whitesoxfan99 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Does it look like were getting any of those guys? No. That wasn't the point, you asked who was putting up better numbers than Ordonez while making less money, and the truth is quite a few are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Does it look like were getting any of those guys? No. That wasn't the point, you asked who was putting up better numbers than Ordonez while making less money, and the truth is quite a few are. Alright then. My mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramer99 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 how about the top of the order being....1. robbie, 2.soriano,3. Lee...cuz soriano is fast but he isn't a good leadoff guy...by the way, we should sign everett or another left handed power hitter cuz we need righty,lefty,righty at 3-4-5 in the order but 1st we should get pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Fainter Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Robbie will be worse next year than he was last year. Offensively, he is a shot player. If the White Sox offer him a contract, we will be bidding against ourselves. Harris will be fine in '04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Robbie will be worse next year than he was last year. Offensively, he is a shot player. If the White Sox offer him a contract, we will be bidding against ourselves. Harris will be fine in '04. It depends how much Robbie costs. I like his expierence and his defense. I can live with a few guys not hitting a ton of HR's and having a ton of RBI's. That would give the team more balance. I don't like Robbie for a ton of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 I read in a Chicago paper recently that Robbie said he would play for "less than half his 2003 salary." Less than half of $6 million would be around 2.5 million, 2.75 million, etc. Would that be acceptable for him, or is that still too much money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 2, 2003 Author Share Posted November 2, 2003 OK, i'm getting worried with all this Maggs talk. I haven't read the papers that closely. Is there real talk we may deal him? Any real articles, rumors from Gammons, etc? I joke when I call Maggs a god, I always use small g. But cmon seriously. My only point is if you cant keep a homegrown guy like Maggs why have a team at all? Somebody pls respond to that comment. I mean if you are Reinsdork why do you want to be in the business if you can't keep a Maggs?? I would love to ask him that. Anybody have Jerry's address to write? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 My only point is if you cant keep a homegrown guy like Maggs why have a team at all? If we got rid of every team like that, we would have no Blue Jays, no White Sox, no Pirates, no Marlins, no Padres, no Reds, no Tigers, no Twins, no Mariners, no A's, no Devil Rays, no Angels, no Royals, no Indians, no Expos, and no Brewers. I don't disagree that half those teams SHOULD be eliminated , but that's just baseball nowadays. There are the "haves" and the "have-nots." The "haves" are teams that sell out all the seats every game, and/or have a lucrative TV contract, and/or have an owner that spends faster than he can piss. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Rangers are prime examples of the "haves." They sell out, and/or have a big TV deal, and/or have an owner who loves to throw money around. The White Sox are in the huge list of "have-nots." We don't have a lot of fans coming to the ballpark, we don't have a lucrative TV deal, and we don't have an owner who will spend like a kid in a candy store. I hope that helps you understand this. I'm 32 years old now, and when I was 22, I felt exactly like you do. But baseball isn't "a gentleman's game played by gentlemen" anymore. It's a business now. The importance of winning baseball games had been replaced by the importance of reaching profits and making money. The "old days" of baseball are now as obsolete and forgotten as the Studebaker and Edsel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Does it look like were getting any of those guys? No. And besides, I would never do that deal for Soriano. This whole talk of it is garbage. There is NO way in f***ING hell KW does this. KW will try to move A.) Koch B.) Konerko BEFORE he even THINKS about TRADING Magglio f***ING Ordonez I really am beginning to think that Billy Koch won't be wearing a Sox uniform in 2004. I mean with Rick Anderson the new pitching coach there, Art Howe the manager, I think William would jump at the chance to go there. I think the Mets will once again go for da quick fix again this off - season and it'll backfire as usual. If Koch goes, maybe we can still resign Flash, but I'm extremely skeptical bbout that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Before you get all in a frenzy, take a deep breath and think! Sheeesh! NOT ONE FREE AGENT HA S SIGNED YET. NOT ONE PLAYER HAS BEEN DEALT! Just wait until you see how the hands play out. It's obvious the demand for higher salaries in general is not there. Players and owners don't know the going rate yet for players. There is going to be some touching and feeling going on before anything happens. Let both sides try to figure out where the line in the sand is for the big names...Then things will begin to get clear. Most of you have already begun talking about jumping ship or shooting JR or KW or...Sheesh! There isn't even a market yet! The Sox are playing their cards. We have NO idea what they will eventually decide to spend, because they are showing the poker face they have to show right now. They know salaries will likely be quite a bit lower, but until other teams start showing some interest, ala bidding, they don't know where salaries will fall out. Boston and at least ten other teams have already said they are likely reducing payroll this year. In this atmosphere, the Sox ain't gonna tell free agents, let alone the public, what they are willing to spend. It would be irresponsible of anyone at the Sox to name their actual salary max, because until they know what the market settles out to be for free agents like Colon, Pettitte, etc, there is no way for them to gauge their needed salary level. So hoping that they are right about declining salaries [and all signs point to their being correct], they mumble something about their spending being about the same. That's nothing to be worried about. They are playing their cards. Folks, you need to learn to think a bit and look at all the sides. You react without thinking to every little piece of crap the media reports out there. It's the first weekend in November. So far, the only offer any player has seen that anyone knows about is the Sox offer to Colon. And so far, that's a decent offer. Most of you already have the Sox finishing last in our division and MLB folding the team. Take a breath and step back from the window. It's a long winter and we're liable to see lots of stories, many of them total BS, going in both directions. And until a handful of players sign and or are dealt, no one knows what the market for top tier players is, so they also don't know how aggressive or successful the Sox will be in signing and building the 2004 team. Stop making fools of yourselves, ranting and raving...There's been NO news of anything yet. Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Forkit will you stop making sense. It has no place on this board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafacosta Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Why not have a cheaper, younger, more productive player (ie CLee). He was more productive than Maggs just one year. Dont forget what he did in 2000, 2001, 2002 and this year. Lee had just a break out year, maybe he will struggle next year. Maggs puts this numbers all season since 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Why not have a cheaper, younger, more productive player (ie CLee). He was more productive than Maggs just one year. Dont forget what he did in 2000, 2001, 2002 and this year. Lee had just a break out year, maybe he will struggle next year. Maggs puts this numbers all season since 2000. No one's numbers are for sure, I was just saying if you are going to rebuild, like what had been broughten up, then you would want to go with CLee. Obviously Magglio is the better player, no question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafacosta Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Why not have a cheaper, younger, more productive player (ie CLee). He was more productive than Maggs just one year. Dont forget what he did in 2000, 2001, 2002 and this year. Lee had just a break out year, maybe he will struggle next year. Maggs puts this numbers all season since 2000. No one's numbers are for sure, I was just saying if you are going to rebuild, like what had been broughten up, then you would want to go with CLee. Obviously Magglio is the better player, no question. If Maggs would agree on changing his contract would be awesome, but it's a dream. I love Maggs, he is the best player in the team IMO. But if the team cant allow him, trade him but for great player and proven players, and not prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 If Maggs would agree on changing his contract would be awesome, but it's a dream. I love Maggs, he is the best player in the team IMO. But if the team cant allow him, trade him but for great player and proven players, and not prospects. I would love him if he restructered his deal. He is the best everyday player on the team, no question. I kind of need him to be more of a leader, not just lead by example. I think it is too much money too. It would all come down to what we could get. You could even try to package him with Konerko or Koch, kind of what the Bucs where trying ta do with Giles and Kendall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 And of course, one last thing, lest folks here somehow think I am anti-Maggs... Until recently, my wife and I would eat dinner before games out at the bar [nice beer and burgers], watching Maggs field. He's a very nice guy and a very good player. Nothing has diminished my feelings for him or anyone else. It's not unreasonable for Maggs to be asked to view the remaining last option year of his current contract in light of a new long-term contract that is structured based on current salary conditions. In my opinion, if Maggs was a complete free agent, he would not get $14 mill a year over 3-5 years in the current environment, so it would wise for him to agree with to a new contract that, in effect, rolls the current 2004 option year into a totally new contract [unless he thinks he can get $15-$20 mill as a free agent elsewhere, but I doubt he thinks that]. So don't write Maggs off just yet. We don't know that the current free market value of CLee is ... well, pick a number. Times may have changed significantly since last off season and even since the prior one. Maybe his value isn't as high as we thought, either. And one last one...I know we won't offer Carl "the dinosaur" Everett arbitration, because of the range we'd have to pay him. But I keep reading that there's "no way in hell" he'd accept half his current salary. In my opinion, he'll be lucky if he gets $5 mill, because of the slumping free agent market salaries, his lack of range and his lack of knees. What if Carl's available for $4 mill per? These suddenly deflating salaries really makes it important to try to trade Konerko and anyone else over paid and underperforming, especially if you can find a team that thinks they can catch a player likely to rebound after a poor year. Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Damnit, forkit, STOP IT........... You are going to confuse everyone with all of this logical, rational thought. People here just aren't ready for that kind of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSFAN35 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't think anyone wants to see Maggs leave Chicago, and I personally don't think he will. However, would it be that big a loss (numbers-wise) seeing him leave to New York for Soriano and possibly a pitching prospect. Take a look at the numbers and while it would be sad to see Maggs leave, I don't think it would hurt the team on the field as much as many of you think it will. Especially if we got a young pitching prospect, or a Nick Johnson. AGE - 25 - 29 HR - 38 - 29 RBI - 91 - 99 SB - 35 - 9 BA - 290 - 317 OBP - 338 - 380 SLG - 525 - 546 OPS - 863 - 926 SAL - 800k - 14mil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn12 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't think anyone wants to see Maggs leave Chicago, and I personally don't think he will. However, would it be that big a loss (numbers-wise) seeing him leave to New York for Soriano and possibly a pitching prospect. Take a look at the numbers and while it would be sad to see Maggs leave, I don't think it would hurt the team on the field as much as many of you think it will. Especially if we got a young pitching prospect, or a Nick Johnson. AGE - 25 - 29 HR - 38 - 29 RBI - 91 - 99 SB - 35 - 9 BA - 290 - 317 OBP - 338 - 380 SLG - 525 - 546 OPS - 863 - 926 SAL - 800k - 14mil You got it, man. That is the situation. The numbers are there for Soriano, and at a MUCH cheaper price. I am probably in the minority here, but I'm all for that trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't think anyone wants to see Maggs leave Chicago, and I personally don't think he will. However, would it be that big a loss (numbers-wise) seeing him leave to New York for Soriano and possibly a pitching prospect. Take a look at the numbers and while it would be sad to see Maggs leave, I don't think it would hurt the team on the field as much as many of you think it will. Especially if we got a young pitching prospect, or a Nick Johnson. AGE - 25 - 29 HR - 38 - 29 RBI - 91 - 99 SB - 35 - 9 BA - 290 - 317 OBP - 338 - 380 SLG - 525 - 546 OPS - 863 - 926 SAL - 800k - 14mil You got it, man. That is the situation. The numbers are there for Soriano, and at a MUCH cheaper price. I am probably in the minority here, but I'm all for that trade. I am for the trade too, and nothing against Magglio. I think he is an awesome player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't think anyone wants to see Maggs leave Chicago, and I personally don't think he will. However, would it be that big a loss (numbers-wise) seeing him leave to New York for Soriano and possibly a pitching prospect. Take a look at the numbers and while it would be sad to see Maggs leave, I don't think it would hurt the team on the field as much as many of you think it will. Especially if we got a young pitching prospect, or a Nick Johnson. AGE - 25 - 29 HR - 38 - 29 RBI - 91 - 99 SB - 35 - 9 BA - 290 - 317 OBP - 338 - 380 SLG - 525 - 546 OPS - 863 - 926 SAL - 800k - 14mil You got it, man. That is the situation. The numbers are there for Soriano, and at a MUCH cheaper price. I am probably in the minority here, but I'm all for that trade. No I believe there are more supporters of Maggs being traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 3, 2003 Author Share Posted November 3, 2003 That number comparison makes me feel better, but I am a Maggs loyalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.