worst contract out of these $100 million contracts

lol at image url

carlos lee and alfonso soriano were probably the worst players in this list at the time of the signing, both poor defenders who hit for power but didn't get on base much and were coming off of career years. i'll vote soriano for having the bigger contract of the two.

I guess my criteria would be: 1) the guy was/will be crap compared to the value of the contract, for at least half the duration of the contract, 2) the deal looked stupid at the time.

That leaves just Howard, Lee, Wells, Soriano, and Hampton. It's looking like ARod 2008 will soon join them, considering how fragile he's been the last couple of years. Griffey's contract looks bad in hindsight, but nobody could have predicted that he'd be injured all the time and he was pretty good when he did play (although prob not good enough to justify the contract). Zito I have a soft spot for, and except for one awful year with the Giants, he hasn't been too far off his career averages.

It's really tough to pick anyone other than Hampton ... although Howard could be a darkhorse pick.

http://drunkathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Barry_Zito_Grey_Goose_drunk-400x300.jpg

Howard is the most wtf one to me, since he had almost TWO FULL SEASONS left on his contract when they extended him. plus he would have hit free agency at the same time as prince fielder, adrian gonzalez, and possibly pujols, so there's no way he would have gotten more on the open market.

it's definitely not the worst one here but it had the worst timing and to me seems like fan appeasement instead of a sound baseball decision

yeah that was sheer lunacy. he's going to be 31 next season, his power has faded this season for some reason, his walks have declined every single season since he won the MVP, he's got the same slugging % as aubrey huff, and he's not even in the top 20 in MLB in OPS.

I remember thinking the Kevin Brown contract was insane at the time--he was 33--but when I check back now, the Dodgers actually got some value back; Brown was really good for four out of the five seasons he was there. (Kevin Brown good, mind you--13-6, seasons like that.) To properly answer this question, you'd need to track any player who left the team that signed him, see what they got in return, etc. A lot of work. But I did check Hampton, and after they got rid of him, Colorado got a couple of decent seasons out of Charles Johnson, and one huge season out of Preston Wilson. So I'm voting for Zito. Everyone ridiculed the contract immediately, and indeed he's been crummy. Supposedly he had finally bounced back this year, but now he's 8-8, and his E.R.A. is creeping back towards 4.00. He's 32, and he's thrown a lot of innings the past decade.

Being in Toronto, the Wells contract is an albatross that the team can't get out from under. But he's a good guy, and he plays well enough (barely) that he probably helps a perennial .500 team.

the ONE cogent defense of the howard contract is that since he's always been with the phillies, there's more pressure to re-sign him/reward him/show fans you're committed etc etc -- it's one thing to sign barry zito to a hundred million dollar contract, i think it's a slightly less worse thing to do it with someone who has been with your own franchise for his whole career and has won an mvp & a world series

that said, it's still a stupid contract -- they could've waited two years, also they can't ease him out like the red sox have been able to do w/ ortiz because of there's no DH in the nl, and i think that limits his value moving forward as well

i'm voting soriano -- he's NOWHERE near worth $136 million, and i can't imagine any scenario in which they can move that contract & he's really not worth much of anything & he's probably holding back tyler colvin -- just an utterly awful contract

Aren't you guys being a little rough on Ryan Howard? It may well turn out to be a bad contract, but there are contracts here that have already been provably awful. Maybe the timing wasn't logistically perfect, but rewarding someone with a big contract after going 1-5-2-3 in the last four MVP votes, and coming off two World Series, doesn't seem like that bad a baseball decision to me.

it's always a bad idea to reward a player for past performance rather than examining his career trend. it's not that ryan howard is a bad player and he may not be "bad" for the life of the contract, but he's not worth $25 million per season now or maybe ever. if he's as good the rest of the contract as he has been this season, he's a "good" player and nowhere near great.

it's pretty amazing that despite how excellent his '06 season was, he was still only 8th in the NL in WAR, behind pujols, cabrera, beltran, andruw jones, atkins(!), jose reyes, and bronson arroyo(!!)

