Two More Yankee Rumors We're Not Buying

First up, via MLBTR, Bob Nightengale throws out one that's new to me:

Not so quietly anymore, apparently.

Even if we assume that Nightengale's sources are correct and that Brian Cashman has let other GM's know that Swisher is available for the right package (which every player essentially is), I can't see this leading to an actual trade.

We've discussed the state of flux that the Yankees' outfield is in this offseason multiple times, but with the assumption that Nick Swisher remaining in right field was a constant. Swish had a solid (albeit streaky) year at the plate and is signed for a reasonable $6.75M next year and $9M in 2011 with a $10.25M team option for 2012. With a team-friendly salary and above average offensive production (29 HR, 129 OPS+), Swish - along with Robinson Cano - make up the extent of movable impact bats in the Yankee lineup, so of course the club should listen to offers for him.

However, if Cashman does decide to trade Swisher, it would leave the Yankees with holes to fill in each corner of the outfield this offseason. As a slugging switch hitter, Swisher is a key component of the Yankees lineup and his average defense in RF over the last two years certainly hasn't been a detriment. Sure, the Yankees could trade him, but in all likelihood, they'd have to replace him with someone who is either not as good or more expensive.

If the Yankees played inside of a vacuum instead of in the Bronx, it might make sense to trade Swisher. They'd be certain to get back more than they gave up for him last offseason, thus "buying low and selling high", but it's unlikely that it would suit the club's long term plans, something that Brain Cashman undoubtedly would take into consideration.

The other rumor, which is now one day internet month old, is that Jon Heyman thinks the Yankees "have a real reason to believe" they could land Roy Halladay. The Blue Jays have reportedly willing to deal within the division and have granted Halladay a window to negotiate with any potential trade partner. That window would be used to determine if the team would be willing to extend him a contract offer that he would be in favor of waiving his no-trade clause for.

The fact that a team could secure him long term would help justify sacrificing the prospects they give up, but what kind of contract would Halladay be looking for? Considering that Doc is 32 years old, he probably wouldn't get CC Sabathia or Johan Santana money, but let's say, conservatively, it's 5 years at $100M. Would the Yankees really want to lock up very nearly $60M a year in three starting pitchers (Halladay, Sabathia & Burnett) for the next 4 years?

The Yanks had a chance to pay the double barreled cost of prospects plus a free agent-sized contract to acquire Johan Santana from the Twins (via a similar negotiating window) and passed. Do we really think that they want to do it now, after committing to Burnett and Sabathia with large and lengthy contracts? Our friends at River Ave. Blues don't.

I think that that situations involving Swisher and Halladay have a common thread. In both cases, the Yankees are doing their due diligence even though neither are likely to culminate in a trade. Reporters are paid to churn up these kinds of details during the offseason and might as well present them as if there is something to them. And that's generously assuming that these reports are correct.

A good GM should be leaving no stone unturned this time of year. They should be collecting every trade offer possible and inquiring about everyone who is available. But keep that in mind when one of these transmissions is breathlessly reported and subsequently analyzed. There's a lot more said than actually done 'round the ol' hot stove.

Value Evaluation: CC or A-Rod

I doubt many people are going to remember who the ALCS MVP was a couple years from now. Postseason series MVPs are even more haphazardly given out than their regular season counterparts the BBWAA gets to vote on. As we had pretty much determined by Game 4, it was going to either A-Rod or CC Sabathia.

Last night as LoHud, Josh Thompson said "In no surprise to anyone, CC Sabathia was named MVP of the ALCS after winning both starts."

Um, I'll admit it. I'm a little surprised. A-Rod had a fantastic series and given how much the media loves stories of redemption, I had thought he would be the slight favorite to win. He put up huge numbers, and had clutch home runs, which I would think the media would value as much ro more than a guy who made two excellent starts.

Like everyone else, I don't really care who won the award, but I thought it would be interesting to look at who was more valuable in the series.

Here go the basic stats. A-Rod hit .429/.567/.952. That's a 1.519 OPS. He walked 8 times and struck out thrice. Three homers, six RBIs and six runs scored, meaning he was at the center of 9 of the Yanks' 33 runs in the series.

Sabathia started and won twice, going 8 innings and allowing one run each time. He had as many strikeouts (12) as walks (3) and hits (9) combined. An ERA of 1.12, a WHIP of 0.750.

Both guys put up numbers in the series that if you extrapolated to a full season would comfortably be the best of all time as a batter and pitcher respectively, I'm willing to say. I'm not sure of a place to get Wins or Runs Above Replacement data for a postseason series, so the best measure of comparing a pitcher to a position player would probably be WPA.

CC takes that one pretty handily which demonstrates the importance of an overpowering starting pitcher. With the Yankees' offense, he virtually assured them of two wins, the only two comfortable victories of the series.

A-Rod, on the other hand, had a hit in every game and was on base twice or more in all except Game 2, when of course he blasted a game-tying home run in the bottom of the 11th when the Yanks were down to their last breath. In Game 5, where he was at .005 in WPA, he still had a hit and two walks.

You can't go wrong with either of these guys obviously, and even A-Rod magnanimously said that CC deserved it. These are nice issues to be able to sort through, aren't they? Everybody wins!

Round 2: Damon v. Abreu

Yesterday's hot topic around here, Bobby Abreu just got offered a nice new deal with the Angels.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim offered Bobby Abreu a two-year extension worth about $16MM, according to SI.com's Jon Heyman (via Twitter).

As he did before this year, ol' Bobby is shooting for the stars and looking for a better deal. There's no real harm in that since he didn't sign with the Angels until mid-February this year and he has every right to find another team that's willing to pay him more than that.

Abreu is a really good hitter who would be an asset if placed in any lineup in the history of the game and he's coming off a pretty good year. But he'll be 36 years old when next season starts. He already has limited ability as a corner outfielder and will eventually transition into a part-time DH role.

Does that scenario sound familiar? That's right folks, Johnny Damon is in a nearly identical position.

Granted, the most likely scenario is that both guys stay where they are at, but let's assume the Yankees could have either of them for 2 years at $10M per. It might be a bit much, but with that offer already sitting out there for Abreu, we know it's not going to be much less.

Like we did yesterday with Nick Swisher and Abreu, let's look at the stats.

Damon batted in the two hole almost exclusively this year, while Abreu primarily hit third. This explains some of the gap in RBI, but not as well as Abreu's .354/.448/.475 line with RISP. That's great and all, but it's hardly sustainable.

On the same note, Damon set a career high for HRs this year and that is likely to regress to the mean next year as well. If Abreu were to get half of his plate appearances in Yankee Stadium in 2010, there's a pretty good chance his totals would increase, bringing the two a bit closer together.

The stolen base edge goes to Abreu, but Damon obviously could have run more and a good portion of the difference has to be the product of the strategy of the teams they play for. Defense isn't going to matter as much in the role that the Yankees are looking for since it will involve a good amount of games in the DH slot but Damon was completely terrible this year, and I don't think we can chalk off of it up to his eye issues. Although subjectively, I don't think there's any way he's that much worse than Abreu.

We're looking at two pretty similar players. Both have been extremely fortunate with their health over the years and remain productive at an advanced age. Both are risky investments and there's a fair chance that two years from now, one will look better than the other or both will look pretty bad. But based on what we know now, who ya got?

Realistically, Damon is far more likely to stick around due to real world factors like their families and such, but on paper a good case could be made for either of these guys. Think of what Abreu could do for the Yankees' approach at the plate!

Swisher v. Abreu

This morning, Matt did a great job debunking the myth of Bobby Abreu's resurgent season and magical contagious plate discipline out in Anaheim. I also want to chime in on Abreu's production this season, but in relation to his ostensible replacement - another cheap acquisition via trade for the Yankees - Nick Swisher.

Although Xavier Nady was slotted as the starting right fielder and Swisher was supposed to man first base at the time the Yankees declined to offer Abreu arbitration on his $16M 2008 contract, Nady was done for the season by April 14th and Swish ended up getting over 600 plate appearances for the Yanks. Abreu sounded a bit like a spurned lover when talking about the Yankees cutting him loose but the reality is that at the time $16M was far too much to offer a corner outfielder with limited range when the market are held players like Raul Ibanez, Adam Dunn, Milton Bradley and Pat Burrell - even before taking into account the state of the baseball economy.

The decision made itself. The Angels waited out Abreu's attempts at a large, multi-year deal and got great value on highly productive hitter. Meanwhile, the Yankees signed Mark Teixeira and Swish ended up taking Abreu's place in right field of the New Yankee Stadium. They made essentially the same amount of money in 2009, so who got the better player?

Both guys love to work the count and put up solid OBPs, but that's pretty much where their similarities end. Let's take a look at the numbers (bold print represents an advantage):

A cursory look at the basic stats would give the nod to Abreu. His batting average is far higher than Swisher's and he batted in 14 21 more runs while stealing 30 bases.

However, while Abreu complied 41 more hits than Swisher, he actually had 14 fewer go for extra bases. The OBP advantage goes to Abreu, but more importantly, the slugging crown is Swish's by a wide margin. The home run totals are skewed by the New Yankee Stadium (although Swish only hit 8 at home), but not so much that Abreu would have hit twice as many there.

Abreu batted either second or third in the Angels' line up while Swisher was typically hitting somewhere between 6th and 8th for the Yankees, which explains the difference in RBIs. The 30 stolen bases at a 78% success rate do represent a major advantage for Abreu, but adding those 22 net total bases to Abreu's total isn't enough counteract Swisher's advantage in slugging percentage while subtracting the 8 times on base brings with OBPs closer together.

Usually, you would expect the guy who is a better base stealer to have the advantage in fielding as well, but that's not the case in this scenario. Swish didn't even attempt to steal a base all year long but still was better, or should I say "not as bad" as Abreu in right field.

Mainly on the strength of defense and power, Swisher had a higher value for the Yankees this year. Since Abreu hit all the plate appearance-based incentives in his contract this year, it means that Swish was the cheaper option by about $700,000 as well.

Both teams made out very well, but for different reasons. Swisher was cost controlled because of the deal he signed buying out his arbitration years and Abreu's contract was one of the most team-friendly in a historic buyer's market. The Yanks got an average fielding slugger while the Angels got a singles-raking base stealer. And with the teams meeting in the ALCS, I don't think there are too many regrets with how this scenario played out.

FanGraphs Salary Values

When trying to quantify a player's contributions to their team, sometimes Matt and I link to FanGraphs because in addition to Runs Above Replacement and Wins Above Replacement, they also translate that player's value into salary dollars. According to their calculations, here are the 15 most notable Yankees and their respective values:

• Derek Jeter -$33.3M
• CC Sabathia - $27.8M
• Mark Teixeria - $24.2M
• Robinson Cano - $19.2M
• A-Rod - $19M
• Jorge Posada - $18.1M
• Nick Swisher - $17.1M
• Andy Pettitte - $16.1M
• A.J. Burnett $14.1M
• Johnny Damon - $12.1M
• Hideki Matsui - $11M
• Phil Hughes - $10.3M
• Mariano Rivera - $8.8M
• Brett Gardner - $8.3M
• Joba Chamberlain - $7.1M
• Melky Cabrera - $6.6M
• Alfredo Aceves - $5.9M
• Phil Coke - $100K
  
  
• Total: $259.1M

Seems pretty high, doesn't it? That's not even all of them. There are part-time contributors like Chien Ming Wang (yes, he actually had positive value) and Hinske and Hairston and Bruney and Cervelli and Pena that add to that number incrementally as well.

The Yankees' Opening Day payroll was $201.5M, which is roughly what the top 10 most valuable guys on the team add up to (Damon and above on that list). Are the Yanks actually getting that much more than their money's worth?

Well, that depends on your view point.

As David Pinto of Baseball Musings points out, FanGraphs calculates player value based the value of marginal wins, and thereby attempts to valuate all players as if they were free agents. So, when you add up the value of all the batters and pitchers on FG, it comes out to $4.6B, whereas the total payroll of the MLB is roughly $2.7B.

With the obvious disclaimer that the folks behind FanGraphs are much smarter than I am, I would like to respectfully disagree with this methodology.

They use a system that corrects for the artificial forces depressing the salaries of players who are not available to the free market, which makes sense in it's own right. But we are all familiar with these artificial constraints and understand that is the reason why guys like Tim Lincecum are paid a fraction of what they are actually worth.

Instead of creating a system where the value of players is always going to far exceed the payroll, why not base it in reality? When I look at that dollar figure on FanGraphs, I want to know how much a player was actually worth in relation to what other players throughout the MLB are getting paid. I want to be able to tell who is getting their fair share or the pie. Part of that is the fact that guys like Phil Hughes are able to contribute at far beyond their pay grade but someone like CC Sabathia is unlikely to be worth the checks he's cashing, even during a very productive season.

I want to look at salary on a scale that is familiar to me, not one that is based on a contrived scenario in which everyone is a free agent and would make far more than they really do or even would make under those circumstances. It's not like the owners would suddenly shell out an extra $2.1B dollars if everyone hit the market over the next offseason.

