11/16: What is A-Rod Sacrificing? Follow Up
Posted by: Patrick
Yesterday, I wrote about how I didn't really think A-Rod was sacrificing much - just taking the best offer he's going to get - and how Scott Boras might not have lost in this deal. There were a few related articles in the blogosphere today and I wanted to highlight them.
Larry Mahnken writes that both A-Rod (gets a raise) and the Yankees (by not backing down on not negotiating with him) win, but Boras loses. His reasoning:
If the Yankees are willing to pay $275 million over 10 years without the $21 million from Texas, then it would make sense that there could have been more money to get, if they were negotiating with that money at their disposal (which is essentially the point that Mr. Mahnken makes in the next paragraph of the article).
Jay Jaffe paints Boras as the loser, as well:
That's interesting - hadn't considered the rate of inflation (though, I don't know that it affects what A-Rod may or may not have sacrificed). Still, should the deal have been in line with inflation? It probably goes without saying that a 25 year old Alex Rodriguez should get a better, inflation adjusted ten year deal than a 32 year old Alex Rodriguez.
Finally, Ben Kabak says that we saved maybe $5 million dollars (after taking into account provisions in his old contract that I had forgotten - good find) - but that isn't what matters here. What matters is that the Yankees stuck to their hard line, broke Boras' "stranglehold" over the game (and A-Rod) and brought him back on their terms. He closes with:
When you factor in everything, if we did intend to offer him an extension that would have made his overall package ten years at $291 million dollars, then we're either losing $5 million or $3 million or saving $5 million (depending on those contract provisions). So, I guess you could say that it comes out about even. As far as cost for us, we're giving him about the same deal we were thought to be willing to give him before he opted out.
I had been ready to move on without him, but I'm certainly glad to have him back. He's the best player in the game and we can get him (as the best third baseman in the game) without trading anything. It'll be neat to (hopefully) watch him set some records, too.
Larry Mahnken writes that both A-Rod (gets a raise) and the Yankees (by not backing down on not negotiating with him) win, but Boras loses. His reasoning:
Sure, he got the biggest contract in history for his client. And maybe the whole “A-Rod crawls back” thing was a ploy by Boras after he realized he misread the market for A-Rod, and got him the best deal possible—probably for a lot more than anyone else would pay. But here’s the irrefutable fact: A-Rod COULD have gotten more if he hadn’t opted out. Would he have? That depends on how good a negotiator Scott Boras is, but there can be no doubt: there was more money to be had.
If the Yankees are willing to pay $275 million over 10 years without the $21 million from Texas, then it would make sense that there could have been more money to get, if they were negotiating with that money at their disposal (which is essentially the point that Mr. Mahnken makes in the next paragraph of the article).
Jay Jaffe paints Boras as the loser, as well:
Boras overreached, and while the new contract -- incentives regarding his potential chase of the all-time home run record aside -- sets a record by being $23 million more than the 10-year, $252 million deal Rodriguez signed for the 2001 season, the increase doesn't even match the rate of inflation. That's all ya got, Scott? Pfft.
That's interesting - hadn't considered the rate of inflation (though, I don't know that it affects what A-Rod may or may not have sacrificed). Still, should the deal have been in line with inflation? It probably goes without saying that a 25 year old Alex Rodriguez should get a better, inflation adjusted ten year deal than a 32 year old Alex Rodriguez.
Finally, Ben Kabak says that we saved maybe $5 million dollars (after taking into account provisions in his old contract that I had forgotten - good find) - but that isn't what matters here. What matters is that the Yankees stuck to their hard line, broke Boras' "stranglehold" over the game (and A-Rod) and brought him back on their terms. He closes with:
In the end, in all honesty, the Yankees aren’t getting a great deal. They’re not overpaying, but they’re not underpaying either. They’re simply paying A-Rod what they would have given him in the first place. But they’re doing it on their terms, and that edge makes all the difference.
When you factor in everything, if we did intend to offer him an extension that would have made his overall package ten years at $291 million dollars, then we're either losing $5 million or $3 million or saving $5 million (depending on those contract provisions). So, I guess you could say that it comes out about even. As far as cost for us, we're giving him about the same deal we were thought to be willing to give him before he opted out.
I had been ready to move on without him, but I'm certainly glad to have him back. He's the best player in the game and we can get him (as the best third baseman in the game) without trading anything. It'll be neat to (hopefully) watch him set some records, too.
John M. wrote: