COMMENTARY

By Ken Rosenthal

updated 9:29 p.m. ET Jan. 21, 2005

The bottom line on Roger Clemens' astounding request for $22 million was this: The Astros never should have exchanged salary-arbitration figures with one of the greatest pitchers of all-time.

They should have reached a financial agreement with Clemens by Dec. 7, the deadline for teams to offer arbitration to their free agents.

Clemens, 42, almost certainly was not ready at that point to decide whether he wanted to retire or play another season. But the Astros could have bought more time by making him the formal offer of arbitration, with the two sides agreeing that he would reject it. Clemens then would have been required to make his decision by Jan. 8, or the Astros would have been unable to sign him until May 1.

If a deal had been in place — the Astros could have given Clemens the $13.5 million that they eventually offered in arbitration, plus incentives — the only remaining question would have been Clemens' desire to play.

Perhaps Clemens could not have made his decision by Jan. 8; he was still uncertain about his plans. But at least the Astros would have had cost certainty at a time when they need to replace center fielder Carlos Beltran and face arbitration with four other players, including right-hander Roy Oswalt and outfielder Lance Berkman. If such a strategy had offended Clemens, well, too bad.

"If his decision is to play or not to play, there's no reason they couldn't have signed him," an executive with another club said before Friday's signing. "They could have signed him (on Dec. 7); if he wanted to retire later, OK, he doesn't get the salary. But there's no reason it should have ever gotten to this point."

Which raises the question: Who is determining the Astros' negotiating strategy? General manager Gerry Hunsicker resigned at the start of the off-season, remaining as an advisor. Tim Purpura, Hunsicker's former assistant, is the new G.M. The team's front office also includes Tal Smith, an expert on arbitration. Yet, this is the second time this off-season that the Astros have failed to be pro-active in talks with a major star.

Owner Drayton McLane drove the Beltran pursuit, insisting upon negotiating with the player and his agent, Scott Boras, until Jan. 8. A better solution would have been to set a mid-December deadline for signing Beltran, a move that would have allowed the Astros to move on if no agreement was reached. By the time Beltran made his decision, most of the better players no longer were available. And with Clemens receiving an enormous salary it further complicates the Astros' restructuring.

It's was almost impossible to imagine the Astros going to arbitration with Clemens, but any agreement they reached with him figured to be close to the arbitration midpoint of $17.75 million. Maybe Clemens would have held out for such a number even if the Astros had approached him earlier. Maybe they did approach him and were rebuffed. In any case, as they did with Beltran, they've left themselves in a terrible spot.

MORE FROM BASEBALL

Baseball Section Front

Twins’ Mauer wins historic AL MVP award CTB: Mauer had truly historic season CTB: Did A-Rod throw cousin under financial bus? CTB: Red Sox willing to throw money into Lowell deal DeMarco: Red Sox should take measured approach CTB: Handicapping the Halladay chase Blyleven: Pitching to be had beyond Halladay   CTB: Dye open to move at first base CTB: Mets may play some games in Puerto Rico CTB: Future Hall of Famer Vizquel joins White Sox Baseball Section Front   Add Baseball headlines to your news reader: