The Willy Adames Contract Conundrum: Why San Francisco’s $182M Gamble Is Backfiring
FEEL UNSTOPPABLE IN GEAR THAT MOVES WITH YOU.
From lightweight running shorts to moisture-repellent jackets – every piece is crafted for peak performance and head-turning style.
Need sports gear? Get it on sale now – discounts you can’t resist! <--ClickThe Record-Breaking Deal That Defied Logic
When the San Francisco Giants committed $182 million over seven years to shortstop Willy Adames in December 2024, the baseball world questioned the logic. The deal - featuring a $22 million signing bonus and $26 million average annual value - represented both the largest contract in franchise history and a significant risk for a player entering his age-29 season with documented injury concerns.
The On-Field Decline
Through May 2025, Adames' performance has validated critics:
- .218 batting average (45 points below 2024)
- .635 OPS (15% below league average)
- 27.4% strikeout rate (career-high)
- -2 Defensive Runs Saved at shortstop
These numbers place Adames among MLB's bottom-five offensive shortstops, a stark contrast to his 2024 All-Star campaign with Milwaukee.
Financial Repercussions
The Giants' payroll strategy now faces critical challenges:
- 12.6% of 2025 payroll dedicated to underperforming player
- No-trade clause complicates potential moves
- $161 million remaining through 2031
- Blocked development of top prospect Marco Luciano
Comparative Market Failures
Front office miscalculations become evident when comparing contracts:
- Francisco Lindor (Mets): $34.1M AAV - .285 AVG, 5.2 WAR
- Corey Seager (Rangers): $32.5M AAV - .327 AVG, 6.8 WAR
- Adames: $26M AAV - .218 AVG, 0.7 WAR
The Path Forward
San Francisco faces limited options:
- Hope for dramatic mid-season turnaround
- Absorb salary in trade while losing prospects
- Bench expensive veteran for younger players
A Cautionary Tale
This situation echoes previous franchise missteps like Barry Zito's $126 million deal, highlighting the dangers of:
- Overvaluing career-year performances
- Ignoring positional prospect pipelines
- Misjudging age-related decline curves