Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[Clem Fandango]

Every single one of your posts are 10 line blobs of words and it's really hard to sift through.

 

FTFY

[Clem Fandango]

Every single one of your posts are 10 line blobs of words and it's really hard to sift through.

 

FTFY

[sneakypower]

i just figured he doesn't have an enter key

[neely crenshaw]

It's a blog, and one guys opinion

there are 9 pitchers.

2 aren't pitching anymore

1 is a middle reliever

1 is a nice closer

1 (Darvish) is a nice young stud pitcher BUT it's clearly reported tanaka is not darvish

of the rest who are pretty successful, he sounds like Ryu the most. Would spending a 100 mil on Ryu make sense, It's just that huge price tag to get rights that really bothers me and makes think the money could be spent more wisely elsewhere.

 

What exactly do you think a reasonable stat line for him would be?

and does that type of stat line gets us over the top next season?

Do you think that we would spend much more than the 100 mil it may take to get him on our other holes, or do we again try to spot fix them with re-treads?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

For the love of the FSM, B&.

[davell]

Good [expletive] lord- There are risks with any pitcher, period. Tanaka has as much upside as anyone on the market and he's young. He costs money and nothing else. These are the reasons he makes sense for a young team to go after him hard, especially a young team in need of high upside pitching. [expletive].

[Guest]

It's a blog, and one guys opinion

there are 9 pitchers.

2 aren't pitching anymore

1 is a middle reliever

1 is a nice closer

1 (Darvish) is a nice young stud pitcher BUT it's clearly reported tanaka is not darvish

of the rest who are pretty successful, he sounds like Ryu the most. Would spending a 100 mil on Ryu make sense, It's just that huge price tag to get rights that really bothers me and makes think the money could be spent more wisely elsewhere.

 

What exactly do you think a reasonable stat line for him would be?

and does that type of stat line gets us over the top next season?

Do you think that we would spend much more than the 100 mil it may take to get him on our other holes, or do we again try to spot fix them with re-treads?

 

There are 5 starting pitchers on the list, and they averaged 3.5 fWAR this year. To make a comparison, in production and in market value dollars, that's basically Anibal Sanchez.

 

Tanaka is considered to have equal or better stuff than everyone on that list except for Darvish. He's also 24 years old this year, so a signing team would likely be getting his best seasons(like Darvish, and unlike Kuroda or Iwakuma).

 

I think we can reasonably expect Tanaka to be a 3-4 win pitcher very quickly. I also think that considering the lack of alternatives(the other potential FAs with his potential have big health concerns which worry me far more than Tanaka's transition), his age, and the fact that the 100 million you're citing is likely on the high end of what he might command(especially given rumored changes to the posting system), that it's well worth making him the big spending acquisition of the offseason.

 

It remains to be seen how much flexibility the team has to spend, but if they only have the ability to get Tanaka and then fill in with stopgaps in the (limited) remaining holes, then I'd prefer that to trying to do something like get Jason Vargas and Nelson Cruz by spreading the money around.

[neely crenshaw]

So you just proved my point. Why did no one go nuts that we did not spend 100 mil on Sanchez?

 

Yes, there is risk on every pitcher, and every player. Which again really magnifies my other point. Why does it make sense to use what will probably be all of your free agent (or everything but the re-tread money) on a pitcher who might be a number 2 but could actually be below that.

The scouting reports all pretty much say he is good, but not great.He does not appear to be a guy that you base your entire staff around. So as fans you guys will be just fine trotting out our same lineup, same bullpen, our starting staff plus Tanaka. To me that sounds like another 95 loss season.

I'm simply looking at this in a common sense approach. We have huge holes to fill. We need bats, we need bullpen help. To spend everything on a guy who isn't a game changer seems like a big gamble.

[Guest]

Not sure if this has been posted among all the neely crap, but I saw this on BN.

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/48919

 

Chad (FL)

 

Do the Cubs go all out for Tanaka? He will be entering his prime around the time the Cubs are ready to compete. He seems like a perfect fit for what this Front Office likes.

Bruce Levine (1:15 PM)

 

From all indications from my baseball contacts, Tanaka is the Cubs' No. 1 offseason priority.

[Guest]

So you just proved my point. Why did no one go nuts that we did not spend 100 mil on Sanchez?

 

Yes, there is risk on every pitcher, and every player. Which again really magnifies my other point. Why does it make sense to use what will probably be all of your free agent (or everything but the re-tread money) on a pitcher who might be a number 2 but could actually be below that.

The scouting reports all pretty much say he is good, but not great.He does not appear to be a guy that you base your entire staff around. So as fans you guys will be just fine trotting out our same lineup, same bullpen, our starting staff plus Tanaka. To me that sounds like another 95 loss season.

I'm simply looking at this in a common sense approach. We have huge holes to fill. We need bats, we need bullpen help. To spend everything on a guy who isn't a game changer seems like a big gamble.

 

 

Someone spent 88 million on Sanchez, and he's 4 years older than Tanaka. There's a very real chance that Tanaka will command a similar price tag and not the 100 million you're putting out there as a baseline. Teams know he isn't Yu Darvish, but that doesn't mean he's not worth a hefty investment. Also, 100 million over 6 years(like Darvish's deal length), is less per year than Sanchez's 5/88 deal, which has an option to make it 6/99.

 

As for Tanaka v. the rest of the offseason, if you'd rather sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury, you're welcome to that opinion. You might be right. The Cubs won't and shouldn't be looking to fill a half dozen spots this offseason though. Unlike previous years, they can actually field a team without any gaping holes without making any changes(maybe cheat and include Sweeney). That means they need guys who have the chance to be really good and not a bunch of stop gaps, and the options for really good guys in this FA class are slim, even more so for pitching. That, combined with Tanaka's age and the recent success of Japanese pitchers in transitioning is why a lot of people have him as the top target.

[Clem Fandango]

Not sure if this has been posted among all the neely crap, but I saw this on BN.

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/48919

 

Chad (FL)

 

Do the Cubs go all out for Tanaka? He will be entering his prime around the time the Cubs are ready to compete. He seems like a perfect fit for what this Front Office likes.

Bruce Levine (1:15 PM)

 

From all indications from my baseball contacts, Tanaka is the Cubs' No. 1 offseason priority.

 

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Just bid something ridiculous, I don't even care. 60 or 70 mil.

[neely crenshaw]

So you just proved my point. Why did no one go nuts that we did not spend 100 mil on Sanchez?

 

Yes, there is risk on every pitcher, and every player. Which again really magnifies my other point. Why does it make sense to use what will probably be all of your free agent (or everything but the re-tread money) on a pitcher who might be a number 2 but could actually be below that.

The scouting reports all pretty much say he is good, but not great.He does not appear to be a guy that you base your entire staff around. So as fans you guys will be just fine trotting out our same lineup, same bullpen, our starting staff plus Tanaka. To me that sounds like another 95 loss season.

I'm simply looking at this in a common sense approach. We have huge holes to fill. We need bats, we need bullpen help. To spend everything on a guy who isn't a game changer seems like a big gamble.

 

 

Someone spent 88 million on Sanchez, and he's 4 years older than Tanaka. There's a very real chance that Tanaka will command a similar price tag and not the 100 million you're putting out there as a baseline. Teams know he isn't Yu Darvish, but that doesn't mean he's not worth a hefty investment. Also, 100 million over 6 years(like Darvish's deal length), is less per year than Sanchez's 5/88 deal, which has an option to make it 6/99.

I am looking at the whole investment not just the contract. I'm thinking the bid to negotiate may be higher than darvish because of the lack of options out there and the fact that the yankees, and perhaps angels will be involved.

I am sure there will be many suitors, I am just very worried that if he is our main target this off-season, he might be our only target. Which means we are waiting another year to be even mediocre. Hey,if they get him, bullpen help and a big bat or 2, awesome. I just don't see that coming.

Real question, how much do you see the cubs spending this off-season?

[Sammy Sofa]

800 kajillion dollars.

[Guest]

800 kajillion dollars.

Still wouldn't make you happy if we missed out one one single guy

[Guest]

So you just proved my point. Why did no one go nuts that we did not spend 100 mil on Sanchez?

 

Yes, there is risk on every pitcher, and every player. Which again really magnifies my other point. Why does it make sense to use what will probably be all of your free agent (or everything but the re-tread money) on a pitcher who might be a number 2 but could actually be below that.

The scouting reports all pretty much say he is good, but not great.He does not appear to be a guy that you base your entire staff around. So as fans you guys will be just fine trotting out our same lineup, same bullpen, our starting staff plus Tanaka. To me that sounds like another 95 loss season.

I'm simply looking at this in a common sense approach. We have huge holes to fill. We need bats, we need bullpen help. To spend everything on a guy who isn't a game changer seems like a big gamble.

 

 

Someone spent 88 million on Sanchez, and he's 4 years older than Tanaka. There's a very real chance that Tanaka will command a similar price tag and not the 100 million you're putting out there as a baseline. Teams know he isn't Yu Darvish, but that doesn't mean he's not worth a hefty investment. Also, 100 million over 6 years(like Darvish's deal length), is less per year than Sanchez's 5/88 deal, which has an option to make it 6/99.

I am looking at the whole investment not just the contract. I'm thinking the bid to negotiate may be higher than darvish because of the lack of options out there and the fact that the yankees, and perhaps angels will be involved.

I am sure there will be many suitors, I am just very worried that if he is our main target this off-season, he might be our only target. Which means we are waiting another year to be even mediocre. Hey,if they get him, bullpen help and a big bat or 2, awesome. I just don't see that coming.

Real question, how much do you see the cubs spending this off-season?

 

Yes, I'm talking about the total investment too. Did you think I meant he'd get 80 million dollars just as a contract plus a huge posting fee and cost 30-40% more than Darvish did?

[Sammy Sofa]

800 kajillion dollars.

Still wouldn't make you happy if we missed out one one single guy

 

Whoa, hey, put away the big guns, man. That's really hurtful.

[Guest]

800 kajillion dollars.

Still wouldn't make you happy if we missed out one one single guy

 

Whoa, hey, put away the big guns, man. That's really hurtful.

Sorry, it's all this breaking bad. Warping my mind, yo.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's the feel-terrible show of the year!

[neely crenshaw]

Obviously we don't know what the bid may be, but they are talking 50-60 mil. Then exactly how many years will it take to sign him? "IF" it's only 6 that puts in the 110-120 range "IF" we can get him at 10 mil a year. With the market serious in favor of the players, 10 mil might be light. In this situation they seem to hold all of the cards.

I still think it's a gamble for this type of player. I have trouble over paying for a guy who isn't the best, but simply the best available currently.

I think if we do go all out and get him, it tells me we are waiting another year before we try to put a contending team on the field. I guess I don't want to think about that possibility yet.

[Guest]

Tanaka isn't a free agent, he doesn't have all the leverage when negotiating. Why do you think Darvish only got 6/56 as a contract?

[WrigleyField 22]

What was Darvish's total contract?

 

I'm thinking 100/6 total for Tanaka sounds okay. 55mil for the bid and 45/6 for the contract? Is that reasonable?

[Guest]

Darvish's posting fee was 52 million, for a total outlay of 6/108.

[neely crenshaw]

And isn't the word out there the posting could be higher because of the market?

 

Tiger, I think I am just worried that this will be it for signings, and if it is, we are not much better than this year..and possibly worse. There is no guarantee he pitches any better than Garza and Feldmen did the first half.

I understand long term it could be a very good deal, I just am not ready for another season done by July. I guess I am hoping we do things that will help next year.

 

I still believe many people get all worked up over the "new" name out there when they really have no idea what they would actually be getting. I stand by the idea that no one would be clamoring to drop this much cash on the same type of pitcher that was currently in the league. I think because of the unknown they can automatically imagine greatness as opposed to known commodity.

Edited September 27, 2013 by neely crenshaw

[Sammy Sofa]

And isn't the word out there the posting could be higher because of the market?

 

Tiger, I think I am just worried that this will be it for signings, and if it is, we are not much better than this year..and possibly worse. There is no guarantee he pitches any better than Garza and Feldmen did the first half.

I understand long term it could be a very good deal, I just am not ready for another season done by July. I guess I am hoping we do things that will help next year.

 

Like signing Tanaka?

 

Oh man, there's no guarantee he pitches better than two guys the Cubs no longer have and need to replace. Welp, better not sign him.