Since I just got done bashing Boras and Teixeira, I'll ask you, my loyal readers, to answer this one: Would you sooner take the longer term, higher total value contract or the shorter, higher AAV contract?The opportunity is there, especially after the Red Sox and Angels publicly stated they're out. And though it probably won’t work because of the money already on the table from the Nationals and Orioles, there is a rationale that I think makes sense.
Crafty. I can't see Boras letting Teix take it, though. It's not long term enough. Boras would rather the longer term deal with his patented opt-out, methinks. What say you?
Offer Teixeira a 4-year deal worth $102 million. Blow him away with an average annual value of $25.5 million, not far under A-Rod’s megadeal. The Yankees get their short-term commitment while Boras gets the big number he’s looking for. There are tens of millions left on the table, but here’s where it could pay off. The four year deal means Teixeira will hit the open market again at age 32, still in his prime.
Lastly, I have read many defenses/assaults of/on the Yanks and Steinbrenners lately, but I did happen to really like this defense for its brutal honesty, from later in the same article:
For those that think this is overkill after the quarter of a billion dollars they committed to Sabathia and Burnett, I have two words—pipe down. The Yankees have money to spend. This is what they do. So spend it. Who can argue that the players they are adding don’t make sense? If the Steinbrenners took all this money that was coming off the books and put it in their pockets, then that would be a greater crime. Other GM’s can talk tough, but if any one of their owners came to them and offered an extra $100 million for the payroll, not one would say, “no thanks, we’d prefer to do it the right way.”
Posts
6 comments:
I think both have their flaws. Sure, the short-term looks better, but if he does well, then you feel like you need to bring him back. Then, you've paid more for his services than you originally thought. The long-term deal does add in the risks of injury and decline. Yes, Teixeira could take the 4 year/$105M deal, but when it ends, the Yankees are going to be essentially bidding against themselves for him the next time around? Who'd pay him $25M when he turns 32 other than the Yankees?
Mark, I think there's a prevailing mantra in the game that it's better to pay more for a shorter term than for a longer term lock up. Payroll flexibility or something.
As far as who'd pay him when he's 32, I'd worry about that in 4 years.
This is a very interesting debate to me. I actually thought about this the other day. I'm not sure what I would do, but I think one would have to seriously think about the short term deal. $105 million is a lot of money, enough to set a person up for life. Plus, there is still a good chance to get another $100 million when you're 32. If he is productive enough there will be other teams (not only the Yanks) willing to pay that money.
Amen to the article. I think it's terrible when owners shell out as little as posssible on payroll and pocket millions of dollars (only to cry that they are losing money, I'm looking at you Carl Polad).
Isn't Pohlad THE wealthiest owner in all of MLB? If he is, gee, I wonder why that is.
From every account I have heard he is.
Yanks should just sign Tex for 8 years and $180 and call it a day. Enough of the dramatics. It's just money and what a way to stick it to the Boston Red Sucks.
Post a Comment