I understand that everyone can have a bad day, or a bad column. This is one of those columns. At least he has the decency to attribute the original idea to someone else, and there's a word bonus (fortnight):
The Globe’s intrepid Peter Abraham floated the idea in a blog back on Nov. 18.Further down, we have this:
What if the Red Sox decided to make Derek Jeter a contract offer? Abraham framed his piece in sheer speculation. He was just having a little fun. He wanted to know if Sox fans would tolerate such a notion.
Which brings us back to John Henry. Suppose the Red Sox step up and shock the world? There is simply no downside to making Jeter a massive offer. In the worst-case scenario he calls your bluff and you get the Yankees captain.Hey, what's one more overpaid player?
I don’t care if Jeter is way past his prime or if the Sox would have to wildly overpay a player of his diminished skills.
What’s the harm in offering Jeter $20 million a year over three years? If you can pay J.D. Drew $14 million per year . . . if you can pay a Japanese team $50 million just for the right to speak with Daisuke Matsuzaka . . . if you can buy a futbol club for $476 million, why not spend $60 million to bust pinstripe chops for all the ages?
Shank fails the logic test with this suggestion. When Matsuzaka and Drew were being pursued by the Sox, the expectations / anticipated production from these guys were significantly higher than is expected from Jeter, at age 36. The $476 million plunked down on Liverpool FC, Shank, is called an investment. I saw higher numbers when Liverpool first went on the block, so at this point John Henry might have a steal on his hands. The next time Shank bitches about an overpaid Red Sox player, we'll always have this article to prove a) he's a hypocrite or b) he's just stirring the pot with silly ideas.
Granted that it's part of a columnist's job to offer opinions, bit I've always thought it takes a special kind of prick to tell someone else what to do with his money.