Lillian

I just realized that he was better vs. RHP in 2014, as well. He had a tough time with them in his 2ND season, but has been terrific against them, ever since. I love a guy on our roster, who can hit RH pitching, because most of the tough lefties in our League, are on our team. Moreover, it lessens the need for a left handed bat. He would be fine, hitting behind Abreu and in front of Frazier.

In responding further to JRL's skepticism, I would take any year of Cespedes' production, except perhaps his 2ND season. His next worst year was his 3RD season, in which he produced the following: 36 double 6 triples 22 homers 100 RBI .260 AVG .301 OBP .450 SLG .751 OPS The low OBP is the only troubling statistic, during that season. So, how do we explain his poor 2ND season, just prior to the year he put up the Stats, which I just listed? Perhaps he struggled, as the League discovered his weaknesses, and he needed time to adjust. That hypothesis might be supported by the fact that he really struggled against right handed pitching, in his second season. I would guess that the League may have fed him a pretty steady diet of breaking pitches, low and away, and he had to learn to lay off those pitches. Last year he was even better against Righties than he was against Lefties: 38 doubles 5 triples 27 homers 80 RBI's .310 AVG .338 OBP .571 SLG .909 OPS vs. RHP. VERY IMPRESSIVE INDEED!!!!

QUOTE (JRL @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:13 PM) I'm confused. The numbers he had his whole career? Sure I think he can sustain those in the cell. He can be a 735-750 OPS guys with 22-25 HR a year getting on base less than 30% of the time. The numbers he had last year? well I don't think he can keep those up, since they are so drastically different from anything he's done before that. If it was a true improvement it likely would have been gradual. Not he was one player in 2013 and 2014 and then all of a sudden magically a wholly different player in 2015. I'm curious. To what do you attribute his improvement last year? Are you suggesting that it was a fluke, or do you suspect PEDS? The guy is talented, and he did indeed produce what he produced. No one is arguing that last year was not an outlier, but the issue is how do we account for it? Was it spending those months in the National League, or is it just possible that he has matured as a player, and adjusted to the tougher pitching in the Big Leagues, compared to his previous career in Cuba?

How would signing Fowler to a 3 year $42 Million deal, and trading for Ethier look? Line up vs RHP: Projected OBP CF Eaton .355 LF Fowler .360 1B Abreu .360 RF Ethier .365 At his age, he could sit against a few lefties, just to rest him 3B Frazier .310 DH Melky .335 2B Lawrie .315 C A. Avila .340 His career OBP is very good vs RHP & he platoons with Navarro SS Saladino ? @ $14 Million per year for Fowler & $17.5 and 18 Million per year for the next 2 years for Ethier And what to do about La Roche? Bench player, back up first baseman, LH pinch hitter, or whatever. Rest of the bench: Shuck, Navarro, L. Garcia Avi and Sanchez to Charlotte Could the Sox really add $32Million per year in salaries, for the next 2 years? What would LA want for Ethier? Or, could they pay part of his contract in exchange for a piece the Sox could afford to give up? I'm obviously bored, and impatient, like everyone else here.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) Yes, I agree Melky is the odds on guy to hit in the 2 hole as of today, by default. I think someone with more speed and on-base production would be a better fit, and make Melky more productive as a run producer down the lineup. With Gordon off the board, none of the FA outfielders left really profiles as a number 2 hitter, do they? Fowler does, for what it's worth, or should I say; "for what he's worth". Not much, apparently.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 11:03 AM) That player will probably be instantly our 4th best prospect, by a long shot, behind some combination of Fulmer, Anderson, and the 10th pick. That makes sense to me. The 4TH best prospect, in the organization, sounds intriguing, and certainly worth protecting. Thanks

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) Alexei might give you Desmond's 2016 numbers at a fraction of the cost. Fowler provides OBP and at least is something ok from the left side. Those are needs for us. Works for me, and saves the draft pick. By the way, just how valuable do you guys think that 30TH pick in the Draft is?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) If we miss out on Upton and Cespedes, I'd be more interested in Desmond than Fowler. Career OBP of .312, and just .300 over the last two years. I'll take Saladino, save the money and the draft pick, and hope for the best.

