Marty34

Saw my guy last night at the game and he hears Sanchez up sooner than you think at SS.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 31, 2014 -> 04:39 PM) Rebuilding even further makes no sense due to who was acquired last year/offseason. Hahn's moves were not with some 5 year rebuilding plan That means they have to buy the pitching - and a lot of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 03:50 PM) 2 mediocre starters to replace Quintana? Yeah, that's a recipe for more losses. Keep Quintana and add the mediocre starters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) Losing 99 games and another 25% decrease in attendance? Ok, you think there is a good possibility that they will lose 99 games and suffer a 25% attendance decrease if they add 2 free agent starters who cost $120M next year. Fair enough.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 02:32 PM) If you think the White Sox should "Tear it down" then you can't tell me that" 2 or 3 years.... is just too long given the injury risks to any pitcher" because 2-3 years of losing is what you're demanding. BUt then again, just like the last couple years, multilple years of losing and failure is what you constantly advocate for. The prospect haul you would get for Sale and Quintana would expedite the rebuilding. Hell, throw in Abreu too. What scares you so much about a payroll commitment of $70M for 2015?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 02:11 PM) So...the White Sox should trade for young pitching that will then take 2 to 3 years to develop becuase that's the norm for young pitching (see for example, Jose Quintana's development, Chris Sale's development). You really want this team to lose for the next 2-3 years don't you? Balta, there is no pitching coming through that system anytime soon. If the White Sox are unwilling to spend roughly $120M on free agent starters next year I think they'd be better served to tear it down. Per Cott's they have $46M in commitments next year, what frightens you about bumping that to ~$70M?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) The White Sox have Jose Quintana under contract through 2020. How long are you hoping we're bad for? Seriously, Quintana is under contract for so long that if they traded for someone and brought that player up, that player would be able to hit free agency the same year Quintana would. The White Sox would have 6 years of control on Quintana and 6 years of control on a guy they traded for. It literally does not push anything back at all except makes it harder to win in 2015. Which I guess is probably why you want to do it. It's not about control in the case of Quintana, it's about upside and their pitching pipeline which is in bad shape. How long are you going to wait to put starters around them? If you are going to tell me the timeline is 2 or 3 years to get the staff built around Sale and Q, I'm going to say that's just too long given the injury risks to any pitcher, and to Sale in particular.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) And by trading Quintana you hope to, at best, get Quintana back. You push the timeline back.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 31, 2014 -> 01:22 PM) It didn't sound like anyone believed he'd be cleared but him. There not going to put a player back on the field before he is medically cleared. The benefit of coming back this season is he has that hurdle crossed for the off-season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) And as usual, makes no sense. The White Sox aren't willing to spend money on starting pitching. They should therefore get rid of starting pitching as they have too much. As usual you don't understand. Sale and Quintana are ready now and have nothing behind them. The longer you put nothing behind them the less valuable they become to this team. The last thing you want is for them to get hurt waiting on the minor leagues to churn out a couple of capable starters.

If he is cleared to return he should. No reason to miss the entire season just because.

If the Sox aren't willing to spend ~120m on free agent starting pitchers next year they might as well market Quintana. The position players are largely accounted for.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2014 -> 06:20 PM) Hmm, I am suddenly very fond of that quote. Please don't ban me for Kyle's silliness.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 29, 2014 -> 06:20 PM) You should be banned but you keep the post count high on the site so on 2nd thought maybe they should pay you CPI style. Leave the comedy to the professionals.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 05:58 PM) The premise is all yours, Jimenez is your prize, not mine. But this is how all conversations with you go. As hawk would say, you are big hat, no cattle. I got things to do tonite, you can now go back to deflecting and ignoring. I'll quote Hawk too. He Gawn!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 05:33 PM) How about instead of me refuting your assertion that a bad trade or draft can cost 4/50, how about you prove to me that Jimenez=playoffs. Go You're operating on a bad premise that 4/$50M is a contract the Sox couldn't work around if it went bad.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 29, 2014 -> 05:23 PM) Compared to who? We have 5 starters with a better ERA than that. Noesi, Rienzo, Sale, Danks, Quintana. What about Jimenez's xFIP though?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) But not costly, which you pretend to not understand. If you make a bad trade or draft, sure it can be as costly. Besides, how costly do you think missing a playoff opportunity to this franchise is?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) How is it in your mind that the only options are sign bad deal or wait for development? There are other players, acquired via trade, international market, draft. There will be other pitchers available. Jimenez wouldn't have made this team a contender All those are risky too.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) Of course it would. It hurts any team not named the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers. Investing money terribly affects any team, future payroll projections or not. Bottom line is, everything you want to do is based on the now, not now and the future. And that is the problem that Rick is currently trying to climb out of, and all you want him to do is keep digging deeper. The reason they have to gamble in the free agent pitching market is because there is nothing in the minors. You're not suggesting they wait to develop pitching I hope.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:25 PM) Sure you can. But you haven't. You can't argue with 3 WAR. 3 WAR is a fact. As far as Paulino goes, he represents an opportunity lost. With the turnaround of this offense, it's too damn bad they didn't help the rotation out more.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) What alternate reality do you think we're talking about? No downside? It's happening in Baltimore before your very eyes! ...and it already has! he's 2 mph down on his fastball and has a FIP and ERA well over 4. Paulino can't get anyone out at Charlotte.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) It doesn't matter. He refuted that entire 3 paragraph post by saying it was wrong. Isn't that enough? You can't argue with 3 WAR.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) .....if everything goes right. If it goes wrong, which I very possible, there is a 4 year 50 million dollar downside Look at the future payroll obligations. A $50M mistake would not hurt their ability to field a winning team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 29, 2014 -> 03:36 PM) I assume that when Marty refers to "upside," he's talking about his 5-6 WAR season in Colorado when he was average 94 mph. At the time when he had to be signed, he was coming off that 3.2 win season, so the guy you'd "expect" to get is that gradually declining 3 win guy. At the time, Marty was arguing that guys like Ubaldo need to be signed now, even if we won't compete for a few years, simply because they won't be available to sign when we need them later. And I had said something along the lines of "there will always be a 3 win guy that can be had for market rate in the offseason." So that's what Marty, I think, was asking me to identify guys that will be available next year that could pitch as well as Ubaldo. The Beckham/Pedroia analog doesn't work because Pedroia has been consistently good for several consecutive seasons, is not at an age where we would expect steep decline, and hasn't had any changes in his physiology or tools to suggest a premature decline. So as of today, it's safe to expect his true talent is closer to his career numbers than the most recent small sample. Ubaldo, on the other hand, is four years removed from his All-Star level status and has suffered a consistent and significant decline in stuff the entire time. Further decline at his age and with his velocity loss would fit both a typical career arc and the career arc he's shown, so it's easier to believe in his 1.8 fWAR pace. Steamer thinks he'll end up at 1.9, ZiPS at 2.5, and both seem reasonable to me and also a pretty natural next step for an early-thirties guy who just put up 3.2 fWAR and lost a couple mph on his fastball. But this is really the crux of my opposition of the signing: I didn't expect Ubaldo to be as bad as he has been, but I knew it was very realistic that he could be. The best case scenario for him, given the age and velocity, was that he would maintain his 3 win pace for a year or two and then get worse. So we'd pay market rate for his contribution when it wouldn't move the needle for us, and then he'd be overpaying him when we did need it. And that's best case. There is also downside, which, right now, appears to be occurring -- he loses more velocity and declines immediately. So now in what should be the best part of the deal, you're already paying a 2-2.5 win guy like a 3 win guy and can expect that to get worse, AND for the Sox, he isn't even going to make the difference in a good or bad season. Why take that downside risk with so little reward at stake? Marty thinks that guy might still have a 5 win season in him, but I don't think that's even in the realm of possibility without his lost velocity. Put Jimenez in this rotation and they can compete for a playoff spot. There just was no downside.