Giants sign Zito: 7 years, $126 million

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2006 11:25 AM CST in News

Wow.

$18 million per year for 7 years.

Zito is a good fit at Pac Bell, and should be a solid #2 starter for the life of that deal, but damn...

That's a lot of money for him. More than I would have wanted the Rangers to pay.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

wow indeed

jeebus thats a big contract. I would have been a little upset had the rangers given him that kind of deal.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Dec 28, 2006 11:27 AM CST reply actions

Zito will dominate...

...at AT&T Park vs. NL whifflebats

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2007, in a winnable AL West. Never thought I'd say that!

by RangerMoto on Dec 28, 2006 11:27 AM CST reply actions

Stupid

7 years for Zito is ridiculous, I'm glad the Rangers didn't fall into that trap.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Dec 28, 2006 11:30 AM CST reply actions

Considering

I was uneasy with 6/100 for Zito, I'm ecstatic we didnt do the deal.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 28, 2006 11:30 AM CST reply actions

Somehow the guy works things to perfection. Did the Giants really have to "over-pay" to keep Zito in his favorite city? We all watched it unfold, but I never thought the numbers would be this high. Can you imagine the "Hicks is moron" press that would result from this?

by 3Bagger on Dec 28, 2006 11:32 AM CST reply actions

It could be worth 144 million.....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2710389

"Did that blow your mind, because that just happened"

by MATEO LEG on Dec 28, 2006 11:35 AM CST reply actions

dude, your handle is awesome

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2007, in a winnable AL West. Never thought I'd say that!

by RangerMoto on Dec 28, 2006 12:07 PM CST up reply actions

THANKS

SOME PEOPLE ON HERE HATE IT..

"Did that blow your mind, because that just happened"

by MATEO LEG on Dec 28, 2006 12:32 PM CST up reply actions

Seems appropriate

It's been a crazy FA season, so why not end it on this note?

I mentioned this before, but these contracts seem to be an overreaction to the new CBA. I'm thinking that next year contracts will settle down a little. I'm also wondering if Ken Williams strategy of stockpiling trade bait and staying out of this insane offseason might turn out to be the smartest move.

Now that we've seen all the contracts, I think I'm happy the Rangers didn't jump in with both feet and saddle themselves with a terrible contract.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 28, 2006 11:39 AM CST reply actions

not at that price

thanks for not losing your mind Mr.Hicks.

by jasun on Dec 28, 2006 11:40 AM CST reply actions

Salary Cap

This offseason proves how badly baseball needs a salary cap. I'm glad the Rangers haven't done any of these stupid deals.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Dec 28, 2006 11:42 AM CST reply actions

Huh?

Please explain.

by Lucas on Dec 28, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

Salaries...

are out of control. A salary cap would bring them down, which is why the PA has fought so hard against it. In the end what will happen is teams paying these ridiculous contracts will raise their prices on everything from parking to concessions so the fans get the short end of the stick.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Dec 28, 2006 12:55 PM CST up reply actions

Salaries

The only affect the cost to the consumer if the owners are dumb.

Even if the players were making $100 per day, prices would be the same to the fans.

It would just be that the owners would be pocketing more money.

Have the price of tickets and concessions gone down in the NFL? Has the price of NFL Sunday Ticket dropped?

Of course not. But once the salary cap was in place, franchise values skyrocketed, because owners could make much, much more money off their teams.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

Yup

Would you rather more of the price of your ticket go to the players you paid to see or the owner?

The only problem is that the media and non-hardcore baseball fans love to bitch about baseball salaries. The real threat to owners is a fan backlash at salaries. But baseball's been around longer than any other sport, so I don't know how imminent that threat is.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 28, 2006 1:15 PM CST up reply actions

Salary Cap

Each owner should have his own, it's called restraint and fiscal sanity.

by t ball on Dec 28, 2006 12:45 PM CST up reply actions

Opposite

I'd argue that this is exactly why baseball DOESN'T need a salary cap.

Four years from now, when we look at the teams paying ungodly amounts of money to 2nd tier free agents (zito, lee, soriano).

In Hicks first few years as owner, that is what the Rangers did and look where it got us. a few 3rd place and 4th place finishes. And does anyone think that SF will get BETTER by switching Schmidt for Zito and signing Klesko? They'll finish in the bottom half of the NL for years to come. And when Soriano's contract precludes the Cubs from keeping Carlos Zambrano? Or when GMJ's $10 million for a 36 year old 4th outfielder hinders the Angels ability to negotiate an extension with Jared Weaver?

