What happens to Crawford?

6 minutes ago, oldsox said:

What happens to Crawford?

I read like a month ago that he would move to 3B if they signed Correa.

7 hours ago, ron883 said:

With Jerry's shrewd contract negotiation skills? We'll be kings of the thrift shop free agents. 

 

34 minutes ago, Capn12 said:

I don't see it as a bad deal for SF, at all. Go look at their future contract status...only 19 mil was committed beyond 2024 before this deal. They have a payroll now, that is only 13 mil over our current garbage pile. And, they have a franchise SS for the foreseeable future.

These mega contracts become instantly worth it the minute the team wins a championship. I can see the Giants winning in the near future. 

13 minutes ago, oldsox said:

What happens to Crawford?

 He gets replaced like most 35 year old SS who have a 0.6 WAR season

Sox fans getting an early start on worrying about the next owners money.

2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Sox fans getting an early start on worrying about the next owners money.

Can't happen soon enough!

It is official. We cant even "afford" to bring someone like Elvis Andrus back if we wanted to.

This is neat. Twins gonna have to spend some money on something….

i watch MLBN a lot, and one thing that was mentioned a while back were teams really think there is close to a break through  with training that will allow the aging curve after 30 to flatten out a bit. Call me skeptical. They can't even keep players on the field, let alone stop Father Time.

Edited December 14, 20223 yr by Dick Allen

Price of poker has changed forever, time for Jerry to sell. Sox fans deserve better.

Edited December 14, 20223 yr by Soxfest

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

i watch MLBN a lot, and one thing that was mentioned a while back were teams really think there is close to a break through  with training that will allow the aging curve after 30 to flatten out a bit. Call me skeptical. They can't even keep players on the field, let alone stop Father Time.

Meanwhile we can’t keep our 25 year old’s from eating dominos four times a week. 

9 hours ago, fathom said:

Dodgers and Red Sox definitely could be interested in Timmy if Swanson goes to Cubs or Twins.

I hope the cubs give Swanson a bloated contract.  That will be a terrible deal the day the ink drys.  Great move by his agent waiting..

That being said, Sox should sign him and trade Anderson for a LHH young outfielder.

11 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

i watch MLBN a lot, and one thing that was mentioned a while back were teams really think there is close to a break through  with training that will allow the aging curve after 30 to flatten out a bit. Call me skeptical. They can't even keep players on the field, let alone stop Father Time.

It wouldn’t surprise me. Modern medicine and sports science continues to be developed and improved each and every year. It still is going to require great discipline from the individual player themselves to maintain their bodies.

The length and likely dead money at the end is basically just deferred compensation for his prime years.  Also spreads out his salary more for luxury tax purposes. 

9 hours ago, kwill said:

I know people complain the White Sox don’t spend but some of these deals are going to be god awful. 

They will be lucky to get three years of surplus value. 
 

 

Pretty sure these teams signing the deals are aware of that risk.

Meanwhile they have a bonafide superstars in their prime years as they try to win titles.

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

And just think, 12 months ago we were in a lockout with the owners crying unprofitable.

Funny how that is.  Almost as if it were all a farce to begin with. 

9 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

And the best way to mitigate risk on a deal for a premium player is to never offer one in the first place. Go Sox!

my theory on the lockout was that they really could have done nothing to the cba and it'd end up like this. I didn't really think the players got much anyway, insane(!) to me that they didn't get rid of the QO.

But the reason was I thought the 15-20 years in baseball were just transformational in terms of front office set-up. The "old school" teams all cried mercy, it was dead. It required modernizing their operations, and at the same time there were huge technological advances (or at least, applications) to player development. They were focusing there, getting this stuff set-up. That led to a lot of rebuilds while they rebuilt their orgs. Reds, white sox, tigers, twins, royals just in our division.

But then starting 2020 that was largely done and they were done. Now we have way more competitive teams due to that cycle, and because they are all operating a bit smarter in putting money toward productive positions (except sox), they can go big game hunting like this. But notice the mid-level fa's haven't been crazy at all. 

And to some extent I wonder with Swanson what we'll see. Old times a team would just take what they offered to correa and offer it to swanson. I don't think teams will do that. So we'll see.

4 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Funny how that is.  Almost as if it were all a farce to begin with. 

Of course, it was a farce. And another example of how bad things are getting. The owners are the ones driving costs up.

While I think JR should spend more, I think these contracts are absurd. Regardless, the larger market teams are doing all they can to horde the talent. And I don't see the White Sox winning much of anything in the near future. Signing a player for 13 years is just plain decadent.

3 hours ago, HoosierSox said:

I thought the Cubs were going to make a big splash. Are they going to overpay for Swanson now?

it's funny. I've been working in Chicago for the last 3 months. all I see throughout the entire city are Sox license plates, in fact I can't remember the last cubs plate I've seen. it's bizarre. 

55 minutes ago, joemg311 said:

It is official. We cant even "afford" to bring someone like Elvis Andrus back if we wanted to.

Why would we want to? 

3 hours ago, HoosierSox said:

I thought the Cubs were going to make a big splash. Are they going to overpay for Swanson now?

I had him going to the Cubs but I have my doubts after initially thinking they would be in play for Turner.  With all the talk about JR being cheap etc., I'd rather have him over the Ricketts family.  They were in the running for the Chelsea FC soccer team with an expected bid of 4 billion, but can't  find money to sign any top tier free agents?

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

i watch MLBN a lot, and one thing that was mentioned a while back were teams really think there is close to a break through  with training that will allow the aging curve after 30 to flatten out a bit. Call me skeptical. They can't even keep players on the field, let alone stop Father Time.

I do think these extended deals will change one thing - you will have a lot more guys like Pujols who stay in the league rather than retire, so that they can get to the end of their contracts. 

Many all star guys reach the point where they would be backups or part time players and they wind up retiring rather than play for a couple million a year. From the White Sox, this happened to Jermaine Dye, notably. He still could have contributed a little, but it wasn’t worth it to him to stay in baseball shape for an extra couple million.

These guys with the extended contracts are probably going to wind up part time players towards the end of their deals, filling rosters as platoons or as backups. It might well be more interesting to see the old veterans hanging on in those roles than guys like Leury, at least. We saw Pujols have some late career magic, a few more guys probably will. Maybe some might still retire, and maybe some will go the Ellsbury route of being permanently benched.

So for all of the talk the last two winters now about the Cubs spending big, they again are no where to be seen.

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So for all of the talk the last two winters now about the Cubs spending big, they again are no where to be seen.

It makes ZERO sense for them to spend big right now.. Bad minors, bad staff, and only a few long term position players.  They're in a baaaad spot