Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Totally awesome site update: New hot stove links | Main | Midday: Phils remain quiet on the Far Eastern front »

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Comments

Great Post Jason.

Okay... here's an offseason I can get behind:

Phils deal Kendrick and Jarmillo for DeRosa.
Phils deal Donald for Young.
Phils sign Derek Lowe.
Phils sign additional bullpen arm.

I'd be more than satisfied if this pipe dream came to fruition.

Too Funny: The Yankees gave Sabathia an "opt-out clause" after 3 years. Obviously that was the price for him moving to NY. If he hates it in 3 years, he's gone. Or if he stays healthy and likes it, he has them over the barrel to renegotiate.

Andy: Jaramillo seems like no prospect, so I'd give him up. Kendrick's value is pretty low right now, but I'm on record as thinking his best role is in the bullpen as a middle-inning ground-ball inducer. I would not trade him for DeRosa.

I'm sure DeRosa would do a fine job in a utility role. But so would many others, and we already have one guy in Bruntlett who, with Burrell gone, won't have to play every day in LF. Ideally, your backup shortstop sees very little action.

NEPP: GREAT deal for CC. Three years, $69M is a sweet pay day... then he could be back on the free agent market again after the 2011 season ready for a new long term pay day on the west coast.

repost

I bet the Yanks sign TWO of the following three: Lowe Burnett Sheets. And at this point it looks more like Lowe and Sheets, but if any of those two falls through, they'll surely swipe up burnett.

And as for the DYoung attitude problem, yes it is a risk. That is why he and Donald can even be mentioned in the same breath.

Without attitude problems, DYoung is probably the hottest trade chip in the league. A 23 yr old with blazing speed, great D, and a power/gap .300 hitter. But since he has the attitude thing going for him, thats your risk.

The risk with Jason Donald - he wont be able play 3rd in the ML, he wont be able to play 3B in AAA, he wont hit ML pitchnig well, he wont hit ML pitching period, he wont hit AAA pitching well, he wont hit AAA pitching period.

I'm taking the less risk. And if you get past the risk, the ceiling of Young is much higher than Donald. Oh yeah, and the Phils need a RH bat to play LF more than a middle infielder.

This could all be phantom hot stove rumors, but if not I think the Phils should jump on it.

****NEPP: GREAT deal for CC. Three years, $69M is a sweet pay day... then he could be back on the free agent market again after the 2011 season ready for a new long term pay day on the west coast.****

I cannot believe the Yankees offered that. They must have REALLY wanted him to offer that much over anyone else AND an opt-out clause. Amazing how much it takes to get a guy to go to NY these days.

JW - I just read the Conlin article on Moyer and agree both sides need each other.

If anything the more time goes by Moyer loses his leverage as who is going to give him the money he wants and guarantees where he would be happy?

The Yankees might be tapped out soon and others with the cash might need feel the reward is worth the risk (maybe the government can bail him out).

I think I think the same amount of teams that could be interested in Moyer at his asking price and terms would equal the amount of teams interested in trading for Jarmillo.

Yeah, it used to just take big bucks and a free shave.

It'd probably be hard to compete with, say, Boof Bonser and Phil Humber.

That's a good take on the situation, Jason. I have no problem giving up Kendrick or Jaramillo; I'm hesitant to give up Happ; and Carrasco is untouchable in a deal like this, as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as DeRosa's concerned, I've been repeating this ad nauseam on various Phillies sites, but really: why not save the cost in both money and prospects and just sign Juan Rivera?

Alby: Jaramillo is a prospect... but he's probably the 5th best catcher in the Phils system as it stands today. Easy to deal him.

And you wouldn't deal a middle-inning ground-ball inducing reliever for DeRosa? Why not? You can't really compare DeRosa to Bruntlett. DeRosa is FAR more valuable. DeRosa has had 3 consecutive seasons of OPS+ over 100 (118 last year). Bruntlett has had 3 straight seasons of OPS+ 80 and below (55 last year!).

With Utley perhaps out to start next year and injury questions about Feliz as well... I'm not interested in seeing that many starts out of Eric Bruntlett!

If we don't get DeRosa, who do you think will be starting at 2nd to start 2009?

NEPP: That doesn't strike me as a completely bad deal for the Yankees. If I told you you could get CC for a 3-year, 69 million dollar deal, you'd jump all over it.

Obviously, the problem is that CC controls the opt-out, meaning that if he gets seriously hurt or something, he's not gonna leave, but if he's pitching great, but just doesn't like NY, he might. Even still, that gives the Yanks some flexibility after 3 years. I don't think it's a terrible thing.

Alby - I'm just thinking that most folks here are not counting on Kendrick to play much more of a role on the team than Eaton (*involuntarily gags*). With Utley gone and no RHB in LF, DeRosa provides a little bit more offensive capability than the Gnome; and if he hits like this year (which clearly his PECOTA does not anticipate, but if) he can even play some 3B when Feliz is mainly (swinging early against off-speed pitches and) giving the 2B some pop-up practice.

I just think we'd get more value out of DeRosa than Kendrick and Jaramillo. Of course, maybe Kendrick will actually develop a change-up during the off-season and improve the sink on his fastball. But, I kinda think I don't think he will.

Jack: Except they didn't get CC for a 3-year, $69M deal. Like you said, only CC controls that. If he opts out, that's bad news for the Yankees because it means he's pitched great and can get more money. If he doesn't opt out, that likely means he'll be overpaid for the last 4 years. I don't think there's a way to argue the opt out is a good thing for the Yankees.

****Obviously, the problem is that CC controls the opt-out, meaning that if he gets seriously hurt or something****

That's why it could be REALLY BAD.

Sure, its not the end of the world but if CC has TJ surgery next year they're screwed.

Giving him that much over the nearest competitor and the "opt-out" is ridiculous...its also clearly the requirement for him going to the NYY though.

CJ: Except if he pitches great, opts out, someone else signs him and then he declines and gets hurt. If you're the Yankees you have to hope that he opts out, giving you the best 3 years of the deal. If it was a straight 7-year deal, they'd be screwed no matter what if CC got hurt, right? So what's the downside of the opt-out?

The deal for CC is all about the Yankees opening a new stadium next year.

They'll deal with three years from now at that time.

Besides, as it stands now, Cole Hamels will be a free agent the year CC can opt out.

Alby: You've been advocating the Kendrick-to-the-bullpen scenario for awhile and I'm wondering why you think that would work. His ground ball/fly ball ratio really isn't much better than average and, since he gives up tons of hits, he's not a guy I'd want coming into the game with men on base.

The only way I could see KK succeeding as a reliever would be if the lesser workload enabled him to add a couple MPH to his fastball or add some "sink" to his sinker (which is certainly possible). But with his current repertoire, I think he's more likely to find success as a back-end starter than as a reliever.

Honest question: what impact do you guys think knowing that you'll eventually have to ink Howard and Hamels will play on your activity in free agency?

Jack: It would seem to me that pitching great for three years, opting out, signing with someone else and then getting hurt would be the least likely scenario. But if that happens... then, yes, the Yankees are geniuses.

One major flaw in that theory... if CC is pitching great for 3 years and then opts out, the Yankees will again do whatever it takes to keep him. Remember A-Rod's opt out?

If the Yankees come out of this off-season with Sabathia, Lowe, and another front-line FA (i.e., Manny, Burnett), prepare yourselves for another massive work stoppage the next time the CBA comes up for expiration. In a 30-team league, the other 29 owners are not going to stand idly by while one spoiled brat owner tries to one-up his father by monopolizing the entire FA market & unilaterally driving up the asking prices of all big-ticket FAs. Next time up, the owners will dig in their heels on the issue of a hard salary cap -- only this time, they won't give in so easily.

I don't know if it was mentioned on another thread but espn had a rumor scrawl accross that Jerry Hairston Jr is likely to sign with the Phils.

CJ: Sure, that could happen, in which case CC would have earned a new deal. Or, the Yankees could just say, thanks for 3 great years, and move on, which would be smart. All I'm saying is that since the choice is between a 7-year deal with no opt-out, and a 7-year deal with an opt-out, it doesn't seem like that terrible an issue for the Yankees. If anything it gives them the chance at some flexibility they may not have otherwise.

Jack, consider the fact that no other team was offering over 5 years, $100 million. So how did the Yankees make out in that again?

I don't understand why it would take so much to get DeRosa. To me he's worth a mid-level AA prospect. I'd take him for that, nothing more.

NEPP: I wasn't saying the Yankees made a good deal. 7 years, 160 million, when no one else offered close to that, is a ton of money. Of course, they had to offer a lot more than the next guys, because CC clearly wanted to stay in California and was willing to take slightly less money to be there.

I was merely commenting that the opt-out clause, on its own, was not a terrible part of the contract.

I see no reason why the Phillies should even consider trading young talent for Mark DeRosa. I'd sooner see them offer a deal to Iguchi or look within their ranks to put a band aid on second base until Utley is healthy.

Unless we can package up Happ, Kendrick and enough prospects to land Peavy, I want no parts of any deal that takes him out of San Diego; especially a deal that would put him in a Cubs uniform and give us very little of value in return. We don't need DeRosa and we don't need any of the other Cubs castoffs that have been rumored to come here.

Pat The Bat will have a three year deal with Philadelphia before Valentines Day. Like him or not, he is out best option. Adding the headcase that is Delmon Young is not a smart move. Hell, if we want a jackass in the outfield who can produce at the plate and a cancer in the clubhouse, we can always re-sign Abreu.


How's this for ridiculous?

"The Yankees' new rotation is starting to take shape, as they are also in serious negotiations with free-agent Derek Lowe. An agreement with Lowe appears likely to be finalized in the coming days, as well. The sides were discussing a contract for four years and about $66 million late Tuesday.

The Yankees, though, are intent on adding three starters and are also talking with A.J. Burnett and Ben Sheets. They are hopeful of adding one of those two pitchers to round out their rotation." -Jon Heyman, CNNSI

jwells5: IMO I don't really think the Phils will try to sign Howard long term. Hamels they will try and sign. Our FO is usually pretty cheap and Hamels has some arb years left so I don't think it has much of an impact. They weren't going to spend much money anyway.

JW- I liked your speculation that Burrell may be available to the Phillies on the teams terms if the FA market stays cold.
To me that's a best case scenario- I think Pat has been very well paid up 'till now and may find he needs to lower his expectations in this years market.

"Honest question: what impact do you guys think knowing that you'll eventually have to ink Howard and Hamels will play on your activity in free agency?"

They are not going to sign Howard, whose representatives, despite the arb award last year, look like fools for not taking a Pujols-like contract last offseason.

Howard goes year-to-year until he is FA eligible or gets traded. He won't be in a Phillies uniform come 2012.

Agreed that the opt-out clause isn't a killer for the Yankees. If he is hurt and/or sucks after three years, they are screwed no matter what. If he pitches great and wants to opt-out, it means they got a nice three-year deal. If he pitches great, it means he probably is okay in NY, and they can resign him a la A-Rod. It's the Yankees, so paying a few more million per year won't be a big deal.

BAP: Forget the GB/FB ratio. Look at the platoon splits for Kendrick: .704 OPS against RH, .937 against LH.

As a reliever, the manager can choose which batter he faces. It's the same reason I don't like Dobbs as a starter (beyond his shaky defense) -- I think he's most valuable when the manager chooses the spot to use him.

Jack and kdon: Do you believe the Yanks preferred the inclusion of an opt out clause?

i hope the yankees get everybody ( cc, lowe, manny, texeira, sheets )
that way when they end up in 3rd place in the AL east it will be that much sweeter. You can't buy heart, and you can't force team chemistry. Really at this point the yankees are just a team of hired mercenaries, and with the economy the way it is...the fact that they are foolishly and recklessly spending money, all the while try to ask the taxpayers of new york to foot the bill for a new stadium ( and was yankee stadium really ever that bad ) is pretty disgusting if you ask me.

Did you know Joe Morgan's daughter goes to Stanford?

I'd rather the free agents go to the Yankees than the Mets.

Alby: Problem is, there aren't too many ROOGYs around and KK's numbers against right-handers are only good when compared to his horrendous numbers against left-handers. Even right-handers have hit .271 against him over his career, which is definitely not good enough to qualify as a right-handed specialist.

