« Discussion of the Day 10/30/07 | Main | A True Fantasy Team »
Should We Want A-Rod?
By JPSchmack | October 30, 2007
We have to consider Alex Rodriguez for the New York Mets, even if briefly. When the best player in baseball is available, every fan base should and will. There’s dozens of factors; let’s break them down into facts and opinions.
#1 – A-Rod makes the team better.
No doubt about it. No matter how you look at it, he’s THE elite talent in baseball. While opinions may differ on if he’s the best, second-best, or third-best hitter in the game, or most valuable player in the game, Alex Rodriguez is definitely one of the premier hitters in baseball. Adding his offense to the lineup makes the Mets better period.
#2 – Can we afford him?
This ultimately falls on the Wilpons. If he commands a $30-million salary, the Mets can clear Green and Glavine’s salaries. Plus Castillo and to a lesser extent, Valentin. That adds up to roughly $28 million. Given raises and other needed signings, it would be possible to add Alex Rodriguez to the Mets by bumping payroll up about $10 million.
We are also one of the few teams with the payroll to support Rodriguez with veteran stars around him, something he is looking for.
#3 – Where can we play him?
A gold-glover at SS, gold-glove caliber at third base, and presumably second base. He’s athletic, talented and still young enough to even be a good outfielder with an entire spring training to devote to it. Whether or not he’s willing is not known, but the fact remains, he’s able.
Logically, the ideal spot would be to put him at second base, where offense is a premium. There are a dozen third basemen with a .800 OPS, and very few at 2B. Getting elite offensive production from the position that was worst or second-to-worst for the Mets last season would help immensely.
As a former shortstop, his growing pains at the position would be acceptable.
THE SUBJECTIVE
#1 – Do we want to invest that much money into A-Rod?
His demands would be outrageous. That is fact. Yet, while all the absurd demands Scott Boras made in 2000 are well documented by Steve Phillips, none of those issues came up as problems for Rodriguez in New York for the Yankees, despite all of his back-page exploits.
#2 – The position switch.
While it could be argued that A-Rod is a better third-baseman than David Wright, moving A-Rod into our hole at 2B would be based on the fact that Rodriguez would be a better second baseman than Wright, and not necessitate further roster moves. It also enables the Mets to trade a young outfielder for pitching, requiring a minimal payroll bump rather than turn to the free agent market; whereas moving Wright to 1B for A-Rod requires the Mets to trade Carlos Delgado and find a glove man at second base. No Mets fan likes the idea of benching our 24-year old franchise player in the late innings for defense.
What about A-Rod at SS and Reyes at 2B? While Reyes could adequately and easily make the switch, the best interest for all parties would be to leave Wright and Reyes on the left side alone. Rodriguez has played 3B for virtually all of his four seasons in the Bronx, and returning him to SS would mean BOTH middle infielders adjusting to new positions. Moving to 2B for Rodriguez would be an adjustment, but one akin to moving back to shortstop.
Furthermore, Rodriguez can appear magnanimous by saying “I was a shortstop four years ago. Jose is better shortstop now than I can be now. I might be able to return to my level of play at short before, but we’re the best team with Jose at shortstop.”
#3 – Trade options/young future
As stated, A-Rod at 2B would enable the Mets to trade Lastings Milledge or Carlos Gomez for a starting pitcher. Moving Wright to first would necessitate a Carlos Delgado trade, when he is 35 and coming off a down year, which would not net much in return.
#4 – Choke-Rod and the post-season.
The hottest argument would be “What about A-Rod’s post-season failures?” The statistical response is “What post-season failures?” Teams advance in the post-season. Paul O’Neill is not a better outfielder than Ted Williams, nor is Scott Brocius a better third baseman than A-Rod (or Wright) despite their jewelry.
The post-season is match-up driven, difficult to project and based on timing of key plays as much as (or more than) talent.
#5 – The Sideshow
Alex Rodriguez, due to his status, makes for a backpage sideshow. Between his “clutchness,” the position switch, the contract, his wife, his blonde-haired friends, and tumultuous relationship with the media, A-Rod would bring a media circus to the Mets unlike any we’ve seen since Vince Coleman’s fireworks and absurd rumors of Mike Piazza’s sexuality.
The timing of Scott Boras’ announcement of A-Rod’s free agency shows the “me-first” attitude of at least his agent, and to an extent, A-Rod himself. Not allowing the World Series to have the headlines is selfish. Not allowing the Yankees to negotiate or meet with him in his time left before his decision shows that he’s more concerned with dollars than the team around him.
