Orioles,11 others interested in Adrian Beltre

[LookinUp]

Really? You think they are going to take one of the best defensive third baseman of the last 25 years, sign him to a large contract and then take away all of his value and move him to first?

Yeah, it's one of the funniest suggestions I've seen anywhere.

Unless the Nats are sorting their FA target list by cost, Beltre's nowhere on their list.

[Don_Aase_Fan]

Athletics Open Bidding On Beltre At Five Years?

Interesting.

[RVAbird]

Athletics Open Bidding On Beltre At Five Years?

Interesting.

5/45? 9 MM per? That doesn't seem likely. I think something probably got twisted in the grape vine.

It looks like the Red Sox are prepared to offer something like 4/52. Why would the A's even bother making a 5/45 offer? "Hey, we want you for one extra year and we're also going to pay you less guaranteed money." I'm not buying it.

At least it sets the table for Andy's 7/35 offer.

[Dipper9]

5/45? 9 MM per? That doesn't seem likely. I think something probably got twisted in the grape vine.

It looks like the Red Sox are prepared to offer something like 4/52. Why would the A's even bother making a 5/45 offer? "Hey, we want you for one extra year and we're also going to pay you less guaranteed money." I'm not buying it.

At least it sets the table for Andy's 7/35 offer.

Well, if the A's offered 5/45, and the "ceiling" for the Sox is 4/52, then I say we throw 4/60 on the table right now, take it or leave it, and see what happens!!!

[TGO]

Well, if the A's offered 5/45, and the "ceiling" for the Sox is 4/52, then I say we throw 4/60 on the table right now, take it or leave it, and see what happens!!!

"Take it or leave it" deals and Scott Boras do not mix.

[ChaosLex]

How mad would you be if Beltre sign with the Nats?

You do know the Nats have a pretty good third baseman of their own, right?

:laughlol:

[Dipper9]

"Take it or leave it" deals and Scott Boras do not mix.

Oh, I know. I was just sayin.

However, MacPhail likes to sit back and wait for the market to set itself. Well, those two offers appear much lower than what we had all expected. If we beat the Sox current "ceiling" by 8 million right off the bat, I think Boras would be hard pressed not to encourage Beltre to take our offer.

[bluedog]

How would people feel about going 5 years, 62 million and structuring the deal like:

2011: 17M

2012: 15M

2013: 10M

2014: 10M

2015: 10M

I'd think we'd be able to move Beltre after the 2012 season pretty easily assuming we need / want to do so and if he continues to play at a very high level for the entire contract, he'll be a bargain at the end.

This would force Boston to both increase the money and the length of their supposed max offer to continue to play and would probably knock Oakland and most of the other suitors right out of the game.

And I'm not afraid to pay Beltre 17M this year or 15M next assuming he produces to reasonable expectations.

[RVAbird]

How would people feel about going 5 years, 62 million and structuring the deal like:

2011: 17M

2012: 15M

2013: 10M

2014: 10M

2015: 10M

I'd think we'd be able to move Beltre after the 2012 season pretty easily assuming we need / want to do so and if he continues to play at a very high level for the entire contract, he'll be a bargain at the end.

This would force Boston to both increase the money and the length of their supposed max offer to continue to play and would probably knock Oakland and most of the other suitors right out of the game.

This is the third post I've seen in which you advocate a front-loaded contract. While I understand the attraction, it's not efficient. Because of inflation, it becomes much easier for the organization to absorb the big money at the end, even if it might seem to make the player harder to dump. 17 MM in 2011 is worth more than it will be in 2015. You can pretty much guarantee that.

So, in terms of value, a front-loaded contract might cost the team 10-20% "more" than a back-loaded contract of the same USD. If you're trying to dump a player who is making 17 MM but a team is only interested in absorbing 10 MM in payroll, you eat 7. In the end, the front-loading doesn't really provide much benefit and it increases the value of the money you spent.

[MrOrange82]

This is the third post I've seen in which you advocate a front-loaded contract. While I understand the attraction, it's not efficient. Because of inflation, it becomes much easier for the organization to absorb the big money at the end, even if it might seem to make the player harder to dump. 17 MM in 2011 is worth more than it will be in 2015. You can pretty much guarantee that.

So, in terms of value, a front-loaded contract might cost the team 10-20% "more" than a back-loaded contract of the same USD. If you're trying to dump a player who is making 17 MM but a team is only interested in absorbing 10 MM in payroll, you eat 7. In the end, the front-loading doesn't really provide much benefit and it increases the value of the money you spent.

Humor me...I was an English major.

7 million dollar difference between the first and third-fifth years of the proposed contract. The present-day value of 17 million dollars would offset the "savings" of 10 million dollar annual salaries in future years?

I guess another way of asking would be...what would the 2015 inflated value of a 2011 10 million dollar salary be?

I'm not phrasing this well.....sigh.

[Going Underground]

So does anyone want to go 5/76 to get Beltre.?Beltre turned down A's last year as well as the O's. I heard he wants to play on the West Coast.

[RVAbird]

Humor me...I was an English major.

7 million dollar difference between the first and third-fifth years of the proposed contract. The present-day value of 17 million dollars would offset the "savings" of 10 million dollar annual salaries in future years?

I guess another way of asking would be...what would the 2015 inflated value of a 2011 10 million dollar salary be?

I'm not phrasing this well.....sigh.

Well, I'll put it this way. 17 MM in 2005 would have been worth about ~18.5 MM in 2009. Spending the 17 MM in 2009 would have given you a value of ~15 MM in 2005.

Let's look at Bluedog's proposed contract had the deal been given in 2005. First listed will be the actual dollar amount of the salary and in parentheses will be the 2005 "value" of the salary.

2005: 17 MM (17 MM)

2006: 15 MM (~14.5 MM)

2007: 10 MM (~9.43 MM)

2008: 10 MM (~9.17 MM)

2009: 10 MM (~8.84 MM)

For a grand total of 58.94 MM in 2005 value over 5 years.

Here's how the deal would like while back-loaded:

2005: 10 MM (10 MM)

2006: 10 MM (~9.67 MM)

2007: 10 MM (~9.43 MM)

2008: 15 MM (~13.76 MM)

2009: 17 MM (~15 MM)

For a grand total of 57.86 MM in 2005 value over 5 years.

Hmm, that wasn't even close to the discrepancy I was expecting, so I'm glad I did the math.

Still, if you know you can save yourself 1+ MM in value by back-loading, and you can eat money if you need to make a trade in the later years, I don't see a compelling reason to front-load.

I will concede that the difference was not as much as I was led to believe, though. Thanks for asking the question and not letting me rest on my assumptions.

Here's the link I used for the calculations.

[RVAbird]

Oakland offering 5/64...

Well that seems much more believable. I'd offer about the same amount of guaranteed money over 4 years instead of 5 (which is a much more lucrative 16 MM per year vs. 13 MM per year) but that's where I'd draw the line.

Unfortunately, now that that 5th year boundary has been breached, there's probably no going back. I see something like a 5/75 deal in his future, and I'm not touching that.

[Sports Guy]

Oakland offering 5/64...

It must be nice to have a GM who is aggressive and tries to make things happen on his own. The Orioles haven't even decided what to do with Koji yet.

[Sports Guy]

Well that seems much more believable. I'd offer about the same amount of guaranteed money over 4 years instead of 5 (which is a much more lucrative 16 MM per year vs. 13 MM per year) but that's where I'd draw the line.

Unfortunately, now that that 5th year boundary has been breached, there's probably no going back. I see something like a 5/75 deal in his future, and I'm not touching that.

Why would you do that? Just to get him to take the more lucrative offer? I mean, to get the 5th year, essentially for free, I would think that is the best way to go.

That being said, you are right, it is going to take a 4/68-5/75 deal, at a minimum, to now get him if this offer is true.

Also, can you imagine if Beltre goes there? He will have played in some major pitchers parks in his career.