How Much Will Cliff Lee Be Worth?
December is unquestionably one of my favorite months of the year, and the week of the winter meetings is unquestionably one of my favorite weeks of the year. I revel in the rapid-paced chaos and rampant rumor-mongering about as much as one possibly can. What I'm finding, however, is that the lead-up to that week is a tad less enjoyable -- from a personal standpoint, at least -- when your team is pursuing this rare and precious commodity, but refuses to disclose any information about that pursuit, and you're left with this inordinate quantity of misinformation, overemphasis on trivial details, and even-more-baseless-than-usual speculation from "baseball people" that invariably carves a path to the newstands.
The commodity I'm referencing is, of course, Cliff Lee, and one of the discussion points that has arisen time and again concerns his projected value over the life of his upcoming five- to seven-year deal against the value of the deal itself; in other words, how will his actual production compare to his robust annual salaries? And though it's generally accepted that whichever team signs Lee will be overpaying for his services by the end of his contract, for how long (and to what degree) will that overpayment be an issue? I'm finding that most of the analysis of these issues is too qualitative in nature to be genuinely useful in answering these questions, and so I'd like to take a more quantitatively-minded (albeit simplistic) crack at the problem.
Statistician Tom Tango frequently employs a straight-line aging method where he takes a player's presumed true talent level (measured in wins above replacement) and subtracts a set number of wins with each passing season; under this method, fan-favorite shortstop Joe Cool -- who is presumed to be a three-win player in terms of true talent at the beginning of 2011 -- would be projected for 2.5 wins in 2012, 2.0 wins in 2013, and so forth. This number is then multiplied by the going rate for wins in the free-agent marketplace to generate those value-in-dollars numbers you see thrown around willy-nilly ("Franklin Gutierrez was worth $27.7 million in 2009!"), and compared against the existing or projected contract to determine the cost-effectiveness of the deal.
Now, Tango has himself acknowledged that the half-win convention may not be aggressive enough (particularly with older free agents), and we're all well aware that Lee isn't likely to decline in a perfectly linear fashion. The point is to get as close as possible while bringing some objectivity into the mix and not arbitrarily tossing around player comps and other such items. To that end, I ran through two scenarios where the constants were (a) Lee's true talent level being around six wins above replacement in 2011, (b) Lee signing a six-year, $140 million deal, and (c) a single win being worth $4.5 million in 2011, and then progressively increasing by five percent each season thereafter.
In Scenario 'A', Lee ages gracefully, losing only 0.5 wins per season, and plays out the final season of his deal at a comfortably above-average clip (3.5 wins); assuming straight $23.3 million annual salaries across the board (and this is a reasonable assumption, given the linear payment structure of most other monster contracts in baseball), Lee is only slightly overpaid in the final year or two of his deal, and ultimately generates $143 million in value -- right in line with his $140 million contract, give or take a few million. In Scenario 'B,' Lee ages less gracefully, dropping 0.7 wins per season, and plays out that final season only a few ticks above average (2.5 wins); here, he generates only $127 million in total value, and ends up being overpaid by nearly $15 million in his final two seasons combined.
Truthfully, I feel more comfortable with Scenario 'B' being the way that this ultimately plays out, but the beauty of this method is that it's so easy to mold to your liking. If you'd like to start Lee out at seven wins above replacement rather than six, you can do that. If you want to dock him for a full win with each passing season, you can do that too. (Interestingly, doing both still leaves him at $133 million in total value.) What I found most surprising in running through these numbers is that even in the fairly realistic Scenario 'B,' his worth still works out to $125-130 million, with a very real shot at $140-plus million if he ages as well as some like to think that he will.
Now, again, that isn't to say that the Rangers are the team that should be dropping that much money on Lee, but I think -- actually, I know -- that there are some out there who consider $140 million to be utterly insane and far beyond what Lee should actually be willing to accept ... and I'm just not seeing it. It's entirely possible he won't generate $140 million, $130 million, or (in an absolute worst-case scenario) even $50 million in value, but as of today $140 million for Cliff Lee still looks a hell of a lot more reasonable than throwing eight-digit sums at mediocre players. And it's today that counts.
Analysis, Hot Stove Season, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (45)
Interesting. Comforting. $140 extra large is still a lot of money.
