Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Just how bad is ARod's contract going forward?


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

#1 In my lifetime

  • 395 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:27 AM

With the new CBA in place, the 10 year contract given to ARod is looking much worse than it did a year ago.
10 year contract for 275M signed in Dec. 2007 for the 2008 season. An AAV of 27.5, including the following breakdown from here on:
2012 at age 36 29M + 1M signing bonus
2013 at 37 28M + 1M signing bonus
2014 at 38 25M + 3M signing bonus
2015 at 39 21M
2016 at 40 20M
2017 at 41 20M


On top of that ARod is reported to get 6M bonus for tying the HR marks of Mays(660), Ruth(714), Aarons(755), Bonds(762). He is at 629 now. So it is likely that in

2013 (possibly 2012 if he has a good year) Add 6M
2015 or 16 add another 6M
And if he manages to average 22.17 home runs per year over the next 6 years
2017 add another 12M


Factor in that it is much more difficult and much less likely that PEDs will be used to avoid the inevitable breakdowns of a 36-41 year player and you have the makings of a crippling contract, even for the Yankees.


His AAV with bonuses is 27.5
Add at least 12M of HR bonuses and that figure will be 29.5. Although it will not be evenly applied over the next 6 years. I believe that type of bonus is put in the year it is earned.

Starting in 2013, when the revenue rebate of the new CBA starts to phase in 25% per year, the cost of being over the CBT(tax) threshold becomes very large. Not only will it be 50% luxury tax for the Yankees if they never get under the cap but they also lose approximately 5M - 25M in their rebate (depending on the year and actual rebate).

So in effect the Yankees do not have 189M in a luxury threshold startinig in 2014, instead they have ARod + 151.5M in some years and 146.5M in others. This makes the possibility of the Yankees staying under the cap and remaining one of the elite teams very difficult.

If we assume the Yankees will just blow through the CBT threshold, and we lay this entirely ot the feet of ARod (of course, not really fair - there are other bad contracts that got them to this point, although ARod's is clearly the worst) then the actual cost of ARod is (all approximates):

2012: 30M + tax of 11.55 (42% of 27.5 AAV #) = 41.55
2013: 29M + 6M HR Mays bonus + tax of 16.75 (50% of 33.5) + 5M (loss of rebate 25%) = 56.75
2014: 25M + tax of 13.75 (50% of 27.5) + 10M (loss of rebate 50%) = 48.75
2015: 21M + tax of 13.75 (50% of 27.5) + 15M (loss of rebate 75%) = 49.75
2016: 20M + 6M HR Ruth bonus + tax of 16.75 (50% of 33.5) + 20M (loss of rebate 100%) = 62.75
2017(assuming CBA does not change and he does not hit >754 HRs): 20M + tax of 13.75 (50% of 27.5) + 20M (loss of rebate 100%) = 53.75
2017 (if he hits 762+ HR with same CBA terms): 20M + 12M HR Aaron/Bonds bonus + tax of 19.75 (50% of 39.5) + 20M (loss of rebate 100%) = 71.75


Even to the Yankees, that is an awful lot of change that can be assigned to a player at ages 36 - 42.

I realize it is not fair to assign all of the rebate loss to ARod, and the amount listed there is just a rough guess. However, the point is that these very high long term deals handicap teams that are close to the CBT Threshold. We have seen both the Red Sox and Yankees avoid long term expensive contracts this year. The Angels will go on to regret the contract they awarded Pujols in the same way. These long-term, very rich deals will definitely decrease in annual salary as teams deal with the new CBA. It is just the penalties for an expensive long term contract to a player that ends up underperforming (and it is almost impossible to perform to a 27.5M level) is terribly expensive to clubs.

But for 6 years of an aging ARod to cost over 300 Million dollars is astounding. In the end, the Yankees will certainly try to pin $30 Million to his back and pray that someone will take him off their hands in 2016 and 2017. If this makes it possible to get them under CBT, it would save them 80 million (however the money they pay as part of any deal will still count toward their total team salary). The possibility of a deal will be good, since the cost will be much lower to the receiving team who will certainly not be close to the luxury tax. However, ARod's no trade clause will also force the Yankees to pay ARod some money to agree to be traded.

Edited by In my lifetime, 14 October 2012 - 07:35 PM.


