Are you saying 4/$44 is a bad deal to give Figgins? Because if so, I agree.

Yup. And that's a fairly normal deal for a guy like him, although it's a little difficult to predict exactly with the economy. And that'd be a terrible deal for this team to give out.

I don't know what Fangraphs' calculations are based on, but it's not reality.

 

This is how they calculate a player's worth, "Wins above replacement player converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency."

 

I understand that it's not realistic, but it is based on a player's actual production.

 

The point of my previous post is that I think Figgins would be worth signing. He's a runs machine and now possesses a plus-glove.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by BaseballNick

it would be a contract that bites us in the ass in the future

The point of my previous post is that I think Figgins would be worth signing. He's a runs machine and now possesses a plus-glove.

Well why does he keep bringing his bad glove onto the field then

This is how they calculate a player's worth, "Wins above replacement player converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency."

 

I understand that it's not realistic, but it is based on a player's actual production.

 

The point of my previous post is that I think Figgins would be worth signing. He's a runs machine and now possesses a plus-glove.

I see, and thanks for pointing that out because I've seen some of these numbers before and I had no idea how they were coming up with them.

 

I think the problem giving so much money for Figgins is that if he loses his speed then he loses a ton of value, and I think 4 years is probably a lot to offer because it is paying him to use his legs through his age 35 season. He does do a lot of great things though. He steals a ton of bases, sees a lot of pitches, makes a lot of contact, walks a lot, and he's versatile defensively.

 

I'd go 4 years on him only if the 4th year was a vesting option that exercised itself upon hitting certain benchmarks in plate appearances, batting average, and stolen bases. But it's unlikely that happens and Figgins almost certainly gets guaranteed money from someone, and I'm guessing it'll be the Angels again.

Well why does he keep bringing his bad glove onto the field then

 

He has the second best fielding percentage in the AL among 3Bs and a UZR/150 of 11.2. In which world is that a bad glove?

I think the problem giving so much money for Figgins is that if he loses his speed then he loses a ton of value, and I think 4 years is probably a lot to offer because it is paying him to use his legs through his age 35 season. He does do a lot of great things though. He steals a ton of bases, sees a lot of pitches, makes a lot of contact, walks a lot, and he's versatile defensively.

76%

77%

72%

71%

 

Figgins's SB %ages the last 4 years, in order.

Yup. And that's a fairly normal deal for a guy like him, although it's a little difficult to predict exactly with the economy. And that'd be a terrible deal for this team to give out.

 

Especially considering that Kenny just picked up Rios' contract, which is even worse.

 

Especially considering that Kenny just picked up Rios' contract, which is even worse.

I actually think Rios can be great bargain.

 

Even with career lows in terms of AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS this season weighing his numbers down, Rios is still a career .282/.332/.447/.778 hitter. All his current numbers are waaay below those figures (.250/.298/.404/.702) and if he can just get back to his career lines, as a very good defensive CF with speed on the basepaths, and with a propensity for making a lot of contact (his Sox K numbers are also waaaay out of line for a healthy player with his track record), then he is definitely worth his contract IMO. Beyond that, he has the potential to be worth a lot more, and his deal takes him right through his prime.

 

I'd much rather take on another Rios than give the same amount of money over 4 years to Figgins because at least with Rios he's a big plus in the field, he's younger, and he has the potential to well outperform his salary if he can get back to the player he was in Toronto in 2006 and 2007. With Figgins, you're paying what he's worth at MAX value, and then hoping his legs don't give out as you're paying him to get older. Rios was only given the length of deal he got because Toronto wanted to have him at below-market throughout his prime, and Rios took it for security.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by Kenny Hates Prospects

I actually think Rios can be great bargain.

 

Even with career lows in terms of AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS this season weighing his numbers down, Rios is still a career .282/.332/.447/.778 hitter. All his current numbers are waaay below those figures (.250/.298/.404/.702) and if he can just get back to his career lines, as a very good defensive CF with speed on the basepaths, and with a propensity for making a lot of contact (his Sox K numbers are also waaaay out of line for a healthy player with his track record), then he is definitely worth his contract IMO. Beyond that, he has the potential to be worth a lot more, and his deal takes him right through his prime.

 

I disagree. Even at his career numbers (which is expect him to hit around next year), Rios at $10M/year is still way overpaid in this economy. That's why the Ricciardi was so desperate to get rid of him and that's why all of the teams who had waiver priority over the Sox took a pass on him. That said, I'm not saying that Kenny made a mistake in picking him up. The Sox certainly had/have circumstances that arguably justified over-paying Rios.

 

I'd much rather take on another Rios than give the same amount of money over 4 years to Figgins because at least with Rios he's a big plus in the field, he's younger, and he has the potential to well outperform his salary if he can get back to the player he was in Toronto in 2006 and 2007. With Figgins, you're paying what he's worth at MAX value, and then hoping his legs don't give out as you're paying him to get older. Rios was only given the length of deal he got because Toronto wanted to have him at below-market throughout his prime, and Rios took it for security.

 

I agree with this. The Sox don't need a 3B, Rios is much better in CF than Figgins, Figgins loses about half of his value if he can't steal 40+ bases a year, and Figgins has been injured a lot over the past couple of years. I'd like him for 4/20 or 4/25 because he'd be a really nice leadoff hitter, but 4/40 is ridiculous, especially considering that he wouldn't be a plus at all defensively on this team.

 

I assume you're suggesting that whatever the Sox would sign Figgins to would have to be a really bad contract?

 

I've read that he'd probably sign for 4 years $44mil. Obviously, that's not chump change, but Fangraphs.com suggests that his output this season alone is worth $23.2mil. He's been an injury risk all throughout his career, but when healthy, he's a difference maker at the top of a lineup. Also, his defense has made major strides at 3B (UZR/150 of 11.2). Personally, I'd welcome that bad contract.

Where does Figgins play if we sign him?

Where does Figgins play if we sign him?

 

I think that depends on what you do with Podsednik and the DH role.

 

The only legitimate place I see for Figgins is left field, which means you get rid of Dye, move Quentin to right, and Rios in center. And that's an outfield that I think is a step up over the current one. Figgins is a better defender than Podsednik and can play almost anywhere.

 

of course it presents a different set of circumstances.

 

• How much more does Podsednik have in the tank?

• Is Figgins at 4/40 worth that much more than Podsednik at what he'd command?

• Ostensibly in such a scenario, Podsednik DHs. Is his offensive production worth a roster spot, as he isn't good enough to be a 4th OF?

• What does run production look like?

Figgins is a good player who is playing his ass off and playing every game, something he hasn't done in a couple of years during a contract year. He's over 30 and his legs are the big part of his game. He allegedly is a bad clubhouse guy. Many red lights are going off in my head. While he's better than Pods, and I do not want Pods back, signing him to a big contract, IMO, is a mistake. The Cubs are supposedly interested. Let them dole out yet another bad contract.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by Dick Allen

Ben Maller's rumors and notes

Halos Chone Figgins to White Sox in '10?

 

Chone Figgins, come on down! The White Sox have been infatuated with the speedy leadoff hitter for four years, and now that he becomes a free agent, they'll make a serious play for him. If the asking price on Figgins is too high, then Scott Podsednik becomes Plan B, as well as talking to Dye about redoing a short-term contract and becoming a designated hitter. -- Chicago Sun-Times

link

 

I would love to see the following happen this offseason

 

Sign:

Figgins

Thome

Abreu

Wagner

 

Offer:

Dotel ARB

 

S Figgins 3B

R Beckham 2B

L Abreu RF

R Quentin LF

L Thome DH

R Konerko 1B

L AJP C

R Rios CF

R Ramirez SS

 

SP Buehrle

SP Peavy

SP Floyd

SP Danks

SP Garcia

 

LR Torres

MR Carrasco

MR Linebrink

MR Wagner

SU Pena

SU Thornton

CL Jenks

 

 

Bench: Flowers, Kotsay, Nix, Gartrell

 

I think that depends on what you do with Podsednik and the DH role.

 

The only legitimate place I see for Figgins is left field, which means you get rid of Dye, move Quentin to right, and Rios in center. And that's an outfield that I think is a step up over the current one. Figgins is a better defender than Podsednik and can play almost anywhere.

 

of course it presents a different set of circumstances.

 

• How much more does Podsednik have in the tank?

• Is Figgins at 4/40 worth that much more than Podsednik at what he'd command?

• Ostensibly in such a scenario, Podsednik DHs. Is his offensive production worth a roster spot, as he isn't good enough to be a 4th OF?

• What does run production look like?

On the Score sunday morning, one of the hosts was talking about how Ozzie was listing to the media before Sat.'s game all the baserunning gaffes in detail Pods had made this year. Pods has been good at the plate, poor on the bases, and poor in the field. Pods will probably get a larger contract offer than the sox should be willing to fork out.

 

Also, IIRC, it was Friday night's game that Stoney and Hawk were talking about how Ozzie wants Kotsay back for 2010, as he's supposedly shown good leadership and been a nice addition to the clubhouse. Kotsay might not be a regular. But I could see him getting a lot of time between RF, DH and 1b.

 

If the sox truly want to have a rotation of players to fill the DH spot, the players have to be solid in the field. Pods has been unexpectedly good this year. But I'm not sold on what he could do for 2010.

 

Now, would the sox take a flier on Coco Crisp, that would allow that kind of flexibility in the lineup? For example, the sox could have LF-Carlos, CF-Crisp, RF-Rios, and open DH spot, or LF-Crisp; CF-Rios, RF-Kotsay, and Carlos DH. Crisp's torn right labrum will drop his asking price in free agency. And the sox have been connected with him in the past. This sort of buy low scenario sounds like a KW move. Whether it'd be the right one....

Crisp only signed for 1 year with KC?

Coco going to work his way around the A.L. Central?

I really don't understand the fascination people have with moving Quentin to RF. There is nothing to indicate he would be anything less than a bad RF. The argument seems to be that he used to play RF. Well, Carlos Lee used to play 3B. Paul Konerko used to catch and play 3B.

Back to Peavy, it sounds like they plan on another bullpen session this week, and they will go from there to see how he feels.

Crisp only signed for 1 year with KC?

He only had 1 yr left on his deal when Bos. traded him to KC. KC does have an $8 mill, option though they'll likely decline.

I really don't understand the fascination people have with moving Quentin to RF. There is nothing to indicate he would be anything less than a bad RF. The argument seems to be that he used to play RF. Well, Carlos Lee used to play 3B. Paul Konerko used to catch and play 3B.

In the two years he played RF in arizona, he put up a UZR of 4.4 and 4.7. It was during a limited amount of games, but enough games to determine that he is a decent RF.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by son of a rude

He has the second best fielding percentage in the AL among 3Bs and a UZR/150 of 11.2. In which world is that a bad glove?

 

Yeah, well he doesn't even know how to spell Chode, he thinks it is with an 'n' So take that.

I really don't understand the fascination people have with moving Quentin to RF. There is nothing to indicate he would be anything less than a bad RF. The argument seems to be that he used to play RF. Well, Carlos Lee used to play 3B. Paul Konerko used to catch and play 3B.

 

Why would Quentin be worse in RF than LF? Nobody will confuse his arm with Ichiro's, but it's still strong enough to play RF competently. Maggs never had a cannon, and he was fine out there. If the Sox can find somebody with better speed and range to play LF, I don't see any problem with moving Quentin over.

 

With Carlos coming back from his foot injury, I don't think moving him to RF was ever an option. We'll see in Spring Training if Carlos starts playing RF.

With Carlos coming back from his foot injury, I don't think moving him to RF was ever an option. We'll see in Spring Training if Carlos starts playing RF.

I keep seeing people say this. Is there some huge difference between playing RF and LF that I don't know about? I thought the main difference was getting reads on the ball and having the arm strength to gun it to 3rd and home. Carlos has a good enough arm for RF and has played RF well before.