Is it too early for a "Mike Stanton 2012" thread?

[Lucky]

That's part of the scenario.
The other part is that with the extra 5 units, you might wind up getting the last key player you need to win a title, instead of coming up just short. The 10 total units you lose are not necessarily insignificant, either.

Plus while I am fairly content with the amount of Stanton's body of work, it's not quite "can't miss," either. There is a more-than-zero chance that Stanton suffers some sort of injury, such as back problems, that sets him back overall in this three-year span. Or there's a freak play like happened to Posey (of course catchers are much more prone to it, but then Posey isn't going to run into an OF wall, either).

I don't have a problem with going to 15 on Stanton, given all the variables. It passes a lot of tests.

But paying 15-15-15 instead of 10-10 is not guaranteed to be the best play, either, depending on a lot of factors. The youngest budding superstars sometimes have a hiccup or two in the early years. Stanton's K rate is a little daunting, for instance. So far, he's been very effective in spite of that. But if film study shows a hole in his swing that gets around the league, he may have to do some adjusting to fight back.

I do love his career arc, ultimately. But in fantasy ball, we're only focusing usually on the next couple of years, and that's a little less certain.

There's always an opportunity cost to paying more per year for a player. That doesn't mean you can't or won't come out ahead - and this looks on paper like a good example of that, at 15. But the opportunity cost does exist.

I'm just presenting the most plausible case against, I think, and I find that useful in my contract decision-making.
Roughly speaking, you're planning to pay Stanton 45 over the next 3 years.
If you go 10-10, then you're paying 20 for two years.
Can you get Stanton for 25 in 2014, making it a total of 45?

You're betting no, which seems like a no-brainer. But if he somehow doesn't pan out, then you overpaid (oversimplified a bit, but you can see the point).

I've been amazed over the years how many long longtermed deals didn't work out (before we limited the length about 15 years ago).

Dwight Gooden was drafted for 5 in 1984.
5 again in 1985, then I think he was extended (this is an unusual rule in our league) to 10 in 1986, 15 in 1987, 20 in 1988, and 25 in 1989.

Granted drugs did him in, but Gooden is one of the few players who was AHEAD of Stanton in accomplishments at age. Gooden was still 20 when he had one of the most dominating pitching seasons in the history of baseball (1985; he turned 21 a month after the season ended). Stanton turned 21 right after his rookie season ended.

24-4, 1.53 ERA.
In Gooden's first five games in September, he didn't allow an earned run in 44 IP. He slacked off in the finale, with a 2-ER complete game with 10 K.

Has there ever been a better player to longterm forever, it seemed?
Even Pujols was only conventionally "maybe the best hitter in the league" quality right out of the gate.

Excellent analysis, not just in terms of the instant question, but as an approach for extending players in general.

I very seldom extend anyone over a year. I believe in the profit-taking approach. With Stanton, though, the idea was playing him for a couple of years and still having a decent trade chip, or a great trade chip if I had to trade him a year early.

I also have extension decisions on Corey Hart at $4, Desmond Jennings at $5, Ian Kennedy at $2 and Joel Hanrahan at $1. Then there are some more marginal guys. Overall, I hate having budget dollars tied up in extensions, like Jude mentions. But Stanton's power and developing speed are pretty exciting.

[gcstomp]

Stanton seems to be gaining so much traction as more than just another basher. Note that in mock 1 he was taken in 1st round. Personally I think its not a bad move as you are not drafting for what the guy did last year but for what he will be doing going forward and no in thinks he peaked at age 12 last year, guy is still a baby, he cant even get into pg movies yet.

As far as example here, in a static non trading environment it is correct to view it as 15-15-15 vs 10-10 salaries. In a trading environment it will be more like 15-15, then get a gajillion dollars in players for a run.

I am excited that 2012 I will have Stanton as one of my cornerstone guys at $5 and do not have to address salary extention question yet. But I am sure it wont be playing out option in 2013 for $5, that would leave the vast majority of profit on the table by doing the short play.