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

Manny Machado
Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports

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.

ZiPS Projection – Manny Machado
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.

ZiPS Projection – Manny Machado (Four Years Younger)
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.

20s WAR vs. 30s WAR for Selected Stars
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.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

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.

153 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
MikeSMember since 2020
3 years ago

They did it before the payroll suppression committee, er, I mean “economic reform committee” could put the brakes on this sort of thing.

synco
3 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

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.

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  synco

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.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  68FC

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.

rosen380
3 years ago

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.

tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

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.

MikeSMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  synco

With the exception of a very few markets both at the top and the bottom, nothing maximizes revenue like a world championship.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  synco

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.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

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.

Last edited 3 years ago by fjtorres
cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

If they really do this it would be great for the game. Here’s hoping.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

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.

RonnieDobbs
3 years ago
Reply to  synco

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.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

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.

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

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.

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

Of course there’s a long term outlook. They’re spending to not spend in the glorious Future for themselves they’re building

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

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

Last edited 3 years ago by SenorGato
Mike NMN
3 years ago

Good work, Interesting piece. Just a question on aging, because the historical examples include a lot of players whose careers ended decades ago. Would superior medical treatments, the near-disappearance of smoking among players, and the emphasis on off-season fitness have changed some of this math?

Pepper Martin
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Szymborski

Also: Looking at Honus Wagner’s stats after age 30 always blows me away. Honestly looking at anything about Wagner always blows me away.

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

Yes, my takeaway from this was “Honus Wagner did WHAT in his 30s?”

dangledangleMember since 2024
3 years ago

Honestly it seems like the A-Rod’s second contract with the Yankees

williamnyy
3 years ago
Reply to  dangledangle

And the second contract turned out pretty well for the Yankees, especially if you factor in postseason performance and the obvious, but difficult to quantify, financial value Arod provided, not to mention the salary he wasn’t paid because of suspensions. http://www.captainsblog.info/2015/05/28/when-bad-contracts-turn-good-mark-teixeira-alex-rodriguez-arod-raking-more-than-just-big-bucks/22669/

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  williamnyy

“the contract turned out pretty well”

“difficult to quantify financial value”

How do you know a contract turns out well if you can’t quantify it?

Rex Manning DayMember since 2022
3 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

Because they won a World Series.

Lanidrac
3 years ago

They may have won one anyway if A-Rod had left, and the deal was still absolutely terrible despite that.

Lanidrac
3 years ago
Reply to  williamnyy

No, it didn’t! Even with the year of unpaid suspension and the marketing revenue, that deal still wound up massively underwater!

The only reasons the Yankees may not regret that deal is because they’re so rich they were able to absorb such an albatross contract, and because A-Rod helped them win the 2009 World Series. As for Machado and the Padres, the former is not true, and the latter is far from guaranteed.

JSJohnSmithAnon
3 years ago
Reply to  dangledangle

Machado isn’t even close to as good as A-Rod was, so this seems worse (although the contract starts in his age 31 season vs 32 for A-Rod).

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago

Machado does have a lot less wear and tear from steroid use, though.

RonnieDobbs
3 years ago

Manny is a worse dude though, so there is that – not the kind of person to build around.. A-rod may be a terrible announcer and generally pretty annoying but he seems to be a hard worker. Manny is the opposite end of that spectrum IMO. There is no such thing as steroid wear – steroids help with the wear.

hazelrah
3 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

Hip issues were probably steroid/hgh related

Lanidrac
3 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

Steroids initially help with recovery, but it generally catches up to you years later.

steveo
3 years ago

Decent deal, but probably an overpay unless he’s truly a 150 wRC+ guy moving forward. That means he’s a 6-7 win guy next year and his aging curve looks better. But either way, letting him walk would really dampen their chances in 2024, their potential last year with Soto, who they should *really* be keeping. Signing Bogaerts and Machado in their 30s, and letting a mid 20s superstar go would be a bad look. But I’m not sure if they can make it work with all these contracts. It’ll be interesting to see it all play out. But honestly they’ve been drafting so well, they could probably make one more trade for a superstar in a year or two (if Soto walks) with their current farm system but they’ll probably need those guys to supplement their roster.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  steveo

Why would Soto sign a contract extension now when he can wait until the last year of his deal and sign an extension in the Trout / Ohtani range? Or, even better, hit the free agent market, see if anyone else gives him that same deal, and probably still get that deal from the Padres even if others don’t bid that high?

steveo
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Just saying letting him walk in a couple years would be really bad seeing as how he’s so young and better than Bogaerts/Machado. I meant by letting him go in free agency by not being the highest bidder. Not by letting him reach free agency at all. Obviously they have no control over that. But they do have control over being his highest bidder.

