Jump to content

White Sox Sign Mat Latos


Princess Dye

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FWIW, I know what has been reported about Latos, but I actually went to Coconut Creek High with him and was on the same team and this guy was f***ing awesome to be around. Helped everyone, definitely busted your balls while doing it, but he just wanted to win. And this was highschool. Definitely a party guy and a little bit of a bro but not an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as low risk / high reward. Please stop it.

 

You can say it is a low-risk signing, because it is. It's only 1/$3M.

 

But the concept is high risk / high reward or low risk / low reward, because risk isn't about what happened in the end. It's about the chances of something happening in the future. If there is a high chance of a high reward, that person isn't signing for $3M. It is also about the LIKELY reward, since obviously ANY investment could go big or go bad. Same in baseball as any other investment.

 

So this is low risk / low reward. And that's fine.

 

Now go get a bloody right fielder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:20 PM)
Why is low risk/high reward impossible? We're not talking about trading equities here. Latos is a guy who has consistently been a 3+ WAR pitcher when healthy (and only 28 years old) that can be released for a total of $3M if things go south.

 

I'm not sure what else you would call this signing other than low risk/high reward.

It's high risk. There's a good chance he'll be banged up or ineffective. If the chances of him being healthy/good were higher, he would have signed for more than $3M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:15 PM)
Using this as an excuse to trade Erik Johnson would be a mistake. Again I ask, how many innings can you realistically rely on Latos to pitch? This move was to bolster pitching depth.

 

And people, please stop calling things low risk/high reward. Low risk/high reward is impossible. You make me cranky.

 

 

For once, this is right.

 

This is a three million dollar signing for a guy who when healthy can be a #2 starter, on a team that can use a RH SP at the top of their rotation. If the guy gives you problems, or sucks, you dump him.

 

There really is not much risk when you consider he is only getting $2.5 million over minimum wage in MLB.

 

Where else can you get a shot at a #2 starter for $3 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:24 PM)
There is no such thing as low risk / high reward. Please stop it.

 

You can say it is a low-risk signing, because it is. It's only 1/$3M.

 

But the concept is high risk / high reward or low risk / low reward, because risk isn't about what happened in the end. It's about the chances of something happening in the future. If there is a high chance of a high reward, that person isn't signing for $3M. It is also about the LIKELY reward, since obviously ANY investment could go big or go bad. Same in baseball as any other investment.

 

So this is low risk / low reward. And that's fine.

 

Now go get a bloody right fielder.

Haha, think we said the opposite thing in the same way. It comes down to odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:25 PM)
It's high risk. There's a good chance he'll be banged up or ineffective. If the chances of him being healthy/good were higher, he would have signed for more than $3M.

Its very much low-risk. For $3M he can be awful, and you put him through waivers. He probably clears it. Heck you can release him.

 

Again, understanding how the terminology works... if you buy a stock for minimal money, risk is inherently low. If it dogs, you sell it. No big loss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 11:24 AM)
There is no such thing as low risk / high reward. Please stop it.

 

You can say it is a low-risk signing, because it is. It's only 1/$3M.

 

But the concept is high risk / high reward or low risk / low reward, because risk isn't about what happened in the end. It's about the chances of something happening in the future. If there is a high chance of a high reward, that person isn't signing for $3M. It is also about the LIKELY reward, since obviously ANY investment could go big or go bad. Same in baseball as any other investment.

 

So this is low risk / low reward. And that's fine.

 

Now go get a bloody right fielder.

Bah - you know what the OP meant. There is a potential in signings for a low amount with a high value produced.

 

IE: Nelson Cruz with Baltimore for 1 yr / 8 M = 36 home runs and 91 RBI ( 3.7 WAR )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:25 PM)
It's high risk. There's a good chance he'll be banged up or ineffective. If the chances of him being healthy/good were higher, he would have signed for more than $3M.

 

Disagree. The risk is associated with what you give up to get the player. A $200 million contract is high risk. Giving up a large package of top prospects to get a player is high risk. A 1 year/3 million deal is not high risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great. Love the move. Absolutely zero risk associated with it, and he's two years removed from being a top of the rotation guy.

 

He was pretty terrible last year, but bounced around and his peripherals weren't all bad. LOVE LOVE LOVE the move. A little surprised he couldn't get more than $3M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:27 PM)
For once, this is right.

 

This is a three million dollar signing for a guy who when healthy can be a #2 starter, on a team that can use a RH SP at the top of their rotation. If the guy gives you problems, or sucks, you dump him.

 

There really is not much risk when you consider he is only getting $2.5 million over minimum wage in MLB.

 

Where else can you get a shot at a #2 starter for $3 million?

 

Jose Quintana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me in as one who doesn't want Johnson to be traded now. That article on Fangraphs today noted we had the worst projected WAR from our SP after the top 3, and this includes all depth options as well. Latos will certainly help with that, but we don't know yet if he'll be healthy or effective, so we still need Johnson in case Latos doesn't work out.

Edited by OmarComing25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:32 PM)
Count me in as one who doesn't want Johnson to be traded now. That article on Fangraphs today noted we had the worst projected WAR from our SP after the top 3 , and this includes all depth options as well. Latos will certainly help with that, but we don't know yet if he'll be healthy or effective, so we still need Johnson in case Latos doesn't work out.

 

No good reason to trade Johnson unless you are getting a good young RF for him. Odds are good you will need both him and Turner this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:22 PM)
Didn't someone tweet out the Sox signed him like 5 weeks ago, only to delete it?

Yeah, that was back in the last week of December. This one has been in the works for awhile it seems.

 

A few posts down:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...7597&st=100

Edited by dasox24
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...