The argument to keep Avi Garcia

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Ergo you want to get rid of Avisail Garcia since last year he couldn't put the ball in play enough right?

Ergo I implied we have a team full of high K guys with low batting averages and I could care less if Avi is non tendered.i Prefer he'd stay because he has more talent than Delmoncio ,Cordell and a host of others we could get rid of just as easily as Avi ,who don't have the talent or upside of Avi and are close to the same age.

I don't have an agenda  I just don't see much of a reason for getting rid of a talented player when  most  of those he is currently competing are less talented. Pretty simple. Tender him and if you sign above replacement guys in the OF then send him packing and still owe him very little.

[southsider2k5]

54 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

He is also a guy that hit .330 in 2017 (or if you are so offended by a guy hitting the ball, he had a .380 OBP) and he then was basically hit homers at a 40 pace last season, while fighting injuries, and will be 27 for half the season next year.  He has upside.  The upside is that he can put those things together.  I know the story behind his BA, the exact number isn't the point.  The point is that somewhere in Avi Garcia, if he can somehow put it all together, is a guy that may be able to hit 30-35 homers and hit .285-.295.

This is it right here.  He has never been healthy.  He has managed to play in 140 games once in his career, while being a year away from free agency.  2012, 2014, and 2018 he was under 100 games played.  With Avi Garcia the one thing he has proven is that he can't be counted on to be healthy.  In my eyes, the ability to used injuries as a crutch is gone, as injuries have proven to be the norm, and NOT the exception.

I think everything else has been well outlined here, but again

-2018 his batting average fell almost 100 points. 

-His OBP fell 99 points. 

-His OPS fell 166 points. 

-His OPS+ fell from 138 to 96, or below major league average.

-While his power went up in 2018 in terms of HRs, his slugging percentage actually fell 68 points.  Matt Davidson and Daniel Palka both put up much better seasons at much lower prices. 

-Even Avi's defense which had actually gotten to nuetral to slightly positive regressed back to negative last year.

Is all of the above worth about $8-10 million?

Even if ALL of this changes, and Avi goes out and plays the best 155 games of his life in 2019, he will be a free agent after the season anyway.  If we decided at that point that we messed up and wanted him back, we could go out and sign him again anyway, just like we would have to if we had signed him to a deal this year.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Ergo I implied we have a team full of high K guys with low batting averages and I could care less if Avi is non tendered.i Prefer he'd stay because he has more talent than Delmoncio ,Cordell and a host of others we could get rid of just as easily as Avi ,who don't have the talent or upside of Avi and are close to the same age.

I don't have an agenda  I just don't see much of a reason for getting rid of a talented player when  most  of those he is currently competing are less talented. Pretty simple. Tender him and if you sign above replacement guys in the OF then send him packing and still owe him very little.

51 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I wish we had a few other guys who actually put the ball in play more often. I'd like to see more guys hit .330 and have a lot more arguments about how lucky they were.

You literally gave a reason to get rid of Avi Garcia in 1 post - that you want guys who put the ball in play more often, got snippy when I pointed out that Avi didn't do a good job of putting the ball in play,  and then in the next post you said "I don't see much of a reason for getting rid of a talented player". Which is it, is there no good reason to get rid of him or do you want to see guys who put the ball in play more often? 

[pcq]

5 hours ago, Lillian said:

A couple of points, which should be considered: When healthy, Avi is not a terrible right fielder. He has good speed and a decent arm. His exit velocity has been among the highest in the League. His 19 homers, in just 356 at bats, was on pace for a 30 home run  season. 

Nevertheless, If they sign Harper, to play right field, and Eloy is going to be in Left, there really is no spot for Avi. If he were not going to be a free agent, at the end of the year, I would absolutely not favor simply letting him go. If they don't sign Harper, or someone else to play one of the corner outfield spots, and if he can be retained for $8 million, why not? Unfortunately, there isn't much time left to make an informed decision, regarding the unknown outcome of their quest for Harper, with the deadline to tender being tomorrow night. Seems like a bit of a dilemma. 

I wonder if Avi could be extended, at a reasonable price. Then he might be worth a gamble, as he could always be used as a valuable trade chip, or allow the front office to use some of their several corner outfield prospects, in trades. Of course, the problem with that scenario is, what if they extend him and then sign Harper? Where would Avi play, while building up his trade value? I suppose that Harper could try to go back to CF, but that has not proven to be a good spot for him.

If they don't sign Harper, a future outfield of Eloy, Robert and Avi wouldn't look so bad.

 

I am not down on Avi but he has trouble controlling his body on plays in the field perhaps due to his size. They should offer something. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

You literally gave a reason to get rid of Avi Garcia in 1 post - that you want guys who put the ball in play more often, got snippy when I pointed out that Avi didn't do a good job of putting the ball in play,  and then in the next post you said "I don't see much of a reason for getting rid of a talented player". Which is it, is there no good reason to get rid of him or do you want to see guys who put the ball in play more often? 

Lol you are unbelievable. I got snippy because you twisted what I said into something about Avi's 2018 season which I never mentioned. I don't think it's impossible to want one more talented player over those less talented and yes I want the whole team including Avi to K less. Why do I have to limit my choices to just those 2 ? I can want both .Did you become God all of a sudden saying I can only have one of those choices ?

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Lol you are unbelievable. I got snippy because you twisted what I said into something about Avi's 2018 season which I never mentioned. I don't think it's impossible to want one more talented player over those less talented and yes I want the whole team including Avi to K less. Why do I have to limit my choices to just those 2 ? I can want both .Did you become God all of a sudden saying I can only have one of those choices ?

So you want Avisail Garcia but you are simply going to demand he strike out less, it's totally confusing to you why someone would point out that contradiction, and even though you're going to snap your fingers and make him strike out less I'm the one who became a god.

[Dick Allen]

The fact is, Avi is a free agent in a year. If he is an absolute must, you can always bring him back. 

His arb number is too high for his past production. Except for 1 season, he is a replacement level player, who always has something wrong with his legs. That usually doesn't improve as you get older. No one is going to give you anything for him. Spend the money elsewhere. I like the guy, and agree he has a lot of potential, but it's time.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So you want Avisail Garcia but you are simply going to demand he strike out less, it's totally confusing to you why someone would point out that contradiction, and even though you're going to snap your fingers and make him strike out less I'm the one who became a god.

What I said is I want the Sox to keep more talented players over the less talented. I said want the Sox to K less.  i said could care less if Avi is non tendered. I said I want more guys to hit .330 .

If you are confused that's on you. I think everyone here would agree with everything I said.

Edited November 29, 2018 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[BamaDoc]

Avi has one of the higher ceilings of players currently on the roster.  That potential is why we have all been frustrated by his performance.  He has actually performed at the MLB level though not as often as we would like.  2017 did happen.  There was improved power last year.  We all witnessed the turnaround in Basabe's performance when he played on a healthy knee and returned to prospect status.  Could Avi rebound.......sure, likely maybe not.  Could we sign Harper....sure, likely maybe not.  If a healthy Avi shows up, he will certainly be motivated and aside from a couple times on a bad leg, he does hustle.  You would have a bat to flip at the deadline or keep and attach a qualifying offer and get a draft pick.  If you sign someone or he looks bad in spring training, you cut him at a cost of around 2 million.  Heck if you sign someone and he looks good, he could play till Eloy comes up and then be a DH.  Probably a better DH in a platoon than Davidson.  If there is a definite improvement arranged I understand allocating the dollars to the improvement but I don't see it happening by the tender deadline.  I still like the idea of the threat of release leading to a 5 million deal with 3-5 in incentives.  If he is great he could make more and if not we save some.  Give him 2.5 at signing so he makes a guaranteed 500k more than if you tender and cut.  Win-win.

Edited November 29, 2018 by BamaDoc
added tender

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, BamaDoc said:

Avi has one of the higher ceilings of players currently on the roster.  That potential is why we have all been frustrated by his performance.  He has actually performed at the MLB level though not as often as we would like.  2017 did happen.  There was improved power last year.  We all witnessed the turnaround in Basabe's performance when he played on a healthy knee and returned to prospect status.  Could Avi rebound.......sure, likely maybe not.  Could we sign Harper....sure, likely maybe not.  If a healthy Avi shows up, he will certainly be motivated and aside from a couple times on a bad leg, he does hustle.  You would have a bat to flip at the deadline or keep and attach a qualifying offer and get a draft pick.  If you sign someone or he looks bad in spring training, you cut him at a cost of around 2 million.  Heck if you sign someone and he looks good, he could play till Eloy comes up and then be a DH.  Probably a better DH in a platoon than Davidson.  If there is a definite improvement arranged I understand allocating the dollars to the improvement but I don't see it happening by the tender deadline.  I still like the idea of the threat of release leading to a 5 million deal with 3-5 in incentives.  If he is great he could make more and if not we save some.  Give him 2.5 at signing so he makes a guaranteed 500k more than if you tender and cut.  Win-win.

He made $6.7 in arb last year, so the minimum he could take is a 20% pay cut, or $5.4 million through the process.  He would have to be DFA'd to sign for less than that.

[BamaDoc]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

He made $6.7 in arb last year, so the minimum he could take is a 20% pay cut, or $5.4 million through the process.  He would have to be DFA'd to sign for less than that.

Fine 5.4 for the sake of argument.  However his salary went from 3 million to 6.7 million which would seem to make this clause I found apply when he got a more than 50% raise.  I also think it refers to the minimum you could offer at arbitration.

 

The club's offer must be at least the MLB minimum salary, and, in most cases, must be at least 80% of the player's previous year's salary and at least 70% of the player's salary from two seasons back. However, if the player received a raise in excess of 50% by a salary arbitration panel the previous season, a 20% maximum salary reduction from the previous season and a 30% maximum salary reduction from two seasons back does not apply, and the club only has to offer at least the MLB minimum salary.
 

[southsider2k5]

Just now, BamaDoc said:

Fine 5.4 for the sake of argument.  However his salary went from 3 million to 6.7 million which would seem to make this clause I found apply when he got a more than 50% raise.  I also think it refers to the minimum you could offer at arbitration.

 

The club's offer must be at least the MLB minimum salary, and, in most cases, must be at least 80% of the player's previous year's salary and at least 70% of the player's salary from two seasons back. However, if the player received a raise in excess of 50% by a salary arbitration panel the previous season, a 20% maximum salary reduction from the previous season and a 30% maximum salary reduction from two seasons back does not apply, and the club only has to offer at least the MLB minimum salary.
 

The problem is that he would go into arbitration with a reasonable number on his side based on comps and win.  There is no reason for him to take a paycut.  That never happens in this process.

[Balta1701]

Just now, BamaDoc said:

Fine 5.4 for the sake of argument.  However his salary went from 3 million to 6.7 million which would seem to make this clause I found apply when he got a more than 50% raise.  I also think it refers to the minimum you could offer at arbitration.

 

The club's offer must be at least the MLB minimum salary, and, in most cases, must be at least 80% of the player's previous year's salary and at least 70% of the player's salary from two seasons back. However, if the player received a raise in excess of 50% by a salary arbitration panel the previous season, a 20% maximum salary reduction from the previous season and a 30% maximum salary reduction from two seasons back does not apply, and the club only has to offer at least the MLB minimum salary.
 

If the White Sox offered him a 20% pay cut in arbitration, the White Sox would lose in arbitration and whatever number Avi Garcia's side submitted would be his salary next year. Most likely, their side would submit $8-9 million or so. Arbitrators follow the previous precedent and there is very little precedent for guys taking substantial salary cuts year over year in arbitration, so if the White Sox submitted that as their offer, Garcia's side wouldn't even negotiate because they would know that the White Sox would lose. 

Second point - From what you say I don't  think Avi applies because the White Sox did not actually go to arbitration with him, it was not heard by an arbitration panel - instead he signed a 1 year deal with the team to avoid the arbitration panel. 

[Dick Allen]

There is no reason the White Sox should offer Avi arbitration. Offer him something less if they want to keep him.  If he refuses, good luck. There is no way he gets anything close to $8 million if they let him go. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[BamaDoc]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

There is no reason the White Sox should offer Avi arbitration. Offer him something less if they want to keep him.  If he refuses, good luck. There is no way he gets anything close to $8 million if they let him go. 

Exactly,  I may have been misunderstood.  I had stated using the threat of non tendering him.  He accepts the incentive based contract or is non tendered.  If he thinks he could get better than 5 million with 3-5 incentives on the open market he would refuse.  I don't think he would get better.  Since he hasn't been traded it appears other teams don't want to pay him that amount (yes and give up something to get him).

[bschmaranz]

I'm not quite understanding the opinion that he has all this potential.  He's been here 6 years and has had one season you would deem above average.

[southsider2k5]

19 minutes ago, BamaDoc said:

Exactly,  I may have been misunderstood.  I had stated using the threat of non tendering him.  He accepts the incentive based contract or is non tendered.  If he thinks he could get better than 5 million with 3-5 incentives on the open market he would refuse.  I don't think he would get better.  Since he hasn't been traded it appears other teams don't want to pay him that amount (yes and give up something to get him).

I can't think of a situation where this has happened, but I am going to guess this would cause a labor grievance.

[fathom]

Avi also played all last season on a damaged knee and most of the year with a bad hamstring 

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I can't think of a situation where this has happened, but I am going to guess this would cause a labor grievance.

What would be the argument ?

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Avi also played all last season on a damaged knee and most of the year with a bad hamstring 

Is this a defense  of avi or a reason to get rid of him? 

[fathom]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Is this a defense  of avi or a reason to get rid of him? 

I would use it to say the 2018 season sucked for the Sox

[BamaDoc]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Is this a defense  of avi or a reason to get rid of him? 

Yes LOL!   Sorry couldn't help it

[southsider2k5]

51 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

What would be the argument ?

The circumvention of the arbitration system seems pretty obvious to me.  You either follow the system or don't tender him.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

The circumvention of the arbitration system seems pretty obvious to me.  You either follow the system or don't tender him.

I’m confused here.  Arbitration eligible players do not have to go to arbitration and can agree to any contract the club offers if they so choose.  If the player rejects the offer, the team has the right to non-tender.  How is this an issue?

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m confused here.  Arbitration eligible players do not have to go to arbitration and can agree to any contract the club offers if they so choose.  If the player rejects the offer, the team has the right to non-tender.  How is this an issue?

Threatening him to force him to sign an sub-arbitration contract seems like it would be a violation here.  They can negotiate whatever they want, but I think the threat to release him if he doesn't sign is past that line.