You got me too. Only a troll would question 8 million for a pitcher who gave up homers at an alarming rate. I'm just not into 81 wins and home run derby like you sages

 

$8 million over three years. Quit trying to make it look like more than it is. Who cares what his homerun rate in 19 IP last year was? It was due to a completely obsurd 33.3% HR/FB rate. If you really put more stock into that than the fact that he struck out 12.8 per 9, gave up just 5.7 H/9 and had a acceptable 2.8 BB/9 after major injury and not pitching for 16 months than you really need to educate yourself on the game of baseball.

Edited December 18, 201510 yr by lasttriptotulsa

Rick Hahn has some Jedi Mind tricks for his pitchers.

 

This is not the contract you are looking for -RH

 

This is not the contract I am looking for - Chris Sale, Jose Quintana and Nate Jones

You got me too. Only a troll would question 8 million for a pitcher who gave up homers at an alarming rate. I'm just not into 81 wins and home run derby like you sages

You really love making conclusions based off small sample sizes.

You got me too. Only a troll would question 8 million for a pitcher who gave up homers at an alarming rate. I'm just not into 81 wins and home run derby like you sages

 

There are almost unlimited ways to be "creative". That's what creativity means. Hahn can do all kinds of things, short of dealing the closer, in order to afford acquiring an outfield bat. They are not going to create a hole in the bullpen, and significantly hurt their chances of contending. I said it before, but it was worth reiterating, especially in view of some of these comments.

Look gentlemen, the front office has already demonstrated their intentions: They are going to try to bring another championship to the South Side, during this window of opportunity with the core they have. That means that they will not be "dumping" anything useful. That would have made sense, if they had opted to rebuild.

Being creative means with the structure of contracts, not dumping one.

 

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

Backload the deal.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

Backload the deal.

 

Backloading the deal is an option, but that could also be a holdup as to why an OF hasn't been signed yet. The targeted OF might want more overall dollars in exchange for backloading the deal, and/or may be waiting to see what other offers come about if all the Sox can offer a backloaded deal. In the meantime, the Sox try (though very likely futilely) to move Danks or LaRoche to free up money so a deal doesn't have to be backloaded.

Robertson was a top 10 reliever last season. He put up a 1.8 fWAR. He isn't going anywhere.

Trading Robertson greatly weakens the bullpen. I'd keep him unless someone bowls you over.

 

I agree. I really like Robertson as our closer.

 

Robertson was a top 10 reliever last season. He put up a 1.8 fWAR. He isn't going anywhere.

 

He also blew 7 saves last year and is owed another $36M over the next 3 years. While very risky in terms of where it leaves the remaining bullpen and the potential stress it places on Jones, I have to think this $$ savings plus the $39M off the books next year (Danks/LaRoche/Robertson) would at least give Hahn/the FO another potential avenue to improve the team while staying at/under Jerry's budget. As Hahn has said repeatedly, you have to give to get and, instead of trading our prized assets in the Minor League's, listen and quietly make it be known that Robertson could be available for the right package. The Jones signing is cheap insurance in case they go this route.

 

Whatever side you fall on, no doubt the Frazier signing (and 2 year window he represents) to me creates a tighter sense of urgency to max out the current roster, even if it means you potentially weaken/thin out one area to improve another.

Edited December 18, 201510 yr by bruni

There is about zero chance they trade Robertson. They signed him for a reason. Creative is not ruining your bullpen.

Well that's your opinion but I disagree. Trading Robertson is not ruining the bullpen. Certainly the pen takes a hit but would not be ruined. Think back to the rumors in mid June when multiple reports came out the Sox were possibly interested in trading him. Even Robertson commented briefly about it.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/white-s...e-rumors-061915

 

I'm not saying Robertson should or will be traded but its certainly possible.

Trading Robertson would do a tremendous amount of damage to the bullpen. It might not ruin it, but it would turn it into a weakness. Before the Frazier trade it was something that made sense. Now, I don't think so.

If we get rid of Robertson, we would then be in the market for late-inning relief pitching.

 

As I've said before, if one dude's $12m salary gets in the way of signing a $100m+ player, then JR needs to sell the franchise and get into another line of work.

I know the Sox have added to the offense, but it still isn't great. If the Sox win its gonna be on the strength of their pitching. Trading Robertson would make zero sense. Hell I'd rather add to the pen than subtract.

Trading Robertson would really show this organization has absolutely no direction, it's not happening people.

Edited December 18, 201510 yr by Rowand44

I don't like this signing.

Ditto

 

It is $8 million at worst, for three years of coverage. Decent relievers are getting that per year. Add in the options that the team controls 4 YEARS of free agency for, at again, not a big figure, and this is a steal of a deal.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nate-jones-...all-smart-deal/

 

Generally, the bigger and longer the deal, the riskier. It doesn’t follow, of course, that the opposite makes the shortest, smallest deal the best, but it does make it less risky. And, when it comes to a guy like Nate Jones, who the White Sox just signed to an interesting deal, risk is the key word. The particulars of the deal, though, reduced the risk to the team, while also adding reward.

 

The contract is massively different depending on his future injury outcomes. It’s “only” three years and $8 million guaranteed, yes. But there are options beyond that, and if he needs another Tommy John, those three options total $8.5 million according to Jeff Passan. If he doesn’t need that surgery again, they get two club options at $9.8 combined, and a mutual option of $6 million at the end.

 

This is good news because the pitcher checks every box when it comes to injuries and Tommy John in particular.

 

Read more: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nate-jones-...all-smart-deal/

If we get rid of Robertson, we would then be in the market for late-inning relief pitching.

 

As I've said before, if one dude's $12m salary gets in the way of signing a $100m+ player, then JR needs to sell the franchise and get into another line of work.

Agree.

And, frankly, same with Laroche and his salary.

 

and if you're going to move Robertson, move him when teams were hot for a late inning guy; big prices were paid for those pitchers (albeit the prices were paid in *shudder* prospects).

Edited December 18, 201510 yr by GreenSox

Have you guys seen what relivers have been getting this offseason? This is a great signing.

Agree.

And, frankly, same with Laroche and his salary.

 

and if you're going to move Robertson, move him when teams were hot for a late inning guy; big prices were paid for those pitchers (albeit the prices were paid in *shudder* prospects).

 

Pitching also seems to be the most inflated asset at the deadline.

Pitching also seems to be the most inflated asset at the deadline.

 

Unless it's a white sox pitcher.

My favorite kinds of posts. Disliking a deal with no sort of explanation why.

I explained why I disliked it.

 

I guess $8 million or so over 3 years isn't too bad, but I'd rather have seen that money go towards an outfielder.

Edited December 18, 201510 yr by ChiSoxFanMike

I explained why I disliked it.

 

I guess $8 million or so over 3 years isn't too bad, but I'd rather have seen that money go towards an outfielder.

 

good logic..... i will counter with this is a great gamble, if he pans out, they save arb yrs and save money.

I explained why I disliked it.

 

I guess $8 million or so over 3 years isn't too bad, but I'd rather have seen that money go towards an outfielder.

 

I don't really understand your reasoning though, I never really read anything that indicates power pitchers fall off at age 29

I don't really understand your reasoning though, I never really read anything that indicates power pitchers fall off at age 29

It's not scientifically proven or anything like that, but isn't it fair to say that a pitchers velocity "falls off" as they age?

 

Jones' main asset is his ability to light up the radar gun and I just don't know how effective he'll be in a few years when he's only hitting 93 or 94 instead of 98 and 99 like he is now.