Yup. This idea that teams should spend simply because they can afford it is horrible fiscal management. These monster deals almost never work out for the team - you'd think they'd learn. Seattle, Detroit, and the Angels are all going to be hurting in 6-7 years when 10-15% of their payroll is locked into an old, mediocre player. They are all basically Carlos Lee deals. I read somewhere that the owner of the Tigers is really old and wants to see his team win a WS soon, so if that's the case, I can see why he would do it. But it's not good for the long-term outlook for the franchise.
He's 84, in very poor health, and has been candid about his recent free-spending spree in order to "win now". He also owns the Red Wings, but I know nothing about NHL or it's finances.
Its only a regretful deal if it actively prevents the Tigers from improving the club's other needs. The Astros were still on a "budget" when they signed Lee, and they cut costs in player development in order to fit his contract into the budget. If the Tigers still go out and sign their own/other free agents, along with devoting resources to player development, I don't see how it actively "hurts" them in an uncapped league. Same goes for the Angels. The contracts being handed out right now are indeed ridiculous, but none of these teams look to be blinking an eye when spending.... and they all have the ability to cover up mistakes with more spending as needed. They're also all in win-now mode.
Its an unprecedented contract for somebody still under club control. He'll get an even bigger contract than Cabrera did when he gets closer to this contract running out (presuming his production stays somewhat elite).
All teams are on a budget. Even the Yankees have had to limit their payroll in recent years - there was an article about this on ESPN last week, but I can't seem to find it. Revenues, in general, are a stairstep in MLB as opposed to a slow, steady increase - when you sign your 20 TV deal, you get a huge bump, but then you level out for those next 20 years. And it's impossible to know what your fiscal situation will be in 8-10 years, so it's inherently limiting. Whatever they decide their budget will be in 8 years, whether it will be $200MM or $400MM, they will have $30MM less than otherwise because they will almost certainly have a crappy player eating up that money.
Carlos Lee was worth every penny of his $17MM salary for the immediate 2-3 years after he signed. But like all players, he got old (and fat). All these recent guys (Pujols, Cano, Cabrera) will most likely be shells of themselves in their later 30's, regardless of how good they are now. There are just very few David Ortiz types that age well.
And after 2 more potential MVP-type seasons, he probably is even more expensive. I actually liked the Fielder trade for them... he wasn't as good as his contract says even at his prime (which it seems he's now passed).
Yes, they're on a "budget"... but they will also all overpay to get the players they want, or keep the players they want. The Yankees obviously didn't think Cano (a proven MLB player) was worth his contract... but overpaid for a FA Japanese pitcher who would have to be the best Japanese pitcher of all-time to likely live up to what they're paying him. There's definitely a difference between the big-market/spenders "budget" (and their willingness to stretch it out), vs. a small-market team that always takes a hard stance on contract lengths/amounts.
And even then, the Red Sox just extended him till age 42. Again, teams will always stretch out their budget for the players they want/like.
Maybe the greatest hitter of all time in Pujols got $25MM/yr at age 32. It's doubtful Cabrera was going to get much more than that as a free agent at the same age, especially after seeing what's happened since with Pujols. The Tigers bid against themselves for no real reason. If Cabrera produces another MVP season this year, he will simply have matched expectations. His value won't be higher next year than now under any circumstance.
Absolutely - but he's been functioning on short-term deals as he proves his worth. He wasn't given a 10 year deal when he was 32 on the assumption that he would be great at 42. Of course - and they will regret it in about 5-6 years. As will the Angels (who probably already do). And Seattle. As the Yankees did with A-Rod. On and on. These deals almost never work out, and teams almost always regret them. It's even more stupid in Cabrera's case because he's not even a free agent for 2 years, so there's way no reason at all to do it. Absolutely - but look at the age difference. Cano is 6 years older and got a 3 year longer contract. He'll be under contract through age 42. Tanaka may or may not live up to his contract in the later years. Cano absolutely will not, unless he's the rare exception to the rule (Ortiz). It's the same as the difference between giving Trout or Cabrera a huge contract. Same contract would have been perfectly logical for Trout. Agreed - it's also the reason that so many small market teams like Tampa Bay and Oakland regularly compete with the big market ones - the big market ones regularly do ridiculously stupid things that negate their huge financial advantage. Those smarts by the small market teams are what evens the playing field.
Boston and St. Louis are pretty good examples of big market teams that consistently make smart decisions. They regularly let their older stars leave or only commit to short-term contracts. It's why they can constantly retool and reshape their teams and remain good, despite losing star after star.
But they've also both made their share of mistakes in terms of contract extensions and FA signings (Boston more than St. Louis). The big market teams have the ability to withstand the mistakes... and continue to make them... and continue to be competitive. And, despite all you've said, the point is that even if the contracts are ridiculous, and even if the team won't get max value out of said player... its not "preventing" teams from giving them out. If anything, more teams now are eligible to give out the bad deals (thanks to TV money) than before. Instead of one bad A-rod deal every 5 years, there's now 5 "bad" deals every off-season. The same owners will cry that "contracts are too high" when the next CBA comes around, despite them willingly handing over the money, and they won't be able to do a damn thing about it since the union is too strong, and the precedent has already been set.
I doubt he'd be that much more expensive. We have Cano's 10/$240M to go on as a base point. It agree mostly on Fielder, but they also threw money in, which makes Fielder's contract reasonable. I disagree that his prime is over. I think they just got mad at his playoff disappearances.
His performance has declined the last two years, with the weight continuing to go up... and considering Detoit has made at least the ALCS three years in a row, they have to factor in playoff performance into who they want.
I think teams re-invent "base points" every CBA cycle. As revenues go up, so do the perceived contract values (and the union wouldn't want it any other way). Cano has also never had a season, in terms of production at the plate, anywhere close to what Cabrera has done.
