caulfield12

The Phillies just entered the first year of a huge tv deal as well...but yeah, the Mariners are getting something like $114 million per season now.

The Phillies just entered the first year of a huge tv deal as well... Ugh stupid wifi connection here in China, keeps hanging up.

The Phillies just entered the first year of a huge tv deal as well...

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 08:57 PM) Do the Mariners have money? King Felix, Seager, Cano, Cruz contracts eat up quite a bit. The Mariners are currently around $136 million...almost 40% is Felix and Cano. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariner...oll-and-beyond/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/seattle-mariners/payroll/

http://nypost.com/2016/01/22/cespedes-pote...ecedented-risk/ Now they're claiming the Orioles might be getting back into Cespedes...see last paragraph.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 08:18 PM) Have you seen what franchise changing players are going for now ? Over $200M ! Cespedes at his price is about the most we can hope for. But still waiting on some franchise changing player just for around what we paid Abreu ($68M ). Hey it can happen again if it happened once right ? Yep, Alexei Ramirez or Kang last offseason..although even then, franchise altering is pushing the definition. We've been so successful (except Dayan) in Cuba we're now often priced out of that market. The one guy I really wanted last year at this time was Hector Olivera, and the Dodgers simply outbid everyone. It will be interesting to see how well the Koreans picked up by Balt and the Twins do...but, once again, franchise altering? Unlikely.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 08:12 PM) You have stated you shouldn't sign a free agent for more than 3 years have you not? How many top free agents sign for 3 years or less? Until Adam Dunn, the white sox hadn't signed another team's free agent for more than $20 million, so overbiidding on free agents is really not something you can say the White sox have done. No, I stated that the Royals after last season shouldn't give out any long-term deals...because they weren't in a desperate overpay situation due to unique franchise circumstances. Gordon was the understandable exception, but Kennedy was dumb.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 07:57 PM) I agree they have been settling for the second tier FA. If RH is under this budget constraint, the other way to go is to create less dependency on FA. Now no team can forego all FA. But they produce or trade for proven MLB players. Then they can go out and get the one FA to put them over the top. I just don't agree that this scenario is now. Cespedes is not a superstar you sign to put you over the top. He is currently the best option, but not a franchise changing player. Therein lies the rub. Closest to a franchise-changing free agent available without trading Anderson/Fulmer or giving up draft pick compensation prior to October, 2017...is the caveat here. And franchise-changing player is exactly what he was last season. Close to MVP-caliber. Much lesser contract seasons have caused the White Sox to overbid on free agents in the past.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 07:49 PM) Thank you Caulfield and personally I think that was one of you better posts. Everything you talked about was related to how much the Sox need Cespedes . Just too much failure lately in a lot of areas. The failures mostly being in the "settling" type of FA who ends up crippling the Sox anyway because they all sucked . High end FA means less likely to suck right away . The Sox are "settlers" . That DirecTV commercial gets credit for me calling the Sox "settlers". They settle for leftovers and like hungry dogs they fight over the scraps. Then they find out the scraps have worms and the dog dies. Lesson learned buy the good meat. I guess we're all trying to rationalize away the loss of something that hasn't even happened yet. Turning on Cespedes like he's bringing ebola into the clubhouse...it's funny how often we hear winning leads to chemistry, and now that axiom's being completely ignored. As you pointed out, Collins had glowing accolades for Yoenis. It's all spin at this point, appropriate for political season. Something has to be wrong...because five teams in 18 months!!! without closely examining the context of each situation carefully. Maybe Ventura won't be able to handle him, so we're better off, probably. Frankly, neither could a Showalter or Scioscia control freak type...and SO shocking to see disparaging quotes from Buck, right? It's just that all this renewed talk of giving Avi more time...it feels like we already went through the same painful process with Beckham and Viciedo, with diminishing returns. Hawk's belief Frazier will help take pressure off Abreu and Avi still won't fix his swing, pitch recognition aptitude or defensive shortcomings.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 07:33 PM) This is the paradox of being a fan. You want to win now, which is understandable. However, then there are complaints about not making the playoffs for a long stretch of time. It's very difficult to do both all tge time. All teams go through ups and down with success. A GM cannot just look to an individual year and disregard tge future otherwise tge team will be really bad. I know we disagree on this but I don't want to go through more periods of long playoff doughts. I want them to start building consistent winners. I also disagree that tge future isn't good. They had some automatic outs in the lineup last year. They've improved 3 of them. That is a significant improvement in the composition of the lineup. I agree that everything will need to go right to make the playoffs. I also thini tge team will be significantly better and is on the right track. The problem is that it takes the one thing that is the most difficult thing to do in sports, have patience. Sure, everything you say is logical enough. The problem for fans is they felt promised a competitive team last year, it feels like they are not prioritizing this year OR possibly even the remaining two years with Frazier/Cabrera/Lawrie...making the question when, exactly? Right now, based on an assumption of Anderson winning ROY and Fulmer winning 15 with a 3.75ish era in his first full season, 2017 will be THE best year to get it done...assuming we can have at least manage league-average DH production. Fwiw, another thread asks will Cespedes get this year's team to the playoffs...my response would be, how likely is it the White Sox don't make the playoffs if Anderson and Fulmer both have the impacts as described next year? And how likely are both those eventualities to occur?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 05:00 PM) Isn't the Royal's stadium a big factor in this consideration? The home run stats for Kaufman vs. the Cell are difficult to compare. Opponents are going to hit homers at the Cell, even with good pitching. I don't think that the Sox can have very limited power, and still win, in their ball park. That's definitely true. Ian Kennedy is never signed by the White Sox. PetCo, shockingly, was the 10th best hr park last year and Kauffman was around 25th. USCF is almost always in the top five to seven, even when you account for our own offense going south in recent years power-wise. If you do have Enciarte and Eaton (who's unlikely to hit 20 again), you need another consistent 25-35 hr threat in there who is average on defense...say, Justin Upton.

