BlackSox13

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) Where are we going? To cheap! To cheap we go! Yep, some of knew the " cheap " word would be used at some point. Was just a matter of who and when.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) i got to give you credit.... very creative way of making it work. Just entertaining the possibility. I have no idea if the Mets would do such a thing but the idea, in theory, makes sense. On the flip side of that. Buying a FA outfielder and relying upon "selling high" on one of their current outfielders is risky business with so many outfielders available in a buyers market. I found it to be a fun read.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 11:26 AM) So sell high on Granderson, and buy even higher on Cespedes. I like the way these guys think. Not saying it would actually happen but it does make sense. The Mets could get a decent package for Granderson and Cespedes is over four years younger than Granderson. If the Mets were to actually do something like this, overall they would only be adding roughly 6M more per year to the payroll. That's not much at all, even for a team that claims they are in debt.

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2016/01/shoul...-cespedes.html/ More fuel for the fire.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationa...s-end-up-in-dc/ Just to add some fuel to the fire!

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) Laroche will probably be immensely better than Pedro Alvarez next season. They're not going to sink more $ into that type of player right now. Are we talking about the same LaRoche?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:39 AM) C'mon, man. The White Sox are not signing Pedro Alvarez. Eh, just thinking of alternatives to Desmond and giving up the pick. I don't mind the idea of giving Desmond a shot but he's just not worth the pick in my eyes. Alvarez would cost nothing but money and can probably be had for a one year deal to build value for a weak FA class next year. Who knows, if he hit well enough he could be worth a comp pick next winter.

Here's an idea. Sign Jackson to play CF, Eaton moves to LF, Melky moves to RF, sign Alvarez to DH, LaRoche to the bench as head cheerleader, Shuck and Sands are the backup OF, Saladino at SS and trade Avi for the biggest bag of used baseballs the Sox can get.

I'm really starting to lean towards the idea of Jackson/Desmond or WTH ... Jackson,/Alvarez with LaRoche on the bench.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:05 AM) Robert Smith, is that you? Had no idea you were a Sox fan. Cool!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 12:32 AM) Well, the Mets already have Conforto, Granderson, DeAza and Lagares, right? Doesn't really make a lot of sense unless they're taking Granderson's deal off the books...assuming that finances are the main issue here with the Mets. Still, it's hard to believe they want to go with either DeAza or Lagares as an everyday player. I'd imagine that if the Mets signed Cespedes they would have DeAza and Lagares as LH/RH fourth and fifth outfielders for the bench. Being an NL team, it does make more sense now that I think about it.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/19/dont-be-foole...-not-shrinking/ Good grief the Mets are really becoming a pain in the ass. With their outfield it doesn't make sense for them to be in on Cespedes unless they trade one of their current outfielders. Not sure what to think or how serious to take the Mets/Cespedes rumors anymore.

In case anyone interested in Desmond is curious about his '15 season, this does a nice job of breaking it down. http://www.gammonsdaily.com/examining-ian-...-agency-demand/

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 11:13 PM) if some SS who has a great range, yes, they will have some extra fielding errors. nice catch. It would make some sense out of his defensive numbers. He has good range with a strong and somewhat accurate arm, yet his 27 errors are puzzling. I'm thinking some of those errors he made are on plays that are usually base hits, deep in the hole kind of plays. Hard to say without seeing him play every day. Hopefully someone on here can give some more insight to this.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:59 PM) Desmond had some crazy streak to start the season of 8 errors in the first 12 games. Settled down a bit after that. Ouch, that is a bad start. Was just looking him up at Fangraphs and he's rated above average in range, had just 9 throwing errors with 18 fielding errors. Is it possible some of his fielding errors came from his good range enabling him to get to balls many wouldn't normally get to and therefore being a tougher play than normal? That's what it sounds like to me.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:52 PM) whitesoxdave ‏@barstoolWSD 36m36 minutes ago Goddamnit the white sox better sign Cespedes The guy people were using as a source earlier during Cespedrama is seemingly just a fan. I got that impression last week when he tweeted he was taking a dump. No kidding, true story and I am not making that up. Was the last time I payed attention to anything he said.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:19 PM) Well it's worth discussing...would anyone be willing to defer money like Chris Davis far into the future when he's not playing baseball? For the little bit Baltimore will be paying, I would absolutely do the same for Cespedes and in fact I'd prefer it. Davis' deferred payments are chump change and would have very little effect on future payroll's. I'm game!

Here's Rosenthal's latest blurb. Has some interesting points. You know, the Mets sure are lingering around long enough for a team that's supposed to be in such debt and not interested in signing a player to such a long term commitment... http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/new-yor...contract-011916 “We continue to have conversations with Cespedes’ agent,” Mets general manager Sandy Alderson told season-ticket holders Tuesday, according to a tweet from the club. “That’s all I can say at this time.”

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:02 PM) Even if there is truth, still not sure it's worth devoting thought to. now farts, on the other hand, those things are interesting! See, now you're speaking my language! Just dropped a nice little bomb on the wife about an hour ago while she layed next to me in bed. I told her I was blowing her a kiss. Sigh, then the smell hit her....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 08:07 PM) What we have is a message board post, with the evidence apparently "deleted". Which means there's likely no truth to this at all.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 06:28 PM) ok i lied to you, i only use twitter .... you know... for my ahhhh deliveries.. get my meaning. america been very good to me. you crack me up man!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 07:42 PM) Don't forget "Rick Hahn is the greatest poker player since...." As good as the Lawrie and Frazier deals still look (on paper), it's still curious why you would make those moves if you knew you were limited on the payroll side. Hopefully it wasn't all predicated on being able to move Adam LaRoche (to free up roughly $5-6 million), because that would be a sad state of affairs indeed. All we heard last year was that none of the players we gave up and none of the contracts we signed would have that much of an impact on the overall direction of the franchise. Well, clearly, that was not the case. I see it as the Sox made those moves because of the limited payroll. Frazier is going to make a mere 8M in '16 and that's pretty cheap for a power hitting 3B. Lawrie will only cost about 4M and comes with close to 20 HR potential at 2B. It would be difficult to find players capable of that power potential for cheaper. The Sox cut ties with the salaries of Flowers, Soto, Alexei and lost Samardzija to FA but gained Frazier, Lawrie, Avila and Navarro for about the same money. For a team in need of offensive and defensive upgrades, I'd say they did rather well. Hopefully they add more to finish it off. I do agree with you that a few moves last year are hurting the team's maneuverability this year. Namely LaRoche and to a lesser extent Melky. Plus, it would have been nice to still have the Samardzija prospects to use as trade bait this year but that it is the past and nothing can be done about it now.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 07:09 PM) I'm totally for Desmond on a one year deal with an addition of Jackson as well. Either that or Cespedes.... The total production between those two options is about equal I'd say when factoring in their respective current replacement options. Total contract value for the year would be about the same I suspect as well. Cespedes, between 22 and 25 million. Desmond ( 12 to 15 ) and Jackson ( 8 to 10 ). Just pulling notpoop out of my notbutt. Desmond baffles me. His defensive numbers are'nt that great and yet he's supposedly known for his defense so am I missing something here? His offensive regression concerns me too but he might be one of those " change of scenery" players and might benefit a move to the Sox? Like I said, I'm kind of baffled by him and find myself riding the fence like I do with Fowler. I see where you're coming from though. For the same money as Cespedes, the Sox could potentially upgrade two positions and two spots in the lineup for the price of one. If Jackson and Desmond could hit and defend like they used to those two combined could do more for the Sox than one Cespedes. Well, in theory that is. Uhg, I still have that disturbing image of Demi Moore in a bikini stuck in my head! If only I could erase that from my mind. Damn!

QUOTE (whtsoxfan @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 06:48 PM) http://www.hngn.com/articles/171247/201601...free-agency.htm Not sure which is scarier. The idea of signing Desmond or the pic of Demi Moore at the bottom of that page. Maybe signing Desmond doesnt look so bad after all.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 06:30 PM) but i am actually wondering how many were from cespy group. enuf for hou to come out and say those rumors were wrong, or something like that. I doubt the local media was directly swayed by the Cespedes camp, just the usual stuff we see and hear from the local media every off season.