Eminor3rd Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) Again, the idea is to increase the talent level of the team, and to create real depth. Not Dylan Axelrod depth. Depth to me is guys you would confidently put on the mound and guys other teams would actually give you something of value to acquire. If John Groce let the TKE intramural team join the Illini as walk ons and called that depth, everyone would laugh. That, is Dylan Axelrod depth. Also, it may save you money if you plan on signing a free agent next year. If you want Homer Bailey next offseason, but Magic Johnson does as well, you are either out of luck or writing checks that will be a lot bigger than the checks you would be writing for Jimenez. This makes sense if you think guys like Surkamp and Rienzo are definitely s*** like Axelrod. But if you think they have upside, you have to let them pitch in order to reach it. Again, just just lost ~100 games -- if they have a s*** season in 2014, it isn't going to be because they don't have veteran pitching depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) If you expect the Sox to contend at any point over the next three years, Jimenez is a bargain at the price he's going to go for. This is still lol-worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 And the thing is, I do expect the Sox to contend in the next 3 years, but I don't know what the holes are going to be in 1 month into the season, let alone 2 years from now. Say Sale and Quintana keep pitching well, Danks rebounds to form a good 3-4 punch with Erik Johnson, and Chris Beck finds his slider again and he's suddenly a #2 starter. Do you really want 10% of the budget being burnt on a guy you don't need? [then trade him] Things aren't that simple and teams in general will rather sign a guy than give up pieces for a guy. And if he bombs, then what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) This makes sense if you think guys like Surkamp and Rienzo are definitely s*** like Axelrod. But if you think they have upside, you have to let them pitch in order to reach it. Again, just just lost ~100 games -- if they have a s*** season in 2014, it isn't going to be because they don't have veteran pitching depth. I think Surkamp and Rienzo are like Axelrod, at least as starters. I don't know if you really have to see much to determine that. Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007, and Surkamp was drafted in 2008 and the Giants waived him, and the entire NL and the Astros passed. They might have a couple of decent games, like Axelrod did. But eventually the league will catch up to them. As relievers, picking their spots, not facing guys multiple times, getting away with reducing their repetiore, they MAY have success. But to assume they can be long term starting pitchers on a good team is a reach IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) I think Surkamp and Rienzo are like Axelrod, at least as starters. I don't know if you really have to see much to determine that. Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007, and Surkamp was drafted in 2008 and the Giants waived him, and the entire NL and the Astros passed. They might have a couple of decent games, like Axelrod did. But eventually the league will catch up to them. As relievers, picking their spots, not facing guys multiple times, getting away with reducing their repetiore, they MAY have success. But to assume they can be long term starting pitchers on a good team is a reach IMO. You may be right -- I see the same flaws you do. But I think the team's actions indicate otherwise. If they're wrong, then we can criticize them for poor scouting/development, but I don't think the "idea" that those guys have upside and need a look is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) I think Surkamp and Rienzo are like Axelrod, at least as starters. I don't know if you really have to see much to determine that. Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007, and Surkamp was drafted in 2008 and the Giants waived him, and the entire NL and the Astros passed. They might have a couple of decent games, like Axelrod did. But eventually the league will catch up to them. As relievers, picking their spots, not facing guys multiple times, getting away with reducing their repetiore, they MAY have success. But to assume they can be long term starting pitchers on a good team is a reach IMO. Rienzo was one of those international signees everyone wants us to make lots of and spent those first 3 years in the Dominican Summer League, and now we're down on him for "being in the sox organization for too long"? Why on Earth are we signing international players if that's such a bad thing? I don't know that Rienzo will have long-term success but he has a better profile to build on than Axe...particularly a better fastball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) Rienzo was one of those international signees everyone wants us to make lots of and spent those first 3 years in the Dominican Summer League, and now we're down on him for "being in the sox organization for too long"? Why on Earth are we signing international players if that's such a bad thing? I don't know that Rienzo will have long-term success but he has a better profile to build on than Axe...particularly a better fastball. I am glad I am not the only one who appreciated his age not being outrageous enough so the year he started pitching in the system was used instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:53 AM) And the thing is, I do expect the Sox to contend in the next 3 years, but I don't know what the holes are going to be in 1 month into the season, let alone 2 years from now. Say Sale and Quintana keep pitching well, Danks rebounds to form a good 3-4 punch with Erik Johnson, and Chris Beck finds his slider again and he's suddenly a #2 starter. Do you really want 10% of the budget being burnt on a guy you don't need? [then trade him] Things aren't that simple and teams in general will rather sign a guy than give up pieces for a guy. And if he bombs, then what do you do? The Sox future financial commitments is the reason they should sign Jimenez or Santana. The risk is virtually nil if it bombs. The upside if it works out is they can deal a Quintana, Danks, Beck, Johnson, to fill a need. Outside of the core, they have little to deal to get anything of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 At a certain price point, more teams are likely to give it a look. Maybe even the Sox, but I'd be surprised. 10 days till pitchers and catchers report. Looking forward to reports about impt. things like Danks' velo. and key guys like Paulino, Johnson, Webb, etc., guys with an outside shot, like Robles, as well as about guys in camp that aren't ready yet to come north, like Beck, Bassitt, Snodgress and Winiarski, etc. Can't get here soon enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) Rienzo was one of those international signees everyone wants us to make lots of and spent those first 3 years in the Dominican Summer League, and now we're down on him for "being in the sox organization for too long"? Why on Earth are we signing international players if that's such a bad thing? I don't know that Rienzo will have long-term success but he has a better profile to build on than Axe...particularly a better fastball. First off, I never said he was in the organization too long. That is just more of your imagination. I said he has been around pitching since 2007. The organization should have an idea of what he is and what he could be by now, and I really doubt if we were able to listen in on the Sox front office evaluating him, it would be he is going to be a legit starting pitcher at the major league level. As I said, maybe a reliever. Axe shouldn't do either unless the game has already been decided. Rienzo is around 25 years old, hasn't been particularly dominant in the minors, and was tagged pretty well last season in his debut. Lots of pitchers get tagged in their debut, but Rienzo doesn't have anything that really sticks out as extraordinary or exceptional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) First off, I never said he was in the organization too long. That is just more of your imagination. I said he has been around pitching since 2007. The organization should have an idea of what he is and what he could be by now, and I really doubt if we were able to listen in on the Sox front office evaluating him, it would be he is going to be a legit starting pitcher at the major league level. As I said, maybe a reliever. Axe shouldn't do either unless the game has already been decided. Rienzo is around 25 years old, hasn't been particularly dominant in the minors, and was tagged pretty well last season in his debut. Lots of pitchers get tagged in their debut, but Rienzo doesn't have anything that really sticks out as extraordinary or exceptional. How on Earth can you state "Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007" as a knock against him and a reason why we shouldn't believe he can be a starter and then disagree with my interpretation of you arguing he's been in the org too long? I can't even figure out a semantic game that makes sense there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) The Sox future financial commitments is the reason they should sign Jimenez or Santana. The risk is virtually nil if it bombs. The upside if it works out is they can deal a Quintana, Danks, Beck, Johnson, to fill a need. Outside of the core, they have little to deal to get anything of value. No, not nil. You'll either eat $40M (if it's a lot lower than that, I may even get on the trolley), which WILL impact your abilities next FA season, and/or you'll be forced to play someone who isn't one of your best 5, at least for awhile. Kinda like Dunn, who you enjoy so much. Not nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) I am glad I am not the only one who appreciated his age not being outrageous enough so the year he started pitching in the system was used instead. He'll be 26 in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) How on Earth can you state "Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007" as a knock against him and a reason why we shouldn't believe he can be a starter and then disagree with my interpretation of you arguing he's been in the org too long? I can't even figure out a semantic game that makes sense there. The White Sox should know what he is by now. He is soon to be 26. Is that easier for you? Considering once you hit 30, you believe guys are just about done, your arguing is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) The White Sox should know what he is by now. He is soon to be 26. Is that easier for you? Considering once you hit 30, you believe guys are just about done, your arguing is funny. And wow, they used him as a starting pitcher in the big leagues for several months last year. Following that logic...he's potentially a young big league starter in their eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) How on Earth can you state "Rienzo has been pitching in the Sox organization since 2007" as a knock against him and a reason why we shouldn't believe he can be a starter and then disagree with my interpretation of you arguing he's been in the org too long? I can't even figure out a semantic game that makes sense there. Rienzo is just another guy. Hopefully, he'll find a role in the bullpen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) No, not nil. You'll either eat $40M (if it's a lot lower than that, I may even get on the trolley), which WILL impact your abilities next FA season, and/or you'll be forced to play someone who isn't one of your best 5, at least for awhile. Kinda like Dunn, who you enjoy so much. Not nil. And if Abreu bombs you eat $68 million, yet no one is worried about that. If the White Sox don't sign guys because they may bomb, they will become the Marlins. Nice and safe and profitable. Edited February 5, 2014 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) Rienzo is just another guy. Hopefully, he'll find a role in the bullpen. As are all of the people you want to sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) And wow, they used him as a starting pitcher in the big leagues for several months last year. Following that logic...he's potentially a young big league starter in their eyes. They used him out of neccessity not neccessarily because they wanted to. They used 15 guys last year as starting pitchers. That's 10 more than you think teams need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) And if Abreu bombs you eat $68 million, yet no one is worried about that. If the White Sox don't sign guys because they may bomb, they will become the Marlins. Nice and safe and profitable. FALSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) No, not nil. You'll either eat $40M (if it's a lot lower than that, I may even get on the trolley), which WILL impact your abilities next FA season, and/or you'll be forced to play someone who isn't one of your best 5, at least for awhile. Kinda like Dunn, who you enjoy so much. Not nil. With their future payroll commitments they can absorb the salary hit if the signing is bad. The upside is too good to pass up. The conservative rebuild approach won't cut it IF these Cubs prospects are what they are reported to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) They used him out of neccessity not neccessarily because they wanted to. They used 15 guys last year as starting pitchers. That's 10 more than you think teams need. Wait, so they used 15 guys last year as starting pitchers and are going into the season with more obvious starting pitcher candidates in the minors than they had last year? Clearly you make a convincing case to add starters. After all, we're better off with a 9 man rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:46 PM) Wait, so they used 15 guys last year as starting pitchers and are going into the season with more obvious starting pitcher candidates in the minors than they had last year? Clearly you make a convincing case to add starters. After all, we're better off with a 9 man rotation. They also lost 99 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) They also lost 99 games. I agree, they need to keep working to improve the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) And if Abreu bombs you eat $68 million, yet no one is worried about that. If the White Sox don't sign guys because they may bomb, they will become the Marlins. Nice and safe and profitable. Hardly. Just acceptable risk for degree of return, as well as obvious need. I think the White Sox don't want to sign guys they don't want. Seems logical enough. I'm not worried they'll show a Marlins-like frugality, and neither are you. Come on, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts