• Yanks Wanted Choo Before Beltran

    Posted by on December 18th, 2013 · Comments (3)

    Via Jeff Passan

    In the aftermath of Robinson Cano’s defection to Seattle, New York presented [Shin-Soo] Choo a seven-year, $140 million deal, three sources outside the Yankees’ organization told Yahoo Sports. When Boras countered asking for more money – one source indicated he wanted “Ellsbury money,” or $153 million over seven years – the Yankees pulled the offer and signed Carlos Beltran to a three-year, $45 million deal.

    Asked to confirm the Choo offer, Yankees officials declined comment.

    Good luck to Choo, if he thinks he can get a better deal than that offer.

    Comments on Yanks Wanted Choo Before Beltran

    1. Kamieniecki
      December 18th, 2013 | 8:36 pm

      By Wins Above Replacement, over the past four years, Robinson Cano has been the best player in baseball, but Cashman allows Cano to leave for Seattle while offering $293 million to Ellsbury and Choo, and replacing Cano at second with Brian Roberts. I guess this is a 16-year G.M.s attempt to follow the “blueprint” of a 2-year G.M. in Boston, but it isn’t going to work…

    2. Mr. October
      December 18th, 2013 | 9:09 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      … I guess this is a 16-year G.M.s attempt to follow the “blueprint” of a 2-year G.M. in Boston, but it isn’t going to work.

      “Cano was worth 7.6 Wins Above Replacement in 2013. McCann, Beltran, and Ellsbury were worth 10.4 bWAR combined. Losing Cano wipes out most of the gains made by signing the other three players, and while Cano will make $24 million in Seattle next year, [Cashman] will pay the other three $53 million.”

    3. Evan3457
      December 19th, 2013 | 12:25 am

      Cano was 7.6 WAR at Bref, and 6.0 WAR at Fangraphs in 2013.

      His average, for the last 5 years, is 6.8 at Bref, and 5.9 at Fangraphs.
      For the last 3 years, it’s 7.2 at Bref, and 6.6 at Fangraphs.

      And he’s turing 31, which means his prime is immediately behind him, and he’s likely to slowly decline from here for 3-4 years, then decline quickly thereafter.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.