SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Masahiro Tanaka (1/22 update: to NYY for 7/$155m)
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Dec 29, 2013 15:06:07 GMT -5
Who are the over-rated prospects? Doesn't matter. Would just be wanting to clear salary.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 29, 2013 15:15:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 29, 2013 15:34:12 GMT -5
There will be a lot of opportunities to spend big dollars (there always are) and I just don't think this is the right spot. I believe the downside risk of Tanaka is significantly under emphasized. He could be a #2 or #3, but if the bidding gets to $19 or $20 million per year, he would have to achieve that ceiling to justify the contract. Part of what makes the Red Sox future so bright is their payroll flexibility. A large part of that flexibility is their ability to fill 1 or 2 starting pitching spots internally over the next couple years. They have 6 guys: Workman, Webster, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa. From this they need a couple of them to fulfill their potential, which frankly isn't far off in some cases from Tanaka. If they can do that, it gives them a lot more flexibility to spend in other areas.
And given the volatility of pitchers, if you asked me to take either the best of the 6 starters listed or Tanaka over the next 6 years - I'd put my money on the best of those 6.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 29, 2013 16:15:33 GMT -5
There will be a lot of opportunities to spend big dollars (there always are) and I just don't think this is the right spot. I believe the downside risk of Tanaka is significantly under emphasized. He could be a #2 or #3, but if the bidding gets to $19 or $20 million per year, he would have to achieve that ceiling to justify the contract. Part of what makes the Red Sox future so bright is their payroll flexibility. A large part of that flexibility is their ability to fill 1 or 2 starting pitching spots internally over the next couple years. They have 6 guys: Workman, Webster, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa. From this they need a couple of them to fulfill their potential, which frankly isn't far off in some cases from Tanaka. If they can do that, it gives them a lot more flexibility to spend in other areas. And given the volatility of pitchers, if you asked me to take either the best of the 6 starters listed or Tanaka over the next 6 years - I'd put my money on the best of those 6.I agree. Tanaka might go on and help someone win the World Series(I think the Yanks go hard) But so be it. I think the sox have just as good a chance with the in house starters.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 29, 2013 18:14:40 GMT -5
There will be a lot of opportunities to spend big dollars (there always are) and I just don't think this is the right spot. I believe the downside risk of Tanaka is significantly under emphasized. He could be a #2 or #3, but if the bidding gets to $19 or $20 million per year, he would have to achieve that ceiling to justify the contract. Part of what makes the Red Sox future so bright is their payroll flexibility. A large part of that flexibility is their ability to fill 1 or 2 starting pitching spots internally over the next couple years. They have 6 guys: Workman, Webster, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa. From this they need a couple of them to fulfill their potential, which frankly isn't far off in some cases from Tanaka. If they can do that, it gives them a lot more flexibility to spend in other areas. And given the volatility of pitchers, if you asked me to take either the best of the 6 starters listed or Tanaka over the next 6 years - I'd put my money on the best of those 6.That's really a false choice since you control all six of those guys at MLB minimum for their first 3 years of service and arb $$$ for next 3. Plus, as we all like to say here Tanaka only costs money. Bottom line: acquiring Tanaka does not exclude holding any of the others at those low costs. Also consider you need to fill 2-3 starting spots after this year (Peavy, Dempster and Lester), and 1 after next year (Lackey). Even at our most optimistic I doubt a majority of us would see 4 from that group of minor leaguers capably fill those 3-4 roles. I just hope they did their homework on Tanaka.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 29, 2013 18:38:40 GMT -5
