Posnanski > Phillips

I know that too. And, I agree.
I also know the effects of supply and demand are true in Capitalism. And, as we've found out, not in Corporatism.

I think -- again subjective -- that when a player's salary is in this range, that player needs to be a revenue generator. And, that -- along with his approach -- is a common criticism of Carlos Beltran.

See google.com.
It's a barometer sited by general managers (and, of course, agents) on a player's offensive production over the average major leaguer at his position.

 

If you think that postseason was the only thing that got Beltrain paid, then you are an idiot.

Beltran was a superstar-in-waiting with the Royals. Before that postseason, he was two homers shy of a 40-40 season.

Get your facts in order.

 

A superb postseason helped fetch him a contract in that stratosphere. If you don't think that dynamic exists in sports, you're the idiot.

 

He is an underachiever. And he is a bland one. In New York, it doesn't need saying, that combination is not going to be acceptable.

 

Markets can go down as easily as they go up. It doesn't mean the market was wrong at the time. The baseball market is different every day than it was the day before. In '05 Beltran was worth what he was worth.

Underachiever? Acceptable? To whom? Idiots on talk radio? Steve Phillips? He's been not just a great player but the best all-around center fielder in baseball.

And is he "bland" like Hank Aaron or sort of sulky or pouty like Roberto Clemente?

 

How is he an underachiever? Because he's not a .350-hitting, 40-homer, 40-steal guy every year?
What exactly did YOU think you were getting when he signed with the Mets?

In 2006, he hit 41 HRs, drove in 116 and scored 127 runs.
In 2007, he hit 33 HRs, drove in 112 and scored 93 runs.
In 2008, he hit 27 HRs, drove in 112 and scored 116 runs.
He also went 66 of 74 in stolen bases during those three years.

Oh, and this year he's hitting .364 with 6 HRs, 28 RBIs and 28 runs scored.
If he's underachieving, what would you consider to be "achieving"?

 

I submit that those saying he is underachieving are Mets fanbois angry that he hasn't led them to a championship considering they're paying him a gazillion a season.

 

There's that word again. Time to take my hat and leave.

This isn't a fanboi thing. I don't tickle his groin and I don't pay his salary. I think he can be better. Once-in-a-generation great. Transcendent. Over and out.

 

He's not once-in-a-generation. He's a good, solid player. Nothing more. He's at his prime now, and this is what $150 million (or whatever) gets the Mets. They bought into a fantastic playoff run and thought, "He will be ours!."

LJB, you want too much. Beltran isn't transcendent.

 

Well, no. He's not a once-in-a-generation type player. So if that's what you were looking for, he has underachieved.

But as it stands now, he's still going to underachieve his way into the Hall of Fame. He's not exactly Jeff Francoeur out there (to mention a fantastic underachiever).

 

Whoa, now! I'm with you, chili. But cool it with the HOF talk.

 

B-R.com's HOF index (which isn't foolproof) has Beltran at a 79 right now (100 means HOFer, in their calculations). He has a pretty good shot of reaching that 100. Unfortunately, I doubt he's going to have 3,000 hits or 500 homers or any of the glitzy stats.

He is one helluva all-around player, though.

And, BTW as far as those salary comparisons go ... if Pedroia put up Beltran-like numbers from ages 21-27, I bet he'd make 19 mill/per as well. Same for Youkilis.

But they can't. So they won't.

EDIT: Pedroia has an outside chance