Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 16, 2007

Report: A-Rod, Yankees agree on outline of $275 million, 10-year contract

pay-rod returns.

Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 04:58 AM | 79 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:57 AM (#2617115)
I'm just glad this didn't drag on all winter.
   2. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:58 AM (#2617118)
I'm just sad this didn't drag on all winter.
   3. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:11 AM (#2617126)
I'm just glad this turned out to be legal.
   4. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:16 AM (#2617129)
That legal joke/sledgehammer is just the least funny thing BTBF has ever turned out.
   5. MSI Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:18 AM (#2617130)
I'm just glad the Yankees are paying so much money (plus luxury tax) for a player's decline years.
   6. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:23 AM (#2617134)
Realistically...I think this is a terrible, terrible, terrible contract and in 6 years the Yankees are going to be weighed down by it. However, I'm going to just enjoy the first half of it and worry about the "We need to get rid of the A-Rod contract" days to come later on.
   7. Sean McNally Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:27 AM (#2617135)
That legal joke/sledgehammer is just the least funny thing BTBF has ever turned out.


Bearded Wizard called, he said what about him.... oh and BEHOLD!
   8. Zac Schmitt Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:16 AM (#2617146)
come on, sean, the various permutations of mike piazza/hamster comments were far, far less funny than the bearded wizard.

the yankees are are overpaying for the decline years of a legitmatly great player who seems likely to set all sorts of records in pinstripes. that alone has value above whatever difference his level of performance is above lowell or cabrera minus hughes/chamberlain/kennedy/whomever they would have to give up to get him. all things considered, the best thing for both sides, really.
   9. Eddie Gaedel Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:42 AM (#2617154)
Taking into consideration total payroll differences, isn't this like the Indians signing ARod for 10/$140M? Would that be considered a bad deal.

I'm frustrated with the clause to give ARod a bonus for breaking the HR record.

However, I'm no more frustrated with that than I am with any performance bonus for a $13M+ per year player.

Jesus Christ, if you are one of the top 15 paid players in the game, you'd better be competitive for the CYA or MVP. Why should you get a extra $100K for finishing in the top 5, or whatever?
   10. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:48 AM (#2617161)
The difference, I think, is that in 6 years, $14 million is what a Paul Byrd-type pitchers will make--it won't be a crippling contract. $27 million in six years, on the other hand, will still be something like what $17 million or so is today. Maybe more, as the top of the market moves slower than the middle of the market.
   11. John S Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:10 AM (#2617173)
Yeah in 8 years what will the average ball players make? Not the league average salary, but the average player.
   12. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:33 AM (#2617178)
I am just pissed off that I'll never get to go watch him play.
Sure we will get the occasional visits here in California, but I don't get to enjoy the beauty of the game Alex Rodriguez brings everyday. (No I don't want a subscription to the YES network)

Instead, he is going to play for the spoiled rich kids who couldn't appreciate #### about the game of baseball!
It is sad that baseball has turned into this.
   13. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:22 PM (#2617203)
Gambling Rent,
Do you actually believe your own sanctimonious horsecrap?
   14. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM (#2617211)
I'm assuming 12 is a joke. Because I'm the biggest class-warfare leftest on here (OH YEAH I WENT THERE VAUX-grin) and that sounds stupid even to me.
   15. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:44 PM (#2617217)
You know what's funny? Alex Rodriguez just signed (or is about to sign), as far as I know, the most massive freaking contract in the history of American sports, and we're all just taking it in stride, like it's totally mundane, like "well, that's not SO bad." Bora$ really did a good job of jacking expectations through the ceiling. I suspect 10/300 is what Bora$ had in mind all along, and he checked around and decided 10/275 was as far as he'd be able to get.
   16. Honkie Kong Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2617231)
This news has gone almost unnoticed! So the Yanks payroll is back upto $200 mil.

Next time the Red Sox aren't in first place, you can cue the "They spend more than us" whine.
   17. The TVerik of Lordly Might Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:24 PM (#2617241)
I think this is the type of player that you overspend on. I think that this contract is far better than the Tony Womack contract, for instance. Or the Jaret Wright contract. Or the Johnny Damon contract. Or the latest Matsui contract.
   18. The TVerik of Lordly Might Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2617243)
the most massive freaking contract in the history of American sports

In total value, it's about 10% more than this player got seven years ago now, and it's roughly the same in annual value. Given his 2007, he certainly wasn't taking a pay cut. Years 9-10 may be foolish, but that's the cost of doing business here. Had the Yankees stuck on 7 or 8 years, I'm very sure that they would have lost the player.

The franchise with the highest payroll just opened up the wallet to its best player. This isn't a Texas suddenly paying big-time situation.
   19. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2617244)
I think Boras is massively pissed at Barry Bonds for upstaging his masterful negotiation of the biggest contract in the history of the game.
   20. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:30 PM (#2617245)
The franchise with the highest payroll just opened up the wallet to its best player.


They all hate us anyhow
Let's drop the big one now.
   21. Honkie Kong Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:31 PM (#2617246)
I think Boras is massively pissed at Barry Bonds for upstaging his masterful negotiation of the biggest contract in the history of the game.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

So what happens now if it is suddenly revealed that Alex is taking weekly shots of testosterone..
   22. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2617249)
what happens now if it is suddenly revealed that Alex is taking weekly shots of testosterone

I think we have to wait until we see the final contract language.
   23. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:38 PM (#2617252)
So what happens now if it is suddenly revealed that Alex is taking weekly shots of testosterone.

he sees his stripper girlfriend that often?
   24. The TVerik of Lordly Might Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2617253)
I'll say it early - these terms I can live with. But if there's escalators if he's no longer the highest-paid player in the game anymore, I'm not sure if I can. And if there's an opt-out at any point, I cannot. In signing a 10-year deal of this amount, he is "opting out" of any market craziness for the next decade. If this contract looks low by comparison in a few years, that's what it costs.

It sounds like contracts 101. But it isn't just a 10-year risk by the franchise, it's a 10-year risk by the player.
   25. Gromit Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2617255)
Woohoo! We beat Boras!

Oh...wait.

Nevermind.
   26. Pete Sommers Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:07 PM (#2617284)
From Oct. 18:

But yesterday after meeting with the three Steinbrenners and other members of the Yankees brain trust, Cashman said the team absolutely does not plan to negotiate with Rodriguez if he opts out. Another source familiar with talks told Newsday the Steinbrenners are absolutely onboard with that.

"Yes, I can affirm that," Cashman said. "If Alex Rodriguez opts out of his contract, we will not participate in his free agency. That is accurate and that is definitive."


Psych!
   27. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2617287)
I'm just glad the Yankees are paying so much money (plus luxury tax) for a player's decline years.

They can afford the money. Given A-Rod's 2007 season it doesn't look like much decline is imminent. As long as he retains his hitting ability, A-Rod will still have lots of value and the Yanks can eventually move him to 1st base and/or DH to ease the defensive workload. The front end rewards seem sufficient to justify the later-year risks, but a lot of things can happen to change the equation either way. However, I'm not so sure the Yanks are absolutely stuck with all 10 years if A-Rod tanks at some point in the contract. He could retire. It's a lot of money to walk away from, but McGwire left millions behind when he left.
   28. Honkie Kong Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:16 PM (#2617299)
Psych

nice!
   29. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:24 PM (#2617314)
I'm frustrated with the clause to give ARod a bonus for breaking the HR record.

Aren't performance-based clauses like this prohibited by the CBA?
   30. Colin Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2617338)
Years 9-10 may be foolish, but that's the cost of doing business here.

Do we really know what was the cost of doing business here? Did any other team even make a concrete offer? Seems to me the Yankees chose to give a year 9 & 10, but in hte absence of other offers we don't really know if it was necessary.
   31. The Original SJ Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:44 PM (#2617342)
Years 9-10 look foolish now, because 27 million is a lot of money, today. It may not be in 10 years.
   32. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2617358)
The Yankees can easily afford A-Rod, who will be a great player for many years. He makes the team a lot better, and as a Red Sox fan, I can't say I'm happy about him returning to the Yankees.
   33. Loren F. Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2617359)
This is not a great contract, but right now it's not a terrible one either.

This is an athletic player who is likely to stay in good shape, and while there is risk of his production falling off a cliff, I think there's less risk of that with A-Rod than with 80% of the players out there. Plus, while his production will decline with age, it will be declining from very very high levels. Sure, in 2015-17 Rodriguez will be a LF/DH, but he may well be putting up a respectable OPS that's league-average for the position.

On top of that, he'll be lowing past Ruth and Aaron at those ages, giving him marquee value beyond his yearly production.

I write all this knowing that while this is a likely scenario, there is the chance that A-Rod declines more dramatically for whatever reason. But I think that's a rational risk for the Yankees to take; in the contract's waning years, A-Rod may only represent 12%-13% of the NYY payroll or even less, so it is unlikely to hamstring the franchise financially.
   34. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:12 PM (#2617374)
Sure, in 2015-17 Rodriguez will be a LF/DH, but he may well be putting up a respectable OPS that's league-average for the position.

I'm very happy A-Rod is back. Tremendously happy, in fact. However, the way people speak about him sometimes I think they don't realize 2004 and 2006 happened. Might he put up league average offense for a LF/DH in 2015-17? Sure. Is it a likely scenario? No. I really don't see how that can be said.
   35. Eddie Gaedel Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2617380)
In 1998, the highest contract (AAV) was $12.5M (Pedro).

In 1999, the highest AAV was $15M (Kevin Brown).

Two years later, ARod checked in at $25.2M.

It seems to me that, in 10 years, even with a significant performance decline, ARod will be "worth" $27.5M, considering what those around him will likely be making. Hell, there's a good chance he'll even be underpaid.

Based on the the recent salary explosions and increased baseball revenue, in 10 years shlubs like Suppan and Silva might be making $18-20M per year. Based on a 10% annual baseball-inflation rate, that is quite realistic.

If ARod is still playing 150+ games a year at that point--adding to the HR record every time he goes deep--even with MLB-average performance, $27M may well seem reasonable.
   36. Completely Wayne Posted: November 16, 2007 at 04:42 PM (#2617489)
What are the chances that Rodriguez/Boras, after opting out, found out that Rodriguez was one of the 11 free agents named in the Mitchell report, wanted to get him under contract as soon as possible (that is to say, before the report comes out towards the end of the year) and that's the reason this process was expedited the way it has been?
   37. PerroX Posted: November 16, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2617514)
Proof that ARod's always been all about the money. If he had any pride, he would have told the them to shove it.

#### him and the Yanks. They deserve one another.
   38. villainx Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2617558)
I don't mind resigning Alex, but at this point isn't it even more suggestive that Alex = Winfield?
   39. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:32 PM (#2617563)
What are the chances that Rodriguez/Boras, after opting out, found out that Rodriguez was one of the 11 free agents named in the Mitchell report

I'd say zero, since there are no free agents named in the Mitchell Report. It hasn't been written yet, and the eleven free agents in question are players who were invited to speak to the Mitchell Commission (to respond to supposed evidence of their PED use). Presumably, the players invited (and their agents) would have already been aware of the invitations.
   40. DCA Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2617566)
I don't mind resigning Alex, but at this point isn't it even more suggestive that Alex = Winfield?

He gets traded to the Angels in 2014?
   41. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2617571)
He gets traded to the Angels in 2014?

For Claudell Washington?
   42. McCoy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2617572)
I think this contract is going to turn pretty ugly pretty quickly. 2015, league average LF/DH? So around 40 he will decline to around average and we base that on what? Because Barry Bonds didn't slow down until that age? Heck most of the steroid players didn't even last that long and most certainly the non steroid players rarely if ever make it to that age. Yet clean ARod is supposed to be good enough to at least be average for his position at that age?

I'd say that within 4 to 5 years either ARod is discovered to be on drugs or if clean to be a total disaster of a contract by that time. Stupid decision by the Yankees and for that I applaud them.
   43. BDC Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2617574)
Aren't performance-based clauses like this prohibited by the CBA?

Everyone is quoting a rule against "a bonus for playing, pitching or batting skill" which I have had a hard time locating -- it does not seem to be in the actual rulebook or in the CBA. Anyway, I don't think that the contract would be approved if it actually included a bonus for hitting so many home runs over the life of the contract, or something. Rather, it will probably be something like a share in the profits from any promotion associated with "Little Alex's Big Home Run Milestone" or whatever.
   44. DL from MN Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2617576)
A-Rod - push. I think he could have gotten the extra $$ at the end of the deal regardless so he didn't need to sign this now.

Yankees - Push, they're getting what they paid for and they have to pay the full amount now

Texas Rangers - Big Winners in this deal

Torii Hunter - Winner due to the extra cash the Rangers have now
   45. BDC Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:49 PM (#2617581)
Texas Rangers - Big Winners in this deal

Torii Hunter - Winner due to the extra cash the Rangers have now


Maybe. I would as soon see them use the savings to reduce the cost of parking at the Ballpark. Then when I go to watch them finish 75-87 with or without Torii Hunter, at least I will be saving a few bucks :)
   46. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2617591)
So around 40 he will decline to around average and we base that on what? Because Barry Bonds didn't slow down until that age? Heck most of the steroid players didn't even last that long and most certainly the non steroid players rarely if ever make it to that age.

Henry Aaron didn't really slow down until 40, although his playing time started dropping a couple of years earlier. Willie Mays posted OPS+ of 149, 124, 156, 124, 139 and 158 between the ages of 35 and 40. Babe Ruth's late 30's were pretty freakin' awesome. Exceptional players don't age like ordinary players, because they are, after all, exceptional.

When trying to project a player like this, the thing that makes the least sense is a nice smooth gradual decline. Assuming good health, it is much more likely that Rodriguez will remain an excellent to outstanding hitter until somewhere between his age 38 and age 40 seasons, and then suddenly fall off a cliff.
   47. McCoy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2617606)
Why, because Hank Aaron aged slowly? Where is the connection? Why should somebody put Hank, Willie, and ARod in the same group? Simply because they are the best players? What makes them similar? If it is simply because they are the best then can't I then throw Joe Morgan in there? Sammy Sosa? Rogers Hornsby? Mickey Mantle? Joe Dimaggio? Reggie Jackson?


I'm not saying that in 5 years ARod is going to be putting up .250/.320/.400 numbers. What I am saying is that in 5 years ARod is not going to be putting up .310/.410/.630, not unless he is on something or the game changes radically. If he puts up .280/.375/.520 is he going to be worth 32 million dollars or anything even close to that?
   48. Squash Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2617610)
I suspect 10/300 is what Bora$ had in mind all along, and he checked around and decided 10/275 was as far as he'd be able to get.

According to the article, they're negotiating a clause for him to "share revenue" as he approaches the HR record. Not a bonus, "shared revenue". To say nothing of whatever bonuses are also going to end up in there for awards and such. This contract will breeze past $300 million easy. Interested parties can point to the base value and declare victory, but ARod is going to get exactly what he wanted in terms of dollars.

I don't think this is a bad contract. Given current baseball economics in any multi-year deal you're really paying for the first half or so of the contract. It's going to be a long time before ARod isn't valuable. Steroids and so on, but elite hitters don't flame out at 35 anymore. And given that we're going to see another wave of the $15-20 million a year contracts coming up when certain players start to reach free agency, ARod's deal is going to look less and less bad, and in the meantime he's going to give you 6-7 years of very high level performance. And the all-time HR record assuming lightning doesn't strike.

EDIT: Also, someone pointed out baseball inflation - to say nothing of regular inflation. My quick calculation tells me that if inflation increases at a nice benign rate of 2.5% per year over the next 10 years, that $27.5 ten years from now is about $21.5 in today's dollars. We'll have to see if the contract has an inflation kicker (probably not) but it will get cheaper and cheaper as the years go by. I'm more and more convinced that this is a good deal.
   49. Al Kaline Trio Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2617616)
So if the Yankees don't win a WS in the next 10 years will it be known as the curse of ARod?
   50. jmurph Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2617619)
This is a terrible contract for the exact same reason that his previous contract was terrible: the team that signed him bid against themselves. Just like Texas did with him in 2000, just like Boston did with Drew last year, etc. It's not that A-Rod isn't "worth" 27.5 per year for 10 years (I have no idea if he is or not), but what was the next highest bid? Was there a next highest bid? I absolutely refuse to believe any team was willing to go to 10 @ 27, or even 8 @ 27.
   51. deputydrew Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:19 PM (#2617625)
My question is: does this somehow make him a "real Yankee"? Living in NY and going to about 15 games a year, I'm sick and tired of hearing how ARod is no Paul O'Neill or Tino Martinez. I'm not sure why, but I now have this strange feeling that he's going to be accepted by the fans. Maybe it's because they all thought he was 100% gone and had to pretend to not want him. That made them realize how much they really do want him in pinstripes. I really think Yankee fans are going to accept him now. I can't explain it...it's just a gut feeling.
   52. McCoy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:22 PM (#2617629)
I don't think this is a bad contract. Given current baseball economics in any multi-year deal you're really paying for the first half or so of the contract

Okay so if this is simply deferring some money to the future for todays performance what is the annual salary for the next few years? How long will he be a .310/.410/.610 hitter? 4 years? Then what is the next step, the next step so on and so on.
So is it 55, 50, 50, 35, 30, 25, 20, 5, 3, 2? And is .310/.410/.610 worht 55 million dollars?
   53. jmurph Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2617630)
I can't explain it...it's just a gut feeling.


They sure as hell better, because he's really not going anywhere now. So you either boo the guy for 10 years, or you swallow your pride and somehow convince yourself to cheer for the best player in baseball.
   54. Squash Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:29 PM (#2617637)
Okay so if this is simply deferring some money to the future for todays performance what is the annual salary for the next few years? How long will he be a .310/.410/.610 hitter? 4 years? Then what is the next step, the next step so on and so on. So is it 55, 50, 50, 35, 30, 25, 20, 5, 3, 2? And is .310/.410/.610 worht 55 million dollars?

That's part of why it's a good contract, because you're not paying all the money up front. You get his best years at a discount (theoretically, no one knows how he's actually going to perform) and then you "pay him back" later on when the money doesn't cost as much b/c of inflation. That's one of the reasons among several why long term contracts, assuming no disasters/acts of god, are often better for the buyer.

EDIT: They're also, for various reasons, often better for the seller, injury being the best example in the case of athletes. Basically, when you have a fairly good idea of what's going to happen over a period of time and what it's worth, long-term contracts are good for both sides because neither side gets screwed by year-to-year fluctuations.

In terms of how ARod's going to perform, I don't know ... but the reality is that no one was going to sign him for less than $25 million a year. So if you want to dance at the party consider that your base. So getting him for a number that's slightly above and considering that you're really only going to eat the last 2-3 years of the contract (I expect), at which point you'll be paying him cheap dollars, seems like a good shake to me. And I'm not a Yankees fan, btw.
   55. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2617655)
So you either boo the guy for 10 years, or you swallow your pride and somehow convince yourself to cheer for the best player in baseball.

Or both. Call it the Mickey Mantle precedent.
   56. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2617659)
This is a terrible contract for the exact same reason that his previous contract was terrible: the team that signed him bid against themselves.

Obviously we don't know if there were any other bidders but that's my feeling as well. The Yanks appeared to be A-Rod's first choice. The could have negotiated a lower salary if A-Rod was indeed in a weak bargaining position. And this talk about Boras being humiliated is a little exteme. Look, from the public perception viewpoint, he was sent to the corner with dunce hat, which isn't a good image to have out there for some hot shot college player X looking for an agent in the upcoming draft. But his client just received the larger contract in baseball history w/o any reported bidders. That's hardly a defeat and probably the only thing a player will look at when looking for agent.
   57. Joe Shlabotnik Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2617662)
My question is: does this somehow make him a "real Yankee"?


Yes. No player has ever represented this organization with such perfect fidelity.
   58. McCoy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2617676)
at which point you'll be paying him cheap dollars, seems like a good shake to me.

Sure it will be "cheaper" but by how much? We are not talking about 10 million dollar contract a year for 10 years when the top talent right now is getting paid 8 million. This isn't early 90's when salaries were going up up and up. Since his signing 6 years ago nobody has come close to signing a contract worth the amount he is getting. Clemens and some others got somewhat close but that was on a one year basis.

In 7 years time 35 million or whatever he is going to be getting paid in yearly salary by that time is still going to be tons of money. They are not getting anything on the cheap. His salary at that time will still be a premium salary and his performance will not be anywhere close to the paylevel. He might be worth 10 million of it which means the other 25 million was for the right to have ARod on your team back in 2008 or 2009. So then was ARod worth 50 to 55 million dollars in 2008? If he wasn't then backloading didn't do a thing in terms of saving money for the Yankees.
   59. jmurph Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2617687)
And this talk about Boras being humiliated is a little exteme.


I absolutely agree. He got his player a bigger contract at age 32 than any player has ever received in history, at any age. He also got him signed through his age 42 season with, and again this is the kicker, no other bidders. This might be the greatest move an agent has ever made.
   60. McCoy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2617692)
the greatest trick an agent ever played was convincing Steinbrenner he didn’t exist.
   61. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2617695)
This isn't early 90's when salaries were going up up and up.

It isn't the early '90s, it's the late aughts. But last I checked, salaries are definitely going up up and up. It's true that nobody has matched the AAV of his last contract since it was signed, but the cost of lesser talent has exploded and that means that his contract represented a better value because he was costing less of a premium.

But I agree that the Yankees are not getting anything on the cheap here. I just don't think that was their goal.
   62. spycake Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2617696)
Count me in the "bidding against themselves" category. Do we honestly think a ~$110 mil payroll team was going to offer 10/27, much less 8/27?

Add to that the obvious ############# of eliminating the Texas subsidy, and the potential for even more money through "shared revenues" and this doesn't look too good for the Yanks. I'd expect them to overpay to get the player, and they can probably afford it and it may not be a bad deal in the long run, but this seems like a bit too much to bid in the present environment.
   63. jmurph Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2617713)
the greatest trick an agent ever played was convincing Steinbrenner he didn’t exist.


Well done.
   64. Karl from NY Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2617730)
This also makes his HOF cap NYY for sure, which is worth yet more revenue. Rodriguez NYY jerseys will sell at some level in perpetuity.
   65. Al Kaline Trio Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2617756)
I absolutely agree. He got his player a bigger contract at age 32 than any player has ever received in history, at any age. He also got him signed through his age 42 season with, and again this is the kicker, no other bidders. This might be the greatest move an agent has ever made.


The bidding was Hank vs Brian.
   66.     Hey Gurl Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2617767)
Psych!


Does this mean that Cashman has lost the control he gained back last off-season?
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2617768)
This isn't early 90's when salaries were going up up and up.

Actually, I think they're going up faster.

Not the top guys, per se, but a league average start (e.g. Jeff Suppan) gets 4/40.
Absolute crap pitchers (Marquis, Pineiro, injured Mulder) are getting multi year deals at 5M+ per.

And player cost has fallen from 55% of revenue to 40%.

Most liekly, salaries will absolutely explode over the next 5 years. Santana is probably looking at 7/150.

If salaries continue to go up at 10% a year. Paying ARod 27.5 M in 7 years is like paying him 14M today.
Pierre and G Matthews make 10M per today. It will be a bargain.
   68. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2617775)
the top of the market moves slower than the middle of the market.

I think this is just a recent phenomenon, not generally true. Despite all the wringing of hands when A-Rod signed his first big deal, I said that this was actually a good deal for owners because it would set an upper salary limit. Never before had there been such a talented free agent at such a young age. Before that, players would continually set new salary records, but 2 or 3 years later their performance had diminished, so it was easy for the next guy to say "I'm better than him, I should get more." The top salary was about $2.5M in the late '80s, and then started soaring upward over the next decade. With A-Rod just entering the prime age when he signed, it wasn't likely he would soon be eclipsed as a player, and indeed he wasn't. So that's part of why the top of the market has slowed. If Rodriguez now begins to decline, the next super free agent may have a chance to set a new salary mark.
   69. Pete Sommers Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2617797)
Does this mean that Cashman has lost the control he gained back last off-season?


I think it means that Cashman and the Yankees were lying.
   70. Daryn Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2617800)
Santana is probably looking at 7/150.

8/200. At least.
   71. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:41 PM (#2617809)
Here are the only questions I consider important:

1) Is Alex Rodriguez an outstanding player who makes the Yankees much better than if they didn't have him? Clearly, he is and he does.
2) Is Alex Rodriguez going to continue to be an excellent player for some time to come? It's impossible to say for sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to be somewhere between excellent and outstanding for the next 4-7 years and somewhere between pretty good and very good for the remaining 3-6.
3) Do the Yankees make more money than the other teams in the league? Does that mean they should be more willing to spend big money for top players? Yes and yes.
4) Are the Yankees likely to be hampered in their ability to pay other top players by this contract? It's possible, but I don't have any particular reason to believe it at this time.
5) As a fan, would I rather my team maximize its wins/dollar or its gross wins? Emphatically the latter. It's not my money, so the Steinbrenners should spend as much as they are willing to if it improves the team.

