Twitter55-45 Against
27 Dec 2008
Those are the odds against the Yankees signing Andy Pettitte according to a story in today’s Daliy News.
I go back and forth on this one. On one hand, I look at the Yankees rotation and other than Sabathia and Wang who else do you think will pitch 200 innings? (Sorry, I just don’t think you can be positive Burnett will.) Pettitte provides that at a decent ERA. But, you also have to look at his second half (13 starts 5.35 ERA) and wonder if he has that ability in him. And, for $10 million, couldn’t you find a cheaper alternative?
Ultimately, I think this decision rests on Phil Hughes. The Yankees need to see what they can get out of Hughes and signing Pettitte puts him back in AAA. Now, I would not go into 2009 without some sort of veteran backup, but I would do so by going the minor league contract route and signing a cheap veteran. You can then take some of that $10 million and use it towards a real bench which the Yankees need to address next.
Dec 27, 2008 @ 19:52:10
Yeah, the bench needs help. Wigginton would be a good fit for the bench if he’s willing to take that role.
Dec 27, 2008 @ 23:43:06
“A cheaper alternative?” Why bother? Ok, the Yankees saved $5mm by signing Paul Byrd instead. So, what does that mean to the Yankees bottom line?
Can’t we both agree that them saving money by signing a cheaper pitcher or even going with a Hughes/Kennedy type is no longer that big an issue or an issue at all? Why not get the best guy out there, even if he does cost $16mm a season (or $13mm a year, a half-way point between Pettitte’s demand and the Yankees offer).
I am not trying to stir the pot, but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why the Yankees should try to “save” money. It doesn’t appear they need to if recent history tells us anything ($700mm committed to players over the past 2 off-seasons).
Help me out here.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 11:16:03
Hughes got pounded in AAA
Check this out, search : IronPigs stomp Yankees
lvironpigs.wordpress.com
Dec 28, 2008 @ 12:11:24
Andy
If you assume the Yankees don’t have a budget you are right, but they do. (And yes, I know you don’t believe me.)
Dec 28, 2008 @ 21:19:37
Peter,
Thank you for not taking my head off on that question.
But, I will say, your answer left me scratching my head. I’m not sure I understand.
“If you assume the Yankees don’t have a budget you are right, but they do.”
If I am right, how can they have a budget?
Dec 28, 2008 @ 21:52:25
Your question was essentially- why bother with a cheaper alternative?
So, I am saying you are right if you assume the Yankees don’t have a budget. If they don’t, there is no reason to skimp on anything.
But, with a budget, they need to allocate resources correctly and I don’t think $10 million to Pettitte, who is now the fourth or fifth starter is the correct way to go.
Make more sense?
Dec 28, 2008 @ 23:02:15
I have your point now. I was reading it “if you assume they have no budget, you are right.” I have trouble with reading comprehension, just look at my SATs.
That being said, just what is that budget if you had to guess. There has been talk of the new stadium and revenue streams. Obviously the 3 deals they have signed this off-season are significant, but when you start talking about a 1 year deal of $16mm vs. $10mm, it is such a small %, what’s the difference? From both an annual % and an amortized
% standpoint.
I guess I have to sigh a bit when I hear Yankees fans talking about budgets as they don’t appear to exist and if they do, they keep the secret nicely.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 23:25:24
I knew you wouldn’t believe me.
I have no idea what the budget is, but I do know two things.
1- In 2005, the Yankees could have had Carlos Beltran for around $100 million, but passed because they would have gone over their budget. (2005 payroll was essentially what the 2008 payroll was so that may be the budget [$209 million]
2- The Yankees have said over and over again they will lower payroll from 2008, which even with all the spending so far this offseason they are on target to do. (See end of point 1)
What does it all mean? Your guess is as good as mine. And save your sighs, your team has plenty of dough, as Bill Simmons said about John Henry’s latest anti-Yankee rant….”You sound like a rich prep-school kid lamenting the fact his Lamborghini isn’t the most expensive car in the parking lot anymore. And while we’re here, Fenway is a cash cow — you can’t play the “new stadium with revenue opportunities card” when you’ve done everything but stick hanging box seats on the Citgo sign. Boston’s payroll has been somewhere between $120-145 million each year for the past five. Every middle-class fan you have has been priced out unless they want to sit in the bleachers or wooden grandstand seats down the outfield lines that face second base. Just stop. Please, stop. Thank you.”
Dec 28, 2008 @ 23:32:11
Ahhh yes, you quoting Bill Simmons means I’m on to something…
Dec 29, 2008 @ 01:01:03
What are you on to? Last I checked, Simmons was a Boston guy….
Dec 29, 2008 @ 11:42:00
Andy,
You’re whining. The Yankee owners surely have budgets to their ventures- if they weren’t smart enough to have them, they would not be smart enough to have owned the team for this long.
