southsider2k5 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/...ns-on-the-clock Expect the Chicago White Sox to come to terms will all three of their arbitration-eligible players in advance of hearings before an arbitrator that start next month. John Danks, Carlos Quentin and Tony Pena all have earned the right to have their 2011 salaries decided by an independent third party. A player’s arbitration years are a buffer between their early years when teams can set their salaries and later years when they are eligible for free agency. The White Sox's track record, though, is to come to deals with players before the sometimes contentious arbitration hearings, where teams end up accenting the negative in order to justify their point for a lower salary. It's never a great confidence booster or relationship builder just before a season begins. The last time the White Sox had a case go to an arbitrator was in 2001 with Keith Foulke. A source indicated earlier this winter that the White Sox will get serious with the option of signing Danks to a three- or four-year deal that would take him past his arbitration years. Danks reportedly declined a four-year, $15 million deal last offseason. The team’s decision on Quentin will be interesting. He was also offered a four-year deal last offseason but declined for a one-year offer. The White Sox still don’t seem convinced that Quentin can stay injury- or stress-free over a full season. A long-term deal with Quentin could be risky, but so could another one-year contract, especially if he puts up numbers like he did in 2008 when he hit 36 home runs with 100 RBIs. If he does that again, he could end up being worth more than the White Sox could afford once he becomes a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySox Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Isn't this old news? It says that they turned down extensions last offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHizzle85 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yep, nothing here about them turning down deals this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yeah, Doug Padilla is recycling old news here. The Sox offered Floyd, Danks and Quentin the same contract and only Floyd took it. 4/$15 was an incredible low ball offer for Danks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) This news is older than my nephew. Edited January 8, 2011 by JoeCoolMan24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Damn, I don't blame Danks for turning that crap offer down and would be rather insulted, even though I'm sure the Sox didn't think there was a chance in hell he'd take it. You've got mediocre relievers making that much. Far as CQ goes, there's no way in hell I'd sign him to an extension. Go ahead and let him match his 2008 and make him more expensive when he's eligible for free agency. Be a nice problem to have, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Fireworks Man Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Misleading thread title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hometeamfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 12:30 AM) Isn't this old news? It says that they turned down extensions last offseason. Even WORSE reporting.....the extension offer was TWO offseasons ago. The White Sox didn't offer them anything last offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (hometeamfan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) Even WORSE reporting.....the extension offer was TWO offseasons ago. The White Sox didn't offer them anything last offseason. Well the Sox would have been crazy to offer Quentin a long-term extension last season. How do we know they didn't offer Danks one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hometeamfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) Well the Sox would have been crazy to offer Quentin a long-term extension last season. How do we know they didn't offer Danks one? Because clubs like to let the fans know they made an offer...and the player turned it down. They come across as extending a hand....and the player comes across as biting it. When Sox made offer two years ago to Quentin and Danks, people on here called them greedy. Now, in hindsight, they (Danks at least) look smart for declining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (hometeamfan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) Because clubs like to let the fans know they made an offer...and the player turned it down. They come across as extending a hand....and the player comes across as biting it. When Sox made offer two years ago to Quentin and Danks, people on here called them greedy. Now, in hindsight, they (Danks at least) look smart for declining. Who called them greedy? I don't remember that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (hometeamfan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Because clubs like to let the fans know they made an offer...and the player turned it down. They come across as extending a hand....and the player comes across as biting it. When Sox made offer two years ago to Quentin and Danks, people on here called them greedy. Now, in hindsight, they (Danks at least) look smart for declining. I don't recall a single person on here calling Danks and Quentin greedy for turning down their extensions. Pretty much everybody knows exactly why they did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) I don't recall a single person on here calling Danks and Quentin greedy for turning down their extensions. Pretty much everybody knows exactly why they did it. Just looking back at the Floyd extension thread (it was reported at that time that the Sox made the same offer to all 3 players, so Padilla's recycling news that's 2 years old) these were the only things said about Danks: QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Mar 22, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) If you refuse to sign free agents to market deals, then you have to do stuff like this. I'm fine with it. putting a staff together piecemeal is how we did it immediately prior to 05. If it means payroll stays up later by getting big bashers in the lineup (once Dye/Pk/JT are gone) then i will be ok with doing it this way. But Danks is smart to wait and see. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 22, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) I'd prefer we locked up Danks. And replying to Steve: QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 22, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) He's going to cost significantly more money. It's been discussed in multiple threads since then, to the best of my recollection the word greedy has never been used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 However, there is a legitimate point here, KW/JR hate when players take cases all the way to arbitration. If that happens with Danks, he will be traded as that is viewed as an act of war to the front office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) However, there is a legitimate point here, KW/JR hate when players take cases all the way to arbitration. If that happens with Danks, he will be traded as that is viewed as an act of war to the front office. An act of war? Really? Gotta think you're exaggerating there. They're not trading away D1 just because they can't agree to a contract without going to arbitration...if they can't agree to a contract beforehand, that's probably because they're pretty sure they'll win the arbitration case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) An act of war? Really? Gotta think you're exaggerating there. They're not trading away D1 just because they can't agree to a contract without going to arbitration...if they can't agree to a contract beforehand, that's probably because they're pretty sure they'll win the arbitration case. With all due respect, everything that I have ever read says JR believes it is a total lack of respect to take a case to an arbitration hearing as he has always said the Sox have always offered above market contracts. However, I do not have stats as to which Sox players recently have made it to an arb hearing. It will be something to watch and if I'm wrong I will stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 06:25 PM) With all due respect, everything that I have ever read says JR believes it is a total lack of respect to take a case to an arbitration hearing as he has always said the Sox have always offered above market contracts. However, I do not have stats as to which Sox players recently have made it to an arb hearing. It will be something to watch and if I'm wrong I will stand corrected. None have gone to arbitration since 2001, and the Sox don't like arbitration hearings. I just don't think that they interpret it as an "act of war" or slap in the face or whatever metaphor you want to use. I'm just as confident as you that they'll have everyone wrapped up, because they will make fair offers rather than go through the arb scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 05:27 PM) None have gone to arbitration since 2001, and the Sox don't like arbitration hearings. I just don't think that they interpret it as an "act of war" or slap in the face or whatever metaphor you want to use. I'm just as confident as you that they'll have everyone wrapped up, because they will make fair offers rather than go through the arb scenario. Ok, good point on the rhetoric, the Sox front office just tries to avoid an ugly situation and is not a fan of the confrontation of having to argue against a player. 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.