1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

I'd love to have Hendriks, but my guess is I won't lose any sleep over the Sox missing out on him if he's getting anything more than like 3/$36M, which he will.  

Very few relievers sustain long term effectiveness to validate anything more than a 3 year deal.   The last thing you want to be stuck with is another Kelvin Herrera.   And that's a guy who was constantly sitting at 99-100 before he went to Washington and then came here to die. 

Hendricks is 95-96

Hand - (no thanks)

 

23 minutes ago, Orlando said:

 

 

When did Vinnie Duber become such a puppet. Wow is this a bad tweet. White Sox want to cherry pick stats and make you believe that Hendriks is the worse of the three.

Duber is the worst. I don't really care about 2016 reliever stats.

6 minutes ago, HOFHurt35 said:

Very few relievers sustain long term effectiveness to validate anything more than a 3 year deal.   The last thing you want to be stuck with is another Kelvin Herrera.   And that's a guy who was constantly sitting at 99-100 before he went to Washington and then came here to die. 

Hendricks is 95-96

Hand - (no thanks)

 

Why no on Hand?  He's had one "meh" year in recent memory

2 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Why no on Hand?  He's had one "meh" year in recent memory

Not a fan of the stuff.  He gets outs and by some optical illusion gets Ks.  

But I don't trust that kind of stuff in very high leverage playoff situations. 

Just now, HOFHurt35 said:

Not a fan of the stuff.  He gets outs and by some optical illusion gets Ks.  

But I don't trust that kind of stuff in very high leverage playoff situations. 

Those spots would probably be Bummer, Crochet, and hell maybe Kopech anyway. Hand would be the guy who comes in to start the 9th with nobody on base, with the job of not screwing it up.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Those spots would probably be Bummer, Crochet, and hell maybe Kopech anyway. Hand would be the guy who comes in to start the 9th with nobody on base, with the job of not screwing it up.

I agree, which  makes it even more obvious there wouldn't be a need for a guy like Hand.  Especially for a team where every $ counts. 

Now assuming Hand can be had for 2 years, that I would be interested in vs 4 years of Hendricks.   Despite Hendricks being the much better pitcher for a high leverage playoff game come 2021 and 2022. 

 

32 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

We said this before - not only do deadlines not work, they are disrespectful to the agent and the player. 

If you put contract offers out, and you retract them because someone else accepted your offer and you don't need the player any more that's one thing. But you can't say "Sign this by January 10 or we'll walk away" because if you don't have a closer signed on January 11, and they come back and say "we'll accept", they know you'll say yes.

I hear you but in negotiations, one looks week if a proposal is floated with no timetable for response.  At some point his interest in Hahn’s offer has to be commented on.  Billy Beane would never let this happen. But, we live in glass houses on this because they are not bound to transparency  AND it’s not like hundreds of other free agents are signing right now that leaves us without alternatives. Lots of babble from my end, just want some moves to break the January monotony.  

1 minute ago, Springfield Soxfan said:

I hear you but in negotiations, one looks week if a proposal is floated with no timetable for response.  At some point his interest in Hahn’s offer has to be commented on.  Billy Beane would never let this happen. But, we live in glass houses on this because they are not bound to transparency  AND it’s not like hundreds of other free agents are signing right now that leaves us without alternatives. Lots of babble from my end, just want some moves to break the January monotony.  

LOL that's because Billy Beane is never going to be bidding on the top free agent closer. 

Their offer already has a comment - they know what Hendriks's side wants, they know what they're willing to offer. Both sides are willing to wait, and the White Sox are currently willing to lose him if some team makes a better offer.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

LOL that's because Billy Beane is never going to be bidding on the top free agent closer. 

Their offer already has a comment - they know what Hendriks's side wants, they know what they're willing to offer. Both sides are willing to wait, and the White Sox are currently willing to lose him if some team makes a better offer.

Interesting, but being passive does not seem to be the way to go here when an offer has been out there a while but we will see.  No need to debate it but we could replace Beane with other names. 

Just now, Springfield Soxfan said:

Interesting, but being passive does not seem to be the way to go here when an offer has been out there a while but we will see.  No need to debate it but we could replace Beane with other names. 

And yet, we've seen other names be dragged out into February lately quite often. The Machado negotiations, the Harper negotiations. The Betts trade didn't happen until February and then took a week for all the prospects to be sorted out. Keuchel and Kimbrel skipped a third of a season because they couldn't get a contract offer they were happy with.

This is the current baseball system - the rewards for winning and the punishments for losing are not high enough to get very many teams bidding early.

Weird, why did I think Billy Beane stepped down this year? Didn't he make some deal with the red sox?

14 minutes ago, Springfield Soxfan said:

I hear you but in negotiations, one looks week if a proposal is floated with no timetable for response.  At some point his interest in Hahn’s offer has to be commented on.  Billy Beane would never let this happen. But, we live in glass houses on this because they are not bound to transparency  AND it’s not like hundreds of other free agents are signing right now that leaves us without alternatives. Lots of babble from my end, just want some moves to break the January monotony.  

What I would do is hit my #1 target, say here is what we are thinking, have them counter, if they are dragging their feet, move on to #2. I think the problem many teams have is they either secretly drop out or fake drop out.  You sign choice #2 you are out publicly and privately.  They can't use you like the Sox have been used, and if the #2 target signs for what you want, you may have lowered #1's offers. if you are willing to put a really good offer out there, get a reputation you are willing to move on, and have a desirable destination, players will sign quickly.

Chuck is pumping up Hand on twitter as well.

I think Hand is fine, but the worry I have with him is that whenever he loses it he's REALLY going to lose it and just be toast. That probably won't be next year though.

Well the Sox could have had Hand for 1 year 10 million and be done. But all teams passed on that deal so his market most likely has to be around 8 million. 

3 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

Chuck is pumping up Hand on twitter as well.

Adam Eaton flashbacks intensify 

3 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

Chuck is pumping up Hand on twitter as well.

Well, we know how this goes

2 hours ago, fathom said:

My first thought as well.  Also on a side note, I love how Katz told Giolito he’s going to have the pitchers throw hard and throw their best pitches more. 

It’s remarkable our previous pitching coach felt otherwise, at least on throwing your best pitches more.

4 minutes ago, fathom said:

Well, we know how this goes

If he does a podcast with Kipnis, Aloha Mr. Hand.

21 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

Chuck is pumping up Hand on twitter as well.

What Chuck does on his own time is his own business

18 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

It’s remarkable our previous pitching coach felt otherwise, at least on throwing your best pitches more.

I keep hearing that but missed anything substantial to explain in. Why in God's name would anyone, let alone Coop, take pitchers in this direction? What supposedly was the logic?

 

Give me Hand for 2/17 and La Stella 1/6.5 instead of Hendriks at 4/54.  Those last few years for Hendriks will be ugly.

Funny how the "priority" is never what we end up with.

Just now, fathom said:

Give me Hand for 2/17 and La Stella 1/6.5 instead of Hendriks at 4/54.  Those last few years for Hendriks will be ugly.

Plus we could also get Brantley that way too.