|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Wow.
NAPLES, Fla.—The Boston Red Sox emerged Tuesday night as winners of the bidding for Daisuke Matsuzaka with a $51.1 million offer and have 30 days to sign the Japanese pitcher to a contract.
The Seibu Lions of Japan’s Pacific League announced they had accepted the high bid—ESPN’s Peter Gammons this week reported the figure to be $42 million—for their prized pitcher, and the major league commissioner’s office simultaneously confirmed at the general managers’ meetings that the Red Sox had made the offer.
Kyle S
Posted: November 14, 2006 at 09:43 PM | 363 comment(s)
Related News: General, Boston, Japan
|
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well... the price of poker just went up boys.
</Drawl>
What's the journalistic process that leads to you getting the team right, but the number wrong? Were their sources lying to them, or what?
We likely won't find out officially until he's signed. Before then, it's in the interests of the 2nd place team to keep it quiet. And since it's not a tremendously important issue, we won't be seeing the same efforts by journalists to find out.
I don't really have anything to back that statement up (except that he doesn't really look like he has the type of stuff to strike out 9 per 9 in the majors), but I want to get it on record just in case.
Do the Sox have to pay Seibu the 51 mil as soon as they sign him? If so, then that's a lot different than just averaging it out over the life of the contract because of inflation and the inability to invest that money. Maybe someone with an economics background could help me out here. what's the difference between, say, a 5-year deal that is 20 million per year and one that is 60 million in the first year and 10 million for each year after that?
According to the NY Daily News, the Mets bid 38 mil, the Yankees bid about 30 mil, and the Rangers bid about 27 mil.
They have five days after signing to pay up.
No, probably not, but this is how it often happens with a blind bidding process - the top bid blows the 2nd bid out of the water.
I haven't read all of these threads yet. So someone may have brought this up. But why does the team that wins the posting bid get all of their money back if they can't come up with a contract? Seems to me that the best way to keep the bidding serious (and put a stop to the shenanigans that I've seen speculated about "blocking") is to require the team to pay some percentage of that initial amount - cases could be made for 10% or even 50% - into some pool - Bud's slush fund or something.
Otherwise it certainly looks easy to manipulate the system - win the bidding war and then submit an offer that you don't think will be taken, but is still high enough not to set off alarms in Bud-land.
My reading of this system is that the Sox are win-win here; either they get a good pitcher at a good price or they prevent that pitcher from beating them nearly for free. If there were $ that they would lose at the end of an unsuccessful negotiating round, that would motivate the sides to come to a deal, which is the entire point of this posting process, right?
Someone give me an example of a deal that will make sense to both parties, when this outlay is taken into account.
To put it another way, if you were Matsuzaka/Boras, with genuine free agency one year away, what is the lowest deal you'd take to go to the Red Sox now? And when you add the $51 million, even offsetting the luxury tax distortion and any revenue offset, would you pay it if you were the Red Sox?
This is the first step to Matsuzaka leading the Sox to multiple pennants, and he'll pay back every penny spent on him in spades.
Well, it's important to note he's not a FA until May 1 of 2008, so that would really put a dent in his free agency plans for 2008. He can't even negotiate until May 1, let alone secure a huge payday.
My guess is the Sox sign him for $4/45 or something, but they forfeit the arbitration rights for the last two yeas.
And everybody will get a pony.
Or about as much as Johnny Damon for four years. That's the part that makes me laugh.
Or Pedro.
Hmmm ... when you put it that way it does start to make sense. Scary.
Agent Flood: Shieeeeeettttttttt...
Yeah, but Pedro doesn't sting quite as much given his current status. Damon has yet to fail, so he has more of a grass is greener feel.
You know, there's just no contract you can hypothesize that doesn't make the total investment eye-popping. $45M + $51M . . . . $96M for four years . . . . $24M/year for Matsuzaka. Yikes.
I know CFiJ says that's not how the accounting works. Fine. But still . . . yikes.
Boy, this is going to be a fun offseason.
I'm calling it here. Jeff Suppan gets a 5 year, 60 million deal and Carlos Lee gets a 5 year, 80 million deal.
This offseason will be ####### crazy. In a few years, people will be looking at A-Rod's contract as a bargain.
OK, I think that's a little optimistic on behalf of the club, but even if they got him for that that, they'd be paying $24 million per year for a pitcher who's never pitched in the major leagues, that they probably won't be able to fully insure.
I don't believe they have any intention of doing that.
Still makes no sense. It's a 4 year $95MM deal for the Red Sox, which is nuts. I agree with Mork. I'd be surprised if the signed him for anything (assuming everything is on the level). If I'm Boras, I turn down the low ball, take my money in Japan, and become a free agent in two years. Any signing really makes no sense now for the sox unless they sign him to about a 10 year deal. Hell, even if they drugged Boras and got him for five years and $25MM, that's $15MM per season for a guy who has never pitched in the majors.
I always thought it was!!!
:)
No actually it doesn't mean this at all gomer pile. It means:
Expected Revenue/Savings >= 51 + [(marginal wins produced*revenue associated with a marginal win)- cost of marginal win]
The problem here is we don't have a great idea of any of these variables.
Hey! We might actually have a chance to see A-Rod "highest paid player in baseball" clause come into play. If anyone is making more than him, then A-Rod gets a bump to $1M more than that player.
Yes. Put yourself in Seibu's shoes -- the Sox ask you to kick back anything more than $13M, you drop a line to Selig about this outrageous breach of the agreement, and Matsuzaka's rights go to the Mets, who are paying cash, no questions asked. If the Sox are asking for a smaller kickback then that, what's the point? They're still paying a sh!tload, and they're still risking the whole thing if some enterprising investigative journalist exposes their scheming.
Someone give me an example of a deal that will make sense to both parties, when this outlay is taken into account.
6/54. It will make perfect sense when Zito signs for 6/105 a few days later. The trouble is that Boras will want a shorter deal and a release from any remaining arb years. The Sox will be demanding that he take more money for more years. Boras will be insisting on less money for fewer years. A sure sign that the apocalypse is nigh.
Almost a week after receiving the highest bid for 26-year-old right-hander Daisuke Matsuzaka, the Seibu Lions on Monday notified Major League Baseball that they would accept the $42 million offer submitted by the Red Sox.
I rather expect that Steinbrenner will insist on seeing it. Maybe he'll let you have a peek.
Why on earth would he take that when he could wait a year and get nearly double?
I have to tell you, it's getting a bit annoying to see smart and informed posters (Sam M) all ready lumping these two expenses together. There is no sound reason to associate 100% of the expense to player payroll... some portion should be associated with marketing... but how much? No one has a clue besides one guy on SOSH... who is Joe Schmoe for all we know.
BTW: I agree with elenchi... the intresting part here will be the interaction between Boras and the Sox as they flip flop roles when looking at contract length. I expect the Sox knew going in, what the Matzuka was looking for, and that contributed to their bid.
Fixed
Well, Considering the Sox already have the highest ticket prices in the league, and they already basically play to 100% capacity, unless Matsuzaka can bring some tools and add about 20,000 seats to Fenway, the marginal increase in revenue probably isn't going to be anywhere near $50MM.
Maybe they think they're guaranteed to sell 250,000 jerseys.
Curiouser and curiouser . . . . This is more confusing than the frigging BCS.
I read that as being pronounced "Mat-ZOO-kah". Which, if applied in reference to his arm, is both pretty cool and pretty funny.
How exactly do you think they keep those ticket prices so high and sell out every game? It doesn't happen in a vacuum you know... If the Red Sox are not in contention for the playoffs next year, that sellout streak is over.
I disagree. If, for example, the Angels sign Vlad to a 5 year, $75MM contract, all of that amount is associated with player payroll, despite the fact that they clearly believe some of it will be made up with marketing. I think most people who post here realized that part of what a team decides to spend on a free is based on how much they plan to recover through marketing of that player. When I added the posting fee to a contract amount in post #32, I was doing so that I could compare apples to apples. I'd imagine that I'm not the only person who makes that assumption. I mean, that's the idea, right? Comparing apples to apples?
I said I don't think he'd take it, but it makes a certain amount of sense because it's a ton of money and he's assuming a lot of risk by waiting. He'll make $3M in Japan next year, and he won't be able to negotiate with all MLB teams next winter -- he'll have to wait until May of 2008 -- service time in Japan is based on calendar days, not seasons. If the Sox were willing to front load it enough, it could make plenty enough sense to Matsuzaka.
But like I said, he'll want a earlier out. The Red Sox will want a longer term to amortize the posting fee and continue to tap whatever revenue streams he opens for them. That, much more than annual salary, is going to be the sticking point.
I certainly follow the RedSox closer than you do, and I don't have a clue if that statement is true or not. You're putting a Japanesse national sports hero in the most baseball crazy market in the world (no offense to NYC, or STL)... If Matzuka is just another number 2... then yeah it might be tough... but if this guy is a Cy Young type... which I expect based on the Sox bid, they think he is... well thats a synergy that none of us have any idea how it will play out.
Also, I expect if the RedSox long term goal is to play ball on the same field as the Yankees, then they need to make inroads into this market so that when hot Japanesse free agents hit the market they don't automaticlly just want to sign with the Yankees (or mariners), so that likly has some impact on the dollars.... there are hundreds of variables... and we are in the dark.
The point is, however you allocate the $51.1M (or $42M, or whatever the heck it really is), this is a player acquisition and payroll expense. To me, the fee is most analogous to a signing bonus paid to a draftee, at least from the team's perspective (obviously, from the player's perspective, it's not analogous at all since he isn't getting the money). It is money paid prior to the player ever playing a game, for the privilege of getting him into your system and away from every other organization. No team, of course, counts bonus money in its player payroll.
But it is part of player acquisition. The fact that the Sox think they can recoup this expense via marketing is all well and good; if they are right, it makes them smart investors. If they're wrong, then maybe they lose some $$$, which isn't necessarily the worst sin in the world if Matsuzaka nevertheless helps them substantially on the field. But recouping via marketing doesn't make it part of their marketing budget, any more than signing a traditional FA and then trying to market him effectively to recoup THAT investment makes his salary part of the marketing budget.
So anyway, to me it is convenient shorthand for us, in thinking of how much Matsuzaka is costing the Red Sox out of pocket -- before we think about how they will account for it, and before we think about whether they will profit in the long run -- to put together how much they are paying Seibu, and how much they will be paying Matsu.
Almost $100M for one year. Yikes.
I still think they should have just go after, say, Zito AND Schmidt; less risk with them.
I obviously disagree with you claiming your comparision is apples to apples.
It's not impossible obviously, but I'd guess it wouldn't be trivial either. Realistically, he's a June-September player for 2008.
On the other hand, the dollars may be different enough that it makes sense.
By the way, Shredder is right - these accounting games are pretty silly. If a team signs Matsuzaka for 5 years, $100M on May 1, 2008, then they're getting the same marketing benefits that the Red Sox are. Why some people want to say this $51.1M doesn't count is beyond me. (Other than the luxury tax implications that is.)
Note to self: learn to pitch, and go to Japan.
I don't see it. He's not as popular as Ichiro, who is revered like a deity there. Hideki Matsui was a huge star for the most popular team, Tokyo. At best, Matsuzaka is no.3. And if he struggles? He'll be yesterday's news. I'm sure Henry and Theo have thought about that risk as well.
how many pitchers wouldnt?
I don't think so. Think Ichiro and Matsui, only with less stature in Japan.
First of all, I think you're wrong. I doubt that attendance would drop enough to really affect revenue, especially at a place like Fenway. The Cubs routinely don't contend for a playoff spot and they still play to near full capacity. The last time the Red Sox didn't contend was 2001. They played to 96.6% of capacity that season. If you want to go back a little further, it was probably 1997, and they drew to about 80-85% of capacity that season. That was, of course, prior to baseball's resurgence beginning in 1998, and prior to winning a World Season, and prior to nine consecutive seasons in which they were actually quite good.
Second, do you really think it will cost them that much to contend for a playoff spot again? They probably have a contending team right now. Sure, like everyone else, they're flawed, and they have holes to fill, but I doubt you'd find anyone knowledgeable about baseball (speaking seriously) who would say that as everything sits right now, the Red Sox won't contend.
I've heard varying reports on this. A lot of people say he's a bigger deal than Ichiro or Matsui are - because of that 250 pitch game in high school.
Another note on the accounting games. When people calculate the Yankees payroll, do they remove Matsui's contract and say it doesn't "count" because it has a larger marketing impact than other player signings?
Ultimately, accounting isn't what matters - it's the bottom line when all the budgets of the different departments are added together. Matsuzaka might well be worth it, but it's not because the $51.1M comes out of a different budget than the payroll budget. The Red Sox don't just have a flat amount allocated per year to their marketing budget, and a flat amount allocated to their payroll budget.
The second place team is the second place team regardless of what they bid. Why do you think they care if it gets out?
The Cubs average ticket price is $34.30 - the Red Sox average ticket price is $46.46. That's a major differential.
The Red Sox were outscored in 2006. Injuries are obviously a big part of that, but they're not all of it. No, I do not think the Red Sox as they are now are a team that would be in contention for the playoffs.
It is 100% unreasonable to assume the redsox "payout" from Matsuzaka will be similar where a team gets its "payout" from other players. It also 100% inappropraite to view it as a signing bonus.
The return almost all players in MLB generate for his team is based on the wins they generate, and how much marginal revenue those wins generate for each team. That part of equation we are fairly good at figuring out, the problem is we can't only compare Matsuzaka on that basis as he will generate additional revenue, though avenues that would likly be closed to RedSox with out him.
Matsuzaka is much a business move, as a baseball move. While all moves have components of each... this one is being driven by a large exant the business aspect... which we simply don't have a good handle on.
IMHO - the only conclusion we can make is that the RedSox think Daisuke Matsuzaka will be really really good... based on their recent track record... color me skeptical.
The $51.1M comes directly from Seibu's press conference. The $42M is no doubt a leftover Gammonsrumor, used by someone who hadn't heard the actual bid.
Kent Brockman as Mr. High Standards: I've seen Pedro, Sandy Koufax, and Roger Clemens, and I can say without hyperbole that Matsuzaka is a million times better than all of them put together.
I mean really? Vastly different than any other player in baseball history? Really?
On the off chance that Selig invokes the "good faith" clause. I suspect the Red Sox are going to be a bit more willing to have the rights taken away from them if the Mets are the 2nd place team than if the Yankees were.
I don't really see any reason for the other teams to keep their bids private. And I don't think the Red Sox have any interest either way in who was second, because they aren't trying to block they are trying to sign the guy. Thus, they won't be within a mile of the good faith clause anyway.
I'm just not seeing it, but whatever.
I think you're nuts. This is the wild card era. Teams that hover a few games over .500 are in contention into September pretty much every year. Contending for the playoffs is not exactly setting the bar very high.
Snark is snark, but it's better if you aren't like the 4th person to make that crack.
Where did I use the word better? I used the word different. Please tell me the last time in the post draft era you have a "number 1" starter entering the talent pool, where you didn't have an open bidding, and have exclusive rights based stricly on dollars not franchise performance, where that pitcher is also considered a national sports hero in a market you've tried to tap for 4 years, where your considered a third class citizen in terms of recruiting talent far behind your only real competitor? Heck that seems like an extremly different situation to me.
IMHO - the only conclusion we can make is that the RedSox think Daisuke Matsuzaka will be really really good... based on their recent track record... color me skeptical.
Look, there's only so much more revenue they can suck out of that fanbase. The only conclusion isn't that he's going to be really good. It's that he's going to sell a sh!tload of merchandise. Even if we speculate that a non-contending Red Sox team loses 15% of if it's ticket sales, you're arguing that paying $50MM plus whatever contract they sign him to is worth it in order to keep revenue essentially where it already was last season outside of merchandise sales. But that's a calculation that every team makes when they sign a top tier free agent (admittedly, he is somewhat unique, but there are other examples, and they're examples of players who were bigger stars in Japan before coming to the majors).
In the NL, sure. 95 wins took the wild card this year in the AL however, 94 the year before, 96 the year before that, 95 the year before that, 99 the year before that, etc... The AL wild card is not the same thing as the NL wild card. An 85 win team is not likely to be in playoff contention in the AL East. They have a shot certainly, but it's not likely.
That part of equation we are fairly good at figuring out, the problem is we can't only compare Matsuzaka on that basis as he will generate additional revenue, though avenues that would likly be closed to RedSox with out him.
But what I'm saying is that it for purposes of judging how much they are PAYING for him, it doesn't matter how they calculate how they are getting a return on that investment, or whether they are right about it. Those are separate and distinct questions. We can usefully say that Matsuzaka is costing the Red Sox $24M/year (assuming the numbers used in # 29). It's in that sense that it's like a signing bonus: they've paid it out; it's gone . . . now they have to ALSO pay salary, and hope it all pays off in whatever ways they hope it will: great pitching, and marketing to make money and win games.
The marketing side of it, to me, is about (a) what part of their budget we put the expense into (which I don't really care about -- that's just bookkeeping), and (b) how much of that $24M/year they end up recouping (or if they profit). That I do care about, or at least I find it interesting, because it will determine (in part) whether this was a wise move. And I certainly agree with you that the Red Sox absolutely are counting on the unique/unusual marketing gains to pay for some of those costs. We know the outlay -- and we don't know the income potential. I kind of wonder (as you do) if the Sox do, either. It's a gamble on their part.
I do think he'll be really good on the field, though.
They agree, which is why they paid for a guy who gives them access to a different, untapped fanbase.
Like I said, it's been busy 'round here.
It's 12 of one and half a dozen of another. Ichiro was the most well-known Japanese player. Matsui topped polls of baseball fans. Matsuzaka has been on average the best pitcher since he came into the league at age 19. Ichiro and Matsui are relatively old news. No one will generate the kind of hype Ichiro did his first year, partly because there can be only one first position player from Japan, playing everyday on a team that wins 116 games. But Matsuzaka's the flavor of the month, as it were. There will be a lot more interest in him this year than in Ichiro or Matsui, unless Ichiro goes and breaks another record, or Matsui threatens to hit 55 home runs (or more).
What usually happens when a team attempts to use exclusive negotiating rights to get a below market deal from a Scott Boras client?
Is 100% useless information?
All that matters for our purposes is how much it is costing the RedSox for Matsuzaka to play baseball. Which we have no clue.
I'm not the one playing accounting games here by the way. I'm saying we have no clue how the account/economics of the situation works relative to traditional players. All I know simple addition is in appropriate.
That's a bit misleading. Actually, it's a lot misleading. The $50M certainly depresses Matsuzaka's market value, but it's not like he would recoup anything close to all of that as a FA. The teams bid that to capture Seibu's rights, not Matsuzaka's, so it reflects the value of the right to negotiate exclusively with Matsuzaka (which is what Seibu owned). And they were competing with one another for that exclusivity. They won't have to bid for that a year from now, and they won't be bidding blind against each other, because they won't be paying off Seibu and exclusive rights won't be for sale.
Boras has to recognize this. No doubt, Matsuzaka can get more per year for himself next year. But he won't get the entire $51M, either.
Another related question: Who is the most successful Japanese SP who jumped straight from Japan to MLB?
All that matters for our purposes is how much it is costing the RedSox for Matsuzaka to play baseball. Which we have no clue.
I'm not the one playing accounting games here by the way. I'm saying we have no clue how the account/economics of the situation works relative to traditional players. All I know simple addition is in appropriate.
Crap. That's exactly the way to value the payroll effect on a basis that's comparable to how we value the cost of every other player (subject to any payroll tax effect resulting from the exclusion of the posting fee from the taxable payroll).
You might then go on quite legitimately to point out that there are marketing benefits that make the $24 million or whatever paid to Matsuzaka better value than an equivalent amount paid to a different player, but to say that the $24 million isn't the appropriate point to start the discussion of value is just playing games.
Easily Hideo Nomo.
Newsday reports the Mets bid $40 mil, so that's not really a huge outdistancing...US free agents somewhat regularly have an $11 mil or more spread between offers. I haven't looked it up, but wasn't AJ Burnett's Blue Jays bid well more than that above his next highest offer?
Also, isn't there supposed to be a fantastic young pitcher over in Japan right now? Won't be posted for a few years.
Also, please explain to me exactly how the Red Sox are getting access to a previously untapped fanbase. Most of the ways that a local fanbase pay into a franchise are considered league revenues, and split equally, when they come from Japan. Exactly how much signage do you think the Red Sox are going to be able to sell in Fenway that they weren't already selling?
The $50M certainly depresses Matsuzaka's market value, but it's not like he would recoup anything close to all of that as a FA. The teams bid that to capture Seibu's rights, not Matsuzaka's, so it reflects the value of the right to negotiate exclusively with Matsuzaka (which is what Seibu owned). And they were competing with one another for that exclusivity. They won't have to bid for that a year from now, and they won't be bidding blind against each other, because they won't be paying off Seibu and exclusive rights won't be for sale.
I don't follow that reasoning. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just really don't follow it. Let's say Boston figures he is worth 4/100 to them. Ignoring the luxury tax issue (since that doesn't seem to be what you are talking about), why would they offer anything over 4/49?
Is there precedent for a player receiving so much money and matching or exceeding the expectations associated with that cost?
Pedro Martinez.
I agree. To put it another way, if a team is prepared to pay a total of 4/100 consisting of a $51 million posting fee and a 4/49 player contract, why would they not be prepared to pay the player 4/100 directly (or its equivalent once the luxury tax effects are taken into account).
Also, isn't there supposed to be a fantastic young pitcher over in Japan right now? Won't be posted for a few years.
I'm interested in this too. Who are the next/best Asian pitchers who could be posted? What are the chances that Kazumi Saitoh comes over in a year or two years?
The issue is price, not volume of ads.
For example, how much money do you suppose they are getting now from the local surplus building supply company that is the primary behind-home-plate advertiser versus what they'll get from a Japenese company for a placement during games Matsuzaka pitches?
They also will establish marketing partnerships with Japanese companies; one person in the industry on SoSH has said $3 mil is a reasonable number to expect for such a partnership and two per year are likely.
There's plenty of revenue sources which are created here. I don't think they'll pay the entire $50 mil over the next four years (or whatever the contract ends up being) but it'll pay a decent chunk of it, I'd guess.
If the Red Sox won with $42M and the Mets bid $40M, why would Seibu agree to do anything that is against the rules? If the Red Sox try something funny, the Mets are sitting right there with cash in hand and there are other teams in line behind them.
I think it gets a lot more interesting now. If you are the kind of guy who hires Boras, you're the kind of guy who isn't afraid to go back to Japan for a year and sign next spring if you don't get what you want, and I'm not sure that the size of this bid allows a team to actually give DM what he wants. If it were another agent, I could see the guy caving, but Boras isn't afraid to piss anyone off on behalf of his clients.
Merchandise sales outside of 200 miles are shared, yes. Where are you getting your million a year or so figure?
Just a wild guess. I can't imagine Japanese companies are willing to pay that much more than American ones for ballpark ads, but i really have no idea and could be very wrong
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main