San Diego Strikes Again With 11-Year Extension for Manny Machado

The speculation about Padres third baseman Manny Machado exercising his opt-out clause after the 2023 season came to a stunning conclusion over the weekend, as club and superstar agreed to an 11-year, $350 million contract. The new deal rips up the final six years of the contract that Machado signed before the 2019 season.
If nothing else, tally one team that is apparently not concerned with the short-term hiccups in baseball’s revenues due to the Bally/Diamond bankruptcy; the Padres are one of the teams with a regional sports network (RSN) that is affected. If revenues are up in the air, they have made sure that third base certainly is not, following an extension that will also keep Yu Darvish in town for all or most of the rest of his career. The Padres aren’t trying to be the Rays, the scrappy underdogs that hunt very large game with a sharpened stick; they’re trying to go toe-to-toe with the Dodgers at their own game. This is less David versus Goliath and more M. Bison versus palette-swapped M. Bison in “Street Fighter II.”
My colleague Jay Jaffe covered a lot of the particulars about the Manny situation in San Diego last week, so I’m going to skip the exposition. I think Jay and I both underestimated just how motivated the Padres were to ensure Machado stayed in mustard-and-brown for a long time. We had a ZiPS projection in that piece, but now that we know where he will play and for how long, I ran a new projection.
Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | .266 | .338 | .469 | 561 | 87 | 149 | 28 | 1 | 28 | 95 | 62 | 119 | 8 | 125 | 2 | 4.8 |
2024 | .262 | .336 | .460 | 541 | 82 | 142 | 27 | 1 | 26 | 89 | 61 | 115 | 7 | 123 | 1 | 4.3 |
2025 | .254 | .328 | .438 | 520 | 76 | 132 | 25 | 1 | 23 | 81 | 58 | 112 | 6 | 115 | 1 | 3.5 |
2026 | .249 | .323 | .422 | 490 | 69 | 122 | 23 | 1 | 20 | 73 | 54 | 106 | 5 | 109 | 0 | 2.8 |
2027 | .245 | .320 | .408 | 453 | 61 | 111 | 21 | 1 | 17 | 63 | 50 | 100 | 4 | 105 | -1 | 2.2 |
2028 | .237 | .311 | .388 | 410 | 53 | 97 | 18 | 1 | 14 | 54 | 44 | 93 | 3 | 97 | -2 | 1.4 |
2029 | .234 | .308 | .376 | 359 | 44 | 84 | 16 | 1 | 11 | 46 | 38 | 83 | 2 | 93 | -2 | 0.9 |
2030 | .230 | .303 | .362 | 304 | 37 | 70 | 13 | 0 | 9 | 37 | 32 | 71 | 2 | 88 | -3 | 0.5 |
2031 | .226 | .297 | .347 | 265 | 30 | 60 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 31 | 27 | 62 | 1 | 82 | -3 | 0.2 |
2032 | .225 | .296 | .348 | 178 | 20 | 40 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 18 | 43 | 1 | 82 | -3 | 0.1 |
2033 | .220 | .289 | .339 | 109 | 12 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 26 | 0 | 78 | -2 | -0.1 |
Let’s just say that ZiPS isn’t overly enthusiastic about the contract, valuing Machado’s future services at $181 million over 11 years. He is a superstar, but there’s a big difference between signing a player before their age-26 season and their age-30 season. Just to illustrate, here’s the projection a second time, but with Machado the age he was when he signed his initial deal with the Friars.
Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | .269 | .343 | .481 | 572 | 91 | 154 | 29 | 1 | 30 | 102 | 65 | 118 | 9 | 130 | 2 | 5.2 |
2024 | .270 | .344 | .487 | 571 | 92 | 154 | 29 | 1 | 31 | 101 | 66 | 116 | 8 | 132 | 2 | 5.4 |
2025 | .265 | .343 | .476 | 569 | 91 | 151 | 28 | 1 | 30 | 99 | 68 | 114 | 7 | 129 | 3 | 5.2 |
2026 | .260 | .338 | .466 | 569 | 89 | 148 | 28 | 1 | 29 | 97 | 68 | 114 | 7 | 125 | 2 | 4.8 |
2027 | .259 | .337 | .461 | 557 | 86 | 144 | 27 | 1 | 28 | 93 | 67 | 112 | 6 | 123 | 1 | 4.5 |
2028 | .251 | .331 | .441 | 537 | 80 | 135 | 25 | 1 | 25 | 86 | 65 | 109 | 5 | 116 | 0 | 3.7 |
2029 | .252 | .332 | .443 | 515 | 77 | 130 | 24 | 1 | 24 | 81 | 62 | 105 | 4 | 117 | 0 | 3.5 |
2030 | .249 | .328 | .434 | 486 | 71 | 121 | 22 | 1 | 22 | 75 | 58 | 100 | 4 | 114 | -1 | 3.0 |
2031 | .248 | .327 | .427 | 487 | 69 | 121 | 22 | 1 | 21 | 73 | 57 | 101 | 3 | 112 | -2 | 2.7 |
2032 | .247 | .326 | .422 | 453 | 63 | 112 | 20 | 1 | 19 | 67 | 53 | 95 | 3 | 110 | -3 | 2.3 |
2033 | .243 | .321 | .407 | 420 | 56 | 102 | 19 | 1 | 16 | 60 | 48 | 89 | 2 | 105 | -4 | 1.8 |
That’s a valuation over $400 million, a notable difference! The sad truth is that even for superstars, the 30s are more often than not a tale of significant decline. Just to illustrate, here are all non-active position players worth between 41–51 WAR through age 29 (Machado is at 46.6) and how they fared in their 30s.
Name | 20s PA | 20s HR | 20s BA | 20s OBP | 20s SLG | 20s WAR | 30s PA | 30s HR | 30s BA | 30s OBP | 30s SLG | 30s WAR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Honus Wagner | 3888 | 37 | .341 | .396 | .489 | 41.2 | 7851 | 64 | .320 | .388 | .455 | 96.9 |
Mike Schmidt | 4506 | 235 | .255 | .374 | .511 | 50.0 | 5556 | 313 | .277 | .385 | .540 | 56.5 |
Joe Morgan | 5298 | 103 | .270 | .384 | .414 | 43.5 | 6031 | 165 | .272 | .399 | .439 | 55.3 |
Nap Lajoie | 4290 | 66 | .363 | .396 | .545 | 48.3 | 6170 | 17 | .320 | .369 | .410 | 53.9 |
Wade Boggs | 3910 | 56 | .354 | .439 | .484 | 43.0 | 6830 | 62 | .313 | .401 | .419 | 45.3 |
Jeff Bagwell | 4410 | 187 | .304 | .409 | .536 | 42.3 | 5021 | 262 | .290 | .406 | .544 | 37.9 |
George Davis | 6095 | 60 | .314 | .378 | .444 | 48.1 | 4056 | 13 | .265 | .336 | .345 | 36.5 |
Paul Waner | 4735 | 60 | .351 | .422 | .521 | 41.2 | 6027 | 53 | .319 | .391 | .436 | 35.8 |
George Brett | 5338 | 125 | .316 | .369 | .497 | 50.7 | 6287 | 192 | .295 | .370 | .479 | 33.9 |
Sam Crawford | 6133 | 58 | .307 | .354 | .447 | 43.5 | 4461 | 39 | .313 | .372 | .459 | 27.6 |
Joe Cronin | 5218 | 62 | .301 | .381 | .449 | 41.2 | 3620 | 108 | .303 | .402 | .496 | 27.5 |
Reggie Jackson | 5056 | 254 | .265 | .359 | .503 | 45.8 | 6360 | 309 | .259 | .353 | .480 | 27.0 |
Eddie Murray | 5837 | 258 | .298 | .373 | .509 | 45.0 | 6980 | 246 | .278 | .348 | .449 | 27.0 |
Billy Hamilton | 4378 | 26 | .348 | .455 | .447 | 43.5 | 3206 | 14 | .338 | .456 | .412 | 26.8 |
Johnny Mize | 4189 | 184 | .331 | .413 | .588 | 44.5 | 3182 | 175 | .287 | .376 | .528 | 26.2 |
Al Simmons | 4752 | 173 | .363 | .405 | .596 | 47.4 | 4763 | 134 | .305 | .355 | .475 | 23.6 |
Frank Thomas | 4790 | 257 | .330 | .452 | .600 | 48.7 | 5285 | 264 | .276 | .389 | .515 | 23.4 |
Gary Carter | 5025 | 188 | .269 | .342 | .457 | 46.2 | 3994 | 136 | .254 | .326 | .416 | 23.2 |
Ivan Rodriguez | 5622 | 196 | .304 | .341 | .485 | 46.2 | 4648 | 115 | .288 | .325 | .438 | 22.8 |
Scott Rolen | 5122 | 226 | .286 | .378 | .520 | 47.8 | 3396 | 90 | .274 | .344 | .447 | 22.0 |
Robin Yount | 7148 | 144 | .285 | .331 | .428 | 44.9 | 5101 | 107 | .286 | .357 | .432 | 21.6 |
Goose Goslin | 5600 | 145 | .328 | .393 | .522 | 44.3 | 4222 | 103 | .300 | .380 | .471 | 21.1 |
Alan Trammell | 5949 | 118 | .288 | .355 | .420 | 43.1 | 3427 | 67 | .281 | .346 | .407 | 20.6 |
Manny Machado (Projected) | 6273 | 283 | .282 | .341 | .493 | 46.6 | 4645 | 163 | .246 | .319 | .412 | 20.6 |
Tim Raines | 5621 | 87 | .303 | .391 | .442 | 46.4 | 4738 | 83 | .283 | .378 | .405 | 20.0 |
Joe Torre | 5481 | 181 | .297 | .362 | .465 | 44.2 | 3321 | 71 | .298 | .369 | .431 | 18.1 |
Lou Boudreau | 5175 | 40 | .292 | .374 | .410 | 49.9 | 1848 | 28 | .304 | .397 | .427 | 17.6 |
Larry Doby | 4182 | 164 | .296 | .403 | .517 | 44.0 | 2731 | 109 | .277 | .368 | .473 | 17.6 |
Dick Allen | 4872 | 234 | .297 | .381 | .543 | 43.9 | 2442 | 117 | .282 | .371 | .514 | 17.4 |
Ernie Banks | 4632 | 269 | .292 | .354 | .557 | 46.7 | 5763 | 243 | .260 | .310 | .454 | 16.6 |
Richie Ashburn | 6109 | 19 | .313 | .393 | .393 | 42.0 | 3627 | 10 | .298 | .402 | .362 | 15.9 |
Jimmy Sheckard | 6154 | 43 | .284 | .370 | .394 | 41.6 | 2964 | 13 | .251 | .385 | .344 | 15.1 |
Hank Greenberg | 4587 | 247 | .326 | .418 | .625 | 48.0 | 1509 | 84 | .275 | .393 | .544 | 14.7 |
Bobby Bonds | 5236 | 218 | .273 | .358 | .482 | 42.5 | 2854 | 114 | .258 | .345 | .450 | 14.6 |
Willie Keeler | 5176 | 23 | .376 | .419 | .470 | 41.4 | 4418 | 10 | .300 | .350 | .347 | 14.3 |
Buster Posey | 3692 | 116 | .307 | .373 | .476 | 43.7 | 1915 | 42 | .293 | .369 | .429 | 13.8 |
Elmer Flick | 4701 | 43 | .320 | .397 | .460 | 42.4 | 1713 | 5 | .295 | .367 | .404 | 13.6 |
Duke Snider | 5494 | 276 | .306 | .385 | .557 | 51.0 | 2743 | 131 | .275 | .369 | .504 | 12.8 |
Brian McCann | 4354 | 176 | .277 | .350 | .473 | 42.5 | 2496 | 106 | .236 | .315 | .413 | 12.0 |
Willie Wells | 3129 | 121 | .336 | .417 | .571 | 46.8 | 1306 | 19 | .314 | .385 | .451 | 10.3 |
Ted Simmons | 5888 | 151 | .297 | .365 | .454 | 44.0 | 3797 | 97 | .266 | .322 | .411 | 10.2 |
Joe Medwick | 5901 | 180 | .332 | .370 | .542 | 47.8 | 2241 | 25 | .302 | .343 | .406 | 9.3 |
Joe Kelley | 5552 | 56 | .335 | .422 | .485 | 46.0 | 2568 | 9 | .279 | .357 | .378 | 9.0 |
David Wright | 5453 | 204 | .301 | .381 | .506 | 43.1 | 1419 | 38 | .279 | .357 | .436 | 8.2 |
Vern Stephens | 5694 | 207 | .289 | .360 | .472 | 43.9 | 1546 | 40 | .276 | .337 | .418 | 7.1 |
Ralph Kiner | 4557 | 294 | .281 | .405 | .571 | 42.4 | 1699 | 75 | .274 | .378 | .489 | 6.4 |
George Sisler | 4574 | 60 | .361 | .404 | .510 | 46.4 | 4439 | 42 | .320 | .354 | .426 | 6.2 |
Travis Jackson | 5053 | 103 | .298 | .346 | .446 | 41.2 | 1626 | 32 | .268 | .307 | .394 | 5.8 |
Charlie Keller | 3839 | 162 | .292 | .414 | .530 | 42.7 | 765 | 27 | .260 | .390 | .455 | 5.0 |
Vada Pinson | 6850 | 186 | .297 | .341 | .469 | 42.8 | 3553 | 70 | .265 | .301 | .390 | 4.5 |
Cesar Cedeno | 6051 | 158 | .290 | .353 | .458 | 46.0 | 2082 | 41 | .271 | .327 | .401 | 3.9 |
Jim Fregosi | 5944 | 115 | .268 | .340 | .403 | 42.6 | 1458 | 36 | .249 | .329 | .381 | 1.6 |
