I have this theory about job offers: I think employers have this special and secret chart they use so that they can offer you PRECISELY as much money as it will take to make your decision ridiculously hard. They will never offer so much money that you go, "Oh, that's a no-brainer*." And they will never offer you so little that you think, "Well, that's humiliating, forget that." Nope, they will find the perfect middle, they will offer salaries that are just enough to keep you tossing and turning all night.
*Except in John Grisham books.
In this way, I think most things in life are priced at levels that meet our eye. That's not to say that stuff isn't overpriced -- I'd say one-quarter of all conversation revolves around how expensive stuff is.*
*The conversation chart around my life looks a bit like this:
33% Weather
25% How stuff is too expensive
15% General hotness level of various people.
12% Pop Culture
5% Sports (overall)
5% Sports specific to Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods and LeBron James
3% "The coach/manager/server at this restaurant/neighbor/pilot/doctor/anyone else suck at what they do."
1% Religion and politics and family and science and current events and stuff like that.
1% Justin Bieber
But my feeling is that while stuff IS expensive, it's usually not bizarrely expensive. By that I mean, yes, someone may point out that a night out at a middling chain restaurant might cost too much money.* They can't believe movie ticket prices these days. They find that they actually WILL pay a lot for this muffler.
But after a while, unless you're one of those people who keeps getting surprised by the same thing, the effect of price will wear off. Yes, at first, it sure seemed like coffee at Starbucks cost an unreasonable amount of money since coffee used to be a dime with all the refills you ever wanted. But now, when someone complains about the price at Starbucks, it sounds dated, like people who still use Roseanne as a reference point for culture jokes. A movie ticket is 14 bucks or 18 bucks or 20 bucks ... but the only people who are shocked by this are people who don't go to movies.
Then ... there are some things that ALWAYS seems preposterously expensive no matter how many times you see the price. These I have decided to call: Texpensives. Yes, it's my latest word. A texpensive (noun) means something (person, place, thing) that seems bizarrely, even comically, overpriced. It can also be used as an adjective, I suppose, though I don't like it as much that way. Still it could. Example: Buying a World Cup is texpensive.
The word origin is pretty easy to explain. "Expensive" is obvious. The "Tex" part of it, can refer to state of Texas, where the state takes great pride in making everything absurdly large. But the real inspiration is Mark Teixeira. Really, the word should be spelled "Teixpensives" but having once lost a spelling bee on the word "chocolate" -- who needs that second "o" anyway? -- I don't like unnecessarily complicated spelling words.
Tex is a terrific player, absolutely terrific, and I don't want anyone to miss that point. But his contract seems to be bizarrely out of step with his reality. His contract is eight years, $180 million. Starting this season, he will get $22.5 million per year for the next six years. It is the fifth-largest total value contract ever given out (two of those are Alex Rodriguez deals), and Teixeira will be the third-highest paid every day player in baseball in 2011 (behind only Alex Rodriguez and Joe Mauer).
Why? Is Mark Teixeira the third-best player in baseball? No. Is he the best first baseman in baseball. No. That's Albert Pujols. Is he second best? Third best? Fourth best? Maybe. But maybe not. After a while you look at the other best first basemen -- and you realize a lot of them can hit about as well as Teixeira. Here are the Top OPS+ for first basemen over the last five seasons:
1. Albert Pujols, 177
2. Miguel Cabrera, 152
3. Joey Votto, 151
4. Lance Berkman, 143
5. Adrian Gonzalez, 141
6. Ryan Howard, 141
7. Prince Fielder, 140
8. Mark Teixeira, 138
9. Justin Morneau, 137
10. Carlos Pena, 134
11. Kevin Youkilis, 131
12. Paul Konerko, 126
Tex is a better fielder than many of these, so that adds value. He's 30, so you would hope he still has some awesome years left in him. But that contract just seems a bit out of touch with the excellent but not exactly unique player that is Mark Teixeira. Why him? He seems like a texpensive to me.
The most obvious texpensive in today's America, I think, are these high end razor blades. No matter how many times I see the futuristic names of these razors (Fusion! Mach 3!) and the absurd star-studded commercials, no matter how many times I hear the promises of getting a shave that will be just one notch below sex, I still cannot fathom how much razor blades cost. Both 16 razors the other day at Costco -- I needed to have someone co-sign the loan.
Food around Times Square is texpensive. It's a cliche, but it's real. The other day, we went to lunch at Maxie's -- one of about 594 famous delicatessens near Times Square -- and there were three of us, and each of us ordered something like an open faced cheese sandwich. The sandwiches all looked identical -- like grilled cheese sandwiches not pushed together. One might have had tuna in it, another bacon, but basically three cheese-based sandwiched. And three sodas. Go ahead, give me a guess -- how much do you think? Understand, if you ordered that exact thing at Carolyn's Kitchen in Marysville, Kan., it would cost you, tip included, $8.50, maybe, and that's if they decided to charge you at all ("All you want is cheese, honey?").
At Maxie's, it cost us 91 bucks, though I should say that included tip. I'm sorry, I'm going to repeat that: It cost us 91 dollars. For three cheese sandwiches and Cokes.
Well, there are a lot of examples of texpensives -- real estate in San Francisco, radio talk show hosts (last I heard, Howard Stern was making a billion-jillion-shmillion dollars a year), anything to do with landscaping and so on.
But I suppose baseball players are the main texpensives in the world today. Every year, several players who you never thought were especially good will get ludicrous contracts. Every ... single ... year you will hear about Jose Guillen or Oliver Perez or Juan Pierre getting a lot of money and you think ... really?
Sometimes, often, the baseball texpensives are right handed pitchers just on either side of 30 who are league average or just above league average, usually coming off pretty good years. This seems to be the number one need in baseball -- an "inning eater." Who knew that league average innings were so valuable, but apparently they are gold.
A.J. Burnett is the ultimate example -- he was a good-enough right-handed pitcher coming off a slightly-better-than-average season (2.9 WAR), and he had proven over a number of years to be at his height a slightly-better-than-average pitcher (sometimes) and the Yankees gave him a five-year, $82.5 million. It's pretty clear they have absolutely no idea what to do with him now.
And while this is the most texpensive of the good-enough right-handed deals, it is hardly the most outrageous. Chan Ho Park is probably the original crazy contract -- Texas gave him five years and about $64 million after he pitched fairly well in the intense pitchers park that is Dodger Stadium. Amazing how often brilliant people with millions and millions of dollars at stake will not look park effects -- more on this in a minute. Kevin Millwood got a lot of money coming off his best year. And there are many others, to name a few: Jeff Suppan, Todd Stottlemeyre, Aaron Sele, Vincente Padilla, Jason Marquis, Carl Pavano, Gil Meche, Aaron Cook, Matt Clement, Kris Benson Carlos Silva ... all of these and many others got paid big bucks around the time they turned 30 for being good but not great.
Teams have had different layers of success with these signings, but the main point is that right-handed pitchers who reach age 30 with some big league innings and just above league average numbers will cost way, way, way more than seems necessary. And that's a texpensive ("Carlos Silva got WHAT?")
Another baseball texpensive -- the seven year, $126 million player. That is exactly $18 million a year for seven years, if you want to work the math, and this tasty deal has been given to three players in baseball history.
1. Barry Zito.
This signing probably got the worst instant reviews of any in baseball history. Zito of course won a Cy Young Award, but he had been a vaguely above average pitcher for three years before the Giants signed him to the seven-year, $126 million deal. He was turning 29, his stuff was clearly declining. Nobody really understood this move and it turned out from just about the first day to be even worse than most people expected. Zito has been below average for four years, he wasn't even on the Giants postseason roster, and he has three years left.
2. Vernon Wells
A year ago, I called this the worst contract in baseball. That was when Wells was coming off his disastrous 2009 season when he didn't hit, didn't field, didn't run and still had almost $100 million left on his deal. But I've amended this somewhat because Wells rebounded with a pretty good 2010. He hit well in Toronto, anyway.* But I should say that the main problems with this deal remain -- Wells is turning 32 this week, he is closing in on unplayable in center field, he still doesn't walk, he's not running nearly as well on the bases. It's not impossible that he could have a fine second career in his 30s, but it's certainly no sure thing. And there are four big years and $86 million left on that contract.
*I didn't realize this, but all of Wells improvement came at home in 2010. All of it.
At home, Wells hit a spectacular .321/.363/.628 with 20 homers. ... This was after he hit .214/.285/.348 at home in 2009.
But on the road in 2010, Wells was, um, not too good. He hit .227/.301/.407 with 11 homers and 34 RBIs. That's the player we all saw in 2009.
Of course a player gets 81 games at home ... and so the overal year was pretty good. Anyway, I don't know what this crazy split means. In 2009, Wells also had a huge split difference but it was a reverse split -- he hit .300 with more power on the road while not hitting at all at home.
3. Jayson Werth
And finally, we come to Werth who just signed that magical 7-year, $126 million deal with Washington. Werth has been a good player for a while, and he was very good in 2010. He's good defensively, he's a good base runner, he led the National League in doubles, he will take a walk. He is a fine player. But ...
Just that: But. No reason to fill in all the reasons this deal was wacko for the Nationals. Who signs a soon-to-be 32-year-old outfielder who has had exactly one outstanding season (and a couple of a good ones) to a seven-year-deal at $18 million per? Who does that?
There are so many reasons this deal is absurd that it's hard to pick just one ... but ballpark is not a bad place to start. Philadelphia is not the hitter's haven people that so many think, but it is a good home run ballpark. It's not a GREAT home run park like it was four years ago, but it's good. And Washington is not a good home run park at all.
What does this mean for Werth? In 2010, he hit 27 home runs -- 18 of them at home. In 2009, he hit 36 home runs -- 21 at home. From this you would take that Werth's home runs figure to go down, perhaps dramatically, in Washington. It strikes me as insane that Washington people would not see this ...
... but then I thought of something else and looked it up. And sure enough, I was right.
In 2010, Werth hit .419/.500/806 in eight games in Washington.
In 2009, Werth hit .306/.359/.915 in eight games in Washington.
Yep. He crushed the ball in Washington. And, though I don't know, I would not be surprised if these 16 games of hitting played in the Nationals thinking. Hey, look how well Werth hit in Washington! He loves this ballpark! He owns this place!
Of course, it's only 16 games. And it was against Washington pitching. And it's only 16 games. And also it's only 16 games. But big-money baseball signings are often emotional things, no matter how much people try to eliminate their personal feelings. My guess is that Washington desperately wants a star, someone to spark their potentially rich baseball market. Stephen Strasburg is hurt and in limbo. Bryce Harper is still off in the future.
