Is Today the Day?

It better be because I CAN’T TAKE THIS MUCH LONGER!!!!
I am CRACKING UP!!!!
breathe krueg, breathe…
The worst part is that it seems the Lee is gumming up the works for us. Nothing else is getting done via trade either while he takes his sweet-ass time deciding between the Rags and Yankees…really Cliff??? The Rags???
I need a drink.

no Rangers fans have spat on his wife
They will when he signs with the Yankees.

One more thing – my sense is that this wait is not consternation on Lee’s part but rather gamesmanship by his agent, trying to extract whatever he can from the Yankees. If I were the Yankees and Crawford were available still I’d consider putting an expiration date on the offer. So I think the Sox gummed that up. Still, if the Yankees offer is big, they might be wise to tell Lee he has a limited amount of time. They are good enough to win without him, in my mind, though not as good without him obviously.

I do think this negotiation shows something of a difference between how the Yankees and Red Sox go about their business, despite efforts to paint them both with the same broad brush.
For one thing, while the Yankees have used budget constraints as a reason not to pursue free agents (Carlos Beltran, for example), they haven’t failed to acquire a free agent they’ve seriously wanted in what? Twenty years?
In this case, we see why: Even though the Yankees value Lee at a certain price, they have topped that price. They were simply not going to go beyond six years — until the Sox signed Crawford, after which they added the seventh year.
The Sox, on the other hand, are notorious for refusing to go beyond a certain range (I doubt it’s as firm as a distinct line) on players — Johnny Damon and Pedro Martinez being the least controversial examples, though some would cite Mark Teixeira (I tend to take the side that Teixeira had chosen the Yankees before the Sox even made an offer, based on his own remarks at his introductory press conference) and Alex Rodriguez (that situation was so screwed up, it’s difficult to say, though it is an example of the Sox not wanting to simply taken on an exorbitant contract without adjusting it).
So while the Yankees and Sox both set a value, the Sox generally stay close to that value while the Yanks, certainly in this case, generally do what it takes, regardless of where they assess the player’s actual worth to the franchise.
Call me crazy, but I think that’s a significant difference in how the ballclubs operate. It just so happens that this year, the Sox’ and Yanks’ needs didn’t overlap to any significant extent, allowing the Sox to be perceived as “joining” the big-spending Yankees’ league, even though they aren’t raising payroll and are likely to sign both players to reasonable contracts (as opposed to the insanity of the Werth and eventual Lee deals).
Put another way, if the Sox had been successful in pursuing Teixeira in 2008 and had only signed Crawford this offseason, I doubt we’d be seeing all these comparisons between the clubs. It would simply be business as usual: the Sox have plenty of money, which they allocate fairly liberally, but they don’t have as much as the Yankees, and they don’t spend it the same way.

As to Paul’s point, I agree with the general broader points you are making but I dont think its clear which of the two approaches is a better one. In fact, I think that in any given case, either approach could be better depending on the particulars of the situation. I do believe that the Yankees can and do set a value that they are willing to go to but its often higher than what they are offering. There is no doubt that the economic situation for the yankees is 100% unique from all of the other teams and the calculus that goes into their financial decisions is just plain different. I believe the Sox are also operating in a different way then the other 28 teams, its just at a different level from the Yankees.

well nobody goes into a negotiation with their “final offer”…that’s why they call it “negotiating”…the yankees have made some missteps and so have the sox…i don’t see the value in attempting to determine which approach is better, since both are fairly successful, despite the clunkers and missed opportunities…one is just a little more conservative than the other…other than that, they’re very similar…one team just spent [or will] $300m on 2 players, and the other is about to spent at least half that on 1 player…pretty similar if you ask me, and attempts to spin it any other way seem like a waste of effort…

“…allowing the Sox to be perceived as “joining” the big-spending Yankees’ league, even though they aren’t raising payroll and are likely to sign both players to reasonable contracts (as opposed to the insanity of the Werth and eventual Lee deals).”
I know Paul…the Sox are small market and in no way in the same ballpark. I wonder if fans of the other 25 teams agree with your homer-centric opinion.
Whatever makes you feel superior dude…poor, economically challenged Liverpool, I mean, Red Sox ownership.
Are you now going to start talking about what “genius” Theo is too by outspending his competition in much the same way Cashman does?
Round and round we go.

Understand your points, guys, but I don’t think Paul is making equivalencies between the Sox and the Pirates, but just rather discussing methodologies. In the context of this site it’s a reasonable discussion, whether you agree with his view or not.

Its a reasonable topic indeed and as I said I agree with the broad strokes of the argument. But there is some degree of homerism as Kreug pointed out in saying:
“likely to sign both players to reasonable contracts (as opposed to the insanity of the Werth and eventual Lee deals).”
They are reasonable from which perspective? From the Sox because they can afford to give them. From the Yankees, sure they could also sign these contracts. But from most other teams, its not as ‘reasonable’. Ask the Angels, who the Sox outbid by a considerable margin for CC services for the better part of the next decade.

Ask the Angels, who the Sox outbid by a considerable margin for CC services for the better part of the next decade.
Wait, Arte Moreno is a billionaire, something like the 600th richest man on Earth. And he couldn’t afford the extra $3M a year to ink Crawford but instead lowballed him? No sympathy here…
(I say this for the most part in jest, mostly because I believe it isn’t fair to commingle Moreno’s businesses outside the Angels with the Angels themselves. And this has been brought up with the Sox and John Henry incessantly, ad nauseum.)

So should I clam up?
Of course not! I am trying to moderate things (I am, after all, a moderator – I don’t want this discussion to spiral downwards) – Paul is pointing out a difference in the Sox and Yanks, in his mind. He wasn’t comparing the Sox to the Royals. I have no issue with you taking issue with Paul on the merits.
Oh, and the first person who tries to create an equivalency between the Red Sox and Royals, from a financial standpoint, gets banned!

“Of course not!”
OK
“I don’t want this discussion to spiral downwards”
It won’t. :)

Krueg – I don’t think I ever wondered about Steinbrenner’s shipbuilding business or horses impacted the Yankees. Currently the big thing with the Yankees is the team, their real estate, and the YES Network. The Sox have their own conglomerate with NESN (Sox’ media) and the team/park. For me that is the core business and core revenue generation. Not Liverpool, not John Henry’s hedge funds, not Hal Steinbrenner’s stock that he owns personally in Kraft or Apple or whatever else.
This may be simplistic, but the accounting is already so opaque that I can’t fathom looking at it another way. I own an architectural firm. But it has nothing to do with my (tiny) IRA account, or my collection of antique beer mugs, or whatever other assets I have on my own ledger.

why the shit would you cook the clams? Jesus…talk about ruining them. Get your chowder from a restraunt or Cambells…if you have raw clams in the kitchen, eat them!!!

“Am I completely off base with this line of thinking?”
Not at all. The yankees have made a business decision to go for the win every single year (more or less). This decisions must to some degree eat at the bottom line of the team. They certainly need to keep the winning brand of the team up from a business perspective but its hard to imagine they couldnt make cuts in some areas and make even more money.

I know Paul…the Sox are small market and in no way in the same ballpark. I wonder if fans of the other 25 teams agree with your homer-centric opinion.
This is a strawman, and I’ve decided I’m only going to respond to posts that deal with the merits of what I say (as Sam has), as opposed to the merits of what others imagine I said. It’ll keep things in a better place, I think.
They are reasonable from which perspective? From the Sox because they can afford to give them. From the Yankees, sure they could also sign these contracts. But from most other teams, its not as ‘reasonable’.
Well, when I say “reasonable,” I mean from a value-per-win perspective. The Sox are going to pay $20 million per year each for a pair of 5-win players in a market in which wins are going for $5 million apiece. Likewise, both players seem as likely as any player could be given the lengths, to perform reasonably well over the duration of the contract.
Werth fails both those tests, and while I think Lee might be worth whatever dollar value he commands for the first year or two of his deal, it’s a pipe dream to expect him to last seven years, given his age.
Let’s remember which teams are creating this $5 million-per-win market. It wasn’t the Sox and the Yankees. It was the Tigers with Victor Martinez, the Marlins with John Buck, the Nats with Jayson Werth. It was whatever fool team signed Joquin Benoit to a three-year contract. If smaller-market teams find the cost of free agency “unreasonable,” then they need to focus their ire on the mid-market teams awarding big contracts to second- and third-tier players.
I don’t doubt that to a team like the Royals, they see the Sox spending this kind of money and think, “Just like the Yankees.” What I’m saying is that is an overly simplistic view because the Sox remain closer to the Tigers, Dodgers, Cubs and Mets than they are to the Yankees. The difference is they have slightly more money and are much better run than those other teams while they are differently run than the Yankees as a result of the financial gap between them. It’s far more complex than the “Just another Yankees” meme I’ve heard the last few days, not that I should expect complexity and nuance from most sportswriters.

