Roger Clemens signs with the Yankees

[Blader]

Great interview with Mike and Mike on ESPN...
Cashman.."I was out to dinner with Alex and Joe Torre in a Dallas Steakhouse and I called Rogers' agent telling him I'd like to stop by and see him in Houston...he informed me he was in Boston"....HAHA.

[jtur88]

If the Yankees can't win with old-aged talent, there is no point in hoping that they don't win. It's a wasted hope. Instead, hope that Bonds never gets to 755.

[Goose]

Jeez, you'd think Jesus Christ himself signed with the Yankees with the kind of reaction this is getting.

Big whoop. Clemens isn't gonna get away with in the AL, the kind of stuff he got away with in the NL. If the Yankees think he's gonna be their savior, they are gonna be in for a world of hurt.

Quick predicition:120 IP, 9-4, 4.35 ERA, 7.2 K/9

Better than average, but by no means spectacular.

[unreal654]

I think that the media coverage is validated. Roger Clemens is a good story at 45 years old. With the money involved in the contract, it should definately be all over the news. The Yankees are overpaying, but it's the owner's money so I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

[bedir than average]

Originally Posted by Goose

Quick predicition:120 IP, 9-4, 4.35 ERA, 7.2 K/9

Better than average, but by no means spectacular.

I didn't know I pitch

[MrBill82x]

As a Red Sox fan, this move annoys me more than it worries me.'

Did I want Roger Clemens on the Red Sox? Absolutely.

Do I feel that we needed him? Hardly.

And I don't think this move will save the Yankees from losing their Division Title streak.

It would have been a fitting end to a great career if he were to come to Boston, and possibly contribute to another world series victory.

[all4phillysportsfan]

Sorry about my brain lapse earlier this morning guys. I completely forgot about A-Rod.

[frenchman]

a4philly

Yeah I hope for that every year too, but especially this year. I wanna see $28 million dollars go down the drain out of George's wallet.

...Ok, as posted before, Clemen's salary will be pro-rated so he stands to only get about $18.5MM.
True, the yanks are over the salary cap...so Georgie will pay 40% more as a luxury tax...aboyt $24MM....just to be accurate.

In context, not a horrible move by the injury plagued Yanks. Their pitching is in dire straits this yr due to injurues and Carl Pavano is done for the yr, again.
Clemens is a rescue effort but the Yanks have no financial committment past this yr, which in itself probably saves them money.

In contrast...Clemens will cost them a projected $8,300/pitch this yr. Pavano will have cost the Yanks $24,000/pitch...so maybe Roger is a steal!

[Drury77]

But here's a question I have, will the HOF change their decision about what CAP he wears in the Hall. I mean I know he played 13 seasons for my Sox, but do you think this decision will change the minds of the powers that be??

[bedir than average]

Hmm, his trophies are heavy with Boston (MVP, 3CY, an appearence), but his World Series performances are with NYY(1 CY, 2Titles, 2 Appearences), TOR got 2 CY and HOU got a single WS appearence.

At this time his legacy is still really with the Red Sox, but if this year goes the Yankees way I could see a real and clear argument that he should wear their evil cap.

[jtur88]

""""" Jeez, you'd think Jesus Christ himself signed with the Yankees with the kind of reaction this is getting."""""

Jesus Christ Himself DID sign with the Yankees. How do you think they get all those bloopers to fall in?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

What if there were a couple dozen of these guys in MLB---itinerant free agents. They just keep in shape and are available on a temporary basis to fill in wherever they are needed. .

The owners should root for such a situation because it would drive down the cost of signing such players if there was a pool from which to select rather than one isolated superstar. At the moment, Clemens has no competition and thus may set his price as high as he likes.

It may well be the coming thing. Pitchers are remaining more effective at advanced ages...look at all the geezers around who not only still have jobs, but are still among the upper tier of their profession. If Maddox and Clemens and Johnson and Moyer and Schilling et al can still get batters out at age 42 or 43....then the idea that they can still get batters out at age 45 or 46 if they work part time will make sense. I would imagine that the same thing would apply to position players who may become 45 or 46 year old part time designated hitters as long as they can still rake. Franco is the pioneer in this area.

Modern conditioning and nutrition have fixed it so that an athlete's career may be several years longer than it was in the past. Modern salaries have fixed it so that they are highly motivated to continue playing for as long as possible. All the pieces for an age of GeezerBall are in place.

[Nimajneb]

The owners should root for such a situation because it would drive down the cost of signing such players if there was a pool from which to select rather than one isolated superstar. At the moment, Clemens has no competition and thus may set his price as high as he likes.

Yet short-term contracts of the type assume less risk on the part of the team, provides less "security" to the players and drives up the cost of short-term performance, just as it does here. The more free-agents that follow this or a similar model, one might say it could simple exacerbate existing problems with payroll disparity.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Nimajneb

Yet short-term contracts of the type assume less risk on the part of the team, provides less "security" to the players and drives up the cost of short-term performance, just as it does here. The more free-agents that follow this or a similar model, one might say it could simple exacerbate existing problems with payroll disparity.

You are working with the existing model which is composed of one player and no competition. A model with an entire pool of such available talent could not help but drive down the costs.

As for driving up the cost of short term performance, the only comparative at the moment would be to players with full time contracts who only perform part time due to injuries, or as in cases like Bonds, the need to have additional rest days. If these short terms hirings became commonplace, the market for it would stabilize and you would wind up with a situation where a team, rather than paying Soandso ten million for a full time contract where he only plays 70 % of the time, would hire Soanso for eight million for his four months of service. It would have to work out this way because those part timers would be in a pool which is competing with the full time pool for those jobs.

Clemens would not have gotten his prorated 28 million if the Yankees and other teams had alternative selections. If Maddox, Johnson and Schilling had all been in some pool of part time fossil talent with Clemens, of course they would be biting into one another's possible incomes, how could that not be the case?

[Nimajneb]

You are working with the existing model which is composed of one player and no competition. A model with an entire pool of such available talent could not help but drive down the costs.

Not entirely. The model is closest to 1 year free-agent contracts that are given to a particular catagory of players in the offseason, though there's some complication in the fact that many 1 year contracts are flyers on high-risk/high-reward which may suppress the cost. I think it's fair to say, with players who are not subject to questions of injury or unexpectedly poor performance- the shorter the contract the greater the yearly payoff.