The teams that could afford it are not necessarily the teams that will try to do it. And, of those that can afford it and will try to do it, I think some are out pretty quickly, like the Yankees or Mets. I just don't see Josh going to NY under pretty much any scenario.
I think we're better than 50-50 to resign him.
I agree that it may be a tad premature in the sense that teams may be in a different position this off season and that may effect their need to make a higher/lower offer to Josh. Trades, injuries, ownership issues might effect team needs or goals.
But as far as the Rangers are concerned NOW, they have to try to predict what that future market rate might be, at least to some extent, as does Josh's agent. I guess I am just trying to find out if, right now, we as Rangers fans really see another team that is a serious threat to land Josh if he reaches free agency? If so, who?
I can't really speak for the Rangers front office, but it appears that they have a player value system they believe in and abide. And should Josh and his agent overstep their boundary it probably will spell the end of his tenure with Texas. But I'm betting his revenue creating value is pretty high and will result in an agreement.
As for the Dodgers, I think that's just the sexy choice right now since they're off to a good start and have new ownership that nobody really knows. It's just so predictable that the rumor mongers start picking future destinations for possible free agents and everyone else follows along like sheep, then when reality sets in they're so far off base it's laughable.
I think the Pujols and Fielder signings show no bigmarket team can be automatically be counted out. The Dodgers make a lot of sense as you mentioned.
I only hope the Rangers make an offer at term he can reasonably be expected to fulfilled. I can liveif he decides to walk for the better offer because he's a special playerthat another team will sign to reignite their fan base at a most likely bad contract term.
Bad contract is the operative word there. We talked about this on another thread and I'm not fussing at anyone if you haven't read it, I just don't want to repeat myself for those who did. Except to say again that I don't see the Dodgers as a player. They just signed Matt Kemp to a 8-year $160MM deal. I know the new ownership has come out flexing a lot of financial muscle but there is a limit somewhere.
The comment about igniting a fan base is a good point. I was also thinking it could be useful in making a team more attractive to a city not named Oakland to give them a home.
Teams I think would show serious interest are Cleveland, Chicago (both), maybe Baltimore.
How much can Josh really make us though?? I mean we're obviously not too big for our briches yet. Not 100% self sufficient like the Yankees or even Red Sox but if winning is the question I think we'd win a good handfull without him... as long as he's replaced with someone better than Gentry or Borbon...
What I'm saying is, is Josh's name value worth upwards of 20 mil?? especially when he's injured 1/4 of the time? I mean he probably puts some butt's in the seats, but not all profits go to him, other players have to be paid for plus accounted for cuz they put butts in the seats too. I mean, how many sellouts will we have with Josh? Will we have significantly less without him? You can't have MORE ppl out there than a sellout.
Bottom line is, Josh is worth more to a poorly attended team than one that gets attendance like us. Bottom line (and I'd probly get scoffed at) I'd offer Josh like a 16-20 mil contract over 4 years with incentives/ options for the next 2 (possibly worth up to 22 mil).
I'd offer a lot more than that since it's not my money I'm bargaining with. (:
Seriously, here's another way to look at it. Right now the top paid players are Beltre ($15MM), Young ($16MM), Hamilton ($13.75) and Kinsler($7MM this year) but next year when his new contract kicks in it goes up to $13MM. Young will be in the last year of his contract next year but Beltre and Kinsler are long-term. How much more valuable than they are is Hamilton?
It's really hard placing monetary value on any player without knowing any known or estimated breakdown of revenues directly relating to said player. I don't think anyone here can answer that, other than guestimating. Then, future contracts of other players have to be added to that equation. And how are we to know what the front office is thinking or planning? These guys are tight lipped.
I have no clue.
If you value Hamilton purely based on talent, he should be one of the highest paid players in baseball. The big problem is that with his injury history and his issues with a certain wagon, is anybody going to fully value his talent. I think that he could receive short contract offers worth a lot of money per year and longer length contracts worth less per year or heavily front loaded.
The only team with a comfort level/experience of dealing with Josh are the Rangers. Is there another GM out there that will be willing to stick their necks out to sign him for what he is rumored to want. I don't think so.