Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[Bryants Disco Ball]

"Never played in MLB" only bothers me for hitters. It's hard to see how they'll react to better stuff.

 

Tanaka's a pitcher. They know *exactly* how hard he throws, exactly how consistently he hits his location, and exactly how much movement he has on his pitches. I bet they can do a pretty good job of figuring out how that projects in MLB.

 

On the other hand, there have been enough pitching busts to make one think maybe that's not true, either.

 

Just pointing it out. Nothing more.

 

Pitching busts as large contracts, or pitching busts coming over from Japan? The former, sure, that's the nature of having to add pitchers externally. The latter, not at all. Even the poster boy for Japanese pitching busts, Dice-K, was a good pitcher that then had an arm injury, which brings us back to the former.

 

Not at all? Hideki Irabu? Kei Igawa?

 

Oh, no. They can happen.

 

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Matsuzaka was sidelined by injuries. If that's your concern, fine, but to say he was "underwhelming" like he was a bust in terms of performance isn't accurate; he kicked ass his first two years and then got hurt.

 

Injuries are part of my concern, sure. No matter the reason, the BoSox lost their ass on Matsuzaka. A total of 2 quality seasons for more than $102M spent.

 

It wouldn't worry me as much if I thought the Cubs would throw money at the problem if it didn't work out the way they hoped. But if he's a bust, I have the feeling the Cubs would allow it to hamper future negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my fear.

 

And just for the record, I'd love for Tanaka to be a Cub no matter the cost. I'm just worried about what happens to the team as a whole and the approach going forward if Tanaka where to bomb.

 

It's just an inherent risk when you sign a big FA, especially a pitcher. The Cubs are in the position where they need to spend to acquire someone like him. He's young, they desperately need starting pitching, they have money to spend, there's this rumored TV deal..it's all good.

 

I agree with this. He's the proper guy to get.

 

However, this board always thinks we should spend whatever it takes to get everybody. But I always try to point out that you can't have everybody, so you better be really happy with the one or two we eventually get. (I know about the Dodgers, we aren't them).

 

So, when people wanted Albert Pujols, that's your ticket. You don't get him and three others the next three years. I really, really don't believe anybody would be happy with Albert and the remainder of his contract just a few years in.

Well it sure is good that we have your lone voice of reason to temper our overzealous nature.

 

Agreed.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If there was a 25-year-old 4-win+ projected position player out there in what is practically free agency, then I'd be glad to blow it all on him instead.

[Guest]

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

 

Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years.

[Sammy Sofa]

However, this board always thinks we should spend whatever it takes to get everybody. But I always try to point out that you can't have everybody, so you better be really happy with the one or two we eventually get. (I know about the Dodgers, we aren't them).

 

So, when people wanted Albert Pujols, that's your ticket. You don't get him and three others the next three years. I really, really don't believe anybody would be happy with Albert and the remainder of his contract just a few years in.

 

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time.

 

And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

 

Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years.

 

I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust.

 

I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead.

[Sammy Sofa]

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

 

Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years.

 

I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust.

 

I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead.

 

Why would at some point would it make more sense to get the 30-year-old, injury-plagued Matt Garza for the team trying to rebuild that desperately needs starting pitchers both now and down the line?

[Bryants Disco Ball]

However, this board always thinks we should spend whatever it takes to get everybody. But I always try to point out that you can't have everybody, so you better be really happy with the one or two we eventually get. (I know about the Dodgers, we aren't them).

 

So, when people wanted Albert Pujols, that's your ticket. You don't get him and three others the next three years. I really, really don't believe anybody would be happy with Albert and the remainder of his contract just a few years in.

 

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time.

 

And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome.

 

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now. I believe Tanaka is a guy to go all out for, but it just seems nobody cares what it takes to get him.

 

And, I know I do keep saying "Most people." That's unfair. It just feels like it to me.

[cbbryan]

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

 

Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years.

 

I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust.

 

I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead.

 

Why would at some point would it make more sense to get the 30-year-old, injury-plagued Matt Garza for the team trying to rebuild that desperately needs starting pitchers both now and down the line?

 

Not sure that I'd go after Garza again, but I may be interested in Ubaldo Jimenez, although Cleveland offered a qualifying offer so he'd cost a draft pick. I really doubt the Cubs would have interest for that reason.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

The fact that you have to go back 7 years to find those examples kind of proves the point. Since then you've had Kuroda, Darvish, Iwakuma, Uehara, Tazawa, even Fujikawa was effective before his arm injury. The offensive environment is very different than it was when Igawa, Irabu, and even Matsuzaka made the jump.

 

Those were just off the top. You're also now changing the rules on me. You said "Not at all."

 

Poor wording on my part if you took that to mean there were never any guys who came over without success. But you can look more thoroughly, there aren't any recent busts, especially in the vein of Tanaka, a very successful pitcher approaching his prime years.

 

I agree with all of that. It's still only a handful of guys, though. We have no idea if the next two or three won't bust.

 

I want Tanaka very badly and am willing to overpay, but unlike some, I do think there should be limits. At some point it makes a lot more sense to go get Matt Garza again instead.

 

Why would at some point would it make more sense to get the 30-year-old, injury-plagued Matt Garza for the team trying to rebuild that desperately needs starting pitchers both now and down the line?

 

Because I think Matt Garza still has four quality seasons left, and I think we can get him on a Kyle Loshe contract and not a Clayton Kershaw one.

 

I'm not one who thinks it's going to be 5 years until we are ready to win, so Garza is young enough that his age doesn't concern me.

[Sammy Sofa]

However, this board always thinks we should spend whatever it takes to get everybody. But I always try to point out that you can't have everybody, so you better be really happy with the one or two we eventually get. (I know about the Dodgers, we aren't them).

 

So, when people wanted Albert Pujols, that's your ticket. You don't get him and three others the next three years. I really, really don't believe anybody would be happy with Albert and the remainder of his contract just a few years in.

 

Actually, this board has been pretty clearly divided over the Cubs' spending for a long time.

 

And simply comparing one big contract to another is pretty faulty. Hell, just given the difference in age alone makes this troublesome.

 

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now. I believe Tanaka is a guy to go all out for, but it just seems nobody cares what it takes to get him.

 

And, I know I do keep saying "Most people." That's unfair. It just feels like it to me.

 

"Most" is way off, and I say that as one of the people that wanted Pujols.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because I think Matt Garza still has four quality seasons left, and I think we can get him on a Kyle Loshe contract and not a Clayton Kershaw one.

 

I'm not one who thinks it's going to be 5 years until we are ready to win, so Garza is young enough that his age doesn't concern me.

 

If you can get Garza on a cheap, short deal then I'd think he's an option in addition to Tanaka, not an either/or situation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now.

 

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination.

[Boris]

HOLY [expletive]

 

[expletive] GARZA MAN

 

The Cubs are in DIRE need of TOR starters. Period. Garza =/= TOR. Tanaka = TOR.

 

Our high end pitching is our most glaring hole.

[davell]

There were definitely opposed to spending on older FA 2 years ago, even last year. Argument being they would only have gotten you to .500ish and kept you from likely getting impact talent in the draft and IFA, while also hemming you in monetarily longterm.

 

But the system is phenomenal now and should sustain for quite a while. It's time to spend now, especially on a guy that doesn't cost you a draft pick and is heading towards his prime. As against spending on the big name 30 year olds over the past 2 seasons(which could be signed next offseason and I'd be happy), I'm all for signing a 25 year old right now. And I would have been fine with it then too. His age fits us, as does the fact he's got frontline starter capabilities, which we sorely need.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now.

 

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination.

 

So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive.

 

I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Letting the team fall into the tank and losing 600k in attendance plus no-shows was expensive.

 

You cannot run a baseball team with scared money.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

HOLY [expletive]

 

[expletive] GARZA MAN

 

The Cubs are in DIRE need of TOR starters. Period. Garza =/= TOR. Tanaka = TOR.

 

Our high end pitching is our most glaring hole.

 

Hey, I'm glad you're 100 percent sure Tanaka is a TOR guy. I hope if we sign him for $25 million a season that you're right.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's no such thing as a guaranteed performance from a baseball player, let alone a pitcher.

 

Again: Where are the risk-free options we can spend this money on if we don't get Tanaka?

[Sammy Sofa]

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now.

 

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination.

 

So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive.

 

I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue.

 

But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that

 

*Head explodes*

[Boris]

No one is 100% sure of anything, therein lies the risk. This is a glaringly correct move for the Cubs to make. Trying to be as objective as possible, it really isn't a surprise the Cubs are willing to blow away the competition. We need this guy.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now.

 

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination.

 

So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive.

 

I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue.

 

But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that

 

*Head explodes*

 

And still not having a huge payroll. Can we do it again after doing it with Tanaka? And again? Again? Again?

 

That's when we are the Dodgers. I hope we can.

[jersey cubs fan]

Matsuzaka was sidelined by injuries. If that's your concern, fine, but to say he was "underwhelming" like he was a bust in terms of performance isn't accurate; he kicked ass his first two years and then got hurt.

 

Injuries are part of my concern, sure. No matter the reason, the BoSox lost their ass on Matsuzaka. A total of 2 quality seasons for more than $102M spent. .

 

Yeah, it really destroyed the organization and took them decades to recover.

 

 

 

They didn't lose their ass. That's asinine.

 

So $102M for 2 seasons is a great investment? It's not about whether the organization was ruined, it's about the return on their investment. They lost their ass because they didn't get a big enough return on a $102M investment.

 

Also, don't ignore the second part of my post that stated it wouldn't bother me so much if I thought it wouldn't affect future spending by the Cubs. In the BoSox situation it didn't, they continued to spend money on big FAs even after the Dice-K deal. Do you think the Cubs, based on past practice, would do the same thing? I certainly don't.

 

 

Losing your ass suggests losing your ass. They didn't lose their ass and it is asinine to suggest they did.

 

Teams have ann ass load of money to spend and an incredibly small amount of talent to spend it on. That's just the facts. They aren't going out of business if they give somebody $150m and he isn't great.

[SABR Gamer]

But had most gotten what they wanted and insisted the "Cubs must spend whatever to get Pujols" we wouldn't be in a position to get anybody right now.

 

Or maybe we combined it with other moves, made the playoffs in 2012 season with his 3.7 wins at first, and as a result have $60m more in ticket sales and Tanaka actually thinks we're a desirable destination.

 

So, you want to be run like the present day Dodgers? Me, too. Because we'd have needed a lot more than just Pujols, and those others moves would have been expensive.

 

I'm all for that. But until I see we spend money like that, it's an issue.

 

But signing Tanaka...would be...spending money...like....that

 

*Head explodes*

 

And still not having a huge payroll. Can we do it again after doing it with Tanaka? And again? Again? Again?

 

That's when we are the Dodgers. I hope we can.

 

You following the TV deal stuff?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We don't have to be the Dodgers to take shots like this.

 

The risk of signing him is that he sucks and you can't spend the money elsewhere. So if you perpetually pass on these guys, all you are doing is locking in the downside. Unspent money makes the same contribution to the team's success as dead money does.