Lillian

I would have thought Gordon, because he's a left handed hitter, which you all know I covet. However, looking at his career stats, Cespedes has actually hit RH pitching a little better than LH pitching. It's always useful to remember that most of the tough lefties, in our Division, are on our staff, so I wouldn't worry too much about how a guy hits lefties. Cespedes profiles better as a clean up hitter, which I'd prefer to having Gordon hitting somewhere other than in the 3 - 5 spots, in the lineup. He's 2 years younger, and a great physical specimen. The Sox would be able to keep the draft pick. Yoenis has more "Star" appeal, and might generate more excitement. I love the Cuban connection, especially if they bring back Alexei. Cespedes has the potential to play RF, especially with that arm, and the Sox need a right fielder. Like many of you, I really doubt that Gordon has any interest in playing for the Sox.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) How crazy would it be if Hahn found some way to sign both Gordon and Cespedes? That would be so awesome. Yes "ChiSoxFanMike" a.k.a. Chris Farley, that would be "awesome". But that is about as funny as Farley was. I assume that you meant it to be in teal.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) The part you're missing is front-loading a contract hurts your financial flexibility now. I'm sure most teams would love to see annual salaries in contracts decrease over time along with expected production, but the desire to win now (usually why you're adding a big FA) typically prevents that. Thank you for the clarification. I understand the desire for added financial flexibility in the short run. However, the motive here is to pay the player for his prime, while continuing to keep him motivated to produce. Then, to encourage him to opt out, in those later years, when the probability is much less that he would be productive enough to justify the big salary.

To those of you who assert that the best way for an organization to structure a contract is to "back load" it, I disagree, if the objective is to give the team flexibility by encouraging the player to opt out. If the big money comes later in the deal, why would the player opt out. Reverse the numbers in my hypothetical example with Cespedes: 6 years for $150 Million 1ST 3 years at $20 Million per year Last 3 years @ $30 Million per year That would all but guarantee that the team will be paying the entire contract, as Cespedes would have little incentive to opt out. Please explain what I am missing, and don't quibble about the total amount, as it is a hypothetical example.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 29, 2015 -> 06:28 AM) The problem is very simple...the White Sox don't want to go $30 million into red ink when they would prefer to spend $17.5 million. Neither Cespedes or Upton is worth that amount alone. Neither is quite a superstar. You're going to be devoting 20-22.5% of the payroll to a single player, and neither's as good as Chris Sale or maybe even Quintana. At least not to an organization with a middle class payroll and mid-market mentality. It was true in 2005, it's just as true today. Even having two of the best pitchers in the game like Kershaw and Greinke that would warrant such a deal...they weren't even able to get the Dodgers to the World Series. The actual worth, or even realistic market value of Cespedes, or any other player, is a separate topic. Whatever the total amount of the contract, I'm interested in your opinion as to the merits of this front loaded, with an opt out, concept.

Allow me to summarize this strategy of offering a player a contract, with a higher pay out up front, and an option for the player to "opt out" of the contract. Here are the benefits to the team: 1) The player remains highly motivated, because he has not necessarily obtained his final contract. 2) The player has an incentive to leave, and thus reduce the total number of years, in which the organization is obligated to pay him, and keep him on the roster. 3) If the player does not opt out, the contract is more manageable, as the annual salary is smaller, in the later years. 4) The contract is more tradable, for the same reasons. Let's consider Cespedes, as an example. He is 30 years old. Ideally, a team would like to sign him to a 3 year deal, taking him through the rest of his prime years. However, he wants 6 years, which means that a team would be paying him, when he is 33 through 35, no longer in his prime. He would not consider leaving, if he were going to make as much on his current guaranteed contract, as he could get by opting out, and reentering free agency. Moreover, and most importantly, he becomes complacent, as he has already signed his last contract, and there is less incentive. Oh sure, he plays up to the best of his ability, when on the field, after all, he wants to win, and he takes pride in his play, but he doesn't necessarily continue to work out as hard, maintain the best health regimine, practice with same focus, or study the pitchers as diligently, as he might, especially during the off season. It's just human nature!! Contrast that scenario, with one in which he is getting paid significantly more money, during the first half of his contract. He remains highly motivated, with an eye toward that 4TH year, when he knows that he can opt out, and seek a more lucrative deal, as a free agent. He continues to stay in the best shape he can, he practices diligently and approaches the game, as most players do, who are in their free agency season. Then, after 3 years of his prime playing days, with outstanding effort and production, still in great shape, he opts out. Signs a better deal, and immediately succumbs to the irresistible temptation to begin to relax a little bit. His new team is now stuck with an aging, more injury prone, less motivated, high salaried player. If Cespedes wants, and could get, 6 years and let's say $150 million. Why not give him $90 million ($30M per year) for the first 3 years, and $60 million ($20M per year), over the final 3 years? There is never any guarantee on any deal, but by structuring the contract in this manner, a team maximizes its chances for a satisfactory outcome. Does the team receive a draft pick, if the player opts out?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) At the very least it should make the up front money lesser, so there is more incentive for the player to not opt out. It is what is the craziest thing about the deal the Cubs gave to Heyward. Most of hte money is up front, so they are incentivizing him opting out in 3 years. Yes, that is true. However, maybe there is a "method to their madness". By giving the guy more money up front, and less money later, they are providing the player with a tremendous extra motivation to produce. He has a chance to make more money, if he can demonstrate his value. That is one of the things about which I was thinking, when I raised this issue. Think of it this way: One of the biggest concerns about giving a player a big long term contract is that you disincentivise his productivity. Hey, he's got his long term guarantee, it's just human nature to become a little complacent. By continuing to hold out a potentially bigger reward for excellence, you keep him highly motivated. Then, as he approaches the years, in which you are really not that thrilled to be obligated, he opts out, and signs his bigger deal. Now he is both slowing down, because of age, and he is far less motivated, because he has obtained the final big payday. To me, this kind of contract can be an effective way to both keep a player motivated, and possibly avoid the undesirable long term obligation to a player in his declining years. Maybe the Cubs had that precise strategy in mind, when they offered that contract to Hayward. Why not front load a big contract to Cespedes, and give him an opt out, in 3 years? Pay him and motivate him, for the anticipated prime years, and then, let him go, as he approaches his mid 30's, and wish him all the best. Moreover, if he should decide to stay, at least you are paying him less, for what is likely to be a lower level of performance. It also makes it easier to trade him, if the contract is more manageable.

I'd like to explore this "opt out" privilege being granted in so many recent contracts. I understand that it can be favorable to either side, depending upon the circumstances. In the current competitive and financial state of the White Sox, it would seem that they are focusing upon a 2 to 3 year window. Why not sign a player like Cespedes to the 6 years he is seeking and give him an opt out after the 2ND year? If he is playing well, and salaries continue to escalate, he may exercise his opt out clause, in order to seek even more money, in another contract. One might question whether it would be desirable to have a guy who is very productive, leave, just when he seems to still be in his prime. However, losing a guy for one or two productive years, in order to avoid having to pay for his last 2 or 3 declining years might be a worthwhile tradeoff. How do you think a deal for someone like Cespedes could be be structured to increase the likelihood that he would opt out after 2 years. while still being appealing enough for him to accept it?

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 07:46 AM) Agree. I'm not counting on Eaton to hit as many as he did (which I guess is fine since he is the leadoff hitter but still). You can argue that they'd be lucky to hit 30 combined. It wouldn't surprise me if they combined for only 30 homers, but I think it's realistic that Melky and Avi would hit 30 between the two of them. Although it would be a shock to see Eaton repeat last year's unexpected power surge, it seems reasonable to expect 5 to 10 HR's. In any case, it's not much production from the outfield.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 06:08 AM) for me, the tweets as a source of info, whether it is a credible source, that is another story,... i just like to read... i really will wait until something concrete comes out. i think the sox do need a of'er with power. Do they ever!!! Melky, Eaton and Avi would be lucky to hit a total of 40, between the 3 of them. The front office can't possibly allow the season to begin with this roster. They will surely add someone. Let's just hope that they get the right one, and that he doesn't flop. It's not only the power shortage. How many guys would you expect to have OBP's of .350 or higher? I count Abreu, Eaton and maybe Cabrera. So, they have two legitimate power hitters in Abreu and Frazier, and two good OBP hitters in Abreu and Eaton. If they plan to compete this year, I'm sure that they know they are short at the very least, one more productive bat. But then, we too, all know that. The suspense seems only to be exceeded by the boredom. Come on. Do something, already!!!

I'm probably older than almost everyone on this forum, so please understand that I have a perspective on this topic of civility, which is shaped by having lived most of my adult life, before the Internet. In those days, people would generally not speak to each other the way anonymous bloggers do. It's just a matter of being courteous. When someone writes something, they don't necessarily expect everyone to agree with them. However, how hard is it to say something like; "You make a good point, however....." If what is written is not exactly clear, wouldn't it be better to simply ask for a clarification? What is so difficult about just asking someone to clarify their position? You almost never read a post that begins with something like this: "I'm a little unclear as to what you are asserting. Would you please clarify it?" I've advocated for more civility in prior posts, and most of the members here do treat others respectfully. And again, the bloggers here are Saints, compared to some of the nasty people, who post on the Net. However, at this time of year, one would like to see more fellowship among Sox fans. So, that said, Happy Holidays, and Go Sox!!!!

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 27, 2015 -> 10:52 PM) Your post didnt make any sense. Your talking about them not being the answer then signing them. Why throw resources in the toilet if your not sold on them? I dont see how standing pat in the outfield is a good thing. Too many issues with Garcia to fix that it's probably extremely likely you'll be looking for his replacement during the deadline assuming your still in the race. I think that I understood the post. I believe that he is trying to say the we could use a short term upgrade in the outfield, but that Hahn is reluctant to make the kind of long term commitment, for which the players are asking. Perhaps he could have written it more clearly, but it didn't deserve to be characterized as; "didn't make any sense". It seems as though you may have just demonstrated his point, about being severely criticized when posting on this site. It is true that some of us are too quick to try to belittle other posters. It would be so nice to see fellow Sox fans being a bit more civil toward one another. We should note that the posters on this forum are still much more polite than most bloggers on the Internet. Some of the stuff you see is just hard to comprehend. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I just don't relish the idea of the Tigers getting Cespedes or Upton. That lineup would be really scary, if VMart comes back healthy: Iglesias Kinsler M. Cabrera V. Martinez Cespedes/Upton J. D. Martinez Castellanos Maybin McCann They could have 4 guys, 3 through 6, in the lineup, each drive in around 100 runs. The Sox lineup without that big bat, would look pretty weak, by comparison. Just get past Abreu and Frazier, and the opposition could breeze through the rest of the line up. However, put Cespedes or Upton in the Sox lineup, especially if the Tigers don't add a big bat, and the picture is entirely different.

That article from MLBTradeRumors looks like something we posters here wrote. The points made are all things we've covered, ad nauseam.

Very impressive, "BlackSox". You certainly seem to know a lot about other organizations. Your research is appreciated, as it adds valuable insight. Thanks

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 26, 2015 -> 06:15 AM) That's all fine and good, but we haven't had much luck since the Dunn signing pulling off this feat, or you can go back to Rios and Peavy. Jake might have had the most disappointing career overall with the Sox, but ironically he fetched us the most talent back of anyone. Actually, when they announced their resigning him, it seemed a bit nuts but it worked out fine. Just looking at everyone we brought in last year, the only player we could currently trade without eating any salary would be Robertson. This kind of "hoarding talent" type of strategy would work better for a rebuilding team with all their minor league talent at least 2-3 seasons away from being ready. With the White Sox, anything you get for Frazier, Lawrie, Cabrera is likely to be Avi Garcia type talent with flaws...but the hardest problem to resolve is selling "high" on players who are performing well when the team's contending. See Shark last July after the Blue Jays series. In the past, we held onto Crede and Jenks too long, not to mention Quentin, Ramirez, Floyd, Danks, Crain, Humber, Thornton. Also, you're looking at budgetary constraints...playing time issues...just look at all the surplus talent the Dodgers acquired the last 2-3 years and what they have to show for it all now. And that's a team spending 2.5x what the White Sox do. As it is, we're going to be 15-20% over projected budget adding one of the Big 3 (theoretically). Finally, it would make more sense to stockpile young, cost-controlled talent than veterans with a negative WAR roi unless you can hit on the perfect Tier Three veterans and flip them like Epstein has done 2-3 times in rebuilding the Cubs. Well, perhaps the Sox are not the right organization to do it, but some team may try to exploit this circumstance by "hoarding talent," as you put it.

Given the dearth of talent that will be available over the next two free agent classes, why not sign several players, with the idea that they could be trade pieces, to contending teams, desperate for key players, in 2017 and 2018? Sure the payroll would sky rocket this year, but the chances to win go way up, and then the front office could dump payroll and acquire top prospects, the following two years. They would be holding a lot of supply into a very limited market, with the normal demand bidding up the price for players. Trades will necessarily become the only viable means of acquiring players, which means that teams, which want to contend will have to be willing to give up prospects. Go ahead Mr. Reinsdorf, knock yourself out. Sign two outfielders, a right handed starting pitcher, and maybe even a SS. Back load the contracts as much as possible. Have a big 80TH birthday bash, and then let Hahn open the "store" for business, after the World Series. Oh, and La Roche. What to do with him? Who cares?

If Gordon wants $100 million on a 5 year contract, I hope that the Sox are able to nudge KC to spend enough to get him to stay there, and Hahn moves on to someone else. We have all acknowledged that KC is going to be in a financial bind, with so many of their core players entering free agency. The Sox window appears to be 2 years. Obligating themselves to a 5 year deal at that kind of money, for a guy his age, doesn't seem consistent with the rest of their moves.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 25, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) Lillian, were most certainly on the same page. As long as Ethier does not cost top prospects, the prospects used to acquire Ethier could be replaced with the three picks in the first two rounds in June's draft. I think I said this in a previous post but one hangup I see is that the Dodgers must be willing to take one of Avi/Melky or LaRoche(ya,right) in the trade. I actually like Melky's bat but one idea could be a trade based around Ethier for Melky. Ethier goes to RF and since the Sox seem like they are willing to give Avi more time to develop they could move him to LF where he shouldn't be as much of a defensive liability. Melky's switch hitting bat could be enticing to the Dodgers as well as Melky's lower salary. As I've said before, I'm just not counting on the Sox signing a FA so I'm just exploring other potential opportunities since the market is flooded with outfielders. Do you think that the Dodgers would really want an outfielder, with a contract obligation, back in a trade? I doubt that they would take La Roche, and I hate to sell low on Avi. He has tremendous upside, and is young enough to justify exercising some patience with him. He also has an option to be able to go to AAA. I'd rather just keep Melky, as I like his switch hitting bat, especially at DH. Under this scenario, in which they are only obligated to 2 expensive years of Ethier, there might still be money to acquire another left fielder. Any ideas? I do think that Hahn will have to find another home for La Roche.

The comparison between a trade for Ethier and a free agent contract for Gordon, is an interesting one. If they sign Gordon, they lose a draft pick. If they could trade a lesser Minor Leaguer for Ethier, and assume the whole contract, they probably have a more favorable situation. Ethier is only owed two more years, through age 35, of guaranteed big money ($17.5 million a year). The 3RD year has a buy out provision, which would cost $2.5 Million. There is a vesting option, which complicates it a little. He might fit better, batting between Abreu and Frazier, than would Gordon. Of course, there is the switch to the American League factor??? By contrast, signing Gordon to a 5 year deal, at that same annual salary, or more, would take him to age 37. Ethier hits right handed pitching better than Gordon, and while not good vs. LHP, could platoon, the few times the Sox face a lefty. Hey, there aren't many more of them in the League, since most of them are on our starting staff. Both of these guys will likely be at a point where they could use a day off, once in a while, at their age. The other big plus is that Ethier is a right fielder, which the Sox need more than they need a player at Gordon's position. Although I don't know how good of a defensive right fielder he'd be, over the next two years, at ages 34 and 35. Therefore, if it takes a 5 year contract at $18 million per year, or more to sign Gordon, and Ethier can be acquired without giving up a top prospect, I'd prefer a trade with the Dodgers. If they can get Gordon on a 4 year deal, at that rate, and a trade for Ethier would require giving up a top prospect, or two, then I'd prefer Gordon.

Even tongue in cheek, talk of acquiring two of the 3 big F.A. outfielders is just silly. It's not just that ownership would not spend that kind of money, it isn't even the best use of the money, if they were willing and able to spend it. The outfield will be fine with the addition of one of them, thank you. Another pitcher would be a higher remaining priority, though I doubt that they would pursue one.

Gordon could become a DH, for the final year or two of a 5 year deal, when he is likely to slow down. Knowing the Sox and their organization, they will probably be in a position where they could use one, in 3 years.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) Sanchez's arm is fine as a SS sub. With Saladino and Lawrie's abilities to switch over and play third that would give Sanchez time to fill in for any one of Lawrie, Frazier or Saladino. I understood that Carlos' arm does not play well, at short. Perhaps, I missed something. Where have you seen scouting reports that suggest that he has the arm to play short? Watching him, last season, it didn't appear to me, as though he would be able to make that throw from the hole.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 11:21 AM) Sanchez has the arm for like 1 position in the infield.. 2b. That is actually a good point. I'd prefer to use L. Garcia as a bench player. He is also a switch hitter, and can play SS, 2ND and CF. As is the case with Avi, I would rather see Sanchez playing everyday at AAA, than sitting on the bench. After all, he is even younger than Avi. With Lawrie at 2ND, Carlos is not going to get very much playing time.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) There's no reason to develop Avi. He is what he is. Take advantage of the few strengths he has and get whatever value you can out of him. Have him on as 5th of and platoon partner does that, and he still gets plenty of at bats. I don't think that the front office has given up on Avi yet, and they would be justified in holding out a little more hope. After all, last year was his first full year in the Big Leagues. He was actually pretty good, for the first two months of the season. Given his low trade value, I think that they'll exercise some patience. However, if you're right about it not being realistic to count on any significant production from him, at this point, he would be better served playing everyday at AAA, than taking up a roster spot on the Major League team, just to face a few lefties.