Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 07:50 AM) I think if any team really wants Keppinger, the offers won't change. I think most GMs think of their roster before trying to screw another GM. It wasn't like Jeff Keppinger was going to bring back anything of use anyway. This. Keppinger is the most likely guy to get moved to a team in Spring Training that just suffered a long-term injury to an infielder. He's a stopgap no matter how you look at it, and the absolute best we can expect is some salary relief and MAYBE a live arm.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:13 PM) WAR, fWAR, I really don't care when it comes to deciding whether a contract is good when it is signed. Do you even have any idea what sport we're talking about? You don't need sabermetrics to tell you that mediocre pitchers get worse in their 30s.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 07:06 PM) I could not give one damn about WAR and contracts. As stated earlier in the thread, some bootleg WAR related formula told me the Sox got a fair deal when they signed Dunn. Lol. Marty. Holy s*** man.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:43 PM) Imagine the haul the Sox would be able to get for Quintana and still go forward with that rotation? Oh and by the way the payroll for 2016 would be ~65M with Santana. Except 34 year old Santana will very likely suck. We're not even sure he's good now. Here's his last 5 seasons by fWAR, starting with the most recent: 3.0, -1.0, 2.6, 1.9, 1.1 That averages out to 1.56, where a league average player is roughly 2.0. And you want to give up ~$15m/yr and a top 50 draft pick for his decline years?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:49 PM) Santana affords them the ability to deal Danks. For what? Salary relief?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:19 PM) We disagree. I'd love to see a rotation of Sale, Hoffman, Johnson, Santana, and Beck in 2016. You'd rather have a 34 year old Ervin Santana than a 28 year old Jose Quintana?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) Still could have gone wherever he wanted. But this is why his salary was low and contract was tradeable: the terms of the contract were not representative of the highest bidder for his services.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:38 PM) If you thought last year was tough to go through . . . You haven't seen anything like a team that struggles to score runs and lacks rotational depth. Those 200 innings that PeavySantiago pitched last season have to made up by someone(s). The Sox could be unwatchable by June with this rotation. And you want to push chips in to add a mid-rotation starter? This is the point Marty. The team will probably be bad and Ervin Santana isn't going to fix it. There's no point in wasting resources on him right now. Resources need to go to things with the potential for surplus value. Post-prime 3 fWAR pitchers on the free agent market do not do this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) Free agent could have gone wherever he wanted. How many times has his situation occurred and why does something have to be common to do it? Again, JP opted to sign an extension before reaching the market.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) There's no point in reading your post beyond this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santaer01.shtml Look at his career performance. Factor in the ups with the downs and and he's at least a solid pitcher. His 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013 seasons were very good and should bring back a high return on the trade market. If he pitches up to previous levels he will bring back a quality return. Please look at the numbers next time. This is a common and enticing way to look at things, but flawed. Remember, they are older now -- you are not paying for the mean of their prime seasons, you are paying for their mid 30's.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Why are we crafting all these arguments that put the pitcher's ideal wants in mind? Because the player has to agree to sign the contract. And if you lie to him, you get a bad rep (Marlins)

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:24 PM) You just be very upfront. If they chose to go somewhere else, that is their right. But it probably isn't as simple as you think. There are going to be teams in July looking for pitching that aren't looking to sign these guys now. I think that's true, but if he signs with a winner, he'll either already be on a winner at the deadline or he will also be in the same position to be traded to a different one. The only way it would make sense for him to sign with the Sox is if they were offering significantly more money, so much so that it was worth waiving his right to choose his destination. And if they pay so much more than all the other teams are willing to pay, it becomes very unlikely that some new team is going to pop up and be willing to pay that price later. So if you can move him, you have to eat a bunch of money. And realistically, front offices are typically not cool with doing that, so you have to settle for a weaker return in some sense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:13 PM) No. The wise guy comment guy who really believes KW could have a good farm system if he really wanted one is the one trolling. I am answering every response. Too bad he wanted a bad one. Mike Trout would have been sweet in CF. What does this have to do with free agent pitchers?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) $12-13 million a year for 3 or 4 years is pretty good security in my book. Option A: 3-4yr, $12-13m, choose a winner to play for Option B: 3-4yr, $12-13m, get traded somewhere completely out of your control in 4-6 months

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) PECOTA pegs Garcia to hit 8 homers. Seems a little low. The projection systems seem to be all over the board on him. I'm guessing that they all handle his BABIP differently. I think OLIVER is projecting 0.6 fWAR and Steamer is projecting like 3.0 fWAR. I think they're both in the 14-18HR range.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) So it makes no sense signing guys to multi year contracts and trading them. But signing them to 1 year contracts and trading them makes perfect sense. You are getting funnier by the post. Why does this not make sense? Lol It makes more sense for the player AND the receiving team to discuss a pending free agent. You have more teams to trade with since those teams do not have to commit beyond the rest of the season. The player is going to have to move soon anyway. This is a central tenet to the business of sports in America.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) What are the teams offering? We will see soon.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) Pitchers get hurt, perform poorly during the year. Some of those teams might not have openings right now. Some of them would have to give up a 1st rounder. Not a 2nd rounder. In July, there are always teams that need pitching. This would make sense if there was no market for him, but there is a market for him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) This is totally different than the Marlins. You can be very upfront with them. Hey, if we aren't winning, we will move you to a team that is. The way the compensation works, signing them to a multi-year contract now is doing them a big favor. And they probably would appreciate they get paid and one way or another if they pitch well, they will wind up with a contender. And Theo signs guys to flip. Billy Beane traded for guys to flip it winning wasn't in the equation. The Marlins doing what they did was a slap at the fans and the state after building them that stadium, taking their payroll down to nothing. The baseball side of that wasn't so bad. They wind up with a couple of decent prospects. Why not sign with a winner in the first place?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) How would you know this? Right now their value is suppressed being later in the offseason and some teams would have to forfeit a 1st round pick for them. If they pitched like they did in 2013, contending teams would certainly give value if you signed them to a 3 or 4 year contract. Becsuse nobody ever f***ing does that, except the Marlins.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) You were the one who said there clearly was a ceiling. Then what is it? I'm pointing out that what the White Sox say about said ceilings and actuality are usually a little different. The Sox have never spent more than $118m on a payroll, while other teams have spent substantially more and beat the White Sox. If money was no object, then the White Sox would have spent more money to improve their chances to win. I'm not disagreeing with you that the "ceiling" may be flexible. But when it's flexes, it's for the sake of making a move that seems like a smart move, not signing some mediocre starter to hopefully trade in 3 years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) Jake Peavy was a free agent. Jake Peavy was a pending free agent who signed an extension before reaching free agency.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) Evidence shows there may be a ceiling, but what it is we will never know. They were over budget, then traded for Peavy and picked up Rios. They were over budget, paid Manny $4 million for one month. They were busted, signed Dunn, meant the end of AJP and Konerko. Oh wait, we will bring them both back. Attendance down again. Ticket prices lowered, yet bid over $100 million + $20 million posting fee for a Japanese pitcher. What does the fact that we don't know what the ceiling is have to do with anything? Some ceiling exists, therefore wasting money is a bad idea.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) Apparently they are if what everyone says is true and Santana is going to get more money than Peavy. Yes, he is. Because players always get more money in free agency. Because several teams compete in the bidding. This is not anything like Jake Peavy's situation.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) I agree with this in principle however there is a significant flaw in this argument. Eaton and Davidson were not acquired by over 30 pitchers on the backside of a 4 year deal at 12 mil per. They were acquired by young MLB proven talent. I'm always for trading prospects for proven MLB talent. However, signing near 30 year old pitchers is not the answer. Amen