PDA

View Full Version : When's the last time we signed a big-time FA?


santo=dorf
10-27-2004, 01:48 PM
Was it 1996 with Belle and Navarro?

Why have we been trading away talent to get players, and THEN we try sign then to extensions? (Garcia, Colon, Everett, Alomar.) :?:

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have traded for Garcia, and tried to sign him in the offseason, but it just seems weird that people (myself included) expect this organization to go out and sign a big time FA this offseason considering we haven't done so since 1996.

Is it a philosophy of the organization? :?:

Hangar18
10-27-2004, 01:53 PM
Is it a philosophy of the organization? :?:



:reinsy
" Your damned right its my philosophy. Just because your Roof
is leaking, do you see me making fun of YOU for not fixing it, and hoping
it eventually fixes itself ? "

Ol' No. 2
10-27-2004, 05:03 PM
" Your damned right its my philosophy. Just because your Roof
is leaking, do you see me making fun of YOU for not fixing it, and hoping
it eventually fixes itself ? "At least in the case of pitchers, it IS because of Reinsdorf's philosophy of not signing pitchers to long-term deals. That pretty much knocks you out of any FA pitcher deals. Since Navarro, all their pitching acquisitions were for players in the last year their contract, and that's no accident. Fortunately, judging by his signing of Garcia and Buehrle to longer term deals and acquisition of Contreras, he seems to have finally gotten over his Navarrophobia and accepted that you can't build a team on a bunch of youngsters and a new stud every year.

santo=dorf
10-27-2004, 11:09 PM
At least in the case of pitchers, it IS because of Reinsdorf's philosophy of not signing pitchers to long-term deals. That pretty much knocks you out of any FA pitcher deals. Since Navarro, all their pitching acquisitions were for players in the last year their contract, and that's no accident. Fortunately, judging by his signing of Garcia and Buehrle to longer term deals and acquisition of Contreras, he seems to have finally gotten over his Navarrophobia and accepted that you can't build a team on a bunch of youngsters and a new stud every year.
But do you actually expect Reinsdorf to allow KW to sign yet another pitcher to a 3-year deal this offseason?:?:

jabrch
10-27-2004, 11:19 PM
:reinsy
" Your damned right its my philosophy. Just because your Roof
is leaking, do you see me making fun of YOU for not fixing it, and hoping
it eventually fixes itself ? "

Might as well go out there and take your credit cards and charge up a $15,000 roof, a brand new $5,000 Armani suit, dinner for you 10 best friends and each a guest at Ambria. While you are at it, buy a new car, a boat, and a Harley. Put it all on your credit. You don't have the cash to pay for it - but since you want it - it makes sense that youd get it.

Hangar - Have you ever had to manage an operating budget?

Frank the Tank
10-27-2004, 11:29 PM
Was it 1996 with Belle and Navarro?

:?:

Probably David Wells and Billy Koch

santo=dorf
10-27-2004, 11:33 PM
Probably David Wells and Billy Koch
Those two were traded the Sox.

TaylorStSox
10-28-2004, 05:29 AM
Was it 1996 with Belle and Navarro?

Why have we been trading away talent to get players, and THEN we try sign then to extensions? (Garcia, Colon, Everett, Alomar.) :?:

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have traded for Garcia, and tried to sign him in the offseason, but it just seems weird that people (myself included) expect this organization to go out and sign a big time FA this offseason considering we haven't done so since 1996.

Is it a philosophy of the organization? :?:
Why, in your opinion, would a "big name free agent" want to play for this organization? Aside from money, what else would be lucrative about playing for the Sox?

SOXSINCE'70
10-28-2004, 08:14 AM
:reinsy
" Your damned right its my philosophy. Just because your Roof
is leaking, do you see me making fun of YOU for not fixing it, and hoping
it eventually fixes itself ? "
YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH.

SoxFanTillDeath
10-28-2004, 09:44 AM
Why, in your opinion, would a "big name free agent" want to play for this organization? Aside from money, what else would be lucrative about playing for the Sox?

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the best catcher of our generation sign with the team that almost broke the record for losses in a season? Don't tell me players would rather go to Detroit than Chicago.

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2004, 10:25 AM
But do you actually expect Reinsdorf to allow KW to sign yet another pitcher to a 3-year deal this offseason?:?:That's why Randy Johnson makes so much sense.

SoxFanTillDeath
10-28-2004, 10:32 AM
That's why Randy Johnson makes so much sense.

I'm going on record right now to say that if we give up ANYTHING WORTH ANYTHING for RJ than it will be a mistake. The guy is 400 years old. He won't last a full season.

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2004, 10:48 AM
I'm going on record right now to say that if we give up ANYTHING WORTH ANYTHING for RJ than it will be a mistake. The guy is 400 years old. He won't last a full season.He's put up 240+ IP in 6 of the last 7 years, including 245 last year with a 2.60 ERA and 290 SO. So even if he tapers off a bit at age 401, he'll still be better than just about anything else that's available. Of course there's a risk. But there's a risk with any player.

Did you not watch the World Series? The Cards had the #1 offense in the NL and the Red Sox starting pitching gave up NOT ONE earned run in the last three games. Look at the numbers: Rolen, 0 for 15; Edmonds, 1 for 15, Sanders, 0 for 9. Does anyone think if the Cards had Carlos Beltran the result would have been any different? There are occasional exceptions. Good pitching does not ALWAYS beat good hitting. But that's the way to bet. The White Sox don't have the pitching to compete with the big boys. They need a stud, and Randy Johnson is exactly the kind of guy to get them there.

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 11:04 AM
He's put up 240+ IP in 6 of the last 7 years, including 245 last year with a 2.60 ERA and 290 SO. So even if he tapers off a bit at age 401, he'll still be better than just about anything else that's available. Of course there's a risk. But there's a risk with any player.


Damn, I knew he was old, but 401??? That's got to be a record!:tongue:

RJ would be awesome, assyuming we still have enough O to make the team successful. Hearing the stats on his consecutive successful years tho makes me think that given Sox luck, it would end up being David Wells #2 and he'd go out in May (followed by Carlos & ARow colliding in the OF with complementary ACL injuries).

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2004, 11:16 AM
Damn, I knew he was old, but 401??? That's got to be a record!:tongue:

RJ would be awesome, assyuming we still have enough O to make the team successful. Hearing the stats on his consecutive successful years tho makes me think that given Sox luck, it would end up being David Wells #2 and he'd go out in May (followed by Carlos & ARow colliding in the OF with complementary ACL injuries).The way the 2004 season started out, I really thought the Sox were going to finally get past the Twinkies. And I think they would have but for the injuries to Thomas and Ordonez. But they would have gotten smoked in the playoffs just like the Twins did. There are lots of WS teams with average or just above average offenses, but with a rare exception, all have top-three pitching staffs. The Sox don't have the pitching to compete with the big boys. The Sox could have three Carlos Beltrans, but with the current pitching staff they're not going anywhere. They need a big dog and Randy Johnson is the biggest dog available.

There's a risk with anyone you get. Will Pavano be able to repeat his 2004 performance? Will Derek Lowe (notwithstanding his playoff performance) continue to decline? There isn't anyone without a question mark of some kind. Randy Johnson at 80% is still better than anyone else available.

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 11:19 AM
There's a risk with anyone you get. Will Pavano be able to repeat his 2004 performance? Will Derek Lowe (notwithstanding his playoff performance) continue to decline? There isn't anyone without a question mark of some kind. Randy Johnson at 80% is still better than anyone else available.
The difference is that at $16mil, with RJ you likely make no other moves (unless you lose someone at another position like Konerko, Lee, etc.). At $8mil, you'd still have another $8mil to go bolster another area and reduce the impact of an injury or performance decline.

That said, I'd probably lean towards getting RJ if it doesn't cost top prospects and if we can add someone to replace the likely loss of Konerko or lee in the deal.

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2004, 11:30 AM
The difference is that at $16mil, with RJ you likely make no other moves (unless you lose someone at another position like Konerko, Lee, etc.). At $8mil, you'd still have another $8mil to go bolster another area and reduce the impact of an injury or performance decline.

That said, I'd probably lean towards getting RJ if it doesn't cost top prospects and if we can add someone to replace the likely loss of Konerko or lee in the deal.The most likely scenario for this to work is that Arizona cuts Sexson loose and get Konerko in the deal. If it's a 1B they're looking for, the Sox have the inside track because I don't know of anyone who's got a 1B available that compares with PK. They're probably going to want a young pitcher, too. As far as I'm concerned, they can have their pick. So the net increase for the Sox is only $7M. I can see Reiny increasing the payroll enough to accomodate that since it's only a one-year committment. The extra buzz from getting Randy Johnson would probably sell an extra 100k tickets all by itself, which gets you half the $7M back. With one more decent reliever (probably $2M or so), they're good to go, and at a relatively modest payroll.

duke of dorwood
10-28-2004, 11:34 AM
:KW


I'd rather trade talent for a guy than sign him as a FA-its the challenge and good feeling I get when I give someone compensation for a player they could lose and not get anything.

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 11:45 AM
:KW


I'd rather trade talent for a guy than sign him as a FA-its the challenge and good feeling I get when I give someone compensation for a player they could lose and not get anything.
Was that supposed to be in teal? Because I'm sure KW would rather make trades than just sign guys for "free".

duke of dorwood
10-28-2004, 11:54 AM
Should have been as Teal as could be

Hangar18
10-28-2004, 12:05 PM
The name of this thread could also be called "Whens the Last time the SOX Cared about Winning" because it goes hand-in-hand with "Whens the last time the SOX signed a bigtime FA"