BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Toronto Globe and Mail: Toronto expected to give Ryan richest deal ever for a reliever

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, November 28, 2005

Toronto Globe and Mail: Toronto expected to give Ryan richest deal ever for a reliever

It’s got an ACTUAL CONTRACT BREAKDOWN, so it gets its own link :)

The Blue Jays are expected to hold an afternoon news conference to announce that Ryan has signed a five-year, $47-million (all figures U.S.) contract that includes a $10-million bonus divided between the first two years of the deal, with $6-million in the first year and $4-million in the second. Ryan’s base salary in 2006 will technically be $2-million and will rise to $5-million in 2007 before climbing to $10-million in each of the last three years of the contract. Ryan made $2.6-million last season.

Also:
On another front, the Blue Jays made what are described as “significant inroads” this weekend in their pursuit of free-agent outfielder Giles, according to a person familiar with negotiations. Ricciardi has told people that he would like to have either Giles or starting pitcher Burnett signed this week so he can go to the winter meetings in Dallas, which begin Sunday, ready to trade to add another hitter or starter.

TORONTO STAR: Jays set to confirm Ryan deal

NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 04:05 AM | 25 comment(s)
Related News: Toronto

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:14 AM (#1749438)

2. Better Schafer than Sorry Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:18 AM (#1749443)

I can see Giles signing with Toronto. Whether he will be the much needed power threat or not remains a question. Maybe a Wily Mo Pena / McGowan trade?

3. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:24 AM (#1749452)

From the Toronto Star:

"Each club has to do what each club has to do," said Ricciardi. "We've got a budget going to $70 million to $75 million (from a little over $50 million in 2005). I don't think anybody should have to explain itself as to how it spends its money."

It's a bold stroke and certainly not without considerable risks, but it definitely sends a message — most assuredly to other free agents and, hopefully, in particular to Florida free-agent starter A.J. Burnett, whom the Jays have also reportedly offered five years.

"It lets them know that, if we're interested then we also have the resources," said Ricciardi.

4. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:37 AM (#1749463)

This struck me as amusing:

As one agent who represents a free agent reliever this winter put it: "Were we happy about the Ryan contract? Oh, yes."

NY Daily News: Ryan's big deal no relief

5. Please don't tell Phil Coorey to do the math Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:38 AM (#1749464)

So why did Ricciardi emphatically deny the deal had gone down?

6. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:41 AM (#1749466)

So why did Ricciardi emphatically deny the deal had gone down?

To give him time to hire bodyguards to protect himself from the French assassins hired by other GMs?

7. Please don't tell Phil Coorey to do the math Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:52 AM (#1749473)

Thanks for all the links NTN, makes getting my head round the deal a lot easier.

This struck me as amusing:

The signing in general I find amusing, however I feel these are moves Toronto just had to make. I think AJ Burnett is a certainty to head up there as well.

8. Please don't tell Phil Coorey to do the math Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:54 AM (#1749475)

To give him time to hire bodyguards to protect himself from the French assassins hired by other GMs?

:) Makes sense though!

9. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:57 AM (#1749477)

Considering where the Winter Meetings are being held this year, and the time of year, J.P. may want to stay away from Dealey Plaza :P

10. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: November 28, 2005 at 06:12 AM (#1749486)

I'll take Giles on the Jays thank-you-very-much. That way when I say his name the commissioner will disappear. </Repoz>

Best Regards

John

11. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 06:17 AM (#1749489)

There's probably another reason J.P. wants to move quickly on Giles; the Yankees have started talking more seriously this weekend to Giles' agent.

Of course, that development may make Giles' agent LESS likely to want to move quickly, unless J.P. blows 3/30ish out of the water...

12. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 28, 2005 at 09:42 AM (#1749544)

Maybe a Wily Mo Pena / McGowan trade?

I would love to use language here that Jim wouldn't like. I would have to say that even if I am prooven wrong by the events of the next ten years in some rolls of the dice (and even if I can't spell prooven--is it proven?), I never do that deal. McGowan should be untouchable.

13. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 28, 2005 at 09:54 AM (#1749559)

Rosenthal should slow down his pace a little; he's reported today that this deal is heavily front loaded. Bah humbug. Interestingly though, he's striken the Jays from the list of Giles suitors.

14. Sam M. Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:00 AM (#1749564)

The breakdown of the contract does, it should be noted, make the deal more reasonable. Let's assume for a second that Ricciardi has data projecting that player salaries will continue to rise along with revenues for the next five years or so. By the third year of this deal, the salary may not be all that much out of line with the market, and that could make Ryan either a reasonably priced player for a contending Jays team, or a readily tradeable commodity that a contender would covet. Of course, the length of the deal is a gamble, but locking up a player for a long time at (or even somewhat above) today's market price can sometimes pay dividends.

15. Craig in MN Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:04 AM (#1749569)

What the heck does it matter if the first two years breakdown as:

2006 - $2 mil salary + $6 mil bonus ($8 mil)
2007 - $5 mil salary + $4 mil bonus ($9 mil)
instead of:
2006 - $8 mil salary
2007 - $9 mil salary

Is that somehow better for luxury tax purposes or something along those lines?

I'm guessing it is better for Ryan's tax situation. I assume he is paying Canadian taxes for much of his salary (where it is earned), but his signing bonus is based on where he is living when he signs the deal. I know some draftees establish residency in Florida before they sign their contract with a team, as Florida has no income tax and their signing bonus is then tax free. Of course, if that is true, I don't know why they don't sign a 5 year deal for the minimum with a $45 million signing bonus.

16. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:04 AM (#1749570)

I'm not sure how it does that, Sam. It's as close to the same $ per year as it could be with 5's not being a factor of 47.

17. Sam M. Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:42 AM (#1749595)

It's as close to the same $ per year as it could be with 5's not being a factor of 47.

True -- the backloading is quite light. I guess my point is really not about the breakdown of the contract as much as it is about the projections of player salaries for the next half-dozen years or so. There seem to be two objections to this deal: length, and $/year. Let's say the Blue Jays are overpaying Ryan by $1M/year for the first two years. OK, that's a mistake. But let's also say that Ricciardi projects that the market will make the salary for an ace reliever of Ryan's quality worth $11M/year in 2008-10. In that case, by locking in Ryan now, he's actually making a good investment.

Of course, that depends on whether it is a good gamble, given how unpredictable relief pitchers are. That is, of course, the downside of what he's done. But the upside is (or might be) that he's locked in what, by the last couple of years, might look like a pretty good salary. That's the upside.

18. Misirlou hasn't payed the phone bill in 300 years Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:58 AM (#1749607)

Of course, if that is true, I don't know why they don't sign a 5 year deal for the minimum with a $45 million signing bonus.

Too much exposure for the club I assume. Are signing bonuses covered by insurance? If a player violates the contract (Aaron Boone), can the signing bonus be re-claimed?

Also, if teams go too far with the tax sheltering, there are bound to be legeslative reprocussions. Can you imagine the reaction of the Canadian and Ontario governments if 95% of the Blue Jays payroll is not subject to taxation?

19. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 28, 2005 at 11:01 AM (#1749609)

True. I do think that although signing any player at all to 5 years is inherently risky and although no pitcher's health or effectiveness comes with a best before date five years away, Ryan is as good a bet as any to still be good when my "newborn" is starting school. I'm legitimately surprised Primates such as Backlasher haven't chimed in to note that at least JP is trying to spend the $ on his budget and to improve the team overall instead of slavishly accepting lesser players who are better $ values. I think the Blue Jays have done a great job of becoming average for less than average $ during the last few years. A couple of star players for big coin can and should push them into contender status -- and I applaud this even if it fails. If you never take a shot at winning, however risky that shot is, you're the Royals.

20. Kyle S Posted: November 28, 2005 at 11:08 AM (#1749620)

I haven't seen a BL post in at least a month. Maybe he's on vacation during this holiday season.

I'd be interested to hear his take on this deal, though, because there are historical opponents of his on both sides.

21. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2005 at 12:06 PM (#1749723)

"To give him time to hire bodyguards to protect himself from the French assassins hired by other GMs?"

Watch out for the man in the wheelchair, JP!

22. shoewizard Posted: November 28, 2005 at 12:23 PM (#1749764)

haven't seen a BL post in at least a month. Maybe he's on vacation during this holiday season.

I'd be interested to hear his take on this deal, though, because there are historical opponents of his on both sides.
<i>

Have not seen him since he got through attacking Jim for asking everyone too cool it with the profanity.

23. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 28, 2005 at 12:31 PM (#1749779)

Have not seen him since he got through attacking Jim for asking everyone too cool it with the profanity.

I have not seen YOU in a while.

24. shoewizard Posted: November 28, 2005 at 01:16 PM (#1749853)

have not seen YOU in a while.

Computer problems, and then holiday travel.

25. NTNgod Posted: November 28, 2005 at 11:44 PM (#1750645)

A Milwaukee followup to the Toronto Sun story of a few days ago about the Jays' interest in Lyle Overbay...

A report out of Toronto said the Brewers and Blue Jays had talked about a possible deal for first baseman Lyle Overbay. Supposedly, the Brewers inquired about right-hander Dustin McGowan, 23, Toronto's first-round draft pick in 2000 who appeared in 13 games (seven starts) in the majors last season (1-3, 6.35 ERA).

Brewers general manager Doug Melvin said he had not spoken with the Blue Jays' J.P. Ricciardi since GMs met early in the month in California.

"We never really asked about (McGowan)," Melvin said. "They told us he was an untouchable (in a trade)."

Melvin said he had had dialogue with "three or four teams" but was not yet tempted to deal Overbay. He is certain to receive more inquiries next week at baseball's annual winter meetings in Dallas.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, November 28, 2005

Toronto Globe and Mail: Toronto expected to give Ryan richest deal ever for a reliever

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics