Excellent.
What do you know abnout the team chemistry? Are you a member of the Yankees or their staff?
Not the point at all. Will they be able to spend a lot more without hurting team chemistry. It is not that easy. Otherwise the Yanks would win every year.
Where were the Yanks’ chemistry problems when they had the second best record in the ML (best in the AL) this year? They lost in the playoffs this year because they didn’t have enough starting pitching after Sabathia and because Teixeira and Rodriguez didn’t hit. The attitude on the team is better the last couple of years from what I can tell, but chemistry is overrated. I’m not sure it’s a factor at all. If you have the right players, it doesn’t matter if they’re all drinking buddies.
Who’s in the bidding war for Yu Darvish?
Indeed. Going back to my formative years as a baseball fan, anyone remember the ‘chemistry’ on the 1977-78 Yankees, or even more so, the 1972-73-74 Oakland A’s?
The Yankees were kind enough to prove my point. They gave a 31 year old pitcher, CC, a 5 year contract. They will be paying him a lot as his value drops.
The Cardinals are going to do the same thing with Albert Pujols- or someone else will. What is your point again?
Old pitching beats old hitting?
Don’t forget old chemistry. You need that too.
But not Yankees chemistry, I think.
Anyways, there is one thing that is reasonably certain - the vast majority of free agent signings of over 3 years will be failures. This is just the way the market works now. Signing long-term free agents is the least cost-effective way of improving your team.
It is far better to draft and develop the next Albert Pujols (or Prince Fielder, if you want to be somewhat more realistic) than to sign the current one.
It’s true the Yankees are going to be paying Sabathia a bunch of money through years after his prime, but that’s what happens with contracts with marquee free agents. They get paid based on past performance after they’re arguably no longer going to be worth it. Sabathia has been very durable so far, and the Yankees got him under contract without having to outbid anyone else and at terms that were pretty similar to his existing contract. SI pointed out that the deal is similar to the one Cliff Lee got from Philly last year and Sabathia is younger than Lee.
Buster Olney pointed out that 3 of the top 10 pitchers in groundball ratio will be part of the Indians’ rotation next season. The infield’s gonna be busy.
And I won’t rule out the possibility of the Indians re-signing Sizemore to an incentive-laden deal. I was never a big fan of Sizemore because he always reminded me of Alfonso Soriano, a leadoff hitter with the mindset of a #3 hitter. If they somehow bring him back, I’d like to see him moved lower in the order and have Michael Brantley bat first.
But I definitely supported not picking up his option. He can’t seem to stay on the field.
It might be better, but it’s not a sure thing and involves a lot of risk and failure. Prospects may pan out or they may not, and Albert Pujols is already Albert Pujols and Fielder is already Fielder. There aren’t many of them out there. If your team is not going to win in the next few years or has adequate options at the position, it may not make sense to sign a big free agent. If you’re in position to win now, the equation is different.
But in order to evaluate the wisdom of that decision, you have to understand the position that the Yankees are in right now.
Firstly, they are the Yankees. Secondly, their starting pitching is wonky enough without losing the only really reliable starter they have. Thirdly, and related to number two, is that without this contract they might have lost Sabathia altogether.
To take these things in order.
They are the Yankees, so they tend to overpay for big free agents. They do this in order to get the free agents, and because they have so much money that overpaying a bit doesn’t really affect their ability to remain in the market when other opportunities come along. While a team with an $80 million payroll might not be willing to risk $25 million a year on a long contract, because it can’t afford to pay that much to an aging player with declining production, the Yankees can pay the big bucks, get as much as possible out of the superstar in his good years, and then live with the fact that they’re overpaying in the star’s declining years.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Yankees don’t overpay all the time, and they have some excellent players on their roster at pretty decent prices, including Nick Swisher and Robinson Cano.
Secondly, Yankee starting pitching right now is CC Sabathia, then a big gap, and then everyone else. This isn’t to say that some of the other starters won’t improve over this season’s performance, but Sabathia is currently the best starter they have as well as the most reliable one. And it’s not like the free agent market is awash in top-tier starters this year. There are some solid guys out there, but there’s no Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee or CC Sabathia.
Thirdly, and connected to the previous point, Sabathia’s contract had an opt-out clause which would have allowed him to re-enter the free agent market. He had suggested that he was willing to exercise that option and test the market if the Yankees didn’t modify his contract. Given their current starting pitching issues, and the fact that the free agent market doesn’t really have anyone as reliable as CC available, they made the deal in order to keep their #1, most reliable starter.
While there’s a pretty good chance that the Yankees will be paying Sabathia more than he’s worth (perhaps much more) in 2016, the deal was pretty much essential for them.
Also more generally, as Marley23 points out, whoever ends up with Albert Pujols will probably pay him more than his production is actually worth in the last couple of years of his contract. That’s just how things seem to go with big name free agents. There’s a pretty decent chance that Miguel Cabrera won’t be worth the $22 million that the Tigers will pay him in 2015.
Yes, you have to consider the benefits of the marginal wins signing AP or Prince will likely give you. That said, you are still almost certainly trading away some future wins (due to the opportunity cost of the money you’re spending for a 40-year-old Pujols) for some present wins. Many GMs won’t care, because they likely won’t have the job in 10 years. And if they make the playoffs or win a World Series, well, flags fly forever.
That said, I would still be very, very wary of my team signing any position player for over 5 years and any pitcher for over 3. Very few of those contracts look good in hindsight.
There is only one Yankees (and one Red Sox if you want to be generous). Almost all other franchises face massive reversals with one or two terrible long-term contracts. This applies to St. Louis as well, which they will be well-advised to consider during negotiations.
Let’s consider the “best case” for Albert Pujols. I think maybe Hank Aaron - and if you compare their careers to date it is remarkable. Check this out: WAR Graphs | FanGraphs Baseball
Then notice that even if Pujols matches Aaron, who is basically the model of aging well, he only has 8 more “great” seasons in him. Anything beyond that he is likely a 2-win or less player. And that’s your absolutely best-case, IMO - Pujols already had one season (this one) that was worse than any Aaron had before Age 38.
For completeness, here’s the graph with Fielder added: WAR Graphs | FanGraphs Baseball
Tell me again why someone wants their team to sign him to a huge, long-term contract?
The problem is that it’s not easy to get star players for short-term deals. If they’re at or near their peaks, they want guaranteed money for five and six and seven years or more. If you’re not offering that, you’re not going to sign them. So if they fill a position of need and fit into the development of your team to the point where you feel you have to sign them, that’s what you’re going to have to offer to get them.
That’s absolutely right. And teams have to carefully evaluate where they are on the performance curve and time their actions.
The Cardinals, rightly it proved, felt like they had a few years of window with Wainwright, Carpenter, Pujols, Yadi, etc. so they bucked up big money for Matt Holliday. Now they have to look ahead and decide if they can remain competitive while paying Holliday $17 million for the next 5 years as well as $25 million (or whatever) for Pujols. If they think they can, they will go for it. If not, then he’ll likely sign elsewhere. And maybe they decide to take a few more runs with this core and accept that the budget will be maxed, and the team hamstrung, 3 years down the line. Flags fly forever.
It’s even possible that the good will generated by signing Albert would outweigh bad teams in the out-years.
All of that ties into yet another reason why signing CC was probably a good move by the Yankees. They aren’t getting any younger, and they really need to make another run to a title in the next year or two before the budget completely explodes on them. There has to be a limit to how much they can just write off, right?
Well, therein lies an important question, and also a caution regarding Marley23’s analysis.
It’s certainly true that you won’t sign the big-name free agents unless you’re willing to spring for a long-term deal, and that teams who want the big names have to make an offer that will attract them.
The thing is, though, that in a truly competitive economic environment, the teams that make these big deals will probably suffer in the long run as they get saddled with expensive contracts tied to players with declining production. This should, in theory, cut into the amount of money those teams have available, and leave them with an aging, expensive uncompetitive team. In such a market, you could make an investment in a big-name free agent, but you would also have to accept that this might make your team weaker five of six years down the track, and allow other teams to challenge your domination.
The problem, though, is highlighted in Jas09’s question. A few teams are willing to throw the big money at the free agents and then down the road, essentially write off that money when the player’s performance declines and spend more money again on the next round of big-name players. Essentially, a team like the Yankees doesn’t really suffer much long-term downside to its short-term decisions, because (so far at least) the team has shown a willingness to just keep spending more and more money.
The free market (such as it is in baseball) doesn’t really work, because even with revenue sharing and luxury taxes, not all teams share the same ability to just throw money at the problem.