Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sleepy Harold

Brett Lawrie Settles

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:37 PM)
It's a position in which the Sox have depth that can at least replicate Lawrie.

$3 million here, $4 million there.

it adds up. And the Sox have squandered a lot with such signings of bad players.

 

To be fair, our payroll stood at 70 mil before these signings, I believe. It'll get a lot lower if we shed Melky's 15 mil etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:37 PM)
It's a position in which the Sox have depth that can at least replicate Lawrie.

$3 million here, $4 million there.

it adds up. And the Sox have squandered a lot with such signings of bad players.

 

What depth? He may play 2nd or 3rd and I'm not clammoring to get Sanchez time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:39 PM)
To be fair, our payroll stood at 70 mil before these signings, I believe. It'll get a lot lower if we shed Melky's 15 mil etc.

 

It was at 63 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:40 PM)
It was at 63 million.

 

Even better. - Melky's 15 million and Sales 13 or so. We're going to have an Oakland-like payroll if we sell these guys. Signing placeholders for 3 or 4 mil (1 WAR is worth roughly 8 mil BTW) has no effect on any business moves. They're getting paid for what they've been. Less than 1 win players

Edited by Ro Da Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:46 PM)
Even better. - Melky's 15 million and Sales 13 or so. We're going to have an Oakland-like payroll if we sell these guys. Signing placeholders for 3 or 4 mil (1 WAR is worth roughly 8 mil BTW) has no effect on any business moves. They're getting paid for what they've been. Less than 1 win players

 

Especially if they get rid of Frazier and Robertson as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 01:19 AM)
There's really not much to b**** about here unless you're looking for something to b**** about here.

 

Clueless criticism of the Sox management does seem to be the only reason some post. Every move that is made (even to fill minor league needs) is met with snarky remarks. Thus week should be very interesting

Edited by elrockinMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 06:46 PM)
Even better. - Melky's 15 million and Sales 13 or so. We're going to have an Oakland-like payroll if we sell these guys. Signing placeholders for 3 or 4 mil (1 WAR is worth roughly 8 mil BTW) has no effect on any business moves. They're getting paid for what they've been. Less than 1 win players

I wish I had your confidence that re-signing last year's bad starters means that they are now placeholders. The only way signing Lawrie makes any sense to me is if they are moving he or Saladino to 3rd as, indeed, placeholders.

 

Here were last year's mere placeholders:

Jimmy Rollins: $2,000,000

Austin Jackson: $5,000,000

Dioner Navarro: $4,000,000

Mat Latos: $3,000,000

Matt Albers: $2,000,000

Jacob Turner: $1,500,000

Alex Avila: $2,500,000

Total $20,000,000

 

Anyone who criticizes such astuteness is clueless.

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 07:51 PM)
I wish I had your confidence that re-signing last year's bad starters means that they are now placeholders. The only way signing Lawrie makes any sense to me is if they are moving he or Saladino to 3rd as, indeed, placeholders.

 

Here were last year's mere placeholders:

Jimmy Rollins: $2,000,000

Austin Jackson: $5,000,000

Dioner Navarro: $4,000,000

Mat Latos: $3,000,000

Matt Albers: $2,000,000

Jacob Turner: $1,500,000

Alex Avila: $2,500,000

Total $20,000,000

 

Anyone who criticizes such astuteness is clueless.

 

Those guys were not placeholders. That was the Sox' poor attempt at competing with sh**y players. Which is exactly why we need to rebuild. If we rebuild - truly rebuild - Avi and Lawrie are placeholders or gone if we get better players this offseason. Lawrie has 1 year until free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he could have done better on the open market or in arb. wonder why the sox tendered him if they obviously didn't want him. weird dude.

Edited by Hatchetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 07:51 PM)
I wish I had your confidence that re-signing last year's bad starters means that they are now placeholders. The only way signing Lawrie makes any sense to me is if they are moving he or Saladino to 3rd as, indeed, placeholders.

 

Here were last year's mere placeholders:

Jimmy Rollins: $2,000,000

Austin Jackson: $5,000,000

Dioner Navarro: $4,000,000

Mat Latos: $3,000,000

Matt Albers: $2,000,000

Jacob Turner: $1,500,000

Alex Avila: $2,500,000

Total $20,000,000

 

Anyone who criticizes such astuteness is clueless.

 

What's new? Go to every roster and there were players that had years, add up their salary and viola! there's your list.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Some of those players were thought to be good gambles at that point to complement the core that we had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 08:05 PM)
Those guys were not placeholders. That was the Sox' poor attempt at competing with sh**y players. Which is exactly why we need to rebuild. If we rebuild - truly rebuild - Avi and Lawrie are placeholders or gone if we get better players this offseason. Lawrie has 1 year until free agency.

I agree with you. Among those terrible signings were the 3 up the middle positions; and who were not on that list were bad/average (if one is generous) players like Lawrie and garcia. How was that team supposed to contend...and yet, Sox brass thought they had a contender and blamed injuries for 78 wins. That is simply not being attuned to reality.

Thus while Lawrie et al SHOULD be placeholders...I am not convinced that they are.

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:36 PM)
What's new? Go to every roster and there were players that had years, add up their salary and viola! there's your list.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Some of those players were thought to be good gambles at that point to complement the core that we had.

No - contenders do not have 7 players who are shots in the dark plus mediocre/bad starters like Garcia, Lawrie, Danks and 1/2 the bullpen (petricka et al).

The only players on that list who could possibly be considered good gambles were Jackson, Albers and Avila. The rest were aging and in rapid decline, except for Turner who has never been anything except terrible.

They won a good gamble on a signing: Gonzalez. Of course, they also cut Junior Guerra.

 

If they are rebuilding, I don't really care what riff raff they sign as placeholders.

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Knackattack @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 10:38 AM)
If Lawrie stays healthy and is hitting by the ASB his second half salary is going to make him a pretty big commodity at the deadline

Gotta disagree here. Lawrie is likely a 1 to 2 WAR player at this point. I'm ok with bringing him back as a depth piece at the price he agreed too, but my expectations are pretty low that he'll be worth anything of signicance by the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 08:20 PM)
Clueless criticism of the Sox management does seem to be the only reason some post. Every move that is made (even to fill minor league needs) is met with snarky remarks. Thus week should be very interesting

Lol - one could easily conclude that the unwavering support for a Sox management that has produced only one playoff appearance and one playoff win in the past 11 years is far more "clueless" than the criticism of that record has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 08:50 AM)
Gotta disagree here. Lawrie is likely a 1 to 2 WAR player at this point. I'm ok with bringing him back as a depth piece at the price he agreed too, but my expectations are pretty low that he'll be worth anything of signicance by the deadline.

I said IF he is hitting lol. I don't expect much either but if he is healthy and puts together a good 1st half, he will net us something useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 01:23 AM)
They are rebuilding. What rat's ass you give about them resigning Lawrie for $3.5M?

I actually mind this one a bit more than the Garcia one because it would be nice to see how Saladino does in a full season at 2b. That said, we should have an opening at 3b that either of them could take, but that would require Hahn to make a correct move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 11:03 AM)
I actually mind this one a bit more than the Garcia one because it would be nice to see how Saladino does in a full season at 2b. That said, we should have an opening at 3b that either of them could take, but that would require Hahn to make a correct move.

Lawrie can be cut two weeks before opening day for 1/6 of his salary. So if we decide we don't need him, the worst case scenario is he costs us $600k. And honestly, if he shows he's 100% healthy in spring training, some team would probably take on his contract if in need of IF depth. With the uncertainty of Saladino's back, I get why Hahn made this move. It's tendering Avi that makes a lot less sense IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2016 -> 11:03 AM)
I actually mind this one a bit more than the Garcia one because it would be nice to see how Saladino does in a full season at 2b. That said, we should have an opening at 3b that either of them could take, but that would require Hahn to make a correct move.

 

Isn't Saladino questionable to start the year with his back?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 4, 2016 -> 05:28 PM)
Isn't Saladino questionable to start the year with his back?

 

Read an article last week that made it seem like he is healthy and will be ready for ST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 4, 2016 -> 06:46 PM)
Read an article last week that made it seem like he is healthy and will be ready for ST.

Here's that article.

 

I'm not outraged by Lawrie getting 1 more year. I get the point, it bugs me a little - if things with him are bad enough that they even started talking about cutting him there's a reason why and that reason probably isn't just baseball, but he is fairly cheap depth and this deal is movable.

 

What will frustrate me is if Lawrie is playing 2b in April and Saladino is on the bench because you've got to play the vets to win. If he's healthy enough to be playing baseball at that time, he needs to be in the lineup just to see if we can turn him into a starter somewhere. He's exactly the kind of guy we need to be playing - some talent, not sure if he can harness it long term or not. Having a few guys like that succeed is a huge step towards rapidly solving the problem of this organization being so barren in talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 12:24 PM)
Here's that article.

 

I'm not outraged by Lawrie getting 1 more year. I get the point, it bugs me a little - if things with him are bad enough that they even started talking about cutting him there's a reason why and that reason probably isn't just baseball, but he is fairly cheap depth and this deal is movable.

 

What will frustrate me is if Lawrie is playing 2b in April and Saladino is on the bench because you've got to play the vets to win. If he's healthy enough to be playing baseball at that time, he needs to be in the lineup just to see if we can turn him into a starter somewhere. He's exactly the kind of guy we need to be playing - some talent, not sure if he can harness it long term or not. Having a few guys like that succeed is a huge step towards rapidly solving the problem of this organization being so barren in talent.

You a have mentioned many times Lawrie ' s tendency to miss a lot of games. Salado who actually is the older player has this same issue does he not?

They are trading Frazier, so there will be openings for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×