Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Roger Clemens is a Yankee again, and for those like myself who predicted he’d sign elsewhere, it took a day to fully digest the crow. (Despite the rumors, it doesn’t taste like chicken. Ketchup helps the taste, but not much. They're scavengers, you know.)
As a writer, I’m glad this happened, because it saved me from another rant on Carl Pavano being the worst signing in Yankees history. As a former YES employee, I have a hunch Clemens’ 300th victory and his near no-hitter from 2003 will find their way into the “Yankees Classics” lineup again within the next three to five days.
Back from the tangent ... The Post was the first outlet to publish the story, doing so online at roughly 3 p.m. Sunday. We know this because George King and Mike Puma told us so in their initial story.
In typical Steinbrenner-era Yankee fashion, the deal was handled surreptitiously and quickly, and with a lot of money. (So much for fiscal responsibility, as many scribes mentioned.)
To be sure, the hints were there starting in November with the re-signing of Andy Pettitte, but there was not a sense that a Clemens-Yankees sequel was a sure thing until Sunday afternoon when the Rocket ignited two hours of Yankee Stadium pomp and presidential-level media attention with his announcement during the 7th inning stretch.
You know the numbers — one year, $28 million, prorated salary starting from the day he makes his first start in pinstripes. So now the projections and questions have begun. How will he affect the rotation? Is this really a "distress signing," as some suggest? How many games will he win? Can he or will he be as dominant as he was in the National League over the past three seasons? Will his body hold up? And perhaps the most intriguing question: should his name surface in the Mitchell Investigation, how will he and the Yankees handle the reports? (The New York Times was the only major outlet to note the steroid suspicion in all its Monday stories.)
I want to focus on how this information was presented to us as fans and consumers, because there was plenty to absorb and interpret. YES extended the postgame show to nearly 90 minutes, airing Clemens’ press conference uninterrupted, and smartly played the subtle card, letting the story tell itself. The press conference reminded me of the night of his 300th victory. The auxiliary press room was packed, an emotional Clemens sat on the dais with company on either side of him and held court for nearly a half hour. There was a palpable sense of history.
Sunday’s return presser had a number of stories: 1) There was the revelation that when Cashman was in Texas trying to sync up with the Hendricks Brothers, Randy Hendricks was in Boston pitching Clemens to the Red Sox. 2) The admission from Hendricks that the Yankees won the derby due to their immediate need coinciding with Clemens ramping up his workouts. That they ponied up the most cash had nothing to do with it, apparently. Clemens reiterated that stance Monday, telling the Associated Press, “If you think it's about money, you're greatly mistaken. I'm not going to put my body through the paces I put my body through to earn a few more dollars.” (B.S. or no? Neither thesis does much to shed Clemens’ mercenary reputation.) 3) The number of times Cashman, Clemens, and Hendricks said, “this man to my left,” or “this man to my right” (you could create a nice drinking game from that if you recorded the presser). 4) Reading between the lines, Cashman alerting the public to Hal and Hank Steinbrenner’s presence in the courting process provides a huge hint as to who will assume the brunt of operations duties upon Steve Swindal’s official dismissal. 5) Clemens taking umbrage to the media snipes at the carte blanche element of his “personal service” clause, urging the broadcasters (read: ESPN), to “get their facts right” before commenting on that part of his contract, because it hurts his family. I applaud his stance, but if the reality didn’t match the perception, why make a big deal of it three years later? It was just as big of a story in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Why not clear things up then and note any modifications that took place in the margins of the current deal?
All of it makes for fun times in the Bronx now. At least there’s something else to talk about besides hamstring injuries, scapegoat trainers, anything pertaining to Carl Pavano, and bullpen woes.
More from the local papers…
From the radio waves …
From the blogosphere…
Clips from Houston …
Clips from Boston …
The breadth and depth of analysis of the Clemens story over the past day and a half has been enough to cause information overload. Credit Roger Clemens for being such a polarizing figure, but also the people who tracked and presented the story, and offered provocative angles from which to view it.
Did you find it surprising that Edes left out the fact that Houston paid Roger 22 million (prorated) last year? Indeed, the comparison he makes (Boston's offer of 18 million to Yanks winning bid of 28) plays right into the PR manual of the Boston front office. By leaving out the 22 from last year, he makes the Yanks seem much more unreasonable, when in fact the Sox had no intention of ever entering the serious discussion.
These guys are all mercenaries. So are the teams. Teams trade players all the time and the players can't really do anything about it. But when the greatest pitcher since WWII hops from team to team, apparently it makes him a bad person?
What a bunch of nonsense.
This signing is great talk show fodder, offering many more reasons for people to rail against The Yankees.
Boring.
Of course it was a 'distress signing'. If ever there was a rotation in distress, it's the Yankees'. And yeah, the front office threw a huge, "nobody's going to do better than this so just sign now" deal onto the table, and it had it's effect. Is this fiscally irresponsible?
Well, it's one year, so whatever financial damage it does is very limited. Second, paying $4 million/win is not exactly Billyball, but if it makes the difference between playoffs and no playoffs, then Steinbrenner will certainly regard it as money well spent.
I love listening to RSN tell each other what a loser Clemens is. I'll never get tired of it. (Unless he starts losing, then I'll get tired of it real fast.)
I heard Richard Justice on XM yesterday with Charlie Steiner. He basically re-iterated his column. It started with "Houston is too boring for Rocket, so he packed up and left for the bright lights and the big city." Blah blah blah bs bs bs.
3 minutes later, Justice gave what I feel is the real reason Clemens picked the Yanks and not Houston - in NY, he's playing with the best offense in the game. In Houston, it'd be another year of giving up 2.3 runs a game and watching the inept Houston offense score no runs for him.
I've ignored everything RSN and its media hordes have said about Clemens. The bitterness, though, is very palpable.
Discussion question - should we refer to ESPN as RSPN (R for Red Sox) or FSPN (F for football)? I can't decide which, and FRSPN, while perhaps most accurate, sounds weird.
But when I heard her bleating about the Clemens announcement when driving home Sunday, I was sure my eardrum had pierced. It was like listening to a sputtering air raid siren.
With the Yanks, Clemens could be more aggressive and go after hitters since he knows the run support will be there...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2862383
Am I the only bothered that Sox writers conveniently leave out the fact that Boston's offer was a low-ball considering Hoston's 2006 salary.
I can accept that the Sox didn't want or need him. But to pull the wool over their more gullible fans? Just weird - it's the same nonsense they pulled on Damon and Pedro. "It's not our fault - we tried - the player was just greedy!"
I'm just surprised the Boston media helps them out.
11 Like many veteran pitchers, I think Clemens pitches to the score. Sometimes you can dismiss Wins as a team dependent stat, but my gut tells me it's a little more by design with Clemens.
(Nothing like hearing a reason to believe exactly what you want to believe!)
Talking about Clemens salary and if he's worth it is a little like a bunch of Sumo wrestlers discussing who's fat. We are long past the point of 'financial insanity' in MLB, so I guess nothing is shocking.
Moose put it perfectly. If/when Hughes joins the rotation, we basicall have a #1.5 starter and 4 - #2.5 starters.
I feel like a sneakered socialist amongst many wing-tipped capitalists, but I think the 'special treatment' clauses are bullshit, and terrible for the game. Yes, Bonds, Giambi and many others have it, but that's like Paris Hilton saying her behavior is fine, because she acts just like Lindsey and Brittany.
I'm sure the Yankees players were 'fine' with it, but really, they're not. Sports is one place where, in the locker room, everyone is equal.
My feeling is that MLB should make some laws. All players should travel with the team (with special exceptions, of course... health, family emergency, etc), if you DON'T sign/play a full year, there are HEAVY financial penalties, and other rules to try to ensure that these 'special' clauses don't become more frequent or more 'exceptional'. I know there are a lot of 'live and let live' folks here, but baseball is a game with rules, history and traditions.
Roger, even after this year, still has done 50%+ of everything in Boston. I always think of him as a Red Sox. To go into the hall as anything else, is wrong. Buying players is one thing, but buying a legacy is another.
Of we we are way overpaying for him. Santana must be thinking "If Clem gets $28/m, what am I worth". Value-wise, Santana is worth 1.5-2 times what Roger is. It's worth it for us, because it's one year, and it could be the difference between PS or not.
Maybe you can answer this question Will.
How much per game (3-5) in the ALDS worth in income to the Yanks?
How much per game (4-7) in the ALCS worth in income to the Yanks?
How much per game (4-7) in the WS worth in income to the Yanks?
If you know these numbers, you can better calculate if this is a 'sound' financial decision.
Thanks for letting me rant.
As for your question, Vince Gennaro at Hardball Times has gone to great lengths to assign players a dollar value. According to his 2005 analysis, Clemens would have been worth approximately $14mn had he played for the Yankees. He factors in a myriad of variables, including impact on making the playoffs, so that doesn't seem like a bad starting point.
Roger Clemens is a very unique individual. He has a talent that is almost unmatched, and at the same time, he is of an advanced age relative to his peers. If the Yankees, or any other team, decide that his talents are needed, and so badly needed that they will make special accomodations to secure his services, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
If it rubs other players the wrong way, tough. As soon as they are first ballot Hall of Famers, and arguably the best player ever at their position, I will consider their gripes.
