Obviously, it doesn't. The new owners merely keep the $25 million they would have paid to Giancarlo Stanton in 2018 in their pockets. And so on for many more years and even more money in some years. What would help the Marlins rebuild would be trading Stanton to the Yankees for two or three major league ready starting players. For instance, Gleyber Torres, Clint Frazier and maybe a pitcher like Bryan Mitchell. Instead the Yankees will supposedly absorb almost all of Stanton's salary and surrender two minor league players whom 99% of Yankee fans never heard of.
Should rich teams be allowed to buy players from poor teams? Thursday, July 3, 2014
... a soft team salary cap has been created and a luxury tax on big spending teams. So what about just letting poor teams sell players to rich teams? It might actually simplify things and be less hypocritical. All baseball assets come down to cash at some point.
The main supporting argument for blocking such sales is that teams would buy championships. But that argument has been prevalent for decades, pretty much form the start of free agency, especially concerning Yankee owner George Steinbrenner who tried to acquire Vida Blue from (Oakland owner) Finley in 1976.
Allowing the flow of cash would infuse poor teams with ... cash. Isn't that the American way? Organized professional sports is weighed down with corporate socialism. What's so good about that?
Giancarlo Stanton: could the Yankees just buy his contract? Caveat emptor. Sunday, July 27, 2014
... Stanton is the target big bopper for the Yankees... won't be 25 until Nov. 8. The earliest Stanton can become a free agent is 2017. But 2015 is his earliest arbitration year and he is likely to get a big pay increase from his 2014 compensation of $6.5 million. His Marlins team may not want to pay him, especially if it seems unlikely that Stanton would sign a contract extension with the Marlins.
Giancarlo Stanton $325 million 13 year contract: legit or scam? Thursday, November 20, 2014
Yesterday when I first heard that the contract was back loaded I thought that the Marlins owner was doing estate planning and intended to sell within a few years or until the contract started to benefit the player and not the owner. The owner doesn't care if there are big bucks owed in several years if he does not expect to be the owner when stuff hits the fan...
I can see that Stanton had to take all that money. What I don't understand is why he and his representative allowed the team to pay him so relatively little in the first few years.
In 2014 Stanton received $6.5 million. In 2015, the first year of the new 13 year contract, Stanton will receive $6.5 million. Say what? Same pay after an MVP quality season. No raise. What the heck?
Stanton thinks this will let the team add good players so that they can build a winner. Or it could be that Stanton is being played for a fool. Then Stanton gets $9 million in 2016, then $14.4 million. Then in 2018 at age 28 Stanton starts to receive pay that ranges between $25 and $32 million through 2028, age 38.
So why did the previous owner sign Stanton to the big contract? It would seem to attract people who would buy the team. Stanton would continue to be a draw with fans, which would increase team value. The real irony is that the overwhelming goal of the new owners is get Stanton off the Marlins so that they do not have to pay him. But removing Stanton reduces team value, doesn't it?