Grab a SP now

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

[DA ignores logic of post, picks out one line to rant on]

[Eminor3rd]

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)

Edited January 27, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[witesoxfan]

For the 36th time, people have no problem giving up the draft pick in the proper situation. I guarantee if you asked anyone on here if the Sox could sign Tanaka but they had to give up the 2nd round pick, 100% of the people on here that wanted to sign Tanaka in the first place would have no problem doing so. I don't understand how people don't comprehend this.

 

The fact that we're talking about two 30-something starters who have been inconsistent, are expensive, and don't represent a major upgrade to the rotation is why most people don't want these guys, and that they have to give up a 2nd round pick is the icing on the stay-the-hell-away cake.

 

Please burn that into your minds.

[Dick Allen]

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.

Typical response. KW said he could have had a good farm system if he wished. Your words, not mine. Apparently that is why Jared Mitchell is a White Sox.

 

I was actually reading an article about Trout a couple of years ago, and a lot of people thought he was going to the White Sox.

[The Ultimate Champion]

How do you know this?

Because it happens every year.

 

Saying that there are teams which aren't looking for pitching now but will be in July is like saying that there will be people lighting off fireworks in July even though they are not doing so now.

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

Yes, because teams are going to give up talent as well as money to bring in a pitcher that they didn't want for the price he signed for 3 months ago.

 

You know, common sense.

[southsider2k5]

Typical response. KW said he could have had a good farm system if he wished. Your words, not mine. Apparently that is why Jared Mitchell is a White Sox.

 

I was actually reading an article about Trout a couple of years ago, and a lot of people thought he was going to the White Sox.

 

Yes it is a typical DA response. Again the question was answered pages, and years, ago. You are the one choosing to ignore the obvious here.

[witesoxfan]

Because it happens every year.

 

Saying that there are teams which aren't looking for pitching now but will be in July is like saying that there will be people lighting off fireworks in July even though they are not doing so now.

 

IT NEVER HAPPENS.

 

Give me one example of a team that signed a pitcher to a 3-4 year contract and then turned around and dealt him 3 months later. ONE.

[southsider2k5]

IT NEVER HAPPENS.

 

Give me one example of a team that signed a pitcher to a 3-4 year contract and then turned around and dealt him 3 months later. ONE.

 

The only answer is the Marlins.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Because the player has to agree to sign the contract. And if you lie to him, you get a bad rep (Marlins)

Hahn is pretty direct about all this stuff. He's not going to be lying to free agents to get out of NTC and so on. I'm just saying Hahn should make an offer that benefits the Sox with the full understanding that he may be traded during his contract at some point. If he doesn't want to sign the deal then fine, but you can make the effort. Santana has lost a lot of leverage already, he probably can't afford to get too picky.

[witesoxfan]

The only answer is the Marlins.

 

They haven't even done that. Buehrle doesn't work. They had Buehrle for a full season and then dealt him. I can't think of a single player that has ever been signed to a 4 year contract that was dealt 3-4 months into the first year.

[witesoxfan]

Hahn is pretty direct about all this stuff. He's not going to be lying to free agents to get out of NTC and so on. I'm just saying Hahn should make an offer that benefits the Sox with the full understanding that he may be traded during his contract at some point. If he doesn't want to sign the deal then fine, but you can make the effort. Santana has lost a lot of leverage already, he probably can't afford to get too picky.

 

Hahn has already commented on this topic. He said "We are not signing any free agent that results in the White Sox losing a draft pick." That's the message he sent to the agents of Ubaldo Jimenez, Ervin Santana, Kendrys Morales, and Nelson Cruz.

[The Ultimate Champion]

IT NEVER HAPPENS.

 

Give me one example of a team that signed a pitcher to a 3-4 year contract and then turned around and dealt him 3 months later. ONE.

I don't think that's legal under the CBA anyway. Peavy sort of counts though, although he was still Sox property when neogitations were taking place even if the contract was new.

 

Signing a guy and then trading him after 1-2 years is more likely. Part of the benefit of bringing in Santana would be to provide extra time for Beck and insurance should things go backwards with Danks, Johnson, etc. We'd definitely have to keep him 1 year, and then if Danks rebounds and we trade him, we'd probably have to keep Santana for a second year at least.

[Quin]

I don't think that's legal under the CBA anyway. Peavy sort of counts though, although he was still Sox property when neogitations were taking place even if the contract was new.

 

Signing a guy and then trading him after 1-2 years is more likely. Part of the benefit of bringing in Santana would be to provide extra time for Beck and insurance should things go backwards with Danks, Johnson, etc. We'd definitely have to keep him 1 year, and then if Danks rebounds and we trade him, we'd probably have to keep Santana for a second year at least.

 

It's legal, it would just burn a lot of bridges.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Hahn has already commented on this topic. He said "We are not signing any free agent that results in the White Sox losing a draft pick." That's the message he sent to the agents of Ubaldo Jimenez, Ervin Santana, Kendrys Morales, and Nelson Cruz.

