Forum Thread

Manny Machado vs Aaron Rodgers, Who Got the Better Deal?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Manny Machado didn't just make MLB history with his 10-year contract deal with the San Diego Padres. He made American sports history. Machado now owns the mantle for most lucrative deal in all of US sports history, worth $300 million over a 10-year period. $30 mill a year.

    Giancarlo Stanton used to hold this record, another MLB signing that back in 2014 was worth $325 million for 13 years.

    This is just insane to me. My gut reaction is how in the world can a baseball player make that much more than the very best NFL player? Digging into the numbers a little bit though, it does make sense.

    Take the NFL. Their highest paid guy in the whole sport is Aaron Rodgers. He just signed a $134 million contract for 4 years. That's $33.5 million a year. So yearly its a bit higher than Mannys. Ok, but I'm sure Rodgers would rather the 10 year guarantee.. only problem with that is quarterbacks don't have the same shelf life as a baseball player, generally speaking. So no NFL team would be willing to guarantee that kind of time frame. That's why you see 10 year deals in the MLB vs 3-5 year deals in the NFL. It's just the nature of the beast of the sport.

    But then again, looking at Rodgers, the numbers get even more interesting when you consider bonuses. For 2018 as an example he actually earned $66.9 million. Yeah, bonuses really leveled things off quickly. I don't know what bonuses Machado can earn past $30 mil per year, but I seriously doubt its anywhere close to double.

    Then there are endorsements. Rodgers earned $9 in 2018 as well. So he really earned $75 million in one year. Damn. Machado of course has all the ability in the world to earn something similar.

    So just comparing the top 2 earners, one for MLB and the other for the NFL, neither has any room to complain. Do you think its crazy to pay these guys that amount of money? Or do you think their product and draw appeal for their sports justifies it? Also who do you think came out better, Rodgers or Machado?

    Also keep in mind that teams have opt out clauses with both of these contracts, so neither will necessarily receive 100% of their contract money. For Manny for example, his deal 'reportedly features an opt-out provision after the fifth year, per Yahoo Sports' Tim Brown'.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I never understood the 10 year contract. I agree with these guys that 4-6 years makes a lot more sense. For any player from any sport. Does make it more interesting for the Padres if there is an opt-out around year 5 or so. But I'm not so sure it'll be that easy.

    Crazy to think that Bryce Harper might turn around in short order and beat this deal too. And I gotta agree with pundits again there; Bryce will likely be more deserving of a monster record-setting deal than Manny. Though I do like Manny and even though the Padres overpaid, maybe in some years it'll prove to be a smart move IF a lot of pieces around him materialize.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yeah, it's absolutely crazy. Neither the Machado or the Rodgers deal make any sense to me.. I don't think any single person in sports should make that much money. It's ridiculous. We all justify athletes like these two making so much money because they're famous athletes. It really shows what we've all come to that we've let an imbalance of wealth like this happen so easily.

    I could see that the entire packers team getting 30 million and that is then distributed throughout the team. That'd be better.

    Anyways, I think Rodgers is more justifiable between the two. It may not seem like it is if you live in the southern states, but I've seen the hype Rodgers creates for the sport first-hand. Living in Chicago, I would hear about Rodgers and Cutler ALL the time.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    PowerPlay Wrote:

    Yeah, it's absolutely crazy. Neither the Machado or the Rodgers deal make any sense to me.. I don't think any single person in sports should make that much money. It's ridiculous. We all justify athletes like these two making so much money because they're famous athletes. It really shows what we've all come to that we've let an imbalance of wealth like this happen so easily.

    I could see that the entire packers team getting 30 million and that is then distributed throughout the team. That'd be better.

    I agree it feels like they are way overpaid. But then I balance that out in my head by thinking of how small a window they have to capitalize on their pay day. And then its not so crazy for superstar money for their entire lifetime.

    Also, what about the execs and owners of the league? What % do you think the players should get of the franchise pie? For example: here's the Packers earnings and valuation.

    The team is worth $2.625 billion. Their revenue is listed at $434 million and they are only paying all their players a collective $218 million. That's only about 50% of all revenue going to the players. I'm guessing that's just for 2018?

    Anyways, how do you think that should be properly divided?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    SFriedman Wrote:
    How do you think that should be properly divided?

    I just think they get paid way, way, way too much for what they do. I definitely understand that they are professional athletes and that the average Joe can't keep up, but they're not superhumans. What most of them do isn't out of reach of what the average (physical attributes aside, considering alot of them aren't as enormous as we think) person could do.

    I think that they should add value for value. If QB has best stats, he gets highest cut. Or if it's a RB or WR that gets the highest, they get the most. I do see the flaws with that, but I think the standard of "yeah, lets give this guy 30 million + because he'll probably make us that much or more" isn't good at all.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    PowerPlay Wrote:
    SFriedman Wrote:
    How do you think that should be properly divided?

    I think that they should add value for value. If QB has best stats, he gets highest cut. Or if it's a RB or WR that gets the highest, they get the most. I do see the flaws with that, but I think the standard of "yeah, lets give this guy 30 million + because he'll probably make us that much or more" isn't good at all.

    I like a performance based model. But do you think the owners should pocket a majority of the money then? Or should the sport give it away? Or lower prices? Like if the team makes $500 million, how much of that should the players make vs the owners?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    SFriedman Wrote:
    PowerPlay Wrote:
    SFriedman Wrote:
    How do you think that should be properly divided?

    I think that they should add value for value. If QB has best stats, he gets highest cut. Or if it's a RB or WR that gets the highest, they get the most. I do see the flaws with that, but I think the standard of "yeah, lets give this guy 30 million + because he'll probably make us that much or more" isn't good at all.

    I like a performance based model. But do you think the owners should pocket a majority of the money then? Or should the sport give it away? Or lower prices? Like if the team makes $500 million, how much of that should the players make vs the owners?

    I think that they should donate to charity once it hits a certain threshold, in a Bill and Melinda Gates type of way. Either that or take the money (after the threshold) and invest, not just donate it into the public. Think of how cool that'd be. If the NFL took just half of their profits from one year and invested into spreading solar panels/energy for housing to help the world, food, medical treatment for those who can't afford it (hospitals would have a surplus to use at their discretion, or whatever), helping animals that need it, so on and so forth.

    But this is a pipedream, of course.... none of that is remotely possible if Goodell is making 35 million, Rodgers 30 million, etc, etc..

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    PowerPlay Wrote:

    I think that they should donate to charity once it hits a certain threshold, in a Bill and Melinda Gates type of way. Either that or take the money (after the threshold) and invest, not just donate it into the public. Think of how cool that'd be. If the NFL took just half of their profits from one year and invested into spreading solar panels/energy for housing to help the world, food, medical treatment for those who can't afford it (hospitals would have a surplus to use at their discretion, or whatever), helping animals that need it, so on and so forth.

    But this is a pipedream, of course.... none of that is remotely possible if Goodell is making 35 million, Rodgers 30 million, etc, etc..

    Admirable. That'd be awesome and the league would gain so much positive press as well it would definitely be worth it too just from a marketing standpoint. Even if they just did 10-25% that'd be great.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Big contracts keep coming. Bryce Harper just got a 13 year, $330 million contract with the Phillies. 10 years is too much to me, and 13 makes no sense at all. At least Harper is young at 26. But he will be 39 if he stays perfectly healthy and they honor the full contract.

    How many 39 years are playing in the MLB right now? How many over 35?