Comments on: Today’s news, tightly edited

By: msb

msb — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:00:09 +0000

#88–I can say I have read in more than one place about this â€œkickbackâ€ plan for Seibu, which supposedly kinda sorta maybe happened with Ichiro and the Mâ€™s, too.

something I had never heard until this year when one of the NY papers (talking about the Yanks potential bid) said there’d been a rumor that the Ms only paid $4M of the $13. As it was the Start Ledger, noted for their, um, accuracy … I took it with a grain of salt.

By: David J. Corcoran I

David J. Corcoran I — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:53:33 +0000

$52 million. That’s almost too much money.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:52:04 +0000

He’s got his own post now.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:46:02 +0000

Hrm.

Methinks the definition of “costs too much money” will have to be redone after this year…

By: Johan

Johan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:31:38 +0000

ESPN is reporting $52 million. Add that to a 4 year, 50+ million dollar contract and thats 25 million per.

By: James T

James T — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:18:33 +0000

FWIW, the repeated rumor over at SoSH was that the Mets bid $38 million. I’m a Sox fan living in Massachusets and I love this. Outbidding the yankees and mets for someone?! The $42 million almost doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count against the luxury tax calculation. And there haven’t even been any whispers that this will affect the team’s payroll in any way. (Incidentally, beers varied in price from $7.25 to $9 plus at Fenway this past season and they set a team attendance record while we paid the highest avg ticket prices in MLB. They damn well better have $42 million!)

Teams are going to end up paying $10 million a year or close to that for pitchers like Ted Lilly. If Matsuzaka’s contract is $13 million per year that doesn’t seem bad at all. And if that $42 million can be considered to be an investment in marketing the team in the far east and not just a fee then so much the better.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:00:22 +0000

#96: I did not hear it myself, but I have just read that on the Charlie Steiner show on XM today, Boston Globe reporter Gorden Edes said that because D.M. missed most of 2002 with an injury, it would be two years before he became a free agent.

Clear as mud.

(Anyway, blah, blah, blah rented mule blah, blah, blah. You get the idea.)

By: LB

LB — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:51:25 +0000

#96: If you have the fatcs right (and I have no reason to suspect you don’t), it makes sense that everyone over here is confused about when he hits FA.

And I’d still work him like a rented mule if I managed him for Seibu next year.

By: Johan

Johan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:48:29 +0000

Their contracts aren’t based on seasons. They are based on years. Matsuzaka first came up his rookie year in April 98. So 10 years from then is April 08.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:46:09 +0000

#94: Are NPB teams in the habit of writing contracts for fractions of a season? For players who are not yet free agents? The Astros did that for Clemens, but it was for the end of a season, and of course Clemens was a free agent at the time.

Any way, it doesn’t matter much if it’s two years or one and a fraction. Does anyone really expect Seibu to show much TLC to Matsuzaka’s arm if he is a short timer for NPB in general and them in particular?