The Ticket's Bob Sturm was talking about a story he read from a New York writer about the risks involved with signing free agent pitchers to four-year deals. Basically, they don't work out the vast majority of the time. I didn't hear the rest of the segment, so I don't know if he was using that article to support his feeling that the Rangers shouldn't try to re-sign Cliff Lee. Take Bob out of the equation, since I don't know his opinion.
But if anyone thinks that, they're crazy. Sure, Lee is 32 and would be 36 or 37 (at least) at the end of the contract he's about to sign. If you want him, you'll have to give him a four-year deal at the very least. It'd more than likely be a six- or seven-year deal. That's just what you have to pay to play, in this case.
Anyone signing him won't be doing so with the expectation Lee will be anywhere near what he is now. They're signing him for two years of high expectations. Anything they get from him after that would be gravy. That's just the way it is, whether it makes fiscal sense or not.
The Rangers know that. The Yankees know that. Everybody else in the Lee derby knows that. Sure, this franchise was burned by the A-Rod deal, but Tom Hicks was a moron by paying that douche two times more than anyone else was willing to pay. The Rangers won't do that with Lee. They'll make a competitive offer -- maybe top whatever New York offers by a little bit -- but they won't break the bank for him. This new regime is too smart for that.
There's no need to over-think this. The Rangers need Cliff Lee. They know what he did in the stretch run and the playoffs, and they know his track record before he even came to Texas. Pay what you have to pay without being an idiot and bring him back. Hey, he may flame out; you never know. Nobody thought the Cowboys would be 1-7. But that's a chance I'd be more than willing to take.
No comments:
Post a Comment