Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheim
Mets, Lindor reportedly far apart in contract talks
12 years, $385M? Well, then bugger off. Paying a shortstop dozens of dollars until he's inches from 40 years old apparently sounds too stupid even for the Metsies (who are said to have offered 10 years, $325M).
Oops, technically Old Fart Cano is still no the payroll somewhere...
|
Our erstwhile (and appropriately banned) friend pointed out that such contracts need to be looked at from an "up front" perspective in that the money in the later years is really paying for performance in the early years.
Thus, we should not feel bad about paying somebody $32 million for spending his 39th year on the planet in the Mets' training room. Rather, it was part of the value of paying him the equivalent of $40 million a year or so for his 8 to 10 productive years.
Come to think of it, bull. The argument was anti-capitalist in that we should not care about how the Mets spend their money; the players deserve it more. Bull, again. All of this money is coming from you and me in one form or another.
Contracts should be shorter and should reflect what the player is projected to be worth during that time. If Lindor is worth $40 million annually for 5 years, then pay him that now. Negotiate again in five years.
Perhaps if it was done in this manner, I would be paying slightly less toward my now north-of-$200 per month cable and internet bill. But all of this will continue on in this free market, capitalist society until, in a few years, I will be paying north-of-$300 per month.
And you and other Mets fans will be complaining down the road about how much cap money is being taken up by an aged and decrepit Francisco Lindor.