In this light, I can't see that this is anything but a great triumph for Yankee fans.
   72. standuptriple Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2617813)
Come out to cheer A-Rod. Come out to boo A-Rod. It doesn't matter...cue music...Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come to Iowa (if they have to) for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person(adjust for inflation). They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
   73. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2617819)
8/200. At least.

That would make ARod a MUCH better deal. You'd have to think that any pitcher from age 29-37 is going to miss at least 1.5 seasons to injury. And the risk of catostrophic injury has to be much higher than for ARod.
   74. Daryn Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2617836)
That would make ARod a MUCH better deal. You'd have to think that any pitcher from age 29-37 is going to miss at least 1.5 seasons to injury. And the risk of catostrophic injury has to be much higher than for ARod.



I do think Arod's deal is a good deal. Some people are way underestimating baseball inflation. Doesn't anyone remember how ridiculous 25.2 million a year seemed just 7 years ago?
   75. DL from MN Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2617839)
> player cost has fallen from 55% of revenue to 40%

The baseball players association should push for a $1M minimum salary in the next negotiations. The only way they're going to get salaries back to 50% of revenues at this point is to raise the floor.
   76. jmurph Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:10 PM (#2617843)
Doesn't anyone remember how ridiculous 25.2 million a year seemed just 7 years ago?


I hope (and think) you're being sarcastic. 25.2 is still ridiculous.
   77. Walt Davis Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2618005)
which website was it that had the "guess AROD's final contract" contest? If memory serves, I got pretty close -- probably not close enough to win but as one of the few willing to stick his neck out and say AROD wasn't going to get substantially more on an average annual basis than what he already had, I do feel like crowing a bit. Consider this crow #1.

Somebody screwed up here. Heck, maybe everybody screwed up here. The Yanks screwed up letting AROD walk away at a price they were willing to pay but losing all the Texas money. If the Yanks are willing to "share the revenue" of his HR chase now, surely they'd have been happy to let him "share the revenue" coming from Texas. That is, if willing to guarantee 10/275 with a chance at 10/300, why not have just offered 10/300 guaranteed with the Texas money making up the difference? Boras seems to have misread the market, though it hasn't really bitten him or his client in the butt. AROD either waffled about whether he really wanted to play in NY or he just created a big dose of bad PR cuz he trusted Boras' opinion about the market (not that you could blame him for trusting).

Anyway, if the Yanks were willing to pay this now, they obviously should have been willing to pay it a few weeks ago when they could have kept the Rangers' money. If AROD/Boras was willing to accept this now, they should have been willing to accept it a few weeks ago and the only explanation for not doing so is thinking they could do better elsewhere.

Still, as screwups go, this worked out pretty well for all involved. The Yanks get a great player (at least for a while), AROD gets bejillions, Boras gets his commission and sportswriters get 5 easy columns a year for the next 10 years no matter how things work out.
   78. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM (#2618010)
Gambling Rent,
Do you actually believe your own sanctimonious horsecrap?


I have routinely stated on here that I wanted A Rod to play in California, ideally for the Angels.
That I would buy an A Rod jersey, and that I would routinely go and watch him play ..
So yeah I am very disappointed. Pissed actually.

If you are trying to knock me for knocking spoiled Yankee fans that don't understand the game, I could easily claim that 50% of the 'fans' that don a NY Yankee cap worldwide, don't understand #### about the game, and I wouldn't be that far off ...

so what did I say that was horsecrap.
   79. BFFB Posted: November 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2618033)
Most people in the UK wearing a Yankee Cap don't even know baseball exists.

Just a fashion accessory that their favourite rapper wears.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(40 - 9:13pm, Dec 18)
Last: Danny

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(693 - 9:12pm, Dec 18)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4867 - 9:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(41 - 9:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: Jeff Frances the Mute

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(22 - 8:56pm, Dec 18)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(103 - 8:09pm, Dec 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(57 - 6:26pm, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogHow Will MLB Handle Big Changes With Cuba? - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 6:13pm, Dec 18)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(56 - 6:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(19 - 5:33pm, Dec 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(20 - 5:31pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1347 - 5:29pm, Dec 18)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogJoe Henderson's HOF Ballot
(49 - 5:15pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(13 - 5:11pm, Dec 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Page rendered in 0.6028 seconds
48 querie(s) executed