Twelve (you read it right!) years for A-Rod?!?!

[Ohfan67]

Or, alternately, a wise investment that will bring them as yet untold sagas of glory, fame, and conquest.

Absolutely. Just look at the glory, fame, and conquest the Texas Rangers purchased by signing Arod.

But seriously, I hope teams are smarter this time than the Rangers were. Boras is sooooo good at manipulating owners into thinking that Arod is going to magically increase a team's revenue by 100% or something similarly crazy. I usually root for players to get as much of the owner's money as possible, but in this case I'm really happy the Yanks are not going to get involed in the bidding war. Without the Yankees helping to drive up the price, Boras will have a much harder time (hence he's already whining about "Why can't Alex be a free agent like all the other Yankees?? boo-hooo for Arod).

It will be interesting to see if teams repeat the Rangers' mistake. I think the Arod signing will totally be driven by an owner (like others have suggested regarding the Angels owner). I can't believe a GM would decide to invest 30+ million in one player.

[DrungoHazewood]

Absolutely. Just look at the glory, fame, and conquest the Texas Rangers purchased by signing Arod.

But seriously, I hope teams are smarter this time than the Rangers were. Boras is sooooo good at manipulating owners into thinking that Arod is going to magically increase a team's revenue by 100% or something similarly crazy. I usually root for players to get as much of the owner's money as possible, but in this case I'm really happy the Yanks are not going to get involed in the bidding war. Without the Yankees helping to drive up the price, Boras will have a much harder time (hence he's already whining about "Why can't Alex be a free agent like all the other Yankees?? boo-hooo for Arod).

It will be interesting to see if teams repeat the Rangers' mistake. I think the Arod signing will totally be driven by an owner (like others have suggested regarding the Angels owner). I can't believe a GM would decide to invest 30+ million in one player.

I've always thought the Rangers' major mistake was failing to acquire a major league pitching staff with the $60M or $70M in payroll they'd allocated to players not named ARod. ARod for $25M per wasn't the problem. Chan Ho Park for $15M per was. The going rate for a marginal win on the open market is about $2M. ARod was fairly paid. Park, not so much.

Teams almost never fail by signing premium talent at premium prices. They fail when they sign a lot of mediocre talent at free agent prices.

[boogidownoriole]

Whoever signs him for anything close to that will become my 2nd most hated team.

[RShack]

I've always thought the Rangers' major mistake was failing to acquire a major league pitching staff with the $60M or $70M in payroll they'd allocated to players not named ARod. ARod for $25M per wasn't the problem. Chan Ho Park for $15M per was. The going rate for a marginal win on the open market is about $2M. ARod was fairly paid. Park, not so much.

Teams almost never fail by signing premium talent at premium prices. They fail when they sign a lot of mediocre talent at free agent prices.

Exactly so. All the ARod hate is just about how much money he makes. Nomatter how much he makes, he's still the best ballplayer. That's *why* he makes so much money.

One day he's gonna win a WS with a dramatic dinger, and then most everybody will suddenly say he's worth it. Then, later on, he's gonna move Barry down on the HR list, and then everybody will love him. Until those things happen, people are gonna diss him about the money. As if the diff between $17M and $25M really changes how rich somebody is... or how crazy the salaries are...

[ElToro75]

Rather give 300 mil over 12 years than 300 mil over 10. Sounds like a clever way to get more money by discounting value over time. Obviously he's not going to be playing at 44/45.

You can't really say that there is no way he won't be playing at 44/45. Look at Julio Franco. Back when he was 32, seventeen years ago, did anyone think he would still be playing at 49?

If you compare A-Rod today vs. Julio Franco at 32, I would have to say that A-Rod is in better shape and has a better conditioning program than Franco did.

Does that equate to A-Rod absolutely playing as long as Franco or even to the age of 44? No, but barring injuries I'd say the odds are more in his favor of doing so then not.

Also as Drungo said, if he's productive he's going to play...no matter his age.

[JTrea81]

It's looks like Boras wanted 350 million for A-Rod...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3091277

[Ohfan67]

I've always thought the Rangers' major mistake was failing to acquire a major league pitching staff with the $60M or $70M in payroll they'd allocated to players not named ARod. ARod for $25M per wasn't the problem. Chan Ho Park for $15M per was. The going rate for a marginal win on the open market is about $2M. ARod was fairly paid. Park, not so much.

Teams almost never fail by signing premium talent at premium prices. They fail when they sign a lot of mediocre talent at free agent prices.

Wow! I am shocked, totally shocked, that you believe that Arod's deal with the Rangers was a good deal. Clearly the Rangers disagreed. Hell, even the Yanks got the Rangers to pay part of his deal. Investing 25 million into one player when you have a 90 or so million dollar payroll is pretty dumb unless you have an amazing, I mean amazing, core of young position players and some amazing young pitching.

I'll agree that teams fail when they sign mediocre talent at free agent prices, but many teams still fail when they sign quality players to stupidly large contracts. Of course the Rangers were complete idiots for signing Chan Ho Park, but the Rangers signed Arod for something like twice what the highest paid player was making at the time and when their payroll was going to be less than 100 million. That's dumb economics period. They were basically bidding against themselves and still forked out that much dough on one player. I also find it very, very difficult to believe that a win shares analysis or any other analysis conducted at the time (or today with data from that time) would suggest that the Rangers contract was smart.

Plus think of the risk the Rangers were accepting in that contract. If Arod had developed a nagging injury that seriously affected his productivity they would have flushed about a third of their payroll down the toilet.

Funny that we're having this exchange. My very first post on the hangout years ago, probably '99 or 2000 under a different posting name, was about Arod's contract.

Anyway, you are someone who is always preaching value so I am really shocked you think Arod's Rangers contract was worth it. Of course I think Arod's amazing and one of the best players ever, but just think of all the wonderful production that could have been purchased for that 25 million dollars if the Rangers had been run by someone like Billy Beane during the past seven or eight years.

The Rangers partly justified the deal based on all kinds of bogus economic scenarious dreamed up by Boras. There was going to be super development around the park all tied to Arod being there, etc. Boras seems to be pulling out a similar bag of tricks for this contract too. I've read reports where the briefing book he's putting together to share with owners/gm's includes a ton of these analyses. My hat is definitely off to Boras. If I were a baseball player, then I would definitely want him to be my agent!!

[Ohfan67]

Exactly so. All the ARod hate is just about how much money he makes. Nomatter how much he makes, he's still the best ballplayer. That's *why* he makes so much money.

One day he's gonna win a WS with a dramatic dinger, and then most everybody will suddenly say he's worth it. Then, later on, he's gonna move Barry down on the HR list, and then everybody will love him. Until those things happen, people are gonna diss him about the money. As if the diff between $17M and $25M really changes how rich somebody is... or how crazy the salaries are...

I don't hate Arod and as I say earlier I almost always root for players to soak ownership. But I definitely find the whole Boras-Arod-free agency association pretty sickening. It's just too gross to me.

When you think about his salary, remember that he was making 25 million when the next highest player had signed for something like 12 million (I think someone got 15 mill right after he signed?). He also signed a 25 million dollar deal with a team with a 90 million dollar payroll. Again, I don't see how anybody could claim that the Rangers got "value" out of that deal or that his production was worth that much money.

[geschinger]

I've always thought the Rangers' major mistake was failing to acquire a major league pitching staff with the $60M or $70M in payroll they'd allocated to players not named ARod. ARod for $25M per wasn't the problem. Chan Ho Park for $15M per was. The going rate for a marginal win on the open market is about $2M. ARod was fairly paid. Park, not so much.

Teams almost never fail by signing premium talent at premium prices. They fail when they sign a lot of mediocre talent at free agent prices.

There is signing premium talent at premium prices and then there is ARod at Boras prices. It's on a whole other level. The problem w/the Rangers was Boras' constantly convincing Hicks to overpay his clients.

How much do you have ARod getting paid per marginal win? I found an article that talked about it after the 2006 season and ARod was at $4.7m per marginal win which would be significantly higher than the going rate if it's $2m on the open market.

[os1971]

Obviously? I'd say it's pretty likely he won't, but there's a few factors that determine how long someone plays. The most important is how good is he? The higher the peak, the more likely he'll still be productive at an advanced age. ARod is about as good as anyone alive, so he has that one covered.

Of course he'll have to want to play, and his body will have to be healthy enough.

