12/03/24
July 31, 2003
A-Rod willing to consider a trade.: Rangers shortstop ‘not happy’ with team’s struggles, three years into his 10-year, $252 million dollar contract. A good sign of competitive desire, or whine of the week?
I'm sure the Twins would be willing to trade Rivas and Guzman for A-Rod. As long as he'd be willing to reduce his pay to about $5 million a year. We could even toss is Reed, Hawkins, and Guardado.
posted by emoeby at 08:13 AM on July 31, 2003
As a Rangers fan, I wouldn't mind seeing them deal Rodriguez for a package of top-notch prospects. Watching one of the league's best players spend his prime on a go-nowhere franchise sucks. I think I enjoyed the team more when they were a low payroll team of scrappy overachievers in the mid '80s and a hard-working group of great young players in the early '90s. I don't think they'll deal him, though. Without him, who do they use to fill that giant Mallpark?
posted by rcade at 08:16 AM on July 31, 2003
cue Nelson Muntz... F&*^ you A-Rod, if you couldn't see this coming, you're dumber than I thought. Just how much money did you think the owner was going to spend on pitching? Ya know, it's not too late to rip up that contract and sign a lesser one to give your team a little flexibility. Nah, that won't happen. This is what happens when you offer a player a contract that blows the second best offer clean out of the water. Dumbasses.
posted by vito90 at 09:08 AM on July 31, 2003
If the Rangers want to build any kind of team in the next ten years, they should jump on this and deal him quickly. Without him, who do they use to fill that giant Mallpark? Fill is kind of a loose term there. The attendance has been poor this year, and the longer the team sucks and people tire of watching A-Rod, the worse it'll get.
posted by Ufez Jones at 09:19 AM on July 31, 2003
No team will take on all of the huge contract in a trade, would only work if the Rangers agreed to eat at least $7-10M/per year of the remaining term. And even then many teams would be priced out. Look at the Angels, yesterday releasing Appier and having to eat an MLB-record $15M+. Stoopid GMs (or owners).
posted by billsaysthis at 10:33 AM on July 31, 2003
I bet the Met's would do it, they were a player in the A-Rod sweepstakes before, but that should absolutly not go after him this time. They definatly don't need another big contract.
posted by corpse at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2003
If he doesn't restructure his contract, he's stuck and the Rangers are too. The thing is the restructuring would have to just be a salary cut. $25 million is way beyond what (I think) the market currently supports. I'll be suprised to see Nomar get much more than $15 million per unless the Dodgers feel they need to overpay someone to make a splash signing that year. vito, where's the negativity coming fr— oh wait, Mariners fan, right? I can understand that (see: Clemens, Rajah). Otherwise I'd provide my standard rant about how many times you've turned down a raise. A-Rod's the better player, but I still want to see Nomar retire a Red Sox in 10 years or so. Not that I couldn't stomach a move to third and A-Rod at short. Not going to happen though.
posted by yerfatma at 10:45 AM on July 31, 2003
A-Rod is the architect of his own frustration - can't possibly do anything that will justify a contract that is seen throughout MLB as a total FUBAR, and ensured that no proven pitching commodity will be able to sign with Texas. There's probbaly only 2 or 3 teams willing to take him on for even 50% of his remaining money. I see the Mets as being one, maybe the Dodgers as another (provided the new owenership comes through) and perhaps the Giants (Barry has but 2 years left).
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2003
I have trouble believing that A-Rod's contract is the deal beyond which baseball's owners will never go. Every time someone says that about a contract, within three or four years another deal tops it. If the Rangers could afford the guy, there are at least 6-8 other teams that could put a deal together of that magnitude.
posted by rcade at 12:48 PM on July 31, 2003
rcade: I agree. I think we're seeing a little deflation now as MLB tries to figure out how to bring the fans back to the game, but as soon as we see another really big time young player looking to move, look out. Anyone care to speculate on what Pujols next contract will be worth?
posted by kloeprich at 01:19 PM on July 31, 2003
Pujols will get arbitration this coming offseason, and I think he'll end up around 5-6 million after that. The Cards have his rights for three years after this season, and if he keeps raking for three more seasons he'll have a gigantic free agent contract.
posted by mbd1 at 01:42 PM on July 31, 2003
Pujols - in all lieklyhood will be the next benchmark contract - I think a Griffey like deal is more likely than an A-Rod one - and will provide endless conversation fodder when fathers explain to sons why so much money goes to a man who's name is "Poo-Holes" (athough anyone who speaks spanish may have words for me). I see the Cards avoiding free agency turmoil by locking him up after this year to a long term deal. They might get him a little cheaper than 3 years down the road and St. Louis pretty much is the biggest baseball town around - fan base, revenue and all that.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:12 PM on July 31, 2003
never noticed the dirty double entendre there, Weedy. locking him up now would be great, esp since in 3 years the economy will rebound and prices will go back up. I'm with Vito. And Buster Olney on ESPN. ARod sold out to the highest bidder, and it was a dumb move on Hicks's part. What did he expect? Especially when they wasted all that money on Chan Ho... there's no way they could afford pitching to improve that team. The only thing he could do to make himself seem genuine would be a restructuring.
posted by Bernreuther at 03:26 PM on July 31, 2003
and will provide endless conversation fodder when fathers explain to sons why so much money goes to a man who's name is "Poo-Holes" jesus, you have got to be kidding me with this
posted by kjh at 03:42 PM on July 31, 2003
The Cardinals will most certainly lock up Pujols for the sum of $10-12M for a LONG-term deal. I absolutely love the guy, but I'm not sure how wise that is. He apparently digs St. Louis, being a Show-Me State boy, he's very active locally and is a big presence in Christian efforts through the ballclub. Why lock him down and take the risk when you can be pretty sure he's not going to leave even after a shorter, 3-year deal? I can see this both ways... Now, you want to talk funny: Pujols has his first endorsement deal, and it's for some bug-killing device or spray. That's embarrassing enough, but what's even funnier is his wife, Debbie, who must be from southern Missouri. It's awfully damn hard to understand Albert with his thick Dominican accent, but Debbie's bootheel drawl is a scream, bless her heart.
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:45 PM on July 31, 2003
If I was a GM, there's no way I'd take on A-Rod's contract. Sure, last year he hit 57 home runs, but even if he does that every year, for $25M you can pick up two guys to hit 60-80 home runs and 200 RBI, something A-Rod can't do. He's only one player, regardless of how good he is, he's got limitations. If I was Hicks, I'd tell him to go fuck himself. To accept that kind of money and then criticize the organization for not winning without offering to help them out financially is absurd. He's probably worth almost as much as the owner! Give a little back, you greedy bastard, or accept the fact that you, yourself, crippled the franchise. On the other hand, Hicks is an idiot to offer anyone a quarter of a billion dollars to swing a piece of wood at a piece of leather. In conclusion, everyone sucks and they all should just shut their pie holes and accept the fact that they are all failures in the eyes of baseball fans. Thanks for sending the game to hell, jerks. I hope the road is paved with 100 loss seasons and empty stadiums. Doodieheads.
posted by therev at 03:56 PM on July 31, 2003
Pujols - in all lieklyhood will be the next benchmark contract What about Vlad's? Isn't he a free agent in about two months? That'll be a good test of the market.
posted by herc at 04:04 PM on July 31, 2003
You know, therev, I'm sick of you mincing words. Out with it, man! I couldn't agree more. Anyone who signs a contract for $252 million has GOT to understand that he's basically shackling the franchise to his own wallet. I don't fault ARod for signing the deal — anyone who turns down that kind of cash is a dope — but he can't come back now and whine about the competitveness (or lack thereof) of the Rangers. God bless you, Billy Beane.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:10 PM on July 31, 2003
I don't think the Rangers are suffering under the weight of his contract. They suck because none of their other moves have worked and their farm system has declined rapidly since the days it was churning out one or two future stars like Ivan Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez each year. Hicks has major bucks. The Ballpark is a sweetheart deal for the team and Dallas-Fort Worth is a big TV market.
