LDF

so does any one really know what the final tally is. is the payroll at 70+ mil as of tonite?

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 05:03 AM) The posts I have read on this site shows me this forum is made up of extremely knowledgeable people. Makes me proud to be a ChiSox fan knowing we have fans that are knowledgeable of the game. What is our budget usually about? different times different era different budget. this yr, 100 mil +/- i will not get into the rah rah stuff about these great posters as well. the early 2002 + was really wild. dang there i go again sounding like someone gandpa. but i am tell the truth, also don't count the mods and admin out. they are great as well.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:55 AM) It's mind-blowing to me that Kemp, Ethier, and Crawford all count for over $60M vs the Dodgers payroll this year and all have 3 or more years left on their deals. yeah but lets put it this way. the Dodgers TV deal is what at least 50+ mil per yr. i really think it is more, but for this, they are getting a crap load of money. subtract from the total salary per, and it is a affordable to go really crazy on fa's. it was kind of funny on how big george of the yanks thought he could buy his yearly WS ring. he only won once in the a certain time span.

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:48 AM) I'm confused if we sign him to a contract say 5/50 mil for the sake of easy math. I get we'd have to pay the 50 mil dollar fine and not being able to sign international talent for 2 years for more than 300k. But what would the actual hit on this years cap be? 10 mil or what? If it's just the small hit I don't see why it's even a question to sign him. If he is as good as advertised you aren't going to get a chance at a guy like him every year so they probably wouldn't miss much for 2 seasons. I don't know I could be completely lost on how the international signing work. But to me he is worth the 2 years of not signing international talent. Again I have no idea how the cap hit will affect the ability to sign players from the free agency pool. a good question, i am more than sure these guys here will have the answer. my other point, wouldn't that really go beyond the budget that JR gave Hahn and the budget that Hahn said to the fans??

i hate to say this, but a poster describe it as bin driving, and as the state of the sox systems, i don't mind the sox brass doing it. every once in a while they might find a great find and he will be a great value.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 10:35 PM) Yep I posted that before I realized Kemp's 2014 wasn't injury prone. Kemp was very good haha Alexei definitely goes in a deal i really thought i miss something, i had to work today and i been out of the loop. by this part i thought a trade went down. whew

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 09:45 PM) Contract, or not, I think it's silly to put Quintana on par with Sale or Trout. There are no metrics that could convince me otherwise. I think their contracts bear that out as well. There is a reason Trout makes what he makes and Quintana makes what he makes. I'm not saying anything bad about Quintana, to me, he's just not as good as those other guys. Hypothetically, I would guess if all 4 were on the FA market, the order in size of contracts offered would be Trout, Sale, Bruce, Quintana. Maybe I am missing your point. if you don't mind, lets flip this, what value would you put Q at???

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:46 AM) From what I understand it was more pouting vs being competitive. Who knows, though. I haven't run into many knowledgeable Dodgers fans, quite frankly. I'm also not sure the Sox are a team looking to take on a 8 year/ $160M contract that is going into only it's second year. Dodgers would have to send some serious money the Sox way for it to really make any sense, IMO. there you go, you are thinking dodger fan = knowledgeable. you may be right on everything, i was just thinking out loud. with what is left in the budget, that ship sailed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 06:23 PM) The player alone doesn't have that value. The player + the contract status is what makes it close. If I'm comparing the value of Trout and Quintana, yes Trout is clearly a better player, but with Quintana's deal, I have an extra $100 million to go play the free agent market with, and Quintana + that extra 6/$100 has a good chance of being close to as productive as Trout. Yes, there's a benefit to having a single guy who's that productive, so it's not 100% a perfect comp and I don't want anyone to take it as that, but there's also a benefit to being able to have extra money to spend on the FA market since you could also get lucky and find a guy like Morneau with some of that money who massively overplays his contract. The point ought to be that no, you wouldn't trade Trout for Quintana straight up, but that's about the level of deal you need to think about before you start considering moving Quintana. If you swap in Sale, or Trout, in the proposed deal, do you laugh at it? Do you laugh at a deal of Sale or Trout for Jay Bruce? It's hilarious and crazy. Jose Quintana in that deal is equally hilarious and crazy. the bolded part, that was a great explanation.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 09:54 PM) Chapman, Bruce and RHSP for Q, Montas + We're close to contender talk there and we are relieving the Reds of quite a bit of salary. have you look at the Reds minor league, they have some arms down there. now i don't know if any are elite.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:36 AM) I heard a lot of Dodgers fans talking about how vocal he was last year about not playing CF. To a certain extent, I get it but at the same time, he presents himself more as a "me player" than a "team player". Obviously this is all my opinion, though. however that is some good NEW info to have. i appreciate it. but is that pouting or being competitive? i also remember he took Puig to task for something. either way, something like that fire is what i was wondering if the sox need now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 03:45 AM) Just in general, if we wind up having a genuine personality conflict where several people are unhappy with their roles, do you have confidence in this manager to hold that team together? I think my answer is pretty apparent. part 2. i also have confidence in the players to do the right thing and step in. i truly hope that the sox will talk to kemp before the trade. to see his thought process. on a side note, using advance stats, while it may be good, does anyone really think a manager can manage a team today by that??? i truly like the advance stats, i don't know how to do it, i am still in my finger and toe counting regime.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:30 AM) Are you asking this about Kemp or Scotty? kemp

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 11:41 PM) You shoulda seen the associations back in 2004 while I was drinking still. Now it's all in fun before it was just plain nonsensical madness. All and all - it's in fun... s*** all over the clown man. but that was some kool times ..................... soxtalk rules the internet then AND STILL DOES.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 04:23 AM) Kemp is a big baby & one that can't keep healthy at that. I'm with certain posters here who would want Van Slyke. Kemp seems like he has a huge ego & I wouldn't want anything to do with that. now that in opinion supported with thoughts, i accept that. what kind of talk has anyone heard that he was a negative person on the team?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 03:45 AM) Just in general, if we wind up having a genuine personality conflict where several people are unhappy with their roles, do you have confidence in this manager to hold that team together? I think my answer is pretty apparent. i do, esp with coaches and a GM who has his back. believe me when i say, he prob learned alot during this past yrs as manager.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 23, 2014 -> 01:07 AM) Before my time and looks like I've been ignorantly disrespecting a legend. You're a poor representation of an icon, my man. oh man did I miss something here. Clown, it was all in jest, my question is why are you offended? this is nothing but a respectful humor. the reason I am writing is b/c I said something's that you may have also taken offense. so I am just as guilty. unless this is a release of pressure as the sox are reaching the upper limits of the sox budget. then I can understand. its all good. this is sox baseball. peace

totally unrelated to any discussions going on. the sox is fixing themselves quite nicely. nice quiet type of players, I think. but sometime the team needs a spark to get the team rolling. a fire cracker type of a player. a player who has a sort of an edge or attitude. I am wondering if Kemp can be that positive type of player.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) I threw this out there in the predict the next move thread. I'm wondering if the possible trade could be Q + Semien or Sanchez for Bruce and Latos? As I said in the other thread, I'm not advocating trading Q. Just trying to understand the Q "+" bit. crazy sox are giving up toooo much.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) Justin Masterson not a bad option, I was thinking of him before the season was over. but the outlook and the direction got chg there. I don't know if he will be that option now. same cost I might as well go with Edinson Volquez and with this ballclub there are sooo many positive players to surround him.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 04:03 PM) I really want Headley's defense on the White Sox but I'm starting to second guess the idea because of the potential salary and contract. Will Headley's bat and defense be worth the extra 13/14M per year? Im really doubting it. The Sox still have Gillaspie at league minimum for one more season before he starts his arbitration years in 2016. Gillaspie is just 27, might be worth the wait and see what kind of improvements he can make in 2015. that is the main point at least for me. the sox can deal with Conor and use that money somewhere else. esp if the sox are on a budget, they may be getting close to that upper limit allowed.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) Wily Mo Pena could platoon with LaRoche. this is a time, as hi8is would say, time to throw up in the clowns shoe.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) I'm pretty certain that Hahn could have gotten Ethier instead of LaRoche. He made his choice. We'll see who has the better year. Ethier probably hits better, not as much power, plays outfield, first base, DH, more speed, younger, makes Viciedo expendable, extra year, loss of a prospect, better looking. I'd have taken Ethier by a nose. I wonder if that trade option with the dodgers is a close deal now.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) LaRoche was way better than Dunn last year and can actually play some 1B. And other than being left-handed first basemen with significant platoon splits, I'm not sure they're that similar. LaRoche is more than just a three outcome hitter against RHP. These Dunn to LaRoche comparisons are just lazy. yeah but Dunn can pitch

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 02:45 PM) I would think the use of the phrase "surplus value" would cover that, but that said, just because Quintana would "only" put up 32 WAR over 6 seasons doesn't mean he should just be traded away. If Trout is 51 WAR over the same 6 years, that still kind of illustrates that Quintana is likely one of the most valuable players in the league for that time span regardless of contract, and shouldn't just be offered up as trade bait unless you're getting several quality major league contributors or one or two extremely high caliber major league contributors in return. When you factor contract in, it becomes nigh impossible to get value out of Quintana in a trade. that is why fans don't see the superstar |s| trade that often. the ballclubs involve, those players are just doing a chg of scenery.