Sox still trying to trade Dunn?

[royoung]

Paulino may be good he may be awful. He pitched 37 innings in 2012 and 0 in 2013, and before that he was pretty awful.

 

For anyone to suggest he has a decent chance to outperform Jimenez in 2014, is not basing it on anything you really should base anything upon. Just basing it on because they say so.

 

I agree with you. I wouldn't bet on Paulino being a better pitcher than Jimenez in a vacuum, but I think it's very likely Paulino outperforms his contract and Jimenez does not.

[ILMOU]

I wish Ervin Santana and Jimenez would just sign already so this moot and useless conversation ends. Chances Paulino outperforms Ubaldo Jimenez this year??

 

Agreed and sorry if I contributed to the nonsense. The angle I'm interested in is the current FA market, the value of the picks cutting into player salaries, and how FA looks for us next year at possible positions of need, like DH or LF.

 

I think it's a couple years from a new CBA. I wonder if some players will sign with their current team for one year, with the promise of no QO next year. Is that even possible?

[witesoxfan]

Paulino may be good he may be awful. He pitched 37 innings in 2012 and 0 in 2013, and before that he was pretty awful.

 

For anyone to suggest he has a decent chance to outperform Jimenez in 2014, is not basing it on anything you really should base anything upon. Just basing it on because they say so.

 

I don't necessarily agree just because Paulino has been incredibly productive as a starter before. However, if you were to ask who is more likely to stay healthy, I'd give Jimenez about a 95% chance of doing that.

[Dick Allen]

I don't necessarily agree just because Paulino has been incredibly productive as a starter before. However, if you were to ask who is more likely to stay healthy, I'd give Jimenez about a 95% chance of doing that.

He is coming off surgery. He has pitched 37 innings since Ozzie Guillen was managing the White Sox. Jimenez has been far more productive in the past as a starter.

 

Because you are not a fan of Jimenez, you discount that and ignore all of Paulino's warts. It might work out the way you claim, but your conclusion is only based on your personal bias. Any reasonable person would conclude that the odds are far longer than 50/50 Paulino outperforms Jimenez.

 

5 of the past 6 seasons, Jimenez has put up at least a 3.2 WAR. Paulino has had one season where he had more than half of that.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

He is coming off surgery. He has pitched 37 innings since Ozzie Guillen was managing the White Sox. Jimenez has been far more productive in the past as a starter.

 

Because you are not a fan of Jimenez, you discount that and ignore all of Paulino's warts. It might work out the way you claim, but your conclusion is only based on your personal bias. Any reasonable person would conclude that the odds are far longer than 50/50 Paulino outperforms Jimenez.

 

No, I actually happen to like Jimenez, especially his stuff, but he's been an incredibly inconsistent pitcher over his career and he's just as likely (if not moreso) to put up an ERA over 5 as he is to put one up under 3.50. They both have a lot of warts.

[Dick Allen]

No, I actually happen to like Jimenez, especially his stuff, but he's been an incredibly inconsistent pitcher over his career and he's just as likely (if not moreso) to put up an ERA over 5 as he is to put one up under 3.50. They both have a lot of warts.

But Paulino who has a career ERA right at about 5.00, should have a decent chance to outperform him even though he missed last season and only pitched 37 innings in 2012.

 

Again, you are not basing this on any logic. If it really was 50/50, either Paulino would have received A LOT more money than the White Sox gave him, or Jimenez would have to settle for A LOT less than he is going to be paid.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

But Paulino who has a career ERA right at about 5.00, should have a decent chance to outperform him even though he missed last season and only pitched 37 innings in 2012.

 

Again, you are not basing this on any logic. If it really was 50/50, either Paulino would have received A LOT more money than the White Sox gave him, or Jimenez would have to settle for A LOT less than he is going to be paid.

 

His career ERA as a starter is 4.45, whereas it's above 9 as a reliever. He had an ERA of 4.26 as a starter in 2011 and he was absolutely filthy in 7 starts in 2012 with an ERA of 1.67. There is plenty of logic to figure that he will do well.

 

Regardless of any of this, Paulino is the far, far better investment.

[Dick Allen]

His career ERA as a starter is 4.45, whereas it's above 9 as a reliever. He had an ERA of 4.26 as a starter in 2011 and he was absolutely filthy in 7 starts in 2012 with an ERA of 1.67. There is plenty of logic to figure that he will do well.

 

Regardless of any of this, Paulino is the far, far better investment.

Jimenez is younger, healthier, and has a better track record. Other than that, you argument basing it 50/50 on 37 innings 2 years ago before major surgery, makes perfect sense.

[Balta1701]

Regardless of any of this, Paulino is the far, far better investment.

You should ad "for a team coming off a 99 loss season" to that. If we were coming off an 89 win season, I could definitely see Jiminez being an investment teams would target for rotation depth

[Dick Allen]

I believe Wites speaking in terms of value. You can pay Jimenez 12-15 mil for 4 years and gamble each and every year for which Jimenez you'll get. Or you can take Paulino for 1.75 mil over one year with a team friendly option. If Paulino stays healthy and Jimenez has one of his bad years then Paulino outperforms Jimenez. Obviously there is ifs but it's far from inconceivable.

He can move the goalposts like he usually does when he realizes he is wrong, but the question was chances Paulino outperforms Jimenez this year and he said 50/50. I just point out that cannot be based on any logic. Performance has nothing to do with money. If they were the same price, and you had to choose one, would you even consider Paulino? From what he wrote, it's a coin flip.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

He can move the goalposts like he usually does when he realizes he is wrong, but the question was chances Paulino outperforms Jimenez this year and he said 50/50. I just point out that cannot be based on any logic. Performance has nothing to do with money. If they were the same price, and you had to choose one, would you even consider Paulino? From what he wrote, it's a coin flip.

 

Or he can just start nickpicking at one small part out of an entire body of discussion when he knows that he is wrong...

[witesoxfan]

I'm not talking merely about value. I'm talking about overall production. I am saying that I think there's a 50/50 chance that Paulino is as effective next year as Jimenez. Durability is an entirely different facet of this where I am fully aware that Jimenez is a far, far safer bet.

 

If by productive, you meant total value, then yes, Jimenez is more likely to be more valuable regarding both production on the field and having the ability to stay on the field. As a pure pitcher, it's a tossup.

[Marty34]

You should ad "for a team coming off a 99 loss season" to that. If we were coming off an 89 win season, I could definitely see Jiminez being an investment teams would target for rotation depth

 

Why 89 wins? The Sox have virtually no money locked up in long-term commitments. They can easily add money in the coming years. The smart thing to do would be to take advantage of the market on these guys (Jimenez or Santana) because it's highly unlikely their caliber of pitcher will be available at the discount they are going to go for.

[Dick Allen]

Or he can just start nickpicking at one small part out of an entire body of discussion when he knows that he is wrong...

?

 

Where am I wrong?

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Why 89 wins? The Sox have virtually no money locked up in long-term commitments. They can easily add money in the coming years. The smart thing to do would be to take advantage of the market on these guys (Jimenez or Santana) because it's highly unlikely their caliber of pitcher will be available at the discount they are going to go for.

 

Because the value added of 3 wins for Jimenez for a 75 win team is negligible, if not outright harmful. The value added of 3 wins to an 89 win team may take them from first team out to last team in.

 

This, of course, is all dependent upon what type of assets you have in those positions. The Sox happen to have 7 starting pitchers right now who they can use, and 5 of them could easily be as good as Jimenez next year.

Edited February 3, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Marty34]

Because the value added of 3 wins for Jimenez for a 75 win team is negligible, if not outright harmful. The value added of 3 wins to an 89 win team may take them from first team out to last team in.

 

This, of course, is all dependent upon what type of assets you have in those positions. The Sox happen to have 7 starting pitchers right now who they can use, and 5 of them could easily be as good as Jimenez next year.

 

Even taking your best case scenario of having 5 pitchers as good as Jimenez, how does his addition hurt the Sox rebuild?

[Balta1701]

Even taking your best case scenario of having 5 pitchers as good as Jimenez, how does his addition hurt the Sox rebuild?

Because then you will spend the next 3 years insisting the Sox need to get rid of him just like you're doing now with Adam Dunn. This will make anyone who reads it so sick of the White Sox that they wind up converting to Cubs/Cardinals fans, seriously undermining the White Sox's fanbase and ticket sales. The White Sox will then have to further cut payroll by reducing FA and draft spending, seriously hampering their ability to rebuild.

[witesoxfan]

Even taking your best case scenario of having 5 pitchers as good as Jimenez, how does his addition hurt the Sox rebuild?

 

Is this a serious question?

 

Say you're running a laundromat, and you have Seven washing machines. Five of them are usually sufficient to get the job done, but there are two of them that occasionally need maintenance so the other two, lesser quality ones are used. They get the job done, but not as well. You are spending $200 a day to run these and take home $400, and you continually make a profit of $200.

 

Someone offers you the opportunity to bring in another washing machine that is just as good as the first five (though you, being a smart businessman, know it's not necessary because you only need five). This increases your daily costs to $350. You are still only bringing in $400, but now you've cut your profits to $50.

 

Edited February 3, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Marty34]

?

 

Where am I wrong?

 

You're not wrong. It's bizarre that there are people who 1.) WANT to give this rotation a try, 2.) believe the addition of Jimenez or Santana kills the rebuild. Thirty years of Chairman Reinsdorf's ownership has conditioned Sox fans to think first about the payroll.

[Marty34]

Is this a serious question?

 

Absolutely, I want to know how the Sox rebuild effort is hurt if your best case scenario comes to fruition.

[witesoxfan]

You're not wrong. It's bizarre that there are people who 1.) WANT to give this rotation a try, 2.) believe the addition of Jimenez or Santana kills the rebuild. Thirty years of Chairman Reinsdorf's ownership has conditioned Sox fans to think first about the payroll.

 

Yes, because bringing in 30 year old pitchers at $15 mill a year over 4 years SCREAMS rebuilding. That's something all the teams that rebuild properly do.

[witesoxfan]

Absolutely, I want to know how the Sox rebuild effort is hurt if your best case scenario comes to fruition.

 

Washing machines

[Marty34]

Yes, because bringing in 30 year old pitchers at $15 mill a year over 4 years SCREAMS rebuilding. That's something all the teams that rebuild properly do.

 

The White Sox are a rebuilding team with money. Isn't exploiting market inefficiencies what smart teams should do?

[southsider2k5]

Why 89 wins? The Sox have virtually no money locked up in long-term commitments. They can easily add money in the coming years. The smart thing to do would be to take advantage of the market on these guys (Jimenez or Santana) because it's highly unlikely their caliber of pitcher will be available at the discount they are going to go for.

 

Tying up money in back of the rotation starters does not help this team going forward. Pitching is the last thing this team needs to tie up money in, unless a top notch guy comes along.

[witesoxfan]

The White Sox are a rebuilding team with money. Isn't exploiting market inefficiencies what smart teams should do?

 

What are you talking about? What market inefficiency?

 

There's also the aspect of marginal value that you are, for whatever reason, not taking into consideration. Jimenez might be worth 4 more wins than Erik Johnson over the duration of his contract. Do you really want to spend $50-60 million for 4 wins over 4 years? I'm saying, literally, that instead of 77 this year, you'd win 78. Do you truly, honestly, 100% believe that's a smart business decision? If you do, then I'd like to sell you apples that are better than the ones you can get in the store (but only marginally so) for $10 a piece.