I much prefer Cespedes, however if the Sox don't sign him, it wouldn't be terrible to have Fowler's career OBP of .363 batting in the #2 hole. If I'm not mistaken that would tie him with Abreu for the highest career OBP guy in the lineup. My biggest concern remains that his arm is questionable for a right fielder, and the Sox need a right fielder. It would certainly not cost nearly the money that signing Cespedes is going to cost.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:05 AM) For comparisons sake, according to fangraphs Avi's arm strength was rated a 5.3 in '15 while Fowler rated at -1.2. Does not look like Fowler has the arm. Turning Fowler into a strictly RHH, moving him to RF where he's never played and giving up a comp pick does not sound like good ideas. Could go horribly wrong fast. I agree with you. His apparent inability to play a respectable RF is a major concern. I had read mixed reviews of his arm, but it looks like his arm would not profile as a right fielder, which the Sox need. It's the same reason that I'm not enthused about Gordon. Oh well, back to Cespedes.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:51 AM) I'm sorry, but is this thread serious? Fowler has been a switch-hitter his entire career. What evidence is there to suggest he'd be better batting exclusively right-handed? Are you really using his splits against LHP to make that case? Of course he's better batting against LHP, the majority of right-handed batters are. And unlike a lot of switch hitters where the results are horrible from the weak side, he's actually been pretty solid (about a 100 wRC+), suggesting switch-hitting may be helping. Regardless, it's a huge risk to sign this guy (while giving up a pick) and have him change his entire batting approach, all in hopes of finding the perfect two hole hitter. Who cares if Gordon is left-handed and has to bat after Eaton? He'll face a ton of RHP and likely would be far more valuable in front of Abreu than Fowler would be facing RHP from the right side. Fowler only became a switch hitter, for the first time, when he was signed by the Rockies. He had not been a switch hitter previously. As the article states, he is a completely different kind of hitter, when batting from the left side, and the results are not favorable, especially for a leadoff or #2 hole. Moreover, even with his poorer performance, while batting left handed, his overall numbers are very comparable to Gordon's. My greatest concern would be the switch to the A. L.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:42 AM) Something like three years and $40-50 million...similar to Cabrera, maybe a bit higher based on his 2015 season. Would his arm play in RF?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:35 AM) http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/...3/dexter-fowler 870 ops vs. 733 against rhp as a lhb. The whole problem is that he's getting three times as many AB's against righties compared to lefties, so what reason do we have to believe he'd end up closer to 800-825 in the AL hitting only RH compared to switch hitting in the NL? His one year in the AL, he was a sub 2 war in Houston. I just don't see the argument for a second tier guy making nearly the same as Gordon, who doesn't have much of an AL or non-Rockies background orvtrack record and who will also cost a precious draft pick to the Cubs. If you're not signing one of the bigger names, it makes more financial sense to go fewer years with Span, Parra or Jackson in some combination and preserve the draft pick. What kind of a contract is he anticipated to be offered?

Facts: 1) Fowler is naturally right handed 2) Only began switch hitting when he was drafted by the Rockies 3) Has always been a better hitter, when batting right handed Interesting Article: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-ou...isparity-062315 In weighing a choice between Alex Gordon and Dexter Fowler, I am leaning toward Fowler, but as a two hole hitter, and batting exclusively right handed. Gordon does not profile as a clean up hitter, which means that his hitting left handed is really not that advantageous. If Gordon could hit between Abreu and Frazier, he would add nice balance to the order. However, most of us agree that he is much better suited in the two hole. Since Eaton bats left handed, as a lead off hitter, having another left handed hitter to hit behind him is no particular advantage. Fowler has put up very similar numbers to Gordon, and is younger with better speed. Fowler's numbers have been better as a right handed hitter, especially over the last 4 years. I'm intrigued by the idea of having him play RF, and bat second in the lineup, but exclusively as a right handed hitter. His entire approach is different, when batting right handed, and much better suited to the 2 hole. When batting left handed, his swing gets longer, and while more powerful, his OBP suffers. He has always been a good contact hitter, from the right side, and demonstrated a good knowledge of the strike zone. Questions: 1) Is Fowler's arm good enough for RF? 2) How much would he cost? 3) Could the Sox sign Fowler, and still afford to find a better left handed hitter to take La Roche's place as DH, and bat clean up? 4) Might a trade for Ethier fill that need, and could he be serviceable as a platoon DH, for the final two years of his contract? Your thoughts?

One more reason to like Cespedes is that his ceiling is much higher than Gordon's. If he repeats last year's break out season, or exceeds it, which he has the talent to do, he would be a Super Star. It's very unlikely that Gordon's production would be anywhere near that level.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 05:24 PM) Well, You are saying there is no need to worry about age 35 because a left handed bat is always useful. People are worried about age 35 because players decline. So my point is that it doesn't matter if you are left or right handed, or a good fit for 2nd or 4th, if you aren't a good hitter you aren't useful. That said, I think Gordon will age really well. I agree that Gordon has a decent chance to age well. Moreover, don't you expect his defense to decline faster than his offense? He is a Gold Glove left fielder, but I doubt that he will be at 35. However, it is very reasonable to expect him to be able to hit and draw walks at that age.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 04:13 PM) LaRoche's .697 ops v. righties wasn't exactly useful. Are you suggesting that Gordon should be expected to perform as badly as La Roche did, when he reaches 35? If that would be the case, I agree that it would be a disaster. However, 35 is not the age when all players collapse, in terms of their production. There have been plenty of players, even without PEDS, who have had offensively productive seasons at 35. However, you are correct in that it is certainly a risk.

I'd like to see the Sox offer 4 years, at $16M, just to make the Royals have to up their offer to something close to that. If Gordon gets his wish, which appears to be to return to KC, I'd at least like to see them have to spend some serious money, which would contribute to their being financially more restrained, when all their guys become free agents. I wouldn't worry about the 4TH year, when Gordon would be 35, as the Sox always seem to be able to use a left handed bat. Let him DH in 2019, if his defense declines so much that the Sox would have better options for LF.

QUOTE (Frank_Thomas35 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:01 AM) No offense by why would any one of the three sign a deal that pays them $15 and $10 million in the last three years? Especially with the escalating AAVs if anything the back end of the contract would go up. One thing we could see the sox do is get creative by doing deffered payments, like we did with Paulie. And the D backs did with Grienke. They might be willing to accept such contract proposals because they have the opt out. That is the whole point. The player gets more money up front, and then if he is as good as he expects to be, and stays healthy, he can opt out, and get a new contract. Meanwhile, he has the security. Hey, $10 Million is not "chopped liver," if you happened to be hurt, or really stink. It's still decent long term security, even if your plan is to leave the team, after 2 or 3 years. Of course, if a player can just get some team to offer him $20 Million per year, for 6 years guaranteed, then that is preferable. However, apparently no team is offering that kind of a deal. You'd like to think that there is some degree of compromise involved.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:05 AM) 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. With the opt out privilege, the player simply leaves. Doesn't that mitigate, to some degree, the Pippen type circumstance?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) Of course it does, it's hard to front-load a contract if you're already struggling to fit that signing into your budget. Theoreticallly sound ideas like the one you're proposing don't always equal practical ideas. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not assert that budget constraints have no relevancy to any particular team's situation regarding the kind of opt out contract, in this discussion. Rather, I am asserting that, putting the issue of specific budget restraints aside, the concept is compelling. What do you think of the general concept?

Given my new appreciation for the "opt out" contract; Why not offer Cespedes the 6 years, which he is seeking, with an opt out, any year after 2 years? Give him $25 Million per year for 2 years, then a declining scale, something like this: 3RD year $20 Million 4TH year $15 Million 5TH year $10 Million 6TH year $10 Million That is a total of $105 Million for 6 years, with a huge motivation for him to leave, if his first 2 years are outstanding. To me, that is a deal that is fair for both sides, and should be attractive to the Sox' ownership, putting aside Caulfield's concern over going over budget, and possibly in the "red" in 2016.

Nightengale says: $20 to $22 Million per year is the range he forsees for these guys. Short term deal should pay more, as the player is not requiring the longer term guarantee. Sox "3 yr. deal" offer looks very firm. 1 or 2 years is more attractive to players, as the 3RD year will see a strong F.A. market again. His opinion on New contracts with opt outs: He thinks that it totally favors the players, not the teams. Team stuck if guy performs poorly, and if he does well, he leaves. Also gives players a chance to see how he likes playing for that particular organization and in that city. IMO, he doesn't get it. He never mentioned the front office's motivation, nor did he discuss how such deals can keep a player motivated. He provided less insight and worthwhile analysis than we fans are offering, on this forum. You guys are great, and such interviews only reinforce the fact. Thanks for all the terrific analysis.

None of us really know how much ownership is willing to spend this year, or next. Perhaps, they're not even sure, themselves. Whatever the projected budget, it has nothing to do with the concept that "GreenSox" and I are advocating, regarding front loading a contract, with a player "opt out". I'm curious, "Caulfield12," putting aside the issue of budget constraints, do you agree with the notion, and if not, why not?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 08:06 AM) If they only want 3 years, then frontload, not backload. Offer Cespedes 3/102, with an opt out after 3. 24 per for 3 years, then it drops to 15 per for 2. Opt out after 3. That is conceptually what I've been advocating. None of us know what the numbers would have to be, but the idea is very compelling to me. The goal is to get the guy to play for the Sox during his best prime years. The Sox' motive for giving the player the opt out is to encourage him to leave. By front loading the contract, and reducing the amount he would earn, if he elects to stay, the player has the greatest motivation to leave. The other factor that really intrigues me is that, with that kind of a contract, the player has every incentive to remain highly motivated, until he reaches the point where he can opt out.