I believe that Clemens has earned any special considerations that potential employers are willing to give him. I would bet that Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada would agree.
Wikipedia also has the transcript of her Clemens analysis, calling it a sportsgasm:
"ROGER CLEMENS IS IN GEORGE'S BOX AND ROGER CLEMENS IS COMIN' BACK. OH MY GOOD--GOODNESS GRACIOUS! OF ALL THE DRAMATIC THI--OF ALL THE DRAMATIC THINGS I'VE EVER SEEN, ROGER CLEMENS STANDING RIGHT IN GEORGE STEINBRENNER'S BOX ANNOUNCING HE IS BACK! ROGER CLEMENS IS A NEW YORK YANKEE! AND THERE WE GO JOHN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO TAKE THAT SPOT IN THE ROTATION."
15 You didn't have to work so hard, my friend. I noted that on the Rocket Redux thread. >;)
One Sunday afternoon my wife and I were driving home from church listening to the game on XM and Waldman actually said: "Manny just stood there in the baseline like someone playing dodgeball". I had to laugh. Dodgeball, really? When the best you can do is draw from your vast "dodgeball" experience do you really belong in a MLB radio booth?
Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus has done some research that indicates a playoff appearance is worth $30 million to a team - and then there's even more money for each extra win Clemens adds.
So, if the Yanks didn't seem to have a good chance to make the playoffs before - BP's playoff odds report has them at 28% chance total (11% chance of winning the division, 17% of winning the WC, which is tops in the AL right now). If getting Clemens pushes them over the top, that alone could be worth $30M. Which would cover Roger's salary and then some.
If you're a BP subscriber, you can read the whole article at http://tinyurl.com/3c5p96. Their "Baseball Between the Numbers" book touches on this as well.
Regarding perks. Being a major league ballplayer includes all kinds of 'special perks' that most working people don't get. Like daily meal money. Private airplane travel for road trips. Staying in fancy hotel rooms. Laundry service. Clubhouse attendants to handle your every whim and request. The pre- and post- game food spreads. Free alcohol. And best of all, for some at least, a contractual bonus for being the best - or maybe one of the 10 best - at their job.
Distinguishing those things from the additional perks Clemens may get is, to me, splitting hairs.
Is it an honor to watch ARod? Is he special? How about Thome? Vlad? Manny? Santana? Hughes? Jeter? Was Mays? Mantle? Williams? Should I go on? How many 'Special' players have there been, and are playing now? And where do you cut the 'Special' line? How do you define it? Sori is a 40/40 guy. Pretty rare. Is he 'Special'?
And what about the numbers? How would Moose do if he only had to play 4 months instead of 6? Less tired? Relaxing at home while HIS team travels? Would this allow him to post a better ERA? W/L percentage?
Hey, if Clemens wants to up his lifetime strikeouts, maybe he can pitch 2 months next year. And Bonds? I got it. Bonds will rest his body all year, but have a decent work out. Then he works out hard in July and August, the signs with the leading AL team to be their DH in the Post Season. Hell, Bonds could probably do that for 3 more years.
You see, this is a 'slippery slope'. Who's special? How about a 3 month season? 2 months? Just the PS?
And what a Little League. Should 'Superstar' kids get special privilages? How about the minor leagues? After all, if the guys in the 'Bigs' get it, why not?
Part of baseball is the 162 game grind, the crappy travel, the late nights and early days. Should a pitcher who participates in the entire grind lose the ERA title to one who doesn't travel? Who gets more Home games? Who only grinds for 4 or 5 months?
When your grandchildren are playing baseball... do you want to recognize the sport?
Waldman, or ex-player Joe Morgan?
Waldman, or ex-player Tim McCarver?
Waldman, or ex-player Steve Lyons?
Waldman, or ex-player John Kruk?
Waldman, or ex-player Dusty Baker?
Waldman, or ex-player Rex Hudler?
There's something to be said for not employing an ex-player. Too often, its the wrong kind of ex-player. That the Yanks have Singleton, Leiter, Flaherty, and Girardi is some kind of lucky. It could be a lot worse.
A roster has to be finalized during a certain point in the season for playoff eligibility. The players travel first class, there is no crappy travel. There are minimum qualifiers for ERA and batting titles and whatnot.
And 162 game grind or not, a starting pitcher's going to work in less than 40 of them.
This really isn't any different from co-workers that telecommute.
BTW, thanks Chyll for looking out for me during last nights thread. I left work during that discussion on the uniform colors and I didn't get to check back in with the game thread until the game was almost over. That "is there a doctor in the house" comment had me rolling...
How about Alex or Cliff? Better yet, how about a radio booth of Alex and Cliff? We could eliminate Lumpy and Chuckles (names stolen from Sliced) altogether...
Love your insight as always.
I had a question for you and was hoping I could shoot you an e-mail - if you don't want to post it here, could you send me an e-mail at larry@thisiswhatwedonow.com?
Thanks
Maybe my examples weren't great, but do you get the idea? If GMs are allow to 'stretch' the rules to the max to accommodate 'special palyers', they will. And stats gained in partial years do count towards counting stats.
This year, will Roger have enough innings (barring injury) to qualify for the ERA title?
Again... I don't know where my examples stand. I know I don't like the idea of 'special' treatment for special players. I don't like the idea of players signing because the 'perks' were better. If it is not addressed it will get worse.
26 Outside of Manny, I don't know if any of the guys you listed get special treatment of Clemensian/Bondsian level. If they do, well I don't object because they certainly did a lot to get there. But even those have limits. If what Boras was asking for on A-Rod's behalf back when the Mets were courting him was true, then I'm sure someone else would have those things approaching that level of excess. While we're blaming the players, why not their agents? I'm not sure a player of any caliber would actually make up all of these things by themselves unless they were assured of getting them. Boras would almost assuredly include a private island clause in a player's contract if he knew he could get it, along with a nice-sized commission or bonus, whether or not a player asked for one.
As for Sterling and Kay, in some odd way they complemented each other well. Maybe there enormous egos kept the other one's more honest? Whatever it was, I loved them together and dislike them apart.
31 >;) You've had my back plenty of times, it's my pleasure.
Who is Paul Olden?
Will Clemens have enough innings for the ERA title? Depends on him. He didn't have enough innings last year when he was with the Astros.
Special players always have been treated special. Do you think Jeter would be captain, if he hit like Tony Womack? Why, despite being the better shortstop, did Rodriguez move over to 3b when he was traded here?
And it's not just for "perks" that a player signs. Maybe a team gives an extra year, maybe they play in a better market, maybe there's a sentiment. I would think that when it comes to contracts, perks/bonuses are pretty low on the list. Nice to have, but not a dealbreaker.
No audio clips, but here's his KNX 1070 page
http://tinyurl.com/2xrsle
To me, Clemens is Tom Cruise. They're exactly the same age. Clemens made his ML debut less than a year after "Risky Business" came out. They're both likeable enough, but beneath the surface of their "Top Gun" images they're somewhat odd fellows and I find them hard to relate to for some reason.
Clemens's announcement at the Stadium the other day sort of reminded me of Cruise jumping up on Oprah's couch to proclaim his love for Katie Holmes. It struck me as a contrived moment mostly meant to create hype and buzz.
To me, there's nothing inspiring about bringing Clemens back. He was the best free agent pitcher out there, and the Yanks threw a ton of money and perks at him. No brainer. Yawn.
I'm honestly more interested in seeing kids like DeSalvo get their breaks, than seeing Clemens come and go as he pleases with the Yanks. I would have preferred if the Yanks took their chances promoting pitchers in the organization.
Whatever, when does "Mission Impossible 4" open?
42 John Wayne, eh? I'm an Orson Wells fan (among others) myself, but I do appreciate John Wayne films where he dies. My favorite films with him, actually are (in order of preference):
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Searchers
Red River
Hunt for the Red Witch
Rio Bravo
True Grit
The Greatest Story Ever Told ("Truulllly hewuzzda sunnuv-GODD!")
>;)
Let's pretend you own the Yankees. And let's pretend that you believe that your team is in desperate need of a top notch starting pitcher. Let' pretend further that it's the middle of May.
Now, let's pretend that a former member of your team is floating around out there in semi retirement, but has made it known that he's in pretty good shape and wouldn't mind toeing the proverbial slab again.
He's no ordinary flapjack either, he's like maybe the best pitcher ever. And sure, he's past his prime, but he's still pretty damn much better than a bunch of the other options floating around out there. He's also guaranteed to sell merchandise, and get people to tune in to games, and all that other stuff that you might be concerned with if you owned a baseball team.
What would your offer to this player be?
How much money is too much?
What terms and conditions would you attach to his contract. Anything special, or would you give him the same treatment you'd give to Josh Phelps?
To me, there's nothing inspiring about bringing Clemens back. He was the best free agent pitcher out there, and the Yanks threw a ton of money and perks at him. No brainer. Yawn.
I'm honestly more interested in seeing kids like DeSalvo get their breaks, than seeing Clemens come and go as he pleases with the Yanks. I would have preferred if the Yanks took their chances promoting pitchers in the organization."
I love it, and I agree with you.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.