That makes sense, but hasn't the whole story of free agency been rewarding guys for what they've already done? Maybe I've internalized this to a point where I never gave the Howard contract a second thought. The Zito contract, by contrast, was given to a guy who clearly wasn't the same pitcher who'd won the Cy Young four years earlier. Everyone could see that, except for the numbskulls who signed him.

Movie studios and record companies operate exactly the same way; ask Kevin Costner and Janet Jackson, the Barry Zitos of their professions. Again, I think I just take paying-for-what-they-did-last-year (or movie, or album) for granted.

well that's essentially what defines all bad free agent signings, is the inability of a team's front office to look beyond the player's past accomplishments and base the contract on their projected future performance.

aging curves and the contextual problems with RBIs as a skill evaluator are the most basic of baseball analytics concepts, and the Howard contract suggests that the Phillies either don't fully understand these (possible) or do understand them but think that Their Guy is awesome enough to be above all of that (more likely)

If you hit lotsa HRs w/out excelling in anything else, you get overpaid

i think there are the smarter GMs who go after younger guys who have been great and on the ascent (or nowhere near a decline, however one might estimate that) and sign them to deals lasting during their peak years and not much further. i think the worse GMs sign those guys who have clearly passed their peak. like it kinda makes zero sense to pay a-rod 27.5 million per season over the life of a contract that will mostly be his late 30s and early 40s, because you can't reasonably expect him to continue at his '07 levels or maybe even his '08 levels. and soriano's deal was even stupider b/c they were basing his deal on his single epic season with the nationals and not a career of consistency.

so who's the next hundred million man?

werth & his people have indicated that they're gonna push for a matt holiday type deal, but i don't think he's played well enough this year to warrant that... unless the red sox (likely) or the yankees come in for him

i guess then you have prince? i assume boras will be able to get him over the $100 mill threshold

ah - he had some decent years before, mostly with the Yanks. it wasn't until '09 that he really went off a cliff.

xpost

Alex Gonzalez for sure.

i think anyone signing werth beyond three years is insane. i bet the next $100 million man is cliff lee.

i feel like no one in baseball respects Cliff Lee.

forgot about cliff, he's pretty much a lock

i think cliff is pretty well respected

yeah i mean soriano's '02 was epic and his '03 was really good, but his two seasons in texas were really pretty average, and i think his '06 was clearly some kind of final peak performance season, though his first year with the cubs was still above average.

I'm going to go back to something Jordan S said earlier:

the ONE cogent defense of the howard contract is that since he's always been with the phillies, there's more pressure to re-sign him/reward him/show fans you're committed

To me, franchise players have to be approached differently than whoever's just travelling through. The Cardinals have Pujols, the Phillies have Howard. When a team lets a franchise player get away--like the Dodgers did with Piazza--I think it's bad for the game. Even when a team seemingly turns out to be 100% right in letting a player walk (the Mariners and Griffey), it still feels wrong. And I say "seemingly" because, had he remained in Seattle, maybe Griffey's career would have played out differently.

Too much sentiment. I'd make a lousy GM.

i think it would be right to let pujols go if he was on the decline, which he doesn't appear to be, and his consistency will probably continue on for some time. howard still had a couple years left and he was already on the decline, so why jump the gun? by next season he might be a 30 HR/.260/.340/.510 kinda guy, and then you're stuck. he may not be, i mean he could go back to at least the levels of last season, but it's not something you can count on.

the guy is just traded So MUCH! it's like once a team gets him the find out he has cooties or something and they need to get him out the door asap!
and also his 2008 was completely out of nowhere. there was no indication that he could pitch like that before. i've been waiting for a regression since.

xposts

i don't think that teams should worry about what's best "for the game", but it's extremely tough to play the game of predicting the downfall of your franchise players and not paying them because of that & still remain a respectable franchise to your fans and other players

the thing with howard is that they gave him an extension before they needed to & that's the real egregious thing -- they wouldn't have been in that tough of a position if they waited two years

i don't know that lee's '08 was totally out of nowhere. he was really good in '05 and solid in '06. '07 was a disaster, admittedly. but since '08 he's been pretty awesome. he's been a little worse with the rangers than he was with the m's, but he's a cool customer, never walks anybody, and seems to be the kind of pitcher who would age really well.

it's extremely tough to play the game of predicting the downfall of your franchise players and not paying them because of that & still remain a respectable franchise to your fans and other players

^ this. no player wants to hear from a team (esp when they've played with their entire career there) when their contract is up that they aren't going to get offered the super mega bucks the used to make because they've been declining and are getting older and the team expects the very normal trend that happens to everyone to continue. 99% of players would say "screw you" and walk.

xpost

he was good on '05 - but it was still nothing compared to '08.

not only that, but it's also tough to sign guys where their contract ends at a point where they are still "good" but def on the decline -- it really wouldn't even have happened with howard if they hadn't given him the contract two years out

to get big players like this you are almost always going to be overpaying for 3+ years

i was expecting him to be another Esteban Loaiza, but he's kept it up pretty well. i guess at 32, if he's going to get himself 100 million, he's going to find a team that thinks he will pitch like this until he's at least 37.

xpost

ya - so i guess it won't be too hard for him to get that contract.

Thermo and I are going to buy the Pirates, restock the team with all our favourite Jays from years past--Moseby in centre, Robbie at second, Cliff Johnson DH'ing--and sign them all to big 10-year contracts. Just because we like them as people.

dude. i hope you're funding this one, i don't even have a job right now!

Key and Henke are key and urgent, btw.

I'll give you $145 in cash and a pickup truck full of watermelons for the stadium concession contract.

xxpost

btw i still think the dumbest contract ever was one that wasn't finished, cf. larry himes deciding that jose guzman, candy maldonado, randy myers, and dan plesac would be better for the cubs than greg maddux, who was 26 at the time.

like it kinda makes zero sense to pay a-rod 27.5 million per season over the life of a contract that will mostly be his late 30s and early 40s, because you can't reasonably expect him to continue at his '07 levels or maybe even his '08 levels. and soriano's deal was even stupider b/c they were basing his deal on his single epic season with the nationals and not a career of consistency.

― ('_') (omar little), Monday, August 23, 2010 4:19 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

look, i'm firmly in your camp that he hits 25 hrs for next two seasons then settles into an 18 hr a year semi-DL endgame. still, it makes a lot of sense when the mere promise of a bonds hr record chase is the only thing out there that could goose the YES network's already high tune in numbers. ratings = dollars, it's not always sensibly sabermetrical.

I was just going to say that as a GM, I'd be very reluctant to hand out big-money, long-term contracts to pitchers, be it Lee or almost anybody. Obviously you have to to stay competitive, but I'd be very nervous. The Braves had arguably the greatest free-agent signing ever with Maddux. How many other long-term contracts ever worked out so well with a starting pitcher?

Considering the contracts after the fact is kind of unfair. The Griffey deal was pretty reasonable when it happened, but he got injured. He was totally worth it, and injuries happen.

On the other hand, Manny's deal was fucking crazy and yet he totally (and somewhat surprisingly) earned every penny of it.

yeah no one should be giving a pitcher more than 4 years unless they are 1) a legit ace and 2) seem to freakishly resist injury

i think CC will work out fine since he was so young, not sure about the inevitable Lee contract which will probably be about the same size

^ this. no player wants to hear from a team (esp when they've played with their entire career there) when their contract is up that they aren't going to get offered the super mega bucks the used to make because they've been declining and are getting older and the team expects the very normal trend that happens to everyone to continue. 99% of players would say "screw you" and walk.

Is this a partial defense of Wells' contract? Because your post seems to perfectly sum up the mood at the time (he's the face of the franchise, we let Delgado walk so now we have to keep Wells, there are no other decent CF's on the market).

Had Wells continued to hit the way he did in the couple of years before signing the contract, you could argue that the Jays got a reasonable deal. Obv he didn't deserve to get the 7th or whatever largest contract in the history of baseball to that point, but it's also true that nobody could have predicted how bad he'd become.

no, i wasn't thinking of Wells at all.

if anything i was thinking more about the scenario that leads to someone like Delgado walking.

