If we were in a Vaccum, this is a great deal, but then you've gotta look at the other things, like the payroll and financials of the team he signed with, similar to A-Rod signing with the Rangers.

They got a great deal on A-Rod, but after a few years of the team being bad, due to so much money wrapped up in him, they had to move him, granted team still sucks, but unless you're in a huge market tying up this kind of jack for one guy you've got the makings of a disaster on your hands.

Again, Mauer is worth the money, hell I wanted him on my team next season, and if the Twins were in a bigger market I'd say they got a great deal on him, but the Twins don't usually spend a lot of money on players, this years payroll prior to this extension was only $62 million, and like I stated earlier, unless they are going to raise it significantly, they've got $36 million, or 50% of the team payroll wrapped up in Mauer and Morneau.

Their hands were tied... they had to make this deal.

Minnesota says that their payroll will rise, and I will take that for what it's worth. The Twins won't have the same payroll that they've had in the past. Not sure how much it will go up, but I have to think that the Twins know exactly what they are doing. They have been ran pretty well the past 5-10 yrs.

Nobody is worth that kind of money playing a kid's game, nobody.

jordo212000 wrote: Their hands were tied... they had to make this deal.

Minnesota says that their payroll will rise, and I will take that for what it's worth. The Twins won't have the same payroll that they've had in the past. Not sure how much it will go up, but I have to think that the Twins know exactly what they are doing. They have been ran pretty well the past 5-10 yrs.

Agree. They had to do it, and if they do raise the payroll with this new ballpark then I'll revise my stance on this.

Be Nice wrote: Nobody is worth that kind of money playing a kid's game, nobody.

Oh yeah, well your not worth the money you get paid! haha. See how this works? Such a silly argument.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing my friend. Supply and demand.

^^^

Exactly, I don't see the owners complaining about paying guys this money, because they get it back from fans buying tickets/merchandise etc.

HighRoller74 wrote: ^^^

Exactly, I don't see the owners complaining about paying guys this money, because they get it back from fans buying tickets/merchandise etc.

Yeah I don't understand that argument at all. Would they rather that the owners pocket even more money? With the revenues that pour into professional sports franchises it only makes sense that they would give it to the guys who actually bring the money in.

jordo212000 wrote:

HighRoller74 wrote: ^^^

Exactly, I don't see the owners complaining about paying guys this money, because they get it back from fans buying tickets/merchandise etc.

Yeah I don't understand that argument at all. Would they rather that the owners pocket even more money? With the revenues that pour into professional sports franchises it only makes sense that they would give it to the guys who actually bring the money in.

Exactly. Which is why I don't fault those teams with the huge payrolls. Better they give the money back to the players, than do what the Owners in Cleveland and Pittsburgh do, and that's put it right into their pockets.

jordo212000 wrote: Their hands were tied... they had to make this deal.

Minnesota says that their payroll will rise, and I will take that for what it's worth. The Twins won't have the same payroll that they've had in the past. Not sure how much it will go up, but I have to think that the Twins know exactly what they are doing. They have been ran pretty well the past 5-10 yrs.

You gotta think, if they let Mauer walk, while they wouldn't be paying him all that money, they would definitely be upsetting their fan base. You gotta spend money to make money.

And agree about that guy who said Mauer isn't worth it. You don't like it? Stop going to games, don't buy any merchandise, and convince everyone else in the U.S. to do the same. Problem solved.

dat dude wrote: What is the alternative? Lose your future HOF player at the tender age of 26 because you can't afford him? Is that going to put fans in the seats? No, especially not with the opening of a new ballpark. See Cleveland's demise for example.

Exactly. They might not make out great in the long run financially by signing him, but they'll be much better off than if they didn't resign the hometown future HOFer and lost huge amounts of fan support and revenue because of it.

And it obviously is a huge plus for them on the field too.