Is Jayson Werth a star? No, probably not in the mind of most people. But there is what I like to call a "small market squint." That is general managers squinting until the player in question LOOKS like a star. The SMS is what make Jose Guillen look like a "proven run producer" to the Royals. It's what made Jeff Suppan look like "a winner" to Milwaukee." And Jayson Werth, well, he might be the biggest everyday free agent out there -- The Red Sox wanted him! Scott Boras thinks he's great! And he has played for a World Series Champ. And on top of that he loved hitting at Nationals Park. How could he miss?
I fear it's simple thoughts like this that turn good players into texpensives.
First, suckers.
ReplyDeleteJoe Mauer: texpensive.
ReplyDeleteWait 'til you see the figures for Cliff Lee after his two and a half decent years at 31. 70MM a season for the two decent seasons he may have left? At a comparable age, Denny Neagle was a much better value for a late-blooming lefty.
ReplyDeleteInflated Werth? Adjusted Werth?
ReplyDeleteThe lesson? Don't get hungry around Times Square. Or thirsty. Or cold. Or wet. Or anything that would require a purchase of some sort.
ReplyDelete$17 per sandwich *3= 51
$5 per drink = 15
Taxes = 10
Tip = 15
Fusion razor blades are the most expensive item by weight and value in the history of the world. The Werth deal is awful but at least the manager doesn't have to go get the key to unlock right field for Werth to play. Drugstores treat the blades with more care and security than Tiffany & Co. does a 5 carat diamond.
ReplyDeleteThe deal looks crazy, but if Werth can average a 4.5 WAR a year, the deal is worth it - the last three years he's been at 5.1, 4.9, and 5.0; pretty consistent production. If he can give you that level for three years or so, you can live with the decline phase where he'll still be an average player. They had to overpay to get anyone to sign up, since they've been shunned with the largest bid several times before. Otherwise, you're left paying supposed market-value for mediocrities like Jason Marquis who can't even live up to to a fraction of their contracts.
ReplyDeleteDefense dept spending is the greatest texpensives in WORLD history. There has never been anything, and I mean anything, like the over-priced unregulated spending from the late 20th and 21st-century defense dept.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, the Nats are cost-conscious compared to their neighbors in the Pentagon.
Seriously - in the history of the world.
I tend to agree with Rizzo, who said the only way they can get a big free agent is to overpay.
ReplyDeleteif the money's even or close to it, no one's signing with the Nats.
that said, it's still a ridiculous deal for a guy who was the 4th or 5th best guy on his old team.
Not that this is relevant but I was just reading about the Mark Reynolds deal and Buck Showalter actually said - "We certainly like his CONTACT-TO-DAMAGE RATIO". wtf is contact-to-damage ratio?
ReplyDelete"no matter how many times I hear the promises of getting a shave that will be just one notch below sex, I still cannot fathom how much razor
ReplyDeleteblades cost."
that might just be the most hilarious thing i've read all year.
Toner and razor blade cartridges are the vanguard of an ascendant marketing concept we might call The King Gillette Theory. Gillette invented a safety razor and practically gave it away, so as to keep people on the hook for expensive blades. (Then he made millions and spent it promoting the cause of a central world government, led by him.) Now everybody does this, and the refills are always texpensive.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the aaron rowand deal the giants made. they completely overpaid to take him from philly. nobody thought they would ever have a chance to win. he was clearly coming off his peak. low and behold, they did win sooner than anybody thought with him ...on the bench. you never know.
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I'll say it again - coffee at Starbucks is roughly similar to coffee anywhere else. Lattes, cappucinos, mochas, and other specialty espresso/milk/sugary syrup beverages are expensive, mostly because milk is expensive.
ReplyDeleteYou know what else is (t)expensive? Nuts. I'm no nut-buyer, but when I stumble across those packages of nuts encroaching upon the produce section of a grocery I can't help but wonder silently "They want $8 for that!". I believe it was the pistachio growers that took out commercial ads during the MLB playoffs featuring Dancing-With-the-Stars/Celebrity-Apprentice- quality celebs and about then I'm realizing if there's a consortium of farmers who grow a single species of nut and they can afford to buy commercial time during the MLB postseason, then they're obviously charging way too much for their product (and consumers are buying them nevertheless).
ReplyDeleteAnd about those shaving commercials... Why is the supporting actress who plays the wife/girlfriend/mistress always so damn hot? And what male on earth seriously wants to receive a razor for Christmas/etc.? And how on earth can they afford to get Jeter, a pre-scandal Tiger, and Federer in the same ad?
@zac: Milk is expensive? The national average is around $3.25 a gallon. The reason those coffee drinks are expensive is not because of the price of milk, but because people are idiots and will pay that much.
ReplyDeleteMilk is expensive?
ReplyDeleteStarbucks buys and throws away a very, very large quantity of milk every day. You seem to have missed the point, though.
I dunno - I gotta think the Werth deal is worse than the Wells deal. I mean, they're the same age *now*, so Werth is only now starting his albatross of a contract (its essentially the same contract but with Werth's starting at age 32). Plus, at least Wells plays CF (which he once played well, if no longer), while Werth is already a corner OF.
ReplyDeleteAnd, certainly after Wells, shouldn't we know better? Not to excuse the Wells contract by any means, but we now have a few more years experience (with mega contracts) under our belts. It should be a lot more clear 3 years post-Wells that these kinds of contracts should be reserved for only the most special of players, and certainly for players well shy of 30.
