We don't know a lot about 2013. We know that Donald Trump will not be President of the U.S. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger won't either. We know that Apple will release a new iPad that will look cool and cost a lot of money but only be available in theory. We know that the loud guy sitting behind me at the airport who is on the phone begging for a first class upgrade will still be talking.
And we know that the New York Yankees have about $150 million in payroll obligations to eight players ... all of those players on the wrong side of 30, and at an average age of 34.
Now, it doesn't have to work out exactly that way. The Yankees, technically, are only obligated to five of those players for $97 million (the youngest of those five is 33). But to be blunt about it, at this point the other $51 million looks like the best part of the deal.
It's a funny thing about money and baseball. Even the shrewdest people, even the toughest business folk, even the general managers who dream of someday running a small market team and having a best-selling book written about them, all of them will spend like nine-year-olds who just got their allowance, if given the chance. How else can you explain, say, the Tigers giving Joaquin Benoit a three-year, $16.5 million deal this year? Dave Dombrowski is a smart guy. He certainly knows that there is no worse money spent than signing an aging middle reliever coming off a good year to a multi-year deal. This is baseball's version of giving your credit card number to the Nigerian prince who wants to deposit 23 billion dollars in your account. Dombrowski knows this.
But, he had the money. Benoit was available. Money meet player. Player meet money. The GMs can't help themselves. It's silly to pick on Dombrowski -- that was just the first example that came to mind. Someone gave Vernon Wells a $126 million deal. Someone else TRADED for Vernon Wells with a $126 million deal. GMs are ALL like this, every one of them. They spend what they have ... and just a little more. And look: I don't blame GMs one bit. If I was a GM, and I had money, I'd spend like crazy too. I'd be out of control. Heck, you should see me in a Brookstone.
The Yankees obviously have made and spent much more money than any team in baseball since the 1994 strike, and they have just as obviously spent their money very well. They have only missed the playoffs once. They have won five World Series. They not only have given their fans Hall of Fame players to cheer, but they have given their fans iconic stars, players those fans could unhesitatingly admire like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera and so on. The Yankees took over New York in a way that no Yankees team -- not even the Casey Stengel Yankees, not even the Babe Ruth Yankees -- had ever done.
And the thing you could always say about the Yankees was that they were living within their means. Maybe the Yankees payroll was obscene by Pittsburgh Pirates standards or Cincinnati Reds standards, but the Yankees themselves were still making money. Their big-money mistakes were offset by the graceful aging of their stars and the infusion of a good young player like a Robinson Cano or Brett Gardner or Phil Hughes or David Robertson. The thing looked like would go on forever. Heck, it still might.
But it turns out that the unbreakable rule of baseball -- if given money, GMs inevitably will spend that money badly -- can even reach the mighty and seemingly untouchable Yankees.
Look at the Yankees in 2013. That's two years from now, as if you needed reminding. Here are five players they have locked up for that year, the age they will be, and the cost for that season:
Alex Rodriguez (38 years old, $28 million). I am wrong about baseball so much more often than I am right. Before the season, I actually put a list together of the 32 best players in baseball and I DID NOT INCLUDE JOSE BAUTISTA. I should be forced to write that on a blackboard five million times. I really thought Bautista would regress significantly. I really thought wrong. I'm working on a big magazine story on him now, not as penance but because the guy's the best story going. More on that as it goes.
Anyway, that's only one of a thousand things I was wrong about. But I think I was right about A-Rod. I think he's on a serious decline. I still don't think he's going to break the all-time home run record. I don't think he will play anywhere close to the level of A-Rod from 2000 to 2008, when he posted a 155 OPS+ and won three MVP awards and made his case as the best shortstop OR the best third baseman in 100 years.
Age is undefeated. That's not true for some players. It's true for all players. There were people who saw A-Rod during spring training and thought he looked great and was poised for a great season -- some seemed to think he was an MVP candidate. Then he started off ridiculously hot and I thought: Well, there's something else I was wrong about. Even with two good games the last two days -- a two homer game and a four-hit game -- he's still hitting .216 since April 16 and slugging .363 and he has struck out 26 times in 26 games.
Whether I was right or wrong about him this year -- hey, he HAS looked good the last two days -- A-Rod has SIX YEARS left on his deal after this one, and even if you write off the last two as the cost of doing business, well, this contract has a chance to be provide one of the saddest and most painful endings for a great player in baseball history.
Mark Teixeira (33 years old, $22.5 million). Tex has five years left on his contract after this year. I think this contract could actually work out fine. Tex plays hard, he's a switch-hitter, he's good defensively, he will take a walk, I think his skills could stretch out.
The problem with Tex has little to do with Tex -- it's that we live in an era where hard-hitting first basemen are everywhere. I've been over this list before but again, I would ask you to choose from these first basemen:
-- Mark Teixeira
-- Albert Pujols
-- Adrian Gonzalez
-- Miguel Cabrera
-- Joey Votto
-- Prince Fielder
-- Ryan Howard
-- Eric Hosmer
Where would you draft Tex from that list? Third? Fifth? Last? Throw in guys like Ike Davis, Justin Smoak, Matt LaPorta, the surprisingly hot Gaby Sanchez, the now-third-baseman Kevin Youkilis, the surprisingly sturdy Paul Konerko, the former MVP Justin Morneau and a bunch of young guys and so on. Tex's all-around play and the hope that he will age well might move him near the top. But we're seem to be moving to a time where just about every team in baseball will have a first baseman who hits roughly like Mark Teixeira.
Derek Jeter (39 years old, $17 million). I've already banged the Jeter drum a whole lot, and I reserve the right to continue to do so because I find his situation endlessly and continuously fascinating. I think even the most optimistic Jeter fans knows that the $17 million Jeter will make in 2013 will almost certainly be sunken costs.
My hope as a Yankees fan would be that by then everyone involved will have come to grips with Jeter's aging (including Jeter), and he can play a versatile role, move around some, play different positions, DH a bit, get 350 to 400 plate appearances, be an emotional leader. I'm not sure, based on the way the vibes coming out of the Bronx these days, that an ending like that is viable, but I hope for a good ending for one of the greatest players of the last 50 years.
A.J. Burnett (36 years old, $16.5 million). I have to admit that I did not realize that Burnett was already 32 years old when the Yankees signed him to that five-year deal. That makes the deal that much more curious.
We all know that Burnett has been an enigma. And so, who know what will happen? Maybe Burnett will settle in and pitch well for the next two years. After all, we don't really have much research on the aging patterns of men with Bruce Lee tattoos. He's pitched pretty well this year. And he clearly still has good stuff -- this is probably best told by the fact that he's on pace to throw 31 wild pitches this year, which would be a record. Even Yankees catchers can't quite handle him.
Rafael Soriano (33 years old, $13 million). Oh yeah, don't forget about Soriano. He will still be around ... there's nothing really to say about this signing that Brian Cashman didn't intimate on the day Soriano was signed. Middle relievers. Big money. Bad idea.
So that's $97 million just for 2013. And then there are three others who could be with the team:
C.C. Sabathia (33 years old, $23 million). There a general feeling out there that Sabathia will opt out of his deal after this season. Considering that the Yankees rotation is shaky enough WITH Sabathia, the Yankees need to hope that he will not opt out.
Robinson Cano (30 years old, $15 million). The Yankees actually have a club option on Cano in 2012 and 2013. Unless something drastic happens, I cannot imagine them not picking up Cano's option.
Curtis Granderson (32 years old, $13 million). Hey, one more thing I might be right about -- I wrote that the Yankees made a steal when they got Granderson. It looked shaky at times last year, but now Granderson has 14 homers in 41 games and is slugging .600 and has had times when he's basically carried the team. I suspect he won't sustain those power numbers, but he's a great guy, and a positive force, and at this point I would think the Yankees would probably pick up his option.
And that makes $148 million for eight players. Even in the best-case scenario -- even if Jeter and A-Rod somehow find a way to get younger, even if Soriano seamlessly replaces Mariano Rivera as closer, even if Sabathia sticks around and pitches great, and Burnett settles in and becomes a good starter in his mid-30s, even if Tex ages well, even so -- the Yankees still look like a financial train wreck. Just that $148 million would rank the Yankees fourth on this year's payroll list. How much more money would it still take to fill out a pennant contending team?
