Based on how this contract is being reported, this is essentially a 3-year, $69 million contract with a 4-year, $92 million player option that has to be picked up in whole or rejected after 2011.

Provided CC performs well the next three years, gotta love the upcoming out-clause drama.

man, if the Yanks resign him to 6-140m after 3 years, i'd love it.

D-d-d-it, look what you get!

I'm really disappointed he didn't sign with an NL team. I really like seeing him hit.

Maybe he can DH for Melky the days he's on the bump?

Who knew that >173 strikeouts was an important baseball event?

Who knew that >173 strikeouts was an important baseball event?

It's 7 K/9.

Darn you Erotic Life and Standuptriple!


Although with the Steinbrenner Jr. in charge, he might demand it. And Girardi, if I remember, often would pinch-hit in Dontrelle Willis.

<i>Although with the Steinbrenner Jr. in charge, he might demand it. And Girardi, if I remember, often would pinch-hit in Dontrelle Willis./i>

After what happened with Wang last year? CC isn't going anywhere near a batter's box if there is any way to avoid it.

After what happened with Wang last year? CC isn't going anywhere near a batter's box if there is any way to avoid it.

If it inspires Hank to take a Superfly Snuka leap from the owner's box to ankle-tackle CC before he takes his hacks, I am behind CC pinch-hitting as much as the rules will allow.

9 & 10,

I would prefer that they go the other route and focus on the fundamentals of running the bases, unless Stein figured out a way to get a pass on Interleague.

Dan, are you just doing the big deals first and will eventually get to the Ramon Hernandez trade?

Yeah, I try to get the huge ones up quickly since I know they'll be analyzed to death quickly if I don't get to them. Hernandez and Laird are coming.

Don't you usually show a projection for the life of the contract? (Even though it's probably meaningless, since it just shows slowly declining IP totals, whereas he'll more likely pitch 7 mostly-full seasons, or miss a year or two completely.)

Don't you usually show a projection for the life of the contract? (Even though it's probably meaningless, since it just shows slowly declining IP totals, whereas he'll more likely pitch 7 mostly-full seasons, or miss a year or two completely.)

I hate doing it for pitchers. I do it once in a while for guys at the start or the end of their career, simply because it might be interesting.

Who knew that >173 strikeouts was an important baseball event?

I'm partly to blame. It's an "important" rate pegged to the number of IP ZiPS "projects but doesn't project" him to pitch.

I brought it up with the Hafner projection I think it was -- he was given 0% chance of hitting 30 HR which seemed kinda silly. That's because it was based on only 350 AB or something like that. 350 AB for Hafner is a perfectly reasonable guess but if he does get more playing time, he's got a decent shot at 30 HR you'd think. So as Dan says, that's 7 K/9.

So of course it's now time for me to suggest to Dan that for rates we often deal with as rates (like K/9), maybe it's better to present it as his p of 6 K/9, 7 K/9, etc. For things like HR, where normal people (that's me!) don't think in terms of rates, this sort of conversion to a counting stat helps.

Or project everybody to "full-time" for these purposes?