Marty34

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) The thing is if they want Santiago out of the pen this year, why put him in the rotation only to yank him out later? Put him in the pen, and let him fill his role. They're going to need starters this year and going forward. While I think Santiago is better suited out of the pen, I think he's shown enough to take a chance on in the rotation particularly since there isn't much in the minors.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) yes, but we are talking Danks here not Grienke so really why mention Marty amd his wishes here at all. Hopefully by mid-April or early May Danks is strong enough and sharp enought to take his spot in the rotation. Not too mention Dick Allen misrepresented what I said about Greinke.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) You forgot this It's too soon in this contract extension for smiley faces SS2K5. Maybe by year 4 I'll feel differently.

I think we can do away with the over-the-top optimism surrounding Danks rehab for the moment.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 05:37 PM) The Sox' reputation as an organization has long term, real effects. The reason we got a guys like Sale, Peavy and Konerko to sign team-friendly contracts is because people like to play here and the organization is well-respected by everyone whose last name isn't Guillen. On the other hand, the Marlins had to overpay like crazy for all their spending spree stuff last year, in part because the ownership is not at all respected. Reminds me of how much the Orioles were supposed to benefit from players wanting to play for them because Peter Angelos sided with the players during the 1993 strike. It never happened. If the rebuilding effort stalls or for whatever other reason, it is determined that it's in the best interest of the organization to trade Sale it has to be done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) It would be an absolute betrayal to sign a kid to that contract and then trade him within the first few years. If it were best for the organization it should be done regardless.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) Very true, but its easier said than done. There's a reason why there aren't that many successful pitchers like Mark Buerhle in the majors. I hope Q can keep it up, but I'm not confident. I hope the Sox found a reliable starter in Quintana too. I'm cautious because of his 2nd half performance and that the Yankees released him (a 22 y.o. left-hander.)

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Just for the hell of it, I checked the attendance of all the games played in Arizona yesterday--beautiful Saturday afternoon, deeper into spring training now... Rockies- 12,427 Giants- 11,738 Indians- 11,023 Rangers- 10,199 Cubs- 9,918 A's- 8,739 Padres- 8,526 Brewers- 6,083 White Sox- 5,547 I can see proximity being a factor for the Sox fan base making their way out to Arizona, but I feel like the Sox fan base is just eroding with time. It's a football city, and hardly anyone is going to use their "fun money" to go to Phoenix for exhibition baseball. And our Chicagoland retirees are more likely in Florida than Arizona--at least I think so. I've been out there once and drove down to Tucson when they trained there. It's a good time, but I guess it's a tough sell to get Sox fans out there for ST. I think it's eroding with mediocrity. Aside from Sale and Viciedo, there's very little upside on this roster.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Call it what you like. When information is consistently misrepresented, I am going to correct it. Start with an e-mail to Cots/Baseball Prospectus then.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) According to who? It's not who, it's what. 53 and 2/3 innings in 2012.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:48 AM) If John Danks is healthy, it isn't anywhere near a bad contract. Have you see the contracts handed out to pitchers lately? John Danks isn't healthy.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I can't find that, but either way that's because of a signing bonus ($7.5 million) that was paid in 2012 and represented 2012 salary (it was simply deferred a few months). It should not be included in the 2013 to 2016 salary figures. Link to spreadsheet on Cot's site. Whether it's $57M or $63M it doesn't make a difference. It certainly wasn't an attempt by me to exaggerate the number to make it more negative. I think we all agree the contact is bad enough at $57M.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) They both show $14.25 million a year from 2013 to 2016. That's $57 million remaining. What am I missing here? I'm clicking on the 2013-18 payroll obligation link from the Sox page. That's where it shows Danks at $15.75M. It's updated because it shows Sale's numbers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) It's called counterbalancing the obvious and constant negative exaggerations. It wasn't my spreadsheet that I posted Danks salary from, it was from Baseball Prospectus Cot's Baseball Contracts. Baseball Reference has a different number for Danks. You tell me which one is right.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 08:25 PM) It's amazing to me that robin or anyone else thinks Dunn should be hitting 3rd on this team.He looks lost in the cage, much less games I think it's one of those things where if this team is to reach its maximum potential Dunn has to produce from the three spot.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) McEwing and Parent working with Beckham at SS. He's air mailing 1st quite a bit but looks solid turning 2. Interesting. That is interesting. Weird too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) That kind of deal for Jackson is what a team in need of pitching depth but on the verge of contending ought to be giving out. I dunno, someone like the Orioles, or the Angels, or the Rangers. If a team is signing a guy to a 4 year deal, it ought to be a team able to contend in the first 2 years of that deal. You can always sign someone in a year or two once you've seen which of your younger guys are developing and you're more certain about your needs. I think part of it is they were surprised by the attendance erosion last year, they had to do something. It will be interesting to see the attendance numbers for the April games at Wrigley this year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Man, for a team that shouldn't win 75 games, that's terrible. Houdini has nothing on you Balta. You are The Great Escape Artist.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:52 PM) Unlike you, I'll happily admit that it's $10 million a year Actually it's $13M per . . . according to BR.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) B-R has him at $14.25 a year. I thought they got their salary data from Cotts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) If we could just get it into your head that the white sox aren't rebuilding... What about you using the big scary $40M though?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 07:54 AM) Why spend $40 million on Edwin Jackson when the team isn't going to be in a position to compete for the first 2 years of the deal? Wait a second, Balta . . .

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Currently $57 million ($14.25 million a year for the next 4 years) Cotts has it at $15.75 for the next 4. https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7...amp;output=html

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Don't you think you should know this if you are going to bring it up? This is basically you admitting that you make stuff up. You're right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 11:58 AM) He's not owed "over $60M". What's he owed?