Today’s update is powered by a unique version of the “Hallelujah Chorus”
- The Times Ken Belson details the signing of Nick Johnson.
- Was Javier Vazquez totally healthy for the Yanks in ’04?:
On his conference call with reporters, Vazquez acknowledged – for the first time, I think – that his problems for the Yankees in the second half of 2004 were related to shoulder fatigue. I had always been told that the Yankees suspected shoulder problems but ultimately concluded it was poor mechanics.
“My arm didn’t feel as good in the second half as it did in the first half,” Vazquez said, referring to a season that included an All-Star first half but a second-half implosion that included the fateful Game 7 against the Red Sox.
“It’s really the only time in my career that I felt a little bit that my arm wasn’t where it was supposed to be. I started getting treatment a little later than I should have. I never said anything, and I went out there every five days. I hate not being out there.”
- John Perrotto on the 2010 budget:
While Cashman hasn’t been quite The Cash Man this time, the Yankees did take on the three years and $25.75 million remaining on Granderson’s contract and will pay Vazquez $11.5 million in 2010. That leads to the age-old question of whether the Yankees have an unlimited budget. “I do have a number I’m working under,” Cashman said. “We will be under that number.”
The Yankees seem determined to stay under $200 million, as even the sport’s most well-heeled franchise is sensitive to claims it bought the franchise’s 27th World Series title with last winter’s spending spree. Yet there are many people around baseball who believe owner Hal Steinbrenner will give Cashman the OK to go over the $200 million threshold to sign a premier free agent such as Matt Holliday or Jason Bay to fill the hole in left field created when they decided not to re-sign Damon last week.
- Christina Kahrl on the Nick Johnson signing:
The galling thing about this isn’t that Nick the Stick’s back in the Bronx, it’s that he’s back in the Bronx for perhaps less than he might have gotten from other teams (especially with New York taxes to consider), but that he probably chose the Yankees for the reasons we usually associate with a decision to don the pinstripes and join the Evil Empire: a ring. Can you blame him? . . .
For the Yankees, this has the added benefit of giving them a patch at the position for almost exactly as they would want to have one in place. Not that Johnson’s fragility wouldn’t already encourage you to try and hold the line on a short-term deal, but with Jesus Montero clambering into the near-term picture as a bat-first prospect of the highest order, there’s a very good chance they weren’t looking for a fix any longer than a single season.
- Ms. Kahrl also chimes in on the Vazquez trade:
Let’s be clear, the Yankees didn’t just use money muscle to make this happen, because Vizcaino’s no small thing to surrender. The rest of it was parts they could afford to put into play, because they didn’t have any immediate use for them that exceeded their value as chits to convert into one year of Vazquez. Cabrera was fungible from the moment they traded for Curtis Granderson, regardless of whether or not they make Brett Gardner their starting left fielder or add another veteran for left, and regardless of whether or not they consummate the rumored deal for Nick Johnson. Instead, Cabrera’s role on the 2010 Yankees was fourth outfielder-to-be, and that may well be his role in Atlanta, if he isn’t re-packaged off by them. . . .
. . . it’s won or lost on the proposition that Vazquez has something like another 2009 in him. If he does, he’s the power right-hander to line up behind CC Sabathia that A.J. Burnett isn’t reliably going to be. If he isn’t, he’s a lot like Burnett, only more so, in that he’s had worse seasons as well as higher highs. Was that worth chancing Vizcaino’s upside? Of course it was. Could it turn out badly, as badly as Vazquez’s previous summer in the Bronx back in 2004? Of course it could. But how many reliable starters are there on the market? Do you really want to revisit the Carl Pavanos or the Kei Igawas on the thought you’re adding adequacy, and then wind up with even less? Instead, Cashman’s playing for higher stakes, and betting that he gets the good Vazquez in his walk year instead of the one the White Sox got tired of, the guy who wears down early and gets hammered in the sixth inning while slogging through his rounds in the DH league. It’s not a safe bet, but then neither is it certain that Vizcaino’s going to be the next Pedro Martinez and make you look bad in short order.
