Torii Hunter

[NorthSideSox72]

I think if you take into account the money we got from Philly for Thome and Iguchi, Arizona for Javy, and SD for Mack we had like the 8th highest payroll

Oh I don't think so. Besides we also picked up a bunch of contracts during the year, including Myers, that cost a few million and made up for Gooch and Mack. Its still a $100M team or close to it. And this is nitpicking anyway, you're missing the point.

 

[Texsox]

While a fair question, it's not that simple, and you know it. I know you don't like hearing about the $ and how much a player is making/worth, but it's part of the game, now more than ever.

 

You can ask the question, "Which guy makes us better" but there are a few different ways to look at it.

 

-This team has payroll restrictions, simple as that. While Hunter could provide better numbers than Rowand, at what cost is he providing them at? Because the Sox have Hunter instead of Rowand, do the Sox have to trade away another expensive piece to pay for the production Hunter is providing?

 

-What about in 2012? 2013? You don't want to think about it now, but there have been numerous threads about how Jose and his contract are basically unmovable right now, and how he is tying up 10 million that can be used elsewhere. Can you imagine the threads about Hunter and his 15+ million that he is making when he is 36? Is that going to make the team better?

 

 

It's just not that simple of a question.

 

Great reply, I just like to remind people where the team's media coverage really matters. On the back page of the newspaper, not the business section.

 

If you knew the team had higher profits in 2007 than 2005 would you be ?

[witesoxfan]

I just like to remind people where the team's media coverage really matters. On the back page of the newspaper, not the business section.

 

This is true, but basically the question being asked is "are the rewards in 2008 worth the repercussions in 2011 or '12?"

 

I guess to answer that question, we'll have to wait until 2011 or '12.

[Texsox]

I really do not want to beat this into the ground, but when we spend 90% of our time worrying about how a player will fit into the payroll, and 10% how they fit on the field, it seems out of whack. We really do not know how much they can spend. The payroll always feels fair, but who knows.

 

I also think it kills the casual fans and kids from becoming avid fans. But hey, debate on. It takes armchair GMing to greater heights, and that's good.

[Texsox]

I think it's not discussed because it's obvious Hunter/Rowand/Jones in CF makes the 2008 Sox better than the 2007 Sox. It's not really a discussion that needs debate. Giving one of those players a 7 year deal to play CF is another story, one that is good for 200+ posts.....

 

But for many, the most important difference between the three is money.

[Vance Law]

Oh I don't think so. Besides we also picked up a bunch of contracts during the year, including Myers, that cost a few million and made up for Gooch and Mack.

No. What bunch?

On Aug 20 "The 38-year-old Myers will get the prorated minimum salary for the rest of this season"

 

 

Its still a $100M team or close to it. And this is nitpicking anyway, you're missing the point.

 

I'm not missing the point- high payroll, very little success. But I don't think $10 or $11 million is nitpicking. Most teams in a given year are probably not getting much money from other teams, but in our case it was somewhat significant. You don't need to exaggerate or be hyperbolic to make your point.

 

 

 

 

 

[klaus kinski]

I really do not want to beat this into the ground, but when we spend 90% of our time worrying about how a player will fit into the payroll, and 10% how they fit on the field, it seems out of whack. We really do not know how much they can spend. The payroll always feels fair, but who knows.

 

I also think it kills the casual fans and kids from becoming avid fans. But hey, debate on. It takes armchair GMing to greater heights, and that's good.

 

Everything increases-from Interest Rates, to taxes, to Utility bills. For a baseball team to feel its exempt from increasing payroll expenses is ludicrous-unless you want to be Pittsburgh or kansas City. You are right-I dont worry what it costs them to provide me with a good team-they get 27 games of my $-

 

[Dick Allen]

I really do not want to beat this into the ground, but when we spend 90% of our time worrying about how a player will fit into the payroll, and 10% how they fit on the field, it seems out of whack. We really do not know how much they can spend. The payroll always feels fair, but who knows.

 

I also think it kills the casual fans and kids from becoming avid fans. But hey, debate on. It takes armchair GMing to greater heights, and that's good.

As White Sox fans, I think we are pretty used to this. Money is a big factor even though the White Sox have spent more money than most teams. One bad move makes a bigger difference for the White Sox than for other teams. Just think of Matt Clement. Many here thought he was a perfect fit for the White Sox in 2005, and supposedly the Sox made a competitive offer. If he would have accepted, chances are there wouldn't have been playoffs in 2005 let alone a title, and revenues would have been very different. This team would look a lot different just because of that one move. It does take some of the excitement out of it, but it also shows that spending the money can pay off in the long run if it brings a winner. Who would have thunk 3 years ago the White Sox could put a team on the field that lost 90 games and still drew nearly 3 million.

[joeynach]

From mlbtraderumors.com: "Olney has an exec source who believes Hunter will sign with the Rangers for six years and $90MM."

 

LAME!

[bschmaranz]

From mlbtraderumors.com: "Olney has an exec source who believes Hunter will sign with the Rangers for six years and $90MM."

 

LAME!

 

Scroll back a few pages.

[SkokieSox]

From mlbtraderumors.com: "Olney has an exec source who believes Hunter will sign with the Rangers for six years and $90MM."

 

LAME!

 

I think I could live without him for that price. Still, we need to fill the void. I still would like Rowand back, but it sounds like he might also be getting some high offers - most notably the Dodgers apparently. I don't know at this point, I'm still holding onto the glimmer of hope that Cabrera is heading our way. I could handle BA out there if he was playing 3rd or LF for us.

[AWhiteSoxinNJ]

From mlbtraderumors.com: "Olney has an exec source who believes Hunter will sign with the Rangers for six years and $90MM."

 

LAME!

 

Buster also said the Phillies were going to make a big splash with Mike Lowell today, hours later Phils GM Pat Gillick came out to say that there are only focusing on pitching and not positional players. I put zero stock in that Buster's report.

Edited November 15, 2007 by AWhiteSoxinNJ

[Texsox]

As White Sox fans, I think we are pretty used to this. Money is a big factor even though the White Sox have spent more money than most teams. One bad move makes a bigger difference for the White Sox than for other teams. Just think of Matt Clement. Many here thought he was a perfect fit for the White Sox in 2005, and supposedly the Sox made a competitive offer. If he would have accepted, chances are there wouldn't have been playoffs in 2005 let alone a title, and revenues would have been very different. This team would look a lot different just because of that one move. It does take some of the excitement out of it, but it also shows that spending the money can pay off in the long run if it brings a winner. Who would have thunk 3 years ago the White Sox could put a team on the field that lost 90 games and still drew nearly 3 million.

 

And how do we know that not spending a couple million stopped the 2000 team? It's an impossible argument, based on a huge unknown to the fan, how much could the team actually spend.

 

And I don't think one bad move hurts the Sox more than other teams. Clearly the team can afford a payroll in the top 20% of MLB teams. It's the teams with a $60 mil payroll that can't make mistakes.

[The Ginger Kid]

If Hunter can get that from Texas then it's a no-brainer, he has to take it. At this stage in his career he's got to go where the $ is, not where they have nice playing turf.

[Soxfest]

If Hunter can get that from Texas then it's a no-brainer, he has to take it. At this stage in his career he's got to go where the $ is, not where they have nice playing turf.

 

I agree 6 yr/90 Mil no way I give Hunter that much.

[Texsox]

In four years, what will all-star center fielders be making?

[max power]

Will tori hunter be an all star caliber CF in 4 years?

[kapkomet]

Not particular to Torii Hunter, but to all athletes. YOU MAKE TOO MUCH f***ING MONEY. Seriously. It kills me to see all this.

[CWSGuy406]

Not particular to Torii Hunter, but to all athletes. YOU MAKE TOO MUCH f***ING MONEY. Seriously. It kills me to see all this.

 

Why? If people are willing to pay them that, that's the owners' fault. The MLB is absolutely loaded with cash too, BTW -- I thought I remember reading that the percentage of money that is paid to athletes in MLB is least when compared to the NFL and the NBA.

[Texsox]

Will tori hunter be an all star caliber CF in 4 years?

 

Possibly not, but if the All-Star caliber guys are making $21 mil per year, Hunter may look like a bargain at $15. You know the reasoning, someone will say I

I'd rather take Hunter at $15 than ABC at $21

[kapkomet]

Why? If people are willing to pay them that, that's the owners' fault. The MLB is absolutely loaded with cash too, BTW -- I thought I remember reading that the percentage of money that is paid to athletes in MLB is least when compared to the NFL and the NBA.

The sports and entertainment inductry is SICK. BUt that's just a whole 'nother argument.

[knightni]

I suggested Herges a couple days ago. I think he'd be an ideal addition to our bullpen. We'd still probably want to carry 12 pitchers, esp. if we move a starter and go with the 2 kids...but that's exactly the kind of guy I want to add. Older, experienced, maybe cheaper than other guys, doesn't cost a draft pick, short term contract, might mesh well with the kids, and would still leave us room to try out either Masset, Aardsma, or sign one of the Japanese guys if we though they were worth the $.

Herges and AJ hate each other almost as much as Tomko and AJ hate each other.

[Flash Tizzle]

Olney's reporting that the Dodgers #1 target this offseason is Aaron Rowand. I just hope KW keeps his poise this offseason with these huge deals that will be handed out. It really is too damn bad we're not going into rebuilding mode. It would cost a fortune to get this team back into the AL Central picture.

My philosophy entering next season is either for this team to reach the playoffs or finish in last place. No in-between, indecisive bulls*** which delays management rebuilding another season. Either play in October or begin looking towards the future. Would finishing .500 honestly assure anyone of anything other than Williams (and perhaps a small contingent on Soxtalk) suggesting it's a 'small steps towards the playoffs?" We're not exactly a young team full of promising talent, in which small steps will be viewed as beneficial. This team is old, expensive; and I'm not willing to fool myself in believing 10-12 more wins is a promise of better things in 2009.

 

And I'm not advocating any trade where several prospects are packaged for someone who could " win now," either. Our success or failure should rest upon the current collection of players. With perhaps several short term committments strewn about to fill the roster. When I read about Torii Hunter seeking an extended contract (> 3 years), I can't help but think it'll be useless since the first several years on this club he'll be looking up at Cleveland and Detroit. Possibly Minnesota. And then when his skills are really beginning to diminish, perhaps 2010, we'll finally be in a position to compete. That's atleast what I'm hoping, especially with the renewed interest in player development and (at worst) payroll around 85 million.

 

On a different note, does anyone else believe any references to 2005 should forever be stricken from Soxtalk beginning in 2008? Anything which attempts to compare our success, troubles, how Williams assembled his team, or even Spring Training statistics to the 2005 team should never be spoken. If It were up to me, I'd place the numbers '2005' in a language filter. We really need to move on as fans and an organization. Not that we forget what happened, but for Christs sakes, to quit finding ways of building connections. It has to end at somepoint, right?

Edited November 16, 2007 by Flash Tizzle

[Jack Parkman]

My philosophy entering next season is either for this team to reach the playoffs or finish in last place. No in-between, indecisive bulls*** which delays management rebuilding another season. Either play in October or begin looking towards the future. Would finishing .500 honestly assure anyone of anything other than Williams (and perhaps a small contingent on Soxtalk) suggesting it's a 'small steps towards the playoffs?" We're not exactly a young team full of promising talent, in which small steps will be viewed as beneficial. This team is old, expensive; and I'm not willing to fool myself in believing 10-12 more wins is a promise of better things in 2009.

