Yanks plan to watch spending, says Cashman
ByDespite packing a brand new stadium in the Bronx, drawing record ratings for both their regular season and post-season games and securing their 27th World Series title, the Yankees are going to cut their spending for 2010, Brian Cashman said yesterday.
Speaking to reporters at the premiere of the 2009 World Series DVD, Cashman spoke at length about the team’s off-season spending plans. Although he has yet to meet with the Steinbrenners to assess the club’s 2010 budget, he cautioned against an off-season free agent spree similar to last year’s binge. During the winter of 2008-2009, the Yanks brought aboard Mark Teixeira, CC Sabthia and A.J. Burnett at contracts that could total as much as $429 million before 2016 is out.
“We spent a lot of money last year. We’re not going to spend as much this year,” Cashman said. I’m real pleased with the financial commitment we were able to make last year. It puts us in a much better position as we move forward.”
The Yankees, furthermore, are in no rush to leap into the free agent fray. In that sense, though, they are not unlike the 29 other teams who have been largely silent this winter. “We haven’t game-planned yet,” Cashman said. “That’s what we’re going through. Once I get firm numbers, then I can go ahead and start putting ideas together.”
For some Yankee fans, this news might be a bit dismaying. After all, even if we assume that Andy Pettitte comes back, the team still has at least $26 million coming off the books between Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon alone. Furthermore, the club needs a corner outfielder, a designated hitter and maybe even another starting pitcher. Buster Olney claims that the club is going to focus on the bullpen, but the Yanks’ pen M.O. has been to eschew overspending for relievers when replacements are easy to find. It worked last year, and Cashman has no reason to shift that approach now.
So then, fans might wonder, how can the Yanks fill their holes without spending? On a closer look, though, it’s clear that the Yankees could still be very willing to spend. Cashman simply said that the team is not going to spend “as much this year” as they did last. Considering that the free agents out there don’t stack up well with Sabathia, Teixeira and even Burnett, one team would be hard pressed to find $429 million worth of contracts out there.
The Yanks have some flexibility. Even if they shoot for the $200-$210 million payroll range of 2009, the team can go out and spend on the players they need. Signing a Matt Holliday may be cost-prohibitive and a bad use of future resources, but reupping with either Matsui or Damon and Pettitte while bringing aboard an adequate DH/OF — a Nick Johnson perhaps (but more on him later tonight) — certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. In the end, it’s all about spending wisely, and the Yankees certainly know that.
80 Comments»
RAB Info
The Founders
Mike Axisa, Ben Kabak, Joe Pawlikowski
Editor-In-Chief
Mike Axisa Archives | Email
Managing Editors
Ben Kabak Archives | E-mail
Joe Pawlikowski Archives | E-mail
Contributing Editors
Larry Koestler (Archives)
Moshe Mandel (Archives)
Stephen Rhoads (Archives)
Weekend Writers
Hannah Ehrlich (Archives)
Matthew Warden (Archives)
Special Contributor
J.R. O'Grady (Archives)
Technical Consultant
Jay Gordon
Subscribe to RAB by RSS and Twitter
Follow @RiverAveBlues Search RAB
Banner Design By
The Mason Williams Watch
“not spending as much as last year” —> “can still spend more than any other team has every spent in an offseason”
without checking, i’m 99% sure both of these statements are true
It’s very unclear whether Cashman was referring to the annual budget or the FA acquisitions when he said “we won’t spend as much as last year”.
I would love to see the Yankees do nothing but 1 year commitments and risk/reward picks this off-season. The 2011 FA class is really good, but the money just happens to be coming off the payroll this year.
Cashman had it easy last year. Tons of retiring contracts, and frontline talent that dovetailed perfectly with the team’s needs. This off-season is totally different. He has to squirrel it away for next winter, while still improving the team for 2010. That’ll mean uncovering the value plays, and really earning his keep.
What about Chappy?
What’s Chappy? Aroldis Chapman? He our Arguelles would seem to be a requirement for the Yankees this off-season. Would that go towards payroll? Does it matter if its a major league contract or not?
I am with this for the most part Mr G. I would change my approach if I could land Halliday or possibly Granderson at the right price (in players not $).
As far as Cashman having it easy last year, that is dead on. Any mook with that much $ to throw at those sorts of players could have done that. The one thing were I feel Cash earned his $ last year was getting Swish for that human minus sign. Also FINALLY putting together a worthy bench was a big check in the plus column for Cashman.
I am not giving Cash props for landing CC, AJ or Tex. Our offers were the high offer, and for CC it was by a grip. Now if he had gotten one or all of them to take less money than elsewhere, I would start praising Cash. That is where I give Theo and company some credit. Those guys over there find a way to cry poor mouth to those players and 8 times out of ten get them to take less than market deals, the other two times out of ten they get their media which is mostly in their pocket to burn down their name and likeness after they let them go or trade them away.
After Bronson Arroyo took less to sign there and they rewarded him by trading him (he was at the time attractive to teams because of his below market deal), nobody else should ever have given them a discount unless they got a no trade as part of the deal. But they find a way to get people to play for less $ and sometimes years.
“After Bronson Arroyo took less to sign there and they rewarded him by trading him (he was at the time attractive to teams because of his below market deal), nobody else should ever have given them a discount unless they got a no trade as part of the deal. But they find a way to get people to play for less $ and sometimes years.”
Mike Lowell wishes he listened to you.
Any mook with that much $ to throw at those sorts of players could have done that.
and yet you wanted to sign Manny instead of Teixeira.
First off, Cashman has been talking about reducing spending every year for several offseasons now. So far, it hasn’t amounted to anything significant.
He also said he was done spending last winter, right before he signed Tex.
Cashman announcing he’s cutting back on spending is just the only thing he can do to attempt to counter every agent saying “The Yankees are interested in my client.”
Honestly I’d be a bit scared what the Yankees would bring back for 400M+ of spending this offseason
I don’t even think signing Holliday, Lackey, trading for Halladay and giving him an extension would be close to what they spent last year. Those three I just named would be ~300.
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting the Yankees should sign them.
Yeah really. There’s no three players on the market this year that will combine for that kind of commitment. Bay, Lackey, and Holliday might get $360M combined.
If their total $ amount comes anywhere close to $360M, there would have to be two horribly moronic contracts out of 3 (if not all 3).
Maybe its just me but I am tired of hearing about our $200 million payroll in just about every story about the Yankees. I hope that our payroll in 2010 is well below that number. That can easily be done by letting Hariston Jr. be replaced by Pena, letting Molina be replaced by Cervelli,letting Hinski go, resigning Pettitte, one of Damon or Matsui, and resigning Nady. If Nady can play he replaces the offense of either Damon or Matsui and can play the field. Nady for one or two years is far superior to Bay or Holiday for 4 or five.
If Nady can play, which is a large if, he does not equal the offense of Matsui or Damon.
That’ll reduce payroll by what, $5 million?
but we’re cutting Hairston and Hinske!
I think about $15M, actually. Also not pictured: Wang. Even if you bring CMW back for $2M, that’s $18M in the bank.
But I’d want to spend that money on one year of Cameron, Sheets, and one of the Cubans.
Or:
BOTH of the Cubans.
SHAKE AND BAKE, BABY!
Are you speaking about cigars or people?
His idea isn’t *that* bad. It’s basically replace all the $1-$2mil/year bench guys with $400k/year guys, then resign all our free agents except for one of Damon or Matsui. Worst case those guys combined make the same as they made this year, so you’re talking at least $15m in savings.
I will agree that it’s still not enough to reach the “well below $200m” goal he was trying to accomplish with that.
it’s not, i just think those bench guys are mostly irrelevant. they’re not going to make a dent.
also, Pettitte should be getting a raise. if not a raise, he will at least get more guaranteed money.
I too am sick of hearing about it all the time but that doesn’t mean I want them to get worse just so it can be avoided.
As for more bringing Nady back, I don’t know. Second TJS is not very appealing.
I wouldn’t mind a Coco Crisp addition but that’s just me. Always been a fan of his.
seriously?? A fan of coco crisp?? I didn’t think there were any of those. I bet he answers your fan mail though right?? So …that’s gooood
Heh. IETC.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Coco in CF next year.
19.6 UZR in CF this year, small sample size and it didn’t like him for the Sox in 08 but still a fan no less.
I thought that too, but then I realized we already have our own version of CoCo in Melky.
I wouldn’t mind a Coco Crisp addition but that’s just me. Always been a fan of his.
You mean the cereal, right? And not the 30 year old with a career OPS+ of 94?
I think I would actually prefer to have the cereal play centerfield over coco the player.
I understand that Melky could be just as good out there and still could improve but i don’t know if ‘i’ believe this. I roam the comments here and many want him as the 4th outfielder next year.
I love how this is such an asinine idea. He was worth 1.2 WAR this year in 49 games while Melky was worth 1.6 in 154 games.
Is that not using the statistic right? No snark intended but I would rather see Coco for roughly the same amount of money because Melky is getting an arb raise, right? Then use Melky as trade bait to get something of ‘use’.
i wasn’t being snarky. I just always thought Coco was a douche. 1) because everyone (in 2005) hyped him as being a “good” centerfielder…and he’s average at best 2) because he played in boston and took on the tough guy act and 3) his hair style. Really bothered me.
So if my options were to trade melky and have either box of cereal or coco crisp play cf…i would go with the box of cereal and suggest we put gardner in lf to make up for the box of cereals lack of range.
Why couldn’t they co-exist?
Can’t have cereal without leche right?
Hah
good point. Leche in lf…cereal box of coco crisps in cf. Who wants to bet the box of cereal has a higher OBP than coco crisp the player would?
box of cereal is tough to pitch on account of its strike zone being so small.
http://nbcsportsmedia4.msnbc.c.....15p.h2.jpg (SAFE)
His slugging percentage was 0.
I’m sick of people saying the Yankees buy the WS, but I don’t want them to stop winning so that we don’t hear about it anymore.
The way I look at it is, the Yankees will never ever go down to a payroll level on par with other teams even if they do reduce. In that case, people are gonna bitch and moan about “buying” the WS anyway…so I say, spend 400 mil and buy everyone!
Ok..maybe not really, but the point is, the bitching is always gonna be there.
“People” should understand the Yankees pay out (was it 150M?) in revenue sharing and luxury tax. That gives them the right to buy anything they want without people bitching about it. If you’re gonna take the money, shut your yap.
I’m looking at you, Milwaukee.
The ’97 Marlins are the only team to have ever bought the World Series. If they can do it, its not such a special thing to do.
The ‘97 Marlins are the only team to have ever bought the World Series. If they can do it, its not such a special thing to do.
Don’t forget the ’01 Diamondbacks. They put themselves pretty far into debt to win that World Series.
The total dollar figure is way higher. How much money do the Yankees put into these crap teams pockets due to playing them and increasing their gate and food sales (and parking, merch and anything else on those games)?
MLB licensing money is split evenly. That in of itself is a huge revenue sharing. You ever see somebody wearing a Marlins cap? A rockies jersey? An Astros couch? If you have it was in the single digits.
How bout TV and radio money? The national money that comes in has a whole lot to do with the Yankees. If you contracted and cut the Twins, Pirates, Nationals, Oakland, Tampa Bay, and the Padres the TV money might actually go up not down.
The Yanks put the money on the field.
The same people I hear cry about this issue all the time are people who do not go see their team play the Pirates but when they play the Yankees they bring their whole family, and drop their whole paycheck at the park.
I have a lot of bandwagon Philly fan family members who’s excuse for the Yanks beating the Phils is that the Yanks bought the ring. Last year the Phils earned it, even though the Yanks spent more that year. This year we spent less and won but we bought the title? If it was that easy tell The Bo$$ how much the 2010 title is because if you could prove it, he would cut that check.
Who cares what the payroll is
What would be better?
If the Yankees as an organization made an extra 75 mill and had a payroll of 150 or had a payroll of 225 and put the money back into the team?
Because thats what would happen if they lowered payroll. Why not put that money back into the team and help it keep winning??
Why line owners pockets with more cash??
I would rather have Matsui as opposed to Nick Johnson…Johnson is soft while Matsui has power. While Johnson is younger he is hurt all the time. I dont have the stats but I would bet over the last 4 seasons Matsui has played more games per year. While Johnson can play first we really dont need to rest a young buck like Tex much. I think Johnson is a serious downgrade from Matsui. Johnson reminds me of Bobby Abreau—a guy who wants to walk in big situations and let someone take the onus of driving in the runs—someone like Matsui.
You had me until the knock on Abreu for “walking in big situations”.
As a hitter, you go up to the plate and do one of two things. You either make an out, or don’t make an out. In any situation, big or small, not making an out is a success.
Also, the whole spelling of Abreu. I have a hard time listening to fans who can’t spell the name of a player who was on the team for 2.5 years.
I understand the confusion. Most see a picture of Junior Seau in their mind when they read Bobby Abreu. I know I deau.
It’s five freaking letters.
A-B-R-E-U.
We’re not asking you to spell Marc Rzepczynski correctly. Bobby Abreu has a degree of difficulty of like 0.5.
We’re on the internet, there is no excuse for misspelling a name…ever, I don’t care if the name is Pawlikowski or Smith.
He also said he doesn’t have the stats. To your point, we’re on the internet!!! Why not look it up before posting?
Dial-up?
Yeah but if somebody has to look up stats for a starting player on their team for just talking generally about the player perhaps they do not know enough to have said convo in the first place.
Thank you Donnie…the degree of petty ad hominem attacks by some on this website over trivial matters like Abreu or Abreau does distract from the discourse of the subject…lighten up folks it is a game !!!
“Also, the whole spelling of Abreu. I have a hard time listening to fans who can’t spell the name of a player who was on the team for 2.5 years.”
In their defense the Yanks do not have their name on the back of the jersey. Maybe they bought a bogus shirt with his name and number on it like the mooks buy.
But maybe they are just fools and thought that when Bobs grey glove finally came in that we must have traded away the guy in right with the red glove.
But Ben, the players can’t even spell Tex’ name, or say it. Can we get a pass on that one? (I do agree for any name without a soft ‘X’ though)
They don’t have the internet in front of them…so no.
“As a hitter, you go up to the plate and do one of two things. You either make an out, or don’t make an out. In any situation, big or small, not making an out is a success.”
I do not agree with that statement. Sometimes it is your job to drive a run in. Success has degrees. The walk in some situations might not be a fail but it is not always a success.
The walk in some situations might not be a fail but it is not always a success.
I don’t believe it’s right to ever say a walk is “not always a success.” Any time a hitter doesn’t make an out, a team’s chances at scoring a run go up. Thus, the at-bat is a success. When a hitter gets a hit with RISP, a run probably scores, and the AB that ends with a hit is more successful than one that ends with a walk. But they are both a success. That’s a fact.
This isn’t, by the way, something that came out of Moneyball. This is a belief teams have held since the beginning of baseball’s modern era and before. Not making outs leads to more chances to score leads to more runs leads to wins.
Any time a hitter doesn’t make an out, a team’s chances at scoring a run go up.
Is that true 100% of the time?
I’ve got one specific case in mind that has me questioning it. Runner on 3rd, one out. If the batter walks, which team gets the advantage? Generally two runners gives better odds at scoring than just one runner on, but you’ve also introduced the possibility of a ground ball double play.
More generally, in traditional intentional walk scenarios, how do the odds change?
With a runner on third and one out, teams score slightly less than one run on average. With runners on third and first and one out, teams score 1.2 runs on average. Of course, these are context-neutral numbers. It may makes sense to pitch around someone if, say, a very weak-hitting pitcher is up next, but it is always true that, on average. the more runners on base, the more runs a team scores.
Considering that we’re talking about Bobby Abreu, a three hitter during his time with the Yanks, any walk just meant one more hitter on base for Alex Rodriguez. That’s always a good thing.
“Considering that we’re talking about Bobby Abreu, a three hitter during his time with the Yanks, any walk just meant one more hitter on base for Alex Rodriguez. That’s always a good thing.”
No really it was not. How bout all the times that Bobby got a walk when we needed a run and Alex got out? Is that a success? Not really. Success in baseball comes from scoring more runs than the other team, not getting more base runners.
Taking a walk does not decrease your likelihood of scoring a run. Making an out DOES decrease your likelihood of scoring a run.
Talking a walk, and thus doing two things that incrementally increase your chances of scoring a run (firstly, adding more baserunners; secondly, not taking a step closer to ending an inning) is ALWAYS a better scenario than making an out (and thus, not adding a baserunner while simultaneously drawing that inning nearer to a close.)
I’ll agree that taking a walk is not better than getting a hit. But taking a walk is most certainly better than making an out.
Bobby Abreu taking a walk in front of ARod is ALWAYS a good thing.
Furthermore, in the situation described, Bobby working a walk and then ARod making an out is failure, but Bobby taking a walk is not failure by itself.
The failure is all on ARod in that scenario. Bobby didn’t contribute to the failure with the walk. He made ARod’s job EASIER, not harder. The walk is not bad, only the out by ARod is bad.
A 3rd place hitter can not always pass the buck, sometimes it is their job to get that hit.
With that said, I never said it was failure to take a walk, just at times not a success.
“I do not agree with that statement. Sometimes it is your job to drive a run in. Success has degrees. The walk in some situations might not be a fail but it is not always a success.”
At that point Ben got all huffy and junk, and threw a Moneyball jab at me
Book lernin’ aint foe me boss! Isa am unliterate.
Thanks Ben. Context neutral is what I cared about – when the guy coming up to bat after the walk is A-Rod or the pitcher, I know how to set my expectations, but for a guy like Melky it’s less obvious.
Just curious, where can I look up the numbers you just gave me?
Ed: Take a look right here. That’s the expected run matrix for 2009. If you search Google for “expected run matrix,” you’ll find various tables showing historic results.
I think we had this same conversation over the value of bunting, but the following two statements are not the same:
1)Any time a hitter doesn’t make an out, a team’s chances at scoring a run go up.
2)it is always true that, on average. the more runners on base, the more runs a team scores.
The run matrix data may support (2), but they do not necessarily support (1). Ed was asking about (1).
Might the walk in the situation Ed describes increase your chances of scoring multiple runs (more baserunners) while also decreasing your chances of scoring at least one run (double play potential)? If it does, then depending on the situation, it might not be a successful outcome. Though it is still better than making an out since that would presumably decrease your run scoring chances even more.
Success has degrees.
So does failure.
Yup. Just like there are times when making outs can help your team more than a walk can.
The number of times where making an out helps your team more than taking a walk would help them are probably less than 1 out of 100.
In fact, it’s probably less than 1 in 10,000. If you take a walk, the guy behind you can still drive in the same run you can, and now he can drive in MORE runs. The situation you describe is very, very rare.
How often is a walk drawn when there are two outs, a man on third and no out? I would talk a sac fly in that situation most of the time over a walk.
I do not despise walks. But to think a walk is always a “success”, I feel is an inaccurate statement.
Bobby was the guy that was suppose to drive in runs most of the time in Philly and was always content to work a walk, sometimes on very hittable pitches. His role was different on the Yanks, so taking a walk more times than not was a good look for him. OBP is a good thing, but I like situational hitting.
Bob was looking for walks in game 1 of the 2009 ALCS and all he found was a seat on the bench. If he was actually intending to hit a baseball, he might have changed the outcome of the game. How many times does a player who is inclined to walk, strike out because the bat is on his shoulder? This game we love is a little more grey area than a few of you fellows would like to acknowledge.
Sorry I meant one out. Duh. I would take a sac fly with two outs but that would probobly only happen with the ump who was at third that night when Cano and Jorge decided to play musical chairs at 3rd.
I do not despise walks. But to think a walk is always a “success”, I feel is an inaccurate statement.
I’ll agree with that. A walk is not a complete and total success. A walk is like a field goal: it’s good, but not as good as a run.
But a walk IS a partial success; it’s way more success than failure.
A sac fly, meanwhile, it’s a partial failure; it’s a good corner punt pinning your opponent deep in his own territory. It’s better than a full failure, an out that does not score a run, which would be analogous to a big sack or a turnover, but it’s still a partial failure, because an out has been made.
there is only 1 situation where i’d take an out over a walk:
Bottom 9th, tie game, Brett Gardner is on 3rd and there is no more than 1 out.
I think the situation, inning, and outcome of the game determine what and what was not a success. That is why I love this game, not two games are the same. Not even perfect games.
“A walk is like a field goal: it’s good, but not as good as a run.”
I understand your point, but at least a field goal gets you some numbers on the board. A walk, unless the bases are loaded does not directly result in a run.
But I get your point, all I was trying to do was inject a different point that I…. wait for it….. “saw with my own eyes”
OH GOD NO MAKE HIM STOP
Here comes the please do not feed the DBHOF posts by our friendly sponsors….
“A sac fly, meanwhile, it’s a partial failure; it’s a good corner punt pinning your opponent deep in his own territory. It’s better than a full failure, an out that does not score a run, which would be analogous to a big sack or a turnover, but it’s still a partial failure, because an out has been made.
Tie game, home team up… Guy on third, no outs or one out.
A sac fly is no part failure in any way shape or form there. There are other situations where it is not a failure either but to come up with all of them requires more intestinal fortitude than I posses on the crappy day I just had.
In the 8th or 9th inning, maybe.
In the first or second, probably not.
Dammit, i meant bottom of the ninth. My brain and fingers are not working together today. Sorry for my error.
I’ve been thinking that $man would be looking to have a nominally smaller payroll this year while retaining rosterand payroll flexibility for the 2010 offseason. So, I’ve been expecting a few smaller and short term FA moves. Something like sign Pettitte, Damon, Cameron, and Nady for 1 yr each (maybe a vesting option for a second year for Damon), and let Matsui walk. All should be available for less than last year’s salary. Then save additional money at the margins by letting Hairston, Hinske and Molina go while signing/arbitrating Wang for 80% of last year’s salary. All told, this would give you a decent team while still allowing the Yanks to argue that they have trimmed payroll even after absorbing the annual increases to the various long term contracts.
Why would Cashman ever come out and say what he will do? Its amazing that the media even reports this. This is news? Cashman playing coy and close to the vest??? It would be ridiculous if he detailed his plan and let every agent and other team in on it.
He said the same thing last yr and look what happened. You cant take a GM at face value during this time. You must look at his history.
MULTIPLE INTERROBANGS?!?!??!??!??!?!??!??!
No to Holliday!! 2-3 years from now nobody will be talking about Barry Zito contracts, but rather Holliday contracts, and becrying the fact that nobody looked at his splits to figure the Coors foam factor, which gives him a probability average (real stadium basis) of about 21 HR per 162.
No to Cameron!!! It’s OK for an old f–t like me to doze off during a game, but not an outfielder.
Can’t pronounce “Abreu”? Get with it. Must be 10,000 in Da Bronx, including (at one time) an “Abreu Real Estate” on Castle Hill Road.
Austin Jackson the Great Hope??? In the minors long enough to be grabbed under Rule 5 and still needs more seasoning? We’re obviously not talking Willie or the Mick here, folks.