PDA

View Full Version : Long Term deals?


getonbckthr
10-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Should the Sox look into giving long term deals to Jenks, Floyd and Danks and maybe tearing up Alexei's deal and redoing it for a longer team friendly deal? You always hear about teams buying out the final 3 years of ______ arbitration years. Alexei although not technically the same can be viewed similarly.

turners56
10-24-2008, 08:11 PM
It's still a bit early on Danks, Floyd, and Alexei. You might want to think about Bobby. But Bobby isn't the kind of closer that you would depend on for 5+ years. He's had arm trouble before.

WhiteSox5187
10-24-2008, 08:21 PM
Should the Sox look into giving long term deals to Jenks, Floyd and Danks and maybe tearing up Alexei's deal and redoing it for a longer team friendly deal? You always hear about teams buying out the final 3 years of ______ arbitration years. Alexei although not technically the same can be viewed similarly.

I'm tempted to say "This is the contract you agreed to, if you don't like it now, too bad!" However, I think giving them a little bonus or a raise would be nice. I'm not so sure how the whole arbitration thing works anyways.

Daver
10-24-2008, 08:21 PM
No.

None of them has close to enough service time to worry all that much about arbitration.

oeo
10-24-2008, 09:26 PM
I can't believe you didn't mention Quentin. He's the guy that would be the least risky. Still wait another year, though.

Sargeant79
10-24-2008, 09:32 PM
I can't believe you didn't mention Quentin. He's the guy that would be the least risky. Still wait another year, though.

Agreed. The time to start talking extension with Quentin would be next offseason as long as he has another solid season...doesn't have to be as good as this year; just has to be good enough to prove that his career path doesn't follow the same trajectory as Ron Kittle's. I'd say the same thing about the timing of discussions with Alexei too.

As far as Danks and Floyd, I think there is still a couple more years of track record that you need to establish with them, and its not a discussion that needs to be had at this point.

With Jenks, it's a different situation. Personal feelings about him as a fan aside: There just isn't a good track record of guys who come up throwing heat at a young age who are also able to keep it up for an entire career. I'm almost thinking with him that it would be worth it to keep him next year and then explore the possibility of trading him next offseason.

LoveYourSuit
10-25-2008, 02:14 AM
Danks - yes
Quentin - I need to see one more year
Gavin - need to see one more year
Alexei - Foreign players play out their initial contract and then they are FAs from what I do recall. Service time and arbitration years do not apply to them...... So I say yes to a long term deal with him.

Jenks - No way. Flame throwers flame out way too quick for me.

4 points
10-25-2008, 06:22 AM
We need to take our time with CQ too, he has had a history with injuries.:angry:

doublem23
10-25-2008, 07:27 AM
It's still a bit early on Danks, Floyd, and Alexei. You might want to think about Bobby. But Bobby isn't the kind of closer that you would depend on for 5+ years. He's had arm trouble before.

I know Jenks' history with the Angels wasn't great, but he's been pretty healthy since he was moved to the bullpen, right?

delben91
10-25-2008, 08:47 AM
We need to take our time with CQ too, he has had a history with injuries.:angry:

I will go so far as to guarantee that if TCQ gets hurt next year, it won't be a broken bone in the wrist from hitting his hand on his bat.

I'm not sure I'd count his injury this year toward any "history."

doublem23
10-25-2008, 09:31 AM
I will go so far as to guarantee that if TCQ gets hurt next year, it won't be a broken bone in the wrist from hitting his hand on his bat.

I'm not sure I'd count his injury this year toward any "history."

This year's injury was a freak accident, but one of the reasons we got him for so cheap from Arizona was that he has been plagued by injuries in his short career.

voodoochile
10-25-2008, 09:37 AM
Not this year, too much money tied up. If they start extending people they don't have to, they won't have anything left to fill the slots they need to fill.

Alexei signed a 5yr/$5M deal (or 4/4), so he's taken care of pretty much for the next several years. Yeah, he may end up vastly underpaid, but that's between KW and AR to work out.

The Sox took care of Buehrle, JG and Janks early. Crede wasn't interested, but their track record says they will pay to hold on to their talent, just not until they become arb eligible...

jabrch
10-25-2008, 02:24 PM
Should the Sox look into giving long term deals to Jenks, Floyd and Danks and maybe tearing up Alexei's deal and redoing it for a longer team friendly deal? You always hear about teams buying out the final 3 years of ______ arbitration years. Alexei although not technically the same can be viewed similarly.

Jenks - If he wants to sign a deal where he gives up his first 1 or 2 FA years, and we lock him in at current arbitration type numbers, that's fine.

Danks/Floyd - No way. Neither would sign a deal making it worth the risk premium of a long term deal for SPs with so little service time.

Alexei - we have no reason after one year to tear up a 4 year deal. Let's see him continue to progress. And that deal can't be any more club friendly than it is.

You buy out FA years by locking a player in. FA years for Danks and Gavin are far out. If they want to lock themselves into 7mm or so for 2 FA years, that's another story. I just don't see that being the case.

LITTLE NELL
10-25-2008, 02:44 PM
Sort of strange that you never see a player who is having a bad year(Paulie 08 is a good example) come to management and give part of his salary back.

forte
10-25-2008, 02:52 PM
The Sox took care of Buehrle, JG and Janks early. Crede wasn't interested, but their track record says they will pay to hold on to their talent, just not until they become arb eligible...

Who is Janks?

WhiteSox5187
10-25-2008, 03:01 PM
Sort of strange that you never see a player who is having a bad year(Paulie 08 is a good example) come to management and give part of his salary back.
There have been guys that have tried. Lyman Bostock did, and McGwire renegotiated his contract for less money in about '92...I can't think of any White Sox players to do that though.

guillensdisciple
10-25-2008, 03:10 PM
I really hope carlos Quentin isn't injury prone throughout his career. He has everything he needs to be great.

delben91
10-25-2008, 03:25 PM
This year's injury was a freak accident, but one of the reasons we got him for so cheap from Arizona was that he has been plagued by injuries in his short career.

Well, he had the rotator cuff problem in 2007, were there more before that?

Anyway, having an injury history is one thing, pointing to a freak thing like what happened to Quentin this year as "proof" of that history continuing is what I'm arguing with.

voodoochile
10-25-2008, 03:35 PM
Who is Janks?

The illegitimate lovechild of Jenks and Danks. :o:

I meant Jenks as I believe they wrapped him up for a few years last time he came up for aribtration.

champagne030
10-25-2008, 03:50 PM
The illegitimate lovechild of Jenks and Danks. :o:

I meant Jenks as I believe they wrapped him up for a few years last time he came up for aribtration.

This upcoming season will be the first that Jenks is eligible for arbitration. No more renewing his salary on their terms.

LoveYourSuit
10-25-2008, 04:15 PM
The Sox took care of Buehrle, JG and Janks early. Crede wasn't interested, but their track record says they will pay to hold on to their talent, just not until they become arb eligible...


Well, Janks was pointed out already, who the hell is JG?
We got Garland back?

:tongue:

4 points
10-26-2008, 03:43 AM
Well, he had the rotator cuff problem in 2007, were there more before that?

Anyway, having an injury history is one thing, pointing to a freak thing like what happened to Quentin this year as "proof" of that history continuing is what I'm arguing with.

I never mentioned the 2008 injury at all in my thread, I was referring to recurring injuries he had with the D-backs, and there was another shoulder injury prior to the rotator. One of the reasons the D-backs signed Byrne to a long term deal was because of quentins injury history.:scratch:

Porcho
10-26-2008, 12:41 PM
I never mentioned the 2008 injury at all in my thread, I was referring to recurring injuries he had with the D-backs, and there was another shoulder injury prior to the rotator. One of the reasons the D-backs signed Byrne to a long term deal was because of quentins injury history.:scratch:

He had surgery on his non-throwing shoulder last year to repair a torn labrum and rotator cuff that occured during spring training with the dbacks. That was the only shoulder injury he had. In 2003, he had Tommy John surgery on his right elbow from an injury he sustained early in his junior year at Stanford. Aside from the fractured wrist, those are the only major injuries he's had.

The dbacks didn't give up on him because of the injuries. They no longer felt he fit into their plans because he was struggling. The front office didn't think his shoulder injury had any affect on his performance. :?:

The Sox could have got him for a bag of whiffle balls.

btrain929
10-26-2008, 01:03 PM
He had surgery on his non-throwing shoulder last year to repair a torn labrum and rotator cuff that occured during spring training with the dbacks. That was the only shoulder injury he had. In 2003, he had Tommy John surgery on his right elbow from an injury he sustained early in his junior year at Stanford. Aside from the fractured wrist, those are the only major injuries he's had.

The dbacks didn't give up on him because of the injuries. They no longer felt he fit into their plans because he was struggling. The front office didn't think his shoulder injury had any affect on his performance. :?:

The Sox could have got him for a bag of whiffle balls.

Wrong and false.

California Sox
10-26-2008, 01:51 PM
Wrong and false.

Absolutely. Chris Carter is a player of value, so we didn't get him for a bag of Wiffle balls anyway. The largest considerations for the D-backs were a) the huge contract they gave to Eric Byrnes b) Justin Upton c) performance dropoff/uncertainty after the injury. Give KW credit. He saw an asset an an all-time low price and he jumped on it.

TCQ has been slightly injury prone in his career. Part of that is luck, part of that is the intensity with which he plays the game. Anyone who gets hit 30+ times a year is going to have his share of injuries. Even with that risk, though, I'd lock him up. Alexei -- no way. That contract is just way too good to throw it away. I would lock up Danks too. Gavin, I need to see one more year.

RockJock07
10-28-2008, 12:13 AM
Absolutely. Chris Carter is a player of value, so we didn't get him for a bag of Wiffle balls anyway. The largest considerations for the D-backs were a) the huge contract they gave to Eric Byrnes b) Justin Upton c) performance dropoff/uncertainty after the injury. Give KW credit. He saw an asset an an all-time low price and he jumped on it.

TCQ has been slightly injury prone in his career. Part of that is luck, part of that is the intensity with which he plays the game. Anyone who gets hit 30+ times a year is going to have his share of injuries. Even with that risk, though, I'd lock him up. Alexei -- no way. That contract is just way too good to throw it away. I would lock up Danks too. Gavin, I need to see one more year.

Chris Carter was also then dealt to Oakland for Dan Haren. If he was such a prospect of value then they would have kept him cause the Dback don't really have a 1B of the future?

Dback's didn't have room for Quentin and overpaid for Byrnes. They simply whiffed on Carlos.

BoKnowsBest
10-28-2008, 12:22 AM
Chris Carter was also then dealt to Oakland for Dan Haren. If he was such a prospect of value then they would have kept him cause the Dback don't really have a 1B of the future?

Dback's didn't have room for Quentin and overpaid for Byrnes. They simply whiffed on Carlos.

Their first baseman of the future is was playing a lot of left field this year because Byrnes was useless at the plate. Connor Jackson is a solid player, but the Dbacks were trying to get Tracy, Reynolds, and Jackson's bats into the lineup at the same time and that forced them to try out Jackson at lf. from what I've heard, it turned out pretty well cause he ended the season being very comfortable out there and making some pretty good plays. But to say that they traded for carter because they didn't have a first baseman of the future is wrong, Jackson is there for them.

voodoochile
10-28-2008, 12:23 AM
Chris Carter was also then dealt to Oakland for Dan Haren. If he was such a prospect of value then they would have kept him cause the Dback don't really have a 1B of the future?

Dback's didn't have room for Quentin and overpaid for Byrnes. They simply whiffed on Carlos.

Think about that Haren trade with TCQ instead of Carter - who says Beane is so smart?

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2008, 12:43 AM
Think about that Haren trade with TCQ instead of Carter - who says Beane is so smart?
I don't really think Beane would have passed on Quentin.

voodoochile
10-28-2008, 12:52 AM
I don't really think Beane would have passed on Quentin.

Yet the Haren deal happened 12 days after the Dbacks traded TCQ for Carter straight up.

Now maybe it all just came together in that time frame, but it was a massive trade. Things like that don't generally come together quickly...

areilly
10-28-2008, 10:27 AM
Chris Carter was also then dealt to Oakland for Dan Haren. If he was such a prospect of value then they would have kept him cause the Dback don't really have a 1B of the future?

Given a choice, if I were a supposed contender the way the D-Backs were last offseason, I'd take a top-tier ML pitcher over the 1B of the future any day of the week. I'm fairly certain any GM in the same position would do the same, especially in the NL West which (until the Manny trade) didn't require a whole lot of bats to win.

khan
10-28-2008, 11:16 AM
I'm not so sure how the whole arbitration thing works anyways.

Greedy assclowns like Boras and worthless pieces of **** like Carl Pavano conspire together to jack up a player's contract well beyond their value.

Meanwhile, polesmoking attorneys for the players association work to make sure that the players always get a raise in arbitration, whether they deserve it or not.


All kidding aside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_transactions#Free_agency_and _salary_arbitration


To my knowledge, a player who agrees to arbitration will ALWAYS get a salary increase, whether or not they should have one. This is the biggest ripoff and the biggest joke. The players association LOVES arbitration, because the players can't lose.

Nellie_Fox
10-28-2008, 11:49 AM
To my knowledge, a player who agrees to arbitration will ALWAYS get a salary increase, whether or not they should have one. This is the biggest ripoff and the biggest joke. The players association LOVES arbitration, because the players can't lose.Marvin Miller said, on many occassions, that he was shocked when the owners agreed to the idea of binding arbitration, because he knew it would become what it has.

soxfanreggie
10-29-2008, 09:25 PM
I wonder what KW's stock advice would be here...buy?