“while I think Lee might be worth whatever dollar value he commands for the first year or two of his deal, it’s a pipe dream to expect him to last seven years, given his age.”
And you assume that Carl Crawford will be a 5 win player at the end of his contract too? Thats a pipe-dream as well. The Sox are paying for his decline years just the same as the Lee winner will be doing so for him. As much as I respect your analysis in general Paul, I really do believe that you dont look nearly as critically at the Sox front office moves as you do for others…

” It’s far more complex than the “Just another Yankees” meme I’ve heard the last few days, not that I should expect complexity and nuance from most sportswriters.”
Yes but at the same time, the Yankees MO is greatly simplified by almost everyone as “just throw money at free agents” which is also incorrect. It happens all around.

But couldn’t a win in 2015 might be worth $7M? What was a win worth six years ago, payroll-wise?
Absolutely, but in his statement, Paul basically said the Crawford contract is reasonable because Crawford wont get worse as he ages and the Lee contract will be an Albatross since its a pipe dream to believe he wont get worse as he ages. How is that not at least to some degree homerism?

All Im saying SF is that Ive seen articles that argue that Crawford’s speed are a reason to expect a decline from him and the fact that Lee is not a power pitcher, his stuff can last longer than most. (see: Moyer, Jamie)

But to try and say that he can’t compete is untrue.
I’m pretty sure nobody on this site has every said this dude.

And you assume that Carl Crawford will be a 5 win player at the end of his contract too? Thats a pipe-dream as well.
Crawford is also 3 years younger than Lee. The final 3 years of his contract he’ll be 33, 34 and 35. The final 3 years of Lee’s contract he’ll be 36, 37 and 38. That’s an enormous difference.

Absolutely, but in his statement, Paul basically said the Crawford contract is reasonable because Crawford wont get worse as he ages and the Lee contract will be an Albatross since its a pipe dream to believe he wont get worse as he ages.
Um, what?
I said, referring in part to Crawford: Likewise, both players seem as likely as any player could be given the lengths, to perform reasonably well over the duration of the contract.
That’s not saying he won’t decline; it’s saying (well, not explicitly saying this obviously) that his body type and skills are such that Bill James and others who have studied these things have shown that he should age “reasonably well.” (In fact, James published that study publicly, then did another one specifically for the Red Sox in relation to Crawford before the signing, according to Gordon Edes today.) It doesn’t mean that Carl Crawford at age 35 is going to be putting up the same numbers he will at age 29. Is that really what you thought I meant? I hope not.
But I’ll refer you to Dave Cameron’s post at Fangraphs, which factors in a decline of half a win per year for Crawford over the length of the contract. He finds baseball inflation need only increase 6 percent per year for the deal to hold its value, even in year 7. That convinced me that this is a reasonable deal. Expensive, yes, but reasonable, especially in light of the Werth contract.
Also, if Cliff Lee were 29, I’d be more hesitant about calling his durability through seven years a pipe dream. But the man is going to be 40 in his final season of that deal. Hey, it’s happened that a 39-year-old pitcher can pitch effectively over a full season, but it’s extremely unlikely.

But, lucky for NY, they don’t have any intention of him being productive seven years from now..They need him now, not down the road. Down the road, they’ll worry about down the road.

