Do I hear $300M, now $320, $320 now $340...

[Gregg]

Stanton rumored to get an offer of $300M for 10 years. Today it is rumored to be 12 years $320M. Wow!

[revo]

That's insane! That's a ton of risk to sign a player -- even one as young as Stanton -- for that long.

[Pauly]

I know I probably should be against this but as a Marlins fan this makes me happy

[Moonlight J]

That's insane! That's a ton of risk to sign a player -- even one as young as Stanton -- for that long.

there will be opt outs in this, and no, it won't be insane. The AAV on this will be in market value for his production.

[Bob Kohm]

I have hard time believing this isn't just posturing. Would anyone be surprised if the final offer is $330/13 or something but that one third is deferred or some such thing, making it unacceptable to Stanton's camp? The Marlins can say "Hey, we offered him the biggest contract ever and he said 'No' ", and then trade him away without all the gnashing of teeth and hatred from the fans.

Alternately, let's say the offer is on the level. We've seen the Marlins go huge before and then hold a fire sale a year or two down the line... but I question whether they might not be going too big and too long to make Stanton tradeable. If they're completely on the level and really are planning on giving 20-25% of their player budget to this one guy, do they have any hope of competing with the other 23 players they need to put around him at substantially lower prices? Stanton on a 65-70win team isn't a big enough draw to finance his payroll commitment long-term.

If it were NY, LA, Chicago or whichever well financed team offerign this kind of a deal I'd be wary. Miami doing it? It's either or dodge or a franchise-crippling mistake about to happen, imo.

[Moonlight J]

good stuff from Jesse Spector here - http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/stor...n=jessespector

[Moonlight J]

and it looks like he's locked in - https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/sta...58660547006464

[Pauly]

wow a no-trade clause? What's the world coming to?

[mjl]

it's an amazing amount of money, but I'm actually more surprised that the AAV is lower than Cabrera, Kershaw, or Verlander.

[gcstomp]

One of the comments was funny regarding the 325 mill/13 years. Couldnt he just buy the Marlins? Latest Forbes valuation of the sad franchise has it listed as 500 mill which seems generous.

[Sour Masher]

A 13 year #325 million deal is always a bad move. Stanton has the talent to earn it, but the chances seem slim given his injury history and the length of the deal.

[Hornsby]

A 13 year #325 million deal is always a bad move. Stanton has the talent to earn it, but the chances seem slim given his injury history and the length of the deal.

I disagree...with players like Stanton and Trout, you're at least paying for the production they'll give you for the next decade. Unlike the contracts of Pujols, Miggy, and others where they're essentially being rewarded for past performance. The last 3-4 years of this contract may show a drop off in stats, but the Marlins need to do something like this to show the fans they're serious about being a player.

And people, please forget about the money, this shows once again that it's essentially irrelevant to a major league team. They can afford contracts like this and still make a really tidy profit.

[chancellor]

I'd like to know what drugs were given to Jeffrey Loria to agree to this deal without a no-trade.

[Sour Masher]

I disagree...with players like Stanton and Trout, you're at least paying for the production they'll give you for the next decade. Unlike the contracts of Pujols, Miggy, and others where they're essentially being rewarded for past performance. The last 3-4 years of this contract may show a drop off in stats, but the Marlins need to do something like this to show the fans they're serious about being a player.

And people, please forget about the money, this shows once again that it's essentially irrelevant to a major league team. They can afford contracts like this and still make a really tidy profit.

The money does matter. They don't have infinite dollars. I would never tie up over 20% of my annual salary guaranteed to a single player for 13 years. That is just such a huge risk. I think the safer play is to either give more for less years if you can, or spread the wealth. Also, Stanton is not Trout. He has elite power and potential to earn this deal, but he has some injury history and isn't, to this point, as safe or as good an investment as Trout is.

Trout and Kershaw are historically among the very very best ever. I'd make an exception for those two, because they are worth whatever you have to pay them. Even still, I'd try to pay them more per year to get them to take a year or two less.

[Hornsby]

The money does matter. They don't have infinite dollars. I would never tie up over 20% of my annual salary guaranteed to a single player for 13 years. That is just such a huge risk. I think the safer play is to either give more for less years if you can, or spread the wealth. Also, Stanton is not Trout. He has elite power and potential to earn this deal, but he has some injury history and isn't, to this point, as safe or as good an investment as Trout is.

Trout and Kershaw are historically among the very very best ever. I'd make an exception for those two, because they are worth whatever you have to pay them. Even still, I'd try to pay them more per year to get them to take a year or two less.

Again, I disagree...but that's what makes this a great game. The money really doesn't matter as much as tying up a player like Stanton...the Marlins are such a cheap outfit that they wouldn't offer a deal like this unless it was in their long term financial interests.

And Stanton has historic power...something that is in scarce supply in the current game. A guy who has the potential to hit 50+ homers a season I suspect that you can count on one hand, minus a few fingers. He's worth the money, IMO.