caulfield12

The big problem here is the costs for clear upgrades at SS (Desmond), SP (Kennedy, Gallardo, Chen, Fister, Latos) and outfield (Span, Parra, Fowler, Jackson maybe) are going to cost more than Gordon for any combination of two together, with the possible exceptions of Jackson/Parra and one of the weaker pitchers. Then the draft picks issue, unless you're willing to risk waiting for a player to have June spring training, like Drew and Morales suffered through offensive rhythm/adjustment-wise. And still it will push the payroll to the $140-145 million range without a clear "marketing bump" due to the disappointment of missing on Cespedes, Gordon and Upton. Then, that team absolutely has to perform well out of the gate. Major sell offs will be close to impossible since 2017 is absolutely looking like the best year to compete right now. (Assuming Anderson and Fulmer progress as projected and money coming off books is spent wisely on trade targets or Carlos Gomez, who's already lesser than Eaton and declining).

Greg, where are you getting $30 million from? The only rumors are the White Sox offered 4/$80 and the Cardinals were roughly in the same ballpark as the Royals but clearly unwilling to go five years. Much like the Heyward situation (Cubs vs. StL), we're talking likely differences of $5-15 million in all likelihood and nothing close to $30 million or the player's association/union really would have had an issue with it for depressing FA salaries. That's well beyond a hometown discount.

.289 isn't exactly a pure hitter. But the most lethal/intimidating/dangerous on the juice, sure....

Fister/Latos, Desmond on June 1st and Jackson, Jackson or Parra. Al Central domination.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) Cant help think how signing Yoenis means we'd still have a bad LH bat problem....and we'd be still suffering from a scary OBP problem. Cue Lillian suggestions in the days and months to come.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) People are saying it's a discount but isn't it about where people predicted he would sign at? I never thought he was going to get 5 years or $20 million AAV. I also don't think this changes things THAT much for Cespedes/Upton either, it didn't really sound like many teams were in on Gordon besides us and KC. The Cards had a similar offer to KC's preliminary tender...a bit higher.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) Came back after couple week hiatus to check this thread. Read caulfield. Leaving. Just wait until we lose Cespedes.

Pagan would still play a corner with Cespedes scarily in that huge CF...he's gotten that bad recently. Too many injuries.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) If the Sox can lock up Cespedes, it's actually not a terrible thing. Get to keep the draft pick and still upgrade the team. Also, the Royals signing Gordon basically pushes Hosmer and Cain out of town before long. Unfortunately with Boras as his agent, we'll be saying the same thing about Rodon as well before too long.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:15 AM) They landed their main target this year in Frazier. Fair enough, but where would you pick them in the AL Central as of today?

We are really good at finishing "this close" but just out of the running. 2nd place. Another White Sox niche. Loyalty is a two way street. One significant consequence of not developing enough position players and having to rent them on the free agent market. In a way, Gordon on the Sox would have been as jarring as Torii Hunter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) If that is accurate, it sounds like they really upped their initial offer, which the best news of all as it means they have less chance to maintain their core going forward. #missionaccomplished Hosmer and Moustakas are gone regardless because of Boras. Cain's going to be overpaid and nearing his decline stage after two more years. You're really talking about Wade Davis, Volquez or Escobar staying or not. And from KC's standpoint, almost no Davis contract will work out with how dominant he has been the last two years. Or trying to keep Morales after this year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:58 AM) You could have had me off this site for 4 years. On the other hand, you are out of a house. Since I am supposedly a troll, maybe I was being paid to plant misinformation and false hope. Well, that's why I jumped on the third tier starting pitcher acquisition as well as the Span/Parra/A.Jackson bandwagons. You just felt the winds shifting when nothing at all happened last week. The White Sox might have bid higher but not high enough to make a difference.

http://www.royalsreview.com/2016/1/1/10699...racts-for-teams How bad are FA contracts for teams....? Specifically referencing Gordon's deal. Analyzes 2-3-4 year contracts and pay off in expected WAR. Poster Vandalia hit the nail on the head...and why we end up with Parra, Jackson, Span, instead of a star player in all likelihood. "The one thing that caught my eye (although I always include the disclaimer that I might be reading things wrong) was the fact that shorter – i.e., two year – contracts seem to provide the most value. The point of course is that if a FA signs a two year contract, he is probably not that great. Or is older than Cy Young. Which of course leads to the other point – on long term contracts player’s generally under-perform. This highlights the important fact that there are two ends in baseball: to provide entertainment (thus revenue), and to win baseball games. The two are not necessarily the same. In fact, one can argue that they are rarely the same. Most of the star players with the mega-contracts will never be able to produce enough value to justify their salaries based on on-the-field performance. However, they put fans in the seats and provide good TV ratings. Therefore they might be good for the ultimate bottom line, the balance sheet. If you sign Zack Greinke or Giancarlo Stanton you are paying a premium for their "entertainment" value. That will never show up on the WAR statistics. On the other hand, if you sign Kendrys Morales, you are paying primarily for his talents at baseball alone. It has been written that the Kansas City Royals of the last two years are a "boring" team without "star" players – and some would argue TV ratings. But of course in KC, you don’t have the surplus population who might come out to the ballpark to see Alex Rodriguez even if they have never watched a baseball game before. To maximize the crowd in KC, you have to have a good baseball team. If you are in the race for a "big" free agent, you will pay a premium for their general "star" power. That might make sense in a city like New York or LA where you are hoping to attract the casual non-fan for a game. But it means if KC signs that guy, they will be paying a premium for something that essentially has no value for them. (Not that there is much risk of the Royals being involved in the bidding in the first place.) Finally we reach Alex Gordon and why I think he might end up back with the Royals: He is not going to be in the TMZ headlines every day. He is boring – at least to the big city types. He is not going to hit 60 HR. He is not the guy who is going to be the reason non-fans come out to the baseball field He just helps his team win baseball games. Which is what the Royals are looking for. His value is minimal for teams who focus on maximizing entertainment value. His value is maximized for teams that need to win baseball games to win on the field in order to win with the balance sheet. That is why the Royals are still in the race to sign him."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:51 AM) About $18 million a year. At the very least, the White Sox made the Royals pay more than they were hoping. It would be disappointing if they don't get any of the 3, but reality says if they get a guy like Austin Jackson for a good price, they still improve. It doesn't make as big of a PR splash, but on the field, helps the team. It's still a huge bargain to them, considering Cabrera's deal with us. He's worth a lot more to that fanbase than he would playing for another team.

That opt out better be after 2-3 years to be enticing... We were talking Cespedes getting $125-150 million before the World Series...partly because of the lack of a draft pick loss attached. There's no way he's under $100.

Flanagan's a beat writer for the KC Star, fwiw. Now you've got Detroit, SFG, StL, Washington, possibly Boston, the Orioles and Angels all theoretically interested in Cespedes. Who caves first, and what does that leave for Upton?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:57 AM) 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. Do you think Hahn's willing to stake his career on a theory or conjecture, though? Wouldn't his agent or the Rockies have addressed this possibility a long time ago as the solution to some of his struggles in COL? We know whoever the Cubs pick in that spot will turn out to be Mike Trout II as well. I remember Jose Valentin giving up switch hitting to mixed results in the latter half of his career.

The Giants are in on Fowler, fwiw. Orioles looking for lefties and Maeda's contract being held up temporarily by elbow concerns. The news for now.

Something like three years and $40-50 million...similar to Cabrera, maybe a bit higher based on his 2015 season.

If you had a firefighter in your family that position might magically change.

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.

http://www.royalsreview.com/2016/1/1/10699...racts-for-teams Argument for why awarding premier free agents 2-3 years isn't much different than paying out on 4-5 year deals. If you scroll down to the comments, there's an interesting five paragraph from Vandalia. "This highlights the important fact that there are two ends in baseball: to provide entertainment (thus revenue), and to win baseball games. The two are not necessarily the same. In fact, one can argue that they are rarely the same. Most of the star players with the mega-contracts will never be able to produce enough value to justify their salaries based on on-the-field performance. However, they put fans in the seats and provide good TV ratings. Therefore they might be good for the ultimate bottom line, the balance sheet. If you sign Zack Greinke or Giancarlo Stanton you are paying a premium for their "entertainment" value. That will never show up on the WAR statistics. On the other hand, if you sign Kendrys Morales, you are paying primarily for his talents at baseball alone. It has been written that the Kansas City Royals of the last two years are a "boring" team without "star" players – and some would argue TV ratings. But of course in KC, you don’t have the surplus population who might come out to the ballpark to see Alex Rodriguez even if they have never watched a baseball game before. To maximize the crowd in KC, you have to have a good baseball team." It's an interesting premise. That Gordon would be worth more at a lesser price to a team where winning is absolutely paramount (like the Sox as well) and where even "star" players (if you want to put Cespedes and Upton in that category) don't really bring in enough extra revenue on .500ish clubs to justify their price tags. And we can study Sox attendance to see there's not much more than a slight blip up when Sale pitches...as opposed to Halladay in Toronto or Greinke in his Cy Young season where 5-10,000 walk ups were typically added for those games.

The PERCEPTION is that Ortiz was better because we heard about him 10X as much because of the ESPN/East Coast bias thing. If he'd remained on the Twins and put up those same numbers, he might not be getting into the Hall. The three World Series titles after 80 odd years without one has inflated his influence, as well as having Manny Ramirez, an even better hitter in his prime, paired with him. You'd have to argue Ramirez and Miggy are the two best overall hitters (hitting for both high average and power) of the last two decades of players. Bonds has to be somewhere in that conversation as well, depending on how you view him.

Supposedly it has been withdrawn but they're still looking to keep him (Davis) for a lower amount/less years...also depends on what the prices are for Upton, Gordon and Cespedes, one would think.