l understand the total commitment over time will affect a team is budget, but people make some strange arguments.People will throw out the total salary numbers for a guy to compare his value to another guy whose contract is half as long. i.e. $30M over 6 years = $5M/year.$15M over 2 years = $7.5M/year.So saying the $15M guy is cheaper is senseless information to me.What do you guys think?

l agree it makes it seem a lot more worth than it really is. People who look at numbers would skip over the fact to look the number of years. Your have to look at the total salary of a team roster per year.

l think the biggest thing about baseball is that all that money is guaranteed. So long large contracts are a big commitment.

A salary does not equate to success. Teams overpay players all the time.

Either people are thinking over the life of the contract, or people just are not thinking clearly enough to understand what they're saying.

People are more and more simple-minded creatures every day.they do not like thinking through the numbers and working out averages.

It kind of pisses me off sometimes too.

l disagree, you have to look at it long terms. They are saving 15 million the next 4 years. What if that 30 million guy does not perform, the club is stuck with them for the next 6 years, while the 15 million can be out in 2 years.