#2 sfip


  • directly related to Marilyn Monroe


  • 7,432 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

As much of a mistake as it was to re-sign Lowell after the '07 season, now the people who were saying at the time to sign A-Rod can imagine 1) what it would have taken to convince him to come here and 2) how much it would have handcuffed the Red Sox going forward.

#3 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:03 PM

Two amazing things came out of this deal for NY:

1) The 2009 title, no way in hell they win without his heroics.
2) The removal of Hank Steinbrenner from the ability to make major decisions.

We have seen both the Red Sox and Yankees avoid long term expensive contracts this year. The Cardinals will go on to regret the contract they awarded Pujols in the same way.


You mean the Angels with Pujols, and NY avoided long term expensive contracts this offseason because there was no one they really wanted at those prices. We've seen in recent years that massive and lengthy FA deals are rarely good overall moves, and that's the main reason I think NY avoided going after any of the big names this offseason.

#4 Tyrone Biggums


  • nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion in colorado,


  • 3,525 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:07 PM

Two amazing things came out of this deal for NY:

1) The 2009 title, no way in hell they win without his heroics.
2) The removal of Hank Steinbrenner from the ability to make major decisions.



You mean the Angels with Pujols, and NY avoided long term expensive contracts this offseason because there was no one they really wanted at those prices. We've seen in recent years that massive and lengthy FA deals are rarely good overall moves, and that's the main reason I think NY avoided going after any of the big names this offseason.


Everyone knew that this contract was going to be terrible towards the end, but I don't think anyone could forsee the way A-Rod would break down the last year or two. But they got a title out of it, so the deal was worth it in that regard.

#5 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:42 PM

Two amazing things came out of this deal for NY:

1) The 2009 title, no way in hell they win without his heroics.
2) The removal of Hank Steinbrenner from the ability to make major decisions.

You mean the Angels with Pujols, and NY avoided long term expensive contracts this offseason because there was no one they really wanted at those prices. We've seen in recent years that massive and lengthy FA deals are rarely good overall moves, and that's the main reason I think NY avoided going after any of the big names this offseason.


Badness of contract is directly related to how much it hurts though. If Pujols were to break down in a similar way, the Angels would be in a much worse situation.

#6 Gunfighter 09


  • wants to be caribou ken


  • 4,332 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:55 PM

Come September, if the Division is settled and ARod is sitting on 30 homeruns do the Sox or Rays groove a few pitches to him to make sure that bonus kicks in this offseason? Seeing how the MFYs all of sudden seem to have a budget, ARod hitting the Mays milestone this September could cost them a piece next winter.

#7 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,273 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:05 PM

Come September, if the Division is settled and ARod is sitting on 30 homeruns do the Sox or Rays groove a few pitches to him to make sure that bonus kicks in this offseason? Seeing how the MFYs all of sudden seem to have a budget, ARod hitting the Mays milestone this September could cost them a piece next winter.


Finally, an potential role for the guy we acquired in the Scutaro trade, Mortensen. Designated gopher baller.

#8 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,256 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:26 PM

Two amazing things came out of this deal for NY:

1) The 2009 title, no way in hell they win without his heroics.
2) The removal of Hank Steinbrenner from the ability to make major decisions.

Hank's incompetence was always there. It was only a matter of time before it caused damage and if it hadn't been that silly A-Rod contract, it would have been something else equally revealing.

Regardless of 2009, I'm glad it was A-Rod. Seeing the Yankees deal with that albatross will be fun. Then again, seeing the Sox deal with Crawford and Lackey will be fun for MFYFs.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 12 February 2012 - 02:26 PM.


#9 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,380 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:15 PM

Come September, if the Division is settled and ARod is sitting on 30 homeruns do the Sox or Rays groove a few pitches to him to make sure that bonus kicks in this offseason? Seeing how the MFYs all of sudden seem to have a budget, ARod hitting the Mays milestone this September could cost them a piece next winter.


This is a deliciously Machiavellian scenario, and one I had not thought of until now.

#10 collings94

  • PipPip
  • 1,182 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

Really bad, I thought that Albert Pujols getting those 10 years was a stretch because of A-Rod setting an example. At this rate, I don't even see A-Rod playing till he is 41.

#11 moondog80


  • heart is two sizes two small


  • 1,687 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:50 PM

One of the few contracts that I would not take in a trade for Crawford. But I had to think about it.

