The Rays Tank: Yu Darvish Won't Be In The AL East Edition
by Steve Slowinski on Dec 20, 2011 8:29 AM EST
in The Rays Tank
Email
PrintMLB Chatter
The news took forever to come out last night, but it finally broke around 11:30pm that the Texas Rangers had won the bidding for Yu Darvish. They paid a record $51.7 million just for the rights to negotiate with him, and now they have a month to sign Darvish to a contract. Considering Darvish brings over even more hype than Daisuke Matsuzaka did, it seems likely that when it's all said and done, the Rangers will have committed more than $100 million in Darvish.
Insane? Most likely. Dave Cameron noted it on Twitter last night that if the Rangers do pay that much for Darvish, he'd have to perform on a Jered-Weaver-like level for him to be worth the cost. While that's certainly possible, those are some hefty expectations to put on someone's shoulders who has never thrown a pitch in the majors.
Also, I'd recommend reading this piece by Brisbee on the Blue Jays missing out on Darvish, if for no other reason than the line about the Rays made me spew coffee at my computer this morning.
- Andres Torres linked his late-career emergence to finally getting treatment for his ADHD. People always forget that ADHD doesn't solely affect children; adults can suffer from it too, and it can be quite the debilitating disorder.
- So apparently Ryan Braun tested positive for steroids because he was taking medication for a medical condition?
Rays Talk
I took a look at some "bottom of the barrel" relievers yesterday at FanGraphs, and I was surprised how much I didn't like Michael Wuertz. We mentioned his name earlier this offseason as a potential buy low piece for the bullpen, but I don't know if I see it. The most concerning thing to me was that his velocity was well down last season and he was getting hit hard, which implies that he simply didn't have the same sort of "stuff" that he had when he was dominant. He'd be worth a flyer on for a minor league deal, but considering his injury history and velocity issues, I don't really think he's a likely bet to turn things around next season.
Anyway, that's all I've got. What a slow offseason for the Rays. Ugh.
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's hoping the Rangers bought the same $100mil white elephant the Red Sox bought
follow me on twitter @sternfan10
Let's get out the violin for poor Alex in TOR...now 0-2 in his quest at the big deal
follow me on twitter @sternfan10
So...
I read that article and that line about our rotation made me realize that the Rays are just a bunch of trolls. We dangle our rotation in front of people with no mercy. Lol.
Slow offseason?
2 moves already (3 if you include the Moore contract), and they both improved the team. I’ll take that at this point. Nice to not have to wait until January for things to happen.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
And now this from Dan Hayes of the North County Times
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/5400/anthony-rizzo
follow me on twitter @sternfan10
The Cubs don't have much to offer.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
by SandalsNoPants on Dec 20, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that sounds like a good deal for Rizzo.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
by SandalsNoPants on Dec 20, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions
No way that the Cubs trade Starlin Castro and Garza for Rizzo straight up.
Castro isn’t great but he’s more valuable than Rizzo is. He’s actually younger than Rizzo, even!
Adjust your sarcasm meter.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
by SandalsNoPants on Dec 20, 2011 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
I wasn't talking about Castro--they've another SS prospect whose name escapes me that is highly touted
follow me on twitter @sternfan10
Already has an attitude
I saw him loafing it in the AFL
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
That's racist.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Dec 20, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
drat
a link in the story to DRB would of been nice.
by MrNegative1 on Dec 20, 2011 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Mike Fast will consider this as a misquote, I assume.
One analysis of pitch framing posted on Baseball Prospectus calculated Molina would save his team a major-league most 35 runs over a full season by getting borderline pitches called strikes.
Because it’s describing last year, and not regressed for the future. But still, kudos to Topkin for including it.
correct
When I saw the title, I said to myself “it better mention MIke’s work”
I don’t expect or stuff from last month to get mentioned
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
Question
How do you feel about the practice of mentioning the publication, but not the writer.
Something that’s always bugged me, particularly in documentaries.
I don't care for it.
Whether it is to compliment or criticize, the person deserves the attention. When you don’t mention the site or person by name, it seems rather petty. If you don’t feel their site or person deserves the attention, just don’t mention the material.
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
I wish the Rays had this kind of opt out
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2011/12/19/2647782/seattle-mariners-tv-contract-deal-fox
Seattle & TB tv markets are right next to each other in the standings. If they can get 75M, Rays could push 70
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
The Angels had less viewers then the Rays over the last two years
I’m not talking about ratings which scale for market size. I’m talking about actual households watching.
So I think the Rays are in store for a monster deal in 2016. It is 2016, right?
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
Households watching
2011
Rays – 66,000
Angels – 65,000
2010
Rays – 106,000
Angels – ~70,000 don’t have an exact number
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
but difference in overall TV market is staggering
They’re also buying potential households with that and you know you’re going to have some crossovers in LA this year with that crappy Dodgers compared to what LAA has put together for 2012.
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
That deal was signed before they signed Pujols and Wilson
so that wasn’t taken into account.
Teams out west also have a lot more games starting at 4 and 5 pm when people can’t really watch.
I’m sure there are other factors which enable them to get so much, but the Rays tv market is outstanding and has had more viewers on average. So they will get a monster deal as well.
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
eyeballs on the screen probably means less than disposable income of the eyeballs, though.
thats my big concern.
I don't get what you guys are saying
So you don’t think the new Rays deal will be huge? Because it will be
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
im saying it wont come close to the angels, and i wouldnt bank on it being as big as seattles.
there just isnt the money in the area to make it worth it. who is advertising to pay for this huge deal? whose spending their disposable income on whatever is being advertised?
It is still 5 years off.
Texas and Southern Cal have been hit hard too. That didn’t seem to effect much
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
I'm not saying it will be as big as the Angel btw
but I think it will be even with Seattle’s and that it will be close to 80-90M per year
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
Damn, that makes too much sense.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
Follow @steveslow
by Steve Slowinski on Dec 20, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
both were done within the same week
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/08/sports/la-sp-angels-fox-tv-20111209
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
free BP read related to Friedman
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/15703
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 10:45 AM EST reply actions
Wait, the Rays were actually better than the Red Sox with the bases loaded?
http://www.overthemonster.com/2011/12/20/2649044/red-sox-bases-loaded-weirdness
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 11:08 AM EST reply actions
please only link to reputable blogs that haven't displayed pornographic material, Jason
"I don't always post off-topic, but when I do, I post at http://ottotd.com" - $tinky $tu
by pudieron89 on Dec 20, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
sorry about that
please visit ottotd.com
done and done
I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude
by Jason Collette on Dec 20, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
It sure didn't seem like it
But I guess I didn’t watch that many Sox games
by JoeMasGlasses on Dec 20, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I saw a whole lot of them
Basically watched the Sox all September in that Game Mix thing while the Rays were on. Of course, they looked bad at everything in that month so I don’t know if I can say anything about the bases loaded thing. They were just awful, period.
Under construction
Im glad i follow a team that wouldnt spend $51m on the rights to talk to a player
seems mad, as you say he could bomb having never seen any major league action.
Rays should have bid 100 million and offered him league min
October 28th, 2011-- a date which will live in infamy--
OTTOTD.com
Hahaha
That would of been great
Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.
- Joe Theismann
by FloridaEagle on Dec 20, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
there has to be some caveat with that.
"I don't always post off-topic, but when I do, I post at http://ottotd.com" - $tinky $tu
Bingo
Big Sexy
Follow KBR and Dewey on Twitter! @KBRandDewey
by King Billy Royal on Dec 20, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
It's just money. If you have the money, for a team like the Rangers, it's a less scarce resource than talent.
Im glad i follow a team that wouldnt spend $51m on the rights to talk to a player
Think of it as a team trying to acquire Matt Moore (sure, he’s probably better than Darvish, but the analogy works). What type of trade would a team need to give us in order to acquire him? It would be top major and minor league talent. For Texas, say Profar, Napoli, Moreland, and some other lesser pieces (I’m going off the top of my head, fill in your own details if mine suck).
