Thad Bosley

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) Again, a gross oversimplification of things. I wouldn't think that Hahn would need to add the obvious caveat of "without destroying the future" to the end of that, but apparently for some he does. If it was just about today, guys like Anderson and Fulmer would have already been dealt for upgrades, and they would have already signed a FA that requires draft pick compensation. 2019 and 2020 might not matter for you, but in a market where fan response is about as warm as Lake Michigan, mistakes get amplified. Having $20+ million in dead payroll would be a huge blow to the ballclub in those years that the fans won't tolerate. I can already see the handwringing going on full of hindsight and simplification. Lol - apparently I didn't oversimplify enough. You still don't get it! But ok, let me try and spell it out this way to see if this will help get the point across to you. The Exec VP of Baseball Operations and the General Manager are on record of saying they want to "maximize" the opportunity presented by the current core of players in the next few years to compete for a championship. We still have some big holes surrounding the core that if they go uncorrected, will not allow us to "maximize" this opportunity. Any solution available to us at the moment to correct one of these holes will have an impact on the future, be it trading away elite talent we have in the minors to acquire a solution, or spending money in the open market that could limit options in the future beyond the current window of opportunity. Signing Yoenis Cespedes to a five year contract is the best option at the moment to both solve one of the remaining obstacles to "maximizing" the current window, while having the least amount of impact on future endeavors. Because of the team friendly contracts currently in place through '19 and '20, the addition of Cespedes at this point in time in no way resembles a scenario that "destroys the future". Not even close. So which is better - having Cespedes on the books in '19 and '20 or potentially not having Anderson and Fulmer on this team then in the prime of their careers. I think the answer is pretty obvious. So take your pick, SS2K5. Either trade away Anderson or Fulmer to acquire Major League talent to help boost this team over the top, or sign Cespedes. Those are the two options that will best enable the team to "maximize" blah blah blah. Doing nothing and standing pat because we're shaking in our boots about possible ramifications down the road ain't gonna get it done. Signing a second tier, cheaper outfield solution does not "maximize" our ability to compete because Cespedes >>> than those options. If you have a better answer, let's hear it. We're all ears!!

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) I was as high on Avi as anyone on this board . Ask Eminor about that . But I've moved on. That's not to say I still don't think he's valueless but as of this moment for a team wanting to compete he is valueless. Sports illustrated did an article about Cespedes weighing his last 3 seasons on a 5/4/3 scale . Most of the weight given to last season but only a little more than 2014 and 2014 a little more than 2013. Now 2013 and 2014 are cited as his "inconsistent" years so overall they are weighted more than just his 1 great year. Then they project his value in bWAR for the coming years and what those years would be worth money wise. For someone who is supposedly very inconsistent they said for the 1st 3 years he's projected to be worth $84M , another $23.3 M in the 4th year and $20.3M in a fifth year. In order to get those highly productive 1st 3 years it's been standard practice to pay for a few years where he declines . You just have to hope it isn't a precipitous decline. http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/01/05/whats-he-...des-free-agency That is the only "potential" downside to signing Yoenis for five years, that he "might" not be as productive towards the end of the contract. Meanwhile, for the next two to three years, the window in which we'd like to compete, you get a 30 HR, 100 RBI guy in the middle of your lineup and a substantial improvement in the outfield defense. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED! And we don't have to give up any prospects or talent on the roster, nor sacrifice a draft pick to get him. He is the best option to fill one of our gaping holes in the outfield. If it means tacking on those two last years, then just do it, for godssake. He "might" just continue to be productive in those years as well, given he'll only be 33/34. Who knows! Let's worry about that in '19 and '20. For now, let's follow through with what I thought was the stated mandate which is to "maximize" the window of opportunity this team has right now to win in these next few years. Yoenis Cespedes provides us the best chance to do so among our existing options.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Call me crazy but I'm not ready to give up on Avi yet. Cespedes is very inconsistent on offense and may become complacent with a big contract. I would not be surprised at all to see Avi put up numbers similar or better than Cespedes did in 2013 or 2014. Obviously there are still big differences between their defense and base running abilities but if Avi can improve even marginally in both I think he has a shot to be a useful player this year. One of the objectives in trying to "maximize" the window of opportunity that exists with guys like Sale, Quintana, and Rodon on the staff is to try and put the best defense behind them as possible. Obviously with Avi in right and Cabrera in left, we are nowhere near in a position to accomplish that goal. One or both have to go (Cabrera to DH). I just don't see Avi improving enough on the defense side of his game to justify running him out there again in a year that we are trying to win. That's what I love about Cespedes. The guy is one stop shopping for not only bringing badly needed power to our lineup, but he also represents a massive upgrade defensively to one of the outfield positions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:30 AM) You are also completely misrepresenting the situation. The White Sox IN THIS CASE (and in the case of an older Gordon) have made a three year line in the sand, because that is what they feel is right, for whatever reason that is (age of player, history of player, budgetary considerations, maybe a combination of all of those). If the team thinks he is going to be Adam Dunn in four years, they shouldn't offer the guy 5 years just because one other team is. History will bear out if it is the right move or not. This could be a Juan Gonzalez situation where we thank god for the next five years we didn't give Cespedes that deal. And just for realities sake, just last winter, the Sox signed David Robertson to a 4 year deal. Jose Abreu was a 6 year deal the winter before without every having seen a pitch in the United States. Both as free agents. That also doesn't count the long term deals given to internal players such as Adam Eaton (5 years), Chris Sale (6 years), Jose Quintana (6 years), and many more prior to those. I'm obviously not saying the Sox have never offered a contract longer than three years, for heavens sake. I'm merely pointing out that this line in the sand they've drawn for the available premium outfield talent in this year's free agent season does not appear to be competitive, given what the other outfielders have received. And yes, it could turn out to be a mistake to sign him that long. He could tank as others have. He could also end up being worth every penny, as others have. It's the risk you take every time you go through this. All I know is we have two big holes in the outfield from both an offensive and defensive point of view, and this guy Cespedes seems to be the best option available to address one of those holes. If we were in a rebuild, I'd say no, don't try and bring Cespedes in. But we are not, we are trying to compete, and therefore I think it behooves us to bring this guy into the fold. I don't see a better option at the moment.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) Why is NO team apparently offering him that contract? Do you know something no one else knows? I was going to answer the first question, but then I saw the unnecessary snarky second question, and decided you are not worth the time.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) If he ends up taking a guaranteed 5 year deal in the $110-120 million range, then I don't think the Sox would look bad for refusing to go that high. Cespedes is not good enough to warrant that. I respectfully disagree. I think he is worth that contract, given the current market conditions. He brings power, defense and speed to this team, which the last time I looked, we were running short on. And at age 30, where a five year contract would end before he turns 35, I think we could expect the kind of production throughout the term of the contract to justify it. That's just my opinion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) The funny part is the Mets are doing exactly this with Cespedes. I know, and it may turn out that this will be the actual market for the guy, a contract in the 3-4 year range. It's just with the backdrop of Heyward getting an eight year deal, Upton a five year, and Gordon four years, that this "Three year contract - take it or leave it" approach is simply not being competitive in the current market. I want the Sox to get Cespedes. I think he makes a whole lot of sense for the Sox and fulfills a few key needs. Maybe they'll get him under a three year deal, in which case, great, if they can get it done that way. But if someone else snaps him up for five years while we're standing there waving a three year deal in the air, well, I don't think that's going to look very good at all.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) FWIW (and it ain't worth much) ... Knocking down some beers with another big-time knowledgeable Sox fan ... similar to many of us in understanding the landscape of players throughout baseball and thirsting for knowledge about how these deals go down. Like me, he's a transactional attorney, so we get a special kick out of deal structuring as well (billionaires paying multi-millionaires, and all that jazz). HE has a friend that was a long-time Sox investor/advisor on the business side of baseball. According to MY friend, HIS friend said the Sox were and continue to be IN on Cespedes, but on their terms and are determined to not chase because of outside opinion. I think most of us agree that's very consistent with this ownership group from Day #1. No surprise there. They LIKE Cespedes, but don't LOVE him -- they'll take him as a value play, and that's value determined by their metrics. He's also told the framework of the possible deal is what many have suggested (this isn't rocket science): * Base deal is 3 years for X * Player opt out after year 2 * Mutual option for year 4 (player option vests upon objective performance) * Second mutual option for year 5 (player option vests upon objective performance in year 4, if any) In essence, POSSIBLY a 5 year deal with big bucks under certain circumstances. Plus, player outs to reenter the market should he feel like doing so for various reasons. Personally (and, of course, if true), I applaud the Sox for try to land a guy with a very high ceiling (but with a definite low-ish floor at this contract amount), but on their terms. At the end of the day, not only do you want a guy that wants to be here, you want a guy that is taking a deal because he's happy to get this particular deal. Mindset is important on most personal service contracts, but especially where there is reason to believe that the "talent" is a bit mercurial. I like the thought of bringing a guy in who is contractually motivated to out-perform his contract in a monster way over the next two years to benefit himself. This framework jives with the two-year plan for some of our other talent. Well, that's all well and good, but the one thing you left out is the fact that "our" terms don't seem to be in line with the terms other teams are operating under in the open market at the moment. "Our" terms comprising the three year contract approach don't align with the five+ year contracts that the other similar talents are currently receiving in this free agent season. So we can stick to our guns and try to operate under "our" terms, but I'm afraid by doing so we'll be left out in the cold with no addition of the available premium talent that we definitely have a need for.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) First off he mentions, since Caray's 3rd season (1984) gee, what happened in 1984? And again, you are totally ignoring the fact that the White Sox would never have had the access of 100+ dates on the superstation through no fault of JR or EE. In 1981, WGN carried 64 White Sox games. By June, Eddie Einhorn was in the booth with Harry telling him that the TV ratings were the highest they'd ever been and that it was being reflected in increased attendance as well. So even though, to your point, the Sox would never get as many games televised on WGN as the Cubs, even with the abbreviated schedule, Caray broadcasting Sox games on WGN where he was reaching a far greater audience than he ever did on the lowly Channel 44 was clearly having an impact. Just ask Eddie Einhorn - he'll tell ya!!

For those interested in understanding the impact Harry Caray had on the Cubs franchise and why it was a terrible mistake by our current knuckleheaded owners to ever let him go, have a look at this well-written synopsis. The author is spot on as it relates to this subject. http://kentsterling.com/2013/07/15/chicago...lk-to-the-cubs/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) SO why haven't they fallen off since then, and why didn't the Sox see that bounce in the 70's? Well this is precisely my point when I talk about the mega impact the coming together of Harry Caray and his extraordinary salesmanship and the exposure that came along with superstation WGN. It was a match made in heaven. That guy absolutely sold the Wrigley Field experience like no other. Remember, the Cubs were not the national fixation they are today before Harry arrived there. In fact, in his first season, '82, that game when Lee Elia went off the rails, there were only 3,000 fans in the stands that day. When was the last time you could say there were only 3,000 fans at Wrigley? Now granted, it took Caray a couple of years to take hold on the north side. Cubs fans had to get used to his style after decades of the Jack Brickhouse style. But in '84 he really started to take off, and the Cubs franchise has not looked back ever since. They were a terrible team for most of Harry's time there, with the exception of '84 & '89, but starting in '84, that place was packed to the rafters almost every day and has been ever since. And it's all because of Caray's years of selling Wrigley Field to the gazillions of people across the nation who got WGN in their homes. As for the Sox in the 70s, they absolutely got a bounce from his presence. In fact, that's why the Sox brought him to Chicago in the first place, hoping he would help with what was a disastrous attendance problem back in those days. The Sox drew under 500,000 in 1970, and so Harry's contract starting in 1971 included an attendance clause. The Sox improved their attendance in each of the years he was broadcasting and he received the maximum bonus as per the agreement, to the point that attendance improved so much after a few years that they simply couldn't afford to pay him that bonus any longer. And that was with no where near the exposure he got when he was on WGN. So that was his specialty, selling the experience for whichever team he was employed for. I just wish he would have continued to have done so for the Sox on WGN, like he did for the one year when he had the chance to do so. Unfortunately the owners' egos got in the way of that happening.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 05:44 PM) So Harry Carry is the reason the Cubs are as famous as they are? Yikes. I absolutely, positively, 100% believe that to be the case.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 05:39 PM) If that was it, why don't the Braves have the same following? Good question. The answer is they didn't have Harry Caray and his superior salesmanship selling the ballpark experience day after day after day. As I've mentioned before, if Caray stayed with the Sox and Milo Hamilton had gone on to be the Cubs announcer, the Cubs attendance would have resembled that of the Braves. It was pretty much that before Caray moved over to the Cubs. The Harry Caray impact cannot be understated, which is why I wish he would have remained with the Sox.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) First of all, it's not fair to compare the attendance of the Cubs to pretty much any other team in baseball. Or pretty much any other sport for that matter. For a long time they were the one exception to the rule of winning = attendance. 20+ years of being owned by a national newspaper that can put rose-colored glasses on every single headline it writes while dogging the intercity competition has that affect. There's no other way to explain 3 million people going out to see a team lose almost 100 games. Secondly, don't by into the myth that Wrigley field has always sold-out. There was a time back in the 70's where they literally closed off the entire upper deck. It hasn't changed locations since then. Until last year (when they made the playoffs) their attendance had been steadily dropping since 2008 (their last playoff appearance). See Harry Caray/superstation WGN exposure impact.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 10:40 PM) They "invested in the team" last year. How'd that work out? That's their job, right? Each and every year, they should be investing in the team to try and continually improve it. And let's be clear about last year's so-called investment: it only brought the total team payroll to a mere $2M and $5M more than that of the small market Royals and Twins, respectively. Middle of the pack at best. So let's not ever make the mistake of describing last year's investment as some sort of effort to go above and beyond. As another poster has pointed out, that would be accomplished by going in the red for a year or two to try and lift this team up. To date, that hasn't happened.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 04:04 PM) But we don't have a fairweather fan base... Same old angry and bitter commentary on the fan base... Meanwhile, the article is focused on an eroding fan base, which should be alarming to the powers that-be over at 35th and Shields.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 10:08 AM) It is the same bitter and angry posts we always see (5 in 55 sound familiar?). LOL - like the man said: "Get a clue, Dude!"

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 01:11 AM) JR is going to be 80 years old soon and isn't going to do a rebuild so the "three year window" , "rebuilding on the fly" , "retooling" stuff will continue as it has for the last 8 years or so. I really think KW and Hahn are in a tough spot and I wouldn't want their jobs. With the 120M budget they have to work with, there isn't much of a margin for error. Just one or two bad contracts can really hurt a budget like that. I was hoping for a rebuild last winter but then I realized JR's age and realized it will not happen. Are decisions about this franchise being made in the name of the best long term interests of this franchise, or in the short term interests of its failed owner?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 12:47 AM) I haven't been conditioned by the ownership to believe anything. Im going by their track record. If they sign a player to a 22 million dollar deal, that is about 1/6 of the maximum payroll we've seen them use. Do you really want that much money tied up in a player that is this inconsistent? I would not. It wouldn't be a big deal if they had a 200 million dollsr payroll, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. Im just using common sense and their track record. Its not the only way to solve this problem but in my view its the better way. They could just spending away ala Ilitch but I dont think its likley to happen. If they were spending this money on Miguel c abrera or Mike trout or someone with a track record it would be a different story. We need them to move off said "track record". Said "track record" has resulted in one brief playoff appearance in the last decade, and in teams which have driven the organization into the ground in terms of fan interest. Last in all MLB teams in TV ratings and 27th in attendance, and boy oh boy, don't try and lay all the blame for that on the Hawk. He only reacts to what we've all seen year in and year out in recent years. This team cannot and should not, in my opinion, go the long term route of trying to build this thing slowly from the ground up. That's what's called a rebuild, and management has been very clear they are not going to do that. And that's fine and very understandable given the quality and quantity of the existing core. The problem has been what's surrounding the core, which has been exceptionally below average the past few years. With no help in sight from the farm system, fortunately or unfortunately, they are somewhat at the mercy of the market to help elevate this team to contending status. It's a predicament they are in of their own doing. It's not entirely bad, given the current state of the Sox' finances. This team is perfectly capable of bringing on the market value of Yoenis Cespedes' worth. To do so would not be in line with their quote unquote "track record", but here's to ringing in NEW track records!

