Aurilia in Pinstripes?
By
Amanda
Posted at 4:57 pm
Just when I was bracing myself emotionally to see Rich Aurilia head back to the Giants, columnist Joel Sherman starts throwing Richie's name around as part of The Moves to Make in today's New York Post. Putting our beloved Bad Man at first base (or as a utility infielder) is apparently part of Sherman's “bold offseason plan” for the Yankees.
FIND A FIRST BASEMAN: This is a more likely place to risk taking Aurilia or DeRosa. Jason Giambi must be made a near-regular DH. In addition, the Yanks have to resolve to play Melky Cabrera 3-4 times a week next year and rotate Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon and Bobby Abreu between rest and the DH slot. This means Giambi might play only 120 games. So be it. The Yanks have to think about being a better defensive team.
OK, so that's columnists for the Giants and the Yankees writing about the prospect of bringing Aurilia aboard. Who's next? The Reds??
The Reds pick up the option for sure, but no way Aurilia does. He’s got to think, “I can get more than a $2 mil contract after the year I had.” And he can. But in any bidding war, he will end up overpriced.
I wonder. At some point don’t you have so much money that you don’t much care whether you’re making $2 mil or $2.4 mil? I mean, there’s playing time, the prospect of winning, and the comfort level to consider.
I don’t see the Reds guaranteeing him a permanent spot, though he knows from experience how much utility time there is to be had on this team. The Reds may well have decent prospects of winning next season. However, Cincinnati can’t compete with SF for lack of people still complaining about him complaining about playing time a year ago.
Does a mutual option mean both parties have to agree to renew it? I thought it meant either party can activate the second year… if it requires both to consent, then what’s the point of it, its the same thing as renegotiating at the end of the year, isn’t it?
Just like both parties have to agree for a feeling to be mutual, both parties have to agree for an option to be mutual. And just like in love, either side can say no and put an end to the whole affair.
I think that the benefit is locking in the price ahead of time; it’s sort of like a little bit of stability for the player, a little bit of savings for the team.
Of course, I’m talking out of my ass here and don’t really know nothing’ ’bout it.