Will Red Sox pursue Japanese Ace - Masahiro Tanaka?

[User Name]

Teams have different revenue functions and different situations - it's one of the reasons baseball's model is more sustainable than the lockout-a-decade NHL. There is a point when the $$$ is flat-out too much indeed, but the team that places the bid knows what that level is for them. The ARod deal did not work out for Texas because ARod's contributed wins were not nearly enough to get into a needle moving area. In Boston, where the franchise was in 2001, the wins added and the playoff impact and the revenue benefits that come with it, a gigantic investment makes more sense. Indeed, when Boston signed Manny to that contract, this all came into play. The business decision the Sox have to make with a large investment is separate from what the other teams do ... so it is hard to argue that a posting fee of XX is good or bad, since it depends on the team that actually is ponying up the cash.

 

I'm talking about the Yankee A-Rod contract. And also, regardless of team, there's a point where "Pay X for player X" is a bad investment because of a cost/production imbalance right away. The Nats paying 126 million for Jayson Werth is just as bad as the Rays paying 126 million for Jayson Werth simply because of the size of the contract, since he's obviously not going to provide 126 million production. I understand that the posting fee is a different beast altogether, but you still have to factor in the contract the player gets after the posting fee, and even that may be an albatross right off the bat.

[marklmw]

If I had to do my life over I would have studied sports management and learned how all the financials work for each major professional sports team ... mainly player contracts and how the caps work.

[marklmw]

Well the only argument I have with this is that while we might have rightfully questioned whether we really had a 1 or not even based on his regular season performance, in point of fact we did have a 1. It just took awhile for him to convince himself that he had to find that top gear within himself before he could claim it. But it would be hard to consider Lester a #2/3 ever again. I suppose there is a question about whether he can sustain it which is not to imply that he needs to put up his post season numbers in the regular season to sustain it. If he had fewer of those seemingly lost in a cutter quagmire periods during the regular season, that would be the end of any discussion that he is a 2 masquerading as a 1 IMO. He has convinced me without question. It is just always hard to know where baseball fits for these guys once they have families, money to burn etc etc. Take a hell of a lotta' commitment to be the guy at the top.

 

Plus I doubt anybody will ever fully credit him for how hard it is to be that successful in Fenway as a LH pitcher since every little mistake you make ends up over or against that wall.

 

In reality every team ... all 30 of them have a # 1. It is also true that some teams # 2 might be better than many of the # 1's. It is when a teams number 3 has better numbers than your teams # 1 that you have a problem on your hands. When you look at Lester can you honestly rank him ahead of Verlander? Do not get me wrong here ... I have always been a fan of Lester and he proved himself big time in the WS.

[Palodios]

In reality every team ... all 30 of them have a # 1.

 

I have no idea why, but this logic is unacceptable on this forum. I don't think I have ever been ripped so hard as the time I considered Liriano a #1, the year after he started the first game of a playoff series with the twins. For some strange reason "Ace" is a term that only applies to the top 5 pitchers in the majors at any given time.

[jung]

Verlander at his peak was probably better than Lester but Verlander at his peak was likely the best of the 1's. That does not make the other other 1's out there any less of a 1.

 

Our problem or maybe I should correct that and say my problem with Lester is that he always had this year's post season performance in him and he always had the regular season goods of a pitcher that could have that kind of post season. However he had not to this point demanded it of himself. Again for a guy like him to have not known that there was another level that he needed to aspire to, that he had not to the point when he made those comments reached is pretty amazing. As I said earlier though, if he did not know the correct answer to that question then, he sure as hell knows it now.

[Bellhorn04]

I have no idea why, but this logic is unacceptable on this forum. I don't think I have ever been ripped so hard as the time I considered Liriano a #1, the year after he started the first game of a playoff series with the twins. For some strange reason "Ace" is a term that only applies to the top 5 pitchers in the majors at any given time.

 

I've always thought that 'ace' was a confused, misused and overused term.

 

As for '#1', that too is thrown around loosely but should be easier to define. In 2012 Buchholz was our #1 pitcher by default. But you can't really say that a pitcher with a 4.56 ERA pitched like a #1.

 

There are 30 teams in baseball, so I think the average stats of the top thirty starters in baseball are a pretty good measuring stick for defining a typical #1.

[rjortiz]

I have no idea why, but this logic is unacceptable on this forum. I don't think I have ever been ripped so hard as the time I considered Liriano a #1, the year after he started the first game of a playoff series with the twins. For some strange reason "Ace" is a term that only applies to the top 5 pitchers in the majors at any given time.

 

Those people have a different definition of ace than you do.

[jung]

It is hard to call the fattest turkey of five turkeys a 1 just because he is the fattest of them. By Bell's measure the fattest turkey of five turkeys probably does not have numbers that average out to the middle of the top 30 starters in baseball. There are things you have to be capable of that distinguishes a real staff 1. The ability to win after a lose for one thing as in stopping losing streaks. The ability to withstand the pressure of usually having to face the opponent's best pitcher for another. He is the guy that you would hand the ball to every time if you had to have one big game. Surely at this point even if Buch were healthy and even given Lackey's remarkable recovery given the time since his TJ, the guy we would hand the ball to would be Jon Lester...without question at least IMO.

 

As I said earlier, we are likely always just going to look at Lester's numbers without really taking into account how many games he has to pitch in Fenway Park which is a graveyard for LH pitchers. That may always be an issue with regard to how we rate him because nobody will likely take into account how unforgiving Fenway is to LH pitchers.

[seabeachfred]

The Sox moved on from Damon knowing that he wouldn't be able to continue in CF very long. They were right and won a WS without him in 07. Teix started out great, but the $'s and length of contract don't agree to his performance. Ignoring the end of a bad contract is what neutered the Yanks this year. Old players are more prone to injury and reduced production.

 

Then the question we should all ask ourselves is if an eight or ten year contract is detrimental to a team if the last four or five years hampers a team but the first four or five result in WS or League titles. In other words do we take the first five and thrive and accept the last five and dive? I don't know the answer if I was a GM but I think I would take a chance and hope to get two or three titles before the reaction sets in. This is what the Angels out here have done the last two seasons because they got tired of just winning division titles and yearned for another WS entry. Obviously, it hasn't worked for them.

[User Name]

Then the question we should all ask ourselves is if an eight or ten year contract is detrimental to a team if the last four or five years hampers a team but the first four or five result in WS or League titles. In other words do we take the first five and thrive and accept the last five and dive? I don't know the answer if I was a GM but I think I would take a chance and hope to get two or three titles before the reaction sets in. This is what the Angels out here have done the last two seasons because they got tired of just winning division titles and yearned for another WS entry. Obviously, it hasn't worked for them.

 

One player does not a championship win.

[seabeachfred]

Remember when they had claimed to have no interest in signing Crawford, had dinner with him, and never made an actual offer? I do agree that sometimes the AL East can seem like a chess match haha

 

Boy do I remember that Pal. The Yankees really put one over on us there because not only didn't they want to sign Crawford but knew from scouts that he did not like playing before animated and demanding crowds. I wonder how come we didn't see that? Once again we were made to dance to the Yankees tune and if was a bad signing that will in all inevitability cost us Jacoby Ellsbury since his agent thinks he is worth at least what we paid Crawford. You know, I didn't mention it on this board but on the old Dirt Dogs one I said our first WS Title in eons ended a curse and gave us credibility, and the second validated us as a consistent threat for deep success. However, I added that it would take three to finally rid ourselves of jumping every time the Yankees do something to sign a player or threaten to. Well, we have three now and we lead them this century three titles to one. I really think it is about time for them to start reacting to us because at this moment we are the most dominant team in baseball----if anyone cares to look at the record.

[Palodios]

I've always thought that 'ace' was a confused, misused and overused term.

 

As for '#1', that too is thrown around loosely but should be easier to define. In 2012 Buchholz was our #1 pitcher by default. But you can't really say that a pitcher with a 4.56 ERA pitched like a #1.

 

There are 30 teams in baseball, so I think the average stats of the top thirty starters in baseball are a pretty good measuring stick for defining a typical #1.

 

 

Those people have a different definition of ace than you do.

 

The whole thing just gives me a headache. Why bitch when someone calls a guy with a 2.20 ERA an "ace" because he doesn't have the innings? It is just a pet peeve of mine because of the sheer consistency of people arguing about the term -- even for very very good seasons.

[User Name]

Well in this case, because if he doesn't have the innings, that means he wasn't reliable. You can't be an ace if you're not reliable, be it because of health issues or pitch economy.

[Palodios]

Boy do I remember that Pal. The Yankees really put one over on us there because not only didn't they want to sign Crawford but knew from scouts that he did not like playing before animated and demanding crowds. I wonder how come we didn't see that? Once again we were made to dance to the Yankees tune and if was a bad signing that will in all inevitability cost us Jacoby Ellsbury since his agent thinks he is worth at least what we paid Crawford. You know, I didn't mention it on this board but on the old Dirt Dogs one I said our first WS Title in eons ended a curse and gave us credibility, and the second validated us as a consistent threat for deep success. However, I added that it would take three to finally rid ourselves of jumping every time the Yankees do something to sign a player or threaten to. Well, we have three now and we lead them this century three titles to one. I really think it is about time for them to start reacting to us because at this moment we are the most dominant team in baseball----if anyone cares to look at the record.

 

Last time they went on a spending spree they picked up that Sabathia guy, who turned out to be pretty good. I'd be more worried about seeing them do some damage in free agency if it weren't for the sheer number of players they might end up losing, and the lack of good options available. Worst case scenario, they resign Cano, Kuroda, Granderson and grab Tanaka, and a few top notch relievers. 300- 400 million bucks, and they end up with a team not significantly better than last year's.

[jung]

I can't see offering players 10 year deals any longer unless the guy is a proven commodity and young at the same time. Since those two things tend to reside on opposite ends of the spectrum how the hell many times can you expect to find both in the same player?...Not too damned often I would guess.

 

Then on top of that you want this hypothetical 10 year contract player's skill set to be a solid fit for your team, not just some guy who has numbers that you think he will continue to unilaterally produce. That is the trap so many teams have fallen into by not knowing how to use the numbers as a tool, preferring to think of the numbers as an end to themselves.

 

That is not to say that what the Sox did in 2013 is necessarily repeatable either. That is even less likely IMO at least not the way they did it.

[Bellhorn04]

Last time they went on a spending spree they picked up that Sabathia guy, who turned out to be pretty good.

 

The original 7 year contract with Sabathia would probably end up regarded as a very acceptable deal for the Yankees.

 

But where they f***ed themselves was with the 3rd year opt-out clause they put in the contract. I couldn't believe that on top of 7 years and 161 million they had to add an opt-out.

 

And sure enough that chicken came home to roost. They ended up tacking on an extra year at 25 million plus a vesting option for yet another year at 25 million. That option vests unless Sabathia misses time in 2016 because of a left shoulder injury. So it could end up as a 9 year 211 million deal.

 

I remember Sabathia at one point said he had no intention of exercising the opt-out. Big shock, he changed his mind.

 

I also remember some talk about how reasonable he was when the terms of the new deal came out. LMAO

[sk7326]

There are 30 teams with #1 positions. I mean Chris Tillman was a staff ace - but nobody would confuse him with a #1 pitcher in parlance ... but when you are speaking about a "#1 pitcher" as an evaluation criteria, you are almost certainly not saying "Top 30 pitcher". When I think of a #1 in that term - I am thinking of a pitcher who has bona fide credentials to be considered alongside positional MVP candidates. That is a pretty exclusive club. I don't think it is 5 pitchers or 6, or a specific number. Indeed Liriano with the Twins (or Liriano now) has always had #1 stuff - but the durability and command has been in and out. It is hard to have the #1 credential without both the stuff e.g. strikeout or extreme ground ball stuff, and the durability.

[Palodios]

The original 7 year contract with Sabathia would probably end up regarded as a very acceptable deal for the Yankees.

 

But where they f***ed themselves was with the 3rd year opt-out clause they put in the contract. I couldn't believe that on top of 7 years and 161 million they had to add an opt-out.

 

And sure enough that chicken came home to roost. They ended up tacking on an extra year at 25 million plus a vesting option for yet another year at 25 million. That option vests unless Sabathia misses time in 2016 because of a left shoulder injury. So it could end up as a 9 year 211 million deal.

 

I remember Sabathia at one point said he had no intention of exercising the opt-out. Big shock, he changed his mind.

 

I also remember some talk about how reasonable he was when the terms of the new deal came out. LMAO

 

Even if Sabathia's career ended tomorrow, that's about as good production you're ever going to get from a long contract like that. In 5 years so far, he has been a legit ace for 4, and they won a championship with him pitching to a 1.98 ERA in 2009.

[sk7326]

The thing with long term deals is that at some point during a 10 year contract, the guy will be legitimately overpaid for his future contribution. The question is when that point shows up, and did the player deliver enough value during the early part to make it worthwhile. If you signed Mike Trout to a 10 year contract now - you absolutely are going to get value for it because the first 5 years are going to be valuable enough to hold up any dropoff in the 2nd half. You'd like to not have to pay for any non-peak years, but it is the nature of an auction that you will have to pay a premium.

[marklmw]

The thing with long term deals is that at some point during a 10 year contract, the guy will be legitimately overpaid for his future contribution. The question is when that point shows up, and did the player deliver enough value during the early part to make it worthwhile. If you signed Mike Trout to a 10 year contract now - you absolutely are going to get value for it because the first 5 years are going to be valuable enough to hold up any dropoff in the 2nd half. You'd like to not have to pay for any non-peak years, but it is the nature of an auction that you will have to pay a premium.

Is Trout a good example? He is only 22 years old so there might not be an ounce of drop-off over a 10 year period. Hard to imagine considering the numbers he has managed to put up so far.

[User Name]

Except for the possibility of sudden drop-off in performance and/or serious injury, which is extremely common during a 10-year period for pretty much any baseball player on any team.

[Palodios]

Except for the possibility of sudden drop-off in performance and/or serious injury, which is extremely common during a 10-year period for pretty much any baseball player on any team.

 

Is it just me, or are career ending injuries extremely uncommon though? I can't think of any players who received large contracts and simply never played again. Brandon Webb was at the end of his contract when his career ended. Johann Santana too, and he may very well pitch again. Mike Cameron was at the end of his career. ARod is a possibility, but how many players get 10 year deals ? Mike Hampton?

[sk7326]

Except for the possibility of sudden drop-off in performance and/or serious injury, which is extremely common during a 10-year period for pretty much any baseball player on any team.

 

Indeed - that is the risk with all long term deals ... but in a sense you are always playing the percentages and hoping. The risk is considerably lower with position players obviously than pitchers, and if you have a good athlete so much the better. It'd be nice to build a team and sign players a year at a time from a GMs perspective. But of course if you want to land and keep your very best players, you gotta pay to play.

[sk7326]

Is it just me, or are career ending injuries extremely uncommon though? I can't think of any players who received large contracts and simply never played again. Brandon Webb was at the end of his contract when his career ended. Johann Santana too, and he may very well pitch again. Mike Cameron was at the end of his career. ARod is a possibility, but how many players get 10 year deals ? Mike Hampton?

 

With position players - the risk is pretty low. Pitchers you are going to roll the dice a bit more. That said, with the evolution of TJ surgery, elbow problems are no longer death sentences. Shoulder injuries on the other hand ...

[jung]

Ten year contracts that scale back appropriately in the out years are not terrible in and of themselves. The real disaster contracts are those that actually either reward the athlete more money in those off peak later years or close to the same money as the most annual salary in the contract....those are disasters and utterly foolhardy. They suggest that the athlete will have become at some point during the contract some sort of team icon that earns his keep other ways than on the field while in fact more often than not the opposite is true with fans hoping the guy gets his ass out of town so they can cheer for somebody that can actually still get his bat to the baseball more than once a week. Teams can afford about one of those team icon kinda' deals as that is about all the fan base has any stomach for anyway.

 

I refuse to believe that those contracts are based on some sort of straight up calculation that the player's decline has been calculated for and that appropriate contributions early in the contract offset those later years. It does not matter if the organization has the stomach for that kind of fiscal irresponsibility....the fans won't and the organization is eventually responsible for keeping the fan base happy. They want somebody producing, not some shell of his former self carting his ancient ass out on the field in the same uni number only now six sizes bigger.

 

For everyday players the only way to offset that is to become an AL DH at some point ....AND... work at it as hard as Ortiz has worked at it. There are maybe two or three of those kinds of guys out there at any one time and that is about it.

 

I tend to agree with Bell on Sabathia. The Spanks were fine all the way up to the opt out clauses which make that contract hard to swallow even with CC's early contract success. I like Bell also find it too funny that the early news had CC with little to no interest in the opt out but Whoops!!! guess what.....

 

The exception is the guy both young enough and proven...ala Mike Trout who I think sk mentioned.

 

The Rays should really be credited for seeing what Longoria was so early that they have really gotten full value and then some.

Edited November 5, 2013 by jung

[marklmw]

Except for the possibility of sudden drop-off in performance and/or serious injury, which is extremely common during a 10-year period for pretty much any baseball player on any team.

 

It must be awesome however for a club to be paying a player like Trout league minimum all the while he is putting up numbers worthy of 25M per year. The Angels are ahead about 50M over the past two years on Trout alone with more to come.

[jung]

Baseball would not be able to survive on college ballplayers alone though and organizational depth is more a cost that eventually yields an asset than it is one kind of asset that yields another kind of asset. Early cost controlled years are critical components of team building.

[User Name]

Is it just me, or are career ending injuries extremely uncommon though? I can't think of any players who received large contracts and simply never played again. Brandon Webb was at the end of his contract when his career ended. Johann Santana too, and he may very well pitch again. Mike Cameron was at the end of his career. ARod is a possibility, but how many players get 10 year deals ? Mike Hampton?

 

Yes, but performance-hindering injuries are extremely common, which is what i'm referring to here. Guys like A-Gon, Rodriguez, Crawford, Pujols, CarGo and Tulo all signed monster extensions and have seen either their production or games played negatively impacted by specific or nagging injuries.

 

Tulo and CarGo, in particular, are cases of young guys who just seem really injury prone but got massive extensions anyways.

[sk7326]

It must be awesome however for a club to be paying a player like Trout league minimum all the while he is putting up numbers worthy of 25M per year. The Angels are ahead about 50M over the past two years on Trout alone with more to come.

 

They will make a killing until his arb awards - and even then, assuming a normal performance curve (which means there is BETTER left for Trout) it is unlikely the arb awards would keep up with his value (there is flat out almost no aribtration data for cases like his). The Angels will try to buy out his arbitration years and maybe a year of free agency - and those sorts of deals have had some attraction to young players. You give a little bit of earning potential in exchange for additional job security and a little bit more money up front.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if Sabathia's career ended tomorrow, that's about as good production you're ever going to get from a long contract like that. In 5 years so far, he has been a legit ace for 4, and they won a championship with him pitching to a 1.98 ERA in 2009.

 

But it pales next to the value delivered by Pedro's 7 years with the Red Sox.