| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Jason Frasor https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=64029 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bigfan [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Jason Frasor |
No comments from Sox nation on Jason Frasor? I can only assume from some of the sox regulars then that this was not a good move for $3.75M? Perosnally I thought it was quite a bit of money for a team cash strapped for a jounreyman that had an ERA of over 5.00 for you last year. Scott Gregor, semi Sox apologist/beat writer, who provides all the good stuff for the new coaching staff even asked Ranger if this signing surprised him, as Gregor basically said it was a bad signing. My guy Ranger even drops a "Welll....Kinda......but maybe they see something in him?" Just doing his job. But, just dont think it was a great signing. Think you can find guys for the same role, laying around looking for a job for 25% of the money. |
|
| Author: | sinicalypse [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
|
|
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
sinicalypse wrote: Jimmy? |
|
| Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
WSOX and WSOX nation discourage any negative talk about Sox personnel moves. |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
I have no problem with the Sox picking up Frasor's option and think it was a smart move. If they were going to sign a reliever to replace him they would have to commit a 3-4 year contract because that is the current trend and because of the erratic nature of relievers they tend to be bad contracts in year 3-4. Nothing wrong with slightly over paying a reliever for 1 year. |
|
| Author: | kmartin [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: No comments from Sox nation on Jason Frasor? I can only assume from some of the sox regulars then that this was not a good move for $3.75M? Perosnally I thought it was quite a bit of money for a team cash strapped for a jounreyman that had an ERA of over 5.00 for you last year. What makes you believe they are cash strapped BigFan? Depends how the rest of the offseason plays out before I can make a decision on this move. Frasor has been a solid 6th, 7th, or 8th inning reliever throughout his career and last year was no exception. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Jason Frasor deserves no comments. He's just a guy. |
|
| Author: | City of Fools [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
my next door neighbor tells me he roomed with Frasor in college. My neighbor would hurt people (3rd basemen specifically) if I ever let him play softball with us. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Terry's Peeps wrote: Jason Frasor deserves no comments. He's just a guy. Thank You. He is just a guy. Keyser and the newest member the Sox ALS KMart seem to disagree The current trend? signing Bullpen depth for 3-4 years???? Not for one of the last guys in your pen. Especially 31 year old guys that had 5.09 ERA's. Thornton only got 2 years. There will be a guy that is as good or better than Frasor out there you could get for 1/2 or less than Frasor will make. And KMart why do you think they didnt give Buerhle an offer? Because he stinks? Because he is a bad guy? NO, because they dont have the salary room. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
He may have a great year. He may suck. It's a crapshoot with bullpen guys. |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: And KMart why do you think they didnt give Buerhle an offer? Because he stinks? Because he is a bad guy? NO, because they dont have the salary room. Every year I hear the Sox are at their limit and nearly every year they add payroll. I've been hearing this since the payroll was $80 million. I think the truth is Jerry can make his investors swallow whatever he wants (within reason). They've hit a home run with the purchase of the team and the majority of them have gotten fat with the Bulls. Maybe they're at the limits of reason. Maybe not. I just don't think sportswriters will ever know what or when that is. My guess on Buehrle is that they told him to find out what his best deal is. Once that happens, they may say, "okay, this is what we're willing to do if you really want to come back". I would also guess they're not going to go to four years with him at this point. I don't really think they should either. It also probably depends on what they intend to do with Danks. I would say their best move is to trade him now. He's a guy that is always going to look like he's better than Buerhle but never really will be. There are a lot of guys like that. |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Terry's Peeps wrote: Jason Frasor deserves no comments. He's just a guy. Thank You. He is just a guy. Keyser and the newest member the Sox ALS KMart seem to disagree The current trend? signing Bullpen depth for 3-4 years???? Not for one of the last guys in your pen. Especially 31 year old guys that had 5.09 ERA's. Thornton only got 2 years. There will be a guy that is as good or better than Frasor out there you could get for 1/2 or less than Frasor will make. And KMart why do you think they didnt give Buerhle an offer? Because he stinks? Because he is a bad guy? NO, because they dont have the salary room. He had a 5.09 ERA in 17 innings (can you say small sample size??). He had a 2.98 ERA in 42.1 innings before the trade and a 3.74 career ERA while pitching exclusively in the AL east. Frasor is a quality set up man and worth a little higher salary on a 1 yr deal. |
|
| Author: | kmartin [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Terry's Peeps wrote: Jason Frasor deserves no comments. He's just a guy. Thank You. He is just a guy. Keyser and the newest member the Sox ALS KMart seem to disagree The current trend? signing Bullpen depth for 3-4 years???? Not for one of the last guys in your pen. Especially 31 year old guys that had 5.09 ERA's. Thornton only got 2 years. There will be a guy that is as good or better than Frasor out there you could get for 1/2 or less than Frasor will make. And KMart why do you think they didnt give Buerhle an offer? Because he stinks? Because he is a bad guy? NO, because they dont have the salary room. You got a couple of things wrong in your post. First Frasor was 33 last year not 31, second Frasor's ERA was 3.60 not 5.09. I think the signing of Frasor means they aren't rebuilding and that Buehrle is more likely to be back. I could be wrong since the Sox don't comment on what their payroll will be because they don't want to give up a competitive advantage. Theo does the same thing. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
I think the signing of Frasor means they aren't rebuilding and that Buehrle is more likely to be back. KMartin Of course they aren't rebuilding. They are on the hook for $95 Mill this year without doing anything. It would be like folding after you went all in and your opponent checked. As far as them spending money, I have made the point Joe Orr made. MOST of Jerry Partners are ok with losing money on the Sox. The make a good $$$ on the Bulls every single year and the Capital gains they will make on both if either team is ever sold is 20-30 times investments. Even with losing some money, Jerry has it in his blood to not lose money,but it is truely how he personally feels that day. |
|
| Author: | kmartin [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Jerry has it in his blood to not lose money,but it is truely how he personally feels that day. So you don't know if they are at their payroll limit? Sounds like you know Reinsdorf, huh? |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Look at Joe Orr's post, they have been at the Payroll limit for the past 4-5 years? The only person that is told a limit is Kenny Williams, then when kenny needs a little more he comes and has to ask for it. Really no limit. Especially when an owner is present. This is why MLB does not try and sell to corporations. They saw some of the problems when selling to corps like the Tribune. There is never an issue with what they want, it's to make money. Winning is good, but not the objective. MLB doesn't even like to sell to groups like what Reinsdorf did. Put very little to no money in. They want the primary owner to have skin in the game. I think they need a primary owner to have at least 20% ownership via cash. So thats the guy who makes the call if they are going to go for it. This is why I don't want Baseball to have a cap. If an owner wants to reach into his pocket to win, go for it. |
|
| Author: | kmartin [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Look at Joe Orr's post, they have been at the Payroll limit for the past 4-5 years? The only person that is told a limit is Kenny Williams, then when kenny needs a little more he comes and has to ask for it. Really no limit. Especially when an owner is present. You claim they don't have salary room for Buehrle. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Well if they did, why didnt they make him an offer? As now they can't talk to him for a period of time while everyone else does. I don't think they chose not to retain him based on talent? and leadership? popularity? So then why didnt they tender him a contract? because they are already over $100 mill now and need to still sign other pitching. Arbitration still with Danks, Bacon and Quintin? Close to $20 mill more right there? Need to fill some other holes? Even if you sign Buerhle for somewhat less, like $10 mill, aren't you close to $150 mill? And am I really telling you something you shouldn't already know? |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Oh look, bigfan is spending the weekend posting in the Sox section. That is certainly new. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Oh look Frank is following my posts, |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Beckham's not arbitration eligible. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Keyser Soze wrote: Beckham's not arbitration eligible. Tis why I had question marks, dont have the Sox arb list around me. So I guess Danks and CQ are then. Danks $7M? CQ $10 Mill? |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Danks $7M? CQ $10 Mill? They gone! |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
More like Danks $8M and Quentin $6.5M. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
So Payroll about $115M? and they still need 4/5 more players? So to answer Kmart's question, this is why I think they are not offering Buerhle a deal as this would come closer to $140-ishM? |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
They could trade Floyd ($7M) and Quentin ($6.5). What would that do to the payroll Mr Capologist? |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Then you can bring back Buerhle and you are all happy? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Frasor had 4 good years in a row (impressive for a reliever) before last year. Not a bad move. Ive always been a fan. |
|
| Author: | THE INQUISITOR [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
bigfan wrote: Then you can bring back Buerhle and you are all happy? 1. Peavy 2. Buerhle 3. Humber 4. Sale 5. Stewart 6. Axlerod Hmmmmmmm |
|
| Author: | $5000 Suit [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Jason Frasor |
Obsession is just not a fragrance by Calvin Klein. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|