- Joe Sheehan looks at the Vazquez deal from a macro-economic POV:
The difference between the Yankees and the Braves isn’t revenue. The difference between the Yankees and the Braves is ownership priorities. If MLB had 30 owners like the Steinbrenners or Arte Moreno or Mike Ilitch, the game wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be a damn sight better than it is now, because an ownership group that wants to win is a fan’s best friend. Liberty Media, which had $10 billion in revenue (warning: PDF) in 2008, decided that the Braves could only spend so much money in 2010, no matter how close the team might be to a championship. For that decision, Frank Wren has had to make two trades that will cost them three to five wins, wins that, given their team and the competition, could well be the difference between making the playoffs and not. Even replacing those wins by signing Bay or Holliday just leaves them where they were, instead of making a real charge at a winnable division. . . .
Baseball is in trouble, but not for the reasons you think. It’s not in trouble because a handful of teams make and spend a lot of money. It’s in trouble because a handful of teams are run by people or entitites who really couldn’t care less about baseball. You want to tell me that the Pirates or Nationals or Royals should have a $40 million payroll, well I’m right here with you. Bad teams with no hope of being good in the short term should hoard cash until such time as spending it will make a difference. There are haves and have-nots, but what some “have” are owners motivated by the prospect of on-field success. Every fan deserves that, but until Bud Selig agrees, we’re going to be stuck with some teams trying harder than others to win, some trying less, and everyone getting what they deserve.
[My take: Imagine if the Yanks were still owned by CBS?]
- Kevin Goldstein rates Jesus Montero as the sole 5-star Yankee prospect:
The Good: Simply put, Montero is one of the best offensive prospects in the game, and possibly the best. He’s a massive slugger with the contact skills of a batting champion, with one scout classifying his ability to put the middle of the barrel on the ball “almost supernatural.” His raw power is at or near the top of the charts—and he’s just starting to tap into it. He has the potential for 30-40 home runs annually. He’s a hard worker who puts as much work into his defense as his hitting, and he’s made great strides behind the plate.
The Bad: Montero remains a well below-average catcher, despite his improvements. His big, thick build doesn’t provide much agility defensively, and he’s only expected to get bigger, which will almost assuredly mean a move to first base. His approach is good for his age, but it could use some improvements, as he swings at a lot of bad pitches, making up for it by often crushing them.
- Friday is friend of the Banter Jay Jaffe’s birthday.
- Former Baseball Toaster blogger Bob Timmermann recently announced his engagement. Congrats to Bob and the bride-to-be.
Have a wonderful holiday . . . I’ll see you Monday!
If the Yankees are enacting a budget because of a sound fiscal reason and/or positioning for the 2010 free agent class, I have no problem with it. If, however, they are reacting to the whines of others, then it is a foolish strategy.
Lester Rodney died. Obit in today's NYT. Every baseball follower should read Baseball's Great Experiment more than once to understand the game and the true importance of Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, and all, including Gibby and Hank, the truest stars of baseball. To Satchel and Josh and Goose and all of you, I say thank you. May all be comforted.
[1] i agree with the statement - i do think it is the former though.
buster olney said the sox only have about $5M more to play with and bay may want back since he doesn't really want to go to the mets.
oh and it is a bit old at this point, but i am enjoying fernando rodney to the angels. i just hope by opening day he is not still on the mound in the superdome.
i hope they enjoy those disturbing peripherals (hr/9, so/9, so/bb)
There are haves and have-nots, but what some “have” are owners motivated by the prospect of on-field success. Every fan deserves that, but until Bud Selig agrees, we’re going to be stuck with some teams trying harder than others to win, some trying less, and everyone getting what they deserve.
The problem is, it has been this way since the leagues organized. There is nothing anyone can do to change this.
[4] And it remains that way in EVERY league...even (and in some cases especially) those will salary caps.
[4] There ARE things that can be done to change the current situation. But it would involve someone capable of conceptual thought and the guts to implement the change. The fact is, though, that parity is pretty boring over a 162-game schedule. Hence, no change.
[2] I don't think others whining is the issue. To some 'tiny' extent, sports is somewhat about fair competiton. I don't think others have to say a thing in order for us to see that our payroll is signficantly higher then anyone elses. We are New York, and may always have the largest payroll, but I would like to see it more like 10-20% higher then the next guy. In 2009, we were almost 50% higher then the next guy.
I'm a competative guy. I like to win. But beating my 13 year old sister in Football doesn't give me that much pleasure.
[4] Thanks! Errrr... which statement?
If Bay was smart, he would offer himself at 1/$14 or so. Make the 'big' contract next year, when money might be looser.... and he is a little smarter.
[5] Maybe a salary MINIMUM... maybe over a period of year? Like, ya can't have a three year period where you spend less that $100m on payroll (or some number). I don't think a cap would fly, but I personally would consider that. More important might be some way to assure that distributed monies go towards improving a franchise, as opposed to directly in an owners pocket.
Just WOW! h/t Lohud: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/22/yankees.fan.murder.verdict/
"When Hernandez started to drive away, Beaudoin briefly followed the car on foot. Hernandez then turned her car around and returned to the alley where Beaudoin and his friends remained and struck him. He later died from his injuries, which included multiple skull fractures."
"The defense argued Hernandez's actions were accidental -- a byproduct of her disorientation and panic after the confrontation."
(Man.... some lawyers just have HUGE balls. Ya gotta be pretty 'disoriented' to TURN YOUR CAR AROUND and then drive up an alley.)
"But prosecutors said in New Hampshire Superior Court, 'a few curse words and some insults to a baseball team do not justify murder.'"
I live in NH, I mean MAN! You can't get anything by our prosecuters!
Food for thought:
Should MLB look at Arb awards on an annual basis, and adjust them based on the economy and other relavent market conditions?
If players almost automatically get a 20% raise, will anyone (except a very small minority) be orfered Arb? I wonder if anyone has looked into how many players were offered Arb this year and last, compared to previous. It seems like a system that needs to be reviewed.
My favorite part about the rumblings of Bay (and even Holliday) to Boston appearing today on MLBTR is that, barring some savvy trading, it'd push the Sawx payroll right up to that of the Yanks (for the moment) and also put them into luxury tax penalty.
I hate the drones on ESPN with a passion, so it'll be lovely to serve them up some fresh brewed crow methinks! Imagine the Sawx with a payroll of $185mm or more, with the Yanks under $200mm. That close enough for you OYF?
Fucking ESPN - they'll still blame the Yankees for runaway spending...
I'm shocked to the core .... I just saw him in person 4 months ago, interviewing Frank Howard and Rick Dempsey in D.C. He looked fine to me.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2009/12/sportscaster-george-michael-di.html
[8] All a minimum would do, I think, is drive up the value of marginal players. Plus, how could a minimum really be enforced, especially if a franchise claimed that the salary minimum would drive their team into financial ruin?
Most all of the complaining and hand-wringing about the Yankees is misplaced. The problem resides at the other end: those bottom feeders who, unlike Minnesota and Oakland and Florida or even San Diego or Milwaukee, don't even try to win. r, they are run so incompetently that they are mired in perpetual awfulness.
Let's not whine about the Yankees, let's whine about the Pirates and Royals. The league should work to get those franchises better ownership with deeper pockets. Or, if they cannot compete, the teams should be moved. Or some other solution that I am not clever enough to figure out.
The reality is that there has been a great deal of fluidity at the top of the standings over the last 10 or 20 years (that is, the number of different teams to make the playoffs, to make the WS, and yes even to win the WS). It is the stagnation at the bottom that needs to be addressed. And maybe, for once, it should be addressed NOT by punishing the Yankees.
There ARE things that can be done to change the current situation.
And the smart teams will adjust. The smart teams always do. While trying to take down the Yanks may be a noble idea, the Yanks have been successful in the 20's, the 30's, the 40's, the 50's, the 60's, the 70's, the 90's and the 00's. We're talking everything; best MLB record, best AL record, best divisional record. AL East titles, AL Pennants, World Series champions. What could possibly be done to "rein in" the Yanks? The draft? Collusion? Luxury tax?
I’m a competative guy. I like to win. But beating my 13 year old sister in Football doesn’t give me that much pleasure.
That has little to nothing to do with competitive balance. Who is the equivalent of your "13 year old sister" in MLB?
More important might be some way to assure that distributed monies go towards improving a franchise, as opposed to directly in an owners pocket.
Who's to say that doesn't happen now? Maybe more scouts are hired? Maybe minor league operations are beefed up? Making moves in the FA market for the sake of making moves is a good way to not go anywhere. In KC, I would rather the owners pocket the money than have Drayton Moore sign guys like Farnsworth or Guillen.
[14] In KC, I would rather the owners pocket the money than have Drayton Moore sign guys like Farnsworth or Guillen.
Bingo! Which is exactly the sort of thing we'd see MORE of with OYF's salary minimum.
One radical "solution" might be (and I haven't thought this through) to cut down the 40 man roster to, say, 30 players. That way rich teams can only stockpile so much talent. Of course, the league would have to regulate MiL contracts carefully.
Or maybe we should use the European football model where the worst two teams get demoted to the AAA leagues until they're competitive again.
It is amazing that owners in Pittsburg and KC, for example, are able to get away with blaming the Yankees for their incompetence or disinterest.
[14] This may be a result of reading too closely but I have to question the validity of the following predicate: "While trying to take down the Yanks may be a noble idea . . ." Raf, how could taking down the Yankees possibly be a noble idea?
I have no problem with the whiners. Most of the teams legitimately have money to spend. The few that don't should be allowed to move to areas where they would make more money. Let KC move to New York or Boston. Both areas can support another team.
But that would be free market really working and the rich teams wouldn't want that.
In 2005, the Yanks payroll was $208.3 mil. In current dollars, that's about $230.73 mill. That was in the old stadium. Now with the new stadium, they are definitely making more money. So they do have more to spend and getting Holliday would not break the bank.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-york-yankees_111398168678860040.html
[14] I agree with most of what you said, but I don't know how a Payroll minimum would inflate lower end players pricing. It would simpy mean teams are forced to spend a certain amount, which should motivate them to get more higher priced (and more impact) players. It might mean the don't have to let a franchise player go to FA. It might lower the amount of fire sales.
A cap, either high or low, would need to be gradually implimented over a 5-10 year period. The most important thing to a Minimum, might be when teams are sold, buying a team might appeal more to new owners who were 'into sports' and into 'winning'... as opposed to seeing it a PURELY. 100% as a business invertment.
There are plenty of different stocks and different business for sale that are solely profit driven. It would be nice if MLB was organized in such a way as to attract business people who were also Baseball people, where the concert of Sports and Winning has value. Big George wants to Win. There are other owners who want to win. But look at Carl Pohlad. He is FILTHY rich. Yet he lets Santana and others go? Isn't winng the WS worth something like $25 million? The Twins are almost always on the edge of winning it all, and they let the guys who would have made the difference go?
Believe it or not, there are business's that succeed without making profits their SOLE goal. See Ben and Jerry's. There are MANY others. Baseball is a business... but also a monopoly with a special exemption.. It is NOT just a typical business. There are even a few people left out there who think it's our National Pasttime.
As far as the answers to payroll caps and other issues, I don't have the answers. (I do however really like my 5 game series idea.) But Bud, Don and all the other Baseball Execs cost TENS of MILLIONS of dollars a year. Is it too much to expect some intelligent thought from these guys? We split the Atom a 'few' years ago. Surely MLB can be made profitable, preserve the integrity of the game and keep it fair and fun at the same time. I don't have the answers, but it ain't rocket science.
The Yankees could always spend more. Just like the US Department of Defense. Over $200 million, doesn't it become:
a) unnecessary
b) egregious
c) obsessive
d) all of the above
?
