Lillian

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.

I don't quite understand the front office's reluctance to commit to 4 years. Who in the Organization, would said player be blocking? Even if Avi develops into a real stud, all the Sox have is Eaton and Avi. Melky will be long gone, and out of Engel, May and Hawkins, isn't it highly unlikely that more than 1 or 2 of them becomes a better than average Major Leaguer? Adolfo is a long way from the Majors, so whomever the Sox sign should have a spot in their outfield, for quite a while. Unless the guy is over 30, there is little reason to worry about him playing on a big contract, at age 33. That's really still in a position player's prime, unless he gets hurt, or is terribly out of shape. I seriously doubt that they would actually hesitate to pay Cespedes for 4 years, his age 30 through 33 years, if the money is reasonable. It's more likely that this is just negotiating, as many of you have suggested.

The more that I've thought about it, the more convinced I have become. The player we acquire should be playing for another contract. I don't want to sign a guy to his last contract, and run the risk that he becomes significantly less motivated. So I don't care. Get a guy who will be a free agent in a couple years, or sign a longer deal, but with an opt out for the player. Whatever it takes to avoid having a guy on "easy street," with no more big pay days. For all we know, that is what motivated both Frazier and Cespedes to have career years, last season. I want that incentive to remain a part of their mental approach to their games.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 02:35 PM) Often injured and huge home and away splits his entire career. Last year he was .243/.294/.464 on the road. If you don't like Cespedes' OBP, you aren't going to like GarGo's. No reason to give up top prospects for him when alternatives cost just money. Yes, I have seen the split stats. I always wonder how much of that is related to the physical location, and how much is a function of playing in front of the home crowd. That's why I qualified my remarks. If he were not going to approach his career numbers, at home in Colorado, then I agree with you. In fact, I wouldn't want to give up any of the Sox' top half dozen prospects, and spend that much money.

I want the power and the OBP to come from the hole in RF, and I want really solid defense at SS. I hope that the front office doesn't waste money, or a draft pick on signing an offensive SS.

Providing that there is a reasonable expectation that he would be able to hit outside of Colorado, he would be a very desirable option. He fits the 2 year window, is not unaffordable, left handed power bat, with high OBP and a right fielder. I'd give up Anderson for him, but then I don't value Anderson as much as most on this board do. To me, Anderson is one of those "toolsy" athletes, who has yet to establish that he is all that good at baseball. He plays a premium defensive position, and is very questionable there. He has not yet demonstrated that he has a good knowledge of the strike zone, striking out way too frequently, and not walking nearly enough. If he ends up having to be moved to CF, his offense would not play nearly as well there. There might be a reason that he is the 12TH ranked SS prospect, by MLB.com. If he has to move to CF, Jacob May is probably near his offensive equal, and a better defensive centerfielder than Anderson. I know that May finished with far less stellar numbers than Anderson, but I followed both, during the season, and until Jacob's concussion, he was running neck and neck with Tim, in several offensive categories.

He is also a left handed hitter, and you guys all know how much weight I give that consideration. Moreover, he kills RH pitching, which is just about all the Sox see, at least from starters. I don't think that he is going to cost that much in talent, given that he is owed $37Million, for these last two years of his contract. He certainly is not worth Quintana, and I wouldn't give up Fulmer for him either. What do the Rockies want most, prospects or established pitching? I'm afraid that I never have quite been able to fully comprehend the Colorado factor. Would it be reasonable to expect him to perform in Chicago, and in the A. L.? That's my biggest concern, even more than the injuries.

If they sign Cespedes, they don't need much more than good defense at SS. Saladino should be fine. I agree that the higher priority would then be a RH starter. We are all aware of the lack of depth, in that area.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 10:13 AM) LOL I get economics, but neither of those players are looking for those kinds of deals. Upton is either getting a megadeal or settling for a big 1 yr deal so he can maximize on the weak FA next year. Cespedes will want to capitalize on a career year, he'll take as much money as he possibly can. A 2 year deal makes no sense at age 30 for him. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infer that you didn't "get" economics. However, I think you missed the point that this idea includes an opt out, after the first year. It is essentially what you are suggesting, with a little added security for the player, who has two guaranteed years, at a very generous salary, with the privilege to opt out, if he can do better.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 10:02 AM) And doesn't work for either of them, so what was the point of that? The point? The point is that there are lots of options for teams looking for bats this year, but not much next year, or the following. It's just a matter of supply and demand. If a player is young enough, he can play for a bigger pay day, in the next two years, and in the meantime, $25 Million per year isn't exactly "chopped liver". Of course, there is a risk for the players, but then that's just the nature of the "game", they're playing. I'm always mindful of the advantage of having guys stay "hungry" and motivated. Such a scenario would certainly do that.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) Drop identical 2 year, $25 million a year deals with opt outs after each year in front of Cespedes and Upton and see if someone bites. That works for me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 09:49 AM) I think it is realistic that Upton is the one that goes short. He should get a huge contract next offseason as a 29 year old in a bad market. Davis/Cespy, I don't see it. So risky. How about a two year deal, with an opt out, after the first year? Of course, it doesn't provide a long term solution, but the front office seems much more concerned about avoiding a long term commitment. They have to make up their minds which they prefer, as they aren't going to be able to obtain a long term solution, without a long term commitment. Would he be worth $25 million per year, for 2 years, with that opt out?