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’m not saying he would do this, or should do this, but he might like the security of $400 mil or so guaranteed, especially after a down year by his standards.

JSJohnSmithAnon
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

Think of how much better your life would be with 475 mil and not 400 mil though! /s

CC AFCMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Maybe could make sense if he gets an opt out like machado did. But absent that, I’d tend to agree with you

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Soto’s agent: Juan has changed his mind and is happy to sign a long-term extension. He will sign a 17 year, $510M deal. It will start this season, with $60M coming in the first two years, and an opt out after year 2.

AJ Preller: Done! Let’s finish this before he changes his mind!

Last edited 3 years ago by sadtrombone
CC AFCMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Lol, well obviously not in that structure. But something where he can opt out around age 30 like manny might make more sense for all involved. But if he wants to maximize a guarantee all in one shot, then the smarter course is likely to hit free agency and forego an opt out

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  steveo

Signing Soto and some pitchers instead of Machado and Bogaerts would’ve made a lot more sense. They could still sign Soto and pitcher’s of course theoretically.

fartinyourface
3 years ago

Let’s go Johnny Hustle!

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

The Padres are bidding against themselves and they just don’t care. They won with the high bid for Xander Bogaerts, putting Machado in line for a similar deal. Machado’s probably a better player, and he would have only been one year older had he hit the free agent market after opting out.

They could have let him opt-out and then offered him a cheaper deal than this (maybe $300M) and they probably would have been the high bidder, but the Padres apparently didn’t want to leave anything to chance. So they paid something like a $50M premium to make sure he didn’t leave. Typically, the player leaves money on the table with an extension because of the guaranteed security but that’s not at all what happens here.

Machado is getting a deal that is richer than the opt-in by a considerable margin. And unless he goes absolutely nova this year and puts up a career year, even in comparison to his previous career bests, this is better than what he would get on the free agent market. So instead of a player protecting himself against injury (and having to merely opt in to the back half of the contract), the team is…doing what exactly? Hats off to Machado’s agent for this one.

mattMember since 2023
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

1 note is the deal apparently starts this year. So it is really more like 10/320 extension

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago

I guess there are two ways to look at this. Machado is really good now and likely to be for a few more years, the Padres are good right now, it makes sense and Padres fans should be stoked.

But, would 10/320 not have been enough to get it done after the season, even if Machado puts up another MVP-caliber 2023? I’m not sure why SD had to do this deal now. It has the feel of the Pujols/Cabrera 30’s megadeals, and those didn’t work out so well. Machado is a better athlete than those guys, so there’s that. Throwing half a billion at Soto would probably be a better idea.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 years ago

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. […] They take this risk with the eyes wide open.

OK, so, if you were a star player or his agent, would you use the total of a ZIPS $/WAR projection to answer the question “should he opt out,” as Jaffe’s previous piece did? The fact that Machado would’ve cost himself a nearly-nine-figure sum by doing so certainly seems like a solid argument against it. (Yes, n=1, but it doesn’t seem like a particularly unrepresentative example.) Modelling markets is evidently a different problem from modelling player performance on the field!

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago

There is no market other than the Padres until Machado actually opts out. Machado and his agent clearly read that particular market very well, so kudos to them on that.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

This is analogous to the Greater Fool problem. Machado and his agent are proven correct, not because they have a correct assessment of his own actual performance value, but because they have a correct assessment of how much that one team will pay him. Under no circumstances should he have gotten this contract by any $/WAR projection, but that assumes that ownership and front offices behave in a rational manner. When it comes to big time stars like Machado, some of them don’t.

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Not snark, but shouldn’t players be making these judgements with the greater fool in mind?

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

That’s my point, yes. There are only 30 potential bidders in this market, and they act according to a complex set of motives that is definitely not precisely “rational” — nor does “rational” actually mean “bidding exactly what the ZIPS $/WAR column says,” for a variety of reasons many of which are too obvious even to bother pointing out. If Machado had negotiated as if his highest bid were going to be ZIPS’s, he’d have cost himself an unbelievably huge amount of money.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago

“Rational” doesn’t necessarily mean “economically rational”.

In every bidder’s head, they are doing the “rational” thing.

darren
3 years ago

I would instead draw the conclusion that one form of analysis says it’s probably not a good idea. I agree that Jaffe’s article may have slightly overstated the case, but it did at least mention other possibilities.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

I’ve said about the Mets that it’s not really obvious how to judge their deals. They’re not good or bad deals, because money is no object for them. They play in a massive media market, get massive revenues, and are owned by an obscenely wealthy individual even by the standards of MLB owners. I get zero sense from them that the Mets will ever decide “oooh, we spent all our money, time to get cheap!”

With the Padres…they don’t make anywhere near as much money. Despite huge jumps in revenue for them, they are probably losing money this year, and since many of these deals go to age 40 or later they’re going to be paying this out for a really long time. Do they have the stomach for this? If this is really a Mets-style Leeeroy Jenkins thing then this isn’t really good or bad, it just is. But it’s hard to imagine them keeping this up.

tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

They may not have as much revenue as the Mets, but the Padres have enough revenue. With 3 million in attendance, I bet the pull in $200 million before parking, concessions, merch and broadcast rights. And besides I think Seidler has made it obvious he is not interested in the team being a cash cow.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I get zero sense from them that the Mets will ever decide “oooh, we spent all our money, time to get cheap!”

I think this continues as long as the owner is having fun. When does the fun stop?

Maybe when a huge FA deal blows up in his face.
Maybe when the team implodes one year and wins 70 games on a top 3 payroll.
Maybe he just gets bored. Or finds something else.
Maybe never.

My gut says he does this for a few more years, then the shine comes off the apple of collecting/socializing with famous athletes. Then, suddenly and without warning, money will matter.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

I mean, we all knew that when Kendrick and Reinsdorf and Castellini started spending money that the good times weren’t going to roll for long. With the Padres, it’s unclear, but the spending is on another scale from what we’ve seen before. So who knows.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago

Exactly.

bmasar
3 years ago

Seidler has been around the sport forever. I don’t think he’s doing all of this to socialize with famous athletes.

Jason BMember since 2017
3 years ago
Reply to  bmasar

And he does it without people even noticing. He’s a real sidler.

(Probably the wrestling shoes)

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I don’t think the effectiveness of move is contingent upon this, but with the Angels stuck in permanent neutral, SD could pick off a lot of OC baseball fans (the Santa Ana metro area is, well, not small, and there’s still plenty of money in the banana stand)

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Much like the Brooklyn Nets have found out over the past decade, “money is no object” only applies in the short-term.

JSJohnSmithAnon
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

If “money is no object for them” then why didn’t they get Judge for 500 mil? Or Turner for 400? Or DeGrom for 280. Money is always a factor no matter how rich the owner.

hazelrah
3 years ago

Because a couple of those players turned down big money in SD to play elsewhere. It’s not ALL the dollar amount

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

Interestingly, the Mets did not go heavily after any players with a QO this past offseason. Although the pick they are getting from DeGrom leaving is negligible, they could have easily brought him back like they did with Nimmo.

Last edited 3 years ago by sadtrombone
darren
3 years ago

Reposting from the previous thread about Machado opting out, it’s really hard for me to wrap my head around how much better Bogaerts’ projection looks than Machado’s:

Bogaerts 31-40: 26.7 WAR
Machado 31-40: 19.9 WAR
However:
Bogearts age 31: 119 OPS+, 4.5 WAR
Machado age 31: 129 OPS+, 4.5 WAR
Bogearts age 35: 103 OPS+, 2.7 WAR
Machado age 35: 104 OPS+, 1.7 WAR

Machado ages worse on offense, defense, and staying in the lineup. One more thing we can see is that the two players are projected for 4.5 WAR at age 31, but Machado is a better hitter. So he must project worse on defense/baseunning, which I find hard to fathom given their history (although it probably makes perfect sense by the numbers).

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

A couple other points of comparison:

Trea Turner 31-40: 24.2 WAR
Turner Age 31: 124 OPS+, 5.4 WAR
Turner Age 35: 101 OPS+, 2.4 WAR

Nolan Arenado 32-37: 21.5 WAR
Arenado Age 32: 127 OPS+, 5.7 WAR
Arenado Age 35: 96 OPS+, 2.2 WAR
(Arenado Age 36 (5 years out): 86 OPS+, 1.4 WAR)

connjc
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

maybe because Bogaerts and Turner are shortstops and Arenado is the better defender?

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  connjc

That makes sense. However, it seems like a big difference given that Machado was 95th percentile in OAA last year (99th for Arenado).

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Szymborski

Thanks for the response!

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Szymborski

I agree.

After all, he was a -8 defender in 156 games in 2019, and then put up +5 Fielding/150 from 2020-22.

X has been worth -2 Fielding/150 from 2020-22, and his 2019 was even worse than Machado’s.

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

This just feels off at a gut level. Both have excellent health track records so far (with Machado having a very slight edge) and Machado has been a better hitter than Bogaerts to this point. I can see how Bogaerts contact heavy approach might age better, but the projections seem to have their bats pretty close, so it mostly comes down to defense and baserunning.

It seems like the difference is essentially the relative positional adjustment. Maybe it is just that Bogaerts doesn’t pass the eye test as well as Machado, but I struggle to see his defense aging well relative to Machado. Then again I am shocked he is still at shortstop, so maybe it is just a “looks can be deceiving” situation.

Dmjn53
3 years ago

I love the player but don’t love the contract if I’m being honest

Philip ChristyMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  Dmjn53

Thank you for your honesty.

mattMember since 2023
3 years ago

It’s a overpay but as a padres fan that sees seidler consistently putting up a top 5 payroll it is worth it. Will the padres be bad in 7 years when manny/xander deals are straddling them? Very possible, should they still try to maximize their title window? Yes

Lanidrac
3 years ago
Reply to  matt

They’re not really maximizing their window, though, at least not by length. The team is still going to collapse 3 or 4 years from now with or without Machado beyond 2023. They’re merely increasing their chances in the short window they have in exchange for making the upcoming collapse even worse. Given the semi-random nature of the playoffs, no, this is probably not a good idea at all.

Of course, if they actually do win one, most of the fanbase will consider the upcoming deep rebuilding period totally worth it, but as we’re sitting here in the 2023 preseason, they’d really be better off extending their window of contention as long as possible to have the best odds of winning their first World Series Championship sometime in the next decade.

Last edited 3 years ago by Lanidrac
mattMember since 2023
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Why would they collapse in 3-4 years? Manny/xander should still be good then even if not superstars. They’ll supplement them with more talent

Richie
3 years ago
Reply to  matt

After also paying Soto, no they won’t have the additional $$$ to supplement them with more talent.

4 years from they’ll be blowing it up.

tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Richie

that’s where the 2nd wave of talent from the farm system comes in, Merrill, Lesko, Salas, Zavala, etc

mattMember since 2023
3 years ago
Reply to  Richie

Yes they will. They will continue to have payrolls near top of baseball as long as seidler is the owner

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

How is increasing their chances in 2024-2026 a bad thing if they are going to collapse after that with or without Machado? If they are going to have to rebuild in 5+ years already, why does it matter how much dead money they have on the books?

Lanidrac
3 years ago

This is A-Rod’s contract situation all over again. The first megadeal turned out great, but then he gets a ridiculous extention near the middle of it that turns into a huge albatross.

It’s going to suck for the Padres when they’re stuck vastly overpaying Darvish, Bogaerts, and Machado; while Juan Soto has jumped ship in free agency. They better hope they actually get that Championship in the next 2 to 3 years to make their future collapse worth it.

Last edited 3 years ago by Lanidrac
mattMember since 2023
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

This deal will have no effect on soto leaving/staying. They have plenty more money. People seem shocked a owner worth 3+ billion is actually willing to spend money rather than cry poor. He isn’t stopping

Last edited 3 years ago by matt
airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  matt

People don’t get to be billionaires by losing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars every year.

Once the shine comes off the new toy owners have a funny way of starting to care about money again.

I give the Padres four years before the wheels start coming off.

bmasar
3 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

If you think he’s losing hundreds of millions a year, then by extension you think they’re are generating little to no gross revenue, so that doesn’t make any sense. It’s possible they’re losing tens of millions per year but I’m not sure I even buy that claim. Owners are mad at Seidler because his spending is revealing that even small- and mid-market teams make huge amounts.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  bmasar

I’m not talking now, I’m talking four years from now.

rosen380
3 years ago
Reply to  bmasar

…and looking at revenues vs expenses only ignores how much owners are getting from the appreciation of the franchise value.

At least going off of Forbes estimates, MLB franchises have averaged 10-14% annual increases in value.
After the 2021 season, they had the Padres at $1575M. Add 10% to that and they are at $1733M; lets keep adding 10% to that:

2022 $1733M
2023 $1906M (+$173M)
2024 $2096M (+$190M)
2025 $2306M (+$210M)
2026 $2537M (+$231M)
2027 $2790M (+$253M)
2028 $3069M (+$279M)

Sure, it is hard to tap into that money, but if you are wealthy enough to spend the cash now while being pretty sure that it’ll be there waiting for you when you eventually sell the club, it probably eases the sting of losing a couple tens of millions in the short-term while you try and build/sustain a winning team.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

And increasing attendance/winning builds value more than it builds yearly cash.

Jason BMember since 2017
3 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

I do think the appreciation in franchise value is a huge long-term wealth builder for these guys and can’t be overlooked; there are only 30 of these in existence and dozens of billionaires would probably love to own one, for reasons both monetary and otherwise. Still, you can’t meet payroll with franchise appreciation dollars, so I’m not sure it’s relevant in the sense of meeting weekly or monthly cash needs.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

If you’re a billionaire, you do it with your own dollars, knowing that your net worth will still increase after the season.

joelbarlow
3 years ago

seems like they chose him over Soto, or view Soto as short term only

fjtorres
3 years ago

Any word of trade clauses?
Not just Machado, but also Bogarts.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

The reporting is full NTC for Machado.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Not Bogarts?
Hmm…

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

I didn’t remember that one offhand, but yes, Bogaerts also has a full NTC.

Barney Coolio
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

After this season, Machado will have 10-5 rights which will give him a no trade clause.

darren
3 years ago

I’m surprised how confident so many people are that this is an overpay. Machado is #6 in WAR the past 3 years and was #2 last year. He has an OPS+ of 147 over those three years and 159 last year. There aren’t many players I would want ahead of him over the next decade.

Also, the price of superstars in their 30s has gone up quite a bit in the past year or two. Judge, Bogaerts, and Turner all signed deals that start after 30 and carry them through age 40. Machado’s deal fits right in with these.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  darren

It’s not dissimilar to those, except that all those guys were free agents and Machado wasn’t. The team got nothing for taking on the risk that he gets hurt or has a poor season in 2023. If you believe ZiPS, his 50th percentile is around 5 WAR, so it’s about as likely he has a 3 WAR 2023 as another 7 WAR. This contract pays him in advance as though he repeats last year (and some extra on top of that).

Last edited 3 years ago by cowdisciple
darren
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Why did someone downvote Cowdisciple’s post? It’s perfectly reasonable. I basically agree with ZIPS on his 2023 projection but think it’s being too harsh on his aging curve compared to others.

darren
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Szymborski

Boo. Downvoted.

Jason BMember since 2017
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Szymborski

That puppy, he’s so smug. Smugness is a very bad quality.

tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

He was going to be a free agent though, and that is part of what the Padres are paying him for, buying out his free agency, eliminating the risk someone comes along in the fall and decides to pay “stupid money”. Is that so far-fetched?

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  tbwhite67

I don’t know. It’s hard for me to imagine Machado having a season so good that 10/320 wouldn’t get it done next winter for a 31 year old. He’d have to really blow the roof off ala 2022 Judge. We seem to be in a period where prices for top FAs are unsettled, though.

31yo Judge got 10/360 after arguably the greatest single season in like 50 years, and also had the advantage of being the incumbent face of the most valuable franchise.

Last edited 3 years ago by cowdisciple
tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Judge was competing against Turner, Bogaerts, Correa, Verlander, DeGrom, Swanson, Senga, Abreu for $. Machado would have been competing against Ohtani? Maybe? Supply and Demand. Lots of supply in 2022/2023 offseason, almost no supply in 2023/2024.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  tbwhite67

Judge was the best offensive player by a mile, and in fact had posted the best walk year in free agency ever. No one was competing with him; he was Plan A for two of the biggest spenders in the game. Machado would have been, at best, #2 behind Ohtani. Maybe also behind Nola. Lots of other guys next year too including Urias, Chapman, Yamamoto, Scherzer, but if Machado thought he would be competing with them he wouldn’t opt out.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Best non-Bonds season since 1957.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago

1999 Pedro edged him by 0.2 fWAR!

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

And 2000 Pedro edged him by 0.8 RA9-WAR.

Man, that Pedro fella was pretty good at baseball.

JSJohnSmithAnon
3 years ago
Reply to  tbwhite67

Senga? Abreu? You’ve got to be kidding me!

