Dec
01

Report: No arbitration for Pettitte

By

Despite Mike’s well-reasoned argument, the Yankees are not going to offer Andy Pettitte arbitration, according to Ken Davidoff. The Newsday scribe writes that the team is planning on extending an arbitration to Bobby Abreu and Mike Mussina but not to Pudge. Team officials feel that doing so with Pettitte would give the lefty leverage to earn more than the team wants to pay him. If Pettitte feels slighted and undervalued, this move could blow back in the Yanks’ face as he jets for Joe Torre’s Dodgers. The Yanks would get burned by Pettitte and lose the draft picks at the same time. Considering that the $4 million difference isn’t that much to the Bombers, the team should just offer Andy arbitration.

Categories : Asides, Hot Stove League

132 Comments»

  1. Chip says:

    They should already have had a 13 million dollar one year deal in place. I mean seriously, a league average left-handed starter with good peripherals aren’t cheap

  2. ceciguante says:

    what mike a. said.

    still, this could be one of those situations where an offer of arbitration would rub andy the wrong way and could make him walk. if the yanks really want to keep him (and i suspect they do), then maybe the reason they’re not going the arb route is b/c they believe it would push him out the door.

    • Ben K. says:

      I don’t think an offer of arbitration that would guarantee him more than the Yanks seem willing to pay would push him out the door.

      • Mike P says:

        However if the sticking point so far has been Pettite wanting two years, not offering arbitration is a bit more understandable. Still don’t like the decision though.

      • ceciguante says:

        good point. does arbitration actually guarantee him more than last year’s $16M? or just equivalent? either way, it’s too high.

        we should also consider that the yanks wouldn’t want to get locked into $16M+ with pettitte while they’re working on santana.

        • leo says:

          No, arbitration does not and most free agents never wind up actually going to a hearing. Declining means that you don’t get to that point.

          • ceciguante says:

            i know that declining means there is no hearing…my question (based on ben k’s comment at 1137) was that if there was a hearing, is pettitte (or any player) guaranteed some minimum salary based on what they earned the prior year?

            • Ben K. says:

              Unclear. Some say the 80 percent max decrease does apply. Others say it doesn’t. I’ll try to get to the bottom of it.

              • leo says:

                It doesn’t, but it’s never really been pressed because there have been so few hearings over the years. It’s pretty unlikely an arbiter would give a huge salary cut though.

        • BaltimoreYankee says:

          Didn’t the Mets get Santana?

    • Chris C. says:

      “still, this could be one of those situations where an offer of arbitration would rub andy the wrong way and could make him walk.”

      Are you kidding? If the Yankees offered Pettitte arbitration, he’d grab it with both hands! In fact, you can bet that he and the Hendricks brothers have been sitting around WAITING for the Yankees to offer arbitration!

      “if the yanks really want to keep him (and i suspect they do)…..”

      I don’t suspect that at all. The Yankees have said and done nothing that I’ve seen indicating they want Pettitte in their rotation next year. In fact, Cashman has dropped many hints that have led me to believe that they probably don’t.

      “then maybe the reason they’re not going the arb route is b/c they believe it would push him out the door.”

      The reason they’re not offering arbitration is because they don’t want to pay a fortune for a guy they don’t really want in their rotation…..that badly, anyway. And Pettitte isn’t getting any better offers out there than what he’d get in arbitration, so there’s no way in hell that he’d turn it down.
      This is no great mystery.
      You offer arb, you’re getting Pettitte at his price.
      If you don’t, you either don’t get him, or he comes at your price.
      Draft picks do not factor in, because Pettitte was not rejecting arbitration.

      • ceciguante says:

        maybe you’re right. but as someone noted below, now that arb is off the table, the threat of losing draft picks is gone. couldn’t that embolden competitors like LAD?

        and then there is the history of andy walking last time around, supposedly b/c the yanks didn’t make enough of a play for him early and he felt unwanted.

        maybe the yanks don’t really want him back, but with moose retired, i don’t see how they can be cavalier about letting him walk. the alternative is to field a rotation of wang, joba + whatever kids and FAs you can fill in the gaps with. adding pettitte is important depth, imo, and i bet the yanks feel the same way.

        don’t forget that no major SPs have signed, so whatever pettitte gets will create a guidepost in the sabathia talks and the starting pitching market more broadly.

        • Chris C. says:

          “maybe you’re right. but as someone noted below, now that arb is off the table, the threat of losing draft picks is gone. couldn’t that embolden competitors like LAD?”

          Fine…..then let the Dodgers overpay for him.
          It’s not like we’re losing Sandy Koufax here.

          “and then there is the history of andy walking last time around, supposedly b/c the yanks didn’t make enough of a play for him early and he felt unwanted.”

          Yeah, that was 5 years ago……..Pettitte was in his prime, the Yanks were pissing him off by prioritizing Sheffield and Vazquez over him, and his hometown team came calling with a nice offer.
          From what I understand this time around, the Yankees have already made Pettitte a starting offer, plus they stood by him BIG TIME during the steroid episode.
          If he still feels unwanted, than F*** him!

