02/13: Extending Mariano
Posted by: Patrick
Ken Davidoff writes that extending Mo isn't wise and says that Mo would sign for about 2 years at $12 million a year now ... or next November. With all of the money everyone is making these days, that doesn't seem like enough to me, but I guess it makes sense (although, it would not at all shock me to see someone come in and go much higher than that - $20 million? - to get him away from New York and, if he has a great year this year, it'll still be a good deal).
I understand that Mo will be 38 next year and I understand that that is old. But, who is going to fault Cashman if he picks Mo up at around that money and then Mo never pitches another game. How could you fault him? If that happens (besides crying myself to sleep), I'll always, always look funny at anyone who looks back and says "well, Cashman shouldn't have signed him."
I don't need to cite numbers or performance because everyone already knows. There are pros and cons to both approach. However, one major pro is that if we lock him up now, there will be nothing for him to think about come November. Mo wants to be a Yankee, we know that. But, when he actually has the options in front of him, that could change. Do we want that to happen?
I don't even want to imagine not having Mo in 2008. My brain can't process things like that. But, forcing it to do so, I look at the FA class next year, from Cot's. Nothing that excites me. I mean, yeah, Trevor Hoffman is good, but he's two years older than Mo which defeats the purpose. The Twins aren't going to let Joe Nathan walk at that price. We have a very good bullpen (with Mo being a very big part of why it is so), but as far as a closer... eh. Minors? Who knows. Mo was a nobody once, too, of course. Some work in '95, setup in '96, closer in '97. So, the next great Yankees closer could be waiting, certainly. As great as Mo? Probably not. But, that day is going to come eventually. Still, we should be hoping that it's later, rather than sooner.
Forget the fact that he's a career Yankee, a model citizen, etc. etc. Looking at it from risk/reward. Is it worth the risk of him suddenly imploding to prevent him from having options in 2008? Or, is it worth running the risk of him having options in 2008 to prevent us from being stuck paying him for 2 more years if he implodes? Personally, I'd take the former.
I understand that Mo will be 38 next year and I understand that that is old. But, who is going to fault Cashman if he picks Mo up at around that money and then Mo never pitches another game. How could you fault him? If that happens (besides crying myself to sleep), I'll always, always look funny at anyone who looks back and says "well, Cashman shouldn't have signed him."
I don't need to cite numbers or performance because everyone already knows. There are pros and cons to both approach. However, one major pro is that if we lock him up now, there will be nothing for him to think about come November. Mo wants to be a Yankee, we know that. But, when he actually has the options in front of him, that could change. Do we want that to happen?
I don't even want to imagine not having Mo in 2008. My brain can't process things like that. But, forcing it to do so, I look at the FA class next year, from Cot's. Nothing that excites me. I mean, yeah, Trevor Hoffman is good, but he's two years older than Mo which defeats the purpose. The Twins aren't going to let Joe Nathan walk at that price. We have a very good bullpen (with Mo being a very big part of why it is so), but as far as a closer... eh. Minors? Who knows. Mo was a nobody once, too, of course. Some work in '95, setup in '96, closer in '97. So, the next great Yankees closer could be waiting, certainly. As great as Mo? Probably not. But, that day is going to come eventually. Still, we should be hoping that it's later, rather than sooner.
Forget the fact that he's a career Yankee, a model citizen, etc. etc. Looking at it from risk/reward. Is it worth the risk of him suddenly imploding to prevent him from having options in 2008? Or, is it worth running the risk of him having options in 2008 to prevent us from being stuck paying him for 2 more years if he implodes? Personally, I'd take the former.
Seamus wrote: