the problem for the yankees is the lack of a plan B. its basically lee or bust. so they will vastly vastly overpay in years (and dollars) in order to land him. supposedly they talked to the twins about a trade for liriano but were given a prompt “no @$%&-ing way.”
Comment by phoenix2042 — December 9, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Would no surpise me to see 8 years when all is said and done.
Just a quick question on long term value between werth and lee, since in many ways, their careers have followed similar arcs.
through his age 28 season, werth averaged 2.2 WAR/year. In the three seasons since, he has averaged 5 WAR/year, good for the 8th, 8th and 10th best outfielder and 5th, 4th and 4th best right fielder in baseball during that time span.
through his age 29 season, lee averaged 2.0 WAR/year. In the three seasons since, he has averaged just under 7.0 WAR/year, good for 4th, 6th and 1st among starting pitchers, respectively.
Clearly, the last three seasons demonstrate a significant jump in production in players at the far end of their primes, making the sudden emergence of extraordinary talent highly unexpected. While Lee has clearly been better – both objectively and at his position – than Werth has been, which would justify paying him more, I don’t understand why there hasn’t been an extraordinary pre-emptive outcry over the potential number of years that is essentially starting AFTER a normal player’s prime is over? Will everyone roundly lambast the yankees if lee accepts their offer of 7 years, $165 million – or will that be a great signing because it is cliff lee? Just trying to understand the logic of contract evaluation because I have been unclear why werth’s contract is so bad (and if it is only bad because it is from the nationals and not the phillies, or another contender, I’d like that clarification too).
For the record, I have no problem with the crawford contract, seeing as since his age 23 season he has topped 4.5 WAR in 5 of 7 years, giving him a much firmer track record with a normal progression on a contract that starts in his prime. And I say this even as I’m surprised that he got that much yearly to begin with, but if the market demanded that number, I’d rather give him the years than either Werth or Lee…
Comment by miffleball — December 9, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
1. Yes. People will lambast the yankees for giving him 7 years. Absolutely.
2. THAT SAID. The Yankees are realistically a Cliff Lee away from winning the World Series (not guaranteed, the Sox are going to be good, anything can happen, yada yada short series yada yada). Therefore, they should be willing to pay more for marginal wins. The same cannot be said for the Nationals. At least for the next 2-3 years.
3. Lee will represent about 10% of the Yankee payroll. That’s a very different situation than Werth, who will take up, what 25% of the Nat’s payroll??
ive said it multiple times. The Rangers should just let Lee go to the Yankees. For a team just really blossoming they shouldn’t hamper themselves down with such a contract. Especially with him being 32. No guarantee that he ages like Pettitte.
Comment by drumzalicious — December 9, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Passan is garbage, he only rights unintelligent drivel to spark controversy which promotes readership. I can’t remember the last article that he wrote that I actually could enjoy or agree with. I don’t even bother reading his articles any more.
Also notice that there’s no commenting on any Yahoo! writers news articles (blogs, yes) but any AP reported articles there are. Why? They don’t want their writers being blasted every five seconds!
See, and that’s the thing…even if he DOES age gracefully like Pettitte he won’t be worth the massive contract that’s being discussed. Pettitte put up 5.8 wins in 2005, as a 33 year old. As year 1 of a theoretical 7 year deal, expecting a decline of .5 wins a season, he’d be expected to have delivered 27.3 wins to this point; in actuality he’s at 24.1. Using $5 million per win with 6% inflation this six year stretch, in current dollars, would work out to $136 million, meaning he’d need to earn $25 million–or ~4 wins counting inflation–to ‘earn’ his 7 year contract.
And that’s aging gracefully like Pettitte, who had already accumulated 42.8 WAR (4.28 per season) in ten rather steady years before his age 33 season, compared with the 29 WAR(4.14 per) in Lee’s up-and-down first 7 seasons (excluding 2 partial season to start his career).
In the end he’ll get huge money and perhaps a contract that doesn’t expire until he’s 40…I think it’s a HUGE risk for any team to take on, but while the Yankees can absorb some massive mistakes the Rangers can’t.
I’m guessing the market will say it stops at 7 years as only the Yankees have/will go beyond 6.
Steve’s points about marginal wins and percentage of payroll nails it. Even if it is a terrible “baseball” contract it could very well be just fine as a “Yankee” contract given their need for marginal wins and ability to absorb payroll.
I’m kinda surprised that so much attention is being given to Lee, especially with the 7-year contract thing looming.
Zack Grienke will be in the 2nd year of a 36M/4y contract and his team is open to trading him.
Rather than give Cliff Lee 130+/7, why not acquire Grienke? Any prospects lost could likely be replaced with ease by a team that can afford to acquire FA’s while prospects develop?
I would say the same thing NYY, BOS, LAA, and I guess TEX. I guess the natural thnking is that once Lee signs with NYY, TEX trades for Grienke. That might be one of the better things ever to happen to TEX.
Comment by CircleChange11 — December 9, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
I expect better from FanGraphs. The title made it sound like the Rangers signed Cliff Lee for 7 years.
Comment by King Bob — December 10, 2010 @ 12:27 am
Yes, he’s had a couple of tremendous, awesome years. But the fact of the matter is that he’s 32 years old and he’s suffered a number of different injuries. I don’t think anyone of them are extremely serious, but if he wasn’t durable in his 20s and early 30s, what makes these teams think that he will be durable in his mid- to late-30s?
A seven year contract will mean that he is signed at $20 million plus per year…until he’s fucking 39 years old!!!!!!!! Does that sound like a good investment for a pitcher who has been frequently sidelined by nagging injuries as a young man?
I honestly think that whoever acquires Lee will really, really regret the acquisition in the future.
Comment by Duaner (Dirty) Sanchez — December 10, 2010 @ 6:08 am
Here’s the thing — name a pitcher that’s had at least two consecutive superior seasons (preferrably three or four) that isn’t over thirty, doesn’t have some kind of health or mental issue in the past or present, and is available for acquisition.
It’s an f’ing short list, folks. I count zero. And yet, you need some good starters to win a World Series, so there’s a market.
If you made every team release every starting pitcher in baseball, who gets the biggest contract? I’m thinking Felix Hernandez, as that’s a pitcher I’d be willing to drop eight years and $200 million on. Even so, it’s risky as hell. Pitchers are like that.
Grienke can be added.. no, he didnt have a “great” year, but given all that was against him, it was above average, while last year, cy young. And, he is expected to maintain above average for some time. Dunno if ’10 was superior by your defination… but, in same category.
I don’t think anyone is saying Grienke is better than Lee.
I was only saying that he’s …  younger,  cheaper, and  not that inferior. To almost every other team that would be significant.
If my choices are overpaying for Lee, and really paying for it over the last 4 years of the deal, or acquiring Grienke for far less money, I’ll take the Grienke option.
The thing that has to factor in is that it is the NYY and the standard rules of smart FO moves do not apply. They can give Lee 170/8 or whatever, and if he starts to get terrible (relative to the money) after 4 years, they handle it. As long as they’ve won a WS or 2 during those early years of the deal, they count it as a success, and why shouldn’t they?
If I were Texas, I would try driving the price up on Lee, while really trying to acquire Grienke. Lee doesn’t pitch all that well in Texas (even with a Smallish Sample Size), and they likely cannot afford him anyway.
IMHO, Grienke’s mental stuff could easily be chalked up to youth. 3 Years ago Cliff Lee was demoted to the minor leagues. We’ve forgotten about that quite nicely. I think we can do the same with Grienke’s anxiety and depression.
At this point, the NYY want Cliff Lee. When the NYY want something, as our grandparents would say “wild horses couldn’t drag them from it”. They will sign Lee no matter what it takes. 150M? 180M?7y? 8y?
My point was that Grienke was probably a far better efficient option, but let’s not forget what team we’re talking about here. Efficiency is rarely a word they use.
Comment by CircleChange11 — December 11, 2010 @ 1:03 pm