November 2008 Survey Question #1
Posted by Steve L. on November 10th, 2008 · Comments (21)
Please consider taking the following poll:
If You Were The Yankees, Which Of These Contracts Would You Offer CC Sabathia?
Thanks in advance. And, please feel free to add comments on your opinion in the comments section below.
Me? I went with 6 for 96 – and I would not do a penny more.
So I guess you just don’t want CC, because that anemic amount, only $16 million per season won’t get the job done. I see you enjoyed this 3rd place finish and out of the playoffs season.
i voted for 5/95, i woulda went for 5/100 had i seen it, but its all the same. Anymore than 5 years and its injury time
Just this morning, on X-M radio, I heard this thing about the Red Sox philosophy on offering contracts to free agent pitchers. As it was said, the Sox feel that you should only offer $1 million for each win that you expect to get from the pitcher.
It makes sense.
And, that’s why I think those who say they would give him 6 years at $120 million are missing something. You really think CC is going to win 20 games a season for 6 years in a row? That’s not going to happen. So, applying that Sox philosophy you’re grossly overpaying him with that one.
we need CC a lot more than the Sox do…
And, that’s why I think those who say they would give him 6 years at $120 million are missing something.
————–
Actually I would wager that they’re looking @ Santanta (6/137), or Zito (7/126) and basing Sabathia’s projections on those contracts. That’s the way they do it in arbitration.
the $1m per win makes sense, one of the few things that makes sense when discussing baseball contracts. But as always, when it comes to the owners, look for them to throw logic and reasoning out the window when pursuing FA pitchers
Steve,
Since we have the Steinbrenner Bank to dip into, I’ve always felt the number of years given to a player is more important than the dollars. I don’t like seeing players who can’t hit or pitch anymore still on the roster because of a contract signed 6 years earlier. So, the RS principle is good, but I would say it makes more sense for smaller market teams. I care more about years than money. 5 is ideal, with an option for a 6th. I don’t see this happening. But maybe if we threw some more money at him he would accept a year or two less, with an option.
Unfortunately, logic doesn’t have much to do with the process. The bidding starts at the Santana #s and goes from there. Factor in the Yanks desperation and rescources along with his Profound love for the West Coast–records are meant to be broken.
Unfortunately, logic doesn’t have much to do with the process. The bidding starts at the Santana #s and goes from there. Factor in the Yanks desperation and rescources along with his Profound love for the West Coast–records are meant to be broken.
————-
Exactly. If logic had anything to do with this process, we wouldn’t be where we are today in terms of what these guys get paid.
Owners are absolutely consistent 364 days a year in crying poverty. But that one day when free agency decisions are made, they go absolutely bonkers and break all the rules they swear they’ll never break again.
Count on Sabathia making Santana’s contract look reasonable.
When was the last time the Redsox signed a quality free agent top of the rotation pitcher??? $1M per win?!? The Redsox’ best pitchers have all come via trade. I give them credit for pulling off the Pedro, Schilling and Beckett trades, but they should button their lip on FREE AGENT ACE PITCHERS. CC’s agent is gonna ask for more than the $23M per yr Santana is getting. Big pitchers have historically been very durable. I compare CC to a young Boomer Wells. That huge lower body is the reason why they never get arm injuries. If the Yanks ink CC to a 6 yr deal he will be 34 at the end of that deal, the exact age they first brought on Wells in 1997.
If Steve were GM, he would field a team whose average hitter was Mike Cameron in 2008, and whose average pitcher was Joe Blanton in 2008, because he would never, ever be able to sign any free agent worth a damn.
But at least he wouldn’t have signed Carl Pavano (oh wait, $40 million over four years = $1 million per win if he averages 10 wins a season. I guess that would be a reasonable purchase under Steve’s plan. Oops!)
And I can guarantee you the Sox philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with ‘wins’. Other than the save, and perhaps batting average, the win is the most useless statistic in baseball.
Steve, you’re linked to RLYW. They’ve done fantastic cost-analysis of many possible Yankee targets this offseason. I would advise you to consult them, if you’re interested in a philosophy that actually makes sense.
AndrewYF, help me out. How many years and what salary would RLYW give CC?
They say 7 years, $127 million, based on projected runs saved above replacement, and a value of $5 million per each 10 runs (either scored or saved) above replacement level. If it’s closer to $6 million, he’s worth 7 years, $150 million to the Yankees.
Thanks AndrewYF
So, they say 7 years at $18 mill a year
and I say 6 years ar $16 mill a year
doesn’t sound like we’re too far apart – sans the fact that they would be willing to go seven whereas I would prefer to keep it at six
Sure, but that’s fair value at their projections…which apart from health, are rather conservative. And that’s at their rough assessment of $5 million per marginal win. We have no idea what the Yankees’ internal value assessments are, but can assume they are insanely high, especially with the brand new stadium.
And free agents, no matter what you try and do, are never fair value. Even the Sox know they have to overpay (Lugo, Dice-K, Drew…pretty much any free agent they’ve signed) to acquire the top talents on the market.
So I think SG (the guy over at RLYW) would gladly give Sabathia a Santana-like contract, and so would I (and reports are, so would the Yankees), especially seeing the Yankees’ need for him, and especially as Sabathia is likely to be the best free agent pitcher for some time to come.
For me, the years are everything: 4 years, $22 million per year.
Not enough?
4 years, $24 million per year. OK, $25 million.
But no more than 4 years, guaranteed.
Teixiera? Same thing. 5 years, $25 million a year. No more years.
Team options at reasonable rates at the back end, if a “longer term” fig leaf is necessary for Boras and other agents to save face.
If I’m the Yanks, I’d leverage the new revenue streams to offer an annual salary much higher than other teams can offer. This would have the dual purpose of driving up arbitration awards and free-agent salaries for other teams, and forcing more high-end talent onto the market. If would also force competing bidders to bid higher, thus wasting their resources if they win. Right now, teams have enough revenue sharing to keep their own best players, and to bid competitively on needed free agents. The only way to stop this is to force top players’ salaries much higher.
Get 3-5 top-top-top players at a total of about $100 million. Fill out the rest of the roster with $80-$100 million for the other 20 players. More farm players and bargains with value. It can’t be any worse than pseudo-title-contention with a roster loaded with former stars in their decline years.
As these top-top-top players hit 32-3, discard, rinse, and repeat.
That may work with Teixeira, who could still command a hefty contract at the age of 33 (and who has Boras as an agent), but it would never work with Sabathia. Why would a pitcher choose to take less guaranteed money in any circumstance? Sure, Sabathia would only be 32 or 33 by the end of this shortened deal, but who’s to say he won’t be a washed up Mike Hampton by then?
It would be nice if these fantasies worked out, but players have their own interests as well.
I am well aware that players have their own interests. What I’m saying is that the Yankees should pursue their own interests, and it’s likely not in their interest to guarantee him a 5th, 6th, and 7th year.
Sabathia won’t take $100 million for 4 years rather than $140 for 7? Make it $108 million for 4, or $112 million. Still no dice?
Then don’t sign him. Let his 5th, 6th, and 7th years be another team’s worry.
It is rumored he doesn’t want to play in New York. Fine. Let him go. I don’t want players who don’t really want to be in New York anyway, as is rumored the case with Sabathia.
Nevertheless, by making the offer, you will raise the price for whatever team finally does sign him, be it the Dodgers, Angels, whoever. It will be harder for them to retain other players of value. It will make it harder for them to sign other free agents, or trade for them, reducing the number of competitors for other talent. It will raise arbitration awards and make it harder for other teams to retain other high-level players.
Revenue sharing and the luxury tax have made it possible for other teams to retain more of their best players. Throwing in these shorter-term bombshell bids will affect the market, and in a direction that would be favorable the Yankees’ interests.
Not sure how that will work, other teams have shown they can win without super-duper high payrolls.
And they still will. But perhaps less often, and perhaps for not as many years with the same group of players.
The idea is to make it harder for them to retain their top talent while these players are still in their prime, and to make it easier for the Yanks to obtain them as free agents or in dump trades, without having to surrender top farm talent.
Think about the Rays having to pay through the nose for all of their young talent, while at the same time their talent base diminishes through the loss of the pick at the top of the 1st round, because they’re winning now.
Instead of contending for 3-5 seasons with the same group of players, it might be cut short after 2-3 seasons.
Instead of contending for 3-5 seasons with the same group of players, it might be cut short after 2-3 seasons.
———–
But that’s the way it has been for the past few years; witness the fortunes of the Tigers, Indians, A’s & M’s, to name a few teams.
There’s more than one way to build a team; maybe player A is allowed to leave through free agency, but the team has player B in the minors, or can move player C from one position to another, or can acquire player D in a trade… Or maybe player A is willing to stay at a discounted rate.