One thing I have wondered about while drinking beer: how does the length of the contract interact with the total value? For instance, if teams could only at most give out three year contracts, what would be the value of the contract Manny would get? Presumably without long-term deals total value would decrease because right now teams get to amortize the costs and also essentially use credit to buy near term performance.....which to my non-economist mind seems like it would tend to inflate how much teams are willing to shell out. But on the other hand, (luxury taxing aside), many teams don't seem to have near term cash flow issues. Free from the worry of accumulating underwater contracts, I could see the bidding on 3 unfettered prime Manny years getting intense.