Suppose the Jays sign Jose Bautista to the rumoured $65M/5 year contract. Good move?
| Yes |  68 (60.71%) |
| No | 20 (17.86%) |
| I can't function without hindsight. Call me in 2015. | 24 (21.43%) |
112 votes | 11 featured comments
Where's the option for "I can't function without an official announcement"?
I don't think it was particularly a good or bad move. Regardless of how it plays out, I don't think I would have offered him this contract, but I get why it was done.
Seems like a fair deal for both sides. It would be nice if it was a front loaded contract (something like 17m/16/15/10/7) so that it gives AA some financial flexibility when some of the younger guys are finishing up their arby years. May as well pay him now while the payroll is low.
Good thinking there BCMike - given AA thinks outside the box he just might do that. Front loaded would open up payroll when needed, make Bautista a lot more valuable as a trade asset down the line, and if he drops at the end arbitration would not be a bad thing to offer (unlike Delgado for example).
Everything AA seems to touch has been gold so far so I voted yes. It's not like they're paying Pujols/Werth money anyway!
Using the Vernon Wells savings to heavily frontload the deal would certainly make it look a lot more appealing.
I'd have prefered an option like "acceptable deal"
It is a year too long, but it seems to be in line with the FA of this year, but it is hard to dislike b/c the lack of a no-trade really makes it for me. While '10 was encouraging, a few arm injuries in '11, no improvement from Hill, Lind, and Snider, JPA busts, and evil Escobar shows up -- the team could again be looking for high-upside talent. A Bautista that performs close to 10 levels would be a very value chip to get that to happen.