#12 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,364 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:54 PM

Winning a championship does not justify that awful contract.

1) Its the Yankees. Prior to 09' they won in 00'. A nine year drought is not a drought. And its not like they needed to win a WS for an infusion of revenue. Its the Yankees.

2) 09' happened because CC, AJ, Pettitte and Phil Hughes contributed big time innings. That is all. The Yankees were never in any real trouble of losing a series.

#13 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 17,456 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:25 AM

If A-Rod retires, what happens to this contract then? Does the AAV come off the books once he files the papers or are they stuck holding the bag either way?

#14 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:28 AM

Winning a championship does not justify that awful contract.

1) Its the Yankees. Prior to 09' they won in 00'. A nine year drought is not a drought. And its not like they needed to win a WS for an infusion of revenue. Its the Yankees.

2) 09' happened because CC, AJ, Pettitte and Phil Hughes contributed big time innings. That is all. The Yankees were never in any real trouble of losing a series.


Maybe you forget the situation a bit, not only had Boston won twice since NY's last title, but they were moving into a new Stadium and trying to sell obscenely overpriced tickets. The 2009 title has taken most of the pressure off the team in the 2-3 years since and allowed them to attempt to build from within a bit, because while nine years may not be a drought for most teams, it is when you have by far the highest payroll in the game.

And they weren't exactly in danger of losing a series, but when you're trying to go through the postseason using only 3 starters, you can't really afford to lose many games. If A-Rod doesn't save game 2 in the ALDS, CC can't start game 1 of the ALCS and they'd quickly have been in Chad Gaudin territory. He also saved game 2 in the ALCS, losing that would have likely had a similar domino effect.

#15 BellhornIsGod

  • 173 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:34 AM

Winning a championship does not justify that awful contract.

1) Its the Yankees. Prior to 09' they won in 00'. A nine year drought is not a drought. And its not like they needed to win a WS for an infusion of revenue. Its the Yankees.

2) 09' happened because CC, AJ, Pettitte and Phil Hughes contributed big time innings. That is all. The Yankees were never in any real trouble of losing a series.


Agreed with #1. If Arod breaks the all time home run record (probably pretty damn close to a 50/50 proposition at this point) he will make a total of $305 million over 10 seasons. 30.5 Mill AAV for someone who if he stays healthy over the next 6 years will get about 8% of the total Yankee plate appearances is not worth it. Especially considering he is declining in each year of the deal. Winning one championship does not make it worth the absurd amount of money he was owed. Think about all the other ways the Yankees could have spent $305 million over 10 years? A championship would have come eventually.

But #2 is completely revisionist history. Arod was a monster in the '09 postseason. Without his homer in Game 2 vs the Angels do the Yankees win that series? Maybe, maybe not. It's silly to say they would have won it without him.

#16 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,120 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 01:16 AM

Good lord, the Yankees have more contracted for the 2016 season than the Rays have for the 2012 season.

#17 ypioca

  • 4,256 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 01:47 AM

Just one thing:

2017(assuming CBA does not change and he does hit >754 HRs): 20M + tax of 13.75 (50% of 27.5) + 20M (loss of rebate 100%) = 53.75


You didn't add the 12M HR record bonus here. It's 65.75M for a 41 year old. Sweet Moses.

#18 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 02:01 AM

Good lord, the Yankees have more contracted for the 2016 season than the Rays have for the 2012 season.


Boston is not too far behind there, two big money deals in Gonzalez and Crawford as opposed to three in CC/A-Rod/Tex.

Edit: Actually, if you have the stomach for it, check out the current 2014 commitments for both teams.

#19 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,025 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:44 AM

If A-Rod retires, what happens to this contract then? Does the AAV come off the books once he files the papers or are they stuck holding the bag either way?


Why would he ever retire and leave $30m+ per year on the table? He'll show up and sit on a training table all day if he has to to get that pay check.

#20 In my lifetime

  • 395 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 09:30 AM

Just one thing:



You didn't add the 12M HR record bonus here. It's 65.75M for a 41 year old. Sweet Moses.


Thanks for the catch. I edited the original post. And with the loss of a rebate, the figure actually comes to 71.75M!
And to say that a WS win in 2009 justified the expenditure of over 300 million dollars is ridiculous. How many WS do you think the Yankees win if they spend that same 300 million dollars in a smarter way? If you are going to use that rationale then any player's contract, regardless of how large, is worth it if they have an impact that contributes to a championship season. So if the RS win the WS in the next 5 years and Crawford bats .250, but hits a game winning HR in WS game 7 then his entire contract in justified? I don't think so.

Edited by In my lifetime, 13 February 2012 - 09:33 AM.


#21 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

I'm not justifying the deal, I stated two things that happened because of it that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But again, the 2009 title was more than just another title for NY to add to their collection, it came at a time when the franchise was on the verge of imploding and being passed for the next decade by TB/BOS. If attendance started to drop in the new Stadium because the team wasn't very good, the finances could have gotten very ugly very quickly.

#22 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,256 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:27 AM

I'm not justifying the deal, I stated two things that happened because of it that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But again, the 2009 title was more than just another title for NY to add to their collection, it came at a time when the franchise was on the verge of imploding and being passed for the next decade by TB/BOS. If attendance started to drop in the new Stadium because the team wasn't very good, the finances could have gotten very ugly very quickly.

And the only way to keep attendance up and the Yankee finances from becoming ugly in 2009 was a title? A playoff run short of a WS win wouldn't have done the trick? Sorry, but I don't buy that level of doom and gloom and I can't believe that the Yankees' fortunes were so binary.

The fact is that the Yankees way over-priced their high end seats in 2009, and they had to slash them during the season tremendously to put asses in the seats closest to the field. They did that before they won the title because they way missed the mark in terms of the fans' spending appetite. Moreover, title or no tile in 2009, the Yankees were a loaded team on the field with weathy owners, many corporate sponsors and municipal subsisidies. They would have found a way to limp along even had they not won title 27 in 2009.

Hell, I doubt the wheels would have fallen off had they missed the playoffs altogether. Despite George's "it's a failure if you don't win the WS" philospohy, I think Yankees fans would come back and watch on TV as long as they viewed their team as having a realistic chance to compete.

#23 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

The financial collapse had just hit in late 2008, and I definitely got the sense at the time that NY was close to a potential tipping point. It's an alternate universe now, it didn't happen, but that was what I thought at the time.

#24 priestvalon

  • 192 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:54 AM

Thanks for the catch. I edited the original post. And with the loss of a rebate, the figure actually comes to 71.75M!
And to say that a WS win in 2009 justified the expenditure of over 300 million dollars is ridiculous. How many WS do you think the Yankees win if they spend that same 300 million dollars in a smarter way? If you are going to use that rationale then any player's contract, regardless of how large, is worth it if they have an impact that contributes to a championship season. So if the RS win the WS in the next 5 years and Crawford bats .250, but hits a game winning HR in WS game 7 then his entire contract in justified? I don't think so.


Yankees have in recent tradition had very different issues: typically due to a ridiculously productive lineup, they usually score enough runs to be either first or second in the AL East, which has a very high correlation with getting to the post season.

When you assume a post season berth instead of just a good shot at post season berth, then your concerns are completely different. Provided that you're happy with the return on a very vague payroll cap versus the Yankee revenue, you ask who's the most likely in each position and the top of the rotation to win the post season tournament. You go with proven, and proven gets expensive.

Sure, Arod is getting expensive... but he was the best available proven guy at 3B/SS at the time, and he's still going to be tremendously marketable.

I doubt Cashman would make the same deal again today,,. you can potentially see an upcoming group of multiple young ML contributors in the minors. He's getting more crafty but still has the resources to just blow out the competition should he need to. P.S. Its not somuch stadium revenues as the YES Network.

#25 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,343 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:41 AM

The MFY are going to get under the tax threshold in 2013 or 2014. Then, they're going to blow through it, figuring they'll get under again in 2016 or 2017 -- but that's never going to happen, A*Rod or no A*Rod.

Maddening as it may be, the MFY aren't going to be hampered much by that ridiculous contract -- certainly not enough to make them regret acquiring a cornerstone of their 2009 title team.

#26 In my lifetime

  • 395 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:31 PM

The MFY are going to get under the tax threshold in 2013 or 2014. Then, they're going to blow through it, figuring they'll get under again in 2016 or 2017 -- but that's never going to happen, A*Rod or no A*Rod.


I doubt very much that the Yankees will be under the threshold in 2013, considering that the AAV for just the 6 players they have under contract for 2013 is120M and this does not include club options on Cano (15M) + Granderson (13M). So I am very skeptical that the Yankees will get under the cap in 2013 or even 2014 (committed to 3 players at ~ 75M). However, not getting under will cost them significantly more going forward. Not only does the tax rate go up to 50% for the 4th time in a row (an increase from 40%), but they lose their revenue sharing rebate, which is another 20-25 million (when 100% in 2016). So the cost becomes very expensive even for the Yankees. Spend 220M, pay 15M in tax and lose another 20M in rebate = 255M. I know many people are fond of the saying the Yankees have an unlimited budget, but like any business this is not true. In fact, the Yankees for the past 7 years have had a fairly consistent salary expenditure at 190M - 214M (before luxury tax, etc). So the Yankees certainly act just as any other team/business with a budget except that their budget is significantly higher than other clubs.

The Yankees also run an additional risk if they are the only team blowing through the CBT in 2013-2016. Certainly every other club would just want the penalties to be ramped up as much as possible, ie, as high as they can get the Players Association approval. This is not to say that the new CBA affects the RS any less. The RS have shown they are okay going slightly over the threshold and paying a few million in taxes. However, I highly doubt that when the loss of revenue sharing comes into the picture that the RS are willing to sacrifice another 10-25M to be a few million over the threshold.

#27 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:56 PM

They're trying to get under in 2014 (2013 would be impossible, agreed on that), and I think they have a solid chance of doing so. The Pineda pickup definitely helps in that direction, they have CC/Pineda/Nova locked up through 2016 now.

#28 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21,681 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:22 AM

I'm not justifying the deal, I stated two things that happened because of it that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But again, the 2009 title was more than just another title for NY to add to their collection, it came at a time when the franchise was on the verge of imploding and being passed for the next decade by TB/BOS. If attendance started to drop in the new Stadium because the team wasn't very good, the finances could have gotten very ugly very quickly.


Wow, dramatic much?

This is an impressive contortion to try to minimize the fucking awfulness of this deal for the Yankees, I will give you that.

#29 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:50 AM

People forget so much so quickly. I'm not trying to minimize anything, honestly. Those are two of the best things to happen to NY in the last decade, and neither happens without this awful contract.

#30 Sampo Gida

  • 3,132 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:41 AM

In 5 years A-Rod may be one of 4, 20+ million dollar DH (A-Gon, Pujols, Fielder, himself).

I think the Yankees knew that the back end was going to be a loser. I do think they hoped for a bit more than they got in 2008-2011 after an incredible contract year in 2007. Over the last 3 years he has been a 4 WAR player and he has not played more than 138 games since he signed it (after playing more than 140 games in 10 of the previous 11 years).

The Yankees likely value an incremental win more than smaller revenues teams, so if A-Rod can deliver another 20 WAR over the next 6 years (about 7 million per WAR) that's probably enough for them to not regret the signing too much. If his decline progresses in 2012, that will not bode well for achieving this minimal expectation. A rebound in 2012 to 5+ WAR may make the contract and outlook for his remaining years more positive.

I think what's going to hurt the most, regardless of how he performs in 2012, as mentioned in the thread opener, is the new CBA and the revenue sharing rebates they stand to lose if they go over the CBT threshold. This was probably something they could not anticipate at the time they signed A-Rod.

#31 steveluck7

  • 1,137 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:05 PM

They're trying to get under in 2014 (2013 would be impossible, agreed on that), and I think they have a solid chance of doing so. The Pineda pickup definitely helps in that direction, they have CC/Pineda/Nova locked up through 2016 now.

I'm not sure how realistic even 2014 is. They are already at 75 million committed to 4 players (That's including Jeter's 3 mil buyout, he does have an 8 mil player option for '14 so essentially 72 million for 3 players or 80 for 4) Youhave Cano hitting FA after '13 so he'll need to be signed and is on the books for 14 mil in '12 (plus a 15 mil club option for '13)
Soriano is a FA after '13... not sure if he'll be back but that would open a hole in the closer role
Granderson is a FA after his '13 club option
Nova and Pineda will be in their first arb years so they'll surely be well north of their current $400k+ deals

So i would think that, including all of these players you'll be looking at at least 100 mil committed. I'm assuming Cano's '14 number will be around 15 mil, that Granderson's will be around 10, and that Soriano won't be back.
That's around 100 million for 5 players (not inc. Jeter) with holes at closer and SS

The Yankees obviously COULD have some great value at the back end of the rotation by then but those guys are yet unproven at the ML level

Edited by steveluck7, 15 February 2012 - 03:08 PM.


#32 melonbag

  • 133 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:29 PM

I think the Yanks have a good chance to get under the threshold for '14. As someone pointed out, having Pineda and Nova in the starting rotation helps. Call up a newcomer next season to replace Kuroda, get rid of AJ, and Soriano expiring in '13 helps. Mo will likely retire before then.

As far as ARod's contract, I can't see it being justified. Didn't he screw the team by opting out, costing them the subsidies paid by the Rangers? If so, that was a big middle finger to the FO, since they were willing to discuss renegotiations. Scott Boras, take a bow for that one.

#33 Sampo Gida

  • 3,132 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:04 PM

I think the Yanks have a good chance to get under the threshold for '14. As someone pointed out, having Pineda and Nova in the starting rotation helps. Call up a newcomer next season to replace Kuroda, get rid of AJ, and Soriano expiring in '13 helps. Mo will likely retire before then.


Also, CBT threshold increases to 189 million for 2014, which helps.

As far as ARod's contract, I can't see it being justified. Didn't he screw the team by opting out, costing them the subsidies paid by the Rangers? If so, that was a big middle finger to the FO, since they were willing to discuss renegotiations. Scott Boras, take a bow for that one.


Yankees obviously felt it was justified at the time. AS for the middle finger, you think A-Rod has the same leverage and gets the same deal if he does not opt out? A-Rod exercised his contractual right, he owed the Yankees FO nothing. It's a business, and the Yankees FO exercises it's middle finger as well. They just got outfingered on this one. :lol:

#34 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,380 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:12 AM

As far as ARod's contract, I can't see it being justified. Didn't he screw the team by opting out, costing them the subsidies paid by the Rangers? If so, that was a big middle finger to the FO, since they were willing to discuss renegotiations. Scott Boras, take a bow for that one.


How exactly did A-Rod screw the Yankees?

They knew about his opt out when they made the trade. They were under no obligation to sign him after he did opt out. And the subsidies that were being paid by the Rangers to the Yankees was something A-Rod had no control over and no obligation to uphold. What's more, he got a much better deal with 7 more years added on after opting out, so it's hard to argue that he didn't make the correct move.

If the deal A-Rod signed represents a screw job, the Yankees have only themselves to blame.

Edited by Average Reds, 16 February 2012 - 12:13 AM.


#35 melonbag

  • 133 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:54 PM

How exactly did A-Rod screw the Yankees?

They knew about his opt out when they made the trade. They were under no obligation to sign him after he did opt out.


Actually, the Yanks were willing to extend his contract if he didn't opt out. They said they wouldn't resign him if he opted out. ARod opted out and when he had no suitors- came back with hat in hand and booted Boras from the negotiations. By acting as his own agent, along with his wife, he took them to the cleaners. Amazing job on his part as the Yanks were bidding against themselves.

At least, that's the way I remember it.

#36 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,256 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:35 AM

People forget so much so quickly. I'm not trying to minimize anything, honestly. Those are two of the best things to happen to NY in the last decade, and neither happens without this awful contract.

Again, suggesting that the Yankees were on the verge of imploding is indefensible.

#37 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,380 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:03 AM

Actually, the Yanks were willing to extend his contract if he didn't opt out. They said they wouldn't resign him if he opted out. ARod opted out and when he had no suitors- came back with hat in hand and booted Boras from the negotiations. By acting as his own agent, along with his wife, he took them to the cleaners. Amazing job on his part as the Yanks were bidding against themselves.

At least, that's the way I remember it.


Just visited this thread for the first time in a while when I saw that it got bumped, so apologies for the untimely response.

You are correct about what the Yankees said at the time, but I really think you've been drinking a lot of kool-aid if you believe that A-Rod booted Boras from of the negotiations. He did make a public show of being the one to work face-to-face with Hank/Hal as a way of letting them save face after they announced that they wouldn't meet with Boras, but it was well reported at the time that Boras was the one actually writing up the contracts.

Having said that, even if what you wrote were to be considered gospel truth, how did A-Rod screw the Yankees?
  • The subsidy from Texas wasn't his responsibility.
  • The Yankees knew full well about the opt-out portion of his contract when they made the trade.
  • They were under no obligation to re-sign A-Rod after he went ahead and opted out, and yet they did anyway, at terms that I'm willing to bet were far more generous than they would have included in an extension.
Again, as much as I think the contract was foolish, I fail to see how A-Rod screwed the Yankees under any circumstances.

Edited by Average Reds, 26 February 2012 - 10:03 AM.


#38 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 16,648 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:53 AM

Again, suggesting that the Yankees were on the verge of imploding is indefensible.


Almost as bad as saying the Yankees didn't choke against the Sox in 2004. Very weird points of view.

#39 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

The Mets also built a new stadium that opened that year, and they indeed have imploded ever since (partly Madoff-related, but far from the only factor). They don't have the revenues that the Yankees have, but they also don't have the expenses and they didn't have two teams in their division that looked like they were on the verge of becoming perennial powerhouses, both much younger than the Yankees. As NY got further away from their last title in 2000, they seemed to get more and more desperate, making short-term decisions at the expense of long-term ones, and the 2009 title allowed them to end all that.

#40 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,380 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 02:05 PM

The Mets also built a new stadium that opened that year, and they indeed have imploded ever since (partly Madoff-related, but far from the only factor). They don't have the revenues that the Yankees have, but they also don't have the expenses and they didn't have two teams in their division that looked like they were on the verge of becoming perennial powerhouses, both much younger than the Yankees. As NY got further away from their last title in 2000, they seemed to get more and more desperate, making short-term decisions at the expense of long-term ones, and the 2009 title allowed them to end all that.


Are you really comnparing the Yankees to the Mets in any way, shape or form?

That's almost as absurd as implying that the financial self-immolation brought about by the Mets' involvement with Bernie Madoff is "far from the only factor" in their collapse.

#41 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 02:14 PM

So Madoff made them sign Jason Bay and Santana and K-Rod and Oliver Perez? They spent $142M on their payroll last year.

#42 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,380 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:37 AM

The Mets have been poorly run for years, but there's also no question that Bernie Madoff is perhaps the biggest factor in entrapping the Mets in their current vortex of suck.

Prior to Madoff, the Mets were in a position use their immense wealth to lesson the impact of their mistakes. (Much like the Yankees and Red Sox.) So despite the general incompetence of Omar Minaya and the Wilpons, the team was able to be competitive right up to the last several years. Post-Madoff, the Mets have almost no financial flexibility. Yes, they still have a significant payroll, but because they are in a mode where they have to reduce spending at all costs, they cannot fill needs from outside the organization and the impact of past mistakes becomes exponentially larger.

I suspect that you know this full well, which is why I was startled to see you go down this road. There is simply no comparison between the two NY teams, and for you to imply that A-Rod's contract somehow helped the Yankees avoid the fate of the Mets is absurd on its face.

Edited by Average Reds, 27 February 2012 - 06:37 AM.


#43 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:38 AM

You're right that I've worked myself into a position here I'm not thrilled about defending, but I also think that people aren't really remembering the situation from 2007-2009 or so especially well (and overestimating the Yankees' financial situation at the time) which is why I kept going for a bit, but I'll stop as I think I've at least made those points.

#44 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,256 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:59 AM

I know you've stopped but one last thing on my end.

It's not that the Yankees' weren't in a difficult spot before the 2009 WS. And it's not that A-Rod wasn't huge in the 2009 playoffs. It's simply that the Yankees weren't anywhere near the vicinity of jeopardy. If they didn't win the WS in 2009, they would have moved forward and put everything they had into 2010. And their fans would have come with them. Great team, new ballpark, huge resources, great TV situation, huge market -- all really good stuff and honestly not all that challenging. Hell, the Red Sox September 2011 and off season makes the Yankees' situaiton, financial and otherwise, in 2007-09 look downright rosy, and if the Sox don't win the WS in 2012, I'm confident that they'll manage to avoid imploding.

#45 Sampo Gida

  • 3,132 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:19 AM

I don't see the Yankees as being in trouble at the end of 2007 which is when A-Rod was signed to his deal. I do think the Yankees hit the panic button to a certain extent when they missed the playoffs completely in 2008. They addressed that much like the 2006 and 2010 Red Sox did when they missed the playoffs, they spent money on FA's Teixeira, CC and AJ, but the money on A-Rod had already been committed before 2008.
.
In hindsight, signing A-Rod helped get them a ring in 2009. Some folks say Daisukes contract was worth it because they won a ring in 2007, so I guess some Yankee fans will do the same about A-Rods.

Like I said before, the next couple of years will probably decide how bad the deal was for the Yankees. I think most everyone expected the last 4 years to be below the break even point but were counting on some really good years before this.

#46 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:11 AM

Don't forget that it was pretty unclear for a few years what the hell was going to happen with the ownership as George S gradually lost his faculties and eventually died. There wasn't much youth in the system, there were a lot of overpaid players in decline, it could have gotten ugly.

And while the 2009 title was big, the really big positive development to come from the A-Rod signing was idiot brother Hank never again being allowed to make a big decision. The A-Rod contract is awful, but if you gave me the choice between living with that/exiling Hank permanently (what happened) and letting A-Rod go/letting Hank make decisions for years and years, I'll take the shitty A-Rod deal every single time.

#47 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:05 AM

And while the 2009 title was big, the really big positive development to come from the A-Rod signing was idiot brother Hank never again allowed to make a big decision. The A-Rod contract is awful, but if you gave me the choice between living with that/exiling Hank permanently (what happened) and letting A-Rod go/letting Hank make decisions for years and years, I'll take the shitty A-Rod deal every single time.


That's interesting, I don't recall that being mentioned much nationally. Nice to know. I can see why Yankee fans would consider it a win. Wouldn't surprise me if ARod had one or two more good years in him. Players at his level often seem to bounce back a bit.


I'm note sure NYY actually values getting under the cap that much. If there is any team capable of saying "ah, f**ck it, damn the torpedos", it's them. The new rules seem to make you either stay under cap, or just go way the hell over.

Edited by BucketOBalls, 28 February 2012 - 02:08 AM.


#48 Doctor G

  • 1,899 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:15 AM

Don't forget that it was pretty unclear for a few years what the hell was going to happen with the ownership as George S gradually lost his faculties and eventually died. There wasn't much youth in the system, there were a lot of overpaid players in decline, it could have gotten ugly.

And while the 2009 title was big, the really big positive development to come from the A-Rod signing was idiot brother Hank never again being allowed to make a big decision. The A-Rod contract is awful, but if you gave me the choice between living with that/exiling Hank permanently (what happened) and letting A-Rod go/letting Hank make decisions for years and years, I'll take the shitty A-Rod deal every single time.

To lay this decision solely on Hank S is naive at best. Hank was merely the voice being quoted at the time. I am sure that this was a joint decision of the whole Steinbrenner clan, Admittedly Hank's role as a spokesman for the team diminished in the period following this. this probably had a lot more to do with the stupid things he said than his role in the ARod contract. I am sure Hank still has a voice in financial decisions made by the Yankees, even if his brother is more visible.

Edited by Doctor G, 28 February 2012 - 09:17 AM.


#49 crow216


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,832 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:15 PM

Arod apparently gave a great speech to the clubhouse for 10 minutes.

According to those in the clubhouse, however, Rodriguez talked about being “all in.” He advised them that, on that subject, there was only black or white, “no gray.” He said each of them – from the biggest superstar to the last guy on the 40-man – knew what “all in” meant. They’d had to have been “all in” just to sit in that room, to make it this far. And that every man knew exactly what his “all in” amounted to, in work ethic and dedication and sacrifice. He asked them to find that within them, to bring it every day, all season long, for the good of the Yankees. For the good of themselves.



“Amazing,” a witness said. “The guys were drawn to him.”



Somebody had to say it.



And, on a Friday leading to his 19th big-league season, Alex Rodriguez became that somebody.



http://slidingintoho...uez-leader.html

Interesting to see this come out of arod.

Edited by crow216, 03 March 2012 - 10:36 PM.


#50 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,281 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 07:54 PM

Some good journalism here from Joel Sherman, A-Rod is now being trained by Mike Clark, former Suns' physical therapist who somehow made the previously ultra-fragile Grant Hill into an iron man from 35-40, among other success stories.

http://www.nypost.co...jqKmBJWLXZvNmuJ




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users