And that a Tyler Flowers walkoff White Sox Winner!!!

[Andy the Clown]

A couple thoughts on the Danks stuff...

 

1) It makes no sense to "replace" Danks with someone earning salary, it makes sense to replace Danks with Rodon who is earning the minimum. It also makes sense to replace Carroll with Noesi. The $$$ spent would need to go to a rotation upgrade at the #2 slot otherwise there's really no reason to spend it (might as well trade for a prospect/project with ability & throw him out there). Our future rotation should be: Sale-RHP-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon, and Noesi can't be that 2. We're not going to run out a 4 or especially 5 lefty rotation, s***, remember the uproar over Axelrod takign the 5th spot from Santiago? We're not doing 4 lefties, we are having 3.

 

2) A lot of what has been suggested here about another righty is crap, i.e. throwing money at Brandon McCarthy and the handful of innings he may pitch. I'm not sure why so many people like that idea anyway. But if you add a Shields or something along those lines, an actual #2/#3 quality starter, you are upgrading the rotation as a whole, not just replacing Danks. You would be upgrading every spot 3-5, making Q a 3 and Noesi a 4 and Rodon a 5, while getting your L-R balance. The other ideas like trading for Homer Bailey if possible, signing Latos, etc. these are a lot better than McCarthy. We need a #2 not a #4/#5 if we want to try to win anything.

 

3) Danks (and here we go back to the same thing I tried to get people to understand with Dunn) is guaranteed IIRC $28.5M combined over the next 2 seasons. The Sox are *obligated* to pay him, but they are not *obligated* to pitch him 150+IP during those 2 seasons. They can really do anything they want with him as long as he gets paid. So, if you can move him to another team and get that club to take on maybe $12-16M of that obligation ($6M-$8M per over 2 seasons) then you are just clearing money out, which would be wise for us. I really hope we don't go through the Dunn s*** again with Danks, but if there is even a *hint* around ST of a better pitcher/pitching prospect having to start in Charlotte or the bullpen to "work on something" so we can run Danks out there, it'll be pretty obvious what is going on. And at that point, in a sane world, if the Sox can't find any salary relief then he just goes to the pen like IIRC both Odalis & Oliver Perez had to do in recent years as lefties signed to big deals. My guess: the Sox will be whiners abotu Danks, not move him over the offseason, and Rodon will start in the pen for "innings concerns" as a means of trying to build Danks trade value for July. Which is bulls***, but I'd put good odds on that.

 

4) Danks reportedly received interest from the Yanks and Marlins so maybe they would hvae some level of interest. In a more radical idea, I think the perfect fit might be the Houston Astros. Not only is Danks a Texas native who came up through the Rangers system, he's also a perfect candidate for their "piggy back" system they seem to be trying to bring up to the Majors. Danks isn't much of a "durability" starter anymore, but he can definitely give you 5 innings. Also the Astros are stupid. So would they take on Danks at $6M per or so? If they would then we'd have more cash available, and even if we had to go back to the same 5th starter clusterf*** we had this year, at least there is a chance we'd pick up another project like Noesi was and have some shot at greater future value than what Danks provides.

 

5) Lastly the money again - we really need to stop acting like babies about this stuff. All the Sox want to do is act like babies about playing s***ty players on s***ty deals instead of paying them to go elsewhere.... well look around the league, just about every team with anything resembling a competitive payroll has to deal with this stuff at least once every few years. Bad contracts are an inescapable economic reality of the game of baseball, might as well get used to it and make performance-based decisions instead of "woe is me" emotionally charged baby whiner decisions. Even if some team offers to take Danks at $5M per for 2015-16 then you save $10M and open up a rotation slot for someone with a shot to be better. Paying Danks just to be bad accomplishes nothing, and no matter whether Danks is our #5 or Scott Carroll/heap of garbage is our #5 we're not going to be winning anything anyway.

 

Very nice post.

[Eminor3rd]

A couple thoughts on the Danks stuff...

 

1) It makes no sense to "replace" Danks with someone earning salary, it makes sense to replace Danks with Rodon who is earning the minimum. It also makes sense to replace Carroll with Noesi. The $$$ spent would need to go to a rotation upgrade at the #2 slot otherwise there's really no reason to spend it (might as well trade for a prospect/project with ability & throw him out there). Our future rotation should be: Sale-RHP-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon, and Noesi can't be that 2. We're not going to run out a 4 or especially 5 lefty rotation, s***, remember the uproar over Axelrod takign the 5th spot from Santiago? We're not doing 4 lefties, we are having 3.

 

2) A lot of what has been suggested here about another righty is crap, i.e. throwing money at Brandon McCarthy and the handful of innings he may pitch. I'm not sure why so many people like that idea anyway. But if you add a Shields or something along those lines, an actual #2/#3 quality starter, you are upgrading the rotation as a whole, not just replacing Danks. You would be upgrading every spot 3-5, making Q a 3 and Noesi a 4 and Rodon a 5, while getting your L-R balance. The other ideas like trading for Homer Bailey if possible, signing Latos, etc. these are a lot better than McCarthy. We need a #2 not a #4/#5 if we want to try to win anything.

 

3) Danks (and here we go back to the same thing I tried to get people to understand with Dunn) is guaranteed IIRC $28.5M combined over the next 2 seasons. The Sox are *obligated* to pay him, but they are not *obligated* to pitch him 150+IP during those 2 seasons. They can really do anything they want with him as long as he gets paid. So, if you can move him to another team and get that club to take on maybe $12-16M of that obligation ($6M-$8M per over 2 seasons) then you are just clearing money out, which would be wise for us. I really hope we don't go through the Dunn s*** again with Danks, but if there is even a *hint* around ST of a better pitcher/pitching prospect having to start in Charlotte or the bullpen to "work on something" so we can run Danks out there, it'll be pretty obvious what is going on. And at that point, in a sane world, if the Sox can't find any salary relief then he just goes to the pen like IIRC both Odalis & Oliver Perez had to do in recent years as lefties signed to big deals. My guess: the Sox will be whiners abotu Danks, not move him over the offseason, and Rodon will start in the pen for "innings concerns" as a means of trying to build Danks trade value for July. Which is bulls***, but I'd put good odds on that.

 

4) Danks reportedly received interest from the Yanks and Marlins so maybe they would hvae some level of interest. In a more radical idea, I think the perfect fit might be the Houston Astros. Not only is Danks a Texas native who came up through the Rangers system, he's also a perfect candidate for their "piggy back" system they seem to be trying to bring up to the Majors. Danks isn't much of a "durability" starter anymore, but he can definitely give you 5 innings. Also the Astros are stupid. So would they take on Danks at $6M per or so? If they would then we'd have more cash available, and even if we had to go back to the same 5th starter clusterf*** we had this year, at least there is a chance we'd pick up another project like Noesi was and have some shot at greater future value than what Danks provides.

 

5) Lastly the money again - we really need to stop acting like babies about this stuff. All the Sox want to do is act like babies about playing s***ty players on s***ty deals instead of paying them to go elsewhere.... well look around the league, just about every team with anything resembling a competitive payroll has to deal with this stuff at least once every few years. Bad contracts are an inescapable economic reality of the game of baseball, might as well get used to it and make performance-based decisions instead of "woe is me" emotionally charged baby whiner decisions. Even if some team offers to take Danks at $5M per for 2015-16 then you save $10M and open up a rotation slot for someone with a shot to be better. Paying Danks just to be bad accomplishes nothing, and no matter whether Danks is our #5 or Scott Carroll/heap of garbage is our #5 we're not going to be winning anything anyway.

 

A lot of this makes a ton of sense and a lot of this is completely bonkers and makes me shake my head ("smh"). You are my favorite caricature on this board, TUC.

 

My favorite part:

 

"In a more radical idea, I think the perfect fit might be the Houston Astros. Not only is Danks a Texas native who came up through the Rangers system, he's also a perfect candidate for their "piggy back" system they seem to be trying to bring up to the Majors. Danks isn't much of a "durability" starter anymore, but he can definitely give you 5 innings. Also the Astros are stupid."

[BlackSox13]

If the Sox (1) can't trade Danks without eating more than 2/3 of his salary and (2) he is not one of the five best starters at the end of ST, then I am 100% behind sticking him in the bullpen. I know other teams have done it, but that may be too "outside the box" for Robin.

I think Danks to the pen is a last ditch effort kind of move that kills any possible tradability he might have left. No team is crazy enough to trade for a 14M reliever so a move to the pen would mean the Sox are keeping Danks for the rest of his contract.

 

I think one idea to consider would be to have Danks start the 2015 season as a starter with Rodon starting the season at Charlotte. Hopefully Danks pitches well during April, May and into June. By then injuries have already begun happening around the league and teams begin to scramble in search for replacement's. IF Danks is pitching well, that could be the best opportunity to trade him. It doesn't matter if the Sox are contenders or not and it doesn't matter what the return would or might be because the Sox have Rodon waiting for a spot to open up while he worked on his control at Charlotte. The Sox move Rodon into Danks spot and that SHOULD be an upgrade right there. Now the Sox have opened up payroll flexibility during the season which could help at the trade dead line should the Sox be in contention.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Sox talk but in that scenerio, I think it pushes an extra year of control over Rodon does it not? Don't get me wrong, the object here is trading Danks at just the right time. I know the whole scenerio is a gamble but so was Danks contract in the first place.

 

[cabiness42]

I think Danks to the pen is a last ditch effort kind of move that kills any possible tradability he might have left. No team is crazy enough to trade for a 14M reliever so a move to the pen would mean the Sox are keeping Danks for the rest of his contract.

 

I think one idea to consider would be to have Danks start the 2015 season as a starter with Rodon starting the season at Charlotte. Hopefully Danks pitches well during April, May and into June. By then injuries have already begun happening around the league and teams begin to scramble in search for replacement's. IF Danks is pitching well, that could be the best opportunity to trade him. It doesn't matter if the Sox are contenders or not and it doesn't matter what the return would or might be because the Sox have Rodon waiting for a spot to open up while he worked on his control at Charlotte. The Sox move Rodon into Danks spot and that SHOULD be an upgrade right there. Now the Sox have opened up payroll flexibility during the season which could help at the trade dead line should the Sox be in contention.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Sox talk but in that scenerio, I think it pushes an extra year of control over Rodon does it not? Don't get me wrong, the object here is trading Danks at just the right time. I know the whole scenerio is a gamble but so was Danks contract in the first place.

 

I think a lot of that scenario really depends on what other moves are made in the offseason and what the Sox realistically think their chances are of making the playoffs in 2015.

 

If you think you have a playoff team, you can't afford to let Danks start several games if he isn't one of the five best starting options available. The Sox have until April 4 to find a taker for him. If they can't unload him by then, I don't see what letting him start some games in April-May is going to change. Also, if the Sox really think they have a playoff team in 2015, then Rodon needs to be starting for the Sox as soon as they believe he is one of the five best starters and not worry about future salary implications.

