Matsuzaka Threatens to Sit Out a Year

Well, Seibu evidently offered up a bald-faced lie to him last season. He was quoted as saying that, in refusing to post him after the season ended, he "could have gone 20-0" and they wouldn't have agreed.

Your comment sounds, well, like he's the one in the wrong. I've been hoping that he or Uehara or Igawa or all of them would do something like this. The current posting system is a farce that shows how close to slavery the current contract system is here.

Baseball players are free to quit playing baseball, so perhaps the slavery analogy doesn't quite fit here, but it does raise an interesting point: baseball contracts (and not just NPB, either) appear to flout employment laws.

For instance, in Japan, people have an explicit legal right to freedom of employment. I.e., they may choose who they work for, or, perhaps more importantly, they may choose who they don't work for. Furthermore, while written employment contracts in Japan are rare, an employment arrangement is legally an agreement (a.k.a. contract) and therefore subject to all the limitations that apply to any other contract. Rare is the company that could successfully and publicly restrain a person from leaving its employ and go to work for another company for nine years.

With that in mind, here's an interesting thought: freelancers in any other profession can provide services to whomever they choose. What's to stop a free agent entering into a batting agreement for one team, a fielding contract for another, and a batting-practice pitching agreement for someone else, while fitting in endorsements for yet another team?

	Rrrrrrrrring
Tanishige:	Hello?
Carp:	"Hello, Mr. Tanishige? Coach Kitabeppu of the Carp here. Could you do a spot of clutch hitting for us on Saturday?"
Tanishige:	"Hang on... (checks calendar)... sorry, I've got a catching gig with the Golden Eagles that day, but I'm free for a couple of hours on Sunday evening. Would that suit?"
Carp:	"Hmmm, well, we've got Cabrera rostered on for Sunday; I s'pose we could fit you in, but we could only offer you 50,000 yen in that case."
Tanishige:	"75,000 yen and I'm yours."

Unfortunately many Seibu fans see Matsuzaka as a spoilt crybaby who couldn't even win 15 games (too many baseball fans get too emotional and are unaware that win totals are largely out of pitchers' control, hugely dependent on offensive support).

He did have an agreement with Seibu which they are failing to honour (when it was announced I can remember being sceptical that Seibu would keep their side of the bargin). Quite simply, Seibu have even less grounds for their attitude than Hanshin. I notice that the Swallows are also trying to renege on their commitment as well. It shouldn't be too long before the 9 year contract is tested in court.

- I notice that the Swallows are also trying to renege on their commitment as well. It shouldn't be too long before the 9 year contract is tested in court.

Part of the Swallows' "verbal" deal with Ishii and Iwamura was winning at least the CL Pennant, which Yakult didn't do. I wouldn't really call that going back on a deal. Matsuzaka's case is a little different because he had a career year in ERA, complete games, and strike outs, but just couldn't get the offensive support for more wins. To the best of my knowledge, Seibu never made a "championship" as part of the "verbal" agreement.

P.S. Why are all the comments here in italics?

Looks like I missed a close-italics tag on the original story. Now fixed. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

The Japan Times is indicating that the reason Ishii was refused posting was because Furuta has just started as player manager. If this is true, it is just as spurious as winning the pennant. Ishii does not mention that as a requirement - he gives the conditions as keeping injury free and pitching well. It is a clear case of going back on an agreement.

- It is a clear case of going back on an agreement.

Yes it seems like it, but unless the agreement is in writing, it's not worth a brass razoo.

I think we're going to be seeing the players insisting on their rights more and more because of these shenanigans. The clubs are really being shortsighted going back on their word like this. Still, with those nine-year contracts, they appear to have the upper hand.

Regarding Matsuzaka, Seibu is refusing to let him go because their owner company (Seibu Railways) got caught in an Enron-like scandal last fall. So with their popularity and revenue on the downfall, they can't afford to lose their franchise player. It's not so much about his stats as it is about business decisions.

In Yakult's case, it's to do with Furuta. He only agreed to become manager if they kept Iwamura.

Indeed that is the case, but Seibu still made the promise to Matsuzaka. Their refusal is a continuation of the old practises.

The Swallows cannot really claim any legitimacy - what has Furuta got to do with the decision to release Ishii or Iwamura. More spurious and dubious reasons I'm afraid.

What they mean to communicate is a common, if utterly stupid, feudalistic fossil that remains, due to remaining unchallenged since the Bubble burst: promises made by superiors in Japan are without meaning, save as they serve their own purposes, or flatter their vanity.

Nomo got this ball rolling by being willing to prove Kintetsu's threats empty, outside the kangaroo court of NPB and its lackey sports dailies, and the posting system. Perhaps the imposed 9-year (meaning: career) indenturing (effectively only a penalty imposed upon the top players) will be proven equally empty, if challenged: something may remain, but this sort of blatant ugliness will be finished.

There isn't anything preventing baseball players from quitting baseball, so like Torakichi said above, the slavery analogy doesn't fit here. Though the player will remain property of their team for one whole entire year after. Still, there is nothing preventing them from quitting baseball.

Second, let's look at the draft. Players can select what team they want to choose to play with, they can choose to play in the majors as a non-drafted free agent/or play in Japan in the NPB via the draft.

- It shouldn't be too long before the 9 year contract is tested in court.

I'm not really sure if the 9 year contract will be overturned in court. Last year, the courts ruled against the Players Association regarding the merger. Arbitration always rules against the players, so I just don't see it happening.

Plus, Tsuneo Watanabe will be in a uproar to keep the reserve system (9 years to become a free agent) as it is. While he is definetly less powerful than he once was, he's going nowhere.

- It is a clear case of going back on an agreement.

It very well may be. But it means little to nothing without written confirmation. With a written confirmation, the player could confirm that indeed the owner/team has agreed to post the player. Then if the team went back on their word, it would be different. Otherwise it means little to have a verbal agreement.

- Their refusal is a continuation of the old practises.

This is what the JPBPA (Japan Professional Baseball Players Association) needs to break apart. As the union, the players have to stand up to break down the old practices in the NPB. They have to stand up to recieve their player rights. Nothing happens without someone doing something. The JPBPA had a good start last year with the merger. Continue it with standing up for player rights.

It wouldn't necessarily follow that the courts would rule against the players on the 9 year issue. This, after all, counts as a restraint of trade (quitting baseball is not a realistic alternative to offer) and even if the initial challenges were to fail it will eventually be removed.

It is not necessary nowadays to even have a written agreement (though this may not yet be the case in Japan). Courts are more and more accepting verbal agreements as binding. What a written agreement does is to make things easier.

- Courts are more and more accepting verbal agreements as binding

Well, verbal agreements have always been binding; the problem is proving they exist. Unless you have witnesses, notes, or some other evidence of the discussion, then it's going to be extraordinarilly difficult to win in court - in any jurisdiction.

Is it quite common for Japanese baseball players to play for a team with only a verbal contract in place? In the MLB, there is a standard uniform contract that is written up for each player (with a provision for special covenants). I guess this is not the case for the NPB. To me it seems that the use of verbal contracts is a method by the club owners to maintain an unofficial degree of control over players.

Also, when a player decides to sit out a year, why is the team able to maintain control of the player's rights for 1 year? Why not more or less? This method of getting out of a contract also restricts a player's negotiating power, as they may be forced to sit a year during their prime playing years.

- Is it quite common for Japanese baseball players to play for a team with only a verbal contract in place?

No, of course they have written contracts. What we're talking about are the separate verbal undertakings made by the teams to post them to the majors. What the players are finding is that they shouldn't rely on these undertakings and that they should have everything stipulated in the actual contract.

I think the verbal agreements referred to above are about posting the player to MLB, not the player's contract itself.

