Asking Prices Beginning to Fall

[Dick Allen]

And yet, none of their peripherals are close to Rienzo's. Looking at just minor league ERA is like looking at just batting average.

And Rienzo was older at the more advanced levels than a typical prospect.

So you are now saying Rienzo is good correct? Earlier in the thread you wouldn't commit to that. Obviously, things have changed.

 

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Just look at Charlotte's staff. Jason Berken had a lower ERA. Charlie Leesman had a lower ERA. Check out Dylan Axelrod's minor league career. It is quite impressive.

10 starts in a row similiar stats. I have not seen one example yet. You have 30 AAA 2013 staffs to chose from to cherry pick exactly as I did all you want . Surely you can prove to me Rienzo is a dime a dozen. I'm not saying Rienzo is guareenteed any future success as a ML either. Just show me those 12 2013 starters AAA starters who had a similiar 10 game stretch.

[witesoxfan]

And Rienzo was older at the more advanced levels than a typical prospect.

So you are now saying Rienzo is good correct? Earlier in the thread you wouldn't commit to that. Obviously, things have changed.

 

He was good in AAA. Among young pitchers at AAA or above, I would say he is the 2nd most likely to carve out a career as a starting pitcher, next to Erik Johnson. I think his stuff will translate better than Surkamp's to the MLB level. That said, I still prefer to start the season with Paulino in the rotation.

 

I don't have a stance on Rienzo. I am not saying he is good or he is not good because I don't know what he is, and you don't either.

[Dick Allen]

He was good in AAA. Among young pitchers at AAA or above, I would say he is the 2nd most likely to carve out a career as a starting pitcher, next to Erik Johnson. I think his stuff will translate better than Surkamp's to the MLB level. That said, I still prefer to start the season with Paulino in the rotation.

 

I don't have a stance on Rienzo. I am not saying he is good or he is not good because I don't know what he is, and you don't either.

Quite different from earlier in the day when you had no faith in him but do in a guy who hasn't pitched in 2 years. If you have no faith in someone (which to me means you don't think he's very good) and admittedly don't know what he is, why are you arguing?

 

I'm sure most can. Please be aware that I've never suggested Surkamp or Rienzo are going to be good, merely that they are talented or semi talented 6th starters for the Sox, and the only guy I have any sort of faith in among that final 3 is Paulino.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

10 starts in a row similiar stats. I have not seen one example yet. You have 30 AAA 2013 staffs to chose from to cherry pick exactly as I did all you want . Surely you can prove to me Rienzo is a dime a dozen. I'm not saying Rienzo is guareenteed any future success as a ML either. Just show me those 12 2013 starters AAA starters who had a similiar 10 game stretch.

The old I'm not saying he's going to be good, but I will argue and tell you that you are wrong if you say any different routine.

 

A 10 game stretch in AAA. That is what you are basing this on?

 

I think he can be a decent relief pitcher some day. As a starter, I don't think he will make it. My opinion. Maybe it is wrong. We will see.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Quite different from earlier in the day when you had no faith in him but do in a guy who hasn't pitched in 2 years. If you have no faith in someone (which to me means you don't think he's very good) and admittedly don't know what he is, why are you arguing?

 

I'm sure most can. Please be aware that I've never suggested Surkamp or Rienzo are going to be good, merely that they are talented or semi talented 6th starters for the Sox, and the only guy I have any sort of faith in among that final 3 is Paulino.

 

Because I really like Paulino and think he's a good pitcher. I don't have faith in Surkamp or Rienzo, but we simply don't know enough about them. My primary concern regarding Paulino is health. I could certainly end up with egg on my face.

[GreenSox]

Asking prices are still high because they include a first round choice (2nd for us) and always will. Those choices are high currency.

We do need probably 2 starters, but we aren't ready yet.

 

[caulfield12]

They NEED a starting pitcher just as much as they NEED a first baseman. Just ask Balta. The Sox have plenty of 1B/DH. And as you admitted, chances are the Sox are going to have to rely on guys like Paulino who has pitched 140 innings exactly never in his MLB career, and after him are guys who you admittedly said are probably no good with Rienzo, Surkamp and even Axelrod. They will always need pitching. If they didn't need pitching, no one in their right mind could say they aren't contending for a playoff spot.

 

 

Even with Santiago AND Jimenez, it's quite doubtful they would be competitive for a playoff spot.

 

Just like almost nobody would feel comfortable with Gillaspie or Keppinger playing 3B on a team with playoff aspirations.

 

 

Loiaza, Contreras, Jenks, Thornton, Humber (for one season), Quintana, Hector Santiago, Santos, Sale, etc., have proven that the White Sox from time to time know what they're doing with developing pitchers. Even Daniel Hudson, Clayton Richard and McCarthy. Gio Gonzalez is the one glaring miscalculation, thinking he could end up as a reliever due to his frame.

Edited February 6, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

LOL! So were you wrong or right?

 

Oh, the irony.

 

The only reason we've had 3-4 threads on this subject are because MARKET CONDITIONS (THEORETICALLY) HAVE CHANGED.

 

So teams shouldn't ever take that into consideration, apparently.

 

 

Hahn decided Salty wasn't worth the ongoing risk, in the biggest position of need (will anyone disagree with this claim?) and arguably the most crucial on the diamond. (Note, he also wasn't going to cost the White Sox a draft pick and he still passed on him).

 

Abreu became available at a price probably $20-30 million under what it could have been with the big-spending teams involved...they exploited a market opportunity and found a possible game-changer, and attempted to do the same with Tanaka (putting more effort, seemingly, into it than the Cubs, who predicated their entire offseason on getting Tanaka).

Edited February 6, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Sorry, not release candidates, after thoughts. And if a HS kid is picked in 2014, according to you if they aren't up by 2019 they probably will never be with the White Sox. Here it is:

 

 

I absolutely think that Hawkins could help the Sox in 2 years. It all depends on how well he performs. The fact is, if these guys aren't helping or close to helping the major league team in 4 years, they're basically after thoughts. Do you really think anyone in the White Sox front office views Jared Mitchell as a potential starting player down the road? But he went to college, so he should have been up in 3 years, right?

 

If the high schooler they take in the 1st and/or 2nd round this year isn't up by the end of the decade, odds are pretty good they'll never be up with the White Sox.

 

For a collegiate player, 4 years is quite fair to judge whether he'll ever be a big major league contributor, although there are always exceptions.

 

For a high schooler, 5 and possibly 6 (for raw players like a Trayce Thompson without much high school experience or multi-sport stars who don't play year-round) is more accurate.

 

Even then, you'll occasionally find guys like a Scott Podsednik that take even longer to blossom.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

The old I'm not saying he's going to be good, but I will argue and tell you that you are wrong if you say any different routine.

 

A 10 game stretch in AAA. That is what you are basing this on?

 

I think he can be a decent relief pitcher some day. As a starter, I don't think he will make it. My opinion. Maybe it is wrong. We will see.

The old you said he was a dime a dozen and it just isn't a 10 game stretch ,it's his last ten starts in AAA before he was recalled. I'm just trying to say he isn't a dime a dozen. He worked his way up the minor league ladder and had the best stretch of that career at the highest level of the minors before he was brought up I am not predicting his future like you are I'm just saying he's more than worthy of getting a shot.26 is not old for a pitcher figure out how to use his stuff to get hitters out. Why pay big money for the type of production it's possible to get for much cheaper ? I'd even suggest if Jimenez was available at 2yrs $18M I'd do that. Maybe the Sox wouldn't.

 

And I never said you were wrong. We disagree on him , there's a difference.

Edited February 6, 2014 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[The Ultimate Champion]

Oh, the irony.

 

The only reason we've had 3-4 threads on this subject are because MARKET CONDITIONS (THEORETICALLY) HAVE CHANGED.

 

So teams shouldn't ever take that into consideration, apparently.

This, caulfield, is exactly what I think is wrong with all these threads, which Mary & Dick Allen seem to understand but the rest of you guys don't. Market conditions have changed considerably. Santana wasn't an $18-20+M pitcher over 5-7 years, obviously. NOBODY in their right mind thought that. But he's now fallen into "bargain" territory IMO or at least "reasonable price" territory and yet some posters here just want to make it out like he's terrible, has never been good, isn't worth more than a few million or so, etc. And that is just ridiculous. It's not based in any sort of statistical reality, it's just dumb hate for the sake of it. And the absurd overvaluing of the draft pick - ASSUMING both that the pick will become a valuable asset AND that Santana couldn't bring back an equal or greater return - is just icing on the "cake" and by "cake" I'm not talking about the stuff you want to eat either.

 

If the Sox signed Santana tomorrow for 3/$39 this board's opinion would change overnight. Will the Sox make an effort? Probably not, because they still have a lot of other positional issues to address, but the idea that they'd be stupid to hand out a reasonable deal to a quality SP isn't an idea that any intelligent baseball fan should hold. I've posted links to Santana's B-R page, even you caulfield whom I respect tried to say his stuff had considerably diminished when apparently fangraphs hasn't recorded anything of the sort, and yet all I see is a bunch of people ripping the guy's ability. Then the threads get closed because nobody seems to want to talk any sense, just hate hate hate and bulls***.

 

I was just as sick of Gavin Floyd's mental lapses as anyone. Javy Vazquez gave me fits. Ervin Santana definitely has a little of that Floyd/Javy shakiness no doubt and as a result isn't a top-end pitcher nor should he be paid like one. But all three of the pitchers I have mentioned are/were quality pitchers with above average stuff who just happened to fade here and there, and although sometimes maddening, players like that *do* have value and *are* in demand especially around the trade deadline. IMO anyone who thinks signing that Santana to a reasonable deal would be a *bad* move is being absurd. There is certainly an amount of risk there, as there is in every free agent deal, but it's at least a deal that offers some upside to the team. And it's not like a 3-year deal for the guy is a franchise-crippling event should it go bad.

 

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

The old you said he was a dime a dozen and it just isn't a 10 game stretch ,it's his last ten starts in AAA before he was recalled. I'm just trying to say he isn't a dime a dozen. He worked his way up the minor league ladder and had the best stretch of that career at the highest level of the minors before he was brought up I am not predicting his future like you are I'm just saying he's more than worthy of getting a shot.26 is not old for a pitcher figure out how to use his stuff to get hitters out. Why pay big money for the type of production it's possible to get for much cheaper ? I'd even suggest if Jimenez was available at 2yrs $18M I'd do that. Maybe the Sox wouldn't.

 

And I never said you were wrong. We disagree on him , there's a difference.

He has nice MiLB numbers but his arm is really pedestrian. Whatever Keith Law or whoever says, I wasn't impressed, and I don't trust those guys either. They also said that Dan Hudson was a 5th starter and they say Hector Santiago is a #5/pen guy and I called bulls*** immediately on Hudson & I call bulls*** on Santiago as well. Rienzo OTOH definitely has a below average arm for an MLB starter but I do think he could stick as a back-end guy. I don't think he has setup man stuff, more a MR or LR for us, which is why I think he'll eventually be traded as a part of a smaller type of deal, because he probably offers a lot more value as a 4 or 5-year starter (3 pre-arb and 1 or 2 arb) than he would as a more generic MR type. Which isn't to say he's not valuable, because that's nice to have, but I just highly doubt the Sox think of him as a future SP for the White Sox and I think if they did think that they'd have never brought in Paulino.

Edited February 6, 2014 by The Ultimate Champion

[ScottyDo]

This, caulfield, is exactly what I think is wrong with all these threads, which Mary & Dick Allen seem to understand but the rest of you guys don't. Market conditions have changed considerably. Santana wasn't an $18-20+M pitcher over 5-7 years, obviously. NOBODY in their right mind thought that. But he's now fallen into "bargain" territory IMO or at least "reasonable price" territory and yet some posters here just want to make it out like he's terrible, has never been good, isn't worth more than a few million or so, etc. And that is just ridiculous. It's not based in any sort of statistical reality, it's just dumb hate for the sake of it. And the absurd overvaluing of the draft pick - ASSUMING both that the pick will become a valuable asset AND that Santana couldn't bring back an equal or greater return - is just icing on the "cake" and by "cake" I'm not talking about the stuff you want to eat either.

 

If the Sox signed Santana tomorrow for 3/$39 this board's opinion would change overnight. Will the Sox make an effort? Probably not, because they still have a lot of other positional issues to address, but the idea that they'd be stupid to hand out a reasonable deal to a quality SP isn't an idea that any intelligent baseball fan should hold. I've posted links to Santana's B-R page, even you caulfield whom I respect tried to say his stuff had considerably diminished when apparently fangraphs hasn't recorded anything of the sort, and yet all I see is a bunch of people ripping the guy's ability. Then the threads get closed because nobody seems to want to talk any sense, just hate hate hate and bulls***.

 

I was just as sick of Gavin Floyd's mental lapses as anyone. Javy Vazquez gave me fits. Ervin Santana definitely has a little of that Floyd/Javy shakiness no doubt and as a result isn't a top-end pitcher nor should he be paid like one. But all three of the pitchers I have mentioned are/were quality pitchers with above average stuff who just happened to fade here and there, and although sometimes maddening, players like that *do* have value and *are* in demand especially around the trade deadline. IMO anyone who thinks signing that Santana to a reasonable deal would be a *bad* move is being absurd. There is certainly an amount of risk there, as there is in every free agent deal, but it's at least a deal that offers some upside to the team. And it's not like a 3-year deal for the guy is a franchise-crippling event should it go bad.

A component of this that you're missing is that some of us don't think of these market conditions as anomalous. They are arising specifically because of a CBA change, and that rule will still be in place next year. The Yankees STILL need pitching and if they aren't bellying up for Jimenez and Santana in 2014, they won't in 2015 for equivalent players. The asking price for middling players has just been drastically reduced, precisely because of this draft pick you think is essentially worthless.

[caulfield12]

This, caulfield, is exactly what I think is wrong with all these threads, which Mary & Dick Allen seem to understand but the rest of you guys don't. Market conditions have changed considerably. Santana wasn't an $18-20+M pitcher over 5-7 years, obviously. NOBODY in their right mind thought that. But he's now fallen into "bargain" territory IMO or at least "reasonable price" territory and yet some posters here just want to make it out like he's terrible, has never been good, isn't worth more than a few million or so, etc. And that is just ridiculous. It's not based in any sort of statistical reality, it's just dumb hate for the sake of it. And the absurd overvaluing of the draft pick - ASSUMING both that the pick will become a valuable asset AND that Santana couldn't bring back an equal or greater return - is just icing on the "cake" and by "cake" I'm not talking about the stuff you want to eat either.

 

If the Sox signed Santana tomorrow for 3/$39 this board's opinion would change overnight. Will the Sox make an effort? Probably not, because they still have a lot of other positional issues to address, but the idea that they'd be stupid to hand out a reasonable deal to a quality SP isn't an idea that any intelligent baseball fan should hold. I've posted links to Santana's B-R page, even you caulfield whom I respect tried to say his stuff had considerably diminished when apparently fangraphs hasn't recorded anything of the sort, and yet all I see is a bunch of people ripping the guy's ability. Then the threads get closed because nobody seems to want to talk any sense, just hate hate hate and bulls***.

 

I was just as sick of Gavin Floyd's mental lapses as anyone. Javy Vazquez gave me fits. Ervin Santana definitely has a little of that Floyd/Javy shakiness no doubt and as a result isn't a top-end pitcher nor should he be paid like one. But all three of the pitchers I have mentioned are/were quality pitchers with above average stuff who just happened to fade here and there, and although sometimes maddening, players like that *do* have value and *are* in demand especially around the trade deadline. IMO anyone who thinks signing that Santana to a reasonable deal would be a *bad* move is being absurd. There is certainly an amount of risk there, as there is in every free agent deal, but it's at least a deal that offers some upside to the team. And it's not like a 3-year deal for the guy is a franchise-crippling event should it go bad.

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1848253...illion-contract

 

This is a pretty exhaustive examination of Santana...I should have said his stuff peaked in 2008 and was much more dominating in 2004-2008...as it is, his fastball has been pretty consistent in the last three seasons, around 91-93.

 

 

Let's try to find some common points of agreement:

 

1) Nobody said that they were sure Paulino would be better than Santana/Jimenez. Most agree, not taking salary into consideration, that Jimenez/Santana would probably be better at least in 2014.

 

2) Nobody that I've read wants to give Santana or Jimenez a four year contract anymore, it has come down to 3 or even 2 with an option

 

3) Nobody wants the White Sox to be bad in 2014 if there's a chance they can still be competitive in the division race.

 

4) ALMOST nobody wants to give away a 2nd round pick, with the premium now being placed on draft picks and especially how much teams finishing near the bottom of the standings are allocated to spend....looking no further than the fact that 3rd round draft pick Addison Reed netted them a #70-something prospect in all of baseball.

 

5) Dick Allen is arguing for Jimenez based on straighened out mechanics/ability/Don Cooper, whereas there's some disagreement about how much is left in the tank since his (Jimenez now) velocity has clearly decreased by 3-4-5 MPH compared to his prime in COL...and there's the doping/PEDs rumors out there about his mysterious loss of velocity.

 

6) There's clearly a point where almost every franchise that could use some starting pitching, and we're now talking 25 teams, including the White Sox...would/should/could be interested in signing either one of these guys (or Nelson Cruz/Morales/Drew for that matter).

 

7) Nobody wants to buy high on Santana with the risk that 2013 was a second peak in his career and the rest is all downhill, not to mention the concerns about being a flyball pitcher in USCF.

 

 

 

In the end, (nearly) everyone has a number where this starts to make sense (to them)...3/$39-40, 2/$27-28, whatever. When that point is reached, the Dunn/Rios/Danks/Keppinger "just another bad contract" risk will be compensated for by the possible return, but doubtless those agents are still holding out for 3-4 years and $40-70 million.

 

If those are the eventual numbers, 90% of the fans would prefer to see how things go with Paulino/Cooper, Erik Johnson and the rest of of our minor leaguers, like Beck, in 2014...simply being realistic about the fact that we're VERY unlikely to compete until 2015.

Edited February 6, 2014 by caulfield12

[ScottyDo]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1848253...illion-contract

 

This is a pretty exhaustive examination of Santana...I should have said his stuff peaked in 2008 and was much more dominating in 2004-2008...as it is, his fastball has been pretty consistent in the last three seasons, around 91-93.

 

 

Let's try to find some common points of agreement:

 

1) Nobody said that they were sure Paulino would be better than Santana/Jimenez. Most agree, not taking salary into consideration, that Jimenez/Santana would probably be better at least in 2014.

 

2) Nobody that I've read wants to give Santana or Jimenez a four year contract anymore, it has come down to 3 or even 2 with an option

 

3) Nobody wants the White Sox to be bad in 2014 if there's a chance they can still be competitive in the division race.

 

4) ALMOST nobody wants to give away a 2nd round pick, with the premium now being placed on draft picks and especially how much teams finishing near the bottom of the standings are allocated to spend....looking no further than the fact that 3rd round draft pick Addison Reed netted them a #70-something prospect in all of baseball.

 

5) Dick Allen is arguing for Jimenez based on straighened out mechanics/ability/Don Cooper, whereas there's some disagreement about how much is left in the tank since his (Jimenez now) velocity has clearly decreased by 3-4-5 MPH compared to his prime in COL...and there's the doping/PEDs rumors out there about his mysterious loss of velocity.

 

6) There's clearly a point where almost every franchise that could use some starting pitching, and we're now talking 25 teams, including the White Sox...would/should/could be interested in signing either one of these guys (or Nelson Cruz/Morales/Drew for that matter).

 

7) Nobody wants to buy high on Santana with the risk that 2013 was a second peak in his career and the rest is all downhill, not to mention the concerns about being a flyball pitcher in USCF.

 

 

 

In the end, (nearly) everyone has a number where this starts to make sense (to them)...3/$39-40, 2/$27-28, whatever. When that point is reached, the Dunn/Rios/Danks/Keppinger "just another bad contract" risk will be compensated for by the possible return, but doubtless those agents are still holding out for 3-4 years and $40-70 million.

 

If those are the eventual numbers, 90% of the fans would prefer to see how things go with Paulino/Cooper, Erik Johnson and the rest of of our minor leaguers, like Beck, in 2014...simply being realistic about the fact that we're VERY unlikely to compete until 2015.

Agree with all of this.

[witesoxfan]

This, caulfield, is exactly what I think is wrong with all these threads, which Mary & Dick Allen seem to understand but the rest of you guys don't. Market conditions have changed considerably. Santana wasn't an $18-20+M pitcher over 5-7 years, obviously. NOBODY in their right mind thought that. But he's now fallen into "bargain" territory IMO or at least "reasonable price" territory and yet some posters here just want to make it out like he's terrible, has never been good, isn't worth more than a few million or so, etc. And that is just ridiculous. It's not based in any sort of statistical reality, it's just dumb hate for the sake of it. And the absurd overvaluing of the draft pick - ASSUMING both that the pick will become a valuable asset AND that Santana couldn't bring back an equal or greater return - is just icing on the "cake" and by "cake" I'm not talking about the stuff you want to eat either.

 

If the Sox signed Santana tomorrow for 3/$39 this board's opinion would change overnight. Will the Sox make an effort? Probably not, because they still have a lot of other positional issues to address, but the idea that they'd be stupid to hand out a reasonable deal to a quality SP isn't an idea that any intelligent baseball fan should hold. I've posted links to Santana's B-R page, even you caulfield whom I respect tried to say his stuff had considerably diminished when apparently fangraphs hasn't recorded anything of the sort, and yet all I see is a bunch of people ripping the guy's ability. Then the threads get closed because nobody seems to want to talk any sense, just hate hate hate and bulls***.

 

I was just as sick of Gavin Floyd's mental lapses as anyone. Javy Vazquez gave me fits. Ervin Santana definitely has a little of that Floyd/Javy shakiness no doubt and as a result isn't a top-end pitcher nor should he be paid like one. But all three of the pitchers I have mentioned are/were quality pitchers with above average stuff who just happened to fade here and there, and although sometimes maddening, players like that *do* have value and *are* in demand especially around the trade deadline. IMO anyone who thinks signing that Santana to a reasonable deal would be a *bad* move is being absurd. There is certainly an amount of risk there, as there is in every free agent deal, but it's at least a deal that offers some upside to the team. And it's not like a 3-year deal for the guy is a franchise-crippling event should it go bad.

 

So if you're a basketball player and football cleats go on sale for $100 (normal price $159.99!), are you going to buy them with the intention of using them on the basketball court?

 

This isn't exactly true, as the Sox can always use pitching, but just because something is "on sale" does not mean it is appropriate to buy it.

 

Trust me, we understand that they are cheaper, but the Sox signing them does not make sense. They've suggested as much and they are appropriately staying away from these conversations.

 

I can't wait until those two sign with teams just so these threads die.

Edited February 6, 2014 by witesoxfan

[lasttriptotulsa]

So if you're a basketball player and football cleats go on sale for $100 (normal price $159.99!), are you going to buy them with the intention of using them on the basketball court?

 

This isn't exactly true, as the Sox can always use pitching, but just because something is "on sale" does not mean it is appropriate to buy it.

 

Trust me, we understand that they are cheaper, but the Sox signing them does not make sense. They've suggested as much and they are appropriately staying away from these conversations.

 

I can't wait until those two sign with teams just so these threads die.

 

That and I really hope they sign large contracts. If Santana ends up signing for 4/40 or something cheap like that we'll have to hear "look at how cheap we could've gotten Santana, RH doesn't know what he's doing, rabble, rabble, rabble" from Marty until the end of time.

[southsider2k5]

So if you're a basketball player and football cleats go on sale for $100 (normal price $159.99!), are you going to buy them with the intention of using them on the basketball court?

 

This isn't exactly true, as the Sox can always use pitching, but just because something is "on sale" does not mean it is appropriate to buy it.

 

Trust me, we understand that they are cheaper, but the Sox signing them does not make sense. They've suggested as much and they are appropriately staying away from these conversations.

 

I can't wait until those two sign with teams just so these threads die.

 

I think TUC seeing tampons on sale would be a more apt comparison. No matter how cheap they get, he still doesn't need them. The Sox are in the same boat, no matter how cheap back of the rotation starters get, the Sox don't need them.

[southsider2k5]

That and I really hope they sign large contracts. If Santana ends up signing for 4/40 or something cheap like that we'll have to hear "look at how cheap we could've gotten Santana, RH doesn't know what he's doing, rabble, rabble, rabble" from Marty until the end of time.

 

For a guy with his history, I refuse to call that cheap. He has a significant risk of underperforming his contract.

[witesoxfan]

Oh my god. Then all of a sudden Sale and Paulino hit the DL in May and this conversation will come back heavy, lol.

 

If Sale hits the DL, then hindsight says the Sox were right because you don't want to be spending money like that when the most valuable piece of the team is injured.

[Marty34]

That and I really hope they sign large contracts. If Santana ends up signing for 4/40 or something cheap like that we'll have to hear "look at how cheap we could've gotten Santana, RH doesn't know what he's doing, rabble, rabble, rabble" from Marty until the end of time.

 

Rarely do I point out when I'm right. Others on the board (some who never pick a lane themselves) like to bring up when I'm wrong though.

[The Ultimate Champion]

So if you're a basketball player and football cleats go on sale for $100 (normal price $159.99!), are you going to buy them with the intention of using them on the basketball court?

 

This isn't exactly true, as the Sox can always use pitching, but just because something is "on sale" does not mean it is appropriate to buy it.

 

Trust me, we understand that they are cheaper, but the Sox signing them does not make sense. They've suggested as much and they are appropriately staying away from these conversations.

 

I can't wait until those two sign with teams just so these threads die.

This makes no sense. You're saying the Sox don't need to keep adding pitching? Or don't need to continue pursuing opportunities to add lower risk values to the organization regardless of where those opportunities exist on the field?

 

Buying things you need now or later when they are on sale is good practice because you save money. The Sox don't have 6 or 7 starters or whatever people keep saying, they have 3 proven vets, a nice prospect in EJ who is going to get every opportunity, and then a few fringe guys like Rienzo and Surkamp and Axelrod and so on to go with a veteran in Paulino who is trying to make a comeback. I see 3-4 slots here filled, not 5, and saying we don't "need" Santana or couldn't use the value he would provide is a little hard for me to understand because making that statement would seem to imply a certain level of trust in the 5th starter candidates I have mentioned and I can't see that as being justified at all.

Edited February 6, 2014 by The Ultimate Champion

[Dick Allen]

It looks like Bronson Arroyo is going to get the same contract as Scott Kazmir. I'm not advocating the Sox signing Arroyo, but it does show you prices are dropping. Would anyone really want Kazmir over Arroyo now even with Arroyo's advanced age.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

This makes no sense. You're saying the Sox don't need to keep adding pitching? Or don't need to continue pursuing opportunities to add lower risk values to the organization regardless of where those opportunities exist on the field?

 

Buying things you need now or later when they are on sale is good practice because you save money. The Sox don't have 6 or 7 starters or whatever people keep saying, they have 3 proven vets, a nice prospect in EJ who is going to get every opportunity, and then a few fringe guys like Rienzo and Surkamp and Axelrod and so on to go with a veteran in Paulino who is trying to make a comeback. I see 3-4 slots here filled, not 5, and saying we don't "need" Santana or couldn't use the value he would provide is a little hard for me to understand because making that statement would seem to imply a certain level of trust in the 5th starter candidates I have mentioned and I can't see that as being justified at all.

 

The Sox don't need to add free agent priced, end of the rotation pitching, which costs them a high draft pick. If a #1 or #2 starter comes along, like Tanaka, that is one thing. The guys that are being bandied about aren't worth the prices that are being talked about, even after being reduced.

 

If the Sox were a fifth starter from winning? Sure, maybe you talk about it. But nothing about these guys makes sense for the current state of the franchise.