Lillian

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.

Perhaps a better way to describe this circumstance is that the Sox need a big bat, who happens to be a decent outfielder, because the outfield is the place where the Sox have room for an addition. Ideally, he should be able to play right field, because the other two outfielders who are on the roster are not qualified to play that position. That is why guys like Fowler and Parra are not good choices. They are not middle of the order, big run producers. Therefore, any suggestion of spending significant money, or sacrificing a draft pick, for such players simply does not make any sense.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 03:41 PM) I'd guess 5 for 108 is his final amount, with him not getting the 6 for 150 he thought. The consensus here seems to be that the front office would not be willing to go there. So, if you're correct, where does that leave the Sox?

So what is the more likely concession that Cespedes makes, the number of years, or the average annual salary?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) You're missing my point. My guess is they'll already have to go above their budget to land one of these guys. Do you really think KW or Hahn will go Reinsdorf for even more money on top of the base cost just so they can front-load a deal to help "motivate" their biggest signing in franchise history? Reinsdorf would probably call off the deal on the spot. I understand your point, and it is a valid concern. The Chairman of the Board may indeed balk at such a suggestion, however I still think that it is a wise direction, in which to go. But then, what the hell do I know? I'm just a fan, and he is the Chairman of the Board!!! If they want to keep the player motivated, and have him elect to opt out, so that they don't end up having to pay for 5 or 6 years, including 1 or 2 past his prime, that is the best chance to accomplish it.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) If the White Sox were to go with someone like Fowler, etc over Cespedes & Upton, with the possibility of improving at SS or a back of the rotation guy, would people be happy with that or not enough? Not me. Especially if it costs one, or more, draft picks.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) You literally keep saying this every other day but continue to ignore the fact that we're up against a budget this year. It's incredibly unlikely that we'll be able to front-load a deal for either of these guys. Although it is inaccurate to claim that I "literally keep saying it every other day," I have indeed reiterated, in various contexts, that I still think it makes the most sense, for all of the reasons. which I articulated earlier. I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse, but rather simply stating that after all of the speculation, I haven't changed my mind. It's just my opinion. I can't really believe that this organization is going to let one year's "budget restraints" dictate their chance for being competitive this year, when they have already stated that they intend to contend, and have traded several promising prospects to acquire two guys with just 2 years left, before free agency. What was the point of that, if they aren't going to try to contend? I believe that they could figure out a way to make it work financially. What about all of this revenue that everyone keeps talking about? They know that the money for La Roche and Danks will be coming off of the books next year. That is a certainty, so there must be a way to work around that. If not, then they just have to accept that they are not only not going to be competitive, but that they will also be totally irrelevant in Chicago. The problem with the second tier guys is that not one of them can bat between Abreu and Frazier, and Frazier's .310 OBP won't cut it, at clean up. Too many of us are focused upon an acquisition to play right field. That is only half of the equation. they need a clean up hitter. Cespedes or Upton would fill that role nicely.

After all of this time waiting, all of the talk and speculation, I still think the wisest move for the front office, in which he would be interested, is a 6 year deal, front loaded, with an opt out privilege for him after 2 or 3 years. How many of you share that view?

If Desmond is really a bad defensive SS, I don't want him, at any price. Spend the money on an offensively productive outfielder, and stress defense up the middle. They already have downgraded second base defense, with Lawrie instead of Sanchez. I hope that they don't downgrade SS defensively, as well. Eaton's defense in CF is not exactly Gold Glove, either.

Who is the better defensive SS, at this point, Alexei or Saladino? When you figure that out, you have my answer to the question; Who should the Sox put there? Given equal defense, I want Saladino, with the money saved, spent elsewhere. All that is predicated on the Sox acquiring the clean up hitting outfielder.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) Probably because it's 10:13 pm Sunday night here...and everyone was sleeping or watching the Bengals/Steelers fiasco. It's after 8:00 in the morning, in Chicago. Maybe everyone is sleeping in. At any rate, I'm just kidding you. LOL

"Caulfield," I guess you just leave people speechless. At this moment you have posted the most recent comment on no fewer than 6 different threads. LOL And, it's been a while since anyone responded to any of them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 9, 2016 -> 04:09 PM) Except without steroids, 25-28 or 29 is a player's prime and anyone past age 30 a warning sign. You raise an interesting question; What really is the point at which a baseball player should be expected to experience a serious decline in performance? If you go back to the pre-steroid era, there were many position players who were extremely productive into their mid 30's. When you consider that those players did not have advanced fitness routines, as do players today, I seriously doubt that a player should be unable to maintain a high level of performance, simply because he has passed the magic age of 30. Of course, injuries are another issue. If a player is injured, it can end his career, at any age. There is also a factor that helps to offset the negative effects of physical aging, and that is experience. Baseball is a difficult sport to master, and the learning curve does not peak at 30. Guys can learn to be better players, even if they have lost a step in speed. Moreover, with proper strength training, they can be stronger at age 33 to 35, than they were in their 20's. The point is that this is a very complex issue. On a personal note; it is a little amusing for someone at my advanced age of 71, to hear 30 year olds, referred to as "over the hill". Ouch.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 9, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) No teams in the AL Central are even close to approaching $200 million except Detroit. The problem is a razor thin margin for error at $120-130 million compared to let's say $150-175 million even. Mistakes like Dunn, LaRoche and Danks...even Cabrera to a lesser extent, block that financial flexibility the bigger spending teams typically have. The other side of that coin is the risk of losing a guy, whom you would really like to keep. Abreu will be in his third year. I, for one, am very happy that it isn't going to be his last, his second last, or even third to last. How about you? If the deal is fair and reasonable, then locking up a guy, through his prime is not necessarily a disadvantage. I come back to my conviction that the greater concern is giving a guy, what he perceives will be the final contract of his career. It seems far more advantageous to have a player, playing for another future contract. It has to be more motivating.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Who is John Danks blocking. I am sure you wouldn't mind if the Sox obligation to him was at least one year less. The fact is these guys might suck in 3 years, and as of now, there I are some nice looking free agent targets in 3 years. There is no reason to be locked into a player longer than needed. Long term contracts to pitchers are a different consideration, Danks being a case in point. Pitchers are so vulnerable to arm and shoulder injuries, and those injuries are usually career ending, or at least very damaging. Moreover, there is another side to the "double edged sword," which these multi contracts represent. Of course, the team is committed and obligated, but then they also have a good player locked up. There is an optimum number of years, and it certainly isn't advantageous to be committed to a player, beyond his prime. In the case of Cespedes, 4 years takes him through age 33, which seems ideal.