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

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Report: Shin-Soo Choo turned down seven-year offer from Yankees

According to Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports, free agent outfielder Shin-Soo Choo rejected a seven-year, $140 million contract offer from the Yankees not too long ago. The offer was made after the team signed Jacoby Ellsbury and once it was was declined, they moved on and signed Carlos Beltran.

Choo, 31, has multiple standing offers according to Passan. The Astros, Rangers, Mariners and Diamondbacks have been most connected to him recently, but Arizona’s interest subsided following the Mark Trumbo trade. Choo is a Scott Boras client and by far the best free agent position player left on the market.

...The Yankees reportedly knew Robinson Cano was leaving for the Mariners a few days before their big signings took place. They moved quickly to sign Ellsbury and then added Beltran a few days later. Given the timing of the moves, the offer to Choo appears to have been made sometime between Dec. 3-6.

Passan says Boras countered New York’s offer with something similar to the seven-year, $153 million pact they gave Ellsbury. It’ll be interesting to see how Choo’s eventual contract compares to the Yankees’ offer.

Thanks to Los.

Repoz Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:10 PM | 73 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. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4620263)
I predict pundits will all say Choo is crazy for turning down a $140 million deal, and in February, Choo gets a $153 million deal from some surprise team.
   2. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4620266)
I predict pundits will all say Choo is crazy for turning down a $140 million deal, and in February, Choo gets a $153 million deal from some surprise team.

I have learned not to doubt Boras. He has the occasional miss, but he also has the benefit of having spoken to all the teams who might want Choo's services. If the difference now is 7/140 vs 7/153, I'm guessing it gets done.
   3. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4620267)
Report: Shin-Soo Choo turned down seven-year offer from Yankees

Shin-Soo Choo is my new favorite player in the non-Red Sox division.
   4. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4620269)
If the sign Choo, I assume they go Choo, Ellsbury and Beltran in the OF and Soriano moves to DH? They'd be wise to keep Gardner, I think, with the potential durability issues. If they keep Garnder, that is a pretty effective looking OF, DH rotation.
   5. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4620272)
Shooty, the report is that after he turned down the offer, they turned to Beltran.
   6. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4620275)
Shooty, the report is that after he turned down the offer, they turned to Beltran.

Oh, well that's good news then. Well played Yankees!
   7. Baldrick Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4620304)
140 million over seven years to Choo seems CRAZY. Choo turning down that offer seems CRAZY.

Am I just completely wrong about how to evaluate players and contracts? That sounds like a Vernon Wells deal just waiting to blow up in your face. And is Choo really going to get a better offer? Really?
   8. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4620320)

Choo is a nice player - I don't think he's a 20 mil/per player - but if I had no choice, I'd prefer to have Choo at 7/153 than Ellsbury.

Choo is only a year older -- and has had 2-3 seasons as good as Ellsbury's best.... People can say that Ellsbury's injuries were of the freak sort - but there's also the fact that Choo has also been more durable (scary as that might be). I guess D metrics like Ellsbury more, so there's that...

But - I'd still rather be paying 7/153 for Choo than Ellsbury.... even though I'd rather not pay more than 6/100 for either of them.
   9. Baldrick Posted: December 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4620324)
I think Choo is completely done as a decent defensive outfielder. His numbers are pretty stinky and my impression from watching a decent number of Reds games this year was that he doesn't get particularly good reads. It also seems like he made a disproportionate number of bad split second decision (diving when he should have played for a single, mis-timing jumps, getting his hands mixed up). Quite possibly that's just an illusion of sample size, but absent some reason to think he can go back to being an average-ish defender, I would be very wary.
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4620338)
Am I just completely wrong about how to evaluate players and contracts? That sounds like a Vernon Wells deal just waiting to blow up in your face.


I think pretty much any 5+ year deal will blow up in your face. But that's the price of doing business with elite free agents.
   11. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: December 18, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4620344)
bb-ref lists a 31 run spread in Choo's UZR and TZ run estimates for last year (whistles long and low).
   12. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4620353)


I think pretty much any 5+ year deal will blow up in your face. But that's the price of doing business with elite free agents.


Sure - I have no problem thinking that anything over 5 years is just a way to spread the outlays... In effect, you're paying (for example) Ellsbury 5/153 but tacking on the "luxury" of spreading it over 7 years rather than five... but that just makes things worse, in my mind.

Even with how it turned out - I don't particularly think the A-Rod deal (or something near it) are bad things. Paying a true elite talent like Rodriquez -- or even a Kevin Brown, going back a generation -- aren't terrible things. I just don't think Brady Anderson...errr... excuse me, Jacoby Ellsbury or Shin-Soo Choo are those sorts of players. They're very nice players, sometimes even very good players.... but they're the sorts you sort of expect to perhaps challenge for an all-star berth, not potentially be MVP candidates.

I'm wholly on record being very glad that the Cubs did not really get in on the Pujols bidding... but even knowing what we now know -- I'd rather have Pujols' contract that Ellsbury's (or Choo's presuming his floor is 7/140).

I get flags fly forever. I get the variance of each FA class. But I just cannot see any reason why one should so massively overpay for the 'best available' talent.

If I'm a GM looking for OF help, I'm rolling my eyes and walking away from this madness... I'd rather pick up the phone to Franklin Guitierrez' agent and just giving him 1/5 with say, incentives to 1/6 or 1/7, which I'm betting any money gets its done. Yeah - I picked 6 for a reason.... but Ellsbury and Guitierrez have one thing in common: They've both had a single season better than 6 WAR.
   13. I Am Not a Number Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4620374)
Choo is a nice player - I don't think he's a 20 mil/per player

This off-season has shown that everything is changing and we all need to seriously recalibrate. Relievers are signing for $7-10M a year. Even a LOOGY like Boone signed for 3/16.5 for his paltry 40 innings a year. Where a guy like Choo might have "felt like" a $15M a year player, that clearly no longer applies.
   14. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4620387)

This off-season has shown that everything is changing and we all need to seriously recalibrate. Relievers are signing for $7-10M a year. Even a LOOGY like Boone signed for 3/16.5 for his paltry 40 innings a year. Where a guy like Choo might have "felt like" a $15M a year player, that clearly no longer applies.



Perhaps...

Things just seem to be accelerating awfully quickly the "last generation" of bad 7+ year deals haven't even lapsed yet (Wells, Soriano, etc) and we're already seeing a 20% inflationary effect for the "best player on the market but not great players by any definition" contracts?

Man... I almost expect certain folks from the OTP thread to show up at any moment and tell me how I should be plunge every nickel into gold to protect me from out of control inflation...
   15. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4620391)
Things just seem to be accelerating awfully quickly the "last generation" of bad 7+ year deals haven't even lapsed yet (Wells, Soriano, etc) and we're already seeing a 20% inflationary effect for the "best player on the market but not great players by any definition" contracts?


The new national TV deal kicked in this year, giving each team an additional $20 mill in revenues. Also, you could argue the supply is limited with so many good young players signing long-term deals covering some free agent years. Choo isn't among the best players in baseball, but he doesn't have to be. He just has to be one of the best available free agents in baseball.
   16. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4620393)
This off-season has shown that everything is changing and we all need to seriously recalibrate. Relievers are signing for $7-10M a year. Even a LOOGY like Boone signed for 3/16.5 for his paltry 40 innings a year. Where a guy like Choo might have "felt like" a $15M a year player, that clearly no longer applies.

MLB is awash in dough. Now more than ever.
   17. Nasty Nate Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4620403)
. In effect, you're paying (for example) Ellsbury 5/153 but tacking on the "luxury" of spreading it over 7 years rather than five... but that just makes things worse, in my mind.


I find this thinking bizarre. More years of player control, in and of themselves - i.e. divorced from the guaranteed salary, are a good thing for teams. For 7/153 to be worse for the team than 5/153, one would have to predict that not only will Ellsbury (or Choo) be worse than replacement level in 2019 and 2020, but the team will also not recognize that and commit playing time to him. It is much more likely that Ellsbury will have at least some value, as a player, in 2019 and 2020.
   18. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4620406)
I predict pundits will all say Choo is crazy for turning down a $140 million deal, and in February, Choo gets a $153 million deal from some surprise team.


I think there's a better chance that Choo becomes the new Jody Reed.
   19. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4620407)
For 7/153 to be worse for the team than 5/153, one would have to predict that not only will Ellsbury (or Choo) be worse than replacement level in 2019 and 2020, but the team will also not recognize that and commit playing time to him.


I agree with this in the specific but I agree with the general point that it's the years, not the dollars that flummox me. I'd rather have Ellsbury at 5/130 than 7/153 for example. I'm kind of pulling numbers out of my head but I think teams have shown that they are NOT willing to just dump highly paid players who are making huge money.
   20. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4620408)


I find this thinking bizarre. More years of player control, in and of themselves - i.e. divorced from the guaranteed salary, are a good thing for teams. For 7/153 to be worse for the team than 5/153, one would have to predict that not only will Ellsbury (or Choo) be worse than replacement level in 2019 and 2020, but the team will also not recognize that and commit playing time to him.


If you're counting on a baseball player meeting his career average in his late 30s, well, good luck with that.... I suppose that perhaps it's over board to look at it like 5/153..... i.e. ,I guess the expectation of Ellsbury being worthless in the last year or two is much -- but Soriano was an athletic guy when he signed his mega deal... so was A-Rod... and let's face it - it was known and quite often said at the time that teams were paying a premium for the upfront years. Soriano/A-Rod/etc certainly aren't anywhere close to being worth their annual salaries in the dreg years -- we knew this would be the case when they signed. So... you're effectively agreeing to balloon paymnets on near-term performance.
   21. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4620409)
I don't really know why, but I think of Choo the way I thought of Hideki Matsui.
   22. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4620411)
I don't really know why, but I think of Choo the way I thought of Hideki Matsui.


Pornography collector?
   23. zonk Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4620415)
Also - the new TV deal kicking in is a big factor that I had forgotten about... so maybe the rapid inflationary pressure makes sense. Makes some of the buyout contracts signed by folks like McCutheon look that much more like head scratchers, if not downright bad ideas (purely from an individual greed perspective -- bully for Cutch if he didn't really care about getting 20-25 mil and just wanted to stay in Pittsburgh for whatever reason).
   24. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4620419)
I think Choo is completely done as a decent defensive outfielder. His numbers are pretty stinky and my impression from watching a decent number of Reds games this year was that he doesn't get particularly good reads. It also seems like he made a disproportionate number of bad split second decision (diving when he should have played for a single, mis-timing jumps, getting his hands mixed up). Quite possibly that's just an illusion of sample size, but absent some reason to think he can go back to being an average-ish defender, I would be very wary.


I saw him several times last year, and he didn't look good to me, either.
   25. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4620427)
This off-season has shown that everything is changing and we all need to seriously recalibrate. Relievers are signing for $7-10M a year. Even a LOOGY like Boone signed for 3/16.5 for his paltry 40 innings a year. Where a guy like Choo might have "felt like" a $15M a year player, that clearly no longer applies.
Remember that huge contract Joey Votto signed last off-season, the one that there was no way Cinci could afford and would become an albatross?

The first year he'll be paid $20M is 2016; there are already 15 hitters signed for more than that for '16 (yeah, just hitters. There's another 8 SPs signed for $20M+ for that year). The way contracts are going, by the time you'd think the contract is ugly ($25M/yr for ages 36-39 ('20-'23) with a $20M option for '24) he may need to only be a little above replacement level.
   26. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 18, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4620433)
I predict pundits will all say Choo is crazy for turning down a $140 million deal, and in February, Choo gets a $153 million deal from some surprise team.
Remember, Prince Fielder was still unsigned at this time after the 2011 season. Victor Martinez tore his ACL on Jan. 16, and Fielder had a contract for more than anyone ever thought possible 10 days later.
   27. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4620435)
Remember, Prince Fielder was still unsigned at this time after the 2011 season. Victor Martinez tore his ACL on Jan. 16, and Fielder had a contract for more than anyone ever thought possible 10 days later.


The thing is that I can't imagine Choo getting THAT much more by waiting around. Fielder probably added a couple of years and $40 mil or so to his deal by hanging around but I'll be stunned if Choo gets an 8th year or another $4-5 million per year. I mean yeah, 153>140 but is it really worth waiting for when there is a risk of the deal coming off the table? What happens if the Yanks trade Sanchez and Gardner to the Marlins for Stanton tomorrow? (cause Loria wouldn't do something that stupid?)

Feel free to remind me of this when Choo signs his 9 year, $220 million deal.
   28. Buck Coats Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4620437)
But as bad as Choo looked last year, it's important to remember that he was playing out of position in CF, where he had played a total of 10 games in his career before last year. Put him back in RF and he'll presumably look much better (although his Rfield was -12 playing RF in 2012 so maybe not)
   29. Publius Publicola Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4620445)
But, but...he should be honored by the chance to be a Yankee!
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4620447)
it was known and quite often said at the time that teams were paying a premium for the upfront years. Soriano/A-Rod/etc certainly aren't anywhere close to being worth their annual salaries in the dreg years -- we knew this would be the case when they signed. So... you're effectively agreeing to balloon paymnets on near-term performance.


Oh, I agree. For the long contracts, teams are expecting to receive more value than the AAV in some years and less value in others. But that doesn't mean that "less value" equals "no value." Think of Soriano's first and last (so far) season of his contract. His teams paid $28 million combined for those 2 years - one year was good and one year was decent. But it was better for his teams to have both years for the $28 million, instead of just the young one.
   31. madvillain Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4620453)
It is no wonder that Cano thought the Yankees were low balling him. From this article it seems like the negotiations were going on simultaneously and I am fairly sure Cano and his camp had a good idea what the yanks were offering Choo.

I will say it again: the Yankees are being penny smart and pound foolish.
   32. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4620456)
The thing is that I can't imagine Choo getting THAT much more by waiting around.
It's not so much that Fielder got more by waiting around, but got what he wanted when suddenly someone was desperate. If a pivotal player on a big budget, playoff contending team suddenly goes down, Choo will get as much as he wants.

I realize that's a big if, but that seems to be the game Boras is playing.
   33. The District Attorney Posted: December 18, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4620475)
I just cannot see any reason why one should so massively overpay for the 'best available' talent.
Yeah, agreed. I acknowledge that the definition of "overpay" does constantly change. But I disagree with the logic that free agent salaries determine "the value of a win" and therefore it's always good to pay that amount or less.

What happens if the Yanks trade Sanchez and Gardner to the Marlins for Stanton tomorrow?
Wait, you think the Yanks are still in the market for Choo? I don't see it. I think they think they're fine with Soriano at DH. I suppose they could sign Choo and trade Gardner, but yeesh, that'd really be doubling down on old mercenaries.
   34. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 18, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4620489)
The thing is that I can't imagine Choo getting THAT much more by waiting around. Fielder probably added a couple of years and $40 mil or so to his deal by hanging around but I'll be stunned if Choo gets an 8th year or another $4-5 million per year.

Maybe he just wants to play for a contender?
   35. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 07:46 PM (#4620492)

The thing is that I can't imagine Choo getting THAT much more by waiting around. Fielder probably added a couple of years and $40 mil or so to his deal by hanging around but I'll be stunned if Choo gets an 8th year or another $4-5 million per year. I mean yeah, 153>140 but is it really worth waiting for when there is a risk of the deal coming off the table?

I agree, the downside for Choo is a lot bigger than the upside (there is a lot of room to go down from $140 million). I will caveat that by saying Boras generally knows what he's doing.

Remember when Juan Gonzalez turned down 8 years, $140 million? That was fun...
   36. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4620511)
But, but...he should be honored by the chance to be a Yankee!


I wish I was good enough at baseball to one day be on the free agent market in MLB. For all the obvious reasons, yes (baseball is fun, money is also fun, so is hooking up with women who are otherwise way out of your league), but mostly so I could get a fat offer from the Yankees, secure a slightly smaller one somewhere else, and then tell the press that I didn't take the Yankees' money because I loathed them deeply and would never stoop to such depths as to play my home games in the Bronx. Then, of course, I would practice ducking before the first time I played against them.
   37. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 18, 2013 at 09:00 PM (#4620522)
I agree, the downside for Choo is a lot bigger than the upside (there is a lot of room to go down from $140 million). I will caveat that by saying Boras generally knows what he's doing.

I am not sure that is true. He supposedly has standing offers from 4 or 5 teams. I think he can get 6/120 whenever he wants. And I can see some team, or some GM who thinks he's on the hot seat, caving and giving him 8/180 or so.
   38. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 18, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4620532)
Ok, so the Yankees clearly don't give a #### about the luxury tax if they were making this offer after signing Ellsbury. That makes letting Cano go even crazier.
   39. Publius Publicola Posted: December 18, 2013 at 10:24 PM (#4620578)
I'm beginning to believe there's something about Cano they were not enamored with and so refused to overpay. Call it A-Rod spillover or whatever but the problem doesn't seem to be the money, or even the years.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:36 AM (#4620643)
Wasn't Cashman quoted the other day saying that at least part of it was the years? Something about "all these 10-year contracts not working out."

I keep coming back to that article a few weeks ago where they go looked at the long-term WAR value. That is the traditional way of calculating $/WAR for FAs looked only at WAR produced in the first year of the contract. If so, that was silly, those are the best years. He looked at it over the life of contracts and he came up with $7 M per WAR and that it had been at that level for a few years now.

I'd want to see the data and the analysis more closely before signing off on that but the approach makes more sense and that number seems to make more sense with the contracts we've seen.

And maybe we're seeing evidence that the market is shifting to a $/WAR perspective (whether they use bWAR, fWAR or their own proprietary version doesn't matter a whole lot).

Under those (big) assumptions, paying $5 M for a reliever is not that big of a deal -- .7 WAR. 2/$16 for Marlon Byrd starts to look fine. 3/$24 for Hughes and 4/$32 for Vargas and 3/$21 for Morton don't seem outlandish.

I disagree with the logic that free agent salaries determine "the value of a win" and therefore it's always good to pay that amount or less.

And I think I agree with your disagreement. But of course the wins have to come from somewhere. As long as a GM is making it back with some young, cost-controlled players, there are going to be times when paying extra for those 2-3 wins is worth it.

But ... the piece I still just can't connect to is that almost all of those long-term contracts of the past were pretty clearly bad ideas and widely recognized as bad ideas. It's not hard to find reasonable comps for the Ellsbury contract -- from Soriano to Hunter to Werth to Prince -- with some inflation added in. So in that sense it's a "fair" price. But almost all of those similar contracts were regretted and several were salary-dumped while eating big chunks of the remaining money.

And when I say they didn't work out, I don't mean the last 3 years were terrible -- they almost always were but I agree that contracts are priced more along the lines of total WAR produced ... i.e. Ellsbury is essentially being paid to produce about $140 in the first 5 years and $12 in the last 2. But Soriano was $136 for about 11 WAR; Wells $126 for 7; Werth needs to produce 11 WAR over the next 4 years to break even; Hunter was the one that worked out at 21 WAR for $90.

7 years for Choo could signal another shift too. Teams have been happy to sign guys long-term through age 36 but have gone past that only for superstars -- Wright, Votto, Pujols, Cano, ARod. It would only be one extra year but is Choo really a guy who can demand that extra year?

Trying to find "perfect" comps for Choo is not easy. I went with BA<300, ISO between 150 and 200, OBP >370 and at least 2500 PA through age 30.

Yaz -- aged good, but a terrible comp after era adjustment
Tenace -- not a great comp but 19 WAR from 31 on.
John Valentin -- not a great comp, aged badly
Youk -- ooh, this looks like a good-hitting comp at least, 11 WAR
VMart -- not great comp, 8 WAR in 4 years
Alvin Davis -- oh boy, but he was terrible at 30
Koskie -- ugh
Carbo -- a platoon guy but ugh
M Bradley -- yikes
Nick Johnson -- double yikes
Kruk -- 10 WAR
Lawton -- 2 WAR but never as good as Choo in context
Siebern -- already seeming in decline by 30

At best those are hitting comps but it's not a good list. Neither is his traditional b-r comp list. Being as kind to Choo as I can, from ages 26-30 he had 21 WAR. A list of 18-24 WAR from LF/RF for those ages from the expansion era ... and trying to stick with the sensible ones (i.e. not Gwynn, not Killer) and WAR from 31-37

Evans 26
R Smith 22
Winfield 22
Parker 6
Singleton 16
F Alou 19
Drew 11
Salmon 13
Gibson 14
Justice 16
Bay 2 (and counting!)
Maris 6
McReynolds 3
Greer 2
Cruz 30(!)
Floyd 6

Interesting, the list is at least solid for almost all of the guys above Choo from 26-30 (that's Drew on up), holds steady right after him (Gibson and Justice but I skipped over Colavito and Strawberry as bad comps) and then goes to hell except for Cruz who was the best of this bunch. The average of the whole bunch is about 13.5 WAR, The Singleton-Justice group looks pretty reasonable but they still only average about 15 WAR.

$140 for Choo seems a bad idea. I think this is a better set of comps than the rate stat comps earlier and it's more promising for Choo. But even at $7 per WAR, he needs to produce 20 WAR. Only 4 of these 16 guys pulled that off, only 2 of them exceeded it substantially. Cruz's extra value comes from defense -- he really was very good in LF -- and he had only 24 oWAR which is still excellent for these ages but we can't expect Choo to add the extra defensive value.

So maybe all the extra TV money has pushed us up to $8 or $9 M per WAR?



   41. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 19, 2013 at 02:45 AM (#4620678)
Choo is only a year older -- and has had 2-3 seasons as good as Ellsbury's best....

I'm sure people will quibble with fielding numbers, and Ellsbury doesn't have many very good seasons, but...
Top 3 Ellsbury seasons in BB-ref WAR: 8.1, 5.8, 3.0
Top 3 Choo seasons in BB-ref WAR: 6.0, 5.5, 4.2

So I guess Choo has had 2 seasons as good as Ellsbury's 2nd best. (And obviously a lot more than Ellsbury's 3rd best. But Ellsbury's potential is higher.)
   42. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2013 at 04:34 AM (#4620686)
What's amazing to me here is that Choo's great 2013 must have added many, many millions of dollars to his price. Like, maybe $20 million? 40 million? And the major change in his results this year, compared to previous years, is that instead of walking 70-80 times, he walked 110 times. Everything else is in line with past performance.
   43. Baldrick Posted: December 19, 2013 at 05:00 AM (#4620688)
What's amazing to me here is that Choo's great 2013 must have added many, many millions of dollars to his price. Like, maybe $20 million? 40 million? And the major change in his results this year, compared to previous years, is that instead of walking 70-80 times, he walked 110 times. Everything else is in line with past performance

That, and he got hit like 50 times.
   44. RollingWave Posted: December 19, 2013 at 05:33 AM (#4620689)
So they offer 20 per for Choo, but wouldn't match Robinson Cano's contract.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

   45. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 19, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4620705)
So they offer 20 per for Choo, but wouldn't match Robinson Cano's contract.

I really think it was the years and not the AAV that the Yankees didn't want to do. And you know, fair enough to them. That's completely understandable.
   46. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4620712)
Yankees sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R RUINING BASEBALL"

Yankees refuse to sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R STOOPID"
   47. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 19, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4620731)
Yankees sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R RUINING BASEBALL"

Yankees refuse to sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R STOOPID"
No, they're stupid for offering 7/$300M to two outfielders who have almost no chance to be worth the money instead of 10/$240 to a 2B who might.

EDIT: Let's do a quick comparison:

Cano: 5791 PA, 45.2 career bWAR, entering age-31 season. Signed for $24M/yr, which the Yankees wouldn't pay.

Choo+Gardner: 5905 PA, 44.9 career bWAR, entering age-31 and 30 seasons. Offered almost $43M/yr by the Yankees.
   48. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4620743)
Wait, they're offering Gardner how much?
   49. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4620776)
The thing is that I can't imagine Choo getting THAT much more by waiting around. Fielder probably added a couple of years and $40 mil or so to his deal by hanging around but I'll be stunned if Choo gets an 8th year or another $4-5 million per year.



Maybe. You also have to figure that there are several teams out there ready to offer Tanaka a huge deal, and most of them - maybe all of them - aren't going to get him. That money wil burn a hole in their pocket and they'll feel the need to do something.
   50. PreservedFish Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4620792)
Yankees sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R RUINING BASEBALL"

Yankees refuse to sign player to one of the largest, longest contracts of all-time: "YANKEES R STOOPID"


Nothing contradictory in these two positions.
   51. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4620803)
Of course the YANKEES R STOOPID. They freely entered into an agreement with their business partners whereby they pay a luxury tax and share their revenue! How stoopid can you be?
   52. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4620810)
Wait, they're offering Gardner how much?
I know you're being obtuse, but just in case I'm wrong:

They're paying Gardner 7/$153, and offered Choo 7/$140. That's 7/$293 (almost $300M) for the both of them.
   53. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4620823)
You keep saying Gardner instead of Ellsbury, which is probably why he made that post.
   54. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4620824)
I know you're being obtuse, but just in case I'm wrong:

They're paying Gardner 7/$153, and offered Choo 7/$140. That's 7/$293 (almost $300M) for the both of them.


You mean Ellsbury, but point taken.
   55. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4620825)
I know you're being obtuse, but just in case I'm wrong:

They're paying Gardner 7/$153, and offered Choo 7/$140. That's 7/$293 (almost $300M) for the both of them.


You're confusing Gardner with Ellsbury.

Edit: Too late.
   56. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4620843)
This is one of those situations...

But using Ellsbury instead of Gardner makes the Yankees look even worse:

Choo+Ellsbury: 6881 PA, entering age-31 and 30 seasons, 46.6 career bWAR

That's 1100 more PA for 1 more career WAR vs. Cano.
   57. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4620860)
That's 1100 more PA for 1 more career WAR vs. Cano.

There is something to be said for spreading your risk to two good players rather than having it all tied up in one. Hypothetically, would you turn down a trade for Ellsbury and Choo, knowing your paying them a combined 7/293 for Cano and his 10/253? I think I would take Choo and Ellsbury. Of course, they didn't sign Choo, so it doesn't mean anything anyway.
   58. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4620882)
Of course the YANKEES R STOOPID. They freely entered into an agreement with their business partners whereby they pay a luxury tax and share their revenue!


The Yankee Tax was part of the 2002 CBA which was approved 29-1. I'll let you guess who the dissenter was, but your definition of "freely entered" is an interesting one.
   59. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4620884)
Wait, they're offering Gardner how much?

I know you're being obtuse,


I like that, you make a simple mistake and counter with an insult when I give you a chance to correct yourself.
   60. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4620893)
MLB is awash in dough. Now more than ever.


The cracking of the local cable monopolies has not resulted in any savings to consumers, rather it has forced cable companies to share the loot with content providers, and MLB is a content provider.
   61. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4620897)
There is something to be said for spreading your risk to two good players rather than having it all tied up in one. Hypothetically, would you turn down a trade for Ellsbury and Choo, knowing your paying them a combined 7/293 for Cano and his 10/253? I think I would take Choo and Ellsbury. Of course, they didn't sign Choo, so it doesn't mean anything anyway.
I would turn down that trade every day.

Cano has 2 8+ WAR seasons, Ellsbury+Choo 1.
Cano has 1 7-8 WAR season, E+C 0.
Each have 1 6-7 WAR season.
E+C have 2 5-6 WAR season, Cano 1.
Both have 1 4-5 WAR season.
E+C have 3 3-4 WAR seasons, Cano 1.

Cano has 6 "All-Star" quality seasons (5+ WAR), E+C 4.
Cano has 7 seasons above replacement level out of the past 9, E+C have 8 in the past 13 combined seasons.

So Cano for $240M (Where did you get $253M? I've never seen that reported) seems like a bargain compared to $53M more for Ellsbury and Choo. And if things go bad, you only have one wasted roster spot instead of two.
   62. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4620898)
I like that, you make a simple mistake and counter with an insult when I give you a chance to correct yourself.
And I admitted I missed my mistake after someone else made it clearer.
   63. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 19, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4620900)


So Cano for $240M (Where did you get $253M? I've never seen that reported) seems like a bargain compared to $53M more for Ellsbury and Choo. And if things go bad, you only have one wasted roster spot instead of two.


But the chances of things going bad for Ellsbury are independent of the chances of things going bad for Choo. If each has a 1/4 chance of 'going bad', there is only a 1/16 chance of both doing so and wasting two roster spots.
   64. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4622154)
Heyman says Choo to TEX, 7 year deal
   65. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4622159)
And $130M. I wonder if he wasn't as interested in NY or Boras just overplayed his hand.
   66. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4622162)
The Rangers aren't screwing around this winter. Damn it.
   67. JJ1986 Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4622163)
I wonder if he wasn't as interested in NY or Boras just overplayed his hand.


Doesn't New York have a very high state income tax? He might be taking home more money.
   68. SteveF Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4622164)
My understanding is he preferred Texas and didn't really want to play in New York.
   69. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4622166)
That and tax differences
   70. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: December 21, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4622171)
The Yankee Tax was part of the 2002 CBA which was approved 29-1. I'll let you guess who the dissenter was, but your definition of "freely entered" is an interesting one.

If they find the deal too onerous, what's stopping Young Masters Steinbrenner from starting the Yankee Baseball League and barnstorming the world taking on the Washington Generals at every stop?
   71. tfbg9 Posted: December 21, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4622185)
@70-Bobby V. could be Red Klotz!
   72. Publius Publicola Posted: December 21, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4622199)
There's very little in this world that's more ironically amusing than a Yankee fan complaining about how structural disadvantages are inhibiting the competiveness of his team.
   73. I am going to be Frank Posted: December 21, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4622202)
I looked it up. If I'm reading it right New York State highest rate is 8.82% and for NYC it is 3.876%. Wow that's a lot.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(99 - 7:06am, Apr 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(53 - 7:05am, Apr 20)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(920 - 7:04am, Apr 20)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(59 - 3:03am, Apr 20)
Last: esseff

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1738 - 2:53am, Apr 20)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(364 - 2:31am, Apr 20)
Last: Rob_Wood

Newsblogmets.com: Through hitting system, Mets aim to build winner
(9 - 1:43am, Apr 20)
Last: Benji

NewsblogI Don’t Care If I Ever Get Back — And I Might Not
(4 - 1:21am, Apr 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(40 - 1:06am, Apr 20)
Last: LargeBill

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(13 - 12:53am, Apr 20)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(38 - 12:45am, Apr 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(102 - 12:40am, Apr 20)
Last: kthejoker

NewsblogBaseball Researcher: Some Very Fortunate Footage
(4 - 12:28am, Apr 20)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 19, 2014
(65 - 12:08am, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(153 - 11:23pm, Apr 19)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5892 seconds
52 querie(s) executed