PLUS incentives. And, a starting point for negotiations. Since Boras appears unlikely to get 10/200 ??? then he musty, it would seem to me, get Varitek, Drew etc signed before lowering their values as CB's is 'The #1' FA.
They should have made it 7 for 100...the longevoity of the offer will cost us Beltran...he wants more stability as far as years. This is a joke.
New report from the Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/2935847 we offered 6 years, 13.5 mil, total of 81 mil. i'm guessing we get pushed to 108 mil over 8 years.
Uh, no its not. Its right on par with what it should be. I haven't seen anyone else come out and offer him more. Hell, the Yankees were reported to considering a 13 million dollar offer. Sounds pretty damn fair to me. There will be additional years added on.
i said that the years are a joke...not the amount hopefully that chronicle reports is closer to the offer....i think 7 yrs/95-100 gets him
Why is a joke? Vladimir Guerrero got a 5-year $70 mil contract from the Angels last year. And that was a resume with 4 all-stars appearances. Beltran is not as good as Guerrero. And while he is a less likely injury risk, his big asset of speed is likely to decline quite sharply 5 years from now. 5/70 might not get it done for the Astros, but you're pretty oblivious to the MLB FA market if you think the offer is a joke. For further references, Tejada, one of the best SS in the league, got 6/75 last year. Nomar rejected 4/60(2 years back) and 4/48(last year) from the Sox before realizing what an idiot he was.
I'm fine with the offer reported by the chronicle... more than fair for a player like Beltran in this market. The only thing I worry about was some reports that Boras is going to want the Astros to at least give him more money than Jeff Bagwell (who's contract is ridiculous, btw, and would never be done in today's salary structure had the 1999 Jeff Bagwell been looking to resign). If that's the case, we may be hampered just because of Bagwell.... if Boras looks at it as an "ego" thing, and wants Beltran to be the highest paid player on the team. (highly doubtful, but I've heard crazier demands). I still think he's ours to lose (provided this 6 year 81 million is a flexible offer... which it probably is) mainly because of the lack of other suitors. There's the Cubs, who won't/can't do anything until they deal with Sosa, who nobody wants. The Angels (who are probably Beltran's favorite choice... a good AL team in a big city, with not as much media hype as NY) have balked at going after Carlos, but if that's his initial preference, they'd be fools not to take a chance at him. An outfield of Garret Anderson, Carlos Beltran, and Vlad. Gurrero would be the best in the game... and if the Angels added another starter to go with Colon, they'd be the trendy pick to win it all next year. The Yankees are the yankees... and nobody knows what they want. Chances are, if they don't get Randy, they may break the bank for Beltran out of desperation to make some big splash move... but even they know that adding Beltran alone isn't going to make them any more likely to go back to the World Series. Overall, the Astros have to be a little bit flexible in their negotiations... don't give in to every demand Boras makes, but also don't try to play hard ball with a "take it or leave it" token offer. I like Pupura... and I like what McLane is saying about Kent (meaning he's definitely changing the way he does things.... cause in the past, there's no way they sign a 36 year old infielder to a decent contract when they have a minor leaguer playing for peanuts, ready to take over).
I think the Astros made a mistake by not offering Bagwell type numbers to Beltran who is much better player that Bagwell currently is. I'd offer him 500,000 a year more than Bagwell makes or Boras wont even consider the offer. Right now I'd put the odd of the Astros of signing Beltran at 20%.
Different economics. Name me just 1 player who has signed a contract over 14 million per year since the new CBA agreement. Just 1
Bagwell's contract was signed years ago...well before the A-Rod deal. The only relation Bagwell's contract has to this discussion is whether or not he'll be willing to defer some money, AGAIN, if asked. His contract has nothing to do with market value for new contracts at this point!
You might be right about the odds. However, I think you are wrong about the money. Other than the differences of contracts when Bagwell sign and today, Bagwell is a Houston icon and was at the time of his signing. Beltran could very well be on his way to becoming one, too, if he re-signs. If he is here and puts up the numbers he is capable of and gets the Astros consistently into the playoffs, he will get Bagwell/A-Rod type money in the future.
you just answered your own question...well done Vlad didnt have the leverage to demand more years because of his supposed chronic bad back...Nomar has a very injury-riddled past as well...as does Pujols with his bad elbow (not sure the yrs Pujols got)
Bagwell is the reason this team won't make such a huge commitment. The guy is making 17 million a year and he can barely throw the ball. He's not even putting up numbers that justify anything near what he's getting paid.
Pujols did not get less money because of some injury concerns... neither did Tejada. Maybe Vlad took one less year because of his back, but if teams were really concerned about it... do you honestly think they would be giving even $14 million? I don't think so. This is the market now... its not what it was 4 years ago: No team could afford A-Rod's deal by itself, execpt the Yankees.... and we all saw what it did to Texas' team. The 1999 Jeff Bagwell would never even sniff his deal, in either the years or the $$$. Too many franchises have been exposed to what happens to these aging players once their big money starts kicking in, and their production goes far south. (same applies to Sammy). Luckily, the market corrected itself due to these signings, as well as the following group of guys who either were too hurt all the time, or their teams did squat in part to their large contracts: Kevin Brown, Billy Wagner, Carlos Delgado, Ken Griffey Jr., Shawn Green, Mo Vaughn, and Mike Piazza.
I never said they got less money...i said they couldnt bargain for more years...read it again. I disagree...i think teams are more inclined to take a shorter term risk and pay market value (or above depending what agents decide is market value) for a superstar then commit to long term contracts if they have a real concern about injuries...i know the Mets didnt bother with Vlad because they didn't want to lock themselves into a guy who may have back problems his entire career...and the Mets have as much cash to spend as anyone. Granted, they will probably end up being wrong, but I think the injury factor has a lot to do with years and less to do with the "shorter term" money
Well Pujols did get 7 years... and I doubt he was looking for much more than that. Owners have always been leery about giving out long contracts. Its the dollar figure that has always been baseball's biggest problem (in the case of A-Rod, it was both)... but now, the market seems to have corrected those obscene 15-25 million dollar a year contracts. I have no problem with adding more years to the Beltran deal... long-term deals for position players don't scare me as much as pitchers.