 

And I'm not advocating any trade where several prospects are packaged for someone who could " win now," either. Our success or failure should rest upon the current collection of players. With perhaps several short term committments strewn about to fill the roster. When I read about Torii Hunter seeking an extended contract (> 3 years), I can't help but think it'll be useless since the first several years on this club he'll be looking up at Cleveland and Detroit. Possibly Minnesota. And then when his skills are really beginning to diminish, perhaps 2010, we'll finally be in a position to compete. That's atleast what I'm hoping, especially with the renewed interest in player development and (at worst) payroll around 85 million.

 

On a different note, does anyone else believe any references to 2005 should forever be stricken from Soxtalk beginning in 2008? Anything which attempts to compare our success, troubles, how Williams assembled his team, or even Spring Training statistics to the 2005 team should never be spoken. If It were up to me, I'd place the numbers '2005' in a language filter. We really need to move on as fans and an organization. Not that we forget what happened, but for Christs sakes, to quit finding ways of building connections. It has to end at somepoint, right?

I agree with this statement 100%. Especially on the 2005 team. Everything came together in a perfect storm of good Karma. However, The Sox fanbase needs to put that behind them. I don't want the 2005 Sox to have a 1985 Bears-like following 20 years after the fact. It is just wrong. We can't live off 2005 forever, just like Bears fans shouldn't(but regrettably do) live off 1985. There has to be more winning than just a one year flash in the pan type season where everything that could go right did, and anything that could go wrong didn't. I just wish that upper management on the Sox would just realize that unless they want to have a $150 million payroll then they are not going to compete in this division in 2008...or 2009 for that matter. Just blow it up Marlins style.

 

[Flash Tizzle]

I just wish that upper management on the Sox would just realize that unless they want to have a $150 million payroll then they are not going to compete in this division in 2008...or 2009 for that matter. Just blow it up Marlins style.

Williams can't possibly look at his roster and think to himself this is a playoff calibur ballclub.

 

What irritates me is blending a 'win now' with looking towards the future (evidence of which can be found with the return value of Garcia and McCarthy) is it's the exact kind of indecision which needs to end. Last season, I could understand the rationale. We were coming off a 90 win season and obviously Williams noticed the baron system. Can't just rebuild right then and there. Unfortunately, we'll probably see Williams assemble another dousy of a return for Garland. Except now far fewer people believe this team is any good. I would expect something such as a decent relief pitcher, C-level prospect, and a 24 year old Single A OF. Not I'm anticipating Kershaw for Garland, but it's foolish to salvage one of the few trading chips this team has for ANYTHING to help 2008. I'd hope Williams does something such as acquire a B level prospect and a raw, Low A 19-20 yr old positional player. Plug in Gonzalez or Floyd, for all I care. Whether our rotation is Buehrle/Vazquez/Contreras/Danks/Garland or Buehrle/Vazquez/Contreras/Danks/Whomever we're not exactly removing the one piece from a championship puzzle. If you're not in first place, with much hope for the immediate future, it'll be better off for everyone if the team finishes dead last. Yes, even behind the Royals. No way for anyone to spin such a disaster.

 

And even if we're not competing (lets say within five games of a playoff birth entering September) by 2010, I would hope several additional years of minor league development between now and then provide us hope for a quick turnaround. We have the #8 overall pick next June, probably a Top 15 pick in 2009. Not to mention all of this emcompasses a heightened focus on player devleopment. People should be scouting for their jobs. If that doesn't provide an incentive, I don't know what will. There should be no more excuses for weak drafts. As I mentioned earlier, we'll still have a decent sized payroll. Even with several consecutive losing seasons I can't imagine it falling below 85 million so quickly. If it does, then there's all the more reason to conduct a successfull rebuilding project. No matter how bad it gets, the fans will return.

 

I still believe at some point, whether Williams ever considers rebuilding or not, he'll need to be involved in a trade which substantially benefits our ballclub. A franchise changing deal. Something in which several future major leaguers arrive here for a substantially less amount from our end. Because if we're looking to rebuild from trades, it's going to take more than the Nick Massets and Jacob Rasners of the world to compensate for a complete lack of positional talents.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Flash Tizzle