I think he's as likely as anyone playing ball today to be still active into his mid-40s.

Ok I'll agree with that. Its an unlikely possibility. Particularly that he'd be productive at that age. But with the DH and his conditioning, I guess its plausable.

If I were the club I'd be looking at his potential to break the HR record and perhaps include his participation/marketability as a nonplayer. But I'm not even sure if thats legal to include in a players contract.

[square634]

There is signing premium talent at premium prices and then there is ARod at Boras prices. It's on a whole other level. The problem w/the Rangers was Boras' constantly convincing Hicks to overpay his clients.

How much do you have ARod getting paid per marginal win? I found an article that talked about it after the 2006 season and ARod was at $4.7m per marginal win which would be significantly higher than the going rate if it's $2m on the open market.

Also you have to take into account that not all marginal wins are created equally. If you are a 60 wins, adding 10 wins doesn't really add much revenue.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Wow! I am shocked, totally shocked, that you believe that Arod's deal with the Rangers was a good deal. Clearly the Rangers disagreed. Hell, even the Yanks got the Rangers to pay part of his deal. Investing 25 million into one player when you have a 90 or so million dollar payroll is pretty dumb unless you have an amazing, I mean amazing, core of young position players and some amazing young pitching.

I'll agree that teams fail when they sign mediocre talent at free agent prices, but many teams still fail when they sign quality players to stupidly large contracts. Of course the Rangers were complete idiots for signing Chan Ho Park, but the Rangers signed Arod for something like twice what the highest paid player was making at the time and when their payroll was going to be less than 100 million. That's dumb economics period. They were basically bidding against themselves and still forked out that much dough on one player. I also find it very, very difficult to believe that a win shares analysis or any other analysis conducted at the time (or today with data from that time) would suggest that the Rangers contract was smart.

Plus think of the risk the Rangers were accepting in that contract. If Arod had developed a nagging injury that seriously affected his productivity they would have flushed about a third of their payroll down the toilet.

Funny that we're having this exchange. My very first post on the hangout years ago, probably '99 or 2000 under a different posting name, was about Arod's contract.

Anyway, you are someone who is always preaching value so I am really shocked you think Arod's Rangers contract was worth it. Of course I think Arod's amazing and one of the best players ever, but just think of all the wonderful production that could have been purchased for that 25 million dollars if the Rangers had been run by someone like Billy Beane during the past seven or eight years.

The Rangers partly justified the deal based on all kinds of bogus economic scenarious dreamed up by Boras. There was going to be super development around the park all tied to Arod being there, etc. Boras seems to be pulling out a similar bag of tricks for this contract too. I've read reports where the briefing book he's putting together to share with owners/gm's includes a ton of these analyses. My hat is definitely off to Boras. If I were a baseball player, then I would definitely want him to be my agent!!

You don't think Billy Beane would have paid for A-Rod if he had the money?

The Rangers were stupid for signing Rodriguez, but not because they gave all the money to him. Because, like Drungo said, they didn't use the money they DIDN'T spend on him wisely.

[geschinger]

You don't think Billy Beane would have paid for A-Rod if he had the money?

Hard to say, we don't know what he'd do if given an unlimited budget. But my guess is if given the Rangers budget, he'd spend it a different way rather than tie up 25-30% of the payroll resources into one player.

The Rangers were stupid for signing Rodriguez, but not because they gave all the money to him. Because, like Drungo said, they didn't use the money they DIDN'T spend on him wisely.

They definately didn't spend other monies wisely, Boras consistenly got the better of Hicks getting him to gladly pay out huge sums of money to clients like Chan Ho Park.

[os1971]

Honestly, thats not really a factor, as most contracts nowadays have deferred money. Guys sign for 5 years at 7 per, but if you dig into the contract, they may actually get 5 per year for 5 years, but another 2 per year for 5 years after the contract ends. Just cashflow management for the team. NFL contracts are this way too, but FYI, the deferred money is usually also guaranteed on both accounts.

Deferring money over the contract life of a players contract when he is expected to be productive and deferring money over years when a player reasonably may not even be playing, much less be productive, are totally different considerations.

It's not only cashflow management, its future value of money considerations. The longer money can be deferred are huge factors in financial management.