When the world ends in 2012 this contract will look even better.

When the world ends in 2012 this contract will look even better.

Good point.

Why would the Yanks have to add $20 million to the deal when no one else had even approached their previous offer?

In any case, my preference would be for a two year deal with Sheets and a one year contract with Pettitte.  Sabathia, Sheets, Wang, Pettitte and Joba, with Hughes and Kennedy waiting in the wings looks good to me.  I especially like having two lefties in the new Yankee Stadium.

Why would the Yanks have to add $20 million to the deal when no one else had even approached their previous offer?

Perhaps someone did and we don’t know yet.  He did meet with the Red Sox this week.

Or perhaps Sabathia said, “I’d rather take less and go to the __________, unless you add $20 million.”

“i think i see blue…he looks GLORIOUS!!!”
Obviously, you’re not on the opposite side of CC from the sky.

SSF, I’m genuinely surprised at the unclever bitterness of your reaction.  (Not even taking into consideration your self-declared enthusiastic support for the RS vastly out-paying everyone to get the Matsuzaka opportunity.)  Beneath you, really.

“Of course he doesn’t, and now you’ve just guaranteed that he’ll post another screed about what a “happy camper” CC will be (compete with that amazingly clever nickname that he probably paid a four year old to come up with).”
SO on target!

The real value dollars of the most distant years of a contract this long must be negligible.  Unless you’re crazy enough to think that even baseball FA salaries are going to go into that new favorite American word, deflation.

On another note, wasn’t INflation supposed to be bad?  Wouldn’t that make deflation good?  (OK, I’m not entirely serious, but MY consumer confidence will certainly go up if prices go down!)

On another note, wasn’t INflation supposed to be bad?  Wouldn’t that make deflation good?  (OK, I’m not entirely serious, but MY consumer confidence will certainly go up if prices go down!)

The word of the day is stability.

I’m seeing Lowe for 68-72 million over 4 years.
Blech, hopefully just a carryover rumor from the CC signing.

On another note, wasn’t INflation supposed to be bad?  Wouldn’t that make deflation good?  (OK, I’m not entirely serious, but MY consumer confidence will certainly go up if prices go down!)

Certainly am not an economist (though I think we have a few here, so they’ll correct me), but deflation is generally *not* a good thing.  For example, if milk costs 1$ today, and tomorrow costs 95 cents, it saves you a nickel.  Are you really going to suddenly use that nickel to increase your spending elsewhere?  Probably not.  But to the grocery-store, that nickel on every unit of milk they’re losing may be enough that they’ll let go (or not hire) a worker.  Or if the nickel comes out of the supplier (the farmer), his margin gets thinner, and it doesn’t pay to produce as much milk, so he has less cows and needs less people to care for them.

I think inflation is considered good as long as it is small.  Somewhere in the 1%-2% range.  Large inflation is bad because people can’t afford to buy things.  Deflation is bad because there isn’t incentive to produce anything, which leads to high unemployment.

“A source told The Boston Globe the Red Sox are kicking the tires over offering Andy Pettitte a one-year contract to join the back end of their rotation”

???

I also read something about Lowe - 4 years/$66M.

I agree with IE - add Sheets for 2 years and Pettitte for 1 and you’ve got yourself a rotation.

Then Cashman has the rest of the winter to try to do some shuffling with the OF-1B situation.  It seems like, in this crazy market, he should be able to make something happen.

Deflation also works in this manner: if you know prices will continually go lower, why buy anything today?  This is rather pernicious for any economy that depends on consumer spending.  Japan’s economy over the past ten years is a perfect example of this.

“A source told The Boston Globe the Red Sox are kicking the tires over offering Andy Pettitte a one-year contract to join the back end of their rotation”

I’ll go out on a limb and say that there’s no way Pettitte will pitch for the Red Sox.. EVER>

Add sheets for 2 years OR Pettitte for one.

!why buy anything today”

Because you need the stuff?

Why would the Yanks have to add $20 million to the deal when no one else had even approached their previous offer?

It could have also been the years more than the $$‘s.  CC could really have said he can only see himself pitching until he’s 35, so he wants the contract to take him through then.  Yanks counter with, “more years, less $$‘s per year”.  No idea if that’s actually the case, but at one point ARod was supposedly negotiating use of a private plane with the Mets, so odder things have happened.

In any case, my preference would be for a two year deal with Sheets and a one year contract with Pettitte.

Sounds perfect.  Between Joba being limited in innings, and Wang and Sheets probably good for *one* injury (hopefully minor) each, and MC is right to be concerned about Pettitte missing some time…Hughes and IPK will each get least 10 starts (if they’ve earned it).  One of them replaces Pettitte in 2010, the other (or one of the other young pitchers) replaces Sheets in 2011.

With Sabathia signed, I wonder if we’ll now stop hearing about AJ Burnett? Or could they really want Sabathia *and* Burnett?

By 2011 McAllister, Betances, Brackman and Bleich will be knocking on the door as well.

And “even if you need the stuff” you can delay buying it for a bit (in the case of a new car, for example), if you believe the price will continue to drop.  Also, what about discretionary spending?

Because you need the stuff?

That’s true of needs.  And it seems in this economy that’s all we should be worrying about.  Fortunately for me at least, I can still be some wants (not as many as in the past).  So why should I buy a new Blu-Ray player today, if I’m pretty sure it will cost 10% less tomorrow?  Or 20% less next month?  And why would Sony want to make more if people aren’t buying them at a price that gives a decent profit-margin.

Also I think we need to look at inflation/deflation at a longer time than just yesterday/today.  E.g. using the milk example, if on 01/01/2008 the unit of milk cost 80 cents, and it went up 25% to 1$ on 08/01/2008, you may think deflation is good if the price comes down to 85 cents on 12/31/2008.  Over the course of the year though, milk increased in price by 2.5%, which isn’t bad for inflation.  I’m not sure if many economists would focus on the 5 month period and say that milk was deflationary for 2008 (though to be honest, they may focus more on quarters to look at trends).

I couldn’t resist the “stuff” comment, IE, but I did start with “not serious” - specifically to avoid the economics discussion.  I’m not genuinely arguing against your point.

on inflation, the problem is cycle, a growing ecnomy (i.e good times) usually will cause prices to go up steadily because…

worker gets raise -> he spend more money -> demand goes up -> prices go up -> factory gest more order and/or make more money -> give raise to worker

this is a very basic economic cycle, obviously then, the reverse cycle is usually not good.

prices goes down -> factory make less money -> cut wages and /or workers - > workers spend less -> demand goes bad -> lower pirces even more.

of course, there are a lot of other factors involved in economic cycle, but the basic premise remains the same, prices go up because demand go up, demand go up usually because your making more money.

so inflation isn’t really a bad thing at all, at least when it’s reasonable. the problems of inflation come when it either happens too fast and/or a very significant amount of the population’s wages didn’t go up despite prices going up.

By 2011 McAllister, Betances, Brackman and Bleich will be knocking on the door as well.

... which is exactly the point you want to get to with your farm system. Great talent knocking at the door (no matter what position), so you can start trading things to fill in the holes that you have at the big league level. It’d be nice for the Yankees to not be motivated buyers for a change.

By 2011 McAllister, Betances, Brackman and Bleich will be knocking on the door as well.

Yep.  They’ll also be having to make a decision about Wang in that timeframe as well (FA after 2010 I think).  So if everything comes up roses and CC is still pitching like an Ace, Joba, Hughes, and IPK are all being effective, and one of the pitchers you mentioned has shown some success in 2010, they can afford to let Wang walk and take the picks and save the money for elsewhere.

It’d be nice for the Yankees to not be motivated buyers for a change.

I think the Yankees will always be motivated buyers.  It would be nice for them to 1) only be motivated to fill ONE specific need, as opposed to now when they need 2 SP, at least one more bat, and possibly another player on the bench as well and 2) their motivation is for a short-term solution, e.g. maybe in 2012 they need a SS to fill the position for 1-2 years until a player in the minors who is tearing up AA is ready.

Wow, Pete Abe must have slept in. His fellow writers are all over this Sabathia deal.

If Betances and Brackman stay healthy, learn to consistently repeat their deliveries and limit the walks, it would be like adding two right handed versions of David Price to their rotation.  Obviously, a lot of things have to fall into place for that to happen, but couple them with a healthy Joba Chamberlain and the Yanks could really be looking at some dominating pitching at some point in the near future.

I think the Yankees will always be motivated buyers.

Well, what I mean is, in the situation that IE mentioned for 2011, if they had a rotation of Wang, Sabathia, Hughes, Kennedy and Chamberlain, with Brackman, Bleich, Betances, and McAllister pushing the envelope, and assuming that only half of those guys reach their ceiling, they can turn those guys into other hard to find commodities, like a young catcher that can hit, a young SS that can hit, or a young CF that can hit, instead of having hand out huge contracts to players on the wrong side of 30. They’ve rarely had pieces that could accomplish those things that were, at the same time, superfluous. That’s what I think Cashman’s ultimate goal is, and it’ll be fun watching it unfold (if it does.)

I think Don is weeping softly into a pillow.

Pete Abe & the NYT haven’t reported this yet at all.
Strange.

Pete Abe is sleeping in after a wild night, and getting scooped.

Are you kidding?  Don is going to have so much fun writing “Flabathia” in the coming years that he will be crying tears of laughter.

Deflation is good for savers, bad for debtors.  Good for teams without high fixed costs (essentially the same as debt) and bad for teams with long-term obligations.  The Yanks have 2 huge LT obligations now- the good news is they have a lot of contracts coming off so if there is a deflation they can resign the rest of the team for much cheaper over the next 2-3yrs…and lock them in just in time for the huge inflation we will eventually have. 

Deflation is good- you can buy things for cheaper so your real (real is basically a term for: the purchasing power of) savings/wages are rising.  Of course if you have a lot of debt it is bad.  But say you are a Co. that sells 100 widgets for $100 and then prices decline 2% next year.  You will still invest in your business if it means you can sell 104 widgets for $98 as your revenues will now be $10,192 vs. $10,000 previously.  Same with a flat screen TV- if I really want a flat screen I’m not going to hold off a year just because I think prices will fall 2%.  In fact, prices have fallen much more than that historically.  If we start from scratch Deflation is GOOD…the problem is we already have an economy geared to inflation (individuals and companies carry debt, contracts are fixed and not downwardly flexible, etc.).  Also, govts and business prefer confiscation of wealth via inflation to increased taxation b/c people don’t notice it as much.

Oh and NO DEREK LOWE.  That big-beaked Pettitte better just sign for $12M and call it a day.  He owes us for loyalty.  If he leaves never invite him back.

...a wild night wolfing down In N Out burgers.  Oh, the life of a sportswriter.

In a way, I believe the flirtations with all the non-Sabathia pitchers are meant to focus the mind of Pettitte’s agent.

Anyone else feel like this was Xmas morning? I went to sleep last night after reading about Cashman’s trek to SF, and had visions of CC dancing in my head (not the prettiest sight).  I wake up and head straight to the computer, and it’s blown up!  I was so excited, I let out this weird noise, and my girlfriend thinks I’m insane.

And [re] deflation, another thing you have to consider is the fact that this economy is quite leveraged, so deflation means paying back creditors with higher-value dollars.  It can cause more defaults, which feeds the cycle.  It’s all about feedback loops, as RollingWave mentioned.

Re: any future posters on economics - “NOT SERIOUS” in original post!
Stop, already.

This is the best day of the year for me. Can’t tell you how happy I am.

Now I think that we have to sign 3 more FA: One year deal to Pettitte, 2 year deal to Sheets and 3 year deal to Dunn.

feedback loops

Trust a biology student to drag feedback loops into it.  *shiver*

Deflation is horrible b/c of the effect on debt.

All debt (mortgages, corporate bonds, loans, etc.) is in nominal terms, $X.

If prices and wages fall, that debt goes up in real terms, b/c individuals and compnaies have less earnings to pay their debt.  This drives many corporations and people into bankruptcy.

(Sigh.)

Anyone else feel like this was Xmas morning? I went to sleep last night after reading about Cashman’s trek to SF, and had visions of CC dancing in my head (not the prettiest sight).  I wake up and head straight to the computer, and it’s blown up!  I was so excited, I let out this weird noise, and my girlfriend thinks I’m insane.

I was giggling with anticipation last night. My roommate looked at me like I was crazy, so I informed him of my confidence that the Yankees were going to sign CC Sabathia. He looked at me blankly and I sighed, realizing that none of my friends like baseball.

Unfortunately the fact that the Yankees almost definitely have signed CC is muted by the fact that I have an art history exam in 5 hours. Ugh.

Trust a biology student to drag feedback loops into it.

Hey, I’m an organic chemist, not a biologist.  I just deal with things that give you cancer.  Self-replicating things scare me.

Don’t worry WP, we’re just having fun with this discussion.  It’s an interesting one to think about in regards to the effects that it has on baseball in general.

My bad, Puj.  Thought you were a fellow mouse-torturer.

Please table the deflation discussion.  This is not a certainty, and seemingly an equal number of economists are worried about hyper-inflation, which is the complete opposite problem. 

That said, you have to like the Sabathia signing.  He and Teix were the two elite players available on the free agent market and therefore worth paying for (even in a sketchy economy).  As for the seven years, that’s just the premium you have to pay to get a player who has (i) elite talent and (ii) no incentive to play for you besides the $$$.

Signing C.C. should remove the urgency to sign another innings eater.  It should also remove the urgency to sign another free agent to a large and long contract.

They should be looking at Pettitte (1 year) and Sheets (for 2 years) right now.  If they can’t get both Sheets and Pettitte (they can get at least one of them) then they should either think about using Hughes/Aceves in the rotation or going with someone like Byrd. 

With C.C. done Lowe and A.J. should be completely off the table, especially if you have to overpay for them.

SSF, I’m genuinely surprised at the unclever bitterness of your reaction.  (Not even taking into consideration your self-declared enthusiastic support for the RS vastly out-paying everyone to get the Matsuzaka opportunity.) Beneath you, really.

Huh? Seriously, humor dude.

CC’s deal has an opt-out clause.

Thoughts?

I tend to view it as a good thing.  Let’s say the next wave of young pitching is ready by then.  If he does well and wants to leave after 3 years (and hopefully a couple of WS rings), bid him a fond adieu and move on. Everyone’s happy.

Yeah, Christmas came early.

Pettitte will never, ever pitch for Boston.

One of the writers for THT seems a bit stupid.

Throwing out some name of guys we may want and who we could give up for them:

Maybe want: Adrian Gonzalez, Jody Gerut (can he play a good CF), Kemp (CF?), Ethier, Beltre (1B?), Ichiro, Bedard, Tejada (2b? 1b?), Kaz Matsui, Ryan Freel (2B, CF?), Brandon Phillips, Dan Uggla, Cody Ross, Jeremy Hermida

Trade chips: Matsui, Cano, Nady, Hughes, IPK, Betances, Brackman, Bleith, Rasner, Veras, Edwar, Bruney, Robertson, Aceves, Coke, Sanchez, Albaladejo, Melky, Catching prosepcts, other prospects.

Who, if anyone, would you get and what would it realistically take to get them?

Rasner is no longer a Yankee…

Didn’t Freel just get traded?

I’m not liking what I’m hearing- 7 years and an opt-out clause is awful- all the risks of having a long fixed cost (debt) in a defaltionary economy and none of the benefits if the inflation/hyperinflation scenario plays out (under that scenario SP’s will probably fetch $30M+).  Bad business.

I thought they’d have been wiser about the opt-out clauses by now.
By the way, the link doesn’t seem to open, YM.

Re: any future posters on economics - “NOT SERIOUS” in original post!
Stop, already.

Too late.  It has a life of its own!

Hmm, let me try again:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AjD7DmYdjMGGzmnzTAuYqt85nYcB?slug=ti-sabathiayankees121008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Sabathia can opt out after three years.  That’s what it boils down to.

Mike K- if you want to discuss what a marginal win is worth and therefor how much to sign a player for you are entering into a discussion on economics.

That worked, YM.  Thanks!

SSF, I’m sure you meant it that way, but the tired money jokes Pavlovian-ly thrown at every NYY deal - just go back and see what it looks like, really.  In any event, I don’t mean to be unsocial, your participation here is a good and welcome thing.  You know.  No biggie.

Sabathia can opt out after three years.  That’s what it boils down to.

I would have rather had team options that become player options if the player hits certain milestones.  I believe they did that with Cone after the 1995 season.  Basically, gives the player the option of leaving if they are pitching well enough that they feel they can get big money elsewhere.  But also protects the team if the player isn’t playing well.  I certainly understand why CC wouldn’t like that, but still.

$69 in three years before the opt-out.  That would seem to mean that it’s somewhat back-loaded.  Which means that, if he opts out, NYY have gotten 3 good years out of him for less than Santana money (& no lost prospects).  For him to get the silly money, he has to stay the course.  Of course, the way it’s set up, we might really, really not want him to, if it comes to that.

The opt-out also gives him the impetus to do really well so that he can snag another mega deal.  You know, comfort for those* who think that once an athlete gets that huge contract he basically packs it in.

*Not me.

Which means that, if he opts out, NYY have gotten 3 good years out of him for less than Santana money (& no lost prospects)

Exactly.  I fail to see how this is a bad thing (unless he blows out his elbow signing the contract, of course).

I did not like the opt out claude, but you can’t have it all.

I think that the offseason plan just got easier. We have to sign 2 more pichers, right? I hope those two will be Pettitte (10 million for one year) and Sheets (30 million por 2 years). Then we have to add a bat. If we trade Matsui, then we’ll have no problem to sign Dunn, but even if we can’t move Matsui I think we should sign Dunn as he is a good bat who could play the OF and 1st base, signing him will give us depth in the lineup. Remember that Matsui and Damon are fragile and Nady is not that good. Also note that Dunn is going to be cheap (40/4) and he costs no picks.

Also I think we need to look at inflation/deflation at a longer time than just yesterday/today.

Yes.  And you need to look at more than just yesterday/today to even know if there is an deflation happening.  People are all freaked about a 1% drop in the CPI in October.  But every bit of that drop is in energy costs, which had been rather hyper-inflated over the previous year or so.

Adrian Gonzalez, Jody Gerut (can he play a good CF), Kemp (CF?), Ethier, Beltre (1B?), Ichiro, Bedard, Tejada (2b? 1b?), Kaz Matsui, Ryan Freel (2B, CF?), Brandon Phillips, Dan Uggla, Cody Ross, Jeremy Hermida

MHO (in order named): not available, pass, not available, not a center fielder, pass, not available, not available until mid-season, NO!, pass, pass, and the rest would probably cost too much in prospect to be worth it.  Also, Matsui is not tradeable for any of these guys (and may not be tradeable at all), and the Yankees cannot afford to trade any catching prospects any time soon.

<i>Exactly.  I fail to see how this is a bad thing (unless he blows out his elbow signing the contract, of course).<i>

In which case we’d still have to pay him even if there was no opt out clause. 

If we could get him for a 3 year $69M deal now everyone would be doing cartwheels.

I’m OK with: CC, Wang, Joba, Pettitte, Hughes/IPK/etc.

Some video of our new ace:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809103450814&c_id=mil

Or just pick one from here:

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player_media.jsp?player_id=282332

Didn’t see Phil there anywhere, yankz.  What gives?

In which case we’d still have to pay him even if there was no opt out clause.

If we could get him for a 3 year $69M deal now everyone would be doing cartwheels.

Bingo.

Not much great video of Phil out there…yet.

Opt-outs only limit the upside of the contract for a team.  They don’t increase the downside risk at all, so I’m okay with it for Sabathia.  I’m fairly happy with the upside of three years of Sabathia at ~$70M.  I guess you now have to balance that upside versus the downside risk of his legs breaking in half or arm falling off, but I think I still take it.

If we get him for only 3 and $39 it means he opted out at the advice of his agent and we will prob have to pay him 6 more for $180 to keep him.  If he doesn’t opt out he is probably not worth the remainder of his contract.

If Sabathia is pitching well, the extra year becomes a bit of leverage against the opt-out.  Other teams will have to exceed 4/$92M instead of just 3/$71M to make it worth his while.

We should dance in the streets if the Yankees get 600+ innings of >=130 ERA+ and then somebody else gives CC 7/$140 to have him through his age 38 season.

Are you kidding?  Don is going to have so much fun writing “Flabathia” in the coming years that he will be crying tears of laughter.

Naah, I do think Don, even though he disagrees with most of us, is as committed a Yankee fan as there is one. If he disagrees with Sabathia signing, it is because he has his reasons (which may or may not be very relevant) for believing that it is bad for the team.

If we could get him for a 3 year $69M deal now everyone would be doing cartwheels.

But that’s not how this is going to play out.  The opt out is a player only option.  It’s a source of non-monetary value for the player.

If CC doesn’t like NY he opts out.  If he does like it here and has pitched well then he will threaten to opt out during the season and will wind up getting an extension of 2-3 years.

That opt out gives him massive leverage to demand an extension to the age of possibly 36-37.

There is no advantage of this to the yanks.

There is no advantage of this to the yanks.

Except that they may have enough pitching developed by then to not need Sabathia anymore.

If he doesn’t opt out he is probably not worth the remainder of his contract.

Not necessarily.  It’s certainly possible that not opting out means that he isn’t worth what he’s still owed, but it is also possible that the opt-out really is there in case his family is unhappy with him being in NYC.  Further, it’s possible that he pitches well enough to earn his money in the next three years and project to be worth it for a few more, while not pitching quite like a HOFer in his prime and creating such a market for his services that he’d be foolish not to opt-out even if he absolutely loves playing for the Yankees and his wife is making I heart NY commercials.

$69 in three years before the opt-out.  That would seem to mean that it’s somewhat back-loaded.

The two halves are basically even by AAV. $69M for the first three years is $23M per. The remaining 4 years at $91M is slightly less than that per year. It remains roughly the same if you were to assume something like what Mike K. suggested in the last thread, $135M/6, $25M option/$5M buyout.

SSF, I’m sure you meant it that way, but the tired money jokes Pavlovian-ly thrown at every NYY deal - just go back and see what it looks like, really.  In any event, I don’t mean to be unsocial, your participation here is a good and welcome thing.  You know.  No biggie.

Pete, I appreciate your being civil about this. I just don’t remember what I said that you’re responding to. I think this is a huge price tag but otherwise a reasonably safe bet by the Yankees, which I hope takes them out of the Teixeira game. I don’t think I’ve been critical of the deal at all.

If C.C. isn’t healthy they we would have to pay him anyway.  The only way he opts out is if he is healthy and pitching well for 3 years. 

Would you really be upset if you were able to sign C.C. to a 3 year deal right now that would carry him from age 28-30 AND guarantee his health over those 3 years?

If we could get out of a commitment for the 31+ plus years at a high price it’s a bonus.  Let him walk after 3.

There is no advantage of this to the yanks.

Sure there is.  If Sabbathia and/or his family are unhappy, he becomes highly motivated to suck it up and pitch his heart out to make sure that he will get high dollar offers from teams closer to home.

Except that they may have enough pitching developed by then to not need Sabathia anymore.

Bingo.  I’m rooting for him to opt out.

Guys, here’s what the opt-out boils down to, and it’s not a good thing for the Yankees.

There are two possible scenarios.  EITHER:

A) Sabathia pitches well, and thinks he will earn better than the 4 years, $91 million (I think) remaining on his contract.  In which case, he opts out.  Then the Yankees either pony up a ton more money (considering salary inflation) and years, or lose a pitcher who’s been very good.

or

B) Sabathia is injured or ineffective, in which case he doesn’t opt out and the Yankees are on the hook for 4 more years at nearly $20 million per year on an albatross contract.

Basically, what an opt-out does is give the pitcher complete control over the contract.  If it’s in the team’s interest to keep him, the player opts out.  If it’s in the team’s interest to jettison him, the player stays.  Either way, bad for the team.

3-yr opt-out: Not optimal, but hey, if it gets you CC, it can’t be that bad. It means that he either does well and can justify a raise, in which case you guys will be happy, or he doesn’t justify a raise and you’ll all be hoping he tries his luck with someone else and take the draft picks. With another team this kind of clause would be troubling, if the raise would destroy the team’s ability to do other things, but not for the Yanks. And it’s better than seeing him pitching for someone else, right?

SSF, why are you ignoring the fact that in 3 years the Yankees might have options other than CC and will not NEED to resign him should he opt out?  Sure, if he’s spectacular, great.  Thanks for the championships, good luck on the WC.  Then they plug in other, CHEAPER, internal pitching options.

Obviously all that depends on those pitching options actually developing like we want and expect them to, but considering the glut of young pitchers we’ve got coming up (not counting Joba, Hughes, Wang), at least 1 or 2 of them are a good bet to be ready 3 years from now.

Also, your choice (B) in [86] would be true even if Sabathia didn’t have an opt-out.  So that point is kind of moot.

er… not all Sox fans think this much alike.

SSF, why are you ignoring the fact that in 3 years the Yankees might have options other than CC and will not NEED to resign him should he opt out?

Because I’m on a conference call…

There is a scenario where it is both good for the team and the player to part ways.  That’s what I’m rooting for.  I hate long term free agent pitching contracts. I’m going to be openly rooting for him to opt out and the Yankees to let him walk after 3 years. Hopefully Joba will have established himself as an ace by then and we will have developed enough pitching internally that we don’t care if he leaves.

If Sabbathia and/or his family are unhappy, he becomes highly motivated to suck it up and pitch his heart out to make sure that he will get high dollar offers from teams closer to home.

CC threw a ridiculous number of innings for a Brewers team that treated him like a rental player. He comes up with a sore elbow trying to pitch that rental team into the playoffs then he loses tens of millions of dollars.

There’s no evidence that CC will not give maximum effort to the team he’s playing for, particularly one that is already paying him $23M.

The opt out gives him leverage to seek an extension or leave.  It’s not going to create any significant marginal improvement in his performance.

It could mean the difference between the yankees paying him $23M/yr until the age of 37 until the age of 35 however.

The opt out may have just been the price of doing business. If CC was making it a requirement of any team intersted in him - so be it.  The advantage to the yankees of including it was that it enabled them to sign him.  Which is obviously no small matter.

But there’s no long term benefit of that clause to the yankees.  Just as there was no long term value of the opt out clause to the Rangers/ Yankees with ARod’s opt out, none to the Dodgers with JD Drew’s and none to the Jays with Burnett’s opt out.

SSF is OK but this guy has to go- there is only room for a token Sux fan.

A) Sabathia pitches well, and thinks he will earn better than the 4 years, $91 million (I think) remaining on his contract.  In which case, he opts out.  Then the Yankees either pony up a ton more money (considering salary inflation) and years, or lose a pitcher who’s been very good.

This scenario totally depends on back-up plans. Pitching is something the Yankees are consciously developing not like if A-Rod opts out, the next best internal option is something like Marcos Vecchionacci. Joba/Phil could become what CC is today, and Brackman could be the next Joba. All this simultaneously happening is probably a bit wishful thinking, but I believe Yankees are less at risk by offering an opt-out to CC than a position player, where they lack depth.

So this is not necessarily a bad scenario for the team. Remember, pitchers have a high attrition rate, and Sabathia opting out potentially can reduce Yankee exposure to his not so good years (which is to be expected regardless of how he pitches in the first three years, and whether he opts out or not). Which is another thing to consider.

The year of the buyer: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cc-sabathia-signs-with-yankees

LETS BUY CASHMAN

I think Sun Tzu said something about leaving tomorrow for tomorrow. The Yankees won today, and whatever happens in three years is subject to too many variables to worry about. Assuming Cashman is around and Hank is sane, they’ll deal with it.

If after 3 yrs Sabathia is worth more than his contract but had no opt-out (meaning he would opt out if he could but he can’t) and the yankees has young pitching ready to go then they would be in the fantastic position of having young pitching and a veteral star to trade.  If he opts out they only have the young pitching (that may not even materialize).

The “suck it up” part was just as important as the “pitch his heart out” part.  It’s the counter to Don’s “unhappy camper” meme, where Sabathia is so miserable that he can’t muster the will to drag his ever-expanding butt to the mound, and becomes such a distraction that the clubhouse becomes a giant sinkhole of despair.

With the opt-out, he’s got something to live for.

@88:

Yeah, you have a point if you’re looking at it from that perspective.  But this is in comparison to a contract that gives the TEAM the option in both scenarios.  These contracts are rare, but Magglio Ordonez has a contract with the Tigers in which they can opt out in case of injury, as do the Red Sox with J.D. Drew.  (Although even then, both are, I believe, opt-out-able only in the case of one particular kind of injury).)

Point is, a player opt-out partway into a contract is the absolute worst type of contract given out from a team perspective, since it gives the player complete control of the contract.  No matter what happens, the player gets the ability to do whatever’s in his economic interest halfway through the contract, which is, by definition, what is NOT in the team’s economic interest.

I’m not trying to say that the opt-out makes the deal terrible, or anything like that.  Sabathia’s as sure a thing as you get for pitchers (for what that’s worth).  Opt-outs hasn’t worked out well for teams recently (imagine how much better off the offending team would be if Drew, A-Rod, or Burnett hadn’t had the option to opt-out), but maybe it won’t turn out too badly for the Yankees.

However, trying to spin an opt-out in any way as a good thing is rose-colored glasses at its best.

f he opts out they only have the young pitching (that may not even materialize).

Only?

At any rate, SSF is right.  Let’s wait and see how it shakes out in 3 years.