          “maybe the yanks don’t really want him back, but with moose retired, i don’t see how they can be cavalier about letting him walk.”

          Let’s see……he wants alot of money, and was a big contributer to them missing the playoffs last season by blowing just about every single big start over the last two months of the season. And he’s not exactly the answer to the question, “How do we go about getting younger?”

          “the alternative is to field a rotation of wang, joba + whatever kids and FAs you can fill in the gaps with.”

          The alternative?? No, that’s Plan A! And it sounds good to me.

          “adding pettitte is important depth, imo, and i bet the yanks feel the same way.”

          No, adding Pettitte means you have to guarentee him a spot in the rotation. It’s not like they’d be adding him to fill in for someone who gets injured.

          “don’t forget that no major SPs have signed, so whatever pettitte gets will create a guidepost in the sabathia talks and the starting pitching market more broadly.”

          Okay……so if the Yanks offered arbitration and had to pay him 17 mill next season, they’d only be driving up the cost of the other FA’s they’d want to sign…….you think that’s a good thing?

  3. Eric says:

    I hope this isn’t true. This would be a silly, silly move.

    • rbizzler says:

      Agreed. Worst case scenario has the Yanks slightly overpaying for one year of Andy. Without the negative impact of losing draft picks, the market might heat up for his services. I guess we’ll see if all of the comments about being settled back into family life in Westchester were actually telling. If he bolts for L.A., I will be surprised that he uprooted his family again.

      Why Andy doesn’t think that he should take a paycut is what puzzles me.

      • Why Andy doesn’t think that he should take a paycut is what puzzles me.

        Perhaps it’s not that he thinks he should take a paycut, as much as he’s attempting not to take a paycut by publicly claiming that he doesn’t deserve to have his pay cut.

        It’s easy for us poor folks to say Andy should be magnanimous and offer to play for less, but I doubt any of us would go to our bosses and volunteer to have our pay decreased.

        • rbizzler says:

          If it meant being able to stay in a position where I was comfortable and my compensation was still acceptable, if not optimal, I would certainly consider it. I understand your point, and usually agree with this line of thinking.

          Haggling over a few million after you have already been set up for life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

          • A.D. says:

            Doesn’t matter, if you’re comfortable… what’s comfortable? Because someone can easily live on 200K a year should everyone stop there?

            For that matter we don’t know Pettitte’s finances, maybe he’s blown a lot of money, on top of that he has to worry about some 40-50 years of retirement to pay for at a life he may have become used to when he’s making millions a year with no end in sight.

            The man has all the right to ask for a 4 extra million a year (or actually his same salary, the fans have pegged him at 12M), just like if you’re living comfortably you still would want a raise.

            • rbizzler says:

              I agree with his ‘right’ to ask for whatever he wants and, generally speaking, more power to him. But when you hold someone’s toes to the fire, as Andy is kind of doing with the Yankees, you may not like how they react.

              That being said, you also have no idea what Andy’s finances are like and he could just be letting his big jock ego get in the way of his happiness.

            • rbizzler says:

              Just for shits and giggles, what was your take on Spree’s comments a few years back on not being able to feed his family on 14 million/yr?

              • Spree was a dumbass for saying that.

                But still, I will never fault a man (or woman) from trying their hardest to get every penny that someone is willing to pay them. Millionaire athletes are people just like you and me, they are fully entitled to any raise they can negotiate for just like you and me.

                • Chris C. says:

                  “But still, I will never fault a man (or woman) from trying their hardest to get every penny that someone is willing to pay them.”

                  Nor would I. But that same man was on the Michael Kay show 5 years ago speaking about how he felt “disrespected”, and rightfully so, by the Yankees lack of loyalty towards him.
                  Loyalty works both ways.
                  Pettitte pretty much admitted when the season was over that the Yankees didn’t get their money’s worth this past season, and now he’s gonna hold their feet to the fire by demanding a 2 year deal, or 1 year without a cent less than 16 mill?

                  He can ask for whatever he wants, but is he really doing it with a straight face?

              • A.D. says:

                It was funny, and poorly done, that said he had his Yacht and other items repo-ed recently… so maybe he was on to something there.

                Sprewell has become one of the models on how pro athletes can be terrible at money management, not all of them sign up with Goldman wealth management like A-Rod

          • steve (different one) says:

            Haggling over a few million after you have already been set up for life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

            i still think he will sign.

            but i think it made sense for him to wait it out until today. his agents probably told him the Yankees would offer him arbitration based on their desire for draft picks.

            once that happened, his agents would have all sorts of leverage to get Pettitte more money.

            the Yankees just cut out that leverage from under him.

            they are taking a huge risk that he gets pissed and walks away, but i think up to this point, both sides have acted rationally.

