Jump to content

Rienzo to Chi, Hanson to AAA, Paulino to DL?


ILMOU

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 09:16 PM)
Abreu is relatively young, costs no talent, is controlled for the long term, and has sky high upside by all accounts. You are not paying a premium for past performance (see: non-Latin American free agents). He would be considered part of the core, not a peripheral/secondary piece. Same goes for Tanaka, within reason. The Yankees, of course, are rarely reasonable.

 

This criterea for spending money is too narrow when you have a farm system as empty as the Sox have. They're going to lose whatever advantage the Abreu and Sale contracts give them if they wait for this system to fill a hole or two before spending money. Why are posters so against spending money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:01 AM)
This criterea for spending money is too narrow when you have a farm system as empty as the Sox have. They're going to lose whatever advantage the Abreu and Sale contracts give them if they wait for this system to fill a hole or two before spending money. Why are posters so against spending money?

We're not.

 

We're against spending it at a stupid time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 11:10 AM)
1-year contracts must be the new market inefficiency the Sox will exploit when the time to spend isn't stupid.

Why would the White Sox sign people to 1 year contracts to build a competitive team? You sign people to limited contracts when you have a team filled with rookies so that you can trade guys and avoid strangling yourself in the future. You turn that around and risk the longer-term deals when you have a team that could be competitive if it filled its last 1-2 holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 09:01 AM)
This criterea for spending money is too narrow when you have a farm system as empty as the Sox have. They're going to lose whatever advantage the Abreu and Sale contracts give them if they wait for this system to fill a hole or two before spending money. Why are posters so against spending money?

You're right, but we need to spend that money on impact players and not marginal free agents. The guys you wanted to add would have made the team better, but not that much better and would have eaten our financial flexibility going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 01:07 PM)
You're right, but we need to spend that money on impact players and not marginal free agents. The guys you wanted to add would have made the team better, but not that much better and would have eaten our financial flexibility going forward.

 

Impact free-agents are out of the Sox price range so I don't know what we are saving the financial flexibility for and there's not a lot of help coming from the farm anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 04:16 PM)
Impact free-agents are out of the Sox price range so I don't know what we are saving the financial flexibility for and there's not a lot of help coming from the farm anytime soon.

If you don't spend needless dollars now, this is untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 10:15 AM)
Why would the White Sox sign people to 1 year contracts to build a competitive team? You sign people to limited contracts when you have a team filled with rookies so that you can trade guys and avoid strangling yourself in the future. You turn that around and risk the longer-term deals when you have a team that could be competitive if it filled its last 1-2 holes.

 

The stars have to align perfectly (farm system be producing players) for a team to add the final piece or two via free agency.

Edited by Marty34
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (oldsox @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 05:30 AM)
No, it was not a smart move, quite the contrary. Expecting him to fail, as you put it, and then watching him fail, is not a smart move. Financially, it was certainly not a smart move. Colossal waste of money. It doesn't do anyone, teammates included, fans included, any good to watch that kind of performance. It makes someone look to be a very poor judge of talent. Not a smart move. Now if he had a non guaranteed conmtract, like Boggs, it might not have looked so bad. The only smart move was by Paulino's agent. It would be smarter to have an 11 man staff, since the FO long ago made the decision to carry 3 FB/DH.

 

If there's any bad move that is even worse, it's Scott Downs.

 

Why pay a LHR that much money when it seem to be much more important to replace Reed than Matt Thornton in the overall scheme of things.

 

Of course, they believed that Jones/Lindstrom/Webb all the ability to be closers (one would assume), but it was still a strange allocation of resources. They could simply have used Purcey, or Veal, or just kept throwing things at the wall until one of them stuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...