I think a deal cannot, by definition, be unfair if both sides like what they got. Just because you think Iwakuma is worth twice what they're paying him doesn't mean Iwakuma necessarily wants 12 million dollars at any cost. He likes it here...he wants to remain a Mariner, and his valuation on getting to do that was about 12 million dollars. He must REEEEALLY like it here, but he has a right to value this place that much. It's not Zduriencik's fault that Iwakuma likes Seattle that much.
I don't think Zduriencik was in there going "gee...how badly can I underpay this guy and keep him?" I think the Mariners didn't want to spend more than 7 mil to retain him because they still don't prefer him stulistically...they dcided "well OK...we like that he wants to be with us and if we can get him at a price at which we're comfortable, and make everyone happy, we'll do that." There's a huge difference.
Lonnie, the big cheese at Mariner Central, harrumphs ...
Could you please stop using the expression "lowball"? To me, it means that nothing else matters other than trying to mess a player over, and I really don't think that Zduriencik would have done that.
.
=== Webster, Dept. ===
If you don't care for the term "lowball" then out of consideration for our friendship I'll stop using it, sure. :- ) You might have to remind me once or twice ... >:- ]
Certainly there are words that have different connotations to different people. When I first started in public speaking, there was a gentleman farmer who asked me not to use the word Kill. He said, "that's what we use when we kill an animal and don't feel bad about it. Like, why don't we kill that pig." Didn't mean that to me, but ...
The dictionary gives two definitions of the word Lowball: (1) to quote a price that is lower than the eventual cost, or (2) to give an unfairly low offer. Me, I don't attach it to the attitude of being slimy or exploitative. If I'm joking around with my friend and want to buy his table saw, I might lowball him at $50 and he's liable to give me a laugh in response. On the other hand a boss who "lowballs" you on your raise might be a slimy guy.
.
=== Fair and Balanced, Dept. ===
Okay, so in the dictionary a lowball offer is an unfair one. Did the Mariners do that to Iwakuma? Unfair is in the eye of the beholder, but it's pretty clear to me that Iwakuma is worth $10-15M per year. In a good year he's going to be worth $18-25M. He's only got to be worth 1.2 to 1.5 WAR to earn the salary he got; if you didn't theink he'd be worth twice that, you wouldn't put him in the rotation. It is understood by everybody involved that the Mariners think Iwakuma will be worth $12M, at least -- if he's healthy! -- and that their negotiating position was such that they had a chance to underpay Iwakuma.
Iwakuma was in an unusual situation, one in which his leverage was not what it would normally be. He had to decide, "Stay with the Mariners or go get a market contract?" and the Mariners exploited his weird Saturday deadline situation to sign him at 50c on the dollar. The contract is indeed unfair to him, in my view.
Somebody might respond, "Oh, I don't know that Iwakuma's necessarily underpaid. You have to set a % chance that he gets hurt. Sensible but not accurate, in my view. When EVERYbody says YEAHHH BABY! THAT'S A CHEAP DEAL!" Then by definition the deal was "unfair." Fair has the core idea of being "equal on two sides." That's what justice and fairness is. It relates to the idea of seeing both sides' point of view equally.
.
=== Snidely Whiplash, Dept. ===
Now we do have to keep things in proportion. Paying a player $14 mills for two years of playing baseball isn't exactly a mean thing to do. Dr. D remembers when Johnny Bench smilingly told the world that he was going to be the first $100,000 catcher.... was it Mike Schmidt or Ozzie Smith who got the first $1M salary?
It's an interesting philosophical question. If YOU were running a pro sports team, would that be your policy? Pay every player the least you can, and try to apply some downward pressure against the constant upward pressure on salaries? Or are there some situations in which you would avoid "underpaying" a player? I remember some NFL GM, maybe Bobby Beathard, saying that when he had a player who "overperformed" his contract, he tore it up and wrote a new one. He believed in fair contracts. Of course, he didn't get refunds when contracts were unfair to the player...
Obviously there are circumstances in which a team gives more money to a year-4 player because it wants to cultivate a positive relationship with the player, and doesn't want to go through the ugly arbitration process (in which the player sits there and listens to detailed arguments about his shortcomings).
.....................
Does anybody know what Iwakuma's tax rate is? Does he pay income tax to the IRS, or to Japan, or to both?
...................
Dr. D signs off on the general philosophy that MLB clubs are entitled to fight against upward pressure on salaries; he doesn't sign off on the idea that all players must be paid as little as feasibly possible in all situations.
I don't think Zduriencik is an unfair man, no; as far as I can tell, he's a model of loyalty and integrity. But if I were in his shoes, I would consider (consider) resolving a personal philosophy that "I'm never doing a player harm by paying him $487,000 to play baseball." You're always talking about rich guys making deals with other rich guys as to who's going to be a little richer. It's a fundamentally different question than the one that asks, "Should you take the cloak away from a poor man?"
Hisashi Iwakuma sure did wind up with a disappointing MLB payoff, though, didn't he?
.
Comments
I certainly appreciate the defense of Zduriencik's "moral correctness." No way did he do anything immoral here.
In my day job we deal with issues of fairness and justice a lot, such as with marriage counseling, dividing property after a divorce, and so on. Sometimes I use the word "fair" in a context that impacts an individual's RIGHTS, and sometimes I use fairness in a context that is not related to a person's basic human rights.
For instance, we might say that Mojician argues his clients' cases in a biased way. That which is biased is not fair, but the system itself is fair. The Mariners attempt to get the better of a Pineda-Montero deal; their next deal they'd like to trade Lucas Luetge for Billy Butler. That wouldn't be fair, but neither would it be immoral. You don't always seek a win-win situation. When I make a chess move, am I supposed to be unbiased about the outcome? :- )
Hypothetically, at what point Matty would you say "wow, the ballclub sure gave that player the short end of the stick"? If Michael Saunders gets renewed at $500,000 (or whatever) is the club still angling for Win-Win outcomes?
Are there situations in which you *would* say that it's appropriate for the club to pay a player the least it can?
I read "lowball" pretty much exactly as Doc seems to have described his interpretation prior to a chat with Mr. Webster.
The M's accomplished sometying significant with this contract which almost NEVER happens via free agency: they secured an asset for multiple prime years with a large, realistic chance to provide value in ecxess of double its cost.
Long-term upside, cost/benefit-wise, is essentially not part of modern free agency. This was a masterstroke for management. And compared to free agency results, it 'cost' tge player significantly.
Evan Longoria's contract was similarly 'unfair,' but the circumstances were quite different.
I think we largely agree that Iwakuma is objectively worth 12 mil or so given the risks attached to his arm/health/stamina
What I'm saying is that Iwakuma was not a slave laborer. He had the right to say "you know...I don't like that offer enough to want to stay in Seattle for it" and he declined that choice. The Mariners must have done something SPECTACULARLY right to make it worth 6+ mil per year in discounts to be here...that's GOOD...both sides WIN there...he gets plenty of money, we get a player at a lower rate than maybe we "should" objectively, and he gets to play for the club he likes. Everyone wins...so why is that "unfair"?
It's not about the amount he was paid...it's about his happiness and ours. Everyone is happy about this deal...including Iwakuma.
This is why players have agents... helps a player ensure that he's getting at least reasonable, and at most maximum, compensation.
I'd be more inclined to think that Iwakuma's contract was a reflection of his actual value on the market - along with, possibly, a hometown discount. His agent wouldn't be very amenable to taking $.50 on the dollar his ownself, so if he knows he can double his money by having Iwakuma hit the open market, he'll push for that like crazy. And he'll tell the player. At that point, if the player says, 'it doesn't matter, I don't care if I'm earning half my value', well then, the team's not lowballing the pitcher at all, they're signing him at a figure he's happy with.
As a side note, I have NEVER understood the reaction some people have to being lowballed. I've sold a few things on Craigslist and Ebay, and it always surprises me how some people take personal affront at a lowball offer - even it's a fairly reasonable one, and one that's presented respectfully. The seller can always say 'no'. They have complete control of the situation - they determine how low they will go, and they weigh that with how urgently they'd like to sell, and what other prospects they have out there. Sometimes a seller is dying for a lowball offer, because selling quickly is more important than maximizing return. Why it should be taken personally, I don't understand.
So I think there's no disrespect to the Iwakuma by signing him at the amounts they agreed to. It's the best possible business arrangement - win/win.
...you, man!
For whatever reason, there is a huge pile of people who are eagerly awaiting their chance to jump on the "my favorite team' management/ownership is evil" train. It's the same group of people who when their favorite team isn't winning championships they are moaning and groaning how their team is the worst sports franchise in the history of sports franchises. It is, essentially the group who lap up the negative drivel that can be found at certain blog sites.
I sure would hate to find them squatting on this site too...
Plus, there is the fact that the literal definition of the term lowball means just what you stated above that a lowball offer is an unfair offer. I believe that it has an even deeper meaning that has connotations of base evil, but that's just me. To intentially lowball someone is to do so with malace.
Fo sho he's not a slave laborer.
And that second point is important: he certainly could have hit the free agent market. Without undergoing any kind of realistic hardship. Last year's situation with Billy Beane, that was hardball on the A's part, but much less so on the M's part this year.
Still, you know for a fact that a guy's worth $20 per hour and you haggle with him about his $14 request vs your $12 offer, because you see a chance to benefit your bottom line .. you're lowballing :- )
Have done a fair bit of bidness on eBay and when we get silly offers on stuff, it doesn't bother me at all. I just smile and say thanks, but we're going to let the auction run. No offense taken whatsoever.
Not by a long stretch ... the ownership in Seattle is even hyper-aware of the points of view of fans and players...
Now, when it comes to Pennant Thirst vs Nice Night At The Ballpark eye ratio, that's another subject...
The Ms obviously offered him less money than even they think he's objectively worth - mostly because he's not "their kind of pitcher" - I mean they have a history of treating players very well - especially Japanese players like Johjima (regarding contracts, I mean), so it's not like they have a reputation for chintzing out and trying to take advantage of all the players in their employ. I just think they lowballed Iwakuma because (a) he wasn't asking for a lot and (b) they didn't feel comfortable investing a lot in his type of arm.