A movie ticket is 14 bucks or 18 bucks or 20 bucks ... but the only people who are shocked by this are people who don't go to movies.
ReplyDeleteI go to movies all the time and I'm shocked that people pay this kind of money. I guess maybe I'm fortunate enough to live in a city with a lot of great film theatres where you can find a movie for under $10 ($5 on Tuesdays!).
But what is texpensive is movie snacks/popcorn/pop. I make up for going to movies all the time by not buying any concessions, because as you say Joe, I'd need a cosign...
I hope you were able to expense that lunch. I have had really good dinners for two for that price.
ReplyDeleteIs there an opposite of Texpensive? I think electricity is a bargain. Go without for a couple of days and tell me if you think it is worth it. My home is all electric, and if my wife and I stop at Mcdonald's instead of cooking, that costs more than my electic bill does for one day.
Why the hell is Starbucks throwing away milk everyday? Do they not keep it in a refridgerator?! Milk is insanely cheap. Do you have any idea the cost of a dairy herd, feed, barns, transportation, processing, etc.? I can buy milk in my town for $2.00/gallon. Idiots pay an ungodly amount for bottled water when much of that water is just tap water in plastic.
ReplyDeleteI'd say the main reason Starbucks charges so much for their coffee is the same reason that male dogs lick their balls...Because they can! (Oh, and the labor - Those damn Barista's with their PhDs in coffee-making pull down close to $10/hr!)
I think dairy's have it all wrong. They need to package and sell some of their milk like wineries. Idiots would soon be paying exorbitant prices for leche in a fancy bottle with a damn cork. Give it some fancy name; speak of its character, its boldness, its legs. What absolute crap!
ReplyDeleteTo understand why the Yankees signed him to the contract they did, just look at how Burnett pitched against the Yanks during his last two years in Toronto:
ReplyDelete7 starts, 4-1 W-L, 53.1 IP, 38 hits, 3 HR, 9 runs, 8 ER, 12 BB, 56 K, 1.35 ERA
Yanks said, "Oh, we gotta have that!" Dumb before the ink dried.
Milk is insanely cheap.
ReplyDeleteIt's much closer to $4.50 on average where I live.
I'd say the main reason Starbucks charges so much for their coffee is the same reason that male dogs lick their balls...Because they can!
Again, they don't charge that much more than most places for coffee. They charge that much for espresso based drinks that use a lot of milk and syrup. Is that fair of them to do? Not for me to say. But a large (20 oz) coffee at the one down the street was 2.10 last I went.
The less said about your "thoughts" on labor the better.
I think electricity is a bargain
ReplyDeletePersonally, my bill is full of service/supply charges that they can't fully explain which I could certainly do without.
Joe--
ReplyDeleteYou and your pals are completely out of your minds (or on an expense account) to have had a 3-sandwich lunch for 90 bucks. There are *numerous* Times Square area options that are better than that.
But my feeling is that while stuff IS expensive, it's usually not bizarrely expensive. By that I mean, yes, someone may point out that a night out at a middling chain restaurant might cost too much money.*
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be a hanging Pozterisk.
In fairness on Teixeira...how many guys on that list hit free agency? It makes a huge difference. Having other teams to bid against changes everything. The Yankees gave him a huge contract, but the Red Sox were only slightly lower, and some reports had the Nationals HIGHER.
ReplyDeleteI agree it's an expensive contract, probably too expensive, but had Pujols, or Cabrera, or even Gonzalez actually hit free agency, they'd probably have gotten the same or more (assuming the Yankees and Red Sox and apparently the Nationals all needed a first baseman anyway). Pujols may very well still even with a hometown extension (as he should).
http://gizmodo.com/212444/hp-ink-costs-more-than-human-blood-booze
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate Texpensive
You can outsmart the razor folks by using each blade longer than they wanted you to. (if you shave while in the shower, the blades can last a really long time). It messed with their profit margins...that's why the company started running commercials to tell us we needed to change the blades more often to experience the wondrous miracle they provide.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I would LOVE a blog post that gives the Posnanski treatment to the topic of the "general hotness level of various people."
ReplyDeleteSo when one of these contracts go bust, I assume we can call it Werthless?
ReplyDeleteThe true value in the Yankee's signing A.J. Burnett is his no longer being able to beat the Yankees... Oh, darn!
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, the Werth contract is exactly like when the Phillies signed Jim Thome. Both teams were losers, but had good home-grown talent either at the bigs or real close. Both teams needed a big-name player to put seats in new stadiums. (Citizen Bank Park opened the year after Thome signed.) And both teams needed to overpay, because free agents don't like playing for losing teams in cities that can't put asses in seats.
ReplyDeleteThe signing worked out extremely well for the Phillies, putting them directly on the path towards their current run of success. I'm very interested to see what it does for the Nationals.
I gotta disagree with zac re Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't price based on the cost of the components of its products. It uses price points -- what price per unit moves each product in such a way as to maximize profits? There's some relationship to cost, but only because the customer expects there to be such a relationship.
ReplyDeleteAs to why regular coffee is not much more expensive at Starbucks than elsewhere -- lots of people find themselves in Starbucks who don't buy into the business model, but they want some coffee and Starbucks is ubiquitous. So they go in thinking "I'm not falling for their game!" and just order a coffee. Starbucks wants them as regular customers, too, but they know they'll never get them if they price regular coffee too far outside what regular Joe drinkers expect. So they bring them along gradually.
@zac: Since I seem to have "missed the point" you were trying to make (and in your condescension you didn't explain what I missed) and since like three other people have said the same thing as me, perhaps you should explain what you meant.
ReplyDeleteTime Square Bagels on 44th has the best bacon, egg, and cheese on a bagel. The best, Joe, the best.
ReplyDeletezac: I've gotta believe that if you are paying $4.50/gallon for milk you have completely fallen for the "organic marketing scheme" or you're buying it next door to where Joe and two friends had cheese sandwiches and cokes for $91. I don't buy milk at Whole Paycheck, where I'm sure it's probably double the cost at a regular grocery store like Krogers, IGA, Safeway, etc. Also, if the cost of milk had kept up with inflation over the past many decades you'd be paying a great deal more than $4.50/gal today.
ReplyDeleteOh, and trust me - Starbucks is NOT paying $4.50/gallon if they are going through as much milk as you claim.
How come nobody ever mentions the Ryan Howard contract? There are few contracts in baseball that over pay a player more than the Phillies over pay Howard. And that gift will continue for another six seasons.
ReplyDeleteJohn in Philly...good point. I don't think the Nats ever considered Werth as being that valuable. But it does create buzz for a team that may be pretty good in two years or so.
ReplyDeleteAnother texpensive: drinks at shows - it's not so much that you get charged $7.50 for a screwdriver. It's that you're paying $7.50 for a screwdriver in a 10 oz. cup that's half ice, with vodka that I know is $15 a bottle AND watered down to boot. I can't believe the lengths they go to increase their profit margins.
Hoo boy. I had to laugh as soon as you mentioned Maxie's. That place is a block from my office and it is murder. Not that the sandwiches aren't good but the pricing is crazy. For high-priced deli you're better off with Carnegie or Stage.
ReplyDeleteNext time you're in the neighborhood my call would be St. Andrew's on 46th.
Joe, if you like baseball contracts then you'll love NBA contracts. Drew Gooden...$30M! Darko Milicic...$20M! Joe Johnson and Chris Bosh...max contracts!
ReplyDeleteAt last: an economics tangent (milk/coffee/Starbucks/wherever) that doesn't involve me.
ReplyDeleteFor my money, I like "Small Market Squint" much more than "Texpensive". :)
ReplyDelete"In fairness on Teixeira...how many guys on that list hit free agency? It makes a huge difference. Having other teams to bid against changes everything. The Yankees gave him a huge contract, but the Red Sox were only slightly lower, and some reports had the Nationals HIGHER." -- Kyle Litke @ 12:44AM
ReplyDeleteBingo!
Further proof (as if we needed any) of how much smarter Marvin Miller was (and still is, for that matter) than your typical stupid owner (sorry for the redundancy).
One of the options available to the owners after the Messersmith-McNally decision was to have every player become a free agent every year. In fact, I have read more than one account indicating that Miller actually TOLD the owners as much.
But, in their infinite wisdom (as they see it), the owners decided that universal free agency would be a bad idea, and for the usual bad reasons (continuity, fan attachment, yadda yadda yadda). In addition, these geniuses decided that universal free agency would result in HIGHER salaries than would selective free agency.
Unfortunately for them -- and VERY fortunately for the MLBPA -- the laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of physics. The primary law of economics is that prices are determined by supply and demand*, so the owners shot themselves in the foot by deciding to reduce supply without making any changes in demand.
*I have two degrees in Economics (BA/MA), and everything I learned can be summarized in those three words: supply and demand. Everything else in economics is either another way to say that, or an attempt to explain it in more detail.
So, if there are only 3 (or whatever *limited* number) free-agent 1Bs available this year, their cost is enormously inflated because the same number of teams will be demanding their services as there would be if there were 30 free-agent 1Bs.
Miller did his best Brer Rabbit "Don't throw me in the briar patch", the owners fell for it hook, line, and sinker (forgive the mixed metaphors) -- and as a result, we now have a whole bunch of texpensive* players.
*I must be getting the hang of your style, Joe -- as soon as I saw that word in the title, I thought, "Hmmm, Joe's writing about Mark Teixeira."
The owners were clearly out of their league when dealing with Miller. Yet I would bet that if you asked the average fan (not those who come to this blog, obviously), way more of them think George Steinbrenner belongs in the HoF than think the same of Marvin Miller. Interesting, since GS's behavior only served to prove the validity of Miller's analysis -- kind of like enshrining the Starbuck's customer instead of the Starbuck's founder.
One thing that has been overlooked is the value that Texiera has to the Yankees and not the baseball world at large. Sure there are other better hitting first basemen out there, and as was mentioned he is a better fielder than most. But his value to the Yankees in particular are is definitely in line with the amount of money the pay him. Here are several reasons why:
ReplyDelete1) He is a phenomenal fielder. On the few occasions where he missed games he was sorely missed in the field, and his post season injury contributed to the Yankees poor showing.
2) His bat fits well in the Yankees lineup. Who wants to pitch against Texiera, Arod, and Cano in a row late in September in close ballgames? Who do you pitch to? Who do you walk?
3) The double play. 4-3; Cano/Texiera. And more importantly...6-3. Arod/Texiera. Texiera is like gumby. He can hold his foot on the bag and dig a cross diamond throw outta the dirt like no one else. (Not to mention the 5-3 spinning running throw that, as the years march on for Jeter, becomes less and less accurate.)
4) The way the Yankees play without him.
Texiera is an anchor for the Yankees on first base. In a time when the big names of the recent Yankee dynasty are near the end of their run Tex brings a certainty of play that they need and can ill afford to gamble on. Last season, with the exception of baseball's best June run ever, there was little certainty. So for the Yanks it's best to cement what you know works. Cano. Texiera. Arod. Cervelli. Sabathia. Rivera(for now). If you have the money why not? Better not to gamble and lose in a coming era of uncertainty.
P.S. Watch out for the Boss's kids. The way they drew the line in the sand with Jeter's deal bodes well for the upcoming transition to new names and new teams. If they keep this up there will be new championships to go with it.
I don't get the above comment. Let me understand these points:
ReplyDelete1) He's a good fielder (which we have already acknowledged)
2) He's a good bat (though not as good as a handful of other first basemen)
3) He's a good fielder
4) The Yankees lost a few games that he did not play in
I wouldn't say they "drew the line in the sand" for Jeter. They came out offering him more than his market value by a long shot, thanks to "intangibles". Then they increased their ludacris offer even though the only team that would even consider matching their previous one was the Red Sox, out of spite. No, they did not give Jeter the $100m/5 deal he wanted, as to do so would literally be the worst deal in the history of Major League Baseball. So at least they should get credit for that.
Will the texpensive cost of beer at baseball games increase again as a result of the new round of texpensive player signings?
ReplyDeleteMovie tickets are 7.50 and 5.00 respectively at different theaters in Lansing, Michigan (though for students, 8.50/7.50 otherwise), as I fully intend to see about 5 movies in the next 3 weeks and I don't feel ripped off at all unless I happen to go to an I-Max 3D showing of a film that isn't Inception.
ReplyDeleteDavid in NYC:
ReplyDeleteGreat post about economics. The only thing I would correct is that I think the person that wanted them to make them free agents every year wasn't Marvin Miller, who was probably quaking in his boots at the thought, but one Charles O. Finley. As I recall, Miller was very happy that the rest of the owners thought Finley was a crazy crackpot on all subjects and refused to listen to him.
Brent
Starbucks has pricing power and they use it. Not sure what the big deal is.
ReplyDelete"I mean, yes, someone may point out that a night out at a middling chain restaurant might cost too much money.*"
ReplyDeleteI waited all article for the Pozterisk on middling chains. But the italics never came, man. THE ITALICS NEVER CAME!
About the Starbucks milk waste. The milk waste comes from the excess milk left over after your latte/mocha/ect. has been poured. You can't re-cool the milk so down the sink it goes. Over a whole day this adds up to gallons of waste.
ReplyDeleteI pulled this next figure off a blog, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's close enough to other figures I've seen.:
The Price of a Cup of Coffee:
* Milk 6%*
* Coffee 2%
* Labour 18%
* Rent 13%
* Admin 26%
* Cup / sugar / lid e.t.c 4%
* V.A.T. 15%
* Profit 14%
Now black coffee at Starbucks, there's your real rip-off.
* Take milk usage down 8.3% (eliminate waste), you wind up with an extra half-percent profit. Not insignificant.
Let's see, I can get "free" tap water at home, or truly free tap water at work, or I can pay $1-2 for 12-16 ounces of water?
ReplyDeleteThat is the definition of texpensive, isn't it?
Max: So, how much excess waste of milk is there at Starbucks or anywhere similar after concocting one of these lattes or mocha drinks? Doesn't a good employee know how much milk to heat per each sized drink? There must be a formula to follow. I can see a few ounces going down the drain per gallon but if it's more than 10% of that gallon then the employees aren't very good at their job, no?
ReplyDeleteTex fields better than anyone else on that list?
ReplyDeleteUh no, there's that Pujols guy.
I don't go to the movies,* but I went to see the latest Harry Potter with my girlfriend who loves the Harry Potter books and Daniel Radcliffe above average penis. It was a Mondee and the movie started at 3pm. Our tickets were $16 total and one large diet coke, a small pop corn, small bag of Reese's Pieces, and a chicken fingers & fries combo totaled $27.50. I don't know that I've bought more than a soda at the movies before, although my girlfriend told me we bought candy and popcorn once. Either way, I won't forget that wallet raping.
ReplyDelete*Well, I did on October 25th to watch back to the Future with some friends for the 25th anniversary of the day Marty McFly made the maiden time traveling voyage in the DeLorian. And over the last 10+ years I saw Gangs of New York with a friend who was told he could extra credit in a history class if he saw it, the movie where Johnny Knoxville plays a fake retard because a friend of a friend was in it, Defiance with my girl friend, the Harry Potter movie where the old guy dies with my girl friend (she loves that crap), and yesterdee I saw the latest Harry Potter movie. So I've been to at least four movies in the last two years. Maybe I am a movie goer now.
Max, it would be odd that wasted milk would be the reason Starbuck's charges so much. 1) They probably charge so much because they can; and 2) I would think a mega-corporation like Starbucks would be able to streamline a system in order to curtail the spoilage and/or waste of such vast amounts of milk at the very least so they can pocket the unwasted milk. how difficult is it to make lattes without wasting milk? Seriously, I'm asking.
ReplyDeleteJoseph,
ReplyDeleteI hate the expense of razor blades and am Gilette's worst nightmare when it comes to stretching out the use of a razor blade. A couple of years I discovered this site: http://www.greatrazors.com/
I ordered a box of razors from them in December of 2008 (just before I was laid off) and am just now coming to the end of my razors. (And yes, I went back to work a few weeks later so I haven't been sitting around the house growing and growing my beard) THIS is the way to get back at Gillette and their ilk for putting it to us.
Marco & Max
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I owned a roadside cafe for three years. I became the barista and, by the end of my tenure, a damn fine one.
The whole secret of success in coffee making lies in the handling of the milk. Everything else is pretty much standard – the espresso machine grinds the beans, water is water, the temperature is machine controlled and so on.
Leaving aside wild-cards such as cleanliness and poor bean selection, the only variation is in the timing of the milk process – too short and it's not hot enough; too long and it turns watery (what we would call Weetbix milk . . . the sort of thing you get when a kid heats up milk on the stove to pour over his breakfast cereal bricks).
The object was to transform the milk to a consistency so that when it was poured out of the jug it had a texture as close to silk as could be achieved with a liquid.
I had a half dozen or more stainless steel milk jugs, in just two sizes. I judged the optimum temperature by holding the jug by its base as the heat was applied. There was a minimum amount of milk that had to be used to get the optimum result. By not having a wide range of jug sizes I could get the milk spot-on virtually every time.
Any attempt to save a few cents here and there by using less milk would have resulted in a not-so-good cup of coffee and not so many repeat customers.
Our family are regular viewers of the show 2½ Men (we call it our grandson's sex-ed class).
ReplyDeleteA few episodes have included scenes in a coffee bar. Strangely, the characters sit at their tables drinking their coffees from cardboard cups.
Is this standard American practice? Is it just a Californian thing? Or is it a quirk of the TV show – something that's easier for them and they hope we won't notice? I'm curious.
In my cafe-owning days, I once had an older guy come bouncing in and ask, "You got any American coffee?"
To which my reply was, "If you wanted American coffee, why'd you get on the plane?"
I guess I was a better barista than owner.
Starbucks regular coffee is still expensive when you consider McDonald's medium coffee is on the dollar menu, and McDonald's has good coffee.
ReplyDeleteTexeira may be Gumby, but even Pokey's scorecard lists groundouts from ARod as 53 and those from Jeter as 63.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in NY for about 10 years now and the last time I ate in times square was about 10 years ago. Popped into a popeyes there and ate most of my meal before finding a deep fried cockroach chilling on its back at the bottom of my fries box. After dry heaving a couple times I went to the cashier to get my money back. Cashier doesn't even flinch as if this happens everyday, and refuses to give me my money back until I return the soda too. Anyway, lesson learned about eating at a fast food joint in times square. Unfortunately though, I haven't returned to any popeyes anywhere, which is a shame cause popeyes rocks.
ReplyDeleteHi Pos! Three quick points:
ReplyDelete1. The other Brilliant Readers have already gotten there, but I would like to formally recognize their usage of "texpensive" as an adjective, rather than a noun. I also suggest "texpense" as the noun form.
2. The ultimate texpense has got to be the plan that goes along with your cel phone. The whole reason they're willing to offer a $500 hunk of technology for $100 or so is that they force you into two years of $30 per month in data charges, plus whatever the unlimited text and talk rate is over a limited-minute plan. That money is almost pure profit for the company - data is super cheap. By the end of the first year they've already made back every dime, and more besides. The second year is pure gravy. And this doesn't even begin to touch the apps and other goodies that run the user a buck or so per pop.
3. Small Market Squint is brilliant. I actually think that for some teams, SMS and texpensive living go together. The only way to compete is to either overpay for middling talent, or hope you can draft and develop your own standouts... whom you will have to overpay to keep. Since you're already running a small market club, to pay even fair value on a star is difficult, much less a premium. In short, SMS can incur texpenses because you talk yourself into tossing ARod money at Justin Morneau; or texpenses can cause SMS because you're on the hook for the best B-list FA you can afford, and are trying to talk him onto the A-list ("He had 100 RBI for a stacked lineup in a hitter's park! Such a great glove is a luxury in left field! He was 100% in his three basestealing attempts!"
@Lollardfish - Actually it is government spending that ranks #1 in the world of texpensives. Any government any time in general.
ReplyDeleteAnd every Govt agency in this country is equally bad at budgeting and spending taxpayer dollars - mostly to make sure they don't lose any piece of their part of the budget.
Of course the prime mover behind the inefficiency is the Congress and its budgetary process. For example, DOD might get approval for a new program and decide to cover the whole thing via contract. Say Weapon X at 10B over 10 years. Suddenly in year 8 or 9, Congress doesn't have 1B they want to spend on the program they committed to but they don't want to cut it and pay termination costs so they instead extend it to 15 years at .6B a year, which they think they can afford.
Obviously .6B a year for 7 years is more than 1B a year for 2 - well it is obvious to most of us anyway.
The Pentagon doesn't help matters much of course (and this really is similar to all other Govt agencies BTW) with their own hidebound process. Anyone who wants a good laugh and a reasonable insight into the process should rent Cary Elwes' movie The Pentagon Wars.
Programs can retain their proponents both in industry and DoD even when they are cancelled which leads to extra expense - even if only having more people at the pentagon than are necessary.
As for the expenditures most often pointed at as moronic, there often is a reason for them. For example there was an outcry about coffee machines on airplanes costs X thousand dollars. How could anyone pay that much for a coffee maker?
Well it turns out that planes crash from time to time and so safety is a big issue and thus it became necessary to ensure that the coffee devices would not shatter or in some way become a deadly missile during a crash - the expense just followed along naturally.
Of course the individuals involved didn't do a great job either; after all how hard would it be to have crew carry on thermos and have then tied down in some form of cabinet. Still more expensive than ordinary thermos but not X thousand dollars.
This happens - again in all Governments through time and in all agencies in our own modern day government - because after all, they are not spending their own money.
Those are just a few examples of why govt spending is generically wasteful in my view - there are many more out there.
@lollardfish - actually government spending is the biggest texpensive. Any govt, any time in my view.
ReplyDeleteThat is compounded by various agencies in our govt. feeling the need to protect their turf while undergoing the Congressional budget process, which - again in my view - is the biggest reason for waste.
1 example - DoD gets a program approved by Congress which will go 10 years 1 B a year and everything is smooth until year 8 when Congress doesn't want to spend 1B that year. They insist the program be extend to years 11-15 at less money per year and end up at .6B they think they can afford. of course 7 years at .6B is more than 2 years at 1B but only to intelligent people interested in efficiency.
Anyone interested in the DoD/Congress process should rent Cary Elwes' The Pentagon Wars for a few laughs and some insight. BTW this is one instance where Congress was trying to get it right and the pentagon was resisting :)
Some programs amazingly retain their supporters in industry and the pentagon even when they have been cancelled.
I've seen, heck lived through, these and many other examples and that is the main reason I am a firm believer that we should not let any govt agency spend our money in any significant amount.
For the record all agencies are the same in the inefficient regard - DOD is just bigger and more obvious. The expensive coffee maker for AF planes comes to mind. It seems that planes crash from time to time and people can survive them but do better when their coffee maker isn't a lethal weapon or shattering into bits that slice them apart. So the need for shatterproof, locked down coffee makers and a lot more money.
Of course a smart guy might incorporate metal tie downs for the crews thermos at much less money but it isn't their money, now is it?
That is THE main problem - none of them would be so careless with their own money. Even the worst private spender would never spend as much as a govt spender. And if they would, do you really want them having more taxpayer dollars to spend?
In sixth grade I won a spelling bee with the word mathematics
ReplyDeleteJoe, I like your concept of creating new descriptive words. But, and I risk the wrath of your brilliant readers here, you're really pretty mediocre at it.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, pretty bad, if you want to know the truth.
The words just are not very memorable. They don't flow off the tongue. And they will never make it into daily parlance.
I really wish they were good words. Words that can never be forgotten because they are so dead right on.
Words so good, that 20 years later I still can't get them out of my head, like Bert "Be Home" Blyleven nickname good.
(thought I'd posted this earlier...guess it didn't go through)
ReplyDeleteDave in NYC: Marvin Miller was notoriously wrong on that point, as both he and you have missed the point that although supply (of, for instance, FA 1bmen) would increase so too would demand. As it currently stands there are only a handful of teams looking for a 1bman each off-season, as most either have players under long-term contract (eg. Cabrera) or cost-controlled (eg. Votto). But in a world with universal free agency, while players like Cabrera and Votto might well increase the supply of available 1bmen, it would *also* increase the number of teams looking for 1bmen, since the Tigers and Reds would be looking to plug that gap.
Although it may well be the case that this dilution with universal free agency might limit the number of mega-contracts (a la Teixeira), it would - on the whole - increase the average salary of 1bmen. As it stands, the idea that paying Joey Votto $525,000 somehow helps raise overall salaries is a bit nuts.
Marvin Miller was a great man, and the failure to recognize that with enshrinement in the HoF is one of baseball's biggest black eyes. But he isn't infallible, and on this point he was wrong.
If every player were a FA each year, then Votto would strike it rich for next year. If he returned to earth in 2011, then his next contract could reflect that.
ReplyDeleteRight now, there's very little immediate feedback on contracts, so they keep going up. You don't hear about a lot of players taking pay cuts (spare me Jeter, please).
Matt Holliday is making $17 million per year for my beloved Cardinals. If he hits .245 with 5 bombs in 2011, he's still making $17 million in 2012. If he were a FA after 2011, maybe he'd only be making $8-10 million the next year. That's a big pay cut, which is fair since he wasn't a $17 million player, but is still paying him for the reasonable chance that he would bounce back to more Holliday-ish form. There's $7-9 million out of the system.
Maybe that would just make things worse for small market teams (good luck hanging on to your underpaid talent), but that's a discussion for another day.
@anonymous - yes it was Finley who said "make they all free agents every year" and of course nobody listened to that crackpot because . . . . well because he was so much smarter than the rest of the owners they were too stupid to recognize this. I remember reading this article in my junior high library c. 1983 - it's an SI issue from about 1976 and Finley's comment is more of a throwaway line. The article is much more about his eccentricity and the orange baseball.
ReplyDeleteamen on the razors!! I switched to a foil shaver for that exact reason.
ReplyDeleteJoe - love your work...but why would you order anything from a restaurant where you saw that cheese sandwiches cost so much? You could have just left before ordering?
ReplyDelete