That’s pretty naive. Of course the Yankees say this. But like all baseball teams, they’re a business, and their real objective is to make money. They want to win the World Series because that helps them make money, given the expectations of Yankees fans.
But having Jeter on the field also helps them make money, by bringing people to the ball park, by promoting fan good will, by helping sell broadcasts and merchandise, and so on. Spending an extra $10 million on Jeter can be regarded as part of their advertising budget.
The Yankees are going to make the playoffs whether or not Jeter is on the roster, which as others have pointed out is the most important factor in having a chance to win the World Series. Having him on the field is not a serious liability, while he’s a significant benefit off the field.
Signing Jeter to a contract worth X does not make the Yankees’ roster “significantly weaker” unless you can demonstrate that there is a significant opportunity cost. The two possible opportunity costs are:
That the money spent on Jeter prevents the team from acquiring a needed player, or
That the decision to play Jeter full time takes playing time away from a better player.
You have demonstrated neither condition. The Yankees are indifferent to spending $219 million or $228 million, or whatever the marginal difference is between Jeter at a price you think is worth it and Jeter at a price you think isn’t worth it.
But more importantly, the real opportunity cost here is whether Jeter is better or worse than the best alternative shortstop, and that doesn’t have anything to do with what he costs.
So who else could play shortstop for the Yankees who we know would be better? The free agent market in shortstops looks pretty weak to me.
So what do YOU think is an excessive amount that reflects a foolish busniess practice? The market of Jeter’s services is set at (let’s say) 10 Million. That is what most analysts estimate he would be worth to a baseball team–but the Yankees are probably going to pay twice his market value rate. I’m simply asking why they don’t pay him three or four times, or one-and-a-half times, his market value? The same arguments would apply: the Yankees can afford it, and it won’t cost them anything as far as the quality of their roster goes. At point do you say “That’s just foolish, and sentimental, and counter-productive”?
Okay, but that’s part of what of what I’m saying. If they offer him 12 million, and everyone (Jeter and the Yankees) pretty well agree that no one’s going to offer more, why would he not take that offer, and why would the Yankees not think 'We could use the extra 8 million we’ve got lying around now to sign up another FA middle reliever"?
If your answer is, “Because they can sign him at 20 mil per year AND afford all the middle relievers they desire” then why aren’t they offering 25 or 30 million AND signing up every FA they can place on their roster?
I think that’s three different points, to be honest. And naturally, where each one lies will depend on the person. For me, speaking as a fan of teams that have historically been enemies of the Yankees and everything they stand for (Red Sox and Giants), I’d define them as the following:
Foolish: This is the highest bar, in my view. Given the Yankees’ enormous monetary resources, they’d have to hand Jeter a pretty honkin’ huge contract before I’d say they were not just way overspending on the available talent (which they can afford to do), but actively hurting themselves as an organization (i.e. paying so much that they’re actually reducing their profit margin in the long term). Given the ridiculous marketability of The Captain, this probably requires a long-term contract worth north of $30 million a year.
Sentimental: This is probably where the Yankees will end up. I suspect they’ll pay Jeter at a rate utterly disproportionate to his contributions as a player, but one that makes sense considering his status as a New York icon, their aforementioned massive resources, and the potential marketing value of Jeter vs Similarly Qualified No-name Shortstop. Say, 4-5 years at $20 million AAV.
Counter-productive: Here, I’m defining “productive” as “being paid at a rate commensurate with the player’s worth as a baseball player,” ignoring the value of name recognition. Jeter’s ineptitude on the field and burgeoning mediocrity at the plate makes him, at best, an average MLB starting shortstop at this point. He does offer significant durability at a physically strenuous position. If Jeter were on the free agent market and I had the need and opportunity to sign him, I’d give him a 2-3 year contract worth $7-9 million AAV. Anything above that, I’d consider “counter-productive.”
As to your first question, it’s unlikely Jeter would outright accept a pay cut from the Yankees. The Yankees will probably pay him the minimum he’ll accept, which will likely to be more than what you (and most people) consider sane. Anything more would be foolish. The Yankees have proven they will pay more than anyone to get (or keep) a player they want, but that amount is still the minimum amount necessary to get the deal done. It’s still a business venture. Keeping the bottom line in the black ensures they’re able to perpetuate their method of acquiring success.
Your other question ignores their current roster composition and the contract statuses of the current players. Desirable players are not always available at positions where the Yankees feel they are weak. Not every player they sign matches their previous level of performance. Occasionally they have prospects pan out, such as Cano, but sometimes these players need to struggle for a while at the major league level before do. The Yankees prefer to let this happen while they play for other teams, of course.
In summary:
The deep Yankee pockets are not eternally endless
The Yankees are a business that wishes to perpetuate its success
The Yankees’ player evaluation system is imperfect
Upgrades are not always available where the Yankees need them
The Yankees have existing contracts in place that prevent upgrades
The Yankees occasionally have to let players from their farm system play
Not every player wants to play for the Yankees.
Even the best teams can lose 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 games
They won’t pay him four times the market value, because that’s much more than what he’s getting now, and he won’t ask for that. They would pay him one-and-half times the market rate if they thought he would accept that. The amount they will actually pay will be somewhere between what they are paying him now, and what he is worth.
1)not everyone agrees–see above
2)ok
3) ok again–I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here
4) actually, they are–for the right price. Even the quibble about Cliff Lee, and the Yankees’ lack of prospects, isn’t quite right. They could have offered the Mariners a billion gazillion dollars and the Mariners might have taken such a deal.
5) Prevent? A team with an unlimited budget simply cuts (and pays) the non-productive player.
6) They do? Why? It might make sense for them to swap every player in exhcange for an established major league veteran–especially if they’re dealing with an unlimited budget.
7) But every player would like to receive two or three times his market value. Very few will turn down that kind of offer. Very few.
8) We haven’t established what the “best” possible team in MLB actually is. If the Yankees could seriously establish a principle that they will pay several mulitples of market value, then every quality FA would want to test the waters, and (without tampering) the Yankees could find themselves looking at a whole bunch of quality FA who would otherwise be unavailable.
Why not? IOW, how is this non-market value being established? 20 million is also more than he’s getting now, for a performance that’s significantly worse than when he signed his contract.
Why wouldn’t they begin the negotiations around there? Do you think he’d get all pissed off? “Only 150% of what I’m worth? Go fuck yourselves. I’m going to sign with the Brewers for peanuts just to spite you!!”
I don’t see why. Matter of fact, they’d have been better off trading Joba, for example, before he was exposed to MLB>
As for Jeter…but he won a gold glove!!! Seriously, yes the Yankees will overpay for Jeter. They will pay more than market value. Frankly, if they did lose Jeter they’d either have to get another FA shortstop or else make a trade. Something tells me that Jeter wouldn’t take slightly more money to go play somewhere else, so the Yankees could probably get away with paying right at market value. But they won’t. You know they won’t. I’m especially interested to see the length of this inevitable contract. If they sign him at 5+ years they’re crazy.
1)Well, it’s a fact. The Yankees do not have endless capital to throw at players until the end of time. They just have significantly more than everyone else. There’s no guarantee it will always be that way.
3) Point here being, even when they get who they want, they sometimes end up a Vazquez.
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) This assumes a perpetually unlimited budget, which doesn’t match reality.
There was a point in time where Joba, Kennedy, and Hughes were going to be the future of the Yankees’ pitching staff for years to come. Joba was a huge fan favorite out the gate.
The two driving forces of the business’s desire to maximize profit and player evaluation/development were in agreement in all three cases. When that happens, unproven players get a chance or three to fail, even on the Yankees.
Exactly correct. If they wanted to pay full price top quality veteran free agents at every position (with backups) they’d have to double their budget to $400 million/yr.
That’s an extra $200 million per year to get… what? They already sell tons of tickets, their network is as valuable as any sports network around, and they are always in the running for a championship. They’re not going to earn an extra $200 million a year to offset the extra costs, not even close, there’s just nowhere to get that much money from. Even then, there’s still no guarantee that you’re going to win jack.
How do you know they’re going to pay him 20 million? That’s a figure you threw out there. In any case he’s making $21 million for 2010; $20 million would be a pay cut.
How do you know that’s not where they’re starting out?
Basically, you’re criticizing the Yankees for stuff you’ve just made up.
You see, there’s two strong feelings that Yankee fans have been expressing, and they contradict each other pretty sharply:
pay Jeter a gazillion dollars for ever–he’s the greatest shortstop of all time, and always will be, even after he’s dead and his range factor (I’ll reluctantly concede) may decline after that point.
pay free agents whatever it takes to make the Yankees’ lineup unbeatable. If Jeter or Posada or Pettitte get old, make sure you’ve got an All-Star waiting in the wings. It’s unforgivable to spend 200 million+ on a roster only to disciver that through injury or old age, you’ve got a weak spot or two in your team.
Ok, it’s something Vince Gennaro, who “consults on strategy for several major league teams,” made up, rather than you. (Gennaro also specifically makes the point that much of that figure is based on marquee value rather than athletic value.) There’s no indication that that figure reflects what the Yankees are actually going to pay him. Argue with Gennaro, not the Yankees.
If you’re going to make shit up about the Yankees management may be doing, I guess you might as well make shit up about what everyone else has been posting too.
This came up the other day on Bill James’ website. James’ answer was slightly off-point, but interesting nonetheless. He seems to think that no players will want to sign with the Yankees if they cut Jeter’s pay at this point, which I don’t think is true.
And naturally, where each one lies will depend on the person. For me, speaking as a fan of teams that have historically been enemies of the Yankees and everything they stand for (Red Sox and Giants), I’d define them as the following: