Kuzul

Lastings Milledge, who was most recently with the Pittsburgh Pirates, is no more than a role player. The problem was, he was widely expected to be much more than this.

And when he failed to do so, it came as something of a shock to many, not least of all Milledge himself.

Milledge started as the New York Mets‘ great hope. This was largely based on his record in the minors, which might be characterized as borderline impressive, plus his purported “tools,” which led to a first-round draft pick in 2003.  But the fact was, he never produced (at a major league level) for the Mets.

He was then regarded as a talented, but lazy player, with a “when I get around to it” attitude, and was traded to the Washington Nationals, who thought so much of him that they gave the Mets outfielder Ryan Church (a better player) AND backup catcher Brian Schneider.

And perhaps part of Milledge’s problem was his attitude. On the other hand, in “chicken and egg fashion,” his attitude might have stemmed from a deep-seated fear that he didn’t “have the goods.”

The Nats suffered through a year and half of his mediocrity before trading him in disgust to the Pittsburgh Pirates. During this time, Milledge had improved his attitude to the point where he realized that he needed to earn the status of everyday player.

In accepting Milledge in trade for Nyjer Morgan, the Pirates management (positively) evaluated Milledge’s newfound attitude and “maturity,” meaning that they had done their due diligence. These attributes were, in fact, on display during Milledge’s tenure with the Pirates.

But the underlying problem with Milledge was his basic shortage of talent.

As a Pirate, his batting average of .277 was (barely) above average. If this were true in every other category, he would have been worth keeping. But his fielding was below average, as was his power and his walk rate (which factors into on-base percentage).

At the end of the day, his talent was barely above replacement level.

One factor in the Milledge-Morgan debate was that Milledge, then 24, was five years younger than Morgan. I believe this factor is given far too much weight, and that players really need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

One man may be mediocre and reach his peak at age 24 while another is a late-bloomer that is just hitting his stride at age 29—compare (older) pitcher Brian Burres to Zach Duke—Burres has more room for development.

But the tragedy is that three major league teams failed to evaluate Lastings Milledge for what he really is, a Doug Mientkiewicz-caliber role player.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Would Derek Jeter be underpaid at $10 million a year for the next three years? Could he be worth as much as $20 million a year over that time span. Does the Yankees‘ offer of $15 million per adequately cover both possible contingencies?

The answer is that it’s hard to know for sure because Jeter is something of a wildcard. According to Fan Graphs, he was worth only about $10 million in 2010, after having been worth over $30 million in 2009, putting him in MVP territory. And these basically represent extreme values over his whole career.

In 2009, Jeter was uncharacteristically an asset on defense (relative to other shortstops). This was accompanied a banner offensive year, with a .334 batting average, and 18 home runs, close to career highs. In 2010, on the other hand, Jeter batted all of .270, after never having batted below .290 for a full year, and hit a career-low 10 homers. Plus his defense went downhill. Will the real Derek Jeter please stand up?

If Jeter (aged 36) were five years younger, one could write off the past year as an uncharcteristically  bad year. But given his age, there is a real possibility that it represents “old age,” and that his forwardgoing performance might only be “just above league average,” as in 2010, rather than superstar. as in 2009.

The fact that the contract renewal comes at such an awkward time puts the Yankees in a “Catch 22” situation. Pay him too little, and he walks. Pay him too much, and he becomes a liability that prevents the Yankees from getting what they need, like starting pitching.

Would I be willing to hire Jeter a contract of $10 million a year for three years? My best guess is that he’ll perform around that level in two out of the three years, and meaningfully exceed it in the third, making it a good deal. How about $20 million for each of those three years. I’d expect him to earn that in ONE of those years, but not all three. At $15 million per for three years, one would be in what I consider the twilight zone.

In that case, it’s probably time to “think outside the box.” Perhaps someone of Jeter’s age bracket (basically over 35), shouldn’t be given long fixed rate contracts, but rather “floating” compensation contracts tied to recent performance.

