Interesting tidbit in the Neyer chat

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2006 12:24 PM CST in News

From the Rob Neyer chat going on right now:

Sean (MD): If Zito is not worth 18 million, how much do you think he was worth?--given the Meches and Suppans of the world are getting double-digit millions

Rob Neyer: (1:20 PM ET ) Well, considering that Schmidt got roughly $16M/season, I would say Zito's in the $14-$16M range. Theoretically, that is.

Which, as it turns out, is what the Rangers were offering.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It ain't the money that scares me

It's the years. Six years would've been scary enough, but the seventh is just crazy. Add a raise, too, and it's a pretty silly contract.

by debaser on Dec 28, 2006 12:25 PM CST reply actions

Hicks

I don't want to hear any bitching about Hicks not ponying up, or that the Rangers are just trying to give the appearance of trying to sign the big names. This is a tired rant from misguided fans and uninformed media.

Matsuzaka - Hicks offered an amount that EVERYONE thought beforehand would be competitive.

Zito - You can't complain that he's not an ace and then bitch we didn't offer him enough. Peter Magowan and Sabean should get every bit of the criticism that Hicks got for the Arod deal. An option for 2014? For a pitcher?

JD & Hicks made solid offers in both cases, and are obviously not going to hamstring the future of this team with outrageous contracts. There is plenty of room in the budget, and plenty of willpower from the owner and GM to add an impact player between now and the trading deadline.

by t ball on Dec 28, 2006 12:28 PM CST reply actions

Agreed

I think the idea that Hicks and JD are sitting around, thinking "hey, let's make a fake offer for just enough to fool everyone into thinking we're somewhat serious about signing Player X, but not enough to really get Player X" is pretty ludicrous.

If the Rangers really had no interest in Zito, then there was no point in pursuing him. So I take their pursuit as legitimate, and accept the fact that the Giants made a crazy offer, and got the player.

That money can now be used in other ways- perhaps to take on Pat Burrell's contract in a salary dump, to re-sign Young and Tex long-term, or to go get another player or two via free agency and/or trade this year or in next year's market, which looks to be of much better quality than this year's was.

by RCCook on Dec 28, 2006 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

JD/Hicks worked with what they had.

I agree with you. No way should the Rangers be criticized this offseason for putting together 'fake' offers. Their offers for Zito and DM, for that matter, were very lucrative offers. It just so happened that 2 other teams blew the competition away. We can be glad we weren't the team that overbid themselves this time around.

As for the excess money now, Hicks has always said that the payroll was contract specific. The Rangers may yet add another bat or pitcher, but only for the right deal. I don't see the Rangers getting Burrell or any other big name. An MY extension seems more likely.

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Dec 28, 2006 1:10 PM CST up reply actions

Hicks and JD

deserve major props for handling this offseason.

They went in prepared to go after the big names. They did. They tried hard. But other people were stupid. But instead of chasing the other teams on a path to folly, they stayed back, let someone else sign the Mike Hampton type contract, and kept the Rangers in a position to compete in the future.

I'm sure it has been noted elsewhere that them trying hard for Zito sends a message to Young and Teixeira that Hicks is serious about competing, but him signing elsewhere keeps money in the bank for some nice extensions... Zito signing for stupid money in the other league was really the ideal outcome

Furthermore, JD showed, yet again, how he can respond to adversary by taking a risk that should make the team better. The BMac-Danks deal is hard-core - that takes major guts - something that only a few GMs in the league would risk. And he pulled the trigger when it had to be done. It may not work out - but no one can accuse JD of being an empty golf shirt.

by JBImaknee on Dec 28, 2006 12:55 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed

I doubt Boras will negotiate an extension for Tex so he can pull in the Yankees after the 08 season, but an extension for MY is very much attainable this offseason. You gotta love the creativity that JD has shown since taking over. He's had a nice offseason and hopefully he'll cap it off with a long term extension for MY.

"My theory of hitting was just to watch the ball as it came in and hit it." --Tommy Lasorda

by BReed on Dec 28, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

I agree

What is probably a little more disturbing is that they don't seem to have a great feel for what others might offer. In the case of Zito, they probably went as far as they could, and someone was there to go a little further. Could have happened differently if the offseason had gone differently. With Matsuzaka, I guess there isn't necessarily any way to know what other people are going to bid, since keeping your bid's amount secret is so important.

But in both cases, the facts are that they wanted them but couldn't/wouldn't go high enough. Wish they would have had the balls that the Sox did.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 28, 2006 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

What others are offering

That does give me pause a bit. While I applaud the restraint in deciding what they can offer that is reasonable and sticking to it---I wonder if they were caught a little flatfooted on the Matsuzaka deal. On the other hand, I don't think there is any way anyone could have predicted how many crazy contracts have been handed out this winter.

Even Boras probably didn't think he'd get this deal for Zito.

by t ball on Dec 28, 2006 5:54 PM CST up reply actions

Blind bidding

is the reason Dice-K is a different story. The Rangers' bid was competitive. In retrospect, I would have liked the Rangers to have gone above the Red Sox bid given every other FA signing, but everyone was caught off guard with their bid. It was fairly early in the process, everyone simply thought the earlier signings were outliers, and it wasn't until later that it became very clear that this FA period was insane.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 28, 2006 6:46 PM CST up reply actions

Again, I don't see why SF didn't sign Schmidt.

Spend the extra change on a real 1B.

by rooster on Dec 28, 2006 12:42 PM CST reply actions

Pretty interesting chat

Three of the first 7-8 questions are about the Mets; Mets were the better fit, does this make the Mets look bad. Kind of amusing.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 28, 2006 1:01 PM CST reply actions

I'm with you...

$18 million is insane, but if someone was going to give it to Zito, I'm glad it was an NL team. Like you said, hopefully we can use that money to tie up Young and Tex long term and continue to build on what is already here. As a fan, I'm very happy with the moves JD has made, and I'm even happier knowing that a player agrees with that sentiment...

I'm not sure if you can respond to this without giving away "trade secrets," but do you think our off-season is pretty much done at this point (other than trying to sign MY and Tex to extensions)?

"Hello, win column..."

by rangersfan34 on Dec 28, 2006 1:21 PM CST reply actions

good points

we're already winners in that Zito is no longer in the AL West.

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Dec 28, 2006 1:26 PM CST reply actions

SF and SD

too close to call. Their starting rotations are both pretty stacked.

by ab03 on Dec 28, 2006 1:31 PM CST reply actions

SD is better

San Fran didn't do anything this offseason, other than basically trading Schmidt for Zito and getting a few guys the Padres didn't want (Roberts and Klesko). Other than Bonds, I'd prefer the Padres player to the SF guy at almost every position, and the Padres bullpen is much better.

All said, the Zito signing makes ZERO sense for the Giants. That team desparately needs to rebuild and invest in the future, but paying Zito that much suggests that they aren't going to. They won't be over 500 for many years to come.

by JBImaknee on Dec 28, 2006 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

mmmm

blockquotes. drool

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2007, in a winnable AL West. Never thought I'd say that!

by RangerMoto on Dec 28, 2006 1:46 PM CST reply actions

Just can not agree

Sure that is a ridiculous contract. My problem is the Rangers continue to keep their payroll in the lower half of the league despite having a top 5 market. My ticket prices continue to go up as does the price of a coke and hot dog. Jason Stark reported that MLB revenues were over $1 Billion more than expected in 2006. There is peace with the players union and other teams are stepping up to the plate and paying their players and or FA's. The Rangers could have paid the $18M for Zito and made good money. The problem is they have not historically re-ditributed those funds.
I can afford the good seats, gold club, and premium parking. I just want to see a winning organization cause I love me some baseball. Second place is still the first loser IMO.

by Bigfan16 on Dec 28, 2006 3:08 PM CST reply actions

Source?

Since it's a privately held company, have we ever seen the Rangers' books? Why would you say they could add $18 mil to the payroll and make money? Know that for a fact or just upset they didn't sign Zito?

by AZranger on Dec 28, 2006 6:09 PM CST up reply actions

Just comparing comps

Revenue is up in the MLB. Rangers are in a top 5 market and have a profitable TV deal. Attendance is still over 2 M, plus radio, concessions, and plenty of premium seats at decent prices. The MLB revenue according to Stark at EPSN was over $4.5B in 2006. With 30 teams the average revenue is $150M per team and the market would indicate that the Rangers are better than that. Take away the overhead and compensation for running the minor league system and there is money left over.
I am not advocating a Yankee/BoSox team salary. I am advocating a payroll similar to St. Louis, Atlanta, etc. Last year I felt the payroll should have been in the $85M range. This year I would have liked to see that go up by 10%.
AJM does a good job keeping up with the salaries we have. I just think our budget should be adjusted toward the players by $10-20M. That money would do our rotation a bunch of good despite the fact that it is ridiculous to pay someone $5K per pitch.

by Bigfan16 on Dec 28, 2006 6:26 PM CST up reply actions

Fair enough

A few things I'm not sure I agree with though:

Jayson Stark as a reliable source for anything
Not all of that money is distributed to the clubs, a good deal of it goes to MLB's central coffers.
There was a recent study (can't remember where I read it) that showed the Rangers "fan price index" (average cost to attend a game, all things included) was in the bottom 5 among all 30 clubs (aka, cheapest). They're not charging "top 5 market" prices. And it stands to reason they don't have "top 5 market revenues."
Does the ballpark's location in Arlington hinder their revenue? I presume yes. They would sell a lot more tickets if it were downtown - in either D or FW.
Given the number of clubs that have their own TV networks now (Mets, Yankees, BoSox, Cubs, Braves, etc) - is the Rangers TV deal still one of the best? It's several years old, and like older contracts, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a relative bargain at this point.

Don't get me wrong - there's money to go around. Just not sure it's as free flowing as some suggest.

by AZranger on Dec 28, 2006 8:25 PM CST up reply actions

Top 5 market

The problem is that despite being a top five market, the Rangers are squarely in the middle of the pack when it comes to revenues.

Revenues, not market size, determine payroll.

by RCCook on Dec 28, 2006 6:20 PM CST up reply actions

Rangers

DFW is one of the most populous metro areas in the country, but the Rangers never have taken advantage of it. They need to win and orchestrate some kind of marketing campaign, simultaneously.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 28, 2006 6:23 PM CST up reply actions

Top 5 market and middle of the road

in revenue. That adds up when you consider the Rangers have one season over .500 in the past seven years.
The Metroplex loves winners. Heck we even support the Stars.

by Bigfan16 on Dec 28, 2006 6:30 PM CST up reply actions

Ratio dependent

I've been intrigued for a long time about the apparent schism between the sports fan base in the Metroplex and the relatively lesser segment of Ranger fans (those that follow the team year around with any level of intensity).

Can almost dismiss the triple tier of football following (pro-college-high school) as easily the largest group, many of whom only have passing interest in baseball. Read that "we go to games because we are loyal Texas sports fans". Baseball is kewl, it's getting out and seeing and being seen, but nowhere nearly as important or as partisan inspiring as any level of football. Any level.

For years, basketball was only recreational. And not well played locally at any level (compared to DC, NYC, Indiana, Florida, PA, and Chicago. Then the NBA came to town. Within a dozen years, it was a hot ticket. Superior marketing.

Hockey was giggled at (went to a fight and a hockey game broke out). Then the North Stars moved south and became the Stars. Winners. Self marketing. Will it maintain some longevity of interest beyond social and curiosity? Looks like it will.

Then TMS. NASCAR. IRL. The big boys. Although they bring more crowd to town than they raise locally, a hot ticket.

Just as the Eastern media and some of their sportswriters tend to stereotype Texas as a lesser species habitat, other press across the country picks up their leavings. Those being scraps of criticism and disrespect. Or worse, the expectation that everyone here is either an oil patch millionaire or a broken down cowboy.

Once here, people from Naperville, Toledo, Albany, Bangor, Newark, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Charlotte, you name it ... drop jaws. "Hey it's nice. The people are nice. It never closes. You can find anything you like here. Great museums and sculpture gallery. Awesome food. It's clean ... no, I mean really clean"

So in a human forest of people from six blocks (and six thousand miles) away, the 3.6 million rapidly headed for 6.7 million inhabitants are not terribly aware of, much less follow closely, a MLB team that calls Arlington home. Many from the northeast bring their old allegiances with them, and show up at games with BoSox or NYY gear.

Long story a moment shorter: It isn't the size of the Metroplex, or even the SMSA market. We have a baseball fan base roughly the size of Indianapolis or Nashville, plus baseball patronage from thousands who really don't care what team they are watching but like baseball.

My take on not having loud raucous crowds (along with a more laid back culture), dwindling non-corporate season ticket sales, etc. Finally, the Rangers do not have a 100 year old heritage. Baseball is possibly more tradition bound than the other major pro sports. Ever hear anyone say "my grandparents were Cub fans, my parents were Cub fans, by blood and birth I'm a Cub fan?"
The population here is neither as static nor composed so consistently of ethnic mix as the north and east.

Thus the huge difference between market size and baseball franchise revenue. It will take marketing genius to increase that fan to population ratio.

by Ed Coffin on Dec 28, 2006 7:52 PM CST up reply actions

Great essay Ed

A bit simpler is Dallas likes a winner. When the Rangers were competitive starting in 1996 they drew 2.7 to 2.9 million plus fans. Years of poor performance has eroded that attendance cown by 15% or around 500K in annual attendance.
Give the Metroplex a competitive team over a period of time and we will challenge the Yanks for attendance domination. Last year they got 4.2M.
Its tough being a Ranger fan seeing a team that has great guys and hard play but are simply outsmarted (A's) or out spent for the talent needed to be competitive. I was trult hoping that they would pony up the cash and sign Zito this year. I could get excited about having a solid rotation of the same guys for the next 4-5 years. I wonder how many pitchers started a game for the Rangers over the past 5 years?

by Bigfan16 on Dec 28, 2006 8:29 PM CST up reply actions