OT:Tanaka to Yankees. $155 mil/7 years

[satyr9]

Yankees don't care, they're going to make all deals that come before 2015 look stupid cheap three years from now. Even if Tanaka's average salary hits the books this year, which it won't, they're still under the luxury tax with a 25-man roster and before you account for Vdub's negative value. They are going to have perhaps the worst infield in Baseball (Teixeira, Roberts/Johnson, Jeter/Ryan, Nunez/Johnson?), but 20m is the new 12m 'cause after they re-set their tax status, it's 5-10 years of nobody getting out of UFA alive again.

Or I'm just a tad bitter.

[Schad]

Yankees don't care, they're going to make all deals that come before 2015 look stupid cheap three years from now. Even if Tanaka's average salary hits the books this year, which it won't, they're still under the luxury tax with a 25-man roster and before you account for Vdub's negative value. They are going to have perhaps the worst infield in Baseball (Teixeira, Roberts/Johnson, Jeter/Ryan, Nunez/Johnson?), but 20m is the new 12m 'cause after they re-set their tax status, it's 5-10 years of nobody getting out of UFA alive again.

Or I'm just a tad bitter.

And there's the fun of being the Yankees. For anyone else (well, perhaps anyone save the Yankees or Dodgers), this contract is unimaginably risky...through the NTC and opt-out you own all of the potential downside while getting only four years of his services for essentially $27m/year. But these are the Yankees...if he isn't half as good as expected, they can write off $25m a year in unmovable mediocrity, and if he opts out, they can simply outbid the rest of the league through his late 30s if the mood strikes.

[Geddy]

They money they saved on A Rod probably sweetened the pot

[spykelee]

**** I despise the yankees.

[Lateral Quicks]

Meh. I'm glad AA didn't make that commitment to an unproven MLB starter. That deal can just as easily backfire.

If the Jays are going to ever break their 5-year rule, and I'm by no means convinced they ever should, then it shouldn't be on an unproven commodity at truly massive dollars.

[satyr9]

I do think CC is probably a little pissed about this. 2 years ago he got 6/142, the last 20 of which isn't even guaranteed after more than 30WAR in the 5 years prior. Don't get me wrong, I understand how and why, but I still think this is gonna chafe a bit.

[s e n s i]

I hope he gets rocked, that is all

[Avenger]

Darvish's contract looks better and better. 175M is ridiculous. When will this bubble burst?

When Cable companies realize that there will come a time when live sports won't be enough for people to stop cordcutting.

[dagger]

Meh. I'm glad AA didn't make that commitment to an unproven MLB starter. That deal can just as easily backfire.

If the Jays are going to ever break their 5-year rule, and I'm by no means convinced they ever should, then it shouldn't be on an unproven commodity at truly massive dollars.

The five year rule is also the no Tier-1-FA rule because Tier 1 free agents are signing for more than five and they are signing for massive amounts up front. Not going beyond five years is an excellent way to avoid giving out a deal with a $20m-plus front end. It means the Jays will NEVER truly compete for a healthy Tier 1. That's fine if they ace the alternatives, like internal development of your own Tier 1s. Or trading for a Tier 1 veteran without blowing out the farm and budget. Unfortunately, the Jays have little to show for internal development. Their two best hitters, for example, are flukes - literally discards any team could have had for a waiver or Rule 5 pickup, two sluggers who have come out of nowhere to such heights half the US media must secretly believe they have gotten away with juicing. And to take a flyer at a Tier 1 - if Jose Reyes is that - the Jays sent out some fine prospects and took on the three years of a fourth starter earning something like $19 million the coming season.

So for me, the Jays have nothing to show for their five year rule. This isn't Tampa Bay which has perfected a strategy they have pursued for decades, investing in one of the league's best managers, nurtured a lot of fine young talents to the majors, and dealt off talent for very good futures to avoid payroll inflation. Not so Toronto, where the strategy has gone from organic growth to trade-for-today and now is moving on to... what exactly?

[Kaizen]

I hope we NEVER sign a tier one free agent. They are always terrible deals that haunt franchises until they end.

[HangTime]

So, did the a-rod suspension help get this done?

[satyr9]

So, did the a-rod suspension help get this done?

100% This is basically ARod's money under the luxury tax limit.

[Homer Jay]

Only good value in having a 7/155 contract is that if he does break out and has a decent long career, is to have him at a discount through his prime year. But for some reason they gave him a player option after the fourth year. Meaning if he his good, then he can just opt out and get even more in free agency. So they basically assumed the risk while waving off the reward. The NTC gives you no way out of it either. Again giving unproven player those provisions is just so risky.

I'm glad the Jays stayed away from him with those provisions. The deal is weighed too heavily in the player's direction.

I would rather stick with the traditional MLB player development system and the more control the Team gets.

[Graham's Cracker]

Just checked Fangraph's and Oliver projections have Tanaka as a 17-6 2.59ERA pitcher worth 6.4 WAR. Essentially, a 2010-2013 Clayton Kershaw.. If that's truly what Tanaka will become, then 7 years at $155 VS Kershaw at 7 at $215, looks like a steal.

Only playing devil's advocate, I know that there are things like track record, work load, real world performance etc. to factor in.

[tecumseh18]

Just checked Fangraph's and Oliver projections have Tanaka as a 17-6 2.59ERA pitcher worth 6.4 WAR. Essentially, a 2010-2013 Clayton Kershaw.. If that's truly what Tanaka will become, then 7 years at $155 VS Kershaw at 7 at $215, looks like a steal.

Only playing devil's advocate, I know that there are things like track record, work load, real world performance etc. to factor in.

Except that if he hits those WAR numbers, then it will only be a 4-year contract for $108.6 mill including the posting fee, or $27 mill/season. Still $3 mill per year less than CK, but Kershaw already is Kershaw. And the Dodgers have him for 7 seasons guaranteed.

I think it's that four year opt-out option that sticks in the craw. Certainly AA has always wanted the team options, not the player options.

[Graham's Cracker]

Just checked Fangraph's and Oliver projections have Tanaka as a 17-6 2.59ERA pitcher worth 6.4 WAR. Essentially, a 2010-2013 Clayton Kershaw.. If that's truly what Tanaka will become, then 7 years at $155 VS Kershaw at 7 at $215, looks like a steal.

Only playing devil's advocate, I know that there are things like track record, work load, real world performance etc. to factor in.

Except that if he hits those WAR numbers, then it will only be a 4-year contract for $108.6 mill including the posting fee, or $27 mill/season. Still $3 mill per year less than CK, but Kershaw already is Kershaw. And the Dodgers have him for 7 seasons guaranteed.

I think it's that four year opt-out option that sticks in the craw. Certainly AA has always wanted the team options, not the player options.

I totally agree, just throwing the point out there that if he's Kershaw for the next 4 or 7 seasons. The dollars per year don't look so bad after all. I hope he's more Irabu than Kershaw. The Yanks have the financial luxury to take the gamble.

Smart on the player & agent's part to structure that way. They know that the Yankees will always pay to get the best, so all he has to do is perform for the next 4 years and go back for more.

[satyr9]

Just checked Fangraph's and Oliver projections have Tanaka as a 17-6 2.59ERA pitcher worth 6.4 WAR. Essentially, a 2010-2013 Clayton Kershaw.. If that's truly what Tanaka will become, then 7 years at $155 VS Kershaw at 7 at $215, looks like a steal.

Only playing devil's advocate, I know that there are things like track record, work load, real world performance etc. to factor in.

Except that if he hits those WAR numbers, then it will only be a 4-year contract for $108.6 mill including the posting fee, or $27 mill/season. Still $3 mill per year less than CK, but Kershaw already is Kershaw. And the Dodgers have him for 7 seasons guaranteed.

I think it's that four year opt-out option that sticks in the craw. Certainly AA has always wanted the team options, not the player options.

Well, Kershaw has an opt out too, although I think his is after 5 years.

Still, to say that Tanaka becomes a bargain if he's, arguably, the best pitcher in baseball over his first contract, only illustrates how crazy this contract was. Of course Oliver thinks well of him, I'm sure every scout and stats analysis around looks at him and thinks he'll be good, but he's basically a prospect. A prospect already assumed by his contract to be a perennial all-star calibre at worst.

[satyr9]

I have a different question now that some time has passed, aren't the Yankees way better off with this money going to Cano? Cano got 240/10. I can see why they hate the idea of 10 years for Cano, but surely 7 years at 180-200 with an opt out after 4 years keep him in pinstripes and is obviously dramatically safer and likely makes for a better club. Maybe not, maybe it was all about the final dollar total as he didn't want to worry about another contract again, or maybe they have enough medical to know he's going to break down long before then, but to me this decision really looks predicated on the luxury tax limit and the uncertainty with ARod.

[akakalakin]

24 for 10 for Cano is nuts no matter who, question is how many good seasons and championships does it buy?

in their case, Id say 3-4 good and nothing more, cause the QUIT is big with them like us.