It appears that some in the NY/national media still regard the Rangers as "players" in the FA market, perhaps even in baseball in general. This sort of contempt might be akin to a cognitive hangover caused by the embarrassing demolition of their beloved and payroll-bloated Yankees by Texas in this year's playoffs. Whatever it is, Lone Star Ball had a nice retort today to this sort of "Does Texas really know what's good for itself" metanarrative, with Dan Szymborski opening the comments with a nice salvo.
New York's latest offer is reputed to be 7/160 (22.9 per). If Texas went 6/147.2 (24.5 per), the total monies would be equal after taxes. I'm just sayin'... I'm still on the fence about a contract that commits more than 5 years for a pitcher over 30 and which comprises about ~23% of the annual budget. If the contract is conceptualized as a separate line item then maybe it makes more sense. In this framework, you could still have a $95-100m annual payroll, the flexibility to increase it for in-season trades when necessary, and the capacity to pursue extensions for select players. Would it also allow you to increase your draft, international, personnel and scouting budgets? Let's hope so. The latest comments by Greenberg and Levine suggest that this is precisely how the front office staff and ownership view the situation. If they don't think that the behemoth offer will hamstring the competitiveness and financial flexibility of the club over the life of the deal, particularly the greater elaboration of and financial commitment to talent scouting, acquisition and development, then that is good enough for me.