where does a-rod play next season?

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate Silver: I think because an extension implies that you're tearing up the current contract, including the provisions that would have Texas picking up 1/3 of his salary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, the assumption in this thread is that an extension would not void the Texas subsidy. Can anyone provide a link to substantiate that assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense tells you an extension that does not void the previous contract isn't going to affect the subsidy. Whether that's actually true depends on the actual language of the subsidy agreement with Texas (for example I believe the subsidy is voided if A-Rod is traded). It sounds like Nate doesn't have any information to the contrary, so I have no idea why his "gut" is going against common sense.

Actually I have one bit of proof that the extension won't void the subsidy. The Yankees won't negotiate if the contract is voided through an opt out. That is a great deal of evidence that they think they can keep the subsidy. Plus a bunch of commentators who claim the subsidy is the reason they don't want him to opt out, presumably that comes from their interviews with Yankee management. I think Nate's all wet here.

[rwperu34]

Here's a nice article that says A-Rod will be well worth the $30+MM/yr that he signs for, even over 10 years.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate Silver: I think because an extension implies that you're tearing up the current contract, including the provisions that would have Texas picking up 1/3 of his salary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, the assumption in this thread is that an extension would not void the Texas subsidy. Can anyone provide a link to substantiate that assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense tells you an extension that does not void the previous contract isn't going to affect the subsidy. Whether that's actually true depends on the actual language of the subsidy agreement with Texas (for example I believe the subsidy is voided if A-Rod is traded). It sounds like Nate doesn't have any information to the contrary, so I have no idea why his "gut" is going against common sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

As Mark Twain once said, common sense isn't very common. I talked to a litigator about the extension = new contract. He said in the absence of specific language in the original contract, an addition/extension to a contract is technically a brand new contract. Therefore the Rangers would not be on the hook for any more payments to the Yankees.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
He said in the absence of specific language in the original contract, an addition/extension to a contract is technically a brand new contract. Therefore the Rangers would not be on the hook for any more payments to the Yankees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the Yankees take this extend-current-contract stance if Texas weren't still on the hook for the loot? I think its a safe assumption that whatever language need to exist in the current contract does.

[wisehandpoker]

Boris, I have nothing to back this up, but I think the extension clause was part of the ARod trade.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


As Mark Twain once said, common sense isn't very common. I talked to a litigator about the extension = new contract. He said in the absence of specific language in the original contract, an addition/extension to a contract is technically a brand new contract. Therefore the Rangers would not be on the hook for any more payments to the Yankees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the extension is a new contract. It's a new contract that specifies what happens when the original contract ends. The original contract remains in force. Any "litigator" who hasn't seen those two agreements and the third agreement that specified the subsidy between Texas and the Yankees, but still claims to know whether signing A-Rod to an extension is a violation of a subsidy agreement that he has never seen, is guilty of 5th degree malpractice*.

It's pretty clear from Yankee statements that they believe they can sign an extension and keep the existing subsidy for the EXISTING CONTRACT because the new contract will stand on it's own and isn't prohibited in their Texas subsidy agreement.

* 5th degree is flaunting your professional accreditations on a sports message board while making absolutely idiotic statements.

[Boris]

yea if A-rod gets paid for the next 3 years exactly what is now contractually stipulated then he can probably sign an extension and not void the existing contract. But any talk of A-Rod getting $30m next year with Texas paying part of that salary I think is highly suspect.

[Matt Williams]

Anyone catch Rob Neyer's chat during the ALCS tonight? He thinks A-Rod stays and signs a contract for 1/2 billion when all is said and done. Surprising, b/c he's not one to just talk out of his ass like that.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
yea if A-rod gets paid for the next 3 years exactly what is now contractually stipulated then he can probably sign an extension and not void the existing contract. But any talk of A-Rod getting $30m next year with Texas paying part of that salary I think is highly suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

A-Rod's current contract pays him close to $30M next year with Texas paying part of that salary. I believe the actual numbers are $28M with a $7M subsidy, but he has some kickers that might push the $28M number higher.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone catch Rob Neyer's chat during the ALCS tonight? He thinks A-Rod stays and signs a contract for 1/2 billion when all is said and done. Surprising, b/c he's not one to just talk out of his ass like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he just did. $50M a year for 10 years, or $38M a year for 13 years, both are equally absurd. I mean, the Yankees would be paying $50M-$70M a year for his services with luxury tax, and who would they be outbidding?