If Bonilla had taken the $6M payout in 2000 and invested it himself at a much more realistic rate of 5%, compounding annually with no withdrawals, at the end of that 36-year term he would have a shade under $35M. Technically more than what the Mets are paying, but realistically less given what he can potentially do with investing the annual $1.2M payouts and the time value of money. Still, it’s not nearly as ridiculous a deal as it seems.

It really only makes sense to take a deal like this if you feel you don’t have any self-discipline and would squander the $6M payout, but given what happened to many players in Bonilla’s day (Clark, Gwynn etc. filing for bankruptcy) I’m sure he considered this possibility.

I know the Jays used to defer money in some players’ contracts, but I don’t know if this is still happening. The players and their agents have probably caught on to the fact that they’re actually not benefitting from this in the long run. It would actually be nice to set up something like this with, for example, B.J. (or offer Wells a similar long-term annuity to go away).

who knows how much money the Mets could make on their money back then? It was the peak of the dot-com era, the stock mkt was rocking, everyone “had” lots of money. For all we know, in that environment, the Mets could have ploughed an extra $6M into advertising and drove $12M in incremental revenue. If so, they can still afford to pay Bonilla 20% and make out like bandits.

As for Bonilla, not sure if he was that smart or what. But there is no asset class in US that consistently delivers 20% returns and certainly not on a risk-free basis as the Mets were offering. Perhaps the Mets offered him 20% to attract his money away from the lure of “easy” tech rally money. Not sure. But in any case, with hindsight and assuming the Mets do not go under before Bonilla gets paid off, it was a very smart deal for Bonilla.