Thursday, January 27, 2005

So it's 1 year / 10.5 million for Berkman. Not a bad deal, but I can't help thinking that this actually decreases our chances of signing Lance to a long-term deal. If we could sign him to a long term deal now, why didn't we? And if we can't, I'm sure Lance is going to at least want to test free agency at the end of the year. And how many players sign with their original team when they're free agents? Not too many. 20%, at most?

So while I'm glad we locked up Berkman for one more year, I'm a little disappointed we couldn't sign him to a long term deal. With that said, if I had to choose between letting Berkman walk at the end of the year or giving him Beltran's 7 /105 contract, I let him walk. I still think Oswalt is more important to the future of the Astros. But I still want them both on the team.

I wonder how Berkman's knee injury affects the organization's willingness to consider a long-term contract? Now that I think about it, you might at least want some evidence that this injury won't affect Lance's play before you give him 50-60 mil. So maybe it's a good job of restraint, after all. I'm allowed to change my mind, right?

3 comments:

JT said...

I think part of the issue here is time. From what I've read and heard, they signed this one year deal to avoid having to go to arbitration. Signing this deal now, allows them to skip that and I believe they're still working on a long-term deal with him.

I'd like to see them work something out with him now, rather than wait until after this season. Who knows what other teams will push the price up to on him, especially if he has a good season. Just look at what happened with Delgado this year. Seemed the bidding opened around 3/33, if I remember correctly, and he ends up signing for 4/52 with an option to make it 5/65.

Anonymous said...

your profile is hilarious...just wanted to pay respects when they're due.

JT said...

Mine or jack's?