The Yankes Are Serious About This Budget Thing

Joel Sherman writes on his blog today that the Yankees only have $2M remaining to spend on a left fielder and as a way of making that point, unveils this tidbit:

Hal Steinbrenner, after all, has shown a much greater willingness to hold to some financial guidelines than his father, George, did. For example, the Post has learned, the Yanks had a completed trade last July with Milwaukee for Mike Cameron, pending ownership’s blessing to take on the money. But Hal Steinbrenner refused to add the approximately $5.5 million in salary and luxury tax it would have cost for the rest of the season, so the deal was scrapped.

Sherman leaves out some important details, namely who would have been exchanged for Cameron and when in July this deal almost took place. It was rumored that the Yankees were about to trade Melky Cabrera to the Brewers for Cameron last December, so it's possible that he would have been included in the deal again. Brett Gardner broke his thumb in July 25th, so the Yanks could have tried to orchestrate a trade in that small window before the July 31st deadline, in which case it would be more likely that other players would have been sent to the Brewers instead of Melky.

With a total salary of $10M and $125,000 bonuses kicking in at 425, 475, 525 & 575 plate appearances Cameron wasn't exactly a bargain last year, but that prorated amount would have only been about 2.7% of the Yankees payroll. It was a proverbial drop in the bucket at that point. Clearly it wasn't a necessary addition as the Yanks got all they needed out of centerfield in 2009, but it takes a lot of discipline as an owner to be convinced of that at the time.

Sherman goes on to say that the Yankees are interested in Xavier Nady and Reed Johnson but that the former might be slightly out of their price range. This means that signing Jerry Hairston, Jr. would all but exhaust their budget and unless Johnny Damon wants to come back on a bargain-basement-one-time-only-red-tag-special, he's obviously out too. Your move, Reed Johnson.

Fiesty Small Market Underdogs Near Luxury Tax Threshold

Good morning, Fackers. Any guesses as to the identity of the team in the headline? From WEEI:

The signings of John Lackey to a five-year deal in the $82.5 million range and Mike Cameron to a two-year, $15.5 million contract would push the Sox payroll — as calculated for Major League Baseball’s luxury tax purposes — to an all-time franchise high.

Based on salary projections for the players who were offered contracts last Saturday, the Sox are already nearing the $170 million threshold for 2010 at which clubs will be assessed a luxury tax penalty.

It might have been the acquisitions of Lackey and Cameron that put the Sox very close to the Luxury Tax threshold, but as Matthew Pouliot from Circling the Bases points out, the deals given to their homegrown players are a big factor as well:

Prior to last year, the team was so conscious of its position straddling the luxury tax that it avoided signing young players to long-term deals. That changed as Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester all received extensions that kept them into their free agent years.

And it's those contracts that could put the Red Sox over the top. In reality, those three players, all of whom signed extensions last winter, will earn $16.375 million next season. However, for tax purposes, they're valued at $23.03 million.

The WEEI article provides a player by player estimate of the Sox salaries as they pertain to the Luxury Tax and a breakdown of some of the nuances involved in how the league calculates payroll for it. As far as the MLB is concerned, deals which buy out some arbitration years like the ones singed by Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedrioa and Jon Lester are all taxed at the average annual value of the deal meaning that, although Lester is making $3.75M this year, the Sox pay tax on the AAV of his 5 year, $30M deal.

The Luxury Tax is structured like the taxes we pay to the government, so it only applies to the amount spent over $170M, meaning the amount of money to the Sox will be next to nothing if they do exceed that mark. But the larger point here is that despite the much bemoaned free agent acquisitions the Yankees made last off season, when the dust settles, the two teams are likely to be fairly close (~$30M, 15%) in terms of payroll this year.

To many of the deluded members of Red Sox Nation like the ones who reared their ugly heads here, the Sox are David to the Yankees' Goliath, when in reality, the Sox are playing the role of Goliath to the rest of the league with the exceptions of the Mets and Cubs. Why do Sawx fans cling to the belief that their team is one of the "have nots"?

Part of this is the fact that Boston itself actually is a small market. The city itself has a population of about 600,000 and even expanding to the Greater Boston Area encompasses fewer than 5 million people. However, the Red Sox have a monopoly on the territory that stretches from Maine through New Hampshire, most of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and about half of Connecticut. There isn't one truly large city in that region, but there are a whole lot of small towns. Add them all up and you are pretty close to 10 million people.