Here is that list above, based on the MLB's actual payroll:

• Derek Jeter -$19.5M
• CC Sabathia - $16.3M
• Mark Teixeria - $14.2
• Robinson Cano - $11.3M
• A-Rod - $11.2M
• Jorge Posada - $10.6M
• Nick Swisher - $10M
• Andy Pettitte - $9.4
• A.J. Burnett - $ 8.3
• Johnny Damon - $7.1M
• Hideki Matsui - $6.5M
• Phil Hughes - $6M
• Mariano Rivera - $5.2M
• Brett Gardner - $4.9M
• Joba Chamberlain $4.2M
• Melky Cabrera $3.9M
• Alfredo Aceves $3.5M
• Phil Coke - $59K
  
  
• Total: $152.2M

Seems like a better approximation of their values. At least to me it does.

Cranky, Eh?

If this bit of news were recorded by PeteAbe himself and not his fill-in Josh Thomson, I wouldn't have needed to make this connection:

Mariano Rivera didn’t throw at all today and was unavailable to pitch. “He was feeling a little cranky today,” Joe Girardi said. Rivera told us his right shoulder was sore, but he did not classify the soreness as painful. He said he has felt this pain before and felt fine soon after. Girardi said he’d be “shocked” if Rivera weren’t available tomorrow in Seattle.

Of course, "cranky" was the term Girardi used at the end of last season, when Mariano was supposedly leaving to go back to New York from Toronto for "a physical" instead of going with the team to Boston:

Girardi was asked several times and in several ways whether Rivera had an injury to his elbow and shoulder. He denied it every time. The questions were very exact. “He said his whole body was cranky,” Girardi said.

The beat writers all found this to be perplexing, since Rivera could have got a physical just about anywhere and if they were intent on having it done by a certain team doctor, they could have flown him out to Mo, not the other way around. Some of the writers called Brian Cashman, who said that Rivera need an MRI which ultimately revealed that he needed surgery.

Again Mariano is making travel arrangements separate from the team for personal reasons, according to Thomson in the same article. Marc Carig of the Star Ledger talked to team spokesperson Jason Zillo who said it has nothing to do with health issues. "No tests were done and none are scheduled" and Mo will be in Seattle for the game.

Is there a reason that Girardi chooses "cranky"? Cranky is a strange and vague term to use for describing injuries. We all know was "sore" and "stiff" and "tight" mean. It seems like cranky is his go-to line when he doesn't want to give away information about an injury because it means nothing to anyone but him. Cranky is what a four year old is when you wake them up from a nap. Cranky is how your grandmother got when your little brother broke her lamp.

Rivera hits these rough patches seemingly every season and Girardi has dramatically improved the way he relates to the media so hopefully the the connection is nothing more than semantics. If nothing else, every time there is an sort of uncertainty about Rivera's health, it makes you take stock of how important and valuable he is to the team. In Mo we trust.

I'll Show You Overpaid...

I'm going to single Joel Sherman out here, but he is just stating a general sentiment that I've heard in several other places the most unequivocally (emphasis mine):

But, at this moment, Peavy has a foot injury and Rios is one of the most overpaid players in the majors. The risk is huge -- and fascinating.

"At this moment"? Alex Rios is making $5.9M in salary in 2009, which pro-rated for 112 games equates to $4.3M, and has already been worth $4.9 to the Blue Jays. He's actually slightly overpaid. And in general, saying a player who makes $6M is "one of the most overpaid players in the majors" is like ripping someone for driving a Jeep for getting bad gas mileage. Is it great? No, but let's look at the supercharged H1 Hummer parked directly next door.

Even if you are talking about Rios' value going forward, you could do a lot worse than paying a guy capable of playing a strong center field with a career OPS of .786 who steals about 20 bases per year an average of $11.75M over the next 5 seasons. For instance you could be giving $18M to Vernon Wells who can't play center and is putting up a .717 OPS to Rios' .744 this year, under the exact same circumstances.

It's not Rios' fault that the Blue Jays left him in right field because Wells and his reprehensible contract were blocking him in center, where he could have created the most value. Wells, by the way has been worth negative $3.6M to the Blue Jays this year according to FanGraphs, while making $18M.

Using this methodology, I've compiled a short, non-comprehensive list of MLB position players who, like Wells and unlike Rios actually are overpaid:

[values are extrapolated to a full season to match annual salaries,

all #'s via Cot's MLB Contracts and FanGraphs are in millions]

The guys with negative value get screwed by the extrapolation, because it multiplies their negative value, but you get the idea. Vernon Wells is the most overpaid position player in the MLB and it's only close because Jose Guillen (who actually apologized for sucking so badly) is even worse. Apparently the stank of his contract is rubbing off on the man to his left on defense.

This isn't to say that the Blue Jays handled Rios' contract well, even if he is currently appropriately valued. As Keith Law points out, they made a mistake with Alex Rios, whether it was overpaying for him initally or giving him away for free yesterday.