[Update: 1:29 PM] Anybody still think the Rays could send Longoria back to Durham when Willy Aybar comes off the DL?

[Update: 1:20 PM] Bill Chastain has the details and they are a doozy. With options, it can be as long as 9-years (!) and as much as $44 million.

The salaries for the first six years of the agreement are guaranteed with the team holding a one-year option for 2014 season and a subsequent two-year option for the 2015 and 2016 seasons. The contract guarantees $17.5 million. If the Rays exercise both options, Longoria would earn more than $44 million over the life of the nine-year agreement.

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports is reporting that the Tampa Bay Rays have reached an agreement with Evan Longoria on a long-term contract.

The details of the contract are not yet known, but it is believed that the deal will be for six years in the $17 million range with option scenarios that will enable the Rays to buy out two years of Longoria’s free agency.

The contract, to be announced at 1 p.m. ET, also is expected to include escalators that will enable Longoria to add to his guaranteed money if he develops into a major star.

Well, that certainly takes the arbitration-clock out of play.

Sources: Rays near big deal with Longoria [Fox Sports]
Rays sign Longoria to multiyear contract [MLB]



  1. DirtbagFan says:

    With a screen name like DirtbagFan I suppose I should be the first to say "WOOHOO!!"

    There you go, I just solved the conundrum that is my screen name... i'm sure some people have tilted there head sideways and thought, "is he a dirtbag that happens to be a fan? Or is he a Dirtbag fan?"... now you know!

  2. Tommy says:

    Looks like they smashed the arbitration clock on this one

  3. Robert Rittner says:

    So holding back the free agency clock helped the Rays while apparently not alienating Longoria. Do we need some modification in all those headlines that asserted the fundamental reason the Rays did not keep him out of spring training was purely financial? Or is everyone sticking with that simple minded explanation?

  4. The Professor says:

    RR, do you think that his free agency after 2014 instead of after 2013 had nothing to do with the final contract? if you can prove that I will admit I was wrong. but to think that was not part of the negotiation is naive

  5. Robert Rittner says:

    I think it absolutely did have a lot to do with it. It has never been my argument that pushing back free agency was irrelevant, only that the interpretation of it as purely financial and the angst over it was simple minded.

  6. The Professor says:

    so you think that Dirtbag learned how to hit a curveball in one week in Durham?

    the only statement that even remotely maybe made sense was when Madden said they didnt want Longoria to be overwhelmed by opening day and the pressure of the beginning of the season when every at bat is over-analyzed

  7. DirtbagFan says:

    RR: I may not be qualified to speak for the Rays, but I certainly can assertain from what has happened thus far in the handling of Dirtbag that they were definately approaching this season with the angle of pushing back his free agency.

  8. Robert Rittner says:

    No, I don't. In another thread, we discussed this. Circumstances changed and so the priority of keeping him at Durham changed. Additionally, I won't again review why it is simple minded to consider financial considerations as if they are separate from team building.

    Suffice to say that it is akin to saying that because a student chooses to work at McDonald's after school rather than attending after school SAT review sessions, he is more interested in making money than in going to college.

  9. The Professor says:

    when did we ever say they were separate?

    quite the contrary, we have always maintained that we understood "why".

    on the other hand it is the team that treats the fans as "simple minded" for trying to convince us that money had nothing to do with it, when all evidence screams the opposite.

    we are just putting the truth out there for the real reason behind the way he was handled since it is not in the best interest of the Rays to do so.

  10. Robert Rittner says:

    We are about to get into some silly wrangling. The title "In the end it was all about the money" led us into a discussion of the validity of that phrasing and what in my view was its misleading implications. No need to revisit it now. You did say it was something like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, or something to that effect, and I agree although I think it is more insidious than that.

    As for the team treating fans as simple minded, I think that is also misrepresentation. As you say, it is not in their interests to be entirely frank; in fact, I think it would irresponsible for them to lay it all out and would be angry if they did. Or at least I would suspect that they were incompetent if they did. I don't think it is the same as them considering the fans simple minded.

    On the other hand, when a blog, which bears no such responsibility for tact or circumspection, assumes its readers do not realize there are motives other than those announced, it is talking down to its readers. It is certainly reasonable to point out the complexity of the issue and the multiple motives and reasons, but using yellow journalism techniques to call attention to one rather ordinary insight and suggesting the exclusion of more subtle motivations shows little respect for the readers.


Leave a Comment