Still more on Millwood

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 22, 2005 10:26 PM CST in News Comment 9 comments

Richard Durrett of the DMN is reporting that the Rangers and Scott Boras talked finances in regards to Kevin Millwood on Thursday, but that they "aren't very close" on numbers right now. Durrett says that the Rangers are "unlikely" to go five years on a deal for Millwood, "because of the lack of financial flexibility if expectations aren't met." Which is reasonable enough. Personally, at this point, I'd probably offer 3 years, $40 million, and see if that gets it done.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow.

You'd go over $13 mil per for Millwood? That's a lot for a guy that was considered the second best pitcher on the market. I still think 4/$42mil is the right number.

by Athos on Dec 22, 2005 10:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Meh.

Probably not. Just threw that out there off the top of my head.

I'd really prefer not to go more than 3 years, though.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 22, 2005 11:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

id do it

easier to insure a 3 yr contract.

by Longhorn on Dec 23, 2005 1:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

I just dont think 3 years will get it done, especialloy if the reports are true that the Red Sox fresh of losing Damon are interested. I think they will overpay to show they got something out of losing Damon.

Does that mean we have to overpay?

Of course not, but I fear if we want Millwood, its going to take 5 years.

by JJStuart on Dec 22, 2005 10:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It would be worth it to the

Rangers to overpay annually for a lower number of years. 3/40 is a good starting point - pay about 2 MM annual premium to buy out the risk associated with the 4th and 5th years.

Visiting A's Fan - also from BTB, a sister SBN site.

by salb918 on Dec 22, 2005 11:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

won't work

The pitcher and his agent both know he could suck five years from now.

Let's say "contract A" is an offer of 33 million over 3 years. "Contract B" is 45 million over 5 years. Unless you're supremely confident the pitcher could sign a 2 year, 12 million dollar offer three years from now, it makes absolutely no sense to take contract A. As long as B is offered, A isn't even close to being competitve. It doesn't matter what he makes per year.

by Dustin on Dec 22, 2005 11:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Well 3yrs/33mil is irrelevent cause it's gonna be more than that. If it's three years, you'd have to go at least 39mil, IMO.

And it's not whether he'd suck in 5 years, it's whether he'll suck in three, the end of the shorter contract. Also, you don't have to be supremely talented to sign for 2yrs/ 12mil. Did you see what Brett Tomko just got? Esteban Loiza???

Maybe three years with a performance-based vesting option or a decent buyout would get it done?

Somebody's got to win the West in '06. Why not Texas???

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2005 1:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs