Did the plane ticket to San Diego that Judge purchased over the weekend convince Hal to pony up the extra shekels?

Does this mean MLB needs to keep producing Goldilocks balls for the Yanks for nine years ?

Judge and the Yankees are one of those relationships where they are uniquely good for each other: The Yankees maximize the star power of Judge; Judge gives the Yankees a classic, slugging, likable superstar that perfectly fits the legacy of the franchise. And they both will make the most money by working together.

When I see Mike Trout play, I often wonder what his career and level of fame would be if he had played for the Dodgers or Yankees instead of the Angels.

So Judge made about $150M more betting on himself?

Whew. Giants dodged a bullet and may have made the ####### Yankees pay more.

Judge gives the Yankees a classic, slugging, likable superstar that perfectly fits the legacy of the franchise.

I feel like that kind of guy would be a fit for a lot of teams.

No need to wait another decade, the Yanks ought to retire his number at the upcoming press conference.

Probably an overpay, but it was an overpay the Yankees needed to make. Without Judge, the lineup is anemic, and you might as well tear the team down.

Now they need to attach a prospect to the remains of Josh Donaldson, and clear the IF for the young guys.

So he's not going to the Giants?

Probably an overpay

No snark intended, but if every new contract seems like an overpay, do we perhaps need to recalibrate the definition? I instinctively feel the way you do, that we continue to see the same front office impulsivity that we've seen since the advent of free agency, but perhaps there is so much money in the game -- more than we fans even imagine -- that the front offices are able to measure the cost-benefit of short-term success versus down-the-road wastage, and the calculus for these new deals "works". I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the wisdom of paying players into their mid- and late-thirties, but I do allow for the possibility that their spending modelling is more sophisticated than mine.

Our long national nitemare is over!

Looking forward to hearing him get booed the first time he strikes out in a clutch moment.

He might fail the physical when he's found to be unreasonably large.

No snark intended, but if every new contract seems like an overpay, do we perhaps need to recalibrate the definition? I instinctively feel the way you do, that we continue to see the same front office impulsivity that we've seen since the advent of free agency, but perhaps there is so much money in the game -- more than we fans even imagine -- that the front offices are able to measure the cost-benefit of short-term success versus down-the-road wastage, and the calculus for these new deals "works". I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the wisdom of paying players into their mid- and late-thirties, but I do allow for the possibility that their spending modelling is more sophisticated than mine.

I think that's a good point. Another way of looking at it would be that there are a few top teams who are spending up to what their revenue and ownership value/risk tolerance allows (NYY, NYM, LAD, SDP, PHI, HOU, probably a few others) and a few that have real revenue problems (probably just OAK and TB), while the rest of the owners have figured out that they can spend just enough to remain vaguely competitive and make a ton of money.

Baseball is flush with cash, has a labor deal and pandemic behind them, new revenues from Peacock, Apple+, expanded playoffs, and BAMTech, the FA dollars-per-WAR is going up.

So he's not going to the Giants?

Aaron? No.

Arson Judge is a different story.

Arson Judge is a different story.

Count me in for the inevitable t-shirts!

Unless Aaron steps off a cliff in Year 2 of the contract, the Yankees are going to make money on this deal. Or, at the very least, lose less money on the deal than if they didn't sign Judge at all.

9 months later, Judge gets an extra $146M to commit for 2 more years. seems like a win for him.

still something a little weird about this relationship, like that couple you always see fighting but the angry sex makes it all worth it.

for a while, anyway

Reportedly, the Padres offered Judge $400M:

Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports that the Padres’ offer was $400MM over 10 years.
. . .
The Padres came in with a “significant” offer, according to Mark Feinsand of MLB.com, while Jon Morosi of MLB Network reports that Judge turned down higher offers elsewhere to return to the Yanks.

Even at a ‘discount’, it’s a good deal for Judge, as well as the Yankees.

No snark intended, but if every new contract seems like an overpay, do we perhaps need to recalibrate the definition? I instinctively feel the way you do, that we continue to see the same front office impulsivity that we've seen since the advent of free agency, but perhaps there is so much money in the game -- more than we fans even imagine -- that the front offices are able to measure the cost-benefit of short-term success versus down-the-road wastage, and the calculus for these new deals "works". I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the wisdom of paying players into their mid- and late-thirties, but I do allow for the possibility that their spending modelling is more sophisticated than mine.

I think it's probably something a long the lines that rich teams know they're overpaying in a pure "most optimal use of money" way, but thy're willing to overpay b/c it's the easiest way to improve a team quickly. There's also probably some agency problems between front office and owners, b/c of the need to win to stay employed. Brian Cashman could easily believe that the Yankees will win more games over the next 9 years by not signing Judge and spending elsewhere, but if he doesn't sign Judge, he won't be in charge for the last 5 of those years, so makes the deal anyway.

Biggest story of the offseason turns into the worst primer headline ever.

Brian Cashman could easily believe that the Yankees will win more games over the next 9 years by not signing Judge and spending elsewhere, but if he doesn't sign Judge, he won't be in charge for the last 5 of those years, so makes the deal anyway.

I must not be understanding you. What do you mean by this since we know large contracts like Judge received always involve ownership? Doesn't seem like these kinds of signings strictly reflect the baseball operations departments (to say nothing of the fact that Cashman specifically has a good relation with his bosses.)

Biggest story of the offseason turns into the worst primer headline ever.

Apparently, Jim took that as a challenge.

No snark intended, but if every new contract seems like an overpay, do we perhaps need to recalibrate the definition?

You've got a point, but three counterpoints:

- Winner's curse - every contract is an overpay, because the winner is whoever most badly misoverestimated the player's value.

- Merchandising - Judge is easily the most sellable player in the sport, they'll make a few million just from his jerseys.

- If inflation keeps raging, this may look cheap by 9 years from now.

Moreso, if there's one GM in baseball not worried about whether he gets fired, it's Cashman. He's been GM of the Yanks for longer than Tatis Jr has been alive. (Not to mention the 4-year deal he just signed but of course that might have been related to his success here.)

By they way ... Jim, worst headline ever. I skipped right past this story last night. How about "Judge signs with Yankees."

Slightly surprised it's not 9/$355 or 10/$370 or something to keep the $40 M position player barrier in check. But no biggie.

- Merchandising - Judge is easily the most sellable player in the sport, they'll make a few million just from his jerseys.

Last I knew from a few years ago, merchandise revenues were split among the league (then the teams) and the players, with teams getting a greater cut for merchandise sold within their stadiums. No reason to think that arrangement has changed, so I’ll run with it.

What’s a jersey sell for? $100? Never bought one, never looked, so I have no idea. If $100, and the team gets (guessing) $20, that means a team would have to sell 50,000 jerseys in-stadium to make a million, or just over 600/game. If those numbers are anywhere near fair, it sounds like the key to merchandise revenue is just popular players/teams and the teams collectively reaping the money from all the sales everywhere (malls, standalone sporting goods stores, stadiums, general licensing deals, etc.).

But it’d be great if someone had better information on all this.

Last I knew from a few years ago, merchandise revenues were split among the league (then the teams) and the players, with teams getting a greater cut for merchandise sold within their stadiums.

I believe that’s true for online sales & what MLB licenses to sporting good stores, but teams keep what they sell at their ballpark & team stores. The Yankees have 4 team stores in Manhattan. Probably not making huge revenue compared to the gate & broadcast $$, but every bit helps. Of course, just about every Yankee fan so inclined for such stuff probably already has a Judge jersey or other merchandise, but maybe some will need replacing over the next 9 years.

I must not be understanding you. What do you mean by this since we know large contracts like Judge received always involve ownership? Doesn't seem like these kinds of signings strictly reflect the baseball operations departments (to say nothing of the fact that Cashman specifically has a good relation with his bosses.)

Sure the owners have input, but they're going to rely heavily on the front office. Hal Steinbrenner has no idea if Judge is worth $360M or $260M over the next 9 years. He certainly doesn't know enough to evaluate alternative uses of the money.

This is a basic problem in business; executives and owners are never perfectly aligned, because execs get fired over bad short-term results.

That is an impressive contract, 9/360. I thought it would either be 8/320 or like 9/335 type of thing. Wow.

Good for baseball, good for NY(which as a Red Sox fan, I never really like to see), but they got it done, secured a great player and let the fanbase know they are keen to continue succeeding.

So he averages like 8 WAR per 650 PA type of thing? Heck, if you get 4000 PA(does that seem really light) over the next 9 seasons, figuring in some age decline, would NY be happy with around 45 WAR?

What do the projections suggest?

Of course, just about every Yankee fan so inclined for such stuff probably already has a Judge jersey or other merchandise, but maybe some will need replacing over the next 9 years.

Unfortunately, kids need a new jersey every freaking year.

Probably an overpay, but it was an overpay the Yankees needed to make. Without Judge, the lineup is anemic, and you might as well tear the team down.

This piqued my curiosity, so I checked it real quick: The Yankees scored 807 runs this year, second most in baseball by a big margin over the third-place Braves. Judge personally created about 171 of them. If they lost Judge, being still the Yankees, we can assume they would replace him with someone who could create at least, say, 70 runs. So losing 100 runs drops the Yankees down to 12th place on the list, alongside the Rangers. Their Pythag record last year was 106-56; if we assume losing Judge would also make their run prevention 10 runs worse, it would drop their expected Pythag all the way to 100-62. Without considering that they would have spent that money on something more than just a single 110 OPS+ outfielder.

They would probably have been fine without him, in the near term.

Unfortunately, kids need a new jersey every freaking year.

Just buy them the life sized Judge jersey. They’ll grow into it.

Just buy them the life sized Judge jersey. They’ll grow into it.

Or move into it.

Judge personally created about 171 of them

Probably easier to use something like Rbat here. Judge's bat was worth 80 runs above-average last year. Or he produced at about 50 per 650 PA over the last few years. If they replaced him with a good hitter (say Nimmo) that would be 25-30 Rbat. Nimmo's gonna get paid (looks like a lot more than I was expecting) but you'd probably also have another $15 M or so to spend which, in the abstract, should buy you another Rizzo-type player (Haniger say) which would be about 15 Rbat. So, even for the same (short-term) money, you're losing 10 to 40 runs of offense.

That's not the bargain it appears of course because that's where the 9-years comes in. Everybody knows Judge 2023 will probably be worth more than $40 ... and Nimmo 2023 will probably be worth more than whatever his AAV turns out to be. Guys like Rizzo, Haniger, Abreu are paid more in line with where $/WAR really is right now.