Daisuke Matsuzaka and Cleveland Indians Reportedly Agree to Minor League Deal
You could argue that Daisuke Matsuzaka hasn't been an effective major league pitcher since 2008. The Cleveland Indians apparently aren't sold on that argument and have reportedly signed the right-hander to a minor league deal.
From Jon Heyman of CBS:
Dice-K agrees to #indians deal— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) February 10, 2013
Daisuke Matsuzaka minor-league deal with cleveland reunites him with Terry Francona— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) February 10, 2013
Heyman also reports what kind of money Matsuzaka has a chance to earn in this deal:
Matsuzaka was awful for the Boston Red Sox last season, finishing with an 8.28 ERA and 1.71 WHIP in 45.2 innings.
Since 2008—when he finished 18-3 with a 2.90 ERA, 1.32 WHIP and 154 strikeouts in 167.2 innings—Matsuzaka has been pretty terrible, quite frankly.
In 2010, he was passable as a big-league starter, finishing 9-6 with a 4.69 ERA, 1.37 WHIP and 133 strikeouts in 153.2 innings. But beyond that, he's been a major disappointment for the Red Sox.
To be fair, Dice-K did undergo Tommy John surgery in 2011. He hasn't looked like the same pitcher since.
The Red Sox paid a huge price to receive such little return on their investment. Boston paid $51.11 million in 2007 just to negotiate with the pitcher and eventually settled on a six-year, $52 million deal.
Will Daisuke Matsuzaka pitch for the Cleveland Indians next season?
That's right, folks—the Red Sox paid $103.11 million to get a pitcher who went 50-37 in six years and 668.1 innings with a 4.52 ERA, 1.42 WHIP and 609 strikeouts.
Of course, the deal could have gone up to as much as $60 million over six years based on contractual escalators, but it's hard to imagine that Matsuzaka fulfilled those performance requirements.
Now, Matsuzaka will be fighting just to make the roster for the Cleveland Indians during spring training. It has been a long fall from the height of expectations placed upon him when the Red Sox shelled out more than $100 million to bring him aboard in 2007.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?