And, realistically, what are the odds that those best-case scenario things will happen?
My friend John Lowe of the Detroit Free Press reminded me of a classic thought uttered by Sparky Anderson years and years ago when he considered what is the hardest thing for a team to overcome. His answer: "An aging star." The Yankees have a bunch of them. Those aging stars have made 2011 an eventful year already, though the season is still young and the Yankees are, this minute, leading the wildcard race. There's a whole lot of accomplishment on that team. It could be foolish to write them off.
But, the Yankees will go on after this year. And the contracts will go on. And as the line from Citizen Kane goes: "Old age ... it's the only disease you don't look forward to being cured of."
...except, Joe, we know that the Yankees are still making money and probably could afford a $300 million payroll. But that's the beauty of baseball, the Yankees can't and don't win every year despite their financial advantage. In a way, I'm glad for it because it allows small market teams to overpay some of their stars and dump the salary on the Yankees when need be. No extended contract negotiations, just "we can no longer afford you".
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, Vernon Wells's $126M deal was somewhat less than that when the Angels traded for him (because it was no longer the first year of the deal). Still a bad trade, though.
ReplyDeleteIt seems strange to say, but the current Yankees seem to lack the tact and grace of George Steinbrenner.
ReplyDeleteThe Jeter contract and the Posada incident generated more controversy than was needed, especially when you consider the front office just started pointing fingers and bashing the players almost immediately. Posada, as far as I know, never did anything like that before. Jeter even came to his defense, which is something Derek Jeter has never done before.
Put that together with Cashman seemingly having gone bonkers, and clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
As an O's fan, watching the game last night I found myself relieved whenever Jeter came up with runners on. And that made me sad. Hate seeing class players fade
ReplyDeleteIf CC opts out, the overwhelming favorites to sign him, I think, will be the Yankees. And since CC won't be opting out to take less money, his number in this list is likely to be more, maybe significantly more.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that Sabathia will opt out of his deal but I'm also sure that the Yankees will resign him for a few million more per year. So it's probably going to be more than $150m for those 8 players which might go higher if they extend Robinson Cano which probably makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWow, so A-Rods under contract until he's 42? That sounds horrible. More power to those goofballs.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work Mr. Posnanski.
ReplyDeleteI wonder where all these Yankees will play (on the field in 2013) since Tex is tied in at first. where does an already bad SS play and where does a 38 year old 3B witha bad hip play? You cant move either to first. Are you really going to have a 38+ left side of the infield with absolutely no range?
Wallace Matthews also wrote a good piece on this subject, for The Competitor. Is linking permitted? http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/columns/story?columnist=matthews_wallace&id=6551248
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm surprised that Cash is still involved with this mess. He always seemed like a pretty reasonable guy. I would've thought he'd be gone after the Soriano signing.
This same article has been written every year since they signed Mussina and Giambi, and kept signing more old players for way too much money.
ReplyDeleteMoney committed to older players has pretty much never stopped the Yankees from being contenders year in and year out. It can't, because the Yankee brand and revenue stream of well over $400M a year depend on them being contenders. So expect a bump in payroll to $250M, and it's not really a problem. Hey, they haven't really raised payroll significantly since 2005. Other teams are catching up. We're due for another bump.
Hey, when the Dodgers blow their next payroll and all their players become free agents, I am sure the Yanks will be able to reload on the fly.
ReplyDeleteMark in Vegas
You forgot James Loney in your list of first-basemen. Slugger.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reasonable chance that in the next couple of years, the Yankees are going to resemble the 1965 team, and that there will be a dry spell of a few mediocre years. The older player contracts are an economic albatross, but since the Yankees mint money, the more salient question is whether they can cope with dead spots on the field and in the lineup so they can continue to be a draw. That's going to depend, in part, on the strength of their farm system. I'm in the minority, but I would be inclined to let CC leave if he opts out-as terrific a pitcher as he is, you are going to waste his best years (the next few) with a fading team. I wouldn't count the Yankees out as long as they have the resources, but it's going to take some real skill by the front office, and a little bit of luck with the older players, for them really to expect to compete for a World Series. Everyone gets old, sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteAnd in 2013, we'll still be waiting for the legendary ipad review.
ReplyDelete"My hope as a Yankees fan . . ."
ReplyDeleteI'm 99.999 percent sure that Joe is talking hypothetically here, but could someone just confirm it. Please.
— Graphite
Is your interview with Dick Ebersol running anywhere? I for one look forward to seeing the Olympic coverage in the U.S. join the 21st Century.
ReplyDeleteSchad-en Freu-de
ReplyDelete*clap clap clap-clap-clap*
The Yankees can afford to have a 100 million dollar bench. They can afford to sign Reyes and DH Jeter when Posada is gone next year. They can afford to not play Jeter much at all in 2013 when A-Rod needs to DH. They can afford to pay Sabathia more money than he's worth for longer. What they can't afford to do is not TRY to win. The money is totally secondary.
ReplyDeleteThey can waste $100M on players well past their primes and still win. Even with $150 owed to 8 players, they still have some 3 Royals-teams worth of payroll left to fill out the other 17 spots.
ReplyDeleteSure the Yankees can afford to make a lot of mistakes and they can afford to do some of the things that more optimistic people above are saying, but they may be reaching the point where the "can afford" part is biting them on the rear. It's one thing to eat a $15 million contract for one or maybe two poor performing players, but the Yankees are going to he obligated to a bunch of guys whose performance will be actively hurting or not much helping the team in a couple of years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some posters above about how the Yankees can afford to make mistakes. But in 2013, if all goes south, that's a lot of mistakes they'll have made. $150 million to 8 players is a ton, it's 3/4 of their current payroll. From what I can tell, the Yankees seem somewhat defensive about their payroll, such that they haven't increased it too much over the last several years. Sure it's $200M, but they made a big show about how their payroll went down a couple years ago (from like $220M to $210M or some such number) such that it seems like their high payroll is not a point of pride for them.
ReplyDeleteIf they end up with $100 or $125M in sunk cost in the next few years, how high will they increase their payroll? Will they hesitate to cross the $250M threshold? Would they jump to $300M?
I sort of think they'll eat the cost, dump some or part of some salaries if they can, and rebuild for a short period of time rather than just dump more money on the problem.
"Age is undefeated"? Well, I guess in the technical sense since we're all going to die someday and since no baseball player plays till they're 60 except Minnie.
ReplyDeleteBut especially in an article about the Yankees the implicit meaning is kind of lost here when that very same team has a guy who hasn't posted an ERA+ under 200 since his 37th birthday. How about "Age is always the best bet" or "Trying to beat age makes you the longshot dog"?
I'd like to add that I find it a little funny how confident everyone is that the Yankees have an indefinite payroll. They might--there's a lot of reason to believe they do. But let's not forget that we're something like 2 years removed from the Yankees talking about "budgetary concerns" in their offseason
ReplyDeleteAs "Mike" mentioned, the real issue is trying to work around the dead spots in the line up. They are already dealing with that now, and none too gracefully. They have always been able to afford dead weight in their payroll (e.g. Carl Pavano). But I think this is going to be different with aging stars at everyday positions. A-rod, Tex and Jeter may not be content with reduced roles if it comes to that. If it were only an issue of money, we would see the Yankees make a run for Albert Pujols this winter. But there sits Tex at 1B, and they probably will have to pass on Albert and wait to pick up the next hot shot 1B free agent at the end of his contract. Same for the left side of the infield.
ReplyDeletethey have a lot riding on pitchers like Banuelos and Betances. They can probably afford a big name FA or 2 over the next few years, but they cannot afford to buy a pitching rotation. One way or another, CC will probably be with the team going forward. That makes 1 SP they have who's really a solid bet for 2012 and beyond.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue is that even if they want to spend their way out of the problem, there's just less out there to buy. Teams have gotten increasingly savy about buying out free agency years from young stars.
ReplyDeleteyeah, the FAs all seem to be on the wrong side of 30. Maybe the next CBA will help bail them out, but I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteJust a nitpick, but we've known for dozens of years that Arnold wouldn't be president in 2013(tawdry scandals notwithstanding)- he was born in Austria!
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting things about the aging and/or incohesive (is that a word?) 2011 Yankees is seen in how they are perceived by the rest of MLB. Except in the eyes of my beloved, but inept Twins, I don't think they inspire the awe and fear they once did. Whereas in years past being a part of the Yankees meant that you had reached the top, we've witnessed Cliff Lee's decision to go with a younger bunch of guys. I don't for one minute presume that there aren't tons of players still wanting to wear the pinstripes, but perhaps the best ones may think twice before signing with them.
ReplyDeleteI take offense at the common non-sense propagated by 1st commenter Mike, who said:
ReplyDelete"But that's the beauty of baseball, the Yankees can't and don't win every year despite their financial advantage."
Actually, the Yankees can and do win every year because of their financial advantage. They don't win the World Series every year, but they certainly have the best odds since they always buy their way into the playoffs.
Baseball would have more beauty if the Pirates and Royals and a dozen other teams didn't require fortuitous alignments of planets to even get to a pennant race.
MLB is not played on an even field.
One thing about the Posada incident last weekend that didn't seem to get the coverage that it deserved is that Girardi was going to bat his DH 9th in the order - and it probably was the smart thing to do given the rest of his line-up. But, how often do you see teams batting their DH 9th? - Isn't that where the pitcher usually bats in the NL (well, unless Tony LaRussa is off his meds)?
ReplyDeleteI'd hate to be Girardi and seemingly "have to" bat Jeter #1 or #2 and then find a place for Posada. Jorge's lucky he's not been released in my opinion. He's become a defensive liability and according to some, most of the NYY pitchers do not want him as their receiver. Maybe they can find a spot for him selling programs?
Here's the thing, A-Rod is still one of the better 3B. It's early, but since you have to take into account how poorly the league is hitting right now -anything above an .800 ops so far is pretty good, and he's in line for a 30hr - 100 rbi type of season again. While Jeter's demise as a story is all the rage, he's not really costing them anything more than money, provided the rest of their lineup is good and he gets moved down in the order eventually. Shortstops have gone back to hitting like crap with very few exceptions. We already see Posada heading down the order, so I would think Jeter at 7th would be something Girardi would not be afraid to contemplate if Gardner's OBP is acceptable and Granderson continues to perform. Eventually they have a cheap, developing Montero in the lineup, Cano in his prime, with Tex and A-Rod still giving them middle of the order production albeit at a high cost. Then Swisher at 6 or whoever is in RF, and if you DH Jeter, you have Montero and your shortstop filling out a lineup that will be very good.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that Pujols will be immune to aging is ridiculous too.
It's the retreads pitching that are keeping them going right now. That's the story, not "Jeter's getting old".
Also, when the Yankees take the time to develop their players, like Jeter, Cano, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte, Gardner, Hughes, etc. they can lock them up to extensions the same way other teams do, but they can pay more for those players and drive up prices for arbitration/free agency-eligible players on the poorer teams. Mauer and Morneau cost the Twins a lot of money. There may still be stars available when A-Rod and Tex are on the downside, at least in trade value. As long as they have a competent front office who values their own prospects well, they can eat a 50 or 60 million overpay for their roster indefinitely provided they keep winning.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, with one world series champion in 10 years, and 1 division title in 4, (though they still win 90 every year) whether the "name" players are more responsible for the Yankee revenues than anything else. People aren't running out buying Nova, Robertson, Hughes or Logan jerseys. (Yanks under 30) There is probably not a huge market either for the older players they take a chance on (Like Colon).
ReplyDeleteThey are still buying Jeter, Arod, CC, Rivera, etc. They are coming to the stadium to see the stars, both at home and away. I am sure that TV and radio contracts are positively influenced by the fact that the stars are locked up in the future.
It's possible that these huge deals pay for themselves.
Baseball's answer to the Bird-McHale-Parish-DJ Celtics of the late '80s and early '90s.
ReplyDeleteOnly way I can conceivably see this working out for the Yankees is if 3 of their top 4 prospects (Montero/Banuelos/Betances/Brackman) hit it. At an all-star level. Because then you have those 8 plus a cheap Gardner, Martin/Montero, replacement OF (gotta drop Swish), and rotation. And then just pray they can piece together a cheap bullpen "around" Soriano. If just Montero hits and the pitchers fail, I don't see any way 2013 isn't just a trainwreck (if 85-win seasons can be called such a thing).
ReplyDelete"Baseball's answer to the Bird-McHale-Parish-DJ Celtics of the late '80s and early '90s."
ReplyDeleteI can already see the Yankee's manager, circa 2020: "Derek Jeter is not walking through that door. Mariano Rivera is not walking through that door. Alex Rodriguez is not walking through that door."
The Yankees have a very good farm system which will provide them with cheap labor, the guys listed above along with what they can get for other guys like Romine and Sanchez should allow them to continue on as the top team in baseball. Add in the fact that the Yankees don't just have more to spend on payroll, but they also have more flexibility with signing draftees to overslot deals and playing the international free agent market.
ReplyDeleteIt may be peanuts in the big picture of things but the NYY will rarely be drafting high in the amateur free-agent draft so will they spend a bit less on their top draft pick(s) than the bottom dwellers who choose to sign the young phenoms to exorbitant first pro contracts?
ReplyDelete@Kyle:
ReplyDeleteIf you could correct that to say "MLB has never been an even playing field" that'd be even better. I kind of am getting annoyed by the implication that the Yankees financial advantages are some kind of new thing in the game.
Any sport without a salary cap that restricts spending in every area of operations is going to give a competitive advantage to the team that spends the most. And sports with a salary cap either wind up creating caps that are more or less meaningless on a season-to-season basis once all the hoop jumping of 12 player trades is done (NBA) or find a way to utterly screw their players out of money they rightfully deserve and give the owners such an ungodly share of the pie that they start to feel entitled about it and then throw a temper tantrum about how their 7 billion dollar or whatever revenue is an unsustainable financial model (the PBA)
So, you know, just make sure you're being honest about your baseball angst or whatever it was.
I have to go with Chris W. on this. All of the major sports have inequities, even with salary caps and revenue sharing. Some of that is through clever financial engineering, some of that, quite honestly, is because of back office deals that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, other than at some league leadership level, it is decided that a marquee franchise needs to improve. I don't know how many of Joe's readers are old enough to remember when Montreal had a priority on French-Canadian draft picks. Or the insane Herschel Walker trade, which restored a moribund Cowboy franchise. Or the mystery of how John Riggins became a free agent without compensation and traveled from the lousy Jets to the politically important Redskins. In baseball, we have all sorts of examples. Roger Clemens "retiring" from the Yankees (so no arbitration was offered) and then signed with the Astros-with no complaint from the Yankees. Selig threatening the Japanese so they would let Kevin Millar out of his contract so he could play for the Red Sox. Just how did those Texas Rangers manage to swing all those deals for all those terrific players-while under MLB stewardship and in bankruptcy? How many times at the trading deadline do we see the clock stopped, or extensions granted for "physicals" so salary dumps and sweetheart trades can be made. Fans may have an emotional attachment to their teams, but for the commissioners and the owners, it's largely a business. Any one of us think that Frank McCourt really cares about the Dodgers, except as an ATM machine? Any of us think ticket prices and the costs of a beer would come down if there was a hard salary cap? Or the Vikings wouldn't be trying to get the taxpayers to pay for their new digs? There's a fantasy held by small market cities that somehow everything would be great if only the players would agree to be bound to their teams (until the teams cut them loose), and rolled back their salaries to 1975 levels. I don't mean to be cynical, I love baseball, but I'm not so sanguine as to think that absolute parity could be achieved-or that it's even desirable. Pick on the Yankees as much as you want, it's not going to change the fact that they pay a huge amount of money in revenue sharing and luxury taxes-a great deal of which goes directly into the pockets of owners who don't even make an effort to be competitive. There's no parity in the world that can fix greed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete