• May 30th @ The Indians

    Posted by on May 31st, 2009 · Comments (12)

    Including this one, over his last 5 starts, CC Sabathia has pitched exactly like the “ace” that the Yankees expected him to be when they gave him $161 million for seven years (to play in New York). And, by many, many, reports, Sabathia has been a prince in the clubhouse – a lynchpin in the reported new and improved Yankees team chemistry.

    Yet, when I watch him pitch, I still don’t see him as a “Yankee” – yet. Maybe it’s because he’s an absolute mess in the way he wears his uniform? Maybe it’s because he’s only made 10 starts for the team so far? Maybe it’s because he’s the poster child for Yankees “throw money at a problem” solution method – and it’s hard to love a high-priced mercenary? Maybe it’s a combination of all three? I dunno…

    I’m just hoping this feeling goes away soon…because I really, really, want to like the guy…and I’m not feeling it yet.

    Now, on the other hand, Jose Veras…

    …can someone please tell me why this guy is still on the big league team? He was terrible in his last 21 games for the Yankees last season and he’s still terrible this year. Hey, Cashman, three words for you on this one: “Veras Must Go!”

    Comments on May 30th @ The Indians

    1. redbug
      May 31st, 2009 | 9:37 am

      I’m warming up to CC. He’s a great teammate, is buying a house in NY, says he’s fully committed to the Yanks and NY.

      My only but, and it’s a big one, is his opt-out clause after the ’11 season. Assuming he remains an ace, it’s all we’ll hear about, once again.

      If he’s all that committed, why not say he’s waiving the opt-out clause right now? I know, money. Well then, his committment is only good as long as it suits.

      Think Jeter, Mo or Jorge would include an opt-out clause? I don’t.

    2. MJ
      May 31st, 2009 | 10:05 am

      Maybe it’s because he’s the poster child for Yankees “throw money at a problem” solution method – and it’s hard to love a high-priced mercenary?
      ——–
      Not sure I’m following your logic here. You wanted the Yanks to trade Hughes (homegrown) for Santana (high-priced mercenary). Given the financial advantages the Yankees have, why would you want our favorite team to handicap themselves by NOT flexing their financial might?

      You’d rather develop your own stars instead of buying them? Hey, I’m 100% on board with that idea. That’s why I think the hating on Hughes makes no sense. We’re trying to do both, just like Boston does. To me, that makes the most sense and I’m surprised you don’t agree.

    3. MJ
      May 31st, 2009 | 10:08 am

      If he’s all that committed, why not say he’s waiving the opt-out clause right now? I know, money. Well then, his committment is only good as long as it suits.

      Think Jeter, Mo or Jorge would include an opt-out clause? I don’t.
      ———-
      If you were in CC’s shoes, would YOU waive the opt-out clause, knowing that it could cost you and your family millions of dollars?

      Don’t assume that Jeter/Posada/Rivera wouldn’t ask for an opt-out clause. When Jeter’s contract was signed, I don’t think anyone else had that type of clause. Posada didn’t have the market leverage to negotiate such a thing. As much as we want to romanticize those guys as loyal, let’s not forget that it’s a business and they’d take their business elsewhere if they thought they could make more money. After all, didn’t both Rivera and Posada use public declarations of “pay me or I’m gone” after the 2007 season? There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

    4. redbug
      May 31st, 2009 | 10:54 am

      After all, didn’t both Rivera and Posada use public declarations of “pay me or I’m gone” after the 2007 season? There’s nothing wrong with that at all.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      They did. But, remember, they wanted an extension prior to their last year. Cashman refused to negotiate. It ticked them off, especially Mo. Rightfully so. But when all was said and done, Mo barely looked elsewhere, if at all. And, Jorge was persued by the mets but stayed put w/ the Yanks.

      If Cashman had negotiated extensions, he would have saved money and a year off each contract.

    5. MJ
      May 31st, 2009 | 11:04 am

      And, Jorge was persued by the mets but stayed put w/ the Yanks.
      ———–
      Because the Yanks offered him the 4th year that he couldn’t get anywhere else.

      If Cashman had negotiated extensions, he would have saved money and a year off each contract.
      ——–
      Irrelevant to the larger point about your perceived loyalty of those three players with respect to the opt-out clause. Cashman paid them all at or above market and the Yanks could’ve saved money but what difference would it have made anyway?

    6. GDH
      May 31st, 2009 | 11:21 am

      All the talk was just wind and posturing. What choice did the Yankees have besides Jorge and Mo anyway? Expect the same with Jeter. The team will not let him go and Jeter knows it. The rest is a formality. After the last few years, I am very very happy to se CC in a Yankee uniform, no matter how baggy it is. And the opt-out can work both ways. If he does opt out, the Yanks get rid of the heavier end of their injury risk. I’m a little surprised that Tex doesn’t have one.

    7. Tresh Fan
      May 31st, 2009 | 11:50 am

      Well, all I know is that if I were Sabbathia I would’ve gone for the opt-out after 2011. Why not? Who knows where the Yankees will be then? Who will be on the team after 2011 (i.e. going into the 2012 season)? Rivera? Don’t think so. Posada? Probably not. Damon? Very unlikely. Matsui? Nope. Pettitte? No again. And will the Yankees be able to replace them?

    8. MJ
      May 31st, 2009 | 11:56 am

      @ Tresh Fan:
      I look at it less as a competition thing and more as a financial leverage thing.

      As to whether or not the Yanks will be able to replace them…yes, of course. In the case of Rivera (and perhaps Posada), the next player(s) to fill that role will have big shoes to fill. Matsui, Damon and Pettitte will be easily replaced, either by young players or by players who are not currently in our organization (trade/free agency).

    9. GDH
      May 31st, 2009 | 12:11 pm

      Tresh Fan, agree – and if the opt-out is exercised, it frees up more resources to replace other talent. IF (big if) Hughes, Joba, and Wang and Burnett comprise the rotation for the next few years, CC could be replaced as #1 either from one of these four or by a free agent. That said, my gut is that CC is comfortable in New York and is inclined to stick around, all else being equal. The Yanks are always going to do their best to field a competitive team.

    10. redbug
      May 31st, 2009 | 1:12 pm

      If Cashman had negotiated extensions, he would have saved money and a year off each contract.
      ——–
      Irrelevant to the larger point about your perceived loyalty of those three players with respect to the opt-out clause. Cashman paid them all at or above market and the Yanks could’ve saved money but what difference would it have made anyway?

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      It’s relevent because Mo and Jorge wanted to stay rather than take the free agency route. I especially remember Mo saying he wanted to finish his career w/ the Yanks and pitch in the new stadium.

    11. MJ
      May 31st, 2009 | 2:40 pm

      It’s relevent because Mo and Jorge wanted to stay rather than take the free agency route. I especially remember Mo saying he wanted to finish his career w/ the Yanks and pitch in the new stadium.
      ———-
      Maybe I’m cynical but I tend to take everything said with a grain of salt. Mo’s smart enough to know that the PR battle would be lost if he said he wanted to go elsewhere.

    12. June 9th, 2009 | 11:49 pm

      [...] if anything, this game makes me now feel better about CC Sabathia being a Yankee. Watching Beckett in this game, all could think about was the string of mercenary [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.