Contract Updates
by Ryan on Mar 30, 2007 7:28 PM EDT
in News
Email
PrintNegotiations are continuing past the Indians' self-imposed Opening Day deadline between the team and Jake Westbrook and Travis Hafner, but the news isn't as good as far as CC Sabathia is concerned:
That's a nice way of putting it. The longer the Indians go without getting an extension done, the less leverage they have. Sabathia, if he stays healthy, will receive a king's ransom in free agency after the 2008 season, although he wouldn't even be the highest sought-after southpaw on the market. And the closer he gets to that payday, the less likely he'll be to leave money on the table in favor of security.
That being said, if the Indians must choose between free agents, the money would be better spent on Sabathia than the other two. Sabathia, even though he's already pitched six full seasons, is just entering the prime of his career, and is past the injury nexus for young pitchers. Aside from Adam Miller meeting his promise swiftly, there's isn't another way for the Indians to replace CC's production. It would be much easier to construct a young team around Sabathia's hefty contract than to spend their resources on replacements.
This is no knock against either Westbrook or Hafner, whom I would love the Indians to also lock up. But if there's an either/or situation, as I believe there to be, then you go with the best player first. And that's Sabathia.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Contract Updates
- a long deal, maybe as long as 8 years
- a per-year price bigger than Zito, say $18-20mm
- a full (or severely constrained) no-trade
- an NL team, so he can hit
- a bay area location. Hmmmmmm.
So, if we can't sign a deal with CC next winter then we probably are looking at the last opening day he'll pitch. Maybe all those fans who complained for years about his weight or his hat angle might want to come out and celebrate the end of the CC era.
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Contract Updates
We can't because we need to make sure we can always afford to deals like Sizemore's, locking up our best players through arbitration and maybe a little beyond. Those deals are the best values in the game, and if we get into a position where we have to trade guys like that because we've given someone else $100 million, that would be the dumbest thing.
That said, another given is that (a) we're going to have to spend some cash on solid guys with more experience, whether homegrown or not, and (b) our own guys are almost certainly going to represent a better value than whatever we get on the open market. So while Westbrook's value as a long-term signing may be the weakest of the three, you'd still rather extend him than go for whatever Byrds are going to be out there in a year, for whatever the Byrds are being paid by then.
And that's the last point. We've got Lee through 2010, Sowers and Carmona through 2012, Miller and all our other prospects at least through 2013. But the odds are well against our needing any veteran starting pitchers over the next five years. And if we're going to need at least one veteran starter, why not Westbrook on at least a modest discount?
I mean, is there really going to be a better option available?
Re: Contract Updates
The problem is that we don't know the specifics, and probably will never truly know the specifics unless he re-signs.
Re: Contract Updates
" But if Oswalt money (5/$73M) gets you close, then you go the extra $10M or so to get the deal done. The latter scenario is what I'm imagining."
Ryan, you don't really think that C.C. would sign for 5 years/83 million, do you ? That would be more than a "hometown discount," and something the Indians would have to strongly consider.
Maybe I misunderstood what you said.
C.C. will likely command in the neighborhood of $16-$18 mil/yr. over 6 years, in my estimation. There's NO way the Tribe goes that far.
by SpringTrainingFun on Mar 31, 2007 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
It's the extra years on the contract that hurt.
I don't see the Indians offering more than $15/yr. over 5 years.
But I've been known to be way off - so what the heck do I know ...
by SpringTrainingFun on Mar 31, 2007 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
The thing is, it's more likely for CC's asking price to go up in the space of six months than it will to go down. So there's no point in saving their best offer for 2008 - make it now, and if it's declined, you move on.
Re: Agreed on making the best offer NOW!
Re: Contract Updates
No pitcher has ever gotten anywhere close to those numbers unless he was actually a free agent. If Sabathia is expecting the Zito deal to be a comp, right now or even a year from now, he's out of his mind.
Oswalt is an entirely reasonable comp, and he signed his deal just a few months before free agency, not two years before. Zito is no more reasonable a comp than Roy Halladay -- average those two deals and then maybe you're talking some sense.
Re: Contract Updates
Well, it may be out of line, but the contract is reality. I'm fairly certain that the deal was at least mentioned by Sabathia's reps. And, more importantly, it makes Sabathia much more willing to wait out the two years so he can get a contract of that ilk.
Re: Contract Updates
by rustyparts on Apr 1, 2007 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I see your point, but...
but, outside of Adam Miller, none are real "difference-makers" or ones that can dominate, and those types of pitchers usually make the difference in the postseason by giving you the best chance to win postseason series, and ultimately, the WS.
Like I said before, CC as your #1 and Miller as your #2 is stronger than Miller as your #1 and Westbrook as your #2. CC can dominate like an ace is expected to, Miller potentially could dominate as an ace is expected to because of his stuff, command, poise, and makeup, Westbrook can't dominate like an ace is expected to because he doesn't have the same quality of stuff.
I do see though where signing CC could be a problem signing some of those position players down the road if we signed CC to a 7-8 year contract, but if he's only signed 5-6 years, I'm not sure that would be much of a problem, unless you plan on resigning Peralta or Martinez, which I suppose you might, but we've already signed them to extensions, so are we really expecting to sign them again at "fair market rates" or will they be looking for larger dollars like CC seems to be? How likely would we be able to resign them? They might be more likely to be trade bait by late this decade or early next decade, especially if guys like Cabrera, Rodriguez, Toregas, McBride, etc. are ready to contribute.
Guys like Marte and Barfield might expect less because they haven't been signed to long-term extensions yet, and presumably, the Indians should have a better chance of resigning them in the next few years, even if they are paying CC a mega-contract.
I'm not sure what position player prospects would be up for arbitration and/or FA while CC is still here with his mega contract, so I don't know how much of a problem it would be down the road. Still though, when you have the chance to pair two young aces in their primes, that would give the Indians a better chance of winning at least one WS than having a Miller as a #1 and a Westbrook as a #2, and even if we had to experience 5 losing or below-average seasons because we are unable to resign some players and lose them due to CC's mega-contract, I think most Indians' fans would take that if we won a WS or two before that time period came around rather than competing each year for the postseason, but either falling short of the playoffs or falling short of a WS Championship. We already did that in the 1990s, and yet, the WS drought continues.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: I see your point, but...
When I talk about being able to afford other players, I'm not talking about anyone specifically. I'm talking about the fact that even when we get these great lockup deal with players, they still cost in the $5 to $10 million range over the last few years.
If we put ourselves in a position where we have to pass up those kinds of contracts when the opportunity is presenting itself, then we'll have really shot ourselves in the foot.
So the basic thesis is:
- Westbrook contract is better than next year's Byrd-ish contract.
- No contract or contracts can be done that constrain our ability to keep our best players through their arbitration years.
I agree with you Ryan!
I agree with Ryan; I've always thought the order of signing them (in order of importance to the club) should be -
- Sabathia
- Hafner
- Westbrook
If Miller develops as expected, he could take over CC's role as ace and dominate like him, but if you could add Miller to CC, that itself would make the Indians strong contenders for the AL Central for the next several years when you consider that most of the rest of the team is locked up for the next few to several years.
Plus, as I've mentioned before, because of that fact that most of the rest of the team is locked up, the Indians could realistically resign Sabathia to a large long-term extension money-wise and not be handicapped by it like they would have with Colon, Thome, or Ramirez because the rest of the young team is intact, plus you have one of the better, deeper farm systems in baseball, with depth in starting pitching, relief pitching, outfielders, and even catching depth. Only the MIF and 3B show any lack of appreciable depth (we even have several 1B.)
Therefore, it would seem realistically possible to me to resign CC, even if it meant losing Westbrook AND Hafner (though I would hope you could resign Hafner as well - he'd be the one I would work on next, and let Westbrook go.)
If worse came to shove and we lost Hafner, Jay himself said in another thread that 2-3 teams at most have a comparable hitter to Hafner, yet more than 2-3 teams contend for and make the postseason, right? (Sorry Jay - I hope you don't mind me using that. :-)
Therefore, I would have rather had the Indians go after CC this Spring - with Carmona, Slocum, and Miller, one of those three, at least, could match or outdo Westbrook's production; if the Indians offered a generous contract to CC now, they;d have a better chance of signing CC than they would waiting until after the 2007 season is over.
This is why I'm pessimistic that the Indians will be able to resign CC now, and even if the Indians remain strong after CC leaves, there's no denying the Indians would be stronger with CC leading the rotation and Miller as your #2 starter than having Miller lead the rotation and Westbrook being your #2 starter.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: I agree with you Ryan!
I understand how it would be difficult leverage and payroll-wise, but are you currently assuming the payroll will not significantly increase in the next two years to accomodate core players as they near free agency?
I can see this team paying market value for CC and Hafner in order to keep the parts necessary for a championship. If you let CC go, you are likely going to need a season or two for Miller to get up to speed, thus subtracting more years from another key player's contract (like Martinez). It's a vicious cycle, but I think it's an obvious one to Dolan and Shapiro.
As much as I want Westbrook to stay, he would be a luxury (Carmona and Miller should replace Westbrook and Byrd), but CC and Hafner are about as close to necessities as you can get.
I'm curious as to what kind of boost in payroll teams usually have once they exit a rebuilding phase and start seriously contending (postseason) again. There may be little correlation, but it would be interesting to find out.
Re: payroll transistion
that is a good point. one set of data we are familiar with are the Indians from the mid 90's.
Indians payroll
1994 $28.5M
1995 35.1
96 45
97 54
98 59
99 73.8
2000 76.6
This may not be as relevant factoring the Dolan's purchase price of the Indians but these are also 10 year old dollars...$20M is not what it used to be. This payroll trend at least shows a transition from rebuilding salary level to contender.
If we contend this year we should expect the payroll to grow substantially; hopefully enough to pay for CC but $20M/yr for one guy is not the Indian's MO.
by BSelby on Mar 30, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: payroll transistion
Now, the supporting revenue comes from a town that one analysis called the poorest big-city in America, and the Browns eat up huge entertainment dollars even when they're terrible year after year ... and LeBron.
Re: payroll transistion
2007 $65M
2008 $70M
2009 $87.5M (I don't think this is enough to keep CC, Haf and Westbrook)
However!! Using the mid 90's Indians teams as the standard, taking inflation into account, we should have been deep into the post season by now.
Our 1995 WS team payroll of $35M roughly equates to our 2004 payroll of $41M in 2004 dollars.
Our 1997 WS team payroll of $54M roughly equates to a $64.8M in 2007 dollars. So this could(should) be the year we go deep at least based on the payroll indicator.
I know this is only one factor but wanted to try and tackle the payroll increase expectation at least.
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: payroll transistion
Here are the precentage increases (over the previous year) using '94 as the base year.
- 1995 - 23%
- 1996 - 28%
- 1997 - 20%
- 1998 - 9%
- 1999 - 25%
- 2000 - 4%
- 2007 - $65mil
- 2008 - $80mil
- 2009 - $102mil
- 2010 - $122mil
- 2011 - $133mil
- 2012 - $166mil
- 2013 - $173mil
And don't get me wrong in that I think the team could never carry the last two years of that projection, although anything is possible given the timeframe and the fact that 90% of teams can't seem to stop spending money.
I just thought it might be an interesting basis for what is possible in the future and a frame for the discussion. The question is whether the contracts for CC, Westbrook and Hafner fit into the parameters of this type of payroll.
Re: payroll transistion
When I came up with the salary projections above I tried to pick the years that aligned with the prev Indians transition from rebuild to contender. I used the same exact process as you, except that I used the Indians 2004 salary as the new starting point not 2007; and I added some inflation. I think using the Indians 2004 salary aligns better with the 1994 Indians salary and rebuild level. The reason your out years are so huge is your starting number is too big. The complete calculation table (if this format allows):
Indians payroll
1990's cycle new cycle
1994 $28.5M 2004 $34M
increase 22%
1995(WS) $35.1M 2005 $41.5M
increase 28%
1996 $45M 2006 $56M
increase 20%
1997(WS) $54M 2007 $64.8M (my est)
increase 9%
1998 $59M 2008 $70M (est)
increase 25%
1999 $73.8M 2009 $87.6M
2000 $76.6M
From this table it looks like we should have been more competitive in 1996 (hence the dissappointment). But we could not or would not keep out bullpen together last year and it cost us a much shorter window until our salary starts to escalate without contending.
