Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Normal people don't turn to weird sexual advances.

 

And I've spent the last 32 years laboring under the delusion that I'm completely normal. Dang, there goes that.

 

 

In the next calendar year, Epstein and the Cubs have two paths available to them:

 

A) Trade Samardzija for prospects and continue to try to time out a Golden Era in the 2016-2020 range. Continue to monitor the trade market and FAs for young players that fit that timeline.

 

B) Go nuts on post-prime 30-year-old FAs and try to binge on enough in one offseason to make the team a contender in 2015.

 

I know which path I'm betting on, given their history.

[Tracer Bullet]

Tanakas they'll sign any and every day (if only it were that easy)...I don't think they'd rule out big money to a 30 year old pitcher if they're in point B to point C mode.

 

They've missed on Cespedes, Darvish, Ryu and Tanaka. There's no guarantee at all that they'll sign free agents entering their prime "any and every day."

 

Of course not. They're free agents. There's no guarantee that they'll sign any ever. But they've demonstrated a willingness to offer very big, competitive (sometimes the highest) bids to these types of FAs. They can't force people to sign contracts

 

They can do a better job of not offering up a terrible team for those free agents to play for.

 

That's what they're working on. But the pipeline was a disaster when Theo took over and they don't have the Yankees/Dodgers money. They've also met with some [expletive] obstacles (bad TV contract, local politics, rules changes) that have delayed things.

[Lefty]

I contend their biggest screw up in the last 25-30 years was not giving Dallas Green and Jim Frey enough time to build the organization.

 

Frey replaced Green and was an absolute disaster as GM.

 

Traded Lee Smith, Palmeiro, Moyer and Dave Martinez for nothing. Who else did I forget?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Lefty

[Have a seat, Neifi]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

Edited January 22, 2014 by Have a seat, Neifi

[USSoccer]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

This really is the thing.

[Guest]

Marlin Bystro:

 

The Cubs were underneath the Yankees offer. Pretty sure it was a pretty significant and not just a couple million.

 

Maholm will probably be a Cub soon and I would think we can restart the Samardzija trade discussions again. Might be more likely June/July though now considering the time crunch.

 

It was more than a 5 million dollar difference.

 

I agree though....I would much rather play for the Yankees if I were him, but money always is the deciding factor in these things.

[SouthSideRyan]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

 

One thing that I've seen no media type report on today is that he wanted to go to New York regardless of money.

[Guest]

Marlin Bystro:

 

The Cubs were underneath the Yankees offer. Pretty sure it was a pretty significant and not just a couple million.

 

Maholm will probably be a Cub soon and I would think we can restart the Samardzija trade discussions again. Might be more likely June/July though now considering the time crunch.

 

It was more than a 5 million dollar difference.

 

I agree though....I would much rather play for the Yankees if I were him, but money always is the deciding factor in these things.

 

Well, that's really disappointing.

[jersey cubs fan]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

 

The notion that the New York Freaking Yankees are somehow getting guys at a discount is [expletive] laughable.

 

If you believe that, you are fooling yourself.

[Tracer Bullet]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

He was the FA this offseason that fit the plan. So they made a huge push for him and he decided he'd rather play somewhere else. Who else should they have signed this offseason?

[Guest]

 

Normal people don't turn to weird sexual advances.

 

And I've spent the last 32 years laboring under the delusion that I'm completely normal. Dang, there goes that.

 

 

In the next calendar year, Epstein and the Cubs have two paths available to them:

 

A) Trade Samardzija for prospects and continue to try to time out a Golden Era in the 2016-2020 range. Continue to monitor the trade market and FAs for young players that fit that timeline.

 

B) Go nuts on post-prime 30-year-old FAs and try to binge on enough in one offseason to make the team a contender in 2015.

 

I know which path I'm betting on, given their history.

 

False choice False choice False choice False choice False choice False choice False choice

[gscool89]

Have no problem with trading Shark here. He turns 29 tomorrow and doesn't really fit into our window. I would think Toronto and Baltimore are more desperate for a starter now with the AL East getting stronger. Also I expect a Maholm and/or Scott Baker signing and potential flip at the deadline.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

 

The notion that the New York Freaking Yankees are somehow getting guys at a discount is [expletive] laughable.

 

If you believe that, you are fooling yourself.

I too would be real surprised if the Cubs' offer was better than that of the Yankees; just summarizing what little I've gleaned from the twitterverse.

[PrimeTime]

They were REALLY pushing the Matsui, Ichiro and Kuroda thing on him.

 

 

The meeting lasted between two and three hours, a source said, and it wasn't the Yanks' only bit of recruiting. Former Yankee Hideki Matsui, the best Japanese player to ever don pinstripes, called Tanaka to pitch the benefits of the Bronx, too.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/tanaka-yankees-agree-155m-deal-article-1.1587478#ixzz2r9fIMSN4

 

 

 

Anthony McCarron ‏@AnthonyMcCarron 8m

 

So Matsui not only called Tanaka, he appeared in a recruiting video the Yanks showed Tanaka, too.

Edited January 22, 2014 by PrimeTime

[SouthSideRyan]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

He was the FA this offseason that fit the plan. So they made a huge push for him and he decided he'd rather play somewhere else. Who else should they have signed this offseason?

 

Ellsbury

[d_money]

Wonder if Jeff Fassero can make a comeback?

[Tracer Bullet]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

He was the FA this offseason that fit the plan. So they made a huge push for him and he decided he'd rather play somewhere else. Who else should they have signed this offseason?

 

Ellsbury

 

For $22m/year for 7 years?

[davell]

Kyle, your Theo link now makes me laugh real hard, but a few seconds later sob like a baby. :)

 

I prefer my you get nothings in this form.

 

 

[SouthSideRyan]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

He was the FA this offseason that fit the plan. So they made a huge push for him and he decided he'd rather play somewhere else. Who else should they have signed this offseason?

 

Ellsbury

 

For $22m/year for 7 years?

 

If we're operating under the assumption that we have actual American dollars to spend, yes.

[Backtobanks]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

 

The bottom line is that all of these "experts" don't have a clue as to which team offered what except for the winning bid. All of the speculation about which team was in the lead "according to sources" was ridiculous. Each team didn't know what the other team's bids were, but these reporters had the "facts" posted all over the internet.

[davell]

We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money.

 

Source?

Agree -- right now it seems very unclear as to which team's offer was more, the Yankees or the Cubs. We have Passan saying the Cubs may have been slightly higher, and Rosenthal saying the Yankees were higher.

 

Twitter seems in agreement that the Yankees' decision to up their offer to include a 7th year, an opt-out after year 4, and a no-trade clause were each instrumental, but none of this really speaks to which offer was "greater" in terms of total dollars (or whether the Cubs were already offering each of these sweeteners).

 

The bottom line is that all of these "experts" don't have a clue as to which team offered what except for the winning bid. All of the speculation about which team was in the lead "according to sources" was ridiculous. Each team didn't know what the other team's bids were, but these reporters had the "facts" posted all over the internet.

 

Um, you do realize the posting system changed, right? We have no idea how negotiations went. They may have known what other bids were, they may not have.

[Guest]

You don't get to decide what offer Tanaka takes. We gave him the same out clause. We offered him more money. We can't move the team to New York and have a couple dozen titles. Tell me, how would you have changed the offer? $300m for 2 years? Your name or your brains will be on this contract? You're bitching at the FO because a player wanted to play somewhere else for less money.

 

i like the your name or your brains thing a lot.

 

that said, the real argument is probably that this is why it's stupid to put your whole offseason on the hopes that you can sign one guy, especially if you've turned yourself into a hilarious joke team that no one wants to play for given any other options.

 

He was the FA this offseason that fit the plan. So they made a huge push for him and he decided he'd rather play somewhere else. Who else should they have signed this offseason?

 

Ellsbury

 

For $22m/year for 7 years?

 

Yes.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

The Yankees gave him a full no-trade. Probably the deal breaker.

[toonsterwu]

Decided to come on and post some random thoughts -

 

1. They swung, and they missed. Nothing wrong with that on Tanaka. I had a hard time believing that we had a legitimate chance in this, particularly once it became clear that the Yankees were going to go all-out. I'm still somewhat curious how he will pan out (I mean, he's supposed to be what, a low K, high GB guy?)

 

2. Could we have gone after other people? Did any of them make sense, with a combination of age, cost, and length of contract? My inclination is to say no, but that's also due to

 

3. Kyle makes a comment above about 2 paths. I don't really see it that way. I know I was criticized a couple years ago when I said it, but 2016 always looked like the most realistic target for a start of a new window, and I think the FO chose their path already, and likely won't deviate from it barring immense pressure from ownership, which I have a hard time seeing.

 

When Theo came in, he talked about how wonderful it would've been to have a home-grown Red Sox club, and regretting some of his final big purchases there. Obviously, you need some free agents sprinkled in, but they made a choice to look long-term, unless the FA situation aligned itself, or the deal made enough sense for them. Tanaka, much as I still have some reservations about how good he will be, was a nice fit in that regards. Who else fit? Ellsbury is at the tipping point of his prime years, still in it, but in the middle of it. There wasn't much that really fit (admittedly, there rarely is). I doubt they will go for the Ellsbury type contracts in FA until they get a sense they are closer, and our top chips are still raw enough to be wary about making such a move. Put it another way - the mega-year/mega-money deals would have to be perfect fits for them to go after. A guy like Edwin Jackson was a nice short-term (Granted, 4 years isn't that short, but it wasn't an Ellsbury type deal) plug who was in his prime.

 

I'm not saying I like the process, but I don't disagree with it at this juncture. They chose their path awhile ago, and we'll have to hope enough goes well in 2014, and we get some youngsters developing. If that's the case, I could see them being more aggressive next winter.

 

Edit: Couple typos.

Edited January 22, 2014 by toonsterwu

[SouthSideRyan]

Wtf were they doing signing Edwin Jackson then?