Chisoxfn

If they went Corbin, Donaldson, Cruz and two other guys, would that be that bad of a move, presuming you went short-term on almost everyone. I don't like long-term deals to pitchers so it wouldn't be my path, but I don't really mind signing a bunch of guys to shorter-term deals and not tying up all your cap space. How did it work for the Rangers when they signed Arod to all that money? The only reason I can somewhat get on board is the team has literally so few payroll committments, but if either guy blows up and isn't productive...that is a huge albatross of a contract.

I still don't think the Sox are getting either one of these guys.

I think they need to run it out...not sprint it out. But on close hit balls, they should be going harder. Basically, I'm not going to rip a guy for not being Adam Eaton on the basepaths. That said, I don't want them to not run at all. There is a healthy middle between those two.

I think their is a difference between running out a ball and sprinting out a ball.

Machado's hustle reminds me of "Garret Anderson" a former Angel player who would go at 90% vs. 110% and ultimately he had a very long career which was largely injury free. Dodger fans are big over-reactors and I think this got a lot of extensive press time, but the reality is Machado is a truly great player who has been on the field the vast majority of his career. The flip-side is Harper, who is an ultra talented player with lots of pizazz who will play his tail out, but has had extended stretches where he misses time (and I think there are times he lets his emotions get the best of him in the sense that he lets those emotions impact his swing/play. The only thing the two players really have in common is they are both extremely good baseball players, but how they go about it, etc is very much different.

It is free agency, if you are going for Machado and Harper, you are fundamentally going to overpay and need to be okay with that. An alternative view is to shell out big money but over shorter-term deals for guys who languish a bit longer on the FA market. You know some won't pan out but you hit on a few and than in another year or two you dabble in the deep-end.

I can buy that. I don't like the idea of spending big money on FA pitchers. Just think you have a bigger chance of "bust" vs. hitters. No idea if the stats back that up or not.

There is no bigotry in there. I don't agree with the comment, but I don't see it as bigotry. Lets make sure we all stay on topic here. It is purely a view that the more populous regions should have far more say than everywhere else. Its a view I fundamentally disagree with because what is important to an urban dweller can be much different than what is politically important to people who don't live in Chicago, New York or Dallas. The beauty of our system is it does provide some pretty good healthy checks on the entire nation (not just a pocket or two of the nation).

The flipside to that is you essentially give all of the control to a minority of states, which I don't think is a good thing either. The views of California, New York, Florida and Texas shouldn't be forced on the other 46 states.

I don’t know if he’s going to stay healthy or not but he has good peripherals. His stats last year were quiet strong...albeit I don’t know much about him.

What is wrong with Corbin?

Glad you mentioned Felicio. He is in much better shape this year and I do hope this burn helps make him a bit more tradeable. I think its going to take prolonged run of decent play though, before you can move him.

Since it is the off-season, we've closed the diamond club. All MLB discussion should go on this page. Should be an exciting off-season and hopefully it is one that significantly moves this franchise forward!

I'd be interested in Yasmani Grandal as a catcher. Was bummed when the Dodgers made him a qualifying offer.

Have the Sox fallen so far, that the Tribune literally hasn't had a writer come up with anything relative to the news out there. I'd have thought this would have been the type of thing you'd have seen some beat guys start to talk about/discuss.

The worst part of these rumors is they will drag on for like a month or two (are they Boras clients?)

I'm starting my campaign for Harper. The team needs more pizazz vs. Machado who is essentially "Trout" with a bit less WAR (i.e., your steadily great player whose most exciting bit is whether he "hustles" all the time).

Here's my question. We have discussions in the other thread about who is the better baseball player, but if you were purely looking at it from a business perspective, do you think one guy moves the needle more and if so, how significantly? I honestly don't know that Machado moves the needle at all, however, I think Harper moves the needle significantly. He's much watch TV. He's the baseball player with personality and bizazz who is pretty much the face of MLB (despite Trout and many others being better players). I think Machado doesn't register much more than a blip from a marketability perspective (did he really make the Oriole's a much watch team)? I think for Machado to move the needle, the franchise has to win games. I think Harper moves the needle alone and gives the front office a bit more time for the rest of the team to catch up. Eventually Harper alone won't work...but I think Harper alone is a game changer in your TV negotiations and if you build a winner around him, it could be the type of move that catapults the franchise forward. On the flipside, the downfall to both of these guys is if they get hurt and/or stink the vast majority of the contract (i.e., go all Jason Heyward).

Its not happening and I think you have to be careful to make sure players know you are "interested" in them. Cash matters but I presume there are going to ultimately be a couple offers all in the same ball park, so than the pitch becomes more important.

Plus its a franchise that literally owns its market and is one of the most marketable teams in the world. You really can't compare the Bulls spending habits (a premier franchise in the NBA) to that of the White Sox (one of the least marketable teams in the big league at this point in time).

Yep - I completely agree. It seems like a team that gets him is going to get a better on the field "value".

Yep - Its why from a baseball perspective, I like Machado more, but if Harper leads to more eyes and a bigger TV contract, etc (plus general excitement / shift of franchise), it could end up leading to better coffers for other baseball moves, etc. Hard to say. Harper could also be better than Manny, however, from a pure WAR perspective, I'd bet on Machado putting up better numbers than Harper over the course of the contract. Of course, Harper has the upside to be the best player in the game.

Arci has played surprisingly decent this year.

Yeah - This certainly makes it harder on the Bears. The good thing is they are a young team, which hopefully has a better chance of navigating through those waters healthy. But that is going to be a tough toll on the players. Lets just hope they play well and crush it (and maintain health). Its been fun regularly watching the Bears compete. I am a dead horse on this...but it is absurd that they don't have 2 bye weeks, given how beat up football players get. Stick one between your Thursday night game and do the other at random. NFL should do its best to ensure quality TV at all times, while trying to keep players healthy. Having 2 different bye weeks would be huge. Secondarily, it could create more opportunity for continued trade deadline momentum since an extra bye week can potentially give you more time to acclimate a new player into your system/scheme (mid-season).

I know I've said it a few times already, but I still think the "marketability" of Harper could play a huge part in the Sox plans. They have had dismal ratings and Harper is one of the few "must watch players" in the game today. While I think Machado is the smarter signing (from a pure baseball perspective), I can't ignore the fact that signing Harper could be much more impactful to the teams marketing and TV deals. If I were running the White Sox, I think I'd probably put a lean towards Harper for all of those reasons and in fact, could use those reasons as a basis for overpaying. The Sox obviously need to win, but signing Harper in an of itself makes the franchise far more watchable to the general public. And for a franchise who literally is amongst the worst in baseball in that category...spending money on a guy who can dramatically shift that balance of power singlehandedly is huge. I might be overselling what Harper brings and leads to, but if you can get your young players to rebound and Harper plays good....its going to get a lot more eyeballs than if the same thing happened with Machado, imo.