Yankees Sign Masahiro Tanaka

[Guest]

again, a new TV deal changes everything. the cubs will have plenty of options and plenty of players that will want to take their money.

[Guest]

i mean, are you just totally ignoring the fact that they will have a [expletive]-ton more money?

[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.

 

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?

The question still stands. Would you be in favor of giving an opt out to every player in a long term deal?

[Deeg]

They have money now - they're the most profitable team in baseball. Having more doesn't mean they'll spend it. And given everything Theo has said about not paying FAs for past performance and not adding major talent until the team is ready to content, there's no way he's committing something like 7/$175 (at least) to a 30 year-old pitcher when the team is coming off a 95-100 loss season. Don't set yourself up for disappointment - it's not happening. The model here is to win like Minnesota or Tampa, and the window to contend is likely 2018 at best.

[SouthSideRyan]

The question still stands. Would you be in favor of giving an opt out to every player in a long term deal?

 

For guys in their 30s or a guy whose arm I worry about long-term like Tanaka, sure.

[jersey cubs fan]

The question still stands. Would you be in favor of giving an opt out to every player in a long term deal?

 

Every? No, but I very much like the idea with certain situations. One of those situations is when you've already let your payroll plummet to ridiculously low levels, have nothing else to spend it on and are in desperate need of exactly the type of player that is available if such a clause is given.

[Guest]

The question still stands. Would you be in favor of giving an opt out to every player in a long term deal?

 

Every? No, but I very much like the idea with certain situations. One of those situations is when you've already let your payroll plummet to ridiculously low levels, have nothing else to spend it on and are in desperate need of exactly the type of player that is available if such a clause is given.

That's doing it because you have left yourself no other choice but to offer the player whatever benefit it will take to get him signed. SSR is painting it as a superior structure to offer the player in the first place.

[imb]

This is the reality of baseball. If you want to sign these guys, you have to roam into the wilderness that teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can go into.

[davell]

I don't see an issue with giving opt outs. If the player DOES opt out, you've given yourself an X amount of high profile years from the player. It makes sense to be in or at least NEAR contention, I guess, but even if you have a guy opt out at the beginning of your run.....You have the ability to re-sign him or to sign someone else with the money. The key is that he helped get you into contention.

[Guest]

They have money now - they're the most profitable team in baseball. Having more doesn't mean they'll spend it. And given everything Theo has said about not paying FAs for past performance and not adding major talent until the team is ready to content, there's no way he's committing something like 7/$175 (at least) to a 30 year-old pitcher when the team is coming off a 95-100 loss season. Don't set yourself up for disappointment - it's not happening. The model here is to win like Minnesota or Tampa, and the window to contend is likely 2018 at best.

 

did cubbievirus get banned or something?

[Guest]

Are there even people in the "The Cubs are lying about all their financial constraints (and the reported agreement they have to abide by as a result of the sale structure) and are making money hand over fist and lying to everyone about everything" camp who would say the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball right now?

[Guest]

Are there even people in the "The Cubs are lying about all their financial constraints (and the reported agreement they have to abide by as a result of the sale structure) and are making money hand over fist and lying to everyone about everything" camp who would say the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball right now?

 

 

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WINNING

[Guest]

I think it's a risk to take on a case by case basis. It makes sense to me in this case.

[SouthSideRyan]

Are there even people in the "The Cubs are lying about all their financial constraints (and the reported agreement they have to abide by as a result of the sale structure) and are making money hand over fist and lying to everyone about everything" camp who would say the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball right now?

 

That was too much word vomit for me to understand who you're talking about, but I would say there were the most profitable team in baseball after 2012. The Astros had like an 8 dollar payroll this year, it's definitely them now.

[jersey cubs fan]

Are there even people in the "The Cubs are lying about all their financial constraints (and the reported agreement they have to abide by as a result of the sale structure) and are making money hand over fist and lying to everyone about everything" camp who would say the Cubs are the most profitable team in baseball right now?

Are there still weirdos who think the sale structure nonsense is true?

[Deeg]

In reality the Cubs surely knew 6/120 had no chance with Tanaka. But let's just say for the sake of argument that a meteor hit, and Tanaka accepted it. Do you think they wouldn't have had to produce that money from somewhere? The notion that they have no cash to spend is a myth. It's a question of willingness to spend it.

 

I'd also point out that although the new TV deal is being held up as some kind of panacea, it's no sure thing to happen imminently. And the bulk of the deal is still five years away from expiring, with nothing close to a guarantee it will be bought out. Are you happy waiting that long for your panacea?

[Guest]

In reality the Cubs surely knew 6/120 had no chance with Tanaka. But let's just say for the sake of argument that a meteor hit, and Tanaka accepted it. Do you think they wouldn't have had to produce that money from somewhere? The notion that they have no cash to spend is a myth. It's a question of willingness to spend it.

 

I'd also point out that although the new TV deal is being held up as some kind of panacea, it's no sure thing to happen imminently. And the bulk of the deal is still five years away from expiring, with nothing close to a guarantee it will be bought out. Are you happy waiting that long for your panacea?

 

Had he taken that deal, the payroll would still have been around or below last year's. Not exactly proof that they aren't cash strapped.

 

As for the TV deal, the present heavy rumor is that FOX wants to expand their sports presence and will take on the Cubs long term. The WGN portion of games would air on the local FOX affiliate until the CSN portion was up, at which point likely all of the games would go to a new FOX regional cable sports channel. Wouldn't take a buyout.

[Guest]

This guy is totally cubbievirus.

[mul21]

This guy is totally cubbievirus.

 

Nah, too coherent and not angry enough.

[Guest]

He's actually OG as hell.

[ctcf]

Wait, why is it "heavy"?

[Guest]

Wait, why is it "heavy"?

 

Because it's what has been reported by everyone who has said anything about the TV deal lately?

 

What's hard to say is if that all just spawned off of Mooney's report or not.

 

Not to mention Theo alluding to a lack of a massive TV deal and that that would be solved "soon."

[Benny Rodriguez]

Two things:

1. Most profitble team made 32 mil last year. Although short term it would be nice to see that spent on some players, but what good long term investments were out there to help now and when the kids hit the show? Every player, save for maybe Choo has question marks. The offensive guys are older,were seemingly overpaid, and for far too long. The pitchers have been up and down, and have some age on their arms. Draft compensation is attached to all but Arroyo-who at 36 wouldn't make any sense. So they could easily spend the 32 mil to help us win a handful more games this season, but is it worth it to hurt lose a high pick in a very deep draft and to have less money to spend when you are ready to compete.

Future free agents=Mike Trout 2018, Bryce Harper 2019 would you rather have the 20- 22 mil that is being paid to a late 30's Ellsbury or Choo OR have that and more to sign one of these players that will be 26 she they are on the market. It would be nice to have that flexibility.

 

 

2. As much as nice as it would have been to get Tanaka, spending that much on one unproven guy (with upside) is very risky. You may have dropped on 22 mil a year on a guy who isn't an ace, maybe not a 2 and has thrown a ton of pitches in his young career.

 

Keep in mind, if they signed Tanaka to that and he isn't as good a Wood or Shark...what do they ask for when it's their time?

If you go after another free agent pitcher down the road, (like a Price or Schrezer) aren't they going to start at what you paid Tanaka and go up from there?

 

I know we are looking at even more money from TV and other streams in the future, but that will just give us more to spend. We will also have a better idea of what prospects are going to develop and exactly where we need outside help.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Benny Rodriguez

[mul21]

Two things:

1. Most profitble team made 32 mil last year. Although short term it would be nice to see that spent on some players, but what good long term investments were out there to help now and when the kids hit the show? Every player, save for maybe Choo has question marks. The offensive guys are older,were seemingly overpaid, and for far too long. The pitchers have been up and down, and have some age on their arms. Draft compensation is attached to all but Arroyo-who at 36 wouldn't make any sense. So they could easily spend the 32 mil to help us win a handful more games this season, but is it worth it to hurt lose a high pick in a very deep draft and to have less money to spend when you are ready to compete.

 

2. As much as nice as it would have been to get Tanaka, spending that much on one unproven guy (with upside) is very risky. You may have dropped on 22 mil a year on a guy who isn't an ace, maybe not a 2 and has thrown a ton of pitches in his young career.

 

Keep in mind, if they signed Tanaka to that and he isn't as good a Wood or Shark...what do they ask for when it's their time?

If you go after another free agent pitcher down the road, (like a Price or Schrezer) aren't they going to start at what you paid Tanaka and go up from there?

 

I know we are looking at even more money from TV and other streams in the future, but that will just give us more to spend. We will also have a better idea of what prospects are going to develop and exactly where we need outside help.

 

Um, it doesn't work like that and you know it. Tanaka's value was greatly influenced by the fact the he only cost money, he's 25, and had ridiculous numbers in Japan that people "think" will translate very well to MLB. His price tag will have little to no influence on what guys with actual ML track records get paid.

[jersey cubs fan]

spending that much on one unproven guy (with upside) is very risky.

 

That's true, it is much better to not risk anything and guarantee a top ten draft pick than take a risk and maybe draft in the bottom half someday.