The big man
The following is a guest post by friend of the blog and frequent commenter T.O. Chris.
A major point of contention for Yankee fans in the not-so-distant future concerns the opt-out clause of . Since inking his 7-year, $161 million pact on December 18, 2008, the clause hadn’t generated much discussion, but as the Yankees’ rotation needs have taken center stage and with Sabathia entering the last year before the opt-out kicks in, it’s become a hot topic for many of us in Yankeeland.
I’ll admit I was among the group who originally thought CC might not opt out and would stick to the obligation of essentially the 4-year, $89 million remaining on his contract after the 2011 season; however, after several conflicting statements from Sabathia himself, plenty of debate amongst the Yankee blogosphere and the major media and statements from “sources close” to the man (which usually means the author’s brain) it seems like the consensus is that he will activate the opt-out and tear up his contract for a new deal.
Something I did not expect as I have broached this subject more and more is that the question I am being confronted with by many I respect is not whether or not the Yankees should re-sign Sabathia once (if) he opts out, but instead how much he’ll get when he does.
It seems as though many have skipped the most important question altogether, namely the evaluation of whether or not it makes sense for the Yankees to bring back their ace for another five to seven seasons for what would presumably be somewhere in the range of $120 to 170 million.
We all know how valuable Sabathia has been to the Yankees, and I would be preaching to the choir if I went into just how good CC has been over the past two seasons and how important he was to the team’s 2009 championship, but — and bear with me for a second here — maybe allowing Sabathia to leave is ultimately the best thing for the Yankees. I know this isn’t an idea that is going to get a standing ovation, in all actuality it will probably get me brought up on treason in Yankeeland, but if you take a moment to think about it what I’m proposing, it should make sense, at least on some level.
First of all, we know that teams don’t sign pitchers (or anyone for that matter) to six and seven-year contracts because they want to — they do it because that is what it takes for them to land the big-name pitcher on the block, because if they don’t do it someone else will. However, what teams do when they bestow six- to seven-year contracts (even for the best and most durable pitchers) is tempt fate — they aren’t just buying a pitcher, they are also placing a bet that throwing a baseball in an unnatural motion over 100 times a game, 32 to 35 games a year for six years isn’t going to harm said pitcher’s arm. These teams simultaneously bet that time will not catch up to the player in the years he is under contract in hopes that he will remain as close to the talent level the team signs him at for the length (or close to the length) of the contract. By extending Sabathia another two to three years, all the Yankees are doing is raising the odds that their bet won’t pan out.
It’s the exception, not the rule when a pitcher doesn’t see the DL, and the longer that pitcher goes without getting injured, the larger the chance becomes that he will break down at some point — we all saw with Pettitte that the older he got the more time he missed.
With this under consideration, it’s hard for me to imagine anyone being angry or demanding that Cashman add four years to the contract if the Yankees had been able to sign Sabathia to a three-year, $72 million deal in 2008. At that point I think most Yankee fans would’ve jumped for joy and proclaimed Cashman a genius — despite the fact this is a highly improbably hypothetical — yet if Sabathia opts out that is essentially what Cashman accomplished. However, because Sabathia’s opting out the sky is falling.
Most players’ prime years are from around ages 28 to 32 — because of genetics and other variables this prime can extend, shorten, or move over a couple years in any direction, but 28-32 gives you the best general chance of seeing a baseball player at their peak. I bring this up because Sabathia turns 31 in July, so in theory if he walks away at the end of the season the Yankees would have signed the best pitcher on the market at the time entering his age 29 season to a three-year deal; buying the best three years of his career for fair market value while not exposing themselves to the risks of a long-term deal and without having to deal with one of the biggest problems in baseball — an aging ace past his best years.
For me, whether or not you believe Sabathia will outperform his age and continue to be a productive pitcher for years to come much as Pettitte did is beside the point; what is undeniable is that pitching at the level he is right now won’t last through the five years remaining on his deal. I honestly can’t see Sabathia posting a 21-7 record with an ERA of 3.18 in 237.2 IP when he is 34 or 35 years old. I don’t deny he could still be a good pitcher; if he’s lucky he will still have the chance to be a top three starting pitcher in a good rotation through most if not all of the deal, but he won’t be the ace he is today.
Pettitte was a good pitcher for his age the last few seasons but I don’t think anyone would’ve been thrilled if he was making $20-plus million a year doing it; the Yankees went back-and-forth with him every offseason. This of course also assumes that Sabathia will pitch injury free until he is around 36-38 years old; since he hasn’t shown himself to be a pitcher who misses many games during the season you could say that it’s a fairly safe bet to think he will complete most of his contract healthy; however, his body is finally showing signs of wear and tear from the massive weight under which he has to pitch and while this past offseason’s knee surgery itself was a minor procedure, I don’t consider the fact that he had to have knee surgery at 30 a minor factor in deciding what to do next with the big man from a contract standpoint. There is also the consideration that because he hasn’t been injured in the past he is logging a ton of innings on his arm, and at some point you would assume the acumaltive effects off all those innings would catch up to him.
