2010-2011 Hot Stove Thread

[Dan Gould]

From the Times blog post:

Close, in turn, has called the Yankees’ approach “baffling,’’ because it does not, from his point of view, reward Jeter sufficiently for all he has done for the Yankees and their championship tradition over the last decade and a half.

What fucking "reward" should he get? He was already paid 18.9 million dollars every year for ten years(and the Yankees only won one world championship and made two other trips to the World Series under this contract, so in fact you could say that by the Yankee definition of success, Jeter was already gross over-paid, or paid for prior performance, too - how long do the Yankees have to pay for prior performance?). And he was already rewarded with further untold millions in endorsement contracts big and small, just for being the best known player in the biggest market in the country.

But I'm loving this fight because it shows every ounce of arrogance Jeter possesses. He gives the most vanilla interviews in the world, but deep inside that Yankee soul dwells the ego of Reggie and Bernie Williams and many others who could never deal with reality and showed their truest colors as they aged themselves out of the game.

[Dave James]

Bill Simmons from ESPN was talking to his Yankee friend Jack-O on the B.S. Report the other day and they got into the possibility of the Red Sox making a play for Jeter. Just upping the ante like they did with Bernie Williams a few years back. They could offer him $75 million for three years and really put the Yankees on the spot. Not to mention the fact that the Sox could use a shortstop. It's not like John Henry couldn't afford it. Just think of the size of the mark he'd leave in Yankee fans everywhere. I think it would almost be worth it to him just to see the reaction.

[JSngry]

or else they'll come up with some convoluted, "creative" deal...

reward Jeter sufficiently for all he has done for the Yankees and their championship tradition over the last decade and a half.

What fucking "reward" should he get?

Three year deal w/a mandatory retirement clase upon completion, with five years thereafter commiting to renaming the team the New York Jeters, the stadium Derek Park, with A-Rod being forced to wear the name A-HOLE in big pink letters on the back of his uniform every Sunday road game & every post-season one.

I say Jeter takes that deal. I know I would. In fact, Fed-Ex me the papers right now!

[Jazzmoose]

This is as much of a dream as David's A-Rod scenario, but I'd like to see the Yankees say "you know, baseball really can't take much more of this, and we've decided to tighten our belt a bit and let Jeter explore his options elsewhere..." Even $20M a year is too much for more than a couple of years.

[Dan Gould]

The very latest:

Jeter's side, the source said, has proposed a five-year deal worth between $22 million-$24 million per year, down from the $25 million average annual value that a six-year, $150 million contract represents.

With the Yankees' initial offer standing at three years, $45 million, these new parameters would still represent a gap of between $65 million-$75 million between the parties. Jeter, 36, who is coming off his worst season in the majors, just finished a contract that paid him $189 million over 10years, including $21 million in 2010.

More

The question that occurs to me is, if Jeter has such a completely outrageous belief about what he should be paid and for how long, what are the odds he is even remotely prepared for any discussion of what position he plays? Everyone in the known universe except Jeter and his lackeys know that he can't stay at SS, yet here he is demanding 5 years & huge dollars and I'll bet that he will never entertain the notion that he won't be a SS throughout this contract.

The Yankees better be making dollars hand over fist from the Stadium built around the little league field. Otherwise they'll never survive the plethora of awful contracts they have or will be signing. A-Rod at 30 million a year when he's 39 and older? Jeter "manning" shortstop at 41. And maybe Cliff Lee in traction while he's "earning" 25 million a year at age 37?

Over/Under on the Yankee payroll reaching 250 million?

I say three years.

[Brad]

In today's Times they reported he is asking, reportedly for $24 to $25 a year for five. The reporter noted that a possible compromise might be 4 years at $19 a year.

I don't think it's worth it but he has meant a lot to the franchise. On the other hand I thought we paid people in this society for future performance. If he gets a big payday, I need to have a conversation with my boss

[JSngry]

I don't think it's worth it but he has meant a lot to the franchise. On the other hand I thought we paid people in this society for future performance. If he gets a big payday, I need to have a conversation with my boss

Seriously -the "future performance" thing is very much how labor gets paid. Less so management, where a promotion is often seen as a reward for past performance. The Yankees & Jeter should be talking about how much Jeter has meant to the franchise, and what Derek can look forward to in his life after baseball that allows him to still represent the franchise with his and their luster intact.

[Tim McG]

Close is already denying that that's their starting point, but I might not be so surprised, if they're ultimately hoping to simply continue Jeter at his present salary for at least four more years. Part of what's making this process so "messy" is that the Internets are perched on and quickly reporting every word or rumor concerning this and any other significant free-agent situation...but especially this one, given that it's Jeter and the Yankees.

OTOH if that's close to what Jeter and Close really ultimately want, they're over-the-moon crazy, and Jeter would be well advised to take a long, hard look at how things played out for Johnny Damon last year. (I know Jeter is an Iconic Yankee and all that, but away from NY he's not going to find much more, objectively speaking, on the market than Damon did.) I think NY will eventually move to a 4 yr/70 million offer, or else they'll come up with some convoluted, "creative" deal that compensates Jeter down the road in some manner. If Jeter doesn't accept that, then good luck finding a better or equivalent deal elsewhere. IMO he's certainly losing the publicity battle, especially in light of the NY Daily News story to which Dan linked. (And I'm sure I don't have to tell you this hasn't gone over well at Pinstripe Alley.)

EDIT: the NY Times says he wants 4-5 years at 23-24 million a year and suggests that an "obvious compromise" would be almost exactly what I've speculated, in the neighborhood of 4 years/76 million, with Jeter making a tad more than what he makes now annually...but it also goes on to suggest that NY might not ultimately be willing to offer that much.

Two concerns that have baffled me for decades:

#1 Just how much money does a player have to make to play a kid's game anyway? I mean, when Huff inked a $22 million dollar deal with the Giants, the press used words like "only" and treated the dollar amount as if it were no big amount of money. Um...huh?

#2 Since when do the Steinbrenners give a rat's ass about how much they pay their players? Suddenly, they have grown a conscience? Please.

This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

Edited November 27, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[paul secor]

Close is already denying that that's their starting point, but I might not be so surprised, if they're ultimately hoping to simply continue Jeter at his present salary for at least four more years. Part of what's making this process so "messy" is that the Internets are perched on and quickly reporting every word or rumor concerning this and any other significant free-agent situation...but especially this one, given that it's Jeter and the Yankees.

OTOH if that's close to what Jeter and Close really ultimately want, they're over-the-moon crazy, and Jeter would be well advised to take a long, hard look at how things played out for Johnny Damon last year. (I know Jeter is an Iconic Yankee and all that, but away from NY he's not going to find much more, objectively speaking, on the market than Damon did.) I think NY will eventually move to a 4 yr/70 million offer, or else they'll come up with some convoluted, "creative" deal that compensates Jeter down the road in some manner. If Jeter doesn't accept that, then good luck finding a better or equivalent deal elsewhere. IMO he's certainly losing the publicity battle, especially in light of the NY Daily News story to which Dan linked. (And I'm sure I don't have to tell you this hasn't gone over well at Pinstripe Alley.)

EDIT: the NY Times says he wants 4-5 years at 23-24 million a year and suggests that an "obvious compromise" would be almost exactly what I've speculated, in the neighborhood of 4 years/76 million, with Jeter making a tad more than what he makes now annually...but it also goes on to suggest that NY might not ultimately be willing to offer that much.

Two concerns that have baffled me for decades:

#1 Just how much money does a player have to make to play a kid's game any way? I mean, when Huff inked a $22 million dollar deal with the Giants, the press used words like "only" and treated the dollar amount as if it were no big amount of money.

#2 Since when do the Steinbrenners give a rat's ass about how much they pay their players? Suddenly, they have grown a conscience? Please.

This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

What are we thinking about, to concern ourselves with any of this?

[Tim McG]

Close is already denying that that's their starting point, but I might not be so surprised, if they're ultimately hoping to simply continue Jeter at his present salary for at least four more years. Part of what's making this process so "messy" is that the Internets are perched on and quickly reporting every word or rumor concerning this and any other significant free-agent situation...but especially this one, given that it's Jeter and the Yankees.

OTOH if that's close to what Jeter and Close really ultimately want, they're over-the-moon crazy, and Jeter would be well advised to take a long, hard look at how things played out for Johnny Damon last year. (I know Jeter is an Iconic Yankee and all that, but away from NY he's not going to find much more, objectively speaking, on the market than Damon did.) I think NY will eventually move to a 4 yr/70 million offer, or else they'll come up with some convoluted, "creative" deal that compensates Jeter down the road in some manner. If Jeter doesn't accept that, then good luck finding a better or equivalent deal elsewhere. IMO he's certainly losing the publicity battle, especially in light of the NY Daily News story to which Dan linked. (And I'm sure I don't have to tell you this hasn't gone over well at Pinstripe Alley.)

EDIT: the NY Times says he wants 4-5 years at 23-24 million a year and suggests that an "obvious compromise" would be almost exactly what I've speculated, in the neighborhood of 4 years/76 million, with Jeter making a tad more than what he makes now annually...but it also goes on to suggest that NY might not ultimately be willing to offer that much.

Two concerns that have baffled me for decades:

#1 Just how much money does a player have to make to play a kid's game any way? I mean, when Huff inked a $22 million dollar deal with the Giants, the press used words like "only" and treated the dollar amount as if it were no big amount of money.

#2 Since when do the Steinbrenners give a rat's ass about how much they pay their players? Suddenly, they have grown a conscience? Please.

This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

What are we thinking about, to concern ourselves with any of this?

Well, for starters, the average fan is being priced out of the ballpark. The nosebleeds in ATT Park are $30 bucks a toss. A beer and a hot dog will run you close to $20 bucks. And parking? An unbelievable $35. In addition, if the players continue to demand crazy money it serves not only as an insult to those of us who make barely a fraction of their salary, it sends a clear message to us fans that we don't matter...unless we have the money to pay for a ticket. The sport has become elitist and out of touch with their [unemployed] fans. The NBA and NFL aren't far behind.

[JSngry]

The NBA and NFL aren't far behind.

Don't know what it's like out there, but here, the NBA & NFL are already there, based on ticket price/per game. Granted, fewer games per season, but still...

[Tim McG]

The NBA and NFL aren't far behind.

Don't know what it's like out there, but here, the NBA & NFL are already there, based on ticket price/per game. Granted, fewer games per season, but still...

Good point.

The nosebleeds at Candlestick Park for 49ers games will run you $65 bucks a piece. Parking is $50 bucks. Amazing.

I mean, when SRO tickets for the World Series start at $500 dollars each, there is something very wrong here.

Edited November 27, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

You're blaming the players for the high price of parking? Although they're well compensated I wasn't aware they were in charge of that.

The salaries the players are paid does not cause high prices. It's the ticket prices that lead to higher salaries. Google around, there are loads of economic studies about this.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Quincy

[ghost of miles]

The Yankees better be making dollars hand over fist from the Stadium built around the little league field. Otherwise they'll never survive the plethora of awful contracts they have or will be signing. A-Rod at 30 million a year when he's 39 and older? Jeter "manning" shortstop at 41. And maybe Cliff Lee in traction while he's "earning" 25 million a year at age 37?

Over/Under on the Yankee payroll reaching 250 million?

I say three years.

A-Rod's contract is a de-escalator--by the time he turns 39 in 2014, he'll be earning $21 million a year. Nobody will argue the point that his contract was ludicrously excessive, but it does tail off as time goes on.

Goodspeak, I think Hal Steinbrenner is a more hardnosed businessman than Hank, who "negotiated" the A-Rod contract; hence the hard line last year with Damon and the unwillingness to give DJ an A-Rod-like contract in 2010/11. And nobody should be terribly surprised that somebody at Derek Jeter's level has the kind of pride, ego, and competitive drive that he has, even to the point where he may allow it to supersede team goals in terms of continuing to play shortstop or asking for more money than he's objectively worth... Cal Ripken, anyone? The biggest mistake anybody's made here so far (putting aside the novel circumstances of negotiating a contract in the age of Twitter) is Close taking the battle public with his "baffling" remark (and presumably DJ can be blamed for that as well, since I doubt Close would say anything without Jeter signing off on it to some extent). Cashman's response may have been too stinging, but Close should have realized that as much as Yankee (and some other baseball) fans love Jeter, they are not going to be too sympathetic to an aging player coming off the kind of season that DJ had using such a high starting point as a contract demand.

[Dan Gould]

This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

Wow. This from the man whose state government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the teacher and other public employee unions, who have driven CA into a perpetual state of bankruptcy.

Any worries about those working stiffs who are on the hook for your salary and pension?

[Dan Gould]

The Yankees better be making dollars hand over fist from the Stadium built around the little league field. Otherwise they'll never survive the plethora of awful contracts they have or will be signing. A-Rod at 30 million a year when he's 39 and older? Jeter "manning" shortstop at 41. And maybe Cliff Lee in traction while he's "earning" 25 million a year at age 37?

Over/Under on the Yankee payroll reaching 250 million?

I say three years.

A-Rod's contract is a de-escalator--by the time he turns 39 in 2014, he'll be earning $21 million a year.

So in 2015 he makes 21 million and in 2016 and 2017 he makes 20 million.

But you ignore the fact that A-Rod's contract also includes this:

• 
  
  
• $30M marketing agreement based on home run milestones ($6M each for reaching 660, 714, 755 and tying and breaking major league HR record)
  

He's at 613 homers now. So let's say he reaches the first milestone in two seasons:

2012 salary, $29 million plus $6 million = $35 million.

Two more years to reach 714:

2014 salary, a paltry $25 million plus $6 million = $31 million.

Couple of more years to break Aaron and Barroid's records (almost certainly in the same season, and 2016 or 2017 look like:

$20 million plus $6 million plus $6 million = $32 million dollars.

Not a bad way to go out, huh?

That "de-escalator" wasn't about reducing his salary, it was making it so that his inevitable "bonus" money wouldn't make his salary even more grotesque.

[Brad]

The father made emotional decisions because he loved the limelight. The sons (particularly Hal) strike me as a bit more hardnosed and more number and cents oriented. I really can't see Jeter signing anywhere else but it wouldn't surprise me either. Nothing does any more.

[Tim McG]

The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

You're blaming the players for the high price of parking? Although they're well compensated I wasn't aware they were in charge of that.

The salaries the players are paid does not cause high prices. It's the ticket prices that lead to higher salaries. Google around, there are loads of economic studies about this.

C'mon, Quincy.

Players aren't involved...?

You mean to tell me that their hold-outs, demands to be traded if they don't get that huge bump in salary and salary arbitration are all promoted by the owners?

And ticket prices, concessions and parking fees don't go up when the salaries do? Really? No offense, but have you purchased tickets within the last few years with any regularity?

I'd sure like to know the sources of these studies.

Edited November 28, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

Wow. This from the man whose state government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the teacher and other public employee unions, who have driven CA into a perpetual state of bankruptcy.

Any worries about those working stiffs who are on the hook for your salary and pension?

Not surprisingly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Dan.

The borrow-and-spend republicans and anti-tax bigots have run this state into a ditch. Teacher unions...? Public employee unions...? What a Tea Party fueled crock of shit.

And how you make the connection to player salaries is astoundingly ridiculous and completely off point.

Please don't bother to respond. I haven't the time for such nonsense.

Edited November 28, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

The Yankees better be making dollars hand over fist from the Stadium built around the little league field. Otherwise they'll never survive the plethora of awful contracts they have or will be signing. A-Rod at 30 million a year when he's 39 and older? Jeter "manning" shortstop at 41. And maybe Cliff Lee in traction while he's "earning" 25 million a year at age 37?

Over/Under on the Yankee payroll reaching 250 million?

I say three years.

A-Rod's contract is a de-escalator--by the time he turns 39 in 2014, he'll be earning $21 million a year. Nobody will argue the point that his contract was ludicrously excessive, but it does tail off as time goes on.

Goodspeak, I think Hal Steinbrenner is a more hardnosed businessman than Hank, who "negotiated" the A-Rod contract; hence the hard line last year with Damon and the unwillingness to give DJ an A-Rod-like contract in 2010/11. And nobody should be terribly surprised that somebody at Derek Jeter's level has the kind of pride, ego, and competitive drive that he has, even to the point where he may allow it to supersede team goals in terms of continuing to play shortstop or asking for more money than he's objectively worth... Cal Ripken, anyone? The biggest mistake anybody's made here so far (putting aside the novel circumstances of negotiating a contract in the age of Twitter) is Close taking the battle public with his "baffling" remark (and presumably DJ can be blamed for that as well, since I doubt Close would say anything without Jeter signing off on it to some extent). Cashman's response may have been too stinging, but Close should have realized that as much as Yankee (and some other baseball) fans love Jeter, they are not going to be too sympathetic to an aging player coming off the kind of season that DJ had using such a high starting point as a contract demand.

Good point.

Let's just say that the Steinbrenner Family's past practices do not inspire confidence in Hal's remark. Personally, I think he's just rattling the sabres in an effort to price down Jeter's demands.

He'll fork out the money just like the Steinbrenners always have.

I understand the Giants are working hard to keep Juan Uribe.

**********************************************************

I have mixed feelings about that since his feilding is great but at the plate he hits into a lot of rally-killing DPs. He's basically a mistake ball hitter. Go wide and/or in the dirt and he'll keep swinging at the ball until the catcher throws it back. Hang one, and he'll go yard.

**********************************************************

Dan,

In reference to the post you deleted:

"City Journal offers a stimulating mix of hard-headed practicality and cutting-edge theory..." AKA, ironnclad inuendo. Pssh. Figures.

Edited November 29, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

You mean to tell me that their hold-outs, demands to be traded if they don't get that huge bump in salary and salary arbitration are all promoted by the owners?

And ticket prices, concessions and parking fees don't go up when the salaries do? Really? No offense, but have you purchased tickets within the last few years with any regularity?

I'd sure like to know the sources of these studies.

As it involves sports and thus is more likely to keep the attention of young minds compared to other examples sports salaries & ticket prices are included in entry level economics since it touches upon so many fundamental concepts. In fact you could probably walk down the hall and visit your own school's class and catch it being covered on the right day.

A basic university lesson plan.

[JETman]

The Yankees do not have to make a "fistful" of dollars from the stadium built around "the little league field"!!! For those paying attention, the YES network is where it's at for them. Jeter played a large part in building the largesse gained in TV revenue by the Steinbrenners. He was the star player, main attraction and good soldier. How big a piece of that he should get is anyone's guess. I say that he deserves a large chunk, and that the Yankees can well afford to subsidize the back ends of 100s of ill-advised contracts signed between now and the end of the universe.

[Tim McG]

You mean to tell me that their hold-outs, demands to be traded if they don't get that huge bump in salary and salary arbitration are all promoted by the owners?

And ticket prices, concessions and parking fees don't go up when the salaries do? Really? No offense, but have you purchased tickets within the last few years with any regularity?

I'd sure like to know the sources of these studies.

As it involves sports and thus is more likely to keep the attention of young minds compared to other examples sports salaries & ticket prices are included in entry level economics since it touches upon so many fundamental concepts. In fact you could probably walk down the hall and visit your own school's class and catch it being covered on the right day.

A basic university lesson plan.

Hypothetical nonsense, Quincy.

The "study" is attempting to disprove a negative through the use of theory and numbers crunching. I mean, the Brewers...really.?

At one point it completely dismisses the cost of this new talent which brings in the fans relative to the increase of ticket prices. Instead relying on a theoretical examination of the issue without considering the fact prices go up when the talent is purchased.

Additionally, this professor's "study" avoids the other revenue brought in through concessions sales, parking, memorabilia and sports apparel sales and the price increases there.

Go to an Oakland A's game, Quincy. You'll get in the gate for a reasonably low price [using this professor's "study"] but lunch will cost you an arm and a leg. BTW...I recommend taking the BART. The parking fee will drain your wallet.

Now then, BART it across the Bay to a winning franchise in the San Francisco Giants and you'll pay twice as much. Now why is that, Quincy...demand and supply? Please. We're paying for Barry Zito. Same thing happened when Barry Bonds joined the team.

With all due respect, you're talking theory. I'm talking application.

Edited November 28, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

Now then, BART it across the Bay to a winning franchise in the San Francisco Giants and you'll pay twice as much. Now why is that, Quincy...demand and supply?

You're right, it has nothing to do with a more AT&T being a modern ballpark on pricier real estate and certainly not a cotton-picking thing to do with there being a higher demand for Giant games over A's. (I've been to the Oakland Coliseum btw, but not AT&T). The A's have long had attendance problems even during the days of the Mustache Gang, hence one reason for there being lower prices. But I'm not continuing on with discussing economics as the disastrous steroid thread amply illustrated your difficulty with math & logic, and I have no desire for turning this thread into that. IT'S ALL BARRY ZITO'S FAULT!

[Tim McG]

Now then, BART it across the Bay to a winning franchise in the San Francisco Giants and you'll pay twice as much. Now why is that, Quincy...demand and supply?

You're right, it has nothing to do with a more AT&T being a modern ballpark on pricier real estate and certainly not a cotton-picking thing to do with there being a higher demand for Giant games over A's. (I've been to the Oakland Coliseum btw, but not AT&T). The A's have long had attendance problems even during the days of the Mustache Gang, hence one reason for there being lower prices. But I'm not continuing on with discussing economics as the disastrous steroid thread amply illustrated your difficulty with math & logic, and I have no desire for turning this thread into that. IT'S ALL BARRY ZITO'S FAULT!

Then why bring it up, Quincy?

I have never said ticket prices were the only things affected by player salaries. You did. And now you bail with an oh-so-typical insult because I have debunked your "evidence." Statistics/numbers crunching will only tell you what you want to discover. All Zito's fault...really? Whatever, Quincy. Like the owners don't pass on to the fans every single capital investment relative to payroll? Seriously, I see it is impossible to reason with you.

To anybody else: The only articles I have found regarding ticket sales not affected by salary hikes date back a mere four years and always are a blog or OpEd piece. None of which discount the fact player salaries in fact have raised the price of tickets. Instead they state staduims are shrinking in size to manipulate the market into paying higher prices. Not at all the same issue and completely incongruent with past practices. An opinion is not factual evidence. I'm sorry. It just isn't.

And as in a CNN/Money source the author quoted a stadium consultant whose sole purpose is to make money for the ownwers. What else is he going to say except agree with the presumption that smaller stadiums create a false impression of supply and demand in the pre-sales fan ticket buyer? He's on the owner's payroll, fer crissakes. And if the new stadium theory is the sword Quincy wants to fall on, then explain to me the reason why the LA Dodgers have set record attendance levels year after year? That stadium was built way back in the 60s.

Quincy's "evidence" still does not eliminate the real cause of higher ticket prices: Player salary.

Sources:Increased ticket prices

Stadium size vs increases

Edited November 29, 2010 by GoodSpeak