• Yanks Want Jeter Cheap To Offset Cost Of Lee?

    Posted by on December 2nd, 2010 · Comments (23)

    Via Mike Lupica today –

    The fun with Derek Jeter and the Yankees really never stops and won’t stop until he and the Yankees reach an agreement, and we can only pray that it’s sooner rather than later.

    But sometimes it’s fun to make sort of a PowerPoint presentation out of it all.

    Except that as this story has made it through one round after another of silliness, you sometimes have the urge to call it a WeakPoint presentation, right?

    - The Yankees lose their minds because Jeter’s agent Casey Close gives me a four-sentence quote everybody is still talking about nearly two weeks later. Close manages to do that without hiding behind anonymous quotes, or declaring himself a source close – no pun intended – to both sides of the negotiation. I never heard that one before.

    Of course the word “baffling” is now the worst anti-Yankee slur ever uttered.

    So Close is the one accused of taking the negotiations public, ginning up the rhetoric, all that. Right. Sure he did.

    Except.

    Except now every time the Yankees sit down with Jeter’s rep or have a conversation with him, just about every detail ends up in the newspapers before the door closes behind Casey Close, or he hangs up the phone.

    Obviously, these stories leak themselves. Like the Yankees’ offer of $45 million – in those conversations they desperately wanted to remain private – must have leaked itself.

    - Just so you know: The Yankees don’t just want to cut Jeter’s salary because he’s getting older, or because he had his worst year. Or because his range has diminished – this at a time when you can actually see A-Rod calcifying in front of your eyes at third base – or because they don’t want to be saddled with another huge contract for an aging champion.

    They want to be able to sign Cliff Lee for an insane amount of money and then stand in front of their fans and say, Look, the payroll went down!

    They’ll want to tell you about how Javy Vazquez – another sparkling pitching acquisition – is off the books with his $11 million. And they’ll show you the money they save on Jeter. And, well, before you know it, it’ll be as if they went bought Cliff Lee at Target he’s such an incredible bargain.

    Not sure this is true, or not? When Cashman went out to correct his mistakes of 2008 by spending a gazillion dollars on Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira, no one cared about the impact on the total team payroll.

    Comments on Yanks Want Jeter Cheap To Offset Cost Of Lee?

    1. throwstrikes
      December 2nd, 2010 | 12:22 pm

      The writers who are taking the pay Jeter he earned it side of this debate are the same ones who complain the loudest about the Yankee payroll.

      Coincidence?

    2. Raf
      December 2nd, 2010 | 12:23 pm

      Not sure this is true, or not?

      Given that it’s Lupica, I’d lean towards “not”

      no one cared about the impact on the total team payroll.

      I can name one Yankees fan that seems to care about the impact on the total team payroll :D

      FWIW, the Yankees’ payroll in 2009 is less than what it was in 2008 and 2010…

    3. December 2nd, 2010 | 12:48 pm

      That piece was a new low in intellectual dishonesty, even for Lupey. The guy who has been complaining about Yankee payroll for at least a decade wants the Yankees to spend more? Please.

      Lupica never gives the figure Jeter is looking for, or how it’s 50-100 million off what the Yankees want to pay him. He never acknowledges that CC, Clemens and Giambi et al had leverage, and Jeter doesn’t. He never admits that comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth was obnoxious. He doesn’t seem to get that Jeter is no longer even close to being in Tulowitzki’s class anymore. He brings up 2009 Jeter stats, without mention Jeter’s .771 OPS in 2008.

      Lupica ends his idiotic screed by calling the Yankees “weak.” Funny, that’s what I think of a columnist who is so thin-skinned that he shuts off every possible outlet for readers to give him feedback to.

    4. MJ Recanati
      December 2nd, 2010 | 12:49 pm

      throwstrikes wrote:

      The writers who are taking the pay Jeter he earned it side of this debate are the same ones who complain the loudest about the Yankee payroll.Coincidence?

      Well-put.

      The moment one argues that Jeter should be paid whatever he wants, the license to criticize Cashman for his spending habits goes out the window.

    5. MJ Recanati
      December 2nd, 2010 | 12:50 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      That piece was a new low in intellectual dishonesty, even for Lupey. The guy who has been complaining about Yankee payroll for at least a decade wants the Yankees to spend more? Please.Lupica never gives the figure Jeter is looking for, or how it’s 50-100 million off what the Yankees want to pay him. He never acknowledges that CC, Clemens and Giambi et al had leverage, and Jeter doesn’t. He never admits that comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth was obnoxious. He doesn’t seem to get that Jeter is no longer even close to being in Tulowitzki’s class anymore. He brings up 2009 Jeter stats, without mention Jeter’s .771 OPS in 2008. Lupica ends his idiotic screed by calling the Yankees “weak.” Funny, that’s what I think of a columnist who is so thin-skinned that he shuts off every possible outlet for readers to give him feedback to.

      All of that.