I'm using hindsight and voting for Mike Hampton. Though I guess if we're really playing the long game, the Hampton and Neagle fiascos have made the Rockies FO ignore the possibility of signing hyper-expensive free agents, rather concentrating on the farm and reclamation prospects, which has served us very well the last few years.

buyer bWAR

I'm posting the exact opposite here--or maybe this is the worst contract post free-agency from a player's standpoint. Ozzie Albies, of course. For seven million this year, the Braves have a 4.0-5.0 WAR second baseman with 30 HR, 100 RBI, and a .500+ slugging percentage, just heading into what should be the prime of his career. They also have him for the same seven million in 2024 and 2025.

Stephen Strasburg has retired. He signed a $245,000,000 contract in 2019 but threw only 530 pitches in the big leagues after that. pic.twitter.com/rrPKMmChwS

— Codify (@CodifyBaseball) April 7, 2024

Actually unbelievable. They got their ring though 🤷‍♂️

I think Strasburg would have been good for a few more years if he had stayed healthy, unlike most of the players discussed on this thread.

this was a trickier situation than usual due to the size of the money owed to Strasburg and the Nationals' lack of insurance for his contract, which usually mitigates long-term injury risk.

i have no idea what it would have cost to insure a contract like that, but wow was forgoing it a terrible decision

It might not have been insurable if he had a history of injury

i hate to say it since i will love him forever, but that contract the Rockies gave Kris Bryant is looking pretty bad.

patrick corbin's first season in washington (2019):
14-7, 3.25 ERA, 138 ERA+, 5.0 bWAR (regular season)
2-3, 5.79 ERA in the playoffs but hey flags fly forever

patrick corbin's next 4+ seasons in washington:
28-61, 5.62 ERA, 73 ERA+, -1.9 bWAR

patrick corbin's earnings with washington: $140m

anthony rendon is having a rough one too

Padres shortstop second baseman Xander Bogaerts has nine seasons left on his deal, not including this season (he's on the IL and may not play again this year...)

(while terrible this season, he had time to get it together and he was good in 2023, so this is a speculative pick)

I think this has been raised in this thread before: I always differentiate between deals that go unexpectedly wrong, and ones you know are bad from the outset (Hampton and Zito are the two that come to mind). Bogaerts was so durable and so consistently good before this season (the term was maybe a bit much, but not unheard of).

The Zito contract meant he could pitch the two games of his life in the 2012 postseason so I don’t think anyone regrets that now

I looked at the two games, and at his start in the divisional series before that, and we disagree there.

the term was maybe a bit much, but not unheard of

you can make an argument for giving pujols or harper or trout or mookie or shohei decade-long deals as they head into their 30s -- those guys are all-timers and multiple mvp-winners. obviously the pujols deal was a disaster, and trout's is headed that way*. the others will need to win some titles.

*(tbf, people want to come to the park simply to see the latter four play, which is awesome and worthwhile. i'm not sure pujols was ever that kind of draw for the angels, but my god he was *so* good in st. louis)

anyway X is a really good player but he's not their calibre, and having to move him to 2B in the second year of an 11-year contract is alarming. but he's definitely a better bet than eric hosmer

Since we're on the subject, just came across this right now on my FB wall--weird!

https://i.postimg.cc/8kmy2PJK/lyman.jpg

This is amazing:

After the 1977 season ended, Bostock became one of baseball's earliest big-money free agents, and signed with the California Angels, owned by Gene Autry. Bostock had made $20,000 with the Twins in 1977 and signed a $2.3 million, six-year contract with the Angels. The Twins, Padres and Yankees had all tried to sign Bostock. Almost immediately, Bostock donated $10,000 to a church in his native Birmingham, Alabama to rebuild its Sunday school.

The 1978 season started off poorly for Bostock; he batted .150 for the month of April. Bostock met with the team's management and attempted to return his April salary, saying he had not earned it. The team refused, so Bostock announced he would donate his April salary to charity.

"He came into my office and told me he was reluctant to take his salary," Angels' general manager Buzzy Bavasi recalled. "He said, 'I'm not doing my job.' But I told him, 'I won't let you do that.' And he says, 'Why not?' So I told him, 'What if you hit .600 next month? You're sure as hell not getting any more money out of me.'"

Thousands of requests came in for the money, and Bostock reviewed each one of them, trying to determine who needed it the most. After his poor April, Bostock hit .404 in June and was hitting .296 when he was killed in September.

I looked at the two games, and at his start in the divisional series before that, and we disagree there.

We just disagree gyac. It's a game from 12 years ago...

Forget it, clemenza, it’s China Basin…

also lyman bostock is a fantastic Baseball Name

(rip)

It was a sad story already, and after reading all that, doubly so. (Agree about him name: euphonious.)

"him" = "his"

I disagree about Zito's contract. It was completely defensible at the time he signed it. He'd been healthy and durable his entire career and had never had a bad season. If he'd been a free agent this past off-season, alongside inconsistent and fragile question marks like Snell and Montgomery, he'd have been the number one FA pitcher on the market, easily.

Early on in this thread you said you had a soft spot for Zito, but later on:

Bonus points go to contracts that were indefensible at the time. Wells' was at least somewhat defensible -- he'd been a 4-5 win player on average up until then, still a good defender, and was entering his age-27 season. The market for outfielders was thin, and he was a popular homegrown player. I don't think the disaster signs were obvious compared to the Zito and Hampton signings (or A-Rod's 2007 re-up).

NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, February 13, 2013

When I wrote "I think this has been raised in this thread before" yesterday, I might actually have had you in the back of my mind.

Haha, someone did their research!

At the time, I think Zito's contract was the largest ever for a pitcher? Clearly Zito wasn't the most valuable FA pitcher ever, so the consensus was that the Giants vastly overpaid, and the consensus was right. Even if you were optimistic about Zito, you had to admit that his contract was ridiculous. You can compare it, say, to deGrom's contract with the Rangers.

That said, looking at it eleven years later, I stand by my post from earlier today. In a market where Strasburg earned 250M for throwing about 500 pitches, and where Blake Snell can't string together two good seasons in a row? And along comes a FA pitcher with a CY under his belt and with no history of injury? That guy is making serious bank.

Wonder which of the recent massive deals will wind up the worst…my money’s on bogaerts.

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:30 PM (forty-five minutes ago)

de grom. bogaerts will at least be on the field

― J0rdan S., Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:16 PM (one year ago)bookmarkflaglink

Oof yeah you’re right forgot about him

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:26 PM (one year ago)

we both might be right

xp and who, crucially, can win you an elimination game in the playoffs. 😎

Zito quoted Sabean in his autobiography* saying he had zero regrets over the deal. I guess I understand their intention was for Zito to mentor the young pitchers/be the leader of the staff and he was more a terrible influence iirc. But he delivered when it really mattered!

* I reviewed it on here and it’s well worth a read solely for how casually he mentions doing meth in his misspent youth

We’ve all been there.

Wonder which of the recent massive deals will wind up the worst…my money’s on bogaerts.

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:30 PM (forty-five minutes ago)

de grom. bogaerts will at least be on the field

― J0rdan S., Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:16 PM (one year ago)bookmarkflaglink

Oof yeah you’re right forgot about him

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:26 PM (one year ago)

we both might be right

― slob wizard (J0rdan S.)

i think you were righter at the time and might be in the long run, my Bogaerts pick was more a vibes thing, plus my suspicion he was somewhat boosted by Fenway.

Stipulating that arguing over something that happened over a decade ago is pointless, my thinking (the same as then, when I said how terrible it was):

You can't really compare that deal then to what pitchers get now. Yes, the 2006 Zito would be a solid investment today: a guy who can give you 180 IP like he gave the Giants those first four seasons is highly coveted, almost regardless of how he pitches. But I assume the Giants were expecting a lot more than what they actually got those first four seasons (4.45 ERA, below league average, 5.5 WAR total), never mind after that.

The two post-season starts were very good, but to my mind, not anything extraordinary (Bumgarner was extraordinary). He pitched 12 innings between the two games, left each one with a comfortable lead. Somebody would have pitched those games--I don’t see that he did anything unique. Even going on to win, that’s just not worth $126M to me. And I do include his first start that postseason, where he pitched poorly in the divisional series in a game that might have eliminated his team.

I think you were right the first time, NoTime (and a lot closer then to the actual event).

Started looking around, and it still seems to be considered a historically poor use of $126 million:

Guy who sort of defends it (“Was it a terribly misguided contract? Yeah, it was. In the wake of two World's Championships, if you're a Giants fan would you like a do-over on that terrible contract? I think maybe you wouldn't.”):

https://www.sbnation.com/2013/9/3/4691644/barry-zito-free-agent-contract-evaluating-san-francisco-giants

Judged terrible before the 2012 World Series:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/698108-mlb-power-rankings-barry-zito-and-the-50-worst-contracts-in-baseball

https://www.complex.com/sports/a/ralph-warner/the-25-worst-contracts-in-sports-history

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/heres-the-answer-to-whether-zitos-is-the-worst-free-agent-contract-ever/

Judged terrible after the 2012 World Series:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/list/worst-mlb-free-agents-signings-josh-hamilton-carl-pavano-jason-bay-carl-crawford-albert-belle/zaaj9h66jdc41an4uaou11u0n

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/427337

https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/the_worst_contracts_in_mlb_history/s1__28002203#slide_28

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/list/worst-mlb-free-agents-signings-josh-hamilton-carl-pavano-jason-bay-carl-crawford-albert-belle/zaaj9h66jdc41an4uaou11u0n

I have some thoughts on this and not trying to argue really (I wasn’t there nor am I inclined to really want to change your very legitimate perspective on this), but I want to make some points. I’ll hang up and listen.

The two post-season starts were very good, but to my mind, not anything extraordinary (Bumgarner was extraordinary). He pitched 12 innings between the two games, left each one with a comfortable lead. Somebody would have pitched those games--I don’t see that he did anything unique. Even going on to win, that’s just not worth $126M to me. And I do include his first start that postseason, where he pitched poorly in the divisional series in a game that might have eliminated his team.

The Aaron Rowand signing was way more annoying than Zito

We're definitely at an impasse. I think it mostly comes down to those two postseason starts (he left the other one up 3-2 after 2.2 innings). In general, you see postseason success as much more determinative than I do. His game scores were 72 and 55--timely, well pitched games, nothing more or less. Marco Estrada gave the Jays some terrific postseason starts in 2015 and 2016. I'm glad he came a lot cheaper than $126 million.

Would be interested in hearing from others who posted in this thread at the time and thought it was a terrible signing.

Actually, no--let's do a poll of the worst contracts of the past decade, then we can argue about stuff we actually remember (I evidently had all these strong feelings about the Zito contract in 2010 that I have zero recollection of today).

the zito contract was . . . not good. he was coming off a really good run but even then his K and BB numbers and velocity weren't great

but also the giants won two titles during that deal (and another a year later) so you can't really say that his contract hampered the team at all

which may not officially count in a 'worst contract' thread? but it certainly colo(u)rs my thinking about its disaster level. if the giants *hadn't* signed him, would they have won more than those two championships? i'm skeptical

Which I somehow didn't mention, the reason I initially thought it was so bad: his three mediocre seasons (and large number of innings he'd already pitched in his career) leading up to the signing.

I think "you can't really say that his contract hampered the team at all" is about the best compromise I'm going to get here, so let's go with that (and move on!).

I think zito's contract was some other, secret third thing

'supporting country music'

The proper response was: ‘no secrets’

i hate to say it since i will love him forever, but that contract the Rockies gave Kris Bryant is looking pretty bad.

― omar little, Sunday, April 7, 2024 12:28 PM (four months ago)

sure is. since joining the rockies in 2022 he has -1.2 fWAR in just 159 games. only 4 more years (through 2028) on the bryant contract

Rendon has 238 plate appearances this season and zero HR

rendon has been brutal but you can kinda see where they were coming from at least

the rockies signed bryant to that deal 13 months after trading away nolan arenado for a fungo bat! like they were simply one bryant-sized piece away from contending! just a completely clueless organization

top salaries for 2024

Scherzer • TEX $43,333,334
Verlander • HOU $43,333,333
Judge • NYY $40,000,000
deGrom • TEX $40,000,000
Rendon • LAA $38,571,428
Trout • LAA $37,116,667
Cole • NYY $36,000,000
Corbin • WSN $35,416,667
Arenado • STL $35,000,000
Seager • TEX $35,000,000
Strasburg • WSN $35,000,000

so....3 out of 11 ain't bad.