MLB 2025 Season

Monster Rain · January 2012

The Rangers better hope he doesn't turn out to be like pretty much every other Japanese pitcher and burn out before that deal is up or they'll feel pretty stupid about insisting on that 6th year.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Darvish getting 6 years, Rangers won that battle it sounds like. Funny when the team wants more years and the player wants less.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

The Rangers better hope he doesn't turn out to be like pretty much every other Japanese pitcher and burn out before that deal is up or they'll feel pretty stupid about insisting on that 6th year.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Darvish getting 6 years, Rangers won that battle it sounds like. Funny when the team wants more years and the player wants less.

MLBTR has the latest report at 5 years with a player option for a 6th year. So yeah, 6 years if he doesn't work out well and 5 if he is good. Ouch.

Monster Rain · January 2012

Did they bring Tom Hicks back to negotiate this deal? What dummies.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

The Rangers better hope he doesn't turn out to be like pretty much every other Japanese pitcher and burn out before that deal is up or they'll feel pretty stupid about insisting on that 6th year.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Darvish getting 6 years, Rangers won that battle it sounds like. Funny when the team wants more years and the player wants less.

MLBTR has the latest report at 5 years with a player option for a 6th year. So yeah, 6 years if he doesn't work out well and 5 if he is good. Ouch.

Jearlpam0925 · January 2012

The dude's 25 years old - did you expect him to sign for 3 or 4 years? Seriously.

Monster Rain · January 2012

I just read this story about Craig Counsell and a Marlins coach on their 1997 championship team. It's an interesting story to say the least.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb

Wobbie · January 2012

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Darvish getting 6 years, Rangers won that battle it sounds like. Funny when the team wants more years and the player wants less.

if they had not signed him at all, would they still have been on the hook for the $51M? :?

Flagg · January 2012

imalive wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Darvish getting 6 years, Rangers won that battle it sounds like. Funny when the team wants more years and the player wants less.

if they had not signed him at all, would they still have been on the hook for the $51M? :?

No.

Well I am happy. Not sure about that 6th year option but hey, they have the money.

Now go get Prince!!

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

Was expecting a bigger annual value. 6th year is guaranteed right? I find it funny that the rangers wanted more years than darvish did to maximize the posting fee investment.

Tampering expectations, haha. Tough to do that with a $112 million investment.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

He can opt out after 5 so yeah, if he's good they get 5 years. If he's bad they get 6

Flagg · January 2012

I don't think this deal is stupid at all. Like I said, with the new TV deal they have the money. And we are talking about the Texas Rangers here - historically one of the worst professional sports franchises in history, who have gotten so close the last couple of years only to have their hearts ripped out. They had to make this deal.

If it was another team with skins on the wall then maybe they don't make this kind of deal, but for the Rangers is was a no brainer. Their window is right now and they have to go for it. I want Darvish to qualify for that opt-out clause because that would mean he would be great in that same window - when the rest of the team is great.

pjhawks · January 2012

Flagg wrote:

I don't think this deal is stupid at all. Like I said, with the new TV deal they have the money. And we are talking about the Texas Rangers here - historically one of the worst professional sports franchises in history, who have gotten so close the last couple of years only to have their hearts ripped out. They had to make this deal.

If it was another team with skins on the wall then maybe they don't make this kind of deal, but for the Rangers is was a no brainer. Their window is right now and they have to go for it. I want Darvish to qualify for that opt-out clause because that would mean he would be great in that same window - when the rest of the team is great.

but wouldn't $112 million be better spent being offered to Cliff Lee or CJ Wilson than to a guy who has not thrown one pitch in the major leagues?

DS1119 · January 2012

Jamie Moyer signed a minor league contract with the Colorado Rockies. He's 49. This will be chuck and duck baseball at it's finest if he makes the team.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

pjhawks wrote:

Flagg wrote:

I don't think this deal is stupid at all. Like I said, with the new TV deal they have the money. And we are talking about the Texas Rangers here - historically one of the worst professional sports franchises in history, who have gotten so close the last couple of years only to have their hearts ripped out. They had to make this deal.

If it was another team with skins on the wall then maybe they don't make this kind of deal, but for the Rangers is was a no brainer. Their window is right now and they have to go for it. I want Darvish to qualify for that opt-out clause because that would mean he would be great in that same window - when the rest of the team is great.

but wouldn't $112 million be better spent being offered to Cliff Lee or CJ Wilson than to a guy who has not thrown one pitch in the major leagues?

Darvish is going to be a lot better than CJ Wilson, I will bet on that. And we'll see about Lee, you're investing in a 25 year old in Darvish rather than a 32 year old in Lee. There are certainly some questions about Darvish, he has to adapt to pitching once every 5 or 6 days rather than once a week, but the dude is legitimately good, very good. No one has put up statistics like he has in Japan. Even if you say the compeition in Japan is basically Triple A, he has put up a 1.72 ERA over 5 years, 5 fucking years with the highest ERA he has ever had at 1.88.

Monster Rain · January 2012

The way the opt-out clause is structured does give the Rangers a little bit of protection because he has to do one of two things:

1. Win the Cy Young once and finish in the top 4 another time

or

2. Finish 2nd in the Cy Young voting and finish in the top 4 twice.

That's not going to be the easiest incentive for him to reach, but it also means that if he stinks, they're stuck with him for 6 years because he can't opt out even if he wants to. I get that it was never going to be a 3-year deal for him, but I also think the team was crazy to bid $51 million for his rights. They've committed over $111 million to a guy who has never thrown a pitch in the majors and has never pitched regularly on 4 days of rest instead of 6. It's a lot of money to spend on a guy who could wind up wearing down late in the year due to the increased workload and decreased rest time. I'm not rooting against him, but I think it was a very big risk for the Rangers, especially if it means they're out of the running for Fielder or signing Fielder means they can't re-sign Hamilton. Fielder's a proven performer and Hamilton is a proven performer when he's healthy (and even though he's injury-prone, the team knows this and can plan for him missing time). They should've tried to keep Wilson instead of going after Darvish. They may have been able to afford Wilson, Hamilton, and Fielder since Wilson's deal is for much less when you consider the posting fee. Even if they still couldn't get Fielder, at least they'd have a known performer at the top of their rotation and their division rival wouldn't have him.

polaris_x · January 2012

the thing with the $52 million is that it doesn't count against the cap nor cost draft picks ...so, really it's just cash ... which by all accounts the rangers have and whether one wants to believe it or not ... money plays a huge role in MLB ... sure, he might turn out to be a bust but it's definitely worth the risk ...

pjhawks · January 2012

Cliffy6745 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

Flagg wrote:

I don't think this deal is stupid at all. Like I said, with the new TV deal they have the money. And we are talking about the Texas Rangers here - historically one of the worst professional sports franchises in history, who have gotten so close the last couple of years only to have their hearts ripped out. They had to make this deal.

If it was another team with skins on the wall then maybe they don't make this kind of deal, but for the Rangers is was a no brainer. Their window is right now and they have to go for it. I want Darvish to qualify for that opt-out clause because that would mean he would be great in that same window - when the rest of the team is great.

but wouldn't $112 million be better spent being offered to Cliff Lee or CJ Wilson than to a guy who has not thrown one pitch in the major leagues?

Darvish is going to be a lot better than CJ Wilson, I will bet on that. And we'll see about Lee, you're investing in a 25 year old in Darvish rather than a 32 year old in Lee. There are certainly some questions about Darvish, he has to adapt to pitching once every 5 or 6 days rather than once a week, but the dude is legitimately good, very good. No one has put up statistics like he has in Japan. Even if you say the compeition in Japan is basically Triple A, he has put up a 1.72 ERA over 5 years, 5 fucking years with the highest ERA he has ever had at 1.88.

it's still a whole hell of a lot of money for a player unproven at the major league level. no doubt the guy has a ton of talent and can't wait to see him pitch.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

The way the opt-out clause is structured does give the Rangers a little bit of protection because he has to do one of two things:

1. Win the Cy Young once and finish in the top 4 another time

or

2. Finish 2nd in the Cy Young voting and finish in the top 4 twice.

That's not going to be the easiest incentive for him to reach, but it also means that if he stinks, they're stuck with him for 6 years because he can't opt out even if he wants to. I get that it was never going to be a 3-year deal for him, but I also think the team was crazy to bid $51 million for his rights. They've committed over $111 million to a guy who has never thrown a pitch in the majors and has never pitched regularly on 4 days of rest instead of 6. It's a lot of money to spend on a guy who could wind up wearing down late in the year due to the increased workload and decreased rest time. I'm not rooting against him, but I think it was a very big risk for the Rangers, especially if it means they're out of the running for Fielder or signing Fielder means they can't re-sign Hamilton. Fielder's a proven performer and Hamilton is a proven performer when he's healthy (and even though he's injury-prone, the team knows this and can plan for him missing time). They should've tried to keep Wilson instead of going after Darvish. They may have been able to afford Wilson, Hamilton, and Fielder since Wilson's deal is for much less when you consider the posting fee. Even if they still couldn't get Fielder, at least they'd have a known performer at the top of their rotation and their division rival wouldn't have him.

Agreed on the opt out. I guess they look at it if he pitches that well, they got their moneys worth for 5 years. Those situations for the team suck though, if he's good you lose him or pay more, if he's bad you're stuck.

I disagree on Darvish. He is definitely a risk and I have only watched him pitch this year once, but the dude is good. The biggest things are as we both mentioned, adjusting to the pitching schedule and also his work load, he has over 1,000 professional innings on his arm by 25, that could definitely lead to an elbow injury, but that's a risk with any pitcher. A whole lot of innings though.

Regarding Fielder, if I were Texas, I would sign Fielder and let Hamilton walk after this year. He can't stay on the field and is only getting older. Go for it all this year and see what happens with Hamilton.

I like Darvish more than most fans and think this was well worth the risk. A lot of money but even with the expected regression this year, he should be a very good big league pitcher. Once he gets settled, he could be great.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

pjhawks wrote:

Darvish is going to be a lot better than CJ Wilson, I will bet on that. And we'll see about Lee, you're investing in a 25 year old in Darvish rather than a 32 year old in Lee. There are certainly some questions about Darvish, he has to adapt to pitching once every 5 or 6 days rather than once a week, but the dude is legitimately good, very good. No one has put up statistics like he has in Japan. Even if you say the compeition in Japan is basically Triple A, he has put up a 1.72 ERA over 5 years, 5 fucking years with the highest ERA he has ever had at 1.88.

it's still a whole hell of a lot of money for a player unproven at the major league level. no doubt the guy has a ton of talent and can't wait to see him pitch.[/quote]

No doubt, but baseball is a game of risks. Yankees just traded as good of a hitting prospect as there is in baseball for a pitcher with only 1 year big league experience. Not exactly the same, but a big risk for sure. Darvish is a risk for sure, but all signs point to him being very good.

DewieCox · January 2012

I wouldn't touch Fielder with a 10' pole if he wants more than a few years. He's gonna start breakin down any day now.

Cliffy6745 · January 2012

DewieCox wrote:

I wouldn't touch Fielder with a 10' pole if he wants more than a few years. He's gonna start breakin down any day, now.

Meanwhile, he plays more games a season than anyone in baseball over the last 3 years. I hate this argument. Dude hasn't had an injury scare ever and just because of his size, he's going to break down.

MLB 2025 Season

Comments

Categories