January 16, 20215 yr Give Richards $7M, with an extra $3M as an innings incentive. If he’s pitching well, you gladly pay the extra $3M. If he’s struggling or injured, Kopech takes his place in the rotation in June. If Richards can find a $10M guaranteed offer with another team, let him take it and go after another target. With all the different trade talks that have been rumored, I don’t think we are going to spend a penny more than what we feel somebody is worth. If we can’t land somebody on our terms, then we try to make a trade a month from now (or sooner if the right deal comes along).
January 16, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: Who do you propose? For that money, either Quintana or trading something of actual value for a Musgrove makes more sense.
January 16, 20215 yr 6 hours ago, bmags said: He has good leverage with his Japan threat. I expect him to try for $14+ I’d think that leverage would be undermined by the fact he has been pitching for the last few years with a bum elbow that could explode at any moment. Richards is a far lesser risk than Tanaka since he already had his torn ligament repaired. Edited January 16, 20215 yr by Vulture
January 16, 20215 yr 6 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: I have more faith in Richards maintaining health now that he’s had TJS because it seems like the Angels mishandled his past elbow problems and simply delayed the inevitable. I also feel that Richards has some untapped potential with the right pitching coach as weird as that is to say for a 32 year old pitcher, but physically there is a lot to like with his arsenal even if it has some flaws. Richards is a secret know ones knows about . He has one of the Best Spin rates - look it up. and a 2.7 War over 162 games . An ideal # 4 on a playoff team . Yes ?
January 16, 20215 yr I like Richards over Q only because I think he could also be an impact arm in the pen. He seems like a guy who could dominate an inning if he was solely focused on throwing 20 really good pitches. If you get 100 IP in the rotation and use him in the pen down the stretch we get to fill two needs half way at once. Edited January 16, 20215 yr by mac9001
January 16, 20215 yr Think of what the Sox could have done if they saved $13 million and didn’t trade for Alonso and sign Jon Jay, two very obvious, before the fact mistakes.
January 16, 20215 yr 23 minutes ago, mac9001 said: I like Richards over Q only because I think he could also be an impact arm in the pen. He seems like a guy who could dominate an inning if he was solely focused on throwing 20 really good pitches. If you get 100 IP in the rotation and use him in the pen down the stretch we get to fill two needs half way at once. Who is to say that Quintana couldn't push that average fastball velocity up a little more if he was coming out of the pen for a time?
January 16, 20215 yr Author 5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Who is to say that Quintana couldn't push that average fastball velocity up a little more if he was coming out of the pen for a time? If this is your argument, then you could say it about anyone. Nothing about Quintana screams “good reliever”.
January 16, 20215 yr 26 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Think of what the Sox could have done if they saved $13 million and didn’t trade for Alonso and sign Jon Jay, two very obvious, before the fact mistakes. Those who live in the past.........
January 16, 20215 yr 6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Who is to say that Quintana couldn't push that average fastball velocity up a little more if he was coming out of the pen for a time? Just a gut feeling that Q is maxed out. I feel like Richards is probably pushing 98/99 out of the pen.
January 16, 20215 yr 2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: If this is your argument, then you could say it about anyone. Nothing about Quintana screams “good reliever”. Maybe if he McCullers it and goes curve curve curve. His curve is very good at getting swings.
January 16, 20215 yr 3 hours ago, Dick Allen said: Think of what the Sox could have done if they saved $13 million and didn’t trade for Alonso and sign Jon Jay, two very obvious, before the fact mistakes. EE was every bit as bad.
January 16, 20215 yr 2 hours ago, ptatc said: Those who live in the past......... ... maybe don't make the same mistakes again? Edited January 16, 20215 yr by RagahRagah
January 16, 20215 yr 13 minutes ago, RagahRagah said: ... maybe don't make the same mistakes again? So the lesson is to never sign FA again? Never trust the current FO to sign FA? Those who live in the past live with depression Those who live in the future live with anxiety Only those who live in the present truly live. You can learn from the last but you can't change it so do what you think is the best in the current situation.
January 17, 20215 yr 37 minutes ago, poppysox said: EE was every bit as bad. No doubt, but that wasn't obvious, and they were in win mode.
January 17, 20215 yr 53 minutes ago, ptatc said: So the lesson is to never sign FA again? Never trust the current FO to sign FA? Those who live in the past live with depression Those who live in the future live with anxiety Only those who live in the present truly live. You can learn from the last but you can't change it so do what you think is the best in the current situation. Um... no, that is definitely not the lesson. You realize we are talking about Jay and Alonso, right? I think any one of us could have been smart enough not to sign them at all. That is an EASY 13 million we all would have been smart enough to save. At least I sure as hell hope so. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you somehow missed what he was quoting. I can't imagine you post that response if you did. Edited January 17, 20215 yr by RagahRagah
January 17, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, aeichhor said: If 8 mil really is the limit after what we've done so far, then management once again planned things poorly. The Lynn trade was effectively an absolute waste.
January 17, 20215 yr Author 11 minutes ago, RagahRagah said: If 8 mil really is the limit after what we've done so far, then management once again planned things poorly. The Lynn trade was effectively an absolute waste. How was it a waste? We needed a #2 and how else were we going to get one?
January 17, 20215 yr 11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: How was it a waste? We needed a #2 and how else were we going to get one? By trading for someone with more than 1 year of control who was younger than 34 with a higher profile? The Lynn trade was conducive with an all-in strategy and that's it. If they aren't following through on that strategy and simply waiting then why not see if Dunning continued to develop? He was coming along nicely. I don't see how this is hard to understand.
January 17, 20215 yr 11 minutes ago, RagahRagah said: By trading for someone with more than 1 year of control who was younger than 34 with a higher profile? The Lynn trade was conducive with an all-in strategy and that's it. If they aren't following through on that strategy and simply waiting then why not see if Dunning continued to develop? He was coming along nicely. I don't see how this is hard to understand. I doubt anyone knows what JR would approve other than RH & KW. When you are as far along as we are...a few more million isn't going to stop the FO if it seems like the right move. People go to the Casino all the time with the intention to not lose more than $100 only to chase it with another $25 or more.?
January 17, 20215 yr 3 minutes ago, poppysox said: I doubt anyone knows what JR would approve other than RH & KW. When you are as far along as we are...a few more million isn't going to stop the FO if it seems like the right move. People go to the Casino all the time with the intention to not lose more than $100 only to chase it with another $25 or more.? All we can do is hope. But that has done us little good with this FO in the past. "Hope" of extending Lynn is sure as hell not worth losing Dunning if they really aren't going to bolster this team for an all-in strategy (and I hate that strategy to begin with, anyway).
January 17, 20215 yr Author 24 minutes ago, RagahRagah said: By trading for someone with more than 1 year of control who was younger than 34 with a higher profile? The Lynn trade was conducive with an all-in strategy and that's it. If they aren't following through on that strategy and simply waiting then why not see if Dunning continued to develop? He was coming along nicely. I don't see how this is hard to understand. Because we weren’t serious contenders without a legit #2 starter and having Dane Dunning for the next six years wouldn’t change that. There’s a difference between recklessly going “all-in” and not wasting a season of a young, promising core by refusing to trade a guy like Dane Dunning. And I say that as a huge Dunning fan.
January 17, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, RagahRagah said: All we can do is hope. But that has done us little good with this FO in the past. "Hope" of extending Lynn is sure as hell not worth losing Dunning if they really aren't going to bolster this team for an all-in strategy (and I hate that strategy to begin with, anyway). "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change the courage to change the things I can change and the wisdom to know the difference." Serenity Prayer, Reinhold Niebuhr
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.