Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 09:54 AM) I don't think that's realistic either. Can't see them spending that much. What do you think these guys get? I think we could get Jackson for something like 2/$17M. Not sure how many years Desmond will want or get, but I don't see him getting more than a $15M AAV. If we structured right, both could be had for around $20M or so. Can't believe that's much more (if at all) than they were offering Cespedes.

I will say this, add Desmond & Jackson, and this offseason suddenly has shades of 2005 in terms of upgrading a ton of positions, many with value plays.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) All true. But once they backed themselves into this corner, committed to a plan, you finish it. Too bad. All got crazy for the so-called Big Three. Fine. Take a pass. Don't be insane. But finish the job elsewhere. To me, this means Jackson/Desmond. Yep, lose a pick. One stinkin pick (out of the three important picks). Chances of getting value out of the J/D combo are a lot better than value from that second pick. Besides, finish this year's plan since we've already committed! 100% agree with this.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:20 PM) Very comprehensive piece. Love how you pointed out how the defensive values are so weird and drawing too many conclusions about them is subjective. You didn't just pick a side you took the time to point out every angle. Very well written also . Must have proof read it thoroughly. Agree 100%. Excellent analysis.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 08:29 AM) Bruce Levine said this morning that the White Sox were in it until the $$ got crazy. He said they were never making Cespedes one of the highest paid OF's in the game. He said that expects something else because they need to finish the job. He's speculating about Colorado but that doesn't really make sense either. You can't be mad at them for missing out on Cespedes given the Mets offer. Having said that, I'll sure as s*** be pissed if they stand pat and enter 2016 with Avi in RF. At a bare minimum, we should add Jackson. I'm open to a trade if a better option exists, but the price has to be right. None of the three Colorado OFs make sense IMO, as they're all overrated or way too expensive. Plus Colorado seems unrealistic in their demands based on media reports. I also think after missing on the big 3 OFs, you got to use those resources to fill two holes. I don't care if that is a SP like Latos or Fister or going after Desmond for SS, our goal should be to reduce the number high-risk spots on the roster. And as much as I despise Avi right now, I do like him as an insurance policy for LaRoche at DH, which adding a legit starting OF allows us to (whether Avi is in AAA or on the bench).

The Sox should just offer 5/$110M with no deferred money and an opt-out after year 2. I really think he would accept that right now.

I haven't had a chance to post all day, but if we can't go 5/$110M for Cespedes, then our ownership group and/or front office should be completely embarrassed. That's a very fair deal for a player of his talent in today's free agent environment.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 08:16 AM) Yes, but that's perhaps the only thing on the marketing department's side right now...claiming the Royals were lucky two seasons in a row is getting to be a more difficult sell. Are you literally insane? How many times have you suggested a marketing department could use advanced metrics as part of a sales pitch? I think you're up to five this offseason alone and every time you look more ridiculous when you say this s***.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:59 AM) Altar... http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/01/20/forbes...-valuable-team/ Bulls worth $2.3 billion, third most valuable franchise in NBA. If you add up all the NFL teams, with the Rams now doubling in value and third highest after Cowboys and Pats...NFL is worth $64.85 billion. NBA at $37.65 billion. Last year, MLB was $36 billion and that will be updated by Forbes this spring so they will be ahead of the NBA but should jump to mid $40's in March. White Sox were 16th at $975 million. Combined White Sox and Bulls, would be one of the top six in the world along with Yankees, Man U, Real Madrid, Cowboys, Patriots...ahead of Knicks and Lakers. WTF dude, WTF...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:49 PM) Our two catchers will remind nobody of Johnny Bench, that is for sure. Lol...well if your standard is Johnny Bench, then I'd argue 29 teams have black holes at catcher.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:45 PM) There's no way in hell, I repeat, Cespedes is going to take a 3 year deal in an offseason when all the "stars" are getting five minimum. No fricking way. We do need him, though. Only way ss and catcher can remain black holes in the lineup is if we add another monster bat (on paper). Plus Melky and LaRoche need to bounce back and Eaton needs to hit better from Day One and not wait 2 months, but that's another topic. Catcher is a black hole? You still can't comprehend how little catchers hit can you.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 08:56 PM) Well, if he's really 3/$40, and Cespedes is 5/$125, and we are unwilling to go more than 3 years, I really find it odd that we haven't signed Fowler yet. I don't believe for a second Cespedes will get 5/$125M. I think he'll be somewhere in the 5/$100M & 5/$110M range. As for Fowler, I think 3/$42M is his cap. On an AAV basis, you're talking about a $8M max difference. For that money, I'll easily take Cespedes. People are sleeping on his defense (playing CF has hurt his value) and the floor is provides. I feel confident we'd get a 3 WAR player with Cespedes with the upside for more. Guys like Fowler are dangerous because if they slip just a little (and as a poor defender, his value relies entirely on his bat), you're looking at a guy you no longer want to start but are stuck with because they make too much money (LaRoche is a perfect example).

