ptatc

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) Davis is knocked for his poor base running and defense at 1B so is he really an outfield option? But the team that signs Davis was not really in the market for an outfielder in the first place considering Davis is a 1B/DH which correlates with my response above. Depends. They may have a current 1B that can move to a corner OF. It's more about the money than the position. RF and 1B aren't always interchangeable but they may be.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Isn't cocaine consumption against the law? Tim Raines is supposedly about as nice of a guy as there is. If he was an ass, the coke would always be mentioned. I personally think his problem with getting in has been he played a long time as a good player.. I think his peak in Montreal gets watered down by it. Besides Rickey Henderson, you could make an argument he was the second most disruptive offensive player in baseball for 8 or 9 years. Truly awesome. He was a good player for the White Sox, but not anything like he was during his prime years. His performance IMO has earned him a plaque. The PED thing comfuses me. If both pitchers and hitters were juicing, whose performance is enhanced more? Bonds vs. Clemens clean vs. juiced. I wonder what the difference would be, Ii have read where 70% was an estimate for how many players used PEDs. I would guess some were on a program like Bonds, and guys like Pablo Ozuna probably took supplements that contained something they shouldn't consume, and it didn't help them all that much. Just from anecdotal evidence, pitchers and hitters benefited in different ways. Hitter became stronger and hit the ball harder, thus in general could get more hits and more HR. Pitchers used it more for endurance and recovery. They could pitch more effectively longer into games as a starter or pitch more often more effectively as a reliever. They both benefited and thus both should be penalized. The topic of penalty for the HOF is tough on players caught. If they get caught once but never again is that enough to keep them out of the HOF? These will be the tough questions in the future.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) Not in the least bit concerned with the tigers going after one of Cespedes/Upton/Gordon and its likely if they are in talks its to help drive the price up on the Sox. I think it's more likely the Tigers are looking at the 2Nd tier of outfield free agents like Parra, Fowler, Jackson and Span, if they are even seriously in the market for an outfielder. As for Davis. He's a 1B/DH and has nothing to do with FA outfielders not signing. There are more outfielders available through the FA and trade markets than there are teams looking for outfielders which is why its such a buyers market. Plus, the big spenders like NYY, Boston, Dodgers and cubs are out of the picture. This is why the free agents are slow to sign and interested teams are offering lower than the free agent's expectations. It's a buyers market for outfielders. Sure it does. The team that signs him most likely will not sign another big FA deal and takes away a competitor for their services. Thus drives the market down.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Isn't cocaine consumption against the law? Tim Raines is supposedly about as nice of a guy as there is. If he was an ass, the coke would always be mentioned. I personally think his problem with getting in has been he played a long time as a good player.. I think his peak in Montreal gets watered down by it. Besides Rickey Henderson, you could make an argument he was the second most disruptive offensive player in baseball for 8 or 9 years. Truly awesome. He was a good player for the White Sox, but not anything like he was during his prime years. His performance IMO has earned him a plaque. I agree. Even tough coke is against the law I personally don't feel something like that should effect his HOF. The only thing that should effect the HOF is how they treat the game (short of being a mass murderer). The ones who took the PEDs to change the game shouldn't be in. Recreational drugs generally will not improve their performance. I agree that the being very good for a long time is what's holding him back. He was only in the top 5 for MVP once. While this isn't the only factor, he was never considered "one of the best players" in any given time frame. This makes it difficult to put him in the HOF.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) There are a lot of total assholes in the HOF. Bonds was IMO a HOF worthy player before it became obvious he was juicing. I am sure there are guys in that have juiced, and have cheated many different ways. With the PED guys I was always no to getting in, but on a couple they seem to have been declared guilty with the evidence being stats and/or body. Harold Baines had some big years in his late 30s. Was he juicing? Tim Raines used cocaine when he played, even the documentary said he occasional kept a vial in his uniform pocket. Is he more innocent than a Bagwell or Piazza? It looks like Piazza has a shot this year, but by numbers alone, he should have been first ballot. No failed test, just a report about zits on his back. Yes, because the cocaine did not improve his performance, it hindered it. If nothing else he admitted to not sliding properly and getting tagged out on stolen bases because he didn't want to break the vial of coke in his pocket. Doing the coke made him stupid not cheating the game. Besides there is no definitive proof the Piazza and Bagwell did the PEDs. Now, being in the clubhouse with Piazza, I have no doubt he did but there is no proof ala Bonds.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) There's alot of outfielders on the trade market so the trade costs should be reasonable. Doesn't sound like the Dodgers will move Puig with the DV lingering over his head and coming off of a down season, the Dodgers would be selling quite low which doesn't sound like a typical Dodger move. As for the FA outfielders. Outside of Cespedes and Upton, the only one I would be interested in would be Parra and I'm straddling the fence big time with him. I have no interest in the rest of the the free agents. Two things to remember. 1) its all part of negotiations. 2) Nightengale is the only one saying the Sox are not willing to go more than three years. It's not a bad stance by the sox because no one is offering big money long term deals. If a team did the player would have signed. If the sox offer more aav in a 3 year deal it may make it attractive to the player. This type of deal is better for the team than the opt out deal as they are not stuck with a poorly performing player.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) Pipped whined but he performed. The thing was, even if they wanted to, at least at that time it was against the rules of the NBA to renegotiate contracts. And they did him a solid with a sign and trade to Houston. It is funny, for all the whining Pippen did, and the demanding to be traded, now he is part of the organization again. And he came back for peanuts at the end of his career to play for a non contender. The Pippen/Bulls relationship is pretty bizarre. I Yes it is a bizarre one. But the pr nightmare at the time was awful. I think alot of it was due to the championships and the money he earned later from that. A team signing the opt out deals will need to hope for a similar result.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) With the opt out privilege, the player simply leaves. Doesn't that mitigate, to some degree, the Pippen type circumstance? It would if he left. In DA scenario he stays due to the really good FA class of 2018. The opt clause only works for the team if the player is playing well, which really doesn't work for the team because if he is playing well the team wouldn't ming paying him. I really don't see how that works for the team.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 07:23 AM) Some of my best friends... Bonds was/is an ass. That's not why he shouldn't be included, though. If the standard is cheated or not, he absolutely cheated. That's pretty easy to deduce by looking at his stats pre- and post-1999. There's a hundred years of data that shows guys don't get better from HOF level in their mid 30s. So, he didn't get caught, but everyone knows. I'm at the point where I really don't care anymore. And, I think that's ultimately how steroids ruined the game for me. I grew up a numbers freak. I used to love looking at the stats leaders and practically memorizing the backs of baseball cards. Now, I don't care because I don't know. And I won't - because the numbers aren't real. And greenies does not equal steroids. Just look at the power numbers. Players didn't suddenly learn how to hit HRs in the 90s. Describing him as an ass is bring very kind to the way he treated people at least in the visitors clubhouse.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 09:53 AM) The thing with an opt out is you don't have to opt out. I don't know why they would be opposed to signing for 5 years with an opt out after 3 even if they are scared of the big free agent class. If it doesn't look like you will get paid, you still have 2 years left on the contract. Besides, if they are afraid of the guys in 2018, they must not be too confident their performance would make a team want to pay them. The problem with scenario is that you end up with a scottie pippen situation where he got good money early but whines about "being disrespected" with being paid like a backup at the end of the deal. Its a no win for the team.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 09:59 PM) I may be wrong, but I don't remember Barry Bonds ever being caught and suspended by MLB. He missed as many games to suspension as Piazza and Bagwell did. No, but through the Grand jury testimony he was proven to have taken them during the timeframe, I believe. If they can prove the others took them during that timeframe as well, they fall in the same category.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) But this FO needs to show him that they are willing to pay to get to the playoffs. Saying that our team is better than the Reds is not saying much!! Sacrificing the future to win now is why the Sox are in the position they are. Improve the team each year while realistically protecting the future is a better plan. Besides Frazier is gone in two years anyway.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) I wonder how Todd Frazier feels now? That he he is now playing for a team that will be better than the one he left.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) No worries yet. Not sure I want any of these guys come 2019 anyways at more than 20 million correct. It goes back to the improving the team without hurting the future. I'm sure they are willing to negotiate more and they will. However. After 3 years is anyone confident that this will be a good deal? So far the team is improved for this year and they haven't hurt the future. I'm sure there is much discussion on where the team will be and if any of these players are worth a bigger contract. Many people on this board want the Sox to build from within. So far they haven't strayed from that and a big contract could hamper that in the future.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 12:34 PM) Its cheating, regardless. And many of those guys were never caught with anything, just talked about. Bagwell and Piazza specifically GMAB, the hall of fame is a popularity contest and it will never be right going forward, there will ALWAYS be cheaters somehow. People want to pick and choose what is ok to look past, and bottom line is none of it is ok to look past, but people have been looking past it forever, The steroid era happened, everyone is under suspicion in that era. I dont even care anymore, Bonds was a HOFer before and after he bulked up. Goes back to the same discussion of degrees of breaking the rules. Is speeding the same as murder? Does changing your body to improve performance the same as using something to improve your focus? I would say with the sosa, Bonds, McGwire HR chase the steriod advancement did alot more than the greenies ever did. Everyone took greenies, everyone. In the late 80's and early 90's we had coffee pots in the locker room labeled leaded and unleaded. Most thought it was caffiene and non- caffiene. It was greenies and non-greenies. You can equate the two if you want, I'm just not sure everyone does or will. there is also the line of thinking that it was not cheating until there was a rule against it. Let players in the HOF before the rules were made. If they were caught after, they don't get in. Bonds was a HOF prior to his PED use. However, he was caught cheating after the rules were in place. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong but it's not a black and white " all get in or none get in" case.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) Well the rumor is the Royals offered around 4/$52M, so my guess is a lot more. The Sox just gave Melky $15M/per, don't see why they wouldn't be willing to give a much better player in Gordon close to $20M per over four seasons. If that's truly the case, I wonder why he hasn't signed yet. Something tells me that isn't the whole story.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 04:41 PM) I agree with both of these posts. Too many people buying into the "Gordon won't leave KC." Obviously there's a chance these people are right, but he's already given them a team friendly contract. This is his chance to break bank. He'd be silly to take far less money to stay with them. Don't get me wrong, the Sox are definitely talking to Cespedes. I just think he's the back up plan at this point and the rumors are overblown. I don't even know who Tony Cruz is. Seriously. My Cubs buddy who is smart keeps saying, "Everybody loves the Cubs" and cites the Heyward conference. I think this is the key. How far over the KC offer are the sox willing to go? I have no doubt it will be more but how much?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) In terms of NOW, I doubt any of the deals he was offered gave him $76 million in the first three years. No not in the first three years but over the length of the contract. The whole conversation started with "did he sign a discounted contract not from his home team." As the contract stands, he did not take the most money. He took a contract with the potential to sign a bigger one later. He did not sign the contract that would pay him the most money. He could have signed a contract that would have guaranteed him more money with another team.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:32 PM) He's not taking less now though. He's getting $78M over three years. Those other deals would have most likely been back loaded. He's making more now and later assuming no sudden drop off in performance over the next three years. If so, he loses roughly $16M or so in years 6 through 8 of his contract, which is significantly less than the potential payoff. Sure he is. He signed a 184 million deal instead of a 200 million deal. If he dislocates his hip this year he will make less money. He signed it with the intention of opting out to make more later. He is betting on himself to continue to produce at a high level for three years to make more later.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) If the Sox do sign Gordon, it would be interesting to hear what the reasons are that he would say in his press conference. I agree. He really seems to want to stay in KC. However, if there offer is really low, he will come up with something. 1. He couldn't pass it up. 2. Sox are doing alot of good things. 3. Still close to his home in Neb.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) Yes. But do you really think if there was no opt out he would have taken $16 million less for 8 years? I don't know. Probably not if money is the issue. But realistically when you are talking 184 million, what's 16 million. If he wants to win or be in a good situation it may have been depending on what other teams offered the bigger money.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:30 PM) Isn't his average about $28 million the first 3 years? Then he could opt out. He is risking about $16 million with a chance to make a lot more. If he is great, Theo probably lets him walk, and gets 3 prime years out of him, and doesn't have to pay for the decline. I still think he is going to start hitting homers, but his defense will fall off a bit. 245 pound guys legs don't age all that well IMO. I agree. I didn't know that the AAV for the first few was that high. The cubs really front loaded it to get him to sign. That does make the difference in the money.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) He took guaranteed less, but the option of getting another HUGE contract in three years, and if he sucks or is horrifically injured, he still gets a substantial guarantee. Correct, but the point was he didn't take the most money available. He signed to contract for other reasons than the biggest contract. He signed it with the possibility of more money later, hopefully.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) Technically he was, but without the opt outs when he gets his money the first 3 years and then signs another huge contract. since he was offered 200 million by other teams, he is taking less for a few years, in order to boost his value in 3 years to make more than the 200 guaranteed now. this will work out provide a) he continues to produce, b) he doesn't get hurt, c) there is a team willing to spend that much more on an older player. He is really betting on himself. I think I would have gone for the big money now, if the money is his only concern.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) Overall, but with the opt outs, if he is any good, he will make more. The players association doesn't like players, especially the really big names taking discounts. That is why I doubt Gordon would go back to the Royals if their offer is significantly less than any other team. A slight discount is fine, but a large one would be a no no. So, in other words, he signed this deal due to the opt outs not the most money in the deal. He signed it with the possibility of more money later not more money now.