TheFutureIsNear

Contract breakdown looks like this: '16- $17.6M '17-$17.6M '18- $18.6M '19- $18.6M '20- Option for $17M with $5M buyout So that's more or less $77M over 4 years. How much would Boston have to eat to get you to bite on Sandoval?

Am I the only 1 that lost a little respect for Sale after that interview? Drama Queen much? I get that Laroche was his friend and he didn't want to see him go, but why make into all of this? Sale is the distraction, not getting a terrible player and his kid out. He might was well have called him St. Laroche the way he was talking about him. Sorry Chris, but your buddy gets paid a lot and he sucks. When that's the case you might want to listen to a reasonable suggestion from upper management. And as others have said, no one kicked out or fired Laroche, he quit.

I find it hilarious that people think this was some executive decision by KW. Like he showed up to the ballpark one day and said " I'm tired seeing this kid's stupid face. He's gone, don't care if his dad goes with him." Like really? Obviously there were multiple people complaining. Most likely both players and coaches and I'm sure it was ongoing. Idk, seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to me... And again, what the hell are the players supposed to say to the media about this? "Thank god that little creep is gone, couldn't stand him. Or do you think a professional athlete would take the politically correct, not getting them in trouble, way out and say what a swell kid he was and they loved having him?

Good get this idiot out of here. If I got paid $13M to do a job and utterly and embarrassingly failed I would be damn sure to work my ass off next opportunity. Leave your kid at home, shut your mouth, and get in the cage until you figure out how to hit again. All there is to it. And why would you want your kid there anyway? Any locker room setting I've ever been in was no place for a kid. Just because Laroche chooses to live his life a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does. I'm sure there were a lot of guys who felt uncomfortable knowing there was a 14 year old within ear shot at all times.

The selfish jerk couldn't have decided to do this 3 months ago?? (kidding...sort of) Now is there any way he convinces Danks to do the same?

Yeah at this point I see no other other reasonable option than just giving Austin Jackson something like 2/$14-16M and seeing what happens. If we are still in it at the all-star break the FO can then reevaluate and make their move on a trade. The trade will be a lot more clear at that point and teams will be more willing to deal. The 3 top 40 picks will really revitalize our system and possibly make someone more expendable in a trade. At this point we really can't afford to give up the few prospects we do have.

There are $10M or so reasons that most are talking about replacing Avi and not Laroche. Laroche's contract is going to earn him another shot over Avi, like it or not. And while he has little to no value, other teams will take Avi and his contract. No one wants Laroche and his hefty salary.

There's no way Desmond's agent lets him sign long term for something reasonable like 10-12/year right?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) I'd love it if they could put Danks in the bullpen. If EJ is struggling with command early, they can just pull the plug before it gets ugly and let Danks go up against a lineup situated to face a righty. I hate to look at the Danks/Johnson thing from as asset point of view but they can make Johnson a good piece moving forward. If he's an acceptable 4/5 then you have a good, cost-effective arm who's pre arb. If you let him toil away in Charlotte then you're eating at his value as marketable asset. Danks is what he is. He's not sexy and he's gone after '16. Give Johnson the shot he deserves and if it doesn't work you have Danks. The interesting thing is they have too much depth in the bullpen: 1.) Robertson 2.) Duke 3.) Jennings 4.) Jones 5.) Putnam 6.) Petricka 7.) Albers So Danks/Johnson, Turner, Webb and Kahnle are all going somewhere other than Chicago if there's no injuries. Danks isn't going to the minors. Johnson's value is hurt if he goes to the minors. Turner has to clear waivers to go to the minors. Webb belongs in the minors. Kanhle is somewhat intriguing but seems to be too far down the list. Nice to have depth like this I guess. Good post. This is more or less what I was trying to get across in my posts. You just did it much more effectively. No one in their right mind should be upset about Latos @ $3M for 1 year, but bigger picture it's 1 more roster spot we won't be able to judge a young, cheap arm that may actually have a future with the franchise. In a perfect world we would simply get rid of Danks and everything would be ok, but I think if we are all realistic we know Danks is going to be given another long leash as the 5th starter again next year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) They also have Phillipe Aumont who was pretty solid out of the pen for Philly as well who is on the outside looking in. Aumont is garbage. He throws hard with movement but he has absolutely no clue where the pitch will end up. He's not a factor in anything unless there is a miracle turnaround at age 27/28.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 07:45 PM) FWIW, if I were a GM of another team, I wouldn't give you one scrap of talent for Erik Johnson. Not until he proves it in the big leagues. I look at his minor league record and major league/2014 implosion and think he's at best a rebuilding project if my organization were to pick him up, and I can just wait until the White Sox let him go when he runs out of options if I want to try my luck at that. His big league numbers last year had bad peripherals, he had a major velocity drop for a full season that could have been some sort of lingering injury, and he only had success at AAA when he was in his 3rd stint there at age 25. If I were a losing team and I shedded a salary I didn't want, fine, I'll take him back, but that's his value to me until he proves he can be a big league pitcher. With this signing, I'd start thinking the White Sox feel the same way. Johnson was pretty damn good in his 1st AAA appearance back in 2013... And harping on peripherals on a 35 inning sample size in September is grasping for straws at best. Not like he's had bad periphs in the minors at any point minus 2014. How dare he not come up and dominate right away. And the velocity was back up over 91 last year, you're creating problems with the guy at this point. He had 1 fluke bad year. Why? Who knows. He's not the 1st nor the last pitcher it will happen to. I'm not saying EJ is going to be great (solid 4th starter), and the Latos deal for $3M certainly can't be called bad. I'm just confused as to why they seem to want to replace a 26 year old with a good track record before he fails. Hopefully both EJ and Latos pitch well and we can be talking about Danks DFA'd.

Looks like a knuckle change up to me...not that that is a thing either. Looks like the same downward "football" type of release you would throw a change up with. Nasty none the less

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 04:37 PM) And, then of course, a huge bounce back season. But I suspect that the bold is what bothers the insular Sox. It's almost like EJ was bad last year the way everyone talks about him. Like that 1 fluke bad year was/is the norm and he hasn't been good-great every other year

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 04:25 PM) Masterson is still a FA, no? yes he still is...read mlbtraderumors article wrong. But still, he got $9.5M just last year in almost the exact same scenario as Latos.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 04:11 PM) Or he really wanted to go somewhere that would promise him a starting spot? Yeah because clearly we are the only team he could possibly start on...it's very obvious that no one else wanted Latos on their team. The fact that he took $3M now tells you we were the only team to even sniff around him. If he had interest from other clubs he would have at least waited until ST to see if there was an injury.

Just makes you wonder what is really up with Latos when Fister, Arroyo, and Masterson all got deals with the possibility to make double what Latos got. As everyone here noted his peripherals were for the most part good and his velocity was even up a tick. Plus he's still under 30. The writing is on the wall for a very plausible bounce back and there was literally 0 market for him? Just doesn't make any sense. Either he's the world's biggest douche or there's something else up we don't know about.

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) If decisions on rotation spots were made independent of paychecks this should be pushing on Danks more. We have 3 lefties in the rotation without him, it makes sense to keep Johnson over him from a right lefty standpoint. In terms of performance I don't have confidence that Danks can out perform Johnson. So the only reason Danks would be safer is because we gave him a really bad contract and would look bad to put that paycheck in the pen. Such a poor reason to make a roster decision. Good organizations don't make decisions that way. Hopefully you're right and that is the case but I highly doubt it. If he doesn't show up to ST looking any better than he has the past 4 years(looks even worse when you type it out) just cut bait with him. We're on the hook for his salary either way and he's probably more valuable to the franchise not pitching than he is putting up his usual 4.7+ ERA.

Only makes sense to me if Johnson is indeed traded for an OF. If not giving Latos his spot in the rotation is a giant waste in my opinion. Have to see what you have in a young player in some point...

Unless we trade EJ in a package for an OF bat I don't see how giving up assets for rotation depth makes any kind of sense. I could see signing a vet to a minimum/minor league deal but nothing further than that. Danks isn't going anywhere and then we have EJ, Turner, BecK, Carrol, and the possibility of Fulmer coming in July/August for the 5th spot. Could be at least worse. Offense and OF depth are way more of a worry.

I'd join if you're still looking...

So hypothetically we were to actually trade for Ethier, how realistic is it for him to get 1,100 AB's in 2 years if we don't let him hit against lefties? That vesting option is scary, it would suck being in a stretch playoff run in '17 and having to worry about that $17.5M option vesting with too many AB's

Trade Melky, Robertson, and Frazier for hopefully 2-3 legit hitting prospects that are near MLB ready.

I feel like signing Fowler now and losing the pick is panic move in my book. They struck out and had no other choice. Honestly at this point I think I'd rather just keep the top 30 pick and payroll.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) If he's traded he can opt out after this year but that still doesn't mean they can't trade him or re-work the deal prior if the player is willing. Van Slyke I think is a good bench option for them since he can take at bats from lefties (Ethier, Crawford, Gonzalez). If I had to predict their bench, I'd guess: Back up catcher Hernandez IF/OF Utley 1B/2B/3B Van Slyke 1B/OF (may be a good trade piece though) Ethier (assuming Puig starts. If traded, then Thompson) Thompson and Micah in the minors if they have options left. Yeah you might be right....going to be interesting though. They will basically have Van Slyke, Guerrero, and Trayce all competing for their 25th roster spot. Must be nice. And we aren't even discussing the fact that they have about 8 SP's and may not even keep 5 bench bats. And also, can Guerrero play RF/LF at an above average level? Don't think I've ever seen the guy even swing a bat.

I think they will still keep k***' just because he's so cheap and so valuable as a utility guy. Gerrero and Van Slyke are the guys I can't see a spot for. I would take either 1, but isn't Guerrero automatically a FA if traded or something like that? Van Slyke makes a lot of sense for both sides in my opinion. Can't what they would want for him, but doubt it would be much.