• Nick Johnson 2011

    Posted by on August 11th, 2010 · Comments (15)

    Have you ever looked at Nick Johnson’s contract with the Yankees? Via Cot’s, here it is:

    signed by NY Yankees as a free agent 12/18/09
    1 year/$5.75M (2010), plus 2011 mutual option

    10:$5.5M, 11:$5.5M mutual option ($0.25M buyout)

    price of 2011 mutual option increases to
    $6M with 500 PAs,
    $6.5M with 550 PAs,
    $7M with 600 PAs

    price of 2011 buyout increases to
    $0.5M with 550 PAs

    performance bonuses:
    $50,000 each for 400, 425 PAs;
    $75,000 each for 450, 475 PAs;
    $0.125M each for 500, 525, 550, 575, 600, 625 PAs

    On the bright side, the Yankees won’t have to worry about those performance bonuses or option/buyout increases. But, for sure, you know that Johnson is going to take that $5.5 option for 2011.

    I guess that’s five-and-a-half mill less that the Yankees will have to play with in their “budget” for 2011.

    Comments on Nick Johnson 2011

    1. Jake1
      August 11th, 2010 | 3:51 pm

      It’s a mutual option Steve. That means both have to agree on it.

    2. Evan3457
      August 11th, 2010 | 3:52 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      It’s a mutual option Steve. That means both have to agree on it.

      Yanks probably won’t. I’d have to think. So, no option for 2011 if they don’t want it.

      We don’t really need to grieve on this “grievance”.

    3. Jake1
      August 11th, 2010 | 3:57 pm

      Another great choice by Cashman. If you were given your choice of Vlad, Matsui and Johnson how many would sign Johnson?

      Not like everyone didnt know he misses 140 game a yr

    4. August 11th, 2010 | 4:15 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      It’s a mutual option Steve. That means both have to agree on it.

      Ah, I assumed that mutual meant that either side could take it – instead of it just being a player or a club option. Thanks. Well, then, that’s better – as long as the Yankees don’t agree with Nick and give him another year.

    5. August 11th, 2010 | 4:16 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      We don’t really need to grieve on this “grievance”.

      You’re not grieving giving him $5.75 mill, overall, for this year’s production? ;-)

    6. August 11th, 2010 | 4:18 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      Another great choice by Cashman. If you were given your choice of Vlad, Matsui and Johnson how many would sign Johnson?

      But, Nick’s an On Base Machine! ;-)

    7. PhilYagoda
      August 11th, 2010 | 4:41 pm

      Anyone claiming after the fact that Guerrero should have been signed is 100% disingenuous. He was left for a corpse. Matsui is having a bad year and wouldn’t have contributed much more than Johnson has to this offense, and would only have locked up the DH position. Johnson was a bad signing but $5.75 million is nothing to get worked up about considering the Yankees’ ability to eat mistakes and their payroll capabilities. Johnson’s gone next year, big deal, move on. Hardly made a difference.

    8. MJ Recanati
      August 11th, 2010 | 5:14 pm

      PhilYagoda wrote:

      Anyone claiming after the fact that Guerrero should have been signed is 100% disingenuous. He was left for a corpse. Matsui is having a bad year and wouldn’t have contributed much more than Johnson has to this offense, and would only have locked up the DH position. Johnson was a bad signing but $5.75 million is nothing to get worked up about considering the Yankees’ ability to eat mistakes and their payroll capabilities. Johnson’s gone next year, big deal, move on. Hardly made a difference.

      Absolutely right.

    9. August 11th, 2010 | 5:26 pm

      Hey, if you want to play the “What if?” game, the Yankees signed Nick Johnson for $5.75 million and the Giants signed Aubrey Huff for $3 million. Who is having the better year this season? Have you seen Huff’s stats. Oh, in a pinch, Huff can play a little 3B and OF too.

      It’s called scouting. It’s called analysis. And, it’s called forecasting.

      That’s what you want your front office to do well: scout/analyze/forecast

      Obviously, the Yankees/Cashman did not do this when it came to Nick Johnson.

    10. August 11th, 2010 | 5:29 pm

      PhilYagoda wrote:

      Johnson’s gone next year, big deal, move on. Hardly made a difference.

      To date, the Yankees only have 50 RBI this season from their DH position. Doesn’t that make a difference – considering their offense has been hurting lately?

    11. Evan3457
      August 11th, 2010 | 7:02 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      We don’t really need to grieve on this “grievance”.
      You’re not grieving giving him $5.75 mill, overall, for this year’s production?

      Well, maybe a little. But I did say, before the season started, it was 50/50 he’d play 90 games this year.

    12. Evan3457
      August 11th, 2010 | 7:21 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      Another great choice by Cashman. If you were given your choice of Vlad, Matsui and Johnson how many would sign Johnson?
      Not like everyone didnt know he misses 140 game a yr

      Matsui’s overall production for the season is about the same as Granderson’s.

