Rob Neyer and Anthony McCarron have weighed in on the large-looming presence that is CC Sabathia, and the even larger one that will be his next contract, well north of the $100 million mark. Neyer followed that up with some comments on a Sports Illustrated article discussing Sabathia's size and other attributes as well.
I discussed CC a bit last week but did not go into too much detail. Hopefully I'll remedy that oversight here.
Ben Reiter of SI thinks that CC's as good a bet as anyone to be a very good pitcher for the next several years, in spite of his size. McCarron things that this is a big risk, but one the Yankees have to take, and I mostly agree with that, though I don't necessarily think that comparing him only to other $100 million pitchers is fair.
For one thing, the $100 million is just a convenient benchmark. If you brought it down to, say, $85 million, still a hell of a lot of money, you'd have the likes of Mike Mussina and Carlos Zambrano, neither of whom can be considered a bust at this point.
And if you look at average annual value, the list gets even bigger. Andy Pettitte and Jake Peavy both made more money per year than Brown or Hampton, but then so did Roger Clemens and Jason Schmidt, and those didn't go so well.
Roy Oswalt and Mark Buehrle and Roy Halladay aren't far off that mark, either, and their clubs are all pretty happy with them, but then there's also John Smoltz and Chris Carpenter, so...we just don't know. Spending money is a risk, and the more you spend the bigger the risk. This is not news.
But among the few things we can say with confidence about CC Sabathia, there is this: He is not Barry Zito. Or Kevin Brown. Or Mike Hampton. Unfortunately, neither is he Johan Santana.
Still, for the sake of argument, it might be helpful to look at the warning signs associated with these other huge contracts to see if they "should have known better."
Rob Neyer had reasons that three of the previous four megadeals should have been avoided, but I find a few problems with his arguments:
"[Kevin] Brown had been up and down, durability-wise, and was well into his 30s when the Dodgers signed him (and it should be said that he did pitch brilliantly for two years)."
1 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
michael chan 7 months ago
Nice article.. Think whilst it's hard to project CC in particular, for any pitcher I just cannot justify giving what the Yankees are offering. All they've done is bid against themselves for which they have previously done with other free agents. The question here is whether he's worth the $140m over 6 years the Yankees have offered. To that, the answer is a big fat NO.
Though you could argue no-one is worth that much (including Johan Santana, A-Rod, Jeter), the bigger question for teams like the Yankees: If a player has already stated his preference for playing on the West Coast, why try and force someone into playing for a team he obviously does not want to play for? We hear the term mercenary very often in the context of sport stars and whilst money talks, CC has already come out and stated his (very specific) preference. I cannot remember anyone who has specified preferences apart from Greg Maddux and as I recall, most MLB teams have respected that stance. The Yankees should accept that they'll likely be getting a 80% CC rather then the 100% CC who has his heart amd soul in every game. For me, if a player wants to come, match the highest offer and give him that choice. From the player view, I really hope CC takes a lower offer and stay true to his preference of a west coast team and also an NL side rather then chase the money. Maybe, I come from a different culture but money should not be the dominating factor for choosing clubs. The chance of winning something and playing for a club you love should trump the money factor by and large.
From a business point of view, it's just silly, bidding against yourselves!! Though many club chairman suffer from brain cramp and gulgils Scott Boras's theory of one dumb owner. In England, football is our national sport and the gossip mill is comparable to MLB's hot stove. Every offseason, there will always be stories of players who ask for the world and teams give in to them. Most of the time, players like Ashley Cole, Michael Ballack who took the Russian roubles from Chelsea end up quite content and expose their shallowness to the world. For a clearer understanding, google Roman Abramovich and you'll understand his lunacy at the beginning when he just about outbid everyone Yankee style and ended up wasting more then double what he should have spent with a touch of prudency. However, there are stories were players end up miserable and suffer from loss of form and in the end, they end up forcing a move. Nicolas Anelka is a prime example of a mercenary who's let his love of money rule his love of the game as well as the recent signing, Robinho who's in his prime but opted to take the money from Manchester City rather then attempt to win trophies. With the $100m over 5 years from the Brewers, why not match that and force him to make a choice?
Is success so much more important then financial stability? As a fan, yes. As someone who also has experience in business management, no. Arsenal are a prime example in the football world. With a new stadium to pay for, unbearable pressure to qualify for the Champions League ever year, they know their limits but refuse to pay for success the same way Chelsea and Manchester United has by developing their own talents and playing the beautiful game as it should be played. In fact, they are comparable to the Twins and As who have sustained playoff runs.
Rant over!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.