1. Matsui's contract does not end after this year - it ends after next year.

2. The ending to this piece was a non-sequitur ("But with the waning of George Steinbrenner, the incomparable Yankees are on their way to becoming just another team.")

Also, the writer seems to bask in the greatness of Steimbrenner, without acknowledging the many, many idiotical decisions made by Steimbrenner, particulary in the 80s and early 90s.

After all, wasn’t Hank right, last winter, that the Yankees should have traded Melky Cabrera and a couple of those kid pitchers Cashman loves for Johan Santana?

that's a hell of a misleading sentence - it makes it seem like Melky was the centerpiece and the "kid pitchers" were throw-ins, when it was the other way around. And it's still far too early to say that not making the trade was a blunder.

And it's still far too early to say that not making the trade was a blunder.

Sure, but basically everyone would currently be much more likely to ask for a do-over of a Kennedy+Melky package for Santana than they would have been to make such an offer in the offseason. Was Hank definitely right? Obviously youneverknow with prospects and pitchers, but it's hard to imagine an alternate 2008 that could look worse for the Yankees' choice not to go after Santana.

Also, I was unaware that it was common knowledge that Hank was arguing for a Santana trade. I had been under the impression that there were, at least, significant conflicting reports that Hank was in perfect agreement with Cashman. (That's actually my impression of Hank - that seeing him as a carbon copy of his father is clearly incorrect. He loves developing young players while his father hated it, so he has a quite different perspective on running a ballclub even though he seems to share much of his father's emotional instability.)

Also, the Yankees should break the bank to go after Sabathia and Teixeira. They're the best free agents out there, and they've given every indication that money will determine their decisions. The Yankees need a starting pitcher and they need a first baseman. The Yankees are ludicrously wealthy. It's about as obvious as baseball decisions get.

(A sidenote: why aren't the Mets ever listed as leading suitors of Sabathia? It seems like a perfect fit - he loves to hit and he loves money, and the Mets can offer both.)

Also, the Yankees should break the bank to go after Sabathia and Teixeira.

There seems like no more obvious decision for the Yankees than to throw $400M at those guys, yet the Yankees signing the top free agents this off-season doesn't feel as inevitable as it did in the past. Maybe it's just been a while? I guess Damon was their last big FA, and while he siged a big contract, it wasn't crazy big like Giambi, and Sabathia and Teixeira are going to be crazy big.

A sidenote: why aren't the Mets ever listed as leading suitors of Sabathia? It seems like a perfect fit - he loves to hit and he loves money, and the Mets can offer both

I think you can answer this with when you said in #4 - they just got Santana, and I'm sure, with the fragility of pitchers, the Mets wouldn't be comfortable giving long-term deals to both him and Sabathia in successive offseasons. Plus, they seem to have a pretty good core to back up Santana with Maine and Pelfrey, so I don't think pitching is a concern. As for the Yankees, I think they went into the Santana negotiations knowing that in one year Sabathia would be available, so the question was, both short- and long-term, would you rather have Santana or Sabathia + Melky/Hughes/Kennedy. Its not guaranteed that the Yankees will get Sabathia, but you have to figure they understood there would be FA alternatives that wouldn't cost them their prospects as well.

I think Hank is more relevant than this article implies. The problem (such as it is) is that there's a pretty big push - among the media, fans, and other observers - to make Hank out to be The New George. When he matches George (in bluster) it affirms the characterization; when he is different (in action) he's seen as a failure, or otherwise not measuring up.

I don't think it's that simple. While I've noted the blustery similarities in the past, it has also seemed to me that Hank has learned somewhat from his father's mistakes, particularly his general impatience with any farmhand who didn't perform well in their first couple of weeks in the big leagues. It could even be that his frustration with the Chamberlain transition is that the team didn't exercise enough patience, putting him in the MLB pen to start the year instead of grooming him as a starter in the minors with an eye toward the future. Although he has emotional reactions like his father, he seems to know that subsequent action based on those emotions are often unwise. I think he wants to be in his role with the Yankees, and he might do well in it. Unfortunately he has a long road ahead of him in putting the franchise where I think he wants it to be.

Hal, OTOH, I think likes the whole business, of which the Yankees are a small but crucial part. If you had to point to one brother who is "ultimately" in charge, I think it's Hal; but he seems comfortable with ceding responsibility for the team to Hank.

I'd rather think of them as a present-day Abbott and Costello team, but that's just for my own entertainment.

yet the Yankees signing the top free agents this off-season doesn't feel as inevitable as it did in the past.

It doesn't seem inevitable because there's just a huge amount of money floating around in major league baseball. Revenue growth has hugely outpaced salary growth for most of the decade, and revenue sharing has increased the number of clubs with money to throw around, on top of the effect of a rising tide lifting all boats.

I expect the Angels and Orioles to be very significant players in the Teixeira sweepstakes, and I expect the Mets and Dodgers to make big moves for Sabathia. I also expect there to be at least one other team from a broad range of possibilities to be the third significant competitor on those big FAs. I would put the odds of the Yankees landing both Sabathia and Teixeira at under 50%.

I also think this situation really only underlines how important it is for the Yankees not be held back by artificial money limits or $/win calculations, and just spend, baby.

I think you can answer this with when you said in #4 - they just got Santana, and I'm sure, with the fragility of pitchers, the Mets wouldn't be comfortable giving long-term deals to both him and Sabathia in successive offseasons.

If that's true, that's the wrong way to approach the situation. I guess the Mets could plan to give Sabathia's money to Burrell or Dunn, but I think Burrell and Dunn, with their limited skill sets and athleticism, are far more risky than Sabathia - not to mention not as good at baseball.

Risk is relative. In an offseason, you have to spend your money, so the question is what's the best return with the least risk among the available options. This year, it's Teixeira and Sabathia, by a wide margin. Teixeira doesn't fit the Mets' needs, Sabathia does, QED, I think.

I expect the Angels and Orioles to be very significant players in the Teixeira sweepstakes, and I expect the Mets and Dodgers to make big moves for Sabathia. I also expect there to be at least one other team from a broad range of possibilities to be the third significant competitor on those big FAs. I would put the odds of the Yankees landing both Sabathia and Teixeira at under 50%.

solid points all - but I would throw in a few caveats:

1) Angelos has a very poor relationship with Boras (didn't he swear off all Boras clients at some point?), so I don't know if the Orioles are as big a player as people expect. The Angels are interesting, because they sometimes seem adverse to big spending but then go out and sign Matthews and Hunter. I think a lot depends on how far they go in the playoffs: if they win the pennant with Teixeira putting up big numbers, it would be a PR boondoggle to let him walk.

2) money is obviously the Yankees' biggest advantage, but not just on a per-year basis - the trump card is they are more willing to give LONGER guarunteed contracts (which is how they got Damon, giving him 4 years when other teams were only offering 3). The Yankees know that with the NY market, YES, the new stadium, etc., they have a cash cow almost in perpetuity. If they give Tex and/or Sabathia 6-7 year contracts, it still won't handcuff them if they turn into pumpkins in year 4. I don't know that even the Dodgers or the Angels have that luxury.

Tex is gonna get seven years, minimum. Sabathia should be in that range, too, but we'll see. My projected salary for Teixeira was somewhere between 7/150 and 8/180.

And I certainly agree that the Yankees are the favorites in both cases, for precisely the reasons you mention. I just don't think they're favorites by such large margins that they should be considered likely to land both. (Doing the math, they'd have to be nearly 3:1 favorites on Sabathia and Teixeira to be favored to land both stars.)

It doesn't seem inevitable because there's just a huge amount of money floating around in major league baseball. Revenue growth has hugely outpaced salary growth for most of the decade, and revenue sharing has increased the number of clubs with money to throw around, on top of the effect of a rising tide lifting all boats

There's a ton of money floating around, no doubt, but are you saying that the revenue advantage of the Yankees has diminished relative to the rest of the league? That may very well be true, I don't know, but as far as my limited knowledge goes the Yankees are still by far the richest team and seem well positioned to maintain that advantage into the future. It's hard to say whether any decrease in the Yankees' payroll superiority might be due to a) voluntary cap on payroll b) lack of quality free agents to spend money on c) involuntary cap on payroll due to revenue issues. My sense is that it's b, but it looks like we'll find out this off-season.

There's a ton of money floating around, no doubt, but are you saying that the revenue advantage of the Yankees has diminished relative to the rest of the league?

I think the Yankees have a serious revenue advantage for acquiring the next ARod or Manny who hits the FA market. Most other clubs can't afford 10/420 or whatever. But this isn't likely to be as big a factor this offseason.

First, and most importantly, most of the best available FAs in recent years have been far worse than ARod or Manny circa 2001 - no guaranteed HoFers available in quite a while - and thus what we're looking at are high-end salaries rather than top-end salaries. There are a ton of teams that can afford 7/150, even if 10/350 would be way too much. Sabathia and Teixeira are high-end talent, not top-end.

