ScottyDo

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) He'll go for a lot more than that. My guess is around $5M + incentives. For real? At 35 and recovering from surgery to a repeatedly-injured shoulder? I will be astonished if he goes for $5M.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 12:19 PM) Scratching out a tiny bit of marginal value isn't worth the dread that accompanies him. Even when he does something good like walk, it takes three hits to score him. Dunn is a relic of the way baseball used to be played and has no business on a rebuilding team. Not worth the dread as a fan or not worth the dread as a GM? Because it's always worth it to get value out of your players as a GM. He may be frustrating to watch (I'm with you there) but he doesn't actually cost us much during the rebuild. I guess it gives them the chance to move Viciedo to DH and keep De Aza but it might be too early for that anyway. Are you afraid he'll teach the new guys bad habits or something, or are your sensibilities so offended you just can't take him anymore?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:00 AM) In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs should not affect the rational decision-maker's best choice. Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects. In light of such cognitive quirks, it is unsurprising that people frequently fail to behave in ways that economists deem "rational". From wikipedia but absolutely true & people here can't seem to get it, neither do the Sox. Adam Dunn is a dog. He's a sunk cost. He's done. He's not part or any future event that matters and his "value" is hilariously overstated given his track record over the past several years and how limited he is both as a player and an athlete. Whoever said that line of blah blah blah im going to los it if someone (me) suggests a dump of Dunn again, well guess what? We already ate his f***ing contract, it's already over and one with, it happened a long time ago. His presence on a rebuilding team should have nothing to do with his salary, that's completely ridiculous. So go crazy. Paulstar here made a great point. Who bought the f***in Soxfest tickets? The fans. They buy the tickets, they get to react however they see fit, and unless a remark is racist or something like that which has nothing to do with on-field performance it shouldn't be a condemnable offense. For f***s sake all mighty. The Sox shouldn't need to have their fan base tell them they are making an irrational and completely stupid decision, but just as the fans booed the crap KW trotted out in CF for years, they have every right to boo Dunn & it is the organization responsible for running that crap out there anyway. Let em hear it. BOOOOOOOOO where's the pooper scooper get thios guy outta here already. Except Dunn's contract isn't really a sunk cost. That term doesn't apply when you have the possibility of removing the liability in the future. If Dunn plays even a little better than he did last year or in 2012, he's potentially a tradeable player, and perhaps one from whom we can scratch out a tiny bit of marginal value. The cost of his salary isn't sunk since there's potential to remove it. And the people saying "I don't want to pay him to play for another team" ARE regarding the cost of his contract as sunk. They are saying that if the money's getting paid out of our pockets no matter what, they'd rather keep his 30-40 HRs in Chicago. And yes, the people paying for tickets absolutely have the right to behave like dicks. That doesn't make them not dicks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 12:27 AM) I would be much more willing to take a low dollar, one year shot at Johan, versus Ervin. Definitely.

Hahn on 670: "At this point in time, we're not going to do anything that costs us a draft pick."

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 06:27 PM) Erik Johnson should break camp with the MLB, Marcus Semien is not far behind, and I have really high hopes for Chris Beck. To answer your question, not long. Not to mention, the #3 pick this year. That could churn out some talent very quickly.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 06:07 PM) When will the time be right and who will be available? When your win total gets high enough that a few wins will move you into playoff contention. Read: not 2014. Why would you need a list of future pitchers who will be available? That's a useless exercise. Perhaps some guy nobody's ever heard of breaks out next year and is available. Perhaps some teams lock their guys up long-term. Who knows? We're not even at the 75 win mark yet, there's no point in projecting. What you CAN do is be relatively assured that #3 starters will be available on the market. Because that happens every year. If you'd like some examples, read earlier in the thread where we talked about who projects to be available next year.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 05:22 PM) Ervin Santana is a #3 borderline #2 starter. I'd love for you to show me guys that have been recently signed for around $13 million a year. Because I see the Scott Kazmir, Scott Feldman, Ricky Nolasco's of the world signing for 11 or 12 minimum. Its just the going rate for starting pitchers and Santana is a way better pitcher than them. And if you really want me to prove you wrong....https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9gIYm7hp32V6QbwoeoXOvKWQ3i9ajgzsRtfrVvx1-tR7NQ4vw $7 million dollars is the new average price payed per WAR. Depends where you look since every website seems to have their own version of WAR in 2014, but Santana's average WAR is right around 2.6 for the past 4 years. So you're right. Just a horrible value for $13 million dollars. If you use Fangraphs he has averaged 1.5 WAR per year over the last five years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) If the Cubs didn't sign Edwin Jackson, I still doubt they get Tanaka. They refused the 4 year out. Also, if the Bulls didn't sign Boozer, they still would eventually have been at or near the cap. They had to sign someone then. They couldn't wait because after Rose signed an extension, that money wasn't available. Yeah, the Boozer thing is also different because the Bulls were in win-now mode the moment Rose broke out. That changes the whole equation. Sox, not so much.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 05:07 PM) That "surplus value" doesn't help win games if you just admire it. You can hang onto it until the time is right to flip the switch into "win now" mode which is potentially soon. It's just not now.

Let's get ALL THE CUBANS! How much would it cost to build and guard a bridge from Cuba to Chicago?

Was it the other arm in college? If so, that wouldn't be too concerning (i.e. not a re-emergence of the exact same injury, just a symmetrical process). Otherwise, possibly yikes.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) Explain to me how adding a talented player at a reasonable price hurts any team in any situation. This has been explained in depth. It's not that it necessarily hurts, it's that it's a misallocation of resources. Nobody said this. It can be a bad idea without "causing a screeching stop to our entire rebuilding process".

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 04:49 PM) So can a trade of Chris Sale if that's the goal. Don't be dense. You know Sale IS that young talent to which we are all referring.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) It's getting to the point where managers are viewed almost as interchangeable as hitting coaches. Former decent players that can string a sentence together for the media will go far. Doesn't hurt when your presence lights up a room, either

What I don't get is why you would extend a guy without that fire, that passion, that TWTW. EDIT: /green, in case that was not clear

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) Because we lost 99 games while fundamentally awful baseball while having a 120 million dollar payroll. Why would anyone think it's a good idea to extend him now? I mostly just think the manager isn't super-important so I guess I feel very 'meh' about it.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) What a joke. Why Why not?

Also worth noting: the guys we have traded so far did not cost us any talent when we traded them. Imagine if Peavy = Avi turned into: Peavy = Avi - Johnson or Santiago = Eaton turned into: Santiago = Eaton - Beck Suddenly the system atrophes to an appreciable degree.

Also, DA, I really am curious whether or not you liked the EJax signing? Personally, I hate it because of the potential for exactly how it's turned out (so far), but I really see the situations as parallel.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) What would you rather have, what the Sox acquired for Jake Peavy or a 2nd round pick? We are getting to the time of the offseason where relative bargains can be had. There are some decent names who right now appear to be available next offseason. Certainly some will not be on the board, and others will probably want what Tanaka got, and a couple of them will probably get it. If the Sox don't want to commit to a guy like Santana or Jimenez, fine. But they should definitely be shopping the next tier down. Those guys aren't the bargains, though. The real bargains are the guys who might have something left in the tank and you take a flier on them. They don't cost you picks OR money. I am fine with the Sox shopping the next tier down, as long as it's not costing guys development time that the Sox feel would be useful for them. Like, if Rienzo's not ready, sure, get a dirt cheap innings eater. Like...Paulino (doesn't have to be him, but a guy like him).

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) That 2nd round pick could wind up not being very good. Absolutely. And they have a chance of being great. It's uncertain. That's why you load as much talent as you can at all levels. And precisely why, at this point, there is no advantage to signing people that come with an INHERENT COST in another area of talent acquisition when you could just get other guys that don't cost much of anything. That's why you spend, spend, spend on Tanaka but not on Jimenez or Santana.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) Dude, the second round pick you let go to get Jimenez can be recouped by trading another starter next offseason. Okay so you're saying if Jimenez performs well we can trade him to recoup that pick. Fine, it's a wash. If he performs poorly, we can trade Quintana or someone next year to recoup the pick. But we could just trade Quintana NOW and not have to recoup ANY picks and our value is higher. So you're spending money on a possible wash (with some chance of getting more) with the possibility of lost value (we liquidated the value of Q, plus lost a pick and replaced Q with a bad Jimenez). No. Just no.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) It is reasonable because if you suck, its a $5-7 million commitment and all you need is a solid 3 months of production and you acquire prospects who have already developed, instead of waiting for a guy for years and years and years. If you don't think the Sox need a catcher, you are kidding yourself. They do need a catcher eventually. It's not absolutely critical that it happen now.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) You're sacrificing money not talent. Dude.......2nd round pick......what? Like, you have to be doing this on purpose, right?