PDA

View Full Version : Sox want to Extend Danks


Sockinchisox
11-04-2010, 02:34 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5764656

DirtySox
11-04-2010, 03:40 PM
Locking up Danks is supposedly an offseason priority. Here's hoping it gets done.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5764656

JermaineDye05
11-04-2010, 04:05 PM
I've wanted to lock up Danks since 08. He's on the brink of ace status IMO (I say that every year, I know). Get it done KW.

DickAllen72
11-04-2010, 04:06 PM
Either he signs an extension or they'll probably trade him.

JermaineDye05
11-04-2010, 04:08 PM
Either he signs an extension or they'll probably trade him.

I don't think Danks is going anywhere unless Kenny gets a crazy offer for him.

cards press box
11-04-2010, 04:22 PM
I don't think Danks is going anywhere unless Kenny gets a crazy offer for him.

I agree. And I, too, hope that they sign Danks to a long-term deal.

tm1119
11-04-2010, 04:27 PM
A writer on mlbtraderumors speculated that it would cost about 7M per year for 3 years and around 9 or 10 M for 4 years. I wouldnt be against this at all, even if he continues on his current career path 200 innings of 3.7 ERA ball in AL is worth 10M no doubt. But theres definitely a side of me that is very curious as to what Danks could fetch in a trade. We have a lot of $ already invested in the pitching staff and a young lefty coming up in Sale, it would at least be fun to listen to the offers KW would get for him.

thomas35forever
11-05-2010, 12:04 AM
Get it done. Please.

soxfanatlanta
11-05-2010, 07:11 AM
He's a solid #3 guy in the rotation, I'd love to see a long term deal happen.

russ99
11-05-2010, 09:06 AM
We're already paying too much for the rotation. Three $10M starters will handcuff the Sox from adding difference-making players.

If Jerry wants to extend the payroll more to lock up Danks, fine, but signing Danks and playing kids at 1B, DH and C isn't going to fly.

IMO, this is a ploy by Kenny to try and sign Danks to an extension one more time at a reasonable rate, and if Danks (as before) is hesitant to do so, will look to deal him for an elite young talent.

doublem23
11-05-2010, 09:23 AM
We're already paying too much for the rotation. Three $10M starters will handcuff the Sox from adding difference-making players.

If Jerry wants to extend the payroll more to lock up Danks, fine, but signing Danks and playing kids at 1B, DH and C isn't going to fly.

IMO, this is a ploy by Kenny to try and sign Danks to an extension one more time at a reasonable rate, and if Danks (as before) is hesitant to do so, will look to deal him for an elite young talent.

I think it's pretty much time to accept that the Sox in 2011 just aren't going to be very good and it's better to lock up decent young players, like Danks, and just waste a season while the clock runs out on some older guys, like Buehrle and Jackson.

At 25 years old, Danks was legitimately one of the 10 best pitchers in the American League last season. Dumping him in hopes of chasing some unrealistic dream in 2011 is a bad baseball move, IMO. I'd rather keep Danks, punt 2011, and focus on rebuilding the team for 2012.

The only possible way dealing Danks is good for the long-term success of this franchise is if he and his agent make it perfectly clear they are refusing to sign any long-term deal that goes beyond hsi arb years. Otherwise, he's probably the best player on the team with room for growth. Lock him up.

Sam Spade
11-05-2010, 09:35 AM
I think it's pretty much time to accept that the Sox in 2011 just aren't going to be very good and it's better to lock up decent young players, like Danks, and just waste a season while the clock runs out on some older guys, like Buehrle and Jackson.

At 25 years old, Danks was legitimately one of the 10 best pitchers in the American League last season. Dumping him in hopes of chasing some unrealistic dream in 2011 is a bad baseball move, IMO. I'd rather keep Danks, punt 2011, and focus on rebuilding the team for 2012.

The only possible way dealing Danks is good for the long-term success of this franchise is if he and his agent make it perfectly clear they are refusing to sign any long-term deal that goes beyond hsi arb years. Otherwise, he's probably the best player on the team with room for growth. Lock him up.
How are we going to rebuild that quickly with (arguably) the worst talent in baseball in the minors?

doublem23
11-05-2010, 09:42 AM
How are we going to rebuild that quickly with (arguably) the worst talent in baseball in the minors?

Between Beckham, Sale, Mitchell, Morel, and Viciedo, I think the Sox have enough young, home-grown parts that will be ready to contribute at least something by 2012. The rest you just fill in with F/A signings, maybe a trade here or there.

With $100 M spent in player payroll every year for the past 5 years, the Sox definitely have more than enough payroll flexibility to put a winner on the field, KW's just got to stop wasting a lot of it on a few overpaid players. I know the Sox minor league system has been a hot topic of conversation recently, but really, the majority of winning teams don't have homegrown players all over the diamond, they find guys from a variety of sources.

khan
11-05-2010, 12:09 PM
We're already paying too much for the rotation. Three $10M starters will handcuff the Sox from adding difference-making players.

If Jerry wants to extend the payroll more to lock up Danks, fine, but signing Danks and playing kids at 1B, DH and C isn't going to fly.

IMO, this is a ploy by Kenny to try and sign Danks to an extension one more time at a reasonable rate, and if Danks (as before) is hesitant to do so, will look to deal him for an elite young talent.

You state this, and yet, you were all AMPED UP about the moronic, stupid, idiotic waste of money and resources that was the Edwin Jackson trade?


I really don't get it, russ.

khan
11-05-2010, 12:13 PM
I think it's pretty much time to accept that the Sox in 2011 just aren't going to be very good and it's better to lock up decent young players, like Danks, and just waste a season while the clock runs out on some older guys, like Buehrle and Jackson.

At 25 years old, Danks was legitimately one of the 10 best pitchers in the American League last season. Dumping him in hopes of chasing some unrealistic dream in 2011 is a bad baseball move, IMO. I'd rather keep Danks, punt 2011, and focus on rebuilding the team for 2012.

The only possible way dealing Danks is good for the long-term success of this franchise is if he and his agent make it perfectly clear they are refusing to sign any long-term deal that goes beyond hsi arb years. Otherwise, he's probably the best player on the team with room for growth. Lock him up.

I agree with all of this. But, imagine if KW actually used his grey matter to RECOGNIZE the idiocy of giving away a cheap, young, talented pitcher in Daniel Hudson for an expensive one with an ******* for an agent in Edwin Jackson....

That $8.5M wasted on an inconsistent, overpaid pitcher, when there was a cheaper option ALREADY IN PLACE really pisses me off. Not to mention that the 2010 team had no prayer of competing on top of it, whether or not the team added the obese salary to the payroll.

TheVulture
11-05-2010, 12:34 PM
Jackson will be the ace of the 2011 Sox team, mark it down.

KMcMahon817
11-05-2010, 12:56 PM
I agree with all of this. But, imagine if KW actually used his grey matter to RECOGNIZE the idiocy of giving away a cheap, young, talented pitcher in Daniel Hudson for an expensive one with an ******* for an agent in Edwin Jackson....

That $8.5M wasted on an inconsistent, overpaid pitcher, when there was a cheaper option ALREADY IN PLACE really pisses me off. Not to mention that the 2010 team had no prayer of competing on top of it, whether or not the team added the obese salary to the payroll.

In relation to what some starting pitchers make, Edwin Jackson is nowhere near as overpaid as you constantly insist on him being.

Chez
11-05-2010, 12:56 PM
I
That $8.5M wasted on an inconsistent, overpaid pitcher, when there was a cheaper option ALREADY IN PLACE really pisses me off. Not to mention that the 2010 team had no prayer of competing on top of it, whether or not the team added the obese salary to the payroll.

Really? It does? This is only about the 500th post you've made on this subject. We get it. You didn't like the trade. :D:

khan
11-05-2010, 01:00 PM
Really? It does? This is only about the 500th post you've made on this subject. We get it. You didn't like the trade. :D:

Point taken.


And actually, I'd let that go already. That is, until russ, the champion supporter of the foolish Jackson trade/giveaway of Daniel Hudson posted that he's against re-signing the best pitcher the SOX have in Danks. [In part due to the already-expensive starting rotation, which I have mentioned 500 or so times, as you said.]

In any case, I'd be livid if Danks gets traded or can't be re-signed because KW stupidly added $8.5M to the payroll in Edwin Jackson.

Chez
11-05-2010, 01:03 PM
Point taken.


And actually, I'd let that go already. That is, until russ, the champion supporter of the foolish Jackson trade/giveaway of Daniel Hudson posted that he's against re-signing the best pitcher the SOX have in Danks. [In part due to the already-expensive starting rotation, which I have mentioned 500 or so times, as you said.]

In any case, I'd be livid if Danks gets traded or can't be re-signed because KW stupidly added $8.5M to the payroll in Edwin Jackson.

Just having some fun with you, Khan. Whenever I see someone post anything about Edwin Jackson, I know I can count on your rebuke of the trade to follow shortly. :D:

PalehosePlanet
11-05-2010, 01:07 PM
I agree with all of this. But, imagine if KW actually used his grey matter to RECOGNIZE the idiocy of giving away a cheap, young, talented pitcher in Daniel Hudson for an expensive one with an ******* for an agent in Edwin Jackson....

That $8.5M wasted on an inconsistent, overpaid pitcher, when there was a cheaper option ALREADY IN PLACE really pisses me off. Not to mention that the 2010 team had no prayer of competing on top of it, whether or not the team added the obese salary to the payroll.

Hey Khan, shhh...listen......what you hear is the sound of a dead horse being beaten.

FWIW, I agree with you 100%, but to bring this **** up twice a week, every ****ing week, is counterproductive. Why not suggest how we can work around the mistake and still compete. Yes, it can be done. The Giants had millions in bad contracts on their bench (Zito, Rowand, and until the WS, Renteria) and still managed to win it all.

Doublem: Why do you think 2011 is a throwaway season? Yes, we have to replace Konerko's production, and it won't be easy, but it can be done. If you look at it as replacing the combo of Konerko and Kotsay it becomes easier to attain. As an example: Wouldn't the combo of say...Laroche and Vlad at 1B and DH be more productive than Konerko/Kotsay for roughly the same money? (Just an example, not saying to definitely target these two players.) I know we have more needs, but why do we have no chance in 2011? I don't get it.

khan
11-05-2010, 01:23 PM
Just having some fun with you, Khan. Whenever I see someone post anything about Edwin Jackson, I know I can count on your rebuke of the trade to follow shortly. :D:
No worries. I deserve your chiding. Perhaps I shouldn't expect so much out of our front office...


Hey Khan, shhh...listen......what you hear is the sound of a dead horse being beaten.

FWIW, I agree with you 100%, but to bring this **** up twice a week, every ****ing week, is counterproductive.
Agreed, which is why I'd let it go until the supporter of that particular money-wasting deal has the idea that the SOX shouldn't re-sign the best pitcher in the team, due to the stupid allocation of funds.

Why not suggest how we can work around the mistake and still compete.
Trade Jackson YESTERDAY, as a salary dump. I don't really give a rip about what KW gets in return, because he's gotten jack and **** back in trade lately. Use the savings to fill the holes in the roster via smart FA signing(s). Make use of Rule 5 signings, since there hasn't been much in the way of international FA in recent years, cubans aside.

Yes, it can be done. The Giants had millions in bad contracts on their bench (Zito, Rowand, and until the WS, Renteria) and still managed to win it all.
They also are deeper in their farm system than KW's system. It can be done, but it will be more difficult, IMO.


Doublem: Why do you think 2011 is a throwaway season? Yes, we have to replace Konerko's production, and it won't be easy, but it can be done. If you look at it as replacing the combo of Konerko and Kotsay it becomes easier to attain. As an example: Wouldn't the combo of say...Laroche and Vlad at 1B and DH be more productive than Konerko/Kotsay for roughly the same money? (Just an example, not saying to definitely target these two players.) I know we have more needs, but why do we have no chance in 2011? I don't get it.
I won't answer for doubs. But I suspect that his reasoning is that there are significant flaws in the team for 2011. Perhaps, there are even more holes than there were to start 2010 as I type this:

Closer
RH setup [assuming Putz is gone]
LH setup [If Thornton is the closer]
LOOGY
Long man in the 'pen, unless you believe in Pena
5th starter/SP depth if Peavy can't go and Garcia isn't retained

1st Base if PK isn't retained
3rd Base if Morel can't hit and Abuelo Omar's bat ages 5 years this offseason
RF, since Quentin can't catch a cold, can't adjust his approach @ the plate based on count/game situation, and still hasn't been healthy enough to play in more than 140 games in a season
Catcher, if AJ isn't retained
DH/left-handed run producer

Oh, and BTW, KW has to figure out how to fix all of these issues WITHOUT the benefit of much in the farm system to bring up or trade, and not much in the way of money to spend in FA.

PalehosePlanet
11-05-2010, 01:35 PM
They also are deeper in their farm system than KW's system. It can be done, but it will be more difficult, IMO.



I won't answer for doubs. But I suspect that his reasoning is that there are significant flaws in the team for 2011. Perhaps, there are even more holes than there were to start 2010 as I type this:

Closer
RH setup [assuming Putz is gone]
LH setup [If Thornton is the closer]
LOOGY
Long man in the 'pen, unless you believe in Pena
5th starter/SP depth if Peavy can't go and Garcia isn't retained

1st Base if PK isn't retained
3rd Base if Morel can't hit and Abuelo Omar's bat ages 5 years this offseason
RF, since Quentin can't catch a cold, can't adjust his approach @ the plate based on count/game situation, and still hasn't been healthy enough to play in more than 140 games in a season
Catcher, if AJ isn't retained
DH/left-handed run producer

Oh, and BTW, KW has to figure out how to fix all of these issues WITHOUT the benefit of much in the farm system to bring up or trade, and not much in the way of money to spend in FA.

The Giants have a deeper system but other than Posey none of it was instrumental to them winning the WS.

The other reasons are reasonable concerns, but I don't feel they're unattainable. I do agree that KW has to make sure we get bang-for-the-buck in FA signings and/or trades.

DirtySox
11-05-2010, 01:49 PM
I agree with all of this. But, imagine if KW actually used his grey matter to RECOGNIZE the idiocy of giving away a cheap, young, talented pitcher in Daniel Hudson for an expensive one with an ******* for an agent in Edwin Jackson....

That $8.5M wasted on an inconsistent, overpaid pitcher, when there was a cheaper option ALREADY IN PLACE really pisses me off. Not to mention that the 2010 team had no prayer of competing on top of it, whether or not the team added the obese salary to the payroll.


+1,000,000


Dan Hudson: Fifth round pick, signed for $260K, worth over 2 fWAR last year in limited innings, and will make just $400K/year through 2013.

I still can't fathom how KW received absolutely no salary relief in that trade.

Fleeced. :puking:

BringHomeDaBacon
11-05-2010, 02:43 PM
+1,000,000


Dan Hudson: Fifth round pick, signed for $260K, worth over 2 fWAR last year in limited innings, and will make just $400K/year through 2013.

I still can't fathom how KW received absolutely no salary relief in that trade.

Fleeced. :puking:

All this.

Since he wasn't getting any cash, one would think LaRoche should have been easily attainable with a simple request in that trade. They were dumping bucks and were not keeping him anyway while the Sox ended up flushing the Manny money down the toilet.

tm1119
11-05-2010, 02:59 PM
I have absolutely no problem with the Jackson trade, and there's absolutely no reason for anybody to. 8.5M is not a lot of money for a quality SP in todays game. And I really don't want to hear about what Hudson did for AZ. Completely different scenario, just like with Richard in SD. Pitching in those big ball parks in the terrible NL west can't even be compared to what it would be like for them trying to pitch here in Chicago. Hudson pitched great in AZ with only a 35% ground ball rate. Would not work here, way too many fly balls find their way over the fence in our small park, especially on windy days. I'm sure scouts and KW recognozed this. Jackson pitched great for us in a short amount of time and posted a 3.6 ERA for Detroit in '09 in the same division. To me this was a smart move because KW traded Hudson, a piece that he deemed unvaluable to him, while his value was at it's highest. Jackson will be fine and well worth 8M.

doublem23
11-05-2010, 03:10 PM
I'll concede the point about Clayton Richard (I never had a problem with the Jake Peavy deal, it looks like it only might backfire because he had an extremely rare, freak injury), but Arizona's ballpark is a notorious hitter's park.

The other problem is that you're looking at this from a short-sighted view. While true, Jackson is probably the better pitcher of the two, he's signed for 1 more year and then is likely gone, unless the Sox reverse their long standing policy of not dealing with Scott Boras. Hudson, on the other hand, maybe won't be as good as Jackson, but he's much cheaper and would be under the Sox's control until when? 2014? 2015?

If you're just building a team on the field, obviously you pick Edwin Jackson. That's a no brainer. But if you're thinking critically like a GM, it's a hard trade to defend.

BringHomeDaBacon
11-05-2010, 03:14 PM
I have absolutely no problem with the Jackson trade, and there's absolutely no reason for anybody to. 8.5M is not a lot of money for a quality SP in todays game. And I really don't want to hear about what Hudson did for AZ. Completely different scenario, just like with Richard in SD. Pitching in those big ball parks in the terrible NL west can't even be compared to what it would be like for them trying to pitch here in Chicago. Hudson pitched great in AZ with only a 35% ground ball rate. Would not work here, way too many fly balls find their way over the fence in our small park, especially on windy days. I'm sure scouts and KW recognozed this. Jackson pitched great for us in a short amount of time and posted a 3.6 ERA for Detroit in '09 in the same division. To me this was a smart move because KW traded Hudson, a piece that he deemed unvaluable to him, while his value was at it's highest. Jackson will be fine and well worth 8M.

Everyone around here is so quick say this and apply it to Hudson's and Richard's success but dismiss it as applied to analysis of the Peavy acquisition even though there are over 10 years of home/road splits to show that he's been well short of an ace quality pitcher away from San Diego.

khan
11-05-2010, 03:28 PM
I have absolutely no problem with the Jackson trade, and there's absolutely no reason for anybody to. 8.5M is not a lot of money for a quality SP in todays game. And I really don't want to hear about what Hudson did for AZ. Completely different scenario, just like with Richard in SD. Pitching in those big ball parks in the terrible NL west can't even be compared to what it would be like for them trying to pitch here in Chicago. Hudson pitched great in AZ with only a 35% ground ball rate. Would not work here, way too many fly balls find their way over the fence in our small park, especially on windy days. I'm sure scouts and KW recognozed this. Jackson pitched great for us in a short amount of time and posted a 3.6 ERA for Detroit in '09 in the same division. To me this was a smart move because KW traded Hudson, a piece that he deemed unvaluable to him, while his value was at it's highest. Jackson will be fine and well worth 8M.
See, it really isn't about whether or not $8.5M is a lot of money for a quality SP in today's game. [I'll even set aside the REALITY that Jackson has a sub-100 ERA+ in his career, which is highly suggestive of Jackson NOT being a "quality" SP.]

It's about the payroll for the starting rotation meeting/exceeding $50M, when the payroll for the other 20 players might be another $70M. [Assuming a ~$120M payroll.] When the team has as many potential holes as it has, there are FAR better uses of $8.5M than to add even MORE money to a starting rotation. And there were better ideas than to add payroll to a team that had no prayer of winning the WS.

It's also about the reality that Jackson really, really, really sucked for AZ, and that KW got PANTSED in that trade. He bought Jackson at a statistical low, but overpaid in terms of talent and salary relief to his buddy in AZ. I said so then, and I believe it even MORE now.

DirtySox
11-05-2010, 03:37 PM
I have absolutely no problem with the Jackson trade, and there's absolutely no reason for anybody to. 8.5M is not a lot of money for a quality SP in todays game. And I really don't want to hear about what Hudson did for AZ. Completely different scenario, just like with Richard in SD. Pitching in those big ball parks in the terrible NL west can't even be compared to what it would be like for them trying to pitch here in Chicago. Hudson pitched great in AZ with only a 35% ground ball rate. Would not work here, way too many fly balls find their way over the fence in our small park, especially on windy days. I'm sure scouts and KW recognozed this. Jackson pitched great for us in a short amount of time and posted a 3.6 ERA for Detroit in '09 in the same division. To me this was a smart move because KW traded Hudson, a piece that he deemed unvaluable to him, while his value was at it's highest. Jackson will be fine and well worth 8M.

I'd like to point out that Chase Field is not a pitcher's park by any stretch. It's up there with the Cell for hitters.

Edit: Beaten by Doub.

russ99
11-05-2010, 04:51 PM
You state this, and yet, you were all AMPED UP about the moronic, stupid, idiotic waste of money and resources that was the Edwin Jackson trade?

I really don't get it, russ.

Point taken.


And actually, I'd let that go already. That is, until russ, the champion supporter of the foolish Jackson trade/giveaway of Daniel Hudson posted that he's against re-signing the best pitcher the SOX have in Danks. [In part due to the already-expensive starting rotation, which I have mentioned 500 or so times, as you said.]

In any case, I'd be livid if Danks gets traded or can't be re-signed because KW stupidly added $8.5M to the payroll in Edwin Jackson.


Will you please stop these constant personal challenges? It's tiresome and demeans your often valid opinions.

Keep it on the White Sox...

tm1119
11-05-2010, 09:07 PM
I'd like to point out that Chase Field is not a pitcher's park by any stretch. It's up there with the Cell for hitters.

Edit: Beaten by Doub.

What exactly are you using to say that Chase is up there with The Cell in terms of hitters park? Just curious. Because there were a lot of home runs hit in that stadium, but to me its very skewed based on Arizona's team. They have a lot of home run hitters on that team and their pitching staff was painfully bad. Arizona's pitching staff did let up the most HR's on the road of any team in baseball so they were going to give up HR's regardless of their stadium. Combine that with the HR hitters AZ has and the stats are can look pretty skewed.

Dimensions of each stadium:

Chase:
Left Field - 330 ft / 101 m
Left-Center - 374 ft / 114 m
Left-Center (deep) - 413 ft / 126 m
Center Field - 407 ft / 124 m
Right-Center (deep) - 413 ft / 126 m
Right-Center - 374 ft / 114 m
Right Field - 334 ft / 102 m

The Cell:
Left Field - 330 feet (101 m)
Left-Center - 375 feet (114 m)
Center Field - 400 feet (122 m)
Right-Center - 375 feet (114 m) (Not Posted)
Right Field - 335 feet (102 m)

The power alleys in Chase certainly dont favor a hitter as you can tell.

But still, to me this was a sell high and buy low move by KW to me. You cant use Jackson's career stats as a measure of his worth either because he struggled badly his 1st few years in the bigs. He pitched great for Detroit in '09 and great for us when he came here in 75 innings last year. I still dont have much faith in the fact that Hudson could successfully pitch in the AL, and I dont think KW did either. The man has made a lot of smart moves in his career and I dont think he trades a cheap young pitcher if he has faith in him moving on. Plus, the fact that Coop wanted Jackson means a lot to me. If theres 1 guy to have faith in this organization its Coop. Its no coincidence that Jackson came here and put up a 3.2 ERA while his K/BB jumped from 1.7 to 4.2. The guy was a top pick who has always had great stuff that is just now putting it together. Im expecting a great season out of Jackson.

Ok im done rambling now and I have no idea why the font changed or how to get it back either.

Brian26
11-05-2010, 09:15 PM
The other problem is that you're looking at this from a short-sighted view. While true, Jackson is probably the better pitcher of the two, he's signed for 1 more year and then is likely gone, unless the Sox reverse their long standing policy of not dealing with Scott Boras. Hudson, on the other hand, maybe won't be as good as Jackson, but he's much cheaper and would be under the Sox's control until when? 2014? 2015?

One of Kenny's best qualities is in fact one of his biggest flaws. He legitimately wants to win the World Series every year and will make risky moves to do it.

Edwin Jackson has superstar stuff. I agree with the earlier poster...he might be our best starter next year. The fact is, Peavy went down, and Kenny wanted to replace him. Edwin had potential to take the team on his back somewhat similar to what Jose Contreras did in 2005. He may have been our #1 going into a playoff situation. If the Sox get to the World Series, I don't think anybody cares about Hudson now.

The magic didn't happen, so now it's just a waiting game to see how bad this trade turns out. I can't blame Kenny for going for it though.

MisterB
11-05-2010, 09:59 PM
The Giants have a deeper system but other than Posey none of it was instrumental to them winning the WS.

Umm...what about Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Madison Bumgarner and Brian Wilson?

That's their entire playoff rotation and their closer - all home grown.

StillMissOzzie
11-05-2010, 10:00 PM
I'd rather not see Danks traded so early, when the status of Jake Peavy is still up in the air. I expect to see Chris Sale stretched out this spring as a precaution, if nothing else. But, the Sox did try to sign Danks already to a Gavin Floyd-type deal and Danks said no. He wants to maximize his earning potential, as is his right. Should such a deal elude KW again, AND the Sox fall out of contention again, it would not surprise me to see Danks dealt for some lower-priced talent.

SMO
:gulp:

Ranger
11-06-2010, 01:01 AM
I think it's pretty much time to accept that the Sox in 2011 just aren't going to be very good and it's better to lock up decent young players, like Danks, and just waste a season while the clock runs out on some older guys, like Buehrle and Jackson.

At 25 years old, Danks was legitimately one of the 10 best pitchers in the American League last season. Dumping him in hopes of chasing some unrealistic dream in 2011 is a bad baseball move, IMO. I'd rather keep Danks, punt 2011, and focus on rebuilding the team for 2012.

The only possible way dealing Danks is good for the long-term success of this franchise is if he and his agent make it perfectly clear they are refusing to sign any long-term deal that goes beyond hsi arb years. Otherwise, he's probably the best player on the team with room for growth. Lock him up.

Jackson isn't old. He just turned 27.

WhiteSox5187
11-06-2010, 01:05 AM
Jackson isn't old. He just turned 27.

Yea but odds are he isn't going to be back in 2012.

Ranger
11-06-2010, 01:13 AM
Yea but odds are he isn't going to be back in 2012.

Much too early to say that.

PalehosePlanet
11-06-2010, 02:05 AM
Umm...what about Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Madison Bumgarner and Brian Wilson?

That's their entire playoff rotation and their closer - all home grown.

That wasn't the context of my point. Obviously they have talent, home grown or otherwise, on their roster.

The poster stated that the Giants were able to overcome all of their bad contracts last year, and that we could not hope to this upcoming year, because they have a better farm system than we do. I disagreed, that's all.

BTW: Thumbs up on the King Crimson pic.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-06-2010, 06:15 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5764656

I hope they would. They should really get something done before he gets even better. He seems to be the most consistent starter on this team. Here's hoping they get something done. If not, he's a very valuable trade piece.

doublem23
11-06-2010, 08:17 PM
Much too early to say that.

Do you have some sort of insider info that the Sox are reversing their policy on dealing with Boras.

I'd put Jackson being in a Sox uniform in 2012 at 0.1% right now.

JermaineDye05
11-06-2010, 08:58 PM
Do you have some sort of insider info that the Sox are reversing their policy on dealing with Boras.

I'd put Jackson being in a Sox uniform in 2012 at 0.1% right now.

I think that was the same percentage people had with Jake Peavy in 2008.

Domeshot17
11-06-2010, 10:02 PM
Do you have some sort of insider info that the Sox are reversing their policy on dealing with Boras.

I'd put Jackson being in a Sox uniform in 2012 at 0.1% right now.

Come on Doub, it is entirely possible the Sox are terrible next year, which could possible mean both Ozzie and Kenny are gone. Maybe we can get a GM who can act like a grown up and deal with all the agents.

Because of this, I would guess Jackson being on the Sox is AT LEAST 3.7%

DumpJerry
11-06-2010, 10:48 PM
Do you have some sort of insider info that the Sox are reversing their policy on dealing with Boras.

I'd put Jackson being in a Sox uniform in 2012 at 0.1% right now.
The Sox don't have a policy on drealing with Borass. Kenny has said he does not like to deal with him, and he doesn't. Rick Hahn handles all the negotiations with Borass. Andruw Jones is a Borass client (I know, I know, nobody was making any offers for Jones last year unlike the situation for Jackson should he become a FA).

doublem23
11-06-2010, 11:04 PM
Come on Doub, it is entirely possible the Sox are terrible next year, which could possible mean both Ozzie and Kenny are gone. Maybe we can get a GM who can act like a grown up and deal with all the agents.

Because of this, I would guess Jackson being on the Sox is AT LEAST 3.7%

Isn't it more than just a KW thing? I was under the impression it was a Reinsdorf thing.

Honestly, I don't blame them for it. Boras is just really, really good at his job and always dupes some sucker into paying way over market value for his clients. If Jackson repeats his performance with the Sox over the course of the entire 2011 season, he's going to land a deal worth $10+ M a year for 4+ years. No way he's worth that. No way.

Mohoney
11-06-2010, 11:59 PM
One of Kenny's best qualities is in fact one of his biggest flaws. He legitimately wants to win the World Series every year and will make risky moves to do it.

Die-hard fans may not like the approach that KW takes, but I don't think he really has much choice. This isn't a one team town where we could occupy the cellar for 5 years in a row, stockpile high draft picks, and cash revenue sharing checks. I know people look at teams like Tampa Bay and Cincinnati and are envious of their collections of young talent, but unfortunately we can never be that type of team without an extended period of losing baseball. Furthermore, a string of consecutive losing seasons like that would very likely make us irrelevant in the Chicago sports landscape.

I think the way KW does things is really the only way that can work for this team. Any seasons with realistic hopes of postseason play (which 2010 certainly was at the time of the Jackson trade) need to be treated as "all-in" moments EVEN IF the team doesn't look like a legitimate World Series contender.

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2010, 12:49 AM
Die-hard fans may not like the approach that KW takes, but I don't think he really has much choice. This isn't a one team town where we could occupy the cellar for 5 years in a row, stockpile high draft picks, and cash revenue sharing checks. I know people look at teams like Tampa Bay and Cincinnati and are envious of their collections of young talent, but unfortunately we can never be that type of team without an extended period of losing baseball. Furthermore, a string of consecutive losing seasons like that would very likely make us irrelevant in the Chicago sports landscape.

I think the way KW does things is really the only way that can work for this team. Any seasons with realistic hopes of postseason play (which 2010 certainly was at the time of the Jackson trade) need to be treated as "all-in" moments EVEN IF the team doesn't look like a legitimate World Series contender.

A really good GM is able to try to win this year while thinking of next and so on, it seems to me at times that Kenny completely forgets about the next year and I'm not just talking about the farm. The Jackson, Peavy and Rios trades were moves that were made for that current year without seemingly taking in any consideration for the budget constraints or needs of the next years' team.

tsoxman
11-07-2010, 05:45 AM
A really good GM is able to try to win this year while thinking of next and so on, it seems to me at times that Kenny completely forgets about the next year and I'm not just talking about the farm. The Jackson, Peavy and Rios trades were moves that were made for that current year without seemingly taking in any consideration for the budget constraints or needs of the next years' team.

Trust me, Kenny's all-in BS will catch up to this team sooner than later. I cannot fathom any reason why this team won't lose 90 plus games this year or next, given what little talent they have in the pipeline, and the amount of talent they project to lose (Konerko, Buehrle, Jenks, etc). Plus as you mentioned, taking on the huge salary demands of Peavy, Rios, Jackson etc, has left very little maneuvering room for outside free agents that would fill other needs.

You can't throw away three 15 game winners like Kenny did and not pay the price for it.

doublem23
11-07-2010, 08:58 AM
You can't throw away three 15 game winners like Kenny did and not pay the price for it.

I can find one, Gio, but that's it.

russ99
11-07-2010, 09:22 AM
Trust me, Kenny's all-in BS will catch up to this team sooner than later. I cannot fathom any reason why this team won't lose 90 plus games this year or next, given what little talent they have in the pipeline, and the amount of talent they project to lose (Konerko, Buehrle, Jenks, etc). Plus as you mentioned, taking on the huge salary demands of Peavy, Rios, Jackson etc, has left very little maneuvering room for outside free agents that would fill other needs.

You can't throw away three 15 game winners like Kenny did and not pay the price for it.

I almost hope the Sox need to rebuild some time in the next decade, so all of you can see how crappy an experience that is as a fan, and then maybe you'll cut the management of this team some slack once in a while when they're trying to win.

Having experienced that, I prefer a GM that goes for it.

The Sox has had more success in the last 10 years than any time in their history trying to compete every year and not sweating what could be issues 3 years away. Would you rather we have that continue or not?

Domeshot17
11-07-2010, 09:49 AM
I almost hope the Sox need to rebuild some time in the next decade, so all of you can see how crappy an experience that is as a fan, and then maybe you'll cut the management of this team some slack once in a while when they're trying to win.

Having experienced that, I prefer a GM that goes for it.

The Sox has had more success in the last 10 years than any time in their history trying to compete every year and not sweating what could be issues 3 years away. Would you rather we have that continue or not?

Again, this will just go back to what you call define as successful. You have said in the past that just being competitive, winning 84-85 games is a good season. For others, 2008 wouldn't even be successful because of how uncompetitive we were in the playoffs.

That said, plenty of teams are able to draft and develop well without having to become a last place team to do so. It starts in the draft by not being cheap (we fail there), then it moves to the minors where you have to have coaches who know how the develop and move along talent (we fail there). It ends with a manager who knows how transition young talent to the mlb level (We fail there).

Our minor leagues go beyond Kenny, its the entire organization. Imagine what this team would look like if we had a combo like Sale and Scheppers coming up together versus guys like Phegley who, even if he was healthy, was a severe over reach and probably never sees much time in the bigs, let alone the value of a first round pick. This happens to the Sox every year.

doublem23
11-07-2010, 10:00 AM
Oh my god, will you lay off Scheppers? Jesus, just about every other team passed on him as well, and for good reason, he's still a major injury concern and is still a 1-pitch pitcher. We already had that guy, his name was Aaron Poreda, except that Poreda could throw left handed and look how far that got him.

tsoxman
11-07-2010, 10:13 AM
I almost hope the Sox need to rebuild some time in the next decade, so all of you can see how crappy an experience that is as a fan, and then maybe you'll cut the management of this team some slack once in a while when they're trying to win.

Having experienced that, I prefer a GM that goes for it.

The Sox has had more success in the last 10 years than any time in their history trying to compete every year and not sweating what could be issues 3 years away. Would you rather we have that continue or not?
Goes for what, Russ? The satisfaction of being a second placed team?
For all of you people out there that are so terrified of the concept of rebuilding, note that if you mortgage your future enough by trading away your better prospects, and if you take on enough lousy contracts so that you don't have the budget flexibility to sign your own guys or fill a few holes, the decesion to rebuild will be made FOR you.

Much of the success that the Sox have had over the last ten years came from a core of players that Kenny inherited. It is fair to ask, where is the next wave of talent going to come from?

SI1020
11-07-2010, 10:49 AM
Goes for what, Russ? The satisfaction of being a second placed team?
For all of you people out there that are so terrified of the concept of rebuilding, note that if you mortgage your future enough by trading away your better prospects, and if you take on enough lousy contracts so that you don't have the budget flexibility to sign your own guys or fill a few holes, the decesion to rebuild will be made FOR you.

Much of the success that the Sox have had over the last ten years came from a core of players that Kenny inherited. It is fair to ask, where is the next wave of talent going to come from? I agree.

Domeshot17
11-07-2010, 11:05 AM
Oh my god, will you lay off Scheppers? Jesus, just about every other team passed on him as well, and for good reason, he's still a major injury concern and is still a 1-pitch pitcher. We already had that guy, his name was Aaron Poreda, except that Poreda could throw left handed and look how far that got him.

Scheppers is a top 40 mlb prospect right now, the kid is legit. I understand he had a high price tag and injury concerns, but those are the gambles you can take in the sandwhich rounds.

I do agree, much like Poreda, I have no idea if we could develop him out like Texas has.

However, you are completely wrong comparing him to Poreda. Scheppers has 2 major league ready pitches, his heater and a pretty nasty curveball. His changeup is far more advanced then Poreda's, but his cutter isn't where Poreda's was. He throws 5 pitches total but his command of the Fastball and the Curve could put him in line to succeed as a closer. Where as Poreda was a middle reliever hoping to make it as an SP, he never had close to the ceiling of Scheppers. Scheppers was just one example of the penny pinching draft philosophy this team refuses to break away from.

I forget the exact stat but something like over the last 3-5 drafts, only 3 teams have spent less than the Sox in the draft.

doublem23
11-07-2010, 11:09 AM
I forget the exact stat but something like over the last 3-5 drafts, only 3 teams have spent less than the Sox in the draft.

I'm not saying the Sox aren't cheap, I'm just tired of this pining for Scheppers. He's a top 40 prospect purely on what people think he can do, not on what he's done. He barely even starts 1/3 of his games in the minors thus far.

There's just no way this kid is a reliable starter in the Majors in 5 years. He's either not going to make it, or will blow his arm out in the process. The only thing he's good for is a trading chip before he loses his value.

russ99
11-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Much of the success that the Sox have had over the last ten years came from a core of players that Kenny inherited. It is fair to ask, where is the next wave of talent going to come from?

That's hogwash. You may dislike the man, but you can't question his accomplisments.

How many players of the 2005 team were here when Kenny took over in 1999? Only three that I know of: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko and Frank Thomas.

As for the complaints about new talent, where did Beckham, Morel, Viciedo and Sale come from? Did Kenny "inherit" them too? Oh, I forgot, they don't count for some reason.

People wishful that we become the Twins or Rays who have their prospects along with their revenue and payroll restrictions are idiots. We're a big market team, why shouldn't we act like one?

Go follow the Royals, I hear they have a great farm system.

Domeshot17
11-07-2010, 12:08 PM
That's hogwash. You may dislike the man, but you can't question his accomplisments.

How many players of the 2005 team were here when Kenny took over in 1999? Only three that I know of: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko and Frank Thomas.

As for the complaints about new talent, where did Beckham, Morel, Viciedo and Sale come from? Did Kenny "inherit" them too? Oh, I forgot, they don't count for some reason.

People wishful that we become the Twins or Rays who have their prospects along with their revenue and payroll restrictions are idiots. We're a big market team, why shouldn't we act like one?

Go follow the Royals, I hear they have a great farm system.

Gordon came from a terrible season, Morel is a nice spec but hasn't actually done anything yet, and while a nice player, this kid won't carry a team. His ceiling is very Joe Randa-ish, a solid .300 hitter with little to no power who will split the gaps 20-30 times a year but give you great D. Sale was a great pick, but how he fell to us was just pure luck.

I think we all agree we should act like a big market team, but that includes in the draft and spending on scouting. That is my biggest 100% complaint. There is no reason the Pirates should be outspending us after round 1.

DirtySox
11-07-2010, 12:12 PM
That's hogwash. You may dislike the man, but you can't question his accomplisments.

How many players of the 2005 team were here when Kenny took over in 1999? Only three that I know of: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko and Frank Thomas.

As for the complaints about new talent, where did Beckham, Morel, Viciedo and Sale come from? Did Kenny "inherit" them too? Oh, I forgot, they don't count for some reason.

People wishful that we become the Twins or Rays who have their prospects along with their revenue and payroll restrictions are idiots. We're a big market team, why shouldn't we act like one?

Go follow the Royals, I hear they have a great farm system.


For ****s sake. Having a decent farm system and acting like a "big market team" aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Dumb argument is dumb.

Lyle Mouton
11-07-2010, 01:29 PM
That's hogwash. You may dislike the man, but you can't question his accomplisments.

How many players of the 2005 team were here when Kenny took over in 1999? Only three that I know of: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko and Frank Thomas.

As for the complaints about new talent, where did Beckham, Morel, Viciedo and Sale come from? Did Kenny "inherit" them too? Oh, I forgot, they don't count for some reason.

People wishful that we become the Twins or Rays who have their prospects along with their revenue and payroll restrictions are idiots. We're a big market team, why shouldn't we act like one?

Go follow the Royals, I hear they have a great farm system.
Yes, big market teams always neglect their farm system to the extent the Sox have. Good to know.

KMcMahon817
11-07-2010, 01:38 PM
A really good GM is able to try to win this year while thinking of next and so on, it seems to me at times that Kenny completely forgets about the next year and I'm not just talking about the farm. The Jackson, Peavy and Rios trades were moves that were made for that current year without seemingly taking in any consideration for the budget constraints or needs of the next years' team.

2/3's of those have also worked out as well or better than planned with the exception of Peavy...who the SOX still have for at least another 2 seasons.

doublem23
11-07-2010, 01:48 PM
2/3's of those have also worked out as well or better than planned with the exception of Peavy...who the SOX still have for at least another 2 seasons.

That is true, but there's a double-edged sword to it all. Yes, Rios and Jackson both looked good for chunks of their time in Chicago, but their big contracts might handcuff the Sox this off-season. Unless JR is ready to start authorizing $150 M payrolls, the Sox are going to have to creative to field a competitive team in 2011 with these large contracts and the number of holes on this roster.

KMcMahon817
11-07-2010, 02:11 PM
That is true, but there's a double-edged sword to it all. Yes, Rios and Jackson both looked good for chunks of their time in Chicago, but their big contracts might handcuff the Sox this off-season. Unless JR is ready to start authorizing $150 M payrolls, the Sox are going to have to creative to field a competitive team in 2011 with these large contracts and the number of holes on this roster.

Couldn't agree more. Rios earned his money last year, and Jackson is worth every cent of 8 million on the open market. But, yes, it would be nice be have close to 20 extra million to spend this offseason, no one can argue that.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
11-07-2010, 05:38 PM
The Jackson, Peavy and Rios trades were moves that were made for that current year without seemingly taking in any consideration for the budget constraints or needs of the next years' team.

:scratch:

Peavy was injured when we acquired him. In fact, the consensus was that Peavy was a 2010-and-beyond acquisition when we traded for him in 2009. He only made, what, 3 or 4 starts for the Sox that year?

But Rios and Jackson are also trades made because we were willing to build around them, Rios in particular.

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2010, 05:41 PM
:scratch:

Peavy was injured when we acquired him. In fact, the consensus was that Peavy was a 2010-and-beyond acquisition when we traded for him in 2009. He only made, what, 3 or 4 starts for the Sox that year?

But Rios and Jackson are also trades made because we were willing to build around them, Rios in particular.

Peavy was supposed to make a lot more than 3 or 4 starts as he was close to coming back but then got drilled with a line drive or something in Charlotte. Originally he was expected to there for the stretch run in 2009 and Rios was acquired to provide some offense for the stretch run in 2009 (or to just block the Tigers from getting him).

khan
11-08-2010, 11:14 AM
Die-hard fans may not like the approach that KW takes, but I don't think he really has much choice. This isn't a one team town where we could occupy the cellar for 5 years in a row, stockpile high draft picks, and cash revenue sharing checks. I know people look at teams like Tampa Bay and Cincinnati and are envious of their collections of young talent, but unfortunately we can never be that type of team without an extended period of losing baseball. Furthermore, a string of consecutive losing seasons like that would very likely make us irrelevant in the Chicago sports landscape.

I think the way KW does things is really the only way that can work for this team.
Right. Just like the red sawx sucked a horse's ass for decades, only to stockpile draft picks. After all, the SOX are a Big-Market Team, and shouldn't have to trifle with scouting, drafting, development of young players, or maintaining budgetary flexibility.

All that **** is for cowards and losers.

Any seasons with realistic hopes of postseason play (which 2010 certainly was at the time of the Jackson trade) need to be treated as "all-in" moments EVEN IF the team doesn't look like a legitimate World Series contender.
If KW's solution to losing his supposed "ace" is to pick up an inconsistent NL pitcher with a craptacular 1.5+ WHIP, and only bothered to pitch well in his last contract drive, with an ******* for an agent, I fear for KW's apparent lack of judgement.


For that matter, if he really thought that the 2010 SOX had a snowball's chance in hell of competing for a WS with or without "Cy" Jackson, I have to question his ability to self-scout his own organization.

russ99
11-08-2010, 11:51 AM
If KW's solution to losing his supposed "ace" is to pick up an inconsistent NL pitcher with a craptacular 1.5+ WHIP, and only bothered to pitch well in his last contract drive, with an ******* for an agent, I fear for KW's apparent lack of judgement.

For that matter, if he really thought that the 2010 SOX had a snowball's chance in hell of competing for a WS with or without "Cy" Jackson, I have to question his ability to self-scout his own organization.

Jackson played in the NL for 21 starts as a D-Back and 14 coming up with the Dodgers. Compared that to the 121 starts he had in the AL, you can't consider him a NL pitcher.

It's obvious you don't like the guy, or his salary, or see Hudson as the second coming of Randy Johnson - or all three. That's fine, we all have our opinions.

But that doesn't mean that Edwin can't pitch well for an AL club, even though he'll never be a Cy Young candidate.

khan
11-08-2010, 12:08 PM
Jackson played in the NL for 21 starts as a D-Back and 14 coming up with the Dodgers. Compared that to the 121 starts he had in the AL, you can't consider him a NL pitcher.
Russ, answer this:

In which league was your hero Edwin Jackson pitching when KW traded for his rights?

It's obvious you don't like the guy, or his salary, or see Hudson as the second coming of Randy Johnson - or all three. That's fine, we all have our opinions.
Russ:

He had a ****ty 1.5+ WHIP in the NL when he came here. He has a sub-100 ERA+ over his career. These are facts, not opinions. These data indicate that he has neither been GOOD, nor consistent in his career. Because of these issues, he is horribly expensive.


YOU YOURSELF bitched about not being able to re-sign the BEST SP in the rotation thanks, in part, to Jackson's ****ty contract.


It is clear to me that Edwin Jackson, for as lucky as he got for a few innings last season last year:
was NOT going to replace Peavy,
was NOT going to lead this team to a post season by himself,
and IS part of the problem with retaining the best SP in the team and improving other parts of the team.

But that doesn't mean that Edwin can't pitch well for an AL club, even though he'll never be a Cy Young candidate.
Great. Enjoy him NOW, because his greedy agent will have him sign elsewhere after 2011. And enjoy a ****ty DH/1B/RF/closer/setup men, thanks to probable financial flexibility in 2011.

Meanwhile, John Danks has been a loyal soldier for this organization. [Pitching WELL, quitting chewing tobacco, not complaining, even FIRING that same greedy agent, to make it more possible for him to re-sign here.]


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the consistently-good, loyal, left-handed John Danks than the inconsistent Edwin Jackson.

TaylorStSox
11-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Russ, answer this:

In which league was your hero Edwin Jackson pitching when KW traded for his rights?


Russ:

He had a ****ty 1.5+ WHIP in the NL when he came here. He has a sub-100 ERA+ over his career. These are facts, not opinions. These data indicate that he has neither been GOOD, nor consistent in his career. Because of these issues, he is horribly expensive.


YOU YOURSELF bitched about not being able to re-sign the BEST SP in the rotation thanks, in part, to Jackson's ****ty contract.


It is clear to me that Edwin Jackson, for as lucky as he got for a few innings last season last year:
was NOT going to replace Peavy,
was NOT going to lead this team to a post season by himself,
and IS part of the problem with retaining the best SP in the team and improving other parts of the team.


Great. Enjoy him NOW, because his greedy agent will have him sign elsewhere after 2011. And enjoy a ****ty DH/1B/RF/closer/setup men, thanks to probable financial flexibility in 2011.

Meanwhile, John Danks has been a loyal soldier for this organization. [Pitching WELL, quitting chewing tobacco, not complaining, even FIRING that same greedy agent, to make it more possible for him to re-sign here.]


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the consistently-good, loyal, left-handed John Danks than the inconsistent Edwin Jackson.

The same John Danks who has supposedly turned down numerous extensions?

khan
11-08-2010, 12:21 PM
The same John Danks who has supposedly turned down numerous extensions?

The same John Danks that turned down numerous extensions that are not in line with his obvious high level ability, and consistent performance?

Sure. But then, consistent performers that do things at a high level are the kind of players a team should WANT, not inconsistent players who only pitch well in contract years, and have a greedy, self-serving agent.

KMcMahon817
11-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Russ, answer this:

In which league was your hero Edwin Jackson pitching when KW traded for his rights?

Russ:

He had a ****ty 1.5+ WHIP in the NL when he came here. He has a sub-100 ERA+ over his career. These are facts, not opinions. These data indicate that he has neither been GOOD, nor consistent in his career. Because of these issues, he is horribly expensive.


YOU YOURSELF bitched about not being able to re-sign the BEST SP in the rotation thanks, in part, to Jackson's ****ty contract.


It is clear to me that Edwin Jackson, for as lucky as he got for a few innings last season last year:
was NOT going to replace Peavy,
was NOT going to lead this team to a post season by himself,
and IS part of the problem with retaining the best SP in the team and improving other parts of the team.


Great. Enjoy him NOW, because his greedy agent will have him sign elsewhere after 2011. And enjoy a ****ty DH/1B/RF/closer/setup men, thanks to probable financial flexibility in 2011.

Meanwhile, John Danks has been a loyal soldier for this organization. [Pitching WELL, quitting chewing tobacco, not complaining, even FIRING that same greedy agent, to make it more possible for him to re-sign here.]


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the consistently-good, loyal, left-handed John Danks than the inconsistent Edwin Jackson.

No one is arguing that Jackson is better than Danks. People are aruging that Edwin Jackson is nowhere near as overpaid as you make him out to be EVERYDAY. Nor is he anywhere near as bad as you make him out to be. He is a good middle of the rotation starter with flashes of being an ace. Not too shabby for a 5th starter.

Yes, his salary may be prohibit the SOX from making a move this offseason, which is shame considering he could have stuck with Hudson. Anyone who follows the SOX gets that. No need to remind us everyday.

DirtySox
11-08-2010, 12:27 PM
I'm curious about the "numerous" extensions that Danks has turned down. I only recall the one extension he turned down that was almost identical to Floyd's contract.

Is their evidence of these other supposed offers? Just curious.

KMcMahon817
11-08-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm curious about the "numerous" extensions that Danks has turned down. I only recall the one extension he turned down that was almost identical to Floyd's contract.

Is their evidence of these other supposed offers? Just curious.

That's the only one I remember.

khan
11-08-2010, 12:28 PM
No one is arguing that Jackson is better than Danks.
Actually, russ tried to make this kind of argument all last season.

People are aruging that Edwin Jackson is nowhere near as overpaid as you make him out to be EVERYDAY. Nor is he anywhere near as bad as you make him out to be. He is a good middle of the rotation starter with flashes of being an ace. Not too shabby for a 5th starter.
I'm making the argument that in the CONTEXT of already having two $14M+/yr pitchers, he IS expensive. In the context of the possibility of having a $50M starting rotation, and SIGNIFICANT holes elsewhere, Jackson IS an unaffordable luxury. [In other words, if there was only ONE $14M+/yr SP, or ZERO $14M+/yr SP, AND fewer holes in the roster, I'd be ALL FOR Edwin Jackson in this team.]

I'm also making the argument that Edwin Jackson's CAREER ERA+ of 96 means that he's been mediocre.

Because of these two realities [Jackson's historical craptitude and the probable financial realities of this team], I'm in favor of getting his expensive ass out of here, and fixing what needs to be fixed in this team. [Which includes giving some of Jackson's $8M to Danks in an extension.]

Yes, his salary may be prohibit the SOX from making a move this offseason, which is shame considering he could have stuck with Hudson. Anyone who follows the SOX gets that. No need to remind us everyday.
Thank you for agreeing with me. I'd left this alone until this thread came along.

KMcMahon817
11-08-2010, 12:32 PM
Actually, russ tried to make this kind of argument all last season.


I'm making the argument that in the CONTEXT of already having two $14M+/yr pitchers, he IS expensive. In the context of the possibility of having a $50M starting rotation, and SIGNIFICANT holes elsewhere, Jackson IS an unaffordable luxury. [In other words, if there was only ONE $14M+/yr SP, or ZERO $14M+/yr SP, AND fewer holes in the roster, I'd be ALL FOR Edwin Jackson in this team.]

I'm also making the argument that Edwin Jackson's CAREER ERA+ of 96 means that he's been mediocre.

Because of these two realities [Jackson's historical craptitude and the probable financial realities of this team], I'm in favor of getting his expensive ass out of here, and fixing what needs to be fixed in this team. [Which includes giving some of Jackson's $8M to Danks in an extension.]


Thank you for agreeing with me. I'd left this alone until this thread came along.

I do agree with you to some extent. It is obvious that paying your 5th starter 8 million dollars (which I believe he would easily get on the open market) who is only marginally better than a younger and much cheaper option in Hudson is not the best decision KW has ever made.

But, again, we all get that. It annoying as hell to read every damn day.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 12:45 PM
I don't know how he'll do in 2011, but if you pro-rated Jackson's 11 starts with the White Sox last year over a full season, he would have been their best starter. Obviously he struggled with Arizona, but he was pretty good with Detroit and his last year in Tampa was fine. If you go by what Hudson did last year with Arizona, KW was robbed, but we should wait to see what happens before calling the trade and picking up Jackson's contract a disaster.

asindc
11-08-2010, 12:51 PM
I don't know how he'll do in 2011, but if you pro-rated Jackson's 11 starts with the White Sox last year over a full season, he would have been their best starter. Obviously he struggled with Arizona, but he was pretty good with Detroit and his last year in Tampa was fine. If you go by what Hudson did last year with Arizona, KW was robbed, but we should wait to see what happens before calling the trade and picking up Jackson's contract a disaster.

Why should we wait?

SoxSpeed22
11-08-2010, 12:53 PM
The ability to ignore facts when it comes to Edwin Jackson is outstanding. The guy has 8 quality starts out of 11 here and he's still an overpaid, inconsistent, NL starter. I don't like that we gave up on Hudson a little too early, but if we have problems in 2011, Jackson won't be one of them. I trust Don Cooper on this one.
Out of the two, I prefer Danks. The problem I see is that Jerry doesn't have much of a history giving pitchers huge contracts, since their arms could go at any time. I think 4 years, $30 million is sensible enough.

KMcMahon817
11-08-2010, 01:08 PM
the ability to ignore facts when it comes to edwin jackson is outstanding. The guy has 8 quality starts out of 11 here and he's still an overpaid, inconsistent, nl starter. I don't like that we gave up on hudson a little too early, but if we have problems in 2011, jackson won't be one of them. I trust don cooper on this one.
Out of the two, i prefer danks. The problem i see is that jerry doesn't have much of a history giving pitchers huge contracts, since their arm could go at any time. I think 4 years, $30 million is sensible enough.

+1

khan
11-08-2010, 01:10 PM
I don't know how he'll do in 2011, but if you pro-rated Jackson's 11 starts with the White Sox last year over a full season, he would have been their best starter. Obviously he struggled with Arizona, but he was pretty good with Detroit and his last year in Tampa was fine. If you go by what Hudson did last year with Arizona, KW was robbed, but we should wait to see what happens before calling the trade and picking up Jackson's contract a disaster.
Yes, let's wait as other teams have the wherewithal to improve their teams this offseason, while the SOX are handcuffed by a $50M starting rotation.


The ability to ignore facts when it comes to Edwin Jackson is outstanding. The guy has 8 quality starts out of 11 here and he's still an overpaid, inconsistent, NL starter. I don't like that we gave up on Hudson a little too early, but if we have problems in 2011, Jackson won't be one of them. I trust Don Cooper on this one.
Out of the two, I prefer Danks. The problem I see is that Jerry doesn't have much of a history giving pitchers huge contracts, since their arm could go at any time. I think 4 years, $30 million is sensible enough.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksed01.shtml

Just look at that consistency:

2010 WHIP: [SOX] 1.213
2010 WHIP: [AZ ] 1.496
2009 WHIP: 1.262
2008 WHIP: 1.505
2007 WHIP: 1.758
2006 WHIP: 1.844


Yeah, he's been the picture of consistency in his career, right? I mean, he had an AWESOME 11 starts in 2010, and a decent 2009. But ignore the other 3 1/2 seasons. Because Edwin Jackson is a golden god.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 01:26 PM
Yes, let's wait as other teams have the wherewithal to improve their teams this offseason, while the SOX are handcuffed by a $50M starting rotation.



http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksed01.shtml

Just look at that consistency:

2010 WHIP: [SOX] 1.213
2010 WHIP: [AZ ] 1.496
2009 WHIP: 1.262
2008 WHIP: 1.505
2007 WHIP: 1.758
2006 WHIP: 1.844


Yeah, he's been the picture of consistency in his career, right? I mean, he had an AWESOME 11 starts in 2010, and a decent 2009. But ignore the other 3 1/2 seasons. Because Edwin Jackson is a golden god.

Hudson's WHIP with the White Sox in 2010 was 1.787. I suppose we should ignore that and look at what Edwin Jackson did in 2006 as proof the Sox made a huge mistake.

khan
11-08-2010, 01:46 PM
Hudson's WHIP with the White Sox in 2010 was 1.787.
In 15 IP?

How about his .841 WHIP in the 79 IP for AZ? [And no, that's not a misprint. Daniel Hudson averaged a SPARKLING .841 Walks + Hits per IP for AZ.]


I suppose we should ignore that and look at what Edwin Jackson did in 2006 as proof the Sox made a huge mistake.
I don't disagree that Hudson being a young player is/was with some degree of risk. However, I can think of 8 MILLION reasons why he should be here instead of the guy with the career 1.485 WHIP, the up-and-down career, and the greedy agent.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 01:53 PM
In 15 IP?

How about his .841 WHIP in the 79 IP for AZ? [And no, that's not a misprint. Daniel Hudson averaged a SPARKLING .841 Walks + Hits per IP for AZ.]



I don't disagree that Hudson being a young player is/was with some degree of risk. However, I can think of 8 MILLION reasons why he should be here instead of the guy with the career 1.485 WHIP, the up-and-down career, and the greedy agent.

So Hudson's pretty much a lock to be a HOFer? I would be willing to bet, if both pitcher's are injury-free in 2011, Jackson has the lower WHIP and ERA even in the AL.

I also don't see where its obvious if the Sox still had Hudson and not Jackson, that the $8 million would be used on other players. Maybe JR and his lackeys are just taking home less profit.

MISoxfan
11-08-2010, 02:17 PM
Yes, let's wait as other teams have the wherewithal to improve their teams this offseason, while the SOX are handcuffed by a $50M starting rotation.



http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksed01.shtml

Just look at that consistency:

2010 WHIP: [SOX] 1.213
2010 WHIP: [AZ ] 1.496
2009 WHIP: 1.262
2008 WHIP: 1.505
2007 WHIP: 1.758
2006 WHIP: 1.844


Yeah, he's been the picture of consistency in his career, right? I mean, he had an AWESOME 11 starts in 2010, and a decent 2009. But ignore the other 3 1/2 seasons. Because Edwin Jackson is a golden god.

If those stats were reversed it would slow a clear trend towards an old players decline so I'm not sure why they can't be viewed as a young players improvement as he entered 2009 at 25 years old.

KMcMahon817
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
If those stats were reversed it would slow a clear trend towards an old players decline so I'm not sure why they can't be viewed as a young players improvement as he entered 2009 at 25 years old.

Very good point.

khan
11-08-2010, 02:27 PM
So Hudson's pretty much a lock to be a HOFer? I would be willing to bet, if both pitcher's are injury-free in 2011, Jackson has the lower WHIP and ERA even in the AL.

I also don't see where its obvious if the Sox still had Hudson and not Jackson, that the $8 million would be used on other players. Maybe JR and his lackeys are just taking home less profit.

Do you really believe this to be the case?

Absent any evidence to the contrary, we'd have to assume the opposite:

That the salary budget is set with a break-even as the goal. We honestly have no way to know either way.

But, IMO, there's no way Jackson is worth $8.5M/yr, based on his career numbers. That he GOT that kind of bread speaks ill of the AZ GM, and speaks well of Boras and his greed.

khan
11-08-2010, 02:34 PM
If those stats were reversed it would slow a clear trend towards an old players decline so I'm not sure why they can't be viewed as a young players improvement as he entered 2009 at 25 years old.

1. The 1 1/2 "good seasons" are statistical outliers to the rest of his career. His 2009 was PARTICULARLY far afield from his career norms, as it occurred over an entire season. But, looking at the splits of that season, you'll see a guy who did quite well in a contract drive in the 1st half of the season, who then crapped his pants as the tiggers were in a playoff push in the 2nd half of the season.

2. If he really was improving, there seems to be NO logical explaination for Detroit having shipped him out, once Jackson supposedly "figured it out." Why give away a then-25 year old? Detroit has no "No Boras Client" policy that I know of.

3. Given that this is Jackson's 5th MLB team, any supposed trend in his numbers must also be set against the reality that he's failed in four other stops BEFORE coming here.

Nellie_Fox
11-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Seriously khan, don't you get tired of this same screed day after day? Is there anything new to say about Jackson? You just keep finding new ways to say the same things over and over and over and over...

Let it go.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Do you really believe this to be the case?

Absent any evidence to the contrary, we'd have to assume the opposite:

That the salary budget is set with a break-even as the goal. We honestly have no way to know either way.

But, IMO, there's no way Jackson is worth $8.5M/yr, based on his career numbers. That he GOT that kind of bread speaks ill of the AZ GM, and speaks well of Boras and his greed.

There's no evidence the White Sox actually spend all the money that comes in. If you look at Forbes year after year and take it as gospel, they average about a $20 million a year profit the past 6 or 7 seasons. The only evidence I see of the Sox spending every last dime that comes in is KW, JR and Brooks Boyer saying so. KW also cries broke then adds Peavy and Rios, then cried broke again and added Jackson and Ramirez. Then he says they "found some money". Oh really. To think they don't make a decent profit is a little naive IMO. I don't begrudge them for that, if I owned a business, I would want to make money, and I believe the payroll is high enough to win.

WhiteSox5187
11-08-2010, 03:48 PM
If those stats were reversed it would slow a clear trend towards an old players decline so I'm not sure why they can't be viewed as a young players improvement as he entered 2009 at 25 years old.

His 2009 WHIP is a bit deceiving because in the second half of 2009 (when the Tigers were in a pennant race) it was 1.5 and he put up a staggering 5.07 ERA. All in all Jackson has had one good year and it was split up over the course of two seasons (a good first half of 2009 and a good second half of 2010), he has never lived up to his potential which is a reason he has been on six teams now. But maybe he has turned the corner and Coop has fixed him, but he has to be very very good to live up to that contract.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 04:04 PM
His 2009 WHIP is a bit deceiving because in the second half of 2009 (when the Tigers were in a pennant race) it was 1.5 and he put up a staggering 5.07 ERA. All in all Jackson has had one good year and it was split up over the course of two seasons (a good first half of 2009 and a good second half of 2010), he has never lived up to his potential which is a reason he has been on six teams now. But maybe he has turned the corner and Coop has fixed him, but he has to be very very good to live up to that contract.

Its funny how he has to pitch to "live up to his contract". When Javy Vazquez was getting paid almost 50% more than him and was putting up a 4.70 ERA, many around here said that was the going rate. It amazes me how many White Sox "fans" appear to almost want this guy to fail so they can be correct that trading for him was a mistake. He was pretty good with the Sox last year. He throws 97. The Sox cut down his walk rate. If it stays down, he'll be a bargain.

How come nobody is jumping up and down about Alex Rios and his contract. He was awful with the Sox last year, was great in the first half, and was pretty bad the 2nd half (.684 OPS). So he's been mostly bad and is owed close to $50 million.

WhiteSox5187
11-08-2010, 04:16 PM
Its funny how he has to pitch to "live up to his contract". When Javy Vazquez was getting paid almost 50% more than him and was putting up a 4.70 ERA, many around here said that was the going rate. It amazes me how many White Sox "fans" appear to almost want this guy to fail so they can be correct that trading for him was a mistake. He was pretty good with the Sox last year. He throws 97. The Sox cut down his walk rate. If it stays down, he'll be a bargain.

How come nobody is jumping up and down about Alex Rios and his contract. He was awful with the Sox last year, was great in the first half, and was pretty bad the 2nd half. So he's been mostly bad and is owed close to $50 million.

Lots of people were bitching about Javy and lots of people were bitching about Rios last year too. The thing is these guys were given (specifically Javy) was given a contract in a different market. The market changed radically with the bad economy. No one wants Jackson to fail, it's just that we could have gotten similar production from the guy we gave up for him at a much cheaper rate which would mean we have more payroll to keep a guy like Paulie and still get a left handed bat. Now we are in a spot where we are going to have to sacrifice one of those because we are stuck with a guy who is making $8 million and has a career 4.62 ERA and a 1.485 WHIP.

dickallen15
11-08-2010, 04:19 PM
Lots of people were bitching about Javy and lots of people were bitching about Rios last year too. The thing is these guys were given (specifically Javy) was given a contract in a different market. The market changed radically with the bad economy. No one wants Jackson to fail, it's just that we could have gotten similar production from the guy we gave up for him at a much cheaper rate which would mean we have more payroll to keep a guy like Paulie and still get a left handed bat. Now we are in a spot where we are going to have to sacrifice one of those because we are stuck with a guy who is making $8 million and has a career 4.62 ERA and a 1.485 WHIP.
I will bet you right now Jackson outperforms Hudson next season. I haven't seen one post talking about the money owed to Rios since the beginning of the 2010 season. Also remember, a year ago many were complaining about the money owed to Konerko, he was definitely washed up. Now those same people want to give him even more.

JermaineDye05
11-08-2010, 04:20 PM
Lots of people were bitching about Javy and lots of people were bitching about Rios last year too. The thing is these guys were given (specifically Javy) was given a contract in a different market. The market changed radically with the bad economy. No one wants Jackson to fail, it's just that we could have gotten similar production from the guy we gave up for him at a much cheaper rate which would mean we have more payroll to keep a guy like Paulie and still get a left handed bat. Now we are in a spot where we are going to have to sacrifice one of those because we are stuck with a guy who is making $8 million and has a career 4.62 ERA and a 1.485 WHIP.

With exception to a start against the Mariners, Daniel Hudson didn't come close to the production that Jackson did. He was actually pretty bad with the Sox. Once the pressure was lifted off of him and he was moved to the NL is when he flourished.

MISoxfan
11-08-2010, 09:25 PM
1. The 1 1/2 "good seasons" are statistical outliers to the rest of his career. His 2009 was PARTICULARLY far afield from his career norms, as it occurred over an entire season. But, looking at the splits of that season, you'll see a guy who did quite well in a contract drive in the 1st half of the season, who then crapped his pants as the tiggers were in a playoff push in the 2nd half of the season.

2. If he really was improving, there seems to be NO logical explaination for Detroit having shipped him out, once Jackson supposedly "figured it out." Why give away a then-25 year old? Detroit has no "No Boras Client" policy that I know of.

3. Given that this is Jackson's 5th MLB team, any supposed trend in his numbers must also be set against the reality that he's failed in four other stops BEFORE coming here.

You're talking about a pitcher with 4 full seasons under his belt. During that time his WHIP

1.758
1.505
1.262
1.395

2 sub par performances at 23 and 24, one good performance at 25 and an average performance at 26. His WHIP in his full seasons up to 26 is 1.460 Freddy Garcia's at 26 was 1.446. I'm not saying he will break out, but I'm saying its much too early to say never and his last two seasons have been promising.

BringHomeDaBacon
11-08-2010, 10:30 PM
Its funny how he has to pitch to "live up to his contract". When Javy Vazquez was getting paid almost 50% more than him and was putting up a 4.70 ERA, many around here said that was the going rate. It amazes me how many White Sox "fans" appear to almost want this guy to fail so they can be correct that trading for him was a mistake. He was pretty good with the Sox last year. He throws 97. The Sox cut down his walk rate. If it stays down, he'll be a bargain.

How come nobody is jumping up and down about Alex Rios and his contract. He was awful with the Sox last year, was great in the first half, and was pretty bad the 2nd half (.684 OPS). So he's been mostly bad and is owed close to $50 million.

I'm willing to jump up and down about the Rios, Peavy and Jackson contracts. It is and was foolish to acquire contracts signed when the economy was in better shape. It is even more foolish to give a team valuable inexpensive assets in exchange for a contract that said team doesn't want anyway. Far too often, KW appears to be bidding against himself. Kind of like when the Phillies were stuck with an expensive first basemen who could not play the field blocking a player they preferred to play anyway.

doublem23
11-09-2010, 10:18 AM
If those stats were reversed it would slow a clear trend towards an old players decline so I'm not sure why they can't be viewed as a young players improvement as he entered 2009 at 25 years old.

http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/15886546/view/1/producttypecolor/1/type/png/width/190/height/190/boom-roasted_design.png

khan
11-09-2010, 11:41 AM
I will bet you right now Jackson outperforms Hudson next season.
OK. And I'd bet you that Hudson + an $8M investment into a quality LH bat & closer & 1B-if-PK leaves outperforms the golden god Edwin Jackson ALONE. [In terms of offense, defense, and pitching combined.]


I haven't seen one post talking about the money owed to Rios since the beginning of the 2010 season. Also remember, a year ago many were complaining about the money owed to Konerko, he was definitely washed up. Now those same people want to give him even more.
Exactly what does a fairly consistent veteran [PK] and a solid performer [Rios] have to do with an overpaid 5th starter?

Without PK and Rios, this team probably doesn't finish above .500 in 2010. [not that this should be the goal for this team.] However, without Jackson, this team probably STILL finishes above .500 in 2010, AND has $12M [combined residual 2010 wages and obese 2011 contract] to use on other needs.

khan
11-09-2010, 11:54 AM
You're talking about a pitcher with 4 full seasons under his belt. During that time his WHIP:

2007 1.758
2008 1.505
2009 1.262
2010 1.395

2 sub par performances at 23 and 24, one good performance at 25 and an average performance at 26. His WHIP in his full seasons up to 26 is 1.460 Freddy Garcia's at 26 was 1.446. I'm not saying he will break out, but I'm saying its much too early to say never and his last two seasons have been promising.
1. You also failed to mention that he's been passed around the league like yesterday's garbage.

I can agree to an extent that IF you discount the fact that EVERY TEAM he's been on eventually dumped his overrated ass, then those numbers "look promising." [Also, why exclude Jackson's nightmarish 1.844 numbers in '06?]

But there must be REAL reasons why he never lasts long with an organization, despite his obvious ability. Being WANTED by a team is part of being an "emerging" player, because intelligent MLB teams usually don't give away value. [I believe it to be his horrific contract and his maddening inconsistency.]


2. Inside those numbers, you'll see that Jackson's 2009 1st half was remarkable, while his 2nd half might have cost the tiggers the ALC. You'll also see that Jackson's 2010 splits were a NIGHTMARE in the 1st half, ONE great month with the SOX, then a mediocre September/October. Overall, his "good" years are empty numbers, IMO.


3. Without that consistency that John Danks brings, without Jackson having been WANTED by any MLB team over the long term, I can't justify wasting $8.5M on him, if I were in management.

There are simply too many other needs than to spend ~42% of a $120M salary budget on 5 guys when the other 20 guys in the roster desperately NEED investment, IMO.

dickallen15
11-09-2010, 12:17 PM
OK. And I'd bet you that Hudson + an $8M investment into a quality LH bat & closer & 1B-if-PK leaves outperforms the golden god Edwin Jackson ALONE. [In terms of offense, defense, and pitching combined.]



Exactly what does a fairly consistent veteran [PK] and a solid performer [Rios] have to do with an overpaid 5th starter?

Without PK and Rios, this team probably doesn't finish above .500 in 2010. [not that this should be the goal for this team.] However, without Jackson, this team probably STILL finishes above .500 in 2010, AND has $12M [combined residual 2010 wages and obese 2011 contract] to use on other needs.
What do they have to do with Jackson? Exactly what you are complaining about, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I'm sure you would have called Konerko overpaid last year, with absolutely no shot of putting up the season he did in 2010, especially if you use the same criteria you use for Jackson. And using the same criteria, isn't Rios at least as much overpaid, if not more, considering he's on the books for close to $50 million? If you can get a bat for Jackson's $8.5 million like you said, imagine what you could do with Rios' $12 million a year for the next 4 seasons.

russ99
11-09-2010, 12:23 PM
1. You also failed to mention that he's been passed around the league like yesterday's garbage.

I can agree to an extent that IF you discount the fact that EVERY TEAM he's been on eventually dumped his overrated ass, then those numbers "look promising." [Also, why exclude Jackson's nightmarish 1.844 numbers in '06?]

But there must be REAL reasons why he never lasts long with an organization, despite his obvious ability. Being WANTED by a team is part of being an "emerging" player, because intelligent MLB teams usually don't give away value. [I believe it to be his horrific contract and his maddening inconsistency.]


2. Inside those numbers, you'll see that Jackson's 2009 1st half was remarkable, while his 2nd half might have cost the tiggers the ALC. You'll also see that Jackson's 2010 splits were a NIGHTMARE in the 1st half, ONE great month with the SOX, then a mediocre September/October. Overall, his "good" years are empty numbers, IMO.


3. Without that consistency that John Danks brings, without Jackson having been WANTED by any MLB team over the long term, I can't justify wasting $8.5M on him, if I were in management.

There are simply too many other needs than to spend ~42% of a $120M salary budget on 5 guys when the other 20 guys in the roster desperately NEED investment, IMO.

1. How did other teams "dump his ass"?

Tampa gave up Lance Carter and Danys Baez to the Dodgers, both former all-star relievers
Detroit gave up Matt Joyce, their top OF prospect
Arizona gave up Max Scherzer, who's done nicely for Detroit
the Sox gave up Dan Hudson, who's had a decent rookie year for Arizona

Though you can bet his agent had something to do with why was dealt instead of other players on those teams. I personally was surprised Detroit dealt him, but getting a young starter with proven big league performance and a entry salary was too good to pass up.

2. His good years may be "empty numbers" but he has shown he's a quality starter. If he didn't have those solid half-seasons, especially the 3 months with us, the assumption that he's a not a good pitcher would be closer to valid.

3. I'd rather see the Sox cut one of the $10M+ salaries than Jackson at $8.5 which is a fair salary for a #2-3 starter. For example, look at what lesser quality FA starters got recently:

Rich Harden got $7.5M, Jason Marquis got $7.5, Brad Penny got $7.5, Garland got $7.25, etc.

Sure, he should be getting closer to what Danks and Floyd are getting, but just because a former team caved to his agent is no reason to dismiss the guy.

Generally, I'm tired of people down on players due to their salary and not their performance, but that's not just Sox fans. All fans seem to do this nowadays.

We'll see what next year brings, and who's more correct here... If you're right, I'll gladly eat crow. :smile:

khan
11-09-2010, 12:24 PM
What do they have to do with Jackson? Exactly what you are complaining about, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I'm sure you would have called Konerko overpaid last year, with absolutely no shot of putting up the season he did in 2010, especially if you use the same criteria you use for Jackson. And using the same criteria, isn't Rios at least as much overpaid, if not more, considering he's on the books for close to $50 million? If you can get a bat for Jackson's $8.5 million like you said, imagine what you could do with Rios' $12 million a year for the next 4 seasons.
Not even the same galaxy.

At Jackson's position, KW has deemed it necessary to already have two $14M+ pitchers, plus the BEST of the bunch due for a raise/extension.

PK earned his money, as did Rios to a lesser extent. However, if we use a ~$120M salary budget figure, ~$50M or so to spend on 5 SPs is too much, given the many holes in the lineup and bullpen. Again, without Rios and PK, the SOX aren't even above .500, while the SOX would be above .500 without Jackson.


Moreover, Jackson hasn't been as consistent a performer as PK or Rios. Even in Jackson's "good years," you can see wide swaths of craptitude which undercut his value to a team.


With all of this in mind, KW should trade him, and get the desperately-needed salary relief it would bring. Better yet, Jackson never should have been here in the first place.

dickallen15
11-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Not even the same galaxy.

At Jackson's position, KW has deemed it necessary to already have two $14M+ pitchers, plus the BEST of the bunch due for a raise/extension.

PK earned his money, as did Rios to a lesser extent. However, if we use a ~$120M salary budget figure, ~$50M or so to spend on 5 SPs is too much, given the many holes in the lineup and bullpen. Again, without Rios and PK, the SOX aren't even above .500, while the SOX would be above .500 without Jackson.


Moreover, Jackson hasn't been as consistent a performer as PK or Rios. Even in Jackson's "good years," you can see wide swaths of craptitude which undercut his value to a team.


With all of this in mind, KW should trade him, and get the desperately-needed salary relief it would bring. Better yet, Jackson never should have been here in the first place.

You called Alex Rios consistent? You lose any credibility. While you rail against Jackson getting "dumped" by teams, Alex Rios was waived and Toronto was fine with nothing coming back. Consistency hasn't been Alex Rios' game. He was awful for the Sox in 2009. All Starish the first half of 2010, and pretty much a replacement player the second half.

Jackson is only going to be 27 years old. Some guys take a little longer. He was drafted as a position player. Look how old Matt Thornton was before he was worth anything.

kufram
11-09-2010, 12:33 PM
What is behind the constant almost daily anti-Jackson rant? Is it a need to make everybody agree with you? Because that ain't never gonna happen. I think everybody gets it that you think Jackson is over-rated, over-paid, and possibly like "yesterday's garbage".

I, personally, don't care what Jackson has done for other teams. We have him next year and that is that. If he does what he is capable of (and showed a bit of this year for us) that is all that matters. I remember an awful lot of similar rants by posters during the first half of '05 against Contreras. He worked out pretty good the second half.

I'm not a Jackson promoter but you are turning me into one. I think it is easily possible that he is our best pitcher next year. Guys like him do that... get superhot for a period of time. Cooper has had some success at that sort of thing. If that happens the 8m won't be an issue.

khan
11-09-2010, 12:39 PM
1. How did other teams "dump his ass"?

Think of it the other way: Exactly which team was desperate to keep him, if he was such a golden god?

2. His good years may be "empty numbers"
Thank you for agreeing with me.

3. I'd rather see the Sox cut one of the $10M+ salaries than Jackson at $8.5 which is a fair salary for a #2-3 starter.
1. OK, exactly which one of the $10M+ salaries is tradeable? Not Peavy, because he's always injured.

And not Buehrle, given his decline in effectiveness in recent years. [I believe that some of Buehrle's money would have to be eaten to move him.]

2. If Jackson and his maddening inconsistency is your "#2-3 starter," then your team sucks ass. Thank GOD for Danks.

For example, look at what lesser quality FA starters got recently:

Rich Harden got $7.5M, Jason Marquis got $7.5, Brad Penny got $7.5, Garland got $7.25, etc.

OK, now tell us:
1. How many of these contracts worked out WELL for their teams,
2. What were the salaries of the other SPs in their teams,
3. What were their teams' holes in their lineup and bullpen, and
4. What did they have in their farm system as replacement at the position.


Without knowing this information, we can't accurately decide whether or not THOSE contracts were good for their teams and the players.

But I can tell you [answering queries 2-4 from above] that
2. the SOX have already two $14M+ SPs, have another locked up long-term, have the BEST SP due for a pay raise, but have
3. Needs @ 1st, RF, possibly 3rd, DH, RH/possibly LH setup, closer, and possibly C, while there is
4. Exactly jack and **** in the farm system to address any of these needs.

Therefore, as he is more moveable than the obese contracts in the rotation, and there are desperate needs elsewhere, I believe his $8.5M contract is a ****ty one for THIS team.

For other teams, it may work out differently.


Sure, he should be getting closer to what Danks and Floyd are getting, but just because a former team caved to his agent is no reason to dismiss the guy.

Sure it is: THIS team has different needs in the roster, a different salary structure, and a ****tier farm system than AZ's. Therefore, a greater demand on efficiency and financial flexibility exists here.

Generally, I'm tired of people down on players due to their salary and not their performance, but that's not just Sox fans. All fans seem to do this nowadays.

We'll see what next year brings, and who's more correct here... If you're right, I'll gladly eat crow. :smile:
I don't care about "eating crow," as I think you should have eaten some for some of our discussions in this past season. [j/k]

I'm more interested in our management making SMART decisions to help make our favorite team better, so that next summer is much more enjoyable for all of us.

khan
11-09-2010, 12:46 PM
You called Alex Rios consistent? You lose any credibility.

While you rail against Jackson getting "dumped" by teams, Alex Rios was waived and Toronto was fine with nothing coming back. Consistency hasn't been Alex Rios' game. He was awful for the Sox in 2009. All Starish the first half of 2010, and pretty much a replacement player the second half.

Jackson is only going to be 27 years old. Some guys take a little longer. He was drafted as a position player. Look how old Matt Thornton was before he was worth anything.

Rios has had Much more consistency than Jackson.

Rios' OPS numbers:
2006: .865 [In 120-ish games]
2007: .852 [Contract year, hence a statistical outlier]
2008: .798
2009: .691 [Admittedly his ONE "bad" year]
2010: .791

Career: .777

Not great, but certainly better than Jackson. All, by the way, with providing stellar defense.

However, anything above a 1.4 WHIP is barely replacement level; Jackson's career WHIP is above 1.4, while his contract is well above his performance level.

This is Rios' 2nd MLB team, while Jackson has been passed around by teams like yesterdays garbage.

khan
11-09-2010, 12:51 PM
What is behind the constant almost daily anti-Jackson rant? Is it a need to make everybody agree with you? Because that ain't never gonna happen. I think everybody gets it that you think Jackson is over-rated, over-paid, and possibly like "yesterday's garbage".

I merely respond to other posters. Look back at this and other threads, and you'll see that this is the case.

Call it a "rant," if you wish, but again: I'm merely responding to what others post here.


I, personally, don't care what Jackson has done for other teams. We have him next year and that is that. If he does what he is capable of (and showed a bit of this year for us) that is all that matters. I remember an awful lot of similar rants by posters during the first half of '05 against Contreras. He worked out pretty good the second half.

I'm not a Jackson promoter but you are turning me into one. I think it is easily possible that he is our best pitcher next year. Guys like him do that... get superhot for a period of time. Cooper has had some success at that sort of thing. If that happens the 8m won't be an issue.
God help us if it were 8M pounds.

I like the idea that some here think that Jackson has a PRAYER of being the best SP in the team. [BTW, this means that he'd be better than John Danks.... Care to wager on THAT?]

With some folks believing that he can be the best SOX SP, it artificially inflates Jackson's trade value, and improves the chances of his cancerous contract being excised from the payroll. I think I'll change my profile to have Edwin Jackson as my favorite current SOX player...

dickallen15
11-09-2010, 01:02 PM
Rios has had Much more consistency than Jackson.

Rios' OPS numbers:
2006: .865 [In 120-ish games]
2007: .852 [Contract year, hence a statistical outlier]
2008: .798
2009: .691 [Admittedly his ONE "bad" year]
2010: .791

Career: .777

Not great, but certainly better than Jackson. All, by the way, with providing stellar defense.

However, anything above a 1.4 WHIP is barely replacement level; Jackson's career WHIP is above 1.4, while his contract is well above his performance level.

This is Rios' 2nd MLB team, while Jackson has been passed around by teams like yesterdays garbage.
Those numbers aren't consistent at all. And it looks like he peeked 4 years ago,not a scenerio you would like if you owed someone $50 million for the next 4 seasons. He's overpayed.

Rios was rated the 15th best defensive CF by the Fielding Bible. There have been a lot of pretty good players that have modeled several uniforms. I really don't understand why that has anything to do with it. His numbers with the Sox don't matter at all. That he's been on several teams means he's overpaid. Ridiculous. Again, pro rate his numbers over an entire season and he would have been the best Sox starter. Well worth the money he was paid in 2010, which was nowhere near $8.5 million, and well worth $8.5 million. Maybe he will have an Esteban Loiaisa 2003 in 2011. Remember him? Modeled several uniforms. Signed as a minor league free agent. Almost won the Cy Young. Wasn't so good after that but was traded for Jose Contreras, a guy dumped by the Yankees, yet he led the Sox to a World Series. I look for a big season from Jackson. Walks have been his killer. If Cooper really did find something, and he permanently cuts down the free passes, this guy can be an All Star. I'd rather they not have given up Hudson, but to think he's really as good as his AZ numbers in 2010 is crazy, and you know it.

khan
11-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Those numbers aren't consistent at all.
Agreed. But they're much more consistent than Jackson's, which is what I've stated. At a minimum, Rios has been at/above a replacement level for his position, while Jackson has not.

There have been a lot of pretty good players that have modeled several uniforms. I really don't understand why that has anything to do with it.
Because the other poster cites numbers without the context of him having been passed around year after year after year.

His numbers with the Sox don't matter at all.
Look inside those numbers, and you'll see a great August, and a mediocre September/October. Let's not over-rate what he did for the SOX in garbage time.

That he's been on several teams means he's overpaid.
Incorrect:

1. That he's been on several teams means that he's not "emerging," as others claim.

2. That his career WHIP exceeds replacement level means that he's overpaid.

Again, pro rate his numbers over an entire season and he would have been the best Sox starter. Well worth the money he was paid in 2010, which was nowhere near $8.5 million, and well worth $8.5 million.
Even in Jackson's one "good year" of 2009, he wasn't good over the entirety of the season. Therefore, prorating his numbers over an entire season is an exercise in futility. Why not pro rate his ****ty numbers from AZ?

I simply don't believe that Jackson can/will do it over the entirety of a season. He's never done it hereto fore, even in contract years.

Maybe he will have an Esteban Loiaisa 2003 in 2011. Remember him? Modeled several uniforms. Signed as a minor league free agent. Almost won the Cy Young. Wasn't so good after that but was traded for Jose Contreras, a guy dumped by the Yankees, yet he led the Sox to a World Series.
So in other words, Loiaza had a lucky 2003, then sucked after that. And you're trying to model Jackson after him? That Jackson will suck in 2011 after a lucky part of 2010 in garbage time?

I look for a big season from Jackson. Walks have been his killer. If Cooper really did find something, and he permanently cuts down the free passes, this guy can be an All Star.
I look for Jackson to go back to sucking at pitching, as has been his trend over his career. Perhaps he may have a good 2nd half, as his/his agent's greed sets in, but by that time, the SOX may be out of it.

I'd buy that "Coop fixed him," but he's been with four other MLB organizations, all of whom have tried to do "fix him," and NONE have done so over an extended period of time. There have been "flashes," but for $8.5M, "flashes" are not enough, IMO.

I truly do not believe that Cooper can succeed in this case where four other organizations have failed. I believe that the SOX got what they'll get out of Jackson, and should sell as high as possible, NOW.

I'd rather they not have given up Hudson, but to think he's really as good as his AZ numbers in 2010 is crazy, and you know it.
1. Thanks for agreeing with me re: giving away Hudson.

2. We'll see if Hudson can repeat his 2010 numbers with AZ. But I'm sure AZ appreciates having the other $8M to fix other things, and perhaps sign PK away from the SOX...

dickallen15
11-09-2010, 01:52 PM
Agreed. But they're much more consistent than Jackson's, which is what I've stated. At a minimum, Rios has been at/above a replacement level for his position, while Jackson has not.


Because the other poster cites numbers without the context of him having been passed around year after year after year.


Look inside those numbers, and you'll see a great August, and a mediocre September/October. Let's not over-rate what he did for the SOX in garbage time.


Incorrect:

1. That he's been on several teams means that he's not "emerging," as others claim.

2. That his career WHIP exceeds replacement level means that he's overpaid.


Even in Jackson's one "good year" of 2009, he wasn't good over the entirety of the season. Therefore, prorating his numbers over an entire season is an exercise in futility. Why not pro rate his ****ty numbers from AZ?

I simply don't believe that Jackson can/will do it over the entirety of a season. He's never done it hereto fore, even in contract years.


So in other words, Loiaza had a lucky 2003, then sucked after that. And you're trying to model Jackson after him? That Jackson will suck in 2011 after a lucky part of 2010 in garbage time?


I look for Jackson to go back to sucking at pitching, as has been his trend over his career. Perhaps he may have a good 2nd half, as his/his agent's greed sets in, but by that time, the SOX may be out of it.

I'd buy that "Coop fixed him," but he's been with four other MLB organizations, all of whom have tried to do "fix him," and NONE have done so over an extended period of time. There have been "flashes," but for $8.5M, "flashes" are not enough, IMO.

I truly do not believe that Cooper can succeed in this case where four other organizations have failed. I believe that the SOX got what they'll get out of Jackson, and should sell as high as possible, NOW.


1. Thanks for agreeing with me re: giving away Hudson.

2. We'll see if Hudson can repeat his 2010 numbers with AZ. But I'm sure AZ appreciates having the other $8M to fix other things, and perhaps sign PK away from the SOX...

If you say Rios is replacement level why aren't you complaining about the money owed to him? Can't you find a replacement level CF for a lot less than $12 million a year? I never said the Sox gave Hudson away. I would rather they kept him, but I think Jackson is better than him, and will be better than him in 2011, and one year from now, the $8.5 million paid to him for 2011 will not even be an issue. As to your line about being good for an entire season, its very, very rare a pitcher doesn't hit a speed bump or 3 during the season. Jackson is still young, but I'll stop now, I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

asindc
11-09-2010, 01:58 PM
... I'd rather they not have given up Hudson, but to think he's really as good as his AZ numbers in 2010 is crazy, and you know it.

... 1. Thanks for agreeing with me re: giving away Hudson.

2. We'll see if Hudson can repeat his 2010 numbers with AZ. But I'm sure AZ appreciates having the other $8M to fix other things, and perhaps sign PK away from the SOX...

1. dickallen15 did not agree with you.

Nellie_Fox
11-09-2010, 02:09 PM
I merely respond to other posters. Look back at this and other threads, and you'll see that this is the case.

Call it a "rant," if you wish, but again: I'm merely responding to what others post here.You do know that you're not required to respond to every post you disagree with, don't you? Life will go on.

MISoxfan
11-09-2010, 03:40 PM
1. You also failed to mention that he's been passed around the league like yesterday's garbage.

I can agree to an extent that IF you discount the fact that EVERY TEAM he's been on eventually dumped his overrated ass, then those numbers "look promising." [Also, why exclude Jackson's nightmarish 1.844 numbers in '06?]

But there must be REAL reasons why he never lasts long with an organization, despite his obvious ability. Being WANTED by a team is part of being an "emerging" player, because intelligent MLB teams usually don't give away value. [I believe it to be his horrific contract and his maddening inconsistency.]


2. Inside those numbers, you'll see that Jackson's 2009 1st half was remarkable, while his 2nd half might have cost the tiggers the ALC. You'll also see that Jackson's 2010 splits were a NIGHTMARE in the 1st half, ONE great month with the SOX, then a mediocre September/October. Overall, his "good" years are empty numbers, IMO.


3. Without that consistency that John Danks brings, without Jackson having been WANTED by any MLB team over the long term, I can't justify wasting $8.5M on him, if I were in management.

There are simply too many other needs than to spend ~42% of a $120M salary budget on 5 guys when the other 20 guys in the roster desperately NEED investment, IMO.

I left out 2006 because he had 36.1 IP and only 1 start.

kufram
11-09-2010, 05:00 PM
I'm calling it what it is. You don't just make a point. You hammer it, then come back with a bigger hammer to beat it in some more, then come back with a jack hammer just in case the first two didn't do the job.

Merely responding would be making your point and leaving it at that. Predicting what a pitcher is going to do next year is like predicting what the weather is going to be like off the Cornish coast at Christmas.... guesswork.

Danks COULD be our best pitcher next year, Floyd COULD be our best pitcher next year, Peavy COULD be our Cy Young winner next year, MB COULD pitch THREE no-hitters next year. Freddie was, arguably, our best pitcher this last year.... so, yes, it is possible that Jackson does perform at his best, which is good enough, for the next season and out perform the others. I don't know.... but I'm sure you do.


I merely respond to other posters. Look back at this and other threads, and you'll see that this is the case.

Call it a "rant," if you wish, but again: I'm merely responding to what others post here.



God help us if it were 8M pounds.

I like the idea that some here think that Jackson has a PRAYER of being the best SP in the team. [BTW, this means that he'd be better than John Danks.... Care to wager on THAT?]

With some folks believing that he can be the best SOX SP, it artificially inflates Jackson's trade value, and improves the chances of his cancerous contract being excised from the payroll. I think I'll change my profile to have Edwin Jackson as my favorite current SOX player...

Balfanman
11-10-2010, 08:16 AM
2. We'll see if Hudson can repeat his 2010 numbers with AZ. But I'm sure AZ appreciates having the other $8M to fix other things, and perhaps sign PK away from the SOX...

So if the Diamondbacks sign P.K, we would of essentially acquired Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson & Paul Konerko. I like Edwin Jackson but..............ouch! :o:

soxfanreggie
11-10-2010, 10:07 AM
So if the Diamondbacks sign P.K, we would of essentially acquired Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson & Paul Konerko. I like Edwin Jackson but..............ouch! :o:

I think that depends on if we offer him arbitration (for the draft picks) or what we then sign for the money. Technically if we sign Adam Dunn, you could say, it was Jackson and Dunn for Hudson and Konerko via a 3-team deal.

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2010, 10:18 AM
So if the Diamondbacks sign P.K, we would of essentially acquired Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson & Paul Konerko. I like Edwin Jackson but..............ouch! :o:

Makes no sense.

Paul Konerko is a FA, he can go wherever he wants.


So playing your cards here, what if we go out and sign Adam Dunn because Konerko decides to leave our money on the table?


Dunn + Jackson better than Konerko + Hudson in my book.

Let's not be blinded by Konerko's MVP numbers this past season. There were times during this past 5 year deal where many Sox fans were trying to talk up trades to ship him out to Anaheim. It was almost every Spring.

doublem23
11-10-2010, 10:50 AM
Makes no sense.

Paul Konerko is a FA, he can go wherever he wants.


So playing your cards here, what if we go out and sign Adam Dunn because Konerko decides to leave our money on the table?


Dunn + Jackson better than Konerko + Hudson in my book.

Let's not be blinded by Konerko's MVP numbers this past season. There were times during this past 5 year deal where many Sox fans were trying to talk up trades to ship him out to Anaheim. It was almost every Spring.


That's a pretty fair assessment, IMO, the only thing I'd note that is if the Sox are going to bring Dunn in to replace Konerko's production at the plate, they need to find a 1B to replace him in the field. Dunn is awful, awful, defensively, and if there's been one real steady trademark of Konerko's tenure here at 1st, it has been his reliable, overlooked defensive prowess. You just don't appreciate a guy who can scoop balls out of the dirt the way he does until you don't have it any more.

asindc
11-10-2010, 10:59 AM
That's a pretty fair assessment, IMO, the only thing I'd note that is if the Sox are going to bring Dunn in to replace Konerko's production at the plate, they need to find a 1B to replace him in the field. Dunn is awful, awful, defensively, and if there's been one real steady trademark of Konerko's tenure here at 1st, it has been his reliable, overlooked defensive prowess. You just don't appreciate a guy who can scoop balls out of the dirt the way he does until you don't have it any more.

Having watched a lot of Dunn in person and on TV the past two years, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Dunn plays 1B and OF like a DH. A team would not be much worse off playing Thome at 1B.

khan
11-10-2010, 11:46 AM
So if the Diamondbacks sign P.K, we would of essentially acquired Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson & Paul Konerko. I like Edwin Jackson but..............ouch! :o:

You could look at it as:

Jackson and unnamed 1B

Vs.

Hudson and PK,

+/- any difference in salaries that could be used elsewhere,

+/- any draft picks gained or lost as a result of a trade.



IMO, an overly-simplistic view is: Jackson + Dunn > Hudson + PK. But that fails to capture the rest of the effect of any addition or subtraction of other assets to a team, such as dollars, draft picks, or other assets.

Hence, it could be look at as:

Jackson + Dunn vs. Hudson, PK, and money available to re-sign Putz, and money to replace Quentin in the field, for example.

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2010, 03:12 PM
That's a pretty fair assessment, IMO, the only thing I'd note that is if the Sox are going to bring Dunn in to replace Konerko's production at the plate, they need to find a 1B to replace him in the field. Dunn is awful, awful, defensively, and if there's been one real steady trademark of Konerko's tenure here at 1st, it has been his reliable, overlooked defensive prowess. You just don't appreciate a guy who can scoop balls out of the dirt the way he does until you don't have it any more.


Yeah, I agree on that. But if Quentin sticks with this team, then you can only play 1 DH. I much rather Dunn play 1B than the OF. I don't want neither Quentin or Dunn in the OF.

I guess don't sign Dunn and look elsewhere. But if no PK, the only guy that will give me satisfaction would be Dunn.

russ99
11-10-2010, 03:20 PM
That's a pretty fair assessment, IMO, the only thing I'd note that is if the Sox are going to bring Dunn in to replace Konerko's production at the plate, they need to find a 1B to replace him in the field. Dunn is awful, awful, defensively, and if there's been one real steady trademark of Konerko's tenure here at 1st, it has been his reliable, overlooked defensive prowess. You just don't appreciate a guy who can scoop balls out of the dirt the way he does until you don't have it any more.

Don't know about that. I read an article recently on ESPN (insider, so I can't link it) where a stat group (Baseball Info Solutions) had pretty convincing evidence that Konerko's defense was both well below average and declining. Sure there's probably more stock in the eyeball test, as we see him for all 162 games.

Then there's the other issue of Dunn probably not signing with any team who wants him at a position other than 1B. The guy flat out doesn't want to DH, and while there's some assumptions that he could play OF for a bigger offer, I doubt that happens.

So the question is how much of a drop off in fielding would there be from Konerko to Dunn, and would his lower age and higher production at the Cell make up for it.

dickallen15
11-10-2010, 03:45 PM
Don't know about that. I read an article recently on ESPN (insider, so I can't link it) where a stat group (Baseball Info Solutions) had pretty convincing evidence that Konerko's defense was both well below average and declining. Sure there's probably more stock in the eyeball test, as we see him for all 162 games.

Then there's the other issue of Dunn probably not signing with any team who wants him at a position other than 1B. The guy flat out doesn't want to DH, and while there's some assumptions that he could play OF for a bigger offer, I doubt that happens.

So the question is how much of a drop off in fielding would there be from Konerko to Dunn, and would his lower age and higher production at the Cell make up for it.
Range-wise, Konerko isn't very good. Its handling all the bad throws especially from Ramirez where he excels. Dunn would add at least 10 errors to Alexei's total if Alexei doesn't stop his tendency to sometimes make the throw with a little less intensity than he should.

DirtySox
11-10-2010, 03:56 PM
Don't know about that. I read an article recently on ESPN (insider, so I can't link it) where a stat group (Baseball Info Solutions) had pretty convincing evidence that Konerko's defense was both well below average and declining. Sure there's probably more stock in the eyeball test, as we see him for all 162 games.

Then there's the other issue of Dunn probably not signing with any team who wants him at a position other than 1B. The guy flat out doesn't want to DH, and while there's some assumptions that he could play OF for a bigger offer, I doubt that happens.

So the question is how much of a drop off in fielding would there be from Konerko to Dunn, and would his lower age and higher production at the Cell make up for it.


Range-wise, Konerko is abysmal. I haven't gone into too much depth in regards to Dunn's defensive woes. It is certainly something to look into.

BringHomeDaBacon
11-10-2010, 07:21 PM
Range-wise, Konerko isn't very good. Its handling all the bad throws especially from Ramirez where he excels. Dunn would add at least 10 errors to Alexei's total if Alexei doesn't stop his tendency to sometimes make the throw with a little less intensity than he should.

I agree with this. Dunn at first would essentially nullify all the improvements we've seen in Alexei's game over the last year. Additionally, the thought of Teahen tossing the ball across the diamond to Adam Dunn makes me want to puke.

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2010, 07:32 PM
I agree with this. Dunn at first would essentially nullify all the improvements we've seen in Alexei's game over the last year. Additionally, the thought of Teahen tossing the ball across the diamond to Adam Dunn makes me want to puke.


So is Alexei good because he's good or did Konerko make him what he is?


I think at some point you need to hold the other IFs accountable for throwing the damn ball correctly accross the diamond.

If you have a chance to improve on offense at 1B at the expense of less scoops with the glove, I think you have to do it. The other three guys just need to throw the ball better.

soltrain21
11-10-2010, 07:58 PM
I agree with this. Dunn at first would essentially nullify all the improvements we've seen in Alexei's game over the last year. Additionally, the thought of Teahen tossing the ball across the diamond to Adam Dunn makes me want to puke.

To me that would mean that Alexei didn't improve at all...?

spawn
11-10-2010, 09:20 PM
To me that would mean that Alexei didn't improve at all...?
Well, the he still thinks that Mark Teahen will be mannnig 3rd base next season, so...

BringHomeDaBacon
11-11-2010, 03:33 AM
Well, the he still thinks that Mark Teahen will be mannnig 3rd base next season, so...

I have no idea who they will end up trotting out there. I do know that A) he will suck and B) will be replaced at some point with another option that sucks. I can say that confidently since all of their current options suck.

kufram
11-11-2010, 04:32 AM
Is it too much to expect that ANY player put at 1st base in the major leagues should be able to scoop a high percentage of balls out of the dirt? PK is particularly good at this but it is probably the most important defensive skill required by the position. It's not the place to hide somebody's glove.... somebody's arm, yes.... glove?.. No.

spawn
11-11-2010, 07:39 AM
I have no idea who they will end up trotting out there. I do know that A) he will suck and B) will be replaced at some point with another option that sucks. I can say that confidently since all of their current options suck.

Brilliant synopsis.

kufram
11-11-2010, 10:57 AM
Quentin may not be the most fluid of outfielders but I don't think his fielding cost us that much in terms of games lost. Doubles hit to his side tended to stay doubles in the games I was able to watch and you can't really fault him for effort.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see real solid fielding in all three OF positions but with the emphasis so heavily placed on hitting for power it seems to me like a lot of guys don't bother to really learn their defensive position so much anymore.

Having said that I think Rios made a few poor plays too.... he did look a lot better doing it though and covered a lot more ground... again, not expensive in games.

Now base-running errors did cost us.

Yeah, I agree on that. But if Quentin sticks with this team, then you can only play 1 DH. I much rather Dunn play 1B than the OF. I don't want neither Quentin or Dunn in the OF.

I guess don't sign Dunn and look elsewhere. But if no PK, the only guy that will give me satisfaction would be Dunn.