I do wonder what kind of insurance policies are carried for these deals, what can actually be insured. I imagine Lee’s premium is higher, which means something since actuaries are almost always right. That is what makes them such good Vegas linesmakers.

Actually, I disagree:
Per Rosenthal:
Cliff Lee and his agents were just seen entering the players parking lot at Texas Stadium.

Legit question:
Would the SFs here who are pretty sure that Lee will be a bad contract for the Yankees thus be happy if he takes a 7/$161 contract from the Yankees as it will hurt them in the long run?

@ Sam: Yes.
That being said, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Take a few seconds, and read through this article with Lee’s wife. Regardless of what most of the single guys around here think, this matters. A lot.
http://www.thirdage.com/news/cliff-lee-wife-struggle-through-sons-leukemia-diagnosis_10-20-2010?page=6#ixzz17jb2e2mW

“I know Paul…the Sox are small market and in no way in the same ballpark. I wonder if fans of the other 25 teams agree with your homer-centric opinion.
This is a strawman, and I’ve decided I’m only going to respond to posts that deal with the merits of what I say (as Sam has), as opposed to the merits of what others imagine I said. It’ll keep things in a better place, I think.”
Yes of course Paul…same MO as always. I’ll refrain from questioning your sweeping, and always 100% accurate posts moving forward.
Must be nice living in your ivory tower.

“”Am I completely off base with this line of thinking?”
Yes and no. Yes, these guys are wealthy, and can devote personal resources to their teams if they so chose. However, as individual businesses they have a fiduciary responsibility to their lenders, their partners, etc., and they cannot commingle dollars. It’s really complicated, and I am probably simplifying here terribly, but I don’t think it that simple.
The Sox and Yanks have tremendous baseball-driven resources, the team, real estate, and media. Anything outside those elements, at least to me, doesn’t really figure into my assessments. For either team.”
Thanks SF for at least trying to explain why my reasoning may be incorrect, instead of condescending. I appreciate that.
Isn’t the value of the team, and all the baseball-related activities, part and parcel to the owners actual value? How can the two be separate?
I don’t see how you can just remove a big part of what these guys are worth when talking about the business expenses of running the teams they own? But then turn around and say that you can’t look at the rest of their worth in terms of the money they can put back into their teams? Aren’t profits…profits? No matter where they come from? (and profits would be after all the expenses, including paying out dividends to stockholders?)

Are you guys unhappy with the actual contracts…i.e “that guy shouldn’t be making that kind of money playing a game!”

Yes of course Paul…same MO as always. I’ll refrain from questioning your sweeping, and always 100% accurate posts moving forward.
Must be nice living in your ivory tower.
Seriously, Krueg? Are you really going to bring the conversation down like this?

No Krueg, but you’re the only one bringing down the conversation by attacking individual users and calling them names.

As a lurking Sox Fan, I don’t think any contract for any amount could be considered a bad contract for the Yankees. Like the Sox, they have the ability to absorb those types of contracts. Listening to Cowherd on the way to lunch today he was saying that A-Rod will be owed what $25M in 2017 along with Lee’s $23M in 2017.
I’d like to see what the Yankee’s 2015-2017 salary structure will be compared to the Sox based on what is known today.
It’s not like the Yankees will start losing money in the next 5-7 years so these type of deals will hurt them in the long run.
Now, I’m sure this will probably hurt the Rangers. Committing about 20-25% of their payroll over 6-7 years must be tough to swallow.

“No Krueg, but you’re the only one bringing down the conversation by attacking individual users and calling them names.”
Understood Ath. Sorry I offended your sensibilities and I’m pretty sure I have capitulated at this point.
As I said, I’m refraining from commenting on his posts.
Anything else?

i’m confused…do sox fans want lee to sign a bad contract with the yankees that they’ll regret years down the road, or do they want lee to sign with texas to keep him away from the yanks?…i’m getting mixed messages…
i don’t think the yankees are worried about cliff lee in years 5-7…by then they’ll have a $300m payroll, the cheapest tickets will be $1000, and a beer will be $25…and aj burnout will be off the books…are the sox worried about gonzo’s shoulder or carl’s knees?…
krueg is just a little frustrated…i don’t blame him, and i share his frustration more often than not…we all have opinions and none of them are sacred…and frankly, none of them are wrong, just different…what gives this site its juice is that when you say something, you can and should expect to be challenged…as long as it doesn’t get personal…paul does have a problem with appreciating opinions that don’t at least run parallel with his, and all krueg did was call him on it…i don’t see a problem…

I don’t want Lee to sign with the Yankees because he is a good pitcher.
The contract stuff is fun to talk about, though, and also very interesting. But boiled down, I fear the pitching quality.

If Lee signs with the Yankees for, let’s say, $24M per season or so, in 2015 the Yankees will have $95M committed to 4 players (Tex, A-Rod, CC, and Lee). The Sox, if they sign Gonzo, will have $41M committed to two players (Crawford, Gonzalez) with a club option of $15M for a third player, Pedroia. Those are the two teams’ only commitments in 2015.
In fact, if you look at the Cots future salaries you can learn a lot just by seeing how salaries fall away, for the Sox it is a crystal view into why they may have jumped at players like Crawford and Gonzo, in their primes. They never would have signed these guys had they been a mere two years older, in my opinion.
For reference
Sox – http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tz8qHiYrIzlFtVnly7gibjw&output=html
Yanks – http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tpQLwiiQL4kzEzLhsUqVjLQ&output=html
I’d say neither team is all that constricted mid-decade, in any way, by who they signed or will sign during this month of December.

Isn’t the value of the team, and all the baseball-related activities, part and parcel to the owners actual value? How can the two be separate?
I don’t see how you can just remove a big part of what these guys are worth when talking about the business expenses of running the teams they own? But then turn around and say that you can’t look at the rest of their worth in terms of the money they can put back into their teams? Aren’t profits…profits? No matter where they come from? (and profits would be after all the expenses, including paying out dividends to stockholders?)
I guess as a business owner, though on a completely different and minute scale (I think my company’s annual billings are what Henry makes in a good quarter hour of trading), I get the separation. My own assets do not mix with my company assets. And only in a state of emergency would I address a shortfall in the business with personal assets. It is different when starting up a company – my initial contribution to the company was my own money, my own sweat equity as well. But once the company is viable, the personal contributions diminish and only in case of an emergency would I consider depleting personal assets for this purpose. And if the business is profitable then there is a decision about how much to plow back into the company versus how much to take out. I think this is probably the murky territory in which Henry, Hal/Hank lurk – how much do they plow back in to the business. And even in this case they can’t cavalierly just decide to plow everything back in (or even almost everything) just so they can sign a shiny new toy. As I stated earlier they have limited partners and fiduciary responsibilities.
So yes, Henry has a ton of money. And a lot of it may be liquid enough for him to say “hey, I really want to sign Bar Refaeli to play shortstop for the Sox, even though she costs eleventy trillion dollars to do so”, but as a good businessman with responsibilities to the company he probably wouldn’t ever do that.
Unless she’d play half-dressed, of course.

So after reading SF and krueg’s posts, now I’m curious about the worth of the Steinbrenner bros and John Henry in terms of assets they own and how much is intermingled with the teams they own.
John Henry’s is an futures and foreign exchange trader (thanks wikipedia) that owns the Sox, NESN, LFC, Rousch racing (NE Sports Ventures).
The interesting thing is the Steinbrenner googling turns up stories about him dying at the right time to avoid the estate tax (like anytime is a good time to die) but they show his worth at $1.1B and Wikipedia shows John Henry’s worth at….wait for it….$1.1B. Very interesting.

Oh and I more, of course I had to Google Bar Refaeli images. WOW.

“And I should have added the Hank/Hal own Yankees, the Stadium, YES (right?). Anything else?’
My heart.

Oh krueg, you romantic fool!!

Single game Sox tix go on sale tomorrow at 10AM, Crawford presser tomorrow at 10AM, coincidence, I think not!
Question is how fast they sell out.

