Mariner contract status

DMZ · December 15, 2004 at 11:10 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Players with contracts

Last updated November 11, 2006 Name






Adrian Beltre

$10m paid in 2005




Willie Bloomquist


Raul Ibanez




Kenji Johjima




Richie Sexson

$6m paid in 2006*






Jarrod Wasburn





Players under team control








Scott Atchison


Travis Blackley


Greg Dobbs


Jose Lopez


Julio Mateo


Mike Morse


J.J. Putz


Jeremy Reed


Rafael Soriano


George Sherill


Chris Snelling


Matt Thornton


Players released or traded with the team picking up salary







Scott Spiezio



Notes on this table

These numbers came from published press accounts of contracts. Year figures are base salary and not salary + incentives, or salary + pro-rated signing bonus. This is why the totals don’t agree with the numbers the Mariners will use, as when they say “payroll of $x” they have (at least in the past) meant “all base salaries plus possible incentives and bonuses, plus sometimes pro-rated signing bonuses or not, plus other stuff.” In some cases, it does not agree with other published accounts (see’s salary page, for instance). Without knowing how these other sources calculate their numbers, there’s not much to be done about the differences. Players under team control are, as far as we can so far determine, not yet eligible for arbitration and must accept any valid contract the team gives them. Dollar amounts are estimated. Minimum MLB salary for 2005 is $316,000 and the M’s could give all of these players minimum contracts, though it is unlikely.

In most cases, the guys who are headed to arbitration will be offered and take compromise contracts before they actually get to arbitration.

The * section

Beltre: total value of the contract is $64m, -14m in 2005, so 50m/4 = 12.5m. The PI reported “the remaining four years each at $11 million to $12 million” but without a detailed estimate of the final years, I’m going with the easy division here.

Everett: club option for 2007 or $600,000 buyout. Seattle Times reported the option vested with modest triggers. It’s likely for about 2006’s salary.

Ibanez: likely paid in 2004

Lawton: Incentives could push this to $1.65m

Moyer: $1m in possible incentives for 2006

Pineiro: distribution of dollars, signing bonus unknown

Sexson: generally reported as “a signing bonus” but the PI reported it was payable in 2006. I’m going with the PI until it’s refuted.

Spiezio: team option for 2007. No, really.

Ichiro: payment schedule of signing bonus unknown, distribution of remaining contract value assumed here as even through life of contract

Jarrod Washburn: contract reported as 4y, $37.5m. No signing bonus or distribution information’s available.


46 Responses to “Mariner contract status”

  1. U.S.S. Mariner » Mariner contract status sheet on January 5th, 2005 6:18 pm
    […] Mariners — DMZ @ 11:18 am.

    You’ll notice a new link in the features, the Mariner contract sheet which I hope everyone finds helpful. Like the Big Board, as details emerge, we&#821 […]

  2. U.S.S. Mariner » Contract sheet updated on January 8th, 2005 12:05 am
    […] 1/7/2005

    Contract sheet updated
    Filed under: Mariners — DMZ @ 5:05 pm.

    Check it out here. I tried to make this version a little clearer by grouping the players differently and i […]

  3. DJW on January 5th, 2005 11:19 am

    Thanks for doing this.

    WAG=Wild Ass Guess?

    Shouldn’t Beltre be though 2009?

  4. chris w on January 5th, 2005 11:19 am

    So, I add all that up and, even being extremely liberal, come up with somewhere around $75M in 2005. How is this anywhere near $95M?

  5. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 11:25 am

    Fixed the Beltre 2009 issue. Sorry, I’ve been tweaking this in Frontpage, and I’m no good with it. There are probably table formatting issues too.

  6. bilbo on January 5th, 2005 11:47 am

    What about Ibanez?

  7. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 11:50 am

    I swear, I cannot move rows or columns in this thing without… arghhh.

    I’ll have Ibanez fixed in a moment.

  8. JAK on January 5th, 2005 12:00 pm

    Thanks for pulling this together. Looks like next year’s hot stove could be interesting.

  9. PositivePaul on January 5th, 2005 12:37 pm

    Sorry, I’ve been tweaking this in Frontpage, and I’m no good with it.

    I wouldn’t fault you — I’d fault FrontPage.

    Don’t forget Pokey Reese’s 2006 option ($2.6 million). Still, I agree with JAK — this makes for an interesting 2005/6 offseason!

  10. Pilots fan on January 5th, 2005 12:43 pm

    Is the $20M difference in 2005 budget from #2 made up in the bonus column?

  11. Mike Thompson on January 5th, 2005 1:16 pm

    Is Sexson’s bonus to be paid in 2005 or 2006? Originally, I saw 2006. Have you seen proof otherwise?

  12. Jon Wells on January 5th, 2005 1:32 pm

    A couple of notes — Madritsch, Putz and Olivo don’t have enough service time to be eligible for arbitration so they’ll have to take whatever the team gives them and they should be reclassified as WTTGH. For Madritsch and Putz this would usually be a bit above the minumum salary — which has gone up for the first time in several years. Minumum will be $316K in 2005, up from $300K. I’d guess both Putz and Madritsch would be in the $335K to $350 range. Olivo, who has more service time will probably be in the $345-$375K range.

    As for Bloomquist, players who aren’t yet arbitration eligible just don’t get $500K unless they are guys like Albert Pujols, who are so good early on that the player would get pissed if they were forced to take a $325K contract. In the case of a player like Pujols the team wants to treat him as well as he can cause if they don’t he’ll be chomping to stick it to them as soon as he gets the hammer (arbitration eligibility).

    Bloomquist made the minimum $300 K in 2003, got a raise to $325K in ’04 and is likely to be between $350K and $375K in 2005. There’s no reason for the M’s to give him more; they’re well aware he’ll be arb. eligible after ’05 and that his days in the organization are numbered.

  13. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 1:48 pm

    On Sexson’s bonus — Fixed to reflect the PI story, as the other ones aren’t specific enough on the when. I’ll note the issue.

    On the WTTGH — I’ll re-classify those guys. I’d wanted to go look it up, since Olivo’s been on an active 25 roster since 2002, when September time counted, and a 40m for longer than that. I’m not so sure he doesn’t go to arbitration this year, but you’re right, and he’s really in the same situation as WFB so it’s whatever they want to pay him.

    On the issue of not ticking off players: it’s true, there’s a psychological effect in play, and the team’s unlikely to give WFB $500k. Still, one of the reasons teams have taken a hard line on that kind of free money is that there’s no evidence that this strategy makes re-signing those players easier. I don’t think that the difference between $325 and $500 thousand dollars is going to make a player feel any better and certainly not play harder.

  14. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 2:00 pm

    Also: “Mariners make Richie rich” is a terrible, terrible headline, Mike, and you should be ashamed of yourself. What did we do to deserve such punishment?

  15. wabbles on January 5th, 2005 2:07 pm

    Wow! Where was this kind of stuff when I was serving as the M’s official barstool general manager at the Factoria Keg in the mid-90s?

  16. Mark on January 5th, 2005 3:18 pm

    Would you mind adding a “total” row per year?

  17. Adam S on January 5th, 2005 3:20 pm

    Any reason Bucky Jacobsen isn’t included in the table? I assume the Mariners have to pay Soriano even though he’s likely out for the whole year. Should Cirillo/Gonzalez/Jarvis count as a line item or is that not a “contact” per se, but an expense item.

  18. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 3:36 pm

    Any reason Bucky Jacobsen isn’t included in the table?

    I tried, for this table, to only put people I thought would be on the 25-man. This is also why Soriano and some others aren’t on here… maybe I’ll make it a comprehensive 40-man if I have time.

    Should Cirillo/Gonzalez/Jarvis count as a line item or is that not a “contact” per se, but an expense item.

    Wiki… maybe. Jarvis/Cirillo: given all the noise the M’s have made about how paying off those deals hurt them last year, ate all their money, and so forth, I’m going to ignore the possibility there is actually any budget impact from this point on.

  19. Jon Wells on January 5th, 2005 3:53 pm

    DMZ wrote: “I don’t think that the difference between $325 and $500 thousand dollars is going to make a player feel any better and certainly not play harder.”

    Yeah, but you just don’t see teams take a rookie pitcher who wins 15 games for $300K pay the guy $325K their second year, which is what most second year guys get. They’ll either offer a long-term deal or they’ll give the guy a better deal — Pujols’ first 3 years in the majors — $200K (min), $600K, $900K. St. Louis treated him fairly or at least did more than they had to do given their leverage and Pujols signed a long-term extension in spring of ’04. I’m not saying it’s always gonna work (some of these players have Scott Boras as their agent) but it’s a pretty good idea for teams — pay a few hundred extra thousand when they don’t have to for the top notch young players and it might help retain the player down the line…

  20. slim on January 5th, 2005 4:08 pm

    I think it works best to just figure the average non-arbitration guy is going to make $350,000. The team may never release the exact amount each of these players is making and it really doesn’t need to be exact when you’re dealing with a $99 million budget. You should figure on a 25 man roster, but also add on Soriano since he will be making the league minimum on the 60 Day DL. So he’ll get $350k as the “26th man”, so to speak.

  21. slim on January 5th, 2005 4:09 pm

    Also, Mateo is not arbitration eligible and will make the 3rd year player minimum

  22. Adam S on January 5th, 2005 4:30 pm

    Re Bucky. I guess I’ve been assuming that Reed, Winn, Ibanez, and Jacobsen would share time in CF/LF/DH with Bucky starting at least against all lefties. The roster above has only a three-man bench — Speizio, Bloomquist, and Wilson — so someone else will be on the 25 man roster at $350-$500 K.

  23. DMZ on January 5th, 2005 4:53 pm

    I’m not saying it’s always gonna work (some of these players have Scott Boras as their agent) but it’s a pretty good idea for teams – pay a few hundred extra thousand when they don’t have to for the top notch young players and it might help retain the player down the line…

    I know teams have done studies on this and found that there’s no benefit to paying more than the minimum when they’re not forced to, either in retaining players or in future discounting.

    Now, there are a couple obvious responses — first, that without knowing how they looked at it, I can’t say if it’s a valid study or not. Then, it’s going to differ with each player, and the circumstances — you want to reward your best and most promising players, and those are the guys most likely to face free agency with the promise of huge dollars — make it even more complicated.

    But I know that’s why some teams are holding the line and only giving pre-arb guys what they’re required to by the CBA.

  24. Ralph Malph on January 5th, 2005 7:21 pm


    Could you explain what you mean when you say you don’t think Bucky will be on the 25? Do you see them moving him or cutting him?

  25. djw on January 5th, 2005 9:47 pm

    Derek–you don’t think Jacobsen is going to be on the 25 man? Really?

  26. Josh on January 6th, 2005 8:45 am

    Wow are they really at $66600000+3 players going to arbitration+1 more roster spot?

    Are they counting the 95million dollar budget at the 40 man lvl then? Or do they really have a lot of money left in the tank?

  27. darrin on January 7th, 2005 2:20 pm

    I’m new to this site. Looks like you’ve put some good work into this. I think a couple of these are a little understated though.

    Boone is $9.25
    Ichiro is closer to $11
    and Beltre with his signing bonus is up around $17 in year 2005. I think the PI was right about the $11-$12 in the last four years with the bulk being paid up front.

  28. darrin on January 7th, 2005 2:56 pm

    Speaking of this stuff did anyone else see MLB’s breakdown of what each team spent in 2004? It was used to determine if a team should pay the luxury tax or not. The M’s only spent about $82 mil. Attendance a revenues weren’t down that much which means the team probably made at the very least $15 Mil in 2004.

    Someone explain to me why that money can’t be used in 2005 on a one year contract? Don’t get me wrong I appreaciate the money they are spending, but this is still a business to lincoln, which unfortunately may mean a repeat of 2000-2003 at best. Good years, but no World Series and no push to get there when it was within reach.

  29. DMZ on January 7th, 2005 4:49 pm

    I need citations to make revisions. Gimmie gimmie gimmie.

  30. Adam S on January 7th, 2005 6:00 pm

    #28 on #26: Ichiro $6M bonus plus $5M last year, $11M each of the next three —

    I have conflicting info on Boone. The Times recently wrote $8M in 2004, $9M this year — And then Finnegan wrote $9.25 —
    But when he signed the PI and other sources said $8 option for 2005 —

  31. DMZ on January 9th, 2005 3:55 am

    I got a file not found on that Ichiro! link.

  32. darrin on January 9th, 2005 3:47 pm

    Sorry, I remember reading those numbers on the Seattle Times, but it is a pain in the butt to look through their archives.

    Also to consider in this…there’s the $2-3 million they said they keep to the side for late season trades. (You know this would be a little more believable if they actually made late season trades that make the team better and add payroll)

    Also, from what I read after the Pokey signing they said there is about $3 million left to spend under budget. I don’t think they are lying about that. I did something similar to what you have and with a $93 budget, $2 to save, $5 of what I call weasel money (Cirillo resulting contracts and Finnigans favorite “contingencies”), I come to about $90.

    Our difference comes from what you have listed as players under the teams control. Not all those guys will make the minimum. Bloomquist, Mateo and Olivo have multiple years of experience so their salaries go up 15-20% per year.

  33. DMZ on January 9th, 2005 4:54 pm

    Bloomquist, Mateo and Olivo have multiple years of experience so their salaries go up 15-20% per year.

    We’ve talked about this up-thread, but there’s no reason for the M’s to give them more money than they have to, and there is no forced salary escalation of any kind until they hit arbitration.

  34. darrin on January 9th, 2005 9:26 pm


    Really? I was pretty sure about that. I remember reading about it a while back from someone who would know. I can’t find anything online about it now though. It makes sense though. I mean, even someone who works at Burger King gets a raise over 3 years. You don’t happen to have a link on that do you?

    Either way I don’t think it makes a big difference with what you’re trying to do here. Good job on this.

  35. DMZ on January 9th, 2005 9:59 pm

    For the first couple years of a player’s career, they get what the team wants to give them, and the team only has to give them major league minimum. See up-thread, where Jon and I sort of argue about what Bloomquist might get. They could cut his pay if they wanted.

    I don’t know what else to tell you.. it’s just what it is.

  36. Danimal on January 9th, 2005 10:49 pm

    What I like best looking ahead to 2006, is this…

    When you take the salaries of guys who will almost certainly be departing the team after ’05 (Boone, Moyer, Franky, Wiki etc.) and subtract the raises other will be getting in ’06 (Sexson, Beltre etc.) you come up with roughly $12 million dollars. Now you never know what will happen with trades and releases between now and then, but with all that’s been done to improve the team during the last 30 days, I love knowing that the M’s will have enough money after this season to make a run at one or two more players that can make an impact and help take another step towards what we all hope will be a WS run in 2006.

    One question. Where does the money owed Cirillo figure into 2005? How much is it and does it count against their announced payroll budget. I was always under the impression it did. If so, you can add that amount to the $12 million I mentioned….as well as any possible payroll increases ownership might instill after we get back to respectability this Summer.

  37. DMZ on January 9th, 2005 10:52 pm

    It doesn’t. Until such time as I can get good multi-sourced information on what, if any, obligations the Mariners still have under after the 2004 Toxic Contract Exchange (future Superfund site!), I’m not writing anything up.

  38. Adam S on January 10th, 2005 9:26 am

    Derek, re 31 and 29. Damn periods. If you remove the trailing periods, which shouldn’t be part of the hyperlink, the links I posted will all work. Sorry about that.

  39. Scott on January 11th, 2005 6:22 pm

    so is an educated guess that they will still have between 20 and 25 million on the table next offseason? or did i miss something?

  40. Brian Harper on January 12th, 2005 5:01 pm

    The Times is reporting that the M’s signed Meche for 1 year, $2.54 million. That’s a tad better than the $3M+ estimate anyway. If Gil can somehow pitch all season like he did after the break last year, it’ll be a bargain. A pretty big “if”, I know, but a guy can dream.

  41. Jim Osmer on August 3rd, 2005 11:33 am

    Quick math shows the M’s (after trade deadline deals) have about $50 million committed to 7 players (Ichiro, Beltre, Sexson, Eddie, Spiezio, Ibanez, Pineiro) in 2006. This drops to about $35 million for 2007 (Ichiro, Beltre, Sexson). The M’s should have about 30 million this off season to play with and more the next.

    I say get the best starting pitcher on the market for the first move. How about a FA/Felix/Bobby M./Joel (stuck with him)/? rotation as an improvement over this year’s?

  42. Dan on August 4th, 2005 11:19 am

    What about Cirillo? Aren’t we still paying the last year of his deal this year?

  43. Grizz on August 5th, 2005 12:55 pm

    No, Wiki’s expiring contract this year represents the last of the Cirillo money.

  44. Taylor Davis on August 15th, 2005 11:01 pm

    I think with bonuses, Piniero is due to make $6.7 million in least that is the number I read about a dozen times at the trading deadline. Just an FYI for those trying to project next year’s salary total.

  45. Evan on September 15th, 2005 2:27 pm

    I thought the $6.7 million for Joel was the balance remaining on his contract at the trade deadline. So all of 2006 plus the final two months of 2005.

    If his annual salary is $4.8 million, then his salary from Jul 31 through the end of 2006 is $6.4 million.

  46. Evan on September 15th, 2005 2:29 pm

    Hasegawa: contract for 2006 for an unknown salary (but probably $4-5m) guaranteed if Hasegawa gets to 58 appearances or 45 games finished in 2005

    He’s not going to make it. 🙂