2nd Baseman Options 2008

[caulfield12]

No way is signing Hunter the cost of what Dye would of got if he was a f/a. Dye had an MVP type season Hunter has never gotten close to that. Andrew Jones is so much better its not even fair to compare those 2. No way does Hunter get a contract over 10 million unless the yanks/redsox are involved with it. And we wouldnt lose 2 of our starters, but 1 of them is w/out doubt going to be gone no matter if we sign Hunter or not.

 

 

Hunter is making $12 million RIGHT NOW, TODAY.

 

He's off to his best ever start...you can pencil him at $13-14 million per season, for 3-5 seasons, minimum. For those doubters, look at Gary Matthews, Jr., coming off ONE pretty good season and how much he got, which is more than some are saying Hunter will receive.

 

For those who keep saying Grudzielanek, the Royals will exercise an option between $4-4.5 million on him for 2008. If he's so bad the Royals don't want to keep him, we might as well retain Iguchi, right?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ May 15, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And to sweeten things up a bit how about KW pulls a rabbit out of his hat and manages to snag Ervin Santana for Joe Crede and two of our top pitching prospects. I know the Angels have been wanting Crede for years! Okay now im just getting carried away... but i do think KW will be pretty active this offseason.

Go Sox!!

That would be an atrocious trade

Like I mentioned in the offseason Ervin Santana is f***ing horses*** on the road. Completely wothless. He's so bad the Angels are thinking of sending him down.

 

Erstad should not be back with this team at $6 million next year. I rather see him sign a two year, $4 million extension instead of picking up that huge option.

 

Why do people want Grudzielanek all of the sudden? Iguchi has been better than him since 2005, and this year Grudz has a .299 OBP and .672 OPS. That's just as bad as Iguchi.

[fathom]

The only player more overrated than Angels players on this board is Anthony Reyes.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(fathom @ May 15, 2007 -> 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only player more overrated than Angels players on this board is Anthony Reyes.

How about my guy? The one second only to Johan Santana.

 

[fathom]

How about my guy? The one second only to Johan Santana.

 

 

He's overrated by many....but I'd still take him on my team. He could be our DH right now. I have a feeling we might go after him in the offseason.

[santo=dorf]

I think tonight he'll try and throw a perfect game because he'll be auditioning with his new team for next season.

Edited May 15, 2007 by santo=dorf

[CanOfCorn]

If the Sox do get A-Rod, 1) it won't be for just $17 mil and 2) it won't be for 3B. Fields would be 3b...Uribe would be gone.

[fathom]

I think tonight he'll try and throw a perfect game because he'll be auditioning with his new team for next season.

 

I've heard Omar Minaya has told his agent he'll spend 30 million more on his contract than the next closest competitor.

[Kalapse]

After a 5-5 night suddenly Ichiro is putting up some outstanding numbers this year, he goes from .286/.354/.414/.768 to .312/.375/.435/.810 in one night.

 

Yeah, he's good and yes, he's going to get a whole lot of money this offseason. A player with Ichiro's pure hitting ability is not going to just lose that ability over night no matter how old he is. Pete Rose, Tony Gwynn hell even Wade Boggs I don't see how Ichiro is all that different.

[premo]

I'd LOVE to have either Ichiro or Arod, but I was just wondering if there has ever been serious consideration or rumors of us trying to get either of them, or if this is all just fan specualtion? I remember back when there was the whole 3-way with the White Sox, Red Sox, and Rangers with Arod, Nomar, and Maggs, but I dont remember the specifics of how that would've worked out.

[GoodAsGould]

Hunter is making $12 million RIGHT NOW, TODAY.

 

He's off to his best ever start...you can pencil him at $13-14 million per season, for 3-5 seasons, minimum. For those doubters, look at Gary Matthews, Jr., coming off ONE pretty good season and how much he got, which is more than some are saying Hunter will receive.

 

For those who keep saying Grudzielanek, the Royals will exercise an option between $4-4.5 million on him for 2008. If he's so bad the Royals don't want to keep him, we might as well retain Iguchi, right?

 

Yes he is making 12 million right now but he got that contract during the prime years of his career. Now he is 31-32 and is on the downside. Also Hunter while having a good offensive season it wont be as good as Gary Mathews jr was last year. Also it was believed the Mathews turned a corner which so far this season has proven right because he has similar numbers to that of Hunter. And Mathews is only making 6,400,000 this season. Idonno overall what he is due but its prob comes to an avg. of around 8-9 which is what Hunter should get. Given that he is going to be the same age of Mathews was as a f/a and the fact they both are really good with the glove and about equal offensivly. Hunter will give you more HR's but once the season is over and done Mathews will have a higher avg. Keep in mind in terms of overall offensively, Hunter has never had a season as good as Mathews was last year in terms of OPS.

[Kalapse]

Yes he is making 12 million right now but he got that contract during the prime years of his career. Now he is 31-32 and is on the downside. Also Hunter while having a good offensive season it wont be as good as Gary Mathews jr was last year. Also it was believed the Mathews turned a corner which so far this season has proven right because he has similar numbers to that of Hunter. And Mathews is only making 6,400,000 this season. Idonno overall what he is due but its prob comes to an avg. of around 8-9 which is what Hunter should get. Given that he is going to be the same age of Mathews was as a f/a and the fact they both are really good with the glove and about equal offensivly. Hunter will give you more HR's but once the season is over and done Mathews will have a higher avg. Keep in mind in terms of overall offensively, Hunter has never had a season as good as Mathews was last year in terms of OPS.

Gary Mathews will average $10M a year over the course of his 5 year deal, he received a $2M signing bonus and the contract is backloaded like most deals in baseball. Hunter will be getting more than Matthews this offseason.

 

I'd LOVE to have either Ichiro or Arod, but I was just wondering if there has ever been serious consideration or rumors of us trying to get either of them, or if this is all just fan specualtion? I remember back when there was the whole 3-way with the White Sox, Red Sox, and Rangers with Arod, Nomar, and Maggs, but I dont remember the specifics of how that would've worked out.

KW has gone after ARod around 3 times, including this past offseason but was turned away by Cashman.

[caulfield12]

Yes he is making 12 million right now but he got that contract during the prime years of his career. Now he is 31-32 and is on the downside. Also Hunter while having a good offensive season it wont be as good as Gary Mathews jr was last year. Also it was believed the Mathews turned a corner which so far this season has proven right because he has similar numbers to that of Hunter. And Mathews is only making 6,400,000 this season. Idonno overall what he is due but its prob comes to an avg. of around 8-9 which is what Hunter should get. Given that he is going to be the same age of Mathews was as a f/a and the fact they both are really good with the glove and about equal offensivly. Hunter will give you more HR's but once the season is over and done Mathews will have a higher avg. Keep in mind in terms of overall offensively, Hunter has never had a season as good as Mathews was last year in terms of OPS.

 

 

Did Magglio's contract go down, even AFTER half of baseball thought might not be able to come close to returning to form?

 

Torii Hunter's HR numbers in seasons when he has 500+ AB's...

 

27, 29, 26, 23, 31

 

RBI numbers...

 

92, 94, 102, 81, 98

 

This year, he's projecting to well over 30 homers and 100 RBI's, something of a season like Jermaine Dye had last year.

 

GMJ had 19 homers and 79 RBI's last year. You can't put a one year wonder and a proven veteran player in the same conversation, let alone argue that Matthews deserves or will make more money than Hunter.

 

And the reputations of Hunter and Andruw Jones defensively add another $2-3 million onto their contracts. Matthews had that one great play for the Rangers, and he's a very good CFer, but he's never won a Gold Glove. Plus, he's nowhere close to the same type of leader, clubhouse presence and "franchise-identifiable" star that Hunter has been with the Twins...he just doesn't have that charisma that makes someone want to go out and buy tickets to see Gary Matthews, Jr. play baseball.

[Melissa1334]

I normally pay no mind to these sorts of threads, but, it's an off-day of sorts and I'll play along.

 

Assessing the team as it is currently construed, I think a 2008 roster including the following players is realistic given the White Sox front office's spending tendencies and general baseball philosophies. At this point, I would also add that the following roster resembles a roster I would like to see take the field in 2008.

 

C-Pierzynski

C-Toby Hall

1B-Paul Konerko

DH/1B-Jim Thome

2B-Tadahito Iguchi

SS-Juan Uribe

SS/2B-Alex Cintron

3B-Josh Fields

3B-Pablo Ozuna

LF-Ryan Sweeney

CF-Darin Erstad

RF-Ichiro Suzuki

OF/Utl-

OF/Utl-

 

SP-Mark Buehlre

SP-Jose Contreras

SP-Javier Vazquez

SP-John Danks

SP-Open Competition (Masset, Sisco, Gonzalez, Broadway, etc.)/Cheap Free Agent Signing

 

CP-Bobby Jenks

RP-Mike MacDougal

RP-Matt Thornton

RP-Matt Sisco

RP-David Aardsma

RP-Nick Masset

 

-------------------------------------

 

So, that assumes Jon Garland, Joe Crede, and Jermaine Dye will not be a part of the 2008 roster--the return on both the Garland and Crede moves are irrelevant for the purposes of this exercise.

 

Some of the logic used to come to those conclusions:

-Williams re-signs Buehrle to a historic White Sox pitching contract and Jon Garland and the $11M contract he possess becomes a financial burden and has to be moved off the books.

-Jermaine Dye is not a part of this franchise beyond the 2007 season, this is something I think we can all agree with. Ichiro, along with Buehrle, is the big off-season splash and is an essential piece of the puzzle (proven everyday RF and lead-off hitter).

-Crede, like Garland, is moved to make room for Fields and rid the White Sox of his contract--I wish this team could have a $170M payroll, but that is just not going to happen.

-Mackowiak moved in the off-season for spare parts or minor league talent--his salary becomes a problem given the Ichiro and Buehrle signings.

-Iguchi, the starting 2B, was had on the cheap following a disappointing season and is immediately penciled in at the two-hole following Ichiro.

 

If any of the payroll aficionados could estimate the payroll for the aforementioned roster it would be greatly appreciated. What I think you will find is that this conjectured roster and its correlating payroll will be strikingly similar to the payroll of 2007 and therefore more realistic than you might think.

 

Do I think that is a perfect lineup or even a probable lineup? No. But, I think it is something you might see as the White Sox once again find themselves in limbo between a complete rebuilding and a veteran/win-now roster.

great post. i hope this happens

[GoodAsGould]

Did Magglio's contract go down, even AFTER half of baseball thought might not be able to come close to returning to form?

 

Torii Hunter's HR numbers in seasons when he has 500+ AB's...

 

27, 29, 26, 23, 31

 

RBI numbers...

 

92, 94, 102, 81, 98

 

This year, he's projecting to well over 30 homers and 100 RBI's, something of a season like Jermaine Dye had last year.

 

GMJ had 19 homers and 79 RBI's last year. You can't put a one year wonder and a proven veteran player in the same conversation, let alone argue that Matthews deserves or will make more money than Hunter.

 

And the reputations of Hunter and Andruw Jones defensively add another $2-3 million onto their contracts. Matthews had that one great play for the Rangers, and he's a very good CFer, but he's never won a Gold Glove. Plus, he's nowhere close to the same type of leader, clubhouse presence and "franchise-identifiable" star that Hunter has been with the Twins...he just doesn't have that charisma that makes someone want to go out and buy tickets to see Gary Matthews, Jr. play baseball.

 

I dont think people go to the ballpark to pay and see Hunter either. And yes I conceded that Hunter will hit more HR's but despite that in terms of overall offensive season he has never had the year as good as Mathews was last season. Also their career avg. are pretty similar to one another too neither that good. I dont see how a team could offer him more than 10 million a season and i think it will be similar to 9.5. I guess I could be wrong with how crazy contracts seem to get nowadays but we will find out for sure this off-season so no point in continuing arguing it.

[witesoxfan]

remember when I kept getting laughed at when I was calling Placido Polanco the solution to our problems at 2B back in '04. Oh how times change.

 

you mean you wouldn't rather have Orlando Cabrera at $7 mill a year?

 

I normally pay no mind to these sorts of threads, but, it's an off-day of sorts and I'll play along.

 

Assessing the team as it is currently construed, I think a 2008 roster including the following players is realistic given the White Sox front office's spending tendencies and general baseball philosophies. At this point, I would also add that the following roster resembles a roster I would like to see take the field in 2008.

 

C-Pierzynski

C-Toby Hall

1B-Paul Konerko

DH/1B-Jim Thome

2B-Tadahito Iguchi

SS-Juan Uribe

SS/2B-Alex Cintron

3B-Josh Fields

3B-Pablo Ozuna

LF-Ryan Sweeney

CF-Darin Erstad

RF-Ichiro Suzuki

OF/Utl-

OF/Utl-

 

SP-Mark Buehlre

SP-Jose Contreras

SP-Javier Vazquez

SP-John Danks

SP-Open Competition (Masset, Sisco, Gonzalez, Broadway, etc.)/Cheap Free Agent Signing

 

CP-Bobby Jenks

RP-Mike MacDougal

RP-Matt Thornton

RP-Matt Sisco

RP-David Aardsma

RP-Nick Masset

 

-------------------------------------

 

So, that assumes Jon Garland, Joe Crede, and Jermaine Dye will not be a part of the 2008 roster--the return on both the Garland and Crede moves are irrelevant for the purposes of this exercise.

 

Some of the logic used to come to those conclusions:

-Williams re-signs Buehrle to a historic White Sox pitching contract and Jon Garland and the $11M contract he possess becomes a financial burden and has to be moved off the books.

-Jermaine Dye is not a part of this franchise beyond the 2007 season, this is something I think we can all agree with. Ichiro, along with Buehrle, is the big off-season splash and is an essential piece of the puzzle (proven everyday RF and lead-off hitter).

-Crede, like Garland, is moved to make room for Fields and rid the White Sox of his contract--I wish this team could have a $170M payroll, but that is just not going to happen.

-Mackowiak moved in the off-season for spare parts or minor league talent--his salary becomes a problem given the Ichiro and Buehrle signings.

-Iguchi, the starting 2B, was had on the cheap following a disappointing season and is immediately penciled in at the two-hole following Ichiro.

 

If any of the payroll aficionados could estimate the payroll for the aforementioned roster it would be greatly appreciated. What I think you will find is that this conjectured roster and its correlating payroll will be strikingly similar to the payroll of 2007 and therefore more realistic than you might think.

 

Do I think that is a perfect lineup or even a probable lineup? No. But, I think it is something you might see as the White Sox once again find themselves in limbo between a complete rebuilding and a veteran/win-now roster.

 

It's not a lineup I particularly like, but I can live with it; it'll be modest production compared to lineups of years past, but it will provide a "threat," if you want to use that word, at every spot in the lineup. I've always felt that to be a very valuable part of lineups, and, as bad as the 05 offense was, helped them be able to produce at a somewhat consistent rate.

 

However, my only huge beef is trading Garland. Why would you trade a pitcher in his prime over a pitcher in Contreras who is aging before our eyes? Value be damned in this situation, the White Sox almost assuredly need to get out of the Contreras contract following this season. I love Jose for what he's done, but he's mediocre and inconsistent at this point, and Garland's durability alone will make him worth that $11 mill he's going to be making without considering the fact that he's the better pitcher at this point. You get rid of Contreras 10 times before you even think of trading Garland.

 

I'd also get rid of Cintron and bring up Andy Gonzalez to take over his role, but that's really just a miniscule point.

[AddisonStSox]

You get rid of Contreras 10 times before you even think of trading Garland.

 

Sure, on X-Box.

 

This is the real-world, whereby we need to formulate projections on tangible, real-world baseball realities.

 

Moving Contreras results in a net loss...of this much, I assure you.

 

Moving Garland, on the other hand, (something Williams has attempted to do in two consecutive off-seasons) would most assuredly result in valuable pieces of the big-picture puzzle.

 

Which player would you rather have on your team? Yes, that's what I thought. Now, why would any professional, paid, real-world general manager feel any different?

 

[This is exactly the line of thinking I never really understand when it comes to Soxtalk proposed roster moves]

[caulfield12]

Sure, on X-Box.

 

This is the real-world, whereby we need to formulate projections on tangible, real-world baseball realities.

 

Moving Contreras results in a net loss...of this much, I assure you.

 

Moving Garland, on the other hand, (something Williams has attempted to do in two consecutive off-seasons) would most assuredly result in valuable pieces of the big-picture puzzle.

 

Which player would you rather have on your team? Yes, that's what I thought. Now, why would any professional, paid, real-world general manager feel any different?

 

[This is exactly the line of thinking I never really understand when it comes to Soxtalk proposed roster moves]

 

 

In all fairness to Contreras, his ERA has been below 3.00 this season if you take away the first start of the season...

 

To hear some people here talk about Jose, it's like he is nearing mediocrity.

 

Subtract game #1 and you have these statistics on the season:

 

39.3 IP

28 Hits (best IP/H ratio on the team, of the starters)

10 ER

16 BB

20 K's

2.29 ERA

 

And that's without his best stuff...nowhere even close. I'm guessing he gets back to 94-95 MPH consistently with his fastball in July and August, and he's going to pick up his strikeout numbers, no doubt about it. Of all the pitchers we could recall from AAA or AA, the best anyone realistically expects out of the gate is a 4.25-4.75 ERA, and that's being HOPEFULLY OPTIMISTIC.

 

Nobody on our team has put up those results over a consistent period of starts or months except for Jose. Garland, at his very best is a #2, but he's never going to be a true ace like Jose has been, off and on, from the 2005 season onwards.

Edited May 16, 2007 by caulfield12

[witesoxfan]

Sure, on X-Box.

 

This is the real-world, whereby we need to formulate projections on tangible, real-world baseball realities.

 

Moving Contreras results in a net loss...of this much, I assure you.

 

Moving Garland, on the other hand, (something Williams has attempted to do in two consecutive off-seasons) would most assuredly result in valuable pieces of the big-picture puzzle.

 

Which player would you rather have on your team? Yes, that's what I thought. Now, why would any professional, paid, real-world general manager feel any different?

 

[This is exactly the line of thinking I never really understand when it comes to Soxtalk proposed roster moves]

 

I acknowledged that you end up with a net loss by trading Contreras, and I still make the move over trading Garland. If I'm a GM, I'm not looking to get a steal, I'm looking to make the team better; if I keep Contreras over Garland, the team is going to be worse.

 

I'm also sure if Contreras's velocity remains about where it's at, even if that's 88-91, he'll be a rather valuable commodity. He's a league average pitcher with 2 years left on his contract below market value. Even as a fossil, he's got quite a bit of value and should net a top prospect.

 

You are building for the future here - why would you deal a 28 year old pitcher and keep a 40 year old? Value be damned, it doesn't make sense.

[AddisonStSox]

"Value be damned"

 

Great words to live by when running a professional organization.

 

It is exactly that sort of mentality that cripples the future of an organization--incidentally, it is exactly that same mentality which brought G. Gonzalez back to the White Sox organization (sacrificing a better yield for either a) a player the organization over-values or b ) a salary dump)

[witesoxfan]

"Value be damned"

 

Great words to live by when running a professional organization.

 

It is exactly that sort of mentality that cripples the future of an organization--incidentally, it is exactly that same mentality which brought G. Gonzalez back to the White Sox organization (sacrificing a better yield for either a) a player the organization over-values or b ) a salary dump)

 

No, it's getting rid of a pitcher who is about to fall off drastically.

 

It's not a philosophy you take in every move you ever make, and it shouldn't have been taken in the Garcia trade. In this case, it really should be, because I just don't see how taking Contreras over Garland, regardless of the return you can get back, is a worthwhile move in either the short or the long.

 

Tell me, are you going to be able to get 3 top prospects or 4 valuable commodities for Garland, ala Hirsh, Buchholz, Taveras, and Pence? If not, then trading Garland doesn't make sense, because you're not getting enough value back to justify trading him.

[caulfield12]

"Value be damned"

 

Great words to live by when running a professional organization.

 

It is exactly that sort of mentality that cripples the future of an organization--incidentally, it is exactly that same mentality which brought G. Gonzalez back to the White Sox organization (sacrificing a better yield for either a) a player the organization over-values or b ) a salary dump)

 

 

But what were getting rid of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin, if not salary dumps?

 

Heck, Ordonez is the AL MVP so far this season, but is there anyone who would argue we would be better off having paid Magglio $12-13 million per season than paying Jermaine Dye $17 million TOTAL for 3 years?

 

Who's to say Gonzalez won't be another Danks, or that we won't use those savings from the Garcia deal to make a mid-season acquisition?

 

The Royals had to overpay to get Meche, the Tigers had to overpay (at the time) to get I-Rod...but both those moves gave credibility to unstable organizations and made it easier to add pieces to the puzzle down the line.

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's getting rid of a pitcher who is about to fall off drastically.

 

It's not a philosophy you take in every move you ever make, and it shouldn't have been taken in the Garcia trade. In this case, it really should be, because I just don't see how taking Contreras over Garland, regardless of the return you can get back, is a worthwhile move in either the short or the long.

 

Tell me, are you going to be able to get 3 top prospects or 4 valuable commodities for Garland, ala Hirsh, Buchholz, Taveras, and Pence? If not, then trading Garland doesn't make sense, because you're not getting enough value back to justify trading him.

 

 

Paying a #3 starter Garland's money makes a lot more sense on a 90-100 win team than a .500 team. If we lose Buehrle, it would make a lot more sense to get 2-3 quality players back for Garland (including a starting prospect) and create payroll flexibility. There's no way a pitcher in his 20's who has won 36 games the last two seasons but has so-so WHIP and BB/K ratios is ever going to be worth more than he is right now.