witesoxfan

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Because it happens every year. Saying that there are teams which aren't looking for pitching now but will be in July is like saying that there will be people lighting off fireworks in July even though they are not doing so now. IT NEVER HAPPENS. Give me one example of a team that signed a pitcher to a 3-4 year contract and then turned around and dealt him 3 months later. ONE.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) 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. Yes, because teams are going to give up talent as well as money to bring in a pitcher that they didn't want for the price he signed for 3 months ago. You know, common sense.

For the 36th time, people have no problem giving up the draft pick in the proper situation. I guarantee if you asked anyone on here if the Sox could sign Tanaka but they had to give up the 2nd round pick, 100% of the people on here that wanted to sign Tanaka in the first place would have no problem doing so. I don't understand how people don't comprehend this. The fact that we're talking about two 30-something starters who have been inconsistent, are expensive, and don't represent a major upgrade to the rotation is why most people don't want these guys, and that they have to give up a 2nd round pick is the icing on the stay-the-hell-away cake. Please burn that into your minds.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:24 PM) 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. How do you know this?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) 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. No, what I say makes sense. What you are suggesting is irrational bordering on insane. As was mentioned, guys sign 1 year deals just to be traded eventually all the time. They do this in hopes of building their value to the point, both with winners and non-winners, to attempt to earn a multi-year contract offer the following offseason.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:50 PM) Then he won't sign. No biggie. 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."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) 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. Yeah, you mean when Theo signed Scott Feldman on a 1 year, prove it deal, and then dealt him for two guys the Orioles had DFA'd? And when Billy Beane acquired Matt Holliday when he had 1 year left on his deal so he could either flip him or get draft pick compensation for him? (BTW, the Matt Holliday trade ended up being the A's trading Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith, and Huston Street for Clayton Mortensen, Shane Peterson, and Brett Wallace. You tell me how that one worked out for Beane)

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) 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. 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!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) 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. But there are still plenty of teams interested in them. The Yankees could certainly use another starting pitcher, the Orioles are said to have interest, and I've seen the Twins doing their homework on them. Those teams make sense because they have absolutely nothing for pitching depth. Now, to actually outbid those teams, you are giving them more money than anyone else was willing to surrender. If that was the case then, why would that situation suddenly change 5 months from now? In all likelihood, those teams moved on and added someone else or they allotted the money elsewhere. Beyond that, if you sign a guy to a 4 year contract and then trade him 3 months into it, do you really think future free agents are going to view Chicago as a viable destination? I sure as hell wouldn't.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) I think you need to check your math. No matter how I calculate this, I don't come up with 19. Sox/Tigers - 7 HRs in 72 games. 150/72*7=14.5 Just Sox - 5 HRs in 42 games. 150/42*5=17.8 By PAs - 7 HRs in 256 PAs. 256/7=36.5 would require 694 PAs (not happening) to hit 19 By ABs - 7 HRs in 244 ABs. 244/7=34.85 would require 662 ABs (not happening) to hit 19 Not a big deal, just curious how you got 19. With the Sox, he hit a homer every 33.6 PAs. Over the duration of a season, given 650 PAs, it comes out to 19 homers. To me, that's still pretty optimistic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) 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. The White Sox are not in the same position as a team like the Orioles or the Yankees. I have said previously that, in a different position, I probably wouldn't have any problem with the Sox signing either of these two. I actually like Jimenez, but for the current iteration of the White Sox, it simply does not make sense. They are not a very good team, there's no guarantee of health for these pitchers, they have to give up a 2nd round pick, and you have no idea how these guys will age. The point of signing high priced free agents is that you believe said players can put you over the top, or that they can be apart of the next group of players that will help you win because, due to the nature of the free market in free agency, players will only sign the deal that makes the most sense for them financially, thus you will pay a premium for these players. I have yet to see an argument as to why that makes any sense. The arguments of "they can trade them later" and "adding talent isn't a bad thing" don't make sense because you can't guarantee that you can trade them later and ultimately, you may not be adding any talent. I honestly would not be surprised to see both Johnson and Paulino put up numbers comparable to both Santana and Jimenez this year at a fraction of the cost. Yes, you are correct that there's a chance that Eaton, Davidson, Abreu, Garcia, or whoever fail, but the difference with those guys is that the White Sox have absolutely 0 depth there in future years. In 2015, the White Sox have Sale, Quintana, Johnson, Danks, Rienzo, Surkamp, Beck, and several other lesser minor league prospects under team control still. They added talent in areas of weakness in the organization with their moves for positional players. Right now, the starting pitching has enough depth that they should see what they have. And before Marty chimes in with "the starting rotation depth is vastly overrated," I am aware. They still have 2 good pitchers in Sale and Quintana, a large contract in Danks, and 4 other pitchers in Johnson, Paulino, Rienzo, and Surkamp to fill out the rotation. 7 guys is more than enough depth going into the season. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) Apparently they are if what everyone says is true and Santana is going to get more money than Peavy. Peavy took a home town discount. He could have easily gotten a bigger contract last year, but he's made enough money in his career and he wanted to help win in Chicago. However, he wanted to win in general too, and his contract allowed for greater facilitation for a trade and that scenario arose. Had he signed a 4 year, $60 million deal last year with, say, the Phillies, do you think he has a World Series ring right now?

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) Wouldn't Garcia hit too many home runs to be a #2 hitter? I have him going 24/77 in the 3/5 holes. There is no such thing as too many home runs, but 24 homers for Garcia is awfully optimistic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) BP has a section call Prospects will break your heart. If the majority of the guys you mentioned ARE the core 2 or 3 years from now, Hahn should be considered among the best GMs in the game. The fact is, a couple of these guys will probably fail. A couple may get hurt. Things change. I was reading the re-signing of Peavy thread earlier. Greg posted, and he was correct, that the team would be doing handstands if another team were to take Adam Dunn's contract. He got slammed. Now, a year, later, Dunn doesn't go to seminars at Soxfest because people refuse to treat him like a human being, even though his 2013 wasn't that much worse than his 2012. What I am proposing is a way for the White Sox to keep acquiring the Eatons and the Davidsons instead of drafting the Trace Thompsons and Keenyn Walkers. And although far from sure things, they are safer bets. 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%.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Amen to your last sentence. It's like there is a group on here who wants bad players cause it means we're still rebuilding. It's not like the cost of going to a game is going to decrease any, so why not put the heat on our front office to spend some money and get some more good players?? Yes greg, I am just dying to fill the lineup with Jeff Keppingers and Dylan Axelrods. ..or maybe, just maybe, I want to see what Erik Johnson, Erik Surkamp, Felipe Paulino, and Andre Rienzo are capable of and if they can be key cogs in the rotation or if the Sox should look for a new one next year. The team is probably going to win 78 games (at the most) next year. They are just as likely to lose 90 or more. The team is rebuilding its talent level and you need to see what they are capable of. You can't do that if you bring in Ubaldo Jimenez or Ervin Santana. Both Kendrys Morales and Nelson Cruz would probably be upgrades for the team somewhere in the lineup. Why isn't anyone suggesting the Sox sign them and then deal them away 2-3 years into the contract?

How has John Lackey worked out for the Red Sox? 2010 - 4.40 ERA, 3.85 FIP, 215 IP 2011 - 6.41 ERA, 4.71 FIP, 160 IP 2012 - missed the year due to injury 2013 - 3.52 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 189.1 IP Would you be happy if Santana or Jimenez came in and put up those numbers over a 4 year contract?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) Isn't that the truth. The two wild card system makes building through the draft much less important. When you have a pitcher like Sale you want to maximize his postseason opportunities. Protecting a 2nd round pick like its Fort Knox is silly. People don't want the Sox to stop adding talent. They don't want them to add 30+ year old pitchers for $12.5+ mill a year on multi-year deals. Historically, those contracts do not end well for the team and improving the Sox marginally this year is less important than improving them marginally 1-3 years from now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) I also look at his innings pitched. I love Jake, but he had 3 years he didn't pitch 115 innings. A couple of those years Santana pitched over 200 innings with a really good ERA. To say Jake has always been better isn't right. And, when you look at their splits, for some reason, White Sox pitchers usually have better numbers at home vs. on the road. I think USCF is a home run paradise, but for everything else, apparently not so much. Perhaps that makes the park factor calculation not so accurate. Jake actually gave up more homers on the road in a White Sox uniform than at USCF. And I'm saying that I fully believe that Santana would put up worse numbers than Peavy did with the White Sox for any number of reasons, plus Santana could just as easily get hurt too. He doesn't strike a ton of guys out and he gives up a lot of fly balls. That is not a very good combination for USCF. I am aware that players in general typically play better at home than on the road and the park factor calculation is just fine. It is certainly possible that Santana could come in and be a very good pitcher for 3 out of the 4 years he was with the White Sox. They could trade him half way through year 1. They could do a lot of things. But he could just as easily get hurt or regress and suddenly he's become an albatross and the Sox can't evaluate their own young arms and they're out a 2nd round pick and they're out $12.5 mill a year (at minimum) for the next 4 years. I truly, fully believe the odds of him becoming Edwin Jackson or John Danks are far greater than him maintaining that production throughout the life of his contract. I believe the risk far, far outweighs the reward in this situation.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:10 PM) While I'm not 100% convinced he's ready, I think he showed enough in his cup of coffee in the majors last year to get a shot if he has a good spring. This team really isn't expected to win anything anyways and I think he probably could put as good of numbers as Keppinger or Gillaspie. I wonder if the plan really isn't for him to start in the majors and Hahn is just stating he may go to AAA to not completely diminish the little value that Keppinger and Gillaspie have. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if he is the opening day starter, just that if he starts in the minors, it's not the worst thing in the world. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) There's probably also an element of making sure Davidson gets himself prepped for the challenge coming into ST on day one as well. But yes, there's still no place for all these guys on the roster together. This is a major part of it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) Yet you broke out a graph that goes back to 2004. You are funny. I'll give you that. Because it shows most of their career stats. Throughout his career, including the time in his last 3-5 years, Peavy has been a better pitcher. ERA is also a flawed way of looking at just the numbers. Had Santana pitched in Colorado, do you think his ERAs would look that good?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) I told you it was moot posts ago, but White Sox pitchers generally pitch better at home vs. on the road, although it is interesting you didn't point out Jake did a lot of his pitching in San Diego. Like 5 years ago, which is totally irrelevant to his talent and ability today.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 12:45 PM) He posted a 117 wRC+, which is league adjusted FWIW. 108 wRC+ in MLB. His wRC+ was right about exactly where guys like Kolten Wong and Chris Owings were A 117 wRC+ isn't tearing up the minors though either. He was good, but to suggest he couldn't use more refinement in the minors is the wrong mindset.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) As I stated, you wouldn't be burning bridges, because signing these guys for multiyears with draft pick compensation is doing them a solid at this point. The White Sox aren't in danger of becoming the Marlins, but if you want to be ultra conservative, like is being suggested on this board, being the Marlins might be the best case scenerio for what you will become. I have never seen a group of fans so opposed to increasing the talent level of their team. So not wanting the Sox to sign Ubaldo Jimenez and Ervin Santana suddenly makes us ultra conservative? I think it makes you ultra aggressive to the point of being a fault. The Sox have a middle rotation starter already signed on the roster in John Danks who is risky enough, but the White Sox wouldn't be able to give him away at this point without eating money. They have guys in Johnson, Paulino, Rienzo, and Surkamp that I imagine they'd like to get some innings. The team is nowhere near competing without several great, breakthrough years from a lot of players. This is how rebuilding goes. Ultra conservative is what the Cubs are doing by not taking risks at all. The White Sox have taken plenty of risks this offseason already and those moves have been lauded by the fans on here. I've already said that, if the right free agent came up, I'd have no problem surrendering that pick. If the Sox had to give up their 2nd round pick to sign Tanaka, I wouldn't have cared. I don't want the Sox committing 4 years and $50 million or so to Jimenez or Santana because they're on the wrong side of 30 and likely to start declining very soon. That they have to give up a 2nd pick round is just icing on the stay-the-hell-away cake. If you want an example of a team or state of the organization in which I'd be a proponent of this, it's if the Sox were in the same phase as the Orioles. They have a very talented team in need of good starting pitching. They are nowhere close to that state. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) Peavy has not always been better. He had a stretch of 3 years he hardly pitched 300 innings. Santana has been really good 4 of the past 6 seasons: 2008 3.49 ERA 219 IP 2009 5.03 ERA 139 IP 2010 3.92 ERA 222 IP 2011 3.38 ERA 228 IP 2012 5.16 ERA 178 IP 2013 3.24 ERA 211 IP and you are saying this is better? 2008 2.85 ERA 173 IP 2009 3.45 ERA 101 IP 2010 4.63 ERA 107 IP 2011 4.92 ERA 111 IP 2012 3.37 ERA 219 IP 2013 4.17 ERA 144 IP Ervin Santana has always pitched in a home park that suppresses homers. Jake Peavy pitched in a park in USCF that did nothing but allow homers. Peavy was always a better, more talented pitcher who was hurt by his home ballpark in his time with Chicago. He was also injured. That can easily happen to Jimenez or Santana too. With his flyball tendencies, it's very easy to assume that Santana could be a 4.50 ERA pitcher with the White Sox. --- This is all moot discussion anyways considering Rick Hahn himself said they aren't signing a pitcher tied to draft pick compensation.

Thought I would add this, as it touches a little better on my concerns regarding the acquisition of Castro: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/the-astro...is-interesting/

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) Davidson is ready. He's been tearing up the minors and got some MLB experience last year. .280/.350/.481/.831 is not tearing up the minors, especially the PCL. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/l...amp;id=3219ab1a