Lillian

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.

I would have thought Gordon, because he's a left handed hitter, which you all know I covet. However, looking at his career stats, Cespedes has actually hit RH pitching a little better than LH pitching. It's always useful to remember that most of the tough lefties, in our Division, are on our staff, so I wouldn't worry too much about how a guy hits lefties. Cespedes profiles better as a clean up hitter, which I'd prefer to having Gordon hitting somewhere other than in the 3 - 5 spots, in the lineup. He's 2 years younger, and a great physical specimen. The Sox would be able to keep the draft pick. Yoenis has more "Star" appeal, and might generate more excitement. I love the Cuban connection, especially if they bring back Alexei. Cespedes has the potential to play RF, especially with that arm, and the Sox need a right fielder. Like many of you, I really doubt that Gordon has any interest in playing for the Sox.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) How crazy would it be if Hahn found some way to sign both Gordon and Cespedes? That would be so awesome. Yes "ChiSoxFanMike" a.k.a. Chris Farley, that would be "awesome". But that is about as funny as Farley was. I assume that you meant it to be in teal.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) The part you're missing is front-loading a contract hurts your financial flexibility now. I'm sure most teams would love to see annual salaries in contracts decrease over time along with expected production, but the desire to win now (usually why you're adding a big FA) typically prevents that. Thank you for the clarification. I understand the desire for added financial flexibility in the short run. However, the motive here is to pay the player for his prime, while continuing to keep him motivated to produce. Then, to encourage him to opt out, in those later years, when the probability is much less that he would be productive enough to justify the big salary.

To those of you who assert that the best way for an organization to structure a contract is to "back load" it, I disagree, if the objective is to give the team flexibility by encouraging the player to opt out. If the big money comes later in the deal, why would the player opt out. Reverse the numbers in my hypothetical example with Cespedes: 6 years for $150 Million 1ST 3 years at $20 Million per year Last 3 years @ $30 Million per year That would all but guarantee that the team will be paying the entire contract, as Cespedes would have little incentive to opt out. Please explain what I am missing, and don't quibble about the total amount, as it is a hypothetical example.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 06:28 AM) The problem is very simple...the White Sox don't want to go $30 million into red ink when they would prefer to spend $17.5 million. Neither Cespedes or Upton is worth that amount alone. Neither is quite a superstar. You're going to be devoting 20-22.5% of the payroll to a single player, and neither's as good as Chris Sale or maybe even Quintana. At least not to an organization with a middle class payroll and mid-market mentality. It was true in 2005, it's just as true today. Even having two of the best pitchers in the game like Kershaw and Greinke that would warrant such a deal...they weren't even able to get the Dodgers to the World Series. The actual worth, or even realistic market value of Cespedes, or any other player, is a separate topic. Whatever the total amount of the contract, I'm interested in your opinion as to the merits of this front loaded, with an opt out, concept.

Allow me to summarize this strategy of offering a player a contract, with a higher pay out up front, and an option for the player to "opt out" of the contract. Here are the benefits to the team: 1) The player remains highly motivated, because he has not necessarily obtained his final contract. 2) The player has an incentive to leave, and thus reduce the total number of years, in which the organization is obligated to pay him, and keep him on the roster. 3) If the player does not opt out, the contract is more manageable, as the annual salary is smaller, in the later years. 4) The contract is more tradable, for the same reasons. Let's consider Cespedes, as an example. He is 30 years old. Ideally, a team would like to sign him to a 3 year deal, taking him through the rest of his prime years. However, he wants 6 years, which means that a team would be paying him, when he is 33 through 35, no longer in his prime. He would not consider leaving, if he were going to make as much on his current guaranteed contract, as he could get by opting out, and reentering free agency. Moreover, and most importantly, he becomes complacent, as he has already signed his last contract, and there is less incentive. Oh sure, he plays up to the best of his ability, when on the field, after all, he wants to win, and he takes pride in his play, but he doesn't necessarily continue to work out as hard, maintain the best health regimine, practice with same focus, or study the pitchers as diligently, as he might, especially during the off season. It's just human nature!! Contrast that scenario, with one in which he is getting paid significantly more money, during the first half of his contract. He remains highly motivated, with an eye toward that 4TH year, when he knows that he can opt out, and seek a more lucrative deal, as a free agent. He continues to stay in the best shape he can, he practices diligently and approaches the game, as most players do, who are in their free agency season. Then, after 3 years of his prime playing days, with outstanding effort and production, still in great shape, he opts out. Signs a better deal, and immediately succumbs to the irresistible temptation to begin to relax a little bit. His new team is now stuck with an aging, more injury prone, less motivated, high salaried player. If Cespedes wants, and could get, 6 years and let's say $150 million. Why not give him $90 million ($30M per year) for the first 3 years, and $60 million ($20M per year), over the final 3 years? There is never any guarantee on any deal, but by structuring the contract in this manner, a team maximizes its chances for a satisfactory outcome. Does the team receive a draft pick, if the player opts out?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) At the very least it should make the up front money lesser, so there is more incentive for the player to not opt out. It is what is the craziest thing about the deal the Cubs gave to Heyward. Most of hte money is up front, so they are incentivizing him opting out in 3 years. Yes, that is true. However, maybe there is a "method to their madness". By giving the guy more money up front, and less money later, they are providing the player with a tremendous extra motivation to produce. He has a chance to make more money, if he can demonstrate his value. That is one of the things about which I was thinking, when I raised this issue. Think of it this way: One of the biggest concerns about giving a player a big long term contract is that you disincentivise his productivity. Hey, he's got his long term guarantee, it's just human nature to become a little complacent. By continuing to hold out a potentially bigger reward for excellence, you keep him highly motivated. Then, as he approaches the years, in which you are really not that thrilled to be obligated, he opts out, and signs his bigger deal. Now he is both slowing down, because of age, and he is far less motivated, because he has obtained the final big payday. To me, this kind of contract can be an effective way to both keep a player motivated, and possibly avoid the undesirable long term obligation to a player in his declining years. Maybe the Cubs had that precise strategy in mind, when they offered that contract to Hayward. Why not front load a big contract to Cespedes, and give him an opt out, in 3 years? Pay him and motivate him, for the anticipated prime years, and then, let him go, as he approaches his mid 30's, and wish him all the best. Moreover, if he should decide to stay, at least you are paying him less, for what is likely to be a lower level of performance. It also makes it easier to trade him, if the contract is more manageable.

I'd like to explore this "opt out" privilege being granted in so many recent contracts. I understand that it can be favorable to either side, depending upon the circumstances. In the current competitive and financial state of the White Sox, it would seem that they are focusing upon a 2 to 3 year window. Why not sign a player like Cespedes to the 6 years he is seeking and give him an opt out after the 2ND year? If he is playing well, and salaries continue to escalate, he may exercise his opt out clause, in order to seek even more money, in another contract. One might question whether it would be desirable to have a guy who is very productive, leave, just when he seems to still be in his prime. However, losing a guy for one or two productive years, in order to avoid having to pay for his last 2 or 3 declining years might be a worthwhile tradeoff. How do you think a deal for someone like Cespedes could be be structured to increase the likelihood that he would opt out after 2 years. while still being appealing enough for him to accept it?

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 07:46 AM) Agree. I'm not counting on Eaton to hit as many as he did (which I guess is fine since he is the leadoff hitter but still). You can argue that they'd be lucky to hit 30 combined. It wouldn't surprise me if they combined for only 30 homers, but I think it's realistic that Melky and Avi would hit 30 between the two of them. Although it would be a shock to see Eaton repeat last year's unexpected power surge, it seems reasonable to expect 5 to 10 HR's. In any case, it's not much production from the outfield.