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  tbwhite67

Eliminating the risk has a huge price. They simply offered more now than what Machado thought he could get a year from now.

bjsguess
3 years ago

It’s all rainbows and butterflies now. Padres fans going on and on about ownership’s willingness to spend. Super. But you have to remember that the bill will come due. In 4 years when you have 1/3rd of your budget being spent on players who are producing at below league average levels that’s when you feel the pinch. Unless economics completely flies out the window, the Padres will have a budget. Carrying that much dead cash is crippling for basically any team.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

Probably true, unless the budget is “all Peter Seidler’s money.” Maybe he’s the new Mike Ilitch.

krusty
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

IIRC, that’s essentially the deal. Seidler had a health scare that change his priorities and now he’s committed to winning a title ahead of turning a profit.

mike sixelMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

So, just don’t be as good now? I’d rather be a Padres fan than an Orioles fan…..I wouldn’t have done this deal, but there is no sign this team is slowing spending down any time soon.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  mike sixel

Those are 10 year deals…
…and the NLW is only going to get tougher as the Dbacks arrive and SF reloads.
Their best shot is ’23, with the Dodgers betting on their kids.
Come ’24 things will get…interesting.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

Unless they have a deep pipeline in the minors who’ll fill out the rest of the roster at league minimum. The Dodgers have managed it that way. The Mets may.
But how good is the Padres farm?

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

It’s bad now due to all the trades, but they’ve produced/developed a ton of talent recently.

tbwhite67Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

There are basically two scenarios: 1) the deal is heavily front-loaded or 2) the deal pays out evenly, or close to it, for the 11 years. In Scenario 1, Machado becomes a much more tradable commodity in future years since the Padres have already paid the lion’s share of his salary. In Scenario 2, the value of Machado’s salary in future years is eroded by time(at 5% per year, his year 11 salary of $32 million would be worth about $20 million in 2023 $), plus the luxury tax cap increases, and revenues increase, bottom line he’s not nearly as much of a burden in the later years of the deal.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  tbwhite67

That’s why I was asking.
But he gets a full NTC.

mattMember since 2023
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

Manny/xander are quite unlikely to be below average players in 4 years. What are you talking about?

Richie
3 years ago
Reply to  matt

‘Below average’ starters, maybe? What does (projected) 2.2 Wins Above Replacement mean with respect to other starting players?

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Richie

2 WAR is typically considered an average starter, so the projections have them slipping below that in 6-7 years.

68FCMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

I see this sentiment a lot and while I get that the Padres will probably be bad in 5-8 years when these guys are all in their decline phases, but still on big contracts, who cares. No team besides the Yankees and Dodgers consistently and sustainably wins, so why not break the bank when there is a window of contention?

sogoodlooking
3 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

Weirder still is that the Padres could let Machado walk and spend that $350m on 1) a superstar still in his prime rather than at the tail end, or 2) whatever else would make them happier.

It’s hard to imagine this is anything close to the best use of $350m unless one of the things they think is that the FA class next offseason is so pitifully weak they have no constructive alternative, but that doesn’t make much sense. In addition, given how pitching rich that FA class will be, extending Darvish is nearly as senseless as extending Machado.

David Gerth
3 years ago

Present value of the deal is roighly 229m (10 yr rate around 3.93%, pv = 350 / (1.0393)^11 = 229). Makes sense to lock in these contracts now as opposed to in a couple years when rates drop.

David Gerth
3 years ago
Reply to  David Gerth

Sorry bad math, should be roughly 279m

Jason BMember since 2017
3 years ago
Reply to  David Gerth

What’s $50,000,000 among friends…

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  David Gerth

I suppose, but if you know interest rates in a couple years with any level of certainty you can make an almost unlimited amount of money either way.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

The incentives are still different enough for the billionaire owner/team and the pitiably impoverished mere couple-hundred-millionaire player that it’s worth considering. Maybe top-tier free agent contracts are getting bigger in part for the same reason as those top-line huge headline lottery jackpots, because the cost of future money is lower than it used to be.

fjtorres
3 years ago

Half-billionaire.

Last edited 3 years ago by fjtorres
David Gerth
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Oh for sure, just making the point that 11 yr 350m is different today than it was say 2 years ago with lower rates.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  David Gerth

And different that it will be as the contract pays out.
High inflation isn’t going away soon and we may not have seen the worst of it yet.

sogoodlooking
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

True. When idiotic sanctions in effect put at least half the globe on a wartime footing, accurate predictions are very tough to make. Still, inflation helps debtors, not creditors, and the rich are heavily invested in credit. They’ll do everything possible to keep interest rates and inflation manageable. That and tighten bankruptcy provisions even further.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  sogoodlooking

The inflation wave has nothing to do with the war or sanctions.

Rather than get detailed (and finger-pointingly political) I’ll simply point out that inflation in the next decade was *always* going to be higher out of simple demographics: the last of the boomers are retiring and cashing out their investments into safe vehicles to fund their latter years. In the process there would have been been less investment cash floating around so the remaining investors would be able to ask (and get) higher interest rates.

