White Sox targeting Carl Crawford

[T R U]

I think when the sox committed to pay Jackson something like $2M for the rest of 2010, $8.3M for 2011, and also committed $4M for 1 month of Manny to this payroll that our offseason was going to be very limited. I got the impression that that was our off season spending right there, instead of spending on the 2011 payroll the sox took a shot at 2010 bumped payroll in the 2nd half. That being said i expect the White Sox off season to be very quiet. Most likely AJ, PK, and Bobby are gone, its possible Putz and Vizquel come back because they are cheap. Your catcher is Castro and his $1.2M option, your 3B is Morel/Vizquel, your 1B is Viciedo, and your RF/DH combo is Quentin/Teahen. And with all that your Payroll is still about $95M.

 

oh yeah right

 

there is zero chance that the sox let AJ, Konerko, and Jenks go and do not use that money to do something..

[MattZakrowski]

I have a better chance of playing outfield with the WS and I have an artificial knee and hip

 

That is the sort of range we prefer in our RFs.

Edited October 12, 2010 by MattZakrowski

[witesoxfan]

I think when the sox committed to pay Jackson something like $2M for the rest of 2010, $8.3M for 2011, and also committed $4M for 1 month of Manny to this payroll that our offseason was going to be very limited. I got the impression that that was our off season spending right there, instead of spending on the 2011 payroll the sox took a shot at 2010 bumped payroll in the 2nd half. That being said i expect the White Sox off season to be very quiet. Most likely AJ, PK, and Bobby are gone, its possible Putz and Vizquel come back because they are cheap. Your catcher is Castro and his $1.2M option, your 3B is Morel/Vizquel, your 1B is Viciedo, and your RF/DH combo is Quentin/Teahen. And with all that your Payroll is still about $95M.

 

Williams has historically set money aside in the offseason to spend on free agents throughout the year. I'm sure he used some of his offseason budget to acquire Jackson, but he didn't use anything to acquire Manny.

 

Further, if Williams needs to improve the team and doesn't have the money, he will find ways to free up money. Prior to the 2009 season, he traded Swisher for pennies on the dollar and dealt Vazquez for a solid, yet uninspiring package of prospects.

 

I also don't know why you think Putz is going to be cheap. I think there is a real chance that he is going to be one of the most expensive relievers on the market and that he will sign somewhere that he can close. Perhaps that is Chicago, but I doubt he takes any less than $7 million annually, even if he only signs a 2 year deal.

[Milkman delivers]

I think when the sox committed to pay Jackson something like $2M for the rest of 2010, $8.3M for 2011, and also committed $4M for 1 month of Manny to this payroll that our offseason was going to be very limited. I got the impression that that was our off season spending right there, instead of spending on the 2011 payroll the sox took a shot at 2010 bumped payroll in the 2nd half. That being said i expect the White Sox off season to be very quiet. Most likely AJ, PK, and Bobby are gone, its possible Putz and Vizquel come back because they are cheap. Your catcher is Castro and his $1.2M option, your 3B is Morel/Vizquel, your 1B is Viciedo, and your RF/DH combo is Quentin/Teahen. And with all that your Payroll is still about $95M.

 

I don't see Putz being too cheap.

 

I think the Sox will be limited this offseason, but not that limited. Man, that's about as uninspiring a team as $95 million can possibly buy. Let's hope Kenny can make something more interesting than that happen.

 

Exactly what I thought. I don't think it will end up looking that bad, but there's a legitimate chance that it is still very, very bad.

[kitekrazy]

That is the sort of range we prefer in our RFs.

 

POTW.

 

[bigruss]

oh yeah right

there is zero chance that the sox let AJ, Konerko, and Jenks go and do not use that money to do something..

It's called raises in arbitration and with other contracts.

[T R U]

It's called raises in arbitration and with other contracts.

 

it doesn't matter those raises aren't going to completely take over all that money that comes off the books.. KW will not let AJ, Konerko, and Jenks go and not do something with that money.. its just not going to happen.. especially when you consider they have been crying poor for years and you still see acquisitions like Rios (his ENTIRE contract).. Manny.. they were interested in Damon..

 

Don't believe anything they say about not having money, they will do something because they do every year even when they say they don't have the money..

[gatnom]

it doesn't matter those raises aren't going to completely take over all that money that comes off the books.. KW will not let AJ, Konerko, and Jenks go and not do something with that money.. its just not going to happen.. especially when you consider they have been crying poor for years and you still see acquisitions like Rios (his ENTIRE contract).. Manny.. they were interested in Damon..

 

Don't believe anything they say about not having money, they will do something because they do every year even when they say they don't have the money..

 

They will have about $85 million locked up for next year presuming they keep Danks, Quentin, and Pena. That's without having a closer, primary right-handed set up man, starting first baseman, starting catcher, fifth starter, bench, or remaining bullpen spots. To put that in perspective, our opening day payroll was just under $100 million last year when you take into account the money we got for Teahen and Pierre.

[ScottyDo]

In my opinion, the Hudson trade is different than those because it set in motion the necessity of trading one of Danks or Floyd in the off season because we have just about no money to spend anymore. All of our decent prospects have diminished value due to injuries or poor seasons, which means we have to trade something from our major league roster to get value back, and the only place on our major league roster where we have some semblance of depth is our starting pitching. You aren't getting much of anything for Buehrle because of his contract, and it might be bad to trade him if you decide Konerko and AJ aren't worth what they want to be paid. Nobody will trade for Peavy because of the combination of his contract, injuries, and performance. If we try to trade Jackson himself, we aren't going to get back as much as we gave up to the Diamondbacks, which defeats the whole purpose of trading him in the first place. We can't trade Sale yet. That leaves one of Floyd or Danks that has to go.

I don't understand this assumption.

[witesoxfan]

I don't understand this assumption.

 

Which gallon of milk are you going to pay more for: one that expires in 2 weeks, or one that expires in 2 days?

 

Any team that would acquire Edwin Jackson will have him for one fewer postseason than the White Sox did when they traded for him. That takes value away from him. The White Sox also gave up a ton to get him, probably more than his market value indicated. That makes it less likely that the Sox will receive an offer of equal talent in return.

 

 

It's a pretty sound assumption.

[sircaffey]

it doesn't matter those raises aren't going to completely take over all that money that comes off the books.. KW will not let AJ, Konerko, and Jenks go and not do something with that money.. its just not going to happen.. especially when you consider they have been crying poor for years and you still see acquisitions like Rios (his ENTIRE contract).. Manny.. they were interested in Damon..

 

Don't believe anything they say about not having money, they will do something because they do every year even when they say they don't have the money..

You are right. They will do something. Pay arb raises and sign fillers. There's your something.

[T R U]

You are right. They will do something. Pay arb raises and sign fillers. There's your something.

 

Nope, theyll do more

[witesoxfan]

You are right. They will do something. Pay arb raises and sign fillers. There's your something.

 

When was the last time the Sox had an offseason that boring? 2004?

[ScottyDo]

Which gallon of milk are you going to pay more for: one that expires in 2 weeks, or one that expires in 2 days?

 

Any team that would acquire Edwin Jackson will have him for one fewer postseason than the White Sox did when they traded for him. That takes value away from him. The White Sox also gave up a ton to get him, probably more than his market value indicated. That makes it less likely that the Sox will receive an offer of equal talent in return.

 

 

It's a pretty sound assumption.

Maybe you're right, but the tone of the post was that we CAN'T trade Jackson and get anything significant in return. I agree that there's depreciation involved but he can still be flipped and we can get some value back. I really don't think this was a case of Kenny having significantly more love for Jackson than any other GM, I think a number of people probably covet him somewhat and will give up SOMETHING (more than just a B-level 'spect) for him if we're really that desperate for salary relief.

 

The way I look at it, if you paid $10 for a chance at the postseason, didn't make it, but you can still sell it for $8, that's not (necessarily) evidence of a stupid move. Obviously, those were arbitrarily chosen numbers, not reflective of anything.

 

Seriously, though, people have been arguing since this trade happened that Jackson is now valueless and we'll never get anything but a bucket of balls for him, but I disagree and don't understand why he can't be flipped for decent return and salary relief.

[bigruss]

Maybe you're right, but the tone of the post was that we CAN'T trade Jackson and get anything significant in return. I agree that there's depreciation involved but he can still be flipped and we can get some value back. I really don't think this was a case of Kenny having significantly more love for Jackson than any other GM, I think a number of people probably covet him somewhat and will give up SOMETHING (more than just a B-level 'spect) for him if we're really that desperate for salary relief.

 

The way I look at it, if you paid $10 for a chance at the postseason, didn't make it, but you can still sell it for $8, that's not (necessarily) evidence of a stupid move. Obviously, those were arbitrarily chosen numbers, not reflective of anything.

 

Seriously, though, people have been arguing since this trade happened that Jackson is now valueless and we'll never get anything but a bucket of balls for him, but I disagree and don't understand why he can't be flipped for decent return and salary relief.

No people are concerned that Jackson won't be as valuable as the Sox may think he would be even after a strong finish to the season. He'll be worth a decent price, but not what we gave up for him and that could haunt the Sox this offseason.

[ScottyDo]

No people are concerned that Jackson won't be as valuable as the Sox may think he would be even after a strong finish to the season. He'll be worth a decent price, but not what we gave up for him and that could haunt the Sox this offseason.

Potentially. If we do trade him, though, even for a modest return, are we really that much worse off without Hudson? A huge list of potential starters has already been posted in a couple of topics. I dunno, it just seemed like a reasonable risk to me, considering we were attempting to steal a playoff spot. I don't see us as crippled because of it, either, because we can still trade the dude.

[bigruss]

Potentially. If we do trade him, though, even for a modest return, are we really that much worse off without Hudson? A huge list of potential starters has already been posted in a couple of topics. I dunno, it just seemed like a reasonable risk to me, considering we were attempting to steal a playoff spot. I don't see us as crippled because of it, either, because we can still trade the dude.

Yes because you would have had Hudson for 6 years. With his talent and performances he is exaclty what the Sox need, a 3/4 starter cheap for years to come.

[ScottyDo]

Yes because you would have had Hudson for 6 years. With his talent and performances he is exaclty what the Sox need, a 3/4 starter cheap for years to come.

That is WAAAAY premature.

[bigruss]

That is WAAAAY premature.

Why, he pitched well in the minors with good peripherals, and has shown swing an miss stuff at the mlb level. Scouts believe he will be a good 3 starter in the future and the way he has performed in hte minors and majors now shows that this is a very real possibility, including for next season.

[ScottyDo]

Why, he pitched well in the minors with good peripherals, and has shown swing an miss stuff at the mlb level. Scouts believe he will be a good 3 starter in the future and the way he has performed in hte minors and majors now shows that this is a very real possibility, including for next season.

Because you don't project 6 years in the future for even the most can't-miss of can't-miss prospects with any degree of certainty. Any prospect has a significant corollary attached to their projection, let alone the likes of Dan Hudson. The dude hasn't had a full season in MLB yet.

 

While I agree that he projects relatively well, to say that we just traded off 6 years of successful pitching is waaay premature. Edwin Jackson was a bigger 'spect than Dan Hudson, and I believe you would characterize him as below-average thus far, though that is putting words in your mouth and you should certainly feel free to remove them if they're incorrect.

[bigruss]

Because you don't project 6 years in the future for even the most can't-miss of can't-miss prospects with any degree of certainty. Any prospect has a significant corollary attached to their projection, let alone the likes of Dan Hudson. The dude hasn't had a full season in MLB yet.

 

While I agree that he projects relatively well, to say that we just traded off 6 years of successful pitching is waaay premature. Edwin Jackson was a bigger 'spect than Dan Hudson, and I believe you would characterize him as below-average thus far, though that is putting words in your mouth and you should certainly feel free to remove them if they're incorrect.

Wasn't just projecting him, but you have to value him at 6 years because that is how long he is under team control.

 

Jackson, when being brought up, was also being valued under the 6 years, you can't just look at what a player gives you for one year, but what impact does taht have on the organization after that too.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

Why would the Brewers want Peavy's contract? They could bump that up a little bit and sign Fielder for it.

 

Because they are in dire need of pitching not hitting.

[nitetrain8601]

Wasn't just projecting him, but you have to value him at 6 years because that is how long he is under team control.

 

Jackson, when being brought up, was also being valued under the 6 years, you can't just look at what a player gives you for one year, but what impact does taht have on the organization after that too.

 

Not sure if I understand your argument. Are you saying, you're valuing him because he's under control for 6 years, and not based on projections? I don't think you are, but if that's the case, Jackson was in the same position when he came up. It would be like saying it was a stupid idea to trade him. And Jackson showed promise his first year with the Dodgers. Hudson has too. Now what if Hudson falls flat on his face next year? What if Edwin pitches like he has in the AL? Are we still going to argue that the trade is bad?

 

I think some people are too afraid of this becoming a Todd Ritchie situation all over again, and the others just don't like Jackson period.

Edited October 13, 2010 by nitetrain8601

[bigruss]

Not sure if I understand your argument. Are you saying, you're valuing him because he's under control for 6 years, and not based on projections? I don't think you are, but if that's the case, Jackson was in the same position when he came up. It would be like saying it was a stupid idea to trade him. And Jackson showed promise his first year with the Dodgers. Hudson has too. Now what if Hudson falls flat on his face next year? What if Edwin pitches like he has in the AL? Are we still going to argue that the trade is bad?

 

I think some people are too afraid of this becoming a Todd Ritchie situation all over again, and the others just don't like Jackson period.

I was stating that you have to not only look at their projectability but also how many years of service they have under a team's control to judge value. Of course not every prospect pans out, but not every MLB player pans out too and Edwin had just as much as risk as anyone if he would ever be more than a 5th starter for a full season.

 

Even if Jackson proves to be able to pitch in the 3.5 ERA area he still has to greatly outproduce Hudson not only next year but for future years with the Sox because Hudson is under contract for the next 6 years. Even if Jackson is stellar next year, Hudson would still give the Sox a 3/4 starter for 5 plus years of being cheaper than Jackson in his 1.25 seasons here. So not only is it about talent, but its in terms of how long you have that talent and what you are paying them.

[bigruss]

Once again, I liked picking Jackson up, it's just ridiculous the price we paid to get him. I'm sorry if you are shortsighted and cannot understand the financial implications losing Hudson gives the Sox.