Dave · November 4, 2004 at 9:58 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Well, here’s strike one on Carlos Beltran:

Houston Astros free agent center fielder Carlos Beltran is seeking a 10-year contract, his agent told a television station on Thursday.

There’s just no way you want to lock yourselves into his age 35-37 seasons at his current market value. This is probably just posturing, but if Boras really wants a 10 year deal for Beltran, just move right to Beltre.


61 Responses to “Beltran”

  1. Evan on November 5th, 2004 1:24 pm

    The Yankees can absorb the salary – the only reason they’re shopping Posada is because he’s the only guy on the team without a no-trade.

  2. Eric on November 5th, 2004 2:21 pm

    I think Boras is more ocncerned with his own image than reality. If he gets a “10 year” deal it will be just like A-Rod’s. In other words really 6 or 7 years and in guaranteed money probably worth only 50% of the big gaudy number he touts (I know A-Rod’s was worth about 2/3rds the total, the market is tighter now).

  3. joebob on November 5th, 2004 3:36 pm

    Noone has mentioned them but I wouldn’t be surprised to see detroit be a major player for some free agents this year, they have been willing to spend big money in the past, have some room in their budget even if they stay within last years budget constraints and certainly need help in the outfield. Remember, noone mentioned the angels as a destination for vlad last year, I certainly expect some surprises this offseason.

  4. paul mocker on November 5th, 2004 4:27 pm


    I never said that paying the most to get the best players is the only way. But for Bavasi, who has not shown evidence of being able to evaluate talent, it is the way. Once you run a business and and need to retain employees, you will learn this.

    The Arod deal did not hamstring the Rangers. What limited them was the bad contracts to Park, etc.

  5. Pat on November 5th, 2004 5:43 pm

    Seems to me that Beane postures just like everybody else in dealing with the media. And it also seems to me that Beane would be *extremely* wise to move Zito while he still has some value.

    2002 to 2004: ERA went from 2.75 to 3.30 to 4.48; WHIP went from 1.13 to 1.18 to 1.39, with concerns about movement on his curve and the speed of his fastball.

  6. Jerry on November 5th, 2004 6:36 pm


    You are refuting an argument I never made. All I am saying is that signing mega-contracts is really risky, and most of the time, they end up being a major impediment to the team’s ability to improve later on. That is why so many teams are tying to ditch huge contracts: Helton, Sosa, Andruw Jones, Kevin Brown, A-Rod, Manny, Mike Sweeney. This list is long. And with the exceptions of Sweeney, Brown, and Sosa, there guys are really good players. The point you are missing is that spending way too much and committing $$$ for too many years is WORSE than doing nothing at all. Especially for teams that don’t have mega-payrolls like the Yankees and Boston.

    You say:
    “The Arod deal did not hamstring the Rangers. What limited them was the bad contracts to Park, etc.”
    -if this is true, why did the Rangers do everything they could to ditch this contract? The reason is that the Rangers had way way way too much of their payroll invested in one player. Not resigning A-Rod was a really good move in hindsight. If the M’s had tried to outbid Hicks, they would be screwed right now. The contract he got was idiotic.

    You keep saying that “Once you run a business and and need to retain employees, you will learn this.”
    -running a business has little or nothing to do with Baseball. This is exactly why Howard Lincoln has had some problems in the past: Running a team is not like running a business.

    Once you take a look back at which teams are winning and which ones aren’t, you will realize that signing too many big contracts can really ruin a team. The Rockies, Dodgers, and Mets are great examples of this.

    The key to building a great team is through a combination of calculated free agent signings (perhaps not the best player, but a good value player), a good farm system, and pitching. If the M’s go dump 18 million/year for 10 years on Beltran, they will only be able to surround him with a bunch of crappy players. If this is what he goes for, then signing Beltre for 12-13/year for 6 years makes a lot more sense.

  7. big chef terry on November 5th, 2004 6:58 pm

    They won’t sign anyone to an $18 mm deal nor two players for $10-13mm each as you suggested earlier…pocket lint was told that they have $13 mm in total to spend…don’t make with the correct math with me either…just not going to happen…until they do their first type A deal, this is just whistling in the graveyard….its as real as suggesting we trade Franklin and Bloomquist to get Arod and Posada back…

  8. paul mocker on November 6th, 2004 11:44 am

    the commissioner and MLB have been trying to discourage big contracts since the excesses of the 2000-2001 spending binges a lot of teams went on. One thing that he mentioned specifically was that they had tried to discourage contracts exceeding 15 million/year.
    Good point.

    Also, Indirectly the Commish is trying to effect lower salaries by their recent mandate that teams need to commit a certain percentage of funds to lowering debt. Others might have the specifics.

  9. paul mocker on November 6th, 2004 11:53 am

    When you sign guys for more than 15 million/year, and for more than 6-7 years, it really limits a teams options greatly.

    There may be examples to support and refute this assertion.

    I will respond more later on but for now I will say that there are two ways to win a WS: buy one or spend for a 90 win team and hope to get lucky to make the playoffs and win the big tamale. I want the M’s to try the former, for once, mostly because Bigwasty doesn’t have the talent to get it done.

  10. Scraps on November 7th, 2004 12:04 am

    You say:
    “The Arod deal did not hamstring the Rangers. What limited them was the bad contracts to Park, etc.”
    -if this is true, why did the Rangers do everything they could to ditch this contract?

    Because it was easier.

    It’s a fact that Texas spent plenty of money besides the A-Rod contract; if that contract limited their flexibility, as you say, that ought to have shown up in the rest of their payroll. It didn’t. They spent, and spent stupidly. A-Rod was a great signing, and ought to have been the cornerstone, but they couldn’t make another intelligent decision to save their lives. Since the media was determined that A-Rod was the big mistake, and Texas management didn’t have a clue, they decided the media must be right. And it’s easier to decide you’ve made one big mistake than to realize you don’t know what the hell you’re doing.

    Even so, if they’d just waited a year they’d be in great shape now. The one area the Rangers had done well in was scouting and drafting. Last year those prospects matured in a big way. Texas’s improvement had just about nothing to do with losing A-Rod and gaining “flexibility”; the pieces that made them better were already there, and just needed more experience. If they had A-Rod now instead of Soriano, they could have won the division.

  11. paul mocker on November 8th, 2004 11:14 am

    Well put, Scraps.

    There is no single way to make a champion. The M’s can build a champion team with the money they have, and signing a 10-year deal with Beltran.

    What would you rather have: A champion followed by a burdensome contract or perennial good teams that need to have some luck to make it to the playoffs?