Skip to content

Report: The Blue Jays are the high bidders for Yu Darvish

Dec 16, 2011, 6:30 AM EDT

darvish getty square Getty Images

As we noted last night, nothing will be official until next week, but the New York Post is reporting that the Blue Jays have made the highest bid for negotiating rights for Japanese sensation Yu Darvish.

The Post reports that “according to several sources with knowledge of the situation,” the Blue Jays owner, Rogers Communications, ordered the team to bid upwards of $40-50 million for the rights to negotiate with Darvish. If they are the winners, they would then have 30 days to get him under contract, which could cost an additional $75 million, many speculate.

The Blue Jays landing Darvish would make the AL East pretty interesting next year. The Jays were just a .500 team in 2011, but they have a core of great talent with Jose Bautista, Brett Lawrie — who would get more than 43 games in 2012 — and Ricky Romero.

With Darvish in the fold, the Jays would officially obtain “frisky” status, no?

  1. hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:39 AM

    Holey crap man. The Al East will have 4 90 gmae winners next year.

    • aaronzona2011 - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:47 AM

      if you think the yankees, rays, red sox, and jays all win 90 games you’re crazy. like always the yankees will probably win the division and now that the angels are contenders the east may not even get a wild card, unless the actually add a second one.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM

        Like always? When did 40% of the time the last 5 years become always?

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:51 AM

      I am not convinced that the Red Sox will win 90 games next year.

      • bostonjerry23 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

        Just like in 2007 you were not convinced that the Sox could/would win the World Series – I’m paraphrasing here but you wrote “The Red Sox have more holes then Swiss cheese” :-) that was the year the Blue Jays were in 1st place for 2 days (or something like that).

        Hope all is well PC…….

      • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

        You are misquoting proudlycanadian, tomandjerry. He said that “The Red Sox have more PED syringe holes than Swiss cheese”.

        And since both Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz both got exposed as having tested positive for PEDs in 2003, proudlycanadian would be correct in his assessment. Get it right next time.

    • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:58 AM

      Sorry about my typing. Had the laptop in bed and the wife made me leave. Bad spelling in the dark.

    • Panda Claus - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM

      $50MM?!? That’s a lot of Labatts.

      Toronto has something else in common with Miami now besides being their country’s southern-most vacation spot. Looks like they’re trying to build their own Dream Team too, eh?

      Four 90-game winners doesn’t seem to add up.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:01 AM

        So who doesn’t win 90 games. Rays won 91, and added Matt Moore, a full season of Desmond Jennings, and upgraded their catcher. Red Sox won 90, and added Carl Crawford – he never showed up last year. They will have Bucholtz and probably Daisuke back, and Lackey is gone. The Yankees won 97. All of those teams have a very good chance of winning 90 games.

        The Jays have a full season with a rededicated Colby Rasmus. A full season with Frett Lawrie. If they add Darvish, 81 wins turning into 90 wins isn’t unthinkable.

      • vanquish0916 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM

        What about Hawaii?

      • cur68 - Dec 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

        Beavermen converted something like 50% of save opportunities. They blew one game twice last season, they were so woeful at closing out games. Just bringing their closing pitching up to league average (about 75%) should see them make nearly 90 wins (if not more). Sergio Santos alone does that.

        Darvish pushes Brett Cecil to the pen, I think. So the rotation should look like: Ramirez, Morrow, Alverez, Darvish, McGowan. Quibbling about 3,4,5 is all that would be left. At this point, probably Darvish is # 5 since McGowan showed he could pitch last season. 90+ wins seams reasonable if Darvish is who I think he is.

        Pitchers and catchers ~7weeks, right?

      • Travis Reitsma - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM

        You can’t just take a team’s blown saves and add them to the win total, that’s not how it works.

      • cur68 - Dec 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM

        Beaver Men 2011 record: 81 – 81. 9 more wins = 90. Ya with me here? Blown saves = 25. How am I adding the blown saves to their win totals? I’m not even adding HALF of their blown saves to their wins. Please explain your logic, Trav.

    • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:16 AM

      Mathematically, it’s just hard for them all to win 90 games since they all play each other so often. Unless you’re thinking that all four of them will sweep their season series from the Orioles, which I suppose is possible…

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM

        Mathematically, the 4 teams averaged 89.75 wins last year. The 4 teams are better now.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM

        For instance, each of these teams plays the other three 54 times. Say the weakest of these four teams wins 25 of their games against the other three (that’s only a couple of games below .500, which realistically is close to a best-case scenario for whichever is the weakest of these four teams). Then they’d have to go 65-43 (.602) in their other games in order to win 90. And most of those other games aren’t against the Orioles. Not impossible, but a pretty tall order. .602 baseball is a 98-win pace over a full season.

        This is actually what the Blue Jays have been up against for years. IIRC, they’ve been solidly above .500 the last few years against teams outside the AL East. But not far enough above .500 to make up for their record within the division.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:37 AM

        “Mathematically, the 4 teams averaged 89.75 wins last year. The 4 teams are better now.”

        Yes, but the point is the variance around the average. The four of them *averaging* 90 wins is *much* easier than all four of them winning at least 90. Even if they all split their games with one another (which isn’t that likely even if they’re evenly matched), they’d all need to play 95-win pace against the rest of the league to win 90. And that’s the best-case scenario. More likely, at least one of them is going play sub-.500 ball against the other three, and will need to really tear it up against the rest of the league in order to win 90.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:51 AM

        “Those 4 teams are better now”.

        Maybe relative to the rest of the league, but they can’t all have improved relative to each other. Which is the problem, given that they all have to play each other a lot.

        Say they all win at least 90, and that (as has been suggested in another comment) the Rangers and Angels do as well. Throw in whoever wins the AL Central, because usually division winners do win 90. That’s seven 90-win teams–which is half the league. That’s possible–maybe this is really going to be a year of haves and have-nots in the AL and the other half of the league really will average less than 72 wins. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:52 AM

        And if I’d have said 3 teams would win 90, you’d have said something very similiar. 3 happened last year. 4 could happen this year. I believe the Blue Jays will win 5 additional games against non-AL east teams next year. I believe they can win 1 additional game against each of their AL east opponents. I believe Boston can beat the Yankees 1 additional time next year.

        4 90 win teams.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM

        “And if I’d have said 3 teams would win 90, you’d have said something very similiar.”

        Um, no, I wouldn’t have, because (a) I can do math, and (b) I am aware that three of those teams won 90 last year. Three teams in a division winning 90 is more likely than four, in part because each of those three teams only plays the other two 36 times rather than 54.

        Rather than pretending that you know what I would say about some hypothetical scenario, why don’t you actually ask me and find out what I would say?

      • paperlions - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

        Here is the math (I won’t bother calculating the exact probabilities, I got work to do today):

        Each team plays the other 18 times for a total of 54 games. If every team plays .500 ball in those games (which is optimal for all 4 teams to win 90 games). Every team has to go AT LEAST 63-45 in the rest of their schedule. Even if the optimal outcome occurs and the 4 teams go .500 against each other, it is highly unlikely that all 4 teams will also play at least .583 ball against the rest of the league.

        Last year 5 teams in all of baseball played that well. It is highly unlikely that 4 teams in one division will play that well, and it is even more unlikely that they will get the necessary outcomes in their games against each other to make that unlikely outcome sufficient for all to reach 90 games.

        Three teams winning 90 games is much easier than 4….there just aren’t that many wins go to around.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM

        I showed you how it could be done.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

        Thank you paperlions, it’s reassuring your calculations come out the same as mine above. Maybe if enough people do the same math, hittfamily will start to believe it.

      • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:19 AM

        “I showed you how it could be done”

        Jeebus hittlions, nobody said it was mathematically *impossible*. Nobody said it *couldn’t* be done. paperlions and I (and others) just said it was quite *unlikely*, and significantly *less* likely than three teams in the same division winning 90.

        It must be nice arguing against imaginary opponents, who say whatever you want them to say.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM

        Unlikely is a far cry from “mathematically it doesn’t add up”. The 4 teams averaged 90 wins each last year, so it is mathematically possible. They have gotten better. I understand your math. It is 4th grade arithmetic. If they all split with one another (27-27), then they have 108 to win 63 games. If they each play the miserable Orioles 18 times, and go 11-7, they now have 90 games to win 52, requiring each of them to go 52-38.

        The Red Sox went 52-38 against non AL east teams last year.
        The Yankees went 58-32 against non AL east teams last year.
        The Rays went 49-41 against non AL east teams last year.
        The Jays went 48-42. against non AL east teams last year.

        Each team would have to play .577 against non-AL east competetion. I understand that they will likely not finish with exactly .500 records against each other, but I don’t think someone will lose 40 of 52 games either. I think statistically, it is very possible to have 4 90 win teams if Yu Darvish is signed by the Blue Jays.

      • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM

        Boston most certainly isn’t better, hitt. They still need to find two starters and a closer. Not much out there on either score.

    • bigleagues - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

      Buck Showalter just slumped over in easy chair.

      Will scheming to remove Peter Angelos be Job 1 for the new Commissioner?

      Oh wait’s its only Baltimore. No one seems to care.

      And NO, this wouldn’t make the BJ’s an assumed 90-game winner.

    • yankeesgameday - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM

      Ha. Poor guy wanted to play in America and this is what he gets.

  2. ratflop - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:47 AM

    Let’s see, 50 million just to negotiate, another 75 million for a contract. Wouldn’t that 125 million be much better spent on Fielder over 5-6 years?

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:53 AM

      No. Boras and Fielder want $250 million over 10 years. The Jays are not fans of Boras and his method of operating.

      • stopthewave - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:10 AM

        They can want that number all they want, there’s almost no way they’re getting it though.

      • ratflop - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:11 AM

        I thought (and perhaps things have changed) that Fielder was looking for a 5 year contract to ensure another free agent payday when he is around 34

      • paperlions - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM

        Teams would line up around the block to sign Fielder to a 5 year deal…..7+ years? Not so much.

      • concernedcitizen001 - Dec 17, 2011 at 3:11 AM

        And I want to win the lottery………………..

  3. proudlycanadian - Dec 16, 2011 at 6:50 AM

    Stay tuned. We have no idea if this story is correct. I also suspect that the Jays still want Gio Gonzalez. A rotation of Romero, Morrow, Darvish, Gonzalez and young Henderson Alvarez would be very competitive.

    • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:10 AM

      I have been singing the Jays praises all offseason. They are stacked, and will likely get better before the season starts. The other day, I said as a Rays fan, I am more worried about the Jays than either the Sox or Yankees. I got mauled for the comment, but it is absolutely accurate. The Yanks have a #1 and 4 #5’s. AJ Burnett could be their #2 next year. Arod is older, Jeter is older, Granderson overperformed. The Yankees ’12 team is inferior to ’11. The Rays and Jays are superior to the ’11 versions.

      90 wins likely doesn’t make the playoffs next year, and 95 doesn’t guarantee it. The Rays, Jays, Yanks, Sox, Angels, and Rangers are all stacked, and all may win 90 games. Only 3 of them make the post season though.

      The Jays vast improvement in the last few years is fun to watch. Congrats guys, and I can’t wait to see the Rays and Jays battle it out this year.

      What is the feeling on Drabek up there. Is he a lost cause, or will he contribute this year.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:20 AM

        Not sure if Drabek is a lost cause. The potential is still there, but he is probably trade bait. Like the Rays, the Jays have a lot of pitching talent in the minors.

      • purnellmeagrejr - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:44 AM

        hittfamily – it is way too early to say the Yanks won’t be as good in 2012 – and this from someone with no love for the Yanks.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM

        I am not saying the Yanks will not be good. But I do not think they will be as good next year as they were this year. They had 3 key players do the unthinkable in Garcia, Colon, and Granderson. I think Granderson will regress considerably. Garcia is probably retiring, and Colon can not repeat. Their rotation is garbage, and they have very few trade chips. Their only trade chips are starting pitchers, and I can’t see them moving them. They have a rookie DH. I just do not see them being as dominant next year.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:19 AM

        They had 3 key players do the unthinkable in Garcia, Colon, and Granderson. I think Granderson will regress considerably. Garcia is probably retiring, and Colon can not repeat. Their rotation is garbage, and they have very few trade chips.

        Except regression is a two way street. Teixeira had his worst year in the majors, is the beginning of his decline or will he regress back to the mean? The Yanks got essentially no production out of SS/3B for half the year, so expect that to improve as long as Arod/Jeter stay healthy.

        As for the pitching, Garcia pretty much pitched as he always does, 6K/9 and 3BB/9. The Yanks could have him pitch more than his 146IP last year. Does the 2nd half Ivan Nova show up or was it just a mirage (3 instead of a 4). Can Hughes improve?

        But let’s stop with the rotation = crap unless you are ready to say that 90% of the rotations in the AL last year were crap. Rankings (MLB/AL)

        ERA – 11/4
        FIP – 13/4
        xFIP – 10/3

      • djpostl - Dec 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

        “The Yankees ’12 team is inferior to ’11.”

        Lol, base on what? You guys are nuts if you think a team that has AVERAGED being 18 plus games out of first over the last 3 years is suddenly going to challenge for th AL East. Keep dreaming. We don’t even know if this guy is Dice Gay part deux. Does he have the ego? The small baseball, the steeper mound, the difference between pitching on the 5th day and not every 7th, the cultural change, the fact he is a partier who is now becoming single lol.

        Anyone who thinks this guy suddenly puts them into contention for first place is smoking crack.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM

        It isn’t “1 guy”. It is Colby Rasmuss, Brett Lawrie, Yu Darvish, and finally a closer in Sergio Santos so they don’t blow half their leads.

        They upgraded their offense, their rotation, and their bullpen more than any other AL east team.

        How much this helps is yet to be seen, but if they get Darvish, another 81 win season will not happen.

      • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

        You’re a Rays fan? That explains the denseness of your posts.

      • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 3:07 PM

        Garcia isn’t retiring, moron. He just signed a contract to pitch this season. Also, Nova is a legit #2 right now. Add to that the fact that AJ can only improve over last year AND Hughes as well.

        Add to that the fact that if any of those guys falters, the Yankees have two young top talents in Banuelos and Betances that can be brought up sometime this season to take the spots of those that falter. Noesi is another that could be ready to come back up from AAA this year.

        But keep on fantasizing. The fact is that the Yankees will only get better as the next few years unfold. So sorry for your team though.

  4. skids003 - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:32 AM

    If the NY Post says its so, It must be. What a rag.

  5. teaspoon1731 - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:38 AM

    Well damn, welcome to the AL east Toronto. Nice to see someone other than Boston and New York blowing their was.

  6. simon94022 - Dec 16, 2011 at 7:47 AM

    Pity the poor Orioles. They could finish 30 games behind their closest competitor

    • lardin - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:08 AM

      And they have no one to blame but themselves

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:36 AM

        Playing in the same division as 3 of the best 5 teams in the AL probably hurts. Can they be blamed for that?

      • lardin - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:06 AM


        15 years ago they dominated the division. The problem is Peter Angelos. He thinks he knows more about baseball then the people he hires to run the team. He interferes in every aspect to the detriment of the Orioles. They have not drafted well and have not gone the extra mile to keep their own stars. In the AL East, you either have to spend the money like the Yankees or Red Sox, or a have a strong farm system like the Rays and the one the Jays are now developing. That’s the front offices problem, specifically Angelos who makes his biggest mistake is thinking that he knows everything about everything.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

        That is over simplifying to say “it is the owners fault”. John Henry was a terrible owner. Now he is a good one. George Steinbrenner interfered every day. They had a top rated farm system, and none of the players panned out. They brought in Leo Mazzone, and he didn’t help them. They made good trades at the time, but the players simply didn’t produce. Bedard for Jones was lauded by every baseball mind, but Jones turned out to be average. Matusz was a top end prospect, but he stinks. Wieters was a god among men, but he turned out to be a little better than average.

        He has had bad FA acquisitions. So have the Angels, Yankees, Sox, Cubs, and Mets. I get that it stinks rooting for a bad team, but their MLB ready prospects in non biased scouts eyes stink at the MLB level. Bad luck has as much to do with the O’s not being successful as anything else.

