What have the White Sox publicly announced as their 2016 payroll budget?

I read somewhere a month or so ago that Hahn had the '15 payroll budget to work with. Right now, if we take committed salaries+speculated arbitration salaries +league minimum salaries to fill out the roster it adds up to about 119M at the moment. So we're already at the '15 payroll. I think it's a situation which JR bumps the payroll up for the right player or the Sox would not be rumored so heavily to be involved in the FA rumors.

The problem is the White Sox would be $30-35 million over their supposed budget this year...that big a jump would be unprecedented without following playoffs or competitive seasons.

 

Next year, less of an issue.

 

Essentially it's deliberately spending into a loss for at least one year or more if it backfires..for a payoff more likely in 2017 and 18.

Maybe so - I don't know what their budget is.

But if they want to "go for it" in 2016 and if they think that they don't have the ML ready prospects to win with (which they obviously didn't think they have, as they jettisoned most of the ML-ready prospects), then they need to be flexible to achieve their plan of "going for it".

The alternative is to chase someone like Cargo- scratch that, because you have to pay him $20 mill as well. Or one of those other Rockie-type OFs, who will cost Adams + Engel + a couple of others- and, who, I'm not convinced are anything special anyway. Maybe they'd wait until July, which would only make the situation worse and deprive the Sox of April-June production.

Cespedes gives them the best balance of "going for it" + building the farm. If they're $10 mill over budget for 1 year, they need to deal with it.

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by GreenSox

This is the article where the Sox lost out on Tanaka with the pit $100 million bid plus $20 million posting fee. The last paragraph Hahn has a quote, saying that money will be there for the right piece.

 

 

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/print...ws&c_id=cws

Nightingale coming on in about 20 minutes. I'll post what he says, although it'll be what he's already tweeted and mentioned before.

The quotation was always about a younger, in the very beginning of his prime ace...at least the Tanaka example. Abreu was at that similar age, 26/27.

 

Upton is the closest to that description.

None of us really know how much ownership is willing to spend this year, or next. Perhaps, they're not even sure, themselves.

Whatever the projected budget, it has nothing to do with the concept that "GreenSox" and I are advocating, regarding front

loading a contract, with a player "opt out". I'm curious, "Caulfield12," putting aside the issue of budget constraints, do you agree with the notion, and if not, why not?

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by Lillian

The quotation was always about a younger, in the very beginning of his prime ace...at least the Tanaka example. Abreu was at that similar age, 26/27.

 

Upton is the closest to that description.

Long term solution to one of their needs. A 4 or 5 year solution some would consider long term. There was no age bracket mentioned. The money is obviously available.

It's total comedy listening to the people on the score try to pronounce Cespedes.

 

"Sees-pay-days"

It's total comedy listening to the people on the score try to pronounce Cespedes.

 

"Sees-pay-days"

 

Levine is awful. Cespaydees and said Jorge Soler like Jorgay LOL

None of us really know how much ownership is willing to spend this year, or next. Perhaps, they're not even sure, themselves.

Whatever the projected budget, it has nothing to do with the concept that "GreenSox" and I are advocating, regarding front

loading a contract, with a player "opt out". I'm curious, "Caulfield12," putting aside the issue of budget constraints, do you agree with the notion, and if not, why not?

Of course it does, it's hard to front-load a contract if you're already struggling to fit that signing into your budget. Theoreticallly sound ideas like the one you're proposing don't always equal practical ideas.

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by Chicago White Sox

Levine is awful. Cespaydees and said Jorge Soler like Jorgay LOL

 

You'd think he would at least try to get the names right. His are bad, but the callers are pretty funny.

Nightengale saying three years maybe a must in order for the sox to get one of the three.

Here we go...

 

Says it sounds like it's 3yrs or nothing instead of a 5 year opt out after 3 for the White Sox. I don't buy this info at all.

 

Hasn't said anything informative at all which is what we all thought.

Also says Cespedes maybe the most likely of the three to take a short term deal. Says could be something like Nelson Cruz in Balt. He wouldn't be surprised if these guys signed short term, but would be surprised if someone signed for five years with a 3 year opt out because of the 2018 FA class.

 

Not much new information. But it sounds as if the three year thing came from our end.

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by Frank_Thomas35

Nightengale saying three years maybe a must in order for the sox to get one of the three.

Is a must from the players' perspective? If so, I'm not sure that's really news. I would assume 4 years is a must with Gordon & Cespedes. And quite frankly, I'd be very surprised if they Cespedes took less than 5 years. He's coming off a monster season and needs to capitalize.

Also Bruce asked about AAV. He said his guys is it is close to $20 mil per year and more if it's a shorter term deal.

Is a must from the players' perspective? If so, I'm not sure that's really news. I would assume 4 years is a must with Gordon & Cespedes. And quite frankly, I'd be very surprised if they Cespedes took less than 5 years. He's coming off a monster season and needs to capitalize.

 

 

No from our perspective.

What will happen first we get too 100 pages here or sox sign a big 3 guy.

 

Soxtalk will cease to exist, and anyone who tries to access the page will be pulled into the void

Why would anyone want to compete with that mass of talented players after 2018?

 

These next two classes are the time to come out...

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by caulfield12

Is a must from the players' perspective? If so, I'm not sure that's really news. I would assume 4 years is a must with Gordon & Cespedes. And quite frankly, I'd be very surprised if they Cespedes took less than 5 years. He's coming off a monster season and needs to capitalize.

 

Probably right but FWIW Bob said Cespedes might be the most incline to accept a short term deal with Upton being the least likely. Who knows I really just want the roller coaster to stop.

Nightengale saying three years maybe a must in order for the sox to get one of the three.

I tend to doubt it unless their markets have become really depressed. I am quite sure the White Sox understand if teams are throwing 4 and 5 year offers at these guys and they are only willing to go to 3, they would be wasting their time and move on. It is all part of negotiation. Each side is looking for their best deal. I am sure every team would like to commit no more than 3 years to any of these guys. at the end, you have to be the high bidder. It isn't the end right now, no point throwing out your best offer.

Did he explain why Upton has dropped out of consideration or most fa conversations in general?

Why would anyone want to compete with that mass of talented players after 2018?

 

These next two classes are the time to come out...

 

That's what Bob was saying. He would not expect any of the three to say sign a 5 year deal with an opt out after three. He said the reason these guys may decide to sign a short term deal is because they can renter the market either next year or in two years and capitalize on a weak FA class , that is if they believe in themselves enough to sign short termZ

Did he explain why Upton has dropped out of consideration or most fa conversations in general?

 

No really they asked like three questions and moved to the Cubs

Nightengale says:

 

$20 to $22 Million per year is the range he forsees for these guys.

Short term deal should pay more, as the player is not requiring the longer term guarantee.

Sox "3 yr. deal" offer looks very firm.

1 or 2 years is more attractive to players, as the 3RD year will see a strong F.A. market again.

 

His opinion on New contracts with opt outs: He thinks that it totally favors the players, not the teams. Team stuck if guy performs poorly, and if he does well, he leaves.

Also gives players a chance to see how he likes playing for that particular organization and in that city.

 

IMO, he doesn't get it. He never mentioned the front office's motivation, nor did he discuss how such deals can keep a player motivated.

He provided less insight and worthwhile analysis than we fans are offering, on this forum. You guys are great, and such interviews only reinforce the fact.

Thanks for all the terrific analysis.

Edited January 2, 201610 yr by Lillian