So How much would you pay Cliff Lee?

Tango Tiger asks how much a year you would pay Cliff on a four year deal.

over 3 years ago hans 32 comments 0 recs |

Comments

I went with $12M per, which already seems to be the popular answer. His current contract pays him $3.75M this year, $5.75M next year, and an option for 2010 that was originally $8M but will increase to anywhere between $8.75M and $9M depending on how he finises in Cy Young voting this year. If we assume we’re paying him about $15M for the next two years already, the Indians are tacking on $33M over the next 4 years to both reward him for his time and prey on his natural wish for security by offering him more money now and buying out two years of free agency.

I guess it looks risky when you look at what he’s done in back-to-back years and wonder what he’ll do from here on out. But then the Indians are free of him after he’s 33, and we’re only paying him Carlos Silva money.

In a real scenario I assume the Indians would try to back-load a lot of the money.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 11:25 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting, but I don’t think $12 million is getting picked on the basis of it being a two-year extension for $33 million, I think it’s understood to be a hypothetical, if he were a free agent.

As dominant as he’s been, you can’t expect quite that same level to continue, and he carries significant injury risk. I think the $12 million is based on that alone, which means that as an extension, it ought to be less — not that it will be.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I see. I hadn’t even thought about it being a hypothetical free agent contract. I guess it’s because I actually had this question on my mind the other day when I thought about the Indians locking Fausto up after his stellar 2007. Woosh. (/The point passes over me.)

That’s a really interesting hypothetical. Like I said, $12M/year is Silva money, and words can’t describe the difference between Cliff Lee and Carlos Silva this year. Silva still pales in comparison when you look at his pre-2008 numbers, which I understand would be all you can look at when offering him a contract during the offseason. So immediately I feel like Lee could command more, but then there’s the whole tricky part about the one-year performance. Still. Helluva year. Interesting. An agent could really make or break his career on that kind of negotiation.

I see now that there’s a comment section with some pretty heavy hitters (Tango, Cameron) weighing in. I should see what they have to say.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions

What’s interesting, at least to me, is that folks talk about his injury in ‘07 and neglect the fact that his son had leukemia in ’05/’06. I’d be surprised if this didn’t impact his pitching. And again, the chances that anybody – including the sainted CC – has a year like the one Cliff had this next year is highly unlikely. So yeah, his performance will probably drop off a little next year.

Anyway, if his agent let’s him signed for a nickel less than $18m a year he should be investigated.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 2:17 AM EDT reply actions

Cliff’s season wasn’t exactly unprecedented, but I doubt it’ll be matched next year. Maybe if CC signs with the Dodgers and gets 15 starts against the NL West plus two each against the Pirates, Reds and Nationals.

by FredOx on Sep 30, 2008 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Considering that Kyle Lohse just got over $10 per year over 4 years from the Cards, Cliff certainly can look forward to a big payday.

by peter m on Sep 30, 2008 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Obviously, that should read $10 million!

by peter m on Sep 30, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

For the love of Pete Franklin, Chuck, just because other folks don’t think C.C. is a terrible person and horrible choker doesn’t make him sainted.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I wish I had a way to count the number of words per post on this site. I’ll bet there’s been twenty times more written about CC, a pitcher for another team, than Cliff Lee, the best pitcher in baseball last year and a Cleveland Indian.

Can’t we at least talk about another ex-Indians performance. Say, I hear Manny Ramirez is doin’ pretty well out there in LA.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

there might be a lot less talk about CC if you’d stop trying to make him look like Sollozzo every time his name is mentioned.

by talonk on Sep 30, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Exactly. I’ll bet about one-third of the words written about CC have either been you calling him a choker and other various names or others trying to say that he’s actually a damn good pitcher in any situtation.

Also, if you think we shouldn’t be talking about CC so much, then stay out of the discussion! You can’t post a bunch of comments about CC and then complain later that we’re talking about CC too much.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 1, 2008 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions

If you’d look at the CC for CY post on the front page you’ll note at least 4,000 words about CC and the CY there – and I ain’t even part of the discussion.

And yes I can complain about the amount of attention given to non-Indians on a supposedly Indian-centric site.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Oct 1, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions

OK, you might not be involved in that part of the discussion, but you’ve made many posts in that thread about CC. So you can’t make mulitple posts about CC then complain that too many people are talking about him.

If you don’t care about non-Indians players, why do you keep joining the discussion about him to remind everyone that you think he’s a big choker?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 1, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

The talk about C.C. is because of his impending departure, actual departure, trade, impending free agency, next contract, etc. Not much point having those discussions about C.C. In terms of pure performance, Cliff has gotten as much play around here as C.C. Check out my early-season Week In Review pieces.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Speaking of which, if we’re competitive next season, do you expect to take those up again? Or did they feel like too much work even when they mattered? I mean, I really enjoyed them, but I can see how they might be extravagantly time-consuming.

by fleerdon on Oct 1, 2008 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

I would like to take them up again and am disappointed that I didn’t get them going to finish this season. I had some mid-summer obligations that just threw me off-stride, and they are a little time-consuming. Bottom line, when I go back and read one, I’m really glad I have it as a journal of what went down, and I wish I had them for the second half.

I think next year I may do it as three or four series rather than just two.

by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions

For what it’s worth, I feel like the season usually works itself out in two week stretches. I think four series makes the most sense.

by NickFantana on Oct 1, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I’m probably going to go with three, then.

by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe you thought you could sneak this in there now that it’s to the second page of fanshots. Well, you clearly underestimated my desire to avoid working.

by NickFantana on Oct 2, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

So thinking about this Cliff Lee thing more seriously…Cliff’s scheduled to make $5.75M next year and has a club option for $8M for 2010. So it is not exactly like the organization has a huge need to extend Cliff this off-season. But Lee does have some incentive to pursue some form of contract renegotiation/extension, given how underpaid he was this year, and will be over the next two seasons assuming he produces anything close to the quality he did this year. I imagine Cleveland wouldn’t want to do anything with Lee beyond 2012 right now because who knows what a pitcher will be like in 3, let alone 4 years from now. So what if Cleveland were to offer a 1-year contract extension at $12M (2011) with a club option for 2012 (~$14M), while bumping his salary for 2009 up to $7.5M and 2010 to $10M.

Cliff would go from having 2-years/$13.75M, to a 3-years/$29.5M or 4-years/$43.5M. Is this too stingy? Does it make sense?

by APV on Sep 30, 2008 3:37 PM EDT reply actions

Keep in mind that he, like CC, gets a raise for winning the Cy Young.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

oh…missed that bit. How much of a raise? I guess you could just add that raise into the base salary of each contract year.

by APV on Sep 30, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Just a mil, and just for 2010.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

No, it makes no sense, actually.

First thing is, Cliff is only guaranteed $5.75 right now. That club option is probably worth $2.5 million more to the club than an $8 million guarantee, given that it represents a get-out-of-risk-free card, and he is a risk. Extending him obliterates the option year.

Leaving that aside, what you propose is either a one-year extension for $15.75 million or a two-year extension for $29.75 million. Both strike me as pretty dramatic overpays, considering it’s not the next two years, it’s three and four years from now. Understanding the risks, would you give him a three- or four-year guaranteed deal for $16 million per season right now? If you wouldn’t, then you also shouldn’t do these extensions. I know I wouldn’t.

I don’t think the Indians will extend Lee this offseason unless he’s prepared to give them a pretty nice bargain — we move the option year from 2010 to 2012 and give him another $22 million. This is basically Westbrook money — he’s got more upside than Jake but also more risk (based on when Jake signed the deal). Barring a big bargain, I think the upside potential of waiting another year — rather than buying high right now — outweighs downside potential of having to pay more, one year from free agency rather than two.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions

You think us giving him $3.75M more the next two years (while picking up his 2010 option) in exchange for a 1-year extension at $12M is overly generous. I guess I’m surprised. I see the added risk of guaranteeing 3-years versus 1-year, of course. I’ll admit to having no idea how to value that.

by APV on Sep 30, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess I’m confused that you’re confused.

You want to give him an extra $3.75M over the next two years that we don’t actually owe him, and then you kind of don’t count it, looking only at the $12 million. The $12 million, I can see that. But why also the $3.75M? We don’t owe him any more money than, you know, what we actually owe him. Lord knows he didn’t give us anything back for 2007.

That’s why you have to break it down in terms of the extra years for the extra dollars — tacking extra money onto existing years is really just an accounting trick, you still have to see it for what it really is, which is $15.75M for one year, which won’t happen until three years from now.

One way to figure risk is to look at the PECOTA attrition rate for each year and multiply it times the guaranteed salary of the season following that year. That basically gives you the value of having a club option instead of a guarantee for that following season, and if you don’t have a club option, the difference between that number and the guarnateed salary is essentially the dollar cost of the risk.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

I should add, getting back to the third paragraph, that this is how GMs and agents look at these deals. You have to look at all deals this way, because otherwise, you can’t compare apples to apples and have an understanding of where the market is.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

We give him the extra 3.75 so that he accepts just a 1-year extension (w/club option). And $12M is still a discount rate if you base it off this year’s performance.

by APV on Sep 30, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, whatever, the bottom line is you’re giving him $15.75 for one season, three seasons from now, and also giving up the right to decline the 2010 option in the event he has a major problem in 2009. It’s a terrible deal for the club.

by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions