So I am absolutely not trolling here whatsoever, but I think Ervin Santana makes a hell of a lot more sense than Edinson Volquez.

 

I agree, but he also wants 5 years last I heard. Both are the same age.

How many times has he made it over 150 innings in a season since 2007?

 

Once? Or twice?

once, i think

I would love Volquez, especially if something is on the table with Danks.

 

I thought it was very interesting how Hahn kept referring to the big 3 in the rotation, and then he seemed to really quickly mention Danks and Noesi. It didn't seem like someone who was confident that those two would be in the rotation come April.

This would have to be contingent on a Danks deal. Guess I'd rather pay Volquez 2/20 than have Danks. But if we shed anything less than 100% of Danks' salary then what's the point?

So I am absolutely not trolling here whatsoever, but I think Ervin Santana makes a hell of a lot more sense than Edinson Volquez.

 

yeah i agree as well, but yrs and starting at what salary?

I agree, but he also wants 5 years last I heard. Both are the same age.

 

He's not going to get 5 years. He wanted a 6 year, $100 million deal last year.

 

I'd offer 3 years and $14 mill a year.

I thought it was very interesting how Hahn kept referring to the big 3 in the rotation, and then he seemed to really quickly mention Danks and Noesi. It didn't seem like someone who was confident that those two would be in the rotation come April.

 

I caught that too. Something could definitely be in the works.

hmm, what if Noesi has turned into a valuable piece. That would be interesting. I want to see him for another year, but I do want rotation depth this year. Last year we all thought we had it and then EJ happened and suddenly we all had to be like "ugh, marty was right".

hmm, what if Noesi has turned into a valuable piece. That would be interesting. I want to see him for another year, but I do want rotation depth this year. Last year we all thought we had it and then EJ happened and suddenly we all had to be like "ugh, marty was right".

 

Noesi doesn't have options though, so he can't really be depth. He's either in the rotation or he's not on the roster, unless you want to stash him in long relief.

So I am absolutely not trolling here whatsoever, but I think Ervin Santana makes a hell of a lot more sense than Edinson Volquez.

I brought him up a long time ago but his gopheritis worries me. He could be rough in our park, as rough as Danks.

 

Unless Danks is gone, I don't think signing any starting pitcher makes much sense anymore. Put the energy into the lineup.

hmm, what if Noesi has turned into a valuable piece. That would be interesting. I want to see him for another year, but I do want rotation depth this year. Last year we all thought we had it and then EJ happened and suddenly we all had to be like "ugh, marty was right".

 

 

E.Santana or Jimenez would have done jack squat for last year's team.

 

Except knocking us out of the protected picks and giving us 2-3 more wins.

 

 

And there's no way we should give him $48-50 million over 4 years with Rodon and Montas/Danish on the way.

 

You hold onto your aces and keep your 4/5 or back of the rotation starters on 2 year contracts.

I think we need another arm. I do NOT think Volquez should be that arm.

 

Absolutely textbook regression candidate. Checks ALL the boxes for a guy about to fall off a cliff.

Edited December 10, 201411 yr by Eminor3rd

Only one season in his career with an FIP under 4. No thanks.

E.Santana or Jimenez would have done jack squat for last year's team.

 

Except knocking us out of the protected picks and giving us 2-3 more wins.

 

 

And there's no way we should give him $48-50 million over 4 years with Rodon and Montas/Danish on the way.

 

You hold onto your aces and keep your 4/5 or back of the rotation starters on 2 year contracts.

 

I'm not saying they could have, but there was a large argument that we had depth because of how we happened to find so many people in 2013 with some success. Turns out we did not and had no long relievers and no anything.

I agree with everybody that Volquez seems like a bad fit for lots of reasons, however, if we assume that the pursuit of Volquez has Coop's approval, then I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

1) Masterson if knee checks out (because he'll want to sign a shorter term contract and that will properly motivate him to get the next big deal)

2) B.Anderson, even if he can only give you 100-140 innings, that's probably enough....two year deal, second year option activated at 100 IP

3) Volquez

 

4) Vogelsong

5) Santana

 

6) McCarthy

7) Liriano

 

Neither of those last two will happen with KW and Coop still around.

Edited December 10, 201411 yr by caulfield12

I'd definitely want Volquez @ 2/20.....If Danks could somehow be moved 1st. We can't have $25M invested into our #4 and #5 starters, just doesn't make sense given the other holes we still have left to fill

I agree with everybody that Volquez seems like a bad fit for lots of reasons, however, if we assume that the pursuit of Volquez has Coop's approval, then I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I will say, finding these sort of cheap vet filler players has not really been Hahn's strongsuit. I'm hoping this isn't true.

1) Masterson if knee checks out (because he'll want to sign a shorter term deal that will motivate him)

2) B.Anderson, even if he can only give you 100-120 innings, that's enough

3) Volquez

 

4) Vogelsong

5) Santana

 

6) McCarthy

7) Liriano

 

Neither of those last two will happen with KW and Coop still around.

 

The last one also won't happen since Liriano just signed a 3 year deal with Pittsburgh.

 

Also, what was the deal with McCarthy? I know they traded him for Danks, but that seemed to be because BMac was overvalued and Danks undervalued. Was there some kind of specific problem with BMac?

Edited December 10, 201411 yr by HickoryHuskers

1) Masterson if knee checks out (because he'll want to sign a shorter term contract and that will properly motivate him to get the next big deal)

2) B.Anderson, even if he can only give you 100-140 innings, that's probably enough....two year deal, second year option activated at 100 IP

3) Volquez

 

4) Vogelsong

5) Santana

 

6) McCarthy

7) Liriano

 

Neither of those last two will happen with KW and Coop still around.

 

Allllll da lefties.

The last one also won't happen since Liriano just signed a 3 year deal with Pittsburgh.

 

Also, what was the deal with McCarthy? I know they traded him for Danks, but that seemed to be because BMac was overvalued and Danks undervalued. Was there some kind of specific problem with BMac?

 

Supposedly they felt that his mechanics would lead to injuries. It's safe to say they weren't wrong if that's what they believed. However, prior to his contract with the DBacks, I recall the Sox being interested in him.

The last one also won't happen since Liriano just signed a 3 year deal with Pittsburgh.

 

Also, what was the deal with McCarthy? I know they traded him for Danks, but that seemed to be because BMac was overvalued and Danks undervalued. Was there some kind of specific problem with BMac?

If I remember right the Sox did not like McCarthy's over the top arm angle and Brandon would not change it. Wasn't long after that he was traded to Texas.

I'd assume there'd be a Danks domino to fall if something like this happened but who knows, the Sox still might have a bit more cash to play with than they're letting on.

I'd think if we signed Volquez, we'd see Danks moved for a Dodger outfielder (or another outfielder of sorts). I'd be absolutely okay with that.

I'd think if we signed Volquez, we'd see Danks moved for a Dodger outfielder (or another outfielder of sorts). I'd be absolutely okay with that.

 

i didn't think of that. yeah i agree, i am down with it.

I'd think if we signed Volquez, we'd see Danks moved for a Dodger outfielder (or another outfielder of sorts). I'd be absolutely okay with that.

That'd make for an A+ offseason.