I think he was responding to me...

The premise of competing vs. surely making the playoffs is too grey. Are we also to be limited in midseason moves as a result because of his theoretical contract's financial implications? We competed last July. How realistic were our actual playoff hopes? 5-10%?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 04:11 PM) Can you imagine Cruz debating Sanders? Wow, if they had a betting line for that you could make serious bank. Still doesn't make Cruz likeable. And therein lies the problem. How can you lead if nobody likes you or can get along with you? Obama hasn't worked well with GOP and vice-versa, but Cruz? Trump is pragmatic enough to shift with the political winds when it's advantageous. Cruz would just dig his heels in. Abraham Lincoln he's not.

Gee...we have been suggesting Desmond for how long now? 150+ posts about the same topic since December...

You have to assume Cespedes will be at 3.5 war as opposed to 6. That would still be 84-85 wins and within shouting distance of the two wild cards.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) L. Ron taught me something, I think. Avi came back from injury with a different swing -- the hitch. It explains why his hitting went South. He was a much better hitter before the injury. Lets hope he is back to normal. If it was that simple, Stevenson would have fixed it last season. We have a video guy who can do sophisticated computerized swing analysis just like golfers do. It's the kind of thing guys like DJ and Harrelson notice right away...and pass on or talk directly to the player about. We saw it five consecutive years with Gordon Beckham.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 03:44 PM) Topics covered: -Signing old players -Jake Peavy trade -Inciarte (of course) -Marcus Semien -Anderson and other top prospects -2014-2015 offseason -Current FA options -Past development failures -Arbitrary ranking of overall farm system. -Lack of activity in Asian markets -Failed 3B -2018 -Risk of FA -Financial health of organization -Playoffs? Times Cespedes mentioned: 0. Obviously it was a reply to Cy Acosta...if we can't talk about the risks of standing pat that goes along with the assumption that Cespedes isn't worth the attendant risk, then what's the point of discussing Cespedes at all anymore? Great, Cespedes...too risky! So then what? Please explain what move doesn't carry a downside. Cali has been arguing about Cespedes for weeks and nobody has rebutted his point that we don't have enough proven run producers...highlighting that fact with his RBI and RISP (which will inevitably be described as luck or random or anomalies) numbers but I have yet to see a good response other than just a string of personal character attacks on Cespedes from shadowy sources.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual. Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball. Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing. On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves. Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs. Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have. They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value. That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not. That would be all fine and good...if if if....that process didn't lead to one of the worst defensive outfields in the major leagues and all-in contracts for guys like LaRoche and Robertson and Cabrera due to their ages. It seems we completely missed on Avi and Davidson when we possibly could have had Iglesias and Inciarte with better scouting....that last name is speculation, but it's hard to imagine a more disappointing player in the DBacks' system. Which would be fine if we had a strong minor league system filled with quality depth...the irony being that we keep pooh-pooing Semien's loss when one of our biggest current needs is a young, cost-controlled minor league SS who will be Top 5 in the majors. If Anderson lives up to hype, the loss of Semien isn't such a big deal...just as we're weighing the risks of passing on the big-name outfielders, there's another set of attendant risks associated with Anderson, Fulmer and Adams, too. Leading inevitably back to the second tier veteran options (those contracts won't kill us!) but by making a series of blunders in the evaluation of those decisions (Cabrera, LaRoche, Shark...Kepp, Duke, Bonifacio to a lesser extent), we keep putting ourselves in a disadvantageous financial situation with little wiggle room. Players like Jackson, Fowler, Desmond, etc., carry their own set of risks. Doing nothing and going with Avi does as well, as we saw with giving Beckham and Viciedo so much time to figure things out. The main frustration is the two steps forward, one step back thing. A year or so ago, it looked like we were really going to make a concerted effort to become at least a consistent top 12-18 farm system, but our jumping up in the ratings temporarily was more about the accumulation of high first round picks. If they had gone over budget one year and loaded up on international signings, dipped into South Korea (Kang, for example was available but "blocked" by Gillaspie and Davidson) or Japan, it just feels like Groundhog Day where we keep repeating the same exact pattern but expecting a different set of results. Looking at the minor league top ten...and what positions we'll need to cover again in 2018, why would the conversation about risk/reward in free agency be any different at that time than now? If you feel confident we have 2-3 major league regulars in Trey, Adam and Jacob, then you're probably not so worried. If you are skeptical about all three, then an even bigger problem is looming that we keep pushing back into the future without having a good enough team to compete. What is the risk of missing the playoffs two more seasons in a row? What's going to improve about the overall financial situation of the team between now and then to prevent a sell-off? We're making a huge bet on Anderson and Fulmer here and absolutely can't afford failure from either player. I can just imagine the same type of thread in 18-20 months with a cost/benefit analysis of trying to retain an aging Frazier...similar to what KC just went through with Alex Gordon.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) Yet here is what you posted in your Royals manifesto when you thought they weren't bringing him back: 3) Stay away from long-term contracts (anything more than 3 years) or overspending...even on your own players (see Alex Gordon or Pujols/StL). I know...............sigh. Ummmm....that was the strategy for what the Royals should be doing, and how it lined up with KW's old approach back when he was a darned good GM a decade ago. The White Sox don't have two consecutive World Series appearances or the ability to live off that community goodwill for the next 5-7 years...not to mention the Cubs sucking all the air out of the room media-wise. They own KC right now, along with KU basketball. The Royals ironically are the ones acting like they're more desperate to win now than the Sox. In the end, that Kennedy contract was at least an overpay of $20 million. Btw, try to read first instead of deliberately misconstruing and then quoting it out of context. Like you keep saying I said signing Fowler would lead to 90 losses or when I said the ONLY reason to sign Desmond/Fowler is if you won't forfeit the draft pick in June.

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) It's the smart play, and sometimes it means passing on something you really really want in the short term, but good organizations typically operate like this. Bottom line is this team won't be strong through free agency, it needs to come through strong drafting, international signing, and development. It probably means things will get worse before it gets better unfortunately. Too late. They already committed to the contention now path with Robertson and the trades for Shark, Lawrie and Frazier. Backing off now when they're pretty close to being a contender would be terrible.

It's one thing to implement that strategy. Fine. But be realistic about its likelihood of actual success. About time to start moving on to other options...and hopefully they don't keep trying shorter versions of that Cespedes contract or they're going to be stuck with Garcia starting in rf again.

It's one thing to implement that strategy. Fine. But be realistic about its likelihood of actual success. About time to start moving on to other options...and hopefully they don't keep trying shorter versions of that Cespedes contract or they're going to be stuck with Garcia starting in rf again.

Yankees might have to be satisfied with Hector Santiago instead of Heaney...

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:07 AM) cespedes may love new york -- i'm sure he does -- but i can find no one who thinks he called yanks recently. mets, yes. https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/690550979767439360 Post and Daily News reported they asked for a three year counterproposal to what the Mets were willing to offer and the Yankees were unwilling to make one....talking to Mets again today.