Can someone get Brian Cashman a dictionary?

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

15 thoughts on “Can someone get Brian Cashman a dictionary?

  1. Aaron

    No he reall can't. Just like I technically can dick slap a nypd officer… but I really can't. Just like the Yankees could have out of the angels for fat Albert and used him off the bench, but really couldn't. The Yankee offered lee more money for less time, so we aren't paying a 38 year old 27 million dollars. If its mike trout available if we take on the wells contract that's something else because it will actually our team better. But the Yankees brass rightfully doesn't want while building leverage for future departing players and incoming free agents. We want to remove the stigma of the Yankees will pay anything, since more deals like the arod one is just bad business.

    • BrienJackson

      Maybe I'm misremembering, but the Yankees offered Lee six guaranteed years at a lower AAV, from what I remember. Anyway, there's no comparison to A-Rod here, since there were other bidders in the process, so what Lee got was market value, as opposed to A-Rod, who got way above what anyone else was going to offer him because ownership didn't know what they were doing.

      And I don't get the first sentence at all. The Yankees have gobs and gobs of money and no end to it sight. They certainly can do pretty much anything they want baseball wise when the only impediment is cash. They can't make an elite catcher appear on the trade market because they want one, or make another team accept their prospects in a trade if they don't want to, but they can write a check for whatever amount they have to and it will clear.

      • fren112

        They're looking at a 50% tax hike if they go over the $189M threshold. If they stay under it for just one year (2014), it goes down to 17% the next year and would allow them to splurge without paying through the nose in tax. It's not a matter of wanting pocket money, it's a matter of wanting to save a ton of money ($50M+ in order to gain almost double that). A trade for Lee would basically mean paying for two Cliff Lee's.

        • But the tax is only applied on money spent above the threshold. So let’s say that they spend $200 million. That means they pay a 50% rate in the $11 million above the cap, or $5.5 million. At 17%, it’s $1.87 million. So at $200 million:

          A) The tax rate relative to total payroll is 2.75%, or easily less than half of the sales tax rate I pay on anything I buy here in Maryland.

          B) The effective rate at the lower scale is 0.935%

          C) The total savings, at $200 million, would be $3.63 million which is 1.815% of our $200 million payroll, and less than what they’ll pay Freddy Garcia this season.

          Which is all a long way of saying that reducing the luxury tax rate to make future splurging easier has not a fig to do with this.

  2. jay_robertson

    ok – "won't" as opposed to "can't."

    Or – maybe Hal and Hank have just had the opposite of a brain fart; just because they HAD to have Lee in 2010 doesn't mean he still looks that good. After all – imagine a world where A-Rod had signed the same contract, but for some other team. (OK – you'll have to work hard on that.) Now – that team all of a sudden comes to their senses and wants to move Alex, freeing themselves from an albatross of a contract. Maybe you disagree – but I don't see the boys rushing out to sign the 2012 A-Rod at the old price. Kinda the same thing with Lee – he's having a rough patch, and all of a sudden, in view of the new CBA, he's also overpaid.

    PLEASE, Steinbrenners – do not succumb, do NOT pickup Mr. Lee's contract. Please.

    • BrienJackson

      If the Phillies called them up and said, "hey, pick up this contract and give us Nik Turley and Cliff Lee is yours," why in the bloody blue hell would you say no if you're the Yankees? Because you're going to turn Banuelos and Betances into aces any day now for reals this time?

  3. JP3

    Hey, come on guys, the Steinbrenner's are just maximizing profits! As a Yankee fan, I just want the team to be as profitable as possible. I applaud the austerity, even if it means the team on the field will not be quite as good. I just can't bear the thought of the Steinbrenner boys spending some of their hard earned fortune on any players who make above-market rates. Let's remember what really matters, Yankee profits, and the Steinbrenners' bank account.

    - Every Knicks fan who supported James Dolan's decision to let Jeremy Lin walk

    Sorry, inappropriate cross-sport rant?

  4. Chad

    This article is so off-base.

    You act as if Cashman/The Yankees are being disingenuous, but he acknowledges the magical $189 million number in the very same article. It's not a secret and it's not being hidden.

    Regardless of the new CBA, the Yankees have a payroll budget. Cashman has referenced it often in the past. Certainly the new CBA has cemented the budget, but it's not a new concept. Even if you chose to ignore the 2014 ramifications, adding Lee to THIS YEAR's budget may not be allowable.

    The whole parsing of the word "could" just sounds like a 13 year-old arguing with his parents. If someone invited me to tomorrow's game, I would say "I can't", because I have to work. Of course, technically I COULD take a last minute day off, or just quit my job entirely.

    • BrienJackson

      Well, let's parse some more then.

      Cashman's specific turn of phrase is "we…could not." This is simply not accurate. The operative words here are "we" instead of "I" and "could" instead of "may." Cashman can not, because his boss has ordered him not to. You could even argue that the Yankees may not, if you want to argue that the cost penalties are prohibitive (though that's a stretch). To say that the organization can not, however, is simply wrong, and is only true if they don't have the money to do it, which they do.

      Anyway, your last paragraph makes no sense. You *could* physically decide not to go to work, but you probably wouldn't get paid, and might lose your job if you do it too often. That's a penalty that outweighs the benefit, obviously. The Yankees, conversely, just have to decide that they're fine with the profits they're making now and don't need the revenue sharing refund cash and are willing to pay the extra tax rate (which is negligible in the big picture anyway) for good acquisitions while continuing to be more judicious with their spending (i.e. no more A-Rod contracts!) in the long run.

      • Chad

        Again, the "could not" in this specific instance is not meant to be literal. As I gave in my example (and you expanded on it), it's about the negatives outweighing the positives. As Aaron mentioned, you COULD slap a cop, but since you would end up in jail, you "can't".

        The Yankees COULD obtain Cliff Lee. But since it would greatly impact their budgets in the upcoming years (and therefor most likely have luxery tax implications), they "can't". You can say that Cashman misspoke and that he should have said "won't", but he certainly was not being misleading or disingenuous about it.

        The last thing most of us would ever do would be to sympathize with the financial "problems" of the Steinbrenners. But if indeed the luxery tax implications in 2014 would be the 40-50 million dollars that you spoke of in the below article/discussion, that is hardly a "negligible" concern.
        http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/12/14/p

        • BrienJackson

          You misunderstand. The bulk of that money comes in the form of revenue sharing refunds, so even if the team forgoes qualifying for it it won't result in any additional costs than they're already dealing with now, and I don't think anyone would be concerned about the team's profit margin at the present. The cost of the increased luxury tax rate is negligible at the level of payroll the Yankees are dealing with. As in less than the sales tax you pay on new socks negligible.

          • Chad

            I don't believe I am misunderstanding. I am referring to what you wrote in the comments of that post:

            "All told, the team stands to earn $50 million+ in additional profits by getting below the luxury tax threshold prior to 2014."

            I wasn't asserting what part of that 50 million is already spent under the current CBA, just quoting what you had written. If something is different or has changed since that post, then that's one thing. But if they truly would save/earn/retain anything in the $50 million range, then that is a significant incentive.

          • BrienJackson

            Well sure, it's a huge incentive. It just happens to be one I couldn't care less about, and would think everyone would be pissed off about.

    • JP3

      I think the frustration here, is that Cashman is making it sound like even if they wanted to, they simply cannot afford to take on a big money player like Lee. For lots of teams, this would be 100% true. Most teams simply don't have the revenue to cover the costs.

      Yes, given a $189 million budget in 2014, then sure, they CAN'T afford to acquire a guy like Lee. However, the issue really is whether they can or can't afford to spend more than $189 million. (Even with luxury taxes, I'm confident the answer is yes, they can.)

      To make it more stark, if the Yankees set a payroll budget of $50 million, jettisoned every high priced star, refused to sign any one new, and said "we just can't spend anymore" you'd probably call BS on them too.

  5. jay_robertson

    Maybe they don't WANT Lee?

Comments are closed.