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 08:15 PM) The Nightengale tweet should be very telling to anyone that has been following this situation closely. Please elaborate.

I'll just say this, if Cespedes signs a 4 year deal with another team and it's anyone but the Mets, this board will implode and Rick Hahn might get murdered at SoxFest. This late in the game, it's hard to believe this three year s*** is posturing.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 05:36 PM) DAMN YANKEES......................................... I think Steinbrenner is bluffing ?

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 06:49 PM) Game times came out today. 25 of the first 58 are day games. Good luck with that. Any idea how many day games there were in April & May last year? That seems like a ton and really, really sucks. I can't imagine the attendance is that much better for a weekday day game and the TV viewership has to totally suck.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 06:21 AM) Ratings is a percentage of households. Sox market is so huge, they are still pulling in more viewers than most teams. Yes, next deal won't be near what the Cubs get, but it will still be good. You're right about the amount of viewers we're pulling despite the low ratings. But my point is about potential, and if we're middle of the pack vs. dead last in ratings, we'll be pulling in significantly more viewers and geting significantly more value in our next TV deal. Therefore, the incentive to have an exciting, competitive team over the next few years should be clear as day for this ownership group and refusing to go into red for a few years to achieve that goal would be incredibly short-sighted an absolutely terrible business decision.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:44 PM) While what you say I mostly agree with, there is zero chance if the terms were s***ty that the White Sox would sign a long term deal, When I say s***ty, I simply mean not optimal. If we're still last in the league in local ratings, we're going to lose out on a lot of value in our next TV deal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:40 PM) They "invested in the team" last year. How'd that work out? You really think they went into the red last year?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Outside of MLB money, it all ties together. Less fans equals less ballpark revenue, less parking revenue, less concessions revenue, less interest in advertising both in the ballpark and on television... the team also has the lowest TV ratings in the game for anyone that is widely available on TV. It is far more than just attendance. I know you're the "blame the customer" guy, but your point on ratings is exactly why the Sox need to invest in the team and go into the red if needed. Our current TV deal expires in 2019 and if ratings to continue to suck, we're going to get a s***ty long-term TV deal. Therefore, there is every incentive in the world for Reinsdorf to spend some money and build some excitement for this team. The potential payoff in the long-run would be tenfold the likely short-term costs.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Surprised so many still think Garcia is going to start again. I think at worst Jackson will be there. I agree. I think you could probably get Jackson for 2/$18M, which wouldn't be a bad gamble as a last resort.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) I agree. The thing that is funny is that whenever there's a report about another team being out (Tigers and Angels Luxury Tax Issues) everyone thinks it's total nonsense and doesn't believe it. But when someone says that the White Sox are only willing o go 3 years and low money, everyone takes it as gospel. It really is quite absurd. Yes, the organization hates all of us. They are being stupid on purpose. This place is a dumpster fire right now. The problem is this organization has a history of bizarre self-policies. Are you going to tell not going over slot for years wasn't stupid? I agree for the most part with you, I think there is definitely posturing going on, but a small part of me thinks there is truth to this three year nonsense and it continues to grow with each and every tweet.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:30 PM) Is it Hahn's fault if they aren't allowed to spend though? If he wasn't allowed to spend, then he should have taken advantage of the insane pitching market and rebuilt the organization. And I doubt Reinsdorf is putting a 3 year cap on free agent signings one offseason after we signed Robertson to a four year deal. I still believe this has all been posturing, but I'm quickly losing my optimism here.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:35 PM) This is a good point and that's why its tough. However, the point still remains do you sell out because of your reasons and maybe win a world series but then only make the playoffs once in the decade after the world series. This is what the complaints are now. If they went ahead and did it posters 10 years from now would be saying the same things you are. I just want the front office to pick a clear direction and stick with it. The Frazier trade in a vacuum is a great deal IMO, but not if it's our only big move. It simply doesn't move the needle enough in a tough division. I said at the beginning of the season we needed to add two impact bats or we should go the rebuild route. Without adding Cespedes (or a player of similar ability), we're once again half-assing it and hoping for too many things to go right in order to compete.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:07 PM) I agree. People complain about not building a consistent winner but then want them to sign long term deals that willbe awful in 3-4 years. Pick a lane. I prefer the patient uild the team through prudent trades and drafts. Dude, we have Sale & Abreu under control for four more years. We can't be overly patient and wait for all these prospects to fill holes because we don't have them in our system. And most draft picks take years before they contribute. The absolute worse thing we can do right now is waste more cost-controlled of our key players.