      Matsui: .243/.325/.401/.726 OPS+ 95
      Granderson: .239/.306/.415/.721 OPS+ 97

      (Matsui has 24 more RBI, primarily because he has 80 more AB and he bats 4th-5th for the Angels, whereas Granderson’s batted mostly at the bottom of the Yankee order. Granderson has scored 14 more runs, primarily because he’s on base when Jeter, Swisher and Tex come up.)

      Matsui’s WPA is actually negative so far this year (-0.05), and his WAR is 0.0. In other words, Matsui has hit like a replacement DH a team could get on waivers.

      ========================================

      Vlad is another story. By the end of last season, Vlad was hitting so poorly that nobody wanted him. People were writing stories saying he was just about finished.

      He was 34, his bad knees had limited him to barely over 100 games, and it seemed like he could no longer catch up with a good fastball anymore. He was a cheap sign for the Rangers because no one else wanted him, despite any number of teams needing a decent DH (White Sox, Mariners, Tigers, Rays). The Rangers gambled and won, just like the Angels did with Abreu in 2009.

      In any event, the Yanks wanted a high OBP, #2 type hitter. Vlad is a good hitter, but he isn’t one of those. Damon is, but Boras/Damon demanded more than the Yanks wanted to pay in $$$ and years.

      So they took the gamble on Johnson, and it didn’t work. The Yanks have had mediocre work at DH this season. The raw numbers look bad, but the league ranks are:

      8th in BAVG (.244)
      4th in OBA (.346)
      T9th in SLG (.408)
      6th in OPS (.754)
      T6th in OPS+ (105)
      3rd in runs (59)
      8th in RBI (50)
      8th in HR (13)
      9th in EBH (36)

      So yes, overall the DH spot has hurt them this year, more with respect to past years than with respect to the league.

    13. Evan3457
      August 11th, 2010 | 7:56 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Hey, if you want to play the “What if?” game, the Yankees signed Nick Johnson for $5.75 million and the Giants signed Aubrey Huff for $3 million. Who is having the better year this season? Have you seen Huff’s stats. Oh, in a pinch, Huff can play a little 3B and OF too.
      It’s called scouting. It’s called analysis. And, it’s called forecasting.
      That’s what you want your front office to do well: scout/analyze/forecast
      Obviously, the Yankees/Cashman did not do this when it came to Nick Johnson.

      Aubrey Huff is the same thing as Guerrero. People were saying he looked finished when he put up a line of .241/.310/.384/.694/OPS+ 81 last year. He was 32 years old, and if the Yanks had signed HIM to be the DH, people would’ve been screaming and yelling about that move, too.

      =======================================
      Lookit, the Giants didn’t get Aubrey Huff to have his big year by outscouting, outanalyzing, and outforecasting. Everybody in baseball knew who Aubrey Huff was. He had been in the majors for 10 years. If it was THAT obvious that Huff was going to have a big comeback, why didn’t the Rays sign him for $3.1 million? Or the White Sox? Or the Angels? Or the Mariners? They all needed a DH, too.

      If the Giants are such geniuses when it comes to scouting/analyzing/forcasting hitting, why have they been among the worst offenses in baseball every year since 2004? Why has just about every move they’ve made since then to get a hitter backfired?

      No, I’m sorry. The Giants beat the odds and got very, very lucky with Huff. Not in the sense that he can’t do this again, but in the sense that most free agents most years disappoint the teams that sign them.

      Well, maybe they were due for a break, having whiffed on a number of hitters the last few seasons.

    14. August 11th, 2010 | 8:16 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      So, I think I get it…

      Other GM makes great move = luck
      Other GM makes bad move = stupidity
      Cashman makes great move = genius
      Cashman makes bad move = bad luck

      is that it? ;-)

    15. Evan3457
      August 12th, 2010 | 1:41 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      So, I think I get it…
      Other GM makes great move = luck
      Other GM makes bad move = stupidity
      Cashman makes great move = genius
      Cashman makes bad move = bad luck
      is that it?

      No, just pointing out two things:

      1. The lesser one is that I find it hard to believe the Giants have any special scouting, analysis and projection skills on hitters. If they do, they’ve done a brilliant job of hiding/disguising/ignoring it since 2004.

      2. The larger one is that, like it or not, the majority of free agent signings don’t work out as well as the teams signing the free agents hope. In this case, yes, the Giants got lucky. If you don’t believe in Cashman, or me, then you should believe in Rays’ GM Friedman. His scouts and analysts have an excellent, well-deserved reputation, saw Huff up close for 18-19 games a year in the same division since 2007, and even though his team has needed a quality DH since Burrell spit the bit last year, they didn’t pony up $3.1 million to lure Huff away from the Giants. Think about that for awhile.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.