John McGraw | 4893 | 13 | .334 | .466 | .411 | 48.8 | 33 | 0 | .280 | .455 | .280 | 0.2 |
ZiPS actually has Machado aging slightly better than the average player in this group, with an additional three WAR over about 1,000 more plate appearances. The three active players at the end of their careers that I chopped off wouldn’t make this any sunnier a list; none of Miguel Cabrera, Evan Longoria, or Andrew McCutchen have aged particularly well.
Some of the decreased projection is due to the fact that Machado is no longer a defensive star at third base as he was earlier in his career. Defense doesn’t decline as rapidly as people think at the non-speed positions, and the fact that Nolan Arenado’s glove has stayed quite steady gives him kind of a fallback position if his bat declines. Machado no longer has that luxury.
Despite my grumpiness as an analyst who inevitably has to play devil’s advocate, let me emphasize that I’m certainly not shedding any tears for the pocketbooks of team ownership. While speculating what the Padres’ analytics gang has for Machado over the next 11 years would be a wild-ass guess, I know enough to know that ZiPS does not generally give projections that are grossly different from ones that teams run internally. The team’s ownership group, led by Peter Seidler, was no doubt given all the information the team had internally of this type and is also aware of the revenue situation, his personal net worth, and the fact that the big jump in baseball’s luxury tax threshold from 2021 to ’22 is much, much smaller in subsequent seasons of the CBA. They take this risk with the eyes wide open.
Even as a risk, it’s hard to dislike this signing as a fan of baseball. It’s refreshing to see owners who want to keep their teams together, who prioritize putting the best team on the field right now, and who directly challenge another of baseball’s elite franchises. Baseball’s system of playoffs and revenue sharing incentivizes just sneaking into the postseason every year, and if I worked for a team, I’d recommend the same cynical view that is prevalent among franchises. So it’s nice to see a team with a little more ambition, one willing to be happy with the increases in team value rather than also requiring a healthy profit every season to boot.
There remains a big unanswered question in the form of Juan Soto. Keeping him may cost $40 million a year, and I now have to wonder just how far San Diego’s willingness to spend will stretch. Are the Padres really willing to already be at $200 million for 2025–27 with two starting pitchers under contract? The farm system has nowhere near the depth that it had a few years ago, after all; ZiPS had no Padres prospects in its Top 100. While our prospect team placed two, the farm system ranked 26th at the end of last year, and though the new rankings aren’t out yet, I can’t imagine they’ve moved up a ton. But we’ll worry about Soto later.
By signing Machado, the Padres have signaled that they’re here to win now, and that the current aggressive spending isn’t just the apogee between the fire sales that have peppered San Diego’s franchise history. They’re going after the Dodgers on their own turf, and that’s pretty cool. Now the win now team just has to do the hard part and actually win now.
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
They did it before the payroll suppression committee, er, I mean “economic reform committee” could put the brakes on this sort of thing.
I would be fascinated to see what kind of revenue projections San Diego has for the next 10 years, and how they see all this spending playing out economically. This is an experiment, definitely, but with all these long-term deals it’s not an easy one to end if it starts going south.
I really suspect this may just be the Padres spending in line with their revenues instead of toeing the league line on profit maximization.
Going off the $10.8B revenue figure for all of MLB that was reported last year, it wouldn’t surprise me if this is what a MLB team running at profit neutral looks like.
Yep – if their revenue is 20% below league average…that’s nearly $290m.
Their real cash outlay this year is $220m on payroll and $6.5m on cash…leaving over $50m for other operating costs.
And of course this is just looking at annual revenue. An owner might be willing to borrow from franchise valuation.
When they do their update, the Forbes valuation for the Padres will likely be around 1.75B… and with teams historically averaging 10-14% per year, that’ll be 1.98B after next off season.
Sure, accessing that $230M is hard, but if the owner is wealthy enough to float the cash until they ultimately sell the team, that is another source they could tap.
The Padres also are redeveloping the land some of their parking sits on. The tailgate lot is being turned into condos, they will be profiting from that, so not all revenues come from baseball ops.
With the exception of a very few markets both at the top and the bottom, nothing maximizes revenue like a world championship.
Even more fascinating is how this fits with the imminent post-RSN world. Manfred has shown no aptitude nor interest in the NBA model of marketing the league and players as a whole rather than putting it all on the franchises.
If revenues collapse as fans dump cable and MLB doesn’t seize the opportunity the Padres will be one of the worst affected. If Padres can use their on field greatness to develop a global brand independent of MLB they will be visionaries.
I’m sceptical about the second possibility. The Milwaukee Bucks are now worth slightly less than the Los Angeles Dodgers. The idea that teams can thrive at a far higher level than a league seems dubious.
Actually, MLB is (by all reports) looking to do a streaming first model. They’ll start with the 14 Bally teams, running their own local broadcasts and adding them to their existing cable and streaming products. So they will sell packages ranging from one team (local or out of town) to regional combos to the entire league. Esentially, ala carte.
No blackouts being the goal.
The likely endgame is that as the other RSN contract expire, unless theiy’re overwhelmed, they’ll fold them into their inhouse menu.
Anybody who wants to license a particular set of games will be able to but it may not be exclusive.
How far they get how fast is TBD but the goal is to let fans of every team see their team live regardless of location.
It’ll take a while but at least they recognize blackouts are costing them *all* money.
If they really do this it would be great for the game. Here’s hoping.
Just don’t expect it right away, but it’s what they hinted at over at MLB.COM.
Also it makes the most sense: cable is going to keep withering and losing subscribers. Time to ditch.
The people who OK these deals are long gone by the time it goes south. Nobody is actually held accountable… except for the fans. The ownership gets what they are after which is short-term profits. There is no long-term outlook as far as the owners are concerned.
The idea that San Diego is running a $250m LT payroll to maximize short term profits is pretty hilarious.
It’s the O’Malley family. They want to have a good team as a matter of pride…and they also see a great opportunity to expand the fanbase by assembling a star-studded roster rather than focusing on maximizing profits…thus improving the long-term value of the franchise.
If anything, taking $50-100m in profits while your franchise stagnates is a far better example of short-termism than breaking even for a few years while establishing your team as a national brand.
This is nothing like what maximizing short term profits looks like. The Orioles are what maximizing short term profits looks like, get the fanbase excited and have a team that might sneak into the playoffs and should at least be in contention all year so people keep coming through September, while running a ~$50M payroll. They are receiving around ~$60M from just the national TV contracts and profit sharing probably covers the rest of operating expenses, so basically all of their gate/merchandise/concessions/local TV deal is pure profit.
Of course there’s a long term outlook. They’re spending to not spend in the glorious Future for themselves they’re building
As a 21st century sports fan, nothing gets me harder and more turned on than payroll suppression and efficiency. A government committee dedicated to this eternal task?!?! Ooooh horsefeathers I just finished wow its the only time I want more rules so hot