      • majmayhem - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM


        Based on reports from earlier this year, about how Angelos’ presence denied them the opportunity to hire the GM they wanted, in fact they are now using the Red Sox’s retread who hasn’t sniffed the GM position in YEARS. When you can’t hire good front office talent, I would assume naturally that, that front office talent is not as good at spotting talent/issues when they see it.

        Sorry but I disagree that the Orioles’ problem can be chucked up to luck.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM

        This Red Sox retread is one of the most successful GMs in baseball. He was far more responsible for the Red Sox championships than Theo. Theo traded Duquettes Hanley for Beckett, signed Ortiz Ortiz and Millar. That was it. Everyone else was Duquettes.

        I think this is a great hire.

      • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 3:03 PM

        No, what hurts the O’s is their horrible ownership. Peter Angelos is the WORST owner in MLB and one of the worst in all of American professional sports.

  7. CJ - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:40 AM

    somewhere in Canada, a one-eyed Cur

    • CJ - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:41 AM


  8. CJ - Dec 16, 2011 at 8:40 AM

    somewhere in Canada, a one-eyed Cur is rejoicing.

    • cur68 - Dec 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

      Actually it’s both eyes: PRK for near sightedness.

      Rejoicing? Not till the deal is done.

      I’ve spent a lot of time watching Darvish pitch on YouTube. He is no DiceK. His delivery is effortless. He hides the ball well. Has exceptional movement. Relies on pitches that actually exist (gyro ball? Yeah, not so much).

      His slider and his cutter are indistinguishable to me: both move like he’s throwing a wiffle ball but he seems to get them over the plate for strikes. Either he’s using an altered ball to fool the world into a big payday or he can pitch like a demon. Given his 6’5” frame, delivery, reliance on straight up pitching using pitches that actually exist, I think he’s the real deal.

      Whoever gets him, I think we’ll see that he’ll be shaky by the mid point of the season as the adrenalin wears off and teams get a better look at his stuff. Then he’ll adjust and finish strong.

  9. Jonny 5 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

    40-50 M just to negotiate, plus talk of a 75 m contract. Ummm, on a non MLB tested prospect? This is doomed from the beginning I say. For the sake of the Jays I hope this doesn’t happen. That’s what 135 M or just under? Didn’t the Yankees pay CC 122 million for 5 seasons? Just saying, the Jays are better off trading or picking up a FA than they are shelling out all that loot on an unknown. I can’t find the sense in this no matter how I look at it.

  10. flaviusflav - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM

    Seems like this could just be keeping him from going to other teams in the AL East, while allowing them to build up a relationship with a guy who doesn’t think the posting system is fair. Come back next year and sign him as a free agent

    • ta192 - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:27 PM

      But doesn’t that still leave them on the hook for the posting fee…$40+million isn’t chickenfeed, even today…

      • flaviusflav - Dec 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

        I believe they are refunded the posting fee if they cannot agree to a contract.

  11. paint771 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

    I think they’re beyond frisky – this isn’t a hypothetically competitive Royals team. If the Jays were in any other division, they’d have been a bubble contender for division winner each of the last two seasons. It’s only in the shadow of Boston and New York that they aren’t widely considered a great franchise firing on all cylinders right now. They are a circa 2011 Cardinals/Braves/Angels/Diamondbacks caliber team, and even in the AL East they’ve managed an average of 83 wins a year over the last two seasons.

    AA and Farrell haven’t been starting from the presumption that they’re a .500 team rebuilding. They’re starting from the (correct) presumption that they just need to find 10 more wins. With a full season of Lawrie, the addition of a #1 or #2 starter, a shored up bullpen, and if even if, say, any three of their young core of Arencibia, Rasmus, Johnson, Morrow, Alvarez, Snider, Thames, Drabek, et al have great years, does anyone think 10 squeezing out another 10 wins isn’t well within reach? They’ve not lost any core pieces since last year, have a lot of bang for their payroll buck, have a whole farm system of guys waiting in line behind that core, and have an incredibly savvy general manager. Throw in a Red Sox in disarray and an aging Yankees squad, and the AL East is going to be pretty interesting next year.

    Also, any long fly balls have no chance. They have, like, 8 outfielders.

    • bozosforall - Dec 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

      Aging Yankee squad?


      Toronto – 26.6
      Yankees – 27.8

      A whole whopping year difference? Yeah, so much older

      And that doesn’t even factor out Posada being done (and being replaced by Montero)

      Also, Mo’s 42 is really 32, given his ageless performances to date.

      Add in the young pitchers Betances and Banuelos who will ultimately see time in the majors this year in anticipation of starting out of spring training in 2013 and your stupid assessment gets blown out of the water.

      • paint771 - Dec 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

        Just sayin’, but Jeter, Rodriquez, and Mo are pretty core pieces, and they ain’t gettin’ any younger. And the average age of the likely Yankee rotation will be, what, probably 5 years older than the Jays? And it’s not like the Jays don’t have a stacked AAA team ready to dip into as well.

        Anyway, the comment wasn’t meant as a knock on the Yankees or to imply that they won’t be good. Just saying, they’re not bulletproof, and there’s reason, if you’re a Jays fan, to be optimistic that 2011 could be a good year to break through.

  12. kvanhorn87 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:26 AM

    That must stink for Darvish. He is excited and tells his family how great it will be to go to America and play ball, only to be stuck….gulp….Canada. Not quite what he had in mind for sure.

    • circus19 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM

      Wow, what a dumb comment. You’re really showing off your lack of intelligence. I’m almost embarrassed for you.

      • majmayhem - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM

        What??? Toronto is in Canada last I checked. Is that fact up for debate all the sudden?

    • paperlions - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

      Compared to most American cities, Toronto is a fantastic place to be.

      • hittfamily - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM

        He bashed Canada, but is in the minority. No need to bash America.

      • paperlions - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM

        Have you been to American cities lately? We are abandoning most of them to decay. That isn’t bashing them, it is true, and a shame….but still true.

    • spudchukar - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

      Another example of American Exceptionalism.

  13. uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    It’s good to see so many fans take what the NY Post has published as gospel concerning this. But let’s be honest here. The chances that the NY Post of all the media outlets in the country are the only one’s to know conclusively that the Blue Jays are slim and none. It’s probably far more likely that they went on a hunch 4 teams are know to have bid, 2 of those teams are suspected of bidding more than the other 2. Those 2 are the Jays and Rangers. It’s not a great leap of faith to the next step to jump to the conclusion and go from 4 teams to 2 teams to 1 team and that the Jays were the high bidder.

    Now it’s not impossible that someone from MLB that was/is in the know leaked the winning bid team name to the media. But I do think if it was leaked and that leak was reliable the Post would not be the only media outlet with the information.

    Also when you read the complete article in the link there really is nothing new in it. It’s what most in the media have been speculating about since Wednesday late afternoon or evening.

  14. Ari Collins - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    Can we agree that, if this does indeed happen, we have four teams capable of winning 90 games, all in the same division?

    Pretty awesome!

    • oikosjeremy - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

      Sure! That I think it’s unlikely doesn’t mean I don’t think it would be awesome if it were to happen.

    • uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM

      As long as we can all agree that there is a difference between being “capable” and “likely” of winning 90 games.

      Because from where I sit it’s far more likely that at least 2 of those 4 teams win between 85 and 89 games. Especially when you consider for whatever the reasons were 2 of those teams in 2011 only won 91 and 90 games. Since the Jays play the AL East teams 18 times in a season and at most only play teams outside their division 6 to 8 or 9 times. It’s far more likely that when Darvish pitches those “extra” Jays wins will come at the expense of one or more of the AL East teams.

    • Ari Collins - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM

      Yeah, it’s more the fact that we could have 4 on-paper 90-game-winners. In reality, who knows, and even if they all end up at 90-game quality, the unbalanced schedule makes them all reaching 90 wins pretty tough.

      But if Darvish goes to Toronto, man, what a stacked division.

  15. Ari Collins - Dec 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM

    Two ridiculous myths about big Japanese contracts:

    (1) The idea that because the posting fee doesn’t count against the salary cap, that it doesn’t “count” in some way. The winning team still has to spend that money. It still means they’re less able to spend on other things. It means their payroll doesn’t technically go up by $50MM the first year, but only technically. Only as far as the luxury tax is concerned, which most teams (including the Jays) are nowhere near reaching.

    In fact, due to the time-value of money, $50MM up front and then, say, 5/$75MM is MUCH more money than a 5-year $125MM contract. Teams heavily backload deals for a reason: money now is worth more than money later, even before inflation gets taken into account. Massively frontloading it makes the overall package a LOT more costly.

    (2) Also bogus: the idea that the Japanese marketing revenue will offset the contract to any significant degree. There isn’t THAT much money heading to MLB from Japan due to Japanese stars, and any overseas television deals, merchandising, etc. is split evenly among all 30 teams.

    [I love the deal for the Jays and think Darvish is gonna be great. Just not for these absurd and untrue reasons that overenthusiastic contract analysts attempt to give.]

    • Ari Collins - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM

      (2a) And revenue in America is, of course, all divided evenly among the 30 teams.

    • Jonny 5 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:13 AM

      I don’t like this deal for the Jays. It’s CC Sabathia money, and he is more than likely to be no CC Sabathia. The hitting in the MLB is far superior to that of Japan so you might as well throw his stats out the window. He’s just too much of an unknown right now.

      • uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:28 AM

        Actually it’s both CC or Lee money assuming neither of their option years vest. I do agree he’s not likely to wind up being like either of them.

  16. uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Actually the thing that I don’t like about this deal for the Jays if indeed it is the Jays that won the bid. It’s that if Darvish doesn’t live up to expectations or at least close to expectations that kind of outlay of cash will hamper what the Jays can do budget wise and player wise for the next several years.

    • Jonny 5 - Dec 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM

      You’re right. If he’s anything less than an Ace in the MLB then this will be seen as an overpay.

      • Ari Collins - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM

        Although he’s also five years younger than Sabathia. So there’s less of a chance (though obviously no guarantee) of a complete collapse due to age and/or injury.

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM

        And he’s from the JPL which means his stats are inflated by a good margin as well. So chances are that he’s not even as good as CC is to begin with. He might be Ace material but we’ve seen from past experience that Japanese pitchers aren’t as good in the MLB as they were when they played for Japan. I can’t see paying him ace money until he proves he’s ace material. It’s a heck of a chance they’re taking.

  17. uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Actually the thing that I don’t like about this deal for the Jays if indeed it is the Jays that won the bid. It’s that if Darvish doesn’t live up to expectations or at least close to expectations that kind of outlay of cash will hamper what the Jays can do budget wise and player wise for the next several years.

  18. uyf1950 - Dec 16, 2011 at 10:50 AM

    Sorry for the double post don’t know what happened there.

  19. virusgvr - Dec 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM

    40 to 50 million? And thats just to grant you the right to talk/negotiate with him????? what a joke!!!! When are professional sports going to wake up? I would be willing to bet that this deal will end up like another Dice K deal. All talk about that new pitch he has, and all flop!!!! But hey…. Beer prices and ticket prices will sure be on the rise!

    • Matt - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

      If only beer and ticket prices were the result of increased payroll you just may have had a point.

  20. spudchukar - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:04 PM

    Last year I predicted that no team in the AL East would win 90 games. I was wrong. However, for similar reasons it might well happen in 2012. Let’s say for the sake of argument the other teams finish thusly:

    Texas, LA, and Detroit all finish 95-67.

    Cleveland goes 81-81.

    The other five teams, Seattle, Oakland, Chicago, K.C., and Minnesota all go 70-92.

    That leaves 352 victories to be split between the four Eastern powers. Or 88 wins each.

    • spudchukar - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

      Meant to say the other “six” teams, including Baltimore.

  21. benandjerrysberryhorny - Dec 16, 2011 at 1:17 PM

    I’m sure Yu is thrilled he’s going to Toronto

  22. tuckyous - Dec 16, 2011 at 4:49 PM

    How much says he doesn’t sign?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2484)
  2. D. Span (2323)
  3. G. Stanton (2258)
  4. Y. Puig (2223)
  5. J. Fernandez (2177)
  1. B. Crawford (1998)
  2. G. Springer (1997)
  3. M. Sano (1801)
  4. M. Teixeira (1801)
  5. J. Hamilton (1721)