That deal will pay Helton $16.6 million this year and $19 million in 2011 with a $4.6 million buyout on a $23 million option in 2012. That buyout now becomes moot with Helton receiving $4.9 million in salary for 2012.

He's getting the buyout plus less than the league minimum in 2012. I guess there's a point where you don't need any more money, but he must really like the team.

And the Denver schools.

Seriously though its a classy move by both Helton and the Rockies, and I'm really surprised more big name players don't do this so they can retire gracefully with the team they started with, rather than bounce around for a few years, then spend a March struggling to find work.

Doesn't this assume Helton retires after 2013?

Let's say he averages 150 hits a season through 2013 (pretty conservative estimate). That puts him at 2734 hits at age 39...

"Helton Gets Two Year Extension, Will Be Rockie For Life"

Is he sick or something? Do they not expect him to live beyond his tenure with the club?

You guys are picky about headlines. The article specifies that Helton wants to retire a Rockie (Rocky?) and that O'Dowd is open to the idea of extending Helton's contract further as 2013 nears.

Is he sick or something? Do they not expect him to live beyond his tenure with the club?

Well, there's at least one way to ensure he doesn't live past the tenure . . .

Well, there's at least one way to ensure he doesn't live past the tenure . . .

Hire the Mets' medical staff?

The Red Sox should sign him to a one-day contract in 2014.

Hire the Mets' medical staff?

The Mets have a medical staff?

...I'm really surprised more big name players don't do this so they can retire gracefully with the team they started with, rather than bounce around for a few years, then spend a March struggling to find work.

I wish it was that way, but I'm not surprised that it isn't. I'm just not sure WHY it isn't. Too much ego, or too much pressure from their fellow union members to keep the salary market high?. Throw in a team or two with a short-term need or the optimistic hope that a guy will maintain his performance for a couple more years, and there you have it.

He's getting the buyout plus less than the league minimum in 2012. I guess there's a point where you don't need any more money, but he must really like the team.

Helton probably recognizes that he'll be overpaid by a pretty healthy amount in 2011, and is thus not inclined to ask for a whole lot more out of the team.

This will be overshadowed in the Denver sports pages by the fact that the guy who killed Darrent Williams of the Broncos was found guilty of murder this afternoon. Helton seems like the kind of guy who'd rather not be in the headlines anyway.

I wish it was that way, but I'm not surprised that it isn't. I'm just not sure WHY it isn't. Too much ego, or too much pressure from their fellow union members to keep the salary market high?

I suspect that, for a lot of veteran players, the routine of the season is more attractive than hanging around the house doing nothing.

The Mets have a medical staff?

Yes, headed by Theodoric of York.

I suspect that, for a lot of veteran players, the routine of the season is more attractive than hanging around the house doing nothing.

I agree, but I assume that we're talking about playing the same number of years, it is just a case of where. At least in Helton's case, it is spending two more years with the Rocks rather than two years elsewhere.

I wish it was that way, but I'm not surprised that it isn't. I'm just not sure WHY it isn't. Too much ego, or too much pressure from their fellow union members to keep the salary market high?. Throw in a team or two with a short-term need or the optimistic hope that a guy will maintain his performance for a couple more years, and there you have it.

It is the human condition, particularly for people at the top of what they do. Look at Congress, law firms, corporations, etc. There are always people who hang on too long, not wanting to admit they can't do it any more. Because sports force people to do it earlier in life (age 40 rather than age 70), I suspect it is even more difficult to admit.

I'm really surprised more big name players don't do this so they can retire gracefully with the team they started with, rather than bounce around for a few years, then spend a March struggling to find work.

An interesting question is why you (and most others) assume this is (predominantly) the player making this choice rather than the team.

I can think of three cases (two involving "retirement") where a player bent over backwards to play for and/or retire from the team of his choice -- J Robinson retiring rather than accepting a trade to the Giants; Dawson giving the Cubs a blank contract; Wakefield giving the Sox an eternal team option at a cheap price.

The flipside of each of those was: the Dodgers trading icon Robinson to the Giants; MLB collusion and the Cubs calling Dawson's contract a publicity stunt (then filling in the blank contract and getting him for a song); and ... OK, don't know what might have happened in the last one but presumably the Red Sox politely and honestly told Wakefield "we're happy to keep you for $X but we aren't gonna keep you for $Y." Nothing wrong with that but it's not necessarily the same as "Tim, no way we will let you retire as anything but a Red Sock, what will it take?" And lo and behold, Wakefield has taken a small pay cut from that bargain price.

Teams also often engage in nice gestures (e.g. 1-day contracts, bringing a player back at the end of their career, etc.).

Point being that for loyalty to mean anything, it has to run both ways. Sure, Steve Carlton "should have" retired a Phillie ... but they released him mid-season which was, shall we say, a bit unglamourous. If a team isn't willing to keep a guy around when he's no good anymore, why should a player be willing to make it easy for that team to keep him in his golden years?

Of course 99% of the time it has nothing to do with love of a team/city or dis/respect for a player -- it's a simple disagreement about whether the player has anything left, something you can't expect a player to take a rational view of.

And come age 39, if Helton thinks he can still play but the Rox don't, they'll part ways. And if he's putting up a 57 OPS+ in June 2013, don't be surprised to see the Rox release him.

The Mets have a medical staff?

You must have heard of him, Kevorkian I think his name was.

Let's say he averages 150 hits a season through 2013 (pretty conservative estimate). That puts him at 2734 hits at age 39...

If he still stays healthy until that point, the Rockies could offer another extension for his 3000 campaign which is nice to see.

Although 4 years down the road is still long way to travel, The extra money the Rockies put into this extension is essentially 6 mil for 2 more years of Helton's service.

Good deal for both sides.

This seems like a pretty good deal for Helton. As it was, he stood to get $23.7M after 2010: 19.1M for 2011 and a 4.6M buyout on the 2012 team option.

Now he gets: $20.4M through 2013 and $13.1M deferred.

I guess he's losing out if someone expected him to be able to sign somewhere as a free agent in 2012, but I wonder about that. It seems like he's going to be a very expensive pinch hitter in 2012 or 2013.

And come age 39, if Helton thinks he can still play but the Rox don't, they'll part ways. And if he's putting up a 57 OPS+ in June 2013, don't be surprised to see the Rox release him.

I wonder if he'll fall off like that, or more like Tony Gwynn, here he will hit .300 to the end but be unable to stay on the field.

I'm just not sure WHY it isn't. Too much ego, or too much pressure from their fellow union members to keep the salary market high? Throw in a team or two with a short-term need or the optimistic hope that a guy will maintain his performance for a couple more years, and there you have it.

I think players really do equate salary with respect. If a player has taken a home-town discount in the past, and has seen lesser players make more money at times, he may feel like he has sacrificed more than his share, and it's time for the owner to sacrifice.

Then, like Ghost said, throw in a couple teams who are offering more money and appear excited to sign the player (rather than feeling obligated), and it's easy to understand. This is essentially what happened with Trevor Hoffman.

An interesting question is why you (and most others) assume this is (predominantly) the player making this choice rather than the team.


Because its the player giving up his leverage. They are the ones risking the "flipside" scenarios you mention. Helton was going to get paid a large sum of money, but it also made it likely the Rox wouldn't renew him at the end of the deal. Now, he defers some money now in order to have a longer deal. Of course it takes two to tango, but it was the player that gave up the money up front and risks being released at the end of the deal when he's not that expensive and/or good.