Ten years? Ten? Ala ARod? Gulp.
There have been rumors of a 10-year contract with Joe Mauer for weeks now, and it gained steam recently with Mark Rosen's report that a 10-year framework was in place.
Ten years is tough to swallow for anyone but the blindest fans. I'll admit, at first that number caught me off guard to the point where I was ready to write about it being irresponsible. And there is plenty of internet and radio chatter about whether the Twins can commit that long of a contract to a catcher. After a little examination, I've found two points that temper my concerns:
1) Mauer would likely get that long of a contract on the open market anyways, and probably for more money. Or at least he would if the Yankees were involved.
Over the previous two offseasons, the Yankees signed:
- a 28-year-old (Mark Teixeira) to a 9-year deal worth $22.5M per year and
- a 32-year-old (Alex Rodriguez) to a 10-year deal worth $27.5M per year
Would a 10-year deal for $250 million be out of the question? Probably not. And if the expectations of a $20 million per year deal are accurate, it would look like a bargain.
The easy rebuttal is that he's a catcher, and catchers break down. You can give those deals to non-catchers, but not to catchers. Which brings us to the next point...
2) Even if he moves from catcher, Mauer's bat plays anywhere.
Does moving him from catcher decrease his value? Absolutely. But if he needs to move to any position other than first base or designated hitter, he's still not a payroll drain. For instance, if he moves to second base ala Craig Biggio, he's basically Chase Utley. If he moves to third, he's a step below Rodriguez.
And he's enough of an athlete that he should be able to move to those spots. He's not your prototypical paunchy catcher. You're talking about a guy that turned down the quaterback job at Florida State to sign with the Twins. He won't play centerfield or shortstop, but that's about where the limitations end.
So the 10-year deal, while a little shocking, isn't crazy. In fact, I suspect his side will want opt-out clauses lest the recession ends and payrolls go crazy. For the Twins, it's certainly a risk. But rarely do winners win without taking a risk.
So gulp hard and press on.
Posts
5 comments:
I've really had a lot of the same thoughts. I am generally of the opinion that long term contracts - even 5 years - are hard to justify given the lack of predictability in this sport.
This is just about as exceptional as circumstances get in this game. There are risks in such a long term but when one balances the gains and the risks of loss, I can understand the proposal.
When I heard 10 years, my first thought was of New York Islanders goalie Rick DiPietro. Why him? Because he holds the NHL record for longest contract ever signed, a mind-numbingly long 15-year, $67.5 million contract just a week before his 25th birthday in 2006. I still remember when I first saw the news of it on the ESPN ticker, because I was shocked to see a contract of that length being handed out to a professional athlete, regardless of his/her sport.
Unfortunately for the Islanders, ever since he signed that contract, he has missed time due to at least 4 injuries or surgeries. Perhaps the only consolation is that he's only making an average of $4.5 million per year.
If the Twins are willing to commit 10 years to Mauer, they better be prepared to deal with either potential injuries or regression as he approaches 37 years of age.
I think its important to remember the risk for the Twins is the total dollar amount. A ten year contract is riskier than an 8 year contract only to the extent it costs more.
The years are Mauer's "currency". He agrees to give more seasons in return for more money.
Over the previous two offseasons, the Yankees signed:
a 28-year-old (Mark Teixeira) to a 9-year deal worth $22.5M per year and
Teixeira's deal is eight years.
Would a 10-year deal for $250 million be out of the question? Probably not. And if the expectations of a $20 million per year deal are accurate, it would look like a bargain.
How would that look like a bargain? They're committing $5M more per year than expected over an incredibly long contract. To me, the upside of such a lengthy deal is that Mauer is likely to settle for a lower annual base. I think 10 years at $180M plus incentives and clauses seems a lot more realistic and feasible.
1) is not an argument for why it is a good idea to give him 10 years.
Post a Comment