Is that something the Mets want to deal with on a daily basis? The constant backpage controversies created by the hyper-active New York media?
#6 – Payroll Flexibility
Steve Phillips’ favorite 2000 phrase rears its head yet again. With the current economics of baseball, the Mets investing $30 million in A-Rod is no longer absurd. YES, the Mets would be limited somewhat by having such a bulk of their payroll invested into one player. Yet, on the other hand, the Mets have had no problems with investing that amount of money in TWO players who were in their mid-to-late 30s.
There are plenty of signs that the “payroll flexibility” brought about by signing A-Rod would actually INCREASE the Mets’ “’fiscal responsibility.”
For example, the Mets would need to steer away from middle-of-the-road free agent signings. Contracts like Mike Cameron’s three-year $22-million salary (today, would equate to about $30 million), would be neglected in favor of a player like Xavier Nady, at $1.75 million in 2004.
Signing Alex Rodriguez for $30 million would not harm the Mets chances of landing other ELITE talent, but it may simply reduce the Mets financial ability towards bringing in expensive, secondary veterans. The cost of A-Rod would mean A-Rod, Castro and Gomez instead of Castillo, LoDuca and Green: All of whom were brought in past their prime and who’s combined 2007 salaries at full value totaled $25.5 million. All three provided offensive numbers below average for their positions.
That in turn would actually mean MORE financial flexibility, as a contract such as Nady’s would be easier to move than that of Shawn Green’s.
Paying Alex Rodriguez $30 million while still in his prime will not kill a franchise with a payroll such as the Mets as much as a paying three players large, unmovable salaries to produce at league-average production.
Simply put: the production from A-Rod compared to league average makes his contract “worth it” while the same money allotted to three league-average players is not.
#7 – Contract Length.
The question then becomes “at what point does A-Rod’s production dip below his cost?”
At age 31, A-Rod isn’t going to be a top five hitter forever (see Garciaparra, Nomar). The obvious pitfall in signing Rodriguez is the demands of not the yearly salary, but the contract LENGTH.
Paying Rodriguez $35 million per year from age 36-40 to nurse a sore hamstring and play as many games as Moises Alou or Barry Bonds is definitely not in the Mets best interest.
#8 – Leverage and strength.
Should the Mets enter A-Rod negotiations? Absolutely. It would be foolish to simply run and hide from strong demands like in 2000. However, the Mets must be willing to say no. While we fault Phillips for ruining the 1998-2001 contending Mets franchise, the one thing he should be commended for is the fact that he walked away rather than pay Rodriguez $100 million more than the next highest offer (which was proven to be the Atlanta Braves’ $150 million, 10-year offer which Scott Boras laughed at. This deal did not include a no-trade, did not offer him ownership, 24+1 marketing opportunities, etc.
Omar Minaya has shown similar restraint: seeking Alou on a short-term commitment rather than one-dimensional Carlos Lee; Inquiries into Barry Zito but not yielding to Boras’ demands which after a year already look wise; An unwillingness to part with Lastings Milledge for less than a No. 1 starter when the Mets need for a starter provided ample opportunity to jettison his perceived attitude / image; His willingness to part with Milledge for a No. 1 starter in Roy Oswalt; etc, etc.
PERSONAL OPINION
Each of the subjective items is up for each fan to decide. Personally, I set about to write this with the conclusion that the subjective negatives out-weighed the objective positives. I found myself “talking myself into” a conclusion I did NOT expect to reach:
That the Mets should consider, explore and enter negotiations with Alex Rodriguez.
However, I feel the Mets should do so on their own terms:
Short contract length, no more than five years.
No slice of television revenue, which sets a bad precedent.
No opt-out clauses for Rodriguez which grant him leverage.
No player option clauses, which limit our future planning.
No automatic escalating clauses for later years of the deal.
No individual incentives for regular season accolades; only playoff MVP awards and a Schilling-like World Series bonus.
So what would my contract look like?
Six years, $240 Million total.
TERMS:
2008: $35 million
2009: $35 million
2010: $30 million
2011: $30 million
2012: $30 million
$1 million bonus for LDS or LCS MVP
$3 million bonus if Mets win the World Series
$5 million bonus for World Series MVP
Should the National League votes to put the DH rule into effect by the start 2013 season, $20 million Mets team option in 2013.
Only $160 million guaranteed.
Topics: JPSchmack |
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.