I'm really getting sick of writing about the Derek Jeter situation. There are times where I feel like it's all I talk about. That said, the storyline is just so compelling. It's kind of fun watching the Yankees and their Captain bicker over millions of dollars. This is baseball's equivalent to Kanye West and his crazy tweets, or Lindsey Lohan and her inability to stay out of rehab. It's become a water cooler story that keeps getting juicier as time goes on. And juicier, it has become...
Yesterday, I mentioned that Bill Madden reported that Derek Jeter was requesting a somewhere around 6 years $150M. Later, I updated the post with a quote from Jeter's agent, Casey Close, who stated Madden's report was "simply inaccurate".* Today, there are two new reports (one from Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times and another from Bill Madden and Anthony McCarron of the New York Daily News) stating that Jeter is requesting a deal worth $22-24M over four to five seasons.
*Odd choice of the word "simply", don't you think? Has anything regarding these negotiations been simple?
To quote the movie Clueless, "Whatever". If the reports are true, Casey Close is really splitting hairs over what he considers to be "simply inaccurate". Sure, the $25M per season figure was a little off, but it wasn't by that much. It's certainly not off by enough to warrant coming out with a statement refuting the report. Then again, there could be an ulterior motive for refuting the report. As I've mentioned a few times before, when you look at the situation objectively, it's ludicrous for Jeter to expect a contract of that magnitude. After all, he is a 36 year old shortstop that was below average offensively (per wOBA, EqA, and OPS) and defensively (per every advanced metric available) in 2010. This is true, even after you add Jeter's intangible qualities to the equation.
Perhaps, Close knows his demands are insane, and he's trying to save face by attempting to keep his demands private. I don't know whether this is true or not, but I'm starting to wonder if it is. As I mentioned yesterday, Close forcefully refuted Madden's report of 6/$150M. Throughout the negotiation process, he has never once mentioned what he (and Jeter) felt was a reasonable offer. The only thing he's mentioned is that the Yankees offers (presumably around 3/$45M) haven't been inline with a player of Jeter's stature. At this point, there are too many reports claiming Jeter's looking for A-Rod type money (albeit a little less) for me not to believe it. Close's denials are coming off as desperate and hollow.
hey 791
ReplyDeleteoff topic question? i have been unable to find evidence regarding the aging of different skill sets. you wrote on BDC that Crawford's set will age well. could you point me to the research? i have an open mind although i need some empirical evidence. thanks Tom-UK
Players with Crawford's skill set typically (and I stress the word typically) age well. Crawford is athletic, defensively oriented, speedy, and agile. Offensively, he's a line drive hitter, who while not taking a lot of walks exhibits good plate discipline. You're not going to find a "magic number" that proves this, but if you look at comparable players (in terms of skills, not necessarily stats), you'll see this.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, players with old man skills (poor baserunning and defense combined with three true outcomes on offense) tend to age poorly. For every Jim Thome who bucks the trend, you have ten Mo Vaughns that don't. The key is to look at skill set.
To find some information on how players age, I recommend the book called Baseball Between the Numbers. It's by the guys at Baseball Prospectus. There's a chapter on that. Bill James has also done some research. I think it was in his abstracts. You can get an abstract of the abstract from baseballanalysts.com. While you're there, check out the site. There's some great articles on that site. Hope this helps. If not. Let me know
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/06/war_aging_curve.php
ReplyDeletehey chip
i found this WAR article which might muddy the water more than anything though. thanks for the info. tom