posted by rcade at 05:33 PM on July 31, 2003
Rcade, I guess it's a matter of looking at how Hicks should spend his money. Yes, the guy's loaded, and Texas does have a great deal at The Ballpark (god, I hate that name). But the Rangers already have the fifth-highest payroll in the game, and ARod constitutes better than one-fifth of it. It's not like Hicks isn't paying other guys well. It's not like he hasn't brought it talent. But Rodriguez is by far the biggest chunk on the payroll, and his contract completely prevents him from being moved somewhere. That's a pretty major limitation for the parent club. I don't think you can expect the owner to just keep spending when that's what he's already done. Yes, it's his own damn fault for signing the contract, but if ARod really wanting to move, he's going to have to pony up himself.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:46 PM on July 31, 2003
I just reread the article and got a laugh out of the fact that it's worded "is open to a trade if it helps the team". Which is basically saying "get me out of this hellhole" but trying to spin it to sound like he's helping the team. Of COURSE shedding 252 million is going to help the team. If he was at all interested in helping the team, he'd try to remain a part of it and defer some money so that they could put some pitchers around him. In Hicks's defense, that was one murderous lineup on paper this year and last - stuff just didn't pan out, someone always hurt or underperforming. Offensively, they should have been amazing.
posted by Bernreuther at 06:32 PM on July 31, 2003
Texas is not a baseball state...go 'Boys!!
posted by cg1001a at 10:13 PM on July 31, 2003
KJH - this is what weedy was referring to with "poo holes". Make sure to check out their home page, here.
posted by vito90 at 12:18 AM on August 01, 2003
Are there really people on Earth getting amusement from the pronounciation of Pujols? I'm not above that, but it's not exactly the second coming of Dick Trickle.
posted by rcade at 07:43 AM on August 01, 2003
Vlad's contract will be interesting too. Poo-holes. heh. Still amuses me.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:22 AM on August 01, 2003
Dick Trickle. hmmm. . . . bwa ha ha ha! I agree with therev's summary of the situation. doodieheads. Pujeads.
posted by gspm at 08:41 AM on August 01, 2003
You guys are worse than my kids. I throw out Pujols' name and half of you turn into Beavis and Butthead. Reminds me of the time I was trying to explain to my five year old who Howdy Doody was...
posted by kloeprich at 12:35 PM on August 01, 2003
Ummm, now A-Rod is feeling patient.
posted by dusted at 04:36 PM on August 01, 2003
but it's not exactly the second coming of Dick Trickle Ha! The "second coming" of Dick Trickle!? That's genius! While I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of A-Rod's frustration, saying he's the reason Texas can't compete is bunk: what Texas spends minus A-Rod's contract is still enough money to fit in almost any other team's entire payroll but for the top 10 or so. Heck, dump Carlos Guillen, replace him with A-Rod, and Seattle's payroll would be what Texas' is, and inarguably the team would be even better than it is now (I'm not one of those believers in "clubhouse" guys who stink on the field but magically make their teams better by being stand-up, swell fellers). Likewise the Giants, Cardinals, A's, Houston, etc. Barry Bonds makes $15m, and the Giants' payroll is $82m. If Bonds made $25m, and the payroll was $92m, but otherwise the team was identical- are people really believing that their record would be vastly worse? Or that the Giants would be better off without Bonds and his albatross $15m contract? And don't get me started on the Yankees and Jeter- whose $15.6m salary doesn't seem to be dinging the Yankees too badly, even though he's become a pretty awful shortstop to have. Somehow, the Yankees have survived the poor GM decision to keep paying Jeter.
posted by hincandenza at 07:43 AM on August 02, 2003
Love to see him in Boston, especially with Nomar's contract running out at the end of 04. Just can't take on another Manny-esque salary with next year a contract year for Pedro, Lowe and Varitek, also.