April 2, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, Milkman delivers said: Being as upfront as possible about this, why should the Sox care why no one else would take him? He seemingly wasn’t a clubhouse issue last year, and he pitched pretty decently. That’s all the matters for the Sox in this decision. He was on the team last season, so the PR hardly makes a difference to the franchise. Anyone who left because of him is probably already gone. And they’re not gonna be drawing much of a crowd no matter what they do this season. It seems like an obvious signing on the part of the front office to me. This team is awful. There is no need for this unless you can eventually flip him. With all of the trash players who have no problem getting jobs, there is pretty clearly as reason he is still toxic. A better question is what you get from him on a team with no hope anyway. I mean this is a team that gave $15 million to a guy pitching in Korea sooner than offer decent money to this guy. If the Sox were happy they would have given him a decent offer, yet even seeing him every day for a year they were willing to pay Martin Maldanado, John Brebbia, and Erik Fedde more than Clevinger.
April 2, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: I guarantee if he's made 20 starts, has a 3.5 ERA and a 2.5K/BB ratio come late July, no clubhouse is going to be "nah, don't bring this guy in". He's going to have value if he plays well. If he doesn't who cares imo. At least they spent 3 million on the possibility. This helps protect the other guys in the rotation that might have a future here as well. Let's everybody slot back one and covers a lot of innings. 2023 already happened.
April 2, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, Snopek said: I think it’s more that no one else would take him vs why no one else would take him. Meaning you’re probably not gonna be able to flip him in July, which is one of the only important things about this season. Yes and no. Although the difference between 40 something losses and 50/60 something losses doesn’t really matter to most fans, the FO definitely doesn’t want to have one of the worst records in recent history. I imagine they saw how badly these first four games went and the overall malaise regarding the team, and they are maybe panicking a little. Edited April 2, 20241 yr by Milkman delivers
April 2, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said: I’ll ask again…does this bump Nastrini from the rotation? Until someone gets hurt or Crochet reaches a wall or someone sucks balls.
April 2, 20241 yr Might as well keep the train wreck rolling and bring in that cancer to this dumpster fire.
April 2, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: This team is awful. There is no need for this unless you can eventually flip him. With all of the trash players who have no problem getting jobs, there is pretty clearly as reason he is still toxic. A better question is what you get from him on a team with no hope anyway. I mean this is a team that gave $15 million to a guy pitching in Korea sooner than offer decent money to this guy. If the Sox were happy they would have given him a decent offer, yet even seeing him every day for a year they were willing to pay Martin Maldanado, John Brebbia, and Erik Fedde more than Clevinger. Seems like you’re looking at it as a no-win situation. I feel like the Sox see it as a no-lose situation. If the rumored dollar amount is accurate, the Sox are getting him for almost nothing. They know what to expect out of him on the field and in the clubhouse. If he performs similarly to last season, that’s a nice return on investment even without trading him for minor leaguers.
April 2, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: I’ll ask again…does this bump Nastrini from the rotation? No reason it shouldn't. Ofc, we don't know how close to game action that Clevinger actually is...it's not like it is going to mean anything in the overall scheme of things.
April 2, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Milkman delivers said: Seems like you’re looking at it as a no-win situation. I feel like the Sox see it as a no-lose situation. If the rumored dollar amount is accurate, the Sox are getting him for almost nothing. They know what to expect out of him on the field and in the clubhouse. If he performs similarly to last season, that’s a nice return on investment even without trading him for minor leaguers. Return on investment? So they can win 61 games instead of 57? It's a trash move by a third rate franchise who keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Again if they really thought he was worth a "Return on investment", they would have looked to bring him back months ago for more than barely over minimum. He obviously wasn't someone they placed a real premium on after seeing him for an entire year.
April 2, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, SoxAce said: Might as well keep the train wreck rolling and bring in that cancer to this dumpster fire. Like I said, burn this b**** to the ground.
April 2, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, Milkman delivers said: Seems like you’re looking at it as a no-win situation. I feel like the Sox see it as a no-lose situation. If the rumored dollar amount is accurate, the Sox are getting him for almost nothing. They know what to expect out of him on the field and in the clubhouse. If he performs similarly to last season, that’s a nice return on investment even without trading him for minor leaguers. Seeing how they spent the last $27.5 million in free agency, another $3 million to protect their minor leaguers isn't the worst thing in the world. But the optics around this guy just aren't great. Especially if you are making the claim that "winning clubhouse chemistry" and getting rid of all the bad apples was one of the main off season priorities. I mean, the've turned over, what, 70-75% of the roster now? When do they start pointing the finger at themselves for being in this pitiful situation? Conveniently, blame will go to Hahn and KW, but that excuse won't last forever when teams like the Royals and Tigers are making legitimate efforts to compete in a division where Minnesota is already wounded. Edited April 2, 20241 yr by caulfield12
April 2, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: I’ll ask again…does this bump Nastrini from the rotation? I was thinking the same. Maybe not right away but maybe eventually. Probably get the extra year back, though it shouldn’t last long I guess. Until someone gets DFA’d or traded. Edited April 2, 20241 yr by Bob Sacamano
April 2, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Return on investment? So they can win 61 games instead of 57? It's a trash move by a third rate franchise who keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Again if they really thought he was worth a "Return on investment", they would have looked to bring him back months ago for more than barely over minimum. He obviously wasn't someone they placed a real premium on after seeing him for an entire year. What about maybe they did right by him, whatever that deal was, to let him ride out the offseason and see if he could secure a long term deal. He didn’t get what he wanted so he came back? there could be more nuance to this than you are suggesting
April 2, 20241 yr Good move presuming he was signed at less than his option. He was one of the only guys who showed up to compete last year for the Sox. Obviously a better option than what people were floating on this board to eat innings recently
April 2, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, Jerksticks said: What about maybe they did right by him, whatever that deal was, to let him ride out the offseason and see if he could secure a long term deal. He didn’t get what he wanted so he came back? there could be more nuance to this than you are suggesting Like they did right to Pillar?
April 2, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: The Sox are trying to win? Eventually.....I'm sure they'll win a game sooner or later, Ray.
April 2, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Like they did right to Pillar? In all fairness, there have also been a number of teams who cut players who won arbitration hearings against them as well. Isn't that even more unseemly? But there's never any surprises with the Sox, after they fought with Giolito over $25,000 and poisoned that relationship.
April 2, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Return on investment? So they can win 61 games instead of 57? It's a trash move by a third rate franchise who keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Again if they really thought he was worth a "Return on investment", they would have looked to bring him back months ago for more than barely over minimum. He obviously wasn't someone they placed a real premium on after seeing him for an entire year. Yes, that small of an improvement is going to mean a lot to a first-year GM, especially at that low price. It will likely mean a lot to an owner who has to be noticing that nobody is buying tickets. Throw in this terrible start to the season, and they’re both probably getting a little worried. I’m not defending the move. I really don’t care what they do. I’m just explaining the logic of it from their standpoint.
April 2, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Milkman delivers said: Yes, that small of an improvement is going to mean a lot to a first-year GM, especially at that low price. It will likely mean a lot to an owner who has to be noticing that nobody is buying tickets. Throw in this terrible start to the season, and they’re both probably getting a little worried. I’m not defending the move. I really don’t care what they do. I’m just explaining the logic of it from their standpoint. Nobody is buying tickets because of this.
April 2, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Nobody is buying tickets because of this. OK, but you don’t think the FO wants to stay out of “historically bad” territory? This signing could in fact help in that regard. I’m betting these early results had the FO a little nervous.
April 2, 20241 yr 56 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: 2023 already happened. ZIPS has him at like 1 WAR if he gets 100 innings. That's a decent median case and this signing has more upside than downside given it only cost money. For once, we dove in the correct dumpster.
April 2, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, Milkman delivers said: OK, but you don’t think the FO wants to stay out of “historically bad” territory? This signing could in fact help in that regard. I’m betting these early results had the FO a little nervous. They should have thought about that when the market was better than toxic and uncoachable players, you know, like all winter long. Clevinger also does nothing to change the biggest problem on this team
April 2, 20241 yr 37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: They should have thought about that when the market was better than toxic and uncoachable players, you know, like all winter long. Clevinger also does nothing to change the biggest problem on this team It makes the team better on paper. That’s the main thing.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.