Great action around here lately fellas. Just back from 2 weeks abroad but have been following as much as possible. I think Paul’s comments which started the bulk of the discussion on this thread are certainly reflective of his homerism, which is all fine and good given that we are all here due to our homerism, but it’s homerism in my view nonetheless.
How, for instance, one can assert with any certainty that a team has gone over its internal limits to sign a player is beyond me. Unless you’re sitting in the room with Cashman, Hal, and Randy L during their strategy sessions, how can you possibly say that the Yankees “were simply not going to go beyond six years — until the Sox signed Crawford, after which they added the seventh year”. How do you know they set a hard cap on six years and then just blew through it? Because there were reports that they were to stay at six (while in the midst of a negotiating process no less – we all know the degree to which statements and leaks made during such processes should be relied upon)?
And then the generalization, “the Yanks, certainly in this case, generally do what it takes, regardless of where they assess the player’s actual worth to the franchise”. Are you privy to the Yanks’ internal assessments of player-value? If not, you simply are in no position to make this statement.
This is quite apart from the almost-throwaway statement that Crawford’s contract is reasonable, as if this is simply accepted fact. A team that has hugely elevated OBP as a way to evaluate player-value just gave the 10th richest contract in baseball history (both in terms of total value and in terms of AAV) to a guy with a career OBP under .340. And has signed for 7 years a guy whose value on both sides of the plate – albeit truly considerable – is hugely dependent on his legs. If you combine his lack of slugging and his low OBP (his .781 OPS ranks him 84th in the league) there is no way – had the Yanks landed him with the exact same contract – that we wouldn’t have been hearing about these less flattering indicators of how “reasonable” or not the terms are.
To be clear, I fully expect Crawford to make the Sox substantially better for the next 4 and maybe 5 years, in no small part because he will be a menace on the basepads. And I would much rather the Yanks had signed him than Boston, even for the same exact terms.
But to blithely assert that this is a reasonable contract, to presume knowledge of a rival teams’ valuations of player talent and their internal limits — and to use both of these dubious assertions to compare and contrast the two teams’ approach to FA in such a way that makes the team you happen to root for look more reasonable is pretty unconvincing to put it mildly.

how ’bout that?
it’s kinda what we said krueg, but much more eloquent-a-elegantly…welcome home IH

Incidentally, Carl Crawford has never been a five win player in his career. His WAR last year was 4.8 and was close but was also his career high. He is also just three years removed from a 2.9 year. He had similar years before and after that too. ( one of which was effected by injury). The pont being he has had some variation in production in his 20s and there is no reason to assume that he is just a five win player and will be for next 7 years, especially insight of the fact that he has never been one. The so called reasonableness of the contract will appear much different if he puts up a bunch of sub 4 win seasons.

IH is like Yoda…only better looking.

Answered my own question, the magic of the Googles.

That article should be retitled “Once, Nearly Two Decades Ago, The Yanks Didn’t Get Their Man”.

AG is more like Han Solo…witty and dangerous!

“Their division rivals have fully loaded with arguably the best rotation in the AL…”
I think this is the great falacy of baseball. Is their rotation really THAT great? Besides Lester…none of their pitchers scare me. Beckett? Lackey? Dice-K? I don’t know but it seems we light these guys up more often than not…
Their offense certainly got better but ours is solid. Led the majors during a down year.
I have to think that Cash has a couple contingency plans in the works if this all falls apart, which I’m starting to think it might…who saw Graderson coming last year?

Buster Olney:
The Yankees have continued to be aggressive on C Russ Martin; would not be a surprise if we heard at any time of an agreement.
Does this mean something is up with Montero? Martin is an all-star and I doubt he would come in to back up? Maybe Lee signs, then trade Montero for Greinke too???
CC, Lee, Hughes, Greinke and AJ. Wow.

Yeah…Clay is good too. Not as good as Lester but certainly better than the other three in my humble opinion.
So Martin isn’t good enought to start? I have to think that Cervelli is the odd man out. He was pretty bad last year and we have some depth in the organization at catcher from what I’ve read.
Wishful thinking I guess!