Although, I like your salary levels much better!
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
That's why I said, if we sign Westbrook, we
Hello Pronk33 and BSelby,
I'm hopeful the spending will go up, and presuming the Indians do well (such as making the postseason, and hopefully, winning the WS,) the payroll should go up.
However, I don't see where the Indians will be able to keep both CC and Westbrook - CC likely would cost $18-$20 mill./yr., while Westbrook will likely cost $12-$14 mill./yr. - that's anywhere from $30-$34 mill./yr for just two pitchers.
To me, it seems like the Indians can only sign one, and of the two, I'd rather have CC, no offense to Westbrook. But, the Indians' focusing on Westbrook now is likely going to decrease their chances of signing CC later - Johan Santana, who also is eligible for FA after 2008, has told the Twins repeatedly to sign him as soon as possible, and I feel the Indians should be approaching it the same way with Sabathia - the more time that passes, the more the dollar amounts go up, and even with an increase in revenue, it's still not going to be easy to resign CC, and the longer we wait, the more likely the chance the Indians won't be able or won't be willing to resign him.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Contract Updates
To put that another way, if he had just pitched 15 extra innings over the past five seasons (basically an extra one inning every couple months), he'd be right smack at averaging 200 innings over five seasons. (Besides, 200 is essentially just an arbitrary round number.)
As it stands, it's still an exceptional track record for a young pitcher -- especially considering all the hand-wringing that's been done over C.C.'s health and conditioning.
Another thing to factor is when we're talking about a player's value is that we really don't have a very good sense (as far as I know) of exactly how deep the Tribe's pockets are these days, what with the influx of cash from MLB.com, the pending DirecTV deal, revenue sharing and TV network (which probably isn't turning a profit yet, but it's still a factor to be considered). All things considered, I think the Tribe would be very lucky to get CC at Oswalt dollars (5 years, $73 million), given the current wealth of the sport.
by why wahoo weeps on Mar 31, 2007 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure I agree with that!
No offense, but I think CC could post more <4.00 ERAs over his career before he goes back >4.00 ERAs.
You have to keep in mind that CC was rushed up to the Majors, was thrust into the #1 role and wasn't ready for it, and it took him a while to figure out that he didn't have to throw every pitch as hard as he could to have great success at the ML level.
Now that he has learned that lesson, I don't see why he can't post a few to several more sub-4 ERAs - after all, he's only 26 years old to start 2007. Depending on who you read, a pitcher's peak performance years are anywhere from 26-33 (I usually go by 28-32, somewhere in that range.) Presuming that to be the case, CC is either just entering or hasn't even reached his prime yet, so there is the chance he could be even better than what he showed in 2006, and let's face it, he pitched better than that 12-11 record would indicate - with a decent bullpen last year, CC wins anywhere from 17-20 games and is in contention for the Cy Young.
Therefore, I don't see why you think CC won't ever have as good of a year as in 2006; I think the opposite is more likely true - he's learned how to pitch, he's 26, he's more committed to being in shape, and he's matured into becoming a leader on this pitching staff. And, on top of that, he'll be up for FA in 2 years, which should give him added motivation to pitch as well as he can - you don't think he could perform better than he did in 2006 in 2007 and 2008? I do.
Also, CC pitched 210.0 IP in 2002, so he has actually pitched 200+ IP in his career. And, as I've mentioned in the past, his pitching 188.0, 196.2, and 196.0 IP isn't that far away from 200 IP, especially the last two years where he was less than 5 IP away from it, so I don't think his pitching less than 200 IP is as big of a deal as you are implying.
Therefore, CC is a bit more durable than you're implying; would it be nice for him to go 200+ IP? Sure, but he hasn't been that far off, and for the most part, he's been pretty healthy, avoiding any major injuries, which would be more of a concern to me than a few nagging injuries, which almost every pitcher goes through at some point in their careers.
Therefore, I think an Oswalt deal would be a bargain for the Indians in the long-run; I'm not sure CC would go for that, but if he would, I would rush to get him signed immediately without question. I'd also be willing to sign him for more than that, say 5 years $80-$90 million (up to $100 million maximum, but hopefully, I'd be able to sign him from between $75-$90 million over 5 years.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: Not sure I agree with that!
But, as Joe Sheehan would say, the two worst mistakes you can make signing contracts are to base the value on a player's peak, and to give out too many years. Sabathia's peak was a top 10 Cy Young season, but the rest of his career is merely above average. Lots of players improve through their early years and peak in their prime. Lots of players also peak early in their career and then regress a bit. It's too soon to know if which type of player Sabathia is, and it would be foolish to pay Sabathia as if he'll continue being an ace when he's only done it once. Sabathia's career year last year was paralleled in his peripherals as well, so maybe it will stick. I'd rather wait to see how Sabathia does this year, and then make an offer accordingly.
Also, how many times does he have to commit to losing weight before he actually does? He's fat, but it doesn't matter.
Re: Not sure I agree with that!
Anyways, All the Indians have to do is sign all three players, find and establish an above avg. closer and allow A.Miller and T.Crowe to work thier way onto the team and we'd be a dominant team in the AL for years. Make this happen Shapiro. (as I sit and armchair GM from my home computer).
Re: Contract Updates
I'm more of the belief that you lock up Westbrook and Hafner this off-season (if they're willing) and re-visit the C.C. talk next year. The Zambrano deal after 2007 (or sooner if the Cubs work it out) WILL be a better indicator of whether the Zito deal was the progression or the aberration.
One in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Re: Contract Updates
One option is, if we sign Jake, we can trade him for younger/cheaper guys to fill holes, and then use the Jake money to sign CC, if we want to.
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
by exileincincy on Mar 31, 2007 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
Other sports sign and trade so I'm surprised this does not happen more in MLB.
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
by exileincincy on Mar 31, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
I think if we made a habit of sign and swap then it would be bad but if "a deal we could not refuse" came along I would think we would have to pull the trigger. But it would need to make the team much better as well as save money.
So is Cliff Lee more likely to be traded since next year would be more out of the post signing polite grace period? Lee is signed for much less money than Jake's new contract will be so moving Cliff makes less sense from a money saving standpoint.
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
Re: Lee vs Westbrook, Contract Updates
Why do you like Jake over Lee? I had the idea that Lee was more valuable talent wise but I may be off here.
by BSelby on Mar 31, 2007 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Trading Pronk and Martinez after 2007?
Shoppach clearly has the skills to be a major league catcher. As a former pitcher, I'm partial to having the better defensive catcher on my roster. I'm sure Martinez would a grade-A prospect given the length of his remaining contract.
Thoughts on Lee and Westbrook!
I also agree that Westbrook is better than Lee; when Lee was traded for, most thought he was going to be a strong #2, but at this rate, I'm not even sure he's a #3, and he's certainly not a #2.
Westbrook is far more consistent from start to start, plus he gives you more length because he has more consistent command than Lee does. That's why Lee always seemed to have trouble in the 6th inning, whereas Westbrook would go into the 7th inning on a number of occasions.
While Lee's command has improved a bit over the last few years, his H/9 IP rate has gone up and his K/9 IP rate has gone down, which is why he is not a #2, and is even a debatable #3 at this point.
I mentioned last year I would have rather kept Westbrook and traded Lee, though I can understand why we resigned him.
Regarding trading players, I don't think it would make the Indians "look bad" if the Indians trade a pitcher after Year 1 of signing a 5-year contract; I don't think you have to wait 2 years before considering trading him. I agree that if we do what the Red Sox did with Arroyo that it would look bad, but I don't think you necessarily have to wait 2 years into a 5-year contract in order to trade someone. After one year, I don't think there should be any hard feelings or bad vibes, regardless of the length of contract, but that's just my 2 cents. :-)
Re: Thoughts on Lee and Westbrook!
I love Jake's work ethic and he does seem much more consistent than Cliff.
by BSelby on Apr 1, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
Heya folks, thought I'd jump in and ask a question. Didn't the Marlins just recently do this to Carlos Delgado? He signed a four year deal with them and traded him after just one, right?
by Clay028 on Apr 1, 2007 1:20 AM EDT reply actions
Re: Contract Updates
Yeah, but it's not a good idea for future negotiations to make that anything but a last resort.
Re: Contract Updates
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