[BlackSox13]

I think a lot of that scenario really depends on what other moves are made in the offseason and what the Sox realistically think their chances are of making the playoffs in 2015.

 

If you think you have a playoff team, you can't afford to let Danks start several games if he isn't one of the five best starting options available. The Sox have until April 4 to find a taker for him. If they can't unload him by then, I don't see what letting him start some games in April-May is going to change. Also, if the Sox really think they have a playoff team in 2015, then Rodon needs to be starting for the Sox as soon as they believe he is one of the five best starters and not worry about future salary implications.

Oh absolutely. With as many holes as they have I really don't see them as contenders in 2015. Its not that I don't have faith in Hahn but theres just a whole lot of work to be done.

 

Let's not forget that Danks got off to a pretty decent start this season so allowing him to start next season buys the Sox an opportunity at trading him IF he pitches well. If the Sox are ever going to have a chance of trading Danks, he must start. Working out of the pen will kill any chance of trading him due to his salary.

 

I guess it comes down to three ways this could play out.

 

1- start him and hope to build some kind of value so he can be traded. ( admittedly wishful thinking)

 

2- stick him in the pen and hope he can turn into a quality long reliever.( an awfully expensive one at that)

 

3- start him in hope he regains his old form for a contending Sox team. ( not very likely, IMO)

[The Ultimate Champion]

I think in a vacuum the absolute best move we could make would be to sign (or trade for) a #2 RHSP and set Rodon up at the #5.

 

If we have to put Danks in the pen, well, at least we have a long man & a lefty specialist who can throw a strike.

 

If we can move Danks & get out of some of his salary then that is ideal, but then we'd need 2 lefties in our pen instead of just one.

 

But just thinking for a second, even if we had to overpay (annual salary) for someone like Shields to get a 3 or max 4 year deal (it's always the years that are the problem, not as much an annual salary thing) then think about what this rotation would do for us:

 

Sale-Shields-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon

 

You are going to need a quality long man there. Scott Carroll isn't a starter, but could he do a job similar to what DJ Carrasco did for us for a couple years and Luis Vizcaino did for us in '05, i.e. work 70IP or so without s***ting the bed? I think he could, conceivably, because he has shown as much this season. If not, maybe an improved Rienzo, who does have mcuh better stuff as well as some experience now, could handle that role.

 

Thinking of the above rotation along with a quality long man backing it up (Rodon's innings limits & Noesi developing are the main issues), you should generally have 6.1 - 7IP covered. And holy s*** at that. If we can more or less do that then Guerra can be a 6th inning guy, Putnam and Petricka are the primary 7th & 8th inning guys, and so you add an arm like Lindstrom returning or another vet as insurance and he's a 6th to 8th swingman/righty specialist. Now you've got most of a bullpen, you just need a closer and a couple lefties, which is doable over an offseason. I wouldn't look to spend a lot of cash on a closer, but there are always reclamation/low value veteran types out there that would be interested in the chance to compete for a closer gig in ST assuming it is a short-term deal. We'd be in a good spot.

 

I think if you add an arm like Shields or Latos, Bailey, etc. then:

1) The rotation is better 3-5

2) Your bullpen is a s***load better because now you are limiting the innings going to s***ty players & your better arms are typically operating in set roles

3) Your offense becomes less of an concern, and now you can think more about prioritizing defense to build around your pitching staff. Nothing is ever certain, but it's a lot easier to project quality out of 5 guys in a rotation, 3 of which are proven, than it is to project 9 guys in the offense staying healthy and performing well enough (even IF Abreu counts for like 3 of them on his own).

4) You do all of this in one move. And if it comes via a signing, you just forfeit a 2nd round pick and money, which is a lot less than the Anderson + Montas + Danish + Hawkins type of package other teams are going to ask for in return for a very good SP.

5) If it is a signing then it means we still have MIF depth to trade & we can maybe keep Alexei for 2015 **IF*** we think we're good enough and/or the type of quality return isn't out there.

 

[caulfield12]

I think in a vacuum the absolute best move we could make would be to sign (or trade for) a #2 RHSP and set Rodon up at the #5.

 

If we have to put Danks in the pen, well, at least we have a long man & a lefty specialist who can throw a strike.

 

If we can move Danks & get out of some of his salary then that is ideal, but then we'd need 2 lefties in our pen instead of just one.

 

But just thinking for a second, even if we had to overpay (annual salary) for someone like Shields to get a 3 or max 4 year deal (it's always the years that are the problem, not as much an annual salary thing) then think about what this rotation would do for us:

 

Sale-Shields-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon

 

You are going to need a quality long man there. Scott Carroll isn't a starter, but could he do a job similar to what DJ Carrasco did for us for a couple years and Luis Vizcaino did for us in '05, i.e. work 70IP or so without s***ting the bed? I think he could, conceivably, because he has shown as much this season. If not, maybe an improved Rienzo, who does have mcuh better stuff as well as some experience now, could handle that role.

 

Thinking of the above rotation along with a quality long man backing it up (Rodon's innings limits & Noesi developing are the main issues), you should generally have 6.1 - 7IP covered. And holy s*** at that. If we can more or less do that then Guerra can be a 6th inning guy, Putnam and Petricka are the primary 7th & 8th inning guys, and so you add an arm like Lindstrom returning or another vet as insurance and he's a 6th to 8th swingman/righty specialist. Now you've got most of a bullpen, you just need a closer and a couple lefties, which is doable over an offseason. I wouldn't look to spend a lot of cash on a closer, but there are always reclamation/low value veteran types out there that would be interested in the chance to compete for a closer gig in ST assuming it is a short-term deal. We'd be in a good spot.

 

I think if you add an arm like Shields or Latos, Bailey, etc. then:

1) The rotation is better 3-5

2) Your bullpen is a s***load better because now you are limiting the innings going to s***ty players & your better arms are typically operating in set roles

3) Your offense becomes less of an concern, and now you can think more about prioritizing defense to build around your pitching staff. Nothing is ever certain, but it's a lot easier to project quality out of 5 guys in a rotation, 3 of which are proven, than it is to project 9 guys in the offense staying healthy and performing well enough (even IF Abreu counts for like 3 of them on his own).

4) You do all of this in one move. And if it comes via a signing, you just forfeit a 2nd round pick and money, which is a lot less than the Anderson + Montas + Danish + Hawkins type of package other teams are going to ask for in return for a very good SP.

5) If it is a signing then it means we still have MIF depth to trade & we can maybe keep Alexei for 2015 **IF*** we think we're good enough and/or the type of quality return isn't out there.

 

 

Where would you plan on getting defensive improvement next year?

 

Avisail Garcia? Gillaspie? Marginal from Abreu? Sanchez at best will be equal to Beckham, Micah a downgrade. Doing much better than Flowers/Nieto won't be easy, either.

 

Finally, an Alexei Ramirez trade downgrades that position as well.

 

If nothing else is clear, it's improving that DeAza/Viciedo spot offensively and defensively that was a black hole for most of 2014. Perhaps Semien playing more games at 3B/LF can help, but it's not going to be a Top 10-15 defense in MLB, that's pretty clear...not unless you DH Avisail (won't happen) and completely give up on Viciedo (likely not to happen YET, either).

 

 

Bringing back Lindstrom? YUCK TUC. I'd rather have Cleto's potential than whatever Lindstrom is likely to produce at this stage in his career...but I don't think we'll see either one of those guys if everything goes according to plan in the offseason.

Edited September 9, 2014 by caulfield12

[The Ultimate Champion]

Oh absolutely. With as many holes as they have I really don't see them as contenders in 2015. Its not that I don't have faith in Hahn but theres just a whole lot of work to be done.

 

Let's not forget that Danks got off to a pretty decent start this season so allowing him to start next season buys the Sox an opportunity at trading him IF he pitches well. If the Sox are ever going to have a chance of trading Danks, he must start. Working out of the pen will kill any chance of trading him due to his salary.

 

I guess it comes down to three ways this could play out.

 

1- start him and hope to build some kind of value so he can be traded. ( admittedly wishful thinking)

 

2- stick him in the pen and hope he can turn into a quality long reliever.( an awfully expensive one at that)

 

3- start him in hope he regains his old form for a contending Sox team. ( not very likely, IMO)

What is the value of a contending team?

 

In terms of attendance?

 

In terms of concessions?

 

In terms of advertising dollars?

 

In terms of market share, especially as the Cubs are starting to get more attention now that their exciting young players are coming up?

 

In terms of late season interest piqued by a potential playoff run?

 

Etc.

 

Etc.

 

Etc.

 

OTOH, what is the cost of John Danks contract?

 

$28.5M or so combined over 2 years.

 

A quality 5th starter is probably a $5-9M/year pitcher on the market depending on the offseason. Very s***ty SP have gotten good amounts of money.

 

What is a quality LH reliver worth on the open market? We paid Scott Downs $4M this year I think, something like that.

 

If Danks can *at least* be a quality reliever, what are we really eating in terms of performance? Maybe $20M, maybe $22M if he's barely conscious when he takes the mound?

 

And is that amount worth taking a big dump all over the 2015 season *if* after the offseason we think we really do have a shot at a WC or better?

 

Jerry Reinspickle would probably say so. Lower the ass, drop the turd, why pay someone to play elsewhere? Well, I would disagree. In keeping Danks to our own detriment all we'd be doing is quantifying "stubbornness" as some monetary value which is basically the money owed to John Danks minus the worth of his performance on the open market. But really whatever that value is we'd have to compare that figure to the approximate value of all the opportunities missed because of it. And it would probably be the case that stubbornness for the sake of it looked foolish in the end.

 

With Dunn we missed the forest for the trees, hopefully we don't do the same with Danks. At least with Dunn, Avi got hurt and made him look less of an anchor, but with Danks you have Rodon behind him and that obviously changes things.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Where would you plan on getting defensive improvement next year?

 

Avisail Garcia? Gillaspie? Marginal from Abreu? Sanchez at best will be equal to Beckham, Micah a downgrade. Doing much better than Flowers/Nieto won't be easy, either.

 

Finally, an Alexei Ramirez trade downgrades that position as well.

 

If nothing else is clear, it's improving that DeAza/Viciedo spot offensively and defensively that was a black hole for most of 2014. Perhaps Semien playing more games at 3B/LF can help, but it's not going to be a Top 10-15 defense in MLB, that's pretty clear...not unless you DH Avisail (won't happen) and completely give up on Viciedo (likely not to happen YET, either).

 

 

Bringing back Lindstrom? YUCK TUC. I'd rather have Cleto's potential than whatever Lindstrom is likely to produce at this stage in his career...but I don't think we'll see either one of those guys if everything goes according to plan in the offseason.

REALLY?

 

Think about that for a second here.

 

I'll let you do that.

 

"Baseball go in hand, baseball thrown where? Where go baseball?"

"Hmmm"

"I like food."

-Recent thoughts of Maikel Cleto

 

OTOH

 

Matt Lindstrom has put together something called a career.

 

Which is likelier to occur in your opinion, a good player with a track record turning in a good season or a s***ty player who people have been dreaming on for years magically finding it?

 

Cleto is another one who is immediately on the chopping block. If we don't need the roster spot then he'll compete for a role in Spring. Otherwise.... definitely a waiver/outright candidate as soon better players start hitting the waiver wire.

[Eminor3rd]

If you want to sign a bad deal like Shields, you have to have a better plan offensively than "Avisail Garcia might realize his potential."

 

Abreu isn't enough on his own, and all of our other best hitters fall into the category of "ehhh he might not be horrible given his position."

[caulfield12]

What is the value of a contending team?

 

In terms of attendance?

 

In terms of concessions?

 

In terms of advertising dollars?

 

In terms of market share, especially as the Cubs are starting to get more attention now that their exciting young players are coming up?

 

In terms of late season interest piqued by a potential playoff run?

 

Etc.

 

Etc.

 

Etc.

 

OTOH, what is the cost of John Danks contract?

 

$28.5M or so combined over 2 years.

 

A quality 5th starter is probably a $5-9M/year pitcher on the market depending on the offseason. Very s***ty SP have gotten good amounts of money.

 

What is a quality LH reliver worth on the open market? We paid Scott Downs $4M this year I think, something like that.

 

If Danks can *at least* be a quality reliever, what are we really eating in terms of performance? Maybe $20M, maybe $22M if he's barely conscious when he takes the mound?

 

And is that amount worth taking a big dump all over the 2015 season *if* after the offseason we think we really do have a shot at a WC or better?

 

Jerry Reinspickle would probably say so. Lower the ass, drop the turd, why pay someone to play elsewhere? Well, I would disagree. In keeping Danks to our own detriment all we'd be doing is quantifying "stubbornness" as some monetary value which is basically the money owed to John Danks minus the worth of his performance on the open market. But really whatever that value is we'd have to compare that figure to the approximate value of all the opportunities missed because of it. And it would probably be the case that stubbornness for the sake of it looked foolish in the end.

 

With Dunn we missed the forest for the trees, hopefully we don't do the same with Danks. At least with Dunn, Avi got hurt and made him look less of an anchor, but with Danks you have Rodon behind him and that obviously changes things.

 

 

Following this logic, we would also have just eaten the whole Dunn deal before 2012.

 

That would have precluded any hopes of contending in that season. The bigger issue is the fact that we're not blocking a young Brandon McCarthy by acquiring Javy like we did in 2006.

 

As things stand now, we don't have ANYONE you could trot out there in his spot, other than guys like Bassit, Carroll, Rienzo, Beck...Rodon's not being blocked by Danks, but simply by avoiding his Super 2 issues.

 

If contending "now" mattered more than player control, then the Cubs would have brought up Bryant in August/September to help sell season tickets for 2015. Clearly, the calculus of that equation leaned in the same direction which the White Sox are choosing with Rodon.

 

I'm not even sure how many more season ticket packages we could/would have sold had Rodon come up and performed sort of in line with what Kip Wells did as a rookie. 500? 750? 1000? At any rate, not enough to offset the value of keeping a potential ace from reaching Super 2.

 

Finally, we're not a team like the Giants who can afford to stow away guys like Lincecum or Zito in the pen...and probably never will be.

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

Between the two of you, we may set a Soxtalk record for "line breaks on a single page"

[The Ultimate Champion]

If you want to sign a bad deal like Shields, you have to have a better plan offensively than "Avisail Garcia might realize his potential."

 

Abreu isn't enough on his own, and all of our other best hitters fall into the category of "ehhh he might not be horrible given his position."

1) How do you KNOW Shields is a bad deal?

2) If you KNOW this, please let me know what crystal ball you are using and where I can find it.

3) Please then let me use that crystal ball, or at least use it for me and tell me who you KNOW is not going to be a bad deal?

 

None of us KNOW anything. We can only ASSUME. Shields is a good bet to be able to pitch well alter into his career.

 

Granted, I wouldn't be in a rush to throw 5 years at him at any amount, but the reality is this:

-If you want a good player you should be prepared to overpay

-in free agency you overpay via money and potentially a draft pick (2nd rounder in our case)

-through trade you overpay via minor league talent

 

I would much rather keep the talent, or do like what the Cubs said they would do re: additions, i.e. use one or the other, not both (why they didn't give up money AND talent for Hamels). Shields or someone else can come via payroll room, and so what if we overpay a few million? If it means the difference between exciting baseball and s***ty baseball, and it means the difference between keeping our minor leaguers or trading them, go for it.

 

One thing I loved about KW is that he wasn't afraid to make a bad deal. He made logical moves for the most part which is why most of them turned out well. He made some bad moves too, took on some bad deals & gave up Gio, but he wasn't afraid to f*** it up. If you're afraid to deal and only want the most ideal trades & best contracts possible then good luck ever getting better, because trying to do that without taking a risk is impossible.

[caulfield12]

REALLY?

 

Think about that for a second here.

 

I'll let you do that.

 

"Baseball go in hand, baseball thrown where? Where go baseball?"

"Hmmm"

"I like food."

-Recent thoughts of Maikel Cleto

 

OTOH

 

Matt Lindstrom has put together something called a career.

 

Which is likelier to occur in your opinion, a good player with a track record turning in a good season or a s***ty player who people have been dreaming on for years magically finding it?

 

Cleto is another one who is immediately on the chopping block. If we don't need the roster spot then he'll compete for a role in Spring. Otherwise.... definitely a waiver/outright candidate as soon better players start hitting the waiver wire.

 

My last sentence is key.

 

I'll stand by the point about persevering with Cleto rather than giving Lindstrom another shot.

 

The odds of it happening are about 5-10% at best (and it wouldn't be in a high leverage role like at times this year).

 

As for the "career" argument, that hasn't been used once to defend Adam Dunn staying around as opposed to someone like Andy Wilkins. In fact, John Danks has had a MUCH better career than anyone who's likely to replace him in the Sox rotation at the moment. Alexei Ramirez has had a much better career than Sanchez/Semien/Micah Johnson will ever have. You have to look at BOTH career performance, what have you done for me lately and then factor in the injury issue/s (for example, the same calculus of risk adding Justin Morneau as the full-time DH and giving up some talented minor leaguers in the process rather than just paying for one in free agency).

 

The Sox aren't stupid. If they believed all along that Wilkins had the potential to be a starter next season, Dunn would have been gone in June, July or early August.

 

 

[caulfield12]

1) How do you KNOW Shields is a bad deal?

2) If you KNOW this, please let me know what crystal ball you are using and where I can find it.

3) Please then let me use that crystal ball, or at least use it for me and tell me who you KNOW is not going to be a bad deal?

 

None of us KNOW anything. We can only ASSUME. Shields is a good bet to be able to pitch well alter into his career.

 

Granted, I wouldn't be in a rush to throw 5 years at him at any amount, but the reality is this:

-If you want a good player you should be prepared to overpay

-in free agency you overpay via money and potentially a draft pick (2nd rounder in our case)

-through trade you overpay via minor league talent

 

I would much rather keep the talent, or do like what the Cubs said they would do re: additions, i.e. use one or the other, not both (why they didn't give up money AND talent for Hamels). Shields or someone else can come via payroll room, and so what if we overpay a few million? If it means the difference between exciting baseball and s***ty baseball, and it means the difference between keeping our minor leaguers or trading them, go for it.

 

One thing I loved about KW is that he wasn't afraid to make a bad deal. He made logical moves for the most part which is why most of them turned out well. He made some bad moves too, took on some bad deals & gave up Gio, but he wasn't afraid to f*** it up. If you're afraid to deal and only want the most ideal trades & best contracts possible then good luck ever getting better, because trying to do that without taking a risk is impossible.

 

 

That river boat gambling style wasn't sustainable. It was a year to year fix, and the flawed philosophy of bankrupting the minor league system to keep the big league team competitive, combined with the Dominican fiasco, is something we're just starting to get out from under 3-4 years later down the line.

 

The Swisher move, Teahen extension, Edwin Jackson and Teahen to Toronto for crap...and Swisher dumping, Sergio Santos for crap...those were all TERRIBLE and set the franchise back. Extending Danks. Signing Dunn.

 

When everything went right (Quentin/Danks/Alexei/Floyd), it allowed us to be competitive or win the World Series in 2005, but only for a season or so at a time.

 

The Rios and first Peavy move didn't really work out very well in the end, either. I guess they were fun and exciting and made for a lot of ink/press compared to the style of Ventura/Hahn, but in the end the meter wasn't moved far enough to register as more than a blip.

Edited September 9, 2014 by caulfield12

[The Ultimate Champion]

Following this logic, we would also have just eaten the whole Dunn deal before 2012.

 

That would have precluded any hopes of contending in that season. The bigger issue is the fact that we're not blocking a young Brandon McCarthy by acquiring Javy like we did in 2006.

 

As things stand now, we don't have ANYONE you could trot out there in his spot, other than guys like Bassit, Carroll, Rienzo, Beck...Rodon's not being blocked by Danks, but simply by avoiding his Super 2 issues.

 

If contending "now" mattered more than player control, then the Cubs would have brought up Bryant in August/September to help sell season tickets for 2015. Clearly, the calculus of that equation leaned in the same direction which the White Sox are choosing with Rodon.

 

I'm not even sure how many more season ticket packages we could/would have sold had Rodon come up and performed sort of in line with what Kip Wells did as a rookie. 500? 750? 1000? At any rate, not enough to offset the value of keeping a potential ace from reaching Super 2.

 

Finally, we're not a team like the Giants who can afford to stow away guys like Lincecum or Zito in the pen...and probably never will be.

Knowing what we know now, lets say we ate enough of Dunn's deal at an earlier point to make him a $5M per player. I bet the return would have been better than the reliever we got for one. For two, how would we have been any *worse*? We'd have had payroll room and another roster spot. How could things have gotten anything but better?

 

With Dunn we made our mistake and learned our lesson, then chose to hang on to him forever at no benefit to the organization. This was intelligent in what way?

 

Next, the first question I posed was the value of a "contending" club, and how do you define that? What is that value? If the difference between Danks and Rodon is potentially several wins, how do you define the value of those wins?

 

The Giants didn't "afford" anything, Lincecum was already paid for. No matter what happened they had to pay him. So they decided to make a baseball move in an attempt to make the team better rather than worse, and they ignored the money owed because there was no nlogical reason to focu on it, because it didn't matter, because it was already obligated and nothing could have been done about it.

 

 

[hi8is]

Priceless.

[The Ultimate Champion]

That river boat gambling style wasn't sustainable. It was a year to year fix, and the flawed philosophy of bankrupting the minor league system to keep the big league team competitive, combined with the Dominican fiasco, is something we're just starting to get out from under 3-4 years later down the line.

