Good deal
Take into account the free-agent class of pitchers this offseason (and the Tigers certainly had to in their negotiations), and Jeremy Bonderman's contract looks like a very good signing. The trick to consider is that it's almost like two different pay scales -- one for the two years of arbitration Bonderman had left before he could become a free agent, and another for the two years after that. Bonderman will make $25 million over the final two years of the deal, and that's not just backloading.
While the Tigers can now count on Bonderman under contract through 2010, Bonderman gains some security on his side. Remember, he had a scare with a sore elbow down the stretch in 2005, and while it turned out to be a minor injury, it showed the risks that a pitcher can face. Put that pitcher on the cusp of free agency, and it becomes an even bigger deal. Bonderman takes that out of the equation with this. He can go into spring training and focus on his changeup. As far taking away the motivation of a contract year, he's too competitive to let the security of a contract affect him.
You can make an argument the Tigers could've waited a year for a long-term deal, but I agree with Dave Dombrowski that if it didn't happen this offseason, it probably wasn't going to happen.
Jason, this comment is not directed to you alone, but sports writers in general. One word I hate to see is "security" once a player like Jeremy Bonderman has made $2.3 million in one year as he did in 2006. As a teacher who began my career in 1989, I probably won't make $2.3 million in my lifetime and yet I live pretty well. I'm not complaining about my salary; any teacher who does should have thought about that before becoming one. I'm just saying that a 24-year old who makes that much in a year shouldn't be concerned about financial security. If he lives like most of us do, he'll never have to work again even if his arm falls off.
Report any abuse or spam
When players talk about security, it is more about playing for a team then money.
Bondo wanted to pitch in Detroit and got 4 years to do so. Now he would have gotten the same amount of money somewhere else, but wanted the security of playing where he knows he is wanted, knows the other players, and is treated fairly.
That is what everyone wants. The feeling of being needed by your boss and feeling the same about working for them.
Bondo just gets $38 million to do his job.
I think this is a great move, I just want Nate to get an extension. It will most likely happen next year, but having Bondo, Verlander, Nate, Miller, and Zumaya locked up to 2009-10 is nice. Two lefty and righties in the rotation with a dominant closer, very nice.
Isn't great that for once the off-season isn't about getting the lower tier free-agent or watching someone go and sign a deal with someone else. I mean who doesn't want to go play for a team that can have the close to the youngest pitching staff in baseball for the next 4 years? Then after that they will be in their primes? I just can't wait for next year, and this is the first time in my life that I can say that about the Tigers.
Report any abuse or spam
I understand that, hoot, but I don't believe that's what Jason meant when he said that Bonderman wouldn't be on the cusp of free agency in a contract year. That was the security I referred to.
I too am looking forward to this next season and I'm glad that Bondo is on board!
Report any abuse or spam
Forgive an ignorance on these financial matters. I still don't fully understand how these contracts work. It seems that, realtively speaking, and "relative" is the operative word here, the Tigers got a pretty good deal signing Jeremy at $38 million for 4 years. I'm VERY happy they did sign him. My question is, how much of that money is a player guaranteed? In this specific case, how much would Jeremy get if he had a career ending injury at any point in the 4 year contract? Does he get it all? Is that what you mean by security Jason? In other words, he might have gambled by waiting, and a great year would have further increased his value, but the down side could be a career ending injury, or maybe a sub par year, decreasing his value. Probably depends on how the contract reads, I assume.
I don't want to start a big discussion or arguement about this unbelieveable business side of baseball or any other major sport. I love the game and I love watching the best play it. It's just a microcosm of our free market system; it's the best. It does tend to expose the greedy side of man though doesn't it? I think the point that Ofmasks makes is that the word "security" when talking in terms of millions of dollars is a stretch. In the context of what teachers (for example) make....well there's just no comparison. Heck, how many thousands of hungry people....ok, you know where I'm going. It's Christmas guys, remember your brother...
Hoot, with some of these guys, security might mean a sense of belonging, being appreciated, and happiness, but I have to think that with the kind of money offered out there, it's not long before "security" comes to mean "How much am I worth?" I suppose the bottom line is you can't blame the players. What are they supposed to do? "Oh no I couldn't take 50 million dollars to play a fun game that I love....no, no just give me 1 million. I can live quite well on that." Yeah, that'll happen.
Report any abuse or spam