Poll: The 2014 Yankees Payroll

The new Collective Bargaining Agreement changed the game for large payroll clubs, raising the luxury tax rate and offering partial revenue sharing refunds for remaining under the luxury tax threshold. Yankees GM Brian Cashman and owner Hal Steinbrenner have both come out and said the club’s goal is to get under the $189MM luxury tax threshold by 2014, just two years from now.

At the moment, the Yankees have just three players under contract for 2014: Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, and CC Sabathia. Those three combine for $75.125MM in salary, giving the team roughly $113MM for the remaining 37 spots on its 40-man roster plus benefits and bonuses. Both Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson are scheduled to become free agents after 2013, and both could command $20MM+ annual salaries if they maintain last year’s production. Michael Pineda and Ivan Nova will both be in their first arbitration years, potentially giving the club two cost effective rotation options behind Sabathia.

Building a World Series contender for $189MM or less is obviously doable, but getting from where the Yankees are now to where they want to be in 2014 may prove difficult. Cashman and everyone else in the front office will have to come up with creative solutions at certain positions and also make some very difficult decisions about whether to retain productive players or allow them to leave as a free agents.


129 Responses to Poll: The 2014 Yankees Payroll Leave a Reply

  1. What exactly happens if they don’t?

    •  They have to pay a luxury tax

      • notsureifsrs 3 years ago

        the luxury tax is not a new rule; they don’t care about the luxury tax. the new rule is that if the team stays under the tax, they get revenue sharing dollars back. that’s what this is all about

        • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

          From other teams that are over the luxury tax threshold. And who’s that going to be, if not the Yankees?

          • UltimateYankeeFan 3 years ago

            Revenue sharing and luxury tax (aka: competitive balance tax) are 2 completely different things.  They do get a portion of their revenue sharing money back as “notsureifers” stated.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Not really. The only reason MLB has a luxury tax is because the revenue sharing system is so obviously inadequate. It’s a chewing gum patch on a leaky boat.

          • johnsilver 3 years ago

            Wow.. All along I thought it was for teams that can support themselves to pay for teams that couldn’t without a free hand out..

            Thanks for clearing that up..

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Right, the big market teams should split off and form their own league so that they don’t have to give a “hand out” to the small market teams, who as we know aren’t really a needed part of MLB. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • johnsilver 3 years ago

            Exactly how long was baseball a sport before profit sharing existed?

            Fold ’em, or relocate if cannot survive.. Law of capitalism.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Utter nonsense. How long has the big media money existed? Answer your own questions.

          • melonis_rex 3 years ago

            1- media/stadium situations are the reasons why MULTIPLE small market teams are in those positions.

            That didn’t exist 50 years ago.

            2- ALL owners, including bigger market ones benefit from expansion. Untapped revenue streams.

            3- MLB will never operate under basic capitalism tenets. It’s a 100% legal monopoly. Those aren’t found outside of sports, for the most part.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Right, the big market teams should split off and form their own league so that they don’t have to give a “hand out” to the small market teams, who as we know aren’t really a needed part of MLB. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • UltimateYankeeFan 3 years ago

            BlueSkyLA, yes really.  Search the MLB CBA and you will find the 2 serve different purposes.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            They both share revenue, the only purpose I am talking about.

        • kimofromkauai 3 years ago

          The Yankees will get under the threshold in 2014 because there is a lot of money in it for them to do so.  They will save on payroll and get some of their revenue sharing back.  With the additional team in each league now in the expanded playoffs their chance of making the playoffs are almost certain and even their front office realizes that after you get into the playoffs it is a crapshoot as to who advances.  You do not need an all star at every position to advance in October.

          • UltimateYankeeFan 3 years ago

            Yes, it’s estimated by just getting under the luxury tax for 1 year the Yankees will get a rebate of $10MM just for 2014 if they can get under the threshold.  If they stay under it for 3 years the rebate can be as much as $60MM estimated.

        • rockfordone 3 years ago

          Building a a quality baseball team on 189M is ridiculous.

  2. Eric Bell 3 years ago

    It’s absolutely ridiculous that three players can command a total salary more than some of the teams entirely. Hell, A-Rod at one time made more than ALL of the Pittsburgh Pirates team.

    • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

      I’m not sure why fans complain (not you specifically) about salaries so much..

      If it doesn’t go to the players, it will just stay with the owners.. Its not like teams that cut payrolls during rebuilding times cut ticket and vending prices. 

      • BoomDizzle 3 years ago

         If you honestly don’t understand why fans complain about the inequity in payroll then no possible explanation would be sufficient for you.

        • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

          you should try reading comprehension.. This wasn’t a why is the yankees payroll so high compared to the pirates..

          this was a why does Arod get so much discussion. Players on smaller market teams get paid big salaries too you know

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            It’s certainly one of the big reasons. No other professional sport allows the richest teams to spend five times as much on payroll as the poorest teams. MLB is way behind the curve on revenue sharing, just like they stayed way behind the curve on drug testing.

          • Jeffy25 3 years ago

            It’s completely unnecessary to restrict something that has shown to not be an advantage.  Let em spend, it’s good for the game as a whole.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            It’s not an advantage? Then why do they spend all that dough?

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            it can be an advantage.. but its not fool proof.
            Cubs, mets, white sox all have pretty high payroll.

            Red sox and yankees have really good front offices to go along with money

          • Jeffy25 3 years ago

            you are asking why people do irrational things.  A competent front office is far more valuable.  Money is spent way too inefficiently in major league baseball.  The best player sin the game are in their 20’s, and most haven’t reached free agency yet.   It’s always better to build through the draft and develop, develop, develop and let guys go in free agency.  It’s just pointless to spend a high dollar amount in major league baseball.

          • melonis_rex 3 years ago

            You need big payrolls to build dynasties (for the most part), but you don’t need big payrolls to build perennial contenders. And, building a dynasty also has many elements of luck attached to it.

            Of course, now with the new draft and IFA rules, payroll size may become
            MORE of an advantage, since spending on the draft can’t be used to
            mitigate lower MLB payrolls.

          • Jeffy25 3 years ago

            Completely agree.  The new CBA basically takes a dump on smaller market teams.

          • LazerTown 3 years ago

            true, but also the big teams will be less likely to spend like crazy: yankees want to reduce payroll by 25M.  This will just mean more money for owners and less money for players.

          • Jeffy25 3 years ago

            Yup, which is all that cappingsalariesdoes

          • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

            “…
            If I throw a dog a bone, I don’t want to know if it tastes good or not”.

            The new CBA HURTS big market teams who routinely draft late in the 1st round and/or sign top FA and lose their early picks. If the Yanks can’t spend big on “risky” injured players (Brackman) or tough signs (Cole,    Betances, etc) then they lose out on top talents because under the new agreements those top players SHOULD be available to be selected where they are meant to be selected and if there’s fewer dollars on the board then that takes away some of the players bargaining strength.

            I doubt you’ll see guys signed in the 8th round getting $1 mil bonuses. 

            It DOES effect everyone but I would say it accomplishes what I suppose is the point which is to take away some of the leverage from tough signees and force them to go in the rounds they’re suppose to go.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            No I’m not asking that at all.

          • Tko11 3 years ago

            The past few years the big market teams have been spending more cautiously or at least that is what it seems like to me… 

          • MB923 3 years ago

            And on the contrary, it seems the small market teams are doing the exact opposite. Bizzaro world eh?

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            But the MLB has more competitive balance than the other major leagues with caps.

            The NBA has only what, 9 different teams win championships in the last 30 years? 
            The hard cap system has absolutely ruined things in the NHL, forced good teams to piece off year by year, even after winning the championship..

            So while I do agree that in a perfect world the yankees wouldn’t spend so much, I also respect the fact that they do. But I also wished teams like the Rays, Marlins (pre2012), A’s, would spend more.  I mean the Steinbrenners are not the richest owners in the league, not by a long shot.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            I was not advocating for caps. Not in any way. Try again…

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            no thanks, im good

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            So long as you don’t have to respond to the point, you’re good. I got that a long time ago.

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            considering it was my original point to begin with that you took on a tangit I dont see how this applies.

          • MaineSox 3 years ago

            “No other professional sport allows the richest teams to spend five times as much on payroll as the poorest teams.”  If you want to stop “allowing the richest teams to spend five times as much” you are advocating a cap; a cap is the only way to not “allow” them to spend more money.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            No, I am not. If I was I would have said so. MLB can choose to share the game’s revenues any way they decide. The teams collectively are all one big business. If they wanted to add all the gate and the media revenue together and divide it equally 30 ways, they could. No cap required.

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            That has to be the worst idea I’ve ever heard..

            What incentive would owners have in spending money to improve their club if they can piggy back the owners who do care about winning.

          • TheYanksWin 3 years ago

            This is the problem. We need a payroll floor…

          • FunkyTime 3 years ago

            We also need a reply floor that doesn’t allow posts to get squished like this.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Try understanding the difference between “can” and “should.” The point is that the owners can divide revenues any way they want, no salary cap required. Drop the red herring and we can talk.

          • MaineSox 3 years ago

            If you artificially limit how much teams have to spend that is a cap, it doesn’t matter how you do it.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            The teams already share revenue. The way they’ve divided it up is “artificial.”

          • MaineSox 3 years ago

            If you artificially limit how much teams have to spend that is a cap, it doesn’t matter how you do it.

          • MaineSox 3 years ago

            “No other professional sport allows the richest teams to spend five times as much on payroll as the poorest teams.”  If you want to stop “allowing the richest teams to spend five times as much” you are advocating a cap; a cap is the only way to not “allow” them to spend more money.

          • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

            They aren’t behind the curve. Not when teams can single handedly cover their entire payroll from the pockets of what the bigger market teams give them.

            The system is not perfect but the sooner people stop comparing what the NFL, NBA and NHL have vs the MLB then the better we will all be. The dynamics of the business models, schedules and variables that exist with the other 3 bug sports are not as applicable or even comparable to the mlb business model.

            To make the playing field more even the entire framework that exists in mlb from the schedule, to the # of teams to how player contracts are written and guaranteed have to be completely revamped and a lot of fans in small markets better get ready to root for other teams in markets that can support their team.

            The reason why inequities between the A’s, Pirates and Rays vs the Yanks, Sox, etc exist for more reasons than just market size. It a meaningful factor but by itself, not the end all be all that many lazy fans want to argue that it is.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Lots of definitive statements, no rationale or justification. Baseball is a sport like all of the others. It is not inherently different from the others, and certainly you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for why you think it is. You’re a fan of a big market team that is inherently favored by the current system. I get it. So am I, but I can also see why the system stinks.

          • TheYanksWin 3 years ago

            It stinks because there is no payroll floor. Add a floor that is materially above what some of these small and mid market teams receive in rev shares, and you’d have more competitive balance (and has been pointed out we already have more than say the NBA).

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            Maybe, good point. I don’t have any opinion about a floor. But I do know that no other sport allows a 5-1 disparity in payrolls that’s baked into the teams’ markets. Some people seem to think this is the “fault” of the small-market teams, for playing in small markets I guess. That concept is just bizarre, unless you really believe that baseball should be played only in large media markets.

          • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

            Really? Are you serious?

            a) NFL contracts are almost never fully guaranteed.

            ex: Albert Haynesworth. He signed a mega deal as a FA for 7/$100 mil but only $41 mil (which was still a significant amount among NFL contracts) was guaranteed. Name me 1 mega superstar at a position that will sign a mega deal where less than 50% of the money is guaranteed? You won’t find 1 example because that’s not how it works in the mlb. If you sign a mega star to a deal then you’re stuck with him regardless of performance or injuries.

            Imagine how many more mega stars would be kept in their original cities if the team had the ability to cut bait if they wanted to to save money?

            b) Much easier for the Cleveland Browns to market and sellout 1 game a week of a 8 game home schedule that usually plays on a Sunday then it is for the Cleveland Indians to come close to 50% capacity for a Mon-Thursday set against the KC Royals. Bottom line is, football is a destination sport where fan bases from surrounding markets as well as from further away can plan road trips to attend games.

            c) Much easier to market NFL on TV simply because of the schedule. It’s 1 game a week that a fan has the ability to cheer their team as opposed to 162 games x 18 games.

            You simply can NOT compare the same model of the NFL to that of MLB. To do so is insane and an effort in futility. 

            PS: I love the way you dismissed what I said, commenting about how I offered nothing to support my point,  but offered nothing to support your own opinion about how “Baseball is a sport like all of the others”. 

          • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

            boom

          • Yankees420 3 years ago

            Roasted.

          • RetroRob 3 years ago

            Actually, BlueSky, you’re the one who is making definitive statements.  It’s really up to you to show how adopting an NFL-style model will be better. I know it will be better for the owners, but I’m not sure how it will be better for fans, and it certainly won’t be better for the players.  

            You’ll need to show the numbers that the NFL has substantially better competitve balance (it doesn’t), how there is less player movement in the NFL (there’s actually much more), and how you’ll address the regional aspect of MLB teams revenue sources compared to the NFL’s national revenus sources, and how you you will address the salary floor that will cripple rebuilding teams.

            And, please, show all your work.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            I’m not suggesting NFL-style anything, so that’s just another red herring argument. I guess some fans don’t know that MLB teams already share revenue.

          • RetroRob 3 years ago

            …and why does that concern you, BlueSky?  Are you an owner interested in transferring money from the players to the owners?  It’s not as if the NFL with its hard cap has better competitive balance than MLB.  The numbers on this are quite clear.  Worse, a salary cap requires a salary floor, so what you’re advocating is that the lower-revenue teams all spend more than $100 million each, even while rebuilding.

          • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

            And why would more revenue sharing mean more money for the owners? The same total revenue, divided more equally between the teams would not mean that at all. In fact it might even mean more money for the players, since the poverty row teams would be able to participate more in the free agent market. Again: no salary cap required, none suggested.

      • JacksTigers 3 years ago

        They’re jealous. Simple as that.

      • slider32 3 years ago

        100% correct Lunchbox, whether the players or the owners get the money makes no difference. Ticket prices will not go down. TV revenue is the driving force behind the salaries for players.

        • MB923 3 years ago

          Exactly right. Obviously broadcast networks are not going to be putting 162 games of baseball on each and every day which is why it’s completely different than the NFL where games are not put in a local team’s cable station.

      • MaineSox 3 years ago

        They say “players get payed too much money,” I hear “owners aren’t rich enough.”

      • MaineSox 3 years ago

        They say “players get payed too much money,” I hear “owners aren’t rich enough.”

      • Tko11 3 years ago

        That was the argument when the NFL had their lockout. In my opinion since the owners put the most at stake when they buy a team and sign players then they should receive majority of the profit… The players aren’t really risking anything other than their health which in the MLB is a different story than the NFL. The NFL had bigger problems because they say they are trying to make the game safer but offer very little health care to retired players. 

      • I agree. I just don’t get it. It ain’t your money.  From my point of view, team fans should be pushing the owners to get the best team on the field. Not worrying about payroll they don’t have to meet.

        Nobody complains about how much Jonny Depp made working 6 weeks for the last pirate movie he did. Depp made about 80 million doing that picture, when all his contract enhancements kicked in.

        By that comparison, A-Rod is working for his money. As are all the other ballplayers.

    • RetroRob 3 years ago

      That’s right. MLB should adopt the NFL approach, and make the luxury tax threshold a hard salary cap, and of course they will then have to create an NFL-like salary floor at 90% of the cap, meaning Pittsburgh needs to up its payroll immediately to $160 million.

  3. I think people severely underestimate the abilities of Brian Cashman

    • cubsfan97 3 years ago

      What are you talking about?  Hes got more ability in his pinky finger than I have in my entire body at writing out a blank check!

      • LazerTown 3 years ago

        the cubs payroll was 134M last year, which was down 10M from 2010.  While the yankees payroll is higher, they are getting much more bang for their buck.  They are a perenial postseason team, as well as won a ws recently.  That is the ability of brian cashman to put a great team on the field and win ws.  Any team with a payroll over 130M should be winning if they spend their money right.

        • PWNdroia 3 years ago

          Put Brian Cashman on the Rays and he wouldn’t be the same.

          • melonis_rex 3 years ago

             give Andrew Friedman or Billy Beane money to work with, and they’d be different too.

            many of their larger multi year FA signings have been utter fails. Pat Burrell, Loaiza, Percival, Fuentes, etc.

          • MB923 3 years ago

            Completely agree. I always said it and will continue to say it, comparing big market GM’s and small market GM’s is apples to oranges. 