 

The Swisher move, Teahen extension, Edwin Jackson and Teahen to Toronto for crap...and Swisher dumping, Sergio Santos for crap...those were all TERRIBLE and set the franchise back. Extending Danks. Signing Dunn.

 

When everything went right (Quentin/Danks/Alexei/Floyd), it allowed us to be competitive or win the World Series in 2005, but only for a season or so at a time.

 

The Rios and first Peavy move didn't really work out very well in the end, either. I guess they were fun and exciting and made for a lot of ink/press compared to the style of Ventura/Hahn, but in the end the meter wasn't moved far enough to register as more than a blip.

God we have to rehash this again.

 

There's nothing wrong with gambling. Gambling is done every day. You gamble that you won't get killed everytime you get in your automobile and drive around, but you wear a seatbelt and try to drive a safe car with an airbag as added protection to better your odds.

 

Trading prospects for proven players, as a rule, is gambling with the odds overwhelmingly in your favor. The fact that Kenny's good moves is a long list while his bad moves are a shorter list full of easily identifiable moves is an example of this.

 

You can't be a GM without taking risks, without gambling.

[Eminor3rd]

1) How do you KNOW Shields is a bad deal?

2) If you KNOW this, please let me know what crystal ball you are using and where I can find it.

3) Please then let me use that crystal ball, or at least use it for me and tell me who you KNOW is not going to be a bad deal?

 

None of us KNOW anything. We can only ASSUME. Shields is a good bet to be able to pitch well alter into his career.

 

Granted, I wouldn't be in a rush to throw 5 years at him at any amount, but the reality is this:

-If you want a good player you should be prepared to overpay

-in free agency you overpay via money and potentially a draft pick (2nd rounder in our case)

-through trade you overpay via minor league talent

 

I would much rather keep the talent, or do like what the Cubs said they would do re: additions, i.e. use one or the other, not both (why they didn't give up money AND talent for Hamels). Shields or someone else can come via payroll room, and so what if we overpay a few million? If it means the difference between exciting baseball and s***ty baseball, and it means the difference between keeping our minor leaguers or trading them, go for it.

 

One thing I loved about KW is that he wasn't afraid to make a bad deal. He made logical moves for the most part which is why most of them turned out well. He made some bad moves too, took on some bad deals & gave up Gio, but he wasn't afraid to f*** it up. If you're afraid to deal and only want the most ideal trades & best contracts possible then good luck ever getting better, because trying to do that without taking a risk is impossible.

 

Because he's 33, his velocity has been on the decline, his strikeouts have been on the decline, and his WHIP has been on the rise. He is a textbook bad contract. I'm not saying he won't be useful next year, but he will not be useful for much longer than that, and you're going to give up a draft pick. If you do that, you need to be sure that your window is now.

 

[Eminor3rd]

God we have to rehash this again.

 

There's nothing wrong with gambling. Gambling is done every day. You gamble that you won't get killed everytime you get in your automobile and drive around, but you wear a seatbelt and try to drive a safe car with an airbag as added protection to better your odds.

 

Trading prospects for proven players, as a rule, is gambling with the odds overwhelmingly in your favor. The fact that Kenny's good moves is a long list while his bad moves are a shorter list full of easily identifiable moves is an example of this.

 

You can't be a GM without taking risks, without gambling.

 

Of course you have to gamble. But you do NOT have to take a bad gamble, where the odds are currently against you and you have reason to believe those same odds will improve in the near future.

[The Ultimate Champion]

My last sentence is key.

 

I'll stand by the point about persevering with Cleto rather than giving Lindstrom another shot.

 

The odds of it happening are about 5-10% at best (and it wouldn't be in a high leverage role like at times this year).

 

As for the "career" argument, that hasn't been used once to defend Adam Dunn staying around as opposed to someone like Andy Wilkins. In fact, John Danks has had a MUCH better career than anyone who's likely to replace him in the Sox rotation at the moment. Alexei Ramirez has had a much better career than Sanchez/Semien/Micah Johnson will ever have. You have to look at BOTH career performance, what have you done for me lately and then factor in the injury issue/s (for example, the same calculus of risk adding Justin Morneau as the full-time DH and giving up some talented minor leaguers in the process rather than just paying for one in free agency).

 

The Sox aren't stupid. If they believed all along that Wilkins had the potential to be a starter next season, Dunn would have been gone in June, July or early August.

Look, my Lindstrom comment was under the assumption that we had a much better rotation. If the Sox go out and add a high quality SP to their rotation in the offseason then they'd better have a much better answer than "Maikel Cleto" in response to any question at all dealing with the pen.

 

You have to rely on vets. Lindstrom, were he on another team, would still be a target. He should be a cheap veteran with experience working late in the game. It's generally safer to target types like that in FA for bullpen help than it is to throw 3-4 year deals at relievers coming off excellent seasons. Speaking of KW (Linebrink) we already know this.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Because he's 33, his velocity has been on the decline, his strikeouts have been on the decline, and his WHIP has been on the rise. He is a textbook bad contract. I'm not saying he won't be useful next year, but he will not be useful for much longer than that, and you're going to give up a draft pick. If you do that, you need to be sure that your window is now.

I think he's a good bet as far as being a pitcher, a workhorse, mechanics, that sort of thing. He's called "Big Game James" for a reason. He is obviously not an ideal, perfect world target but that goes with what I was saying. The ideal situations do not exist. The really good pitchers (Scherzer) get WAAAAAAAY more than anything we are going to spend, and anyone younger would want more years. FA is like 5-8 year deals or something if you are really good. I want no part of that & there has been no indication that the Sox do either.

 

In terms of what is realistic for us ONLY and not what is ideal, what are our options for getting a very good SP:

-Try to develop from within

-Try to trade for/claim/cheaply acquire someone to develop

-Trade for someone really good now

-Sign someone in FA

 

The first two will take time and may not work at all. They sound great but our situation will look very different when Alexei is older/gone and Abreu is opting into arbitration and getting paid like the megastar he is. Doesn't seem to help us much until later, when the cost savings on SP may help offset the rising value of our best assets (including other players like Eaton and maybe Connor hitting arb, maybe Avisail, etc.)

 

The 3rd thing says we give up a lot of prospects. That would be tough to do right now.

 

The last option is overpay on the back end of the deal and maybe you get a bad 4th year where he's pitching at half the value of his contract.

 

And then you have the other things, like those other Abreu-related things....

 

IE is Abreu going to want to extend long term if we haven't won anything? If we sign someone like Shields, maybe we overpay by $3M in year 1, $5M in year 2, $7M in year 3, $10M in year 4 (just throwing out arbitrary and very negative values). So in total we overpay the guy by $25M over 4 years, and it amounts to like 25-30% or so of the value of his contract in total. BUT we also make the playoffs twice and are a contender all 4 seasons, and now when Abreu opts into arb we approach him with a deal that buys it out plus 2 years of FA. And because we're a winner he signs. What is the value of that?

 

You either get better or you get worse. You either try to win or you try to lose. If the Sox think they are close enough, then go for it. Don't be afraid to make a bad deal because the bad deals are going to happen anyway (not trading Floyd, Keppinger, the Reed deal, etc. Hahn has already experienced this).

[Balta1701]

IE is Abreu going to want to extend long term if we haven't won anything?

This. Does. Not. Matter.

 

We have control of Jose Abreu for the next 5 years. Assuming he repeats this year, he's going to go to arbitration in the last 3 years because he'll opt out of his current contract and wind up with like $100 million over this 6 year period.

 

We signed him when he was what, 26? That means we control his age 26-32 seasons. Frankly, at this point, I don't care whether we have control over him when he's 33-35. Tell me what the rest of the team around him looks like at the time and tell me how his performance is aging when he gets through his peak years and I'll tell you whether I think an extension is a good thing at that point.

 

Jose Abreu could hit Free Agency at a comparable time in his career to when Pujols hit it. With some inflation, would you think it would be a good idea to sign a 31 year old Jose Abreu to something like a 10/$250 contract?

 

Talk to me in 2018 and we can figure those things out. Otherwise, I don't care at all.

[The Ultimate Champion]

This. Does. Not. Matter.

 

We have control of Jose Abreu for the next 5 years. Assuming he repeats this year, he's going to go to arbitration in the last 3 years because he'll opt out of his current contract and wind up with like $100 million over this 6 year period.

 

We signed him when he was what, 26? That means we control his age 26-32 seasons. Frankly, at this point, I don't care whether we have control over him when he's 33-35. Tell me what the rest of the team around him looks like at the time and tell me how his performance is aging when he gets through his peak years and I'll tell you whether I think an extension is a good thing at that point.

 

Jose Abreu could hit Free Agency at a comparable time in his career to when Pujols hit it. With some inflation, would you think it would be a good idea to sign a 31 year old Jose Abreu to something like a 10/$250 contract?

 

Talk to me in 2018 and we can figure those things out. Otherwise, I don't care at all.

First, I wouldn't give Shields 5 years. 4 is the most I'd go.

 

BUT if we are going to be looking at Year 3 & Year 4 of a potential Shields contract then it is foolish to ignore the context of the years the contract is in. That's really what I am saying. If you sign someone like Shields you are hoping the deal goes as well as possible obviously, but you are prioritizing winning in the first 2-3 years of the deal, and that is your main concern. You can't just say that if Year 4 is terrible then the deal will be terrible, because you do not know what happens in Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3, and you especially don't know how those happenings effect the overall picture of Year 4. Perfect example: would the Tigers regret overpaying for IRoid and Maggs? Of course they wouldn't, because even though those deals were bad they got through them, and those deals helped take that franchise out of the cellar and make it relevant again. If we signed Shields and the last 2 years were crap, but the first 2 got us one trip deep into the playoffs and another a WS title, would anyone lament that deal? And you can't even assume he'd be bad in those years, for all we know he could be very good overall all 4 years of that deal while we win nothing.

 

I don't think the main argument is what Shields is worth 3-4 years from now, what Abreu is worth 3-4 years from now, etc. it's really "is this team worth upgrading at a major level?" Because if so those upgrades will have to come from somewhere, and we'll either lose talent, we'll lose payroll room, or we will lose both, and no matter what, the results are not guaranteed. No matter what move we make, if there is logic behind it at the time, then it could help a lot or hurt a lot, or maybe be of little significance. We don't know, all we can really decide is whether we should try to get better now. I'm personally kind of on the fence about it, I'd like to see more youth in here first, but you HAVE to admit that a high quality RHSP between Sale & Q with Noesi as the 4 and Rodon coming up paints a potential playoffs picture PROVIDED we play D behind them & run out a bullpen that is worth a s***.

Edited September 9, 2014 by The Ultimate Champion

[Balta1701]

First, I wouldn't give Shields 5 years. 4 is the most I'd go.

Then you're very unlikely to get him. If you want to play the free agent market you have to overpay what a player should reasonably be worth.

 

James Shields is going to push somewhere close to 5/$100 and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he got more than that, because that is what happens on the modern day free agent market.