    6. December 2nd, 2010 | 12:53 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Thanks. I forgot one thing to add. Lupica chastises the Yankee front for being anonymous sources to the media, and praises Casey Close for going on the record. But Lupica conveniently ignored that fact that, according to his Daily News colleague Bill Madden, it was someone close to the Jeter/Close camp, not the Yankees front office, that leaked the Jeter contract demands. Of course, he’s ignoring writing about the demands his own paper featured, too!

    7. BOHAN
      December 2nd, 2010 | 12:54 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth was obnoxious

      why is that obnoxious?? ruth was the face of the yankees during his time jeter is the face of the yankees during his time…. ruth brought championships jeter brought championships… maybe jeter was the player ruth was but its not like its comparing ruth and a scrub

    8. MJ Recanati
      December 2nd, 2010 | 1:02 pm

      Mike Lupica wrote:

      They want to be able to sign Cliff Lee for an insane amount of money and then stand in front of their fans and say, Look, the payroll went down!

      Actually I don’t think this point has any merit at all. The Yankees have unabashedly spent their money for as long as I can remember and have never apologized for that.

      It’s odd that Lupica would think that the Yankees are motivated by a sense of shame or, frankly, that most Yankee fans would even care that the payroll would’ve gone down. If anything, Yankee fans tend to complain that the payroll hasn’t increased even more over the years, as the laments for Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui showed us last year. Most Yankee fans like the payroll at $200M or more. Why would Lupica think otherwise?

    9. December 2nd, 2010 | 1:15 pm

      I’m starting to think that any Anti-A-Rod and/or Pro-Jeter comment is like chum for sharks when it comes to Lisa and MJ. ;-)

      Throw in Anti-Cashman for MJ too. ;-)

    10. December 2nd, 2010 | 1:19 pm

      @ BOHAN:

      You’re darn right I think it’s obnoxious. Ruth was the so-called “face of the Yankees” (a term I despise, BTW), because he was the greatest player in baseball. He literally changed the way the game was played. He didn’t get his rep based on these nonsense intangibles. Jeter was not only never the greatest player in baseball, for major parts of his career, he wasn’t even the best player on the Yankees. Or for that matter, the best shortstop on the Yankees.

      Jeter is a very good player. A first ballot Hall of Famer. But that’s never enough for his supporters. For Casey Close to compare him to Babe Ruth was laughable. And yes, obnoxious.

    11. December 2nd, 2010 | 1:20 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      Hey, I had your back the other day when somebody accused you of disaparging Brian Cashman by calling him an elf? ;)

    12. MJ Recanati
      December 2nd, 2010 | 1:32 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      Emoticons don’t soften your condescension and your patronizing tone is not at all appreciated.

      There was no need to throw in that comment since I only argued that Lupica’s point was poorly thought out. I didn’t mention A-Rod (whose name has absolutely no place in this discussion anyway) or Cashman and I don’t see why you did either.

    13. mwach1
      December 2nd, 2010 | 2:01 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:

      you and Steve kind of have this ‘Hannity & Colmes’ thing going on, don’t ya?

    14. MJ Recanati
      December 2nd, 2010 | 2:51 pm

      mwach1 wrote:

      you and Steve kind of have this ‘Hannity & Colmes’ thing going on, don’t ya?

      To be honest, I don’t watch Fox News so I don’t know which one is Hannity, which one is Colmes and what side either one takes on the issues.

      What I object to is being told that my positions are reflexively pro-A-Rod/pro-Cashman without giving much thought to the arguments themselves. I’ve criticized Cashman before. I disagreed with the Nick Johnson signing. I disagreed with the decision not to trade Eduardo Nunez and Ivan Nova for Cliff Lee. The Pavano signing was the height of absurdity. I have a greater degree of credibility than I think Steve gives me credit for.

      In any case, it hardly matters. If Steve wants to turn my comment about why Lupica’s argument had an apparent logical flaw into something about A-Rod or Cashman (or me), he can do that ’till the cows come home. It only further weakens his credibility and lends credence to the perception that all he knows how to do is bash certain members of the Yankees without much basis or reasoning.

      I will gladly entertain any rational debates about Brian Cashman or Alex Rodriguez, or any other topic for that matter. I own what biases I may have and I admit to them. But it’s very hard to debate someone that moves the goalposts in every argument and won’t ever fully admit to the origins of his so-called reasoned attacks.

      And, with that, I’m calling it a day. The last word is for Steve if he wants it. If not, I don’t give a shit either.

    15. December 2nd, 2010 | 3:37 pm

      For my comment, I quote The Joker and Comedian: Why so serious? This is a joke. This is all a joke.

    16. Evan3457
      December 2nd, 2010 | 5:42 pm

      Yanks Want Jeter Cheap To Offset Cost Of Lee?

      In a word…yes.

      And two more words: why not?

      And six final words: Lee’s market value is higher. Much.

    17. Evan3457
      December 2nd, 2010 | 5:44 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      That piece was a new low in intellectual dishonesty, even for Lupey. The guy who has been complaining about Yankee payroll for at least a decade wants the Yankees to spend more? Please.
      Lupica never gives the figure Jeter is looking for, or how it’s 50-100 million off what the Yankees want to pay him. He never acknowledges that CC, Clemens and Giambi et al had leverage, and Jeter doesn’t. He never admits that comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth was obnoxious. He doesn’t seem to get that Jeter is no longer even close to being in Tulowitzki’s class anymore. He brings up 2009 Jeter stats, without mention Jeter’s .771 OPS in 2008.

      Lupica ends his idiotic screed by calling the Yankees “weak.” Funny, that’s what I think of a columnist who is so thin-skinned that he shuts off every possible outlet for readers to give him feedback to.

      Correct in every particular.

      If Lupica says it, it’s automatically idiotic.

    18. Evan3457
      December 2nd, 2010 | 5:46 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      I’m starting to think that any Anti-A-Rod and/or Pro-Jeter comment is like chum for sharks when it comes to Lisa and MJ.
      Throw in Anti-Cashman for MJ too.

      In this case, it’s more like Lupica is an idiot. In every way, in every case. There’s no defending a man who is arrogant, will not take criticism, and is wrong 99 44/100ths % of the time.

    19. BOHAN
      December 2nd, 2010 | 5:59 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      Or for that matter, the best shortstop on the Yankees.

      he wasnt the best SS on the team from 96 to 2004?? when they won 4 WS and went to 6

    20. redbug
      December 2nd, 2010 | 6:19 pm

      I don’t know why this is being questioned as to whether it’s true or not. It’s already been stated by the “Yankee brass” that they don’t want to increase their budget. Whether they’re using Jeter to help them reach that point, I have no idea.

      Being so thin-skinned to use the word baffling as an excuse to start WWIII is something I will hold against George’s boys. There was no need to disrespect Derek Jeter so publically.

    21. #15
      December 2nd, 2010 | 6:32 pm

      Commenting from high atop my horse…..

      Lupica is a windbag needing to put a column out so I suggest his comments are not worthy of our comments. Whenever cry babies whine to me about the Yankee payroll…. 1) I give them the finger… The ring finger to be exact. We have what they all wish their teams had, a great string of playoff runs and a nice handful of championships over the past 15 years, and a couple of dozen plus over their history. There is no crying in baseball. And 2) I ask them this rhetorical question…. “What do you want the Yankees to do with the money their fans willingly hand over to the team?” ~ 4 million fans show up each year now, if they spend ~ $100 a head on average (a very conservative figure) for seats, parking, hot dogs, beer, foam fingers, etc… that’s $400,000,000. Plus, huge numbers of fans that don’t go to the game plop their fannies in front of the TV or radio night after night so the advertising rights are immense; Spring training is often a pre-season sellout, or close to it. In short, the Yankee fans support the hell out of their team in a manner that any team would love to have. Would the cry babies want the Stienbrenners to buy T-Bills or GM stock with the money? Would that make them happier? And, finally, 3) I remind them that the Mets swim in the same market, have the same TV potential, a new ballpark, etc… and yet they fail to create and perpetuate the same money-making machine and, most importantly, they fail to bring home the hardware. Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, Botox and several other teams in single-team markets could easily generate the cash for $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 payrolls, but they choose to pocket the dough or fail to spin the business flywheel like the Yankees have.

      I don’t give a damn about payroll beyond not wanting the team to go belly up like the Rangers did. I support the team, I go to games whenever I’m in town (heck , I travel back to NY in large part just to go to the games), I buy the MLB package so I can watch Yankee games (of which, much to my great displeasure, the Yankees get only a small piece).

      Just win baby, do it with class, maintain the winning legacy of this great team and keep trying to do it again, and again, and again. That’s all I care about. I don’t care if they pay (insert your most favorite or least favorite players name here) 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 million a year, as long as it doesn’t financially cripple the organization and produce a stretch like the middle 60′s to the middle 70′s, or the early 80′s to the middle 90′s. I don’t want to go through another one of those droughts in my lifetime.

      I hope like hell the Yankee ownership always has a thick enough skin to not be influenced by the whiners and talking heads. Spend what you can, and what you need to, and keep adding rings. Have you ever watched an MLB Network or ESPN show about a championship run from the 20′s, 30′s, 40′s, 50′s, 60′s 70′s 80′s or 90′s where they examined the details of the teams payrolls? No one gives a damn, and rightly so. Crying fades into the winds of history. HARDWARE LASTS FOREVER.

      Dismounting…..

    22. Scout
      December 3rd, 2010 | 9:45 am

      Alas, Lupica wins — he wrote his column to get us to pay attention to him, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

    23. Evan3457
      December 3rd, 2010 | 2:07 pm

      Scout wrote:

      Alas, Lupica wins — he wrote his column to get us to pay attention to him, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

      Too true. I fell for it again.

      On the other hand, I feel it a moral imperative to skewer Lupica at all opportunities.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.