I voted for "I don't care."  It should be "I don't care, as long as he doesn't sign with the Angels."  I'd really love to see him sign with the Giants because it would guarantee that the Giants remain in Bonds-like turmoil: unable to win big or consistently, but selling out their stadium.  Maybe I'm underestimating the Giants' casual fans (the ones whom the club depends upon to fill up the park, the ones who go to "be seen," not the knowledgeable ones) but I think they'd be okay with that.  Not that they'd admit it.

Twenty reasons why.

7. Yes, you can play shortstop. The rest of the infield is willing to be called "the Rodettes."

14. If you want, you can rename the rings of the catwalk. You could call the big one "Alex." You could call the small one "Derek." Just for old time's sake.

It'll be ridiculous when he signs it, but by the end it'll be a steal.

And his contract will float all the others.

If you can afford it like I can afford to go out to a fancy restaurant for dinner (which I can), then he's worth it. If you can afford it like I can afford to buy a Beverly Hills home and a new Mercedes (it would put me into crippling debt), then he's not worth it.

Bill Gates spends $350million about like I spend $350.00. So whether it's a good investment to spend a certain amount of money depends a lot on what spending that kind of money means to you.

...no.  My humble opinion, of course.

Personally, I hope he ends up being forced to sign for less per year than he was getting already.  It would amuse me to no end to see Boras eat crow like that.

If the highest offer is less (and that's why players hire Boras... to get the most money), what's he gonna do?  Sit out a season?  Phfft!  I don't think so.

How do you determine that? In our society, it's free market, period. If someone will pay him, yes, apparently he's "worth" it.

As to whether any of us believe he's worth it, that's kind of a silly question because none of us are in the position to validate that worth or not in the realm he plays. Worth ulitmately has to do with freedom and choice. Anyone who has the the money and is in the position to do so is free to make the choice to pay A-Rod (or anyone else) whatever he or she thinks he's worth.

Now, if the question is, "do you think "X" is too much money to pay A-Rod?" you've the nature of the question because we're no longer talking about A-Rod's worth, we're talking about how we feel about what he's making. Further, the question of the worth of the game at all, to each of us, is raised. Valid questions.

A-Rod's individual worth, however, is not ours to determine in this situation because no one here is in position to make that financial judgment. If you dislike like what he's being paid enough,  you could always say, it's not worth it for me to watch this sport and pull the plug on your viewership of it. The question is, is your anger over his salary and all the impact it has on the game, worth it for you to do something other than just complain about it?

Because as long as we're watching, salaries ain't goin' nowhere but up. The rest of this "worth" question is so much hot air.

I'd expect him to get more in the neighborhood of 6-8 x $30m.

And, yes, I absolutely think he's worth it. I very much believe that the A's should be a very serious player in the bidding. Between the talent he'd bring to the club and the dramatic market shift he'd bring, he'd be worth it.

I think that in terms of annual salary, there isn't really a ceiling to A-Rod's worth.  However, I've heard 12 years being floated by Boras as the number of the years for the deal.  That's insane.  He'll be 44 by the time that deal is over.

If the deal really does end up being like devo describes above this post, then I agree he's worth that much, and I agree that he'd be worth pursuing by the A's by that price, even though it's never going to happen.