If Sabathia opts out I could be convinced, begrudgingly anyway, to give him a five-year extension for $115 million now, since it would essentially mean only taking one extra year onto his current deal. Even though goes against the Yankees’ rule of no contract extensions before one’s contract runs out, it’s probably worth saving the headache and just getting it over with. However, I see no reason for CC to put himself in a situation that could strain his relationship with the Yankees and the Yankee fans for just one year and $23-26 million dollars.
I understand it’s $25 million, and I can’t say I’m man enough to turn that much money down without being a liar, but at a certain point you would think that the juice has to be worth the squeeze. To be worth the opt out from my perspective, I think CC has to go big and make his first demand seven years, and if no one gives in and you can’t squeeze it out of the Yankees he then comes down to “settle” for 6 years, at this point I’d begin to have a real problem with a new Sabathia contract and would prefer the Yankees to bow out.
I just can’t find a justification for doing the exact same thing the team did with that many regret now. I honestly can’t see any team stepping up to the plate and giving CC more money than he is currently making; maybe the Nationals come in and offer five or six years to try and steal him away, or perhaps the Angels decide to make a run, but in the end I’d expect Sabathia would realize that New York represents the best opportunity for him to win again. Would he really be willing to give that up for one or two extra contract years? Maybe so, but if CC wants to be a Nat, I say let him go to Washington. And while the Angels often seem to get thrown around as a potential suitors, who was their last big-money spend in free agency?
Replacing CC would be hard but not impossible, and at a certain point the Yankees as an organization have to say no, enough is enough and we aren’t doing this anymore. If you sign contracts you honor them or we’re done. It’s not personal, we don’t hate you, we appreciate everything you have done but you are choosing to look for greener pastures. We can’t keep bidding against ourselves simply because “we’re the Yankees,” does anyone really think Alex had a contract offer close to the one he signed on the table? No one believes the team couldn’t have talked him down?
That was the old regime and the new one needs to seperate itself from that. Cashman needs to say it and mean it this time: “If you opt out, we’re done.” I suppose if that’s too harsh and the team wants to quietly negotiate a one-year contract extension, go ahead — I’m not crazy about it but at least it settles the issue. However, if that isn’t acceptable the team needs to be firm in its stance and not stray because of public opinion.
So what do you think? Should the Yankees re-sign and what is your limit on how high (money and years) the contract should go?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
I think he opts out because the MLBPA would expect him to. Especially if he holds a ton of leverage (i.e. a great 2011). However, what team, other than Texas maybe, will give him 6 years @ $140 mil plus? I don’t think Boston, they already have Lackey & Beckett holding precarious contracts.
I think the Yanks have to offer that one extra year @ 25 mil as a matter of good will, so CC can at least save a little face. If he rejects it, then I agree with this post, See ya, CC.
[Reply]
Very interesting. I do think that the calculus is a bit different for the Yankees, who can afford to gamble on health, do not have anyone to replace him, have few top options on the FA market, and don’t have anyone else to give that money too. Eventually you are going to have to take a risk on an older pitcher if you want to sign a quality free agent, and CC is as good a bet as anyone. But it certainly isn’t a slam dunk and you raise some good points.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
A stat I saw after I wrote this the other day reenforced my position, for the last 5 years Sabathia has thrown more innings than any other pitcher in baseball. I don’t see how he can continue to do that without suffering some kind of arm injury or something at some point.
[Reply]
“Replacing CC would be hard but not impossible”
This isn’t necessarily the case – the Yanks haven’t exactly had an easy go of it looking to replace Andy or Lee (who they never had but seem to have been counting on having).
It is true that the opt out gives the Yanks the opportunity to rid themselves of CC’s likely decline, but it is at the expense of several productive, quite likely well-above-average years that will actually be difficult to replace.
I don’t look forward to a Yankees team featuring a 40 year old CC, held to 120 innings of league average pitching due to age and injury, at an expense that limits the team’s flexibility in pursuing other options – but I also would hate to miss out on 2 or 3 or 4 years beyond this one of high quality 200 innings seasons his new contract would provide…
[Reply]
“That was the old regime and the new one needs to seperate itself from that. Cashman needs to say it and mean it this time: ‘If you opt out, we’re done.’”
I’ve been thinking the same things about the Sabathia opt-out, but I disagree with this one point (and I acknowledge here that you did note that such a position is probably too harsh). I think it’s very important to consider, and I’ve long thought, when analyzing Cashman’s deals and public statements, that he does carefully consider, the longer-term ramifications of negotiating stances and public statements. Cashman is the biggest fish operating in a perpetual negotiating environment with largely the same people involved (other GMs and agents) on an ongoing basis, so his stances, especially his public stances, tend to set markets and set precedents. If Cashman were to say “if you opt-out, you’re gone, we’re not negotiating with you,” I think one unintended and unattractive consequence of such a stance would be that no free agent in their right mind would ever again accept a deal with the Yankees that included an opt-out clause. He would be making the Yankees a less attractive destination for free agents, since the last thing free agents want to do is take the 500 lb gorilla out of the bidding (after they opt-out) before the bidding even starts. They’d take out a potential destination and eliminate pressure from other teams to up their bids – they’d be forfeiting a ton of leverage.
I do agree that the Yanks need to carefully consider the Sabathia situation, though. I just don’t think taking a public stance like ‘we won’t negotiate with players who exercise opt-out clauses’ is something they should consider doing.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
While I do agree it would mean less free agents would get opt out clauses but isn’t that a good thing? Both this clause, Arod’s clause and Soriano’s clause all in essence hurt the Yankees and only help the players, so if you no longer have these problems players have to play full contracts.
Like I said I don’t expect the team to necessarily go that far with a public statement but behind closed doors you can let him know if he opts out you won’t be giving him an offer.
[Reply]
Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Well now we’re talking about whether opt-outs should even be in the Yankees’ toolchest or not, which is a bit of a different issue, and which is an issue that I don’t think is really relevant. To address the first issue at hand (whether the Yanks should make it clear they won’t negotiate with a player who exercises an opt-out), clearly the Yanks are ok with using opt-outs as negotiating tools, and I kind of think we can end that part of the conversation there. The Yanks want to use opt-outs in contracts (not saying they’re dying to give them out, but that they don’t run away from using them if need be), so no, they wouldn’t want to do something that would effectively negate the value of that opt-out.
Now as far as whether the separate question of whether they should be using opt-outs in contracts or not, I think it’s pretty complicated. For one thing – Aren’t you kind of arguing, in the post above, that the Yanks letting Sabathia walk via opt-out wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing in the world because it would equate to the Yanks having gotten Sabathia on a 3 yr/$72M contract in the first place (a contract that the Yanks and their fans probably would have been jumping for joy about)?
From your post: “…it’s hard for me to imagine anyone being angry or demanding that Cashman add four years to the contract if the Yankees had been able to sign Sabathia to a three-year, $72 million deal in 2008. At that point I think most Yankee fans would’ve jumped for joy and proclaimed Cashman a genius — despite the fact this is a highly improbably hypothetical — yet if Sabathia opts out that is essentially what Cashman accomplished. However, because Sabathia’s opting out the sky is falling.”
I’m not saying this to be snarky, but I’m a little confused… You think if Sabathia opts-out it really just puts the Yanks in the position they would have been in had they signed him to an incredibly team-attractive short-term contract, but then you argue that the Yanks shouldn’t be giving opt-out clauses to anyone because they’re a bad thing?
I tend to think people fall prey to thinking opt-outs are bad things because the player is making the choice about the opt-out instead of the team making the choice, while losing sight of what’s really important – and what’s really important is what sort of contractual obligations these opt-outs create (i.e. what’s the actual, tangible result)?
I posit that opt-outs, in and of themselves, aren’t bad things that teams should be afraid of. In fact, if players think opt-outs are such a valuable negotiating chip, let them keep requesting them and let the Yanks cash in that chip in exchange for more favorable contract terms in other areas, in my opinion. The problem with the contracts with opt-outs is the duration of the contracts, not the opt-outs themselves.
Take the Soriano contract for example. If Soriano opts-out before the expiration of that contract, that would mean a few things: a) he performed well enough that he thinks he can get a better deal on the market (meaning the Yanks got good performance out of him); (b) if he performed well enough that he wants to exercise the opt-out, the Yanks are in all likelihood getting draft-pick compensation if he signs elsewhere; and c) in the end the Yanks will have gotten him for 1 or 2 seasons, which is something we all would have signed up for instead of signing him to a 3 yr deal. So if he opts-out, there’s really not much harm to the Yanks, right? That’s not such a bad scenario. The problem is the 3 yr term, not the opt-outs – and that problem would be a problem with or without the opt-outs, the opt-outs are irrelevant to the downside of that contract. If you take a 3 yr contract with opt-outs and one without opt-outs, the downside is the same (that the player underperforms or gets hurt and you’re stuck with him for 3 years).
So, no, I’m not sure it would be such a good thing to take the opt-out out of the Yanks’ toolchest when it comes to contract negotiations.
And one more thing… Even if you disagree with my take on opt-outs (and I know that most people disagree with my take on opt-outs)… It’s still unwise to take them out of the conversation (which is what you’d be doing if you made it clear the Yanks wouldn’t negotiate with a player who exercised an opt-out). Look at the Sabathia situation, for example. Let’s say there was a competitive offer out there, and that the inclusion of the opt-out was one of the final little pushes Sabathia needed to get him to sign with the Yanks. Would you want that tool to not be available to the Yanks? Even if you don’t like the opt-out, to eliminate, or at the very least greatly diminish, the value of the opt-out as a bargaining chip would be very unwise. Even if you don’t like the opt-out and think it’s inherently a bad thing for the team, you want it in your arsenal when you go after the premium free agents.
[Reply]
The Yankees should pay the man whatever he wants. He has earned it, and the Yankees can afford it. You do not let a man like CC Sabathia walk simply because you may have been burned by Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez (twice) and Carl Pavano. CC isn’t any of them: He is a good person who wants to pitch for the Yankees and has already done so — very, very well. Those guys were none of those things.
Letting CC walk is admitting that you’re afraid of what could happen, not that you’re hopeful of what could happen. It is the coward’s way out. Brian Cashman is not Billy Beane: He has the money, and needs to spend it. It’s not like the Steinbrenner family is going broke.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
You shouldn’t make contract signing based on hope, you should do the appropriate research and if you feel he will stay healthy you decide from there. You don’t hope he will be happy and sign him to show you have it.
[Reply]
Good Pitchers (and those that don’t blow their arms up in the first 5 yrs) seem to be able to sustain their effectiveness into the mid-late thirties, I would have no problem giving the big guy an extension to carry him through his age 36 and 37 seasons. I think he will need to continue to monitor his weight and make sure it doesn’t go out of control.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
At 300 pounds isn’t it already a little out of control? Not for the 6’7 Sabathia’s body frame but in general as far as causing wear and tear on his back and legs?
[Reply]
Meow Meow Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
And he had knee surgery.
[Reply]
There is another way to go and that is to offer the same # of years but at a much higher rate. Going to 25-27 per year. Or front load the contract if you add an extra year, 28,27,25,24,16.
[Reply]
I haven’t thought through the issue enough to decide what the most the Yankees should offer to CC is. Of course at some point he does become too expensive and too risky even for a team like the Yankees.
While I agree that they should have let A-Rod walk, I don’t think its really a parallel to the CC situation. In the case of A-Rod, they should have already had their best offer on the table because extending him rather than letting him opt out allowed them to still have the Rangers paying him a portion of his salary for whatever years remained on the original contract. Also, a position player is much easier to replace than an Ace starter. There aren’t a lot of A-Rod’s out there but you can replace his impact on the game by upgrading at several positions. I don’t think that is as true of the staff Ace especially come playoff time.
They will and should overpay in years & money though because the Staff Ace is the hardest position on the team to fill and the most important come playoff time. It’s not an accident that the Yankees did not win the WS in the Years between Clemens and Pettitte left for Houston and CC arrived. Few true Aces hit free agency and when they do there is no guarantee that they will sign in NY as we learned this offseason if we didn’t already know it. If Hughes takes a huge step forward this year maybe I’ll feel differently but personally I don’t expect him to ever become a lot more than he is today.
I guess we could try to trade for an Ace but that’s still a very limited and costly market. And perhaps you are overlooking the fact that if you end up trading several elite cost controlled prospects and end up having to fill the positions they would have taken with more costly veterans, the trade scenario might not even save money.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
“perhaps you are overlooking the fact that if you end up trading several elite cost controlled prospects and end up having to fill the positions they would have taken with more costly veterans, the trade scenario might not even save money.”
I am not trying to neccesarily save money, I am controlling risk, adding 2-3 years onto a original 7 year contract is adding immense risk to an already risk scenario. Yes trading prospects for a YOUNGER ace pitcher would open future holes, but you have gotten out of the riskiest part of one pitchers career and bought into the most productive part of another.
Besides if Montero is who you end up trading (and I would think it would have to be) he may end up being nothing more than a DH for us anyway, and we all know that Alex is going to be our DH from at least ages 38-41, so we wouldn’t be replacing him at all. As far as the mid tier prospects go, I am willing to trade talent to get talent and if what a prospect like Melky Mesa or Nunez could be is standing in the way of Josh Johnson, I wouldn’t let it.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I don’t think many people would let Melky Mesa or Nunez stand in the way of acquiring Josh Johnson. Nunez is likely only a backup IF on this team and Melky Mesa has a lot of talent but would need to make huge and frankly surprising improvement in his contact ability to have much value.
I could argue the very risk you are talking about is a financial one and thus taking a holistic view of the costs in comparing signing CC vs trading for a replacement is the correct method of comparison. Its clear to me though now that the primary difference between our views is two things:
(1) I have a greater confidence that a 36-37 year old CC will still be a good pitcher and think overpaying him relative to his performance in the outyears of the contract will on balance be worth it; and
(2) I probably think it is more risky than you do to gamble that you can find another elite pitcher if you let him walk.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm
You are getting too literal, I never actually meant those two prospects individually I was simply throwing out mid-tier prospect names, obviously some of the names will be higher ranked than those but I was being general.
It’s not a financial risk, it is a health and age factor risk which is alleviated by allowing an older pitcher to leave for a prime pitcher to take over. If you are talking money however the next 3 years of Josh Johnson is cheaper than the next 3 years of Sabathia, and after CC ops out he will get a contract probably bigger than Josh’s next deal. However if Johnson puts up 3 straight years like the last he could eventually break the CC mark for contracts, but the initial 2 and a half years would save you money at the least. Again though it’s more about buying out of risk into less risk.
I don’t doubt CC could be a decent pitcher at ages 36-38 but he won’t be an ace, he might not be a number 2 at that point but he can only be either one if he is healthy and frankly given his weight and the number of pitches he has thrown in his career I do have doubt about how healthy he will be late in his career. Andy Pettitte was having one of the best seasons of his career at 38 but thanks to injuries he wasn’t able to be that strong going into the playoffs.
Just because someone shows good health, or even great health, through the first 10 years of a career doesn’t mean they will do the same in the back half. Age has a way of catching up to you and throwing more innings than any other pitcher in baseball, while heavier than any other pitcher in baseball has to at least be a an uptick risk for injury.
As a team with more money in baseball and a top 5 farm system (this being the biggest difference in the Yankees of today and 5 years ago) we have the assets to acquire another top notch pitcher, he may not be as CC has been over the past 5 years but he could be better than CC for the next 5 years, and honestly that’s all that matters at this point.
I don’t think it will be easy but as I said it isn’t impossible.
Jered Weaver, Cole Hamels, Francisco Liriano, John Danks, Shaun Marcum, Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Sanchez, Anibal Sanchez, Zack Greinke, and Matt Cain will all be free agents after next season. Adam Wainwright will be a free agent after this season (most likely) but coming off of TJ surgery I wouldn’t give him a multi-year contract.
I’m not as high on J. Sanchez as others are but if he can drop his walks and comes into his own a little more he could be a real top of the rotation lefty, maybe not an ace but a solid 2.
We also have prospects that play into this, if Banuelos has a year in which he tears up double and triple A his value will rise even further. If Manny ends up being a top 5 prospect in baseball next year he may have more trade value than Montero does now, this would give us the luxury of leveraging him for a Johnson/Felix Hernandez type or committing to him long term as the next number 1.
I also believe we can work out a trade with the prospects we have as I have said, none of these options may be as good as Sabathia was 2 years ago (or even this year) but there is a good bet you can find a better pitcher for the next 5-7 years.
It’s just too early in the game to say that Sabathia is a “must have and money doesn’t matter” in my opinion.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
“It’s just too early in the game to say that Sabathia is a ‘must have and money doesn’t matter’ in my opinion.”
If that was what you were arguing, you’d have no argument from me. The title of your post and all of the arguments you’ve raised are that they should let him go if he opts out not that they should consider resigning him but also consider alternatives if the price is too high.
Look, you call the risk health and age related but if CC made $1/year, you wouldn’t care. The health risk is at least partially insurable, so it’s a financial risk that you are overpaying him relative to his performance level that is most important. So the extent that re-signing him allows you to keep more of your elite prospects who are cost-controlled and the extent that allows you to save money at other positions, it’s entirely relevant to the discussion.
Obviously with all things being equal, everyone would prefer a younger pitcher to an older pitcher but all things are rarely equal. When you compare CC to all the 2013 free agents, you are comparing him to guys that are only 1 to 3 years younger and not nearly as good as CC today (with the exception of Greinke and Liriano who have their own issues). How many years commitment do you think the better pitchers among that crop will command? I’d guess at least 6-7 years. So depending on the player, you are talking about contracts that take them to ages 34 on the short side to 37 on the long side. If you extend CC for one or two years, you are taking him to age 36 or 37 which is not that old. Why do you automatically assume a 34 year old Matt Cain or John Danks will be a better pitcher than a 36 year old CC? I’d bet on the opposite. 36 isn’t that old. Randy Johnson won the CY Young four consecutive years from age 36-39. John Smoltz and Curt Schilling were great in their late 30′s. That doesn’t mean CC will but all pitchers carry risks. As long as CC maintains his health, I’d consider him a fairly good candidate to perform well into and slightly past his mid 30′s.
[Reply]
I don’t see any problem with the Yankees offering an extra year on to his current contract. To me it’s a no brainer. Getting the current CC for 3 years and getting only good CC for the last 2 years is more then worth it. Even with one year added to his current contract he still be only be 35 at the start of the 1 year extension and only 36 half way into it. Still well worth the money.
But, I should add I’m still not convinced that he will opt out. But we shall see.
[Reply]
I would want CC to stay, but its a great point, and the fact is, he could probably be replaced “easily.” Next year, you have Phil, AJ, Nova as rotation locks, figure Banuelos is ready for the show by then, and all you’re looking for is a 5th starter, or maybe a solid 3 guy like a jon garland. The 2012 FA is filled with young SP, I believe Lincecum is able to be a free agent after 2012 season, and Cain and Greinke are also free agents as well. All three of them are younger than sabathia was when he signed his big deal and with the killer b’s the yankees will eventually have a younger, cheaper rotation.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Why is Nova a lock for 2011? Let’s see him over a full season first. If Hughes, AJ and Nova are the top three starters, they wouldn’t even sniff the playoffs in 2012 so you are essentially writing off 2012. The payroll is too high to do that. And just because 3 elite starters might be available in Free Agency in 2013 (assuming they don’t get extended beforehand or traded for and signed by someone else) that the Yankees will automatically be able to sign one is a huge leap of faith. Also if they were that comfortable with the idea of Greinke pitching in NY, Cashman would have made a more serious effort to trade for him this year. There is a limit to what they should pay CC but he is not easily replaced.
