ptatc

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) With the opt out privilege, the player simply leaves. Doesn't that mitigate, to some degree, the Pippen type circumstance? It would if he left. In DA scenario he stays due to the really good FA class of 2018. The opt clause only works for the team if the player is playing well, which really doesn't work for the team because if he is playing well the team wouldn't ming paying him. I really don't see how that works for the team.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 07:23 AM) Some of my best friends... Bonds was/is an ass. That's not why he shouldn't be included, though. If the standard is cheated or not, he absolutely cheated. That's pretty easy to deduce by looking at his stats pre- and post-1999. There's a hundred years of data that shows guys don't get better from HOF level in their mid 30s. So, he didn't get caught, but everyone knows. I'm at the point where I really don't care anymore. And, I think that's ultimately how steroids ruined the game for me. I grew up a numbers freak. I used to love looking at the stats leaders and practically memorizing the backs of baseball cards. Now, I don't care because I don't know. And I won't - because the numbers aren't real. And greenies does not equal steroids. Just look at the power numbers. Players didn't suddenly learn how to hit HRs in the 90s. Describing him as an ass is bring very kind to the way he treated people at least in the visitors clubhouse.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 09:53 AM) The thing with an opt out is you don't have to opt out. I don't know why they would be opposed to signing for 5 years with an opt out after 3 even if they are scared of the big free agent class. If it doesn't look like you will get paid, you still have 2 years left on the contract. Besides, if they are afraid of the guys in 2018, they must not be too confident their performance would make a team want to pay them. The problem with scenario is that you end up with a scottie pippen situation where he got good money early but whines about "being disrespected" with being paid like a backup at the end of the deal. Its a no win for the team.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 09:59 PM) I may be wrong, but I don't remember Barry Bonds ever being caught and suspended by MLB. He missed as many games to suspension as Piazza and Bagwell did. No, but through the Grand jury testimony he was proven to have taken them during the timeframe, I believe. If they can prove the others took them during that timeframe as well, they fall in the same category.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) But this FO needs to show him that they are willing to pay to get to the playoffs. Saying that our team is better than the Reds is not saying much!! Sacrificing the future to win now is why the Sox are in the position they are. Improve the team each year while realistically protecting the future is a better plan. Besides Frazier is gone in two years anyway.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) I wonder how Todd Frazier feels now? That he he is now playing for a team that will be better than the one he left.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) No worries yet. Not sure I want any of these guys come 2019 anyways at more than 20 million correct. It goes back to the improving the team without hurting the future. I'm sure they are willing to negotiate more and they will. However. After 3 years is anyone confident that this will be a good deal? So far the team is improved for this year and they haven't hurt the future. I'm sure there is much discussion on where the team will be and if any of these players are worth a bigger contract. Many people on this board want the Sox to build from within. So far they haven't strayed from that and a big contract could hamper that in the future.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 12:34 PM) Its cheating, regardless. And many of those guys were never caught with anything, just talked about. Bagwell and Piazza specifically GMAB, the hall of fame is a popularity contest and it will never be right going forward, there will ALWAYS be cheaters somehow. People want to pick and choose what is ok to look past, and bottom line is none of it is ok to look past, but people have been looking past it forever, The steroid era happened, everyone is under suspicion in that era. I dont even care anymore, Bonds was a HOFer before and after he bulked up. Goes back to the same discussion of degrees of breaking the rules. Is speeding the same as murder? Does changing your body to improve performance the same as using something to improve your focus? I would say with the sosa, Bonds, McGwire HR chase the steriod advancement did alot more than the greenies ever did. Everyone took greenies, everyone. In the late 80's and early 90's we had coffee pots in the locker room labeled leaded and unleaded. Most thought it was caffiene and non- caffiene. It was greenies and non-greenies. You can equate the two if you want, I'm just not sure everyone does or will. there is also the line of thinking that it was not cheating until there was a rule against it. Let players in the HOF before the rules were made. If they were caught after, they don't get in. Bonds was a HOF prior to his PED use. However, he was caught cheating after the rules were in place. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong but it's not a black and white " all get in or none get in" case.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) Well the rumor is the Royals offered around 4/$52M, so my guess is a lot more. The Sox just gave Melky $15M/per, don't see why they wouldn't be willing to give a much better player in Gordon close to $20M per over four seasons. If that's truly the case, I wonder why he hasn't signed yet. Something tells me that isn't the whole story.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 04:41 PM) I agree with both of these posts. Too many people buying into the "Gordon won't leave KC." Obviously there's a chance these people are right, but he's already given them a team friendly contract. This is his chance to break bank. He'd be silly to take far less money to stay with them. Don't get me wrong, the Sox are definitely talking to Cespedes. I just think he's the back up plan at this point and the rumors are overblown. I don't even know who Tony Cruz is. Seriously. My Cubs buddy who is smart keeps saying, "Everybody loves the Cubs" and cites the Heyward conference. I think this is the key. How far over the KC offer are the sox willing to go? I have no doubt it will be more but how much?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) In terms of NOW, I doubt any of the deals he was offered gave him $76 million in the first three years. No not in the first three years but over the length of the contract. The whole conversation started with "did he sign a discounted contract not from his home team." As the contract stands, he did not take the most money. He took a contract with the potential to sign a bigger one later. He did not sign the contract that would pay him the most money. He could have signed a contract that would have guaranteed him more money with another team.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:32 PM) He's not taking less now though. He's getting $78M over three years. Those other deals would have most likely been back loaded. He's making more now and later assuming no sudden drop off in performance over the next three years. If so, he loses roughly $16M or so in years 6 through 8 of his contract, which is significantly less than the potential payoff. Sure he is. He signed a 184 million deal instead of a 200 million deal. If he dislocates his hip this year he will make less money. He signed it with the intention of opting out to make more later. He is betting on himself to continue to produce at a high level for three years to make more later.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) If the Sox do sign Gordon, it would be interesting to hear what the reasons are that he would say in his press conference. I agree. He really seems to want to stay in KC. However, if there offer is really low, he will come up with something. 1. He couldn't pass it up. 2. Sox are doing alot of good things. 3. Still close to his home in Neb.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) Yes. But do you really think if there was no opt out he would have taken $16 million less for 8 years? I don't know. Probably not if money is the issue. But realistically when you are talking 184 million, what's 16 million. If he wants to win or be in a good situation it may have been depending on what other teams offered the bigger money.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:30 PM) Isn't his average about $28 million the first 3 years? Then he could opt out. He is risking about $16 million with a chance to make a lot more. If he is great, Theo probably lets him walk, and gets 3 prime years out of him, and doesn't have to pay for the decline. I still think he is going to start hitting homers, but his defense will fall off a bit. 245 pound guys legs don't age all that well IMO. I agree. I didn't know that the AAV for the first few was that high. The cubs really front loaded it to get him to sign. That does make the difference in the money.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) He took guaranteed less, but the option of getting another HUGE contract in three years, and if he sucks or is horrifically injured, he still gets a substantial guarantee. Correct, but the point was he didn't take the most money available. He signed to contract for other reasons than the biggest contract. He signed it with the possibility of more money later, hopefully.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) Technically he was, but without the opt outs when he gets his money the first 3 years and then signs another huge contract. since he was offered 200 million by other teams, he is taking less for a few years, in order to boost his value in 3 years to make more than the 200 guaranteed now. this will work out provide a) he continues to produce, b) he doesn't get hurt, c) there is a team willing to spend that much more on an older player. He is really betting on himself. I think I would have gone for the big money now, if the money is his only concern.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) Overall, but with the opt outs, if he is any good, he will make more. The players association doesn't like players, especially the really big names taking discounts. That is why I doubt Gordon would go back to the Royals if their offer is significantly less than any other team. A slight discount is fine, but a large one would be a no no. So, in other words, he signed this deal due to the opt outs not the most money in the deal. He signed it with the possibility of more money later not more money now.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:18 PM) Exactly. What's is AAV in the deal if he opts out after three years? And he'll most likely be looking at a $200M contract at that time from his next team. He didn't take a discount whatsoever, he simply took the over that maximized his potential earnings while also providing a nice security blanket if something went wrong for him. Weren't there reports that he was offered 200 million by other teams? By his own admission during interviews, he was offered more money elsewhere. He did not however specify the amount.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) Despite what the Chicago media likes to report, his contract is hardly a discount. He'll make way more money in the long run with the Cubs contract structure. According to all media accounts, he was offered more money elsewhere. If this is true then there were others things that played into signing the contract with the cubs.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 12:12 PM) Why would a guy get to free agency and then take any sort of discount from a non hometown team? Cespedes will take big $$, agreed. Ask Jason Heyward.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) I thought we were talking Garcia. OOOPS, my bad. I was skipping around and read it wrong. For Garcia, you are correct.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) If he was using the same approach and swing, yes it would be a waste. If they want to change some things up, it is worth a shot. Nelson Cruz was a failed AAAA player until he changed some things up and/or took some booster shots. The example really doesnt apply as Laroche is a very accomplished MLB player who had a bad year. He was never a failed AAAA player. Laroche is going to go one of two ways, he either his skills have eroded from age, or he will rebound from a bad year.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) He doesn't platoon for the purpose of real platooning at all. so the only evidence i can provide is pinch hitting and pinch running. Evidence which is, predictably, ignored. Now the CW is that Soto with his .780 OPS against lefties is no good....esp compared to Laroche and his .383 OPS. Why wouldn't you play a 2nd catcher at another position? To protect against the slight chance that the starting catcher is injured? So you put yourself at a disadvantage game after game, to protect the slight chance that the starting catcher may get hurt and cost you one game? And the groupthink keeps rolling on. Its not from the slight chance that the catcher gets injured only. Its also that if he plays the backup catcher that way he has zero options for pinch hitting later. He would really limit his options unless he has a viable third catcher.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) One player he had was Soto. He pinch hit a grand total of 4 times. He DHd 3 games. Most managers will not use the backup catcher in that role. The sox would have the pitcher hitting in that scenario which is even a worse idea than not platooning.