Vance Law Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) The other three were Paulino, Surkamp and Rienzo. Beck/Bassit at 8/9. Plus Hanson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Didn't see the comin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 02:44 PM) Give Coop a pitching staff with Buehrle (almost 30 IP, low 20's K's, only 2 ER on the season), Sergio Santos, Santiago, Addison Reed and Gio Gonzalez and things will suddenly look quite different for Don Cooper. The Dodgers ran Belisario into the ground last year...he was the RH version of Matt Thornton for them. That's no mistake that the Cardinals and Royals both gave up on Cleto (pretty sure the Cardinals know what they're doing and what they have and don't have in pitchers). Downs looks like this year's version of Jeff Keppinger, a very odd signing in terms of looking at the "big picture" and why the hell we needed a reliable LH reliever when we didn't even have a "sure thing" in Jones or Lindstrom at closer. Veal...well, we all know how bad he was in 2013 and then again this year, and he was our second best LH option. Balta said Toronto would happily take Paulino for Buehrle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) Balta said Toronto would happily take Paulino for Buehrle. Absolutely. He's paid nearly $40 million this year and next. Add him and that's literally the only roster addition you get next year other than guys from our minors. Our bullpen is ready to go as-is, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:03 PM) Absolutely. He's paid nearly $40 million this year and next. Add him and that's literally the only roster addition you get next year other than guys from our minors. Our bullpen is ready to go as-is, right? I have been told bullpens are the easiest things to build on a baseball team and you should use very little coin doing it. But Toronto wouldn't make that deal. Edited April 19, 2014 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) I have been told bullpens are the easiest things to build on a baseball team and you should use very little coin doing it. Well, it wasn't me who told you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:07 PM) Well, it wasn't me who told you that. You must be tickled the Sox didn't sign Tanaka. They apparently wouldn't have been able to add to the team for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:09 PM) You must be tickled the Sox didn't sign Tanaka. They apparently wouldn't have been able to add to the team for years. You get to choose...same cost per year for the next 2, Tanaka or Buehrle. Pick one? That said, I didn't think Tanaka was a good buy for the White Sox at this point in time, not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) You get to choose...same cost per year for the next 2, Tanaka or Buehrle. Pick one? That said, I didn't think Tanaka was a good buy for the White Sox at this point in time, not at all. Not even close. Buehrle makes $18 million this year and $19 million next. Tanaka makes $22 million each of the next 2 years, and there is that $20 million posting fee that has to be paid off by next season as well. Not taking interest into account, that is $37 million vs. $64 million the next 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) The difference is that the odds of Buehrle being as good as he has been in 2014...well, I don't think anyone (other than Greg775) went out and placed an O/U bet on Mark having a sub 1 ERA heading into May, let's just leave it at that. Tanaka's the 26 year old you anchor the front end of your rotation around for a decade...or nearly so. Buehrle's the veteran pitcher who might come across a wounded dog in the field and decide to devote the rest of his life to an animal shelter or farming life..that you don't have as part of the core of your rotation in 2016-2017-2018 when the team simply has to be competing for playoff spots. Edited April 20, 2014 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 08:01 PM) The difference is that the odds of Buehrle being as good as he has been in 2014...well, I don't think anyone (other than Greg775) went out and placed an O/U bet on Mark having a sub 1 ERA heading into May, let's just leave it at that. Tanaka's the 26 year old you anchor the front end of your rotation around for a decade...or nearly so. Buehrle's the veteran pitcher who might come across a wounded dog in the field and decide to devote the rest of his life to an animal shelter or farming life..that you don't have as part of the core of your rotation in 2016-2017-2018 when the team simply has to be competing for playoff spots. And I still didn't think it was worth paying for him to pitch for this team in 2014 when he's surrounded by rookies and kids and a roster not otherwise built to compete. The White Sox could have competed with him for 4 seasons if things went right (and to note, Garcia's injury already is one part going wrong), the Yankees can compete with him for 5 seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 I read nothing, but I'd say that the odds are not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 11:01 PM) I read nothing, but I'd say that the odds are not good. I'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:09 PM) You must be tickled the Sox didn't sign Tanaka. They apparently wouldn't have been able to add to the team for years. It's the middle of April and the Sox are unwatchable in large part because of the the crater-sized hole in the rotation that a lot of posters new existed even after the Paulino signing. Payroll flexibility ain't gonna fill the seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:16 AM) It's the middle of April and the Sox are unwatchable in large part because of the the crater-sized hole in the rotation that a lot of posters new existed even after the Paulino signing. Payroll flexibility ain't gonna fill the seats. Of course, Marty also checked to make sure that during their recent struggles they were continuing to hit well on offense and not putting up a sub-.600 team OPS over the last week. Because if they had put up a sub-.600 OPS over the last week and Marty was complaining about them being unwatchable because of the starting rotation, why he'd just look like a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) Of course, Marty also checked to make sure that during their recent struggles they were continuing to hit well on offense and not putting up a sub-.600 team OPS over the last week. Because if they had put up a sub-.600 OPS over the last week and Marty was complaining about them being unwatchable because of the starting rotation, why he'd just look like a fool. I bet Hahn isn't defending Paulino as much as you Balta. Gotta tip my hat to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 11:14 AM) I bet Hahn isn't defending Paulino as much as you Balta. Gotta tip my hat to you. I bet Astros fans aren't whining nearly as much as you about the fact that they have a hole at the back of their rotation. I'll give you a tip of the cap for keeping the faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:16 AM) I bet Astros fans aren't whining nearly as much as you about the fact that they have a hole at the back of their rotation. I'll give you a tip of the cap for keeping the faith. I do not give one damn about what Astros fans think. This is not some $500 fantasy league where picking Paulino in the 30th round might be considered "a good risk." It was an awful decision from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) I do not give one damn about what Astros fans think. This is not some $500 fantasy league where picking Paulino in the 30th round might be considered "a good risk." It was an awful decision from the start. Actually that happens in MLB all of the time. The Scott Feldmans and Esteban Loiaza's of the world get picked up off of the heap in an effort to find value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) I do not give one damn about what Astros fans think. This is not some $500 fantasy league where picking Paulino in the 30th round might be considered "a good risk." It was an awful decision from the start. No it was not and it continues to not be one. The only way it's an awful decision is if you think that he's preventing the white sox from competing this year. Here's a remarkable one for you. The White Sox have the #29 pitching staff in the league right now. If they had replaced Felipe Paulino with Ubaldo Jiminez, at a cost of nearly $50 million like you desperately wanted...their pitching staff would be...#29 in MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:22 AM) Actually that happens in MLB all of the time. The Scott Feldmans and Esteban Loiaza's of the world get picked up off of the heap in an effort to find value. Feldman and Loaza were better pitchers than Paulino. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:24 AM) No it was not and it continues to not be one. The only way it's an awful decision is if you think that he's preventing the white sox from competing this year. Here's a remarkable one for you. The White Sox have the #29 pitching staff in the league right now. If they had replaced Felipe Paulino with Ubaldo Jiminez, at a cost of nearly $50 million like you desperately wanted...their pitching staff would be...#29 in MLB. I'll take my chances with Jimenez. How would paying Jimenez prevent the Sox from contending this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) I'll take my chances with Jimenez. How would paying Jimenez prevent the Sox from contending this year? It wouldn't because they wouldn't be in either case, they'd have the #29 ERA in MLB in either case. But having $24 million to spend next year instead of $12 million will absolutely be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:31 AM) It wouldn't because they wouldn't be in either case, they'd have the #29 ERA in MLB in either case. But having $24 million to spend next year instead of $12 million will absolutely be helpful. $24M to spend on who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 The Cubs risked $6 million with Feldman. They wound up paying him $3 million and turned him into Arrieta and Strop. If that is upside, I think the Sox wojld be better using the $6 million on international free agents and the penalty for going over their allocation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.