[Reply]
UYF1950 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
The 2012 FA class is pretty lean. But as of today the 2013 FA class is pretty rich. Not all are #1 starters but some are of course but all are very, very respectable I believe. For Example: Jered Weaver, Cole Hamels, Francisco Liriano, John Danks, Shaun Marcum, Zack Greinke, Matt Cain, Chris Carpenter, Roy Oswalt, Ryan Dempster,
The list is in no particular order. It’s only meant to show that the FA class of 2013 does have some very interesting names and some very good pitchers and there are others. Will they all be available? No. Will several if not most of them? Absolutely.
Theoretically the problem is the 2012 season if CC walks after this coming season. But that shouldn’t be a big deal teams are always willing to trade players and as we all know the Yankees have a pretty good farm system that if they wanted to they could make a trade. Who knows even King Felix might be available prior to the 2012 season via a trade. After all Seattle is going nowhere in a hurry and his contract does pay him about $20MM per starting in 2012. My point is you never know.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Ok, let’s first eliminate Oswalt, Carpenter and Dempster from that list because they will all be 36 or older by the time the 2013 season rolls around. Marcum is a good pitcher but he’s not close to a #1 (at least not yet). That leaves us with greinke (29 to start 2013), hamels (29 to start 2013), liriano (29 to start 2013), weaver (30 to start 2013), cain (28 to start 2013), and danks (28 to start 2013). Is anyone really more comfortable giving Weaver a big contract just because he’ll be one year younger than Sabathia? I’ll say no and eliminate him. That takes us down to 5 (and it won’t be all five by 2013 because some will sign extenions and at least one likely will get injured. I’d bet on Liriano here.). Even if they all become free agents, I don’t think they all are clearly preferable. Cain and Danks will be significantly younger but aren’t as good as Sabathia is now (although they could clearly continue to improve). Greinke brings some concerns about how he’d perform in a big market. Liriano has injury concerns although if he stays healthy (I’d bet against it) they’d be greatly lessened. That leaves Hamels as the one guy I’d think would be likely be preferable. 2012 is a problem w/o Sabathia and you are gambling when you assume you could fill the Ace spot via free agency in 2013 and I say that agreeing that it looks like today it could be a RELATIVELY deep year. I think it is more likely that you could trade for an ace but that would require trading more than one of the elite prospects which basically eliminates the financial reason for not signing Sabathia in the first place as you’d need to fill the spots they’d fill with more expensive veterans.
[Reply]
UYF1950 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
My friend I guess I should have made the point of my post a little clearer. I was not concerned with pitchers age. Because I was mainly interested in the “older” pitchers as bridging the gap till the “prospects” get valuable experience at the major league level. I think it’s unreasonable to expect any of the “killer b’s” to set the world on fire so to speak right out of the gate. That’s just my opinion.
[Reply]
If CC opts out the Yankees will have Hughes, Burnett, Nova as probables for 2012. Throw in the possibiliy of one of the B’s, Noesi, Warren, other minor leaguer coming up this year and doing well enough to have a spot starting in 2012. Maybe, a pitcher that they traded for at the deadline who is still under contract with the team.
So, now you know what you have and you figure out how much an ace starting pitcher is worth to the team. Start negotiations. Rinse. Repeat.
[Reply]
if he wants out let him go.take his money and get the kid from seattle.than you have the two killer b’s and burnett plus king felix who is younger and just reaching his prime
[Reply]
Whether Yu Darvish is available and what the Yankee scouting staff thinks of him plays into this as well. I’m in the 1 year extension camp as far as CC goes.
[Reply]
The way players are today there is no doubt in my mind CC will test opting out. I’m not totally convinced he will follow through on it. The Yankees need to play a little hard ball with him and see what is actually out there for him. Lets give the kids a chance if he decides to go.
[Reply]
Daler Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
People forget 2008 here quick. Prospect hugging is a disease.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
I actually wanted to make a point that while 2008 is hated by many fans you have to understand that it was essentially 2008 that allowed us to get CC Sabathia in the first place.
Cashman had the chance to trade for Johan Santana which probably guarantees we at least make the playoffs in 2008, however Cashman held off and waited for the pitcher he really wanted even at the cost of an entire patchwork season. We were only able to win the 2009 World Series because of the 2008 bridge year, I think in a worst case scenario we can do it again.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I’d say two things in response: (1) Cashman has indicated that he DIDN’T think Johan would be a difference maker and that was a large part of why he didn’t do the deal. (2) The Yankees were really lucky that CC signed. If he didn’t, they’d still be looking for an Ace and they might have signed Derek Lowe instead.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:00 pm
My point isn’t that Santana would have made a difference in the playoffs, my point is that if we had Santana for 2008 we probably come closer to making the playoffs if not actually making it, however he wouldn’t have done anything for us in the playoffs or long term. The price wasn’t worth Santana and Cashman did a great job not trying to appease the normal fan, this is a similar situation here where you don’t appease the normal fan because you have a plan.
We may be lucky on some level but at the end of the day Cashman had a plan, stuck to it, took his lumps in the 2008 season and roared back to a World Series. So while fans do hate to think of that year. lets not forget what it brought us, if Cashman panics and does anything possible in order to not miss the playoffs and we probably never have a chance at CC.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:52 pm
He was right not to trade for Santana for two reasons: (1) Santana was declining and I’m sure he saw things in both scouting reports and the medicals that gave him pause; and (2) He wasn’t writing off 2008 by not doing the deal because even if they did the deal and gutted the farm system in his estimation the team still wasn’t strong enough to win it all.
Also, do you really think not trading for Santana somehow enabled them to sign CC? Remember they also signed Burnett and Texeira that year to expensive contracts. Santana only cost $3.5 more than Burnett in 2009. Maybe CC wouldn’t have had as much leverage if they already had Santana and his contract might have ended up costing less. I’m not suggesting that trading for Santana would have been a good move in hindsight but it’s just not true that not trading for Santana is what yielded CC. Signing CC is what yielded CC.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
I think you are missing the parallel I am drawing because you are arguing something that isn’t my point.
I understand that with Santana we wouldn’t have won the World Series, but at the time plenty of fans saw the possibility of major struggles in 2008 and were demanding Santana in order to stave off a possible playoff miss. Cashman could have simply put a band aid on the situation and traded for Johan but he knew that Santana was no longer the same pitcher he was and decided to wait a year and go after the better, younger Sabathia in free agency.
That is my point here, instead of over paying yet again for Sabathia when he likely won’t be the same Sabathia we just had very much longer, Cashman has a choice to let him leave and worse case scenario miss the playoffs one year to re-tool in a better free agency class the following offseason.
No, I don’t think that trading for Santana would have financially restricted us from going after Sabathia. As you stated we signed Teixeira and Burnett that offseason, but that isn’t the point I am making. Sabathia being a free agent is the main reason Cashman felt so comfortable passing on Santana in the first place, obviously there were signs that he wasn’t worth the trade but if no one else is available the following offseason but Burnett it is harder to make that commitment to your own beliefs.
The point I am making is that Cashman didn’t make the rash, panicked move of trading for Santana (which a lot of fans wanted) and instead took the calculated risk to go into 2008 season with a relatively weak rotation because he knew there was a pot of gold waiting in free agency.
All I am saying is that we have to look at other possibilities besides the panicked, rash move of signing Sabathia for “whatever he wants”, as I have heard it put before, just so we don’t enter next season with a weak rotation. There are free agents in 2013 who are young and talented and trade scenario’s for top pitchers are going to be available in some form both this season and next offseason.
I wrote this piece to basically just put it out their that we don’t have to “just give him whatever he asks for” and instead can and should at least explore other options.
I say let him walk. Let him try to find some other chump to pay him the ridiculous amount we are…which he won’t. The only way he comes back is at a cheaper contract. We have to learn from AROD’s contract and not repeat it.
[Reply]
I say they base that decision on how the killer bs develope and if they are as good as the scouts say then its an easy decision to let cc leave if he pleases
[Reply]
So they would give Lee a 7 yr deal at 32 but won’t reup with CC at 30 and who has proven himself in NY n has never been injured. Sure.
[Reply]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
The post isn’t about what they will do, but what they should do.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Daler raises a good point though in the sense that Lee was a luxury. They already have an ace in CC and didn’t need Lee. If CC leaves, they have a real problem especially in 2012 but possibly also in 2013.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Let me say that I was completely 100% against Lee and had spent an entire year before he was a free agent arguing against signing Lee.
I wouldn’t not sign CC but sign Lee.
[Reply]
Meow Meow Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Never been injured? His knee hampered him at the end of the season, then had surgery on it.
[Reply]
I would like to publicly thank Larry and everyone here at TYA for letting me write this piece, I had a lot of fun writing it and I’m glad it’s been able to spark a discussion.
[Reply]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for doing it, you did a great job.
[Reply]
My main idea for replacing Sabathia is to trade for Josh Johnson this season, it gives us an ace caliber pitcher to replace CC if he opts out and since it would give us automatic hand in the negotiation CC might actually decide he doesn’t want to opt out anymore.
As long as I could keep either Banuelos or Montero one I would be willing to over pay for Josh Johnson and his 3 years of service time left over giving a 31 year old CC Sabathia a 6 year deal.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
This seems only slightly more realistic than my plan to teach Sergio Mitre to pitch like Felix Hernandez. Why would they trade him w/ 3 years left on his 4 year contract?
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:56 pm
At mid season he would have 2 and a half years left on his contract, he won’t re-sign after this deal is over and they know that, if they want to maximize what they can get and have a team overpay in prospects it’s at the break this season.
I don’t see the Marlins competing this year that well and if they are out at the break I could easily see them trading Johnson to the AL in a deal similar to the Josh Beckett deal, which sent Josh to the Red Sox while still in his prime years.
