Kansas City would .
2007-11-07 02:03:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mr. Man 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
A-Rod's salary and extras are the equivilent of two superb starters, a big bat and a top grade reliever. Given that he will break all the records by the time he retires he still might never see a W.S. ring. You have to really weigh his overall value. The Yankees were unstoppable w/o that kind of player for a long time. With A-Rod, he always performed during the season but then had that post-season slack off that never helped the Yanks. The Mets can afford him but it would ruin them totally, and they have enough problems to dal with if they want ot win it all. The Red Sox don't need him and should spend money in other areas.... but the Angels.....hmmmm that might happen. That is if the Yanks don't slam the bucks down fast and hard.....which hopefully they will not.
2007-11-07 05:52:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by michael g 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, this is a very difficult question to answer, but I'll do my best. When the baseball situation is spending lots of money to build strong teams, the problems goes around if one pleayer should earn at least 30 million per year, when temas like Florida marlins had a 35 million dollars salary in 2007.
But he best options to take him are:
1. Boston Red Sox: they have the money and have done very good contracts over the last 7 years, the made 2 world sries rings in the new millenium already, with the team happy with their GM Theo Epstein, he could go for it. But htey already have Lowell on 3B, instead they want him in SS as he was before the Yankees.
2. Yankees: they can arrange another huge contract after what he has done over the past years in this great team, money isn't the problem. But the new VP's (Steinbrenner sons) have clearly said they won't pay that salary to just one player.
3. Cubs: With Piniella as the manager (A-Rod's first manager in Seattle) they could go for it, but the team is in sell and this could leverage the buyout.
4. Angels: With lot of money and talent, and with world series ring in 2003, and several playoffs appearences, they could go for another strong bat next to Vlad Guerrero. Popular city with lots of fans and publicity.
For me this are the best options right now, the most possible ones...
2007-11-07 02:22:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by FG 82 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
There are only a few limited options of teams that have the money. Boston, the Angels, the Cubs or the Mets (If they want to steal some Yankee headlines) can buy him if they want. My guess is that he will wind up with the Angels but for a smaller $$ contract then he said was "The floor" for the Yankees. They will probably have some kind of stock option or somethiing worked into the deal.
2007-11-07 02:06:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Angels
2007-11-07 02:28:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Crowdpleaser 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Almost anyone would take him but almost no one can afford him. I have been saying A-Rod to the Angels all along but it is now looking like the Mets have entered the picture. It won't be long now, we will see what happens.
2007-11-07 02:06:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Frizzer 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Right now as of today Boston as a 2.5 lead over the NY Yankees. I think once the yankees become healthy get there players back, they will win the East.What do yo guys think the outcome will be?
2007-11-07 02:10:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by shahi_eminem143 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
No chance on kansas city, and no chance with the mets those are both bad answers I say he will go to the Angels and i hate to say it but he could end up in Boston ...
2007-11-07 02:07:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by BRAVESFAN 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
LA Angels or LA Dodgers
2007-11-07 02:33:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Let's go Red Sox! 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I bet he goes to the Cubs...maybe Angels...i don't see what the Mets are going to do with him...what position would he play...first?..yeah right
2007-11-07 03:25:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Giants Fan! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It had better not be the Red Sox, other wise Ted Williams will be spinning in his freezer.
2007-11-07 04:22:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