Extending Adrian Beltre would be the wrong move for the Rangers

So Adrian Beltre wants a three year contract extension to stick with Texas past 2016. The Rangers, who understandably love Beltre, are presumably open to something like that.

If you don't think about it too hard, that seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I mean, how old is Beltre? 54? Maybe 55? Dude has been around forever. Since he was 19 years old. The year he debuted was the year the Marlins blew up their World Series winner from the year before. He replaced Bobby Bonilla after BobbyBo was acquired from the Marlins with Gary Sheffield, Charles Johnson, and Jim Eisenreich for Mike Piazza and Todd Zeile. The guy seems old, is what I'm saying, and it's increasingly difficult to justify giving old guys a three year extension in Major League Baseball.

But Beltre is 36 right now, suggesting that he's just entering his golden baseball years. His birthday, though, coincides with the Rangers' fourth game of 2016. Any extension essentially gets Beltre when he's 38 and older. Is that really a good idea? The short answer is "no, it is not a good idea." The longer answer is that, for as good as Beltre is, being good at 38 and beyond is exceptionally difficult.

First, let's acknowledge how amazing Adrian Beltre has been, not just in his 18 year career, but in the last six years especially. Among third basemen, he ranks sixth all time with approximately 84 Wins Above Replacement, according to Baseball Reference, just behind Chipper Jones, who he should pass in 2016. Moreover, he's been one of the best "old" players in baseball history. Through age 30, Beltre had been worth around 45 wins, which isn't too shabby. He'd won a couple Gold Gloves, and finished second in an MVP vote once, but had never made an All Star team. In his last six seasons, however, he's consistently been worth more than five and half wins per year, has a WAR of nearly 40, and has made four All Star teams.

Here's how Beltre stacks up to other players in the post-World War II era from ages 31-36:

I probably don't have to point out how amazing it is to be in that company, right? All nine of the other players on that list are inner circle Hall of Famers. As Beltre himself should be.

Some of these players are also very instructive, because they took a great deal of their value from their defense as well. Let's break that down. First, we'll get rid of Bonds, Aaron, and Musial, whose performance past this point was far more dependent on their offensive production. How did the other six fair from ages 38-40?

Ok, so that's not that helpful. Clemente died after his age 37 season, and Jackie retired. Mike Schmidt abruptly quit in May of 1989, when he was 39. The central takeaway from this list is that it's incredibly easy to hit a wall somewhere between 38 and 40. And the Rangers would be wise to avoid that. The wall, though, is much closer to 39 than 38. Ozzie was worth three wins in 1993. Schmidt was worth almost two wins.

Essentially, the Rangers' choice is whether it's worth paying Beltre for two or three years to get his production at age 38. Twenty-eight hitters have managed a WAR of at least 2.5 at age 38 since 1947, and barring a total collapse for Beltre in 2016, that seems like a realistic baseline. Given that the Rangers are already projected to have a payroll around $150 million next year, is keeping Beltre around at something like three years and $45 million worth it for a club that still has to find room for Joey Gallo and Jurickson Profar?

The answer, for me, is probably not. Beltre would have to play at a significantly reduced rate that makes moving him into a reduced role more palatable, or he needs to find somewhere else to play. Sadly, either way we'd see far less of Elvis Andrus touching Beltre's head. Which, to me, is worth at least a couple extra million bucks, but probably not enough to keep him around.