Vaughn and Sox avoid arbitration: $5.85 million

[WhiteSox2023]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If he comes up in April and becomes Alex Rodriguez he isn't going to see the end of those 6 years in a White Sox uniform either, so what is the difference, besides one less  year of trade value?

Haha, I was about to say…

Just like if Tatis Jr. was never traded for Shields.  Getz would be looking to trade him right about now.

[Tnetennba]

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

The point is that Andrew Vaughn was never good.  Producing a list of equally bad first basemen, most of whom are nearing retirement, doesn’t make 26 year old Vaughn look any better.

Funniest part about this Whatabout defense of a non-tender worthy 1B is that if the Sox cut him loose, how many of those teams with equally bad 1B would be lining up to give Vaughn $6M and a starting job? I would venture not many. At least with those other guys there is a history of good production, which can't be said about Vaughn.

[T R U]

52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If he comes up in April and becomes Alex Rodriguez he isn't going to see the end of those 6 years in a White Sox uniform either, so what is the difference, besides one less  year of trade value?

Just that it helps the White Sox sooner really. The reason to play the service time game is to get the extra year of control, if that doesn't matter there no longer becomes a reason to play the game. Just get the best player on your roster at that point.

Its also more enjoyable as me as a fan to watch. 

[Snopek]

58 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Haha, I was about to say…

Just like if Tatis Jr. was never traded for Shields.  Getz would be looking to trade him right about now.

It's interesting to think about the alternate timeline. If Tatis was never traded, maybe Hahn signs him to one of those Eloy/Moncada/Robert deals and we're not even in a rebuild right now.

But yeah, your general point stands that the Sox are cheap bastards.

[nrockway]

It’s an overpay but mediocre first basemen are being paid double 

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Funniest part about this Whatabout defense of a non-tender worthy 1B is that if the Sox cut him loose, how many of those teams with equally bad 1B would be lining up to give Vaughn $6M and a starting job? I would venture not many. At least with those other guys there is a history of good production, which can't be said about Vaughn.

You mean how many teams with a bad 1B would be "lining up" to sign an equally bad 1B so that they have 2 bad 1B? I'm sure the number would be zero. I'm sure the Pirates will be buoyed by Anthony Rizzo's history of good production. LOL. 

[ChiSox59]

4 hours ago, T R U said:

If they play the service game with Colson and he comes up in May and becomes Alex Rodriguez, he will never see the end of that control in a White Sox uniform as of today. I would rather take a shot at the extra draft pick for the situation we are in with the decision maker of this organization.

I agree with you though, you should always maximize the control of your high end talent (potential) but even saying that you should be locking them up long before that extra year means anything anyways. In a perfect world at least.

Not following the logic here.  There is no scenario where 6 years of service is better than 7 years of service minus two weeks.  The remote chance of a draft pick may change the calculus ever so slightly, but not enough for a team in the Sox position IMO.  Colson was terrible last year in a hitter's paradise; doubt that something will click enough in 1 offseason for him to take the big leagues by storm. 

Also, if Colson comes up and is Alex Rodriguez (whether that is in April or May), there is plenty of reasons he could see the end of that control is a Sox uniform.  Are you suggesting the Sox wouldn't be relevant by 2028/9 and would be looking to deal him anyway?  And if that is your position, why in the world would would you trade 15 some games of a rookie for 162 of a prime player?  It makes no sense. 

Edited 4 hours ago by ChiSox59

[T R U]

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

Not following the logic here.  There is no scenario where 6 years of service is better than 7 years of service minus two weeks.  The remote chance of a draft pick may change the calculus ever so slightly, but not enough for a team in the Sox position IMO.  Colson was terrible last year in a hitter's paradise; doubt that something will click enough in 1 offseason for him to take the big leagues by storm. 

Also, if Colson comes up and is Alex Rodriguez (whether that is in April or May), there is plenty of reasons he could see the end of that control is a Sox uniform.  Are you suggesting the Sox wouldn't be relevant by 2028/9 and would be looking to deal him anyway?  And if that is your position, why in the world would would you trade 15 some games of a rookie for 162 of a prime player?  It makes no sense. 

The logic is if any prospect for the Sox becomes a star level player, they will be traded before they see any extra year of control here because we won’t pay them what it would take to lock them up, therefor, there is no reason to play that game. 
 

Did you guys just start following the team or something?

[WestEddy]

21 minutes ago, T R U said:

The logic is if any prospect for the Sox becomes a star level player, they will be traded before they see any extra year of control here because we won’t pay them what it would take to lock them up, therefor, there is no reason to play that game. 
 

Did you guys just start following the team or something?

What are you even talking about? They paid and locked up Eloy, Yoan and Luis Robert. 

You guys repeat this nonsense so much like facts don't even exist. 

[Heads22]

I'd be more bothered if the money was preventing us from doing something else.  Hell we could option him if we really wanted to.

Hes not blocking anyone, and is easily disposable if need be. Maybe Vargas will make it an easier decision after 25. Who knows.

[Chicago White Sox]

30 minutes ago, T R U said:

The logic is if any prospect for the Sox becomes a star level player, they will be traded before they see any extra year of control here because we won’t pay them what it would take to lock them up, therefor, there is no reason to play that game. 
 

Did you guys just start following the team or something?

That extra year of control would make the player you’re trading more valuable in your hypothetical.

[T R U]

9 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

What are you even talking about? They paid and locked up Eloy, Yoan and Luis Robert. 

You guys repeat this nonsense so much like facts don't even exist. 

They all signed reasonable early extensions, you know what I’m talking about you just like to be a dipshit for no reason. 
 

[T R U]

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

That extra year of control would make the player you’re trading more valuable in your hypothetical.

I don’t think that would matter much when you’re talking about a star level player as the team trading for him would more than likely lock them up. 

[southsider2k5]

13 minutes ago, T R U said:

I don’t think that would matter much when you’re talking about a star level player as the team trading for him would more than likely lock them up. 

But if they already have them longer and/or cheaper that does have value.

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But if they already have them longer and/or cheaper that does have value.

However, if the service time manipulation also impacts their development, or their attitude, that also affects their value.

[T R U]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But if they already have them longer and/or cheaper that does have value.

Yes, it does have value I’m not trying to say it doesn’t. 
 

If, example, Colson has a strong rookie season, a really good 2nd season, then blows up in year 3 he is either going to sign one of those sweetheart extensions, sign a big time extension, or get traded because neither of the first two options happened. All of those scenarios make an extra year of control trivial in the big picture if you’re dealing a rising star with 2 to 2.5 years of control left. 
 

The White Sox have a massive hole at SS, one of the better SS prospects in baseball, and a turd of a season on the horizon. If he wins the job, give him the job. I’d wager that has a pretty strong possibility of happening. 

[southsider2k5]

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

However, if the service time manipulation also impacts their development, or their attitude, that also affects their value.

Because rushing players doesn't affect their development?

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, T R U said:

Yes, it does have value I’m not trying to say it doesn’t. 
 

If, example, Colson has a strong rookie season, a really good 2nd season, then blows up in year 3 he is either going to sign one of those sweetheart extensions, sign a big time extension, or get traded because neither of the first two options happened. All of those scenarios make an extra year of control trivial in the big picture if you’re dealing a rising star with 2 to 2.5 years of control left. 
 

The White Sox have a massive hole at SS, one of the better SS prospects in baseball, and a turd of a season on the horizon. If he wins the job, give him the job. I’d wager that has a pretty strong possibility of happening. 

And if you push him out a month, you get that for an extra year 

[T R U]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And if you push him out a month, you get that for an extra year 

Yes the White Sox should absolutely do that. I don’t think they will though and also don’t think it ends up being that big of a deal based off what I’ve already said. 

[Balta1701]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Because rushing players doesn't affect their development?

I think messing with service time in multiple ways affects development. 

With Colson, the reason to keep him down is he stank last year. I've just stopped caring about service time, we obsessed about it last rebuild and every way that we paid attention to it wound up backfiring. Do whatever is best for development.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

On 1/9/2025 at 1:31 PM, WhiteSox2023 said:

Four straight years of being the same player.  He is who he is.

You're like the definition of the peanut gallery.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

On 1/9/2025 at 3:38 PM, PaleAleSox said:

Maybe he would have been better, but a high possibility he wouldn’t be. Guys are busts far more often than not. 

Yep not like he's racking up WAR as a defender or base runner and we're going "damn if only he could hit he'd be great."

[WhiteSox2023]

18 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

You're like the definition of the peanut gallery.

What’s your point?  You just made the same comment.  He’s bad.

[Chicago White Sox]

44 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I think messing with service time in multiple ways affects development. 

With Colson, the reason to keep him down is he stank last year. I've just stopped caring about service time, we obsessed about it last rebuild and every way that we paid attention to it wound up backfiring. Do whatever is best for development.

I’m sorry, what ended up backfiring?