Jump to content

Garrett Richards to Boston, 1 year $10 million.


Chicago White Sox

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, poppysox said:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change the courage to change the things I can change and the wisdom to know the difference."

 Serenity Prayer, Reinhold Niebuhr

 

 

Well thanks for rendering literally any complaint ever completely pointless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we weren’t serious contenders without a legit #2 starter and having Dane Dunning for the next six years wouldn’t change that.  There’s a difference between recklessly going “all-in” and not wasting a season of a young, promising core by refusing to trade a guy like Dane Dunning.  And I say that as a huge Dunning fan.

So what does 1 year of Lynn change if we aren't going all in for that 1 year?

It makes no sense at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

So what does 1 year of Lynn change if we aren't going all in for that 1 year?

It makes no sense at all.

Because they think that either:

They can extend Lynn, or

One of their young guys can certainly develop into that TOR guy, or

They have enough to do a similar trade next offseason for another available starter, or

They think they can win this season and don’t care, or

They haven’t figured out yet that you can get the better player in a trade and lose the trade, so they didn’t think about anything other than getting the better player.

Any could be true.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

So what does 1 year of Lynn change if we aren't going all in for that 1 year?

It makes no sense at all.

Because we now have a team that should make the playoffs and is a threat to win the whole thing.  And the hope is that Kopech, Crochet, & Cease can make strides this year and hopefully replace Lynn if he’s not extended (which I still think will happen).  So yes, if given a ridiculously low budget by your cheap owner and you still want to win, trading your fifth best young starter to add a much needed #2 starter (even for just a year) is a risk you must take.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we now have a team that should make the playoffs and is a threat to win the whole thing.  And the hope is that Kopech, Crochet, & Cease can make strides this year and hopefully replace Lynn if he’s not extended (which I still think will happen).  So yes, if given a ridiculously low budget by your cheap owner and you still want to win, trading your fifth best young starter to add a much needed #2 starter (even for just a year) is a risk you must take.

I agree with this all except for the part about Lynn being extended. He's a bridge pure and simple to get Cease and Kopech from point A to point B and give all our other MiBL starters a year to grow and assess them. The only way he gets extended is if he rather take guaranteed money now to forego Free Agency knowing a bad year can hurt him . I also doubt the Sox are willing at this time to extend him for anything beyond 2 yrs .$35M if they want to at all.

Until there are butts in the seats the Sox will be operating with trying to get as much as they can from the young pitching they already have. The only way I see this changing is the Sox trading for a cost controlled pitcher and giving up the Minor league pitching+ in return.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I agree with this all except for the part about Lynn being extended. He's a bridge pure and simple to get Cease and Kopech from point A to point B and give all our other MiBL starters a year to grow and assess them. The only way he gets extended is if he rather take guaranteed money now to forego Free Agency knowing a bad year can hurt him . I also doubt the Sox are willing at this time to extend him for anything beyond 2 yrs .$35M if they want to at all.

Until there are butts in the seats the Sox will be operating with trying to get as much as they can from the young pitching they already have. The only way I see this changing is the Sox trading for a cost controlled pitcher and giving up the Minor league pitching+ in return.

I tend to agree. My guess is everyone from JR to TLR and RH/KW believe we can win it all. They are smart enough to know we need another starter. The marginal difference in said starters contribution could very well make all the difference. The lack of obvious FA difference-makers (after Bauer), combined with revenue uncertainty due to COVID requires creativity but I don't believe the FO will let a couple $ million prevent them from bringing in a good fit. If that were the case, why would they spring $54M for Hendriks?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Because they think that either:

They can extend Lynn, or

One of their young guys can certainly develop into that TOR guy, or

They have enough to do a similar trade next offseason for another available starter, or

They think they can win this season and don’t care, or

They haven’t figured out yet that you can get the better player in a trade and lose the trade, so they didn’t think about anything other than getting the better player.

Any could be true.

Some of that is potentially delusional. 

If the idea is to do stuff LATER then trading Dunning for a 1 year rental was stupid. Faith you can extend the gut unless you know for a fact you will only supports that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RagahRagah said:

Um... no, that is definitely not the lesson. You realize we are talking about Jay and Alonso, right? I think any one of us could have been smart enough not to sign them at all. That is an EASY 13 million we all would have been smart enough to save. At least I sure as hell hope so.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you somehow missed what he was quoting. I can't imagine you post that response if you did.

I understand.  Those players were signed as an attempt to get Machado to the Sox. It failed.  Doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we now have a team that should make the playoffs and is a threat to win the whole thing.  And the hope is that Kopech, Crochet, & Cease can make strides this year and hopefully replace Lynn if he’s not extended (which I still think will happen).  So yes, if given a ridiculously low budget by your cheap owner and you still want to win, trading your fifth best young starter to add a much needed #2 starter (even for just a year) is a risk you must take.

Couldn't possibly disagree with this more. That type of thinking is how people lose everything. We have been operating overall on a long term operation with these good extensions and signings. Only to trade a controlled quality potential starter under long control (keeping him would be fitting with the strategy) for a 1 year rental and then apparently be too taxed to add more than 1 significant FA?

That is simply not following through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I understand.  Those players were signed as an attempt to get Machado to the Sox. It failed.  Doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort. 

That "attempt" was pathetic and bush league and is in no way defensible on any conceivable level. It was absolutely not worth the "effort;" it made them look pitiful and that money could have just gone toward his offer.

It was one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen any sports franchise do.

Edited by RagahRagah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we now have a team that should make the playoffs and is a threat to win the whole thing.  And the hope is that Kopech, Crochet, & Cease can make strides this year and hopefully replace Lynn if he’s not extended (which I still think will happen).  So yes, if given a ridiculously low budget by your cheap owner and you still want to win, trading your fifth best young starter to add a much needed #2 starter (even for just a year) is a risk you must take.

Exactly. Sone prospects are used for short term gain others are kept for long term progress of the team. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RagahRagah said:

That "attempt" was pathetic and bush league and is in no way defensible on any conceivable level. It was absolutely not worth the "effort;" it made them look pitiful and that money could have just gone toward his offer.

It was one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen any sports franchise do.

I disagree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Couldn't possibly disagree with this more. That type of thinking is how people lose everything. We have been operating overall on a long term operation with these good extensions and signings. Only to trade a controlled quality potential starter under long control (keeping him would be fitting with the strategy) for a 1 year rental and then apparently be too taxed to add more than 1 significant FA?

That is simply not following through. 

It is when they have prospect depth. As stated before Dunning wasn't in the top 3 for pitching prospects.  They have more in the pipeline. 

I will agree with this if they trade more than 2 more away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Couldn't possibly disagree with this more. That type of thinking is how people lose everything. We have been operating overall on a long term operation with these good extensions and signings. Only to trade a controlled quality potential starter under long control (keeping him would be fitting with the strategy) for a 1 year rental and then apparently be too taxed to add more than 1 significant FA?

That is simply not following through. 

So you’re answer is what, punt the 2021 season for a guy who would likely be competing for a rotation spot with Crochet next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RagahRagah said:

Couldn't possibly disagree with this more. That type of thinking is how people lose everything. We have been operating overall on a long term operation with these good extensions and signings. Only to trade a controlled quality potential starter under long control (keeping him would be fitting with the strategy) for a 1 year rental and then apparently be too taxed to add more than 1 significant FA?

That is simply not following through. 

What if the Sox entered the offseason wanting to unload Dunning and sell high  on him?  What if that was priority number 1- cash him in for a good starter.   
 

This assuming that Dunning is going to be a quality starter is completely crazy.  Absolutely ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

What if the Sox entered the offseason wanting to unload Dunning and sell high  on him?  What if that was priority number 1- cash him in for a good starter.   
 

This assuming that Dunning is going to be a quality starter is completely crazy.  Absolutely ridiculous. 

Selling high? How about using him in a trade for one of the excellent starters we have been hearing rumors about rather than unloading him for a one year of someone who has numerous reasons to potentially be to risky? Who was under control for more than 1 year?

We sold low.

Yeah, thinking a guy who looked pretty damn good in his debut and showed solid stuff and still had a lot of room to grow and was under control for more than 5 years could be a quality starter... yeah, that's just crazy.

Not any less crazy as assuming a 34 year old will still be a #2 or that we will be able to extend him, or that it was worth the risk of assuming so, or that he might regress during the proposed extension period if we manage to.

Edited by RagahRagah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So you’re answer is what, punt the 2021 season for a guy who would likely be competing for a rotation spot with Crochet next year?

How the hell would not trading for Lynn been equivalent to punting the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we don’t have a #2 starter?  Who do you expect to fill that role if we don’t trade for Lynn and what’s the potential cost?

Actually, we do. That would be Dallas. However, Dallas is a regression candidate. Yet, so is the guy we traded Dunning for. And we need more than just 1 starter. So why trade the most viable possible starter prospect who is coming along nicely for ONE year of said older regression candidate? That would have been better saved for someone more on a long term basis as we supposedly are seeking now. Especially if we really don't plan on signing anyone else and go dumpster diving.

If we really aren't in a position to seriously go for it all this season, then we just need to wait and save our asset rather than roll the dice unnecessarily. It's rather simple. Your seeming assertion that we *needed* to do this, specifically for this specific pitcher, seemingly just to say we added a starter, is just silly. There is a wide spectrum of things we can do. Acting like Dunning had to be traded specially for Lynn is head-scratching. 

The fact we're talking about going after Richards is a clear indicator we shouldn't be pushing all our chips in as we don't have enough to win a big enough prize. Just sit back and wait to accumulate more chips first. 

This is just clearly gross mismanagement.

Edited by RagahRagah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because we weren’t serious contenders without a legit #2 starter and having Dane Dunning for the next six years wouldn’t change that.  There’s a difference between recklessly going “all-in” and not wasting a season of a young, promising core by refusing to trade a guy like Dane Dunning.  And I say that as a huge Dunning fan.

I think the Sox are going "all in" in their own way. It's just that "all in" to the Sox is not what it is to the fan base, who is happy to spend unlimited amounts of money because it isn't ours. 

Hendricks is an all in move.

Lynn is an all-in move, even if we extend him for a couple years.

Eaton is even an all-in move if you don't have the money for Springer because the other OF on the market can't really play RF, and because he's not so expensive you couldn't also get Hendricks. 

Kluber would be been the ultimate all-in move if they could have kept him from going to the Yankees, because if he's returned to 2014-2018 form he could top our rotation, and because it would deprive the Yankees of the starting pitching they would need to beat us. 

Tony LaRussa was definitely an all-in move, because you don't accept the risk he poses if you don't think his experience can get you to the WS. 

I happen to think the Sox are a couple of moves short of being "all-in" for this year, to give themselves the best shot at the playoffs and WS. But I'm not privy to their financials or what they can do.

How much more can the Sox spend to truly be "all-in"?  That's the question. 

My personal remaining wish list was Kluber, who could be a bigger steal for $11M than Lance Lynn is for $8M. And Michael Brantley, who should be available for less than his $16M salary from the last 2 years. I would give him the $13M we had allocated for Encarnacion's option. 

What the Sox shouldn't do is spend money on mediocre pitching just to have another starter. Whomever they look to add needs to be an upgrade over the alternative. 

For example, if the Sox are going to sign a DH/LF or DH who plays some other position, they need to be a solid upgrade over Vaughn's rookie year. 

Similarly, if the Sox are going to spend real money to sign another starting pitcher, they need to be a solid upgrade over Cease/Kopech/Lopez when you factor in the potential improvements those pitchers might make under our new pitching coach. They really should be someone you would consider starting in a playoff game. 

At this point, with Kluber gone and Bauer being the only FA pitcher left who would give us a World Series boost, I would probably focus on adding a bat like Brantley's, because that would give us the biggest upgrade. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

 I wonder if Mike Leake is an option.  He isn't great, and there isn't a ton of ceiling, but he is reliable, can pitch useful innings, and would probably be cheaper than Q or Richards.  But  I think he could give you similar results to Q, and is certainly more durable than Richards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VAfan said:

I think the Sox are going "all in" in their own way. It's just that "all in" to the Sox is not what it is to the fan base, who is happy to spend unlimited amounts of money because it isn't ours. 

Hendricks is an all in move.

Lynn is an all-in move, even if we extend him for a couple years.

Eaton is even an all-in move if you don't have the money for Springer because the other OF on the market can't really play RF, and because he's not so expensive you couldn't also get Hendricks. 

Kluber would be been the ultimate all-in move if they could have kept him from going to the Yankees, because if he's returned to 2014-2018 form he could top our rotation, and because it would deprive the Yankees of the starting pitching they would need to beat us. 

Tony LaRussa was definitely an all-in move, because you don't accept the risk he poses if you don't think his experience can get you to the WS. 

I happen to think the Sox are a couple of moves short of being "all-in" for this year, to give themselves the best shot at the playoffs and WS. But I'm not privy to their financials or what they can do.

How much more can the Sox spend to truly be "all-in"?  That's the question. 

My personal remaining wish list was Kluber, who could be a bigger steal for $11M than Lance Lynn is for $8M. And Michael Brantley, who should be available for less than his $16M salary from the last 2 years. I would give him the $13M we had allocated for Encarnacion's option. 

What the Sox shouldn't do is spend money on mediocre pitching just to have another starter. Whomever they look to add needs to be an upgrade over the alternative. 

For example, if the Sox are going to sign a DH/LF or DH who plays some other position, they need to be a solid upgrade over Vaughn's rookie year. 

Similarly, if the Sox are going to spend real money to sign another starting pitcher, they need to be a solid upgrade over Cease/Kopech/Lopez when you factor in the potential improvements those pitchers might make under our new pitching coach. They really should be someone you would consider starting in a playoff game. 

At this point, with Kluber gone and Bauer being the only FA pitcher left who would give us a World Series boost, I would probably focus on adding a bat like Brantley's, because that would give us the biggest upgrade. 

 

 

Yet this will not happen. I fully expect this offseason to ultimately fall in line with the typical FO failures we are used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...