OK, maybe I'm a guy whose glass is half full -- or less than half-full -- but let me offering some sobering thoughts about the prospect of signing Stanton to a long-term contract.
Basically, I'm thinking of the Texas Rangers signing A-Rod. In 2000, the Rangers had fallen to last place. They attempted to revive themselves in one huge move by signing Alex Rodriguez to a 10-year deal worth $252 million -- $63 million more than the second-richest deal, according to Wikipedia.
I know, I know -- Stanton is not A-Rod. But still ...
Look at the numbers. The Rangers made a big splash with A-Rod but nine players are required to play the game (well, 10 in the AL). A-Rod put up huge numbers in 2001, 2002 and 2003 -- 52, 57 and 42 HR, batting averages of .318, .300 and .298. In 2003, he lead the league in home runs, runs scored and slugging percentage.
Guess what? The Rangers finished in last place each of those four years. Realizing that the deal wasn't working, Texas traded him to the Yankees (though they still own A-Rod a ton of money in a deferred compensation deal).
If ... if the Marlins can't afford all the championship components to go along with Stanton (and these young stars are going to be getting increased amounts through arbitration, if nothing else, in the years ahead), then I worry the Marlins may end up with a super-star surrounded by a cast that doesn't measure up. And that's assuming that Stanton bounces back from his beaning.
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, for I love the idea of having stars that don't disappear as soon as free agency looms. And a long-term Stanton definitely helps attendance.
Champions of the world in 1997 and 2003 -- and now?
