Color Me Skeptical

Something about free-agent contracts brings out the skeptic in me. If I were king (or an owner), I’d pay young players for performance—the way the Braves, and, to a lesser extent, the White Sox, do—and try to keep them under control for as long as possible. In other words, cash now for performance now, along with a shot at keeping players a season or two beyond arbitration. But I’m not king Justin Verlander for two years at $86.6 million? The Mets know they signed someone who turns forty in February, right? Oh, and Max Scherzer will be thirty-nine come late July. No whistling past the pitchers’ graveyard, there. Or consider Trea Turner, signed to an eleven-year, $300-million deal by the Phillies. Turner turns thirty in June. Will he still be playing shortstop in seven years? How about five? If I remember my Sox history correctly, Luke Appling turned into a statue at short. Between the ages of thirty-nine to forty-two, Appling never hit lower than .301, and management still couldn’t wait get rid of him. I wonder why? Age on the back end of these contracts is going to come back to bite more than a few big-spending teams. When that happens, I want to see the reaction. Right now, Mets’ fans are probably over the moon and couldn’t care less what ticket prices will be over the next decade or so; ditto Phillies’ fans. Guys, you may end up with some very expensive DHs, and that’s if you’re lucky. Either way, people will be paying an arm and a leg to watch these teams. In August, the New York Post calculated what it would cost to keep the current team together. Substitute Verlander for Jacob deGrom, and the projections remain pretty valid, in the neighborhood of $345 million. I want to see the price of a hot dog at Citi Field come Opening Day. Again, I’d pay players for actual performance from day one, but I wouldn’t be shoveling money their way for what they might do come age thirty-five, or thirty-nine or…