Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Red Sox - Signed Matsuzaka

Boston Red Sox -  Have reportedly signed P Daisuke Matsuzaka to a 6-year, $52 million contract.

This contract also has escalator clauses that could make Matsuzaka an additional $8 million.  Everybody wins here - Matsuzaka gets to come to the US and become damn rich and the Red Sox pay roughly $16 million a year for Matsuzaka, which they’d be willing to do if he were simply a free agent.  It was kind of anticlimactic, what with the thundering from both sides for 3 weeks, all the various Seibu kickback/bad faith scenarios.  In the end, they take a plane ride and, somewhere over fly-over country, meet in the middle.

So much for the OMG SCOTT BORAS IS MOST EVIL PERSON EVER HE’S SECRETLY STASHED DICE K IN AN UNDERGROUND BUNKER IN SHACKLES WHILE HE SENDS COMMUNIQUES TO THE RED SOX DEMANDING A BILLION DOLLARS OR HE’LL USE THE OMEGA-DOOMSDAY LASER DEVICE TO DISINTEGRATE BOSTON AND JACOBY ELLSBURY stuff that some of Red Sox Nation has been floating around.

All said, the Red Sox are getting the most valuable commodity on the open market this offseason.  Yes, he has no experience above AAAA Japan, but he translates as well as Oswalt did coming up and very few pitching prospects have numbers that translate as well as Matsuzaka’s.  I’m not including the extra toys - we just don’t have a lot of experience with starting pitchers from Japanese leagues.

2007 ZiPS Projection -  Daisuke Matsuzaka
——————————————————————————————-
        W   L   G GS   IP   H   ER HR BB SO   ERA
——————————————————————————————-
Projection 15   8 26 24 186 186   71 18 34 131 3.44
——————————————————————————————-

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:01 AM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. Darren Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2260708)
Dan, that was quick! I just requested it on the other thread.

Those numbers are pretty close to AROM's projection. I'd guess that his GS and IP would be higher, but I like what I see. According to ZIPS, he'll be even better than Beckett was in 06!
   2. tfbg9 Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#2260729)
24 starts, 23 decisions? Almost 8 IP per start? Weird.
   3. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2260735)
That's a pretty good projection; I wouldn't be surprised if he beats it. I could see Dice going Hideo Nomo '95 on the American League, at least until the league gets a good long look at him.
   4. MSI Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#2260736)
30 homeruns, 30 bb, 160 k's, 4.00 ERA
   5. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#2260739)
Only 131 strikeouts in 186 innings is a little worrying.
   6. Xander Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:10 AM (#2260745)
24 GS in 26 G? I'll take that.
   7. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:11 AM (#2260747)
GS, not CG.
   8. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:11 AM (#2260748)
If he's anything like his RLPA version, he'll have more strikeouts and more walks!
   9. Guapo Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:16 AM (#2260754)
186 IP in 24 starts seems like a lot.

That projected k/w ratio is amost exactly Roy Halladay's last year, except Halladay did it in 220 innings.

Another interesting comp: Pedro Martinez, 2006. 23 GS, 137/39 K ratio, 19 HR and 108 hits allowed in 132.2 innings.
   10. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:22 AM (#2260757)
If he's anything like his RLPA version, he'll have more strikeouts and more walks!

I think Boston fans would be very happy with those as his first six seasons.
   11. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#2260761)
If these contract #'s are correct, they are very close to what I offered Matsuzaka in the original thread, after the Red Sox won the rights to negotiate. I said 8 mil a year, I believe...
   12. Xander Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2260762)
Any everyone responded that that was one of the most insightful and level-headed predictions they had seen on BTF in a while. What more do you want?
   13. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2260765)
Here it is.

Any everyone responded that that was one of the most insightful and level-headed predictions they had seen on BTF in a while. What more do you want?

I'll take part of Boras' cut.
   14. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#2260770)
186 IP in 24 starts seems like a lot.

It is - the numbers we're translating are Japanese numbers and thus, reflect Japanese usage patterns.
   15. philly Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2260776)
The triple crown stuff is almost dead on Ron Shandler's projection in his Forcaster.

185 IP, 15-7, 3.46 ERA.

Shandler had much higher peripherals across the board:

25 HR, 51 BB, 197 K.
   16. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:58 AM (#2260780)
I'll take the over on that BB total.
   17. chris p Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:59 AM (#2260781)
http://japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=1104

those are his numbers in japan. he was a real workhorse over there.
   18. bibigon Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#2260784)
Based on how much he seems like to pitch upstairs, I'll take the over on both the strikeouts and the HRs. Probably the walks too.
   19. Walt Davis Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:34 AM (#2261046)
In that thread, I put him at 5/$46 with escalators and an option year that could push it up to 6/$62. Sounds like it ended up at 6/$52 and possibly 6/$60.

And I was dumb enough to give that stuff away for free while Boras gets a big cut. :-)
   20. a wider scope of derision Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2261195)
Dan,

Can you give us the optimistic and pessimistic numbers, or would they not be that meaningful?
   21. RobertMachemer Posted: December 14, 2006 at 05:47 PM (#2261308)
Sox payroll (not to be confused with AAV or whatever), according to Cot's Baseball Contracts:

pos player    '07-$
C   Varitek    9.0
1B  Youkilis  minimum+
2B  Pedroia   minimum
SS  Lugo       9.0?
3B  Lowell     9.0
LF  Ramirez   18.0
CF  Crisp      3.5
RF  Drew      14.0?
DH  Ortiz     12.5

C   ???
UT  Hinske     2.8
UT  Cora       2.0
OF  Pena       2-3?
UT?

SP  Schilling 13.0
SP  Matsuzaka  8.5?
SP  Beckett    6.0
SP  Wakefield  4.0
SP  Papelbon  minimum+

RP  Tavarez    3.1
RP  Timlin     2.8
RP  Okajima    1.3
RP  Delcarmen minimum+
RP  ???
RP  ???
RP?

DL  Clement    9.5
(Seibu Buyout  51.1) 


That puts the total payroll (amazingly) around $132 -- a relatively cheap Matsuzaka is a very nice thing, especially if it turns out he can pitch -- which means the Sox may have another $16 million to spend if they want to put themselves close to the luxury tax line. Of course, given the other $50 million they spent just to get the "cheap" Matsuzaka, they may not want to spend up to that line.

I'm not sure what I'd do at this point. Assuming that they were serious about wanting Papelbon to start for health reasons, the rotation seems relatively set -- would the Sox move, say, Beckett or Wakefield to the pen if they were able to sign BZito/RClemens/SFinch/whomever? And, personally, I don't like spending lots of money on hit-or-miss relievers.

Moreover, it would not surprise me if the summer trade deadline is a buyers' market -- more players are (likely) going to want to go to free agency, so (perhaps) more teams will be willing to trade those players before they lose control of them completely. Having some cash in hand to take on salary might be useful at that point.
   22. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 05:49 PM (#2261312)
Dan,

Can you give us the optimistic and pessimistic numbers, or would they not be that meaningful?


I'm not including the extra toys - we just don't have a lot of experience with starting pitchers from Japanese leagues.
   23. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2261550)
the Red Sox pay roughly $16 million a year


I think you have to add a couple million per year in lost interest costs because the contract is so front loaded ($53M including his $2M signing bonus). But you can also reduce the number a little because half the money escapes luxury tax.
   24. faketeams Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#2261555)
131 Ks means a lot of balls are being hit. That 3.44 ERA seems generous.

Fake Teams
   25. Kyle S Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:33 PM (#2261563)
japanese usage patterns reflect a combination of managers not caring if their pitchers throw 130-150 pitches with regularity as well as the extra day or two of rest that japanese pitchers get -- most have at least 5 days of rest after every start. i can't see him much higher than 7 IP/GS.
   26. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2261565)
131 Ks means a lot of balls are being hit. That 3.44 ERA seems generous.

The numbers above lead to a BABIP of .288 and a component ERA of 3.43, hardly out of whack. 7.3 K/9 isn't exactly a horrific strikeout projection - let's not forget that while they were worse otherwise, both Nomo and Irabu struck out batters at a higher rate than Matsuzaka in Japan.
   27. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:36 PM (#2261566)
I think you have to add a couple million per year in lost interest costs because the contract is so front loaded ($53M including his $2M signing bonus). But you can also reduce the number a little because half the money escapes luxury tax.


Using the good old HP12c you I get a touch over 17 a year.
   28. PJ Martinez Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#2261582)
"That puts the total payroll (amazingly) around $132"

Some writer for the Houston Chronicle expects Clemens to pitch in Boston in 2007, for about 2/3 of the season, with all kinds of superstar exceptions so far as traveling, etc.

So, 2/3 of 22m = 14.67m. Add that and, if Robert's numbers are correct, they are just under the tax threshold.

I don't actually think it will happen (and if Roger's worth a prorated 22m last year, what's he worth in this crazy market?). But it's fun to imagine.

Here's that Houston writer's blog: http://blogs.chron.com/lopezblog/
   29. Chip Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:04 PM (#2261589)
The numbers above lead to a BABIP of .288 and a component ERA of 3.43, hardly out of whack. 7.3 K/9 isn't exactly a horrific strikeout projection - let's not forget that while they were worse otherwise, both Nomo and Irabu struck out batters at a higher rate than Matsuzaka in Japan.

Based on what he writes on the site he links to, faketeams is a racist, illiterate Yankee fan who thinks Dice-K will cost the Red Sox $33 million per year (choice quote: "Personally all the Yankee fans i know really could careless at this point about the Jap.") So I wouldn't expect him to grasp your response.
   30. Josh Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#2261601)
Isn't that what some random poster ("cookedricebrown") wrote?
   31. faketeams Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#2261608)
Dan,

What is the variation/confidence level around the .288 BABIP calc?

Chip,

Josh is correct. I did not write that. Nor do I condone, but I refuse to censor that level of commenting.

Fake Teams
   32. Chip Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2261622)
Isn't that what some random poster ("cookedricebrown") wrote?

The link above is to a diary on Fake Teams by "cookedricebrown," who also posts in the comments on his diary. I'm guessing the person who adopted the I.D. "faketeams" here, and linked to that diary, is the same person. At the very least, the "analysis" contributed in #26 about Matsuzaka's Ks is quoting directly from "cookedricebrown."
   33. Chip Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:38 PM (#2261635)
Josh is correct. I did not write that. Nor do I condone, but I refuse to censor that level of commenting.

My mistake for thinking you were one of the same. But if you don't condone the comments of the ignorant racist, why'd you link directly to them?
   34. faketeams Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2261645)
Chip,

I linked to it because it involved some prognostications on Dice-k's 2007 perf. No other reason.

I won't apologize for cbr's lack of sensitivity, but you are free to call him out. At which point, I'd be compelled to censor something that devolved into racist name calling.

Dan,

I'm doing some very rough comparisons using 186 IP, 131 K and 34BB. There aren't many Al pitchers in 2006 like that mainly due to the low walks. Several are in the 50 area though, and those include the likes of Jarrod Washburn and Kelvim Escobar. KE matches nicely. Washburn does not.

A 6.33 K/9 would bring in Jose Contreras and Rodrigo Lopez.
   35. Hungry Hungry Hipolito Pichardo Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#2261657)
That puts the total payroll (amazingly) around $132

Except that it doesn't, since the payroll is calculated based on AAV, includes benefits, covers the 40-man roster, and would include ongoing payments for Renteria and Arroyo.

An estimate put together at SoSH has the Sox currently at $154 million all-in, exceeding the luxury tax threshold.

Post #26
   36. bibigon Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:04 PM (#2261669)
Are benefits subject to the luxury tax?
   37. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#2261688)
I'm doing some very rough comparisons using 186 IP, 131 K and 34BB. There aren't many Al pitchers in 2006 like that mainly due to the low walks. Several are in the 50 area though, and those include the likes of Jarrod Washburn and Kelvim Escobar. KE matches nicely. Washburn does not.

Of course, one might say that the control is one of the reasons that Matsuzaka was highly sought-after! Washburn's component ERA is 4.57. Escobar's was 3.95.
   38. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#2261731)
I won't apologize for cbr's lack of sensitivity, but you are free to call him out. At which point, I'd be compelled to censor something that devolved into racist name calling.

You have keys?
   39. RobertMachemer Posted: December 15, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#2261816)
An estimate put together at SoSH has the Sox currently at $154 million all-in, exceeding the luxury tax threshold.

Post #26
Fair enough (though I can't follow the link because I'm not a SOSH member). I wish I could follow the link though -- your/SOSH's number is WAY higher than my rough estimate. Even considering the 40-man roster (pitchers like Hansen, whose contract is higher than the average minimum-salary guy) and AAV (for players like Crisp and Beckett, this would raise their individual numbers), I'm surprised that my estimate is off by (roughly) $20 million. I'm not saying it's wrong -- how could I? -- but I'm surprised.
   40. faketeams Posted: December 15, 2006 at 01:51 PM (#2262169)
Can there be a comparison made to Dwight Gooden, a pitcher who pitched a lot of innings before his 26th birthday?

Fake Teams
   41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 15, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#2262172)
Can there be a comparison made to Dwight Gooden, a pitcher who pitched a lot of innings before his 26th birthday?
No, that's stupid.

Real Teams
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 15, 2006 at 02:02 PM (#2262173)
An estimate put together at SoSH has the Sox currently at $154 million all-in, exceeding the luxury tax threshold.
I think the numbers are very slightly off - the Ramirez estimate doesn't include a discount for all the deferred money, and the Hinske estimate doesn't account for hte money the Jays are footing. I think the Sox are actually right at $148-150M or so - at, not over the luxury tax.

The point remains the same, though. It's a good bet that the Red Sox are tapped out for 2007 payroll. Whatever they do to improve the pen will have to be very close to payroll neutral, and I don't know how that's going to work.
   43. Josh Posted: December 15, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2262182)
Philly's thread over at SoSH appears right to me. The possible fission points:

* I read the CBA the same way that Bowlerman9, the last sentence of CBA Art. XXIII(C)(2)(b) looks dispositive on this point. So, I'd put the Sox Hinske # at 0.137, or whatever the math is.

* Unless someone can tell me how to read the CBA differently, Manny's AAV is $20mm. The deferred money is included in the AAV, just as bonuses are. CBA Art. XXIII(E)(2) makes this clear:
“Average Annual Value” shall be calculated as follows: the sum of (a) the Base Salary in each Guaranteed Year plus (b) any portion of a Signing Bonus (or any other payment that this Article deems to be a Signing Bonus) attributed to a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(3) below plus (c) any deferred compensation or annuity compensation costs attributed to a Guaranteed Year in accordance with Section E(6) below shall be divided by the number of Guaranteed Years.

Maybe the Sox are at $152 because of Hinske - but I don't think they can lower Manny to $18mm. The $18mm represents his 2007 salary, not his AAV.
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 15, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#2262183)
The union and the commissioner's office value the contract at ~$138M over eight years. It's weird to me that a contract would have one number for arbitration purposes and one number for luxury tax purposes, and I thought I'd seen the $18M figure in a lot of other estimates.

But it's certainly conceivable to me that MLB would have inexplicably byzantine rules that give the same contract two separate values for separate purposes.
   45. Josh Posted: December 15, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2262192)
Ahh - Articles VI and XVI of the CBA define salary differently, and for different purposes, than Article XXIII (which related to the competitive balance tax). Article XXIII(E) starts off:

The determination of a Player’s Salary for a particular Contract Year for the purposes of interpretation and application of this Article XXIII only shall be in accordance with the following rules.
   46. Darren Posted: December 15, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#2262207)
Has anyone tried to figure out what the Matsuzaka signing means for the Yankees' attempt to sign Igawa? Do you just cut the contract in half?
   47. bibigon Posted: December 15, 2006 at 03:45 PM (#2262219)
Has anyone tried to figure out what the Matsuzaka signing means for the Yankees' attempt to sign Igawa? Do you just cut the contract in half?


They're independent events really. I'd guess he gets $5M/year for three years with no buyout of arb years.
   48. Darren Posted: December 15, 2006 at 06:52 PM (#2262350)
Why are they independent events? It seems to me that one sets a sort of precedent for the other, as far as good faith and what Igawa would demand. Should he expect something like $26 mil (his posting fee) over 6 years, because that's about what Matsuzaka got?
   49. RobertMachemer Posted: December 15, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#2262360)
Ok, I've gotten to the SOSH page (I don't know why I couldn't access it before, but I couldn't). How are club options handled? How are buyouts handled? How are signing bonuses (boni?) handled?
   50. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 15, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2262423)
As I understand it...

-club options not yet exercised are ignored
-a player playing in an exercised option year has an AAV of that single year's salary
-buyouts are considered part of the AAV of the contract, and do not add another year to the contract
-signing bonuses are considered part of the AAV of the contract
   51. Darren Posted: December 15, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#2262587)
If these contract #'s are correct, they are very close to what I offered Matsuzaka in the original thread, after the Red Sox won the rights to negotiate. I said 8 mil a year, I believe...

Couldn't let this one pass, Biv. If you want credit for that thread, you get credit for the following offers:

the Red Sox should offer him 5 mil a year for 4 years, and give him the chance to save face and not have to pitch for Seibu again.

Ichiro got 7.5 mil per. Matsui got 7 mil. Why should Matsuzaka get more?

Ok, lookit. 4/32 is my final offer. And, I will guarantee he can wear #18.

Ok ok, 5/40. We'll give you the extra year. Now let's go.


Your closest was off by 1 year/$12 mil. The rest were waaaaay off. Not something to brag about! :)
   52. RobertMachemer Posted: December 15, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#2262661)
Thanks, MC o' Alexandria. My numbers are working out now.
   53. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 15, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#2262697)
Your closest was off by 1 year/$12 mil. The rest were waaaaay off. Not something to brag about! :)

Picky picky picky. Everyone else seemed to be giving him 10+million right off the bat. I worked up to 8 mil a year. He ended up with 8.67, which is close enough for me to call "YAHTZEE!!"

I'm a little surprised they gave him 6 years.
   54. wily mo Posted: December 19, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#2264812)
MATSUZAKA ESCALATOR CLAUSE 7 STIPULATES THAT JACOBY ELLSBURY WILL STILL BE DISINTEGRATED IF MATSUZAKA DOES NOT FINISH IN THE TOP 5 IN CY YOUNG VOTING EACH OF THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF THE CONTRACT.
   55. kwarren Posted: January 11, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2278056)
131 Ks means a lot of balls are being hit. That 3.44 ERA seems generous.

Using the ZIPS peripherals, the xERA formula that HQ uses estimates 187 hits and a 3.64 ERA, so the ZIPS ERA might be a little optimistic. Or it could be that Matsuzaka has proven "DIPS skills" in his past performance.
   56. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 11, 2007 at 12:13 PM (#2278309)
I'll be shocked if he's below 4.00. With the Red Sox pitching luck, I'll be mildly surprised if he's below 4.50.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4821 seconds
66 querie(s) executed