[22] It doesn't become any of that when you look at the way the roster is constructed. I'm sure Jeter, Posada, Rivera and Rodriguez could be replaced with cheaper alternatives, but why should they?
[18] I was being glib.
[24] Did I suggest or imply that?
[21] My suspicion is that many teams would not try to get an "impact player" to meet the minimum salary. My guess is that the payroll minimum would act more or less as the current de facto payroll minimum works (since there is a minimum player salary): teams would do the bare minimum to meet the the pay minimum, probably by filling their rosters with a bunch of 2 million or 3 million dollar guys.
That's just my guess, though.
[19] i don't think that taking away a fan base's team solves any problems. should you have to live in one of the biggest cities in the us to have a baseball team?
[21] Believe it or not, there are business’s that succeed without making profits their SOLE goal. See Ben and Jerry’s.
Perhaps, though one could argue that B&J's traded on their hippy-dippy image and made a lot of money peddling overrated ice cream to socially conscious (but fiscally foolish) college kids and suburbanites.
In any case, it's pretty difficult to enforce motives: how would the league determine of a team was "trying" to win? What would the penalty be for not trying? For not trying hard enough?
Is it too much to expect some intelligent thought from these guys?
You assume they are not being intelligent because you assume there is problem that needs to be solved which they are failing to solve.
But what if, instead, we look at this from another angle: in many respects the game is the healthiest its ever been, especially from a world perspective. Why change anything if it's not clear that anything's broken?
[19][27] They should have as many as five teams in the NYC area, whether those are new teams or relocated franchises.
Should one have to live in a big city to watch baseball? I don't know, but it seems that the teams that struggle perpetually are not always the best supported by their fan bases. Why should the league keep teams in such markets? Also, the vast majority of people watch most of their games on TV, not in person. There is little doubt in my mind that if, say, KC was relocated to NYC, old Royals fans would either 1] become Cardinals fans or 2] follow another whose games would be televised locally (Texas?).
maybe we should just increase the immediate financial benefit of being competitive on the field by coming up with some kind of formula to disburse the revenue sharing and luxury tax money based on performance.
[29] how do you determine whether a team underperforms because it lacks fan support or a team lacks fan support because it underperforms?
[24] So was i! I guess less success than you.
Must Read! h/t RAB
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/not-getting-the-joba-done
[29] "You assume they are not being intelligent because you assume there is problem that needs to be solved which they are failing to solve"
Two words: 5 Game Division Series!
When Bud was questioned about the 5 game series, he replied that we didn't have enough calandar for 7 games, as the baseball season already ran too late into the year. He then proceeded to add extra days off to (said ''too late into the year') baseball season, which was a shitty move all by itself!
But Baseball is making a forture due to Bud's brilliance (and has nothing to do with the InterNet and HUGE TV contracts and far better TV coverage).
[21] You know Ben and Jerry's sold out to a multinational, right?
The example I use in this category is Starbucks. Yeah, they overexpanded so they're on on every corner. But they've done more for free trade coffee than anyone. Sure, they often secured themselves nice deals for good beans. But they also expanded into areas where few Western companies tread and while giving the farmers a market fair price.
Good background on the Vazquez deal. Nice to hear the Yanks were in on Lee. Also makes sense that the Phillies were willing to take less to ship him further. Lee and Sabathia in Yankee Stadium is going to be filthy. Forget Crawford. That's the where the money is.
"They decided that if they had to be vulnerable in one place, they preferred the vulnerability in left field rather than the rotation. They figure the free-agent market might plummet enough that they can get a veteran left fielder at the end of the offseason on the cheap. If not, it is easier to obtain a corner outfielder during the season than a good starting pitcher."
All excellent logic. This organization is firing on all cylinders. The rest of baseball should be very sacred.
Xavier Nady is still available ... and I hear the Yanks are still interested,
"Youth matters to the Yankees. As recently as 2008, the Yanks were starting just two players younger than 32 in their everyday lineup: Cabrera and Robinson Cano.
At this moment – with Gardner penciled in for left field -- their projected lineup has just three players 32 or over next season: Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and Jorge Posada."
That's some work by Cashman right there.
[2] i've always thought Larry Doby should receive waaaaay more attention.
isn't the Royals owner (david glass?) some kind of major wal-mart ceo, or something? i think he's got pohlad money. $55 mil to meche is also part of the problem...
[27] A lot of baseball fans don't live near their teams now. Allowing a team to relocate to level the financial playing field wouldn't really change that. For example, now a Red Sox fan in Maine (considered part of the NESN market) could have a Maine team that splits the Boston Franchise. So fans in KC would lose a team but Maine would gain one.
And this kind of move would totally solve the disparity of spending problem since now the Red Sox would have less revenue to work with.
It would open up other cans of worms but if the uneven financial field is such a big problem, this is an easy solution.
Personally, I don't think that the Yankees spending clout over KC is that much of hindrance to KC. It is some problem. But the bigger issue is always smart management. But that might be a tougher problem to fix.
[25] Suggest or imply what?
[36] The rest of baseball should be "more" scared. They're already afraid that the Yankees will outspend them.
[40] That works with the critical assumption that a team in Maine would work. That is something that is rarely considered. Let's say we put a team in NNJ (a location often mentioned for a 3rd metro NY team). Where do they play? Who will support a startup team there? How will they succeed when other teams have failed or are failing there?
One other question, if it's about regional dominance, why haven't the Mariners cleaned up? Their closest AL rival would be Oakland, wouldn't it?
Or the Expos? As much as people hammered their attendance towards the end, they have a history that showed fans would support a competitive team there. I am amused that baseball was given a chance to survive in Cleveland and Atlanta, but left to die in Montreal (a city cooler than Atlanta and Cleveland combined).
[41] hey, i love atlanta! ; )
[33] thanks for the link.
RIP, George Michael.
When I lived in D.C., the Sports Machine was a staple of my Sunday night tv viewing. I didn't like the Washington football team, but enjoyed George Michael, Mike Wilbon and Jim Vance on their talk show.
[27] but fans in maine already have a team they root for and don't want a new team. fans in kc already have a team they root for and don't want to lose it. why should you take away something from people who want it and give it to people who don't? likewise, i don't think any yankee fans in upstate ny or sw connecticut are clamoring for a new team.
there's no limit to how many fans a team can have. while some big cities could support another team, that doesn't mean they actually would since baseball fans in those cities are already fans of one of the existing teams, and frequently very devoted fans since those are the teams that are normally competitive.
anyway, i think it has as much to do with fairness as practicality. you can't just balance out numbers of people. some people already have a regional team, and it would be a big deal to them to have that team taken away, no matter how many other fans somewhere else might eventually support the new team created.
[34] What does the five game series/play off scheduling have to do with the related questions of revenue/market/competitive balance?
You assume that there is a problem with payroll disparity in the league and then seem to disparage baseball leadership for not fixing the problem. I suggest that it is not a problem (or at least not much of one), so there is little need to fix anything, and so there is little call for disparaging those in charge for not making serious changes in this area.
[42] I enjoyed the time I spent in Atlanta, especially the bbq. Many of my friends have relocated to the ATL. Watched the superstation grow up (used to be fishin, college football, rasslin and either "Smokey and the Bandit" or "Walking tall." if you were lucky, you got both)
HOWEVER, Montreal is single guys paradise. Maybe it's because of the Canadian Ballet, I dunno. :D
[46] i'll trust you on the BBQ. you can confirm w/ RI Yank, but i don't eat the stuff!
i've been to Montreal a coupla times. i played there about 3 years ago. was too French for me, i couldn't make anything out! i betchya i'd still fail there, as a single guy... : /
[33] Chamberlain was terrible for so much of last year. Even early on when his ERA was below 4, he was barely effective, it would be with a boatload of pitches so they'd yank him after five innings before he could get into any real trouble.
Anyway I really wish to god they'd put him back in, otherwise I'd have suffered through all that for nothing. He needs to have the opportunity to build on his experience but I'm still doubtful he'll get the hang of being a starting pitcher. Here's hoping though.