Balta1701

So out of the 3 people who I said you get to keep 2, you're letting Colome walk. Thank you for agreeing and explaining your position.

Apparently no because one of them has a guarantee.

If Moncada and Giolito are anything like this level of player next year, then they're each >$10 million. I sure hope that they're that good next year.

After seeing how Rick Hahn spent $50 million this offseason, and considering that Giolito, Lopez, and Moncada all hit arbitration in 2020 (so maybe $25 million in payroll increases right there)...yeah.

So the 100% obvious question is, why the F*** was he playing the field so often while Alonso, a better fielding 1b, was DHing?

If you don't like how JR runs the team literally your only option is to become a fan of another team. The reality is - yes you can sign Jose Abreu to a 3 year deal, but that also means in 2021 you don't get someone else. For a not unreasonable example, You get to keep 2 of the 3: Jose Abreu, James McCann, and Alex Colome. Which do you let leave?

Because it never comes out of JRs money and you don't get to pretend it will. Instead the money comes out of your next reliever. You sign a Will Ohman for 2 years instead of an Andrew Miller because of that money. Ohman is ok, Andrew Miller is one of the best relievers in baseball.

Well first and foremost, we're conditioned to expect that. Why? Because in the last decade we've seen 2 expensive DHs on this very team basically do that to the letter: Dunn put up one of the worst seasons in MLB history and LaRoche was so bad we're glad he retired. Both of them produced better than Abreu did this season and then fell apart the next year. Worse still, fastball velocities have gone up league wide, especially since the Dunn signing, so if the thing that causes guys to fall off a cliff is that they slow down too much with age, the risk is still quite high that this player will hit a cliff at some point. Given our recent history with the DH position it'd be more surprising to us if he didn't fall apart than if he did. Secondly...we already have seen substantial declines from Abreu. You like batting average, his batting average has dropped a lot. His strikeout rate has gone up. He's swinging hard to still hit home runs, but if that last skill starts to weaken he has nothing left. So already he's not nearly the hitter he was 3 years ago and we shouldn't pay him as though he is. Third, you haven't bothered to understand any of people's actual discussion of Abreu, which isn't exactly surprising considering you don't bother to understand most things people write to you. While he may not fall off a cliff next year, or the year after, it is also not unreasonable to expect his performance to continue to take steps downwards, as we've seen this season. That may not happen, he may have a career year left in him, but people don't want to pay him with the expectation he'll have a career year and you don't want to lock yourself into him if he does continue the path downwards he's already ono. If we had a great lineup in 2021 and Abreu took a major step back that year, playing him every day at DH because he's well paid could be the thing that costs us the division. So, just about everyone is ok with bringing him back for 1 year at the right price. A number of us are ok with 2 years or 1 year and an option for a 2nd year. Almost everyone who looks at this says that if he wants anything beyond that, he's going to have to hit the next 2 years because no team in baseball would sign him to a 3 year deal when his performance has already dropped off a lot. Also a lot of us understand that his free agent value right now is something like $10-$12 million on a 1 year deal, so anything beyond that is over-paying for a guy, and under Reinsdorf's roster, overpaying 1 guy means we have other guys we can't sign.

I would say it probably depends on what happens in the postseason...but I would genuinely be surprised if the Yankees stayed beneath the tax next year again. Since the tax was instituted, the only 2 years when the Yankees didn't pay it are 2018 and 2019. They have the money to absolutely blow past it if they want to. If they go out in the ALCS and Cole is sitting there...after the way this season has gone and their starting pitching being their likeliest Achilles heel against the Astros, they're going to be up near the top. What their final number is I won't guess, but $200 million is not an issue for that franchise. They could readily go up to the point where they start losing draft picks. Edit: Also worth thinking about, these 2 teams are playoff rivals. If hypothetically the Dodgers were willing to go to $250, the last thing the Yankees would want is for the Dodgers to get him for only $220. That's an extra high level reliever the Dodgers could afford that could pitch against the Yankees in the playoffs several years in a row, if they both got that far. So strategically they both have reason to put their strongest bid on the table and not mess around, and Boras will happily use that.

If Andrew Vaughn needs 2 or 3 years in the minors then we completely f***ed up his scouting. A player with that level of college experience and performance at a fairly easy position should not need "2 or 3 years". If he's in the minors 2 years from now, then either he got hurt or we start using the B-word for him. There shouldn't be that much for him to learn by facing minor leaguers that he needs anywhere near that amount of time. If he was scouted correctly, then the only reason he should be in the minors a year from right now is if we're playing the service time game for him and holding him down until April of 2021 for the extra year of control, it should not be because of performance. If he's not performing well enough to be up at this time next year...then we should be loudly asking what is wrong.

This is why, frankly, I don't believe the White Sox will even bother this year. With professional teams like the Yankees and Dodgers in the bidding, cutesy stuff won't matter.

The only way he gets less than David Prices 7/$217 IMO is if he get hurt before this season ends. I would say that the largest FA contract ever given to a pitcher is a starting point.

I could believe that too. I think the difference between those 2 contracts seems fairly minor. If I was willing to go to 7/$225 I'd probably do the 8/$240 just to make sure I got him.

That's right around my guess for his contract value.

Defensively he's a tick above Abreu and offensively he's a tick below Abreu for each of the last 2 seasons. In fWAR, he has actually outperformed Abreu over the last 2 combined seasons. So if you're saying "That guy sucks" about a guy who has performed comparably to Jose Abreu and who is a similar age...that's exactly why some people are hesitant about a multi year deal or just saying "you'll absolutely be back!" to Abreu. You can't tell me "Justin Smoak sucks!" when he has performed similarly to Jose Abreu without having to say the exact same thing about Jose Abreu. They are very similar overall players for the last 3 years.

I think you're lumping together people who want him gone and people who are hesitant about a "multi year deal" for this player. I also am generally nervous about the thread since promising a guy he'll be back can also be a promise that you're going to overpay for the guy, because you've literally given away negotiating leverage once you say that. If I ignore the promise in the thread title and just try to fill the position for next year, if it comes down to Jose Abreu on a 2 year deal and Justin Smoak on a 1 year deal next year based entirely on baseball performance...gosh I'm actually not sure which I'd do.

Had RR said that there was a balance needed, sometimes going with your gut or using infromation you get by talking to your guys, and sometimes going with what the stats say, and then perhaps giving an example of each case, no one would complain about this. However, because he goes so strongly against statistics and people keep asking about it, he cites the need for balance, gives no examples of balance, and then tells anyone who is wondering where his statistics use is to bleep off.

Yeah but that was still what, $50 million beneath the tax level?

They're going no where close to that any time under this ownership.

It's plate appearances, not ABs. It's 3.1 plate appearances per game played by the team to qualify. Gotta count the walks.

And you know what? If RR wanted to present himself as honest, strong, and intelligent, he could have said exactly that and then followed it up with an example of something that he thought analytics didn't catch and an example of a place where analytics helped him understand something and reshape his thinking. That would have been a great example of the "Balance" he literally said was important and an excellent, strong response to people asking about it. It would show he's a strong manager but he's also open minded and it would even speak well to his ability to help players benefit from the flood of new information. Instead...well, bleep off.

I seriously think you're giving this front office way too much credit. That said, we'll see. You've got what, 2 offseasons where he'd need to be replaced for you to be right, otherwise RH would clearly be endorsing "This block head".

I fully read this as him talking to fans and media types who push for such things. I assumed this started with a question about either analytics or lineup constructin. But if this is the manager taking a private disagreement between him and the front office out into the open and demanding that he's in control and the front office isn't...he should have been fired last night. You want to disagree with the front office about something go ahead. Figure out a way to work with them in a productive way. You want to go whine and swear to the media about it? With your .423 career won/loss mark? Go find another job.

These comments are a window into that. If he actually wanted to talk about balance and the importance of combining feedback from his players with feedback and information from the front office that's one thing, but that's not what he said here. He alluded to balance and then ripped the idea of feedback from one side because he's in charge. He feels he should be immune from criticism, and when nothing happens to him, it'll just reinforce that entitlement.

They won't - because this type of statement fully represents their mindset. "Someone else is doing something different? Bleep off, this is how we've always done it and we earned the right to say this".