Is A-Rod Worth $30 Million A Year?
From the “Keeping Score” column of the Times, with a hat tip to BaseballThinkFactory.org:
Since the Yankees acquired [A-Rod] before the 2004 season — after persuading the Rangers to continue paying a third of his salary — he has won one Most Valuable Player award and seems a lock to win another.
Indeed, Rodriguez’s 2007 season — he was hitting .316 with 52 home runs, 141 runs batted in and 84 walks with 15 games to play — is almost certainly the greatest year ever by a major league third baseman. Only Mike Schmidt in the strike-shortened 1981 season comes close to matching Rodriguez’s level of performance at the position.
His agent, Scott Boras, is baseball’s premier auctioneer, and he has made clear that it will take $30 million a season to get Rodriguez’s attention. Brian Cashman, the Yankees’ general manager, has said the team will not bid on Rodriguez if he opts out. Can any other team meet Boras’s asking price and come out ahead on the deal?
Rodriguez’s 2007 season will be hard to repeat, but even a sizable drop-off would leave him among baseball’s elite. Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus projected him to hit .303 with a .404 on-base percentage and a .601 slugging percentage next year, while playing a roughly average third base.
But he is 32, and although he is likely to age well — he has retained his speed and is remarkably durable — a decline over time is inevitable.
Silver, in an e-mail message, wrote that Rodriguez would probably drop off to an eight-win value in 2009, then have to move back to third, where he would be worth about five wins in 2010 and 2011 and four in 2012. He may be a good fit for a team like the White Sox, who field the banjo hitter Juan Uribe at shortstop, have a core of above-average players in place and play in a hotly contested division.
But is Rodriguez worth $30 million a year? Not close. Silver wrote that teams on the playoff bubble — those expecting to win 83 to 94 games — collect an additional $2.6 million in revenue for every extra game they win, on average. If the industry continues to grow at a healthy rate, those figures should increase by 8 percent a year.
Thus, if he played for a team like the White Sox, Rodriguez could be expected to generate $25 million of revenue in 2008, $24 million in 2009, $17 million in 2010 and 2011, and $16 million in 2012, for a total of a little less than $100 million over five years. He is hoping to sign for about 50 percent more, and perhaps with another year or two tacked on once he is well into his twilight years.
But the real way to make money in baseball is by developing young players and reaping the rewards of their production before they hit free agency. As with many auctions, the real winners of the A-Rod sweepstakes will be the teams that stay on the sideline.
Bottom line, I agree. It’s stupid to have 16% of your payroll – or more – tied into 4% of your 25-man roster. You wouldn’t do it with your fantasy baseball team and you shouldn’t do it with a real big league team either. Not if you expect to win.
This “x percent of your payroll” argument has been around since the Yankees signed Reggie Jackson, and to me it really doesn’t make much sense. Right now, A-Rod represents 14% of the Yankees’ total payroll (not including what Texas is paying, but you weren’t including that either). And it is absolutely crystal clear that without Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees are likely in third place in the AL East. So he’s worth 14% of the payroll, but not 16%? Please.
In ten years we will be reflecting on the career of one of the five best hitters to ever play the game. I really hope that I’m able to do that as a Yankees fan, watching #13 be retired and a new monument erected in Yankee Stadium III. Pay the man his money, and enjoy his incredible talent.
Pay him. He’s worth it and besides he’ll be generating revenue as fans come to see him hit 800 HRs and buy #13 jerseys.
The percentage of team salary is irrelevant. The Yankees need to decide what value any player brings back in revenues. Maybe better players bring in better crowds or the “star power” of a player is more attractive.
Silver’s $/win for a generic team might be accurate but only the Yankees’ experience matters.
Are the Yanks attractive (to fans and haters both) if they have a good won-loss record but a group of lunch pail players or is the team more attractive with stars? As with most things I’d guess there’s a middle ground where the revenues the Yanks attract are affected by both won-loss record and perception of their customers.
Um, you normally have to pay a large sum of money for the best players for your fantasy team.
How much do you think Jose Reyes is going to go for next year, assuming $240 for 25 roster spots? But he will be worth it, since he’ll get 80 steals. In a 5×5 league, that wraps up 10% of the scoring, not counting the HR and the average over the average shortstop he gives.
You’re looking at it precicely the wrong way. You have to pay OVER top dollar to keep the best players. Someone is going to have him, and that someone is going to benefit. The Yankees have very little limit on their payroll, and since their rotation is likely to be rather cheap next year, they can most certainly afford it. Without A-Rod, they save $30 million a year, but for what? Three Paul Byrds? Or two Jeff Weavers and a Juan Encarnacion?
This argument is ridiculous. To the Yankees, A-Rod is worth every penny they give him, because the alternatives are so god-awful.
And isn’t it true that the Yankees will not have to pay luxury tax for the first few years of their new stadium? They will be RAKING in the dough during those years. They can afford whoever they want.
Steve,
Let’s accept your premise and say that $30 million per year is too much for one player and conclude that the Yankees should not re-sign A-Rod.
If it is assumed that the Yankees want to compete in 2008, then those 8-9 wins above average that ARod provides have to be replaced.
One route would be to sign Mike Lowell to a three year $35 million contract and try to pick up some extra production at first base with a trade of say Tyler Clippard for Todd Helton or Clippard and say, Kevin Whelan, for Helton with a little salary relief.
Or, another route that they could go is to trade Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Humberto Sanchez in a package to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Cabrera and Willis are both arbitration eligible so they would end up probably costing about $18 million between them in 2008. Trading two pitchers (Hughes and Kennedy) in a deal and only getting Willis back would leave open a slot in the rotation so to fill that they could sign someone like Kyle Lohse or Bartolo Colon as a free agent for $16 million over two years.
Which option do you prefer — #1 or #2?
A-Rod is one of the few irreplaceable players in the majors. The Yankees have to resign him. The only way to justify losing A-Rod is if you can deal him for Pujols, another in that rarified zone of irreplaceables.
One of the myths about A-Rod’s tenure with Texas was that his salary prohibited the Rangers from acquiring pitchers. Not true. The Rangers simply acquired the wrong pitchers, such as Park to whom they paid over $50 million I think. And with the Yankees that is even more a non-issue.
Steve, you and me have been on the same wavelength on this for some time. And if the Yankees do not win a WS this year, and I doubt they will, what has Alex really brought here. I am not saying that all the team’s failures are his fault, far from it, but really, I root for the team first, a player comes way second.
I also worry about the ‘show’ if he approaches the HR record, more about him than the team, far more if it comes to that kind of a circus.
In fantasy leagues, everyone is under the same salary cap, and there is usually some decent talent available in the FA pool. Not so in real baseball. So the argument is not quite apropos.
Now, if you want to argue that it’s stupid to waste $30 million a year on one player because one player can slump, decline, or get hurt, and a more sensible strategy is to “spread the risk”, and bring in 3 good players to that hole, and two other for the same price, I’d tend to agree.
Hmmm…Lowell, a decent everyday firstbaseman, and a better, younger everyday centerfielder or rightfielder. Well, you can make a case there.
But those things aren’t on the market. Going from A-Rod to Lowell, even on a good year, is a 40-50 downgrade, and no guarantee that those other commodities will be available. (Are Hunter or Rowand really worth the $40 million/4 year deals they’re going to get. Before you can finish the word “redic-”, I say the magic words “Gary Matthews, Jr.” Is Andruw Jones worth $70 million/4 years? Alright, $64 million.) What about the firstbaseman? Care to pick up Helton’s contract? Sexson’s? What about a place to rest Jorge, assuming you re-sign him?
In this particular case, the unique unity of value trumps the general priniciples. I say, yes, re-sign him, using the savings from pitching to be achieved over the next 3-4 years to add him and Santana, if necessary and available. (Only thing missing among the Yanks pitching prospects is a serious LH starter.)
On the other hand, if jonm is right, and Cabrera is available, and if he wants to stay in NY, long-term (which he has said he does NOT want), then you can look into that as an alternative.
But in most cases, the principle is wrong here. A-Rod is an inner circle Hall-of-Famer, and those guys hold their value a lot better than the average player. Even increasingly crippled in 1965-8, Mickey Mantle’s OPS+ numbers were 137, 169, 148, and 141, and A-Rod takes care of himself a million times better.
If he does opt out, a lot of the Yanks’ success/failures will depend on who they replace Rodriguez with
R/G
TEX
2000: 5.23
2001: 5.49
2002: 5.20
2003: 5.10
2004: 5.31
NYY
2003: 5.38
2004: 5.54
2005: 5.47
2006: 5.74
These arguments about how much money to pay a guy seem to always center around two principles:
1) Can the team afford to pay one guy that much money, without compromising their ability to field a winning team.
and
2) Is it prudent to do so?
I simply don’t understand these debates. First of all, we are talking about the Yankees here. The Yankees have the money to pay him. They are not the Royals. They have whatever money it takes. They also have a lot of cheap homegrown talent. Wang, Cano, Chamberlain, Hughes, and Melky. I suspect Giambi and his giant salary will be gone next year. I believe Pavano will come off the books next year. They won’t be paying Clemens however many millions of dollars next year. SO the notion that signing A-Rod for $30million per is not affordable is bunk.
So what about prudent? Frankly…who gives a damn. It isn’t my money they’re spending? They could pay him a billion dollars a year and I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass. It’s their money, they can do what they want with it. It’s not like signing A-Rod will preclude me from going out for dinner to fancy restaurants.
He’s the best and most exciting player in the game right now by a long margin. He should play for the best (read: my favorite) team.
~~if jonm is right, and Cabrera is available~~
I don’t claim any inside knowledge about Cabrera’s availability, but, given the facts that he is going to become very expensive very soon and the attractiveness of a package of Hughes, Kennedy, and Sanchez, I would think that the Marlins would have to strongly consider such a trade.
It would be more prudent to pay $30 million a year to a young player like Cabrera than ARod in his 30s, but the question is:
Should the Yankees do that at the cost of three top-level pitching prospects?