Marty34

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 07:50 PM) But you already tried to trade Beck along with Quintana, and you've said repeatedly that Johnson, Beck, Danish, and the #3 pick is not enough pitching depth. Hell, that was your ENTIRE point for why the Sox needed another starter. At least it's great to see you finally agree that the White Sox do have sufficient pitching depth and don't need a mid rotation starter in the near future unless they trade someone, so your entire last 3 month schtick was pointless It's not enough pitching depth. That's why they need to sign a guy like Shields.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 07:05 PM) A great comparison could have been the 4 players the Rockies got for Jiminez after he lost his fastball. Cleveland gave up multiple top prospects for the guy. Of course, the problem is that Colorado pretty much got nothing out of those guys. Pomeranz disappointed and was traded, the other pitcher was useless and is now an astro, and the other 2 guys have sort of dropped out of the Rockies top 25. Which is of course the downside that Marty either can't process or is really hoping for. Balta, here I thought I'd actually win an argument and then out of nowhere you show up with the message board equivalent to the old cue ball in a sock move and I'm fighting for survival again. If you want a top-of-the-rotation starter you must assume some risk. Johnson, Beck, the #3 pick, along with signing a guy like Shields provides enough insulation for the loss of Quintana if the deal does not pan out.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Because they are getting a virtual sure thing. You aren't going to get a #1 starter for a prospect with #1 potential. Plus if you're ready to win now, you need a capable starter now. And for the Sox to trade Quintana for a prospect with 2/3 potential would be clownish. But I agree, a GM is unlikely to offer what he is worth. Here's a good article on Q: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-is-a-jose-quintana/ Thanks for understanding my point. Quintana's contract could give the Sox some nice leverage with a GM hellbent on winning. The GM could give up a top-of-the-rotation prospect and sell it to his fan base as getting a solid if not spectacular SP signed to a well below market value deal. Is it likely, no, but it's possible.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) Again, if they have this possible 1-2 starter in the minors, which you are putting in the Sox rotation as early as next year, why would that team want to deal that starter for only 4 years of Quintana, instead of building around him. It is simply shortsighted and terrible management of assets. The Os and Blue Jays aren't gonna jump past the Yankees with a move like that. Because the team trading for Quintana sacrifices some upside for a finished product.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Right, because keeping that top of the rotation stuff in house, cheaply, makes no sense to a contending GM. The O's and Jays may not have time to wait on developing a #2 starter, have to win while Yankees are down.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 01:10 PM) Because I think Masterson profiles better for our park. 56.4% career ground ball rate for Justin vs. 47.6% for Ubaldo. And quite frankly, I wasn't 100% against signing Jimenez, but I did feel we were probably better off waiting another year to sign a veteran starter given where we're at competitively. I'd hate giving up the draft pick, but I would been ok with Jimenez at the price he ultimately cost. I definitely would have pissed with signjng Santana though. Masterson would be north of $75M and you still probably need a pitcher better than him at the top of the rotation.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Your scenario does nothing to guarantee another top of the rotation starter, and counts on another GM being dumb enough to trade a "potential" top of the rotation starter for Quintana. Again, it makes absolutely zero sense. Why would any other GM make this trade? You want more of a guarantee? Pay Scherzer. A GM contending for a payoff spot might be willing to give of a prospect with top-of-the-rotation stuff for Quintana. Teams like Baltimore, Toonto, Arizona, or Atlanta to name four.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 12:50 PM) And now the Sox have two, for cheap as hell. May have two.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 10:55 PM) While I think finding a #2 starter is important, I'm not sure how a left-handed power hitter and a legit starting catcher aren't bigger needs. Regardless, give me Masterson over Scherzer, who will come a hell of a lot cheaper and is a perfect fit for our ballpark. The fastest way to contend is to find a top-of-the-rotation starter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 08:07 AM) If you don't like Jimenez or Santana for 4 years and $50 million, and a second round pick I don't understand how you can like Masterson next year for significantly more money and a higher draft pick. See how this season goes. You don't have to have targets on free agents yet. I will say, one of the reasons I thought the Sox should target the above THIS year is the price tag. You will be giving up a lot more later for something similar both in money and draft pick. I liked Jimenez a little more than Santana, but it is funny that Don Cooper is a supposedly a genius, but if an expensive free agent pitcher signed this season, they certainly would bust. Hopefully the Sox young starters and Paulino are as good as some posters here think so it will be a non issue. Yeah I don't understand the logic of not wanting Jimenez at $50M, but wanting to throw $75M or more at Masterson. Maybe a team in contention this summer that needs a pitcher will overpay for Quintana and that will be the way we get another top of the rotation starter. 2015 Sale Shields Danks Johnson Prospect acquired for Q 2016 Sale Shields Prospect acquired for Q Johnson Danks 2017 Sale Prospect acquired for Q Johnson Shields #3 pick

Adding a top-of-the-rotation starter trumps any need in my opinion. Zero interest in Scherzer though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Depends on how revenues are this year. We just saw a loss of about $20 million in revenue YoY. If we a similar or greater loss, that wipes out all of the new TV money coming in. $6M decline in revenues. Considering they lost 99 games and the red line was shutdown for the entire season, and ticket prices were slashed that's not bad.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 03:57 PM) You never read my response when you say this. Please read the following: NO ONE IS AGAINST SPENDING MONEY EVERYONE IS AGAINST SPENDING MONEY ON STUPID, RISKY, LOW UPSIDE DEALS Jose Abreu's contract was smart because he is being paid like a LEAGUE AVERAGE PLAYER. Ergo, his contract is easier to tolerate if it busts. An investment in talent with upside is good. The downside is limited, in context. You are the ONLY one who thinks I said that $68m doesn't matter. Truthfully, I don't even think you really think that's what I said, I think you just like to disagree with everything I post. Ervin Santana (and every other old, dead cat bounce, injury prone, flash in the pan, etc.) is a BAD INVESTMENT because there's limited or no upside, he/they are being paid like STARS instead of league-average players, and thus come with MORE downside. This is risky. This is bad. I don't know how else to explain this. Ervin Santana and Ubaldo Jiminez are making roughly the same salary per year as Abreau. How are they being paid like stars and Abreau is being paid like a league average player?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 03:49 PM) Why do you want to block Beck? Winning an argument is tough against you Balta. I have to give you that grudging respect.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 03:20 PM) Jimenez AAV=$12.5M, Abreu AAV=$11.3M. Jimenez is also four years older, does not have a very good track record, and costs a prospect. Yes Abreu gets more money as his deal if for two more years, yes there is risk, but if he performs in the mid range of expectations he will outperform his contract. Mike Napoli just signed a contract for $16M/year as a 32yo with power numbers near where Abreu is projected to hit this year with a .259 average. At no point does Abreu's contract reach that amount of money but is production is expected to be at least on par. I definitely am not anti-spending, just anti-stupid spending. Jimenez, Santana, are not worth what they are getting paid. They are not difference makers. I am all for spending on the right guy, there just aren't many of them out there. Next off-season Chase Headley and Pablo Sandoval will be a targets of interest as guys that can bring balance and stability the the lineup, other than that there isn't much coming up that will make sense. Headley and Sandoval make far less sense than Jimenez in my view. I don't see why you'd want to block Davidson.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) Clearly that's why we should have made a big signing this year, because one middle-of-the-rotation pitcher would fix all that. Right? You think these are one-year deals. You have your mid-rotation starter locked in for 4-years Balta at a nice, comfortable price.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Name a comparable player that this board has said no to. Please note that neither Pitcher S nor Pitcher J are REMOTELY similar to Abreu in age, talent costs, controllability or projected performance. There are no comparable players to Abreau, but that doesn't mean he is without risk or even less risky than the pitchers above. Jimenez went for ~30% less. If he busts it's less of a problem than if Abreau does and isn't that what anti-spending guys are preaching. Save Chairman Reinsdorf's money!

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) I can't imagine the Sox go with just one lefty, especially since Downs has looked pretty shaky. The bullpen is definitely a weakness, or at least a concern, going into opening day. Especially since it appears that the main use for the pen is to try to develop tradeable assets.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) Which is clearly why you haven't complained at all about the Sox giving playing time to Adam Dunn. There's no law against releasing him.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) Because there is no evidence to support this idea. The window for this team to compete is through 2019, and the window is more likely 2016-2019. There is no reason to clog up the ML roster with re-treads when we don't even really know where the gaps are yet. Mid-tier starters are getting paid more than Adam Dunn, and his contract is the scourge of Soxtalk. Dunn's contract was the scourge because the core the Sox had in place had run its course. Dunn's contract did not prevent them from winning and there is no way a mid-tier starter's contract would prevent this core from winning.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Yes it is, but this team does not have that yet. There are a bunch of prospects that may or may not pan out, if they don't spending money now is a waste and potentially ties your hands when you actually have that core developed. The team needs to see if this group of players can develop into the core of a winning team, if not you put off the spending until that core is built. Why not operate on the idea that this is the core because there are few tradeable assets left to add to it. If the core isn't any good, a mid-tier starter's contract is the least of their worries.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) This board is so concerned with JR checking account balance. I just wonder, what if the Yankees or Dodgers needed a 1st baseman and Abreu's price went up, what would have been the cutoff money-wise before his current can't miss, can't wait to see him in the middle of the line up would have change to the "he's never faced a pitch in the major leagues, he's not worth it, maybe when the team is a little better you could spend the money". If he had signed somewhere else for $68.5M you know this board would be more than ok with it. $13M a year for a 27 y.o. 1B goes against a lot of what I've seen written on this board about how to best allocate financial resources.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) You should take note. Noted. Now tell me what you really meant by "Your theories on cores and payroll point to nothing but a constant roster rollover with no way to sustain success."

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) You are right, I forgot "reinsdorf gives me the sads" At least you admit when you exaggerate.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 12:11 PM) If I defined it by what you say, trade all good players, who cares about picks, spend 200 million because Chicago. That's never been what I've said.