Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 11:41 PM) $120 million is a lot of f***ing money. It's a pretty average amount and one that we surpassed as far back as the 2008 & 2011 seasons.

While I don't believe Nightengale's comment for a second, the Sox being out of money would prove this front office is incompetent.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:53 PM) Desmond is a better player than Fowler though. If I'm giving up the draft pick, I'd rather have the better player. I agree with this.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 07:30 AM) I think that if the Sox are going to sign Desmond and give up the pick, they would likely try to get 3 years at a reasonable price. I think you're right that he could slide into another position, but he has said (according to reports anyway) that he'd be willing play in the outfield. So he could possibly be playing in the outfield right away while the Sox stick with Saladino at SS. Possibly a more realistic scenario is the he plays SS and teh Sox use Saladino or Sanchez as part of a package to get an outfielder. I definitely think he would start the season as our SS, but if he can play a solid LF, he provides us with a significant amount of flexibility for our roster. Allows Saladino (or Anderson at some point) to slide into SS if Desmond is needed in the OF. If we go the Fowler route, we are riding & dying with Saladino at SS. There wouldn't be much of a backup plan.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 07:01 AM) Agree. What do you think a contract will be? I expect any contract to include an opt out after this season. I actually think the Sox see Desmond as a guy who could slide to another position once Anderson is ready, so I'm thinking they target a three year deal. I could something like 3/$42M getting it done.

QUOTE (SoxSteve @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 12:56 AM) Agree 100%. I don't get he fascination with him. It seems the masses just want to sign anyone. 180 strikeouts a year with below average defense. So your infield and outfield defense is worse than last year on a team that already plays bad D. No thanks. He was the one guy out of all the possible free agents that i didn't want. That and the Austin Jackson talk. Stay away from both. . Fowler, trade for Markaikas or go big and get Puig. I'd take Fowler or Markaikas and sacrifice Power for OBP. Just sayin. The problem with your argument is Desmond is not a below average defensive player. He's been pretty much average and when combined with his bat it's made him a top 5 SS prior to last season. Unless you believe his one bad half in the last four seasons, which happened to occur last year, is predictive of the player you'd be getting, signing Desmond to a reasonable contract could be the streal of the offseason. And no offense, but the Markakis idea is terrible. He is a bad defender with no power, who is being paid a lot of money. Yes we need more OBP, but he's the absolutely wrong guy to get.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 09:11 PM) Brian Bilek ‏@BrianBilek_ 5m5 minutes ago Nightengale is posturing on #WhiteSox behalf. Rinse and repeat. That tweet actually makes me more inclined to believe a deal is close. Interesting. Brian is spot-on. This stinks of the Sox being close and not wanting another to come in last minute with a topping offer.

As much as I'd love the Sox to add an OF like Jackson if they signed Desmond (Fowler won't be happening in that scenario as we won't punt two picks), my guess is that will be pushing the budget a bit. A guy like Jennings makes more sense financially and could probably be had for a reliever and fringe prospect.

If we do in fact add Desmond, we still need to add another OF to at least challenge Avi.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 05:53 PM) Sounds stupid but the fact that Hayes is confirming it & Merkin confirmed interest in both he & Fowler last night tells me that something is close. Agree, if the local beat writers are confirming stuff then things are coming to a conclusion.

Based on these tweets, I'm very confident either Desmond or Fowler will be a member of the Sox by the end of the weekend. My guess is Desmond.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 01:59 AM) Here's my prediction. 2016: Hillary Rodham Clinton (decides to use full name) 2020: Hillary Rodham Clinton. 2024: Chelsea Clinton 2028: Chelsea Clinton 2032: I have no idea. The troll is strong in this one.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 09:20 PM) All the team needs is for the Cubs or anyone else to sign Fowler. You'd really rather have Avi as your starting RF than lose a late 1st round pick?

QUOTE (Dunt @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 06:13 PM) The market played out so well for a potential steal combo of Desmond and Jackson, I can't believe the Sox haven't already jumped at the opportunity. That lineup would be pretty sweet: Eaton RF Cabrera LF Abreu 1B Frazier 3B LaRoche DH Desmond SS Lawrie 2B Avila C Jackson CF That would be the ideal scenario IMO.

Still think the Sox are higher on Desmond than Fowler based on all sorts of comments from SoxFest.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 08:02 AM) If the Sox sign someone for two years then that is the end of their three year window, that they gave themselves. If they don't make the playoffs with the 2016 & 2017 teams then maybe that would be the time to reconsider the future and how to rebuild. But what happens if they make the playoffs in 2017? They're pretty much f***ed then for 2018, which is Sale's second to last year of control.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 05:54 AM) Maybe finally things start moving this morning: Buster OlneyVerified account ‏@Buster_ESPN Executives believe it'll be very difficult for Dexter Fowler to get more than the 2-year, $20 million deal that Howie Kendrick got from LAD. If I'm giving up the pick, I want three years of control. Plus with Frazier, Lawrie, & Melky all scheduled to hit free agency after the 2017 season, not sure another player with two years of control is a great idea. Assuming we don't resign any of them, it's going be tough to replace all these guys in one offseason given how the market looks and our lack of positional talent.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:43 PM) Do not confuse risk with price. Risk =/= Price. They're associated, but you also have to factor in the likelihood of different levels of performance. A lottery ticket - a literal, actual lottery ticket - is high risk/high reward because even though it only costs a dollar, there is an overwhelmingly high chance of losing. The potential gain is great. Latos is closer to a lottery ticket than, I dunno, keeping your money under the mattress (which is low risk/low reward). Didn't mean to derail the thread, but I think the chances of Latos being a dud are greater than people are admitting. But the point is he's being paid to be a dud. Like caulfield said, Latos can literally be John Danks from last year and provide a return 4x his cost, with an upside for an even greater return (even if the odds are relatively small).

Guy on the Score just guessed Latos was 28. Edit: Whoops I meant he guessed 34.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) There is no such thing as low risk / high reward. Please stop it. You can say it is a low-risk signing, because it is. It's only 1/$3M. But the concept is high risk / high reward or low risk / low reward, because risk isn't about what happened in the end. It's about the chances of something happening in the future. If there is a high chance of a high reward, that person isn't signing for $3M. It is also about the LIKELY reward, since obviously ANY investment could go big or go bad. Same in baseball as any other investment. So this is low risk / low reward. And that's fine. Now go get a bloody right fielder. While this entire argument is stupid, I will repeat that we're not talking equities here & MLB free agency is a constrained market. We're paying a guy to be a 0.5 WAR player who also has a chance of being a 3+ WAR player. While he may not reach his 3+ WAR ceiling, the probability of him not earning his contract is nearly impossible and the possibility of him greatly exceeding it (2 WAR seems like a realistic floor) is highly likely. By your very definition, it's a low risk/high reward signing.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) Using this as an excuse to trade Erik Johnson would be a mistake. Again I ask, how many innings can you realistically rely on Latos to pitch? This move was to bolster pitching depth. And people, please stop calling things low risk/high reward. Low risk/high reward is impossible. You make me cranky. Why is low risk/high reward impossible? We're not talking about trading equities here. Latos is a guy who has consistently been a 3+ WAR pitcher when healthy (and only 28 years old) that can be released for a total of $3M if things go south. I'm not sure what else you would call this signing other than low risk/high reward.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:09 PM) So now Erik Johnson is traded for an OF? Unless it's in a package for a young cost-controlled OF, I'd rather use him as depth and stash him in AAA. Despite a nice rebound in 2015, I think his value is still pretty suppressed. Even a little bit of success at the majors would go a long ways towards restoring his value.

Latos may be an asshole, but this is a very solid move. Danks & Johnson competing against Latos for the #4 & #5 spots is way better than them competing against Turner and now we actually have some depth (assuming Johnson starts in AAA).

1 year/$3M.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 06:34 AM) Again, early in the off season it was rumored Hahn had last years budget to work with this year. That was the RUMOR. What Hahn DID say was that he would need to get creative in order to sign a big free agent but had many irons in the fire. Not once did the front office say they would or would not raise the payroll so I wasn't going to assume they would and especially after another season of s***ty Baseball and lowered attendance. Nowhere have I said Hahn is a liar and I'm not about to because he lied about nothing. It's not my fault fans read too much into the media rumors, speculation and made false assumptions. Maybe some fans need to put twitter down for a while... Your entire argument is based on a rumor that we're tied to last year's budget, but then say "fans read too much into the media rumors". Does that not seem hypocritical to you? Also, Hahn has no reason to come out and say we're sitting on excess cash and he hopes to use it on a big name free agent. Whether he has budget available or not, he's far better off to say he would need to get "creative" so he actually has some negotiating leverage. At the end of day, only the Sox's front office & finance people know what kind of budget available. Having said that, if you believe the Sox were actively involved with three free agents looking for $20M+ AAVs, then I think it's fair assumption to make that the Sox have more money available than media rumors suggest.