caulfield12

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:49 PM) The Sox bringing in Santana has no effect on Jordan Danks' roster spot. The Sox couldn't give his brother away at this point. I'm assuming he means John Danks, but his response is still off. Bringing in Santana does nothing of the kind, it actually puts other teams in a better bargaining position simply because they can wait the Sox out, who would then be sitting on TWO bad pitching contracts. Why would anyone want to take Danks and not ask for salary relief at this point? I don't know what the odds are, maybe 50/50 (ptac probably has the best insight), but just to assume it's going to be easy to trade Danks before the end of his deal isn't exactly a high probability likelihood at this point. Even if he is traded, 1) we're going to be getting nothing in return or eating salary or 2) he's going to be pitching so well that it would make no sense for the White Sox to trade him because he's still young and they could make an argument for competing in 2015 and 2016, which implicitly means that Sale, Quintana and Danks are pitching well, providing a formidable 1-2-3. I don't think that will happen though. I think we'll get the 4.5-5.0 ERA Danks, just like we would get that version of Jimenez and Santana as well. It would be amusing though, to see the same posters saying we need to acquire Jimenez/Santana begging the White Sox to trade Danks if we could get out from under that deal, which was signed 100% as a "win now" move if ever there was one. Ironic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:54 PM) So let me get this straight, if at the trade deadline in 2011, someone for some reason wanted Adam Dunn, the White Sox absolutely couldn't or shouldn't have traded him. Thanks for the knowledge. As I stated, if you are upfront with these players and they agree to come, you have done nothing wrong. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Adam Dunn. It has everything to do with a scenario where a starting pitcher is dumped so quickly in a contract....but not dumped, in your idea, but brings back more value to the organization than the initial ROI. You're making my point for me. Nobody wanted Adam Dunn because it was a bad contract at that time, just like Santana/Jimenez would be if they signed similar deals with them.

QUOTE (chisoxfan310 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:30 PM) Why does it have to be 14.1? It'd be funnier if he had to settle for less on a 1 year deal. May be his best choice to try to put together another splid year. Because the Royals already offered him exactly that, assuming he would leave as free agent, thus netting them a draft pick in the process. He and Jimenez are this year's Kyle Lohse so far, and the stakes aren't as high with it being a 2nd as compared to a 1st round draft pick.

It will be quite hilarious when Erwin Santana is forced back to the Royals on that $14.1 million qualifying offer and they are unable to trade him when he stinks it up this year.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:22 PM) You'd rather have a 34 year old Ervin Santana than a 28 year old Jose Quintana? Ervin Santana will not be on the next White Sox playoff contender. Oops. Didn't that used to be the refrain about every player we wanted to acquire, especially if they were 30 or older? Now we're acquiring players simply to trade them (but more likely getting stuck with them) so that we can trade for younger players so we can compete somewhere in the distant future. Trade Alexei Ramirez, trade Alexei Ramirez, trade Alexei Ramirez. That would be a more interesting debate than the current on-going one that's not grounded in ANY type of reality but a hypothetical one.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:38 PM) If you thought last year was tough to go through . . . You haven't seen anything like a team that struggles to score runs and lacks rotational depth. Those 200 innings that PeavySantiago pitched last season have to made up by someone(s). The Sox could be unwatchable by June with this rotation. Noticed you conveniently left out Dylan Axelrod... I think most fans wouldn't have any problem watching a healthier John Danks, a young/promising/rising rookie in Erik Johnson and every organization has a mess at the back end. If we wanted entertainment and frustration (see Edwin Jackson), then we'd curse Cooper by giving him Jimenez to work with. The major reason fans will prefer this season is Eaton, Davidson, Garcia, Viciedo and Abreu. A year ago, they would have been watching Keppinger/Gillaspie, an unfocused Rios, an on his last legs Paul Konerko and DeAza. Which do you prefer?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) J F P 3 or 4 year contract. The 3rd year of Peavy's deal isn't guaranteed, and the unique circumstances of his staying with the Sox have been illuminated about 20-25 times in this thread already.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) They haven't even done that. Buehrle doesn't work. They had Buehrle for a full season and then dealt him. I can't think of a single player that has ever been signed to a 4 year contract that was dealt 3-4 months into the first year. Jose Reyes is the closest...along with Buehrle.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) Like it or not the Sox have assembled much of their core to go around Chris Sale already. A second round pick does little to maximize the franchises best asset Chris Sale and his contract. That second round pick maybe useful to a post-Sale White Sox. This makes absolutely zero sense. The White Sox control his rights through 2019. They'll have him in his prime years of 2016-2017-2018-2019 (just turning 27-28-29-30 at the beginning of each season) when the team's legitimately ready to make a run again. In fact, they'll never pay him more per season than Jimenez/Erwin Santana probably are going to receive well past their pitching primes.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) What is the difference if they were signed now or 2 years ago. Contending teams trade for pitching every year. If the Sox have excess and aren't contending, they can reap the rewards and shorten their rebuild even if they surrender their second round pick. The point is moot. Hahn said he isn't letting go of the pick, but if there is another veteran like a Maholm who can be had for a decent price, he should look at it seriously with the idea that if the team isn't winning, it will improve inventory to deal from. What do you think drafting a collegiate pitcher at #3 next year will do, and at #5-10 in 2015? They'll make some of our pitching depth expendable, to the point where we can leverage Quintana for a catcher or Johnson or Beck or someone else to fill a hole in the starting line-up without missing a beat. Or at the very least clear John Danks from the payroll with a much cheaper but equally effective option replacing him, allowing those dollars to be reallocated. What do you think trading Alexei Ramirez, DeAza, Danks (possibly), Viciedo (possibly), Dunn, Gillaspie, Keppinger, Nate Jones, Belisario, Downs, Paulino and Lindstrom will get you?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) Rumor has it Santana and Jimenez are going for less than Garza. Peavy was $29.5 million for 2 years. I always liked Peavy, but there are plenty of detractors on this site. Right now with the comp picks and competitive balance picks, that pick is #43 in what the Sox head scout says is not a good draft, top heavy with HS players. If Santana and Jimenez pitch the first half like they pitched in 2013, there would be a lot more attractive young players available for them than the #43 pick. IF FRANCISCO LIRIANO PITCHED FOR THE WHITE SOX IN 2012 LIKE HE DID FOR THE PIRATES IN 2013, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE AL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. IF ADAM DUNN JUST HIT LIKE HE DID FOR EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. IF CARLOS QUENTIN DIDN'T GET HURT IN 2008.... IF WE SIGNED JOSH HAMILTON... IF IF IF...is a risk that Rick Hahn isn't willing to take when he's set up things so well for this assessment/work in progress season.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) This is a loaded question and is not accurate at all. You aren't going to sign Jimenez or Santana to a 2 year deal worth $29 million, it's not reasonable to expect them to be as valuable as Jake Peavy, and it's not reasonable to expect the Sox to trade them. You are essentially saying that Jimenez/Santana are equal to Peavy by stating this. If they come out and put up ERAs over 5 - which they are both fully capable of doing - then you are looking at a $15 mill a year albatross of a contract plus no 2nd round pick plus no prospect coming back versus $15 million a year that is NOT spent plus a 2nd round pick. State it like it is - the possibility of a acquiring a prospect while still spending money and the loss of a 2nd round pick versus the guarantee of acquiring a prospect in the 2nd round plus the money not spent. Personally, I am taking the latter option, especially given the amount of pitching the Sox have that is MLB caliber at the moment. It's a false argument because of the unique circumstances of the Peavy signing. Of course, everyone's going to make that deal to bring in the #73 prospect or whatever in baseball who also happens to play the same position of the veteran RFer you've just traded. You make that trade every time if you're facing a rebuilding situation and are trying to get young at the same time. It will be interesting to see how long it takes and at what cost the Cubs have to absorb in any future Edwin Jackson deal, after they spent all that money dumping Soriano/Zambrano/Marmol. For every Jake Peavy mention, Edwin Jackson can just as easily be cited. We've spent four years now trying to get rid of Dunn, I can just imagine all the complaints about waiting another 3 years to trade Jackson...NOT TO MENTION the fact that there's absolutely ZERO guarantee that John Danks will EVER return to form and that won't end up being yet another sunk cost.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:43 AM) Non contending teams have flipped pitchers for prospects at the trade deadline for years. The Sox have plenty of money. They were going to pay Tanaka over $20 million a year and pay his former team $20 million. And signing Tanaka made sense in both the long and short-term. Surely, most will agree with that, even though the risk was huge. Those pitchers you're referring to (and I've yet to see a single name mentioned other than Jake Peavy) were undoubtedly in the last or 2nd to last years of their deals, were they not? How many examples have veteran pitchers signed to 4 year deals been traded away in the first two for a better return? Pitchers come to the White Sox to work specifically with Don Cooper because he's one of the best pitching coaches in the business and has gotten results from numerous guys...the White Sox have almost never brought in a pitcher with the primary idea being to trade him in the future unless it was someone on waivers or at almost no cost like a Loaiza or Santos (and now Paulino). There are plenty where pitchers are DUMPED, like Contreras for Loaiza, or Javy for Chris Young, but if Chris Young is the best possible example we can come up with, then that's not the type of impact that will push us into the playoffs for 2-3 years in a row.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) Dick Allen -- I don't understand why you so frequently seem to be caught up in arguing that it takes a long time for prospects to develop. That doesn't change the fact that an early round draft pick is an asset and, therefore, an additional cost to sign a DP-compensated FA. That the pick won't likely be on the ML roster within 2 years is irrelevant. The franchise STILL needs good prospects in the system to be developed or traded. Which goes back to why the 2000-2008 was such a good run for the White Sox. We turned many of those young assets into 27-33 year old veteran contributors on the major league roster and won a World Series. That strategy worked until Kenny Williams hit a string of bad trades (both Swisher moves, Javy to the Braves, Hudson/Jackson and then dumping Jackson to get rid of Teahen) and of course Viciedo and Dunn didn't contribute as much as expected and Danks got hurt. It still almost was enough to defeat a superior Tigers team in 2012. In 2010, if we'd kept Thome, we'd arguably have won that ALCD title as well. We weren't that far off until last year. And of course it goes back to the trade that turned the balance in the AL Central for good, Miguel Cabrera for Cameron Maybin and A. Miller, both huge disappointments for the Marlins. By that time, the depth in our system had been depleted too much and was nearing a crash.

Still waiting. Other than the unique circumstances of Jake Peavy that aren't applicable with any free agent pitcher on the current market, there hasn't been a single supporting example of a veteran free agent pitcher signed from outside his previous organization at/over the age of 30 for a contract of 3+ years and $40+ million dollars where that team ended up "winning" the deal by flipping him later on. The odds are greater for it to blow up in their faces than for it to amount to even the quality of a 2nd round draft pick...plus you've wasted all that money and a spot in the rotation that could have been put to better use. IF THE WHITE SOX WIN 78-84 GAMES NEXT YEAR, I DARE SAY THAT NO POSTER AT SOXTALK WOULD BE AGAINST ADDING A VETERAN PITCHER IF ONE IS NEEDED TO PUSH THEM INTO PLAYOFF CONTENTION (AND ASSUMING BECK/RIENZO/SNODGRESS/BASSITT ETC. ALL FALL FLAT ON THEIR FACES). BUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DO IT. THE END. Because at that point we won't have the money for a young stud catcher (if we overpay another veteran pitcher) or we'll have to trade Quintana to do it, which will simply open up one hole in the dike to plug up another one. Our best best still remains getting the two best collegiate arms we can scout in 2014 and with the #5-10 draft pick in 2015. We did it before with Sale, the Cardinals with Wacha. Far from impossible.

If it was Gordon Beckham or Alexei Ramirez hitting in those spots with a runner on 2nd instead of 1st, then it would make a lot of sense. With Dunn, not so much.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 06:26 AM) Are they allowed to use MIT? Is it copyrighted or anything? I would guess the university needed to give consent/permission and they probably turned the show's producers down when they found out about the content.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 11:04 PM) There isn't a pitcher available who can get us to the point of contention. Tanaka might have been able to get us there - potentially - but none of the rest of the pitchers available are nearly that high-impact. That moves the whole contention window past this year and makes the urgency for settling the C position less urgent. And there isn't really a great C available anyway, at least not one we can afford to trade for without sacrificing the organizational depth we just worked to achieve for the long-term success of the club. Plus, we've got plenty of question marks on the roster currently, and it makes more sense to get some answers before diving headlong in one direction. Hence, no Salty contract. By the time we made it to 2016, he'd definitely be on the decline if he isn't already. That's where you either have your 25-30 year old stud in place OR you go for a "win now" veteran guy on a 1-2 year contract that turns into much longer, like the AJ speculative "buy low" signing in 2005.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 08:50 PM) Santana has had 6 full healthy MLB seasons. One of them was terrible, the others have been at least quality if not very good. He's a 200+IP per year guy with the ability to dominate, also the ability to lose focus and so on. I've said this a thousand times, but he's very Gavin Floyd like & at what his price tag might be that's a nice value & provides the Sox with additional trade options to explore. Given that the 2 greatest strengths of our organization seem to be developing pitching/working with established pitching and keeping players generally healthy, I'd say he's a decent bet at the very least, given how the free agency process works & that there are so many bad deals in general. Santana isn't nearly the risky proposition he looked to be early on when his agent was demanding all those years & all that money. THEN SIGN GAVIN FLOYD at 1/10th the cost and flip him. There's little risk in that move, or the Paulino move. What's going to have the bigger payoff, in the end? I'll take 5-10 Paulino's/Floyds/Johan Santanas/Mulders/Hanson's and you can have one of Erwin Santana/Jimenez. Surkamp would be another example. Not only do I keep my second round pick, but my return in talent will be 5-10X greater. Of course, we have to pitch Sale/Quintana/Danks, but there's no reason you couldn't have 2-3 low risk pitchers on your roster (the back two starters and long man), especially if Johnson and Rienzo aren't ready to go until midseason. And you could preserve Johnson's arbitration clock for another year. Now, of course, you also need to use that time to develop your young pitching...because a team rehabbing and flipping pitchers would simply be rinsing and repeating this same process over and over again and never getting any positive traction. I'M STILL WAITING FOR ONE EXAMPLE OF A PITCHER OF OVER 30 YEARS OLD BROUGHT IN AS A FREE AGENT AND SIGNED FOR 3 OR MORE YEARS AND $40+ MILLION WHERE THE SIGNING TEAM WON THAT DEAL...? If it's so patently obvious this is the best strategy, why wouldn't lots of other teams be doing the same exact thing, trying to exploit a niche before everyone catches on, like the A's with OPS, the Royals with their bullpen or the Pirates with their defensive alignments/sinkerball approach?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 05:32 PM) 1) Konerko coming back was first and foremost Jerry wanting Paulie to retire on his own terms. This is straight from Hahn's mouth. It's a great thing to do & Paulie's role as a mentor is being undervalued IMO given what he may be able to do for these guys. Dunn has nothing to do with any of this. 2) Those DH AB's should go to Viciedo, then DeAza gets LF full time, and the bench gets more playing time & can play a more versatile piece. This is child's play. Very simple. 3) No you can't make the same argument for Keppinger because he isn't a sunk cost. Again, the whole idea of a sunk cost is you're supposed to be able to remove the emotion from the situation, step back, look at your investment, and ask yourself if you should continue to sink $$ into this thing - and make no mistake, ABs and playing time and development time IS $$ 100% and this is one of the few resources a rebuilding team has that a contending team does not, and pissing it away on Dunn is unbelievably wasteful and stupid. Keppinger OTOH does fill a role as a proven UT option which is necessary when you have so many uncertainties as position players. 4) Take away Keppinger's salary & take away Dunn's salary, and make both FAs right now. Do the Sox have interest in signing Dunn AT ALL? My guess 100% no. Do they have interest in Keppinger, at the right price? My guess is yes, they probably do. Maybe they wouldn't go above $1M but any team that has Jake Elmore & Leury Garcia as their primary bench UT guys probably has interest in someone like Kepp at the right price. 5) Let me ask you this, let's say Dunn is a FA right now. What do you think he signs for? $2M or more? I'd say it's probably $2M or less. That's 13.3% of his value and playing time. What do you think the Sox stand to gain from this? Again, sunk cost, he's been a bad investment. Move on. The fans are the market, they are your customers, you don't blame your market nor do you blame your customers for your own f***ups. The Sox made a good deal on paper that turned bad, ok whatever, turn the page. Keeping Dunn is a poor decision that makes the Sox look like emotional gamblers who can't stand up and walk away from the table. That would be true if KW was still the GM. But it's no longer the case, Hahn isn't seen as being connected with this signing, so what emotional factor or reason would keep him around? He's obviously not stupid. Unless you think there's a conspiracy in the front office not to dump Dunn so as to keep the spotlight off the Dunn acquisition and dumping/trading him would put a black mark in Williams' future in the game. Seriously, Williams made a lot of mistakes over the last half decade, Hahn can't protect him from that. In the end, the person who most deserves to lose his job is Brooks Boyer or whoever in the PR department thought bringing Dunn to SoxFest would be a wise idea. They probably don't have Courtney Hawkins or Jared Mitchell there for the same reason/s. (Cue someone saying if they can't take some boos and jeers at SoxFest, they don't have what it takes to be MLB players and that it will motivate them to "try harder," even though trying harder in baseball has never been proven to work...nor has it been proven to make Adam Dunn wake up and decide to cut down to 4% body fat in the offseason).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) Except for the fact that not pitching him kills the work we've done building up his arm the last 2 seasons. I think you should go shoot chris sale in the leg. It would help the white sox's future as much as any of your other ideas. As soon as I read your line, I started thinking of the Steffi Graf fanatic stabbing Monica Seles or Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan. Don't give him any ideas, please. IF ERWIN SANTANA WAS SO GREAT, WHY WEREN'T THE ANGELS ABLE TO GET BACK ANYTHING DECENT FOR HIM??? IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T NEED PITCHING. YOU DON'T SIGN $40-50 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS WITH THE HOPES TO TRADE/LEVERAGE THOSE PLAYERS UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO HAVE MORE DUNN AND DANKS SITUATIONS. PAULINO, SURE. SERGIO SANTOS or LOAIZA, SURE. Plus, didn't we learn with Swisher, Javy and Orlando Cabrera the danger of playing this dangerous game? Santana has lost 3-5 MPH off his stuff from a decade ago with the Angels and he would absolutely get lit up pitching in USCF. I wouldn't be shocked if there was a statistic out there that has him throwing the most pitches in MLB over the last decade. Finally, Royals Stadium masked a lot of his deficiencies, just as pitching in Seattle or Seattle can do for the Clayton Richards and Eric Stultzes (there's another guy we gave up for nothing) of the world.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) Are you a big procedural fan? Well, House of Cards, Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy are probably my 3 favorites. Police investigation shows are fine, but I like to mix in a little political intrigue as well, with Scandal being another example, as well as Hostages (I always liked Dylan McDermott on The Practice before it got too crazy there at the end).

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...04067--mlb.html

First time ever in the TV Thread. Just looking for new shows to check out, I'm stuck in the apartment for two weeks over Chinese New Year's before I can fly to Indonesia. Here's my current list. Elementary Sons of Anarchy Breaking Bad NCIS NCIS/LA CSI/Las Vegas Modern Family Big Bang Theory Scandal House of Cards Hostages Marvel's Agents of SHIELD Entourage Larry David/Curb Your Enthusiasm I've heard some recommendations for Homefront, Boss (Kelsey Grammar), The Newsroom, The Blacklist and Betrayal. Someone else mentioned The Good Wife but I'm not much of a Juliana Margulies fan. Person of Interest, too. Any other great shows out there that are reminiscent of the ones on my list?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 11:33 PM) If the Sox got Johan and actually got some production out of him, I'd be so stupidly happy. He's the only opposing pitcher I've ever looked at each time he faced the Sox and go "and this is a loss." CC Sabathia and Bruce Chen also say "hi!"