If the beantown Brahmins want or need to spend a lot of money to keep up, they need to borrow some cheap money or get Deval to sponsor some muni bonds to implode Fenway and build a nice new stadium out near Foxboro or Marlborough. It’s amazing what you can do when you’re average attendance goes up by 8K beer buyers per game or so – and I argue that Boston could really fill ALL those new seats – that’s how sports-crazy my MA/NH neighbors are. Then your boys need to revisit NESN as an enhanced profit center. Time for Henry et al to stop being so greedy and to re-invest some of their riches back into that franchise. Those guys are minting their own money right now – shame on them for not re-investing it.
Peter,
It would be great if they could let Pettite go. I’d like to see younger players get a chance on the mound. I don’t think it will happen that way though. Were I a betting man, I would put my nickel on Andy coming back for 1 last year and sharing time with the kids at the back end. Girardi has even used the words “6 man rotation” and there’s been too much written about the love fest between Cash and Andy for it not to happen. The media posturing now is prob designed to scare Andy into accepting the shorter money.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 17:38:32
Very true. As a billion dollar business the Yankees not only have a budget, they have more ledgers, graphs and projections than one could fathom, or they would simply not be able to stay in business. Spending their vast income on the field is not the same thing as playing with monopoly money.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 09:30:11
Mitchell and Ian,
Of course the Yankees have a budget. I acknowledge that. But what strikes me is that when you start talking about Pettitte vs. a cheaper alternative it doesn’t make sense.
Especially since the Yankees are “below their budget” right now.
I understand the Red Sox are doing quite nicely for themselves and as Mitchel said “shame on them for not-reinvesting it” but I’m not talking about the Red Sox, I was asking about the Yankees. And besides, perhaps you haven’t seen John Henry’s investment performance over the past few years…terrible (although 2008 was a very nice rebound, check out his 3 and 5 year performance).
Anyway, given the difference $6mm means when compared to $800mm or so in recent committments, we are talking about less than 1%. It just strikes me as either absurd to stop short of Pettitte vs a cheaper player (now if you were to tell me Pettitte is just not good and player xyz is better and not bring price into it, I’m totally fine with it, but to suggest his price is the real reason is nuts).
Clearly I have no support on this issue nor did I expect any, but I’ve offered my own thoughts and am open to debate.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 11:15:23
I wouldn’t assume the Yankees are below their budget. At any rate, I think the problem for Pettitte is that the Yankees needs have changed since the beginning of the off-season, not that they are trying to save a buck. If he does come back though, that rotation gains a whole lot of stability.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 11:42:31
Andy, two things about your argument
1- The $800 million number is the sum total of all the deals they have signed with players the past two years and those deals are spread out over the next nine years. So, taking Pettitte’s deal as a percentage of that is not the point, you have to take it as a percentage of 2009′s payroll (5%)
Second, Pettitte’s deal would cost the Yankees $14 million when luxury tax penalties are factored in. If they go with Phil Hughes, they save over $13 million. You are big on the value side of payroll, do you believe Pettitte is that much better than Hughes or another pitcher?
Dec 30, 2008 @ 22:50:16
I was hoping you wouldn’t mention the whole annualized part of my argument as it really hurts my stance.
As for Hughes, certainly he is a talent, but I think we can both agree that until a player (pitcher or batter) performs in New York or Boston, the risk is high.
Of course Hughes is going to be cheaper (do the math) but you can better approximate what Pettitte will do in 2009 than Hughes in my opinion.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 23:52:40
Andy
I totally agree that it is easier to approximate what Pettitte will do in 2009 than what Hughes will do.
But, when you look at Pettitte’s second half in 2008 (5.35 ERA) you have to wonder if he is worth the $14 million it would cost the Yankees to sign him versus taking a couple of cheap pitchers with potential and seeing what can happen. The Yankees got badly burned by that in 2008, but if they really believe their scouts know what they are doing, why wouldn’t you believe them in this case?
Jan 03, 2009 @ 09:38:22
I think Andy’s point is why not spend the money for Pettitte and pitch Hughes until you find out what he has (at least for 09)
Much like the debate in the boston press on why did the bidding stop over 2-5 million per year in Tex deal when they spent $50m just to talk with DiceK – Yankees can not afford to have an inning eater, even at 5.00 era.
Their offense is considerably better than LY, right?
Life insurance costs money that you look at it and say, boy I could find ways to spend that money, but it is better to have the insurance in the long run…
Jan 04, 2009 @ 19:01:06
blmeanie,
A life insurance analogy, something I can sink my teeth into (I was in the insurance world prior).
That was indirectly my point. To quibble over whether pay to Pettitte or not when you probably know what he’ll give you: 4.50 ERA and 12 + wins at worst and approach if not go over 200 IP. If Hughes turns out to be dynamite, well, Pettitte has to accept his fate and for the Yankees? No matter it is only a 1 year deal.
Jan 05, 2009 @ 09:58:48
Point taken, but the way this offseason is going, there should be several other veteran innings-eater type pitchers kicking around in a month or so desperately needing a job. $14 million might be enough to buy a bushel of them by then. It makes little sense to rush into a deal with Pettitte now, when you can let the market dictate what you do in a month or so. The Yankees are not in a position of desperation right now; why should they overspend like they are?