PDA

View Full Version : Carrasco to be non-tendered?


eriqjaffe
12-11-2009, 12:00 PM
Possibly so, says Scott Merkin.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091211&content_id=7797780&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws&partnerId=rss_cws

It'd be a shame to let D.J. walk and have to hang on to Linebrink because of money. :(

DonnieDarko
12-11-2009, 12:05 PM
...you've gotta be ****ing kidding me. KW would be stupid as all hell to let him go.

Waysouthsider
12-11-2009, 12:10 PM
I just read this too....I thought I was going out of my mind...why the **** wouldn't they secure Carrasco? This has been a pretty depressing week....

:scratch:

Noneck
12-11-2009, 12:10 PM
It'd be a shame to let D.J. walk and have to hang on to Linebrink because of money. :(

What kind of money are we talking about here?

eriqjaffe
12-11-2009, 12:14 PM
What kind of money are we talking about here?I keep thinking that it can't be that much. How much does a middle reliever get in arbitration? A couple million?

Thing is, Carrasco isn't the only arby-eligible player: Danks and Quentin are also both eligible, and are both certain to get healthy raises.

Pena's eligible, too, and I'd rather the Sox non-tender him.

Sargeant79
12-11-2009, 12:17 PM
This would be bad. Very, very bad.

Noneck
12-11-2009, 12:21 PM
I keep thinking that it can't be that much. How much does a middle reliever get in arbitration? A couple million?

Thing is, Carrasco isn't the only arby-eligible player: Danks and Quentin are also both eligible, and are both certain to get healthy raises.

Pena's eligible, too, and I'd rather the Sox non-tender him.

I am wondering what the difference will be in dollars between Pena and Carrasco. If they are both are up for a couple of mil, then I think one should go. Maybe both if they can use that money for a solid reliever.

Waysouthsider
12-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Carrasco's at 400K right now, correct? How much of an increase is likely? Anyone got a sense about this?

Gammons Peter
12-11-2009, 12:42 PM
Maybe a deal is already done to replace him with Putz

JermaineDye05
12-11-2009, 12:43 PM
Maybe a deal is already done to replace him with Putz

That's the only I can see with letting him walk. Putz to the bullpen and I assume Hudson takes his spot then.

DirtySox
12-11-2009, 12:44 PM
I would be really surprised if he was non tendered. He isn't set to break the bank at all.

Sargeant79
12-11-2009, 12:58 PM
That's the only I can see with letting him walk. Putz to the bullpen and I assume Hudson takes his spot then.

Still bad. Carrasco fills a very valuable role on the team. Middle relievers don't get large arbitration awards. He needs to be kept.

kobo
12-11-2009, 01:00 PM
It's pretty depressing knowing that with the rotation the Sox have that we will most likely continue to hear about how they can't afford to sign or retain certain players. If the rotation is as good as we all think it is and the Sox come out blazing the Cell will be full. I know it's not my money and there are a lot of other factors that make up the payroll but now is not the time to be cheap, IMO.

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 01:04 PM
It's pretty depressing knowing that with the rotation the Sox have that we will most likely continue to hear about how they can't afford to sign or retain certain players. If the rotation is as good as we all think it is and the Sox come out blazing the Cell will be full. I know it's not my money and there are a lot of other factors that make up the payroll but now is not the time to be cheap, IMO.

I agree, can you imagine how many season tickets they would sell if they announced the signing of Jason Bay (for example) Monday? This town would have pennant fever like never before. Sox fans would be going nuts...

LoveYourSuit
12-11-2009, 01:11 PM
I agree, can you imagine how many season tickets they would sell if they announced the signing of Jason Bay (for example) Monday? This town would have pennant fever like never before. Sox fans would be going nuts...


I don't think there are any guys sitting as FAs right now that would make a difference in selling season tickets, including Bay.


Meanwhile, as part of the 25 man roster, you need to retain guys like Carrasco. The guy has been the pitching staff insurance policy the last 2 years. It would be a shame to see him walk.

DonnieDarko
12-11-2009, 01:12 PM
After taking some time to think about it...

I've realized that this is just a rumor, nothing more. Carrasco will likely (hopefully) be resigned. I just don't see any reason NOT to sign him, especially since he fills such a valuable role and is likely to be cheap in comparison to the other players that we need to arbitrate with.

I dunno. What stock does WSI put into this rumor?

Nelfox02
12-11-2009, 01:14 PM
I agree, can you imagine how many season tickets they would sell if they announced the signing of Jason Bay (for example) Monday? This town would have pennant fever like never before. Sox fans would be going nuts...


Jason Bay? What a pleasant dream----I agree the Sox would be the very buzz worthy, right behind the Hawks, in this town with a move like that.

I just dont get where the Sox are going. You invest in your starting rotation, great move. The Rios decision? Jury still out there, but on paper it still could be a good move. But to now go cheap and refuse to address the your glaring needs? Why bother with the Peavy and Rios moves at all then?

Either go for it or dont. I am off the opinion a major market team in MLB should never have to go into full rebuild mode (despite the Sox claim's that they are a small market team playing in a big market, I do not consider this a small market team) but if you want to go the rebuild route then commit to that.

What they are doing now is not going for it all, it is not reloading, it is not rebuilding......I dont know what it is. I wonder what Kenny would say to you if you put him in a non media situation, and he truthfully answered the question----"Do you think this team is a contender to win the World Series as presently constructed?" He couldnt possibly say yes, could he? To me, this team can be barely considered to be a contender to win the AL Central if the season started today, and the only reason I say that is this divsion is weak

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 01:20 PM
I don't think there are any guys sitting as FAs right now that would make a difference in selling season tickets, including Bay.


Meanwhile, as part of the 25 man roster, you need to retain guys like Carrasco. The guy has been the pitching staff insurance policy the last 2 years. It would be a shame to see him walk.

Are you nuts? The newspapers would hype the heck out of a Sox team with Bay added.

munchman33
12-11-2009, 01:22 PM
I agree, can you imagine how many season tickets they would sell if they announced the signing of Jason Bay (for example) Monday? This town would have pennant fever like never before. Sox fans would be going nuts...

If we signed Bay, I'd be livid. It would mean we'd for sure at some point in the next few years be losing the bulk of our young core (Danks, Quentin, Alexei, Beckham, Floyd). It's borderline fiscal idiocy. When I see posts saying why can't we spend on (insert ridiculous contract here), it makes me want to rip my hair out. Because those people either don't want the White Sox to be good or think the White Sox can operate like the Yankees.

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 01:27 PM
Are you nuts? The newspapers would hype the heck out of a Sox team with Bay added.


They would:

1. Question the wisdom of signing a strikeout machine who is average defensively and barely hit .260 in 2009.

2. Openly ask why a GM who practices financial restraint dumps a boatload of money on a player who will not put fans in the stands.

3. Wonder why KW does not want to wait to get him in another three years when the team that would have signed him would be ready to send him to the White Sox, pick up most of the remaining contract, and cost only an overhyped #1 draft pick that won't pan out any way.

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 01:29 PM
They would:

1. Question the wisdom of signing a strikeout machine who is average defensively and barely hit .260 in 2009.

2. Openly ask why a GM who practices financial restraint dumps a boatload of money on a player who will not put fans in the stands.

3. Wonder why KW does not want to wait to get him in another three years when the team that would have signed him would be ready to send him to the White Sox and pick up most of the remaining contract.

I had to do double take on your post. At first I thought you were nuts, then I realized you were slamming the media, not Jason Bay...

:rolling:

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-11-2009, 01:29 PM
Wow, this team cannot possibly be that short on money to non-tender him. Dumb move if we let him go. There is no guarantee that Hudson or any other minor leaguer we have can fill his shoes.

Nelfox02
12-11-2009, 01:29 PM
If we signed Bay, I'd be livid. It would mean we'd for sure at some point in the next few years be losing the bulk of our young core (Danks, Quentin, Alexei, Beckham, Floyd). It's borderline fiscal idiocy. When I see posts saying why can't we spend on (insert ridiculous contract here), it makes me want to rip my hair out. Because those people either don't want the White Sox to be good or think the White Sox can operate like the Yankees.


No argument that we are not the yankees, and cannot expect to be anytime soon. And I honestly I think the Sox set a payroll level that they are using pretty much every available penny they have w/o taking a loss. I dont doubt the budget is tight this year, but my issue with this team is they constantly cry poor but I dont see them making the moves to rectify revenue generation in the future

Could go on and on about this---bottom line is people will support this team if it is winning, and if it wants to win this year it needs to make at least a couple impact moves, and that costs money. (I hope I am wrong about that, I really do, but I just dont see this team able to win as is) Sox ownership expects the fans to come out and support the product, and pay a lot of money to do so, even when the product is substandard. The claim is that if we do that, we will see a better payroll in the future, which implies a better product. That is backwards. Its like if you openend a new steakhouse in the heart of the loop and said "we have an average wait staff, layout is so-so, and steak quality is about that of the old Sizzler......but be prepared to pay Chop House level prices. If enough people come this year then maybe next year we will get some better staff and food in here...."

Right.....try that model and see where it gets you

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 01:30 PM
If we signed Bay, I'd be livid. It would mean we'd for sure at some point in the next few years be losing the bulk of our young core (Danks, Quentin, Alexei, Beckham, Floyd). It's borderline fiscal idiocy. When I see posts saying why can't we spend on (insert ridiculous contract here), it makes me want to rip my hair out. Because those people either don't want the White Sox to be good or think the White Sox can operate like the Yankees.

Hold on, the Sox would be able to go back to payroll levels close to 2006-7 levels with the right amount of season tickets. They'd be Pennant contenders automatically for the next 3 seasons. I think that would allow some extra money to be spent.

Danielgosox38
12-11-2009, 01:32 PM
What a depressing off-season thus far. Letting Carrasco walk would be the dumbest mother ****ing god damn thing ever. This guy bailed out our ass in so many games the past two years. This **** is insane if we let him walk. Especially since he is cheap as hell. This better not ****ing happen.

munchman33
12-11-2009, 01:34 PM
Hold on, the Sox would be able to go back to payroll levels close to 2006-7 levels with the right amount of season tickets. They'd be Pennant contenders automatically for the next 3 seasons. I think that would allow some extra money to be spent.

When you consider money we were getting from trades and the extra money we're spending now in development, scouting...we're not that far off of those levels (if they aren't actually spending more).

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 01:36 PM
Hold on, the Sox would be able to go back to payroll levels close to 2006-7 levels with the right amount of season tickets. They'd be Pennant contenders automatically for the next 3 seasons. I think that would allow some extra money to be spent.

Maybe so, but as Lip often points out, when has Reinsdorf ever taken the 'spend to win' approach since getting Luzinski and Fisk in 1981?

He wins a division in 1983, then in need of a bullpen stopper, ass a 41-year old reliever.

He wins a division in 1993, and they make trades and low-level signings to defend the title the next year.

The half-assed signings of Belle and Navarro for 1997, who were not winners any way, are his motovation.

He gave KW a larger budget in 2006 because he had higher ticket prices and expected 3 million to pack The Cell.

Uncle Jerry will never sign a high-priced player in HOPES he will pack the park.

dickallen15
12-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Maybe so, but as Lip often points out, when has Reinsdorf ever taken the 'spend to win' approach since 1981? The half-assed signings of Belle and Navarro, who were not winners any way, are his motovation.

He gave KW a larger budget in 2006 because he had higher ticket prices and expected 3 million to pack The Cell.

Uncle Jerry will never sign a high-priced player in HOPES he will pack the park.

I agree, but in his defense, there are very few players that spark mass buying of tickets.

Danielgosox38
12-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Regardless of Putz, no way they should let Carrasco go...

Nelfox02
12-11-2009, 01:47 PM
Maybe so, but as Lip often points out, when has Reinsdorf ever taken the 'spend to win' approach since getting Luzinski and Fisk in 1981?

He wins a division in 1983, then in need of a bullpen stopper, ass a 41-year old reliever.

He wins a division in 1993, and they make trades and low-level signings to defend the title the next year.

The half-assed signings of Belle and Navarro for 1997, who were not winners any way, are his motovation.

He gave KW a larger budget in 2006 because he had higher ticket prices and expected 3 million to pack The Cell.

Uncle Jerry will never sign a high-priced player in HOPES he will pack the park.



A big part of the reason why under his tenure we only have 1 pennant, and 1 WS to show for it. And as much as I will always cherish the 2005 Sox, that team was not built in the off season to be a title contender.

We all saw in 2006 the immediate effects that success can bring to revenue generation, the problem is we did not sustain the winning, and thus did not sustain the attendance. We will continue to be on a boom and bust attendance cycle unless ownership rethinks its postion

the off season trends here are downright disturbing, last year was bad......this year, so far no better, and appears it could end up being worse

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 02:23 PM
A big part of the reason why under his tenure we only have 1 pennant, and 1 WS to show for it. And as much as I will always cherish the 2005 Sox, that team was not built in the off season to be a title contender.

We all saw in 2006 the immediate effects that success can bring to revenue generation, the problem is we did not sustain the winning, and thus did not sustain the attendance. We will continue to be on a boom and bust attendance cycle unless ownership rethinks its postion

the off season trends here are downright disturbing, last year was bad......this year, so far no better, and appears it could end up being worse

That is one reason why I do not bash the NYY and Steinbrenner. Sure he did some dumb things, and they have doled out dozens upon dozens of bad contracts, but at least ol George took a chance, and they never blamed anyone for those mistakes.

His fierce desire to win and win at all costs has to be commended, because he has delivered.

russ99
12-11-2009, 02:29 PM
No argument that we are not the yankees, and cannot expect to be anytime soon. And I honestly I think the Sox set a payroll level that they are using pretty much every available penny they have w/o taking a loss. I dont doubt the budget is tight this year, but my issue with this team is they constantly cry poor but I dont see them making the moves to rectify revenue generation in the future

Could go on and on about this---bottom line is people will support this team if it is winning, and if it wants to win this year it needs to make at least a couple impact moves, and that costs money. (I hope I am wrong about that, I really do, but I just dont see this team able to win as is) Sox ownership expects the fans to come out and support the product, and pay a lot of money to do so, even when the product is substandard. The claim is that if we do that, we will see a better payroll in the future, which implies a better product. That is backwards. Its like if you openend a new steakhouse in the heart of the loop and said "we have an average wait staff, layout is so-so, and steak quality is about that of the old Sizzler......but be prepared to pay Chop House level prices. If enough people come this year then maybe next year we will get some better staff and food in here...."

Right.....try that model and see where it gets you

I don't ever expect the Sox to be like the Yankees, but they've gone as high as $120M in payroll recently. So it makes little sense as to why they'd fold at $100 now...

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 02:33 PM
What a depressing off-season thus far. Letting Carrasco walk would be the dumbest mother ****ing god damn thing ever. This guy bailed out our ass in so many games the past two years. This **** is insane if we let him walk. Especially since he is cheap as hell. This better not ****ing happen.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/reviews/dvd/images/2004/happy_gilmore.jpg

'Man, even I'd have to censor this ****ing post!'

Chipol
12-11-2009, 03:06 PM
Maybe to get a deal reached before tomorrow?

PalehosePlanet
12-11-2009, 03:36 PM
If we signed Bay, I'd be livid. It would mean we'd for sure at some point in the next few years be losing the bulk of our young core (Danks, Quentin, Alexei, Beckham, Floyd). It's borderline fiscal idiocy. When I see posts saying why can't we spend on (insert ridiculous contract here), it makes me want to rip my hair out. Because those people either don't want the White Sox to be good or think the White Sox can operate like the Yankees.

Why would we lose all of those players? If they all sign contracts similar to Gavin's deal last year --- who has three years left including the team option --- they would all be here during the time of Bay's 4 year deal. We would have to buy out the three arbitration years of Danks and Quentin plus add a fourth to include their first FA year. The players would be cost controlled.

Yes, it would mean that payroll would be a bit higher and we would have less payroll flexibility over the next couple of years possibly but we would have a good to great chance to take it all over the next three years.

PalehosePlanet
12-11-2009, 03:40 PM
Maybe to get a deal reached before tomorrow?

Hopefully. I can't see us offering more than 1.5 for this year and maybe 2 for the following year in a contract proposal. If DJ doesn't go for something like that he might be gone.

Corlose 15
12-11-2009, 03:46 PM
Maybe so, but as Lip often points out, when has Reinsdorf ever taken the 'spend to win' approach since getting Luzinski and Fisk in 1981?

He wins a division in 1983, then in need of a bullpen stopper, ass a 41-year old reliever.

He wins a division in 1993, and they make trades and low-level signings to defend the title the next year.

The half-assed signings of Belle and Navarro for 1997, who were not winners any way, are his motovation.

He gave KW a larger budget in 2006 because he had higher ticket prices and expected 3 million to pack The Cell.

Uncle Jerry will never sign a high-priced player in HOPES he will pack the park.

That's not entirely fair considering the two big contracts he added last year with Peavy, and Rios.

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 04:38 PM
When you consider money we were getting from trades and the extra money we're spending now in development, scouting...we're not that far off of those levels (if they aren't actually spending more).

In 2007 our opening day payroll as over $120M. We're currently $20M under that easily even after the arb cases.

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 04:45 PM
That's not entirely fair considering the two big contracts he added last year with Peavy, and Rios.

Trades are different that FA's, especially in Jerry and Kenny's worlds...

Hopefully. I can't see us offering more than 1.5 for this year and maybe 2 for the following year in a contract proposal. If DJ doesn't go for something like that he might be gone.

If he gets offered that and turns it down, he can go, especially considering he'll make more than Matt Thornton after getting that contract.

If he gets offered $2 million for two years he should take it.

russ99
12-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Trades are different that FA's, especially in Jerry and Kenny's worlds...



If he gets offered that and turns it down, he can go, especially considering he'll make more than Matt Thornton after getting that contract.

If he gets offered $2 million for two years he should take it.

We have some decent arms in the system, so why pay $2M for the last guy on the pitching staff...

DJ's done nice work for us, but anything over $1M is too much. FYI he was at $475,000 last year.

Corlose 15
12-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Trades are different that FA's, especially in Jerry and Kenny's worlds...



If he gets offered that and turns it down, he can go, especially considering he'll make more than Matt Thornton after getting that contract.

If he gets offered $2 million for two years he should take it.

In terms of taking on salary it isn't though. Plus Rios was essentially a free agent signing since he was a waver claim. Maybe they didn't have to bid for them but they are still significant salaries that JR agreed to add on.


As for Carrasco, he was usful out of the pen and a good swingman but I don't see why Hudson can't do what Carrasco did.

VMSNS
12-11-2009, 05:03 PM
Unless DJ is part of a bigger deal, I'd be beyond pissed if Kenny just let him walk. Instead, we should try finding a suitor for Linebrink (although, I'm sure they've been trying to do that already).

A pen of Hudson, DJ, Pena, Putz, Thornton, and Jenks would be pretty solid, especially is Pena improves.

KyWhiSoxFan
12-11-2009, 05:07 PM
We have some decent arms in the system, so why pay $2M for the last guy on the pitching staff...

DJ's done nice work for us, but anything over $1M is too much. FYI he was at $475,000 last year.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. The last guy in the pen can't make that much. You need to give that spot to someone who you are grooming and giving experience.

I am a huge fan Hudson, and he should take the long role in the pen from DJ. He will do great in that role and he needs the experience so he can move into the rotation in 2010 if needed, if Freddy falters, and certainly by 2011.

twinsuck
12-11-2009, 08:09 PM
Put he's the only one on the team that wears stirrups! :whiner:

TheBigHurtST
12-11-2009, 08:30 PM
This team would be out of their ****ing minds to let him walk.

munchman33
12-11-2009, 09:20 PM
In 2007 our opening day payroll as over $120M. We're currently $20M under that easily even after the arb cases.

How much money did we get back from trades though? Thome alone was what, over $7 million that year? And what did we spend on scouting then versus now?

Not to mention, we were drawing a lot more then. BEFORE the payroll got to that level.

Oh, and then there's the "and look how well that team did" argument.

I don't think we're easily $20 million less than that year. But sure, we're probably less. And there's lots of good reasons for it.

munchman33
12-11-2009, 09:22 PM
Why would we lose all of those players? If they all sign contracts similar to Gavin's deal last year --- who has three years left including the team option --- they would all be here during the time of Bay's 4 year deal. We would have to buy out the three arbitration years of Danks and Quentin plus add a fourth to include their first FA year. The players would be cost controlled.

Yes, it would mean that payroll would be a bit higher and we would have less payroll flexibility over the next couple of years possibly but we would have a good to great chance to take it all over the next three years.

Contracts for arbitration eligible players get more than "a bit" higher when they perform at high levels. And Danks turned down a "cost-controlled" offer last off-season.

If you believe we could add an $18 million a year deal and keep all those players, then I'm filing you in the "think we can operate like the Yankees" category.

Daver
12-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Contracts for arbitration eligible players get more than "a bit" higher when they perform at high levels. And Danks turned down a "cost-controlled" offer last off-season.

If you believe we could add an $18 million a year deal and keep all those players, then I'm filing you in the "think we can operate like the Yankees" category.

Danks is not eligible for free agency, it is not in his best interest to agree to anything other than an arbitration settlement.

dickallen15
12-11-2009, 09:40 PM
Wouldn't Carrasco have some trade value? Why just let him go? I know some teams may think you will let him go, but that's no guarantee they will get him. How much better were Lyon's numbers and look what he got? I think a team would be willing to take Carrasco's arb number and give up something for him.

Brian26
12-11-2009, 09:53 PM
Why just let him go?

I have a theory. Based on the number of mop-up innings Carrasco had to throw last season, I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers drop considerably in 2010. Guillen rode DJ hard last year. Maybe the Sox know something that we don't know.

cws05champ
12-11-2009, 09:58 PM
I can't imagine Carrasco getting more than $1.25M, which is only 800K more than what he made last year. This is his 1st year arb eligible and he's a middle reliever. I would like to keep him, or at least try to get something for him.

Can't we just trade Liney to the Dodgers for Pierre and $4M cash. That would fill the lead off spot and only add $4M net over 2 years

Tragg
12-11-2009, 10:21 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with that. The last guy in the pen can't make that much. You need to give that spot to someone who you are grooming and giving experience.

If he's the last guy in the pen, then at least we know that we've got a good pen.

tm1119
12-11-2009, 10:25 PM
I dont want to see him Carrasco go, but I really dont think its anything to get shook up about either. Hes very replaceable. We now have Jenks, Putz, Linebrink, Thorton, Pena, and a 2nd lefty(presumably Williams). Thats 6 guys in the pen. That could possibly be all we will carry, and if its 7 the final spot will more than likely go to either Hudson or Torres as the long guy. Losing DJ Carrasco isnt going to win or lose us any games next season.

Tragg
12-11-2009, 10:36 PM
2nd lefty(presumably Williams).
Williams did a decent job last year,but he's strictly situational - he shouln't pitch against right handed hitters, unless the game's out of hand. That takes away a lot of flexibility.

tm1119
12-11-2009, 11:14 PM
Williams did a decent job last year,but he's strictly situational - he shouln't pitch against right handed hitters, unless the game's out of hand. That takes away a lot of flexibility.

Not going to argue that, but he is still going to take up a spot in the pen. My point is that there are really only 2 spots left in the pen after Jenks, Linebrink, Putz, Thorton, and Pena. And 1 of those spots pretty much has to be another lefty. That leaves 1 spot in the pen. Should it go to Carrasco? Probably. But its certainly not the end of the world that the last man out of the pen will be different this season.

voodoochile
12-11-2009, 11:18 PM
With the back end of the rotation looking solid (assuming Jenks is back) the team is looking for the 6th man for the bullpen at the moment. Hudson and Nunez are both ready for that shot and they make the minimum. I'm assuming both Williams (loogy) and Linebrink (too expensive to cut or trade) are locks to make the team.

I agree that $2M is too much money to spend on a guy you aren't planning on using in the 7th or 8th inning regularly.

Edit: Forgot about Pena... Hmmm...

Jenks
Thortont
Putz
Pena
Linebrink
Williams

Maybe they can get a bag of baseballs for Linebrink and $3M...

tm1119
12-11-2009, 11:29 PM
With the back end of the rotation looking solid (assuming Jenks is back) the team is looking for the 6th man for the bullpen at the moment. Hudson and Nunez are both ready for that shot and they make the minimum. I'm assuming both Williams (loogy) and Linebrink (too expensive to cut or trade) are locks to make the team.

I agree that $2M is too much money to spend on a guy you aren't planning on using in the 7th or 8th inning regularly.

Edit: Forgot about Pena... Hmmm...

Jenks
Thortont
Putz
Pena
Linebrink
Williams

Maybe they can get a bag of baseballs for Linebrink and $3M...

I think we keep 7 in the pen for at least the 1st couple months of the season while pitchers build up their endurance. And as much as I would love it, Linebrink isnt going anywhere unless we take on an equally as bad contract. Like you said Hudson, Nunez, and I'll add in Torres are all deserving of a shot and will all make less than Carrasco. Who know 1 million could be the difference in getting a guy like Matsui.

KMcMahon817
12-12-2009, 12:16 AM
If the Sox feel DJ doesn't have a spot on the roster, why not try to deal him for a prospect instead of letting him walk. Worth a shot I suppose.

voodoochile
12-12-2009, 02:04 AM
I think we keep 7 in the pen for at least the 1st couple months of the season while pitchers build up their endurance. And as much as I would love it, Linebrink isnt going anywhere unless we take on an equally as bad contract. Like you said Hudson, Nunez, and I'll add in Torres are all deserving of a shot and will all make less than Carrasco. Who know 1 million could be the difference in getting a guy like Matsui.


Ozzie's been pretty adamant against carrying 7 relievers all along. In addition with the strength of the rotation, you'd think they'd need less help in the bullpen as it won't get worked as much. I don't think it's likely.

dickallen15
12-12-2009, 08:14 AM
I have a theory. Based on the number of mop-up innings Carrasco had to throw last season, I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers drop considerably in 2010. Guillen rode DJ hard last year. Maybe the Sox know something that we don't know.

That very well could be but why non-tender him instead of trading him? He really has outperformed even JJ Putz the last 2 years and Putz has a contact Carassco has zero chance of matching. With everyone needing bullpen help, someone would give up something for him. Even if its an A ball OF, at least its something.

Frater Perdurabo
12-12-2009, 08:23 AM
Ozzie's been pretty adamant against carrying 7 relievers all along.

Yes, Ozzie thinks it's much more important to carry another journeyman veteran infielder on the bench so he can keep Vizquel in the DH rotation.

NLaloosh
12-12-2009, 08:45 AM
The more I think about it the more I think that if they let Carrasco go then that's a good indication that they plan to go with only 6 men in the pen.

For this team, that may not be a bad idea.

voodoochile
12-12-2009, 11:43 AM
Yes, Ozzie thinks it's much more important to carry another journeyman veteran infielder on the bench so he can keep Vizquel in the DH rotation.

Well if the 7th guy only gets one appearance every 2 weeks, it's bad for everyone involved and that's been Ozzie's primary issue with 7. The 7th guy just doesn't get enough work.

voodoochile
12-12-2009, 11:43 AM
The more I think about it the more I think that if they let Carrasco go then that's a good indication that they plan to go with only 6 men in the pen.

For this team, that may not be a bad idea.

It's not a bad 6 either.

cards press box
12-12-2009, 11:54 AM
Ozzie's been pretty adamant against carrying 7 relievers all along. In addition with the strength of the rotation, you'd think they'd need less help in the bullpen as it won't get worked as much. I don't think it's likely.

I agree with Ozzie. A 12 man pitching staff leaves a team with far too shallow a bench. Given the fact that teams routinely keep 11 or 12 pitchers, I think that a 26 or 27 man roster might be a good idea for MLB. The players' union would like it but the owners probably wouldn't because of increased costs. Of course, that extra pitcher (or pitchers) would save wear and tear on the starters in whom the teams heavily invest resources.

In any event, going with 11 pitchers makes sense for the Sox because Ozzie is a manager that uses his bench well. The more depth the Sox have on the bench, the more flexibility Ozzie will have.

Craig Grebeck
12-12-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm good with Carrasco being non-tendered. This team has spent nearly eight million on role players and bullpen pieces, and if money is scarce, we should fill the swingman role with a guy like Hudson.

soxinem1
12-12-2009, 01:02 PM
Carrasco for Gardner. NYY needs some relievers after giving up a few this off season.

LoveYourSuit
12-12-2009, 02:02 PM
Carrasco for Gardner. NYY needs some relievers after giving up a few this off season.


Yeah, I am sure the Yankees will jump all over that one. Trade for a guy who is about to be non-tendered.

NLaloosh
12-12-2009, 02:07 PM
It's not a bad 6 either.

Which 6 is that? And who is the long man? In other words, who are the 4 righties?

soxinem1
12-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Yeah, I am sure the Yankees will jump all over that one. Trade for a guy who is about to be non-tendered.

They need a guy like Carrasco. That's why you don't broadcast your intentions with guys on the fence like this.

He was a tradeable piece. Not anymore.

voodoochile
12-12-2009, 02:30 PM
Which 6 is that? And who is the long man? In other words, who are the 4 righties?

Jenks
Putz
Pena
Linebrink (if he gets traded, Nunez or Hudson can step in) Long man if not - though Pena can go long too - I don't think the Sox think they are going to need a long man a lot this season and with good reason.

NLaloosh
12-12-2009, 02:42 PM
Jenks
Putz
Pena
Linebrink (if he gets traded, Nunez or Hudson can step in) Long man if not - though Pena can go long too - I don't think the Sox think they are going to need a long man a lot this season and with good reason.

Well, I don't think they'll need one often either. But, they will need one sometimes. Who comes in in the third inning? Pena? Linebrink?

soxinem1
12-12-2009, 02:55 PM
Well, I don't think they'll need one often either. But, they will need one sometimes. Who comes in in the third inning? Pena? Linebrink?

Either of them is fine, as long as Adam Eaton is not brought in.

PalehosePlanet
12-12-2009, 02:55 PM
Well, I don't think they'll need one often either. But, they will need one sometimes. Who comes in in the third inning? Pena? Linebrink?

I'm guessing, as of right now, that would be Hudson.

I'd like to keep DJ actually. I think too many of you are dismissing his value by strictly designating him as a long-reliever.

When we had injuries in the pen during the second half of '08 DJ stepped in and pitched well in the 7th and 8th innings for us in a set-up role.

He would be nice insurance and could step in and help if we have an injury, or ineffectiveness, to our late inning guys.

PalehosePlanet
12-12-2009, 03:01 PM
Yeah, I am sure the Yankees will jump all over that one. Trade for a guy who is about to be non-tendered.

We could always offer arb, then trade him. There would certainly be a market for him --- and I'm guessing a pretty large one. I'd rather have DJ for 1.5 per than Lyon for 5 per, or Grabow for 3.75 per.

Seems like every team in baseball needs bullpen help (including us.)

voodoochile
12-12-2009, 04:27 PM
Well, I don't think they'll need one often either. But, they will need one sometimes. Who comes in in the third inning? Pena? Linebrink?

If they need a guy in the third most likely they are down 7 or so runs, bring in Linebrink, he can't hurt them anymore...

KRS1
12-12-2009, 04:48 PM
If they need a guy in the third most likely they are down 7 or so runs, bring in Linebrink, he can't hurt them anymore...

I'd rather protect the hell out of Linebrink in hopes of him starting off solid, thus enabling us to move him before the deadline. If he thrives and we're rolling, then it works out all the better. Personally, I think you need a long man in the pen to make it through the season, so having a bunch of 1/2 inning guys doesn't sit well with me. As for the six V. seven pen arms debate, it's hard to judge. With versatile guys like Kotsay (1b + OF) and Vizquel (2b, SS, 3b) do we absolutely need more than a backup C and one more utility guy? Probably not, but I'll admit it would be nice to have both a fifth OF and fifth IF (excluding 1b). How often do those guys actually play though? I've heard the seventh man in the pen may only get in every two weeks, but I think an extra pitcher's (LOOGY, long relief) impact can pretty easily surpass that of the 25th man coming off the bench for his 150 ABS.

Frater Perdurabo
12-12-2009, 05:01 PM
In any event, going with 11 pitchers makes sense for the Sox because Ozzie is a manager that uses his bench well.

If by "well" you mean "often," then I agree.

If by "well" you mean "effectively," I might not agree.

Sockinchisox
12-12-2009, 06:05 PM
Non-tendered.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/white-sox-non-tender-dj-carrasco.html

TheBigHurtST
12-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Non-tendered.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/white-sox-non-tender-dj-carrasco.html

Wow. That just sucks. Going for making the bullpen better? Then why do this?

DirtySox
12-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Meh, not a huge deal.

Sounds like Hudson and Putz will essentially replace Carrasco and Dotel.

Woofer
12-12-2009, 06:28 PM
To me, the offseason is a stress filled time. It seems that the trend is for the Sox to become very young, and also very old. Then throw in the often injured or untradeable to fill the rest of the roster. I hope for a better season than last year. Right now I have confidence in the starting pitching, and little else. I hope that Kenny can work some magic to get this team together for 2010.

JermaineDye05
12-12-2009, 06:29 PM
Wow. That just sucks. Going for making the bullpen better? Then why do this?

My gut feeling tells me that Carrasco will come back to earth next season or at the very least fall of the map a bit because of how many innings he pitched last season. I think Hudson could be an upgrade over DJ, his stuff is a lot crisper.

Soxfest
12-12-2009, 06:46 PM
KW does not make any sense on this to me!

JermaineDye05
12-12-2009, 06:51 PM
KW does not make any sense on this to me!

Are you trying to be ironic with that post?

VMSNS
12-12-2009, 07:09 PM
Non-tendered.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/white-sox-non-tender-dj-carrasco.html

Ridiculous. All because of a "several hundred dollars" difference. This guy has been nothing but solid for us and was the unsung hero of last season. To let him walk is just pure stupidity, to me.

Kenny better have something up his sleeve. I really hope he puts DJ's money to good use.

Rohan
12-12-2009, 07:23 PM
Are you trying to be ironic with that post?

I laughed. Even in the midst of possibly losing the single most reliable pitcher on the White Sox.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2009, 07:56 PM
In today's multi-billion dollar industry, to lose a competent pitcher who can basically do everything and anything you need (start, short relief, middle relief, long relief) over several hundred thousand dollars is ludicrous.

Two average home games parking at 15 dollars a pop makes that up.

This reminds me of the old adage, 'penny saved, pound foolish'

Lip

Tragg
12-12-2009, 08:00 PM
I assume the Sox think he's done. Otherwise, he's useful because he can pitch to right handed hitters; Williams can't, so I think we're still short a bullpen lefty. But I guess they'll go with wht they have.
STill would like to see Hudson in there until he's moved to the rotation.

Noneck
12-12-2009, 08:27 PM
In today's multi-billion dollar industry, to lose a competent pitcher who can basically do everything and anything you need (start, short relief, middle relief, long relief) over several hundred thousand dollars is ludicrous.

Two average home games parking at 15 dollars a pop makes that up.

This reminds me of the old adage, 'penny saved, pound foolish'

Lip

Where is this 15 dollars a pop parking, you speak of?

tm1119
12-12-2009, 08:30 PM
Cant believe people are seriously making a big deal out of this. Carrasco is mediocre at best. He but together a 3.7 ERA in 93 innings, and about 10 of those innings were actually meaningful. Hes extremely replaceable. And no he doesnt have any trade value either. Hes a 32 year old mop up pitcher, those are a dime a dozen.

SI1020
12-12-2009, 08:32 PM
My gut feeling tells me that Carrasco will come back to earth next season or at the very least fall of the map a bit because of how many innings he pitched last season. I think Hudson could be an upgrade over DJ, his stuff is a lot crisper. 89 1/3 innings? How did Mike Marshall ever do what he did?

Edit: The Trib article says he pitched 89 1/3 innings. Baseball-Reference has 93 1/3 innings. Maybe he does need a one year sabbatical.

DirtySox
12-12-2009, 08:38 PM
Cant believe people are seriously making a big deal out of this. Carrasco is mediocre at best. He but together a 3.7 ERA in 93 innings, and about 10 of those innings were actually meaningful. Hes extremely replaceable. And no he doesnt have any trade value either. Hes a 32 year old mop up pitcher, those are a dime a dozen.

I think he was more versatile then your standard mop up man, but I agree that this isn't as big a deal as some people are making it out to be. Carrasco's duties can more than likely be suitably filled by another journeyman/fringe pitching prospect. Santos/Hudson/Torres are all decent options for such a spot.

Noneck
12-12-2009, 08:39 PM
Hes a 32 year old mop up pitcher, those are a dime a dozen.

Ok Ill give you that dime, now you can give me that dozen.

JB98
12-12-2009, 08:46 PM
89 1/3 innings? How did Mike Marshall ever do what he did?

Edit: The Trib article says he pitched 89 1/3 innings. Baseball-Reference has 93 1/3 innings. Maybe he does need a one year sabbatical.

He pitched 89 1/3 innings as a reliever. He worked four innings as a starter for a total of 93 1/3 innings.

Danielgosox38
12-12-2009, 10:00 PM
Carrasco was way underappreciated. This whole thing just sucks.

tm1119
12-12-2009, 10:10 PM
Ok Ill give you that dime, now you can give me that dozen.

Do you really want me to give you a list of pitchers = to or better than Carrasco? The list would go into the hundreds. Sorry, dont have time for that.

Look, im not trying to knock Carrasco or what he did for us last season, but are you really going to put Carrasco into the game in the 7th inning in a 3-2 game? I know I wouldnt, and Im pretty sure Ozzie wouldnt either. Fact of the matter is that we simply dont have the room for a pitcher like Carrasco this season. And even if we did Hudson is 10X more talented than Carrasco and Torres is very comparable.

Noneck
12-12-2009, 10:24 PM
And even if we did Hudson is 10X more talented than Carrasco and Torres is very comparable.

Do you really want Hudson to do the work that Carrasco did? Or with a good rotation, do you want him to rot in the pen? Hudson is a supposed jewel, not the type of pitcher you want to do what Carrasco did or rot in the pen? Plus Hudson and Torres have options, if Carrasco is crap, dump him and bring one up. Its only chump change they would be losing.

VMSNS
12-12-2009, 10:25 PM
Carrasco was way underappreciated. This whole thing just sucks.

Totally agreed.

Cant believe people are seriously making a big deal out of this. Carrasco is mediocre at best. He but together a 3.7 ERA in 93 innings, and about 10 of those innings were actually meaningful. Hes extremely replaceable. And no he doesnt have any trade value either. Hes a 32 year old mop up pitcher, those are a dime a dozen.

C'mon, dude. DJ wears stirrups! :D:

tm1119
12-13-2009, 12:57 AM
Do you really want Hudson to do the work that Carrasco did? Or with a good rotation, do you want him to rot in the pen? Hudson is a supposed jewel, not the type of pitcher you want to do what Carrasco did or rot in the pen? Plus Hudson and Torres have options, if Carrasco is crap, dump him and bring one up. Its only chump change they would be losing.

If I remember correctly Buehrle started off in the bullpen his rookie season and that worked out well. Johan Santana and Adam Wainwright are also names that come right to my mind of guys who started off in the pen who are pretty successful. Hudson seasoning himself in the pen is not a bad idea at all.
Again though, where exactly does Carrasco or even Hudson fit in the pen? Ozzie has already said he only wants 6 guys in the pen. Would I want Linebrink gone? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Most likely not. There is simply no room for Carrasco with the signing of Putz.

JB98
12-13-2009, 01:33 AM
If I remember correctly Buehrle started off in the bullpen his rookie season and that worked out well. Johan Santana and Adam Wainwright are also names that come right to my mind of guys who started off in the pen who are pretty successful. Hudson seasoning himself in the pen is not a bad idea at all.
Again though, where exactly does Carrasco or even Hudson fit in the pen? Ozzie has already said he only wants 6 guys in the pen. Would I want Linebrink gone? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Most likely not. There is simply no room for Carrasco with the signing of Putz.

When did he say that? Link? Ozzie has insisted upon carrying 12 pitchers the last few seasons. A six-man bullpen is news to me....

Noneck
12-13-2009, 01:34 AM
If I remember correctly Buehrle started off in the bullpen his rookie season and that worked out well. Johan Santana and Adam Wainwright are also names that come right to my mind of guys who started off in the pen who are pretty successful. Hudson seasoning himself in the pen is not a bad idea at all.
Again though, where exactly does Carrasco or even Hudson fit in the pen? Ozzie has already said he only wants 6 guys in the pen. Would I want Linebrink gone? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Most likely not. There is simply no room for Carrasco with the signing of Putz.

The guys you mentioned did not perform the relief duties Carrasco did.

If there are 6 (I think there will be 7) it will be Putz, Thornton, Pena, Linebrink, Williams and should have been Carrasco.

If they do only keep 6 and Jenks is still around (I doubt he will be), you win discussion.

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-13-2009, 01:39 AM
I hope this doesn't bite the Sox next year. Carrasco was only a middle-mop up guy, but he was the second most consistent guy on the team behind Thornton last year. True that you can put anyone in his role, but there is no guarantee that Hudson or Torres will be able to give us what he could have. He's one of those pitchers you don't miss until they're gone, IMO.

TheBigHurtST
12-13-2009, 03:30 AM
Do you really want me to give you a list of pitchers = to or better than Carrasco? The list would go into the hundreds. Sorry, dont have time for that.

Look, im not trying to knock Carrasco or what he did for us last season, but are you really going to put Carrasco into the game in the 7th inning in a 3-2 game? I know I wouldnt, and Im pretty sure Ozzie wouldnt either. Fact of the matter is that we simply dont have the room for a pitcher like Carrasco this season. And even if we did Hudson is 10X more talented than Carrasco and Torres is very comparable.

But we have room for everyone else in a bullpen that overall sucks? And plus, we signed Andruw Jones for around league minimum, wasn't it? I just don't understand how letting DJ go over such a small amount is a smart move at all.

Lillian
12-13-2009, 07:13 AM
Count me as one of the disapproving fans regarding this move. D. J. was a very consistently good and effective pitcher ever since he joined the Sox. I don't understand how management feels that the Pen is strong enough to let a guy of his caliber just walk. He may not be an overpowering pitcher, but he knows how to get guys out. I'll miss him, and I fear the team will too.

Lillian
12-13-2009, 08:50 AM
As I read and think about this a little more, perhaps this was done in part as a favor to D.J. He has always wanted to start, and he had little chance of doing that with the Sox. Management probably feels that he had earned a chance to pursue his dream of starting.

Moreover, with the kind of starting staff they have they shouldn't need anyone to come in early very often. They probably want to use the money to fill more important holes.

dickallen15
12-13-2009, 09:05 AM
As I read and think about this a little more, perhaps this was done in part as a favor to D.J. He has always wanted to start, and he had little chance of doing that with the Sox. Management probably feels that he had earned a chance to pursue his dream of starting.

Moreover, with the kind of starting staff they have they shouldn't need anyone to come in early very often. They probably want to use the money to fill more important holes.

If the White Sox were putting DJ's wishes to be a starter ahead of the White Sox wishes to win its just wrong. Gonzalez wrote that he was looking to double his $440k salary. This was a disagreement over $200k-300k, and the bullpen is running out of spots. They obviously are going to give Santos a shot, as they protected him on the 40 and he is out of options. Also Hudson will probably get a shot. As for there being little use for the role DJ filled as a long man, spot starter, I think its a longshot Freddy Garcia makes all his starts in 2010, also Danks had the issue in his finger, Floyd had a hip issue, Buerhle they seem to be very cautious with more and more. What would giving DJ an $800k contract hurt to bring him to spring training even if it were just insurance?

I think chances of DJ pitching as effectively as he has the past 2 seasons is probably very slim, but some team would take him if they didn't even have to pay him $1 million.

Lillian
12-13-2009, 09:09 AM
If the White Sox were putting DJ's wishes to be a starter ahead of the White Sox wishes to win its just wrong. Gonzalez wrote that he was looking to double his $440k salary. This was a disagreement over $200k-300k, and the bullpen is running out of spots. They obviously are going to give Santos a shot, as they protected him on the 40 and he is out of options. Also Hudson will probably get a shot. As for there being little use for the role DJ filled as a long man, spot starter, I think its a longshot Freddy Garcia makes all his starts in 2010, also Danks had the issue in his finger, Floyd had a hip issue, Buerhle they seem to be very cautious with more and more. What would giving DJ an $800k contract hurt to bring him to spring training even if it were just insurance?

I think chances of DJ pitching as effectively as he has the past 2 seasons is probably very slim, but some team would take him if they didn't even have to pay him $1 million.

OK, you convinced me. So I guess my first reaction was the right one.
Yeah, now I'm really mad that they didn't sign him.

dickallen15
12-13-2009, 09:30 AM
OK, you convinced me. So I guess my first reaction was the right one.
Yeah, now I'm really mad that they didn't sign him.

I do agree they did DJ a favor in a big way, although I think if that was their intention, it is the wrong thing to do. Let's face it, every team is looking for bullpen help and a guy that can start and relieve has to be pretty valuable. Ozzie said Carrasco was the Sox most valuable pitcher. He'll probably wind up with a bigger contract and better opportunity now that he can negotiate with every team.

The other thing is, if DJ signed a $800k contract and came to spring training and was beat out for a job and was lit up so no other team wanted him, it would have been a non-guarantee and the Sox would have only been on the hook for $180k. A nice check for me, but peanuts for them. Its less than they spent having minor leaguers sit on the bench last September.

TomBradley72
12-13-2009, 11:27 AM
If it's true that they were only a few 100K apart...this is a boneheaded move.

DJ adds some nice depth and flexibility...you always lose a few arms due to injury...this doesn't make sense to me.

getonbckthr
12-13-2009, 11:46 AM
Can we still re-sign if we wish?

Daver
12-13-2009, 12:00 PM
Can we still re-sign if we wish?

After May 1st.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2009, 12:25 PM
Daver:

Do they still have that rule. I thought I read on these boards at another time where that rule was discontinued. I could be wrong though.

Lip

soxinem1
12-13-2009, 12:30 PM
Daver:

Do they still have that rule. I thought I read on these boards at another time where that rule was discontinued. I could be wrong though.

Lip

I think that is for offering arbitration, but for non-tendering the team would have to wait until May 1.

voodoochile
12-13-2009, 12:43 PM
I think that is for offering arbitration, but for non-tendering the team would have to wait until May 1.

Yeah, I assume that's because he was still under Sox control. They effectively relinquished control rather than pay a higher salary.

thedudeabides
12-13-2009, 02:17 PM
Daver:

Do they still have that rule. I thought I read on these boards at another time where that rule was discontinued. I could be wrong though.

Lip

You're right, that rule is no longer in existence. They have the same right to negotiate with him as any other team.

The A's non-tendered Cust, and they are already trying to negotiate with him.

JB98
12-13-2009, 04:56 PM
If the White Sox were putting DJ's wishes to be a starter ahead of the White Sox wishes to win its just wrong. Gonzalez wrote that he was looking to double his $440k salary. This was a disagreement over $200k-300k, and the bullpen is running out of spots. They obviously are going to give Santos a shot, as they protected him on the 40 and he is out of options. Also Hudson will probably get a shot. As for there being little use for the role DJ filled as a long man, spot starter, I think its a longshot Freddy Garcia makes all his starts in 2010, also Danks had the issue in his finger, Floyd had a hip issue, Buerhle they seem to be very cautious with more and more. What would giving DJ an $800k contract hurt to bring him to spring training even if it were just insurance?

I think chances of DJ pitching as effectively as he has the past 2 seasons is probably very slim, but some team would take him if they didn't even have to pay him $1 million.

If Danks, Floyd and Buehrle have injuries, we aren't winning our division. Keeping Carrasco wouldn't change that fact.

soxinem1
12-13-2009, 07:26 PM
You're right, that rule is no longer in existence. They have the same right to negotiate with him as any other team.

The A's non-tendered Cust, and they are already trying to negotiate with him.

Just out of curiosity then, why have the 'must offer arbitration by .....' or 'must tender a contract by .......' deadlines?

Do these deadlines only mean 'exclusive' negotiating rights between the team and player for these type of instances??

Then I am assuming that once these deadlines pass, other teams can go after these types of players then.

dickallen15
12-13-2009, 07:49 PM
If Danks, Floyd and Buehrle have injuries, we aren't winning our division. Keeping Carrasco wouldn't change that fact.
What if one of them does? What if a reliever or 2 gets hurt?

Metalthrasher442
12-13-2009, 07:51 PM
What if one of them does? What if a reliever or 2 gets hurt?

I believe Williams got rid of Carrasco because he figured Hudson could be put into his situation. So Hudson will fill one of those spots.

Daver
12-13-2009, 07:54 PM
What if one of them does? What if a reliever or 2 gets hurt?

What if the planet gets eaten by a gigantic space goat?


You can't build a roster based on what ifs, if you can't rely on your farm system at all you have no business thinking you can contend.

JermaineDye05
12-13-2009, 07:56 PM
What if one of them does? What if a reliever or 2 gets hurt?

Carrasco as a starter wasn't good at all. We only won that game because the Yankees threw Sergio Mitre out there.. DJ only lasted 4 innings. It's fairly easy to replace a reliever depending on which reliever it is. Now were it Bobby, Matt, or JJ to get hurt, well we'd be in bad shape anyways regardless of if we had DJ or not.

One reason DJ was so valuable last year was because we had guys like Richard, Contreras, and Colon barely making it through 5 innings. With the rotation as it is now, DJ became expendable.

JB98
12-13-2009, 08:00 PM
What if one of them does? What if a reliever or 2 gets hurt?

What if the Sox had given Carrasco the $800,000 he asked for, only to see Carrasco get hurt sometime during the season?

We can play these what-if games all night.

Metalthrasher442
12-13-2009, 08:01 PM
Carrasco as a starter wasn't good at all. We only won that game because the Yankees threw Sergio Mitre out there.. DJ only lasted 4 innings. It's fairly easy to replace a reliever depending on which reliever it is. Now were it Bobby, Matt, or JJ to get hurt, well we'd be in bad shape anyways regardless of if we had DJ or not.

One reason DJ was so valuable last year was because we had guys like Richard, Contreras, and Colon barely making it through 5 innings. With the rotation as it is now, DJ became expendable.

Valid points. He would have been nice to have this year as the long inning guy, but last year he was way more valuable to us than he would be this year.

soxfanreggie
12-13-2009, 10:04 PM
As I read and think about this a little more, perhaps this was done in part as a favor to D.J. He has always wanted to start, and he had little chance of doing that with the Sox. Management probably feels that he had earned a chance to pursue his dream of starting.

Moreover, with the kind of starting staff they have they shouldn't need anyone to come in early very often. They probably want to use the money to fill more important holes.

I agree that he probably is looking for a chance to go somewhere where he can have an opportunity to start. If he spends time as a middle reliever with fewer innings to work due to better starting pitching, he is going to be in worse negotiating position next offseason.

I enjoyed having D.J. on the team and thank him for being a lunch pail type workman. He ate a lot of innings and went out there and worked hard whenever we needed him to.

I wish him the best finding what he wants with another team, preferably not in the division. :smile:

Just imagine though what we could do for the team if we didn't have $5 million tied up in Linebrink. I hope he can turn it around next year because if we have Jenks, Thornton, Putz, and Linebrink all performing, that will be one amazing bullpen. I'd rather have tried to get Dotel at a cheaper amount than have to keep Linebrink right now, but you can't get everything you wish for.

mcsoxfan
12-13-2009, 10:47 PM
In today's multi-billion dollar industry, to lose a competent pitcher who can basically do everything and anything you need (start, short relief, middle relief, long relief) over several hundred thousand dollars is ludicrous.

Two average home games parking at 15 dollars a pop makes that up.

This reminds me of the old adage, 'penny saved, pound foolish'

Lip
No other set of fans in a major market have to be reduced to mini accountants in discussions of what moves may improve their team. I know Reinsdorf relishes aggrevating us but to get into sports ownership in a major market and cry broke is an affront to the fanbase. He and his cohorts need to sell the team and move into some other line of business. This is entertainment, not widget-making. There is no reason on earth why the Sox payroll can't be in the ballpark of at least Red Sox or the Angels.
's

DSpivack
12-13-2009, 11:21 PM
No other set of fans in a major market have to be reduced to mini accountants in discussions of what moves may improve their team. I know Reinsdorf relishes aggrevating us but to get into sports ownership in a major market and cry broke is an affront to the fanbase. He and his cohorts need to sell the team and move into some other line of business. This is entertainment, not widget-making. There is no reason on earth why the Sox payroll can't be in the ballpark of at least Red Sox or the Angels.
's

How about that they probably don't draw in as much revenue as the Angels, and would be completely dwarfed in revenue by the Red Sox? I'd rather not go all in for a few years and then be forced to sell off talent.

voodoochile
12-13-2009, 11:43 PM
If there's no room for him and the Sox have at least three guys making minimum ready for a shot at long reliever at AAA should there be a need for a 7th pitcher I can't say it's that big of a deal. Even more so when I factor in the starters the Sox have all of whom are expected to regularly pitch into the 6th or later. I'm actually expecting a huge year from John Danks now that his finger issues should be lessened due to the lack of tobacco in his diet.

If they can dump Linebrink than this becomes a bigger issue, but if not then it's money best spent elsewhere.

DonnieDarko
12-14-2009, 12:33 AM
...Danks was on some kind of tobacco? When the heck was this made news?

Noneck
12-14-2009, 12:41 AM
...Danks was on some kind of tobacco? When the heck was this made news?

He dipped.

DonnieDarko
12-14-2009, 01:24 AM
He dipped.

Huh?

Noneck
12-14-2009, 01:26 AM
Huh?

He used snuff, you know a little bit between cheek and gum.

NLaloosh
12-14-2009, 07:00 AM
No other set of fans in a major market have to be reduced to mini accountants in discussions of what moves may improve their team. I know Reinsdorf relishes aggrevating us but to get into sports ownership in a major market and cry broke is an affront to the fanbase. He and his cohorts need to sell the team and move into some other line of business. This is entertainment, not widget-making. There is no reason on earth why the Sox payroll can't be in the ballpark of at least Red Sox or the Angels.
's

I sure hope that you're a season ticket holder.

spawn
12-14-2009, 08:10 AM
Carrasco as a starter wasn't good at all. We only won that game because the Yankees threw Sergio Mitre out there.. DJ only lasted 4 innings. It's fairly easy to replace a reliever depending on which reliever it is. Now were it Bobby, Matt, or JJ to get hurt, well we'd be in bad shape anyways regardless of if we had DJ or not.

One reason DJ was so valuable last year was because we had guys like Richard, Contreras, and Colon barely making it through 5 innings. With the rotation as it is now, DJ became expendable.
This is how I see it as well. I'm a little surprised by all of the angst around this.

jabrch
12-14-2009, 08:33 AM
This is how I see it as well. I'm a little surprised by all of the angst around this.

You must be new here.

:welcome:

voodoochile
12-14-2009, 09:56 AM
...Danks was on some kind of tobacco? When the heck was this made news?

He dipped.

It was revealed when his finger issues became public knowledge last summer. The finger problems are caused by poor circulation and can be exacerbated by use of tobacco.