Yu Darvish in SoxProspects Discussion Forum

0 Points

Yu Darvish

Author	Comment
Mhueg		#321	[url]	[-]
Posts: 877 12/15/11 9:57 AM Matt Huegel Associate Editor SoxProspects.com	amfox1 wrote: amfox1 wrote: Lots of rumors that the Jays won the bidding. Also, rumors are that Theo's bid was large. Apparently, four teams bid on Darvish - TOR, CHC, TEX and MFY. Winner is expected to be announced this morning, per Jim Bowden. Wow only 4 bids, what an incompetent league.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
qutennis5		#322	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 510 12/15/11 10:11 AM	norbit14 wrote: beasleyrockah wrote: The real mistake was made by ownership. If you believe John Henry, he didn't anticipate Theo being with the club past 2012. If he (or Larry, or Tom, or anyone) had a beef with guaranteeing these type of financial commitments, they should have overruled Theo. They thought he'd only be with the club for a year or two, he has a clear desire to win in the short term, with no real stake in the long term. Even NESN said "we're all in". Either ownership encouraged Theo to make these moves, co-signed the moves, or failed to overrule him. Any way you look at it, it's their fault. You can't let your club get into such a horrible financial state that normal operating procedures get thrown out. Larry Lucchino runs the Red Sox, and if anyone is at fault it would be him. Theo can't spend money he isn't approved to spend. Why would they grant him complete autonomy without a contract to validate his commitment to the organization? Come on, stop exonerating Theo Epstein from the mistakes. So its their mistake because they approve the deals and now its their fault because they are doing this with Ben....Come on, Theo was the guy running the ship and he was the one making the bad decisions, don't fault the ownership for giving him the resources. While I don’t have inside info on the Sox like you obviously do, I do remember in yesteryear Theo saying he was against giving long term deals to players (especially FA) because you were paying for prior performance rather than future performance. Yes, I am paraphrasing, and no, I don’t have a link to the exact quote. Through much of his tenure in Boston the 5/70 deal to Drew was the biggest he had ever handed out (not just in FA, but also in extensions). Then, suddenly, NESN/Sox ratings start to decline and the Sox get big-splash hungry and we start seeing the big contracts come in (Lackey, Crawford, Agon). Seems to be ownership has had more than it’s fair share in baseball decisions. And lastly, give me a fking break. When this team was in 1^st place on August 31^st, I sure as hell didn’t see you here talking about how poor shape this team was in because of “Theo’s poor decisions”.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Mhueg		#323	[url]	[-]
Posts: 878 12/15/11 10:44 AM Matt Huegel Associate Editor SoxProspects.com	The "buzz" is that Toronto had whopper of offer on Darvish. Many reasons for Jays to bid more than $50mm. Believe Rangers bid. Prob. in $40s Tweet by Evan Grant, Dallas Morning News
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#324	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2394 12/15/11 11:10 AM	Mhueg wrote: amfox1 wrote: amfox1 wrote: Lots of rumors that the Jays won the bidding. Also, rumors are that Theo's bid was large. Apparently, four teams bid on Darvish - TOR, CHC, TEX and MFY. Winner is expected to be announced this morning, per Jim Bowden. Wow only 4 bids, what an incompetent league. Only incompetent if you don't have the financial resources to play in the deep end. Red Sox just denying one of their strengths in an opportunity to supplement a weakness. About 7 teams have that ability, and Toronto decided to jump in. Three bid. The Sox, Tigers Phillies and Angels (the later two don't currently have weaknesses in their rotation) abstained. So I'd say the Sox and Tigers are the only really incompetent teams here.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
FenwayTheHardWay		#325	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 3348 12/15/11 11:35 AM Veteran Member	Yes. If there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's no possible reason why the Red Sox might not want to spend a shitzillion dollars on a risky pitcher. None at all. "thats 4 dingers tonite for #rays off wakefield, who looks his age, only older" - Jon Heyman
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#326	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 344 12/15/11 1:14 PM	Guidas wrote: Mhueg wrote: amfox1 wrote: amfox1 wrote: Lots of rumors that the Jays won the bidding. Also, rumors are that Theo's bid was large. Apparently, four teams bid on Darvish - TOR, CHC, TEX and MFY. Winner is expected to be announced this morning, per Jim Bowden. Wow only 4 bids, what an incompetent league. Only incompetent if you don't have the financial resources to play in the deep end. Red Sox just denying one of their strengths in an opportunity to supplement a weakness. About 7 teams have that ability, and Toronto decided to jump in. Three bid. The Sox, Tigers Phillies and Angels (the later two don't currently have weaknesses in their rotation) abstained. So I'd say the Sox and Tigers are the only really incompetent teams here. Not to mention the four teams who made the bids are led by Alex Anthopoulos, Theo Epstein, Brian Cashman, and Jon Daniels. People are using the rest of the league's non action to justify the Red Sox decision, but the four best GM's in baseball (with comparable resources) all decided to place a bid. These teams are a better comp for the Red Sox than the rest of the league. Personally I don't care what the rest of the league does, but it's just a dumb argument, like the rest of the arguments have been. I don't really care to argue this anymore, it's over.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
norbit14		#327	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 4004 12/15/11 1:21 PM Veteran Member	qutennis5 wrote: While I don’t have inside info on the Sox like you obviously do, I do remember in yesteryear Theo saying he was against giving long term deals to players (especially FA) because you were paying for prior performance rather than future performance. Yes, I am paraphrasing, and no, I don’t have a link to the exact quote. Through much of his tenure in Boston the 5/70 deal to Drew was the biggest he had ever handed out (not just in FA, but also in extensions). Then, suddenly, NESN/Sox ratings start to decline and the Sox get big-splash hungry and we start seeing the big contracts come in (Lackey, Crawford, Agon). Seems to be ownership has had more than it’s fair share in baseball decisions. And lastly, give me a fking break. When this team was in 1^st place on August 31^st, I sure as hell didn’t see you here talking about how poor shape this team was in because of “Theo’s poor decisions”. Sorry for putting blame on the unflappable Theo Epstein. He only signed the good contracts, while ownership only insisted on the bad ones. I think its time to get off the kool-aid and give ME a fking break. I generally don't post much here so its not a shock that I didn't mention how bad Theo was getting at his job but the evidence is in front of you with all the bad contracts. You are just reasoning with your self and speculating about ownership insisting that the team sign big contracts when the owner of the team recently caught some heat for saying that he didn't support the signing of Carl Crawford, then the GM(a member of Baseball ops at the time of the signing) said he was so I guess it was the owners who came down and told them they needed to sign a player for 140 million dollars. Yes that was their fault they did it, Theo didn't want to do it. I think its time for people to stop giving Theo a pass and looking excuses. The fact is that he made mistakes and it was time for him to move on. I won't take credit away from all the great things he did but his mismanagement of late has us in the position we are right now. Am Dominican and you??
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
DCB26		#328	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 13 12/15/11 1:23 PM	FenwayTheHardWay wrote: Yes. If there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's no possible reason why the Red Sox might not want to spend a shitzillion dollars on a risky pitcher. None at all. Agree Completely Out of curiosity, why are people so worked up about Darvish compared to other potential pitchers that are/were available? I get that Darvish has the great pitcher's build and plus fastball velocity, but if anyone was saying he was even the best available pitcher going into this offseason then I missed it (not trying to say it didn't happen.) It just seems like an overreaction to kill the Sox for not paying 50-70 million just so they could offer a CJ Wilson-level contract to Darvish, especially if the only sure thing you get in Darvish is that he is young. I just wonder if Darvish really projects to be that much better than a lot of the other pitchers talked about this offseason, or if he's just more interesting.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#329	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 345 12/15/11 1:29 PM	norbit14 wrote: qutennis5 wrote: While I don’t have inside info on the Sox like you obviously do, I do remember in yesteryear Theo saying he was against giving long term deals to players (especially FA) because you were paying for prior performance rather than future performance. Yes, I am paraphrasing, and no, I don’t have a link to the exact quote. Through much of his tenure in Boston the 5/70 deal to Drew was the biggest he had ever handed out (not just in FA, but also in extensions). Then, suddenly, NESN/Sox ratings start to decline and the Sox get big-splash hungry and we start seeing the big contracts come in (Lackey, Crawford, Agon). Seems to be ownership has had more than it’s fair share in baseball decisions. And lastly, give me a fking break. When this team was in 1^st place on August 31^st, I sure as hell didn’t see you here talking about how poor shape this team was in because of “Theo’s poor decisions”. Sorry for putting blame on the unflappable Theo Epstein. He only signed the good contracts, while ownership only insisted on the bad ones. I think its time to get off the kool-aid and give ME a fking break. I generally don't post much here so its not a shock that I didn't mention how bad Theo was getting at his job but the evidence is in front of you with all the bad contracts. You are just reasoning with your self and speculating about ownership insisting that the team sign big contracts when the owner of the team recently caught some heat for saying that he didn't support the signing of Carl Crawford, then the GM(a member of Baseball ops at the time of the signing) said he was so I guess it was the owners who came down and told them they needed to sign a player for 140 million dollars. Yes that was their fault they did it, Theo didn't want to do it. I think its time for people to stop giving Theo a pass and looking excuses. The fact is that he made mistakes and it was time for him to move on. I won't take credit away from all the great things he did but his mismanagement of late has us in the position we are right now. No, you just put ALL the blame on Theo for the payroll situation and give NONE to ownership, that's the difference. It's ownership's job to not let the GM put the franchise in such a payroll crunch. You've really overestimated Theo's power in the last few comments, and if you don't think ownership at least co-signed the big ticket signings you're delusional. The GM doesn't have autonomy, and if ownership was truly against the signings and just let them happen anyways, well that's their fault plain and simple. Again, if we want to get into John Henry quotes, he went on record saying he didn't think Theo would be with the franchise past 2012. So why did he let Theo make long term decisions he supposedly didn't agree with?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#330	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2395 12/15/11 1:41 PM	DCB26 wrote: FenwayTheHardWay wrote: Yes. If there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's no possible reason why the Red Sox might not want to spend a shitzillion dollars on a risky pitcher. None at all. Agree Completely Out of curiosity, why are people so worked up about Darvish compared to other potential pitchers that are/were available? I get that Darvish has the great pitcher's build and plus fastball velocity, but if anyone was saying he was even the best available pitcher going into this offseason then I missed it (not trying to say it didn't happen.) It just seems like an overreaction to kill the Sox for not paying 50-70 million just so they could offer a CJ Wilson-level contract to Darvish, especially if the only sure thing you get in Darvish is that he is young. I just wonder if Darvish really projects to be that much better than a lot of the other pitchers talked about this offseason, or if he's just more interesting. He's a potential #1 starter with a credible non-injury floor of a #3 starter, 25 years old, with a pitcher's build, tremendous success in the AAAA league, 6 years of control, and - for those among us (like Mr. Larry and Friends) who have been saying the Sox see the LuxTax as a self-imposed cap - he'll be much cheaper against the LuxTax than any other free agent who fits that description who is and will be available between now and the near future. That, and of course the most important attribute of all: he answers to "Hey Yu!"
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jdb		#331	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 807 12/15/11 2:20 PM	I am just not buying the fact we should have bid on Darvish bc the freaking luxury tax. I think the total dollar figure we have paid in tax since 2003 is just over $15 million. The posters saying we need go spend $60 million to save a few million sound like my wife after she comes home from a shopping spree talking about all the money she saved bc she got a few things 10% off. Lets face it. There is a huge risk with Japenese pitchers. They work on a different routine and pitch well over 200 innings a year early in their career. The good ones get run into the ground bc the teams know they will be overseas playing eventually. I was trying to think about the best pitcher to come over and I think its Kuroda. There isnt a good success rate and Tito was on ESPN about a week ago saying the Dice K signing was more about establishing a brand than getting a pitcher. Let some other team give up $120 Million.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
DCB26		#332	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 14 12/15/11 2:28 PM	Guidas wrote: He's a potential #1 starter with a credible non-injury floor of a #3 starter, 25 years old, with a pitcher's build, tremendous success in the AAAA league, 6 years of control, and - for those among us (like Mr. Larry and Friends) who have been saying the Sox see the LuxTax as a self-imposed cap - he'll be much cheaper against the LuxTax than any other free agent who fits that description who is and will be available between now and the near future. That, and of course the most important attribute of all: he answers to "Hey Yu!" While I completely agree that he will be cheaper than any player developed through major league baseball who fit the criteria you stated (assuming that player doesn't come up through the Sox system) he won't be making the major league minimum or anything. Assuming Darvish is signed to a 6-year deal then it sounds like the minimum he could be expected to get is 60 million, or 10 AAV, and quite possibly he will get 80-100 million. In other words, he still will cost as much as anything but an absolute top pitcher in his prime would, and that's assuming you ignore the posting fee. So much of this comes back to the luxury tax, but if we assume that the Sox are paying attention to it, then I don't think Darvish is a viable option, he's still too expensive. If the Sox came into this offseason looking to spend a lot of money and determined to completely overhaul the rotation, then Darvish would make sense, but given the circumstances I just don't see the fit; potential bargain or not he is still a huge investment. Again, under the assumption that the Sox are paying attention to the luxury tax, let me ask this: Do you (anybody, not just guidas) think that Darvish will definitely be good enough to make it worth freeing up enough money to get him and still get under the luxury tax? Would you be willing to (for example) trade Beckett or Youk, or sign Ortiz long-term, or make some other series of moves needed to free up the 10-15 million for Darvish? While I get it if people really do like Darvish that much, I personally am quite happy to see them shy away from giant contracts for a while. (And before somebody calls "strawman" on me, I acknowledge that those are not the only options, but if you count out spending well past the luxury tax then I don't see too many other realistic possibilities.)
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#333	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2396 12/15/11 2:42 PM	Saito and Hideo Nomo seemed to do OK. And DiceK, as frustrating as he was, did rather well his first two years, and then admittedly came to camp out of shape in his third year (and off the WBC no less), then bounced back in year four to post numbers similar to his year one performance. Then more significant injury, which can happen to any pitcher. Meanwhile, imagine if the same was said in the 1950s and early 1960s regarding African American pitchers, especially those from the Negro leagues. ("That Satchel Paige, he's been the only good one to come out of that league..."). One could also look to certain college programs that have a tradition of "ruining" starters from overuse (UCLA, Texas, Rice), and make broad statements. I think you evaluate talent based on the individual, his tools and make-up and then you project if/how he fits into MLB in general and your system specifically. Darvish does not equal DiceK. What will he be? We'll see, but more than enough professional evaluators had him as the #1 right-handed starter on the free agent market this year, and with a high-ceiling starter's build (6-5, 220+) and command. That's unlike any pitcher to ever come out of Japan. Will it translate? Time will only tell. Last Edited By: Guidas 12/15/11 2:45 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#334	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1378 12/15/11 3:05 PM Forum Moderator	Darvish has upside, but he also has more risk and will cost more (C.C. excluded) than any other top-end starter on the market this year. If you factor in the posting fee and the contract it's going to take, you'll be paying Darvish $16-25m a year for five or six years. It's frankly insane to commit that much money to a player who has not thrown a pitch in MLB. Darvish isn't Daisuke but he isn't Tim Lincecum either. Prediction: Edwin Jackson will pitch better in 2012 than Yu Darvish will, as judged by FIP/xFIP/SIERA.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
qutennis5		#335	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 511 12/15/11 3:51 PM	norbit14 wrote: Sorry for putting blame on the unflappable Theo Epstein. He only signed the good contracts, while ownership only insisted on the bad ones. I think its time to get off the kool-aid and give ME a fking break. I generally don't post much here so its not a shock that I didn't mention how bad Theo was getting at his job but the evidence is in front of you with all the bad contracts. You are just reasoning with your self and speculating about ownership insisting that the team sign big contracts when the owner of the team recently caught some heat for saying that he didn't support the signing of Carl Crawford, then the GM(a member of Baseball ops at the time of the signing) said he was so I guess it was the owners who came down and told them they needed to sign a player for 140 million dollars. Yes that was their fault they did it, Theo didn't want to do it. I think its time for people to stop giving Theo a pass and looking excuses. The fact is that he made mistakes and it was time for him to move on. I won't take credit away from all the great things he did but his mismanagement of late has us in the position we are right now. As Beasley also states, you’re just pointing the finger entirely at Theo as if you knew for a fact he was 100% responsible for the moves and decision making. All I’m saying is based on Theo’s prior statements about his philosophy that it seems possible that Henry/Lucchino had an impact on the decision making for this supposed bad contracts (if you're going to judge Crawford based on 1 season, then that's on you for being irrational) but you are unable to believe this and continue to point squarely at one person. So my reasoning is "speculating" but yours is "fact"? seriously?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
norbit14		#336	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 4005 12/15/11 4:36 PM Veteran Member	qutennis5 wrote: As Beasley also states, you’re just pointing the finger entirely at Theo as if you knew for a fact he was 100% responsible for the moves and decision making. All I’m saying is based on Theo’s prior statements about his philosophy that it seems possible that Henry/Lucchino had an impact on the decision making for this supposed bad contracts (if you're going to judge Crawford based on 1 season, then that's on you for being irrational) but you are unable to believe this and continue to point squarely at one person. So my reasoning is "speculating" but yours is "fact"? seriously? Your are basing yours on public statements as I am. The process goes as follows Theo and his team gather info on a player, they look for the pros an cons they decide its a good fit then he goes to ownership and they discuss it, they believe what Theo is telling them and they go forward with it. I know thats how they do it because they have said it multiple times, publicly so its not some made up story. They always talk about governance. Don't tell me now that Theo had little authority with the decisions the team was making. He was damn big voice in there if not he would have left a long time ago, in fact thats one of the primary reasons he left in a gorilla suit a few years back. I may have put all the blame on him earlier but he gets a big chunk of the blame. And don't tell me its ownership fault for letting him do it. If so he's even more of an incompetent GM that needs ownership(who don't know jack about baseball) vetoing his every move, then what would you say? that they are incompetent for not letting him do his job? We can disagree as to who shares most of the blame. I just don't want people acting as if Theo is this unflappable GM who did nothing wrong. Saying "oh look the cubs did make a bid...what it would be like to have a Baseball ops like they have"(paraphrasing) is not good logic. The Cubs are in a different situation with different needs and different financial state when it comes to the luxury tax. It also does no good justice to Ben and his crew who are highly intelligent and know what they are doing. As for Crawford I think he'll perform better but I am going to go out on a limb and say he won't justify the contract. Am Dominican and you??
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
soxfan13		#337	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 61 12/15/11 6:58 PM	Darvish might've been great, his translated stats were great, but he came with a significant risk of being overworked and would cost a lot of money. I don't think this team needed him. We placed 1st in the entire league in Clay Davenport's 3rd order wins. Those are adjusted for strength of schedule
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
grandsalami		#338	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 209 12/15/11 9:38 PM	DaigoFuji Daigo Fujiwara WHOA RT @rubenlip Heard from someone connected to Rogers, that their bid was closer to $80M! Not sure how reliable. Find out soon enough take with grain of salt.. but if true WOW
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#339	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2398 12/15/11 10:15 PM	soxfan13 wrote: Darvish might've been great, his translated stats were great, but he came with a significant risk of being overworked and would cost a lot of money. I don't think this team needed him. We placed 1st in the entire league in Clay Davenport's 3rd order wins. Those are adjusted for strength of schedule "Placed" being the operative word. Right now Tampa, LAA, and Toronto better than than last year and the Yankees and Texas look to be the same with more good pitching near major league ready. The Sox right now look worse than they did last year at any time. Still, off season isn't done. Darvish is likely still ascending in his skills. Every other free agent stater who was or is out there this off season has peaked and is in decline. All that said, $80M seems like too much unless the contract ends up being less than $40M for six years, which is likely as well.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jmei		#340	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1379 12/15/11 11:28 PM Forum Moderator	Edwin Jackson's only 28. Darvish might outperform him both next year and over the life of the contact but Jackson will cost 50-75% of Darvish's contract and posting fee. That said, the Red Sox shouldn't be on the market for a long-term SP commitment given Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Lackey are all signed through 2014 (Lester has a club option for 2014).
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

SoxProspects.com

SoxProspects Links

Yu Darvish