Another factor is that deal just given to John Lackey will actually be the second largest in terms of total dollars that the Red Sox have on their books (behind only Matsuzka's if you include the posting fee). A.J. Burnett was given the same exact deal from the Yankees, but it's only the 5th largest the team has on the books, trailing A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira and Sabathia. This is a positive for the Sox in that they have more future flexibility without those long term commitments, but it also means that they continually have to either develop players from their system or find new free agents to fill their needs.

Do the Sox do this because they can't afford those longer deals or because they typically choose not to employ that strategy? Since they committed over $100M to Matsuzaka and went down to the wire with the Yanks on Teixeira, I would guess it is the latter.

There is a chance that the Sox will have a significantly lower payroll than the Yankees 3, 4 or 5 years from now, but there is also a chance that their prospects don't pan out and they are forced to overpay for stop gaps like Marco Scutaro, John Smotlz and Brad Penny as opposed to having elite but aging players already under contract.

Such is the trade off between living by the seat of your pants and making long term investments in blue chip players. However, at the present moment, the difference between those two strategies in terms of dollars spent isn't especially significant.

Enough With The Mauer Speculation, Already

That's what Mike Vaccarro is saying, except, since he works for the Post, he's speculating anyway.

Hell, the Yankees have never been shy about raiding their foes. They took Tommy John away from the Dodgers, took Luis Tiant and Johnny Damon and Wade Boggs away from the Red Sox, took Jason Giambi away from the A's after he nearly wrecked them by himself a couple of times in the playoffs. Until they announce they're out with Mauer, they always will be in, and that's an awfully enticing thought.

Are people really "yearning" for Joe Mauer as Vaccarro also says in the article? Giving out another $200M contract or whatever it's going to take to sign Joe Mauer isn't enticing to me at all. The guy is an incredibly great player - a catcher with 3 batting titles, who's just starting to hit for power - but can we keep it in our pants for once?

The Yanks are in the middle of a postseason run and people are speculating about who they are going to sign two fucking years from now? There will be plenty of cold winter months to dream about Joe Mauer or Felix Hernandez or a bunch of other ridiculously expensive marquee players that the Yanks have been developing their farm system specifically to avoid signing.

That's why the Yanks have spent top 10 picks on catchers like John Murphy, Kyle Higashioka, Austin Romine and Chase Weems (although they traded Weems for Jerry Hairston, Jr.) and signed Jesus Montero and Gary Sanchez and high upside arms Andrew Brackman, Gerrit Cole, Phil Hughes, Joba, Dellin Betances and Brett Marshall. The Yanks can spend big money on free agents, but would much rather not have to.

Sorry Mike, smart Yanks fans know we got our presents this year. They were the contracts given to Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett and less recently, A-Rod. Derek Jeter's gonna need a new one after next year. Cano is due to make $14 and $15M in 2012 and 2013, respectively and the organization is going to want to cut payroll if at all possible. We can think about the future during the offseason, right now, we're just enjoying the moment.

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.

Vicarious Vacation

If you're up for one, head on over and check out our pal Jason's account of a once in-a-lifetime kind of afternoon he had with his family during a trip to San Diego:

Here's the setup: A few days prior to leaving for San Diego, I emailed my friend, Matt. Matt, an agent, has been a long time FOTB. In my email to Matt, I asked him if there was any way that I could get my boys to meet Kyle Blanks, a client of his, since we were going to be at the game. In a way that is typical Matt, he responded a few hours later with a "Call me asap" email. I gave him a call and he let me know that he not only arranged for us to meet Blanks, but that Kyle suggested that we meet him for lunch before the game. I was giddy, to say the least, as I knew this would be a tremendous experience for my boys...meeting a pro ballplayer and having lunch with him right before he played!

It gets better from there. There was more interaction with players (the Shyster jokes that there may have been some ulterior motives on their parts) and it makes you realize that while baseball in New York is certainly great in it's own right, the game is more accessible and easier to enjoy in person essentially everywhere else in the country.

Sure the Padres have to try a little harder to appease their fans since they are drifting lifelessly at 20 games below .500. It helps that they don't have to charge exorbitant prices on tickets or concessions to cover their $43M payroll (oh wait, minus Jake Peavy's $8M), too. But we're talking about San Diego here. I don't too many people are losing sleep over the Pad's record. When October comes in SoCal, it's still going to be 78 and sunny.

Now That The Yankees Are Winning, Stop Rooting For Them!

Yesterday, Jeff Pearlman, who is a great writer but a marginal blogger (at best) wondered how anyone could be a Yankee fan:

This offseason, the Yankees purchased the two best pitchers on the market (C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett), then went out and bought Mark Texiera, the in-his-prime, top-of-the-league first baseman superdooper stud. In other words, how can anyone with a human head actually attend, say, a Yankees-Royals or Yankees-Orioles or Yankees-Rays or Yankees-A’s or Yankees-Mariners or Yankees-Rangers or Yankees-Twins or Yankees-Anybody Except The Red Sox or Mets game and truly, strongly, lovingly, audibly root for the Yankees to win?

Notice that he waits until now to say this. Not when they were 15-17 on May 12th. Not last year, when they had a higher payroll and missed the playoffs or in any of the previous three before that when they were bounced in the first round. But now, after some great offseason acquisitions, no one can be a fan? All of a sudden they are unlikable because they are playing up to their potential?

If the Yanks won 100 games every season and 8 out of the last 12 World Series, he might have a point. But the thing that's great and maddening about baseball at the same time is that you can stack the deck in your favor as much as you want but you won't necessarily come out on top.

Pearlman an "unabashed" fan of the Mets of all teams should know this. (Not a dig about journalistic integrity by any stretch, so I don't care if he claims not to be one anymore like every sports writer does.) The Mets had an Opening Day payroll of close to $150,000,000 and they'd have to get scorching hot to even sniff .500. This isn't basketball where, if one team got LeBron, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade next offseason they'd be a virtual lock for an NBA title.

I never thought I'd read Jeff Pearlman and Lou Merloni write about the same topic and agree with the latter, but here is a rare voice of reason from fackin' WEEI (h/t BBTF):

Isn’t it good to have the Yankees in the mix again? Did you have fun last year when you were more concerned with the Rays than the Yanks? I didn’t. I want to hate [the Yankees]. I want to fear them. It’s just more fun that way. You had to know that this year was going to be different for the boys from New York. [...] This year, yeah they spent some serious dollars, but they were spent wisely… for once.

That's coming from a guy who grew up in Framingham, Mass., went to Providence College and was drafted in to the Sox organization. You've gotta love Merloni's competitve spirit because the summer is a lot more interesting when both teams are in the race.

You're not going to stop the Yankees by whining about how much they spend in the offseaon. And I'm not going to stop Jeff Pearlman from whining about the Yankees by writing about it here. As you were.

Keeping the $100 Million Contracts in Perspective

With most teams in the NFL and MLB having already entered their respective offseasons, a lot of talk has centered around the money being spent on free agents and payroll in general, including some chatter from us at Fack Youk. Jay wrote a little bit about Eli and Pettitte, while I discussed the Yankees' payroll in general.

But with these huge numbers being thrown around, we can easily lose sight of the real issues.

Which is the reason why I would like you to refer to the informational video below. Thank you.


















(Inspiration for the video from these idiots)

Frank Deford: Old

Frank actually lives around the block from me on the Upper West Side. I know this because I see him walking a small, fluffy, white dog from time to time. He's surprisingly tall, in a rickety, stilt-ish sort of way and moves slowly and creakily over the sidewalks. That's how I know he's old.

For anyone else who would like evidence, I present this article he wrote for NPR.com.

So, yes, thank the Lord for the Yankees. With their seats selling for as much as $2,500 a game while they ask a struggling New York City for an additional $259 million in tax-free bonds to help finance their new stadium and while they sign free agents for well over $400 million — far more than the other 29 major league teams have spent cumulatively — the Yankees present themselves as the very model of arrogance and let-'em-eat-cakeness. Henceforth, I will be calling the Yankees the Antoinettes. You may wish to, as well.