Here’s what the Yankees might do with Jeter: Offer him a multi-year contract starting with $20 million (and the benefit of the debt) for ONE year, 2011.Then tie the subsequent years’ compensation to a formula based on what he did the earlier year.

For instance, Jeter earns $20 million in 2012 only if he bats better than .300 and has an OPS of .850 or better. If he repeats his 2010 performance in 2011, he gets only $10 million in 2012. If his 2012 performance rises above this level, that is reflected in his 2013 pay.

Trying to capture Derek Jeter’s value with a traditional fixed contract seems like trying to catch a “willow of the wisp.” A floating contract could create a win-win situation for both sides.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

The Pirates might have hired Eric Wedge as their new manager. Or Phil Garner. But with other teams having taken the main candidates, these choices are basically no longer around.

The reason the Pirates didn’t make a move on the other candidates is because they seemed to prefer Clint Hurdle to the others. Fair enough. But the Pirates have (so far) been dilatory even with Hurdle.

Say whatever you like about him, but Hurdle is a “sportsman.” As a teenager, he defended his offensive coordinator who was blamed for a crucial loss that cost his team a chance at their “playoffs.” Hurdle inspires that kind of loyalty from his players as well.

Hurdle is a peculiarly suitable manager for “underdog” teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates. In 2007, he led the Colorado Rockies to the playoffs, and ultimately the World Series, with a season-ending 14-1 winning streak.

More recently, he was the hitting coach for the Texas Rangers, another team that made it to the World Series this year. If the Pirates have playoff aspirations, this seems to be the man.

Hurdle’s background is in hitting, or offense, which will be a key element in any Pirates resurgence. They have much to do with their pitching, especially their rotation, but it has been hitting (or lack thereof), that has cost the Bucs the most games. In 2010, the Pirates were outscored by every team in the majors except the Seattle Mariners; that includes the Houston Astros and Baltimore Orioles.

Hurdle isn’t the manager for every team. But he is as good a fit for the struggling Pirates as any. It’s time for the Bucs to run with the one viable choice they have left, before some other team gets him.

The Pirates may get lucky with Hurdle. They may not. But if they don’t, it will be a lesson not to dawdle the next time around.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

There is only one person that can keep Cliff Lee as a member of the Texas Rangers. That is the team President and former pitcher, Nolan Ryan.

The Texas Rangers are in a position to (and certainly will) make Lee an attractive offer. But they aren’t in a position to outbid the high budget Yankees. So if it’s just a matter of current money, Lee heads Northeast (if not to New York, then to say, Boston or Philadelphia).

But there is one consideration where Texas can trump the other teams. That is what I call “A.B.,” or After Baseball.

Too many baseball, and sports players generally, take their golden years of stardom for granted, and don’t give much thought to what their careers, or lives, will be like, after they’ve left the sport.

After Ryan stopped pitching, he became an owner of minor league feeder teams (to the Houston Astros), then an Assistant General Manager, before becoming the President of the Texas Rangers. So baseball has remained a part of his life, except in managerial, rather than player, roles. “Management” is an option for Lee as well. 

So Ryan is uniquely positioned to make Lee the following long-term offer: “Wouldn’t you like to be me someday after I retire?”

It would, of course, require that Lee play several years for the Rangers, hopefully leading them to more World Series, including a victory. But Texas now has the stuff to be a contender without Lee, and could be a winner with Lee (e.g., if Lee had won his two games, allowing Colby Lewis a shot in Game 7).

The New York Yankees are a family organization, which is to say that unless you are one of two brothers named Steinbrenner, “team president” isn’t likely to be in your future. On a team of stars, even a “homegrown” Yankee might have trouble making his mark, “A.B.,” never mind an outsider. Derek Jeter is reportedly getting antsy over his future role, which would involve transitioning OFF the team.

On the other hand, the Texas Rangers is a new team, one that “transplants” well. (Nolan Ryan was such as transplant.) As an Arkansan and a fellow southerner, Lee would be a natural transplant.

At age 32, Cliff Lee is at a crossroads, with an enviable set of choices. Hopefully for him, and for Texas, an appeal will be made to his long—and not just short-term interests, and that he heeds that appeal.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

The San Francisco Giants had a hard time getting TO the 2010 postseason, having overtaken the San Diego Padres at the end of the season. But having now attained “critical mass” for the first time in 56 years, winning the World Series, they may soon do so again.

In this regard, they are like the “light hitting” Los Angeles Dodgers team of the mid-1960s led to the World Series by the likes of Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale. Here are five reasons the Giants are likely to repeat.

1. The Giants Have Many Either Relatively Young or Old Players

The first (young) group include their stars such as Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Tim Lincecum, Pablo Sandoval, Madison Bumgarner and, above all, Buster Posey, the last of whom can be best described as a “veteran rookie.”

On the other side, there are shortstops Edgar Rentaria and Juan Uribe, second baseman Freddy Sanchez and left fielder Pat Burrell, whose experience make them more useful in the postseason than during the season itself.

Promising latebloomers Andres Torres and Travis Ishikawa are a relatively old 32 and 27, respectively, but still club-controlled players. None of these are making the peak salaries of free agents in their prime.

2. The Giants Have “Enough” Money

San Francisco is a mid-budget team, not “flush” like the New York, Los Angeles or Chicago teams, but not cash-strapped like the Pittsburgh Pirates, or their own “poor cousins,” the San Diego Padres. They won’t be competing with the likes of the Yankees for every free agent, but they have enough cash to retain their Cains and Lincecums and even “waste” some on the likes of Barry Zito.

3. The Giants Draft Very Well

Cain, Linececum, Bumgarner and Posey are all products of the first round of recent drafts. Freddy Sanchez came to the Giants in trade for 2007 first round “compensation” pick, pitcher Tim Alderson.

4. The Giants Are In a “Balanced” Division

Every team in the National League West has gotten to the post season at least once in the past ten years. At any given time, some teams are better than others, but there are no dominant “runaway” teams and no weakies to feast on. That makes it hard for Giants to reach the post season.

But once there, their “balance” of pitching and hitting make them a solid contender against other division leaders. If they’ve broken out of their perennial “No. 2” status to lead their division, they should do well in future postseasons. Then, there’s always the Wild Card, which was almost their ticket this year.

5. The Giants Are Winners on the Road

The team won two out of three World Series games played in TEXAS. They won two out of three “pennant” games played in Philadelphia. They won the deciding game of the NLDS in Atlanta. This is no fluke. Their home record in the season of 49-32 wasn’t their division’s best, but their winning road record of 43-38 put them over the top.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Several years ago, after Vernon Wells posted a breakout season (worth $21 million, according to FanGraphs), the Toronto Blue Jays offered him a seven-year contract for $126 million, or $18 million per year. That was clearly a mistake.

The $18 million part was only a slight mistake, using my formula below. The real mistake was the seven year part, because few players’ worth can be forecasted over that kind of a time frame. If the contract had been $18 million per year for, say, four years, it would have been a reasonable mistake.

This past year, Jose Bautista had a breakout season even more impressive than Wells’, to the tune of nearly $28 million, making him the American League’s sixth most valuable position player (both according to FanGraphs). Yet the scuttlebutt is that the team will use his final—year arbitration status to lowball him for about $7 million, or one—fourth of last year’s production.

What could such a player be worth as a free agent? I’m using a formula that regresses his value to half the difference between his peak value and his former baseline value. Bautista was worth about $8.4 million in 2009, or about a league average value, despite playing only two—thirds the time. (His production “rate” (per game) was above league average.)

The average of $28 million in 2010 and $8 million in 2009 is $18 million. Hence, one can say that Bautista would be worth at least $15 million a year as a free agent and still have a “margin of safety” (relative to the hypothetical $18 million). That’s why I’d be willing to offer him a three or four year contract for up to $40 million or $55 million respectively, basically $15 million per year, minus an arbitration—year discount next year.

What would Wells have been worth as a free agent? In 2005, the year before his 2006 breakout, he was worth $11 million. The average of this was $16 million. Hence, I would have been willing to offer him a contract of up to four years for $64 million, or $16 million per. (Wells was actually worth that $16 million in 2010, after injuries in the three previous years held him below that, which is the luck of the draw.)

A payment of $18 million per year for four years, or $72 million total, would have been an overpayment, but not an egregious one. It was the three extra years, bringing the total to $126 million, that was the killer.

If the Blue Jays offer Bautista only $7 million or so for 2011, and he produces another year with 30+ (not 50+) home runs, they’ll have an awful time re-signing him, since he’ll be “established,” and a free agent. The time to sign him long—term is NOW, when everyone knows what he can do but is not sure he will.

One commenter cited his mediocrity up to 2009 (2008, actually, 2009 was quite good). But look at it this way: Imagine a class with three hourly exams and a final. The final counts for 50 percent of the grade, but also replaces every hourly grade lower than itself (so the hourly’s can help you, but not hurt you).

Bautista clearly “aced” the final (to the tune of $15-$18 million a year, not $28 million). Yes, if you average in his low “hourly’s” he has a “B” average. But in assessing his potential, I prefer to use the “final.”

There is a saying of “once bitten, twice wary.” But a better saying might be that it’s just as bad to underpay as to overpay.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

If the Texas Rangers are going to win the 2010 World Series, it will no longer rest with Cliff Lee (who lost the first game). Instead, it’s now squarely on the shoulders of the other ace, Colby Lewis.

Assuming that the two teams were reasonably competitive, San Francisco was going to win at least Game 2 at home against C.J. Wilson in AT&T Park. The fact that the Giants also won Game 1 shows that they are VERY competitive.

Making the “competitive” assumption implies that the Rangers will win at least two out of three in Arlington. Those two games will likely be Game 3 pitched by Lewis and Game 5 pitched by Lee, both at home. Game 4, with Tommy Hunter starting, is the question mark.

If the Giants win one out of three in Texas, they will have a decided advantage, needing only to split the remaining two games and facing Wilson, whom they’ve already beaten in Game 6. If the Rangers win all three games at home, they’d be leading 3-2, but with the onus of playing on the road. Their situation would be like that of a backgammon player leading a “race” by four “pips” (versus an average roll of eight), but with the other player on roll.

Let’s say that the tally is 3-3 at the end of six, either by the Rangers sweeping three at home and losing Game 6, or less likely, winning Game 6 after losing one at home. Then it would be Colby Lewis in Game 7 against Jonathan Sanchez with the Rangers on the road for the tiebreaker.

Having demonstrated why it (almost) HAS to be Lewis, I will now show why it CAN be Lewis. He now has the Ranger starters’ best postseason ERA, 1.45. The Giants have pitched to a 2.46 ERA in the postseason. Lewis can beat this while Lee couldn’t in his meltdown in Game 1.

At age 31, Lewis is the other highly experienced starter on the roster and doesn’t pitch appreciably worse on the road than at home, a sign of that experience. Having spent two years in Japan, he may also have a different experience than the average American pitcher. If anything, that could at least make him harder for batters to “read.”

There are no guarantees that Lewis will pull the Rangers chestnuts out of the fire or that his team will get the World Series to Game 7 to give him the chance. However, if Lewis can’t do it, no one else on the team probably will either.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Yankee pitchers did not exactly distinguish themselves in the recent ALCS. But that may not be the main reason that they lost. To understand why, let’s look at what happened in individual games.

The Bronx Bombers won only the two games that their ace, CC Sabathia, started. The first game was in spite of Sabathia, and due to the big five-run comeback inning, a typical Yankee feat, that made the final score 6-5. But in the fifth game of the series, the home team scored seven runs while Sabathia, et al. held the visitors to two. Note that the Yankees did score 13 runs in those two games.

Texas was going to win the two games, the second and sixth, started by Phil Hughes against Colby Lewis, because Hughes gave up seven runs in four innings in the second game, and four runs in 4.2 innings in the sixth game, while Lewis gave up all of two and one runs, respectively.

It was the third and fourth games, the third started by Andy Pettitte against Cliff Lee, and the fourth started by AJ Burnett against Tommy Hunter, that were decisive. And in theory, the Yankees could have won either, possibly both of those games, and now be playing the World Series.

The key question was, why did Yankee hitters score a total of only six runs in the four games that they lost (an average of 1.5 runs per)? If we compare the batting statistics, the heirs to the 1927 Murderers’ Row batted all of .201 and scored 19 runs in the ACLS, while the Texans batted .304 and scored 38 runs.

And the Yankee production was concentrated in the two Sabathia-led victories. If you extrapolate the 13 runs scored in those two games to the whole six games, that would have meant 39 runs, enough to win the series, or at least send it to a seventh game.

Let’s not make the excuse that the Yankees couldn’t have scored against Cliff Lee, because the “light”-hitting San Francisco Giants just did—and in a big way. And despite a midseason groin injury that hurt his second-half performance, Andy Pettitte was the old Andy Pettitte, giving up only two runs in seven innings, while Kerry Wood, the de facto set-up man, pitched a scoreless eighth.

While Yankee relievers melted down in the ninth, does anyone doubt that if the score had been, say, 3-2 Yankees at the end of eight, Mariano Riviera wouldn’t have closed the game? As it was, you don’t use your closer in the actual situation (down 2-0), but rather your middle relievers because 1) the Yankees lose if they don’t score at least two runs in the bottom of the ninth, whether the Rangers score zero or 10 runs in the top of the inning, and 2) if it’s exactly tied after nine, you need Riviera for later.

In the fourth game, a struggling AJ Burnett had a 3-2 lead at the end of five innings, which he held after 5.2, albeit with a man on second base, and left handed Dave Murphy coming to bat. Then Joe Girardi has the tiring Burnett intentionally walk Murphy and pitch to Bengie Molina, and the rest was history, when Molina hit a three-run homer.

But why walk Murphy with TWO out, when he represents the third out? Instead, bring in lefty Boone Logan to pitch to Murphy. If it’s an out, then you’re out of a jam. If not, maybe right-handed Dave Robertson can get the third out pitching to right-handed Molina, fresh from the bullpen.

In the top of the seventh, you may start Logan, and relieve him with Dave Robertson, when he falters, or go to Robertson directly. Let’s “tweak” history and say for the sake of argument that either Molina or Josh Harrison (but not both) hits a solo home run in the top of the seventh, but Yankee relievers prevent further Rangers scoring by pitching Wood in the eighth and Riviera in the ninth. Then the score is tied at 3-3.

Except that the Yankees didn’t score further in that game, either. Meaning that they might have lost a battle of the bullpens, possibly in extra innings.

But here’s what happened. The best Yankee hitters in the ACLS were the two middle fielders, Robinson Cano (.348) at second, and Curtis Granderson (.294) in center field. Jorge Posada, a catcher, hit well (.263) for either a catcher or a shortstop (key defensive players for whom hitting ability is often sacrificed), and Derek Jeter hit ok (.231) for a catcher (the harder of the two positions), but not a shortstop.

But corner players, (the least valuable defensively, hence typically the best hitters), let the team down. Vaunted third baseman, Alex Rodriguez and the corner outfielders, Nick Swisher, Marcus Thames, and Brett Gardner all hit below .200, and first baseman Lance Berkman, a relatively “robust” .250.

In short, the Yankees had the opportunities to win the ACLS, despite tough opposition from a rejuvenated Rangers team. Too bad most of their hitters failed to capitalize on them.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Even though he’s a Pirate, Andy McCutchen is a well above league average player.

Newbies such as Pedro Alvarez, Jose Tabata and Neil Walker were all more or less league average in 2010, their rookie year (above average on offense, below average on defense).

Garrett Jones was moderately below average in 2010 after an above average half-year in 2009; a time-weighted performance suggests that he could be average.

Ronny Cedeno wasn’t quite an average shortstop early in the year, but second half strides may put him in this category next year (with a classic shortstop profile of strong defense, weak offense, the opposite of his teammates).

Ryan Doumit is above average on offense, and Chris Snyder on defense, relative to other catchers, so there is some hope of getting a reasonably good player behind the plate between the two.

The one question mark is right field, where Lastings Milledge and John Bowker, both of whom have shown flashes of goodness at times, are struggling to shake off the “replacement player” label (which dogged Neil Walker in 2009).

Despite its trials and tribulations, the pitching staff is decidedly better than it was two years ago, and that’s not counting Zach Duke. Following the fortuitous trade for James McDonald and the signing of Brian Burres, the Pirates have a halfway decent rotation.

McDonald is a second starter-caliber hurler, Paul Maholm and Ross Ohlendorf reasonable facsimiles of third-starter types, and Jeff Karstens and Burres do an adequate job of filling the back end. What’s missing is a genuine first starter, which is why the rotation is still modestly below average.

But the team has an above average relief corps, which may make the pitching as a whole just average. If people like Charlie Morton and/or Brad Lincoln can find their way to the back of the rotation, it means that Burres and or Karstens can join Dan McCutchen in middle relief, the bane of most baseball teams.

There’s one more requirement for the Pirates to be average. Basically, they have to keep replacement players off the field. That won’t be easy to do, because their bench isn’t the greatest, meaning that starters will have to stay healthy.

But they can also cut out the failed experiments from recent years: a white elephant named Matt Morris, a replacement fielder like Brandon Moss playing almost every day (in 2008-2009) and perennially injured players like Jeff Clement and Akinori Iwamura.

While the Pirates assembled their current roster largely through trades, they needed to do a better job of retaining key players. Oh, for a right fielder (and former third baseman) named Jose Bautista, who used to be a Pirate but set the season home run record in the American League (fortunately).

Or if you prefer, a second baseman named Freddy Sanchez, who won the 2006 batting trophy, and could become the MVP of the 2010 World Series.

(Defensively, this would allow the team to move Neil Walker to third base, Pedro Alvarez to first and Garrett Jones, still the best bet, to right field.)

Still, the Pirates have (probably) done well enough since 2007 (under new management) to look forward to better days.

“League average” isn’t great. But it’s a decidedly better place than the one the Pirates are coming from.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

The Texas Rangers got to the postseason without Cliff Lee. But Cliff Lee has (so far) brought the Rangers through the postseason. That’s why they need each other in the future.

It wasn’t until July 2 that the Rangers unexpectedly got Cliff Lee from a Seattle Mariners team that was out of contention, and had no further use for Lee. Since then, he was 4-6 with the Rangers, with an ERA of just under 4.00. Clearly, he was not the person that got the Rangers to the postseason. One might expect this of a capable, but older pitcher, who sat out the first month of the season with injuries.

Now for the playoffs (so far). Lee has been 3-0 in the postseason, with a 0.75 ERA reminiscent of his early 2008 break out months as a Cleveland Indian. This follows the 2009 postseason in which he was 4-0 with a 1.56 ERA (as a Phillie). You would expect a veteran like Lee to play at the top of his game when it counted most.

But the Rangers have had two dominant pitchers, Lee and Colby Lewis (Lewis is 2-0 in the postseason with a 1.45 ERA). Between them, they are capable of winning four games in any best-of-seven series. CJ Wilson and even Tommy Hunter haven’t been bad supporting characters, but neither of them is as reliable as Lee and Lewis.

If Lee wants another “CC Sabathia” to buttress him, he’s probably got one in Lewis. My best guess is that the Rangers will win the World Series in six, with Lee and Lewis winning at least three, more like four of those games.

Can the Rangers retain Lee against the Yankees?

I will start by stating my belief that the Texas Rangers are a better fit for Lee on every metric except money. If Lee turns out to be purely mercenary, the Yankees will get him. If he takes a “balanced” approach that encompasses money, playing conditions, potential for contributions, etc. the Rangers can be very competitive.

The (current) Rangers have every bit as good a chance of getting to the postseason as the Yankees with or without Lee. The Yankees have, in the past, dominated their division, the Rangers, hardly so. But that is about to change.

The Rangers have hit their stride just as the rest of the American League West has fallen apart. The Los Angeles Angels are in disarray, the Seattle Mariners are badly managed and the well-managed Oakland A’s are hobbled by a budget that’s much tighter than the Rangers’. Small wonder that the Rangers’ lead of nine games over the second-place team was larger than in any of the five other divisions in baseball.

On the other hand, the Yankees are now in a tough division having finished second to Tampa Bay (and receiving the Wild Card). Boston was No. 3, and No. 4 Toronto sported a winning 85-77 record, plus baseball’s best home run hitter (Jose Bautista). Even laggard Baltimore has a better-than-.500 record since the All-Star break (under new management).

The Rangers have a lot of good players, but few established stars. Given that they haven’t been successful in the postseason without Lee, they would probably welcome him on the team, even if his large contract might hurt their salary prospects. In Texas, Lee would basically be in a class by himself.

The situation is opposite in New York, where Lee would be “one of the stars,” alongside marquee Yankee names, and former Texans like Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira. But with the rest of the rotation (other than Sabathia) questionable, and a lineup that is no longer “Murderer’s Row,” there would be a lot more day-to-day pressure on Lee in New York to “carry” the team, instead of being “carried” during the regular season.

Moreover, the core of the Yankees (Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte) is much older than Lee. Having won World Series in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2009, they won’t be around much longer. Apart from Robinson Cano, newer home-grown players like Marcus Thames, Brett Gardiner and Frankie Cervelli are promising, but not established players. If they turn out not to be suitable replacements for departees, Lee might find himself irrelevant. On the other hand, Texas has talented players that are younger than Lee and will mostly outlast him.

New York City is in some ways a less pleasant place to work than Texas. For one thing the fans are even more boisterous than in Texas. Lee’s wife Kristen was quoted in USA Today as saying that “the fans did not do good things in my heart.” And let’s not forget that Texas has no state income tax, New York State does, and New York City an additional tax on top of that.

Now to the question of money. What would Lee be worth? Fan Graphs places his contribution at around $30 million a year for the past three years. On the other hand, Lee is 32, a peak age for a baseball player, meaning that he is not going to get better, and will likely get worse.

A reasonable contract offer might be something like $125 million for five years, ($25 million per), possibly front-loading early years above $25 million to reflect Lee’s probable decline. That would pay him at a higher rate, albeit for fewer years, than CC Sabathia’s seven-year contract at $23 million per.

That would be a steep, but probably fair price for Texas, one that they might be willing to pay, given that a decade ago, the team signed one Alexander Rodriguez to a then-record 10-year $252 million contract.

On the other hand, the Yankees have been known to pay “full price,” both in dollars and in years. If the metrics say that’s what Cliff Lee is worth, they might end up offering that. And since they offered Sabathia a seven-year contract, they might have to do that with Lee as well (it was a bad precedent that I quarrel with), for a grand total of $210 million.

Investor Warren Buffett once said that it was a bad idea to marry for money—insanity if you are already wealthy (as Lee is). Let’s hope that he is one person that money can’t buy.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com