Yes all players are evaluvated by how much they make relative to their production. Professional baseball is a busines. What does Sammy Sosa have to do with Miguel Tejada? I took your previous post to mean that Tejada was a great player because he made more money than other players at his position. Hence, the reference to Sammy (not a great player last year, despite making tons of money). I may have misunderstood you, if so, I apologize. I guess I don't understand the point of this statement: Are you saying that we can't argue that Tejada isn't a top 10 player because his contract is reasonable compared to contracts signed by other SS's (Furcal, for example)? If you want to argue that Tejada gives you the most "bang for your buck" so to speak - that's one thing. But if you're talking simply the top 10 players in the league (which I think was the question), why does it matter what he's paid? This is realted to my last post. It matters because even if money were not an object an owner couldn't fill his team with the best nine players. That is not the case with pitchers though (the owner could acquire the best 5 starting pitchers, if money were not an object). For example both Manny and Bonds play left field and Vlad plays right, but none of them could play center (maybe Vlad could but that is stretching things a good deal) So when I talk about the "best" I am saying the best at one's position. Now one could argue that Tejada isn't the best at his position. But given his production for the money he makes in relation to Jeter, Rodriguez, Furcal, Renteria, Eckstein, Garciparra, and others he is right there.