Why the Angels should avoid Tanaka

[Brent Maguire]

Niese has a reasonably good contract and is about a league average pitcher but he's had injury issues too.

Kinda sounds like Garza without the good contract included.

[arch stanton]

Avoiding signing Tanaka because of fear of failure is failure in advance. It's as despicable as losing to get a protected draft pick. This guy should put down the keyboard and go search for his testicles.

[Tyler]

Get Tanaka.

[nate]

So just because there are better options we should waste money on a shit pitcher?  I don't get it.

 

Tanaka should be choice A

Garza should be choice B

Trade for a frontline starter if possible choice C

 

Stay in house otherwise.  If they wanted a below average pitcher they could have held onto Jerome.

Edited January 14, 2014 by nate

[tdawg87]

"What is depth?"

 

-Angels fans.

[floplag]

well shit i guess it does matter what name the opinion is posted under, lol 

[Docwaukee]

Hey, I get it.  All are very gun shy in regards to taking on big contracts relative to how they've turned out.  Pujols is stiff wind from the DL and Hamilton is essentially a $25mil/yr platoon player. 

 

Whatever player evaluations that were done to justify the above didn't work.  On a smaller scale, even a small FA deal to provide SP depth and innings at the back of the rotation was an epic disaster. 

 

Here's the thing though.  You either trust your process or you don't.  If you don't, you either change it or fine someone with a new one that seems better. 

 

The halos are in the business of managing risk just like all business owners. 

What is the risk of signing Tanaka?  Or Garza? Or Maholm? Or no one else?

Do you get a free agent bust?  Do you barely miss the playoffs because the back of your rotation wasn't good?  Do you barely miss the playoffs because you lack depth?  Do you lose Trout to free agency if the team isn't competitive? 

 

So what are the biggest risks for this team going forward?

To me, the biggest risk for this franchise is losing Mike Trout.  That just cannot happen.  Now, there is a couple of things to consider relative to this.

1.  If he's going to want to be a free agent regardless of the money you throw at him then you have 4 more seasons to do something while he is here.  With that limited window you are obligated to try and turn your team into a winner.  If you are not committed to that, then you should just trade him.  So, in this scenario, you would be better served to make a high risk, high reward move because in four years you are toast anyway.  It may even lure Trout to stay.

2. If he's intent on wanting to play for a winner, then you are also obligated to the above as well.

3. If you can get him to sign a long term deal at the beginning of the season then you have extended your window a bit but you are still left with a pretty narrow hamilton/pujols/weaver/wilson window. 

4. If getting Tanaka meant you cant afford Trout, then they wouldn't even be considering him at this point so I don't even think that's an issue.

 

Tanaka and Trout are going to be one of the main reasons why this team could remain competitive with a real chance to win over the next four years or it's all gonna come crashing down anyway.  Without the Tanaka that is the #2/3 starter, is this team good enough and will there be enough talent to help them turn the corner or are they just a fringe team looking for that 1 year here and there of lightning in a bottle. 

 

It could come crashing down with or without Tanaka.  Does it crash any harder if he contributes to that?

[Cdaniel]

I'm good with signing Tanaka. I'm just trying to think of different ways we can improve or depth and rotation if signing Tanaka or Garza doesn't happen.

[Halos of Anaheim]

Hey, I get it.  All are very gun shy in regards to taking on big contracts relative to how they've turned out.  Pujols is stiff wind from the DL and Hamilton is essentially a $25mil/yr platoon player. 

 

Whatever player evaluations that were done to justify the above didn't work.  On a smaller scale, even a small FA deal to provide SP depth and innings at the back of the rotation was an epic disaster. 

 

Here's the thing though.  You either trust your process or you don't.  If you don't, you either change it or fine someone with a new one that seems better. 

 

The halos are in the business of managing risk just like all business owners. 

What is the risk of signing Tanaka?  Or Garza? Or Maholm? Or no one else?

Do you get a free agent bust?  Do you barely miss the playoffs because the back of your rotation wasn't good?  Do you barely miss the playoffs because you lack depth?  Do you lose Trout to free agency if the team isn't competitive? 

 

So what are the biggest risks for this team going forward?

To me, the biggest risk for this franchise is losing Mike Trout.  That just cannot happen.  Now, there is a couple of things to consider relative to this.

1.  If he's going to want to be a free agent regardless of the money you throw at him then you have 4 more seasons to do something while he is here.  With that limited window you are obligated to try and turn your team into a winner.  If you are not committed to that, then you should just trade him.  So, in this scenario, you would be better served to make a high risk, high reward move because in four years you are toast anyway.  It may even lure Trout to stay.

2. If he's intent on wanting to play for a winner, then you are also obligated to the above as well.

3. If you can get him to sign a long term deal at the beginning of the season then you have extended your window a bit but you are still left with a pretty narrow hamilton/pujols/weaver/wilson window. 

4. If getting Tanaka meant you cant afford Trout, then they wouldn't even be considering him at this point so I don't even think that's an issue.

 

Tanaka and Trout are going to be one of the main reasons why this team could remain competitive with a real chance to win over the next four years or it's all gonna come crashing down anyway.  Without the Tanaka that is the #2/3 starter, is this team good enough and will there be enough talent to help them turn the corner or are they just a fringe team looking for that 1 year here and there of lightning in a bottle. 

 

It could come crashing down with or without Tanaka.  Does it crash any harder if he contributes to that?

10/10 post.

 

This has been my line of thinking throughout this entire process. Trout is going to leave if this team doesn't become a year in, year out competitive powerhouse. Wells and Blantons contracts are off the books next year which should help, and Hamilton will be gone in another 4 years along with Trout, so that should also help us with the contract (by backloading it). Affording Trout is not a problem in the slightest, or else we wouldn't be a top 3 contender for Tanaka right now.

[Inside Pitch]

I'm good with signing Tanaka. I'm just trying to think of different ways we can improve or depth and rotation if signing Tanaka or Garza doesn't happen.

 

 

Garza shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Tanaka.   But if Gaza is the goal, may as well aim a little lower and save millions on a pitcher that's likely to produce similar results and is supposedly looking for a 2 year deal....

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=400&type=c,8,13,-1,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,38,113,117,118,119,120,121&season=2013&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=13,d

Edited January 14, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[Scott34]

Garza shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Tanaka.   But if Gaza is the goal, may as well aim a little lower and save millions on a pitch that's likely to produce similar results and is supposedly looking for a 2 year deal....

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=400&type=c,8,13,-1,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,38,113,117,118,119,120,121&season=2013&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=13,d

 

So much this.

[Cdaniel]

Garza shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Tanaka. But if Gaza is the goal, may as well aim a little lower and save millions on a pitcher that's likely to produce similar results and is supposedly looking for a 2 year deal....

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=400&type=c,8,13,-1,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,38,113,117,118,119,120,121&season=2013&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=13,d

For me Garza is plan B. Just not feeling Capuano. Looking at the numbers they look pretty similar but watching them pitch Garza has more talent or upside to me.

[Inside Pitch]

For me Garza is plan B. Just not feeling Capuano. Looking at the numbers they look pretty similar but watching them pitch Garza has more talent or upside to me.

 

He's better -- he also is in line for as much as 5 years and 75 million.  Capuano would be happy with 2 years and less combined than one year of Garza.

 

It's a no brainer.

 

 

 

 

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Check out his numbers the last couple years. He is making 5 mil this year and is a lefty. If everyone says we won't have that big of a drop off in offense between Aybar and Romine and Romine might be better defensively then do it. He is under team control for 5 years and his contract is pretty friendly. 5 mil, 7mil, 9 mil and a 10 mil option followed by 11 mil option.

 

I don't think this really makes the team better. It gives us more depth I suppose.

[VariousCrap]

If the Angels don't get Tanaka, I'm fine with that; however if they do this, they need to sign Garza AND Capuano or Maholm.  This gives them the depth they are going to need.

[Brent Maguire]

Tanaka should be priority 1. If the price gets out of hand, move on. I just have a feeling the price is going to be absurd, something north of what Greinke got.

I think Capuano could be a good buy low guy if we decided to go there though.

[Tyler]

This is truly a perfect spot for Tanaka and his family. 

[VariousCrap]

Tanaka should be priority 1. If the price gets out of hand, move on. I just have a feeling the price is going to be absurd, something north of what Greinke got.

I think Capuano could be a good buy low guy if we decided to go there though.

 

 

Whatever Tanaka get is going to be absurb for a pitcher with no MLB experience.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

But there's a real chance that he'll be a dud, or at least mediocre. If that happens, this franchise is ****ed for the next half decade or more. They can't recover from the Dark Ages of 2010-2013 with three massive albatross contracts; two is already enough.

 

This has been my point all along. This franchise absolutely cannot  blow it on another high-priced free agent with a lengthy contract. We aren't the Yankees, just casting such players aside and picking up another one. There is a limit to what can be spent.

 

If the Angels do this, we will see how it unfolds. People just need to know that this deal would come with a lot of implications for the future, some of them potentially devastating.

[Mark68]

It's like a poker tournament. Don't be afraid to take risks. Playing with scared money is the surest way to failure. You get aggressive and go all in or you give up. Tanaka's upside is much higher than Garza's, and Capuano & Maholm are a couple of Blantons-in-waiting.

 

We can be aggressive and go for Tanaka, or we can be squeamish and weak and sign Capuano and/or Maholm.

 

BTW, Garza is not the answer, either.

[Mark68]

He's better -- he also is in line for as much as 5 years and 75 million.  Capuano would be happy with 2 years and less combined than one year of Garza.

 

It's a no brainer.

This is why Blanton is here. He was happy with 2 years and less combined than one year of Greinke. That worked out pretty well.

[Inside Pitch]

This is why Blanton is here. He was happy with 2 years and less combined than one year of Greinke. That worked out pretty well.

 

Yes, indeed -- every pitcher from now on needs to be compared to Blanton.  The Angels should never take any short term risks EVER -- because they screwed the pooch with Blanton.  They would be MUCH better off taking a longer, more expensive risk on a guy like Garza...  

 

75 million over 5 years is just as easy to absporb as 15 mil over 2 -- fact!   I know you're not in favor of Garza, I'm saying it's a pick your poison situation if/when Tanaka signs elsewhere.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[Mark68]

Yes, indeed -- every pitcher from now on needs to be compared to Blanton.  The Angels should never take any short term risks EVER -- because they screwed the pooch with Blanton.  They would be MUCH better off taking a longer, more expensive risk on a guy like Garza...  

 

75 million over 5 years is just as easy to absporb as 15 mil over 2 -- fact!   I know you're not in favor of Garza, I'm saying it's a pick your poison situation if/when Tanaka signs elsewhere.

I was merely pointing out that signing someone just because they're willing to sign cheaply and for a short term is not the sign of great decision-making. Especially with someone the "caliber" of Maholm or Capuano, who I see as being Blanton-like...especially Maholm.

[Docwaukee]

the 5 year scenarios for this team are fairly binary due to their limited window.  Either you make the playoffs or you don't.

 

What are the true options for keeping this team a perennial contender for the next four to five years?

The farm system?  Nope

Hoping that Pujols will be productive 4 years from now? Maybe, but highly doubtful

Expecting Weaver and Wilson to perform like they did last year thru the end of their contract? again, very doubtful

Praying that Hamilton finds the right combo of juices to make him the way he was?  not so much.

Paying $200mil+ for a free agent pitcher to anchor the rotation when you have other significant payroll obligations?  good luck

Signing your franchise player to a long term deal?  Sure

Getting a 25 yo #2 starter to anchor rotation for the next 7 years?  Sure

 

What if your franchise player leaves to be a free agent?  Well, you're screwed

What if that 25yo #2 starters arm falls off or he just isn't very good?  Well, you're screwed

What if you don't sign either of them?  Well, you're screwed

 

You guys and gals see where I'm going with this?

 

You're only real chance to maintain this franchise as a playoff contender for beyond the next 4 years is to sign Trout to a long term deal, and to sign Tanaka and pray to the Japanese god of luck that he's as good as you hope.  Because you really have no other options. 

 

Sure you could try to piecemeal a rotation together for the next four seasons in hopes that Trout and the rest of the offense pick up the slack.  Or you could wait till 2015 and try to get Kershaw or Scherzer, and fill the rest of the team with your up and coming cost controlled minor leaguers.  Uh ya. 

 

If you don't sign Tanaka, or if you do and he doesn't pan out, you are pretty much dead in the water.  Not because of 2014 and maybe even 2015, but because of 2016-2020. 

 

So fine, let's get Maholm or Hammels or Capuano or even Garza.  But bear in mind, 2017 is gonna really really suck.  If we get Tanaka, it still may, but it also might not. 

[YouthofToday]

Not really sure why the mets would trade an affordable asset for the next 3 years plus two reasonable options for a player with only two years left on his deal.

Regardless, who would then play SS? I'm not a big Aybar fan, and am amazed why he would ever bat at the top of the order for a competitive team, yet we don't have an in-house replacement.

The team is probably worse off with this deal. You can find a Capuano who might near Niese's production on a reasonable deal. You simply cannot find a competent SS without draft pick compensation attached easily. Petalta got his deal for a reason -- position scarcity.

Edited January 14, 2014 by YouthofToday