witesoxfan

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) So you could honestly say the White Sox didn't need pitching last year? Quit putting words in people's mouths. He didn't say they couldn't use more. He said it was pretty damn good last year. The answer for more is not giving up a 1st round pick and signing a 30 year old starting pitcher.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) Rienzo and Surkamp and Axelrod have been tried and convicted of being not so good. Nobody has brought up Axelrod except you. He was tried and proven to be awful. He's like the 9th or 10th starter I'd use, but he may be 6th in the event of a one start deal simply because the organization won't care about potentially losing him. He's Jeff Gray. -Andre Rienzo made 10 starts, pitched 56 innings last year and held his own. It wasn't pretty, but he has a solid if unspectacular track record in the minors. -Eric Surkamp has made 7 starts and pitched 26.2 innings. It was ugly, but he's the 7th option and has had success in the minors. I'm pretty sure you've supported giving Beckham another chance, and the Sox have given him 5 SEASONS to get his act in order. Why would you write off two starting pitchers because of a combined total of 82.2 innings?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:03 AM) Question for you tech guys I had MLBTV last year and it worked fine where I was at until I visited Chicago for a week and brought my lap top. I came back to Missouri and try to use MLBTV to watch a Sox game and I was told I was blacked out. I called MLBTV up and eventually saw my IP address was going through Indiana.. They told me to unplug my router and modem but that didn't help. So they mainly gave me access and it worked for a few weeks until I went to Michigan and brought my lap top. I came back and again I was being blacked out because my IP said I was in Indiana when I was in Missouri. Called MLBTV again and they said I needed to contact my ISP. I did that and the guy said he never heard of that. He made me unplug everything and reset it and it didn't work and told me to contact MLBTV because every other IP address site said I was in Missouri so it must be MLBTV. I pretty much gave up watching the game on my lap top because it was such a pain in the ass. Anyone know how to fix this so I don't have to deal with it this year again?? When I look up my IP through MLB it says 33603 which is Tampa, FL which is new. Last year it was Indiana. When I use what is my IP it has me at the right city I live in. What the heck is going on!?! I would contact MLBTV and then your internet provider and then MLBTV again just to make sure. /sorry, over my head

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) They NEED a starting pitcher just as much as they NEED a first baseman. Just ask Balta. The Sox have plenty of 1B/DH. And as you admitted, chances are the Sox are going to have to rely on guys like Paulino who has pitched 140 innings exactly never in his MLB career, and after him are guys who you admittedly said are probably no good with Rienzo, Surkamp and even Axelrod. They will always need pitching. If they didn't need pitching, no one in their right mind could say they aren't contending for a playoff spot. You may as well see if they're no good though, right? People were sure that Chris Sale's arm was going to fall off in the rotation and nobody expected Quintana to last more than 2-3 starts and make his way out like Pedro Hernandez did, but sure as shoot they're both still there. If you don't ever try guys, you'll never know what you have.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) You're conveniently ignoring their current future financial commitments which alow them to easily absorb a $39M contract if it bombs. I'm not conveniently ignoring anything. Nobody easily absorbs a $39 million contract Marty. You are suggesting that the Sox take on a potentially bad contract because they are ridding themselves of one this year. That's like a person is about to pay off their credit cards, so they have to make a huge purchase just so they can pay it off again for the next 3 years.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:55 PM) That's the root of his entire argument and the "historical science" thing, really. "I wasn't personally there, therefore literally anything is possible." But if you're starting from the premise that miracles are real things that actually happened, then there's no reason to even argue about scientific proof of that position. Otherwise known as the Carl Everett Theorem.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) Either the great contract guy Hahn misread the market or the bid was a publicity move. It's extremely likely that they offered Tanaka and incredibly friendly contract, somewhere around 6 years, $120 million with an opt out after the 4th year, similar to the Yankees. The Yankees were willing to go a 7th year and included $35 million more. Kudos to them, I guess, because that's a move I'm glad the organization didn't make.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) The Sox future financial commitments is the reason they should sign Jimenez or Santana. The risk is virtually nil if it bombs. The upside if it works out is they can deal a Quintana, Danks, Beck, Johnson, to fill a need. Outside of the core, they have little to deal to get anything of value. You have lambasted the Dunn signing as one of the worst ever and, in hindsight, it is. So what happens if they sign someone to a similar AAV to a position that is not of need and he flops? It's just a drop in the bucket? No, it's an absolutely terrible signing. The risk is extreme if he bombs. Regarding why people are not afraid of Abreu: first, they are afraid of him bombing. Secondly, it filled a position of great need for the Sox and hopefully locks up 1B for the next 6 years. The Sox do not NEED a starter right now and they don't necessarily NEED a starter next year. You don't make luxury signings at this stage in the team's development.

I would try and eat some of Keppinger's contract and send him out, but yeah, Gillaspie would work. There's no way I'd give up Snodgress, and I'm not even that high on him.

And the thing is, I do expect the Sox to contend in the next 3 years, but I don't know what the holes are going to be in 1 month into the season, let alone 2 years from now. Say Sale and Quintana keep pitching well, Danks rebounds to form a good 3-4 punch with Erik Johnson, and Chris Beck finds his slider again and he's suddenly a #2 starter. Do you really want 10% of the budget being burnt on a guy you don't need? [then trade him] Things aren't that simple and teams in general will rather sign a guy than give up pieces for a guy. And if he bombs, then what do you do?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) You can't argue with their results. Oh wait . . . I'm sure as hell glad the Sox aren't stuck with Pujols, Werth, Hamilton, Rodriguez, Mauer, or Zito right now. Those contracts back fire more often than they work out. Need proof? Look at this list of jagoffs. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensa...t-paid-players/ How many of those players can you say "I really want that considering the cost per year"? That's what you are paying for. You DON'T want to be the highest bidder because you end up with terrible contracts. I would say the failure rate of those contracts runs around 70-80%.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:06 AM) If the Sox can claim 7 starting pitchers for 5 spots, I'd be surprised if at least 20 other teams couldn't do the same. Doesn't Rienzo profile better as a pen guy anyway? I'm sure most can. Please be aware that I've never suggested Surkamp or Rienzo are going to be good, merely that they are talented or semi talented 6th starters for the Sox, and the only guy I have any sort of faith in among that final 3 is Paulino.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) They didn't get the player though and have a 30-year history of not spending at the top of the free agent market. That's probably a good thing.

QUOTE (AJUribe @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) Eric Sogard is on this list He is very cute.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 09:23 AM) Whether they sign Jimenez or not, there are overwhelming odds a White Sox starting pitcher spends some time on the DL in 2014. As is true of every MLB team. They have Paulino, Surkamp, and Rienzo available to take starts for the 5th spot going into Spring Training and that can change as the season progresses as well.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 04:48 PM) Sorry but what does this have to do with asking prices of staring pitchers beginning to fall? Threads are dynamic and tend to change topics. He was responding to someone asking him why he thought the Red Sox would need De Aza. It's perfectly fine.

I want to reiterate two things very quickly. #1 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) Rick Hahn has said the White Sox are not interested in anything that involves the White Sox giving up a draft pick, and you aren't bringing in Bronson Arroyo to trade him considering he turns 37 in 20 days, so that should summarily end this thread before it begins. It did not, so I'm reposting in hopes it does. #2 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) I think those things are all outweighed by the price these guys are going for right now. I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) Yes and that's a case against the prevailing thought of spending money when "we're ready to win." What? Because the White Sox signed a guy who'd put up an OPS of .850 or .900 or more for like 8 straight seasons and then he has one of the worst, most disappointing seasons of all time, THAT'S a reason to not spend money until you're ready to win. This isn't about your opinion. You are wrong, and I have no problem saying that, because what you are suggesting is completely irrational and so far the opposite as to what teams would normally do that you are doing nothing but trolling at this point. Here is EXACTLY what you have suggested thus far: -Sign a starting pitcher in his early 30s for a rebuilding club while giving up a draft pick when the team already has 7 starting pitchers it can use. -Do not sign a player when the team is ready to win and they have a hole to fill because that is not the time to spend money. Got it.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) I think cheap for Jimenez and Santana would fall in the 2 yr. under 9M a yr. or less category. Garza got 4yrs. AAV $13M . I think that's pretty spot on.

Holy f*** the Dodgers have a PECOTA projection of 98 wins. That is typically a very conservative system.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) No. The Sox had an old core in 2011. One that was coming off an 88 win season where the lack of a productive DH was by far the biggest thing holding them back.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) Are you one of these people that go to the store and buy something you don't need just because it was on sale? A gallon of pickled pigs' feet for only $4?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) How is ~$40M today roughly the same as $56M? in 2010? #1) If those guys were 4/$40, they wouldn't be on the free agent market. They MAY take that over 3 years. #2) $40 over 3 years is just under $14 mill a year. Guess what Dunn's annual average salary was? #3) Since when in is $40 million *cheap*?

QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Feb 1, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) I can't help but think if it was that easy (or their intention) to trade for Nieto instead of keeping him on the 25-man roster, they would have just traded for him and picked somebody else in the Rule 5. This has been brought up before, but you have to consider a few things here. #1, they likely knew very little about him as they had just a bit of time from the end of the World Series until the 40-man add deadline and had a lot to get done in their preparations (re-signings, coach evaluations, coach hirings, free agent plans) that they simply don't have the time to acquire a guy like that. I am a little more uncertain of the rules here, but had they traded for him after the 40-man add, they could very easily be subjecting him to the Rule 5 draft, so they'd trade for him and then he's suddenly exposed again, which means if a team takes him, they are out whatever they gave up and now don't have Nieto. A lot of times, teams will just offer the player back because they have incomplete information on said player and find out they have a JAG (or worse), but teams will take these guys on a flyer to see if they can work out their problems on the MLB roster. It's certainly very possible Nieto runs the course of Angel Sanchez last year and he doesn't do anything and is eventually released. They may see something they like but don't feel he is ready for the majors, like, at all. They may see enough and keep him. What we do know is that the Nats must not be that high on him or else they would have added him to the 40-man (because Jhonathon Solano sure as hell isn't holding him back).

I have done sober taste tests of Coors and Keystone. You can't tell the difference. It's all a placebo effect.