          • MB923 3 years ago

            Completely agree. I always said it and will continue to say it, comparing big market GM’s and small market GM’s is apples to oranges. 

          • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

            Cashman has the mandate to maintain a championship caliber team. That means retaining the players that you have and replacing the ones that have moved on. The Rays don’t have that same mandate as the Yanks do and have only been relevant for the past 4 seasons, with much of the talent they have being the product of 10 years of last place finishes and top 8 draft picks. You simply can’t compare the two and I wish people would factor that in once in a while to add context to what’s been happening in Tampa over the last few years. 

            Does anyone think it’s was a stroke of genius for the Rays to draft Price, Young, Upton and Longo? Was it a stroke of genius that they had an absurd amount of draft picks in 2011 or more a factor of opportunity and making lemonade out of lemons?

      • MB923 3 years ago

        Are you saying if the Cubs had a $200 mil payroll, they’d win the WS?

        • monkeydung 3 years ago

          i would say that if you added $86 million to the dodgers payroll last year they would still have a lower payroll than the Yankees and easily be competitors…

          $23 for Mark Texiera at 1B
          $22 for Sabbathia at SP
          $31 for A-Rod at 3B
          $10 for Cabo at 2B

          Take those 4 players instead of the 4 Dodgers in those positions:

          your line up is

          Cano 2B
          Kemp CF
          Tex 1B
          A-Rod 3B
          Ethier RF
          Swisher LF
          Ellis C
          Gordon SS
          Pitcher

          Then you have Kershaw and Sabbathia as your 1 & 2 starters

          You’re going to tell me that team wouldn’t easily compete to win the WS?

          • MB923 3 years ago

            Not exactly sure why you’re comparing some of the top talent from 2 different teams and putting them as 1 team together. That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

            There’s a difference between competing and winning. Any team that makes the playoffs can win it. Yes I admit the Yankees payroll helps them out more, but you still can’t put a competitor no matter how high your payroll is without making smart front office decisions.

            As a Dodger fan, you should know it’s not just the Yankees who give out bad contracts. Dodgers have had plenty of bad contracts themselves. And also like the Yankees, they’ve had plenty of good contracts.

      • melonis_rex 3 years ago

        Let’s give Jim Hendry, Bill Bavasi, Dave Littlefield, Jim Bowden, and Tony Reagins each 184MM (luxury tax threshold) payrolls to work with.

        Let’s see how many of those teams make the playoffs.

        • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

          Excellent points. Don’t leave out Omar Minaya.

  4. notsureifsrs 3 years ago

    i suspect it depends almost entirely on how they perform in 2012 and 2013. i think the plan is to get under the threshold, so if they win the division the next two years, they’ll probably stick to that plan

    but if they only make the wildcard or somehow miss the playoffs entirely (or are bounced from the one-game play-in), i expect a steinbrenner will say screw it, bring me the hamels! (or whoever)

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      agreed, hamels depends upon how the rotation does this year, cc is a known commodity, but nova, pineda, hughes, all need another year to prove themselves.  If those 4 are solid this year then they can afford to go with betances or banuelos in the rotation in 2013.  But if hughes fails to have a good year, or nova or pineda bomb, then they will certainly consider hamels.

  5. Wouldn’t that be cool if they designated A-rod for assignment and someone claimed him on mistake?

    Would make getting under that threshold a lot easier, although I’d feel for the team who made that claim.

    • Lunchbox45 3 years ago

      Tony Reagins wants to know if he needs to have a job to put in that claim

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      arod’s salary goes down every year from now, and they really dont have anyone that could remotely replace him at 3B.  He may be getting old, but he is still a very good player, they need him healthy in the middle of their order, or it all of a sudden looks much weaker.

      • Not really saying he’s horrible, just crazy overpaid.

        • LazerTown 3 years ago

          agreed, but there would literally be no one to replace him.  In order for the yankees to be successful they need him, regardless of his 31M salary.   Nunez can do a decent job filling in, but long term i would not want him at 3b.

        • LazerTown 3 years ago

          agreed, but there would literally be no one to replace him.  In order for the yankees to be successful they need him, regardless of his 31M salary.   Nunez can do a decent job filling in, but long term i would not want him at 3b.

      • $1519287 3 years ago

        If he plays well for the next few years, his salary won’t go down much, thanks to the HR incentives in the contract. 

        – ECB

  6. NYYanksDynasty 3 years ago

    They should definitely be able to do this. Bullpen is always cheap for them (Rivera and Soriano, the only 2 expensive relievers, will be gone).

    As for the rotation, they will have Sabathia, Pineda, and Nova in 3 spots. They will likely fill the 4th spot internally (Banuelos, Betances, Phelps, Warren, Campos, Mitchell, Stoneburner, etc…1 of them should pan out). They will probably fill the 5th spot externally.

    The infield will have Teixeira and A-Rod under contract. DH will obviously be filled with cheap guys like now. Cano will be re-signed for a lot of money. Catcher will be filled internally for cheap (probably with Sanchez…but we have several good catchers). SS will be the toughest to be filled, but they will probably fill it internally with an average or below average type of guy (Nunez, Culver, Laird, Adams, etc).

    Outfield will have Gardner and Granderson re-signed (only Granderson will cost a lot). The last outfield spot will be filled internally (Mason Williams, Ravel Santana, etc).

    So overall, if they can fill 1 rotation spot, catcher, shortstop, and 1 outfield spot internally, they should be able to be under the $189m. Shortstop is the toughest one…but they will have to take a below average SS and then they should be okay.

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      personally i would let granderson go if he is going to want over 20M which, is what people with his production have been getting.  He is not the type of player that i would want to lock in for 6 years.

      Jeter is getting old, and really shouldn’t be at the top of the lineup anymore.  I think that once they let him go, they may not go with a superstar, but would be better than the aging jeter.

      • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

        Grandy will be 32 (turning 33 in March 2014) when he becomes a free agent. I think that will dictate what kind of deal he signs. I realistically can see him getting a 4/$60 if he has another good 2012/2013.

        • LazerTown 3 years ago

          If he hits 40 hr again someone will offer his more than that. He is a cf with 40 hr power. If Crawford got 20m aav for a long time granderson should get similar value even if he is a couple years older. Power translates better into long term deals

  7. What you’re all missing is that the Yankees don’t have to get their payroll down under 2014 and keep it there.  Afterwards, they’re allowed to exceed that number.  Then, some time down the road, they will need to get under the threshold again.  It’s designed to prevent teams from spending over the threshold year after year. 

    And all you haters out there can talk all you want about it being unfair.  How many playoff games have the Mets won in the last decade?  They’ve been consistently in the top 5. 

    The Yankees win year after year because they have a boatload of money AND they find cost-effective productive players (like Robertson, Gardener, etc.).

    • $17867741 3 years ago

      I think the Yankees’ success is more attributed to their boatload of money and a smart front office.

      It is because the Yankees front office is smart that they produce/farm
      cost-effective productive players, whom are either traded for proven
      talent (ex. Swisher, Granderson) or graduated to the big leagues (ex.
      Robertson, Gardner, Cano, etc.).

      • RBIBaseball 3 years ago

        Well Granderson at least, they gave up peanuts for Swisher.

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      True. But on reality it is hard to set it up so that the contracts expire at the right time without going over every other year

  8. hawkny1 3 years ago

    Jeter will be gone, of course, and, in all likelihood, Rivera and, perhaps, Swisher.
    These three, with an annual combined salary of around $45M, will eliminate a big portion of the Yankees current budget overage.  How the front office proceeds from there to fill out the Yankee roster is anyone guess.

  9. LUWahooNatFan 3 years ago

    And then there’s 10 million for the bat boy…

    Yeah, it’s not happening 

  10. Phillies_Aces35 3 years ago

    I think this really depends on the free agent class of pitchers next year. If Cain and Hamels get locked up I don’t see them spending big money on a free agent besides Swisher.

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      They will spend where they see fit. If Cain and hazels are gone then there isn’t really another good starting pitcher to spend the money on. They have their infield and outfield locked I except swisher. So they need to resign Martin and swish and maybe mariano. If Mariano retires then they could spend that money on hamels

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      They will spend where they see fit. If Cain and hazels are gone then there isn’t really another good starting pitcher to spend the money on. They have their infield and outfield locked I except swisher. So they need to resign Martin and swish and maybe mariano. If Mariano retires then they could spend that money on hamels

  11. YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

    As some have mentioned, the Yanks have a lot of options that might make things easier to reach their goals.

    I think a lot of it will depend on the development of Pineda and Nova and what happens with Hughes, Joba and Robertson.

    Key position players would be Gardner. Do they attempt to lock him up at a very team friendly deal? Metrics like defense and stolen bases aren’t well rewarded in FA so if he puts up a strong 2012 would the Yanks lock him up for something like 4/$20 mil? 

    Others factors include the development of Austin Romine (instead of Martin), Ed Nunez/Gerald Laird and down the line Dante Bichette (replacing Arod at 3b and moving him to DH). Can a guy like Zolio Almonte be a stop gap option (ala Melky Cabrera) that allows Swisher to walk and time for Mason Williams/Slade Heathcott/Ravel Santana to develop? What about Cito Culver? Will he be ready to step in to fill Jeter’s shoes if he retires in 2014 or 2015? 

    I would say the farm will play a major role in what happens with the payroll. Yanks ALWAYS have a mandate to win but they have also shown the willingness to give a rookie a shot, albeit a very short window, to perform

    Could the Yanks possibly pull off another Montero/Pineda deal if they find themselves loaded with pitching? In a scenario where Hughes and Nova perform well the Yanks could have a 2013 rotation of Sabathia/Pineda/Hughes/Nova with Betances, Banuelos, Warren, Phelps, Mitchell, Campos, etc all battling for a spot. Maybe the Yanks package one of the higher end arms (Bets, Bans or Campos) along with other prospects to land a position player under team control for 3 or 4 years. 

    It will be interesting to see what Cash can do if the check book is not as MUCH of an option as before.

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      I would like granderson to move to a corner long term. Gardner and mason Williams are both better suited I center and honestly neither have close to their value if they are not in center, because neither have that much power. As far as I know most of their hitters are several years away still. Sanchez ,mason, etc are good prospects but both need at least 2more years, so at this point it is irrational to completely plan the team around what you expect from them. Although I do have my
      Hopes up, and if they pan out they could improve the team. But if I have the option to sign a MVP that blocks a prospect so be it

      • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

        I never suggested they SHOULD plan for those guys to be ready. Simply, I was suggesting that those players development can play a major role in helping the Yanks get under the $189 ml mark if they realize their potential.

      • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

        I never suggested they SHOULD plan for those guys to be ready. Simply, I was suggesting that those players development can play a major role in helping the Yanks get under the $189 ml mark if they realize their potential.

  12. jwick18 3 years ago

    yankees say their shooting for it so are the red sox. which one is bluffing and not going to do it in hopes the other team lets top notch players walk?

    • LazerTown 3 years ago

      If either misses the playoffs then you can expect them to spend big. Right now I see the sox missing the playoffs to the rays and angels. uNLESS their pitching all comes together likes the ya news starters did last year.

  13. slider32 3 years ago

    The Yanks will be under the cap in 2014, the addition of Pineda was huge this year, it gives them 3 cost controlled starters with alot of ability. Almonte looks like he might be the replacement for Swisher. Romine will be the next catcher, and Phelps, Warren, and Banuelos can all pitch in the majors. Nunez will try and show the Yanks this year that he can be the SS.

  14. If the Yankees want to get under that number, it might mean letting either Cano or Granderson go. IMO I don’t think Cano is going anywhere, especially being one of the top 2nd basemen in the game, in his prime. The possibility of Granderson being traded before his contract is up next year is a real possibility, he’ll be 33 when the 2014 season starts. I don’t see a long term contract happening at that age for a CF. Cano will be 31 when the 2014 season starts, so a five or six year deal makes sense for the team, that would take Cano to 36/37 years old.

    • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

      Cano isn’t going anywhere. Grandy doesn’t make a lot of money.

      • Yankees420 3 years ago

        I agree that Cano isn’t going anywhere, but if Granderson stays healthy and continues to put up numbers close to his 2011 season, he should demand 18+MM per, even if he can only get 4 years, if he still hitting 30+HR and a .375+ wOBA from CF, someone will pay him.

      • Yankees420 3 years ago

        I agree that Cano isn’t going anywhere, but if Granderson stays healthy and continues to put up numbers close to his 2011 season, he should demand 18+MM per, even if he can only get 4 years, if he still hitting 30+HR and a .375+ wOBA from CF, someone will pay him.

    • YanksFanSince78 3 years ago

      Cano isn’t going anywhere. Grandy doesn’t make a lot of money.

  15. DrHMD 3 years ago

    Why dosen’t each franchise constribute a fixed percentage of its revenue to the MLB player’s union and let them argue about how it is distributed. Unions are supposed to take care of all its members, right? Equal shares or based on performace. Base salary per year of service, plus incentive pay for a set of goals , awards, playoff appearances, etc

  16. captainjeter 3 years ago

    Yankees will be under the cap by 2014. You will see major changes. No longer is this team going to go after every free agent and tie themselves to albatross contracts. They are  going back to the old Yankee way of  building and maintaining a productive farm  an using it to build the team. Then insert some holes  through trades.
    This ownership values draft picks too much and is tried of  giving them because they sign Type A free agents.
    Yankees will drop payroll with the loss of Mariano  and Swisher. That alone is 25 million. A Rod’s contract starts to decline in salary after 2013 and Jeter if he comes back in 2014, he goes down to 7 million.
    Yankees might let Grandersen walk after 2013  and concentrate on retaining Cano, which a  must.
    Hughes , Chamberlain , Gardner and Robertson are coming into free agency by 2014 and the Yankees have some hard decisions to make about them .
    If Mason Williams or Ravel Santana is ready by 2014 , bye bye Gardner.
    Cole Hammels and/or Matt Cain will NOT be  Yankees if either one or both make it to free agency. The Yankees can not afford  either one of them and with Banuelos , Betances , Warren , Phelps and Mitchell all coming soon, the rotation is  going to be cost effective for years,
    The bullpen is  going to be Robertson as the new closer. Joba will be the set-up man  and they will sprinkle in other power arms from the farm into the pen . That could include Campos
    Martin if he does not come back will be replaced  by Romine who will be the starting catcher until Gary Sanchez is ready, then Romine will be the back-up.
    To say that the Yankees can’t field a championship team and lower payroll the luxury tax  limit is  frankly absurd.

  17. CHendershott 3 years ago

    If Boras can get Prince Fielder 9 years and $214M from the Detroit Tigers, then just imagine what he’ll get for Robinson Cano from the New York Yankees.

  18. pft2 3 years ago

    They actually only have 103 million to spend since 10 million of the 189 million is for benefits.

    They will have Rivera, Jeter, Soriano whats left of Burnett, Granderson and Swisher off the books, which is about 85 million.  So if they can replace most of them from the farm, they have enough to pay Cano and under 80 million left to spend to be under the cap (Gardner, Pineda, Hughes, Robertson, Joba will all be making more).

    Being under the cap as opposed to being at about 210 million saves them almost 50 million (15 revenue sharing rebates, 15 tax, 20 million in salary).   Revenue sharing rebates increases to about 30 million in 2016.

    Also, the extra WC spot means teams only have to win 90 games instead of 95 games to have a decent shot at the playoffs.  That’s a saving of 20 million right there if you consider the cost of each incremental win is 4 million.

  19. LazerTown 3 years ago

    your a few cents off, he actually made 31M last year

  20. slider32 3 years ago

    Players make what someone is willing to pay them. It’s the American way. I don’t fault a player for making as much money as he can.

  21. MB923 3 years ago

    It doesn’t have to be an intelligent answer since it’s pretty obvious.

  22. JacksTigers 3 years ago

    What do you want me to say? People complain about how much players make because they will never make that much. They’re jealous.

  23. jigokusabre 3 years ago

     Again, I don’t fault the player. I just wish that other teams were willing to pay market value for competative teams.

  24. TheYanksWin 3 years ago

    I’m going smaller. I will say this though: the problem with MLB and rev sharing is not the lack of a payroll ceiling it’s the lack of a payroll floor. There are multiple teams, including some in mid markets, who receive MASSIVE amounts in rev sharing but who pocket it rather than use it to improve their teams. Until that changes, the current system penalizes big spenders in an unfair manner. Do it to make the league more competitive, not to line the pockets of the cheapskate owners.

  25. NYPOTENCE 3 years ago

    If they adapt??? I’m not sure if “adapt” is the word, I as if restrain is more of the word.

Leave a Reply