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.

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
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MikeSmember
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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 1 year ago by fjtorres
cowdisciplemember
1 year ago
Reply to  fjtorres

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

fjtorres
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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 1 year ago by SenorGato