Teixeira Contract A Long Term Risk For Yanks

Brian Cashman swooped into the Mark Teixeira negotiations, seemingly at the 11th hour, and stole the first baseman from under the Red Sox Christmas tree.  It was quite a coup for Mr. Cashman, but a costly coup at that. The deal: 8 years, $180 million plus a $5 million signing bonus to be paid out over the first three seasons.  That's quite a bit of change coming on the heels of the CC Sabathia contract and the too-many-years too-many-dollars contract of AJ Burnett. At the moment, however, Teixeira is a stud.  The last two seasons, he's posted 150 and 151 OPS+, which is nice, while being a good defensive first baseman, a switch hitter, and a dandy good fellow. The problem, as it seems to be with every contract signed these days, is the amount of years.  The years six through eight of Teixeira's contract will take him into the ages 34 through 36.  I was curious as to the history of first basemen as they hit those late ages, so I did a little digging to figure out what type of performance has been given using Runs Created Above Average. Since the dawn of man, there have been 170 seasons played by a first baseman between the ages of 34 and 36.  Of those 170 seasons, 135 have had at least 1 RCAA.  The Yankees are paying Teixeira based on his production of the last two or three years, so lets use his three year RCAA average of 41 as the barometer.  There have been 29 seasons of a first baseman within that age range that have had a RCAA at 41 or higher.  Twelve of those seasons came after 1960, two of them belonging to Mark McGwire (1998 & 1999), one to Rafael Palmeiro (2001), and one to Jason Giambi (2005).  If we remove those four seasons for suspicious reasons, that leaves us with eight seasons since 1960 when a first baseman has matched Teixeira's average RCAA for the last three seasons.  That's not a great ratio. We don't know yet how Teixeira's seasonal salary will be calculated.  His average is $22.5 million ($1 million below what Jason Giambi made the last two seasons), but the Yankees tend to scale the salaries over the life of the contract.  For instance, Giambi started at $10.5 million in 2002 and ended at $23.5 million in 2008.  If Teixeira's contract is weighted the same way, chances are he will not be playing at the same level he is being paid in those last few seasons. Teixeira's signing also raises a few other questions, some of which I've addressed here before.  The Yankees are not a team of youths.  There will be some relief when Matsui and Damon come off the books after the 2009 season, but Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter may both be in need of a positional change within the next few seasons.  First base is a fine dumping ground for such players, but there is now $180 million resting there.  The Yankees are going to have a problem placing Posada anywhere but DH if he can't catch this year or next.  Jeter is equally problematic as his defense at short has always been poor, but his bat could be in decline as well.  Dropping him into centerfield at this stage probably wouldn't be effective (and would block youngster Austin Jackson), he doesn't have the type of power to bury in the outfield corners, and third base is occupied for a few years.  Leaving Jeter at short may be the only option but it will come at the expense of the pitching staff. There is a pattern developing whenever one of these long term, super rich deals is signed.  Quite simply, teams are forced to swallow extra years they know will not pay off for the sake of landing a player at his peak.  Thankfully, Teixeira is 29 next season, but he will get older and he will decline while making very good money.  With all the Yankees have spent over the last few weeks, that doesn't seem to be a concern, but one needs only to think of Damon, Matsui, Giambi, and now the fears around Posada's contract to realize these deals can handcuff a team from having the flexibility they need. Teixeira will be a very good player for the Yankees over the next four or five seasons, but the lack of flexibility and the money at the back end may ultimately make this deal more trouble than it's worth.