Votto a Red until AARP calls

[kab21]

Yeah.. It's a great way to get the fans pissed off at you if you don't win, though.

Even the reds know they aren't winning anything without Votto. Thats potential revolt if they let Votto walk and they turn into an 70 win team.

You have to appear as though you are trying to win to keep your fan base. Especially to the casual fan that doesn't know much about baseball finances.

They do know how much 225M is and I don't think Cardinal fans revolted with Pujols leaving.

[jfg]

The no trade clause is the worst part. Even if the contract is horrible, somebody would have dealt for him if the Reds were still not a true contender in 3-4 years. That still could happen I suppose if he waives it for certain teams but they now have their hands tied. I don't get why they couldn't talk him out of the no trade clause with that kind of a contract. I mean did they negotiate at all?

[bayside]

It is probably better off to think of it as the Reds paying Votto $30m/year for the first 6 years and $11m/year for the last 4 years, but just deferring the money over time. Barring injury he has a very good chance at worth every penny of the contract, just not distributed equally across the duration of the contract like the payout is.

yes, exactly.
and to answer the other guys question more explicitly, teams sign these deals because they expect to get excess value over the early part of the contract, knowing full well that the last few years will be an overpay.
getting so many wins out of only 1 roster spot, is much much more valuable than than getting an equal number or even slightly more wins spread out over 2-3 roster spots.
its just how the market works if you want elite talent.

[Ender]

Agree, Tampa dumped Crawford but it didn't affect their popularity since they won regardless.

Not sure Tampa and popularity should be used in the same sentence.