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 sarasoxer on Nov 15, 2013 18:37:02 GMT -5
Let's stop crying poor with the small market crap. These small market owners are more the issue then the market itself. Are some markets terrible? Surely, but a lot of these small markets aren't terribly "small". They are just mismanaged and/or owners have little incentive to invest money to make a winning product. These guys make money hand over first with a lousy product. I want a system that does not advantage/disadvantage one team to another. There is no Nirvana to be sure, but I agree whole-heartedly with MLB's efforts to have competitive balance across the board even if such a system would work negatively toward the beloved Sox. Fundamental fairness is what I am after. Not every market has or can have the financial leverage of a N.Y., L.A. or even Boston. Reality does not give the same chips to all. I would like teams to win because they hire better, scout better, draft better, develop better, mine data better, manage their resources better etc., not because they have more money by serendipity. Reward those teams not the 'little rich kid' who inherited his daddy's trust fund (demographics) to buy his playthings. I want all teams to "earn it", not just be given it. Now ideally I would shy away from revenue sharing too. But stark financial disparity based on demographics alone, not business acumen, mandated tweaking to ensure a measure of fairness for all. Still, Tanaka is available to very few teams (3- 5???). The Yankees, who had the highest payroll this past year at $228M, are one of those teams. The Kansas Cities, Milwaukees, Tampa Bays et al of the baseball world can't begin to compete today or on the last tomorrow no matter how well run. That is fundamentally unfair. To the argument that the small market teams are poorly run so their complaints are hollow, I ask that you provide some basis rather than parroting the rich team drumbeat. But, if good management is your base criteria for reward as it appears, why should the Yankees be able to buy their way out of their poor decisions? They again had baseball's largest payroll this year and, by virtue of their spending, had reached the playoffs in 14 of 15 years. Unfortunately they signed long-term mega deals to players now in severe decline. Was that good business acumen? ...better than those of less endowed financial markets? I will answer for you. No! I say let them suffer the same consequences as other teams', rich or poor, bad decisions. You want Darwin?...Well, then we agree!...You got Darwin from me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 15, 2013 18:46:37 GMT -5
I think there may have been a little "change the subject to something less intense" going on with this statement Norm! At least that's how i read it. Right... So the splitter is good for your arm. *less bad for your arm.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 16, 2013 8:12:52 GMT -5
Oh the HORROR. It must be horrible for these guys to sign for millions of dollars and set their families up for the rest of their lives. Tragic. In the History of the posting system the 13 players who have agreed to a first contract with an MLB team have made 180,400,000. That is just in their first contract. Which brings us back to the original question, doesn't it? The bulk of that money has been paid by teams from larger markets and yes, I do count Seattle as one of those teams. They make a lot of money given the amount that's floating around that high-tech town. The small market teams see a problem with that. It constitutes a loophole you could drive a Brinks truck through, and a few of them have been. A more equitable system, one that isn't rife with hidden incentives that circumvent the stated intent of MLB to get balance in the game might be in order. I don't think Boston, or NY, or LA should be the only ones with a shot at a guy like Tanaka. He looks to be a talent. As for the players, you might want to read Curt Flood's bio, A Well-Paid Slave. Didn't your mama tell you that there are some things more important than money? Baseball does not work like other job markets. The average American can quite his job at any time and move to another job. That might put his company in a rough spot, but it generally it won't kill the company (even if a partner at a big law firm or bank leaves and takes all his clients). If a company wants to be rid of someone underperforming, the fire him. Baseball used to be that way, but players jumping teams mid season did not work for obvious reasons. that system killed the National Association, and lead to the founding of the National League. Clearly the reserve clause is on one end of the spectrum and the 19th century system is on the other. I just dislike people comparing baseball to other job markets, because it's not.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 16, 2013 9:31:42 GMT -5
The yankee dynasty teams were basically homegrown. After that, they bought their way into the playoffs and one WS, that's it. You really need evidence that a lot of the small market teams problems are they are poorly run? Give me evidence of a small market team struggling financially and then I'll feel badly for their situation. It's funny we feel bad for the small market teams for not being able to dish out huge contracts when 95% of these contracts are terrible.
Baseball plays during good weather so maybe it'd be a bit different then the NBA in this regard, but that's just a guess. What we do know about the NBA is a team like the Celtics can't sign an elite free agent because geographically players would rather be in Florida, Texas, Ny, Chi, Phoenix or California. The majority of the league including its most storied franchise can't sign a free agent they want.
Baseball is already set-up to reward teams that do it smarter. I agree something can be done but it should be focused on the small market teams spending more. There's a finite amount of talent in baseball, if they spend then it takes it away from bigger markets and levels the field more. The bigger markets minus 2 already are capped out themselves.
Milwaukee blows right now because of bad baseball decisions less then no money.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 16, 2013 16:59:16 GMT -5
And let's remember- Houston, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Tampa-St.Pete, New York (Mets) - are not "small markets." They are in fact among the biggest and most lucrative markets in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 17, 2013 3:02:13 GMT -5
Imagine when Houston can't qualify any more for revenue sharing no matter what in 2016. And San Diego. Those teams have just been badly managed for a while now. Without revenue sharing any more, those teams might actually have to do their jobs.
I'm all for revenue sharing but the current system goes far enough. Some teams just sit on the revenue sharing dollars and don't even try to put a top team on the field. It's like an automatic $20 mil a year profit for doing nothing. At the expense of their fans.
I really like things the way they are now. There is tremendous parity and opportunity for every market. And it has nothing to do with me being a big market fan. They need to keep incentivizing excellence. At some point the game suffers if they do not.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 17, 2013 3:03:30 GMT -5
That whole homegrown Yankees thing doesn't take into account that they had more money for scouting and more money to sign players. It was more an example of unfettered capitalism buying it's way to the top.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 17, 2013 10:13:44 GMT -5
That whole homegrown Yankees thing doesn't take into account that they had more money for scouting and more money to sign players. It was more an example of unfettered capitalism buying it's way to the top. What player who they drafted semi-low and threw a big bonus at was a successful contributor? The closest thing to an example was Joba Chamberlain, a supplemental rounder coming off an injury.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 17, 2013 18:01:13 GMT -5
That whole homegrown Yankees thing doesn't take into account that they had more money for scouting and more money to sign players. It was more an example of unfettered capitalism buying it's way to the top. What player who they drafted semi-low and threw a big bonus at was a successful contributor? The closest thing to an example was Joba Chamberlain, a supplemental rounder coming off an injury. I was thinking of the early days when there wasn't even a draft, when they dominated year after year. They paid bigger signing bonuses didn't they and had excellent scouting coverage probably because they could afford both.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 17, 2013 22:22:33 GMT -5
What player who they drafted semi-low and threw a big bonus at was a successful contributor? The closest thing to an example was Joba Chamberlain, a supplemental rounder coming off an injury. I was thinking of the early days when there wasn't even a draft, when they dominated year after year. They paid bigger signing bonuses didn't they and had excellent scouting coverage probably because they could afford both. Not entirely true. If you read Yaz's autobiography you will learn that he was offered $60K by the NYY's. Boston signed him for an even $100K. In this example the Yankees let a hometown talent HOF talent get away for a "mere" $40K. Yankees also "missed out" on Manny who practically grew up in the shadow of YS.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 17, 2013 22:37:38 GMT -5
The small market teams have been on a roll for a while. What do they want next? 50% of the gate from big market teams also? Well, I think that it is pretty clear. They want a level playing field. For me, that is as it should be. You realize that many (admittedly not all) of the teams we think of as "small market" are just teams with owners unwilling to spend money, but who certainly have as much money as any of the other "big market" owners and could have much higher payrolls if they chose to? It's not like we're talking Walmart versus mom-and-pop shops here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 17, 2013 22:48:31 GMT -5
