lol no

eff no

fangraphs has an article up on the top 50 FAs (well, I assume it's been there awhile). In the Judge write-up they mention that, last spring, his ZiPS projection for 2023-29 (ages 31-37) was about 18 WAR. Following 2022, his ZiPS projection is now around 36. Not surprisingly, 30 of that is in the next 5 years. That is not in extreme playing time assumptions -- he starts out in the low 600s, is around 500 by year 5.

So of course nobody wants Judge's year 6 and beyond. But those 30 WAR are gonna cost you what -- $210, $240, $270, $300? Once you've resigned yourself to 5/$250 for Judge, the trip to 9/$320 is a short one. Those last 5-6 WAR won't be worth $70 M even at inflated prices but evening out the CBT hit and the fact that the "extra" 4/$70 might get you those first 30 WAR could be worth it.

The lazy criticism now that a GM is a fool if they think Judge is going to be worth anything at 37-39 or the lazy hindsighting later that pretends the team could have had him at 5/$180 aren't worth the electrons they're printed on. Put a price on the next 5 years of Judge then work from there. Obviously there are durability concerns with Judge so if you think the risk of <20 WAR is too high, then try to quantify that risk and put a $ value on it.

There is a valid point regarding the agency problem that arises because today's GM that enjoys the early years might well not be around when the deferred payments are due. But then Cashman has been there for a very long time and the team owners -- at least the ones that tend to bid on guys like Judge -- are generally there for the long haul. They've got bean-counting experts that can weigh in on the long-term consequences.

A longer contract actually benefits the team. The luxury tax is based on AAV. 9/320 is better for a team than 7/280.

The article is behind a paywall, but the MLB Trade Rumors blurb on it seems to indicate that Rosenthal is making his own assessment of what it will take to sign Judge rather than reporting on any actual new offers, although he does suggest the Dodgers are only interested in a “short-term high-dollar” deal. My guess is that a deal is done somewhere around $320M/8 years - $350M/9 years, with the Yankees the favorite to retain Judge’s services.

Co-sign #2. There's good reason for optimism about Judge's value for at least the next four years, although his health will probably necessitate a move to 1B/DH sooner than that. Obviously he has the bat to still be valuable there.

There's a lot more that goes into these negotiations than just how much money and how many years, of course. Some amount of money is sometimes/usually deferred. There are perks and understandings. There will very likely be an opt-out. And so on.

Personally I don't think he's likely to return more than maybe $225M of value over the rest of his career. If the price tag ends up over $300M I'd rather pass--but the Yankees may feel the need to bite that bullet, because they are The Yankees.

A unique thing about baseball is that one player, even the best player in the sport, can only have so much impact on a game, and it's much less impact than a star in any other sport. That means it's generally a bad idea for a team with a limited payroll to spend a large percentage of it on one player. The Giants are not a poor team, but they're not up there in Yankees/Dodgers territory, and I think for them giving Judge $300M+ would be a mistake even if we assume Judge will probably continue to be a superstar for another 4-5 years.

So, if Judge is being signed for 9 years......that means its the Rangers, right? They seem to be tossing money around like its going out of style (and with the crypto crash, it isn't).

If the Rangers sign Judge, he'll be a Yankee again in three years.