Players agreeing to their new salary and signing on it is a big deal that is reported in the news every day during the off-season, so I doubt any player plays under only verbal contracts. Matsuzaka and Seibu made a vague verbal agreement about terms under which he'd be Posted, it wasn't his actual contract.

When players retire, the team holds his rights for one year, so I guess waiting out that year is one way to get out of the 9 year contract, but yes he'd likely lose one of his prime years.

Interesting twist - if he decides to sit out a year he may actually increase his value in the eyes of MLB. His pitch counts have been so incredibly high I'd imagine a year of rest for that arm could do him some good. He could continue to throw on the side and stay in great shape, of course.

But he would still lose a year of game experience and practicing throwing, and throwing in a game situation is vastly different. I would doubt there are many teams that would look at a player that has been out of action for a year as "well rested," they'd probably be considering his arm as needing to work out some rust.

I guess I don't understand what was "promised" to Matsuzaka in terms of the posting. In Japan, unlike in North America, promises can be enforced by the courts (a gift may be enforced under Art. 549 of the Civil Code). However, was Matsuzaka promising something in return for his posting to the MLB? Also, doesn't the MLB team have to pay Seibu just to negotiate his release? And then Seibu could just deny the MLB club his release.

Do players in the NPB sometimes have "posting" provisions in their contracts? Does anyone think such a condition would have been left verbal if Matsuzaka had been allowed an agent?

- In Japan, unlike in North America, promises can be enforced by the courts (a gift may be enforced under Art. 549 of the Civil Code).

But how does one enforce a verbal "promise" if the details are in dispute? I wouldn't think the burden of proof would be too different to that in other jurisdictions.

It is very unlikely to be helpful to a pitcher to sit out a whole year. The pitcher loses a whole year of development in their key years, as mentioned above.

- Also, doesn't the MLB team have to pay Seibu just to negotiate his release? And then Seibu could just deny the MLB club his release.

A MLB team would have to pay Seibu a posting fee for Matsuzaka if he was posted by Seibu. If he was released, which is virtually impossible, a MLB team would have to pay nothing.

- Do players in the NPB sometimes have "posting" provisions in their contracts?

I'm not sure of them having posting provisions written in, but if they're not written into the contract in writing they're not worth anything.

Though Shigetoshi Hasegawa, formely of the Orix BlueWave, had a agreement in his contract where the BlueWave would let him go to the majors after a certain time [Japan Baseball Daily]. Hasegawa was later sold to the then California Angels in 1997, before the posting system.

Though again, without a written confirmation it means nothing. Verbal agreements mean little to nothing and are virtually impossible to stand up in court.

NPB teams receive cash payment from the MLB club that wins the negotiating right, that's what they get in exchange for posting a player. So, it only makes sense to post a player 1 year before they're eligible for free agency.

The same way one proves a verbal contract when the details are in dispute. The burden of proof does not change, and that was not what I was saying. I was saying that if there was no consideration given from Matsuzaka, it would be considered a gift (no exchange of consideration). This can be enforced in Japanese courts.

Was there something that Matsuzaka gave in return for the promise of the team posting him?

Thanks.

- Was there something that Matsuzaka gave in return for the promise of the team posting him?

Ok, I understand now what you're saying.

But again, the point is: even if Seibu agreed to extend this "gift," then one still has to prove that the undertaking was made. That's what I'd be concerned about. Whether or not Japanese law provides for this sort of thing, the fact is, without evidence, then it would be difficult if not impossible to enforce.

But I would say there was consideration given - Matsuzaka's undertakings regarding performance. Wasn't it supposed to be something like, "OK, we won't post you this time, but if you provide good numbers this season we'll post you next time"? If so, it couldn't be regarded as a gift because there was a quid pro quo.

The details are not in dispute, just the definition of providing good numbers. This part Matsuzaka should have gotten in writing - how do you define "good numbers"? Furthermore, Seibu did add a spurious argument as to how Matsuzaka is the face of Seibu.