Skip to content

David Ortiz wants a multi-year deal

Jul 13, 2010, 8:30 AM EDT

If delusion is a performance enhancing drug, David Ortiz's Home Run Derby championship is explained.

Gotta give David Ortiz credit for confidence. When he started in with
that “I love Boston and I want to retire with the Red Sox” stuff last week, I thought it
was the prelude to a campaign to get his $12.5 million 2011 option picked up. Big Papi
is obviously not so constrained in his vision, however. He doesn’t merely want an additional year. He wants a multi-year deal:

“I’m going to tell you, I ain’t going nowhere . . . I
don’t want one year. Why should I return for one year and go through
the same [stuff] I’m going through now, just because it’s my last year?
No. I like to be left alone when I’m playing baseball. I know how to
clean my [stuff] up.”

Never mind that this little campaign of Ortiz’s involves convincing Theo Epstein to do what he’d never, ever do, and that’s giving a multi-year deal to an aging slugger whose slow starts suggest he could totally lose it at any moment and who, for added flavor, spent half a season attempting to start up negotiations through the media.

Yes, Ortiz is having a nice season. Yes, he’s immensely popular in Boston. But no, that doesn’t change the fact that there are a million reasons for the Red Sox to go no more than one year with Ortiz beyond 2010, and at a lower salary than he’s currently making.

  1. BC - Jul 13, 2010 at 8:51 AM

    He’s out of his mind. A month ago the Red Sox almost cut him. Let him play out the year and then decide whether to even bring him back next year.
    Between Ortiz and Lowell, the Red Sox have a lot of money coming off the books after this year. They have the abilty to do some things… even wait out 2011 and sign Prince Fielder for a kajillion dollars and DH him.

  2. Steve C - Jul 13, 2010 at 9:07 AM

    The only “multi” year deal Ortiz will get is one that involves mutual or vesting options. It is the best way to go for the Red Sox as far as PR goes as it puts the ball squarely in Ortiz’s court. You play well, we pick you up for another year. You turn into an old man again and we have seen enough.

  3. Pisano - Jul 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM

    As I stated earlier , there’s 12 million reasons why they won’t resign him . Boston doesn’t throw money around on aging players . I think his run is over in Boston , no matter what kind of year he ends up with . Also playing the Sox in the media isn’t endearing either .

  4. ThatGuy - Jul 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM

    I personally would find it refreshing for a sports team to show some loyalty to a player that has done great things for them, and is showing loyalty to them. Obviously any multi year deal would drastically cut his salary, but if he would sign a 2 or 3 year deal for 5 – 7 million a year, which is half his current salary of 13) why not?

  5. Md23Rewls - Jul 13, 2010 at 1:53 PM

    What’s wrong with signing him to a one year deal, though? That’s what they’ve been doing with Wakefield for years. You can’t say that they’ve been disloyal to Wakefield. It just makes sense. And if Ortiz really wanted a multi-year deal, he would stop running his mouth. That’s getting him nowhere. I know he’s “Big Papi,” and he thinks he’s earned this bank of goodwill, but he’s also a fat, aging player who can’t do anything but DH and has started off horribly two years running. Isn’t that exactly the kind of player you should go year-to-year on? Especially considering Boston’s an older team that is going to need that DH slot more and more to give their aging guys rest from the field here and there, ala what New York has done this year. You don’t want to lock up the DH for another three years on a guy who is probably not going to be productive for much longer.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2838)
  2. D. Span (2412)
  3. J. Fernandez (2312)
  4. G. Stanton (2308)
  5. F. Rodney (2140)
  1. G. Springer (2134)
  2. M. Teixeira (2030)
  3. Y. Puig (2023)
  4. G. Perkins (1952)
  5. H. Olivera (1837)