not so outrageous that the Angels would balk. At the same time I've still got one mid-prime kiss at the free agent pig.
Giving up the first three FA years of Mike Trout's career for $90M is a ludicrous underbid.
Yes. Miggy Cabrera just raked in 33m per. There is no way you cash out three years of FA for Trout for 30m without getting more than 20m per in arb years.
The first two years of that deal set you and your family up for life, but I get what you mean.
Signing away one free agent year might be the smartest move for Trout - if you're just signing away arb years they don't really have any incentive to give you much more than your expected arb numbers because hell, why not. Whereas if you give them the carrot of a free agency year you might be able to get a little more out of them out of the gate.
In reality my guess is that they will sign away two years out of general conservatism.
* The owners do screw over players when they are chattel before free agency.
* Some lucky players get to screw over the owners in deals like this.
This is pretty much how it works in most industries (and why it is futile to hold up the guys at the top as any sort of broad indicator of "fairness" in the industry). You have a few awesome/lucky/special guys at the top making insane money, more than they could really hope to spend (though they do), and then the masses at the bottom who have a tough time getting by (in baseball the minor leaguers, cup of coffee guys, etc.).
WAS asking for and I am unsure that this number was ever confirmed. Either way, I am sure that offer is off the table now. Miggy just demolished that idea much like he demolishes fast balls!
This is the reason Silicon Valley is ageist when hiring developers. You get RCGs for pennies on the dollars for what you'd pay a 40 year old engineer with real work experience.
You need to keep in mind that Cabrera is about to turn 31, and this is probably his last deal.
Trout turns 23 this summer, so his thought process might be that taking a little less for fewer years now sets him up for a mega-megadeal right in the absolute prime of his career.
This is what I'd be looking to do: give up exactly one FA year.
A 6 year deal starting today is 2 years of free agency, so assuming 3 years/$60m for arb years, that's 2 years/90M for his first two FA years, which is ludicrous for the Angels, they'd be assuming 100% of risk and paying him his highest possible arb wards plus market value or higher on two FA years.
If team Trout wants to be a free agent in 6 years, a 6 year $100m deal is probably reasonable. Pay $50m for arb years, plus $25m a year for first 2 FA years. If Mike rips up a knee on a sprinkler while being chased through a backyard by a husband and misses a year and loses his explosiveness, the Angels will be happy not to be stuck with a 6 year albatross deal.
Trout isn't a free agent. The purpose of him signing a contract with the Angels is to eliminate risk, ie lock down as much money as possible now, without pushing the start of his first free agent deal past his prime years. If he's getting a $400m deal, it's on the open market in his late 20s. In the mean time, he doesn't want that husbands poorly maintained yard to lead to him making nearly zip on the disabled list next year and only $20m in arb awards the next three years.
The mega-megadeal comes when a superstar enters the FA market in his mid 20s. Trout's age 26 & 27 seasons (his first two FA seasons) are the most valuable in his career. If you want a salary-scale busting mega contract (A-Rod's 1st deal), you have to hit FA as soon as possible.
This is not true. There are no decent developers getting pennies on the dollar to write code in Silicon Valley - those guys are all in Russia or Ukraine.
Most 40 y.o. engineers are either totally completely unavailable (because they are awesome) or hidebound and have not adapted to 2010s programming skills / environment.
I just had a (young) guy with mediocre web programming (translation: not a Javascript ninja) experience not come in for a second interview because he accepted an offer for $100K/an in SF. This is a guy who almost flunked my programming test because he couldn't deal with a virtual box running linux.
BTW: if there are any competent engineers of any age looking to work in Silicon Valley for ca. $90K/year send me a pm. It's peanuts but Academia is much less stressful than the harsh realities of corporate life and layoffs.
Keeping Fister would have been a win now move, this deal obviously tells us Dombrowski knows the current team can't win, and he's building a winner for years 3 through 12 with the biggest DH in the league.
Just to be on the same page ( and in case I'm getting his arb years wrong) this is what I believe his expectation is if he does not sign a deal with the Angels and goes year-to-year till free agency (and doesn't get hurt or decline or arrested for being too awesome with too many married women at the same time).
Age - pay
22 - $500k
23 - $12M (arbitration)
24 - $20M (arbitration)
25 - $28M (arbitration)
26 - $40M (12 year free agent contract)
27 - $40M (12 year free agent contract)
28 - etc
That's his best case scenario, and it's only $140M for next 6 years, though it also gets that free agent deal started the soonest.
I think locking down $100m now while still being able to get a 10 year $400m deal at age 28 is a pretty reasonable deal for him. It insures him against injury during the next 4 years, and the utility of $400m simply isn't 4x as much as $100m when you only have maybe $3m to your name, it's might not even be 2x.
Not too bad really if they get 7 to 10 WAR between them and Trout could do that by himself. Time to start building the minor league system though.
I'm not convinced $40M AAV is the best Trout can do. A lot depends on what he does over the next 4 years, but if he maintains his current level of production til he's FA eligible, he'll get more than $40M AAV.
Player Age 28-30OPS+/bWAR
Miggy 177/22.1
Pujols 184/26.4
A-Rod 146/21.4
Soon we will say, that Miggy, boy he used to be able to rake.
Manny
At a $45M AAV he'd make $150M the next 6 years, at a $50M AAV he'd make $160M the next 6 years,
Use whichever number that feels right to you, and you get the maximum he can expect to make year to year over those 6 years. Whatever that number is has to be significantly discounted for a reasonable 6 year deal for the Angels. They should pay his average expectation, not his peak expectation, and further discounted since the contract forces them to assume multiyear risk. If those discounts aren't applied, the Angels are much better off with year to year.
It may be that Mike Trout is better off waiting for free agency because his market value is so huge and the massive long-term money he would lockdown would dwarf anything the angels could pay him for those six years. but you should also consider the following
a) That Mike Trout may not be a true talent 10 WAR player, regression says his first 2 years are so unprecedented in today's competitive environ that he should regress to "only" an 8-9 WAR player. That argument is that everything went well for him, hits dropped in, he was very healthy, his defensive stats may be overly optimistic etc. if that's true he might only get $35M AAV in FA.
B) 6 years is a long time. Baseball spending can never outpace GDP forever, otherwise all discretionary income will eventually need to be spent on professional sports. Besides the risk of injury or decline there's also risk in a retrenchment of baseball spending caused by economic issues. The US is headed for a default, borrowing at an unsustainable rate, unemployment still high, GDP growth weak, it's possible that the next TV deals may be shockingly low. Even if revenue growth hasn't stopped six years from now, if baseball executives see shortfalls on the horizon at that point, they will curb spending.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main