If Texas could win even ONE championship by doing this it would all be worth it....and what a bonus if the team were to win even more than that!!!!
Also, if this cost is too much just save other money by rotating DHs and trading some of the younger talent because there is always a little more coming up.
There is insanity and then there is baseball insanity. The Rangers have reaped the bounty of one BIG payday as evidenced by that bulge of a Quarter Million One Dollar Bills in everyone's back pocket. If the players got that then maybe management also reaped the benefits of a Cliff Lee presense. There is a point too far and who knows that tipping point. If the Rangers sign Lee and get two good years then, sure, you can amortize the rest in the dynasty category of following years. Is $125 mil far enough or is $140mil too far? Go ask Tom Hicks. He thought A-Rod could carry him and he ended up paying the Yankees to take him. Just remember that the Angels have spent a lot of money and still let a pennant go by mismanagement and they draw more than 3 million to the park every year on a payroll of $110 mil. This team has a lot of other potential stars that will develop here or elsewhere. Don't bet the farm on Pride alone.
Straight line depreciation is an accounting convention to simply distribute the cost of an asset over it’s estimated useful life. It is no way whatsoever claims to be statistics. Therefore, as you have demonstrated by playing with the assumptions, it is an extremely invalid way to analyze Lee.
What would be statistically valid would be to look at the history of FA pitchers to historically see what they produce once they receive an FA contract as opposed to their contract and prior years. I strongly suspect once all the numerous “crash & burn” Chan Ho Park types are factored in the average decline is 1 WAR or more.
What is truly scary is the variability around the mean. We all assume that Lee will track the mean, but whenever I look at FA SPs there are a lot of Zito’s etc.
The injury factor is a huge bear in the woods. The winning team will be betting on both consistent production AND relatively good health over many years. This is not likely to happen. Wasn’t Lee reported to have worked through an injury (or excessive fatigue) which resulted in some sub-par games this season with the Rangers? Yes, the Rangers would probably have not played in the WS without Lee, but once the Rangers were in the big show I thought the relatively inexpensive Lewis was the best pitcher in the WS rotation.
Lee is going to tie up a huge amount of resources for a huge number of years.
I suspect that only the (damn) Yankees can afford to lock up that much capital and IF there is a train wreck (say back injury in year two or three), be able to eat the money and walk away.
Very interesting piece... and this coming from someone who hates stats.
Everyone should remember that WE are not paying Lee... Greenberg is. We're not giving up prospects or draft picks. I trust that the Greenberg group has crunched the numbers and determined a price that they are comfortable with, while not handcuffing the team from making future moves. They did not become rich by chance or dumb luck... they did so by being shrewd businessmen.
Giving Lee a 6 year deal worth $140M is not that other worldly... if anyone deserves that type of money, it's Lee. With the way he takes care of himself and the type of pitcher he has become, there's a reasonably good chance he pitches BEYOND this contract.
Man, if JD somehow pulled off signing Lee AND trading for Greinke, he deserves Executive of the CENTURY!!!
If anyone hasn't seen Jamey's latest report, check it out. He lists the type of package KC is going to want from the Rangers. Warning; it's a lot of young talent.
I agree Pablo. We should trust Greenberg until he gives a reason otherwise. However your reasoning to trust him is wrong. Tom Hicks was rich too. It was not dumb luck on his part, and we saw how he handled money.
6yrs/$144m. Do it JD.
@Kris... that's very true, Hicks was flush with money... but he was a billionaire whereas Greenberg and Co. built their fortune in a much different way and they do not have an unending line of credit, you know? If you busted your ass to become a marginally rich man, vs. having disposable income, you're going to be careful with your money.
I hate Hicks... but lets remember that when he signed Arod and Chan Ho Park, Ranger's fans were ecstatic. It wasn't until the last few years that Hicks started making stupid moves.
@RangerMad - any idea what that $144M looks like here in Texas compared to NY? I would think that accounting for cost of living and state income tax alone it's worth more at least 10%.
Jon, the assumptions Joey is making are based on the history of ALL pitchers, and how they typically decline as they age, which is much more relevant than looking at only how free agent pitchers performed in their years before and after signing their new deals. You are trying to assess the likely performance of Lee in the future, and this is how you do it.
@Pablo: Lee doesn't really care about taxes and cost of living. He wants to be paid top dollar on an annual basis. He know given his age he won't top CC contract. So he will shoot for $24m/yr for hte max years he can get.
t-ball - are you sure?
"Statistician Tom Tango frequently employs a straight-line aging method where he takes a player's presumed true talent level (measured in wins above replacement) and subtracts a set number of wins with each passing season;"
Straight-line depreciation is not stats.
"In Scenario 'A', Lee ages gracefully, losing only 0.5 wins per season"
"In Scenario 'B,' Lee ages less gracefully, dropping 0.7 wins per season"
Well which is most statistically likely A or B (or perhaps C 1.0+ wins per season)?
Also, all this analysis appears to be based on the player actually playing each and every year. Not likely with a SP from age 33 to 39. Where is that factored in?
As someone who has prepared financial forecasts for several decades this seems very non-statistical, but more of an extremely simple modeling technique for base valuation purposes. If it were stats I would like to see some variance analysis thrown in for example.
And lastly, and then I will shut up, I do not believe players age in a SL method. It simply has to be curvilinear. No way a player declines the same in year 1 as in year 6.
I keep hearing people argue that only 5 pitchers have been in the same scenario as Lee, and that it wouldn't bold well for the Rangers to sign him to the mega contract. I say BS to that. It's such a small sample size that you can't compare it at all to this.
The thing that has everyone (including me) scared is the fear of the unknown with Lee. Only one team will really feel the impact of Lee next season and beyond, they'll pay for it or flourish in it.
I'm Doyle King.
WWJDD? We're about to find out...
You are gambling that Lee has 3 more Cliff Lee years, is how I see this going on in the Rangers mind.
I'm sure both the Rangers and the Yankees would rather sing him to a 5 year deal, well they would probably sign a 3 year deal if they could but that isn't happening.
It will be a bad contract in the end of it. I'm resigned to that, but the hopes are that Lee gets you another playoff run or two, and maybe a World Series title. If you get that out of him you have a successful contract even if he craters at the end of it.
I know it will probably hurt us some at some point, but I do hope we sign him.
@RangerMad Why? Of course Lee wants extra years... years = more money... but why wouldn't Lee care if his contract says he earns more or if he actually did earn more? I would have to assume he'd at least have to consider taxes and cost of living to some degree.
When you get your paycheck do you worry more about the gross or the net? Personally I worry about whats going in my pocket... and then complain about the other 25% or so that disappears into someone else's...
I read somewhere that baseball players are like entertainers that have to pay prorated taxes in every state they "perform" if this is true then the effect of NY taxes is cut in half assuming the other 81 road games are played in similar tax states.
1) I strongly believ that, given some sort of no-trade protection, Lee WILL factor in state taxes. That's a 5% "bonus" for any Rangers' bid. Roughly $1.15 mil per year on this size contract. Lee will NOT factor in cost of living. People who make what Cliff will be making spend a very small portion of their income. Most of it will be saved and invested. Plus if he buys a new home in Arkansas or whatever, that will cost the same regardless of where he is pitching. Also, a major cost of living difference between NY and Dallas is Real Estate. However, purchased properly, Real Estate is not a depreciating asset. Figure a total of a 5% discount on a deal for the Rangers, all of it for state taxes.
2) if you figure that a 6-year Cliff Lee deal brings in roughly $10 mil in additional revenue for a team at the Rangers' position on the win curve, this type of huge deal becomes very palatable. 6/$144 seems like a place we could easily go. I feel very positive about our chances of getting this done. I'm perfectly willing to write off the 2016 season entirely, if that's what it takes to get this thing done (which I think is a gross exageration of the worst case scenario). But using it as a worst case, it still seems worth it to me.
3) I'm sick and tired of asking what the Royals "want" for Greinke. They genuinely NEED to trade him. He has a strong partial no-trade clause AND a reported desire to use it to eliminate many likely suitors from the biggest big markets. The Royals, either now or at the deadline, WILL take the best offer they are given. Tey will not let him play out the season and then deal Greinke at rent-a-player rates. They get far more for him by trading him when he can offer a team 2 playoff runs rather than 1. Everyone wants a "Texeira package" for every top player. Guess what? They call it a "Texeira package" because no one has gotten anything that good since 2007! Not for Roy Halliday, or Roy Oswalt, or Matt Holliday, or Cliff Lee 3 times. It's just not the going rate anymore, largely because everyone know the Braves got screwed, and no one wants to end up ont eh wrong end of the next "Texeira package". That's the current reality. Now, Grenke WILLbring the Royals a nice package. But I think there's little question thatan offer of no Perez, choice of Holland of Scheppers, choice of E Beltre or Borbon, and 2-3 lower tier yet still well worthwhile prospects would represent both the best offer the Royals will receive and an offer they would be foolish to turn down. An offer like that slmost certainly gets it done, in my opinion.
