PDA

View Full Version : We offered a contract to...


SoxxoS
11-25-2002, 01:30 AM
Omal Daal!!!!!!

Note: This does not mean he agreed to it. This from MLB.com

<<<White Sox: The White Sox offered a one-year deal plus an option year to free agent pitcher Omar Daal, but Daal is seeking a three-year deal after making $5 million at Los Angeles this season. The Mets and Mariners are also eyeing Daal.
>>>

hold2dibber
11-25-2002, 09:10 AM
I am very happy about this. I have been saying all off season that the one free agent pitcher that really interests me is Daal. I think there is a chance that he's about to reel off 2-3 years of peak performance (15+ wins, sub 4.00 ERA). I'd love for the Sox to sign him.

duke of dorwood
11-25-2002, 10:36 AM
This one year offer is just cosmetic. If , in fact, they made only a one year offer, Daal would never take that. We're really serious about getting a pitcher, aren't we?

RKMeibalane
11-25-2002, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
This one year offer is just cosmetic. If , in fact, they made only a one year offer, Daal would never take that. We're really serious about getting a pitcher, aren't we?

:reinsy

"Don't look at me. This is your fault."

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
This one year offer is just cosmetic. If , in fact, they made only a one year offer, Daal would never take that. We're really serious about getting a pitcher, aren't we?

well presumably that offer is our intial offer. you always start low. also, i think you're underestimating the extent to which its a buyer's market. if we're serious about signing him (and i think it'd be a good move) i'm sure we'll up the offer a little. maybe to two years with an option.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2002, 01:45 PM
Jeremy:

Jerry Reinsdorf has publicy stated on many occasions that the White Sox WILL NOT get into bidding wars for players.

His philosophy to players is, has been and always will be, "go out, get your best offer, come back to us, and we'll see..."

The problem with THAT friends and neighbors is with the Sox never being very good for the long haul (at least since the early 90's) players aren't that hot and bothered to play for the Sox in the first place.

So while the Sox offer low ball deals to fairly decent players, others teams who feel winning in more important then profit margin are offering three and four year contracts especially to pitchers.

Don't look for the Sox to "go back" and renegotiate with Daal, Byrd, Glavine, Maddux, Billy Pierce, early Wynn, "Black" Jack McDowell, Gary Peters or anyone. That's not the way the do business (and it shows doesn't it?)

Lip

kermittheefrog
11-25-2002, 03:01 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it'd be better if we didn't sign Omar Daal?

duke of dorwood
11-25-2002, 03:20 PM
He's never been on my wish list.

hold2dibber
11-25-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Am I the only one who thinks it'd be better if we didn't sign Omar Daal?

It all depends on the cost. I happen to think that Daal is going to be good (about the same as he was last year, or a little better) for the next few years. That would make him a viable no. 3 starter. Plus, the Sox don't have to trade anyone to get him.

The question I have to you (and others) is, what should the Sox do to address the starting pitching problem? The top tier free agents (Clemens, Maddux and Glavine) aren't coming here, and all the rest are either old (Moyer, Finley), injury-prone (Shane Reynolds, Valdes), have "spotty" records (Daal, Byrd, Baldwin), or some combination of the two (Woody Williams, Carpenter, Lieber). Is trading the best option? If so, who are you willing to trade (C.Lee? Garland? Wright? Rauch? Honel? Ring? Borchard? Jimenez?) and who do you think they should go after via trade?

I guess I'm generally concerned that the free agent market for pitchers isn't that great, and when I look around the league, I don't see any teams that are in a position where trading quality pitching makes any sense (except possibly the Expos). I'm afraid that the Sox don't have a lot of options. But with respect to the options they do have, I think Daal would make sense, particularly if the $ isn't too high and the deal is only for two years (maybe with an option year as well).

Soxboyrob
11-25-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Am I the only one who thinks it'd be better if we didn't sign Omar Daal?

Pretty low WHIP. Not very many K's. Ok K/BB ratio. Can't figure out whether to consider 2000 to just be an off year or a sign of bad things to come. Again, who do you pursue? It's a tough call. No matter who we go after, it's a gamble....Maddux and/or Glavine included.

mrwag
11-25-2002, 05:27 PM
His numbers aren't that impressive. I definately wouldn't sell the farm for this guy. He might be a good 3 or 4 guy, but he's no number 1 or 2 stud. Isn't that what we really need? Do we need another "average" 4.0 ERA pitcher? I think I'd rather take my chances on the current crop that we have instead of spending a bunch on this guy.

If we're not trying to get a true stud, stay at home K.W. This looks like a PR move, so JR and KW can say they tried.

MarkEdward
11-25-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Am I the only one who thinks it'd be better if we didn't sign Omar Daal?

He seems like a very, very average pitcher. His "stuff" has been exactly zero the past two seasons. His ERA has been helped by good defense and pitching in a pitchers' park the last few years. Money could be spent better elsewhere.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
His numbers aren't that impressive. I definately wouldn't sell the farm for this guy. He might be a good 3 or 4 guy, but he's no number 1 or 2 stud. Isn't that what we really need? Do we need another "average" 4.0 ERA pitcher? I think I'd rather take my chances on the current crop that we have instead of spending a bunch on this guy.

If we're not trying to get a true stud, stay at home K.W. This looks like a PR move, so JR and KW can say they tried.

that's the thing though. no one will be "spending a bunch" on him. he's a very cheap option. if people are unhappy with the free agent starters as a whole that making a low investment is a good option. its hard to fathom after the spending in recent years but no one wants to spend much money. a lot of solid players are going to be had for very cheap. rosenthal said expect valdes who had an era of 4 to go for less than two million. players like baldwin might even have to settle for minor league contracts. no one is going to over pay for a guy like daal in this market.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

The question I have to you (and others) is, what should the Sox do to address the starting pitching problem? The top tier free agents (Clemens, Maddux and Glavine) aren't coming here, and all the rest are either old (Moyer, Finley), injury-prone (Shane Reynolds, Valdes), have "spotty" records (Daal, Byrd, Baldwin), or some combination of the two (Woody Williams, Carpenter, Lieber). Is trading the best option? If so, who are you willing to trade (C.Lee? Garland? Wright? Rauch? Honel? Ring? Borchard? Jimenez?) and who do you think they should go after via trade?

I guess I'm generally concerned that the free agent market for pitchers isn't that great, and when I look around the league, I don't see any teams that are in a position where trading quality pitching makes any sense (except possibly the Expos). I'm afraid that the Sox don't have a lot of options. But with respect to the options they do have, I think Daal would make sense, particularly if the $ isn't too high and the deal is only for two years (maybe with an option year as well).

i think the solution is to sign a solid veteran who will receive very little money because of the state of the market such as daal, valdes, or perhaps even brian moehler or brian anderson. that way, we have a veteran presence and a guy we should be able to count on to be solid to shore up the rotation and we don't risk investing a lot of money or years into someone who is 40 years old, has a sketchy history, or has shown signs of being injury prone.

i don't look at trading as a very good option. if we're really serious about bringing a front of the line starter to town, we should sign someone like moyer instead of trading for someone like vazquez or colon from the expos. a top of the rotation starter is not going to come cheap through a trade. i would much rather lose only a first round draft pick to sign moyer than give up rauch and borchard to acquire colon. its just so obviously not worth it in my mind.

if we could get vasquez and only give up one from the group of rauch, honel, and borchard (i'd prefer not to give up rauch) and then sign him past the two years he has left i'd be open to that type of solution since he's still young. personally, i just have very very little faith in our ability to sign players to long term deals after we acquire them in trades.