Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[jersey cubs fan]

The Astros have a more highly rated farm system and tons of money to spend. Wouldn't you fall down laughing if I told you I was worried about beating them out for a free agent? We're the Astros

 

i'd put our big 4 up against any other in baseball, especially regarding power potential in a league that lacks it.

That's all well and good but does not address the point you quoted.

[Guest]

The Astros have a more highly rated farm system and tons of money to spend. Wouldn't you fall down laughing if I told you I was worried about beating them out for a free agent? We're the Astros

 

i'd put our big 4 up against any other in baseball, especially regarding power potential in a league that lacks it.

That's all well and good but does not address the point you quoted.

 

i think the point was that the Cubs are closer to winning than the Astros. I could be wrong, the Astros are loaded with prospects and have money to spend, too, so I guess I wouldn't fall down laughing. I also think Baez and Bryant are likely to hit the major this year and impress the league.

[Guest]

but I do get the idea of thinking that Baez and Bryant will be busts and the Cubs will spend the rest of your lives as a 70 mil team with a multi-billion TV contract.

[SouthSideRyan]

but I do get the idea of thinking that Baez and Bryant will be busts and the Cubs will spend the rest of your lives as a 70 mil team with a multi-billion TV contract.

 

Nobody said that. Even in my we're doomed worst case scenario, we'll go back over 100M by 2019.

 

The point is, if Baez and Bryant don't come up and wow, or they're held down to save money, no free agent is going to give a [expletive] that they're both top 5 prospects according to BA next year. They'll look at another 65 win trainwreck and say, so how much are you going to give me??

[Guest]

Dave Cameron with an article that will make you feel better about the Cubs not matching the Yankees offer.

[gscool89]

Dave Cameron with an article that will make you feel better about the Cubs not matching the Yankees offer.

Impossible. The Cubs are DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEEEEDDDDDDD because they didn't spent 160 million on someone who has never pitched in the Major Leagues and has built up a lot of innings playing in Japan.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dave Cameron with an article that will make you feel better about the Cubs not matching the Yankees offer.

 

It probably would've made me feel better if it wasn't written by Dave Cameron

[Guest]

Dave Cameron with an article that will make you feel better about the Cubs not matching the Yankees offer.

Impossible. The Cubs are DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEEEEDDDDDDD because they didn't spent 160 million on someone who has never pitched in the Major Leagues and has built up a lot of innings playing in Japan.

It DOES leave us in a much more difficult position to compete in the near future. As much as I've transitioned to focusing on building a team through hitting first, the Cubs will still have to pitch the ball to the opposing team once in a while. It would be nice to have guys signed who can do that effectively.

 

However, there are reasons why that contract would have been difficult to match and very difficult to beat. It doesn't make me feel better about losing out on a potential ace. But it does make me feel a little better about not having that contract to deal with. I still feel that giving pitchers seven year deals is dumb. But giving pitchers seven year deals with an opt out after four years is pretty crazy.

 

I do still wish we had signed him, though.

[SouthSideRyan]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

[Guest]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

[SouthSideRyan]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

 

You're getting seven years of downside if things go sideways regardless. You just said one post up that you don't like going 7 years for pitchers, well there you go, you managed to get him signed to a 4 year deal assuming he doesn't get injured. Send him on his way and let his elbow explode for somebody else.

[jersey cubs fan]

Dave Cameron with an article that will make you feel better about the Cubs not matching the Yankees offer.

Impossible. The Cubs are DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEEEEDDDDDDD because they didn't spent 160 million on someone who has never pitched in the Major Leagues and has built up a lot of innings playing in Japan.

Good point, since this was the only quality free agent the Cubs have missed out on and they have otherwise done a marvelous job building a competitive team every year.

[Guest]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

 

You're getting seven years of downside if things go sideways regardless. You just said one post up that you don't like going 7 years for pitchers, well there you go, you managed to get him signed to a 4 year deal assuming he doesn't get injured. Send him on his way and let his elbow explode for somebody else.

I'm not sure I understand your POV here. Would you be in favor of giving player options in every contract? I can understand if you're saying we should have signed him regardless. But you seem to be saying that giving the player an opt out makes it a BETTER contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

 

You're getting seven years of downside if things go sideways regardless. You just said one post up that you don't like going 7 years for pitchers, well there you go, you managed to get him signed to a 4 year deal assuming he doesn't get injured. Send him on his way and let his elbow explode for somebody else.

I'm not sure I understand your POV here. Would you be in favor of giving player options in every contract? I can understand if you're saying we should have signed him regardless. But you seem to be saying that giving the player an opt out makes it a BETTER contract.

 

How do you interpret it that way?

 

The point is you offer the contract necessary to sign the guy, because you can, and because you need the player. It's not that big of a deal to give him a 4-year opt out. If he does opt out, odds are that you're going to be extremely happy about what happened in the meantime. Maybe in year 5 you won't need the player as much as you need him now. You can deal with that issue when the time comes.

[Guest]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

 

But the Yankees already were giving him the most money, while possibly being the only team willing to give the opt out, and being the team he wanted to go to all along...

[Guest]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

 

You're getting seven years of downside if things go sideways regardless. You just said one post up that you don't like going 7 years for pitchers, well there you go, you managed to get him signed to a 4 year deal assuming he doesn't get injured. Send him on his way and let his elbow explode for somebody else.

I'm not sure I understand your POV here. Would you be in favor of giving player options in every contract? I can understand if you're saying we should have signed him regardless. But you seem to be saying that giving the player an opt out makes it a BETTER contract.

 

How do you interpret it that way?

 

The point is you offer the contract necessary to sign the guy, because you can, and because you need the player. It's not that big of a deal to give him a 4-year opt out. If he does opt out, odds are that you're going to be extremely happy about what happened in the meantime. Maybe in year 5 you won't need the player as much as you need him now. You can deal with that issue when the time comes.

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

[Guest]

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

 

If the contract really was made cheaper by granting the opt out, then it might (MIGHT) be altering the risk/reward in a positive way for the team, depending on how much cheaper.

 

I don't really buy that because of what I said earlier, but I see the argument for it.

[Guest]

but I do get the idea of thinking that Baez and Bryant will be busts and the Cubs will spend the rest of your lives as a 70 mil team with a multi-billion TV contract.

 

Nobody said that. Even in my we're doomed worst case scenario, we'll go back over 100M by 2019.

 

The point is, if Baez and Bryant don't come up and wow, or they're held down to save money, no free agent is going to give a [expletive] that they're both top 5 prospects according to BA next year. They'll look at another 65 win trainwreck and say, so how much are you going to give me??

 

and we will tell them how much and hopefully it will be enough.

[Guest]

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

 

If the contract really was made cheaper by granting the opt out, then it might (MIGHT) be altering the risk/reward in a positive way for the team, depending on how much cheaper.

 

I don't really buy that because of what I said earlier, but I see the argument for it.

Yeah...unless it lowered things by a lot it wouldn't tip those scales. Even for a 25 year old pitcher, there are just way too many things that can lead to that being a bad deal to limit your rewards.

[SouthSideRyan]

He (and many others) keep harping on the opt out. If Tanaka opts out in 4 years, that means you pulled off the rare feat of signing a free agent and him being worth even more than you signed him for 4 years later. What a tragedy. "Oh, but SSR, what if he's bad and doesn't opt out!!!" Well then you have him for 7 years, the same way you did if you didn't have an opt out in the contract, only you're most likely paying him a decent amount less than you would without an opt-out in the contract.

You're getting four years of upside if things work out and seven years of downside if they go sideways. You don't see a problem?

 

You're getting seven years of downside if things go sideways regardless. You just said one post up that you don't like going 7 years for pitchers, well there you go, you managed to get him signed to a 4 year deal assuming he doesn't get injured. Send him on his way and let his elbow explode for somebody else.

I'm not sure I understand your POV here. Would you be in favor of giving player options in every contract? I can understand if you're saying we should have signed him regardless. But you seem to be saying that giving the player an opt out makes it a BETTER contract.

 

It CAN make it a better contract. If

 

Tanaka opts out after 4 years and declines through years 5-7

or

Tanaka doesn't opt out after 4 years.

 

The only way including the opt out makes it a worse contract than the alternative is if Tanaka opts out and continues to be elite through years 5-7. What do you think is the most likely scenario?

[Guest]

What rewards? It's not like losing 3 additional years of a pitcher (even a very good one) with a ton of innings on his arm at huge money is some horrific outcome.

[SouthSideRyan]

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

 

If the contract really was made cheaper by granting the opt out, then it might (MIGHT) be altering the risk/reward in a positive way for the team, depending on how much cheaper.

 

IF the contract was made cheaper? You think Tanaka for 7 years without an opt-out costs the same as Tanaka for 7 years with it?

[Guest]

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

 

If the contract really was made cheaper by granting the opt out, then it might (MIGHT) be altering the risk/reward in a positive way for the team, depending on how much cheaper.

 

IF the contract was made cheaper? You think Tanaka for 7 years without an opt-out costs the same as Tanaka for 7 years with it?

 

 

That all depends on what other teams are willing to do.

 

The Yankees almost certainly gave him the most money, as it was, and might have been the only team willing to give him the opt out, too.

[SouthSideRyan]

How can you say it isn't a big deal to give an opt out on the contract? It completely alters the risk/reward of the contract.

 

If the contract really was made cheaper by granting the opt out, then it might (MIGHT) be altering the risk/reward in a positive way for the team, depending on how much cheaper.

 

IF the contract was made cheaper? You think Tanaka for 7 years without an opt-out costs the same as Tanaka for 7 years with it?

 

 

That all depends on what other teams are willing to do.

 

The Yankees almost certainly gave him the most money, as it was, and might have been the only team willing to give him the opt out, too.

 

Yeah, I saw your earlier post after the fact

[Deeg]

Even if Scherzer makes it to FA, I'm mystified how anyone could have been observing the Cubs these last three years and think the Cubs have the slightest chance of being the blowout high bidder for a 30 year-old pitcher. And if they aren't, they'll have zero chance because if the money is close, no FA good enough to have options would even consider the Cubs for anything but leverage with a team they actually want to sign with.