Yankees Sign Masahiro 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*

 

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 won't start spending more/having a bigger payroll until you start signing guys like Tanaka. You've created this weird catch-22 where they should avoid signing him because they haven't signed guys like him recently; wouldn't signing him be a sign they're spending more?

[SABR Gamer]

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 won't start spending more/having a bigger payroll until you start signing guys like Tanaka. You've created this weird catch-22 where they should avoid signing him because they haven't signed guys like him recently; wouldn't signing him be a sign they're spending more?

 

Logic is hard, bro.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

[Sammy Sofa]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

[jersey cubs fan]

Hey Cubs, please win, but don't go crazy and spend lots of money on free agents.

[Boris]

Thank you Kyle and Jersey. My heads feels like it is about to explode over here.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

[SABR Gamer]

Thank you Kyle and Jersey. My heads feels like it is about to explode over here.

 

...and you're not the only one.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Hey Cubs, please win, but don't go crazy and spend lots of money on free agents.

 

Fine, screw it. I wish we would have decided to do this sooner and gotten Ellsbury and Choo as well.

[Sammy Sofa]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

 

Wait...what?

 

Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll?

[SABR Gamer]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

 

http://www.netmeister.org/blog/images/implied-facepalm.jpg

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

 

Wait...what?

 

Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll?

 

Because even they know it looks really, really bad to have the fourth-lowest payroll in MLB when you're the Chicago Cubs.

 

So, you think signing Tanaka for $25 per and having the same type of payroll this season means we are about to up payroll by $25 or $50 million next season? If you do, cool. I hope you're right.

[Boris]

THE CHICAGO CUBS ARE A LARGE MARKET TEAM

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

 

http://www.netmeister.org/blog/images/implied-facepalm.jpg

 

 

When I'm getting pictures as responses, I know I haven't done well today.

 

Sorry to all. Even the best players go 0-for-4 with a few strikeouts some days.

[Guest]

I still think it is stupid to give a contact like that to any pitcher.

 

I just think the Cubs have fallen into a position where something stupid is the right thing to do in this instance.

[ctcf]

We briefly interrupt this stupid with a minor update:

 

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine

MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

[cbbryan]

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.

 

It's asinine to suggest they didn't lose their ass. It's not about the total amount of money they have, or spent, or if it hindered their ability to buy other assets. What matters is their return on an investment. Clearly, Dice-K didn't give them $102M worth of production. They essentially paid $102M for a stock, based on future projections that were never realized. So they lost their ass on that SPECIFIC deal.

[Guest]

In which case, there are instances in which, like this one, where it is not stupid.

[Guest]

Brett Taylor ‏@BleacherNation 1m

Reporting while at business panel. Impressive. RT @MLBBruceLevine: MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

[Sammy Sofa]

Are they spending more overall, though? Or would signing him still be the same payroll as last season and we just got to that limit later in the offseason?

 

I admit I might be missing something.

 

Spending more overall than what?

 

I believe you are saying that if we sign Tanaka it's a sign that we are spending more money. But only in the context of this offseason rather than every one before that. If we sign Tanaka, to me it's not an indication ownership is prepared to spend a bunch more. It just seems they are prepared to spend the same amount on payroll and not add to it. Thus, we are in the same spot as always in our quest to be run like the Dodgers.

 

I do fear I'm sounding like an idiot here and missing your total point.

 

Wait...what?

 

Why would they be trying to sign Tanaka for that much if they're just going to keep a low payroll?

 

Because even they know it looks really, really bad to have the fourth-lowest payroll in MLB when you're the Chicago Cubs.

 

So, you think signing Tanaka for $25 per and having the same type of payroll this season means we are about to up payroll by $25 or $50 million next season? If you do, cool. I hope you're right.

 

Yes, that should be the obvious conclusion as opposed to assuming that the Cubs are going to perpetually just sit at a level where about 20% of their payroll is sunk on one player.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

We briefly interrupt this stupid with a minor update:

 

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine

MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

 

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that.

[ctcf]

We briefly interrupt this stupid with a minor update:

 

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine

MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

 

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that.

 

With what you think mattering the very least of all.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I still want Tanaka even if the payroll is going to be $90m for awhile.

[Sammy Sofa]

We briefly interrupt this stupid with a minor update:

 

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine

MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

 

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that.

 

With what you think mattering the very least of all.

 

You two are terrible nihilists.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

We briefly interrupt this stupid with a minor update:

 

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine

MLB source believes Cubs are lead team for Tanaka .

 

I will end my afternoon by also adding that none of this matters. Because in the end, we aren't getting him any way. I still believe that.

 

With what you think mattering the very least of all.

 

Agreed.