Tanaka comparisons from Fangraphs...

[Docwaukee]

I'm really at a loss about Tanaka, and I think I'm not alone in that. On one hand I'm thinking that if he's a 25-year old Garza then even if he's an overpay he's still a nice commodity to have. On the other, it seems crazy to play ~$25 million a year to a pitcher who MIGHT be Dan Haren but is more likely Matt Garza and could be worse.

 

Dan Haren at his very best is worth $20-25 million, but it just seems nuts to pay for the best-case scenario.

Haren was worth that during the years he played.  He accumulated 30+ fWAR from his age 25-31 seasons making him worth 210mil during that time by current $/WAR standards.  So that is without any furthur escalation.  Normally, $/WAR goes up 250-500k per year.  so in 7 years, 1 WAR will be worth 8-9mil on the free agent market. 

 

Again, I don't think we can just assume that 2-3 WAR in his 2014 or 15 seasons is his max, but if he averages 3 WAR over those 7 years for a total of 21 at a cost of 8 mil per, then he will have been worth 168mil.  21 WAR for age 25-31yo seasons isn't a huge stretch. 

[Mark68]

of course i do, and why do you assume the projections would be better at 30 than 25?  What is the warning signs are right and he isnt what you think he will be?

 

i didnt say they were not positive either... a 3.5 pitchers isnt crap. but it comes down to cost, performance for the investment, and payroll flexibility.

 

it isnt that i dont like him, i just dont think he is worth the rumors and such. 

Look, if you don't understand the age difference, then nobody can really help you. But if both pitchers are signed for 6 years right now, which one do you think has a better performance over the life of the contract? A 25-30 year old Tanaka or a 30-35 year old Garza? One in his peak years or one on the down side of his career, one that has already been marred by injury and has not pitched 200 innings since 2010?

 

For comparison, here's what Clay Davenport projects for Tanaka for the next 6 years:

 

http://www.claydavenport.com/pt/TANAKA19881101A.shtml

Six-year mean projection from 2013  Year Tm Lge   Age   W   L  SV  G   GS  IP    H   BB  SO  HR  GB BABIP STF  WHIP   RA   ERA  LFERA   H/9  BB/9  SO/9  HR/9  RARP  MJ Brk Imp Col Att Drp2014 FA_ NL    25  14  11   0  31  31 220.7 200  47 197  19  50  .288  34  1.12  3.22  3.21  3.37   8.4   2.0   6.4    .9  61.8  99   8  45  10   6   02015 FA_ NL    26  14  10   0  29  29 212.4 194  45 190  18  50  .290  34  1.13  3.26  3.25  3.36   8.5   2.0   6.5    .9  58.6 100   3  40  19  11   02016 FA_ NL    27  13  10   0  28  28 207.3 190  43 182  18  51  .289  34  1.12  3.31  3.31  3.43   8.5   1.9   6.3    .9  55.6 100   6  32  14  15   02017 FA_ NL    28  12  10   0  27  27 201.4 186  41 174  19  51  .287  32  1.13  3.30  3.43  3.63   8.5   1.9   6.2    .9  50.5 100  12  35  26  20   02018 FA_ NL    29  13  10   0  28  28 203.7 189  43 174  19  51  .288  32  1.14  3.39  3.40  3.52   8.5   1.9   6.1    .9  52.7 100   4  33  21  19   12019 FA_ NL    30  12  10   0  29  28 197.0 186  42 166  17  52  .292  31  1.16  3.44  3.43  3.50   8.5   1.9   6.0    .9  49.6 100   3  32  31  27   0

Here are his projections for Garza for the next 6 years:

 

http://www.claydavenport.com/pt/GARZA19831111A.shtml

Six-year mean projection from 2013  Year Tm Lge   Age   W   L  SV  G   GS  IP    H   BB  SO  HR  GB BABIP STF  WHIP   RA   ERA  LFERA   H/9  BB/9  SO/9  HR/9  RARP  MJ Brk Imp Col Att Drp2014 TEX AL    30  10  10   0  29  29 183.6 182  50 160  21  48  .301  19  1.26  4.18  4.00  3.92   8.8   2.7   6.0   1.0  36.2  99   5  38  10  22   32015 TEX AL    31  10  10   0  31  30 175.8 175  48 149  21  49  .299  14  1.27  4.35  4.23  4.01   8.9   2.6   5.7   1.0  30.5  94   5  32  30  24   32016 TEX AL    32   9  10   0  30  29 173.0 177  47 144  20  49  .305  15  1.30  4.39  4.33  4.10   9.1   2.7   5.6   1.0  27.2  93   4  33  23  28   12017 TEX AL    33   9  10   0  29  28 170.1 173  43 136  21  48  .297  13  1.27  4.24  4.32  4.26   8.9   2.5   5.4   1.1  25.9  88   6  30  22  21   12018 TEX AL    34   8  10   0  31  29 165.3 170  41 130  23  48  .296   7  1.28  4.58  4.52  4.24   8.9   2.5   5.3   1.1  22.8  91   1  30  28  30   12019 TEX AL    35   7  10   0  33  30 154.7 162  43 125  21  48  .304   4  1.33  4.62  4.69  4.42   9.3   2.7   5.4   1.2  16.6  86   3  28  32  35   2

To me, it's not even close, as in you can't see close from where the difference between Tanaka and Garza lies.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Mark68

[Ohtaniland]

Japanese pitchers are pretty good.

 

[gotbeer]

Look, if you don't understand the age difference, then nobody can really help you. But if both pitchers are signed for 6 years right now, which one do you think has a better performance over the life of the contract? A 25-30 year old Tanaka or a 30-35 year old Garza? One in his peak years or one on the down side of his career, one that has already been marred by injury and has not pitched 200 innings since 2010?

 

For comparison, here's what Clay Davenport projects for Tanaka for the next 6 years:

 

http://www.claydavenport.com/pt/TANAKA19881101A.shtml

Six-year mean projection from 2013  Year Tm Lge   Age   W   L  SV  G   GS  IP    H   BB  SO  HR  GB BABIP STF  WHIP   RA   ERA  LFERA   H/9  BB/9  SO/9  HR/9  RARP  MJ Brk Imp Col Att Drp2014 FA_ NL    25  14  11   0  31  31 220.7 200  47 197  19  50  .288  34  1.12  3.22  3.21  3.37   8.4   2.0   6.4    .9  61.8  99   8  45  10   6   02015 FA_ NL    26  14  10   0  29  29 212.4 194  45 190  18  50  .290  34  1.13  3.26  3.25  3.36   8.5   2.0   6.5    .9  58.6 100   3  40  19  11   02016 FA_ NL    27  13  10   0  28  28 207.3 190  43 182  18  51  .289  34  1.12  3.31  3.31  3.43   8.5   1.9   6.3    .9  55.6 100   6  32  14  15   02017 FA_ NL    28  12  10   0  27  27 201.4 186  41 174  19  51  .287  32  1.13  3.30  3.43  3.63   8.5   1.9   6.2    .9  50.5 100  12  35  26  20   02018 FA_ NL    29  13  10   0  28  28 203.7 189  43 174  19  51  .288  32  1.14  3.39  3.40  3.52   8.5   1.9   6.1    .9  52.7 100   4  33  21  19   12019 FA_ NL    30  12  10   0  29  28 197.0 186  42 166  17  52  .292  31  1.16  3.44  3.43  3.50   8.5   1.9   6.0    .9  49.6 100   3  32  31  27   0

Here are his projections for Garza for the next 6 years:

 

http://www.claydavenport.com/pt/GARZA19831111A.shtml

Six-year mean projection from 2013  Year Tm Lge   Age   W   L  SV  G   GS  IP    H   BB  SO  HR  GB BABIP STF  WHIP   RA   ERA  LFERA   H/9  BB/9  SO/9  HR/9  RARP  MJ Brk Imp Col Att Drp2014 TEX AL    30  10  10   0  29  29 183.6 182  50 160  21  48  .301  19  1.26  4.18  4.00  3.92   8.8   2.7   6.0   1.0  36.2  99   5  38  10  22   32015 TEX AL    31  10  10   0  31  30 175.8 175  48 149  21  49  .299  14  1.27  4.35  4.23  4.01   8.9   2.6   5.7   1.0  30.5  94   5  32  30  24   32016 TEX AL    32   9  10   0  30  29 173.0 177  47 144  20  49  .305  15  1.30  4.39  4.33  4.10   9.1   2.7   5.6   1.0  27.2  93   4  33  23  28   12017 TEX AL    33   9  10   0  29  28 170.1 173  43 136  21  48  .297  13  1.27  4.24  4.32  4.26   8.9   2.5   5.4   1.1  25.9  88   6  30  22  21   12018 TEX AL    34   8  10   0  31  29 165.3 170  41 130  23  48  .296   7  1.28  4.58  4.52  4.24   8.9   2.5   5.3   1.1  22.8  91   1  30  28  30   12019 TEX AL    35   7  10   0  33  30 154.7 162  43 125  21  48  .304   4  1.33  4.62  4.69  4.42   9.3   2.7   5.4   1.2  16.6  86   3  28  32  35   2

To me, it's not even close, as in you can't see close from where the difference between Tanaka and Garza lies.

 

FA NL vs Tex projections could make it pretty close if you put Tanaka in the AL, and move Garza to a more neutral AL HF or even back to the NL.  

[Brent Maguire]

Those projections seem a bit harsh in Garza but I think he'll pitch closer to that then he will to his last few years.

I just don't see any good reason to sign Garza to a deal over 2 years. I think he'll be a 2-2.5 WAR guy next season but I don't think he's even a league average guy in the years to follow.

Pitchers with injury issues and pitching in their thirties don't tend to get any better.

[floplag]

i love this assumption that i dont understand the age thing, when i have stated multiple times in this thread i get it, i simply disagree in this case.

i get that he is a 25 year old FA... i get that he would perform better over the next 5 years... i am 100% clear on all that... the point, once again, is that i do not think he is worth the rumored money over that time as we wont get value for said performance.

 

you guys are expecting Darvish part 2, this is not it.  i have given multiple stats, sources, and reference3s to back up the calim and all i keep getting are generalities in return... lets focus on this player.

 

There are warning signs that this is a much bigger risk than many of you seem to want to see... thats fine i guess., but to me the risk is too great.  i understand the team needs, i get it.  but desperation moves are not going to help us especially when they leave us with no flexibility in payroll, and no way to address any other issues.

 

If this was a 50 mil guy i would be all over it... if this contract was Darvish money without the posting fee i would be ok with it... i am not ok with paying twice what darvish got regardless of the changes in posting and economy.. im simply not, not when we are talking about a lesser pitcher,

now.. as has been run out there at me i will turn it back on you and say if those statements are not understood im not sure what else to sya on my end either... and we can simply agree to disagree

[tdawg87]

No one expects him to be Darvish. In fact, I think most people agree he isn't as good as Darvish. The Angels don't need a "Darvish" though. They need a good middle of the rotation guy who could potentially be better down the road. Is that worth what he will get? Of course not. You are absolutely right in that regard. But the market for pitchers continues to drastically change and you are going to have to overpay to get middle level to great talent. That's just how it is. It's either the Angels overpay for what would likely be a better investment in Tanaka, or overpay for Garza. Or they sign Maholm and go into 2014 with just as many question marks as they did in 2013.

 

I also wouldn't call it a "desperation" move either. Tanaka is the best pitcher available on the market, and the Angels need pitching. It's pretty much self explanatory that they would go after him. A desperation move would be when they lose out on Tanaka and overpay Garza some ridiculous amount and end up with another player over 30 who has a ridiculous contract that he in no way will ever live up to.

[floplag]

No one expects him to be Darvish. In fact, I think most people agree he isn't as good as Darvish. The Angels don't need a "Darvish" though. They need a good middle of the rotation guy who could potentially be better down the road. Is that worth what he will get? Of course not. You are absolutely right in that regard. But the market for pitchers continues to drastically change and you are going to have to overpay to get middle level to great talent. That's just how it is. It's either the Angels overpay for what would likely be a better investment in Tanaka, or overpay for Garza. Or they sign Maholm and go into 2014 with just as many question marks as they did in 2013.

 

I also wouldn't call it a "desperation" move either. Tanaka is the best pitcher available on the market, and the Angels need pitching. It's pretty much self explanatory that they would go after him. A desperation move would be when they lose out on Tanaka and overpay Garza some ridiculous amount and end up with another player over 30 who has a ridiculous contract that he in no way will ever live up to.

 

ok, a few issues with this post....why pay more for less is the obvious one.. changes in posting or economy be damned.

aside from that though you guys knocks Garza for being worse in  a few years but expect Tanaka to be better?  the difference between 28 and 33 isnt that huge that this makes logical sense to me.

 

i also think the assertaion that Tanaka is the best pitcher available is a bit of a reach.. ive stated why and wont do so again but even IF that satement is true, it isnt by a huge margin and the only real reason you are saying that is the fact that he is 25 instead of 30.

 

Either way it still comes down to a contract that makes sense.. is it worth paying Tanaka twice what we might pay Garza for example for approximately the same production?

 

i understand the reason why you want him.. i do, and im right there with you if the contract makes sense... but in my mind im not paying this guy 120 mil over 6 years for example.. no way no how.  just because he might be the best available doesn't make him great or the best option.

 

If we sign him, we are done... probably over the lux tax, and zero flexibility or options.  This is the part that perhaps bothers me the most.  taking a giant risk and leaving our hands tied as a result.

 

i see other options i think should be explored.. not just in FA pitchers.. ive stated before i think our best option is to trade for the starter with either Kendrick or Aybar, fill the spot from within, max out the pen thru FA or even sign a Garza type for depth, and keep some flexibility for mid season trade options.

 

As i know a lot here play poker ill put in In poker terms the Tanaka plan is all in on the flop praying the river card doesn't kill you...

[tdawg87]

ok, a few issues with this post....why pay more for less is the obvious one.. changes in posting or economy be damned.

aside from that though you guys knocks Garza for being worse in  a few years but expect Tanaka to be better?  the difference between 28 and 33 isnt that huge that this makes logical sense to me.

 

"Why pay more for less" is exactly how the market should be, and it is exactly how the market isn't. You can choose to ignore it but if the Angels ever want to sign an impact player in the future they are going to have to pay up the butt. Not saying I agree with it and certainly some players are better than others but what can you do? When pitchers like Scott Feldman are getting 3/30 deals then Tanaka at 6/120 doesn't seem so bad.

 

i also think the assertaion that Tanaka is the best pitcher available is a bit of a reach.. ive stated why and wont do so again but even IF that satement is true, it isnt by a huge margin and the only real reason you are saying that is the fact that he is 25 instead of 30.

 

Either way it still comes down to a contract that makes sense.. is it worth paying Tanaka twice what we might pay Garza for example for approximately the same production?

 

 

Well first off, pretty much every scout and analyst agrees that he is the best pitcher available. However that would be an argument from authority and I will say that is a poor example. His age is important because if baseball history is to be believed, he should be entering the prime of his career within the next year or so. Whereas pitchers like Garza, Santana, etc.. have already passed their prime. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem to me that you feel a pitcher like Garza would be a better investment. That is not a bad opinion to have, and certainly others feel the same. Although I think you would rather the Angels find a cheaper option than both, which would be great but it's unlikely that a cheaper option would have nearly the same impact.

 

Now if Garza ends up with a 4/60 contract, then that may be a better investment than a 6/120 (or higher) for Tanaka. However that's assuming Garza signs for that amount. Given the market for pitchers, it is likely Garza ends up with 5-6 years and could likely see his contract go north of Weaver and Wilson's. Is 5/95 for Garza at age 30 with his health issues a better investment than Tanaka at age 25 for 1 more year at a couple more million per? That's the point I have been trying to make about age. It's not just that he is younger, but that over the length of the contract he is more likely to produce better numbers than Garza. Years 1 and 2 of the contract could end up being a wash, but years 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the difference maker. Weaver and Wilson are not getting any younger and they are not getting any better so it would be nice to have a guy who could potentially replace them a couple years down the road. Garza at 32-33 is not that guy.

 

If we sign him, we are done... probably over the lux tax, and zero flexibility or options.  This is the part that perhaps bothers me the most.  taking a giant risk and leaving our hands tied as a result.

 

Perhaps, but if they sign him they don't really need anything else, at least not free agent-wise. Then in 2015 Wells comes off the books.

[Inside Pitch]

ok, a few issues with this post....why pay more for less is the obvious one.. changes in posting or economy be damned.

aside from that though you guys knocks Garza for being worse in  a few years but expect Tanaka to be better?  the difference between 28 and 33 isnt that huge that this makes logical sense to me.

 

i also think the assertaion that Tanaka is the best pitcher available is a bit of a reach.. ive stated why and wont do so again but even IF that satement is true, it isnt by a huge margin and the only real reason you are saying that is the fact that he is 25 instead of 30.

 

Either way it still comes down to a contract that makes sense.. is it worth paying Tanaka twice what we might pay Garza for example for approximately the same production?

 

i understand the reason why you want him.. i do, and im right there with you if the contract makes sense... but in my mind im not paying this guy 120 mil over 6 years for example.. no way no how.  just because he might be the best available doesn't make him great or the best option.

 

If we sign him, we are done... probably over the lux tax, and zero flexibility or options.  This is the part that perhaps bothers me the most.  taking a giant risk and leaving our hands tied as a result.

 

i see other options i think should be explored.. not just in FA pitchers.. ive stated before i think our best option is to trade for the starter with either Kendrick or Aybar, fill the spot from within, max out the pen thru FA or even sign a Garza type for depth, and keep some flexibility for mid season trade options.

 

As i know a lot here play poker ill put in In poker terms the Tanaka plan is all in on the flop praying the river card doesn't kill you...

 

 

Meh...  Your paying more for less applies to Garza too.  Some here have advocated paying Garza CJ Wilson money.  CJ Wilson as a SP in the AL prior to signing with the Angels was good for a 142 ERA+.   Garza as a SP in the AL 105 ERA+.  Given teams pay for what a player has done previously it makes ZERO sense to pay a guy that's been all of 5% better than the league what amounts to top end dollars.  Throw in the very real concerns about injury and it's even uglier.

 

Matt Garza is a 4.25-4.50 ERA pitcher in neutral parks.  Who here is really cool with paying as much as 5 years and 15 mil per for that sort of production?  Say what you will about Tanaka -- there is at least the hope he will be better than what we know Garza really is.

[Ohtaniland]

The market cost for pitching continually goes upward. We traded three prospects for a 28 year old Greinke only to watch him leave for 6/$147M. We also failed to put enough stock into Yu Darvish who is worth much more than Texas invested in him. I believe that Pujols, Hamilton and Wells have a lot to do with those decisions and Tanaka will be another guy that we will pass on because of those prior commitments.

If Tanaka ends up signing with Seattle or Texas and becomes a solid #2-3 its going to hurt our AL West chances for years to come.

[AngelsLakersFan]

ok, a few issues with this post....why pay more for less is the obvious one.. changes in posting or economy be damned.

aside from that though you guys knocks Garza for being worse in  a few years but expect Tanaka to be better?  the difference between 28 and 33 isnt that huge that this makes logical sense to me.

 

i also think the assertaion that Tanaka is the best pitcher available is a bit of a reach.. ive stated why and wont do so again but even IF that satement is true, it isnt by a huge margin and the only real reason you are saying that is the fact that he is 25 instead of 30.

 

Either way it still comes down to a contract that makes sense.. is it worth paying Tanaka twice what we might pay Garza for example for approximately the same production?

 

i understand the reason why you want him.. i do, and im right there with you if the contract makes sense... but in my mind im not paying this guy 120 mil over 6 years for example.. no way no how.  just because he might be the best available doesn't make him great or the best option.

 

If we sign him, we are done... probably over the lux tax, and zero flexibility or options.  This is the part that perhaps bothers me the most.  taking a giant risk and leaving our hands tied as a result.

 

i see other options i think should be explored.. not just in FA pitchers.. ive stated before i think our best option is to trade for the starter with either Kendrick or Aybar, fill the spot from within, max out the pen thru FA or even sign a Garza type for depth, and keep some flexibility for mid season trade options.

 

As i know a lot here play poker ill put in In poker terms the Tanaka plan is all in on the flop praying the river card doesn't kill you...

 

You might tell everyone this isn't true, but your opinion is that this team needs to go into the 2014 pretty much with what they have right now.  That is 5 starting pitchers, one without any real track record at the major league level last season as Arizona's #5 (Skaggs), another called a 5th starter by must pundits after the trade (Santiago) and our 5th starter from last season (Richards). If anyone gets hurt we are counting on a guy who hasn't pitched in the big leagues in 5 years. That's a lot of 5's... Your solution to this issue is to trade our second basemen and move the hole into the everyday lineup.

 

That could work, but the bottom line is this team is still one legit starter away from being considered a real contender in my eyes. Right now everything will have to break our way, which is the opposite of what has happened the last two seasons.

 

Garza and Tanaka fit the mold of what this team needs. Garza will cost less, and Tanaka will probably have just as good of a 2014 as Garza does. You seem to be afraid of spending money, because to sign starting pitchers means to spend way more money than you want to. That is the nature of the beast. I'm not afraid of spending money, I'm afraid of the team wasting it. I trust in Garza's ability over the next year or two, but I wouldn't give him a contract beyond that if I had the option. The last three years of that deal I expect to just be money down the drain. Meanwhile with Tanaka, even if he isn't as good as we'd hoped, those 6 years should all be productive. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a slight raise in the AAV of his second contract down the line.

 

Bottom line, Garza plugs a hole on the 2014 roster for a lot of money. Tanaka gives us a cog in the rotation for the next 6 years, for a lot more money.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The market cost for pitching continually goes upward. We traded three prospects for a 28 year old Greinke only to watch him leave for 6/$147M. We also failed to put enough stock into Yu Darvish who is worth much more than Texas invested in him. I believe that Pujols, Hamilton and Wells have a lot to do with those decisions and Tanaka will be another guy that we will pass on because of those prior commitments.

If Tanaka ends up signing with Seattle or Texas and becomes a solid #2-3 its going to hurt our AL West chances for years to come.

 

It reminds me of when we passed on Carlos Beltran to play centerfield. We decided he wasn't worth the money and signed the older Steve Finley as the cheaper alternative, who was a total bust. We needed a CFer still so we gave another $50 million to Gary Mathews because there was no one else available. We all know how that turned out. Finally we ended up 'overpaying' for the best CFer available a couple years later in Torii Hunter. We finally filled the hole in center, and in the long run Torii ended up being more than worth his contract. We spent far more money though, than if we had simply signed Beltran, and we went another three years with a gaping hole in center.

 

I see a lot of similarities in this current discussion. 

[Brent Maguire]

Wait people have said Tanaka will be as good as Darvish?

I haven't seen one person claim that Tanaka will be on that level. Darvish was crazy good last year.

[Mark68]

ok, a few issues with this post....why pay more for less is the obvious one.. changes in posting or economy be damned.

aside from that though you guys knocks Garza for being worse in  a few years but expect Tanaka to be better?  the difference between 28 and 33 isnt that huge that this makes logical sense to me.

 

i also think the assertaion that Tanaka is the best pitcher available is a bit of a reach.. ive stated why and wont do so again but even IF that satement is true, it isnt by a huge margin and the only real reason you are saying that is the fact that he is 25 instead of 30.

 

Either way it still comes down to a contract that makes sense.. is it worth paying Tanaka twice what we might pay Garza for example for approximately the same production?

 

i understand the reason why you want him.. i do, and im right there with you if the contract makes sense... but in my mind im not paying this guy 120 mil over 6 years for example.. no way no how.  just because he might be the best available doesn't make him great or the best option.

 

If we sign him, we are done... probably over the lux tax, and zero flexibility or options.  This is the part that perhaps bothers me the most.  taking a giant risk and leaving our hands tied as a result.

 

i see other options i think should be explored.. not just in FA pitchers.. ive stated before i think our best option is to trade for the starter with either Kendrick or Aybar, fill the spot from within, max out the pen thru FA or even sign a Garza type for depth, and keep some flexibility for mid season trade options.

 

As i know a lot here play poker ill put in In poker terms the Tanaka plan is all in on the flop praying the river card doesn't kill you...

If I'm holding pocket aces and the flop comes AAJ with two suits, I'm not really worried that the royal comes in. If I have to get all my chips in on that flop, I'll be more than happy to risk the possibility that the one-outer gets there...

Edited January 4, 2014 by Mark68

[floplag]

If I'm holding pocket aces and the flop comes AAJ with two suits, I'm not really worried that the royal comes in. If I have to get all my chips in on that flop, I'll be more than happy to risk the possibility that the one-outer gets there...

 

gee, you think?  problem with your analogy is that Tanaka is NOT rolled up quads... you are on top pair facing both a straight and a flush draw, how do you like it now?

 

[floplag]

You might tell everyone this isn't true, but your opinion is that this team needs to go into the 2014 pretty much with what they have right now.  That is 5 starting pitchers, one without any real track record at the major league level last season as Arizona's #5 (Skaggs), another called a 5th starter by must pundits after the trade (Santiago) and our 5th starter from last season (Richards). If anyone gets hurt we are counting on a guy who hasn't pitched in the big leagues in 5 years. That's a lot of 5's... Your solution to this issue is to trade our second basemen and move the hole into the everyday lineup.

 

That could work, but the bottom line is this team is still one legit starter away from being considered a real contender in my eyes. Right now everything will have to break our way, which is the opposite of what has happened the last two seasons.

 

Garza and Tanaka fit the mold of what this team needs. Garza will cost less, and Tanaka will probably have just as good of a 2014 as Garza does. You seem to be afraid of spending money, because to sign starting pitchers means to spend way more money than you want to. That is the nature of the beast. I'm not afraid of spending money, I'm afraid of the team wasting it. I trust in Garza's ability over the next year or two, but I wouldn't give him a contract beyond that if I had the option. The last three years of that deal I expect to just be money down the drain. Meanwhile with Tanaka, even if he isn't as good as we'd hoped, those 6 years should all be productive. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a slight raise in the AAV of his second contract down the line.

 

Bottom line, Garza plugs a hole on the 2014 roster for a lot of money. Tanaka gives us a cog in the rotation for the next 6 years, for a lot more money.

 

no, that is NOT my opinion.. i hae stated my opinion on what i think we should do and standing pat is not on that list.  and lets be honest, Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable...  a drop of fsure but isnt the upgrade in the pitching likely to offset that?

Im not afraid of spending, im afraid of spending so much we tie or hands when something comes along mid season or elsewhere that can help us as much or even more

look i get itt isnt quite apples to apples... but i would rather pay garza 3 or 4 years as lets say 12 mil, than i would tanaka 12-15 over 6... and even that may not get it done so...

i dont want to take a 6 year risk... we have enough of that already.  i dont knowwhya thats so hard to get.  i know he cloud help.. he could also be average,, 6 years of average kill this club right now in my opinion.

 

[GregAlso]

no, that is NOT my opinion.. i hae stated my opinion on what i think we should do and standing pat is not on that list. and lets be honest, Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable... a drop of fsure but isnt the upgrade in the pitching likely to offset that?

Im not afraid of spending, im afraid of spending so much we tie or hands when something comes along mid season or elsewhere that can help us as much or even more

look i get itt isnt quite apples to apples... but i would rather pay garza 3 or 4 years as lets say 12 mil, than i would tanaka 12-15 over 6... and even that may not get it done so...

i dont want to take a 6 year risk... we have enough of that already. i dont knowwhya thats so hard to get. i know he cloud help.. he could also be average,, 6 years of average kill this club right now in my opinion.

Your plan won't work for the reason you just stated. Because "Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable" we will not get much for them. How can you assume we will get anything of much value for two guys that are easy to replace? Why would a GM give up much for two guys he can easily replace? There are no teams out there in desperate need of MIF and if they were Drew is still available. Drop the trade Kendrick and Aybar nonsense.

[floplag]

Your plan won't work for the reason you just stated. Because "Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable" we will not get much for them. How can you assume we will get anything of much value for two guys that are easy to replace? Why would a GM give up much for two guys he can easily replace? There are no teams out there in desperate need of MIF and if they were Drew is still available. Drop the trade Kendrick and Aybar nonsense.

 

Easily replaceable for us.. not so much for some other teams in need of those spots.  we have some depth at MIF still.. i would be ok with Romine at either spot if it meant upgrading the staff.  Remember, we dont need an ace here.. we need a legit #3.

Drew, like many others is still out there due to draft pick compensation, which makes our guys more attractive... you call call it nonsense all you like but bringing drew into it suggest you may not know as much as you think as they are in a totally different place due to the draft picks.

[ispy45]

Easily replaceable for us.. not so much for some other teams in need of those spots.  we have some depth at MIF still.. i would be ok with Romine at either spot if it meant upgrading the staff.  Remember, we dont need an ace here.. we need a legit #3.

Drew, like many others is still out there due to draft pick compensation, which makes our guys more attractive... you call call it nonsense all you like but bringing drew into it suggest you may not know as much as you think as they are in a totally different place due to the draft picks.

We tried trading Kendrick/Aybar, it didn't work. Hence. this is why we traded Trumbo.

[GregAlso]

Easily replaceable for us.. not so much for some other teams in need of those spots. we have some depth at MIF still.. i would be ok with Romine at either spot if it meant upgrading the staff. Remember, we dont need an ace here.. we need a legit #3.

Drew, like many others is still out there due to draft pick compensation, which makes our guys more attractive... you call call it nonsense all you like but bringing drew into it suggest you may not know as much as you think as they are in a totally different place due to the draft picks.

Did you forget the reports about the best offer out there for Kendrick straight up was Santiago? That's what Kendrick is worth to teams out there. You're crazy if you think you can get more than that for either.

[Docwaukee]

no, that is NOT my opinion.. i hae stated my opinion on what i think we should do and standing pat is not on that list.  and lets be honest, Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable...  a drop of fsure but isnt the upgrade in the pitching likely to offset that?

Im not afraid of spending, im afraid of spending so much we tie or hands when something comes along mid season or elsewhere that can help us as much or even more

look i get itt isnt quite apples to apples... but i would rather pay garza 3 or 4 years as lets say 12 mil, than i would tanaka 12-15 over 6... and even that may not get it done so...

i dont want to take a 6 year risk... we have enough of that already.  i dont knowwhya thats so hard to get.  i know he cloud help.. he could also be average,, 6 years of average kill this club right now in my opinion.

 

I get that you fundamentally don't believe in Tanaka's upside outweighing what you perceive as untoward risk.  You certainly could be right. 

 

the problem is that Garza is going to get more like 18mil per for 4-5 years and I think Tanaka is going to get 20-22 for 6-7 years plus the posting fee.  I think both of those are pretty bad contracts.  I agree that I think Aybar has value on the trade market and could net a decent club controlled guy with upside but I don't think that guy would be anything close to a #3 for 2014. 

 

My biggest problem with Garza is that even if he stays healthy, he is unlikely to ever be as good as he once was and that wasn't all that great.  He was a #3 for one year in 2011 and has been a #4 the last two years and the previous two years.  It seems you agree with that by what you mentioned earlier.

 

The thing about 'handcuffing' the team so they can make a move at the deadline isn't much of an issue imo as we don't really have the chips to get anything anyway.  Nor should they move anyone anyway. 

 

If they want to make the team better for 2014, they have to do something now.  At around 100-120 total (including posting) for Tanaka, I was inclined to be ok with the risk whereas now, they are talking as if the total package could come close to 160-170mil over 7 years.  That sure seems like a lot of dough. 

[Mark68]

gee, you think?  problem with your analogy is that Tanaka is NOT rolled up quads... you are on top pair facing both a straight and a flush draw, how do you like it now?

 

Well, with another analogy, I have a higher flush draw (think AK suited) with a Broadway draw against 98 suited (same suit) on an AJT flop with the JT suited, meaning queens don't help my opponent and the flush doesn't help my opponent either (unless it's the 7). I'll still take my chances.

 

IMO, that is the difference between Tanaka and Garza.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Mark68

[floplag]

I get that you fundamentally don't believe in Tanaka's upside outweighing what you perceive as untoward risk.  You certainly could be right. 

 

the problem is that Garza is going to get more like 18mil per for 4-5 years and I think Tanaka is going to get 20-22 for 6-7 years plus the posting fee.  I think both of those are pretty bad contracts.  I agree that I think Aybar has value on the trade market and could net a decent club controlled guy with upside but I don't think that guy would be anything close to a #3 for 2014. 

 

My biggest problem with Garza is that even if he stays healthy, he is unlikely to ever be as good as he once was and that wasn't all that great.  He was a #3 for one year in 2011 and has been a #4 the last two years and the previous two years.  It seems you agree with that by what you mentioned earlier.

 

The thing about 'handcuffing' the team so they can make a move at the deadline isn't much of an issue imo as we don't really have the chips to get anything anyway.  Nor should they move anyone anyway. 

 

If they want to make the team better for 2014, they have to do something now.  At around 100-120 total (including posting) for Tanaka, I was inclined to be ok with the risk whereas now, they are talking as if the total package could come close to 160-170mil over 7 years.  That sure seems like a lot of dough. 

 

Let me be clear.... IF the cost on Garza is 18 mil or IF the term is 5 years, im not interested in him either... just for the record... im betting it wont be.  if it gets that high he also is too big a risk.  If it comes down to lets say 5/90 on Garza, or 6 110-120 for Tanaka, i would go with Tanaka.. my point is i dont like either one of those ideas.

 

The bottom line is you guys in desperation mode on Tanaka... be honest... everything i keep getting hit back with is about the desperate need we have for pitching that justifies over paying etc... talk of upside without any concern for the down.. thats fine, i get that, i just dont agree. 

 

Im not saying anyone is wrong about our need... trust me im well aware of it... i just dont like how this puzzle fits together. 

[floplag]

Well, with another analogy, I have a higher flush draw (think AK suited) with a Broadway draw against 98 suited (same suit) on an AJT flop with the JT suited, meaning queens don't help my opponent and the flush doesn't help my opponent either (unless it's the 7). I'll still take my chances.

 

IMO, that is the difference between Tanaka and Garza.

fine, i think you are overvaluing tanaka in that assumption... simple, right?