I get that, but things do change. Santana's asking price was way above what it is now, how do we know he is rethinking this stuff? He also said earlier on there would be no commitment made even approaching Abreu $$$ and yet only a couple months later he's throwing $100M+ at Tanaka.

[witesoxfan]

I don't think that's legal under the CBA anyway. Peavy sort of counts though, although he was still Sox property when neogitations were taking place even if the contract was new.

 

Signing a guy and then trading him after 1-2 years is more likely. Part of the benefit of bringing in Santana would be to provide extra time for Beck and insurance should things go backwards with Danks, Johnson, etc. We'd definitely have to keep him 1 year, and then if Danks rebounds and we trade him, we'd probably have to keep Santana for a second year at least.

 

Peavy signed a 2 year deal with a vesting option for the 3rd.

 

You are also saying it may be illegal. So, here's what I have

 

-Sign 30 year old pitcher offering more than any other team will give.

-Keep said player for 1-2 years while White Sox have no idea what they have in multiple young pitchers.

-Trade said player after same time period because the Sox will totally not be in a position to compete in 2016 and giving up that asset makes the most sense.

-Still give up 2nd round pick and prevent White Sox from getting any actual additional prospect during the rebuilding years.

 

Is that about the sum of your arguments? I sure hope so, because that looks like something the f***ing Mariners would do.

[witesoxfan]

I get that, but things do change. Santana's asking price was way above what it is now, how do we know he is rethinking this stuff? He also said earlier on there would be no commitment made even approaching Abreu $$$ and yet only a couple months later he's throwing $100M+ at Tanaka.

 

He said this on Friday. Things are not going to change between now and Opening Day. He's not bringing either of them in.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Peavy signed a 2 year deal with a vesting option for the 3rd.

 

You are also saying it may be illegal. So, here's what I have

 

-Sign 30 year old pitcher offering more than any other team will give.

-Keep said player for 1-2 years while White Sox have no idea what they have in multiple young pitchers.

-Trade said player after same time period because the Sox will totally not be in a position to compete in 2016 and giving up that asset makes the most sense.

-Still give up 2nd round pick and prevent White Sox from getting any actual additional prospect during the rebuilding years.

 

Is that about the sum of your arguments? I sure hope so, because that looks like something the f***ing Mariners would do.

????

 

I'm saying to offer Santana a little bit better than what Kazmir got, similar to Nolasco or less, etc. Santana is a better pitcher with better stuff than all these 4s and 5s that signed this offseason, and if we can get him at a similar price then yes, do it, absolutely.

 

Yes, you keep your vets until your youngsters prove they need to play in the Majors. It's called insurance, stability, etc. You're making these young guys prove they deserve to be there and not just tossing them into the fire.

 

And you only trade 1 or 2 of Danks/Santana if/when the young guys push them out. You make the deal at that point because you feel you can replace that production within a year or so of MLB development time through a 6-year pre-arb player. You save money and get back talent in return. Net positive.

 

Yes, you give up the 2nd round pick. What part of this are you missing? That 2nd rounder isn't nearly as likely to bring the Sox value in the same way a proven MLB starter with Santana's ability can. What don't you get?

 

No, that's nothing like the Mariners. The Mariners??? Really? They relied on prospects forever, not mixing in vets, and then they went on a splurge after years of failure. I'm not sure how using Santana to plug a hole and then spinning him off for value later is somehow Mariners like or somehow detrimental to the long-term success of an organization or how it would in any way jeopardize a rebuilding effort.

[The Ultimate Champion]

It's legal, it would just burn a lot of bridges.

Trading him immediately might, but I don't see why we'd do that anyway. I don't see why we wouldn't be honest and upfront with free agents as far as what our plans are and I don't see why any free agent would sign a deal he thinks he'd shortly regret without getting compensated for that fact elsewhere in the deal.

[royoung]

????

 

I'm saying to offer Santana a little bit better than what Kazmir got, similar to Nolasco or less, etc. Santana is a better pitcher with better stuff than all these 4s and 5s that signed this offseason, and if we can get him at a similar price then yes, do it, absolutely.

 

Yes, you keep your vets until your youngsters prove they need to play in the Majors. It's called insurance, stability, etc. You're making these young guys prove they deserve to be there and not just tossing them into the fire.

 

And you only trade 1 or 2 of Danks/Santana if/when the young guys push them out. You make the deal at that point because you feel you can replace that production within a year or so of MLB development time through a 6-year pre-arb player. You save money and get back talent in return. Net positive.

 

Yes, you give up the 2nd round pick. What part of this are you missing? That 2nd rounder isn't nearly as likely to bring the Sox value in the same way a proven MLB starter with Santana's ability can. What don't you get?

 

No, that's nothing like the Mariners. The Mariners??? Really? They relied on prospects forever, not mixing in vets, and then they went on a splurge after years of failure. I'm not sure how using Santana to plug a hole and then spinning him off for value later is somehow Mariners like or somehow detrimental to the long-term success of an organization or how it would in any way jeopardize a rebuilding effort.

 

Unless you are confident in Santana or Jimenez magically pitching better then they ever have in careers during their mid 30's, we will not get back excess value for them. The point of free agency is to determine their market value which you are suggesting we set by giving them a long term contract. Almost assuredly, they will not exceed or even met their contract and they will be a liability, similar to the Rios situation. We basically had to salary dump Rios even though he was a capable player due to his bad contract. We would be lucky to simply get out from under their contract, let only get back something equal to or better than the #43 overall amateur player in the country.

[witesoxfan]

????

 

I'm saying to offer Santana a little bit better than what Kazmir got, similar to Nolasco or less, etc. Santana is a better pitcher with better stuff than all these 4s and 5s that signed this offseason, and if we can get him at a similar price then yes, do it, absolutely.

 

Yes, you keep your vets until your youngsters prove they need to play in the Majors. It's called insurance, stability, etc. You're making these young guys prove they deserve to be there and not just tossing them into the fire.

 

And you only trade 1 or 2 of Danks/Santana if/when the young guys push them out. You make the deal at that point because you feel you can replace that production within a year or so of MLB development time through a 6-year pre-arb player. You save money and get back talent in return. Net positive.

 

Yes, you give up the 2nd round pick. What part of this are you missing? That 2nd rounder isn't nearly as likely to bring the Sox value in the same way a proven MLB starter with Santana's ability can. What don't you get?

 

No, that's nothing like the Mariners. The Mariners??? Really? They relied on prospects forever, not mixing in vets, and then they went on a splurge after years of failure. I'm not sure how using Santana to plug a hole and then spinning him off for value later is somehow Mariners like or somehow detrimental to the long-term success of an organization or how it would in any way jeopardize a rebuilding effort.

 

Right now, the Sox rotation features:

-3 guys who are making 7 (or 8) digit figures

-1 guy who has put up great numbers over the past 2 years, and

-1 guy who is the top pitching prospect in the system and one of the more highly thought of pitchers in all of minor league baseball.

 

Who are you kicking out of the rotation to bring in Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? Paulino to the bullpen? Say good bye to Daniel Webb then. Johnson? No point in having him repeat AAA when he destroyed it last year.

 

It's an absolutely absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea to bring in another starting pitcher. Thank f*** Rick Hahn is the GM.

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

Right now, the Sox rotation features:

-3 guys who are making 7 (or 8) digit figures

-1 guy who has put up great numbers over the past 2 years, and

-1 guy who is the top pitching prospect in the system and one of the more highly thought of pitchers in all of minor league baseball.

 

Who are you kicking out of the rotation to bring in Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? Paulino to the bullpen? Say good bye to Daniel Webb then. Johnson? No point in having him repeat AAA when he destroyed it last year.

 

It's an absolutely absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea to bring in another starting pitcher. Thank f*** Rick Hahn is the GM.

God forbid Paulino goes to the pen. Lindstrom can be traded to clear the way for Webb if need be. Can't make an omelet without breaking a couple eggs.

 

You're sitting atop Hyperbole Mountain right now with the craziness and absurdity etc etc etc especially when your main arguments are Paulino's future and the loss of a second round pick

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

Unless you are confident in Santana or Jimenez magically pitching better then they ever have in careers during their mid 30's, we will not get back excess value for them. The point of free agency is to determine their market value which you are suggesting we set by giving them a long term contract. Almost assuredly, they will not exceed or even met their contract and they will be a liability, similar to the Rios situation. We basically had to salary dump Rios even though he was a capable player due to his bad contract. We would be lucky to simply get out from under their contract, let only get back something equal to or better than the #43 overall amateur player in the country.

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.

Edited January 27, 2014 by The Ultimate Champion

[witesoxfan]

God forbid Paulino goes to the pen. Lindstrom can be traded to clear the way for Webb if need be. Can't make an omelet without breaking a couple eggs.

 

You're sitting atop Hyperbole Mountain right now with the craziness and absurdity etc etc etc especially when your main arguments are Paulino's future and the loss of a second round pick

 

You are obviously not reading a thing then.

 

The Sox have broken a ton of eggs thus far. They don't need to break anymore. I don't give a s*** about Paulino personally, but he is a guy that can be dealt at the deadline or re-signed to an extension. Using him in the bullpen - where his career ERA is like over 9 - is a waste of his ability. You may as well see what you can do with him. I have said 37 times that I don't give two s***s about losing the 2nd round pick, but I don't want Santana and Jimenez for a multitude of reasons (those of which I'm not going to mention again because if I've posted them 28 times, what the hell good is a 29th when you're just going to ignore it anyways?). The fact that you do lose a 2nd round pick if you sign Santana or Jimenez is the icing on the stay-the-hell-away cake.

 

(need I mention that the 2nd round pick would go to a division rival? Nah, f*** it)

 

Thankfully, Rick Hahn said the Sox aren't going to do this and he's smart and wants to see what he has in his young pitchers and he's going to stay very far away from pitchers in their 30s because they won't be with the Sox when they're actually good again.