Lillian

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 17, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) If you can get Dodgers to pay for half of Ethier's deal, I would rather have a platoon with him and Raburn than spending 100 mil on Cespedes Yes, however if the Sox don't ask for money, perhaps it wouldn't take much in talent, going back to the Dodgers. A couple of years at $17.5 million shouldn't break the bank.

I like Frazier's power, but not that OBP. And, I'm worried about the switch to the A.L.

Who is another viable option for the Sox to be their Cleanup hitter? It would be reassuring to know that there is another candidate, if Cespedes signs elsewhere. Please don't tell me that Cabrera, or Frazier is going to bat behind Abreu, or God forbid Adam La Roche. There must be a player out there somewhere, whom the Sox could acquire, without giving up too much. Is there someone, to whom a team would like to rid themselves of paying a high salary, for the next 2 to 3 years? Someone besides CarGo or Ethier?

After reading that article in the NY Daily New, I am even more convinced that giving Cespedes a long term guaranteed contract would be unwise. I have argued that such contracts are generally not a good idea because it is human nature to lose a little motivation, once guaranteed a huge amount of money. This guy seems to be just the kind of player who would be affected by such a disincentive. There are guys who have the make up to overcome the inherent temptation to let down, once on "easy street," but Cespedes doesn't strike me as one of them. If the Sox were to sign him, I really believe that the amount of money would be less important than the deal's structure. There should be enough incentives built into the contract, to keep him focused on being the best baseball player he can be. If the guy is already playing golf every day, during the season, and smoking cigarettes, during the game, I'd hate to see what he would be doing once he has signed the final contract of his baseball career!! One of the best ways to keep a guy like this on the right path, is to have him playing for his next contract. It probably isn't a coincidence that he played the best baseball of his career, during that last half of his free agent year. Giving him an opt out, with the prospect of being able to earn more money with a new contract, seems to me to be the best way to keep him motivated. If there is a realistic, better way to keep him motivated, then the front office should try it, but whatever they do, I hope that they don't just give him a 5 year deal, at the same annual salary, each year. Remember, there are much worse things than golf and cigarettes, and a guy with millions of dollars laying around, will easily find them, and sometimes they will find him. Robbie Robertson, the lead guitar player of the great rock group, The Band, once said; "What is it about fame and fortune, that immediately leads one to ask; "Has anyone got any arsenic, or a gun?"

If he is really seriously considering a 5 year deal, at $90 Million, why not offer him a 5 year, $100 Million deal, with an opt out after 2 years? Wouldn't you think that he'd find that much more intriguing? The total value of the deal is considerably less than most had originally thought, and if he has so much confidence in his ability, he could leave in two years, in a weak free agent market, and do even better, for himself. However, I'd still want the final 2 or 3 years to be less than the first couple of years, just to keep him highly motivated and encourage him to opt out. But then you all know that has consistently been my take on this thing. All that has changed is that the numbers now seem more favorable for the signing team. And please don't remind me about the front office needing to back load any contract, because Danks and La Roche will be coming off the books, at the end of the year. I know, but I don't accept that they can't be more flexible, on a year to year basis. The fact that those contracts will be expiring should give the front office a little room to work. If they absolutely insist on balancing their budget each fiscal year, then adjust years one and two, to suit their financial objectives, with less in year one, and a lot more in year two. Just make sure that the money starts to drop, coincident with the opt out. That way, he has an incentive to leave. It's not that I really want him to leave, but the front doesn't seem to want to commit to keeping him long term, and the opt out, if structured properly, encourages that. I personally wouldn't object to committing to a guy for his age 33 and 34 seasons, but I'm not the GM, nor is it my money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2016 -> 07:37 PM) If he just defected, he is months away from being able to sign. Apparently, that is not necessarily the case. He left Cuba legally.

I just checked the stats on Baseball Reference: http://www.baseball-reference.com/register...id=bell--001ale In his 5 seasons, between the ages of 23 and 27, he hit 87 homers and 89 doubles, in 1,335 at bats. That is a homer every 15 at bats. Over that same period, he also walked considerably more than he struck out. Now, how you translate those numbers to a MLB projection, is another question.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 14, 2016 -> 06:49 PM) Dude has no power. Hard pass. He actually does have some power. If you look at his stats in Cuba, you'll see that he has a substantial number of homers. The season is much shorter there, but there are a few years where he compiled some pretty decent power numbers. He's only 5' 7" but weighs almost 190 pounds. He sounds like a little "fire plug".

He's a little guy, who draws a lot of walks, and rarely strikes out. Knowledge of the strike zone and patience at the plate are skills which translate fairly well to higher levels of competition. I wonder how good his defense is in RF.

Wouldn't it be funny if Upton, Cespedes and Davis all signed one year "pillow contracts," with the idea of re-entering free agency in next years "weak" class"? Suddenly, next year's free agent class becomes stronger than this year's, by virtue of subtracting those 3 from this year's crop, and adding them to next year's.

Austin Jackson is not a significant offensive upgrade over Avi. In fact, given Avi's age and inexperience, it would be reasonable to hope that he might out produce Jackson. Jackson would bring better defense, but that is not worth the money, which he would cost. If the Sox are going to settle for nothing more than a defensive upgrade in the outfield, I'd rather they tried to accomplish it with a young player with potential, who would not cost much. There are plenty of guys around who haven't yet been able to demonstrate that they can be productive Major League hitters, but are good defensive players. Guys like Jordan Danks, and Trayce Thompson, who are both now gone, would make more sense than signing Jackson. In any case, if a new outfield acquisition is made, he better be able to play RF. I don't want to see Eaton or Melky out there, in that corner. Cespedes is a different story, as his bat and defensive upgrade in LF would be enough to compensate for weaker defense in RF. You guys have persuaded me that he would not be willing, or even able, according to some, to play RF.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) I think most of the teams that would spend that kind of money either don't have room or are spending their cash on other needs. The price will go down, but not all that drastically. He's still going to probably get at least $20 million a year for 3 years. How many teams are looking for corner OF help who could add that right now without being up against a roster crunch or luxury tax complications? I'd offer him 3 with an opt out after 2. I think that could be better for him if he performs than a 4 year deal. And better for the Sox. They get a totally motivated player. One whose performance increased tremendously when he was playing for a contract, and in 2 years, they will have some guys potentially off the books if they wish to re-sign him, or let someone else pay him for his decline. I completely agree, as you can well imagine. Thank you.

Now you're talking. Except forget about LF. Let him DH and just write off La Roche as a sunk cost. If Avi couldn't hack it in RF, just let Shuck play there. I really wanted Davis way back in 2010, after Thome left. You know me, always coveting a left handed slugger. I took a lot of heat here, from those who insisted he wasn't any good. That was one I got right. Unfortunately, the Sox would never spend the money. However, that would really make their offense dangerous.

Here are CarGo's numbers vs. the A.L. last year, in 73 at bats: .233 .278 .479 .758 Of course, it's an awfully small sample size. Nevertheless, pretty awful!! His career numbers vs. the A.L. are very good, so that is encouraging.

The split stats of Rockies hitters scare a lot of us, for good reason. I worry enough about N.L. hitters, let alone guys who play at an elevation of one mile. When a guy hits .100 points higher in AVG and OBP at home, you have to be skeptical about what he would really contribute in the A.L.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 04:50 PM) turns 34 in April and due $16 mil for 2016 and due $17.5 mil in 2017. Not so sure if I want him at that salary or age. I appreciate that, however aren't those the very factors that might make him available, without having to give up much? The front office doesn't seem to want to commit to more than 3 years, and Frazier and Lawrie are only locked up for 2 years, so Ethier's two year contract would seem to fit.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) I want absolutely nothing to do with Ethier. Absolutely nothing. I'd rather have Avi in RF next season over him. What is it about him that you dislike so much? You know, last year he was right at his career stats vs RHP: AVG .306 OBP .383 SLG .517 OPS .900

I'm leaning back toward a trade for Ethier. What do you guess it would take to get him? Is he still considered an adequate defensive right fielder? Of course, he has to sit vs the few lefties.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) Davidson and Avi being horrible busts has really hurt I agree. However, wasn't Davidson really acquired to fill the hole at 3RD? If he had developed as hoped, it might have eliminated the need to trade for Frazier, but I don't think it would have changed the outfield picture much. However, to your point, Davidson is another example of a poor choice in position players. This organization is currently just not very good at identifying position players. Thank goodness for Abreu.

The current Sox outfield is a bit of a mess, and doesn't inspire much confidence in this front office. None of our current outfielders are home grown products. They were all acquired, over the last 3 years, through trades or free agency. One would think that they would have been able to put together a decent outfield. However, here are the facts: 1) Defensively, the Sox arguably have 3 left fielders. None of them is a viable candidate for RF, and only one is a credible center fielder, just barely. 2) Not one of them is likely to hit even 20 homers 3) Not one of them is likely to steal more than 20 bases. I like Eaton, and Melky is an OK player. It's too soon to pass judgement on Avi. What grade would you give the front office on the construction of this team's outfield?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) I dont know why you have been assuming this, since it has been said all offseason that he is a left fielder. I mean, he has a good arm, so lets put him at shortstop, right? If he has the right attitude, he is a phenomenal athlete, im sure he could make the switch and he could learn. No problem That's ridiculous. There is a huge difference between SS and the outfield. There is not nearly that same difference between LF and RF. Excuse me, but I must have missed where it was said that he wouldn't consider playing RF. He played CF for the Mets, so I just assumed that he hadn't played RF, because none of his former teams had asked him to.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) What if he doesnt like Right Field because he sucks at it? He doesnt pick up the ball well off the bat and has bad reads? You cant just plug and play these guys into positions you want them to play because you think it makes sense He could certainly learn, if he had the right attitude. He is a phenomenal athlete, and plenty of guys, with less natural talent have done it. If he were to play LF, the Sox would still not have a decent right fielder. Cabrera doesn't belong there, and Eaton does not have the arm for RF. This is a big negative. I had been assuming that he would switch to RF, if the Sox were to sign him. I wonder if that could be part of the reason, the front office is hesitant.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) He doesn't like RF. Really? For the kind of money he wants, he should be willing to play where it best helps the team. His arm would be much more valuable in RF. I'm beginning to not like the guy, if that is really what has kept him in LF. I really dislike "prima donnas".

Why haven't the teams, for which Cespedes has played, used him in RF? His arm would be much more valuable there. If the Sox do acquire him, I certainly hope that is where he plays. He would obviously be the best candidate, on the roster, to fill that hole in right.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 07:59 PM) Parra makes more sense because wherever he plays, he's going to improve the defense (assuming last year with more of an anomaly) and he doesn't cost the draft pick, so it's more about how much are you willing to pay him...and how much is the improvement there versus adding a starting pitcher or SS to replace Saladino. With Fowler, he's going to cost you Samardzija's pick in the comp round, so essentially you're trading the rights to Fowler (who will get something like 3 years and $40-45 million) for the four players we dealt for Shark and you're losing $10-12 million of short and long-term impact from the lost draft pick, so it's actually costing you $50-60 million AND Semien/Bassit/Phegley/Ravelo if you look at inflows/outflows of talent onto the roster directly related to Shark. If you keep the draft pick, at least you can argue that's a fair rate of return for those four guys...at least it's an argument that has solid points on both sides. Not to mention Fowler's not an above-average defender in CF, and then you're forcing Eaton to move to RF or moving both outfielders to different positions. None of those would seem ideal. You present an interesting perspective, by adding all of the cumulatively related previous moves to your analysis. However, I think those moves are not relevant. What they did to acquire Samardzija is "water under the bridge". All that matters now is the potential loss of a draft pick, the dollars involved in a free agent contract, and the way a possible acquisition might contribute to this current roster.