So, regarding the staying in budget part of that, without counting the "Some bullpen arm" I add that up as being somewhere over $160 million with the total payroll.

 

Yes. Which isn't all that crazy if you are making an actual push with the core you have (by non Jerry standards). It's a big number but all of it could be off your roster within 2-3 years. So it's not a Tigers like push where you'd be screwed long term..

 

I picked certain guys off that list that would have shorter contracts and that have value in the trade market (albeit older guys ... catch 22).

 

If you want to win you have to spend. Not HAVE to, but basically do.

 

Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Giants, Angels, Rangers, Cards, Nationals, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets... those are your top 13 payrolls at the end of 2016. Every one of those teams was in it with two weeks left in September except the Angels... and all of them had a payrool of $156mm or above...

 

$160mm payroll is what it kind of takes...

Yes. Which isn't all that crazy if you are making an actual push with the core you have (by non Jerry standards). It's a big number but all of it could be off your roster within 2-3 years. So it's not a Tigers like push where you'd be screwed long term..

 

I picked certain guys off that list that would have shorter contracts and that have value in the trade market (albeit older guys ... catch 22).

 

If you want to win you have to spend. Not HAVE to, but basically do.

 

Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Giants, Angels, Rangers, Cards, Nationals, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets... those are your top 13 payrolls at the end of 2016. Every one of those teams was in it with two weeks left in September except the Angels... and all of them had a payrool of $156mm or above...

 

$160mm payroll is what it kind of takes...

 

And last thing.. cause I should actually do some work today... that is BEST case scenario almost... if Jerry says spend $60mm. It aint happening. And that still doesn't give me all that much confidence.. which is why I say sell IMO

$160mm payroll is what it kind of takes...

 

they could unload Sale, Melky, Frazier, Robertson and have a payroll of like $80MM. You think Jerry might like that plan instead?

they could unload Sale, Melky, Frazier, Robertson and have a payroll of like $80MM. You think Jerry might like that plan instead?

 

Yes. Tactically speaking he knows the Sox are dead in the water in Chicago. If you are going to go into hiding this is the time to do so. Jerry is a businessman. We'd all like to say we'd be different in his shoes, but it's not Monopoly money. If he spends $60mm extra and we don't show up he wont make as much of a profit. Yes his franchise is worth a ton more than when he bought it etc. etc. But it still money t the end of the day.

 

If he cared about wining and the fans we'd have $3 beers and a stacked team.

Have we gotten anything on what the payroll will be?

Have we gotten anything on what the payroll will be?

 

No point until we know if we are buying or selling.

Interesting article: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-teams-w...in-free-agency/

No point until we know if we are buying or selling.

Well my point was it would be an indicator if we knew but ya I got ya man.

What I find most interesting is how many guys they have the Sox listed as potential fits. Feels like half the list, and also feels like the Sox were left off some guys that make sense just because they kept showing up.

The article also lists us as interested potentially in:

 

Fowler

Desmond

Bautista

Ramos

Wieters

Reddick

Gomez

Saunders

Napoli

Morales

Wood

Cecil

Moss

Jay

Holliday

 

Give me 4 of those top 7 or sell it all.

 

Yep, beat me to it.

 

Chapman and Jansen are awesome but paying $90 million + for any reliever that throws 70 innings a year is insane. Create relievers by using failed starters. Trade them when they get expensive. Rinse and repeat.

Chapman and Jansen are awesome but paying $90 million + for any reliever that throws 70 innings a year is insane. Create relievers by using failed starters. Trade them when they get expensive. Rinse and repeat.

 

Though it is hard to argue that Chapman and Miller didn't get their teams to the World Series. Without them, do those teams make it? With Cleveland no way. The Cubs? Maybe?

Yep, beat me to it.

 

Same.

 

I need one of Fowler/Cespedes, Wieters/Ramos and Bautista/Reddick before I'll have any confidence in this team.

Though it is hard to argue that Chapman and Miller didn't get their teams to the World Series. Without them, do those teams make it? With Cleveland no way. The Cubs? Maybe?

 

 

That's probably true. Dodgers should ideally let him walk though and have more guys ready to go that are cheaper. I just don't think the value lines up. Those guys can't be used the way they were used in the playoffs in the regular season unless they are used in way fewer games.

Chapman and Jansen are awesome but paying $90 million + for any reliever that throws 70 innings a year is insane. Create relievers by using failed starters. Trade them when they get expensive. Rinse and repeat.

 

Thats the reason I wish we still had Montas. With what back end relieves pulled back in deals last winter (Giles and Kimbrel) there is a lot of value in having a guy like that in the late innings and then being able to deal him to fill holes.

 

The market for high leverage guys is going to be through the roof this winter given the lack of options, the cost of high end options on the open market, and the way that guys like Miller, Chapman, Montgomery, and Allen impacted the postseason.

Chapman and Jansen are awesome but paying $90 million + for any reliever that throws 70 innings a year is insane. Create relievers by using failed starters. Trade them when they get expensive. Rinse and repeat.

 

 

If it was that easy the Rays and/or every team would have a factory pumping these type of guys out...

 

I get your point though.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/2016...redictions.html

 

29. Jason Castro – White Sox. Two years, $15MM. Castro, a 29-year-old catcher, hasn’t hit much for the Astros since his 2013 All-Star season. As a left-handed batter, Castro has demonstrated particular issues against southpaws. Still, the former first-rounder is one of the game’s better pitch framers and should still serve as a starting catcher somewhere. A three-year deal is possible. The Astros will look to retain him, otherwise the Nationals, White Sox, Braves, Orioles, Angels, Rockies, Rays, and Twins could be interested.

 

33. Carlos Beltran – White Sox. One year, $14MM. Beltran, 40 in April, raked for 99 games with the Yankees this year but dropped off a bit after a deadline deal to the Rangers. Though he played over 500 innings in right field, Beltran is likely limited to an American League team. The veteran switch-hitter is putting the finishing touches on an illustrious career, and ranks fourth among active players with 421 career home runs. The Rangers could bring him back, or the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Indians, Astros, Royals, Orioles, or White Sox could have interest. A two-year deal is possible, if Beltran wants to commit to it.

 

39. Boone Logan – White Sox. Two years, $12MM. Logan, 32, signed a three-year, $16.5MM deal with the Rockies after the 2013 season. His first two seasons went poorly, but the lefty finally found success this year. Part of that was a low BABIP, and Logan does have issues with right-handed batters. Still, decent lefty relievers are often at a premium in free agency. The White Sox, Cubs, Blue Jays, Brewers, and Mariners are a few potential options.

Carlos Beltran? Let's go for him, rename him with Adam as his 1st name and see what happens with another aging veteran named Adam. Oh Wait, we did that twice already. How did that work out?

Carlos Beltran? Let's go for him, rename him with Adam as his 1st name and see what happens with another aging veteran named Adam. Oh Wait, we did that twice already. How did that work out?

 

it worked out about as well as the first couple variations of the Adam joke

Carlos Beltran? Let's go for him, rename him with Adam as his 1st name and see what happens with another aging veteran named Adam. Oh Wait, we did that twice already. How did that work out?

 

He's older but much better than the roach was.

it worked out about as well as the first couple variations of the Adam joke

still funny though