There will be a lot of opportunities to spend big dollars (there always are) and I just don't think this is the right spot. I believe the downside risk of Tanaka is significantly under emphasized. He could be a #2 or #3, but if the bidding gets to $19 or $20 million per year, he would have to achieve that ceiling to justify the contract. Part of what makes the Red Sox future so bright is their payroll flexibility. A large part of that flexibility is their ability to fill 1 or 2 starting pitching spots internally over the next couple years. They have 6 guys: Workman, Webster, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa. From this they need a couple of them to fulfill their potential, which frankly isn't far off in some cases from Tanaka. If they can do that, it gives them a lot more flexibility to spend in other areas. And given the volatility of pitchers, if you asked me to take either the best of the 6 starters listed or Tanaka over the next 6 years - I'd put my money on the best of those 6.That's really a false choice since you control all six of those guys at MLB minimum for their first 3 years of service and arb $$$ for next 3. Plus, as we all like to say here Tanaka only costs money. Bottom line: acquiring Tanaka does not exclude holding any of the others at those low costs. Also consider you need to fill 2-3 starting spots after this year (Peavy, Dempster and Lester), and 1 after next year (Lackey). Even at our most optimistic I doubt a majority of us would see 4 from that group of minor leaguers capably fill those 3-4 roles. I just hope they did their homework on Tanaka. If you're arguing they should sign Tanaka in place of extending Lester, then that is one thing. I disagree, but that makes sense from a roster management perspective. Beyond that, your numbers are not accurate. First, we currently have 6 starters for 5 spots. After this year we will still have Lackey, Buchholz, and Doubront. If we extend Lester, that leaves 1 spot for one of the 6 youngsters (who will likely all have experience at AAA and above by then). After 2015 Lackey becomes a free agent, meaning they would need to fill 1 more spot for a total of 2. 2015: Lester, Lackey, Doubront, Buchholz and 1 prospect 2016: Lester, Doubront, Buchholz, and 2 prospects I would be extremely shocked if we can't turn those 6 into one above average starter in 2015. I'm less confident we can turn them into two above average starters in 2016, but I think it has a very good shot of happening - and it just doesn't make sense to me to be dropping $20M/year on a starter now that we MIGHT need in 2016. The volatility of pitchers it just too great for that. With all of this said, I'm typing this from my couch. If I were Cherrington and my scouting department was absolutely sold on this guy being an elite-stud-ace-like pitcher then I would trust them and let Lester play out his contract. I'm just not sold.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 29, 2013 20:11:10 GMT -5
…. The holy grail of the antitheses of this is my all time favorite Boston pitcher who, because of WWII, only had 15 innings pitched before his rookie year at age 25. He went on to record 17 consecutive years of 250+ innings including several over 300 innings and all accomplished within a 154 schedule. ah, took me a while to figure out who you meant; very careful wording. Around 1990 I bought a prospect handbook in the Princeton bookstore and the older woman at the register smiled and told me she had dated him. LOL, Warren was no looker, he had a huge nose. I grew up a Braves fan. It took me a while to warm up to the thought of rooting for Williams and Parnell over Spann and Mathews. My first Sox 'hero' was Jackie Jensen mostly because he took the time to write a little kid a three page reply on why it was OK to root for the Sox even though the Braves were still carried on local TV. Prior to the Braves departure, the Sox had the attendance but the Braves had the better TV exposure, the Sox rarely had a game broadcast. Although I liked the Sox, I remained a Braves fan first until about 1965. That later took an abrupt halt when Ted Turner started dating Hanoi Hannah. In a perfect world, Ted Turner would have major woman beating issues. My mother was also a Braves fan and we went to at least 10 games a year. In those days, you could always walk up and pretty much get a ticket anywhere you wanted and you could pretty much chat with the closely located players and umpires before the game and between innings. We probably went to Fenway 90% of the time though because the access was a lot easier, either by car or train/subway. The Braves field was across the Charles River from the general area of where M.I.T. is located. I think it is where BC built it's football stadium but not 100% sure there since I've never been to BC. After college I went to work for the Dept. of Defense and haven't lived in Mass since. I was pretty young at that time and it would take pictures to trigger memories of Braves field but I remember several of the players from both teams pretty vividly.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 29, 2013 22:58:38 GMT -5
There will be a lot of opportunities to spend big dollars (there always are) and I just don't think this is the right spot. I believe the downside risk of Tanaka is significantly under emphasized. He could be a #2 or #3, but if the bidding gets to $19 or $20 million per year, he would have to achieve that ceiling to justify the contract. Part of what makes the Red Sox future so bright is their payroll flexibility. A large part of that flexibility is their ability to fill 1 or 2 starting pitching spots internally over the next couple years. They have 6 guys: Workman, Webster, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa. From this they need a couple of them to fulfill their potential, which frankly isn't far off in some cases from Tanaka. If they can do that, it gives them a lot more flexibility to spend in other areas. And given the volatility of pitchers, if you asked me to take either the best of the 6 starters listed or Tanaka over the next 6 years - I'd put my money on the best of those 6.That's really a false choice since you control all six of those guys at MLB minimum for their first 3 years of service and arb $$$ for next 3. Plus, as we all like to say here Tanaka only costs money. Bottom line: acquiring Tanaka does not exclude holding any of the others at those low costs. Also consider you need to fill 2-3 starting spots after this year (Peavy, Dempster and Lester), and 1 after next year (Lackey). Even at our most optimistic I doubt a majority of us would see 4 from that group of minor leaguers capably fill those 3-4 roles. I just hope they did their homework on Tanaka. I think your post above is basically on target. The bottom line is we lose 4 starters within 2 years time. And then what? If Tanaka looks to be for real we should at least be bidding on him. No doubt it will get out of control but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. To me he walks at $120 mil over 7 years, and I'm pretty sure he gets more than that. The top teams going forward will either be lucky or great at developing top starters ( the St Louis paradigm ) or they will find a way to acquire that talent by other means. That means we get in there and compete for all such opportunities, for the value we define as appropriate for each opportunity. The approach most likely for success probably involves both techniques.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2013 5:14:05 GMT -5
That's really a false choice since you control all six of those guys at MLB minimum for their first 3 years of service and arb $$$ for next 3. Plus, as we all like to say here Tanaka only costs money. Bottom line: acquiring Tanaka does not exclude holding any of the others at those low costs. Also consider you need to fill 2-3 starting spots after this year (Peavy, Dempster and Lester), and 1 after next year (Lackey). Even at our most optimistic I doubt a majority of us would see 4 from that group of minor leaguers capably fill those 3-4 roles. I just hope they did their homework on Tanaka. I think your post above is basically on target. The bottom line is we lose 4 starters within 2 years time. And then what? If Tanaka looks to be for real we should at least be bidding on him. No doubt it will get out of control but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. To me he walks at $120 mil over 7 years, and I'm pretty sure he gets more than that. The top teams going forward will either be lucky or great at developing top starters ( the St Louis paradigm ) or they will find a way to acquire that talent by other means. That means we get in there and compete for all such opportunities, for the value we define as appropriate for each opportunity. The approach most likely for success probably involves both techniques. 4 pitchers but only 3 starter slots, not 4, unless the Sox plan to employ a six man rotation. ADD: I'm not understanding the problem here. You want to solve next off-season's issues this year ? That's easy, sign Kershaw next year, problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 30, 2013 10:10:01 GMT -5
I think your post above is basically on target. The bottom line is we lose 4 starters within 2 years time. And then what? If Tanaka looks to be for real we should at least be bidding on him. No doubt it will get out of control but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. To me he walks at $120 mil over 7 years, and I'm pretty sure he gets more than that. The top teams going forward will either be lucky or great at developing top starters ( the St Louis paradigm ) or they will find a way to acquire that talent by other means. That means we get in there and compete for all such opportunities, for the value we define as appropriate for each opportunity. The approach most likely for success probably involves both techniques. 4 pitchers but only 3 starter slots, not 4, unless the Sox plan to employ a six man rotation. ADD: I'm not understanding the problem here. You want to solve next off-season's issues this year ? That's easy, sign Kershaw next year, problem solved. It's not so much a "problem" as strategy. As Theo said in the past, and Ben has said in the present, the Sox tend to work in 5 year increments whenever possible. The free agents of next year - including Kershaw - are not guaranteed to be there, especially with so many teams extending younger player more often over the last few years. But if Sox targeted one that they project as a 2-3 for next year, but see that they can get a 25 year old whom they've evaluated to provide a similar or better skill set, you work that into the plan, even if it is a bit cost prohibitive this year. Ultimately it could be cost-effective, or mitigated by other reductions in cost next year. Also remember that acquiring Tanaka allows the Sox to deal two starters if they wish, which could net high level prospects or under control players in positions of need. Example, if they acquire Tanaka AND decide to extend Lester they could deal Doubront (essentially "replacing his youth/ceiling with Tanaka) whose perceived value is very high right now along with one of Peavy/Lackey/Dempster. Finally, Tanaka - if they think he is a #2 - offers a hedge against losing Lester if he decides he doesn't want to settle for a team-friendly deal and goes for the big, big bucks (this is his last chance to make huge money, after all). And despite his words earlier this month about wanting to stay in Boston, if you read/listen to them there is a lot of wiggle room (i.e. "I wanted to stay but they obviously didn't want me because they didn't offer me anything near what other teams are/will be offering me…") Again, I am not advocating these deals specifically or out of hand, but seeing what the Royals gave up for 2 years of Shields, you can quickly see how a motivated GM or 3 could be moved to trade a high value prospect for Doubront or 2 very affordable years of Lackey. All depends on return and what the Sox perceived value of Tanaka is. If they think he's a 2 then buying him and trading, say, Doubront, for 6 years control of near MLB-ready a top 10 position player prospect at a position of need may be part of a 5 year calculus. Lots of moving parts, here. And again, all depends if they did their homework, which I still contend they either didn't do or completely missed on when they evaluated Darvish, who will be a perennial Cy Young candidate for the next 2-4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 30, 2013 10:51:42 GMT -5
I think one of the things that precludes Doubront bring traded off, at least in the immediate future, is that he's lefthanded. All of the Sox minor league pitching prospects that are near ready, except for Owens, throw from the right, and he's at last a year away probably more.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 30, 2013 11:18:26 GMT -5
I think one of the things that precludes Doubront bring traded off, at least in the immediate future, is that he's lefthanded. All of the Sox minor league pitching prospects that are near ready, except for Owens, throw from the right, and he's at last a year away probably more. Agreed - and I am one who has been very bullish on Doubront for several years. Then again, if you told me if I could get 6 years of a Wil Myers type for Felix Doubront I make that deal right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2013 12:10:28 GMT -5
Also remember that acquiring Tanaka allows the Sox to deal two starters if they wish, which could net high level prospects or under control players in positions of need. Example, if they acquire Tanaka AND decide to extend Lester they could deal Doubront (essentially "replacing his youth/ceiling with Tanaka) whose perceived value is very high right now along with one of Peavy/Lackey/Dempster. Finally, Tanaka - if they think he is a #2 - offers a hedge against losing Lester if he decides he doesn't want to settle for a team-friendly deal and goes for the big, big bucks (this is his last chance to make huge money, after all). And despite his words earlier this month about wanting to stay in Boston, if you read/listen to them there is a lot of wiggle room (i.e. "I wanted to stay but they obviously didn't want me because they didn't offer me anything near what other teams are/will be offering me…") Again, I am not advocating these deals specifically or out of hand, but seeing what the Royals gave up for 2 years of Shields, you can quickly see how a motivated GM or 3 could be moved to trade a high value prospect for Doubront or 2 very affordable years of Lackey. All depends on return and what the Sox perceived value of Tanaka is. If they think he's a 2 then buying him and trading, say, Doubront, for 6 years control of near MLB-ready a top 10 position player prospect at a position of need may be part of a 5 year calculus. A few things: 1. Acquiring Tanaka doesn't "allow" the Red Sox to deal two starters, it virtually necessitates it. Even if we assume the front office is willing to go over the luxury tax threshold, adding Tanaka creates seven rotation candidates, none of whom seem particularly well-suited to a bullpen role. (Plus, the bullpen is pretty full already-- Uehara, Mujica, Tazawa, Breslow, Miller, and Badenhop are locks; one of Workman/Villareal likely takes the last spot.) Maybe you keep one extra starter through Spring Training as injury-protection depth, but that still means you have to trade one guy now and probably another one in March. And because every other GM can see Boston's rotation logjam, the front office loses a lot of leverage and invites low-ball offers. Add in the fact that the pitching market has yet to shape out (with every major free agent starter waiting on Tanaka and David Price still out there on the market), and I still think this is more of a net disadvantage than an advantage to adding Tanaka. 