Then came covid…
Which was the last straw for globalizating which is now turning into “reshoring/nearshoring” which can only be completed by *doubling* the industrial base of all North America.
Which means a higher demand for capital just as capital gets scarcer. (And lets not get into the FED moving from quantitative easing to tightening).

Before the war, inflation looked to be at least double the normal 2-5% stability target, or 5%.

With the war, we’ve seen it spike to 10% and, because of the mild european winter and unusually good harvests globally, it has slowly come down to 6-7%. Don’t used to it. It’ll go back up as the war conti ues and fertilizer reserves draw down. Stockpiling for ’24 will drive food prices up and with it inflation.

The absolute best we can hope for is around 5%, which is where we’d be without the war.

Now, getting back to what really matters–baseball–I found a forward-looking online inflation calculator and with it it is easy to see that in the best case scenario, a 2023 dollar is worth twice a 2033 dollar. You’ll need $200 to buy what today costs $100.

So, regardless of how the contracts are structured they are all front loaded and the back end risk, while not zero, is a lot lower than it seems to our 2022 minds.

Fact is, somewhere out there there is a young kid, 15-16, who in 2033 is going to get a billion dollar 12 year contract.
(Machado just blew past $500M in career earnings.)

Last edited 3 years ago by fjtorres
cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

This is all plausible, but also maybe something completely different will happen! Even the really smart economists who study this stuff don’t know what will happen when the Fed pushes this button or pulls that lever. I wouldn’t bet money on predicting the future better than the market as a whole (which is why I’m a committed index fund investor).

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Never mind the ivory tower economists: look instead at what the money managers and corporate execs are doing.

And of relevance here: teams spending big are spending tomorrow’s money in line with the idea that future money will be worth less tan today’s.

And the Fed?
They already pulled the lever last year by switching from buying debt to selling the debt; I.e., acting to reduce the flood of money keeping interest rates down. It’ll save us from Venezuelan hyperinflation but it will only moderate inflation, not reverse it. Demand for money (see below) isn’t going down so doing tge right thing two years late is inflationary.

Meanwhile, out in the real world of people working, eating, and trying to survive:

Again, the boomers are leaving: GenX is smaller so that guarantees a labor shortage at the high end. Promotiins will be faster, salaries will rise. That is inflationary.

In the name of green energy, Uncle Sammy is throwing money on spending big (inflationary) on a switch to green tech tgat won’t boost energy supplies for a decade whie suppresing drilingband shale, which would provide energy *now* That too is inflationary.

Supply chains? Even Apple is moving out of China because their demographic crisis is capping how much product they can sell below cost (dumping) which is inflationary.

Companies moving production out of China (everybody but Apple) started years ago. They are building new facilities in the US, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philipines, etc. All those new factories will require investment capital. Just as the boomers are taking their money into CDs and safe financial vehicles. Inflationary, inflationary, inflationary.

And all that is without factoring in that all the crises in China might drive them, lije Rusia, to go to war before their system collapses.

How many if those economists are factoring in any of that?

Remember when the economists were telling the Fed inflation was just a “momentary” pulse? Two years later it’s growing again. (How are gas prices in your neighborhood? Grocery bill? Either coming down or even staying the same?

Back in the Carter years in the 70’s (’72 to ’80) prices doubled in 8 years. If we see anything like that (5% over 10 years) Machado’s deal will look positively mainstream.

SD is spending money like it’s going out of fashion.
I wouldn’t assume they’re stupid. Maybe they know something.

Maybe their numbers guys don’t limit themselves to player WAR.

JSJohnSmithAnon
3 years ago
Reply to  David Gerth

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

JCCfromDCMember since 2016
3 years ago

I wonder if the spate of $$$ contracts is in part a way to keep the team in contention while the farm system recovers from all the talent moved in trades (most notably of course the Soto deal).

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago

*Spends the first 3/4 of the article discussing how the metrics show this contract as a huge overpay*

“It’s hard to dislike this signing….”

I was wondering how long it would take to get Szymborski to get to the inevitable “talking about rich people” part of his article.

My take: let’s see how well this contract helps San Diego compete with the Dodgers in the long-term.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

It’s a huge overpay…based on the current market.

Of course, if the current market valuations of players are a result of a teams colluding as a cartel to maximize profits, rather than actual cash flow limitations, this deal could make sense for a team whose ownership is happy making $10m a year in profits instead of $100m, because they have enough money.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
3 years ago

In every cartel individual actors have incentive to skirt the agreement.

I hear a lot of talk about collusion in baseball. In your mind, how exactly would thirty teams collude on holding down Machado’s salary?

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

A handshake deal on maintaining margins and/or treating the tax as a functional cap holds down everybody’s salary.

If folks like Seidler and Cohen say “Screw margins, I have enough money,” that changes the entire color of the arrangement.

Last edited 3 years ago by Cool Lester Smooth
sogoodlooking
3 years ago

Ridiculous. The Padres will be paying Machado 6/190m for his age 36 to 41 seasons based on my pained skimming of an mlbtr rough draft.

Meanwhile the Twins are paying Correa, who has been a hair more valuable on the field since the beginning of 2019, 6/200m for his age 28 to 33 seasons.

Back of the envelope sez there’s a decent chance Machado will only be ‘worth’—over his entire remaining career—about what his current contract would pay him: 5/160m in 2024-2028 for 18 rWAR. He’d do that with a pleasant decline of something like 4.6, 4.0, 3,4, 2.7, 2.0 WAR—then throw in 1.3 WAR at the finish with the Diamondbacks or Marlins before he hangs them up after his age 36 season and waits the requisite five years before the HOF inducts him in 2035. 

In order to ensure they enjoy these three good, not great seasons, then two respectable seasons at about market rate, the Padres are tossing in another $190 million. It’s lunacy. It’s not even close to sane. There’s no argument for it unless you think inflation is going to double digits over the next decade.

Oh. Wait…

SenorGato
3 years ago

Noooooo….He was supposed to join the Cubs after this season

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  SenorGato

He will…
…in the universe where Spock wears a beard.

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  SenorGato

OTOH good for him, go be Adrian Beltre 2.0 otw to the HoF

Lanidrac
3 years ago

Update: Even worse, the Padres were stupid enough to backload the deal! Good luck, San Diego, when you’re paying $39M+ ($35M salary + $4M+ per year signing bonus) to a bench player in his 40s.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Your takeaways on the economic implications of this deal have been impressively backwards.

Lanidrac
3 years ago

How so? Each team has a yearly budget, and the Padres have blown a huge chuck down the road on old men. It’s going to be absolutely impossible for them to put a competitive team around them, especially with Manny’s backloaded deal. Even with MLB’s salary inflation, Machado is almost certainly not going to be worth anywhere near his yearly salary in the last few years of the deal.

If they insist on giving Machado such a stupid new contract, they’d be much better off with equal yearly salaries despite raising the overall value of the deal by a few million or so. Even the argument that they need to save some money on this year’s payroll doesn’t fly, as they’re already in the highest tax bracket and clearly putting themselves in the red for now as they attempt go for it, so what’s another $15M or so (including the extra luxury taxes) on the 2023 payroll?

Part of the reason the Pujols contract was so bad was because it was backloaded. The Angels didn’t pay him huge amounts while he was still pretty good, and as such would up paying him his huge salaries only after he became a below league average (and then some) player. That is a big reason (among a few others) why the Angels have had so much trouble putting a playoff caliber team around Mike Trout despite their large payrolls, and Manny’s contract will almost certainly be a similar story.

Last edited 3 years ago by Lanidrac
Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

The clear implication of the behavior of the Padres…and the behavior of the Mike Ilitch-era Tigers…and the numbers we get from the Braves…and the fact that MLB made $10.8B last year…is that teams’ actual operating incomes are significantly higher than most owners (or the coterie of bootlicking fans who defend them in internet comment sections) claim.

fjtorres
3 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

The number may be higher but the value probably will be lower.

BTW, you ever hear of the Purchasing Power Index?
It works across time as well as across regions/countries.
Those $39M of 2033 may only be worth $19M in 2023 purchasing power.

Even under low inflation, teams like backloaded contracts. With high inflation? Love at first sight.

Last edited 3 years ago by fjtorres
darren
3 years ago

I’m still confused at this idea that somehow defense is what’s dragging down Machado’s projection compared to Bogaerts. I mentioned how good Machado’s defense was last year, but it goes beyond that. Over the past three years:

Bogaerts: -9 OAA, 35th among SS
Machado: +15 OAA, 5th among 3B

Bogaerts: +3.8 UZR/150, 5th among SS
Machado: +2.7 UZR/150, 6th among 3B

(I know these are different positions.)

RobertMember since 2017
3 years ago

Poor Adrian Beltre somehow got left off this list