Michael Brown
Footballguy
After A-Rod signed his 10-year deal, a lot of people attacked the decision by the Yankees and said it was foolish to sign a guy to a 10-year deal that will carry him into his late 30's/early 40's. Theory of course being that he'll quickly decline as he hits 35 and won't be worth it in the latter half of the deal. Others argued that with the rate of increasing salaries such as they are, in 5-7 years time this A-Rod contract will look like a steal.
Now that we've had a moment to step back from it all, I wonder something. When the current big-name guys start going up for free agency (Pujols, Utley, and further down the line perhaps guys like Justin Upton and Hunter Pence), the A-Rod contract still won't look like a bargain even though it might be one.
Reason being, he's going to be the best player (or close to it) for some time. Add in the fact that he's on the Yankees and they tend to overpay market value for guys and it's assumed that he's going to have the highest contract in the game. So even when factoring in inflation rates, will the next crop of guys or even the crop after them be able to command "A-Rod money"? Meaning, even if player salaries are spiraling upwards and everyone in the game is getting $15-$20 million contracts, won't A-Rod's deal still represent the absolute ceiling of contracts? This could act as a detriment to the rest of the players until his deal has expired. Because 10 years ago, guys were making $12 million per year and that was considered astronomical. Ten years later, $27.5 million is the ceiling. Well I doubt that ten years from now, anyone will be making $35-$50 million per season even if revenue increases exponentially.
What do you all think will happen with contracts? Will someone surpass A-Rod's deal while it's still in play? Will there be a ton of guys making $20-$25 mil per season? And will his contract hold down other deals on the assumption that Player X isn't close to being A-Rod, so why should he make more money than him (even if it means the owners simply pocketing all the extra revenue)?
Now that we've had a moment to step back from it all, I wonder something. When the current big-name guys start going up for free agency (Pujols, Utley, and further down the line perhaps guys like Justin Upton and Hunter Pence), the A-Rod contract still won't look like a bargain even though it might be one.
Reason being, he's going to be the best player (or close to it) for some time. Add in the fact that he's on the Yankees and they tend to overpay market value for guys and it's assumed that he's going to have the highest contract in the game. So even when factoring in inflation rates, will the next crop of guys or even the crop after them be able to command "A-Rod money"? Meaning, even if player salaries are spiraling upwards and everyone in the game is getting $15-$20 million contracts, won't A-Rod's deal still represent the absolute ceiling of contracts? This could act as a detriment to the rest of the players until his deal has expired. Because 10 years ago, guys were making $12 million per year and that was considered astronomical. Ten years later, $27.5 million is the ceiling. Well I doubt that ten years from now, anyone will be making $35-$50 million per season even if revenue increases exponentially.
What do you all think will happen with contracts? Will someone surpass A-Rod's deal while it's still in play? Will there be a ton of guys making $20-$25 mil per season? And will his contract hold down other deals on the assumption that Player X isn't close to being A-Rod, so why should he make more money than him (even if it means the owners simply pocketing all the extra revenue)?