Also, the salary structure of baseball has been behaving very weirdly. There's been a major drag on the very top end of baseball salaries, while the mid- and high-end salaries have increased at normal (but somewhat deflated) rates. This has created a situation where more teams should be in the mix for the best free agents becuase no one is willing, for whatever reason *cough*collusion*cough* to give out the next ARod/Manny contract, adjusted for inflation. (Of course, this might be more a function of the first effect, that other than ARod last year, there hasn't been a top-end FA available on the open market.) In any case, this second issue is not really in play, because we're not dealing with truly top-end talent in the FA market.

Another way of putting it is that the Yankees are one of a very select few teams that could afford both Sabathia and Teixeira at market rates, but that doesn't mean they'll get both. If Sabathia and Teixeira were only available as a package, the Yankee advantage would be huge. But they aren't, and it isn't.

My projected salary for Teixeira was somewhere between 7/150 and 8/180.

Is he even one of the 5 best 1st basemen in baseball? Pujols, Berkman, Morneau(?)... Is he 4th? VORP has him 7th this season, but I'm guessing he's a better long-term bet than Youkilis and Miggy Cabrera.

(And yes, I'm aware he's the best position player on the market this year, which obviously makes a difference.)

I don't see how any reasonably intelligent team could justify going 7/150 with him. Those contracts should be saved for the A-Rods of the world- great players that become free agents at the age of 24.

I don't see how any reasonably intelligent team could justify going 7/150 with him. Those contracts should be saved for the A-Rods of the world- great players that become free agents at the age of 24.

No way. 7/150 was only slightly less than what Manny Ramirez cost eight years ago. Adjusting for inflation and revenue growth, Manny v.2001 would currently command something like 10/300, probably more. 7/150 is what high-end stars get. "World- great players that become free agents at the age of 24" should get much more than they got eight years ago, that's just simple economics.

World- great players that become free agents at the age of 24" should get much more than they got eight years ago, that's just simple economics.

of course, the reason that happens is most teams are making sure that their world-class players don't become free agents at age 24. Almost all top-tier talent have gotten contracts that tie them down well past their arb years.

7/150 is what high-end stars get.

But it's not. No one has gotten it since. 8 years later, the highest-paid position player after those two is making 19 (Miggy Cabrera). The notion that the Manny/ARod contracts set the market is just false.

it's worth noting that neither ARod nor Manny ended up playing out their full contracts with the teams that signed them. Add to those the other big deals from that period (Giambi, Mussina, Brown, Hampton) which ended up looking excessive and I'm sure teams are gunshy about these market-busting deals.

VORP has him 7th this season, but I'm guessing he's a better long-term bet than Youkilis and Miggy Cabrera.

VORP splits his numbers, add in his time in Anaheim and he's 3rd (56.2 if I can add). With a better glove than most people at the top of the list.

I don't see how any reasonably intelligent team could justify going 7/150 with him.

Soriano got 8/136. And he's not as good of a player as Tex and he was 2 years older. Carlos Lee isn't all that good (well, he is this year apparently) and he got 6/100 while being two years older than Tex. Those two teams aren't beyond criticism or anything, but if they can afford to make those kinds of commitments to those players (the Cubs could at least), then the Yankees could certainly afford to make a greater commitment to Teixeira.

But it's not. No one has gotten it since.

You're taking a static rather than a dynamic approach to contracts, which is simply incorrect. The question isn't whether anyone's gotten 7/150, it's whether they received the present-day equivalent of 7/150.

Soriano got 8/136 two years ago, and he's been the best player other than ARod on the open market in years. Two more years, more inflation and revenue growth, I think 7/150 is about right.

VORP splits his numbers, add in his time in Anaheim and he's 3rd (56.2 if I can add).

Yikes. Thanks- bad mistake on my part.

You're taking a static rather than a dynamic approach to contracts, which is simply incorrect.

No, I'm not, I just disagree with you. You said "7/150 is what high-end stars get," and you pointed to that the fact that Manny got more than that "eight years ago." All I'm arguing is that the Manny/ARod contracts did not set the market. It took 7 years for a team to be willing to get back up to as much as 19 per year (with Cabrera- who, by the way, is 3 years younger than Tex).

basically everyone would currently be much more likely to ask for a do-over of a Kennedy+Melky package for Santana than they would have been to make such an offer in the offseason

Well, we can't ask for a do-over on Kennedy+Melky for Santana since it was not a package that the Twins ever gave any indication of being willing to accept. They balked at Hughes/Cabrera/plus, and the Yankees tried to change it to Kennedy/Melky/better plus. But the Twins seemed to be holding out for Hughes/Kennedy/Cabrera, and even Hank wouldn't go that far. Why waste time regretting not making a trade that you never could have made?

The Yankees need a starting pitcher and they need a first baseman. The Yankees are ludicrously wealthy. It's about as obvious as baseball decisions get.

Unfortunately, it's not as obvious for Sabathia and Teixeira. I think CC is looking more and more like a west coast NL guy.

Cabrera is/was young enough for the Tigers to bet that his OPS+ of 159 at age 23 may not represent his full-season peak. He was viewed as a potential Hall of Fame hitter, and Detroit gave up a good amount of prospects to get him. And yet the franchise didn't go over the $20M/year barrier.

I think that $20M/year is still a real psychological/PR hurdle for teams. Sure, A-Rod and Manny topped it because they're historically great players. But Tex, although an excellent player, isn't historically great. I think teams will be bumping up against the $20M/year barrier this year with $18M and $19M average contract values, but we won't see a bunch of $20M and $21M per year contracts for another year or two. As for Teixeira, he is old enough for a team to bet that an OPS+ of 150 may represent the best he can do over a full season (not that that's bad, but it's not A-Rod/Manny great). I find it hard to believe a team will top $20M a year for him for a 7+ year contract. I can imagine a team (like the Yankees, for instance) signing him for 8 years to $152M or $160M, but it feels like that is the limit.

And yet the franchise didn't go over the $20M/year barrier.

Well, he also wasn't a free agent yet. Not that I disagree with your larger point.

Loren F. Posted: September 08, 2008 at 01:23 PM (#2932948)

and Detroit gave up a good amount of prospects to get him. And yet the franchise didn't go over the $20M/year barrier.

But those prospects have (monetary) value too. The FAs will cost picks true, but it's likely that the prospects that Detroit gave up will end up being more valuable than the picks that an FA nets. The value of those lost prospects should have detracted from Cabrera's salary. And Cabrera wasn't an FA, at the time of the trade, he was 2 years from FA.

I think that $20M/year is still a real psychological/PR hurdle for teams.

That's what I've been trying to say, much less succinctly than you put it.

Cabrera is/was young enough for the Tigers to bet that his OPS+ of 159 at age 23 may not represent his full-season peak. He was viewed as a potential Hall of Fame hitter, and Detroit gave up a good amount of prospects to get him. And yet the franchise didn't go over the $20M/year barrier.

Cabrera was also a 23 year old fat guy with whispers about his conditioning/work ethic. Yes, the performance was always there, but his weight made him a riskier bet than his age/performance would indicate.

I think that $20M/year is still a real psychological/PR hurdle for teams.

I don't disagree with this. I think for teams to get past it, the player in question has to have no glaring holes or weak spots to pick at. Supremely talented guys who are still in the prime of their youth with a proven track record of excellence. Guys like A-Rod or Manny. Still, I think Teixeira will break $20M/year. He's not in the A-Rod/Manny class of player, but he's relatively young, durable, and good defensively. In other words, no glaring weaknesses combined with an otherwise weak FA crop.

In other words, no glaring weaknesses combined with an otherwise weak FA crop.

The FA crop this year is not weak.

I realize Miggy wasn't a free agent yet, so that likely means they don't have to pay as much. Should have noted as much. But I found it notable that Detroit didn't pay $20M/year for a guy who, at the end of 2007, looked to a lot of folks like the best right-handed slugger since Manny. (Of course, to some folks he looked like a guy whose weight might pose a problem a few years into any contract -- as #29 noted.)

It's possible that Sabathia gets more than Teixeira, and more than $20M/year. I know pitchers are less safe bets as far as long-term contracts go, but nowadays the value of an ace is extremely high because your ace will make 1/3 or 1/4 of your postseason starts. The Mets agreed to pay Santana something like $22M a year. Now, I don't think Sabathia has been viewed as in the same category of dominant, sure-thing ace as Santana. But given CC's incredible performance with the Brewers, that perception is evolving. Especially if Sabathia pitches in the postseason and does at least reasonably well, he may have a shot at breaking the $20M/year barrier; there are any number of teams that figure their big need is an ace to ride though the postseason (and the Yankees are one of them).