Are the Yankees Becoming Cheap?

This offseason has been a little frustrating as a Yankees fan. The team is coming off a fantastic 2018 season. 100 wins is nothing to scoff at, plus the team has one of the best young cores in the game, while also getting the payroll below the luxury tax threshold, an accomplishment that’s been in the works for a seemingly long time. Those 100 wins ultimately weren’t enough, as the Boston Red Sox were even greater; 108 regular season wins and a World Series title to top it off. So now it’s time for the Yankees to make the additions to make it to the top right?

Well not exactly. The Yankees quickly traded for James Paxton, and have re-signed J.A. Happ and Zach Britton (who both only spent half the season in New York last year) to appropriate deals. They even signed DJ LeMahieu to a two-year deal. These additions are all great but for a lot of fans, seems to be insufficient. The big disappointment early in the offseason was when Patrick Corbin signed to the Nationals after many fans, and not just Yankees fans, thought it was a given that New York would give the best pitcher on the market whatever deal he wanted. Now as we approach Spring Training, it looks less and less likely that Manny Machado, probably the best free agent available and a serious upgrade at third base, will get the contract he desires from New York. I thought New York was going to blow up after Corbin went to Washington DC, just imagine if Machado ends up somewhere else.

When Corbin signed, some very, very bold claims were made about the Yankees and their ownership: they were cheaping out on us. For years they talked about getting below the luxury tax threshold and they finally achieved it. What was the hold up now? Why not, as Phillies owner John Middleton said he plans on doing, spend stupidly? I gave the Steinbrennars a pass for the time being but it’s getting uncomfortably close to spring time now.

View interactive chart for each MLB team's payroll percentage and the Yankees' yearly payroll and revenue

Revenue isn’t the best number to look at and obviously profit would be. The Yankees are a team that I’m sure has high expenses, including expenses that go towards making the product on the field better. You have to imagine that a team that has been so successful recently with young talent spends a lot on player development and scouting, and it’s known that the Yankees have one of the largest analytics departments in Major League Baseball. Nevertheless, Forbes’ revenue listings for each team (from 2017, 2018’s hasn’t been released yet) are what we have to work with, with the privately-owned businesses that are baseball teams not having to publish their expense reports. Also, there’s still some value in knowing simply this: of all the money a team makes, how much do they spend on their roster?

I mention this of course because the Yankees are second to last. Two of the four bottom teams, the White Sox and Phillies, are young big-market teams going through rebuilds. The Yankees, while also a young team rebuilding, are a team in win-now mode after winning 91 and 100 games the past two seasons with their young core. Here's a look at what the team should look like in 2019, with 33 players I expect to get at least decent playing time:

Click here for an interactive view.

I think the dilemma here is deciding whether they’re cheaping out on us or if they just now refuse to sign long-term deals at this point. Surely we can’t call an ownership group cheap when they’ve been willing to sign relievers like Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman to deals that were considered to have average annual values too high for relief pitchers at the time. Even now, they sign Zach Britton and LeMahieu to deals now considered reasonable, but it’s still closer-money for someone who won’t be closing and someone who probably won’t be starting throughout the season. Clearly spending money on the right guy for a couple years isn’t an issue. But long-term deals? I think the Yankees are shell-shocked from past deals, especially Alex Rodriguez’s extension. It’s something that’s been talked about a lot: many long-term free agent deals do not work out as the player quickly ages past his prime. The shift seemed to start when the Yankees passed on re-signing Robinson Cano to a 10-year deal (and I bet the success in doing so reinforced future decisions), and now that they continue to live with Jacoby Ellsbury, I think the Yankees are just done with those type of contracts.

Is it possible for a team to be at a point of just not caring that a contract is bad? I understand why the Yankees are hesitant to sign someone like Patrick Corbin to six seasons. If a contract looks like it’ll end up bad, then it makes sense not to sign it. On the other hand, part of me still would want him anyways. If payroll is lower than usual already because of the number of team-controlled players, and revenue keeps rising, is their really much risk? Team payroll probably still wouldn’t be as high as it was five years ago. If he ends up great, then a 100-win team gets even better, and if he’s bad, you still have a team that’s a 100-win team.

If you’re a great team with money to spend, then why not sign the biggest guys, even if it hurts you in the future? I know it’s not my money. But I really want another title.

Revenue figures are from Forbes and payroll from Spotrac. Graphics made in Tableau.