[2] Too late. It's like the Kris Benson contract after the 2004 season, which set the market for pitching artificially high. The difference being that Abreu is worth $19M/2 and Damon can fairly argue that if Abreu is, so is he.
[7]] Crawford might be, but I don't think Mauer and Halladay will ever hit the market.
You're right about the 2011 commitments though, and it's a concern, --but since the Yanks are in "win now" mode with the aging core players, I'd rather have Damon's bat around than Cameron's.
Even though I wouldn't give Damon more than 2 years, I don't see Damon falling off a cliff after 2010 either.
[9] I don't believe they are merely in a win now mode. I think Cash has both a near term plan and a long term plan. Otherwise, you over leverage on declining players, and I think that Cash is smart enough to know that the biggest threat this team faces is if all their aging players get old at once. He has held on to Hughes and Chamberlain for that reason. Anyway, winning now usually means never winning.
Mauer and Halladay may or may not become FAs, It would be imprudent to foreclose the option to sign one.
According to Cot's, they already owe $132,112,000 in 2011 without including Jeter and maybe Mo, and significant raises for players like Hughes and Joba.
If Jeter signs for $20 million per (some have suggested $25 mi) and Mo signs for another $15 (he may want a raise), the payroll would be approaching $170 million. Add in the raises to the young players and you are approaching $180 million, and that doesn't include a third starter if Hughes and Joba can't handle that role.
[7] Worry about what-if's when they happen. The Yanks can afford one player too many so why plan for one player too few? I say say sign Matsui (Thome) too. In all likelihood, one will get hurt and that will open a spot for Ajax or Jesus. Besides, I'm not convinced Damon is as awful in the field as one season would indicate. He's shown wild swings before only to recover.
[13] Who cares about money and the Yankees? They're clearing $200 million from ticket sales alone. Now add in everything they control at the new park plus TV rights. Money isn't an issue.
Winning is.
Besides, what better way to prepare for the kids than by having vets they have to push out of the way?
[13] again, I don't think Mauer or Halladay will hit the open market, but if they did, you really think Damon's 1 year paycheck is going to make landing either of those guys impossible? The Yanks will say, sorry, can't go after Mauer or Halladay because we went one year too long on Damon? Sorry, I just don't see that happening.
"Anyway, winning now usually means never winning."
What? Seems they just won now. I can live with that mentality every year.
[16] Signing both Damon and Matsui/Thome IS planning for contingencies and the best kind - very short deals to older players with youth on the farm just in case. This is exactly the off-season to make it happen. And Damon at $9 million in 2011 is hardly an impediment to Mauer.
[17] After what you just wrote in [13] now you're arguing this? Which is it?
[18] Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't know that.
I think the Yankees want the payroll to start trending down. That is what Cash repeatedly says and I believe him. Remember, he only wanted to give Posada three years.
[20] I think they'd be smart to keep the payroll under $200M - not just for saving themselves having to pay out the luxury tax, but because there is no guarantee butts will keep filling the seats.
[15] The Yanks care. They pay a fortune in luxury tax and revenue sharing monies, the economy sucks and isn't showing any signs of getting better (hooray 10+% unemployment!), and their shiny new Stadium didn't come close to selling out. A night at the park is fun, but with the way HDTV is, and how expensive a night at the park can be, more people might start saying "Screw it - I have more fun watching at home, and the picture is better". There is no guarantee butts will keep filling the seats. It wasn't in 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 that they sold over 4 million ticketsI think, if they are smart, they will expect ticket sales to go down, even with the drop in prices, and budget accordingly.
We all say "Money is no object" to the Yanks, but from the Beltran miss to the obvious moves to drop the payroll, and keep it lowered, I think it is.
"Remember, he only wanted to give Posada three years." Umm yeah, and how did that negotiation turn out? Or Rivera's? Every indication - when looked at through the lens of final outcomes - is that Cash is more likely to spend than not. CC, AJ, Tex proved the point all the more.
Not saying there's not a long term plan - I definitely think there is one. And smart opportunities to lower or hold steady on payroll I'm sure are always being explored (see: The Bullpen).
My new plan: overpay both Damon and Matsui for 1 year. Offer each $13mm for 1 year, take it or leave it. NO ONE will offer them anything remotely close to that per year for 2 (or god forbid more) years.
Worst case? One or both break down and are gone after the season?
Best case? One or both continues to (out)perform, "forcing" us to again overpay for a single year.
[21] And they went to arbitration with Wang instead of signing him to a deal - and now the talk is he'll but cut. Maybe that's a comment on Wang's ability more than the money - but I agree, the trend is clear.
And all this talk of paying Jeter $20 or $25M a season - for his decline phase - is ludicrous. Franchise icon or no - there's no way they pay him that much money to play baseball. Now I could see a creative contract, that paid him (let's say) what Posada was making in salary, and then he signs a personal services contract with the Steinbrenners to kick in once he retires, like (IIRC) Brett and Craig Biggio among others have done.
[24] ummm, I think Hal and Hank overruled him according to all media reports.
So your point is????
Damon, however, is not a lifelong Yankee like Po so he won't get the same deference.
Damon is not 29 like Teix or CC (or as good) and the Yankees don't need Damon like they needed a #2 starter in AJ.
Another thing has changed. They won the WS. So they are now in a position of strength in any negotiation and can afford to take more than the short term view.
[25] I hope you're right about Jeter's contract, but according to Francesa (who may well be TOOHA), Yankee sources have told him that they will give Jeter "whatever he wants."
Damon's 4 years as a Yankee:
144 G (some as PH), 102 RS, 74 RBI, 19 HR, .285 .363 .458 .821
These are very nice numbers for an average fielding CF.
They are not as great for a below average fielding, terrible throwing LFer.
I think we all like JD, and maybe we could count on these career average numbers? (or better?) for 2010. But 2011 scares me. Using the DH spot for a .800 OPS 4th OFer is not wise for a WS wannabe.
And while it souldn't drive the boat....
In 2012, assuming Jeter and Cano are still on the field....
We have over $120m invested in 6 players.
Pettitte, Mo and Po (and their quality) have to be replaced.
Then there's 16 other players to be had.
I hope Cashman relizes that you must always look for young-and-cheap to help balance our old-and-expensive. It can't drive every decision, but it should always be a back-of-the-mind philosophy.
[27] Any statement that begins with "according to Francessa" loses all credibility.
As for Damon, the Abreau contract is not a baseline for Damon because there is no way he is coming back for at a pay cut for two years. The Angels got anothert bargain with Abreu, but he isn't represented by Boras.
[29] Apart from Francesa, my sense is that Jeter will be overpaid. How much will likely depend on whether his 2010 season is as good as his 2009 season, as well as if Cash is permitted to make the call.
If you're right about Damon, offer him arbitration.
[30] Now you want them to guarantee Damon >$13 million for one year?
[29] Sorry, but the market is a powerful motivator and the market is flooded with weak fielding corner bats and DH's. Damon won't get more than $20 million over two years from any team.
[28] If they sign Damon for two and Matsui/Thome for one, Damon is the DH in 2011. There's nothing scary about that. He can still hit, especially at home, and he's very good hitting between Jeter and Tex.
[26] How is signing Damon for two years ignoring a long-term view?
[23] Just because they should keep the payroll under $200 million doesn't mean they will or that they have to. Do the simple math. Even with a decrease in attendance this year, they still cleared $200 million in ticket sales alone.
[31] And paid almost that in luxury tax/revenue sharing. If I'm one of the Steinbrenner children, I'm saying to Cashman, "Brian, is there any reason why we couldn't keep the payroll below the luxury tax threshold (IIRC now ~$170M) and still win?" To which Cashman replies, "No." At which point in time, the Steinbrenner children start counting up how much they could do with that extra money. While still winning.
Just saying . . .
I also think that any offseason plan to relies on a 35-year-old coming off an obvious career year to be hitting well at age 36, let alone age 37, is wrought with fail - especially when that "hitting well" is predicated on something we don't know will last (i.e., his crazy SLG at YS2.0). His SLG for the year at home was .533, way above his career .439. But note too that his post-ASB SLG at home was only .458 (before the ASB, it was .592) - much closer to his career SLG. There is absolutely no guarantee that Damon will SLG .500+ at YS2.0 next year, or at any time thereafter. In fact the evidence suggests he won't.
Short version - let Damon crater on someone else's roster.
The issue is NOT whether the Yanks can afford a payroll OVER $200m, it's whether they WANT to have a payroll OVER $200m. And I don't think they do. Even if not from a pure financial/profit point of view, I believe we want to start winning with a payroll at ieast 'in sight' of the next guy below us.
Anyone want to GUESS (no looking) what our 2000 payroll was?
[26] Uhh I think my point was pretty clear. Cash spends when he thinks it makes sense, both long term and short term. The overwhelming evidence is in support, no two ways about it. (And any media reports indicating why they caved to Po and Mo are either speculation on the part of the writer, or a leak from a player in the proceedings whose motives may not be worth trusting). Bottom line in *any* case, the Yankees spend when they want to.
More importantly, as Paul said in [31] "How is signing Damon for two years ignoring a long-term view?"
Precisely right. In fact, doing what I suggest, overpaying for 1 year, *is* taking a long term view. It let's the Yanks do the thing no other club can: have our cake and eat it too.
Look, the reality is that there are few if any no brainer long term deals to be done for the Yanks right now, which is what makes this so much fun. It's not like last year when CC, AJ and Tex were out there (and yes, I clamored for Tex throughout that offseason).
Other than a Halladay trade, or sneak-trade bombshell for King Felix, who's out there? Matt Holliday? Jason Bay? Sure there are pros and cons for each, but I'm not sold on either for the long term - not with equal, better, or at least very intriguing options coming down the pike in the next year or two.
Which is exactly why we can and should have our cake and eat it too. Let's spend the money we have for the short term (Damon and Matsui), develop kids for the long term (as players and trade chips), make the big trades and/or signings when it makes sense for the long term to do so.
Yes.
I think the Angels jumped the gun on Abreu instead of letting the market set itself.
I would hope that the Yankees don't use that contract as a comparable for Damon.
[2] Too late. It's like the Kris Benson contract after the 2004 season, which set the market for pitching artificially high. The difference being that Abreu is worth $19M/2 and Damon can fairly argue that if Abreu is, so is he.
[3] I would rather sign Cameron for one year than Damon for two years.
[4] I'd agree if Cameron were a lefty hitter, but Damon's left-handedness makes him preferable to me even at 2 years (max).
[5] preferable to me? that's not right, but you get the idear.
[5, 6] What if Damon can't play the OF in 2011 and Posada can't C?
What if Montero is ready but has to DH?
Their 2011 payroll commitments are already quite high (and that doesn't include Jeter and maybe Mo).
Mauer, Crawford, and Halladay may be FAs after this season.
I want max payroll flexibility.
[7] Damon really shouldn't play the OF in 2010, but I'm not worried about Posada or Montero, one of them will catch.
[7]] Crawford might be, but I don't think Mauer and Halladay will ever hit the market.
You're right about the 2011 commitments though, and it's a concern, --but since the Yanks are in "win now" mode with the aging core players, I'd rather have Damon's bat around than Cameron's.
Even though I wouldn't give Damon more than 2 years, I don't see Damon falling off a cliff after 2010 either.
[9] I don't believe they are merely in a win now mode. I think Cash has both a near term plan and a long term plan. Otherwise, you over leverage on declining players, and I think that Cash is smart enough to know that the biggest threat this team faces is if all their aging players get old at once. He has held on to Hughes and Chamberlain for that reason. Anyway, winning now usually means never winning.
Mauer and Halladay may or may not become FAs, It would be imprudent to foreclose the option to sign one.
[8] Damon really shouldn’t play the OF in 2010,
Right, so why even entertain the idea of a two year deal for yet another DH?
[10] an extra year of Damon (2011) wouldn't be a factor if Mauer or Halladay became free agents.
Damon's a serviceable fielder, and his left handed bat, his speed, and ability to work pitchers are a big assets at the top of the order.
[12] And you know that because?
According to Cot's, they already owe $132,112,000 in 2011 without including Jeter and maybe Mo, and significant raises for players like Hughes and Joba.
If Jeter signs for $20 million per (some have suggested $25 mi) and Mo signs for another $15 (he may want a raise), the payroll would be approaching $170 million. Add in the raises to the young players and you are approaching $180 million, and that doesn't include a third starter if Hughes and Joba can't handle that role.
Damon would bring the payroll over $190 million.
What if injuries or age require reinforcements?
So I strongly disagree with your assessment.
[7] Worry about what-if's when they happen. The Yanks can afford one player too many so why plan for one player too few? I say say sign Matsui (Thome) too. In all likelihood, one will get hurt and that will open a spot for Ajax or Jesus. Besides, I'm not convinced Damon is as awful in the field as one season would indicate. He's shown wild swings before only to recover.
[13] Who cares about money and the Yankees? They're clearing $200 million from ticket sales alone. Now add in everything they control at the new park plus TV rights. Money isn't an issue.
Winning is.
Besides, what better way to prepare for the kids than by having vets they have to push out of the way?
[14] That's ridiculous. Smart executives plan for contingencies.
No, Damon's defensive trend lines have been straight down for several years and he is now over 35.
[15] Wake me when the Yankees' payroll starts going up. I think it's apparent that it is headed down.
[13] again, I don't think Mauer or Halladay will hit the open market, but if they did, you really think Damon's 1 year paycheck is going to make landing either of those guys impossible? The Yanks will say, sorry, can't go after Mauer or Halladay because we went one year too long on Damon? Sorry, I just don't see that happening.
"Anyway, winning now usually means never winning."
What? Seems they just won now. I can live with that mentality every year.
[16] Signing both Damon and Matsui/Thome IS planning for contingencies and the best kind - very short deals to older players with youth on the farm just in case. This is exactly the off-season to make it happen. And Damon at $9 million in 2011 is hardly an impediment to Mauer.
[17] After what you just wrote in [13] now you're arguing this? Which is it?
[18] Exactly.
[19] They aren't merely a win now team. That's a large reason why they didn't trade for Santana.
The facts are otherwise if they want the payroll under $200 million.
And they can easily keep the payroll under $200 million.
[18] Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't know that.
I think the Yankees want the payroll to start trending down. That is what Cash repeatedly says and I believe him. Remember, he only wanted to give Posada three years.
btw, When the payroll is $250 million, I will concede the point.
[20] I think they'd be smart to keep the payroll under $200M - not just for saving themselves having to pay out the luxury tax, but because there is no guarantee butts will keep filling the seats.
[15] The Yanks care. They pay a fortune in luxury tax and revenue sharing monies, the economy sucks and isn't showing any signs of getting better (hooray 10+% unemployment!), and their shiny new Stadium didn't come close to selling out. A night at the park is fun, but with the way HDTV is, and how expensive a night at the park can be, more people might start saying "Screw it - I have more fun watching at home, and the picture is better". There is no guarantee butts will keep filling the seats. It wasn't in 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 that they sold over 4 million ticketsI think, if they are smart, they will expect ticket sales to go down, even with the drop in prices, and budget accordingly.
We all say "Money is no object" to the Yanks, but from the Beltran miss to the obvious moves to drop the payroll, and keep it lowered, I think it is.
"Remember, he only wanted to give Posada three years." Umm yeah, and how did that negotiation turn out? Or Rivera's? Every indication - when looked at through the lens of final outcomes - is that Cash is more likely to spend than not. CC, AJ, Tex proved the point all the more.
Not saying there's not a long term plan - I definitely think there is one. And smart opportunities to lower or hold steady on payroll I'm sure are always being explored (see: The Bullpen).
My new plan: overpay both Damon and Matsui for 1 year. Offer each $13mm for 1 year, take it or leave it. NO ONE will offer them anything remotely close to that per year for 2 (or god forbid more) years.
Worst case? One or both break down and are gone after the season?
Best case? One or both continues to (out)perform, "forcing" us to again overpay for a single year.
[21] And they went to arbitration with Wang instead of signing him to a deal - and now the talk is he'll but cut. Maybe that's a comment on Wang's ability more than the money - but I agree, the trend is clear.
And all this talk of paying Jeter $20 or $25M a season - for his decline phase - is ludicrous. Franchise icon or no - there's no way they pay him that much money to play baseball. Now I could see a creative contract, that paid him (let's say) what Posada was making in salary, and then he signs a personal services contract with the Steinbrenners to kick in once he retires, like (IIRC) Brett and Craig Biggio among others have done.
[24] ummm, I think Hal and Hank overruled him according to all media reports.
So your point is????
Damon, however, is not a lifelong Yankee like Po so he won't get the same deference.
Damon is not 29 like Teix or CC (or as good) and the Yankees don't need Damon like they needed a #2 starter in AJ.
Another thing has changed. They won the WS. So they are now in a position of strength in any negotiation and can afford to take more than the short term view.
[25] I hope you're right about Jeter's contract, but according to Francesa (who may well be TOOHA), Yankee sources have told him that they will give Jeter "whatever he wants."
Damon's 4 years as a Yankee:
144 G (some as PH), 102 RS, 74 RBI, 19 HR, .285 .363 .458 .821
These are very nice numbers for an average fielding CF.
They are not as great for a below average fielding, terrible throwing LFer.
I think we all like JD, and maybe we could count on these career average numbers? (or better?) for 2010. But 2011 scares me. Using the DH spot for a .800 OPS 4th OFer is not wise for a WS wannabe.
And while it souldn't drive the boat....
In 2012, assuming Jeter and Cano are still on the field....
We have over $120m invested in 6 players.
Pettitte, Mo and Po (and their quality) have to be replaced.
Then there's 16 other players to be had.
I hope Cashman relizes that you must always look for young-and-cheap to help balance our old-and-expensive. It can't drive every decision, but it should always be a back-of-the-mind philosophy.
.
[27] Any statement that begins with "according to Francessa" loses all credibility.
As for Damon, the Abreau contract is not a baseline for Damon because there is no way he is coming back for at a pay cut for two years. The Angels got anothert bargain with Abreu, but he isn't represented by Boras.
[29] Apart from Francesa, my sense is that Jeter will be overpaid. How much will likely depend on whether his 2010 season is as good as his 2009 season, as well as if Cash is permitted to make the call.
If you're right about Damon, offer him arbitration.
[30] Now you want them to guarantee Damon >$13 million for one year?
[29] Sorry, but the market is a powerful motivator and the market is flooded with weak fielding corner bats and DH's. Damon won't get more than $20 million over two years from any team.
[28] If they sign Damon for two and Matsui/Thome for one, Damon is the DH in 2011. There's nothing scary about that. He can still hit, especially at home, and he's very good hitting between Jeter and Tex.
[27] Yeah, cause, that makes sense.
[26] How is signing Damon for two years ignoring a long-term view?
[23] Just because they should keep the payroll under $200 million doesn't mean they will or that they have to. Do the simple math. Even with a decrease in attendance this year, they still cleared $200 million in ticket sales alone.
[31] And paid almost that in luxury tax/revenue sharing. If I'm one of the Steinbrenner children, I'm saying to Cashman, "Brian, is there any reason why we couldn't keep the payroll below the luxury tax threshold (IIRC now ~$170M) and still win?" To which Cashman replies, "No." At which point in time, the Steinbrenner children start counting up how much they could do with that extra money. While still winning.
Just saying . . .
I also think that any offseason plan to relies on a 35-year-old coming off an obvious career year to be hitting well at age 36, let alone age 37, is wrought with fail - especially when that "hitting well" is predicated on something we don't know will last (i.e., his crazy SLG at YS2.0). His SLG for the year at home was .533, way above his career .439. But note too that his post-ASB SLG at home was only .458 (before the ASB, it was .592) - much closer to his career SLG. There is absolutely no guarantee that Damon will SLG .500+ at YS2.0 next year, or at any time thereafter. In fact the evidence suggests he won't.
Short version - let Damon crater on someone else's roster.
Whether the Yankees should sign Damon or not, he will definitely do better than a $10mn annual salary.
[32] Who plays LF that's LH and can bat at #2?
[33] You know that how?
Any chance Nady comes back in '10?
[34] Because Swisher and his 100 BBs couldn't hit second?
[35] I say yes, due to my distaste for Bay's defense and Holliday's huge contract demands. Though if Holliday will sign a 5 year, $75M contract . . .
2/$20 is about the most JD will get.
The issue is NOT whether the Yanks can afford a payroll OVER $200m, it's whether they WANT to have a payroll OVER $200m. And I don't think they do. Even if not from a pure financial/profit point of view, I believe we want to start winning with a payroll at ieast 'in sight' of the next guy below us.
Anyone want to GUESS (no looking) what our 2000 payroll was?
[36] And who plays LF (or RF)?
Very apropo of the situation.
http://waswatching.com/
[26] Uhh I think my point was pretty clear. Cash spends when he thinks it makes sense, both long term and short term. The overwhelming evidence is in support, no two ways about it. (And any media reports indicating why they caved to Po and Mo are either speculation on the part of the writer, or a leak from a player in the proceedings whose motives may not be worth trusting). Bottom line in *any* case, the Yankees spend when they want to.
More importantly, as Paul said in [31] "How is signing Damon for two years ignoring a long-term view?"
Precisely right. In fact, doing what I suggest, overpaying for 1 year, *is* taking a long term view. It let's the Yanks do the thing no other club can: have our cake and eat it too.
Look, the reality is that there are few if any no brainer long term deals to be done for the Yanks right now, which is what makes this so much fun. It's not like last year when CC, AJ and Tex were out there (and yes, I clamored for Tex throughout that offseason).
Other than a Halladay trade, or sneak-trade bombshell for King Felix, who's out there? Matt Holliday? Jason Bay? Sure there are pros and cons for each, but I'm not sold on either for the long term - not with equal, better, or at least very intriguing options coming down the pike in the next year or two.
Which is exactly why we can and should have our cake and eat it too. Let's spend the money we have for the short term (Damon and Matsui), develop kids for the long term (as players and trade chips), make the big trades and/or signings when it makes sense for the long term to do so.