If you think the new manager is going to sit Rios and Dunn, bless you.

They will play every day.

 

You're only 1 of 2 people I've heard out of 4 different message boards that thinks this.

You work his ass off during the winter, and then bring him to spring training and evaluate him. If he continues to suck, you bench him as much as possible.

 

Bench him? Why use a roster spot on him?

Bench him? Why use a roster spot on him?

 

Tens of millions of reasons.

Bench him? Why use a roster spot on him?

 

No one in the history of baseball has cut a guy who has Adam Dunn's money left. No one has ever cut anything more than half of what Dunn makes. Ever.

If Williams signed him for $56M, you couldn't.

 

Why?

GM should get rid of players like that, better yet not even acquire them.

 

LOL, I'll take a page out of greg's book.

 

Yawn.

If nothing else...cutting him immediately means coming up with $42 million immediately, as opposed to paying it out over 3 years. THat's a very steep cost for a roster spot.

You judge a lot by Spring Training, give him as much time as humanly possible and push him hard. You start him off in April next year for a couple weeks to see what he's got. You might give him a longer leash if he has a really good spring training. If he continues to struggle starting next season, you transition him to the bench and you use him to give Konerko days off/days at DH against RHP, while hiding him from LHP as much as possible. You hope then he either snaps out of it or retires.

 

Once he's signed, the money is a sunk cost.

 

If he is not good enough to play in July of 2011, he should not be on the roster in 2012.

If Williams signed him for $56M, you couldn't.

 

Aw, I think you're at the anger stage of the grieving process. It's OK, you'll accept that you're going to lose your beloved dog, I mean, manager soon enough.

If nothing else...cutting him immediately means coming up with $42 million immediately, as opposed to paying it out over 3 years. THat's a very steep cost for a roster spot.

 

Source?

Aw, I think you're at the anger stage of the grieving process. It's OK, you'll accept that you're going to lose your beloved dog, I mean, manager soon enough.

 

Wrong again. Usually though you're not this clever.

No one in the history of baseball has cut a guy who has Adam Dunn's money left. No one has ever cut anything more than half of what Dunn makes. Ever.

 

 

If he is not good enough to play in July of 2011, he should not be on the roster in 2012.

 

This isn't a Kenny thing. This is an every single general manager in the history of baseball thing.

Wrong again. Usually though you're not this clever.

 

If you're not angry, I have no idea what anger is. Take it easy and just accept that he's gone, man. He's just gone.

This isn't a Kenny thing. This is an every single general manager in the history of baseball thing.

 

Kenny shouldn't have signed him then. Ozzie did nothing wrong.

Source?

A normal baseball franchise wouldn't be sitting on $42 million in cash that they could jsut come up with. They'd either have to take out a loan to do that or cut back on salary next year by $30 million to come up with that pile of cash.

 

I can recall a good example of Sosa getting traded to the Orioles and the Tribune company eating $10 million, where the $10 million the Tribune co. ate appeared in their official financial statements that quarter as one of the company's largest losses.

 

Do you really need a source on "cutting a guy = buying out his entire contract"?

A normal baseball franchise wouldn't be sitting on $42 million in cash that they could jsut come up with. They'd either have to take out a loan to do that or cut back on salary next year by $30 million to come up with that pile of cash.

 

I can recall a good example of Sosa getting traded to the Orioles and the Tribune company eating $10 million, where the $10 million the Tribune co. ate appeared in their official financial statements that quarter as one of the company's largest losses.

 

Do you really need a source on "cutting a guy = buying out his entire contract"?

 

That isn't the same scenario to be fair. Cutting a guy is different than trading him and paying his entire contract (except the minimum).

That isn't the same scenario to be fair. Cutting a guy is different than trading him and paying his entire contract (except the minimum).

Am I wrong that cutting a guy = paying off his entire contract at that moment?

Am I wrong that cutting a guy = paying off his entire contract at that moment?

 

I think you are right, but that isn't proof that you do pay off an entire contract when you cut someone. Those are two different occasions.

I think you are right, but that isn't proof that you do pay off an entire contract when you cut someone. Those are two different occasions.

Not what I was trying to say. I'm using that to point out that a normal org isn't sitting on $40 million in spare cash.

Am I wrong that cutting a guy = paying off his entire contract at that moment?

 

I think you are.

 

Not what I was trying to say. I'm using that to point out that a normal org isn't sitting on $40 million in spare cash.

 

The Sox sure as hell aren't this year.

the only answer to underachieving players is to cut them, even if its the first year of a huge contract. its impossible for a manager to simply bench them and try it again next year.

Am I wrong that cutting a guy = paying off his entire contract at that moment?

 

Per Cotts:

If the player is not claimed (clears waivers), the club may option him or assign him outright to the minor leagues, though he must continue to be paid according to the terms of his contract. A player may be assigned outright to the minors only once in his career without his permission. Thereafter, he may either 1) reject the assignment and become a free agent, or 2) accept the assignment and become a free agent at the end of the season if he’s not back on the 40-man roster. Additionally, player with 3 years of major league service may refuse an outright assignment and choose to become a free agent, regardless of whether he has been sent outright to the minors previously. A player with 5 years of major league service time who refuses an outright assignment is entitled to the money due according to the terms of his contract.

 

They would not have to pay him a lump sum.

Edited September 14, 201114 yr by Marty34

the only answer to underachieving players is to cut them, even if its the first year of a huge contract. its impossible for a manager to simply bench them and try it again next year.

 

 

If that was the case, the White Sox would have cut Rios after 2009?

 

Which would have made zero sense...if you look at how he played the first 3-4 months of 2010.

So you have Ozzie accusing the team of quitting....he's the best!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,1522982.story