And didn't it go rather badly last time anyhow? Would he even have signed if they told him he had to play 2B?

Holy crap, it would be worth the price of admission if they told him that NOW. "Oh, Jose, yeah, you're our starting 2B, see you in April."

96 - wouldn't the reduced workload at second base be offset by the position switch as an injury reducing benefit? It's been what, six years since Reyes played second base?

Isn't 2B more injury inducing than SS? On the DP turn, it's the 2B who's more open to knee injury because he's the one moving right, then throwing left with a runner coming in (and potentially getting a cleat stuck or not moving off the bag quick enough), as opposed to the SS moving in the same direction where his momentum is carrying over the runner coming in.

Just based off top-of-the-head anecdotal thinking about 2B and SS -- seems to me that it's 2B who tend to get broken down into shells of themselves a lot quicker than SS.

Castillo, Biggio, Utley, Alfonso, Whitaker, etc -- seems like 2B tend to wear out career-wise a lot quicker than SS.

96 - wouldn't the reduced workload at second base be offset by the position switch as an injury reducing benefit?

Isn't 2B also tougher on the body? (I mean that as an actual question, I always assumed turning the DP from 2B was more dangerous though I've never looked into it)

But that applies to the Angels, Rangers, Marlins etc also. And he would be a smaller investment to NY than he would be to the others.

Not if they're paying a 40% premium on his contract with the luxury tax it isn't ...

Castillo, Biggio, Utley, Alfonso, Whitaker, etc -- seems like 2B tend to wear out career-wise a lot quicker than SS.

By and large I agree with you, but Biggio is not an example I would have chosen. This is a guy who also played catcher until age 25 and also did a stint in CF, the two other "hard on the body" positions, while attempting 538 steals and getting hit by 285 pitches, and he STILL managed to be 16th ALL Time in games played, 14th all time in games played at second base. That was one tough, durable dude.

By and large I agree with you, but Biggio is not an example I would have chosen.

Yeah - I guess I got colored a bit too much by his last two death march to 3000 seasons. Still - even though he was plenty valuable as a 2B in his mid 30s, I think he was a pretty far cry from his earlier versions after say... age 32/33.

Not if they're paying a 40% premium on his contract with the luxury tax it isn't ...

per the new CBA...

"Teams that surpass the luxury tax threshold of $178MM will be taxed 42% in 2012 and 50% in 2013."

The 2010 Yankees have already have $172.8M committed to just 11 players. For 2013, they've already got $150M (assuming they pick up the options on Cano and Granderson) committed to just 9 players.

If they're serious about avoiding the tax, they need to be smarter about their pitching acquisitions (i.e. stay away when the market is crappy rather than half-hazardly throwing money at whoever happens to be available in a given year).

So if the Marlins have "pulled their offer," is anyone left with a bid? It would be amusing for the Cardinals to now offer 8/$160 just for giggles.

So if the Marlins have "pulled their offer," is anyone left with a bid?

Did I miss what happened with the Mystery Team? Were they proven not to exist?

I'm guessing at this point that Pujols will stay a Cardinal. I think he was using the Marlins to get the largest possible contract he could out of the Cardinals.

Still - even though he was plenty valuable as a 2B in his mid 30s, I think he was a pretty far cry from his earlier versions after say... age 32/33.

Yes, he had a decline phase, but it's not like he fell off a cliff, like, say, Alomar, who would have been a good one to use in your example: Great at age 33, and then at or below replacement immediately after that. At least Biggio still put up acceptable years at ages 35, 37 and 39.

Not if they're paying a 40% premium on his contract with the luxury tax it isn't ...

per the new CBA...

"Teams that surpass the luxury tax threshold of $178MM will be taxed 42% in 2012 and 50% in 2013."

The 2010 Yankees have already have $172.8M committed to just 11 players. For 2013, they've already got $150M (assuming they pick up the options on Cano and Granderson) committed to just 9 players.

If they're serious about avoiding the tax, they need to be smarter about their pitching acquisitions (i.e. stay away when the market is crappy rather than half-hazardly throwing money at whoever happens to be available in a given year).

Doesn't the perecentage taxed get reset when a team doesn't go over in consecutive years? I thought that was a large part of the point for the Yankees to try to get under for at least one year.