He wasn't even really theirs at all. When your friend lets you drive his Ferrari to the grocery store, it's not briefly yours. I'm sure it's just me, but the whole Brewers renting Sabathia thing just seemed unsatisfying. If I was a Brewers fan, I would have had mixed feelings about a championship under those circumstances.

I don't think this offer gets it done.

Meh. $140m won't even cover CC's grocery bills over the next 6 years.

According to Pete Abraham, Hank Steinbrenner wants to sign Sabathia, Burnett and Lowe.

It's the 2004 offseason all over again. ####### idiots.

Called it.

Seriously, 6/140? What ever.

Beano says the Dodgers are going to beat this offer by offering 6/120 + a 49% stake in ownership.

It's the 2004 offseason all over again. ####### idiots.

CC Sabathia is like 10 years younger than Randy Johnson was in '04. They should certainly be going after Tex over Burnett/Lowe, but the CC thread doesn't seem the right place to complain.

Burnett or Lowe would be a mistake unless they are back-up plans for CC. Why not just re-up Pettitte for another year?

Milwaukee should have pitched him every game. Twice on Sundays (whether there was a game or not!).

Cue the series of columns lamenting how the Yankees have an unfair advantage, haves vs. have-nots, etc., none of which mention that the Yankees are a third place team that hasn't won a championship in several years.

Burnett or Lowe would be a mistake unless they are back-up plans for CC.

If they are looking to sign another pitcher other than CC, and I think they should, and Moose is going to retire, I think these two are the best options out there.

Why not just re-up Pettitte for another year?

I don't like Pettitte, so that may be clouding my thinking, but I think his days as a useful starter are about over. He was pretty lousy in the second half. That being said, his K rate went up a bit, and the rest of his numbers looks stable, so maybe I'm just overreacting and he's still the same 105 ERA+ pitcher he has been.

I really really hope CC doesn't sign with NY.

Agree with CP on Lowe and Burnett. They're fine options if you need starting pitchers. Disagree on Pettitte, who I think is a great value. But maybe the Yankees have some sneaky inside information that I've been hearing so much about lately. :)

I don't think the Yankees are foolish if they don't sign Tex. There are legitimate reasons not to want to sign up a 1B for that kind of money/years. (There are obviously reasonable arguments in the other direction, of course.)

Has it not occurred to anybody that CC could easily return to his 2004-05 form (ERA+s of 106 and 104), or for that matter his 2008 with Cleveland (116)? Do you really want to spend $140M on a slightly-above-average innings-eater with a huge injury potential?

slightly-above-average innings-eater

To paraphrase Hans Gruber of Die Hard fame, "He's an extraordinary eater." And, not just of innings.

Evil will always win because good is dumb. - Darth Helmet

They should certainly be going after Tex over Burnett/Lowe, but the CC thread doesn't seem the right place to complain.

I think the Yankees are engaging in a clever bit of signalling with the LA clubs.

NY clearly wants CC, LAA wants Tex, and LAD wants Manny. NY is the most likely alternative destination for Tex and maybe Manny. Both LAs could be strong bidders for CC.

By trading for Swisher, and publicly denying their ability to get two premier FAs, the Yankees are sending the signal to the LA teams, don't go hard for our guy, and we won't go hard after yours, and we'll all end up with what we want at a lower price.

By trading for Swisher, and publicly denying their ability to get two premier FAs, the Yankees are sending the signal to the LA teams, don't go hard for our guy, and we won't go hard after yours, and we'll all end up with what we want at a lower price.

What about the other 27 teams?

I'd be surprised if this gets it done. You can do better, CC! Hold out for the bigger bucks!

What about the other 27 teams?

Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything, but we're not talking 27 teams. CC, Tex, and Manny are all $20M+ players, looking for long deals (relative to age). The effective market is much smaller than that.

For CC, we're talking LAA, LAD, NYY, CHC, BOS, MIL (at a big discount), NYM (maybe, but unlikely).
For Tex, LAA, NYY, BAL, WSN
For Manny, LAD, NYY, CHC (?), PHI (?)

If NYY, and the LAs can get their signalling right, they really limit the market for their coveted players.

I think CLE may make a move on Ramirez.

I think CLE may make a move on Ramirez.

You think they beat the Dodgers' offer? Or do you think he takes less per year for more years?

I can't see CLE going 3/75 or 4/100.

Has it not occurred to anybody that CC could easily return to his 2004-05 form (ERA+s of 106 and 104), or for that matter his 2008 with Cleveland (116)? Do you really want to spend $140M on a slightly-above-average innings-eater with a huge injury potential?

I don't think there's a realistic possibility that he'll revert to his 2004-05 form. His control has improved dramatically since then: 1.83 BB/9 over the past 3 seasons, compared to 3.14 in 2004-2005. Considering that he seems to be either at or approaching his peak, what are the odds that he just completely loses it and goes back to pitching like he did when he was 23?

And as for his 2008...his first 4 starts really skew his numbers. From April 22 until his trade to the Brewers on July 2, he put up a 2.16 ERA with 109 K's and 20 BB in 104 1/3 IP.

You think they beat the Dodgers' offer? Or do you think he takes less per year for more years?

The second one. When Ramirez was traded, I predicted that he would go to CLE, but he hit so well in LA that he changed the calculus. The market crisis may have as well, for some owners.

Still, he fits the Indians' on-field needs very well, and it would make a good story/pr-angle.

I do think Sabathia will sign with NYY and Teixeira will stay with the Angels.

I don't think the Yankees are foolish if they don't sign Tex. There are legitimate reasons not to want to sign up a 1B for that kind of money/years. (There are obviously reasonable arguments in the other direction, of course.)

I said this yesterday, so I obviously agree. Both Sheehan and Goldman think Teixeira should be the #1 target, and some of the Yankee guys here--Good Face and CP, for example-seem to feeel the same way.

Has it not occurred to anybody that CC could easily return to his 2004-05 form (ERA+s of 106 and 104), or for that matter his 2008 with Cleveland (116)? Do you really want to spend $140M on a slightly-above-average innings-eater with a huge injury potential?

When you have to cite either four-year-old numbers, or cherry-picked partial seasons, it's usually a good sign that you're not making a strong argument. Likewise with the "second most durable pitcher in MLB is huge injury risk because of his durability" argument.

Obviously Sabathia comes with downside risk. He also comes as one of the five best pitchers in baseball, and the second most durable. And if the first half of 2008 can mark his downside, then you'd have to accept that the second half of 2008 shows he has Greg Maddux upside.

Cue the series of columns lamenting how the Yankees have an unfair advantage, haves vs. have-nots, etc., none of which mention that the Yankees are a third place team that hasn't won a championship in several years.

I'm missing some irony here, right? After winning four titles in five years, then winning the division for another six years in a row, the Yankees miss the playoffs once -- with a record that would have won the NL West handily and had them neck and neck for the AL Central. 90% of the teams in baseball have fans who would commit crimes for that kind of run.

Rosenthal writes "While the Yankees' initial offer to Sabathia is significant, sources indicate that he almost certainly will not accept it."

I suppose it's not exactly news that a player wouldn't take a team's first offer, but I am curious what CC's goal with this offer is. Does he know that the Yankees will pay more and just tell them to cough up more? Does he shop it with the teams(s) he would prefer to play for and try to get their best offer?

CC thinks, rightly, that he can get a lot more than 6/140. I think I projected him around 8/200 in September.

90% of the teams in baseball have fans who would commit crimes for that kind of run

The exceptions are Rangers fans who all start watching football in late July, Marlins fans who have forgotten the team exists, and Mariners fans who are simply extremely law-abiding :)

there's only one team that could go to 8/200, and they just offered 6/140. at the same, it's not necessarily fuzzy logic that NYY goes up and over, should the negotiator on the other side of the table have the skill set to paint the right picture.

there's only one team that could go to 8/200, and they just offered 6/140.

Disagree. I think at least five clubs could match that, and probably more. They may not want to, but the money is definitely there. The recession may cut into things somewhat, but we're starting from a baseline of massive profits and one of the largest gaps between revenue growth and salary growth in the union era.

Who's #1 in durability, Matt Clement?

I've seen all the comments from BeanoCook around here, and cannot believe the tightwad Yankees would offer such an insulting low-ball position compared to all the big-budget teams that actually have a chance to sign him. The real bidding is going to start at at least 2342/23423423423.

Who's #1 in durability, Matt Clement?

Let me fix this:

Who's #1 in durability? Matt Clement?

let me correct myself: there's only team that WOULD go to 8/200

I was thinking of Roy Halladay. As usual, I should look things up - I didn't remember that his 2004 DL stint was for shoulder issues.

I don't think the Yankees are foolish if they don't sign Tex. There are legitimate reasons not to want to sign up a 1B for that kind of money/years.

Yes -- it could be Giambi all over again (except that Giambi could still hit last year, but that's not the point). But I can already tell you that next season, unless Swisher has a breakout season, they'll be looking for another bat, and possibly a first baseman. And there won't be anyone as good as Tex out there for them.

It's 2004 all over again in that they're ignoring an opportunity to fill a hole in their lineup with about as perfect a player to fill it as there is, while focusing on starting pitching, which shouldn't be their top priority.

I'll all for signing Sabathia, but Burnett and Lowe is Wright and Pavano again. Sign Sabathia, sign Pettitte for one year, here's your rotation:

Sabathia
Wang
Pettitte
Chamberlain
Hughes

I'd be very happy with that rotation. Except for injuries, the only problem that's forseeable is if Hughes is still struggling, and fiddling around with your fifth starter isn't a killer problem. Certainly not worth leaving a gaping hole in your lineup all season over.

they'll be looking for another bat, and possibly a first baseman. And there won't be anyone as good as Tex out there for them.

Unlike 2004, however, the Yanks actually have attractive prospects to trade for first base or other positional help. Possible targets include Adrian Gonzales (perhaps he's untouchable but the Padres are in rebuilding mode and need young players for their anemic system) or Holliday when the A's are out of it at the deadline.

Unlike 2004, however, the Yanks actually have attractive prospects to trade for first base or other positional help.

But why would they trade young talent, which they have some, but not a lot of, on a good option when they can just spend money, which they have a ton of, on a great option?

Is Moose definitely retiring? If I'm them I try to sign CC and sign Pettite to a one year deal and try to sign Moose to a one year deal. Pay a little more for the luxury of having a one year contract. I suppose he may turn any offer down, but I kind of doubt it.

But why would they trade young talent, which they have some, but not a lot of, on a good option when they can just spend money, which they have a ton of, on a great option?

The logical conclusion I can reach is that the Yankees think Tex will be way overpriced, and they want the Angels out of the market for CC (which they will be if they sign Tex).

But why would they trade young talent, which they have some, but not a lot of, on a good option when they can just spend money, which they have a ton of, on a great option?

It's not a strategy I like, but the point is that if the Yanks direct money only to pitching, they still have ways to improve their positional needs unlike in 2004 when passing on Beltran meant they'd have a gaping hole in center for a while. If the Yanks are going to go crazy over pitching and pick up three pitchers, then all that young pitching talent in their system is blocked and is expendable. Also, I think there is another key difference. Beltran threw himself at the Yanks in 2004 and the team stupidly turned its back. In this case, it seems that the Angels are favorites to bring Texeira back. The Yanks could very well be targeting whom they think they're most likely to get.

Also, I'd say Adrian Gonzalez (who I admit is probably not available) is as great an option as Tex at this point.

That the Yankees are bidding like crazy on pitchers looks to me like they already know Mussina will retire and Pettite won't be back.

If the Yanks are going to go crazy over pitching and pick up three pitchers, then all that young pitching talent in their system is blocked and is expendable.

I'm so excited to trade away the potential of Phil Hughes to get the awesomeness of Derek Lowe and AJ Burnett. It's such an awesome possibility, I can hardly contain myself. I mean, you'll never find pitchers of that caliber on the free agent market again for the rest of your life, assuming of course that you die before next offseason. And I think it's clear that Phil Hughes has proven he'll never been anything more than a sucky pitcher.

Sign CC, sign Tex, sign Pettitte for one season, there's their best possible team for 2009. And if Phil Hughes develops at the ripe old age of 23, you have the best starting rotation in baseball and a very good lineup.

Sign CC, Lowe and Burnett and put Swisher at 1B, you have a decent rotation, and a decent lineup (assuming Cano, Posada and Swisher bounce back and nobody else declines...). You are exceptional nowhere, and you are a third place team.

Has it not occurred to anybody that CC could easily return to his 2004-05 form (ERA+s of 106 and 104), or for that matter his 2008 with Cleveland (116)? Do you really want to spend $140M on a slightly-above-average innings-eater with a huge injury potential?

When you have to cite either four-year-old numbers, or cherry-picked partial seasons, it's usually a good sign that you're not making a strong argument. Likewise with the "second most durable pitcher in MLB is huge injury risk because of his durability" argument.

I'm not saying a collapse is likely; CC is will probably be a very good pitcher for years to come. But every year, very good pitchers sign big contracts and (a) get hurt, (b) become ordinary or worse, or (c) get hurt, then become ordinary or worse. Pitching is hard, and one hundred forty million dollars is a significant amount of money.

Pitching is hard, and one hundred forty million dollars is a significant amount of money.

Yes, there is risk. But there is also HUGE upside, which is what makes it worth the risk. And for the Yankees, money isn't as big a stumbling block.

The only way to avoid risk is to never give anyone a big contract, which will make you a lousy team until that one season where all your prospects pan out at once. But if you want to get an ace that you haven't developed, it's going to be risky.

I'm so excited to trade away the potential of Phil Hughes to get the awesomeness of Derek Lowe and AJ Burnett

Not that I don't prefer your plan, but there's a very good possibility that the Yanks will not get Tex even if they blow him away with the best offer. Also, you don't acknowledge that Hughes and all his awesome potential might actually get the Yanks something decent in a trade. Or do you think he'll be traded away for Rick Rhoden?

By trading for Swisher, and publicly denying their ability to get two premier FAs, the Yankees are sending the signal to the LA teams, don't go hard for our guy, and we won't go hard after yours, and we'll all end up with what we want at a lower price.

Unfortunately, the Mets and Red Sox have as much money as the LA teams (or more) and will push the market solely to raise the Yankees costs if not just for the player.

If the Yankees strategy is signaling they are going to be disappointed. Then again, looking at the decisionmaking in the Cashman era....

Unfortunately, the Mets and Red Sox have as much money as the LA teams (or more) and will push the market solely to raise the Yankees costs if not just for the player.

Of course neither team is likely to be a serious player for CC or Tex.

You can't just "push the market". If you say 7/160 for CC b/c you think the Yanks are going to 7/170, and for some reason they don't, you've got him. If that wasn't in your budget, your owner will have some choice words for you, and if that player has one even mediocre year, you've likely lost your job.

GM's can't just "price enforce" like some Rotisserie League auction.

I think the Red Sox will be major players for Sabathia.

CC thinks, rightly, that he can get a lot more than 6/140. I think I projected him around 8/200 in September.

I ran a quick model that suggested a 6/160 deal. I wouldn't consider anything longer for health concerns (and I consider him a better bet than most in that department). At 6/140, I'd love to have him on the Red Sox.

If the Yankees strategy is signaling they are going to be disappointed. Then again, looking at the decisionmaking in the Cashman era....

Signalling doesn't work, because if you act on some other team's signals, and they after they have got their man cheaply, bid hard on what you thought were your player, you have no recourse. More than yelling "BUT, BUT, YOU WINKED!!!" of course.

Acting on signals is for fools. Sending signals is another matter.

If you're going to collude you're gonna have to be partners in crime. Nothing helps cooperation like a shared dirty secret.