witesoxfan Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:50 PM) Then he won't sign. No biggie. He's not going to sign anyways because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I love when the Sox sign guys that aren't attached to draft pick compensation to 1 year deals in hopes of flipping them. I've suggested they do this before, but it is just something they haven't done a lot of. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Lindstrom and Downs dealt this year at the deadline. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year contract with the ultimate goal being "trade them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) He's not going to sign anyways because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I love when the Sox sign guys that aren't attached to draft pick compensation to 1 year deals in hopes of flipping them. I've suggested they do this before, but it is just something they haven't done a lot of. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Lindstrom and Downs dealt this year at the deadline. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year contract with the ultimate goal being "trade them." And what you get back will be a bunch of junk. And it doesn't necessarily mean trade them. It does free Hahn up to trade another pitcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) Why not sign with a winner in the first place? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) What could be a more popular recruiting pitch than, "you are just coming here so we can trade you later!" ? Players want to control their own destiny. Why the heck would they look to give up control of their location? Money and security and the knowledge that wherever they are, they will have a chance to win because generally teams out of it aren't going to trade for these guys during the season. Edited January 27, 2014 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) He's not going to sign anyways because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I love when the Sox sign guys that aren't attached to draft pick compensation to 1 year deals in hopes of flipping them. I've suggested they do this before, but it is just something they haven't done a lot of. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Lindstrom and Downs dealt this year at the deadline. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year contract with the ultimate goal being "trade them." 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) This would make sense if there was no market for him, but there is a market for him. What are the teams offering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) What are the teams offering? We will see soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) Money and security and the knowledge that wherever they are, they will have a chance to win because generally teams out of it aren't going to trade for these guys during the season. You have a funny definition of security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. You have got to be trolling at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) You have a funny definition of security. $12-13 million a year for 3 or 4 years is pretty good security in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) You have got to be trolling at that point. 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. Edited January 27, 2014 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Marty & Dick Allen have been killing it lately. Respect. As a token of my appreciation I humbly offer the both of you this chicken fried steak: Here also are a few mouthwatering biscuits fresh out of the oven, smothered in the same delictable sausage gravy you see above: And to top it all off, as if there could be anything greater, as if there could be anything left uncooked, here is a fresh slice of caramel apple pie, drizzled with caramel, topped with handmade french vanilla ice cream: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I tried getting caught up but it got too difficult so I'm just gonna say Ervin Johan Magic Santana sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. No, what I say makes sense. What you are suggesting is irrational bordering on insane. As was mentioned, guys sign 1 year deals just to be traded eventually all the time. They do this in hopes of building their value to the point, both with winners and non-winners, to attempt to earn a multi-year contract offer the following offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. How do you know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Why are we crafting all these arguments that put the pitcher's ideal wants in mind? These guys are FA because their prices were too high & they had to come down. They are available because they *didn't* get what they wanted. The idea is to make the Sox better, not to make them all happy and so forth. Give Santana a deal that benefits the Sox by allowing them to trade him. If he doesn't sign it then oh well, but to act as if the draft pick is THAT valuable is kind of .... questionable at the least. You're looking at one player whose has never played in a MiLB game and is probably 3-5 years away if he makes it, and at least 1-2 years away from being included in a trade for a veteran player. The odds of Santana doing something positive for this organization would be a lot higher than their 2nd rounder doing anything positive for the organization. Sign Santana, keep Danks. If they both do good things then you can turn around and trade them both, get out of their salaries and pick up useful prospects that you've been able to watch develop in the minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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? These guys are FA because their prices were too high & they had to come down. They are available because they *didn't* get what they wanted. The idea is to make the Sox better, not to make them all happy and so forth. Give Santana a deal that benefits the Sox by allowing them to trade him. If he doesn't sign it then oh well, but to act as if the draft pick is THAT valuable is kind of .... questionable at the least. You're looking at one player whose has never played in a MiLB game and is probably 3-5 years away if he makes it, and at least 1-2 years away from being included in a trade for a veteran player. The odds of Santana doing something positive for this organization would be a lot higher than their 2nd rounder doing anything positive for the organization. Sign Santana, keep Danks. If they both do good things then you can turn around and trade them both, get out of their salaries and pick up useful prospects that you've been able to watch develop in the minors. And if they both suck, which Santana is more likely to do at USCF, you're stuck with his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) How do you know this? Because I know most teams go through at least 7 or 8 starters a year. A lot of teams want to see where they are at in July. You know, common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) 22 other front offices passed on Mike Trout. How many times does that need to be said? It doesn't matter how many times you say something, if it doesn't fit the rant, DA ignores it. For example, I answered the KW farm system question he keeps asking pages ago. It didn't fit the agenda, and it has been dually ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts