Dick Allen

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) It doesn't matter how many times you say something, if it doesn't fit the rant, DA ignores it. For example, I answered the KW farm system question he keeps asking pages ago. It didn't fit the agenda, and it has been dually ignored. Typical response. KW said he could have had a good farm system if he wished. Your words, not mine. Apparently that is why Jared Mitchell is a White Sox. I was actually reading an article about Trout a couple of years ago, and a lot of people thought he was going to the White Sox.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) How do you know this? Because I know most teams go through at least 7 or 8 starters a year. A lot of teams want to see where they are at in July. You know, common sense.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) Option A: 3-4yr, $12-13m, choose a winner to play for Option B: 3-4yr, $12-13m, get traded somewhere completely out of your control in 4-6 months You just be very upfront. If they chose to go somewhere else, that is their right. But it probably isn't as simple as you think. There are going to be teams in July looking for pitching that aren't looking to sign these guys now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) You have got to be trolling at that point. No. The wise guy comment guy who really believes KW could have a good farm system if he really wanted one is the one trolling. I am answering every response. Too bad he wanted a bad one. Mike Trout would have been sweet in CF.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) You have a funny definition of security. $12-13 million a year for 3 or 4 years is pretty good security in my book.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) This would make sense if there was no market for him, but there is a market for him. What are the teams offering?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) He's not going to sign anyways because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I love when the Sox sign guys that aren't attached to draft pick compensation to 1 year deals in hopes of flipping them. I've suggested they do this before, but it is just something they haven't done a lot of. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Lindstrom and Downs dealt this year at the deadline. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year contract with the ultimate goal being "trade them." So it makes no sense signing guys to multi year contracts and trading them. But signing them to 1 year contracts and trading them makes perfect sense. You are getting funnier by the post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) What could be a more popular recruiting pitch than, "you are just coming here so we can trade you later!" ? Players want to control their own destiny. Why the heck would they look to give up control of their location? Money and security and the knowledge that wherever they are, they will have a chance to win because generally teams out of it aren't going to trade for these guys during the season.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) Why not sign with a winner in the first place? Pitchers get hurt, perform poorly during the year. Some of those teams might not have openings right now. Some of them would have to give up a 1st rounder. Not a 2nd rounder. In July, there are always teams that need pitching.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) He's not going to sign anyways because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I love when the Sox sign guys that aren't attached to draft pick compensation to 1 year deals in hopes of flipping them. I've suggested they do this before, but it is just something they haven't done a lot of. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Lindstrom and Downs dealt this year at the deadline. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year contract with the ultimate goal being "trade them." And what you get back will be a bunch of junk. And it doesn't necessarily mean trade them. It does free Hahn up to trade another pitcher.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) Because that's what I want to hear if I'm Ubaldo Jimenez - if we aren't winning, we're going to force you to move to a different city that was not of your choosing against your will! Then he won't sign. No biggie.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) Becsuse nobody ever f***ing does that, except the Marlins. This is totally different than the Marlins. You can be very upfront with them. Hey, if we aren't winning, we will move you to a team that is. The way the compensation works, signing them to a multi-year contract now is doing them a big favor. And they probably would appreciate they get paid and one way or another if they pitch well, they will wind up with a contender. And Theo signs guys to flip. Billy Beane traded for guys to flip it winning wasn't in the equation. The Marlins doing what they did was a slap at the fans and the state after building them that stadium, taking their payroll down to nothing. The baseball side of that wasn't so bad. They wind up with a couple of decent prospects.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:35 PM) The Sox will not be in a position to trade Jimenez or Santana in July. -You aren't going to sign them to a 3-4 year contract just to trade them. That is incredibly risky and foolish and you likely aren't going to get the value you believe they should for them at that time. -Neither Jimenez nor Santana are going to sign a 1-2 year contract which would actually further facilitate a trade. How would you know this? Right now their value is suppressed being later in the offseason and some teams would have to forfeit a 1st round pick for them. If they pitched like they did in 2013, contending teams would certainly give value if you signed them to a 3 or 4 year contract.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:35 PM) And probably will still have more years and dollars than Peavy was due. Only because Jake's rib injury last season killed any hope of his $15 million option being good to go for 2015.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:22 PM) A pitcher then when healthy was much better than any option out there. If Peavy signed for what he was worth it would have been near 20 mil. If you can get any of the FA pitchers out there to sign for significantly less than the worth say 8 mil than it would be worth it. Peavy was much more valuable than any of the current FAs. Not to mention Peavy was just 30 these guys will be 32-34. Actually, if the Sox signed either Jimenez or Santana and traded them in July, they will be younger than Peavy was when they traded him to the Red Sox.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) Because he put all of the money that JR allowed in the budget to the MLB team and didn't allocate it to drafting and development. It's not the fans worry , it's whatever budget JR creates regardless of how much the Sox have. It still has something to do with whom you chose. It wasn't like Mike Trout signed for millions more than Jared Mitchell. But there were errors up and down drafts for years. The fact is, if you are going to say you could have a good farm system if you wanted, why would anyone NOT want to have a good farm system?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:11 PM) I would love to see you quote all of these posts... Every single one that is worried about the money. Now tell me again why KW decided he didn't want to have a good farm system.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) A pitcher signed to a team-friendly, short contract. And that pitcher was having a pretty good season. It was a $29 million 2 year contract, and if he pitched 400 innings, it was a $44 million 3 year contract. The per year was probably higher than what Santana will be paid, and teams do have an extra $25 million a year to play with.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) What does the fact that we don't know what the ceiling is have to do with anything? Some ceiling exists, therefore wasting money is a bad idea. You were the one who said there clearly was a ceiling. Then what is it? I'm pointing out that what the White Sox say about said ceilings and actuality are usually a little different.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) Yes, he is. Because players always get more money in free agency. Because several teams compete in the bidding. This is not anything like Jake Peavy's situation. Jake Peavy was a free agent.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) I agree with this in principle however there is a significant flaw in this argument. Eaton and Davidson were not acquired by over 30 pitchers on the backside of a 4 year deal at 12 mil per. They were acquired by young MLB proven talent. I'm always for trading prospects for proven MLB talent. However, signing near 30 year old pitchers is not the answer. Avasail Garcia was acquired for an over 30 pitcher with an injury history.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) How much money he has is completely irrelevant. There is clearly a payroll ceiling and there always has been. Evidence shows there may be a ceiling, but what it is we will never know. They were over budget, then traded for Peavy and picked up Rios. They were over budget, paid Manny $4 million for one month. They were busted, signed Dunn, meant the end of AJP and Konerko. Oh wait, we will bring them both back. Attendance down again. Ticket prices lowered, yet bid over $100 million + $20 million posting fee for a Japanese pitcher.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) Fortunately, front offices aren't dumb enough to judge pitchers by only looking at ERA and IP. Apparently they are if what everyone says is true and Santana is going to get more money than Peavy.

PECOTA pegs Garcia to hit 8 homers. Seems a little low.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:57 PM) No, what you are proposing is a far riskier method of adding prospects. Again, what would the Red Sox get for John Lackey right now? What would the Cubs get for Edwin Jackson? What would the Angels get for Josh Hamilton? What would the White Sox get for John Danks? Yes, there is a chance that Santana could be good for 2-3 years and the Sox would be in a position to trade him. There's also a ton that could go wrong. However, the odds that they will add roughly a top 50 amateur prospect in the nation if they don't sign Santana or Jimenez is 100%. There's a chance for failure, but you are also not mentioning players that could have been traded for decent prospects. Why sign any high priced free agent if some fail? There is just as good of a chance Eaton fails, Davidson fails Garcia fails, and I really have no idea why so many are so concerned about JR's rather flush bank account.