Big money, short term.

At least, that's what I'm hoping for. Personally, I really think it's a huge risk to sign a guy to a 6, 7, 8 year (or more!) contract. One major injury -- or a crapload of nagging ones *cough* Eric Chavez *cough* can really hurt a team.

Hell, I know it's the Yankees, but imagine if A-Rod broke his leg tomorrow, missed the season, and came back a shadow of himself.

although the A's may fairly be described as a low to middle payroll team.

You're willing to project Sal's newborn in 2036 but you won't give my 5 year old son, who's already the biggest kid in his preschool class, even a mention! Well up yours NSJ!!!

Just for that, I'm going to make you look bad in your own front page article.

"The A's can't get the cash to suddenly afford Miguel Cabrera in two years."

That is completely and utterly wrong. False. Incorrect. Matter o' fact, the A's could drop $20 million annual on Cabrera TOMORROW if the opportunity presented itself and the A's were interested. Currently, the A's player payroll is round numbers $50 million and that includes the payout for Kotsay. At the start of the year (as per Wolff) the payroll was budgeted in the low-70's. Let's call it $72 million... pretty simple math here.

But let's jump ahead to when Cabrera could actually become a free agent after the 2009 season. You say that the A's can't come up with the cash for Cabrera in 2 years. Let's look at the A's payroll situation for 2010, based on current contract status.

Chavez: $12 million guaranteed

Blanton, Street, Gaudin and DiNardo all 6th year arby eligible.

Cust and DJ will be 5th year arby eligible.

Denorfia, Bowen, Buck, Casilla and Murphy will be 4th year arby eligible.

Devine might be a Super 2.

Everyone else, based on the current organizational depth chart, will have experienced the chance at FA (Ellis, Duke, etc) or have less then 3 years experience.

So unless the A's plan on setting their 2010 payroll to under $50 million there is no reason to think they wouldn't have the funds to pursue Cabrera if they wanted to.

Also Albert Pujols could also be in the Class of '12.

yes there will be plenty of $100 million + pitchers in the next 5-6 years, but the a's first $100 million dollar man will definitely be a position player.

if Ryan Howard can go to arbitration and get $10m, why didn't Prince Fielder do the same to get a significant pay raise? I know the Brewers renewed his contract at a measly $600k.

What's the deal with that?

But my personal opinion is that with all the young talent Beane has acquired, I wouldn't doubt seeing that $100 mil player come from within the A's organization. Say Carlos Gonzalez turns into a five-tool superstar player that everyone expects him to be...could he be the first player that winds up coming from within the current group of A's that the A's open up the wallet for and keep? Maybe one of the pitchers instead? Yeah, the chances are that none of the players the A's currently have are in Upton's league, but maybe for once, the A's actually pay a guy rather than developing him and then letting him walk.

$100 million will mean a lot less than it does today. We really should be asking if the A's are going to give out a $150-200 million contract 5-10 years from now, because that will be the new "breaking the bank" number.

This diary is the most fun I've had since grover's we-should-sign-Vernon-Wells-in-'08 diary two years ago. I like them both for the same reason--because it's fun to imagine that the A's will one day once again become a team that could actually conceive of signing a big-name free agent.

This fan's need for involvement in the offseason free agent shopping spree is also what made JoePoz's Royals leading Santana race blog post last month so funny. It was funny because it's true. The playing field is unfair, and we miss out on something as a result. Sure, we have a great GM who goes a long way toward making up for it, but still--sometimes after getting bargain after bargain out of the used bin, you still want to buy something new every once in a while. Like a kid at Christmas, I want a brand-new shiny outfielder, and I don't want him to be a bargain. Maybe in 2014, for the first time in two decades, we'll have a team that'll be willing to get us such a present.

This excellent diary from Taj last week is past the recommended fan post expiration date, but it's certainly worth bringing back into circulation for those who might've missed it. I learned a lot, thanks Taj (and those who contributed to the comments).

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/3/6/252045/2008-minor-league-all-rebo

There's a player named Evan Longoria? Damn. It must suck to be him most days.

What is the biggest free agent signing the A's have had in the past 20 years or so in your opinions?

He was the first FA. Well catfish was the first but that was different. He sued the Angels for freeangecy. And the braves gave him 1.5 mil. He also went to cal. ive seen him bodysurf in aptos he's a really neat guy.

Visiting from LetsGoTribe ...

I think the focus on free agent signings is a little pointless. Niether the Å's nor the I's are going to be signing a top-tier free agent in the foreseeable future, because free agent deals represent not only intolerable risk but atrocious value.

The first 100M man on the A's will be a contract extension, and it probably will look a lot like the I's situation with Sabathia -- a year or two ahead of the free agency of an elite, homegrown player who's still quite young, and playing for a team that's at the start of a run of contention, not starting to rebuild or likely to rebuild soon. (Of course, the player also has to want to stay enough to forego free agency and tens of millions, which is the issue with Sabathia.)

Or, a less likely scenario is like Pujols, where a player is an obscene young superstar before he ever even reaches an arbitration panel. Pujols got $100 million on the nose with only three years in, and I do think Beane would have done a deal like that as well. He was just 24, and he'd posted OPS+ of 157-151-187 at ages 21-22-23, while hardly missing a game. So yeah, I think any team and any GM gives him the 100M.

Incidentally, you're not alone in this. When the Indians gave Westbrook a $33 million extension a year ago, it was the largest contract they'd ever given any player, then quickly surpassed by Hafner's $57 million deal in June. Lots of teams have never come anywhere near $100 million, and for good reason. We don't know if the Indians will go that far with Sabathia (and I doubt it would make a difference). They went that far with Manny Ramirez but clearly would have regretted winning that auction. Why even root for a deal like that?

So if you're wondering who the first A's 100M man will be, you probably should focus on the players you have already. Unless you get B.J. Upton in a trade in the next 12 months, it ain't gonna be him.

is it really wise to extend any pitcher who's already under contract for three more seasons?

I think James Shields' new deal is outstanding. The option years give the team tons of flexibility if he falters, but potentially buy out some FA and allow the team to go year-to-year with him if they're in the middle of their contending wheel.

So there's a circumstance - with a young pitcher who's proved durability and had 1-2 good ML seasons - where a pitcher can have three years left on his contract and still warrant an extension. I think that Shields extension was one of the best moves of the offseason.

But you've forced me to agree with you on the Indian's decision to not extend CC two to three years ago, for all the points you listed. For one, I didn't know that the Indians had already bought out two FA years with a previous extension. I've seen the light. Thanks again for visiting Jay - I hope you'll post here more often, now that you've mastered AN 3.0.

I agree about Shields' deal, it's very team-friendly. But let's break it down.

He was already under control through 2012 and unlikely to be a Super 2. So let's assume he'd have gotten about $1 million total for 2008 and 2009 in any event. (I'm going to assume the 2009 salary because although it was not guarnateed, only a career-ending injury would have prevented it.)

So the Rays are giving him an extra two-year guarantee through 2011 for $10.25 million. A reasonable deal, but not a great bargain for the team. They can keep him for 2012 for an extra $6.5 million. (That's the $7 million option, minus the $2 million buyout which is already counted in the guarantee, plus the $1.5 million 2013 buyout which becomes part of the guarantee if they pick up the 2012 option.)

Plus, by picking up the 2012 option, they activate the 2013 club option, net cost $8.5 million, by picking up 2012, and the 2014 option, net cost $11 million. Those last two option years would have been free agent years, so those represent tremendous value, considering #4 starters by that point probably will be making $11 if not $15 million.

Bottom line, they're paying him perhaps $2 million more than they should to lock in his arbitration year salaries, but the total risk is low. For that extra $2 million, they get several very attractive club options in future years that could be very beneficial. Worthless if he turns out like Mark Prior, but if he becomes even a Blanton type, they'll have done extremely well with this deal.

Can't wait to see what the Indians do with Carmona ... who unfortunately will be a Super 2 next year.

David Gassko, a terrific analyst at Hardball Times and one of the Internet baseball world's true heavyweights (he's done some MLB consulting), believes I've drastically underestimated the value of that hypothetical Justin Upton FA deal in 2014.

From Gassko: "Baseball salaries rise by about 9% a year, meaning that $200 million in 2014 is like $120 million now. If Upton is an elite player in 2014, $300 million might be a more realistic bet."

If he's the best player in the game over the majority of that deal, $27-28 million a year would still be justifiable. But it further illustrates the need to plan years in advance and adjust the payroll accordingly to plan for that once-a-decade splurge. Otherwise it would be impossible to suddenly absorb a $28 million payroll increase.

Is that possible for the A's? Sure. Simply follow an annual, partial blueprint of this past offseason: When players begin to become moderately expensive (Swisher, Haren), trade them for younger assets.

One superstar FA + a few Sweeney/Frank Thomas type reclamation projects + a horde of 0-3 players = a roster that would still be one of the league's lower-payroll teams.

was for less money than I would've expected, and I think less than most people in MLB might've guessed, too.

That will be a market-setter, or at least a reference point, for a lot of these young superstar future FAs we discussed in this diary.