Tanaka AND Garza?

[Torridd]

First off, I'd like to give credit to the poster who mentioned the possibility of this yesterday. What I was thinking that Arte could swing Garza to sign for less, letting him know that Tanaka may be in the fold. This would be similar to the Pujols/Wilson acquisitions. Possible? 

[nate]

Not a chance that happens.

[rick99gtp]

There's always a chance.

[nate]

Not in this case.

[Scott34]

No

[bloodbrother]

[ukyah]

keep thinking butch, that's what you're good at.

[Chimi]

I can't wait until Tanaka signs somewhere so we can be done with these ridiculous, wet dream threads.

[Lou]

what's wrong with wet dreams?

[Torridd]

Is there any credence to the rumors that we're one of three teams he's considering?

[floplag]

People are funny... for so long now some of you post endlessly about depth and how desperate this team is for pitching.. and yet every single plan people put forth gets poo-poo'd.

 

This plan would give us the top 2 FA pitchers on the market this year... you realize that right? 

 

I have argued that isn't necessarily great in what i feel is a down year for FA starters but for THIS year... we could not do better than that

 

Is it realistic.. i dont know, but it isnt a bad idea if you truly believe we are that desperate for pitching, what else could be better right now in the current market?

[bloodbrother]

People aren't poo-pooing the thought of this. We'd all love it, it's just not realistic AT ALL

[Stradling]

People are funny... for so long now some of you post endlessly about depth and how desperate this team is for pitching.. and yet every single plan people put forth gets poo-poo'd.

This plan would give us the top 2 FA pitchers on the market this year... you realize that right?

I have argued that isn't necessarily great in what i feel is a down year for FA starters but for THIS year... we could not do better than that

Is it realistic.. i dont know, but it isnt a bad idea if you truly believe we are that desperate for pitching, what else could be better right now in the current market?

This coming from the guy that went on a rampage against signing Tanaka.

[Chimi]

I rather see them sign Garza and Capuano for $100MM less.

[floplag]

People aren't poo-pooing the thought of this. We'd all love it, it's just not realistic AT ALL

 

why?  you dont know what the numbers will be any more than i do... if both could be had for about 25-30 mil or so, would that be unrealistic?

you may be right.. but until we know the real numbers anything is possible

[floplag]

This coming from the guy that went on a rampage against signing Tanaka.

 

and i still am pending the value of the deal... that hasnt changed.

i said many times if the price was right i wouldn't oppose it.. only that i wouldn't overpay for an unproven commodity.

you focus on one part of a post without reading it apparently.

[LightTheHalo]

[bloodbrother]

why?  you dont know what the numbers will be any more than i do... if both could be had for about 25-30 mil or so, would that be unrealistic?

you may be right.. but until we know the real numbers anything is possible

 

It's unrealistic because they'd be committing well over $100 million by 2015-2016 to only 6 players, and that doesn't include a Trout extension. This team can flaunt one of the higher payrolls in MLB, but they still have a certain limit. The roster would be a complete disaster since they'd have 70%(perhaps even more) or so of their payroll locked up into 6 players, 5 of them over the age of 30(Hamilton, CJ, Weav, Garza, Pujols). They'd need to fill out the rest of hte roster with complete scrubs. The team wouldn't be competitive at all like this

Edited January 16, 2014 by bloodbrother

[IowaAngels27]

Maybe Blanton won't make Arte pay him the rest of his contract either.

[rick99gtp]

Is there any credence to the rumors that we're one of three teams he's considering?

 

According to Mr. Fletcher, no.  According to everyone else.  Yes.

 

Of course, I do agree that most likely we won't get him, based primarily on the hype the Dodgers and Yankees are getting.  But, we all know how off-seasons have been around here.

[Blarg]

what's wrong with wet dreams?

Nothing if they about 26 year old Japanese women instead of some dude that throws a baseball.

[floplag]

It's unrealistic because they'd be committing well over $100 million by 2015-2016 to only 6 players, and that doesn't include a Trout extension. This team can flaunt one of the higher payrolls in MLB, but they still have a certain limit. The roster would be a complete disaster since they'd have 70%(perhaps even more) or so of their payroll locked up into 6 players, 5 of them over the age of 30(Hamilton, CJ, Weav, Garza, Pujols). They'd need to fill out the rest of hte roster with complete scrubs. The team wouldn't be competitive at all like this

 

all true.. however, how do you suggest we fix the team needs without doing that?

we cant have it both ways at this point.. we either do what we need to do to win, or we worry about payroll...  there is no scenario that lets us do both at this time unless we are content as a second to third place team while paying these contracts, which makes little sense.

if you have another way im all ears... but given the current landscape in FA, our farm system to try to make trades, and every other realistic thing in play... im betting you dont.

[Stradling]

We sign a second tier guy and hope that Skaggs is as good as was projected going into last year.

[ukyah]

the word "could" is getting thrown around pretty willy nilly in this thread. the world could end tomorrow, but all those guys with "the end is near" signs still sound like assholes today.

[gotbeer]

This will only be possible if the earlier rumors were true and that Tanaka is only looking for $17 million a year.  And the other rumor is true that Garza can be had for 3 years mixed with the other rumor that he could be had for $12.5 million a year.

 

So on paper, sure, it possible.  But on paper, the Angels were WS contenders last year.