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 jimed14 on Jan 2, 2014 21:03:46 GMT -5
How can you just assume that prudent scouting absolutely confirms the best possible scenario? And then you will argue with anyone who doesn't believe that? All I am saying is it minimizes "just finding out." Whether you're all in, completely out, or in up to a point on a player with high market value, you had better have scouted that player well to make a well informed decision. I'm sure I can agree with you if you believe that if the Sox believe in him and sign him, I'm good with it. But if they don't and don't sign him, I'm also good. However I don't get that impression from you.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 2, 2014 21:05:28 GMT -5
What I don't believe is "inside word" from Cafardo/Gammo that Sox believe this guy is a #3. Period. For whatever it's worth, I'm 95% sure this was from Speier. Yup, in his chat after BA released the Sox top ten. link (subscription required)
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jan 2, 2014 21:20:49 GMT -5
I was wondering if someone knew what the Red Sox payroll for 2015? One aspect of signing Tanaka is that we would have probably two starting pitcher trade chips. You can never have too many good prospects. Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 2, 2014 21:42:03 GMT -5
All I am saying is it minimizes "just finding out." Whether you're all in, completely out, or in up to a point on a player with high market value, you had better have scouted that player well to make a well informed decision. I'm sure I can agree with you if you believe that if the Sox believe in him and sign him, I'm good with it. But if they don't and don't sign him, I'm also good. However I don't get that impression from you. I wanted Darvish badly, and I was very disappointed when they didn't even make the effort. i saw him live in Japan four times and was convinced he was a solid # 2 or better. I remain convinced they blew that one from neglect to process and scouting, as did many teams. I never saw Tanaka live, so I am not as invested in him. If he is, however, a 25 year old Hiroki Kuroda or better, as many are saying, and his medicals check out, they should be aggressively involved. I also think the opportunity is heightened because they will have a surplus of starting pitching after acquiring him in a league where there is a dearth of good starting pitching, giving them added opportunity. That extends the value of the overall deal to the Sox potential team building not just this year, but for the next several years. Of course if he blows and they're sure of it, or if it requires more than Grienke money/years to sign him, then you just bid early in the process to drive the price up against rivals and move on.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 2, 2014 22:18:36 GMT -5
How can you just assume that prudent scouting absolutely confirms the best possible scenario? And then you will argue with anyone who doesn't believe that? All I am saying is it minimizes "just finding out." Whether you're all in, completely out, or in up to a point on a player with high market value, you had better have scouted that player well to make a well informed decision. I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 2, 2014 23:28:37 GMT -5
Tanaka says he wants $17 mil a year but the signing fee isn't part of that. To get to his expressed want we are looking at $102 mil over 6 years or $119 mil over 7 years. And then add the $20 mil negotiation fee. So that is almost $140 mil over 7 years if his expressed want is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 3, 2014 8:57:52 GMT -5
All I am saying is it minimizes "just finding out." Whether you're all in, completely out, or in up to a point on a player with high market value, you had better have scouted that player well to make a well informed decision. I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why? That's an interesting question - one I would obviously prefer to answer after this season. But I don't see why, for a team like the Red Sox, that's a mutually exclusive choice, especially with Lackey coming back in 2015 at MLB minimum, Doubront at arb money and Peavy and Dempster gone. This doesn't mean I'm all in for Lester on 6 years. 5 yes, but signing any 31 year old pitcher for 6 years makes me extremely nervous unless it's an absurdly team-friendly deal or you are getting a Lackey clause for that 6th year. If you can only have one, much as I love Lester, if Tanaka is a legit #2 and his medicals are fine, I would take him for the next 6 years because he is 25. If he is really a #3 or less, the choice is obviously Lester, with the caveat stated above about the 6th year. I still think it's a false choice, however. The Red Sox have enough revenue, and enough younger pitchers coming up to fill the two back end spots at MLB minimum. If I sign Tanaka, however, and and if Lester plays hardball at the end of the year (i.e. wanting, say 7 years at $20M a year) I let him walk and have insurance - perhaps more than I have right now, as well, because I have traded two of Peavy, Doubront, Lackey or Dempster for prospects after signing Tanaka. Even if those aren't pitching prospects, they will fill positions of need at low cost so I can go get pitching - either through more trades - or free agency, if I feel I need it with Lester's departure.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 3, 2014 9:11:35 GMT -5
All I am saying is it minimizes "just finding out." Whether you're all in, completely out, or in up to a point on a player with high market value, you had better have scouted that player well to make a well informed decision. I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why? I would. But I also believe, as I have stated - and no one can get me to think otherwise - that they failed to do this adequately on Darvish. Having seen him live myself, I can't believe that any professional MLB scout who saw him multiple times in Japan could've come away believing he was anything less than a #2 starter. A 25 year old #2 starter with full command and control of 5 different pitches coming out of the same arm slot. That's gold and well worth in excess of $100M in today's game - especially when only half of that counted against the luxury tax. Anyway. We had this conversation 2 years ago and there's no need to resurrect it now. But that is my reasoning behind that statement.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jan 3, 2014 9:28:11 GMT -5
I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why? I would. But I also believe, as I have stated - and no one can get me to think otherwise - that they failed to do this adequately on Darvish. Having seen him live myself, I can't believe that any professional MLB scout who saw him multiple times in Japan could've come away believing he was anything less than a #2 starter. A 25 year old #2 starter with full command and control of 5 different pitches coming out of the same arm slot. That's gold and well worth in excess of $100M in today's game - especially when only half of that counted against the luxury tax. Anyway. We had this conversation 2 years ago and there's no need to resurrect it now. But that is my reasoning behind that statement. No team gets everyone they want -- not even the Yankees. I guess it isn't clear how much the Sox wanted him. But by the same token, it might have been that they did want him, but simply concluded they weren't going to win that auction for what they were willing to put into it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Jan 3, 2014 9:52:56 GMT -5
From the sox of perspective, doesn't this have everything to do with Lackey being historically bad as a free agent signing at the time Darvish was out there?
And his redemption I suppose could be part of the argument in favor of Tanaka.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2014 9:58:29 GMT -5
I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why? I would. But I also believe, as I have stated - and no one can get me to think otherwise - that they failed to do this adequately on Darvish. Having seen him live myself, I can't believe that any professional MLB scout who saw him multiple times in Japan could've come away believing he was anything less than a #2 starter. A 25 year old #2 starter with full command and control of 5 different pitches coming out of the same arm slot. That's gold and well worth in excess of $100M in today's game - especially when only half of that counted against the luxury tax. Anyway. We had this conversation 2 years ago and there's no need to resurrect it now. But that is my reasoning behind that statement. They had no money for Darvish because they spent poorly. That's what they want to avoid happening ever again, which is why they are less likely to go after Tanaka.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 3, 2014 10:09:46 GMT -5
I'm sure I can agree with you if you believe that if the Sox believe in him and sign him, I'm good with it. But if they don't and don't sign him, I'm also good. However I don't get that impression from you. I wanted Darvish badly, and I was very disappointed when they didn't even make the effort. i saw him live in Japan four times and was convinced he was a solid # 2 or better. I remain convinced they blew that one from neglect to process and scouting, as did many teams. I never saw Tanaka live, so I am not as invested in him. If he is, however, a 25 year old Hiroki Kuroda or better, as many are saying, and his medicals check out, they should be aggressively involved. I also think the opportunity is heightened because they will have a surplus of starting pitching after acquiring him in a league where there is a dearth of good starting pitching, giving them added opportunity. That extends the value of the overall deal to the Sox potential team building not just this year, but for the next several years. Of course if he blows and they're sure of it, or if it requires more than Grienke money/years to sign him, then you just bid early in the process to drive the price up against rivals and move on. Do you really think you have enough information to make this conclusion? This is a big leap to say that there was "neglect". Does that mean there was neglect on the part of every team that didn't sign him?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 3, 2014 10:18:54 GMT -5
They had no money for Darvish because they spent poorly. That's what they want to avoid happening ever again, which is why they are less likely to go after Tanaka. The first point is patently false, as has been pointed out previously. There are always ways to clear $10M of payroll space to add a cheap #1-2 starter. Always. If you disagree, just keep thinking it over until you clue in. Keep repeating, "top of the rotation starter in his prime for $10M/year". On the second point, the Sox are hard pressed to use all their current payroll flexibility. In order to hit budget this year they may need to sign a player they don't need AND pay one of their starters to play for another team. They can easily add 2 very large contracts for cornerstone players - it's just a matter of picking the right players to pay.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2014 10:28:29 GMT -5
They had no money for Darvish because they spent poorly. That's what they want to avoid happening ever again, which is why they are less likely to go after Tanaka. The first point is patently false, as has been pointed out previously. There are always ways to clear $10M of payroll space to add a cheap #1-2 starter. Always. If you disagree, just keep thinking it over until you clue in. Keep repeating, "top of the rotation starter in his prime for $10M/year". On the second point, the Sox are hard pressed to use all their current payroll flexibility. In order to hit budget this year they may need to sign a player they don't need AND pay one of their starters to play for another team. They can easily add 2 very large contracts for cornerstone players - it's just a matter of picking the right players to pay. They did virtually nothing but trade for relief pitchers in the 2011 offseason because they had zero room in the budget. Clearing up payroll and giving them flexibility finally happened with the Punto trade, which wasn't exactly easy to pull off. If they could have found $10 million in payroll space, they probably would have used it for a tiny bit of depth at several positions.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2014 10:30:33 GMT -5
As guidas mentioned, we've rehashed the Darvish debate multiple times since he signed and there's no point repeating it again. Let's keep the focus on Tanaka. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 3, 2014 10:42:44 GMT -5
I wanted Darvish badly, and I was very disappointed when they didn't even make the effort. i saw him live in Japan four times and was convinced he was a solid # 2 or better. I remain convinced they blew that one from neglect to process and scouting, as did many teams. I never saw Tanaka live, so I am not as invested in him. If he is, however, a 25 year old Hiroki Kuroda or better, as many are saying, and his medicals check out, they should be aggressively involved. I also think the opportunity is heightened because they will have a surplus of starting pitching after acquiring him in a league where there is a dearth of good starting pitching, giving them added opportunity. That extends the value of the overall deal to the Sox potential team building not just this year, but for the next several years. Of course if he blows and they're sure of it, or if it requires more than Grienke money/years to sign him, then you just bid early in the process to drive the price up against rivals and move on. Do you really think you have enough information to make this conclusion? This is a big leap to say that there was "neglect". Does that mean there was neglect on the part of every team that didn't sign him? Neglect by every team that had the financial resources to make an extremely high bid and failed to do so - absolutely. So yes and yes. And, for those who think the Sox were strapped - Darvish against the tax was $9M AAV. The posting fee is a write-off that can be expensed over the life of the contract, especially for a team like Boston. Same points I made back in 2011/2012. For a #2 pitcher, if you can't make him fit - and I think they still could've at that time, though it would've been tight - you take the $3-4M over lux tax hit he'd add. We did have this conversation. Having seen Darvish pitch at the Sapporo Dome 4 times in 2011 (and if you ever get a chance, the Japanese crowds are mad crazy fun - like watching a soccer game in England without the pre, during and post-game beatings and homicides), I am convinced that any pro scout seeing him more than once would've pleaded with his front office to send their best talent evaluator to Japan and have him follow this guy long enough to confirm what was apparent even to a baseball rat like me. My mind cannot be changed on this, just like it cannot be changed on the fact that Oreos are the best cookie in the world and Die Hard is one of the top 5 best Christmas movies ever.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2014 10:58:26 GMT -5
I mean, wouldn't you hope they do their homework on every acquisition, especially the high-cost ones? Obviously, if any organization knew with some certainty exactly how good Tanaka is, they would slap a value on that and offer exactly that much. But noone can consistently project players with anywhere close to that degree of accuracy, and Tanaka presents additional injury and performance risks substantially above and beyond that of your typical free agent signing. There will inherently be a ton of risk involved, no matter how well you scout him, which is worrisome when so much money is involved. You have to have very high risk tolerance, but even then, I'm not sure it's worth it since the likelihood of snagging meaningful surplus value is pretty low. (But you don't win championships with surplus value, exponential value of wins, etc etc.) Question: would you rather have Tanaka or Lester for the next six years, assuming they cost similarly? Why? That's an interesting question - one I would obviously prefer to answer after this season. But I don't see why, for a team like the Red Sox, that's a mutually exclusive choice, especially with Lackey coming back in 2015 at MLB minimum, Doubront at arb money and Peavy and Dempster gone. This doesn't mean I'm all in for Lester on 6 years. 5 yes, but signing any 31 year old pitcher for 6 years makes me extremely nervous unless it's an absurdly team-friendly deal or you are getting a Lackey clause for that 6th year. If you can only have one, much as I love Lester, if Tanaka is a legit #2 and his medicals are fine, I would take him for the next 6 years because he is 25. If he is really a #3 or less, the choice is obviously Lester, with the caveat stated above about the 6th year. I still think it's a false choice, however. The Red Sox have enough revenue, and enough younger pitchers coming up to fill the two back end spots at MLB minimum. If I sign Tanaka, however, and and if Lester plays hardball at the end of the year (i.e. wanting, say 7 years at $20M a year) I let him walk and have insurance - perhaps more than I have right now, as well, because I have traded two of Peavy, Doubront, Lackey or Dempster for prospects after signing Tanaka. Even if those aren't pitching prospects, they will fill positions of need at low cost so I can go get pitching - either through more trades - or free agency, if I feel I need it with Lester's departure. My point is not to imply that they are mutually exclusive (although there are legitimate questions about the wisdom of having two long-term 20m+ starting pitchers), but rather to provide an example of how good of a starting pitcher 140m+ gets you. Lester has averaged 3.7 fWAR over the last three years-- that's the kind of production you need to get out of Tanaka to come close to breaking even. (Now, I know that you pay for future production and not past production, so the comparison with Lester (who is entering his decline phase) goes further than just looking at his past three years. But I'm on my new tablet, and doing sabr analysis is kind of tedious on it, so I'll let you use your imagination.)
|
|
|
Post by teddymonster on Jan 3, 2014 11:14:05 GMT -5
Do you really think you have enough information to make this conclusion? This is a big leap to say that there was "neglect". Does that mean there was neglect on the part of every team that didn't sign him? Neglect by every team that had the financial resources to make an extremely high bid and failed to do so - absolutely. So yes and yes. And, for those who think the Sox were strapped - Darvish against the tax was $9M AAV. The posting fee is a write-off that can be expensed over the life of the contract, especially for a team like Boston. Same points I made back in 2011/2012. For a #2 pitcher, if you can't make him fit - and I think they still could've at that time, though it would've been tight - you take the $3-4M over lux tax hit he'd add. We did have this conversation. Having seen Darvish pitch at the Sapporo Dome 4 times in 2011 (and if you ever get a chance, the Japanese crowds are mad crazy fun - like watching a soccer game in England without the pre, during and post-game beatings and homicides), I am convinced that any pro scout seeing him more than once would've pleaded with his front office to send their best talent evaluator to Japan and have him follow this guy long enough to confirm what was apparent even to a baseball rat like me. My mind cannot be changed on this, just like it cannot be changed on the fact that Oreos are the best cookie in the world and Die Hard is one of the top 5 best Christmas movies ever. This is a great point. I can only imagine that the Sox were excessively wary of repeating the Dice-K debacle. Still, neglect might not be too strong of a word here. It's hard to understand how the Sox could whiff completely on the opportunity to acquire top end pitching talent at 9M in AAV, especially given their financial flexibility last season.
It's a shame you didn't have a chance to see Tanaka live. I'd love to hear your impression of him.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 3, 2014 11:35:42 GMT -5
That's an interesting question - one I would obviously prefer to answer after this season. But I don't see why, for a team like the Red Sox, that's a mutually exclusive choice, especially with Lackey coming back in 2015 at MLB minimum, Doubront at arb money and Peavy and Dempster gone. This doesn't mean I'm all in for Lester on 6 years. 5 yes, but signing any 31 year old pitcher for 6 years makes me extremely nervous unless it's an absurdly team-friendly deal or you are getting a Lackey clause for that 6th year. If you can only have one, much as I love Lester, if Tanaka is a legit #2 and his medicals are fine, I would take him for the next 6 years because he is 25. If he is really a #3 or less, the choice is obviously Lester, with the caveat stated above about the 6th year. I still think it's a false choice, however. The Red Sox have enough revenue, and enough younger pitchers coming up to fill the two back end spots at MLB minimum. If I sign Tanaka, however, and and if Lester plays hardball at the end of the year (i.e. wanting, say 7 years at $20M a year) I let him walk and have insurance - perhaps more than I have right now, as well, because I have traded two of Peavy, Doubront, Lackey or Dempster for prospects after signing Tanaka. Even if those aren't pitching prospects, they will fill positions of need at low cost so I can go get pitching - either through more trades - or free agency, if I feel I need it with Lester's departure. My point is not to imply that they are mutually exclusive (although there are legitimate questions about the wisdom of having two long-term 20m+ starting pitchers), but rather to provide an example of how good of a starting pitcher 140m+ gets you. Lester has averaged 3.7 fWAR over the last three years-- that's the kind of production you need to get out of Tanaka to come close to breaking even. (Now, I know that you pay for future production and not past production, so the comparison with Lester (who is entering his decline phase) goes further than just looking at his past three years. But I'm on my new tablet, and doing sabr analysis is kind of tedious on it, so I'll let you use your imagination.) Only if you assume that Lester, or another pitcher you get via free agency in 2014 if Lester leaves, replicates that production going forward. Otherwise you are paying for past performance in Lester's case, and not getting the production you say you need, too. It is all about decline phase for Lester going forward and how severe it will be. He's a big, strong guy who hasn't had a major injury - which some may see as a plus, while others see as a ticking time bomb. I think we'd all defer to the Sox on that part of the decision since they know his medicals best. So then it comes down to predicted decline vs. dollars vs. what you can get for the same dollars on the open market either in Tanaka, or in the 2014/15 off season where the top of the class will be Kershaw-27 (and as awesome as he is will you commit 10 years at $300M? I would go 7, maybe 8 but no more), Scherzer-30, Lester-31, Shields-33…then a drop off to Masterson-30..another to Homer Bailey-29... then a lot of inconsistency and age. As an aside, this is where I lament the inability to trade for draft choices in MLB. Imagine the jockeying - and the immediate value Houston could acquire - for the right to select a cost-effective Carlos Rondon in this year's draft! The return would be amazing if they were willing to deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2014 11:56:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 3, 2014 16:39:25 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 9s MLB source says that while #RedSox are impressed with Tanaka, they do not expect to be among the top bidders.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 3, 2014 17:08:18 GMT -5
Smokescreen.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 3, 2014 17:50:31 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 9s MLB source says that while #RedSox are impressed with Tanaka, they do not expect to be among the top bidders. Move along, nothing to see here. Coming to you from the great northwest
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Jan 3, 2014 20:08:58 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 9s MLB source says that while #RedSox are impressed with Tanaka, they do not expect to be among the top bidders. Seems to imply that they will, in fact, be bidding.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 3, 2014 23:23:49 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 9s MLB source says that while #RedSox are impressed with Tanaka, they do not expect to be among the top bidders. Seems to imply that they will, in fact, be bidding. It would be silly not to, really.
|
|
|