So paying $9M for 1 year is smarter than paying $4.9M for 2 years. Fascinating. wtf are you actively try to be obtuse with every post you make now? i mean, seriously. assuming you're a rational person, there's no way you can make a post like that and not understand how pointless/irrelevent it is in regards to the post i made before it. but to answer your question, yeah. paying 9 mil to an above average player is better than giving 2/5 to a crappy player. (not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with my original point.... which was all about contract length and risks). Hey you're the one that drew the comparison to Aaron Miles. I just pointed out the unintended hilarity in your "logic": <$5M spread over two years is apparently a bigger risk than $9M spread over one. Just stop and let that resonate for a moment, and maybe you'll crack up too. No one compared Beltre to Miles. The point was that 1 year deals made with surplus money are smart because there's little lost. If you signed a 2 year deal with what you have left over, you can still be burned by the second year. That's what happened with Miles. The team had much tighter budget restrictions in year two of his contract, and since he didn't meet expectations they were forced to eat money just to get him off the team. yes