Yes, friends, you may wish to refer to a modern sports team by the name of an 18th century Queen of France, but the person you are talking to will think you are insane. Here's the funny part: Her full name was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen (thanks Wikipedia). Marie Antoinette was a Habsburg and since she was a female, her offspring wouldn't have been referred to as "Antoinettes" either. Unless there is an even more obscure family/person he is referring to, I'm pretty sure he just made this up.

If you want to make a hokey analogy comparing a European dynasty to the Yankees, how about the Medicis? The Medicis were probably the richest family in Europe during the 15th century, and used wealth attained by the Medici Bank to commission works of art by the greatest artists of that era including Michaelango, Donatello, Rafael and Leonardo. Actually, I just listed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but they really did commission Michaelangelo.

I get the point of comparing the Yankees to a European dynasty. The money, the excess, the history... sure. But all the teams and their owners are ridiculously rich too and some are ever richer than the Steinbrenners. The Yankees exploit their advantages of history/tradition and market size and and use them to be consistently competitive on the field. What would happen if the Yankees had a payroll that blended in with the top 5 or 10 teams, something like $110-115 million? They would probably attract fewer fans. I highly doubt that these fans would want to root for a different team, they most likely just wouldn't be baseball fans.

Will said it with more vulgarity and anger than I possibly could, but the Yankees aren't ruining baseball. They generate money for others directly (revenue sharing, road attendance) and indirectly (luxury tax and TV Ratings). They might not be good for your team, but they are good for baseball.

Pay Pettitte!

As Andy Pettitte's future with the Yankees hangs in contractual limbo, it seems as though the Yankees have forgotten the value of durability in a starting pitcher. Let's look at the Yankees starting staff, in terms of probability of making at least 30 starts and rank them on a scale of 5 question marks where Roy Halliday is a "?" and Carl Pavano is a "?????".

CC Sabathia - The signing of AJ Burnett has made everyone forget about the number of Sabathia pitches Sabathia threw at the end of last year (especially on short rest), and the fact that the guy has thrown 494 regular season, and 19 postseason innings in the past two years. He's been nothing if not durable, throwing at least 192 innings in every season of his career except his first, in which he threw 180, but one has to wonder how long that will hold up.

Rating: ??

Chein Ming Wang - Wang had a freak injury running the bases last year missing about half the season, and has dealt with some fingernail issues in the past. He's a pretty good bet to take the mound every 5 days, but the apparent disrespect he has been shown by the Yanks makes you wonder if they know something we don't.

Rating: ??

AJ Burnett - Burnett has quite the intimate relationship with the disabled list, making several visits for both elbow and shoulder issues. He also has the reputation of not wanting to take the ball unless he was 100%. At the press conference announcing he and Sabathia's signings he claimed that Roy Halliday taught him to be more professional and understand his body better. But the injury history speaks for itself.

Rating: ???

Joba Chamberlain - We have the least data on Joba, but the reason he fell to the 41st pick was his injury history. He didn't have any trouble when he was used out of the bullpen in accordance with The Joba Rules, but when I think of him as a starting pitcher, I can't get the image of him grabbing his shoulder in Texas out of my mind.

Rating: ???

Phil Hughes - Aside from his stellar minor league numbers and short spurts of adequacy at the major league level, he hasn't given any indications that he can stay healthy or effecitve enough to pitch a full major league season. If he wins a spot in the rotation, you will likely see more of Ian Kennedy or Alfredo Aceves than you want to.

Rating: ????

Which brings us back to Pettitte. He has made more than 30 starts in 12 of his 14 major league seasons. Despite pitching poorly in the second half of last season, he was still able to eat innings when he didn't ahve his best stuff. Over his last 12 starts, he averaged just under 6 innings a start while giving over 4.1 runs per start (a 6.25 ERA). After Wang and Joba went down, I believe Girardi used Pettitte to take some pressure off the bullpen, knowing that whoever took the ball after him had a much smaller chance of taking them into the 6th inning or later.

As the Yankees and Pettitte stand at this impasse, they need to ask themselves if an extra $2M or $3M is really worth not bring the lefty back for. I would give him "??" on the scale used above. The top 5 starters on the Rays started 154 of their games last year. Think that had much to do with their success?

Should the Yanks sacrifice some of their rotational stability over 1% or 2% of the payroll? Not offering arbitration to Pettitte in retrospect was probably a smart move, but with the amount of money being throw around this offseason, what's a couple million between old friends?