I think it would be interesting if the team that signs Alex put in injury clauses that reduce the contract if X amount of time is missed. Insurance is too expensive, and a team laying out that much obligation would like to have some kind of protection.

Excellent take, John, and without a drop of hysteria.
MSM columnists should take heed.

A team might try to do that, but Boras would never agree to such a contract. What would possibly be interesting would be for him to have a choice between a guaranteed $250 or so million contract for 8 years and a $300 million contract for 8 or 9 years that lowers the yearly salary for days on the DL over some number; 30, maybe, by $100,000 for each subsequent 15 days (I have no idea if that would be enough to pay for the insurance, but that would be the plan in such a contract, I suspect: to have him pay for his own insurance). And, the final three years of the latter contract become mutual options if Rodriguez spends more than some number of days on the DL in the previous two seasons (I'm not sure that's allowed under the CBA). We'll pretend it's late February and these are clearly the only two offers there are going to be; he's been sitting on them for almost a month already.

How does a team wanting to acquire Alex Rodriguez avoid giving a contract guaranteed to generate a severe case of buyer’s remorse?

The only way to win is not to play.

Vaux, do you remember that Boras negotiated a contract with the Tigers for Pudge that included options for buying out the contract for specific missed injury time? Obviously the circumstances are different. But I don't see any reason to believe that Boras categorically wouldn't listen to such a contract offer.

Wow, best article I've read in a long time. Part two needs to be the Boras counterpoint.

Other than Boras' own statements, is there anything that indicates the market is moving upward to the extent that $30/year or $300M total is in play? Other signings don't even break the $20M threshold. Revenues are up, but I don't see much indication that anyone wants to spend them in such huge chunks. A-Rod is likely to continue to be the highest paid MLB player, but I don't think any team will come close to Boras' targets.

Ig:

Wasn't that a line from a movie? Mathew Broderick as the lead?

Glad somebody caught the reference, Harv. How about a nice game of chess?

Other than Boras' own statements, is there anything that indicates the market is moving upward to the extent that $30/year or $300M total is in play?

Boras doesn't get paid to read markets. He gets paid to move markets. I'm not kidding, either.

Ig:

"War Games" correct? I looked up Broderick's film credits and figured it had to be early 80's.

That was an entertaining movie. I remember going with my two youngest.

That was excellent.

Correct, Harv.

Boras doesn't get paid to read markets. He gets paid to move markets. I'm not kidding, either.

I would not dispute that his goal is to move the market, just think it will be much more difficult to do so this time around for the reasons set forth in the article. The Texas contract didn't work out and no team was willing to take it on without a heavy subsidy. Just like generals are said to be fighting the last war, I think GMs will want to avoid repeating Texas' mistake and will see signing A-Rod on Boras' terms as more of a threat to their job security than taking a pass.

think it will be much more difficult to do so this time around for the reasons set forth in the article

And I, in turn, don't dispute this. But I think Boras would lose more luster by conceding to those market conditions than by aiming outrageously high and falling short.

For whatever reason nobody's posted this article here yet, but Jeffrey Gordon in yesterday's New York Times tried to claim that the reason for Boras's early announcement was that A-Rod wanted to come back to the Yankees, and that since he knew that they were going to hire Girardi the next day, he didn't want his announcement to look like a slap in Girardi's face. Gordon even spins this into a bit of selfless sacrificing of image on A-Rod's part, willingly putting the heat on himself.

Well, if A-Rod does resign with the Yanks, then in hindsight this might appear to be a good point. I wouldn't count on it, though.

It's funny how lucky Hicks was when he signed A-Rod. A-Rod never got hurt, never missed any time, and his performance never declined. And still the contract turned out to be awful, despite Hick's constant spin about the "ballpark" and ancillary benefits it was a clear stinker because we know...

a) Hicks bid against himself. The good teams would not pay more than $20M per year for A-Rod's services, even at age 25, and I don't think any offered more than 7-8 years.
b) Hicks ended up paying $90Mish for three years of A-Rod. While not the cause of the Ranger's terrible team, that money sure could have been spent better.
c) Hicks himself felt the contract was such a huge burden that he willingly agreed to pay $50M to the Yankees to extricate himself from it.
d) The Yankees thought even the last 7 years of the contract were so risky they would only take on the best player in the game if they got a discount of $50M and this is while they were bidding against their arch-rivals, the Red Sox.
e) The Red Sox demanded both a $30M discount and Texas take the rest of Manny's awful contract (a contract any team in the MLB could have had for free at that time). They walked away from a done deal because they could only get a $13M discount. They would pay $150/7 for A-Rod, but $167/7 was too much!

Can you imagine what would have happened if A-Rod tore his ACL & MCL in season two? How much of that deal would Hicks have to eat for a rehabbing A-Rod with a bum knee?

Essentially, the smart teams in 2000 and 2004 agreed that A-Rod was worth around $20M per year, or a little less (Yankees). So today, what has changed? A-Rod has gotten older and less valuable (defensively). Have team revenues surged in the last 4 years to the extent that teams are willing to up their estimates of A-Rod's monetary value by 50%, despite his declining baseball value? I mean his value has to be at least 25% less on a age 32-41 deal than on a age 25-34 deal, so how does Boras get 75% more money per unit of value?

Revenues aren't up 75%, that's for sure. I'm still skeptical that any team is dumb enough to sign A-Rod for more than 7/$175M. If a bad team offered 10/$300M I used to think he learned enough from his Texas situation to be smart enough to turn it down, but I no longer understand what his personal goals are. I thought the Yankees offer was pretty close to the best he could have gotten from a good team, yet he still left the best possible situation to achieve greatness (biggest payroll, most post season opportunities, biggest media market). Unless he just hated his personal situation there, that move made no sense.

Have team revenues surged in the last 4 years to the extent that teams are willing to up their estimates of A-Rod's monetary value by 50%, despite his declining baseball value? I mean his value has to be at least 25% less on a age 32-41 deal than on a age 25-34 deal, so how does Boras get 75% more money per unit of value?

Revenues aren't up 75%, that's for sure.

Using straight line estimates with datapoints in 2000 ($3B rev), 2004 ($4B rev) and 2007 ($6B rev), 75% is about right. However, (assumed) estimates made in 2000 and 2004, etc., will (I assume) estimate projected future revenues, too.

Hicks ended up paying $90Mish for three years of A-Rod. While not the cause of the Ranger's terrible team, that money sure could have been spent better.

No, the money that really could have been spent better while Rodriguez was on the Rangers was the

$24.6 million to an eminently forgettable cast of fungible middle relievers such as Jay Powell, Rick Helling, Todd Van Poppel, John Rocker, Mark Petkovsek, Dave Burba, Esteban Yan, Dan Miceli, and Rudy Seanez

$24 million to Juan Gonzalez for 2 injury-plagued half-seasons

$19.9 million to Chan Ho Park to forever retire the question "Who was the worst free-agent signing ever based on dollars and results?"

$18.4 million to Rusty Greer to do little more than sit on the bench and wave a towel

$7 million to Darren Oliver for a 6.02 ERA

$6 million to Andres Galarraga for a .235 AVG and 10 HR from a "power-hitting" 1B

$5.8 million to Jeff Zimmerman to keep the medical staff company

$3.5 million to Ken Caminiti for a .232 AVG and 9 HR from a "power-hitting" 3B

$1.8 million to Einar Diaz, not to mention the enormous opportunity cost of the Rangers missing out on the prime of Travis Hafner's career

It wasn't the high price of stardom that killed the Rodriguez-era Rangers. It was the higher price of mediocrity... and worse.

But I don't see any reason to believe that Boras categorically wouldn't listen to such a contract offer.

With IROD:
1: Boras had already signed a 1 year deal (with Florida) to try for a multi year deal the next year- after no one offered the 40/10 deal he was publicly looking for
2: So a year later, even after a terrific WS winning season, IROD (Pudge = Carlton Fisk), still couldn't get a straight 40/4 offer.
3: Boras took the Detroit deal because it let him get to say he got 40/4- even though it vwasn;t guaranteed (and it worked out)

I think it would be interesting if the team that signs Alex put in injury clauses that reduce the contract if X amount of time is missed. Insurance is too expensive, and a team laying out that much obligation would like to have some kind of protection.

I'm pretty sure that's not allowed under the CBA, and the union would protest to have the clause struck from the contract.

A few counterpoints:
- A-Rod will be closing in on historical markers. If he signs a 6 or 7 year deal, he'll almost certainly pass 500 HR, 600 HR and 3000 hits. If he signs a 10 year deal, there's a possibility that he breaks all-time HR and/or hits records.
- There are now more revenue streams for teams to pull from that may not be attendance-dependent.
- The prices of contracts have increased at a rate that well outpaces inflation.
- He's now a proven draw, whereas he wasn't before.
- It's not only his counting stats that have increased. He's actually a better hitter than he was when he signed his last contract.
- Huge contracts appear to be easier to trade than they were 8 years ago.

- A-Rod will be closing in on historical markers. If he signs a 6 or 7 year deal, he'll almost certainly pass 500 HR, 600 HR and 3000 hits. If he signs a 10 year deal, there's a possibility that he breaks all-time HR and/or hits records.

who cares, seriously, except at the very end of the chase

- There are now more revenue streams for teams to pull from that may not be attendance-dependent.

This is the key- how fast will revenues continue to grow? Revenue Growth that's faster than the economy as a whole is unsustainable over the long haul- and MLB's revenues have grown at a faster rate than the whole economy for quite awhile now.

- The prices of contracts have increased at a rate that well outpaces inflation.

Ditto- that's unsustainable

- He's now a proven draw, whereas he wasn't before.

really?
and really?

- It's not only his counting stats that have increased. He's actually a better hitter than he was when he signed his last contract

Three years prior to last contract, ages 22-24: 136, 134, 162
Last 3 years: ages 29-31: 173, 134, 177

well, "duh", he was signed in 2000 under the expectation that he would be better under the contract than previously- age curve and all that - NOW the expectation will be that his performance will not quite be what it was- PLUS he's no longer a SS.

- Huge contracts appear to be easier to trade than they were 8 years ago.

Disagree, easier than they they were 3-5 years ago, about the same as 8 years ago, these things come and go.

I've said so elsewhere, but this was an excellent essay. If I were an owner or GM, I'd email this to everyone and anyone who might be involved in my negotiations with Arod and Boras.

I also disagree that the Arod contract was awful for the Rangers. The only awful thing is that they thought that having the best player in the game meant they'd be a good team. Takes more than one great player, no matter how great. And all the stupid money as outlined by Mr. Clap above.

"I’ve always said to everybody that Seattle is my first choice."

"I wanted to be a Met. I’ve always wanted to be a Met, I’ve been a Met fan since I was a kid. And I would’ve played there for less money and less years and they know that."

"I want to be remembered as a Texas Ranger."

"You're asking me what my sincere feeling is. I want to 100 percent stay in New York. Period. That's it. I don't know how many ways I can say it."

"I want to be here. I want to stay here."

"I want to be in New York. This is the place I want to finish my career. That's it.”

"We had options and we all know that, but I want to be in New York. That's it."

"I've always said it: I love New York, for me, as a player, to come full circle in New York, it's the most comfortable I've felt."

I'd love to know what the problem with these statements is. They're not even inconsistent, except perhaps the statement about him wanting to be remembered as a Texas Ranger and then later forcing a trade from Texas. But you know, circumstances and feelings change, and pretending that someone should forever be held to everything he says is patently absurd.

Players make these kinds of statements all the time when a microphone is shoved into their face. Do people want him to say after a Yankees game "You know, even though I'm now a Yankee, I really wanted to be remembered as a Texas Ranger." It's just ridiculous to make an issue over this or brand players as "phony" because of this stuff.

They're not even inconsistent, except perhaps the statement about him wanting to be remembered as a Texas Ranger and then later forcing a trade from Texas.

Man, this is a world-class howler, even by Baseball Think Factory standards.

Say whatever you want about Bonds (and I've said a lot), but at least he is genuinely beloved by the fans of the Giants.

A-Rod so desperately wants to be beloved by some group of fans in this manner, but let's be real: he makes it incredibly hard on himself with his words and his behavior.

Yes Chan Ho Park may be the worst free agent signing. Who was Chan Ho's agent to have pulled that piece of overspending?

If he signs a 6 or 7 year deal, he'll almost certainly pass 500 HR, 600 HR and 3000 hits. If he signs a 10 year deal, there's a possibility that he breaks all-time HR and/or hits records.

Rodriguez already has 518 home runs. He's almost a mortal lock for 600 on a three year contract, and 3000 hits on a five year deal. He doesn't come close to the hits record in ten years unless he stops walking.

Essentially, the smart teams in 2000 and 2004 agreed that A-Rod was worth around $20M per year, or a little less (Yankees).

I think you have to factor in the 3 years of Soriano here.

I think it would be interesting if the team that signs Alex put in injury clauses that reduce the contract if X amount of time is missed. Insurance is too expensive, and a team laying out that much obligation would like to have some kind of protection.

I'm pretty sure that's not allowed under the CBA, and the union would protest to have the clause struck from the contract.

Hypothetical 10-year deal. Would it be possible under the CBA to cook up a clause that would award Rodriguez a $50 million bonus after Year Ten if he'd been healthy and on the roster for 1,500+ games? Is it contractually acceptable to take the negative "if you're hurt, we don't wanna pay you" scenario, and turn it into a "since you weren't hurt, we're glad to pay you" premise?

The Yankees had a DL-based opt out in Jaret Wright's deal, so it's certainly legal. I suppose you could hypothetically sign A-Rod for the MLB minimum for fifteen years, with a $30M annual bonus for staying off the DL.

EDIT: or a $5M monthly bonus.

gosh, this was a good article. by the time i finished reading it i didn't think anybody should sign this guy. i hope i never have to negotiate with brattain on anything.

gosh, this was a good article. by the time i finished reading it i didn't think anybody should sign this guy. i hope i never have to negotiate with brattain on anything.

Someone should upload this to the Wikipedia entry on negotiation.

Essentially, the smart teams in 2000 and 2004 agreed that A-Rod was worth around $20M per year, or a little less (Yankees).



I think you have to factor in the 3 years of Soriano here.

Well, the Yankees actually were paying $17M a year of A-Rod's contract. And Soriano was paid $23M for those three years. If you think Soriano was worth $15M a year, the yankees gave Texas $22M in "Soriano Money", which makes the total cost of A-Rod's 4 years about $22.5M per year. If the Yankees thought it was a lock A-Rod would not opt out, then they thought they were getting him for about $20M per year.