Originally Posted by IslandRed
Not sure I follow... Edwin's getting $2.85 million this year, so this year's dollars are closer to what the Reds offered than what he was asking for.
As for '10, it's kind of an all-or-nothing deal to me. If he's playing poorly enough that we regret having that $4.75 million on the books, he'll probably lose his job altogether.
The part that concerns me is, instead of just signing him for $2.85 million this year, there's a "signing bonus" that the Reds can defer all the way to November. Makes me wonder if they're concerned about cash flow.
Well, I just doubled the 3.7 for 2 years, and saw the Reds were paying above that for the total deal. I was speaking more to the Reds view of the economy than anything else. In a "normal" economy, this deal is pretty fair, I think. In this current economy, I think it looks more fair to Edwin than the Reds. I feel like the Reds would have won arb with EE, but not sure his ego could handle a bruising arbitration session. What i get out of this is that I think the businessmen who run the Reds feel this economy is going to be a short term thing. Either that, or they are very high on Edwin being a long term answer at 3B.