Historically, the baseball gods have punished teams for 'misbehaving' by money-whipping people. The Rangers been in the penalty box for years now because of it. Salary Caps are unnecessary.

by JBImaknee on Dec 28, 2006 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

Are the

all those World Series trophies the Yankees have, suppose to serve as millstones placed on them by the baseball gods. I agree to an extent, but it does not hold true in all cases. Sure, big spending doesn't guaranty you a ring, but it increases your chances of success. Boston, NYMets, Yankees, Braves, Dodgers, and other big spending teams have seen the playoffs in recent years or contended for playoff spots. A salary cap, though un-American and against my Republican values, is more for the fan than it is for the "league". Yes, teams usually get what they deserve, just look at the Orioles, but do the fans. I won't shed a tear for the Angel fans in a few years when they are paying their aging weak hitting often injured (from diving) average fielding center-fielder 10 million per, but do they deserve to have their team fiscally handcuffed? If we could somehow guaranty that all the owners would higher smart conservatively aggressive GM's then there would be no need for a salary cap. The fans would get what they deserve. If the fans don't show up and buy hats and jerseys then their team won't have money to compete with teams like the Cardinals, Rangers, Astros, Yankees, RedSox, etc. To me the worst thing about salary cap would be that undeserving places like Florida would have the same amount to spend as the rest.

I may not be a baseball GM, but I am a thinker. (a play on a Glenn Beck catch phrase)

by kwellborn on Dec 28, 2006 1:15 PM CST up reply actions

The metsblog.com reaction is hilarious

http://www.metsblog.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/28/2602695.html#comments

Those guys start bashing T.R. Sullivan (one of the best beat writers in all of baseball) just because the news that he broke does not have Zito going to their beloved New York City.

At this point, I don't care whether or not we got him. I was just hoping Zito went somewhere other than New York so I can see all of the media have to eat their "Zito wants to come to New York because it's the best place on earth!" drivel.

Tom Hicks did not offer above 6/$84. He showed restraint. But still, he will be mocked the next time the Rangers are rumored to be "in" on a top free agent.

by austintxhorn on Dec 28, 2006 11:43 AM CST reply actions

Yes! Hicks image...

far exceeds the new reality.

To me the biggest positive is, Oakland lost Zito. And the AL lost Zito. Without spending a dime on the guy we just got better!

Also. What this means for TEX and Boras going forward is not good.

by 3Bagger on Dec 28, 2006 11:47 AM CST up reply actions

You

could not have said it any better. Let's hear the "San Fran stole Zito from New York!" outcry. I love this because the big media has egg all over their face on this one. Zito did not turn down the big money to go to the "cultural center of the World" (I just threw up in my mouth), Texas did not offer an enormous amount of money to "money-whip" him to Texas, Texas is not left with zero pitching, and their general consensus that Zito would go either to the Mets or Rangers was flat wrong.

This whole thing just adds evidence to argument that the "National" (East Coast) media creates news to benefit their teams. ESPN and the like need to keep to what they do best, highlights and commercials. Leave the reporting to the professionals like Sullivan.

I may not be a baseball GM, but I am a thinker. (a play on a Glenn Beck catch phrase)

by kwellborn on Dec 28, 2006 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

Seven years is a long, long time. I guess if Zito remains both healthy and good, it'll end up looking like a bargain at some point. There's no reason to believe pitchers won't be making more than he will be the time his deal is in its last few years. Is that SFG's logic?

But what if he gets hurt or starts to suck? Can you imagine the insurance premiums? Good Lord.

When some of these contracts go horribly wrong maybe things will correct a little, but I doubt they will.

by debaser on Dec 28, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions

stupidity should be painful!

The Giants can have him! 126 million? Thank you Tom Hicks

by jimy777 on Dec 28, 2006 12:26 PM CST reply actions

So, what happened

To Zito insisting last week in an article posted here that WINNING CHAMPIONSHIPS was the priority over money? Does anyone here think the Giants are a legitimate WS thread, even in a weak NL? With or without Zito I don't see it. Him and Cain will be a nice 1-2 punch though.

by Melmart1 on Dec 28, 2006 12:38 PM CST reply actions

Champs

The Giants are a lock in the over-40 softball league. I can't believe they signed someone as young as Zito. I expected them to be all over 43-yr. old Randy Johnson.

by t ball on Dec 28, 2006 12:46 PM CST up reply actions

Nice.

by rooster on Dec 28, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

Is that AMJs third or fourth

"wow" of this offseason?

by rooster on Dec 28, 2006 12:48 PM CST reply actions

Zito for $126 million or Schmidt for $47 million..

I'd much rather have Schmidt for that money and contract.

Req

by Requiem on Dec 28, 2006 1:18 PM CST reply actions

we should of

tryed to get that guy he was going to be much cheaper and he has better stuff than zito its weird how the 2 division rivals dodgers and giants got the big 2 on the market

by myoungfan11 on Dec 28, 2006 4:58 PM CST up reply actions

McCovey Chronicles

It's interesting to read their opinions. None are ecstatic, but some are trying to a decent spin on it. This is my favorite tidbit (no blockquotes):

"It's hard not to be cynical. This was done for the fan who calls KNBR and wants the Giants to trade draft picks for Miguel Cabrera."

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 28, 2006 6:18 PM CST reply actions

Way too much

Glad the Rangers were not stupid or desperate enough to pay Zito that kind of money, no one is worth that, maybe we will get lucky with the starters we have and if the bullpen can help out, who knows., now if we only had a big bat....

by TexasGonzo on Dec 29, 2006 10:31 AM CST reply actions