Yanks won’t rework Girardi’s deal this off-season
ByAs the Yankees moved through the playoffs, many of us wondered whether a World Series win would mean a contract extension for Joe Girardi. They got the win, but it appears the team is content to let Girardi manage 2010 as a lame duck. Joel Sherman has the details, which are few. Instead of rewarding Girardi for a job well done, the Yanks will take their normal tack of letting a contract expire before negotiating a new one. It seems like a reasonable enough stance.
Brian Cashman has made it clear that this is how the Yankees will operate. Before the 2007 season he had a chance to rework deals for Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada, but declined to do so until after the season. While that decision might have cost the team several million dollars — both Posada and Rivera played hardball after having great seasons — it appears they’ll continue to apply the policy across the board.
While football teams prefer to avoid having a lame duck coach, baseball teams don’t seem to averse to it. Joe Torre signed four contracts after his first one with the Yankees, and two of them came after the old deal expired. In other words, the Yankees had two lame duck seasons under Torre, 1999 and 2001. His teams did just fine those seasons. He signed extensions for the 1997 and 2004 seasons, a year before his contract was to expire, and the teams did just fine then, too (though both seasons ended on sour notes).
After winning the World Series in his second season at the helm, it seems that missing the playoffs in 2010 is the only result that could lead to a new manager in 2011. Even then, with the World Series championship under his belt, perhaps the Yankees will be a bit more forgiving with Girardi if his team fails to make the playoffs next year. In any case, they’re leaving that option open, no matter what the team does. Even so, save for some unforeseen event unrelated to the team’s play (e.g., Girardi insulting the owner, as he did in Florida), I don’t see anyone else managing the Yankees for the next few years.
Joe Girardi has his good points and his bad, and although many of us were puzzled by some of his moves, I still think he’s a good manager. While we as fans tend to focus on the manager’s tactical moves, a manager is responsible for more than just that. He must hold together a team of 25 personalities over a six-month season and month-long playoff process. From all appearances, Girardi has done that well. As Alex Rodriguez said after the team won the World Series, “You have 25 guys who bought into Joe Girardi’s system.”
i’m not worried about it.
Couldn’t this be a huge headache to deal with at the same time they have to deal with Jeter next offseason? I would think that with that looming over their heads that extending Girardi could be a good idea because of that.
nah a manager’s contract isn’t really a big deal comparatively. Like it says above unless he tries to basically fist fight or verbally attack cashman or hank/hal then he will be back. The question is for how much.
You can’t break company policy just because jeter’s contract is up espcially since he means more to the team and if you break it it should be for him and n ot girardi, and also because cashman even followed that policy with himself.
True dat. Just thinking how much of an offseason next year’s will be with the free agent class, Jeter’s contract, and Girardi’s contract. Mr. Cashman, I do not envy you (well, yes I do, in ways).
I think he is an excellent manager on a macro level, and a run of the mill manager on the single game level.
So you mean just like every other manager? Not to be sarcastic, but are there any good single-game-level managers?
I don’t think there are any standouts at the single-game level, but there are plenty of managers who are absolute disasters at the macro level.
Look at Joe Torre. Joe Paw posted a bullpen study at the end of the regular season about bullpen management. Torre had the deepest bullpen in baseball, had 5 legit end game relievers….and was still one of the worst at handling his bullpen. Girardi was #1 in the study. Look at how Torre kept vacillating back and forth on his 2nd baseman, batted Matt Kemp 8th at times, etc. He is a great clubhouse manager, but his handling of the macro responsibilities of a manager is terrible.
No, that’s exactly what I meant. He doesn’t do anything really revolutionary on the game-by game basis- his mistakes are those that most managers would make.
That said, on the macro level, he does a very good job of using his bullpen, spreading innings around and using the hot hand without overusing him, and did a great job for the most part keeping his veteran players fresh. The playoffs were a perfect microcosm- he made a few strange strategic calls, but on the broad level, going with just 3 starters, sticking with his struggling players (save one Hairston start), and planning to use Mariano liberally were all excellent moves that I think many other managers would not have done.
What he said.
The narrative says that even using Hairston “worked” because Swisher responded with a few good games after that. The causation argument there is tenuous though.
Yeah, I don’t buy that. After Swisher had a great Game 3, the stat people all said “See, he never shoulda sat, he was always going to break out of it,” while the non-stat people said “See, the day off worked.” Honestly, these are the kind of things that we will never really know the answer to, but the narrative of “they won both games and Swisher started hitting, so it worked” is the one that will probably survive, despite it being extremely tenuous, as you noted.
Yea. What you said is better than what I said below.
this is one of the few situations in which what a manager sees in a player’s swing, and how well he thinks his bench player can do coming right off the bench means more than statistical evidence, because slumps can be so hard to gauge.
I will say, though, that it’s impossible to predict when a guy will come out of his slump, and if he hasn’t been making any solid contact and it’s a short series, he might need to sit, and that days off have also been shown to have a wonderful effect, although, again, i’m not sure if this applies in the postseason, where everybody gets a day off every other day.
Even if you ignore the narrative of Swisher playing well the rest of the series because of the benching, didn’t Hairston get a hit in that game? Even if Swish didn’t hit well the rest of the series, you could say that move worked for that one game.
Not to defend Girardi but what manager working today does anything “revolutionary”?
He made some good moves this post season. The 3 days rest and holding Gaudin for extras was good. Hairston in Game 2 paid off. Sticking with Matsui paid off. Sticking with Marte.
He also made some awful moves. Aceves for Robertson. Pinch running for A-Rod. Leaving Burnett in the Ana game.
No manager is perfect. Its about winning in the end.
Billie Martin?
A manager’s ability to get each player to accept his role, to know when to kick a guy in the butt and when to boost his sagging confidence, to handle the media without throwing his players under a bus, to avoid overusing three guys he “trusts” in the bullpen — all these are far more important over the course of a season than brilliant in-game management
This is the good part about having a blanket policy. If the Yanks extended contracts with some people and not others, egos can get bruised, there can be complaints, leaks, disharmony.
But when the Yanks have a uniform policy that no one – from Jeter to Girardi- gets resigned before their contract expires, the pressure is off, the questions answered easily, nothing is personal.
Exactly, and I’m sure part of the plan. The only time they’ve broken with this is Cano signing a contract before he got near his FA deals, but arb players are different. Should be interesting what happens when a talented bat comes up through the system the next time.
It also has the potential to swing negotiations in the team’s favor. If they were trying to extend Jeter and Girardi right now, it’d be a nightmare. One’s coming off an MVP (Non-Mauer Division) season and the other is coming off of a World Series win.
It also has the ability to create the opposite effect with nobody else bidding for their services, they have little leverage. If Mo and Posada had gotten extensions rather than new contracts, it’s likely their contracts would’ve been slightly less AAV.
This is the good part about having a blanket policy. If the Yanks extended contracts with some people and not others, egos can get bruised, there can be complaints, leaks, disharmony.
But when the Yanks have a uniform policy that no one – from Jeter to Girardi- gets resigned before their contract expires, the pressure is off, the questions answered easily, nothing is personal.
Joe Torre was given a contract extension before his current contract had expired TWICE. In February 1997 (following his first World Series win) and in April 2004 (while still under the three-year deal he had signed in 2002).
It does make you wonder what the change is in management’s thinking between Torre and Girardi. Maybe another effect of the Boss’s absent influence? You can chalk up part of the 1997 extension to the first title in 18 years, of course; doesn’t explain 2004 though.
Could it be Cash getting total control in 2005?
I think it’d be ludicrous to sign a manager to an extension without seeing the full contract play out. As of now, girardi’s only real issues with managing are that he likes the bunt a little too much, but what if we were to sign him to an extension, and then realize next year that he had some really bad habits that will lose the yankees a bunch of games. I don’t even think that missing the playoffs should necessarily mean a new manager – though it would certainly mean a lower price tag on girardi’s head. I think Cash will look for improvement in girardi’s offensive approach (i.e. bunting), and continued excellence on the macro-level front.
I miss all of the people who said the Yanks were in the World Series in spite of Joe Girardi’s managing. Those were the days.
Figure Girardi’s value has never been higher, if they go an win the WS next year then it’ll go up, and I’m sure the Yanks are happy to pay for that, if they don’t, they can potentially get him for less than he would ask for/get now.
bingo
Right, the Yankees don’t mind paying top value if the performance warrants it which is why they are willing to gamble and sign a guy after his contract has expired. If a person has a great year the next to last year of a contract, the Yankees say they want to see that type of performance again in the last year of that contract and are willing to pay for it then when that person performs well again.
I’m not concerned. I like the consistency that the org. uses no matter your name. I can’t see him losing the players b/c he’s a lame duck.
The bigger issue is, like everything else, media related. First 3 game losing streak there will be 2 stories in every paper to fire Joe now. The rational fan will not care.
melky and ipk for mike scioscia…
IETC
From a business perspective the Yankee approach makes perfect sense. The only reason to sign someone to an extension is to get a discount on the contract. Its hard to negotiate when someone just won the world series, or had a great year at shortstop. The gamble is that they let them play it out, they have a better year and they have to pay more. Thats a gamble you are willing to take, especially when you are essentially the high end benchmark. Lets be honest, the Yankees typically set the market standard. It makes no sense for them to try and sign someone early because they will likely not get a great discount and they are able to afford anyone that might leave, provided they actually want to keep them. The argument only comes into play with young players who before their arb periods expire become premium players (and are under 26 like Robinson Cano). Point of fact is Wang, who a lot of people thought should get a deal, how would that have looked now?
If Wang’s overall metrics were much better and they didn’t have any health concerns then perhaps the Yankees would’ve sign him like Cano. However, it appears the Yankee organization had some deep concerns with Wang.
I also think that Wang didnt crack the majors until he was 25 which meant that he wouldnt hit free agency until 30-31, which would most likely been at the tail end of his peak, even assuming health. Cano was different because his contract bought out the arb years and a couple years of free agency through his age 29 season, again thats through his peak. He’ll would have been thirty when he is a free agent again. Thats the type of economic decisions they need to keep making, using their advantage not just against the other teams but in attempting to sign players and keep players.
I’m not sure if I’d call Girardi a “lame duck.” That implies that he won’t be coming back for 2011. From that bastion of truth Wikipedia:
“A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.”
I.e., first term presidents aren’t usually lame ducks until after they lose reelection. Second term president’s can become lame ducks sooner because they have no chance of being reelected. Lame ducks usually have little to no power because they know they won’t be around much longer (and everyone else knows, too). Only if we had a new manager lined up for 2011 would Girardi be in that position.
Hes an over manager to the tenth degree but you cant quibble with results. I don’t see his being a “lame duck” as a problem. The lame duck that should be worried is the guy who won 70 games in Queens. Thats a lame duck. Not a guy coming off 100+ wins and a title.
This organizational philosophy has also burnt them a few times here recently. Posada, Mo.
It’ll happen again if Jeter does what he did this yr. Same if Girardi wins again.
But they got the dough to do that. They wont get buried like Toronto did by rushing into deals with Wells and Rios.
How much will it burn them? Its not as if Jeter would accept 3 years at $10M per this year. He has almost as much leverage now as he will have next year even if he matches his production. The fact that hell be a free agent is tempered by the fact that he’ll be a year older and his value anywhere else is much lesser than it is here.
And the only thing they got hurt with Posada and Mo on was maybe the years, but I really don’t know how much shorter an extension would have been. Its all conjecture but the Yankees never get discounts from these guys, whether its in the midst of a contract or at the conclusion.
Yeah, you tell ‘em, Bo. It sucks paying $13 million to a catcher whose value was well over that mark and who has given the Yanks more value over his career than that which the team has paid.