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 12:04 AM) Only if the deal is longer than 4 years. If its only 4 it would work. I know there is no MLB cap but we know the ownership has one and if cespedes is dead money for 3 years it will cripple the finances. You are a terrific poster on this site, and I enjoy your many contributions. On the bolded, though, may I ask how you know this? How could one LT contract for someone of Cespedes' caliber, with none other like it on the roster and with all of the VERY team-friendly contracts currently on the books, how could this one potential contract possibly "cripple" the team's finances? What happens if Cespedes' contributions translate into a return to the postseason in the way his presence on the Mets did last year? Won't that go a long ways towards paying off the investment? Just because we've been conditioned by the current owner/management team to just automatically shun all investments of this kind, doesn't make them all bad. Sometimes you have to take a risk or two in the name of trying to win. You can't wait around to build an entire roster of team-friendly contracts to get there. Cespedes is still young enough to make this kind of investment worthwhile which, at least in the early years of the contract, should help management achieve it's stated objective of "maximizing its opportunity to return to the postseason with the current core". There are ways to deal with the remaining years of an expensive contract if players begin not performing to the levels for which they are being paid. We see that happen all the time. But with the additions of Lawrie and Frazier, how does not bringing Cespedes into the fold now make no sense?

QUOTE (South Sider @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:55 PM) Your posts are always premium content and one of the reasons I visit this site. His posts (probably all 127,000 of them) are usually post-inflating garbage with little to offer. I've never seen a post from him and thought "well he put some effort, thought, and analysis into that." Well thank you, nice of you to say. Mine is just one of many different yet spirited opinions on this site, which is what makes it so enjoyable to come and visit here. And even though SS2K5 pecks at me like a woodpecker on a tree on a few topics where we don't agree, he contributes a ton more to the experience at Soxtalk than I ever will, so don't lose sight of that. Just pray he doesn't ban me one of these days!!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 11:07 PM) I think ill itch will be gone soon, and there are going to be problems in Detroit Reinsdorf is going to be gone soon, too, and there are problems in Chicago as we speak. So, given a choice starting now, who would you rather own the Sox, given the way you know they run their respective franchises? Reinsdorf or Ilitch?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 11:01 PM) Yet he has never won a World Seriies, and owes Cabrera, Verlander, Martinez, Zimmernan, and Upton over $600 million. Given a choice as owner for the White Sox starting now, who do you take? Ilitch or Reinsdorf?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:47 PM) Detroit has a $200 million oayroll. Jerry Reinsdorf is the worst, On the latter, I'm with you. 100%. No argument there, and I'm glad you finally looked at the overwhelming evidence that got you to that undeniable conclusion. On the former, you gotta admire a team and an owner who not only claim they want to win a championship, but back it up in actions. They certainly aren't trying to do so by entering free agency and trying to sign top tier talent to below market contracts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:43 PM) You hold on to the past like an ex-wife. This is right up your alley. Nothing of quality to offer up, just the usual weak attempt to deflect any criticism of the crack management team of the Sox? Well color me SHOCKED! So unlike you.