Jon, admittedly straight line is a quick and dirty method, but it's still a good ballpark estimate that follows what studies have shown to be the usual aging curve. I'm not looking at the exact numbers, but my recollection is that the actual aging curve based on historical results is not that far from a straight line over a period of 5 to 7 years. This is a useful way for fans on a blog to grasp the general value Lee might have under certain assumptions. It's not meant to be the kind of thorough examination a team might do before offering a contract.
And looking at all pitchers is still much more relevant than just free agents no matter your method or goals.
Newberg's reported possible deal with the Royals (Holland, Hunter, E Beltre, Erlin, and Leury Garcia for Greinke and hot young SP prospect Danny Duffy) would be one I would say yes to in a NY minute, and in fact be willing to top with one or two more solid roster peices on the order of, say Fabio Castillo and Wilfredo Boscan.
I like Scooby Dude's post a lot. Only one bone to pick - why are people wanting to keep Perez over Holland? Their true upside is similar (#1 or #2 for Perez or #2 or #3 for Holland), but their downside difference is enormous. Holland has had success (great success) at the major league level. A 3 hitter and a near 1 hitter when he had no idea how to pitch as a rookie. His second season, while marred by unfortuante injury, included a dominating stretch at AAA and a 4 inning 1 hit effort in the freaking ALCS against the best offense in baseball in the CRUCIAL moment of the series. Perez, who I've seen pitch 5 times (so this isn't based on crap i've read), does have the raw stuff that Holland has (in my opinion). The fastball is nowhere near as lively. He does have the better potential with respect to his offspeak and breaking ball. But his 2010 was a disappointment no matter how we want to spin it. He's by no means a bust because of the season (his age is just silly), but let's not confuse ourselves into thinking he made a step forward. It most definitely was a one back.
So, again I ask - why the preference to trade Holland before Perez (or Scheppers for that matter, another guy that hasn't proven anything at the level that matters and has a serious heath issue always looming)? If it takes Holland to get Greinke, I suppose you have to do it. But, I can't imagine that the Royals insist on him as the the sticking point. You just flat tell them you are not moving him PERIOD. They won't go away. They will take Perez, Hunter, Beltre and another A level arm with promise. Throw in Harrison, who their mgmt has familiarity with (they drafted him) and that gives them 2 major league ready arms and two elite prospects (plus the A level arm). That's the deal I make and I don't budge. Eff them.
I know its standard one sided looking but I guess I just don't see the Zack Grienke as an ace that most people seem to see. He had a great year when he won the Cy Young. He never had a year like that before, and he also didn't have that type of year last year.
I don't know he would be the consolation prize for losing out on Lee, but right now I just don't see them in the same class. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but right now I don't think so. Greinke to me, based oin his stats, is a very good #2 more then an Ace. But lord knows I've been wrong before and will be again.
@Scooby... wait a minute! You just ranted that Texiera like trades are no longer realistic yet you'd agree to trading Holland, Hunter, E Beltre, Erlin, and Leury Garcia... doesn't that look an awful lot like the haul for Tex? You're willing to trade 2 young starting pitchers, a top 5 prospect (Beltre), a pitcher with huge upside (Erlin) and another positional prospect that also may have a bright future (Leury). That package is pretty darn close to what the Rangers got for Tex. You have to remove the success that guys like Elvis and Feliz have had because at the time of the trade, they were highly regarded but far from proven. It was an educated roll of the dice that turned up great... but it could have easily swung the oither way and been a disaster, you know?
BTW - I too would do this deal in a heartbeat... so I'm not disagreeing with you there... but you're talking out of both sides of your ass when it comes to Tex like deals being a thing of the past.
@ JackDaddy: I, too, would rather deal Scheppers than Hunter, but I think his injury history will have the Royals insisting on Hunter over Sheppers, and I'm fine with that. I also think that Scheppers being a righty provides an added bonus for a Rangers' system that could be a little long on the lefty side (hopefully Lee, CJ Wilson, Perez, Holland, Kirkman, Erlin, Ross). As for Perez vs Holland, there are 3 reasons I just don't trade Perez;
(a) age (20 for Perez, 24 for Holland)
(b) controllabitily (3 1/2 pre-arb years remaining for Perez, 2 for Holland)
(c) top-end upside. You can't underestimate the value of the lightning-in-a-bottle chance that Perez is your Lincecum/Josh Johnson/Verlander/Felix Hernandez type of special, special difference maker. It's not likely that he (or any other single prospect) hits that peak, but it's very hard to give up the one kid in the system who really has that type of upside, which Holland simply does not really have.
@ Pabloesque: I disagree that the offer in question is a Tex package. First of all, we're talking about those players for Greinke AND Danny Duffy. Duffy is a LHP prospect who would immediately slot into the Rangers' top 7 or so prospects. Maybe higher. If the Royals offered me Duffy for Erlin and Garcia, I'd do that deal. The second player Atlanta got in the Tex deal was Ron Mahay (sp?). Not even a close comparison to the value Duffy carries. Reports from the AFL were that Duffy looked pretty sick down there. Additionally, I'm not very high on Tommy Hunter. I'd be thrilled to hear that the Royals wanted him as a meaningful part of a Greinke package. Hunter strikes me as a classic #5 starter. Now, a cheap, very good (for the slot) #5 starter with #4 upside is nothing to sneaze at. But if someone wants to trade for him based on his '09/'10 W/L and ERA, I'm jumping at that chance. Next, Engel Beltre strikes me as a guy who has great potential to be worth considerably less on the trade market a year from now. He still has HUGE upside potential. But he's also out of Mulligans. One more step-sideways season and his value takes a very large hit. Finally, the Rangers need to clear some 40-man spots, so throwing in some back-of-the-40 prospects to flesh out a deal like this seems reasonable.
Thinking of this as 2 trades: Greinke for Holland, Hunter, and Beltre (and maybe a couple of back-of-the-40 types), and Duffy for Erlin and Garcia, this is not a Tex-sized package by any means. It looks more like a 2008 Cliff-Lee-from-Cleveland-to-Philly package. Remember just how highly rated Salty was when he led off that Tex package. There's no one in this package who carries that kind of trade value.
That should read: "Scheppers than Holland" and "insisting on Holland" Sorry for the error.
I'm visualizing this scenario at the Winter Meetings where Lee's agent wants to conduct a blind auction with as many bidders as he can raise. If he can get impulse to jump in and someone do something stupid then he has done his job. I'm thinking the Rangers don't want to play that game and the last meeting to to get one last look at the tea leaves. If it didn't look right they are ready to go for Greinke. The Yankees are playing the same game. They too have a special Greinke cocktail mixed up just in case. I'm not sure the Royals have had a team as good as the Rangers have been behind Greinke. He might have pitched some gems that didn't fall his way in the win column. what does it take to become a "Dynasty Team?' A team that reaches the ALCS most every year? It will take a couple more years of 90+ win seasons for the Rangers to even sniff that rare air. If they ever do reach it then the residual effect will be post season crowds and payoffs which bring more Bling and Bang for the Buck. This is going to be a pivital season in 2011 to see where the water will seek it's own level. Man, this is going to be good or I'm going to be every sick.
@Scooby, I too looked at it as a Erlin for Duffy swap virtually independent of a Greinke trade and couldn't see a reason why the Royals would do it. Duffy would be #1 or #2 on many teams' prospect lists. Not the Rangers, of course, but that gives you an idea of how highly he's rated.
@geo: Erlin-for-Duffy makes some sense for KC because their top FIVE SP prospects are all alated to start at AA. It might make some sense for them to deal the 3rd or 4th best of the bunch for a lower level guy and stagger it out. Also, Erlin strikes me as a higher floor/lower ceiling type versus Duffy, which also might make sense for an organization in KC that has a whole bunch of high risk/high ceiling SP types. Whereas Texas' farm seems a bit loaded SP-wise at the very low levels (Erlin, Ross, Thompson, Boscan, Jackson, Mendez, Ramirez) and could use a near-majors prospect like Duffy in exchange for an Erlin.
I might add, the whole retire-unretire stunt that Duffy pulled last spring doesn't bother me too much. However, I'm sure it's left a sour taste in the Royals' mouths, since they actually had to go on that roller coaster ride emotionally.
You think when JD made the Tex trade he realized he would have it brought up and thrown in his face every time he wanted to deal for a guy like Greinke? "We want what you got for Texeira or we're not trading _____."
@Scooby, good points; I too also didn't have a problem with Duffy's brief "retirement." Seems to me that a lot of kids go through a phase sometime in the first few years after high school graduation where they wonder if they have chosen the right course in life. The only way to find out for sure is to step off that course for a bit and see how things look. As for emotional roller coasters, it surely couldn't have been any worse than the one they went through with Greinke (although it's fair to say that the a good bit of the Royals front office is made up of different personnel now).
Exactly, geo. I genuinely think that we have the perameters of a deal now that should exceed any offer the Royals get from another team, and also should be enough to make them pull the trigger, and also should make sense for the Rangers whether Greinke is a replacement for Cill Lee, or (please, please, please!!!!) the Robin to Cliff's Batman.
We get:
Greinke
Duffy
They get:
Holland
Hunter
Erlin
either the pair of Beltre and Garcia or Profar
Alternatively, leaving out Duffy,
We get:
Greinke
They get:
Holland
Hunter
choice of Beltre or Profar.
Can you imagine slotting a rotation of:
Lee (L)
Greinke (R)
Wilson (L)
Lewis (R)
Kirkman (L) or Feldman (R) or Omar Beltre (R) or Harrison (L).
With a pen that goes something like this:
Closer: Feliz (R)
Top Setup Men: Ogando (R) AND Francisco (R)
Secondary Setup: O'Day (R), Olliver (L)
Two more from: Mark Lowe (R), Pedro Strop (R), and the losers of the Kirkman/Feldman/Beltre/Harrison battle? (note: I think at least one from Harrison or Kirkman will get a slot here, as Olliver sits as the only lefty under this scenario)
That's the best pitching staff in baseball, top-to-bottom, and I'm not sure it's close.
One more idea: If you pull this off, would you be willing to follow it up by dealing, say, Kirkman, Strop and Fabio Castillo to Tampa for one year of Matt Garza to be you #5 starter, with the idea that if he leaves next off-season you back-fill the system with a Type A or B comp pick(s)?
Drooling right now. I feel like Homer Simpson. Mmmmmm.... Pitching Staff.....
I like Cliff Lee because he is durable and with the short right field fence in Arlington, Texas must be lefty heavy. Greinke included in the signees this winter, and Texas could very well find themselves at the big dance again next year. Strike that iron while it's hot. Texas could become a major force in MLB for years to come. Cowboys step aside, the Rangers are coming !
Just imagine if you will 3 years into the future;
1. LEE
2. Greinke
3. Sheppers
4. Perez
5. Wilson
@ Dave: I suspect 3 years down the road Wilson has left, and Lewis is the more likely one to still be here. Honestly, I thought Colby was a hair better than CJ overall last season anyway. But he's got a 2012 team option, while CJ is looking at Free Agency.
Also, I suspect by then it could be Scheppers as the Closer, Feliz to the rotation. But I could be wrong about all of this.
AMAZING to think of these kinds of options.
JD always seems to get that extra player in a trade. He got Seattle to throw in Lowe and I can see him getting KC to throw in a sweetner as well. Man that would be awesome to get a TORP + a Torp in waiting.
Question: Would pulling the trigger on the Greinke trade make Lee more inclined to sign with TX if the money is comparable (sp?). Would trading for Greinke be easier if Lee is signed? Does acquiring one of these pieces make it easier to get the other, I guess is what I mean.
I imagine they do. Signing Lee makes dealing for Greinke more palatable because (a) you're more willing to mortgage future prospects if you really see yourself as a WS ctop-tier contender, which a Lee/Greinke Rangers would certainly be, and (b) you have to see yourselves as more likely to be able to extend Greinke beyond 2012 if Lee is on board beyond 2012. On the other side, if the Greinke deal gets done, I would imaging the whole "Yankees win every year" thing becomes a push, as Lee would see similar or better prospects for winning here as there. So, yeah, I bet getting one done improves the odds that you get the other one done as well.
1.15M is way too high of a figure to attribute to the tax differences between playing for New York and playing for Texas.
1. The difference only matters for home games...road games are taxed where they are played. Plus playing in Texas, he doesn't get any Texas road games in his schedule, plus he plays Divisional road games in Washington (good for Cliff no income tax there either) and California (bad for Cliff tax-wise)
2. Whatever he pays in state taxes, he's gonna get a third of it back via federal income tax deductions.
There's a benefit for him playing in Texas, but to value it at over a million is too much.
With Martinez and Dunn off the market, I think the best way to improve this team now is to do everything possible to sign Lee and trade for Greinke. I'd rather sign someone to platoon at DH with Murphy than I would invest a lot of money in, say, Paul Konerko.
$23 million for Lee and $13.5 for Greinke might be pushing the budget a bit far, but I think that it would be the best way to improve this team. While I was first opposed to a giving Cliff Lee a 6 year deal, I think that it will take at least 6 years to get it done. I think the most I would offer is, say, 6 years and $144 million. I don't think the Yankees will make a better offer than that. And if they do, then I cannot justify offering anymore than that.
I'm also becoming more and more amenable to making a big offer for Greinke. If you get Greinke and Lee, can let CJ Wilson walk after next season via free agency, and Michael Young's salary will be coming off the payroll in a couple years, too. If you can get both Greinke and Lee (even if you can't make any other additions), you have to do whatever it takes.
The crux of the argument for is Cliff Lee worth it to me is...
What does the rest of our team even look like in 2015? He might not be the only player on the team at the time that has passed their prime. Would you pay a large payroll for guys that were no longer worth it, just because they had been perennial playoff teams and possibly won the WS? The Yankees are going to be doing just that for the foreseeable next couple of years.
Two problems I have with this $ per WAR analysis.
1. You have to take into account who would be pitching in Lee's place. Let's say it's Holland and he ends up having a WAR of 2.5 and we will say Lee will have a 7. That gives you a net of 4.5 not 7 and you are paying a huge premium for those extra wins.
2. Not a big fan of WAR because it defies logic sometimes. Example Hunter had a .7 and Lee had a 7.1. So if you replace the 2 with each other Hunter is a 6-15 pitcher in Lee's spot and Lee becomes a 19-0 pitcher (and actually more because Hunter only lost 4!).
War good God ya'll
What is it good for......
Not saying WAR isn't useful to some degree but it has it's flaws.
Sorry that should say Lee becomes a 17-0 pitcher but it projects out to be 19+
Anyone know how many teams are really in on Greinke? If the Rangers have any leverage I'll bet they'd like to get him before Lee signs. As I'm sure the Royals would rather wait.
I am a very simple guy. What I know is this. Cliff Lee has won 26 games over the last 2 years. Is that worthy of $24 million for 5 or 6 years ?
Meanwhile the pool is drying up. I think they should maybe look at Pavano. Eats innings, wins if he is healthy.
They could probably get Greinke AND Pavano for close to what Lee is looking for.
What I saw as a possibility from the Newberg Report on a trade for Greinke is absolutely ludicrous!! Hunter yes....Holland no.....the list of names was simply draining our system. With Greinke you don't know what you are getting in the long term...the young man has had a depression problem in the past and what if?? I would like to take a chance on him but not to the tune of the list of players it might take in a trade for him, no way. With Cliff Lee and the amount of money he wants, well the worst case scenario is that you give him 5 years and get maybe 3 good years.......these long term heavy $$$ contracts for pitchers don't pan out for the entire contract once the pitcher is Lee's age or older, at least in most cases. We had better watch ourselves here folks.....or else we might find ourselves slipping backwards with a scantily stocked minor league system!!
@ Craig- That whole list is for Greinke AND Danny Duffy. Duffy is an A- level SP prospect, who probably slots in right behind Perez, Profar, and Scheppers as the 4th best prospect in the system (assuming Beltre, Erlin, and Holland are sent off to KC in the deal). THat doesn't sound like an aweful hit to the system. And seriously, don't stress about his mental health history. He's more-or-less fine, and I think any mental health risk is MORE than made up for by the fact that, heading into his 28-year-old season, he's never spent a day on the DL with a physical injury at any level, majors or minors.