OT: Yankees give Pettitte a raise
Andy Pettitte is getting a one year, $11.75 million dollar contract, after earning $10.5 million dollars last year (with incentives).
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_heyman/12/07/winter.b…
Does anyone else think that this is completely insane, or am I alone here?
December 9th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
Last year he had a 1 year $6 million contract with incentives, and he reached all of them, getting him up to $10.5 million. He then proceeded to be the Yankees most consistent starter down the stretch and into the playoffs.
The Yankees rewarded him with a slight raise as a thank you for getting them to the World Series, and then winning 2 games there. They've always rewarded those players, see Jeter, Posada, Rivera, etc.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
THERE NEEDS TO FRIGGIN' BE A SALARY CAP IN BASEBALL! Sick to death of the New York, Boston and Los Angeles teams buying off all the damn talent and giving endless raises to keep what they want.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:25 PM ^
there's no way you need a salary cap til you get the teams to spend the money they get from profit sharing and luxury taxes.
the 2008 Marlins(per S. philips, who used to be the mets G.M) recieved over $60 mil. with the fire sale they had their team salary was under $12 mil. while i agree some teams spend more than others there are more team owners in the smaller market teams that are just pocketing the money they get from MLB instead of spending it on their team.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
It seems the going rate for a veteran third starter. Randy Wolf is signing a contract for 10 per and 3 years today. Wolf may be younger but he is also forcing a 3 year deal.
Paying the extra for a homegrown guy, Pettite was in the Yanks system, a proven winner in the playoffs, he delivered this year in the playoffs, and your paying for the bonus of not picking up extra years. Plus, you know the guy can function in NYC
It's a deal for the Yankees, who need starters badly.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
He clinched three postseason series and won 4 postseason games. He might be the best postseason pitcher of all time
December 9th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
He might be the best postseason pitcher of all timeLets not get carried away here.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^
If winning the most games in postseason history is any criterion for determining the best postseason pitcher, then there is no debate.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
That's a slightly skewed stat because the playoffs expanded an additional round in 1981. So any pitcher before that is at a severe disadvantage.
That said, I'd still say Pettitte is a Top 5-10 SP in playoff history
December 9th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
Would you care to counter with a better nominee?
December 9th, 2009 at 3:53 PM ^
http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/WS_pitching.shtml
See the comments below about the entire postseason getting lengthened over time and how that changed postseson stats. Going just from world series stats, I would have to say Jack Billingham is the best pitcher, based on a 0.355 ERA in 25.1 innings. Whitey Ford has a total of 10 wins in world series, but he has pitched more games.
Odd to note that Babe Ruth shows up on the all time top ten list for world series ERA's.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
That is my answer to that statement.
Sandy Koufax was only 4-3, but his ERA was .947 in 50+ innings.
And in those 3 losses, he gave up 3 earned runs combined!
Smoltz has 15 wins to Pettite's 18.
Winning percentage .789 to .667
ERA 2.67 to 3.90
Smoltz played in 25 series, Pettite in 28.
If Smoltz gets those extra season of appearances in/or near his prime he makes it close in the wins department, and blows him away in the others.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
After more thought, Christy Mathewson would get my vote
December 9th, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
I cringe when people compare ERA's of pitchers of different eras.
It's just a different game now. Ball is wound tighter, smaller parks, DH, Steroids, lower mound.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
While I agree with you about ERA, some of Mathewson's other stats in the World Series are.....7th all time in WHIP at 0.836, 6th all time in walks per 9 innings at 0.885, 2nd in innings pitched at 101.7 while being tied for 3rd in games started at 11, meaning he leads all pitchers in complete World Series games at 10, and also owning 1st place in shutouts at 4.
There can be cases made for a lot of pitchers being "the best". ERA was not the only factor in my wide guess at whom I would vote for.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
If Badassedness alone was a category, Bob Gibson wins hands down.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
yankees giving pettite a 1yr/11.75 mil deal has the same impact on their payroll as it would on the oakland A's payroll if the A's gave him 1yr/2 mil.
he's a cornerstone of their staff, and for a one year commitment that's not that much in today's baseball salaries.
"completely insane?" not quite
December 9th, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
Yankees giving Pettite 12 million over a 200 million payroll is 6%
Oakland giving the equivalent player 2 million over a 62 million payroll, (USA Today start of 2009) is 3.2%
So its double the commitment your quoting.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
Ok so he is off by a factor of two. But still the comparison holds, 4 million dollars for Pettite would be a major steal.
If I had more time on my hands I think it would be cool to do an economic analysis of all the teams in the league, looking at economic statistics like PPP and comparing teams like Oakland to a developing nation and the Yankees/Sox to a nation iwth a really high cost of living.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^
The highest would be the Yanks at 190 and the lowest would would be about 30 million. So the highest would be be 6 times more the lowest if your comparing those in countries GDP, I think you would get a bunch of similar countries probably the European ones.
Don't let the small market teams fool you. The Marlins, Royals, Twins between TV revenue, and luxury tax dispersal they get 80 million before they even sell one ticket. They choose not to spend it and pocket the money.
I hate the Sox and Yanks, but they at least put the money into their teams.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page…
December 9th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^
They just won a world series with him coming through in several big games. At only one year this is safe deal for the Yankees - a quality, proven, pressure pitcher for another year - and a run at another championship - with no impact on the future.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^
It's really "cool" to bash the Yankees, and I certainly don't root for them, but part of the reason they have that much money is because from a finance standpoint, they run a better business than anyone else. Why, for instance, do they rake in orders of magnitude than the flagship team in a comparable market - like the Dodgers?
The attendance of the Tigers fell precipitously this past year, and they've traditionally brought in a tiny portion of the fans that the Yankees have. Think that has an effect? The Yankees had the foresight to make their own network, and have built a fanbase large enough to support it. Again - coincidence? Further - the Yankees contribute more money to revenue-sharing - enabling teams like the Tigers to do things like sign Dontrelle Willis - than any other team in baseball. If "running a baseball team" were a competitive sport, they're winning. By a fucking mile.