Now wouldn’t they rather give a big hunk of money (that they have from TV) to a team that they’re not even competing against? The ability to make money is more dependable than the ability to develop top of the rotation starters.
They would do that.
Question: Doesn’t all this stuff defy the trade calculators and such? If some team is willing to pay 100 million for Darvish (#4 overall prospect), doesn’t that mean that Darvish is considered worth 100 million? When I see the surplus value stuff, it appears to me that it is flawed.
A top 10 pitching prospect is supposed to net a value of around 15 million to there team. Doesn’t Darvish’s price tag defy that those figures are actually used by teams?
Don’t you think some team would throw around similar $$ for Moore?
I can’t quite put my thoughts clearly here, so hopefully someone can connect the dots for me and make this clear.
The numbers work, but not for the elite end I believe.
For a back end Top 10 I would agree, but there’s a big difference between Moore and a #10 pitcher.
If Moore went up for bid I think he’d go for more total in a similar scenario, because of his MLB experience (even as limited as it is).
Some input from Twitter:
From @sandykazmir:
@dog_whelk My thoughts: Wang needed a larger sample so went 1-10, 11-25, would love to see redone with 1-3 or 1-5, big diff btw 1 & 10
From @sky_kalkman:
@dog_whelk $15M number is production minus costs (signing bonus, current salaries, projected salaries through arbitration.)
@dog_whelk Average pay to a Top 10 prospect pitcher is likely more like $40M (WAG), but they provide $55M in FA value.
@dog_whelk Also, while I think some are too gung-ho about Darvish, he’s not a “prospect” and note merely a “Top 10” guy.
Yes from an average surplus, but a top 10 (especially closer to #1) prospect has a very high premium.
Also, 1 small arguement to be made about the signing bonus. If you were trading for a guy that is a top prospect, unless they signed a MLB draft deal, the signing bonus isn’t a cost you’d incur. It would be there from the other side and if they were a very high pick they would be more relunctant to trade them, see Beckham, even if they got what was considered fair value or better.
The average value of a top 10 pitcher might very well be $15MM but that in the current market is only 3 WAR of cost, so even for the first 3 cheap years a player would only have to be about a 1.2 WAR/yr player in order to make up that $15MM in value (just disregarding the arbitration years). Plus the upside would just be too high to get anything less than much more than that especially when you’re talking closer to #1 than #10.
Continuing an interesting conversation that no one will ever read
If you were trading for a guy that is a top prospect, unless they signed a MLB draft deal, the signing bonus isn’t a cost you’d incur.
Good point. Same with the posting fee, right? Makes me wonder contemplate crazy sign-and-trade scenarios. As for it making teams reluctant to trade that player (like us with Beckham), it shouldn’t. It’s a sunk cost.
The average value of a top 10 pitcher might very well be $15MM but that in the current market is only 3 WAR of cost
The $15 M is the surplus value over what they get paid, not the total average value. The average value is $55 M. Really interested to see the contract Yu signs. Worth revisiting afterward we know.
Right I was just posting how low the standard for $15MM extra would be.
But if a player were getting approx $40MM through arbitration years those league minimum years is where a lot of the easy surplus is gained. I was just pointing out how mediocre you could be to get $15MM in surplus over the first 3 years. And if they reached those numbers the arbitration numbers wouldn’t be nuts either.
Idealy if we could get what was deemed fair value for Beckham it should be considered. The big issue is there was a reason he was drafted #1 overall, and they fear a breakout, imo.
Man, how awesome would it be to pull a Marlins one of these years?
Boring off season year after year and then we bring in 3 big pieces and tried really hard for Pujols and CJ.
How awesome would it be to spend like the Yankees for 1 off season?
Under construction
Well
The expectation in baseball is that the bidding for Cespedes could get “crazy.” One team official said the outfielder’s agent is seeking $25-45MM, but many believe the total value of the contract will exceed that.
He’s expected to be seeking 5-8 million a year for I guess a lot of years. Dream on.
Under construction
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Please read our Community Guidelines.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
DRB Suggestion Box
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
