Tanaka or Garza?

[IowaAngels27]

Who do we go after? With Tanaka most likely being posted, it makes Garza a little easier to get, but on the other hand, is the high risk high reward on Tanaka worth it?  I would say that we be content with Garza and go after him.  We aren't looking for an ace, we're looking for a #3 guy, which is exactly what Garza is. Thoughts?

[Scott34]

This shouldn't be a real question.  It really isn't close at all.

[IowaAngels27]

This shouldn't be a real question.  It really isn't close at all.

I would hope you're suggesting Garza too. Tanaka isn't worth the money to me.

[Halos of Anaheim]

Not even close but as you said, with Tanaka being posted, it makes our plan B even easier. One less team fighting for Garza.

[Scott34]

I would hope you're suggesting Garza too. Tanaka isn't worth the money to me.

 

Garza is probably league average this point and has serious injury concerns.  And he's going to be on the wrong side of 30.

[Halos of Anaheim]

I would hope you're suggesting Garza too. Tanaka isn't worth the money to me.

He's going to be a solid #2 eventually, and he's very young. Garza is going to be a #3-#4 for us and he's getting up there in age. It isn't even close.

[Halofan]

I would prefer Tanaka the guy seems to be a work horse that can eat innings. He is only 25 and might still get even better ... Having 3 strong pitchers in Weaver , Wilson and Tanaka would be awesome. And is really what we need with Santiago , Skaggs and Richards having limited experience. There is no promise that all three of these young guys are going to do well this season. I would be happy with Garza but his price is not going to be cheap and he is a injury risk. I would rather spend the money to get a healthy pitcher with a higher ceiling who we could lock up for several years. I hope we go all out for Tanaka but even then it is no promise we sign him. 

[Tyler]

Obviously Tanaka.

[IowaAngels27]

Garza is probably league average this point and has serious injury concerns.  And he's going to be on the wrong side of 30.

Like I said. I'm not looking for a guy to replace Weav as the ace.  I'd rather pay Garza, stay under the luxury tax, and have the money for when we need it with Trout.

[Scott34]

Like I said. I'm not looking for a guy to replace Weav as the ace.  I'd rather pay Garza, stay under the luxury tax, and have the money for when we need it with Trout.

 

Going over the tax by 5-7M means nothing.

 

Weaver, Tanaka, Wilson, Richards, Skaggs/Santiago is so much better than Weaver, Wilson, Garza, Richards, Skaggs/Santiago

[SoWhat]

Is this even a serious question? Tanaka without a doubt

[IowaAngels27]

Not at all saying I don't want him. If someone can guarantee me there is plenty of money for Trout in the future than I'm all for it.

[Cdaniel]

Not at all saying I don't want him. If someone can guarantee me there is plenty of money for Trout in the future than I'm all for it.

Arte will pay Trout no question.

[Halos of Anaheim]

Honestly, a rotation of Weaver/Wilson/Tanaka/Richards/Santiago with Skaggs in AAA coming up later in the season if one of Richards/Santiago don't play up to their potential is honestly a top 10 pitching staff. Santiago could be a solid #4 for us with the park change and his peripherals are heading in the right direction.

 

Richards also has strong #4 potential, with a slight chance of being a solid #3 for us. Skaggs obviously has #2-#3 potential but we'll see how he progresses this year. That's potentially three #2's (Weaver, Wilson & Tanaka), two #3's (Skaggs, Richards) and one #4 (Santiago) in our rotation.

[Troll Daddy]

I'm not sure about Tanaka being a Ace but he might be better than any SP currently contracted by the Angels.

I say we go for it!!!

[YouthofToday]

Garza probably will cost 4/$64 +.

Not really a fan of that type of deal. Would rather go for a SP available on a 1 year deal.

[Cdaniel]

I'm not sure about Tanaka being a Ace but he might be better than any SP currently contracted by the Angels.

I say we go for it!!!

You said that already.

[Halos of Anaheim]

I'm not sure about Tanaka being a Ace but he might be better than any SP currently contracted by the Angels.

I say we go for it!!!

He doesn't need to be an ace, honestly none of our pitchers need to be aces anymore. 3 guys with ERAs in the low to mid 3's to anchor our staff (Weaver, Tanaka, Wilson) two guys with ERAs in the mid to high 3's (Skaggs, Richards) and one guy with an ERA in the high 3's to low 4's in Santiago is enough. 

Edited December 25, 2013 by Halos of Anaheim

[Cdaniel]

I'm happy wither either Tanaka or Garza but Tanaka is my 1st choice.

[Inside Pitch]

Who do we go after? With Tanaka most likely being posted, it makes Garza a little easier to get, but on the other hand, is the high risk high reward on Tanaka worth it?  I would say that we be content with Garza and go after him.  We aren't looking for an ace, we're looking for a #3 guy, which is exactly what Garza is. Thoughts?

For me it's Tanaka or pass....     

[Halos of Anaheim]

Tanaka, Garza at 4 years or pass imo.

[GregAlso]

Not at all saying I don't want him. If someone can guarantee me there is plenty of money for Trout in the future than I'm all for it.

$28 million falls of next years payroll (Wells & Blanton) plenty of money to sign Trout to a long deal. Besides we need a frontline pitcher for when Weaver can't hack it anymore.

[TroutAdell]

Tanaka for his upside. No way on Garza, too many injuries and not consistent.

[Docwaukee]

The darvish vs Wilson argument was similar except now it's more money for lesser players. The team would be fine with garza but Tanaka gives them a legit shot at a 25yo #2 to anchor the rotation for several years.

With him, even if 2014 doesn't go as planned, their rotation is young and solid and additional moves can be made to strengthen the team for the near future by moving guys like howie, aybar, ianetta, Wilson, and maybe even weaver and Hamilton depending on whether he bounces back.

Having about 5mil less in payroll flex is well worth the risk for the potential upside.

[Docwaukee]

If signing tanaka meant they couldn't sign trout, then they won't sign tanaka.