2. The idea that Doubront or Lackey can get you a Myers-esque player is pretty unrealistic (and I'm being generous here). That trade was a complete outlier, and it is a pretty bad idea to count on getting a similar return, especially when you consider that Lackey and Doubront are substantially worse than 2012 Shields (Lackey only has one recent year of success; Doubront has upside and team control but much less present performance). Moreover, this is not much of an argument for adding Tanaka because the Red Sox can presumably deal Lackey/Doubront now and use Dempster/Workman as their 5th starter. The real marginal benefit from adding Tanaka is how much better he is when compared to Dempster/Workman. Plus, because adding Tanaka forces you to trade at least one guy, you can't even really hold out for a great offer-- at some point, you kind of have to take what you can get.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2013 12:29:32 GMT -5
If we're going to upgrade pitching, we should do it right and wait for Cliff Lee.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Dec 30, 2013 12:53:27 GMT -5
Then again, if you told me if I could get 6 years of a Wil Myers type for Felix Doubront I make that deal right now. What if I told you we could trade him Robbie Ray, Ian Kroll, and Steve Lombardozzi? Seriously, we need to stop using the Shields for Myers trade as any kind of barometer for trade discussions, because George Springer is not coming through that door for any of our number three starters.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 30, 2013 13:10:41 GMT -5
So the Sox have an opportunity to get a 26 year old pitcher that projects as a #2 and all it costs is money? Due to the age of the player the potential for Tanaka to bust is actually quite small. At least for the first few years. I would argue that Tanaka at 16-17 million is a much better bet than someone like Feldman at 10. The market has been going crazy with money and the Sox over the next few years will be one of the best equipped to make a move like this due to the lack of anchor contracts.
I'm not advocating giving him $20 million a year and ditching Lester. But if you look at this. Lackey is making the minimum in 2015, Doubront is still a question mark and Dempster is surely getting moved. Getting Tanaka in the fold gives Boston the ability to keep Lester (I would assume they give him a deal after April so the hit doesn't carry over until next year) and keep the teams core strong in pitching. You can never have enough. As far as the "kids" in AAA you cannot depend on them having Tanaka like success. There is no one down there that has his upside let alone the upside of someone like Jose Fernandez (we like to pump up our prospects sometimes).
In 2016 a rotation of
Lester Buchholz Tanaka Doubront Owens/Barnes/RDLR/Webster
Looks pretty good to me. Also gives us the opportunity to move Lackey for a valuable prospect. Trade Dempster and potentially trade Peavy for prospects. Peavy might not be a bad guy to keep but options are still plenty since the Sox would then control the pitching market.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 30, 2013 13:57:26 GMT -5
So the Sox have an opportunity to get a 26 year old pitcher that projects as a #2 and all it costs is money? Due to the age of the player the potential for Tanaka to bust is actually quite small. At least for the first few years. I would argue that Tanaka at 16-17 million is a much better bet than someone like Feldman at 10. The market has been going crazy with money and the Sox over the next few years will be one of the best equipped to make a move like this due to the lack of anchor contracts. I'm not advocating giving him $20 million a year and ditching Lester. But if you look at this. Lackey is making the minimum in 2015, Doubront is still a question mark and Dempster is surely getting moved. Getting Tanaka in the fold gives Boston the ability to keep Lester (I would assume they give him a deal after April so the hit doesn't carry over until next year) and keep the teams core strong in pitching. You can never have enough. As far as the "kids" in AAA you cannot depend on them having Tanaka like success. There is no one down there that has his upside let alone the upside of someone like Jose Fernandez (we like to pump up our prospects sometimes). In 2016 a rotation of Lester Buchholz Tanaka Doubront Owens/Barnes/RDLR/Webster Looks pretty good to me. Also gives us the opportunity to move Lackey for a valuable prospect. Trade Dempster and potentially trade Peavy for prospects. Peavy might not be a bad guy to keep but options are still plenty since the Sox would then control the pitching market. I have been in favor of getting Tanaka if all things are equal, but honestly I'm not sure what the Sox should do. I would need to lean on experts regarding his chances of injury given his pitching motion and the amount of stress his shoulder has taken on. As others have pointed out this young man has thrown a ton of pitches. I bolded the quote because I don't think the chances of this guy busting is "quite small". I think his injury risk might be significant. Perhaps he has an easy motion that allows him to throw a ton of pitches - I don't know and I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of experts on that topic, but it's not a slam dunk that you sign the guy and you get two or three good to great years. His arm could give out in May - I know you can make that argument with any pitcher, but this guy has serious mileage on his arm for a youngster. I'm not saying the Sox shouldn't go after him because I do think this guy will be a solid major league pitcher - somebody you'd want to start in a post-season game, but I'm starting to wonder about when his pitching load catches up to him. I honestly don't see the Sox being involved here. I believe they will sit this one out.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2013 14:17:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 30, 2013 14:22:52 GMT -5
What if I told you we could trade him Robbie Ray, Ian Kroll, and Steve Lombardozzi? Seriously, we need to stop using the Shields for Myers trade as any kind of barometer for trade discussions, because George Springer is not coming through that door for any of our number three starters. Nor did ii ever say he or anyone like him was - just "if". We all see questionable trades every year. Again, these are just hypotheticals. We're always saying here that we don't have the inside knowledge that the front office people do, but we also know some GMs get fixated on certain players. Balance that with the fact that so many reports have GMs desperate for pitching. jmei says by acquiring Tanaka they could weaken their leverage with their so-called surplus, but I see it as just the opposite - they have added amounts of finite resources in an extremely limited market. No doubt the Sox fielded offers and discussed rough frameworks of potential deals during the winter meetings and before. There is only so much good pitching out there. If suddenly you have two to deal instead of one - especially of one of those two is a guy who was asked about often but you said no to in early Dec, this can be leveraged EXACTLY becuase ther are so few good pitchers available - and in the case of Lackey & Doubront - affordable, or in the case of Peavy- on a short term deal. Again - not advocating this, but given that they've already gauged demand, you pay the big bucks on Tanaka, and the interesting possibilities on deals from your surplus starters are intriguing and varied.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2013 14:46:52 GMT -5
What if I told you we could trade him Robbie Ray, Ian Kroll, and Steve Lombardozzi? Seriously, we need to stop using the Shields for Myers trade as any kind of barometer for trade discussions, because George Springer is not coming through that door for any of our number three starters. If the Myers trade is off the table as typical, the Fister one should be as well.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2013 14:51:10 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think Tanaka is almost a sure thing while at the same time using the logic of "all 6 of our pitching prospects are unproven" to justify it.
I feel pretty confident that at least one of our prospects will end up being a better pitcher than Tanaka. Hopefully it won't be with another team.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 30, 2013 15:36:59 GMT -5
I really don't get why some people think Tanaka is almost a sure thing while at the same time using the logic of "all 6 of our pitching prospects are unproven" to justify it. I feel pretty confident that at least one of our prospects will end up being a better pitcher than Tanaka. Hopefully it won't be with another team. The only flag for Tanaka is his innings pitched. However as fan graphs mentioned Darvish actually pitched more innings before heading over here. The Japanese leagues are slightly above AAA and below MLB in terms of competition. Just because the Sox get Tanaka doesn't mean they have to trade prospects. I would counter with if anything Tanaka would be replacing Peavy Lackey and Dempster, long term. You get Lester Buchholz and Tanaka and then the other two spots will eventually be filled internally for the future. Tanaka has nothing to do with anyone pitching in AA or AAA and if anything gives the Sox less of a reason to rush a guy like Owens or Barnes. With all of the contracts that have been handed out I think Tanaka is the one that makes the most sense. Young pitcher not even in his "prime", someone who fangraphs compares to Jared Weaver in terms of his stuff. I don't know about you but if any of our prospects approaches Tanaka's level let alone exceeds it I'll be very excited. If you're going to take a gamble it might as well be on pitching. You can always find a team willing to take a pitcher if for whatever reason he doesn't work out. Plus adding to the depth isn't a bad idea either. The Sox by getting Tanaka would also control the market and be able to set their own price for one of Dempster Peavy and Lackey due to the alternative being overpaying Ubaldo and Santana on the FA market. Garza IMO is the only solid top SP left due to his ability to pitch in big games. If you want leverage in negotiations then take all other alternatives off the table and you'll be able to set your price.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2013 15:49:52 GMT -5
they have added amounts of finite resources in an extremely limited market. No doubt the Sox fielded offers and discussed rough frameworks of potential deals during the winter meetings and before. There is only so much good pitching out there. If suddenly you have two to deal instead of one - especially of one of those two is a guy who was asked about often but you said no to in early Dec, this can be leveraged EXACTLY becuase ther are so few good pitchers available - and in the case of Lackey & Doubront - affordable, or in the case of Peavy- on a short term deal. The Sox by getting Tanaka would also control the market and be able to set their own price for one of Dempster Peavy and Lackey due to the alternative being overpaying Ubaldo and Santana on the FA market. Garza IMO is the only solid top SP left due to his ability to pitch in big games. If you want leverage in negotiations then take all other alternatives off the table and you'll be able to set your price. You make it seem like by adding Tanaka, the Red Sox would corner the market on starting pitchers. Is that true? The class of free agent starters is still pretty deep, with front-end types (Garza, Jimenez, Santana, Burnett), capable veterans available on cheap, short-term deals (Arroyo, Chen, Maholm, Hammel), and injury reclamations (Hanson, J. Santana). There's also David Price and Jeff Samardzija hanging out there on the trade market. The starting pitching market this offseason isn't like the shortstop one or the second base one, where there are clearly two starting options and then nothing else. There are a whole spectrum of options. If Santana/Jimenez get expensive, there's Burnett available for a short-term, high AAV contract, or you could just wait until free agent asking prices come down. Guys like Hammel and Arroyo are comparable to Dempster but will come much cheaper. Remember, the only marginal benefit to Boston's trading leverage here is that if Tanaka signs with Boston, the team that would have otherwise signed him now needs to go to plan B. You aren't taking all other alternatives off the table, you're taking one alternative off the table (albeit arguably the best one). I don't think that increases the demand for Boston's pitchers much, if at all-- it's only one additional "slot" that gets opened up. Since the team that lost out on Tanaka was willing to commit to an expensive, long-term contract for him, they'd presumably be willing to sign one of the big free agent names. They'd then be less interested in Lackey/Doubront/Peavy, whose selling points are cost and short-term control.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2013 15:55:43 GMT -5
they have added amounts of finite resources in an extremely limited market. No doubt the Sox fielded offers and discussed rough frameworks of potential deals during the winter meetings and before. There is only so much good pitching out there. If suddenly you have two to deal instead of one - especially of one of those two is a guy who was asked about often but you said no to in early Dec, this can be leveraged EXACTLY becuase ther are so few good pitchers available - and in the case of Lackey & Doubront - affordable, or in the case of Peavy- on a short term deal. You make it seem like by adding Tanaka, the Red Sox would corner the market on starting pitchers. Is that true? The class of free agent starters is still pretty deep, with front-end types (Garza, Jimenez, Santana, Burnett), capable veterans available on cheap, short-term deals (Arroyo, Chen, Maholm, Hammel), and injury reclamations (Hanson, J. Santana). There's also David Price and Jeff Samardzija hanging out there on the trade market. Remember, the only marginal benefit to Boston's trading leverage here is that if Tanaka signs with Boston, the team that would have otherwise signed him now needs to go to plan B. I don't think that increases the demand for Boston's pitchers much, if at all. It could also hurt because teams would know the Red Sox have no choice but to trade at least one of them.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 95
|
Post by hank on Dec 30, 2013 16:07:51 GMT -5
I like the idea of signing Tanaka if for no other reason than it keeps him out of NY
|
|
|