Marty34 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 11:58 AM) He's not owed "over $60M". What's he owed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) What's he owed? Don't you think you should know this if you are going to bring it up? This is basically you admitting that you make stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) Unless he gets trade to Detroit or something... WHHHHHHHAAAAAATTTTTTTT! :hawk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) What's he owed? Currently $57 million ($14.25 million a year for the next 4 years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Don't you think you should know this if you are going to bring it up? This is basically you admitting that you make stuff up. You're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Currently $57 million ($14.25 million a year for the next 4 years) Cotts has it at $15.75 for the next 4. https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7...amp;output=html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2013 Author Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:37 PM) Cotts has it at $15.75 for the next 4. https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7...amp;output=html Your spreadsheet is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) Cotts has it at $15.75 for the next 4. https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7...amp;output=html B-R has him at $14.25 a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) B-R has him at $14.25 a year. I thought they got their salary data from Cotts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Rowland Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) Your spreadsheet is wrong. There is an old saying that your posts always stir in my head... "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnCangelosi Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) There is an old saying that your posts always stir in my head... "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." Guys it's close to $60M, quit trying to make something out of nothing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I would consider doing it for a little while regardless of how he feels -- give Q and Hector a chance to battle it out for slot no. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 06:51 PM) Guys it's close to $60M, quit trying to make something out of nothing here. Exactly... let's get on with baseball. You both win. Round up it's $60M and don't round up and it's $57M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) Guys it's close to $60M, quit trying to make something out of nothing here. It's called counterbalancing the obvious and constant negative exaggerations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) It's called counterbalancing the obvious and constant negative exaggerations. It wasn't my spreadsheet that I posted Danks salary from, it was from Baseball Prospectus Cot's Baseball Contracts. Baseball Reference has a different number for Danks. You tell me which one is right. Edited March 17, 2013 by Marty34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) It wasn't my spreadsheet that I posted Danks salary from, it was from Baseball Prospectus Cot's Baseball Contracts. Baseball Reference has a different number for Danks. You tell me which one is right. They both show $14.25 million a year from 2013 to 2016. That's $57 million remaining. What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) They both show $14.25 million a year from 2013 to 2016. That's $57 million remaining. What am I missing here? I'm clicking on the 2013-18 payroll obligation link from the Sox page. That's where it shows Danks at $15.75M. It's updated because it shows Sale's numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:36 AM) I'm clicking on the 2013-18 payroll obligation link from the Sox page. That's where it shows Danks at $15.75M. It's updated because it shows Sale's numbers. I can't find that, but either way that's because of a signing bonus ($7.5 million) that was paid in 2012 and represented 2012 salary (it was simply deferred a few months). It should not be included in the 2013 to 2016 salary figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I can't find that, but either way that's because of a signing bonus ($7.5 million) that was paid in 2012 and represented 2012 salary (it was simply deferred a few months). It should not be included in the 2013 to 2016 salary figures. Link to spreadsheet on Cot's site. Whether it's $57M or $63M it doesn't make a difference. It certainly wasn't an attempt by me to exaggerate the number to make it more negative. I think we all agree the contact is bad enough at $57M. Edited March 17, 2013 by Marty34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 It's not bad if he pitches like a 2 or 3 starter. He's young, and left-handed. If he's nothing better than a 5 and Jose Quintana or Santiago pushes him out of the rotation or he goes Jim Parque (minus the steroids) on the Sox, then, yeah...it's really really bad, but nothing like Barry Zito bad. That's the problem when you're paying Peavy, Danks, Konerko, Dunn and Rios that kind of money. If two or three of them struggle, you're in a world of hurt. That said, putting all your eggs in the Josh Hamilton or Greinke basket is even asking for more trouble than spreading your risk amongst 5 players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Rowland Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) It's called counterbalancing the obvious and constant negative exaggerations. Is that what it's called? I thought it was you just being smug and condescending again. $57MM? $60MM? Does it really make a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Link to spreadsheet on Cot's site. Whether it's $57M or $63M it doesn't make a difference. It certainly wasn't an attempt by me to exaggerate the number to make it more negative. I think we all agree the contact is bad enough at $57M. If John Danks is healthy, it isn't anywhere near a bad contract. Have you see the contracts handed out to pitchers lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:26 AM) Is that what it's called? I thought it was you just being smug and condescending again. $57MM? $60MM? Does it really make a difference? Call it what you like. When information is consistently misrepresented, I am going to correct it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:48 AM) If John Danks is healthy, it isn't anywhere near a bad contract. Have you see the contracts handed out to pitchers lately? John Danks isn't healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) John Danks isn't healthy. According to who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.