Teixeira Wednesday

The eighth day before Christmas dawns clear and cold down in my part of the world, where the Interwebs tell me the Red Sox will not go longer than eight years to get Mark Teixeira under their tree … unless they do:

Asked yesterday if the club would categorically rule out offering any free agent a guaranteed deal longer than any other in franchise history, principal owner John Henry, while making clear his remarks were not aimed at a specific player, made his intentions clear. 

“Yes,” Henry responded in an e-mail. “The Red Sox effectively had a 10-year deal with a player determined not to live up to his contract. A lot can change over 10 years, for both sides.”


Henry allowed “there are exceptions to every rule. That keeps most good businessmen from the world of politics, because you have to be able to change your mind as facts come in.”

What does this mean? Nothing. I don't think Scott Boras wants a 10-year deal either because that would put his client's next potential payday at age 38, which is baseballese for "fossil" — not age 36, which is baseballese for "aging but potentially still productive." Unless there's an opt-out clause. Or a nuclear apocalypse. Either of those would probably make this conversation moot.

Speaking of moot (NOT pronounced "mute," just for the record), all this will be so by 5 p.m. today anyway because it is my prediction that by then Teixeira will have made his choice, making the Nippon Ham Fighters extremely happy — and surprised.
7 comments… add one
  • “…Unless there’s an opt-out clause….”
    i think that’s the key paul…i don’t see boras giving in on that point very easily seeing how successful it was for arod, and that genske got one for sabathia…i agree that a 36 year old player is viewed differently than a 38 year old, but whether the contract is 8 or 10 years, either way it’s a long time…having an opt out after say 3 or 4 is similar to signing a 3 or 4 year contract, then shopping yourself around after that, with one major difference…assuming you done good, more gravy…if you stunk up the place, you still got big bucks coming in from your original 8 year contract…from the player’s perspective: all the reward, no risk..

    dc December 17, 2008, 8:55 am
  • from the player’s perspective: all the reward, no risk
    Right on. This is why I will not read anything into an opt-out clause, such as those who intimate that the existence of an opt-out is a sign that CC “doesn’t want to be in NY”. Opt-out clauses aren’t an indication of a desire to be elsewhere, they are 100% about leverage, flexibility, and the future opportunity to adjust one’s payscale. Kudos to any player who can prize one out of an ownership group.

    SF December 17, 2008, 10:49 am
  • Not sure where to make this comment, so I’ll go here. RE: sox catching situation. People are talking abuot the Ranger’s glut of catching, and what not, but no one has really mentioned Seattle’s glut of catchers (not Clement either) – wonder if a trade of slocum to Seattle for catching and a pitcher can happen again?

    dw (sf) December 17, 2008, 11:09 am
  • That would be an impressive trade, especially if the Sox can convince Slocum out of retirement at age 42 ro be included in the package. The M’s management might just bite on it. Hey, they need relievers, right?

    Paul SF December 17, 2008, 12:06 pm
  • those who intimate that the existence of an opt-out is a sign that CC “doesn’t want to be in NY”.
    I agree. In fact, I think the opt out clause, and the extra twenty million on the contract does nothing but point to the fact that he really wanted to be in NY the whole time, and has no reservations about the place at all.
    Yes, it’s going to help his pay scale, but it’s also going to protect him if he’s miserable.
    I would be surprised if Tex doesn’t get the same option.

    Brad December 17, 2008, 12:32 pm
  • Paul – unfortunately with a new (and smarter) Mariners GM, I don’t think the sox could convince that the 42 year old gritty veteran presence would be a good thing for the young M’s staff.
    The M’s do need to get some quality prospects, and they seem to have a glut of catching right now.

    dw (sf) December 17, 2008, 12:40 pm
  • Thank God. I’d be worried if they weren’t talking. This smells just like Santana. The Sox are playing defense. There’s no way way they’re dumb enough to pay $20 million plus, over 8 to 10 years, for a 1B. It will come down to the Angels, Orioles, and Nationals – teams that really are that dumb.

    Dave SF December 17, 2008, 2:08 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.