Mar 20, 2013, 5:00 PM EST
Last week we heard that the Giants and Buster Posey had “exchanged preliminary ideas” about a multi-year deal to buy out his remaining arbitration years. Today Jon Heyman reports that those talks continue, though there is a “decent-sized gap” between the parties. Part of that gap is contract length, with Posey apparently wanting a Joey Votto/Troy Tulowitzki-style decade deal, with the team preferring to buy out the arbitration years and take it from there.
I’d take it from there. Posey is awesome, yes, but he’s also a catcher. If he stays a catcher, you have to be mindful of wear and tear. If he doesn’t, you have to be sure he can handle another position. I imagine he can — dude used to be a shortstop, so he’s more like Biggio than he is like a late-period Piazza or Bench — but you don’t know until you’ve tried it.
I’m usually about the players getting paid, but in this case, if I were the Giants, I’d play the waiting game for a while, content that there is a good chance that, even if you only keep Posey for six years, you’re likely to be getting his best ones.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 21
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 20
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 373
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)