            • Chris C. says:

              “they are taking a huge risk that he gets pissed and walks away”

              No, they’re not.
              If his name was CC Sabathia, it would be a huge risk. But we’re talking about a guy who came off a dissappointing season, will be 37 years old this coming season, and is asking for a tremendous amount of money for what he is worth.
              IF the Yankees can’t afford to lose Pettitte, then they have way more problems than he could solve for them anyway.

              This is a team that already is on the verge of making outrageous contract offers to anywhere from 3-5 of the biggest FA’s on the market.
              And from what I’ve heard from Cashman, it doesn’t sound like he has a whole lot of interest in allowing Pettitte’s agents to hold the Yankees hostage.

              I don’t see the risk. If he’s comes back, okay. If not, they’ll live.

          • Haggling over a few million after you have already been set up for life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

            “I’m afraid I must insist. You see, my wife, she has been most vocal on the subject of the pretzel monies. ‘Where’s the money?’ ‘When are you going to get the money?’ ‘Why aren’t you getting the money now?’ And so on.”

            • Chris C. says:

              No offense, but if you’re wife complains in any way, shape, or form because you’re only making 12 mill per season instead of the 16 mill you used to make, then you flat our married a real bitch!

              And there may be other problems to address in your marriage as well.

              • Chris C. says:

                No you personally, Tommie.
                I’m just speaking in general.

                • In this thread, Pettitte is not getting scorned…..the Yankees are. That’s bullshit.

                  Well, I’m not scorning the Yankees. But you’re certainly scorning Pettitte. You’ve called his negotiating ridiculous, and you’ve accused him of greed.

                • Sorry, response was supposed to be lower, to this comment:
                  http://riveraveblues.com/2008/.....ent-216181

                  The “my wife” line is from the Simpsons. Just a snarky reference. Don’t take it literally.

                • Chris C. says:

                  Oh crap! I didn’t catch that reference, and don’t remember it either.
                  Damn……I love the Simpsons, and you put that one by me!

                • Chris C. says:

                  “You’ve called his negotiating ridiculous, and you’ve accused him of greed.”

                  Saying that you don’t deserve a paycut, when you just had a lousy season is being greedy.

                  I love how ballplayers always look to cash in after having one great season, but when they have a subpar season, they don’t deserve to give anything up.
                  That’s the theme of the players union.

                • I love how ballplayers always look to cash in after having one great season, but when they have a subpar season, they don’t deserve to give anything up. That’s the theme of the players union.

                  As it should be. The union is there to increase the financial prosperity of its members. For every overpaid Andy Pettitte, there’s an underpaid Chien-Ming Wang.

                • Chris C. says:

                  “As it should be. The union is there to increase the financial prosperity of its members.”

                  Not true. That’s what the union has turned into, but that is not why it is there. It’s supposed to be there to make sure it’s members aren’t taken advantage of with unreasonable working conditions, demands, or low pay by management. So as soon as it became evident that players were treated like kings, their objective changed to “how can we squeeze as much money as possible from management, while holding as little acountibility as possible for things that go wrong”.

                  “For every overpaid Andy Pettitte, there’s an underpaid Chien-Ming Wang.”

                  The underpaid guys are on the Rays.
                  The overpaid guys are on the Yankees. They don’t owe Pettitte any gifts, just because Wang is a bargain, that’s for sure!

        • Chris C. says:

          “Perhaps it’s not that he thinks he should take a paycut, as much as he’s attempting not to take a paycut by publicly claiming that he doesn’t deserve to have his pay cut.”

          And that makes him sound ridiculous. Of course his production in 2008 doesn’t warrent a 16 million dollar salary or 2009. Pettitte’s posturing is his business. But I would think he’d want to be taken seriously, especially since his reputation throughout his career has been ANYTHING but a greedy fellow.
          But you’re right…..that’s why he’s doing it.

          “It’s easy for us poor folks to say Andy should be magnanimous and offer to play for less, but I doubt any of us would go to our bosses and volunteer to have our pay decreased.”

          I don’t think I need to tell you what a silly comparison this is. For starters, I am actually better at my job and more valuable to my company then when I first came aboard. Andy Pettitte is not.
          The window for financial opportunity for a professional athelete is not even close to being the same for you or I. And secondly, Pettitte is NOT an employee of the Yankees right now, so it’s not like he’s in the middle of this great contract and doesn’t want to take a cut in pay for the good of the company.
          Again, I don’t really care WHY Pettitte anounces that he shouldn’t take a pay-cut. That’s his business. But to compare his situation to ours is insulting.

          • I don’t think I need to tell you what a silly comparison this is… to compare his situation to ours is insulting.

            The point of the comparison is not to say that you are more justified in asking for a raise than Andy is, or to insult any of us (which I didn’t).

            The point of the comparison is, you’re asking a professional athlete to all but volunteer to have his pay cut by expecting him to publicly announce that he had a bad year and is willing to take less money going forward because of it, and that’s a huge double standard. You wouldn’t ask or expect any non-millionaire you know to volunteer to take a pay cut, even if they sucked at their job. Some of my friends that I know are flat out no good at their jobs, and I don’t tell them that they’re “ridiculous” or “greedy” for not telling their bosses that they shouldn’t be paid what they’re being paid.

            Athletes are the victims of a double standard in that people expect them to act against their own monetary self interest because they’re already wealthy. That’s silly. People want to get paid the most they can get paid, simple as that. Doesn’t matter if you make 30k a year of 30M a year, if you can convince someone to give you more, you should be able to do it without being scorned.

            This is capitalism.

            • Chris C. says:

              “The point of the comparison is, you’re asking a professional athlete to all but volunteer to have his pay cut by expecting him to publicly announce that he had a bad year and is willing to take less money going forward because of it, and that’s a huge double standard.”

              Nobody is asking Andy Pettitte to announce that he had a bad year and admit he should take less money. Although Pettitte already told the press he had a bad year shortly after the season had added.

              “You wouldn’t ask or expect any non-millionaire you know to volunteer to take a pay cut, even if they sucked at their job.”

              Again, Pettitte doesn’t “HAVE TO” do anything. Just like the Yankees aren’t stupid for NOT offering him arbitration.

              “Doesn’t matter if you make 30k a year of 30M a year, if you can convince someone to give you more, you should be able to do it without being scorned.”

              Yes, it does matter. There’s a diffeence between trying to make enough to pay your bills, and trying to make enough to put your next 20 family generations in a Park Avenue Penthouse.
              Yeah, I get it that you’re trying to draw the comparison.
              But the guy making 30k CAN’T take a pay cut. The guy making 30 mill CAN.
              In this thread, Pettitte is not getting scorned…..the Yankees are. That’s bullshit.

      • Chris C. says:

        “Agreed. Worst case scenario has the Yanks slightly overpaying for one year of Andy.”

        Maybe the Yankees want to see how the market shakes out before they overpay for Pettitte. If the YAnkees end up with two top FA pitchers, then Pettitte is CLEARLY not worth overpaying for, because he’s far from being any kind of necessity..

        “Why Andy doesn’t think that he should take a paycut is what puzzles me.”

        Because he’s been hanging around Clemens and his agents for too long.

      • JeffG says:

        “Why Andy doesn’t think that he should take a paycut is what puzzles me”.

        His agent is the same guy who haggled 28 million for a beat up Clemens – Does that help solve the mystery? Perhaps Hendricks has become addicted to bending Cashman over and administering the rape technique? I’m not sure.

  4. Bill says:

    Like I stated before Hank likes to run his mouth and Hal wants to reduce payroll.

    To me this will be a perfect example of Hal and Hank will run the organization regarding payroll.

    That is if they dont offer arbitration to Andy and Ivan so they can get extra draft choices it will just prove my point that they are going to cut payroll.

    If they accept arbitration they are stuck with them for a year but if they turn it down they will get the draft picks.

    They should gamble like the Red Sox do in this cases.

    • Ben K. says:

      I highly doubt this is a Hank & Hal decision. This is Brian Cashman through and through, and I’m sure he has more information about this situation than you or I do.

      • Jake K. says:

        I have no doubt Cashman has more info than we do. But if we just took every move the team made at face value there would be no reason for blogs like this to exist. I still think Cashman is a good GM, but I do wonder about some of the moves he’s made this offseason (eg. giving Marte a 3-year when he could’ve just picked up his option). I’m all for building from within, holding onto the young guys and trying to avoid handing out bloated contracts, but he also can’t forget that the Yanks massive payroll is their major competitive advantage. To lose Pettitte or the draft picks over a few million dollars (for one year) doesn’t make any sense.

    • steve (different one) says:

      They should gamble like the Red Sox do in this cases.

      this is a completely different market right now than we have ever seen before. we are what, 3 weeks in, and there has been ONE signing, Jeremy Affeldt for a whopping $8M.

      the yankees could easily get stuck with Pudge. easily.

    • That is if they dont offer arbitration to Andy and Ivan so they can get extra draft choices it will just prove my point that they are going to cut payroll.

      I doubt it’s that cut and dried. If they don’t offer arb to Andy and Ivan, it’s not necessarily that they want to cut payroll, it’s simply that they don’t want to pay these two individuals what salaries they’d win in arb. We can dump two players and still have an overall organizational goal to increase payroll and add top-shelf talent even at top-shelf prices. Not every decision is a microcosm of a larger strategy. I imagine the decisions to offer or not offer Pudge and Andy have nothing to do with possible draft pick compensation, as it appears both players would now likely accept arb. The picks don’t enter into it, because they’re the longest of longshots of ever materializing.

      They should gamble like the Red Sox do in this cases.

      You know, not every single Red Sox move is a brilliant godsend from the baseball immortals. You should give your Sox slob-job a rest.

  5. steve (different one) says:

    Considering that the $4 million difference isn’t that much to the Bombers, the team should just offer Andy arbitration.

    i don’t agree with this line of thinking.

    at some point, you have to step back and ask “does it make sense to pay your #4 starter $16M?”

    and i don’t think it does.

    Andy Pettitte is not worth $16M next year. to prove that, he will not get $16M on the open market. i doubt he will come close to that number.

    it’s really easy for us to spend $4M of someone else’s money. but $4M is a lot of money.

    if Andy winds up getting “insulted” and walking away, well, then the Yankees are going to be in a bind.

    but i still think he will come back for around $12M.

    • Reggie C. says:

      I agree. I think Andy ultimately wanted the Yanks to offer arbitration b/c it’d stick both parties in a process that’s very very player friendly. Andy was going to at least end up making 16 ML (again) thru arb. So by not offering arb., Cash can at least stick to his guns and get Andy at a STILL GENEROUS 12 ML.

      What other team is going to offer a back-of-the-rotation starter that kind of money? Maybe the Mets. Can’t count Minaya out. Dodgers? Nope. They’re priorities begin with Manny and they’re likely to get Schmidt back. I still think Andy is ours to lose.

    • at some point, you have to step back and ask “does it make sense to pay your #4 starter $16M?” and i don’t think it does.

      The more I think about it… yeah, I think it does. Andy’s two gigantic advantages are that, since he’s an internal free agent, we don’t have to give up any picks (or give any other team any earned sandwich picks) to get him, and he’s going to go year to year.

      Say that Andy’s true value is, oh, 9M, and giving Andy arb means he gets an increase to 18M. He’s now getting paid 9M more than he’s worth, but it’s only for one year. So, if the top of the rotation is CC and Wang, we’re getting Andy’s insurance of 200 innings for 2009 while we continue to stretch out and audition the Joba/Hughes/IPK/Aveces etc. crew, without committing to numerous years for some other FA pitcher and without relying on too many youngsters all at once.

      Overpaying Pettitte for one year, even drastically, is worth having his innings for 2009 and for nothing beyond that.

      • steve (different one) says:

        the yankees are betting that Andy wants to come back. his agents know this and are doing their best to get him the most they can.

        both sides just pushed all their chips to the center of the table.

        if Pettitte wants to be a Yankee, which they think he does, he’ll re-sign for closer to what the Yankees have offered.

        if Andy wants to run home to Papa Joe just to prove a point, well, then the Yankees probably screwed themselves.

        i guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

        i bet he is a Yankee next year.

        • Exactly. While both you and I probably would have offered him arb, we’re both doing it with the intention of keeping Andy, and Cashman can probably still keep Andy without offering him arb, and do it at a lower price.

          It’s a lot easier for us to say “it’s only a couple of million” when none of us are named either Steinbrenner or Cashman. And every million we don’t spend on Andy could be spend buying us more Edwar Ramirezes and Alfredo Aceveses.

          I’m hesitant to rip this move until I actually see Andy suiting up somewhere else in 2009.

          • steve (different one) says:

            I’m hesitant to rip this move until I actually see Andy suiting up somewhere else in 2009.

            exactly.

            it’s only “stupid” if he signs elsewhere.

            if he stays with the Yankees, it was actually a smart negotiating tactic.

          • Chris C. says:

            “I’m hesitant to rip this move until I actually see Andy suiting up somewhere else in 2009.”

            Y’know, if it was Sydney Ponson who came in, went 14-14, 4.54 ERA, WHIP over 1.40, then asked for 14-16 mill for the following season, nobody would give a rats ass if he went somewhere else.

            But because it’s Andy Pettitte, the sky is falling.

            I mean honestly, why the hell would the Yankees offer this guy arbitration when it would cost them all negotiating leverage, causing a mediocre pitcher to practically name his price?

            I realize the Yankees have no qualms about spending money on their payroll, but do they have to be somebody’s bitch too?

        • Chris C. says:

          “if Andy wants to run home to Papa Joe just to prove a point, well, then the Yankees probably screwed themselves.”

          No they didn’t. They just saved 16 million bucks from going to a pitcher who just posted an era of 4.54!

          Can you name another starting pitcher in all of baseball who is in his late 30′s, posted an ERA like that, and is asking for a 16 mill payday the following year?

          It boggles my mind how people think the Yankees are being held hostage by Andy Pettitte.

  6. A.D. says:

    The Davidoff article also says no arb for Pudge… which would also suck, loosing out on a sure-fire sandwich pick because of what could be a slow market seems like a mistake.

  7. Kay Sturns says:

    if they get lowe now instead of AP, i’d be upset, sneriously

  8. Chip says:

    Anybody know what Pudge made last year? I mean that would probably be the baseline for his arbitration case

  9. CountryClub says:

    This is just silly. I’d rather pay Pettitte 16mil for one year than pay Lowe or whatever other jabroni they sign to a 4 year 60 million deal.

  10. Ron says:

    This is a prime example of being pound-wise and penny-foolish. Not offering Andy arb is indefensible. The risk of him leaving (and the Yanks getting nothing) FAR out weighs to potential of having to over pay him for ONE year.

    What free agent could possibly be signed for one year (with the possible exception of Ben Sheets) who could approach the kind of year you would expect from Andy? The value of a one year deal can’t be over emphasized. Even if you wind up paying $4 mil more than you want to, that is only 2% of the Yanks payroll, certainly not enough to gamble losing Andy and 2 picks over.

    • steve (different one) says:

      This is a prime example of being pound-wise and penny-foolish. Not offering Andy arb is indefensible.

      if they resign him for less money, it was perfectly defensible.

      if Andy returns, it was smart. it he doesn’t, it was stupid.

      right now, we don’t know. it’s too early to judge.

      • Ron says:

        “if they resign him for less money, it was perfectly defensible.”

        The ends can never justify the means. The means must stand on their own. Either it is defensible or it isn’t, you can’t wait to see the result.

        That’s akin to saying, after the fact, that it was the wrong move to bring in Mo because he blew the save. It was the right move or the wrong move BEFORE Mo was brought in; what he does can’t change that.

        • steve (different one) says:

          The ends can never justify the means. The means must stand on their own. Either it is defensible or it isn’t, you can’t wait to see the result.

          sure i can.

          as long as i am willing to accept that Brian Cashman has more information than we do.

          maybe he personally spoke with Pettitte at the end of the season and knows that he has no intention of signing elsewhere. maybe he “heard through the grapevine” that the Dodgers have zero interest in signing Pettitte for more than $8M. maybe he is already working on something with Pettitte’s agents and this was just a formality.

          we simply don’t know YET because we don’t have all the information.

          • Ron says:

            “if Andy returns, it was smart. it he doesn’t, it was stupid.”

            It is either smart or stupid. The result can’t change that.

            My comment stands.

    • Even if you wind up paying $4 mil more than you want to, that is only 2% of the Yanks payroll, certainly not enough to gamble losing Andy and 2 picks over.

      As I said above, that 4M could conceivably be spend on more Al Aceveses and Edwar Ramirezes.

    • Chris C. says:

      This is a prime example of being pound-wise and penny-foolish. Not offering Andy arb is indefensible. The risk of him leaving (and the Yanks getting nothing) FAR out weighs to potential of having to over pay him for ONE year.

      Let’s see………the Yankees are being penny foolish for NOT paying an overaged .500 pitcher with a 4.54 ERA 16 million bucks or more for the coming season? That nonsense is more sane than saving that money to spend on other possible needs?
      I don’t think so, champ.

  11. Conan the Barack O'Brian says:

    Yeah, this seems, in part, like a response to the free agent market as it is right now: slow.

    I guess in the end Cashman thinks that Andy will not go to the Dodgers or any other team, which is a pretty weighty bluff to call. If that’s 100% so, then you don’t have to offer arb. You can get him for less, or not, while pursuing the bigger ticket guys. It also makes me think that he values Hughes, maybe even Kennedy and Aceves, or some combination therein, as = to Andy Pettitte and his health concerns, which is not equal to 16 mil.

    There were probably some scenarios in which the Yanks offer Pettitte arb, but given the state of the market and the wide array of unknowns on CC and the rest, it just didn’t make sense at this point. Anybody wonder if draft quality for 2009 plays into such a decision? Probably not…

  12. Januz says:

    I do not blame the Yankees one bit for not paying Andy $16m. This country is in a severe recession, and the only people who do not understand it are the following. 1: The Major League Players Association (Andy included). 2: The Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Who are actually threatening a strike. 3: Marbury. Who should thank God for $21m. 4: Burress. Who actually thinks the gun episode and skipping practice is funny. The rest of us are struggling big time.
    I respect the Knicks for trying to get under the cap, and I hope the Yankees cut their payroll, and say NO to Andy, Lowe, Burnett, and other over priced players who will not bring them Championship Number 27, and invest their resources in scouting, drafting and IFA’s. If it means waiting three years for a title, then so be it.

    • Yank Crank 20 says:

      You do realize you’re talking to Yankee fans right? The majority of the fans you speak to on this blog are the kind who will be pissed if we don’t sign all of CC, Tex, Burnett and Lowe.

      • Mike says:

        Well maybe they should realized that we’ve tried buying our way to the title since 2000 and that hasn’t won us anything. We should keep Hughes up here and give him a spot in our rotation. If Kennedy is still part of the plan, give him time to develop here too. Why do we keep retarding the development of our young players by plugging them up with big ticket free agents. It’s time for fans to wake up. The way we’ve done buisiness before didn’t work. We won in the 90′s because of a core of homegrown talent.

        • Well maybe they should realized that we’ve tried buying our way to the title since 2000 and that hasn’t won us anything.

          Seeing as how we bought our way to the titles from 1996-2000, perhaps the problem isn’t that buying titles doesn’t work, but that buying titles doesn’t CONSTANTLY work, meaning that it’s not a guarantee but it’s still smart baseball strategy.

          We won in the 90’s because of a core of homegrown talent.

          Bullshit. Hot, hot, bullshit. We won in the ’90′s because we bought upper-echelon talent.

          • Chris C. says:

            “Seeing as how we bought our way to the titles from 1996-2000……”,

            Spending alot of money on payroll and “buying titles” are two different things. It’s all a matter of how you’re building the team. From 1994 on, the Yankees had a core in place, and they went out and bought needs around it.
            Since 2001, they’ve been trying to buy the actual core!

            Do you honestly not see a difference between the method of building that took place then, and what took place when the dynasty ended?

          • Chris C. says:

            Bullshit. Hot, hot, bullshit. We won in the ’90’s because we bought upper-echelon talent.

            We’ve been through this before. Without the proper internal player developement, the Yankees don’t win any of those championships. And the players they did bring in were guys who could stretch the count at the plate, and make life miserable for opposing starters.

            Were they paid handsomely? Sure.
            But there was a rhyme and reason to just about every guy Gene Michael brought in to New York.
            It wasn’t just “sign the top 5 free agents available” type of strategy.

            • But there was a rhyme and reason to just about every guy Gene Michael brought in to New York.
              It wasn’t just “sign the top 5 free agents available” type of strategy.

              Both then and now, we were going after the “top 5 free agents”. Because they were, and are, very very good players. Santana, CC, Tex and Holliday of today were Cone, Wells, Tino, and O’Neill of yesterday. They were the cream of the crop of big-money stars, and we went out and got them.

              You’re drastically overstating the differences between then and now. There’s no great organizational philosophy shift. You develop a good cast of quality youngsters and combine that with aggressive pursuit of the very best veteran talent available, using the considerable Yankee wallet to outspend the competition.

              It was our strategy in the 1980′s, it was our strategy in the 1990′s, it was our strategy in the 2000′s, it’s our strategy going forward into the 2010′s. The main reason it worked better in the 1990′s is… luck.

              Sorry to say, it’s simply luck. The FA’s we signed stayed healthy and productive, and we had them for their peaks. The kids who came up panned out. In the periods before and after the title years, we just had bad luck – our FA targets couldn’t produce or stay healthy, our kids didn’t have good big league success.

              People drastically understate the impact of luck and chance, and overstate grand narratives. There’s no real difference there, it was just the perfect storm of luck that quality guys came available in free agency and trade while our youngsters were coming into their own.

              • leo says:

                Cone, Wells, Tino and O’Neill were all trades which is a different strategy from signing the big names available. They were able to hang onto everyone because of their money, and flipped players when necessary (Wells->Clemens/etc).

                They made free agent signings too while building (Jimmy Key, Wade Boggs) of course but didn’t go out there and sign everyone.

              • Chris C. says:

                Both then and now, we were going after the “top 5 free agents”. Because they were, and are, very very good players. Santana, CC, Tex and Holliday of today were Cone, Wells, Tino, and O’Neill of yesterday.

                Tino and O’NEill were not the hottest FA’s on the market when the Yankees got them. They got O’Neill for the underachieving Roberto Kelly, and he was far from being a top hitter. And Tino came for two of the YAnkees top prospects, along with Nelson and Mecir. These guys were classy, emotional leader-type ballplayers who fit a certain mold of what Gene Michale was trying to do.

                “You’re drastically overstating the differences between then and now.”

                Here it is in a nutshell: THEN, the Yankees had guys who were thrilled to wear the pinstripes. Cone was thrilled to be dealt to the Yankees. For Wells, it was a lifeling dream to come here. El Duque would have taken 10 boat rides if a Yankee contract was at the end of the journey. O’Neill immersed himself in the organization. Tino relished his standing as 1st baseman for the Yanks. Guys like Boggs, Key, Raines, Davis, Curtis, etc hungered for a shot at a ring, and to do it in NY made it all the more special to them.
                And those players were supplimented with inor leaguers ready to make their mark. And did the Yanks spend money? Sure. But they weren’t throwing so much out there with the intent of changing a guy’s mind who didn’t want to come here. They were certainly in the same tax bracket as Atlanta, LA, Boston, and Baltimore.

                And NOW? Let’s take a look: We have a bunch of guys who are here because the Yankees threw top dollar at them, and a bunch of FA’s who are waiting for someone to beat the Yankees offer so they don’t have to come to NY.
                You really think Sabathia, Lowe, or even Jake Peavy want to pitch here?

                Early 90′s strategy: Identify who we want and who fits the mold of the team, gauge their interest in coming here, then go hard after them financially.

                TODAY’s Strategy: Throw so much money at the top free agents, they can’t say no.

                There’s your difference.

        • Chris C. says:

          “Why do we keep retarding the development of our young players by plugging them up with big ticket free agents.”

          Alot of Yankee fans are stupid, in case you haven’t already noticed.
          They’ll continually advocate the same dumb mistakes year after year after year.

          In a way, they’re similar to Knicks fans.

      • Mike Pop says:

        Thats not an accurate statement Yank Crank.. While most of us would love to have both CC and Tex just because it makes us immediate favorites we will not be upset cuz we do not get both.. I know I would be upset if we dont get one of them.. If we miss out on CC, I think Tex is a must

        • Yank Crank 20 says:

          I’m sorry MP, maybe it’s not a 100% accurate statement but I read a ton of comments that say because we’re the Yankees we need to use our financial advantage and sign everybody possible. I’m ok with using our money as an advantage when we need too, like with CC and our rotation, but not at every position. I represent the minority by being extremely excited to see Swisher as our 1b and Posada getting a start there once a week.

          • Mike Pop says:

            I like Swish as our 1b but I do not want to see Posada anywhere near 1b… But I would much rather see Tex at 1st with an outfield of Gardner/Swish/Nady with Damon as DH and playing the corner a couple times a week than Swish at 1st with Nady/Damon/Gardner and Melky platoon and MAtsui as DH..

            Wouldnt you ?

            • Yank Crank 20 says:

              It’s definitely a much better scenario to have Tex at 1b, that isn’t even a discussion. Tex is an all-around better hitter and fielder than Swish. However, am I ok with the Yanks spending $150 million for CC and probably $200 million on Tex? Not so much. Once again, Tex is an amazing player but i’d rather dip deep into the pockets for pitching so 1b can be for a versatile, affordable player like Swish who can go to the outfield when Posada needs to rest his arm at 1b (which keeps him, Damon and Matsui all in the lineup instead of just DHing Posada) and allows us to dump Swish or send him to the outfield full time when Jesus Montero is ready to destroy ML pitching. All of that while keeping the payroll reasonable so you can still throw money around at other free agents in the coming years. I’m a big fan of roster flexability and Swish allows the Yanks to do that. Tex doesn’t.

    • Ron says:

      “I hope the Yankees cut their payroll, and say NO to Andy, Lowe, Burnett, and other over priced players who will not bring them Championship Number 27″

      That’s the problem with not offering Andy arb… they will be forced to overpay (in dollars AND in years) for his replacement, while receiving nothing in return.

    • This country is in a severe recession, and the only people who do not understand it are the following. 1: The Major League Players Association (Andy included). 2: The Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Who are actually threatening a strike. 3: Marbury. Who should thank God for $21m. 4: Burress. Who actually thinks the gun episode and skipping practice is funny.

      [facepalm]

      Okay, first of all, yes, the economy sucks. That sounds like all the more reason for the Players Association to try and get their clients to get more money and bigger contracts now before things get worse. As always, Januz, you drastically overstate things and draw linear conclusions from a much more complex and non-linear process.

      Stephon Marbury? Really? What does Marbury choosing to negotiate (or refusing to negotiate) a buyout have to do with the economy, one iota? Wouldn’t it behoove him to hold firm and demand that he get every penny of the 21M they’re obligated to pay him, rather than take less and test the waters of the uncertain economy you’re constantly moaning about?

      Plaxico Burress? Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the thigh and skipping out on practice is related somehow to the collapse of the American credit market?

      Dude, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?

  13. A.D. says:

    http://baseballanalysts.com/ar....._draft.php

    Nice breakdown of some of the top players from last year that are eligible for rule V draft

  14. E-ROC says:

    I would’ve offered arbitration. The worse thing he could do is accept and the Yanks pay him $16 million. If Pettitte feels slighted in anyway and signs with another team, the Yanks would get picks. I was hoping that they would offer arbitration. I guess the Yanks thought differently.

  15. BG says:

    I thought that a team lost its right to negotiate with a player that it didn’t offer arbitration to until after May 1st. Thats why I was for offering him arbitration. The articles I’ve seen seem to say the Yankees still plan to negotiate with Pettite but didn’t want to risk what an arbitrator might award Pettite. Was my thinking wrong? or is the date that they lose negotiating rights after the player deadline to accept (which i think is in about a week) rather than the team deadline to offer? If they don’t lose their negotiating rights I don’t see why they would ever have offered Pettite arb. The Yankees will still be his first choice and I don’t think another team will offer the $ that he would get in arbitration.

    • steve (different one) says:

      they changed that rule.

      your thinking was correct at one point, but not anymore.

      the Yankees are still free to sign Pettitte.

      • BG says:

        Thanks for the info. I think this was a no-brainer no offer then. I’d still expect him to sign, probably for a small cut in base pay.

  16. ko says:

    Mike’s reasoning made a great deal of sense. However, Cashman apparently was unable to follow the logic. Tell Mike to write slower next time.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.