post

Josh Hamilton and Contract Numbers

This whole story is written around the concept that the numbers being reported this morning are accurate.  If they’re not, well, sod this story.  :)

A report this morning says that Josh Hamilton wants a 7 year contract and $175 Million.    My initial reaction to that?  UH, NO WAY.   I mean, seriously – does he honestly think someone is giving him that?   While I like Josh – I have always liked him since he came here.  The way the 2012 season ended was disappointing yes – but I’m not about to pitchfork him out of town based on the slump at the end.  He did great for us during his time here, and I loved the way he put Jesus out there in front, something that was refreshing for this Christian.  But dude..  7 years?  Are you serious?

I understand the concept of shoot high, and you end up with something more akin to what your true desire is.  It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what’s going on here.  But no one involved in contract negotiations would ever SAY THAT, so we take the numbers as read.  Given the general output Josh has had the last few years, the $25 million a year, while high, is not outrageously high.  However, the seven years?  No, I don’t think so.  Given the way players play into their 40′s now, it’s not inconceivable that a hitter at the age of 31 would still be playing at the end of the contract (when he’ll be 39, his birthday is May 21st).    But, while Josh is physically 31 years old, given everything he’s done to himself, one has to assume that his age in terms of his ability to play is older than that.   Additionally, he’s been fairly brittle since he’s been here.  Not completely accident prone, but he has spent rather large chunks of time on the disabled list while he was here.    Look at the number of games he’s played since he’s been here:

  • 2008: 156
  • 2009: 89
  • 2010: 133
  • 2011: 121
  • 2012: 148

His only real “full” year was his first one.  For a guy who makes the kind of money he wants, they should ALL be around 156.   All of this coupled together is why I think seven years is out of bounds.  I can’t imagine why any team would want to go seven years – not unless there are a ton of protection clauses and all that in there against him staying on the field.   Even WITH those in place, I feel 7 years is far too long.   Give him three or four years, then yeah, I could see that being a viable option.

What would I pay Josh to stay here?  Before this article was posted, I was likely to say something like 4 years/$80 Million.   Assuming this story from this morning is accurate, that won’t get it done.   But seven years at 25M a year?  I can’t see that happening.

As I said before, I like Josh, I love his being forthright about God and Jesus.  That’s awesome.  I’ll miss that part of things a lot assuming he’s not here anymore.  But I can’t see him getting that kind of money.

Comments

  1. Stan Nelson says:

    Especially not after the 2012 season. The Rangers need a few more fully professional, dependable team members, such as Adrian Beltre and David Murphy!

  2. Jeremy Sherrell says:

    No one in MLB should get 7 years ever. If you perform high enough, then you’ll get resigned, period. I am on the Nolan Ryan bandwagon of about 3-4 years max per contract. If teams didn’t waste money on extended years then we would have many more competitive teams, which would help the sport all-around.

    As much as I’d like to say Josh is gone in 2013, the other 50% of me says he may come back. It’s a complete toss-up and a good story to follow. I would rather see the Rangers healthy financially long-term than suffer by over paying a player short-term.

    The other thing with Josh is that he has the potential to make a decent living after he retires from baseball with speaking engagement, books, etc. He is a captivating person, on and off the field. Let’s hope he comes back, but if not then I’m confident the front office has made all the right moves for long-term success.

Speak Your Mind

*