CJ: No, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't bother them all that much. Seriously, all I'm saying is that there's no way in which the opt-out seriously hurts them. If they only get 3 years out of CC, and he opts out, then they got 3 good years out of him (why else would he opt out if he hadn't been pitching well?), and they can then either re-sign him (they are the Yankees), or let him go and have gotten the best pitcher in his prime on a 3-year deal, which would be a great deal. If he gets hurt and stays, he would've done that anyway without an opt-out. I haven't heard a convincing argument that a 7-year, 160 million dollar deal without an opt-out is that much better.

Other than the fact that no other team was even offering a 7 year deal so the Yankees were dumb to do so no matter what...especially since they also were giving a substantially higher amount per year as well?

NEPP: Do you understand what I'm arguing about? I'm not saying the 7-year deal was good, or was smart of the Yankees. I'm saying that the opt-out wasn't terrible, when compared to a 7-year, 160 million deal without the opt-out. Can you not understand my point?

"You can't buy heart, and you can't force team chemistry."

No, you certainly can't. But, as the mid- to late-70s Yankees and the early 70s A's showed, you really don't need heart or chemistry when you have enough good players.

Phaithful: ON the Delmon Young issue, just remember that last offseason the Twins thought trading a promising but head-problem young pitcher for a talent like Young was a no-brainer. Which they obviously don't think anymore.

The opt-out clause is horrible for the Yankees. It puts all the risk on their side. Basically signed him to a 3 year $69 million contract with the stipulation that he can have another 4 years 92 mil after that, but only if he feels he's not worth that much.

I understand that Jack. The thing is, those weren't the only two options the Yankees had. They self imposed those two options on themselves.

Brian G: Yes, that's true, if they could have signed him to a 3 year, 69 million dollar deal straight up. But they couldn't. It's a choice between a 7 year, 160 million deal with no opt-out, or a 7 year, 160 million deal with an opt-out. Someone explain why the former is so much better than the latter, and I'll be convinced.

BAP: You're right about that -- he doesn't have great numbers even against right-handers. I am taking the approach that, allowed to concentrate on what he does well instead of trying to make up for what he doesn't, he might perfect that sinker and throw harder for the more limited time he's out there.

But at this point, I don't think he's going to stick as a starter, either. If I thought he couldn't work in relief, I'd put him in the same class as Jaramillo, that is, no role available in Philly. I'd just prefer trying him in that role (in the minors) before giving up entirely. And if I thought he couldn't work in relief -- something the FO is in a better position to judge than I am -- I suppose I wouldn't blink at trading him.

On Sabathia, I think the owners have set themselves up for legal action. CC made very clear that he wanted to pitch on the west coast, yet no team put together an offer that even came close. If the Giants or Dodgers had offered 5 years, $120 million, he might well have taken it, despite the union urging for him to take the highest offer.

Even if it's not, this smells like collusion.

How is it collusion? The Yankees overspent on a FA. That's not the owners of the other teams faults.

Now if the Yankees hadn't bid either, that would be collusion.

Jack: For the Yankees, the contract WITHOUT the opt out is better because it doesn't allow a great pitcher to walk away after three years or allow the pitcher to hold the Yankees hostage for more money after three years. How are either of those two scenarios good for the Yankees? I'm not sure why there's a question about this.

Another day of the Phils doing absolutely nothing. Just like I predicted. Jr. bites.
Maybe Jerry Hariston? Who cares!!

CJ: Because if he opts out, then the Yankees would have gotten him for a 3 year, 69 million deal. If you asked the Yankees yesterday if they would do that deal, they would do it in an absolute heartbeat. If he doesn't opt out, then there's no difference at all from a contract without the opt out.

On the CC debate- At least the Yanks were smart enough to make the deal contingent on a physical. ( Unlike a past Phillies deal near and dear to our memories)

~sighs~

Jack, there were more than just those two options available to the Yankees. They basically outbid themselves considering the next closest deal was a 5 year, $100 million deal from the Brewers.

I don't know what's going on, NEPP, but doesn't it smell funny to you? The usual thinking is that a FA needs multiple bidders to drive up the price. Tom Hicks has been laughed at for years for bidding against himself with A-Rod. Yet in this case the Yankees knew nobody else was within $60 million and they upped their offer anyway. I don't get it.

The opt-out clause would only be lousy if the team that gave it wouldn't be able to afford either (a) the premium it will cost to re-sign CC after 3 years if he opts out after playing at or above his contract value or (b) a top of the rotation FA starter to replace CC if he opts out. For just about every single team in the league, an opt-out clause is horrible. For the Yankees, it isn't a big deal.

NEPP: We've already established that. So they overpaid for a FA, there's no argument there. Move on. You also seem to fail to realize that they overpaid in years and money because given equal or close to equal contracts, CC would not have chosen them.

My whole point is that the opt-out isn't a terrible thing at all. I'm just gonna move on, because you seem unable to follow this. We both agree that a 6-year, 130 million deal would have been better than 7-year, 160 million. What you haven't convinced me of is, a) CC would have signed that deal, or b) that the opt-out clause makes the contract he signed worse.

I think Sabathia really didn't want to play in NY and they had to overpay to get him to. The fact that several other teams were willing to go 5 years, $20 million or even an option for a 6th year makes the collusion charge a bit tough to prove.

I think the owners may be using the current economy as a shield to some extent but without see their books and their projected revenue for the next few years its impossible to prove. I have to imagine that its more difficult for a team to get credit just as it is more difficult for the average business or individual though.

That said, my bank had no issues approving us for a mortgage in the past week so its not as bad as the press may make it seem.

Alby: Yeah... collusion doesn't really work that way. Collusion is the owners collectively working to keep cost down on free agents. It's possible there was pressure from the union for CC to take the Yankees offer as opposed to going to the west coast... but that wouldn't be illegal. And, besides, it's not clear that any west coast team put a formal offer on the table. I think CC went back to NY after they included the opt out clause.

CC wanted the opt-out clause because of personal reasons, not because of baseball or financial reasons. He seemed reluctant to move to NY, so my guess is that he wants the opt-out clause in case his family hates it there, or if he can't deal with the media culture, or things like that. The Yankees seemed fine with that, again, because it wasn't out of financial concerns and wouldn't hurt them baseball-wise.

As they have the money no matter what the deal was, it doesnt really matter in the end. They'll probably end up with Sabathia, Lowe, Sheets/Burnett (one of the two) & Manny as the big names and then a couple of 2nd tier guys as well.

Sabathia - $23 M
Lowe - $16.5 M
Sheets/Burnett - $14-17 M
Manny - $25 M

Punto/utility guys - $5 M

For a total of $83.5-86.5 million in payroll additions. Considering they cleared around $85 million this winter, they won't even be raising their payroll.

@NEPP: Agreed. Every free agent they stand to get is one less that the mets can get, sayin though when all is said and done that payroll is going to be close to the national debt. I still think they will be the 3rd best team in there division.

@alby: true, but judging by champions in the last few years, most had a mix of superstars ( howard, utley, rollins ), solid if not spectacular pitching ( hamels, myers (eh?), moyer, blanton ), and an awesome bullpen (lidge, madson), just using the phils as a point.
That being said id much rather the phillies get one solid A free agent pickup(great if it would be lowe, ill be happy with moyer for a year), a bullpen guy (cruz), a solid contact hitter with power (ibenaz sp?) and a utility bench player or 2. (It's alot to ask i know )Its time to also start letting some of the younger guys marson, carrasco and donald start stepping in and seeing what they can do. You don't need to go overboard to produce back to back champs!

didnt see your last post where the yanks cleaned out 85 mil...my bad on the rising payroll

Jack: The opt-out is worse bc it means the Yankees are risking 4 years 92 million with no hope of getting value for it. If there was no opt-out in the contract then yes, if he gets hurt then it's the same scenario as it would be with an opt-out. However, if he doesn't get hurt and pitches well, then the Yankees get another 4 years of him at or below market value, and the four years would be a shorter time period than he would command on the open market, which is beneficial when dealing with pitchers. If he opts out after 3 years then yes, it's not the end of the world, but the Yankees would have risked a lot just to get Sabathia for those 3 years at 23 mil per.
Basically, the two likely options in this contract are:
1. 3 healthy/good years from CC for 69 mil
2. 7 years at 160 where he is unhealthy or ineffective for most of the contract
Whereas with the opt-out the first option becomes 7 mostly healthy/good years and the second option remains the same.
Maybe they had to do the opt-out to get him, but it's clearly a much worse contract for having had to do so.

The Phils appear to be "lookin' for love in all the wrong places," in Las Vegas and Sin City is a hard place not to be able to find love or some semblance thereof.

As I've stated before, the Phils don't need high priced pitching to win another world championship. They have all the pitching they currenty need, with or without Moyer. Inexpensively adding Cruz, Springer and Looper makes a lot of sense. What makes even more sense is puting a prospect package together and stealing Zack Greinke from the Royals. Acquiring any or all of these pitchers would give the Phils the ability to deal Kendrick for DeRosa. I would not give up Happ. I think he has a lot more upside than most people realize.

I think acquiring DeRosa would be an alright move if it doesn't cost the Phils more than Kendrick and Jaramillo. If unloading Marquis continues to be a sticking point in the Cubs-Padres-Phils menage-a-trois, I would take DeRosa and Marquis in return for Kendrick and Eaton straight up.

If the Twins get involved in the DeRosa acquisition and things get dicey, I would forget DeRosa and move on to Ty Wigginton in a heart beat. The Astros are trying to move him and they are looking for pitching and an Eric Bruntlett type of utility infielder.

If the Phils miss their window of opportunity with DeRosa and Wigginton, I would have no problem bringing back Tad Iguchi who doesn't pack a lot of bells and whistles, but who does all the intangibles that win games. I would leave Punto in Minnesota and forget most of the other options mentioned.

Even if the Phils do acquire a new second baseman, they still need to go after a slugging left fielder. Acquiring Wigginton or DeRosa makes an inexpensive, albeit effective, acquisition, such as Gabe Kapler more feasible. Kapler may not be held in the same esteem as Ramirez, Ludwick or Ibanez, but if Dobbs/Jenkins/Stairs hold up their end of the bargain, Kapler could help the Phils win a lot of games. If the Phils want to move a DeRosa or Wigginton to left field when Utley returns, Kapler could become one of the best 4th outfielders in the game, as well as one of the best right-handed pinch hitters.

If acquiring Ramirez, Ludwick or Ibanez appears much more palatable than acquiring Kapler, it must be said that acquiring the slugging Kapler is a much more prudent move than acquiring some punch and judy hitter or some player whose pronounced behavioral issues may jeopardize the same chemical balance that allowed the Phils to become world champs.

There's a lot of love in Las Vegas these days. You just have to look for it in all the right places.

Brian: It's only a problem for the Yankees if a) Sabathia gets hurt and b) the Yankees make an organizational decision to no longer spend their way out of such mistakes.

Doc: What's your evidence that Gabler is "effective"? Yes, he has nice stats against LH, but fewer than 1/3 of his plate appearances have been against LH. Even last year, nearly two-thirds of his AB were against RH. No thanks.

I've previosuly mentioned that another very viable option for the Phils at 2B and the OF is to trade with the Cards for Ryan Ludwick and Skip Schumaker, who the Cards were trying to trade, along with starting pitcher, Mitchell Boggs, to the Rockies in a package for Atkins, Taveras and Torrealba. I think the Cards would probably consider trading the same players to the Phils for a package of Madson, Donald and Jaramillo or something close. Ludwick is exactly what the Phils need in the outfield and Schumaker is a .300 hitting infielder/outfielder.

Re: The Opt-Out

Obviously, it's not a better deal. As I said, it's just not a killer, or a major mistake, for the reasons Jack has explained.

Here are the scenarios:

No opt-out:
Pitches Bad: Stuck with 7/160
Pitches Well: Good deal, 7/160

Opt-out:
Pitches Bad: Stuck with 7/160
Pitches Well: Good deal at 3/69, try to resign him for 5/110 (?)

So if he pitches well, they end up paying him a premium on the back end to resign him, or he just hates NY, walks, and they get a decent 3/69. As me and Mc_B said, the premium on the back might be a problem for another team, but not really the Yankees.

BUT, the important thing is that there is *no* extra risk involved in giving him an opt-out.

The only reason to sign Kapler is that he can hit Mark Redman and Ollie Perez. If that's it, though, it's not enough. I'd rather have Parker Brothers.

Also: Tad Iguchi only plays 2B. We need a LF and maybe a 3B.

And also: Wigginton, while a better hitter, is only a "corners" guy. He does not play up the middle (4, 6, or 8).

Can't fault the yankees for the opt out clause

"
For the first time, Brewers GM Doug Melvin confirmed he offered five years and slightly more than $100MM to Sabathia. Adding a sixth year was under serious consideration. Tom Haudricourt also learned from Melvin that Sabathia wanted an opt-out clause no matter where he signed, and the Brewers were prepared to offer one. "

I should also add another possible scenario, which involves CC getting hurt and/or becoming ineffective in years 4-7. In this case the opt-out, if exercised because CC doesn't like NY, helps the Yankees.

All thing being equal, you of course don't offer an opt-out, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker.

Alby: It's always a problem to be throwing money away.

kdon: 1. If he pitches well enough to opt out of a 4/92 contract, then 5 and 110 will not get it done.

2. There IS extra risk. He didn't sign a 7/160 contract. He signed a 3 year $69 million contract with a TON of extra risk.

kdon: If he gets hurt in years 4-7, then he will probably be getting hurt on another 7 year $160 million contract with the Yankees, only this time they'll be paying him to be injured a lot longer.

That said, I can understand the Yankees not considering it a dealbreaker.

In re: Modest Proposals

The Marlins tried to get Jonathan Sanchez from SFG for Jorge Cantu. I wonder if Kendrick could get that trade. Cantu can play 2B early on, and then, if the Phils are still without a RH platoon, they could move Pete Happy into LF. (Of course, then we'd probably be giving up 3 - 5 runs a game from the loss of hot corner defense.)

Feliz in Leftfield?!?

~shudders~

Brian:

On point 1, who knows what CC will want if he opts out, or what the market will be. Add a year and a few more dollars, and the point still stands - if CC like NY and is pitching well, the Yankees can resign him.

Point 2: However you want to frame the contract, the *risk* is no different by including an opt-out cause. The problem is that the structure allows less room for the Yankees to reap the *rewards* of a long-term deal.

The point still stands: if CC gets hurt or sucks in his first three years, the opt-out makes *zero* difference in terms of the Yankees exposure.

Ken Rosenthal reports:

"One rival executive points out there is "no upside" to giving a player an opt-out clause such as the Yankees are doing for CC Sabathia.

If he performs well, Sabathia will likely exercise the opt-out after the third year and become a free agent. If he does not perform well or is injured, the Yankees are on the hook for the rest of his contract.

It is the situation the Blue Jays faced with A.J. Burnett, who opted out of his current deal after three years."

I agree. If you want to argue it doesn't matter to the Yankees because they're rich... that's fine. But having an opt-out makes it a worse deal for the Yankees. Just because they may be able to eventually spend their way out of it doesn't mean it make the deal better for them.

Reason the Yanks raised to $160 is because I bet CC would have taken less from a west coast team. Just because there wasn't another offer up to their previous one doesnt maen that they didnt need to upgrade it to get him to sign. He probably would have given another team a discount - up to a certain extent - and the Yanks went high enough to exceed that extent.

All the owners are billionaires, fortunately for Yankee fans, their owners seem to like winning more than money.

Rosenthal says Braves have upped their offer to Burnett to 5 years, $80M. I'm glad the Phils are not in on that bidding war. Burnett for 5 years is a lottery ticket.

Feliz in Leftfield?!?

~shudders~

Posted by: NEPP

Feliz has played 730 or so innings in LF and has made 4 errors. His fielding percentage is just a bit better than Pat's. I bet his range is better, too. (Plus any hot smashes on the ground he'll field cleanly, of course.)

CJ - A lottery ticket found blowing around on the street.

I'm talking about his bat in a corner outfield spot more than the fielding aspect of it.

Good original post by JW... Great job by the Phillies, not offering Pat Burrell arbitration(and thereby overpaying for a very limited player)... I am now starting to see the logic in not offering Moyer arbitration(i was all for arbitration originally)... JA Happ and Coste is a fair trade for Mark Derosa... Kyle kendrick and Jaramillo is a complete fleecing by the Phillies... Would not trade both Happ and Kendrick in the same deal unless i was sure Jaime Moyer would come back for a one year deal... Jason Marquis for one year is the EQUAL of Jaime Moyer if you eliminate sentimentality... Happ, Coste, and Jenkins for Derosa and Marquis, and let Moyer walk.

Ken Rosenthal says the Mets are interested in dealing for Juan Pierre. Wheeeeeeeeee.

I think that Minaya is confused by Pierre's first name.

Heard the Nats are making Cy Young available. Can't imagine what they would want. They don't need OFers and we have no IFers,maybe bullpen help. He could win alot of games with a little offensive support which he didn't get in Washington.

Do the Mets realize he was born in Alabama? (Just kidding, but he really was born in Alabama, the name would fool you)

"But having an opt-out makes it a worse deal for the Yankees. "

No one is arguing this. Jack and I are simply pointing out that an opt-out is not, in Brian G and NEPP's words, "horrible" and "ridiculous."

The curse of the Bambino will descend upon the Yankees for tearing down "The House that Ruth Built" and deny them championships no matter how much they spend.
(No opt out clause on the aforementioned curse)

Wouldn't you play Cantu, rather than Feliz, in LF?

"...Jason Marquis for one year is the EQUAL of Jaime Moyer if you eliminate sentimentality..."

Whittle the post down to that and I agree with it. Except that I don't think the Phillies have offered 1 yr/$9.5M to Moyer.

Those who think we can unload an unwanted salary for Marquis (I've seen posters suggest Eaton and Jenkins), be aware that the Cubs need to dump his ENTIRE salary to do the other things they want to do. They aren't interested in taking on our garbage.

"...Jason Marquis for one year is the EQUAL of Jaime Moyer if you eliminate sentimentality..."

Compare their career WHIPs.

"Wouldn't you play Cantu, rather than Feliz, in LF?"

Since it's academic anyway, sure; why not?

jr - The Nats should trade Redding to the Twins for D. Young. That way they could field an outfield of Young, Milledge, and Dukes. (Umpires: be afraid; be very afraid!)

"It's always a problem to be throwing money away."

For 29 teams, yes. For the Yankees, no. A snippet from a story in Crain's, a business web site, last August:

"In 1973, George Steinbrenner paid $10 million to buy the New York Yankees, a team now worth $1.3 billion, according to Forbes. His heirs have a chance to coin money much faster once the team moves into its new stadium next year.

The team's revenues—already the highest in the sport, at an estimated $327 million last year—are poised to double almost immediately. This quantum leap will be driven by factors ranging from higher prices for tickets and hot dogs to increased revenues from the YES Network for game telecasts. There will also be new revenue sources, such as leasing out the new stadium for concerts."

Over $600 million a year in revenue. I don't think they're worried about the opt-out clause.

I'm liking the idea of Derosa more and more. He gives the Phillies options at every position they need- 2B, 3B and LF. He is a hard working, hustling player. He can bat low or high in the lineup and give you some production. I would be perfectly happy with Derosa and I am still dreaming of Lowe.

Andy: That OF could, say 3:1 odds, be a tandem that might produce a Last Boy Scout-esque home plate collision scenario...

Alby: That's incorrect. The Cubs have already offered to teams to pick up as much as $4M in salary of the money owed Marquis.

"...Jason Marquis for one year is the EQUAL of Jaime Moyer if you eliminate sentimentality..."

"Compare their career WHIPs."

I was more focused on next year. The past two years, each one posted a WHIP of 1.44 and 1.32, though in opposite years. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer Moyer. I'm just operating under the premise that he's gone.

CJ: Thanks for the correction. In that case, though, I imagine the cash would go the other way -- the Phils trade Jenkins ($8M left, including a $1.25M buyout) for Marquis ($9.875M). If they were willing to kick in $4M on Marquis, that means they'll only pay that much of Jenkins' salary, meaning they'd want $4M from the Phillies.

Alby: The Cubs won't take a bad contract back in the deal. It's never been rumored. It's wishful thinking. It sounds like the DeRosa trade may not be a possibility now anyway... but if anything happened with the Cubs, there's no interest in our bad contracts.

CJ: Uh...I was suggesting it as an answer to your point that they're willing to pay $4 million towards Marquis' contract. So we're back to my original point, which I guess I mistakenly thought you were disagreeing with. I think the lack of Phillies activity is making me dizzy.

Alby: Yes.

Are we clear? ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG