DLEE IS SIGNED!

[imb]

Pujols and Lee are not in the same situation, however, so that's not really relevant.

[badger1679666666]

I can't believe people are even remotely complaining about this deal.

[srbin84]

I can't believe people are even remotely complaining about this deal.

 

Rotoworld is pretty well respected around here and even they said Lee could have gotten 10-15 mil more as a free agent.

[noisesquared]

In an upcoming off-season where the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Dodgers will be looking at first basemen, signing D-Lee for 5/$65 is a steal. I have no doubt whatsoever that in a bidding war between the aforementioned clubs, 5/$75 would be where the bidding would start and I don't think that 5/$90 would be an impossible figure, especially if Lee has another great year. Heck, even if he regresses OPS-wise but puts up the traditional .300-30-100 line, he'd still get offers that would've dwarfed what he signed with the Cubs.

[KatJ]

The Tigers signed Magglio Ordonez last season to a contract in which he is guaranteed 15M this year, 12M in '07, 15M in '08 and 18M in '09.

 

I don't know how Lee's contract breaks down, but it averages out to 13M per year while Maggs is getting paid 15M per. Maggs is 2 years older, coming off of a major injury and isn't a gold glove candidate at his position.

 

This comparison makes it look like Hendry did well.

 

That Maggs contract makes the D.Lee contract look like a steal.

 

[Captain Obviousman] One big negotiating factor with Maggs: Boras. [/Captain Obviousman]

 

:-)

[mhuber92211]

Gammons also insuiated on Sunday that Lee could command a better then Konerko deal this offseason.

 

I think most would agree that Lee is better then Konerko but yet he is getting paid roughly the same. You can't call the deal 5 years and compare it with a 5 year deal this offseason because it would be 1 year longer then. Considering this deal will be 4/52 at the end of the year is very affordable in the Cubs budget considering the current contracts on the books and it is very fair for the player that the Cubs are getting. I wouldn't call the deal overpaid or underpaid. Its a fair deal for both sides and the no trade clause makes it worthwile for Lee.

 

The additional bonus about this deal is the endorsements available now. Now that Lee knows he will be a Cub until 2010, sponsors won't balk at paying him more for an ad that could be current for 4 years. This will also help with the Cubs marketing as well.

[Guest]

Put me in with the folks who think this is a pretty fair deal all-round. My biggest fear about giving Lee an extension after least season was that his new salary would be based on the expectation that he could sustain his 2005 numbers. Luckily, it seems that wasn't the case. As others have mentioned, Lee's deal is very close to the one Konerko signed a few months ago; they cover the same seasons, pay roughly the same amount, and both contain a no-trade clause. Lee's deal is a bit sweeter, with a full no trade clause and five million extra dollars, but overall they are remarkably similar. Considering the two players are pretty much the same age, play the same position, and have similar career stats I'd call the similarities in their contracts fitting. (For the record I think that the Cubs got a better deal with Lee than the White Sox did with Konerko.)

 

The best part about the deal is that it is five years including 2006, not added on to it.

[katway]

Fair deal. Cubs get Lee for $13M when the Yanks and others would have offered more this offseason. Lee gets an extra $3.5M this year. Essentially, it is a 4 year $55.5M deal. It's more than Ortiz is getting, but Lee is also excellent defensively with a little speed as well.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It's a great deal, really. We can argue about whether it's a little long or whatever, but nothing less would have gotten it done. It was going to take a deal like this to keep him around, and I'm glad that we are keeping him around.

[USSoccer]

USS, when you say that we overpaid for Lee, what do you mean by that? Too many years? Too much money? Relative to the market? I'm just trying to understand your position, because I really don't see it being close to overpaying.

 

I think that's we overpaid in the sense that it's a risky deal given that Lee has had the one great season and a bunch of decent but not noteworthy seasons. I also think there's a distinction between overpaying Lee and overpaying the dreck that we usually spend millions on, because Lee will likely be good for this deal. Thus, it's not a big deal really that we went a little high in dollars and a little long in years.

 

I am not complaining about the deal, but just pointing out a couple of possibilities in how this may affect Ramirez, which is the only way I'd be against this deal. I agree with Vance saying that this was what it was going to take to sign Lee, and since we're in our window, it's pretty tolerable.

 

I'd just hate to see Ramirez opt out and we lose him because Hendry is reticent to give the years/money he gave to Lee to Ramirez. I'm glad Lee is signed, though. We just need to make sure the rest of the cornerstones are locked up.

[XZero771679666304]

It's a great deal, really. We can argue about whether it's a little long or whatever, but nothing less would have gotten it done. It was going to take a deal like this to keep him around, and I'm glad that we are keeping him around.

 

Yeah, if this had waited until the offseason, Hendry would have had to pay a lot more. In fact, I think he would have been blown out of the water by the Yanks, Dodgers or Red Sox.

[RynoRules]

It's a great deal, really. We can argue about whether it's a little long or whatever, but nothing less would have gotten it done. It was going to take a deal like this to keep him around, and I'm glad that we are keeping him around.

 

Here here.