Yanks sign Gardner 4yrs for $52M

Dr. Detfink · Post #1 » by **Dr. Detfink** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:45 pm

So much for "fiscal responsibility" after overloading the outfield with free agent signings. Did the Yanks over pay for Gardner's services?

Post #2 » by **Rich Rane** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:26 am

I think they did and I'm a fan of Gardner.

thebuzzardman · Post #3 » by **thebuzzardman** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:47 am

Wow. He'll spend half that deal on the IR.

Dr. Detfink · Post #4 » by **Dr. Detfink** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:46 am

Yea, I am thinking Cashman is trying to make a statement. Reason why the Yanks hired a business lawyer over someone with actual baseball knowledge is due to their relationships with sports agents. Pro Star Management doesn't exactly reek of top clients but I am guessing Cashman is trying to further undermine Jay-Z's group in that Cano deal. Careful Brian, CC is onboard and this could get tricky as the Yanks move forward.

Pharmcat · Post #5 » by **Pharmcat** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:46 am

another terrible deal

fire cashman

Post #6 » by **moocow007** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:34 pm

Aren't like 3 out of the top 5 minor leaguers in the Yankee farm system OFs? This says a lot about how confident theh must be in the quality of those prospects.

rappa · Post #7 » by **rappa** » Sat Mar 1, 2014 12:20 am

The deal makes 100% absolute sense from the Yankees perspective. Michael Bourn, who is worse than Gardner but comparable, signed a 4 yr/48 mil deal on the open market.

We paid fair value but we also did not give him a no-trade clause. Now that he's signed to a relatively market value deal instead of a pending FA, his value is only going to go up.

Some of you probably don't know this but if you're a pending FA and are traded, the team that trades for you cannot offer you a qualifying offer. Therefore, his value was hindered by this clause since he could easily bolt without a team being able to even recoup a draft pick.

With him being signed to market value deal and is still cheap this year, he has a lot more value on the trade market.

Seriously, some of you people are so pessimistic and don't ever look at the big picture or other dynamics other then what you think is right.

Prokorov · Post #8 » by **Prokorov** » Mon Mar 3, 2014 5:16 pm

I'm a fan of gardner but this is really an overpay. I understand bourne's contract helped set the price but just because born was over payed doesn't mean we should have invested that into gardner, especially after throwing big money into ellsbury and beltran.

I look at 4/52 and see that could have gotten us Garza or Ubaldo Jiminez to strengthen the rotation, which to me would have been money much better spent. I realse Gardner doesn't have a no-trade clause, which allows us some flexibility, but id have rather invested that money else, tried to move him by the deadline and take whatever pick we'd got if he ultimately walked

Vides990 · Post #9 » by **Vides990** » Tue Mar 4, 2014 2:31 pm

Prokorov wrote:I look at 4/52 and see that could have gotten us Garza or Ubaldo Jiminez to strengthen the rotation, which to me would have been money much better spent.

Garnders contract doesn't kick in until next year, Garza and Jiminez would have been on the books this yr, see the difference?

Prokorov · Post #10 » by **Prokorov** » Tue Mar 4, 2014 4:22 pm

Vides990 wrote:
Prokorov wrote:I look at 4/52 and see that could have gotten us Garza or Ubaldo Jiminez to strengthen the rotation, which to me would have been money much better spent.

Garnders contract doesn't kick in until next year, Garza and Jiminez would have been on the books this yr, see the difference?

no, i dont. we are already over the luxury tax. i could understand if short term it got us out of the tax, but it doesnt. thus its the same longterm commitment at the same price

Vides990 · Post #11 » by **Vides990** » Tue Mar 4, 2014 6:04 pm

Prokorov wrote:
Vides990 wrote:
Prokorov wrote:I look at 4/52 and see that could have gotten us Garza or Ubaldo Jiminez to strengthen the rotation, which to me would have been money much better spent.

Garnders contract doesn't kick in until next year, Garza and Jiminez would have been on the books this yr, see the difference?

no, i dont. we are already over the luxury tax. i could understand if short term it got us out of the tax, but it doesnt. thus its the same longterm commitment at the same price

Even though we're over the tax Cash hasn't been crazy about being way over. He capped the team for the past 5 yrs between 195-210 and currently we're right there. After he signed Tanaka he said we were done and we're right around 200 I believe, he wasnt about to go towards 225-250 bc of the even crazier taxes we would then have to pay.

It's stupid to shell out ~20 mill per yr in salary + taxes for the likes of Garza/Jimenez. Granted, we would have been better off signing one of them then Beltran.