hi8is Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I really need to just keep telling myself that Tanaka is already a Yankee. It'd be bad to get my hopes up anymore than they already are... DOWN BOY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian310 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 09:01 PM) I really need to just keep telling myself that Tanaka is already a Yankee. It'd be bad to get my hopes up anymore than they already are... DOWN BOY! Same here man. I honestly keep thinking we are a dark horse to sign him and I just want to not believe that ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Can we get a thread title change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I'm thinking he will be an Angel or Dodger. This is just too far fetched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 09:39 PM) I'm thinking he will be an Angel or Dodger. This is just too far fetched. Mike DiGiovanna @MikeDiGiovanna 1h GM Jerry Dipoto confirms that #Angels were not one of the teams that met with Japanese RHP Masahiro Tanaka in LA last week. https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 07:36 PM) I would have said yes it sounds unlikely, but then Jerry dropped 70 mil on a hitter that never faced a major or minor league pitch. A hitter who plays an unathletic position 150+ games a year for 70m vs a pitcher who will get twice that IMO a poor comparison This reminds me of when we had to get buehrle to give us a discount for a contract almost half the length of the tanaka deal assuming its 20m/yr for 7 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 09:59 PM) Mike DiGiovanna @MikeDiGiovanna 1h GM Jerry Dipoto confirms that #Angels were not one of the teams that met with Japanese RHP Masahiro Tanaka in LA last week. https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna But the Angels were one of the favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Thanks to Pujols and Hamilton the Halo's are not in on Tanaka, they are already too close to the luxury tax. I'm sticking with Seattle and the DBacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 It's worth noting that while other teams have expressed interest and all that, the Sox are the only team to have confirmed meeting with him. I find that interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-los-angel...00213--mlb.html A lot of the same reasons for the Angels not signing Tanaka would seem to apply to the White Sox at this point as well...both teams are at least one year away from being in a realistic position to take on a contract like that with all the other weaknesses both teams have across the board in terms of being "playoff worthy" teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:39 PM) http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-los-angel...00213--mlb.html A lot of the same reasons for the Angels not signing Tanaka would seem to apply to the White Sox at this point as well...both teams are at least one year away from being in a realistic position to take on a contract like that with all the other weaknesses both teams have across the board in terms of being "playoff worthy" teams. Biggest difference: The Sox don't have 3 albatross contracts and don't have to worry about extending the best player in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 01:39 AM) http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-los-angel...00213--mlb.html A lot of the same reasons for the Angels not signing Tanaka would seem to apply to the White Sox at this point as well...both teams are at least one year away from being in a realistic position to take on a contract like that with all the other weaknesses both teams have across the board in terms of being "playoff worthy" teams. Huh? The crux of that article appeared to be "the Angels can't keep taking on behemoth swing-and-miss contracts or they'll hit the luxury tax". They talk about how the Angels are in position to "win now", they just don't have the financial wiggle room for another large risk. That doesn't apply to the Sox at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:42 PM) Biggest difference: The Sox don't have 3 albatross contracts and don't have to worry about extending the best player in baseball. Yes, and let me just add... Jerry was there for the discussion so that shows the Sox have money to take on Tanaka as long as the price doesn't go too crazy. Rock said if the annual price goes beyond 20M then they are out but even the Angels cannot go that high. Signing Tanaka would potentially allow the Sox to use a starter such as Rienzo, Johnson or possibly Danks as part of a trade to get a Catcher or even a DH/ LF after the 14 season depending on what we do with Viciedo (dh/lf). If the Sox signed Tanaka they would only have to deal witha tight payroll through the 14 season after which Dunn's salary comes off the books. There's also the possibility of trades involving ADA, Keppinger and Beckham which not only clears a bit more payroll but open up spots for young guys like Semien and Sanchez. Bottom line, the Sox really are in a much better position to afford Tanaka than the Angels. Also, the Sox are nowhere near the luxury tax threshold like the Angels are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 One more thing I'll add to the whole Jerry thing is he's also not getting any younger and he probably realizes that his best chance of seeing another White Sox World Series while he's on earth is if they go all out in this retooling/rebuilding process and splurge on a potential game changer like Tanaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 11:07 PM) Yes, and let me just add... Jerry was there for the discussion so that shows the Sox have money to take on Tanaka as long as the price doesn't go too crazy. Rock said if the annual price goes beyond 20M then they are out but even the Angels cannot go that high. Signing Tanaka would potentially allow the Sox to use a starter such as Rienzo, Johnson or possibly Danks as part of a trade to get a Catcher or even a DH/ LF after the 14 season depending on what we do with Viciedo (dh/lf). If the Sox signed Tanaka they would only have to deal witha tight payroll through the 14 season after which Dunn's salary comes off the books. There's also the possibility of trades involving ADA, Keppinger and Beckham which not only clears a bit more payroll but open up spots for young guys like Semien and Sanchez. Bottom line, the Sox really are in a much better position to afford Tanaka than the Angels. Also, the Sox are nowhere near the luxury tax threshold like the Angels are. I agree, Tanaka fits with Hahn's vision of this team competing. If the sox sign him this year there is no reason they can't be looked at as a dark horse for a WC spot much like Cleveland last year and in addition to that we have a lot of payroll flexibility coming into next off season with Dunn(15M) and Kepp(4-8M) coming off the books as well as having a very firm understanding of Carlos Sanchez and Marcus Semien. If Sanchez brings his helium with him from the VZL in his second go around at AAA at the ripe old age of 21 we could have a very good infield for years to come in Abreu, Semien, Davidson and Sanchez while getting value back in Ramirez(11-20M) and Beckham(ARB3) if they preform or are moved before the start of the season. Biggest question marks for this team going forward from '14 LF and C. Hope we can land a great looking backstop and maybe Alfredo Despaigne if he defects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Real @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:07 PM) A hitter who plays an unathletic position 150+ games a year for 70m vs a pitcher who will get twice that IMO a poor comparison This reminds me of when we had to get buehrle to give us a discount for a contract almost half the length of the tanaka deal assuming its 20m/yr for 7 years It's not really a comparison as much as showing that for some weird reason JR is willing to take risks this offseason. Both contracts could be tremendous boom or busts for the Sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:39 PM) http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-los-angel...00213--mlb.html A lot of the same reasons for the Angels not signing Tanaka would seem to apply to the White Sox at this point as well...both teams are at least one year away from being in a realistic position to take on a contract like that with all the other weaknesses both teams have across the board in terms of being "playoff worthy" teams. Even though they have been reported as a finalist, the Angels never met with Tanaka and I don't see why they would. They can't afford him. They still have to pay Trout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 09:11 PM) Can we get a thread title change? No. What are we going to change it to? QUOTE (Real @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:07 PM) A hitter who plays an unathletic position 150+ games a year for 70m vs a pitcher who will get twice that IMO a poor comparison This reminds me of when we had to get buehrle to give us a discount for a contract almost half the length of the tanaka deal assuming its 20m/yr for 7 years I disagree entirely with this too. Fact of the matter is, they are still giving money to someone who has never played in the majors. How are Tanaka and Abreu any different in these circumstances? If anything, them giving that much money to a "non-athlete" signifies a GREATER likelihood that they'd give money to a pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 10:42 PM) Biggest difference: The Sox don't have 3 albatross contracts and don't have to worry about extending the best player in baseball. We already extended Chris Sale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 07:59 PM) Mike DiGiovanna @MikeDiGiovanna 1h GM Jerry Dipoto confirms that #Angels were not one of the teams that met with Japanese RHP Masahiro Tanaka in LA last week. https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna They probably met with him in Orange County (vs. LA). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayan024 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Daryl Van Schouwen @CST_soxvan 1h Industry source suggests Tanaka price tag to hit $140M. Reinsdorf's absence at meeting suggested warm, not hot #whitesox interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (dayan024 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) Daryl Van Schouwen @CST_soxvan 1h Industry source suggests Tanaka price tag to hit $140M. Reinsdorf's absence at meeting suggested warm, not hot #whitesox interest At $140 million, I want the Sox to fail here. That is going to be a very regrettable contract for whoever signs him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) At $140 million, I want the Sox to fail here. That is going to be a very regrettable contract for whoever signs him. I agree. Get the next one. I think it's obvious to everyone on the board that the Axelrod signing was an indication that the Sox weren't getting Tanaka. Move on to the second best pitcher on the market. Edited January 14, 2014 by witesoxfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why it might not happen Risk. The high risk, high reward of Tanaka is too much for the Sox to take on right now. If they had less question marks (pretty much everyone but Sale is a question mark), then you could assume some of that risk. This is precisely why the Angels won't pursue him either. Why it could happen Long term commitments. 5 players in 2015, 3 players in 2016 & 2017. Sox have financial flexibility. Buzz. One of the reasons I love this team is they are entertaining. They've created a lot of buzz with the moves they've made so far. Tanaka would just add to it. I think he'd boost attendance a ton every 5 days a well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 QUOTE (dayan024 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) Daryl Van Schouwen @CST_soxvan 1h Industry source suggests Tanaka price tag to hit $140M. Reinsdorf's absence at meeting suggested warm, not hot #whitesox interest So Jerry Reinsdorf was or was not there? I have seen conflicting reports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.