That's actually not true.The circumstance doesn’t negate the fact it’s a bad contract. If you take a risk and lose, you effectively made a bad decision. Not being able to find an insurance company to underwrite the contract was a sign.
I’d rather have someone underperform on a bad deal (so I can trade or buy him out), than someone with a career ending injury that only played 8 games. It’s literally wasting $245 million with nothing to show for it.
If you make a decision that you believe to be positive expected value and it fails, you still made the right choice.
If you're playing blackjack and you have 17 and you stand. And the dealer gets 20 and you lose...you still made the right decision in a loss.
Sure, Stephen Strasburg only playing 8 games looks awful. It IS awful. But this was the worst outcome in a range of outcomes that were possible with this deal. If you could simulate this whole thing 10,000 times, how many times does Strasburg only play 8 games? 1 time out of that 10,000? 3 times out of 10,000?
But when you gave him that contract....the true risk wasn't so much in the money but in the years.
Strasburg was the best pitcher in the game when he signed that deal (or certainly top 3).
The other guys I listed above (Heyward, Lindor, Kemp, Crawford)....they weren't anywhere near even the Top 10 overall position players in the game.
I'll put it another way...
If you spend 12 million dollars on an F1 racecar and in the very 1st race there's a wreck and it's destroyed, that's not a "bad deal".
If you spend 1 million dollars on a Honda Civic and it races for 6 years with zero issues, that's a horrible deal.