Well, I think that it is pretty clear. They want a level playing field. For me, that is as it should be. You realize that many (admittedly not all) of the teams we think of as "small market" are just teams with owners unwilling to spend money, but who certainly have as much money as any of the other "big market" owners and could have much higher payrolls if they chose to? It's not like we're talking Walmart versus mom-and-pop shops here. This is not exactly true. Big-market teams get more lucrative TV deals and can sell more tickets at a higher price, which means they generate more operating revenue that can be reinvested in payroll. Yes, small-market owners *could* spend more on payroll, but then their team would probably be losing money, and those dudes didn't get rich by running businesses that chronically ran a deficit. Some owners see a sports franchise as just an expensive hobby that they don't mind losing money on, but most would at least want their investment to break even. Sure, there are owners like Loria who are content to just pocket the revenue sharing/etc. without spending a reasonable slice of it on salary, but that's more the exception than the rule, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 17, 2013 22:51:52 GMT -5
You realize that many (admittedly not all) of the teams we think of as "small market" are just teams with owners unwilling to spend money, but who certainly have as much money as any of the other "big market" owners and could have much higher payrolls if they chose to? It's not like we're talking Walmart versus mom-and-pop shops here. This is not exactly true. Big-market teams get more lucrative TV deals and can sell more tickets at a higher price, which means they generate more operating revenue that can be reinvested in payroll. Yes, small-market owners *could* spend more on payroll, but then their team would probably be losing money, and those dudes didn't get rich by running businesses that chronically ran a deficit. Some owners see a sports franchise as just an expensive hobby that they don't mind losing money on, but most would at least want their investment to break even. Sure, there are owners like Loria who are content to just pocket the revenue sharing/etc. without spending a reasonable slice of it on salary, but that's more the exception than the rule, I think. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating free market here. And I probably overstated things in that last post. But I don't get the perspective that wants to turn pro sports into an intramural league. There's enough money coming into the game right now that very few teams have a financial excuse not to compete.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 17, 2013 23:02:47 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating free market here. And I probably overstated things in that last post. But I don't get the perspective that wants to turn pro sports into an intramural league. There's enough money coming into the game right now that very few teams have a financial excuse not to compete. Eh, the NBA and NFL do just fine with a system which includes both a salary cap and a minimum team salary. And the latest CBA did boost luxury tax penalties in such a way that actually deters going over the tax threshold. I mean, everyone understands that market size does have an effect on league parity, right? And maybe the solution is worse than the disease insofar as salary caps generally reduce player compensation as a whole and allows big-market teams to turn even more of a profit. I guess I just don't understand why everyone is jumping all over themselves to declare that small market teams really aren't at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2013 0:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2013 0:32:19 GMT -5
Also, all further discussion in this thread should be limited to Tanaka (meaning the small-market/big-market debate above should also be abandoned).
|
|
|
Post by mmmrocks on Nov 24, 2013 22:49:04 GMT -5
Tanaka looks really promising, I hope the Sox don't shy away because of some strange semi-racist fear that he's the next Daisuke Matsuzaka. He doesn't walk people, and he doesn't throw six pitches or feature an imaginary pitch. Fangraphs did a good rundown, which showed that the closest former product of the NPB to him statistically was Yu Darvish - www.fangraphs.com/blogs/masahiro-tanaka-the-markets-best-starter/And while he's not Yu Darvish, he could potentially be another Iwakuma or Kuroda (both of which also feature good control, a low 90's fastball and a good splitter). I'd be willing to bid upwards of $70 million to try to sign him. He wouldn't cost a draft pick, his luxury tax hit should be very reasonable, and it sure beats paying free agent market prices ($75-100 million for Ervin Santana and climbing every year). It's spooky how little we've been connected to Tanaka given that we're such a large market with such a relatively big history of signing pitchers out of Japan. I would be surprised if we didn't at least make a bid.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 25, 2013 0:43:59 GMT -5
Tanaka looks really promising, I hope the Sox don't shy away because of some strange semi-racist fear that he's the next Daisuke Matsuzaka. He doesn't walk people, and he doesn't throw six pitches or feature an imaginary pitch. Fangraphs did a good rundown, which showed that the closest former product of the NPB to him statistically was Yu Darvish - www.fangraphs.com/blogs/masahiro-tanaka-the-markets-best-starter/And while he's not Yu Darvish, he could potentially be another Iwakuma or Kuroda (both of which also feature good control, a low 90's fastball and a good splitter). I'd be willing to bid upwards of $70 million to try to sign him. He wouldn't cost a draft pick, his luxury tax hit should be very reasonable, and it sure beats paying free agent market prices ($75-100 million for Ervin Santana and climbing every year). It's spooky how little we've been connected to Tanaka given that we're such a large market with such a relatively big history of signing pitchers out of Japan. I would be surprised if we didn't at least make a bid. Wouldn't worry about that. Doubt the Sox have any semi-racist fears, and if there are any fears it's not about his race. It would be about the six plus years and the extremely large sum they'd have to bid to outbid the Yankees. I'd still bid extremely aggressively if I were the Red Sox. Daisuke was reasonably effective in 2007 and he was a really good pitcher in 2008. Then he got hurt pitching in the World Cup against the Red Sox' orders and was never the same pitcher again. I sincerely doubt the Red Sox have issues with Japanese pitchers. All you have to do is look at the bullpen, see Koji and Tazawa and remember Okajima and I doubt the Sox will shy away from Japanese pitchers. It's the potential six plus potential $120 million outlay they may shy away from. I hope they don't, but it's quite likely.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 25, 2013 0:55:58 GMT -5
semi-racist fear that he's the next Daisuke Matsuzaka. *Fear that he's the next Daisuke Matsuzaka. Forget racism - I don't think a fear of bringing in players from a different baseball culture is going to arise because of one frustrating player. The Sox have gotten some mighty nice returns on Okajima, Tazawa, and Uehara, after all.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 25, 2013 12:14:27 GMT -5
I think people really need to layoff the "racist" accusations. Even if the team were concerned about bringing in a guy like Tanaka, because of their experience with DiceK there is nothing racist about it. The line of thinking wouldn't be "he's no good because he's Japanese". It would be, " we view committing $100+ million on him is too much risk." Even my simplification is wrong on so many levels as individual scouting reports matter.
I think we should all be able to agree that scouting and projecting players is complex. If Tanaka were being drafted, and given a relatively small financial commitment then his scouting report is a lot more attractive. When you have to commit well over 100M in real dollars plus a good chunk of payroll to the guy it's a much larger decision. DiceK has to play a role since he's their experience with that market and dollars, however they are different players so they aren't dependent on each other. However, if they choose Tanaka isn't worth the risk, it has nothing to do with racism so let's stop with this talk.
|
|
|
Post by sierram363 on Nov 26, 2013 13:52:14 GMT -5
Yea, I don't think they factor race and ethnicity when they make these big money decisions.
I just think they're gun shy about throwing big money contracts out after saving so much on the Dodger deal.
I think Tanaka would be a wise investment though. Even though Daisuke and Lackey might not have been consistently good performers throughout their contract, they still helped us win 2 World Series Championships.
If Tanaka can be anywhere close to advertised, we have a great shot with him and Lester to win again.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 26, 2013 16:22:03 GMT -5
MLB officials are being bigots again, making the NPB officials come to the US to discuss the posting system. I bet they make them stay at the Econo Lodge and stereo type them by taking them out for Sushii.... jerks
|
|
|
Post by zil on Nov 27, 2013 1:55:47 GMT -5
The more I think about Tanaka, the more I like the idea of us going after him as our one big offseason splurge. If we're going to spend big, then let's do it on a 25-year-old frontline pitcher who won't even cost us a draft pick. The return on dealing off Peavy to make room for him could be quite nice too. Plus, taking Tanaka would cripple the Yankees' offseason plans.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 27, 2013 9:41:04 GMT -5
MLB officials are being bigots again, making the NPB officials come to the US to discuss the posting system. I bet they make them stay at the Econo Lodge and stereo type them by taking them out for Sushii.... jerks It's all good. Bud is sending a Turducken to their hotel rooms tomorrow. ("You fellas like balloons? Look outside!")
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 27, 2013 10:16:46 GMT -5
The more I think about Tanaka, the more I like the idea of us going after him as our one big offseason splurge. If we're going to spend big, then let's do it on a 25-year-old frontline pitcher who won't even cost us a draft pick. The return on dealing off Peavy to make room for him could be quite nice too. Plus, taking Tanaka would cripple the Yankees' offseason plans. Well, I'm with you but I doubt that we will be in the mix. I think the world (free & otherwise) has penciled Tanaka into the Yankee rotation with CC, Nova, Pineda et al.
|
|
|