I think if you start with Montero and Betances and add two more prospects of their choosing (obviously no Banuelos) can get a deal done, we have a top 5 farm system in baseball, if we want to pay the price we could acquire a top pitcher.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Well if he becomes available, I certainly agree that they should pursue him unless they have concerns about his injury risk and durability (I do note that he’s only once thrown 200 IP in a season). And if they were to acquire him or King Felix or a similar quality starter, that would clearly make resigning CC less of a necessity. I expect though that the Marlins will be in the hunt for at least the wild card and probably would have to be blown away to trade him. Even if they were to acquire another front line starter though, I don’t think the answer should be automatically that they let CC go.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If we traded for Johnson I think the likelihood is CC probably doesn’t opt out, at that point he wouldn’t have hand over the Yankees and there is a good chance he wouldn’t be able to press the Yanks for more money.
However if he did opt out while we had Johnson I certainly wouldn’t re-sign him, at that point you would have the number 1 pitcher to replace CC and you would only be looking for a number 2 or 3 which you could easily get in the 2013 free agent class.
I for one am not that worried about Johnson not throwing 200 innings last year, they shut him down because they weren’t in it and they didn’t want to make his back worse. He hasn’t had reoccurring shoulder problems or anything like that so I I’m not too concerned about it being anything more than a fluke injury here and there.
[Reply]
bg90027 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
CC is not walking unless he pitches well in 2011. If he pitches well and opts out, you are significantly reducing the chances of winning in 2012 whether you acquire Josh Johnson or not. You also have less in the farm system with which to replace him or trade for a replacement because of the JJ trade. Also, none of the younger FA guys from the 2013 class mentioned above will come cheaply. I think its worth at least entertaining resigning him. I’m not saying you do it at any price. I don’t think anyone is. I couldn’t reply to your last Santana related remarks up above so I’ll address it here. I understand the parallel you are trying to make, I just don’t agree with you. I don’t think the two are connected at all. Cashman didn’t trade for Santana because he didn’t like the cost of Santana in prospects or dollars relative to his expected performance. CC’s availability the next year had nothing to do with it. He was willing to sign Cliff Lee having CC and he’d have been willing to trade for Santana and then sign CC if he liked Santana enough. He didn’t.
[Reply]
T.O. Chris Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
I actually think Sabathia opts out no matter what unless he gets significantly injured, like I said though if we trade for JJ he may not want to risk having the Yankees not in the bidding and actually stay. If we get no one however he will look to exploit our weakness and look to cash in with 2 or 3 more years and some more money per year.
I have seen many comments about giving Sabathia whatever it takes to come back, in fact Uncle Mike near the top said just that.
I never said it wasn’t worth entertaining signing him but it isn’t worth dumping out a 6-7 year contract when you just traded for a number 1 pitcher, if you trade for Johnson and CC still opts out you would simply look to sign a middle of the rotation pitcher like Edwin Jackson this offseason. You would no longer “need” Sabathia and could therefore spend on a cheaper pitcher to pitch in the 3 or the 4 spot, Hughes probably takes the 2 and Burnett is whatever top 4 spot is left.
I don’t agree at all that having CC as a free agent following the 2008 season didn’t factor in, he was obviously Cashman’s main target and I don’t think he would have traded for Santana and signed Sabathia. If he had wanted Santana and traded for him I don’t believe you would have seen urgency in the free agent period like you did then, I believe we would have signed an AJ Burnett type to a lower contract. Without us bidding over the top Sabathia lets remember Burnett was going to make near what he did, so to grab a cheaper number to 2 to go with the ace you just traded for seems more Cashman’s motif.
[...] this article: Why I think the Yankees should let Sabathia go after he opts-out … AKPC_IDS += "11134,"; AKPC_IDS += [...]
what i worry about is where we he could end up. its real silly, when the Yankees could well afford it, to let him go to any American league team and get beaten by him in the playoffs. That is what the Yankees should not be about.
Six for Lee? Six for Sabathia, working in some options. That’s if he doesn’t want to leave. That wouldn’t surprise me. Having C.C around to anchor and mentor that rotation and young staff that will include Phil Hughes, Ivan Nova and Manny Banuelos sounds real good to me right about now.
[Reply]
I would rather spend money on Cain. Cain is younger than Sabathia and will likely request less years. Not to mention Sabathia is a power pitcher and relies on velocity. If his velocity goes down than his performance will. Cain has better control than Sabathia and that will serve him more years in the majors. I also wouldn’t mind Hamels. It could be argued that he was better than Sabathia last year. he posted about a 3.08 ERA and again is young. Sabathia at the age of 38 pitching in the bronx for 160 million is not my ideal number one Ace. The Yankees need to look more at there future and let Sabathia walk is he asks for more than 4 years.
[Reply]
Who would replace CC? As a Phils fan I’m scared to death Cole Hamels will opt for free agency after 2012. Also, Roy Oswalt might be available after the 2011 season, as he has an option he can decline. Is he older? Sure, but the Yankees might be able to get Oswalt on a 2-3 year deal at far less money than Sabbathia. From a value standpoint they may be better off.
[Reply]