Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[Guest]

Peter Gammons[/url]"]If Tanaka is posted and the Yankees, Dodgers, Rangers, Cubs and perhaps even sleepers like the Mariners are involved, he will be a wealthy man.

[abuck1220]

great insight. here I was thinking he was going to get like $9/hour.

[Guest]

John Arguello ‏@CubsDen 3m

Despite much publicized money woes, expect #Cubs to make serious run at RHP Masahiro Tanaka | Cubs Den http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/09/despite-much-publicized-money-woes-expect-cubs-to-make-serious-run-at-rhp-masahiro-tanaka/ …

[Hairyducked Idiot]

John Arguello ‏@CubsDen 3m

Despite much publicized money woes, expect #Cubs to make serious run at RHP Masahiro Tanaka | Cubs Den http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/09/despite-much-publicized-money-woes-expect-cubs-to-make-serious-run-at-rhp-masahiro-tanaka/ …

 

I'm sure they'll finish a solid second and it won't at all be their fault that some team went crazy.

[davell]

First, I truly have no idea if Ricketts actually will give them absolute flexibility to sign him or not. Unfortunately, we'll never know, unless we win the bidding. That said, if he did conceivably allow us to bid whatever, it'd be an absolute fail, to finish second. If the purse strings are loose, bid 70 mill and make sure you get him. With the teams likely to be involved, even with Tanaka being lesser than Darvish, I think the winning bid will be higher. Because the FA SP market coming up soon(and likely much longer) is weak and getting weaker. And if it takes 70? I'd grin and bare it, because at least we'd have gotten an age appropriate, long term front line SP.

[XZero771679666304]

First, I truly have no idea if Ricketts actually will give them absolute flexibility to sign him or not. Unfortunately, we'll never know, unless we win the bidding. That said, if he did conceivably allow us to bid whatever, it'd be an absolute fail, to finish second. If the purse strings are loose, bid 70 mill and make sure you get him. With the teams likely to be involved, even with Tanaka being lesser than Darvish, I think the winning bid will be higher. Because the FA SP market coming up soon(and likely much longer) is weak and getting weaker. And if it takes 70? I'd grin and bare it, because at least we'd have gotten an age appropriate, long term front line SP.

 

If a team bids 70, I'll be stunned. Also, if the Cubs bid that much, I'd be twice as stunned. I don't think the purse strings are remotely loose.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

The Dodgers will just bid 100 mil because they can.

[neely crenshaw]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

[davell]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

Do you truly understand how posting works? One, you only pay the fee IF you sign the player. Two, the players actual contract is generally less BECAUSE of the posting fee. The posting fee on Darvish was around the same money as his contract. On top of this, they are currently in talks to redo the system anyway, giving the player a larger cut. As for choosing between Garza and Tanaka, who both likely will get total outlays between 80-100 mill? Garza will be 30 with quite a few red flags arm-wise. Tanaka will be 25. You want the older pitcher at the same money? Me neither.

[Guest]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

 

The Cubs had 3 starters this year who were better than Garza, 4 if you count Feldman. Let's not pretend that Garza's performance is any more certain, especially given his injury troubles.

[neely crenshaw]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

Do you truly understand how posting works? One, you only pay the fee IF you sign the player. Two, the players actual contract is generally less BECAUSE of the posting fee. The posting fee on Darvish was around the same money as his contract. On top of this, they are currently in talks to redo the system anyway, giving the player a larger cut. As for choosing between Garza and Tanaka, who both likely will get total outlays between 80-100 mill? Garza will be 30 with quite a few red flags arm-wise. Tanaka will be 25. You want the older pitcher at the same money? Me neither.

 

I know how posting works. But if we want the player we have to pay the team and then sign him. So we could drop 50 -70 mil to talk to him, and then spend whatever it takes to get him. For a guy who "might" be a #2 that's a lot of dough. We could get Garza (just a for instance) for less than what the bid will probably be.

 

Darvish's bid was 51.7 mil. Not sure Garza can command a deal for that amount simply because I don't think he can get the years because of health.

Edited September 11, 2013 by neely crenshaw

[davell]

Uh, you think Garza is getting a contract for under 50 mill?

[Cubswin11]

No [expletive], Edwin got 4/52. He's getting more than that

[neely crenshaw]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

 

The Cubs had 3 starters this year who were better than Garza, 4 if you count Feldman. Let's not pretend that Garza's performance is any more certain, especially given his injury troubles.

Garza 6-1 3.17 era 1.14 whip .229 baa

the cubs have no one other than Wood better than Garza. His stats with the cubs were better than anyone else this year. His stats with the rangers (despite pitching in the AL) are still better than Samardzija, and Jackson for the season. I would guess you aren't implying that we should feel Rusin is a better pitcher than Garza. Even with Wood's year, it's still difficult to say that Garza isn't the better pitcher.

 

As for 50 mil, maybe not but I don't see anyone other than a crazy yankee team dropping 5 years and 100 mil on him. He might get 4 years, and maybe 15 mil because of lack of pitchers out there. I certainly wouldn't want to spend 100 mil on him for the Cubs. I mentioned him because he is the top FA potentially. So I just ask do you spend that much on a younger unproven guy, who may be at that level or do you probably spend less and get a guy (Garza or others) you have a pretty good idea of what you are going to get.

A better, slightly younger, more healthy Sanchez got 5/80...So I can't see Garza out earning that contract, and I can't see him getting more years either. A 4 year deal at that rate would be 64 mil, so is under 60 not very possible

[davell]

So with Garza being the top FA SP on the market, teams flush with new MLB money and an inherent league-wide need for pitching........Garza MAY get 60 mill.

[neely crenshaw]

So with Garza being the top FA SP on the market, teams flush with new MLB money and an inherent league-wide need for pitching........Garza MAY get 60 mill.

 

Kyle Lohse got 33mil in a terrible year for FA starting pitchers and he was one of the top names but had issues. Garza is the top name and has issues.

The point isn't what Garza will get, the point is the bid certainly could be as much as what Garza gets AND then you have to pay him. He is guy that you have no idea exactly what you will get, so you are going to pay an amount that is like a top flight number guy, and you may end up with someone not even as good as Garza. On a team that can't really afford to miss on many signings, I don't see how that makes good sense.

If money is no option(which sure doesn't seem to be the case) a team with huge holes on offense and good pitching doesn't seem to need to gamble all of their signing money on a pitcher who scouts COULD be a #2.

 

He might work out great, it just seems like a huge gamble on a team that has some serious needs all over

[Guest]

There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.

 

The Cubs had 3 starters this year who were better than Garza, 4 if you count Feldman. Let's not pretend that Garza's performance is any more certain, especially given his injury troubles.

Garza 6-1 3.17 era 1.14 whip .229 baa

the cubs have no one other than Wood better than Garza. His stats with the cubs were better than anyone else this year. His stats with the rangers (despite pitching in the AL) are still better than Samardzija, and Jackson for the season. I would guess you aren't implying that we should feel Rusin is a better pitcher than Garza. Even with Wood's year, it's still difficult to say that Garza isn't the better pitcher.

 

As for 50 mil, maybe not but I don't see anyone other than a crazy yankee team dropping 5 years and 100 mil on him. He might get 4 years, and maybe 15 mil because of lack of pitchers out there. I certainly wouldn't want to spend 100 mil on him for the Cubs. I mentioned him because he is the top FA potentially. So I just ask do you spend that much on a younger unproven guy, who may be at that level or do you probably spend less and get a guy (Garza or others) you have a pretty good idea of what you are going to get.

A better, slightly younger, more healthy Sanchez got 5/80...So I can't see Garza out earning that contract, and I can't see him getting more years either. A 4 year deal at that rate would be 64 mil, so is under 60 not very possible

 

Garza has a worse FIP than Shark, Jackson, Wood, and Feldman. Villanueva is close but Garza is a hair better. And Garza has missed nearly a full season to injury. Of the 102 starters with 130 IP this year, Garza is 58th in FIP. He's not a huge prize.

 

Moreover, you can't hold up Garza as this rock solid target and then simultaneously say that he's not going to get paid. Especially when you lead this argument off by saying Tanaka is going to get more than Darvish "because there are few top arms on the market".

[Guest]

i'm guessing the low end of what garza gets will be 5/75

[Guest]

So with Garza being the top FA SP on the market, teams flush with new MLB money and an inherent league-wide need for pitching........Garza MAY get 60 mill.

 

Kyle Lohse got 33mil in a terrible year for FA starting pitchers and he was one of the top names but had issues. Garza is the top name and has issues.

The point isn't what Garza will get, the point is the bid certainly could be as much as what Garza gets AND then you have to pay him. He is guy that you have no idea exactly what you will get, so you are going to pay an amount that is like a top flight number guy, and you may end up with someone not even as good as Garza. On a team that can't really afford to miss on many signings, I don't see how that makes good sense.

If money is no option(which sure doesn't seem to be the case) a team with huge holes on offense and good pitching doesn't seem to need to gamble all of their signing money on a pitcher who scouts COULD be a #2.

 

He might work out great, it just seems like a huge gamble on a team that has some serious needs all over

 

Kyle Lohse was 34 in the offseason while Garza is only 30. Lohse was also offered a qualifying offer from St. Louis, meaning if a team outside the top-10 signed him, they would forfeit their first-round pick. Since Garza was traded in season, Texas can't extend a qualifying offer, meaning the team that signs him won't have to give up any pick at all.

[SouthSideRyan]

So with Garza being the top FA SP on the market, teams flush with new MLB money and an inherent league-wide need for pitching........Garza MAY get 60 mill.

 

Well...teams outside of the Cubs and Marlins flush with new MLB money.

 

http://virtuallypriceless.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/200805280724.jpg

[neely crenshaw]

The point isn't "get" Garza.

Again I mentioned him as a known name who is set to be a free agent. It's just a for instance. Many of you are set to spend upwards of a 100 mil all told on a guy who is far from a sure thing. This isn't Yu Darvish. The scouts seem to be saying that he tops out as a #2 guy....that's a lot of cake for a guy who COULD be someone's number 2 pitcher. I could understand this a bit more if they were talking about his potential to be a big time #1 like Darvish was.

I said this when we signed Fujikawa to fix our bullpen, they had success but you do not know how that translates into this league. There are more failures(or at least underperforming players) coming from asian leagues than huge successes. When you have to pay huge bids just to sign them, it's tough to see where the cost/benefit falls in your favor.

Some seem to read about a guy and decide we have to have them and it'll be the fix for everything. I'm pretty sure if we had an american 25 year old in AAA, who threw low 90's and was considered a possible #2 as his high end- no one would be clamoring to spend 100 mil to get him.

 

I know it's easy to spend other people's money but I think I take a realistic approach to it. On a team that can not afford any misses on big signings it's seems like a serious crap shot.

[mul21]

I'm pretty sure if we had an american 25 year old in AAA, who threw low 90's and was considered a possible #2 as his high end- no one would be clamoring to spend 100 mil to get him.

 

 

This is seriously the worst analogy ever. Tanaka is nothing like a 25 yr old at AAA. He's a guy who has consistently gotten out hitters at a level much higher than AAA (see LaHair, Brian). It may not be ML equivalent, but it's a hell of a lot more indicative of future performance than AAA and with a much longer track record of doing it than anyone at AAA has.

[SABR Gamer]

Uh, you think Garza is getting a contract for under 50 mill?

 

It requires an unbelievable skill set to be this special.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure if we had an american 25 year old in AAA, who threw low 90's and was considered a possible #2 as his high end- no one would be clamoring to spend 100 mil to get him.

 

 

This is seriously the worst analogy ever. Tanaka is nothing like a 25 yr old at AAA. He's a guy who has consistently gotten out hitters at a level much higher than AAA (see LaHair, Brian). It may not be ML equivalent, but it's a hell of a lot more indicative of future performance than AAA and with a much longer track record of doing it than anyone at AAA has.

 

He's also done well in international competition against big leaguers. (Ignoring the rest of the horrible analogy neely made.)

[Clem Fandango]

I'm pretty sure if we had an american 25 year old in AAA, who threw low 90's and was considered a possible #2 as his high end- no one would be clamoring to spend 100 mil to get him.

 

 

This is seriously the worst analogy ever. Tanaka is nothing like a 25 yr old at AAA. He's a guy who has consistently gotten out hitters at a level much higher than AAA (see LaHair, Brian). It may not be ML equivalent, but it's a hell of a lot more indicative of future performance than AAA and with a much longer track record of doing it than anyone at AAA has.

 

Nevermind the fact that if a pitcher has #2 starter upside and he's still being kept in AAA at the age of 25, the front office should be eradicated.