Heyman: Justin Upton to the Tigers

[Lillian]

Who is John Danks blocking. I am sure you wouldn't mind if the Sox obligation to him was at least one year less. The fact is these guys might suck in 3 years, and as of now, there I are some nice looking free agent targets in 3 years.

 

There is no reason to be locked into a player longer than needed.

 

Long term contracts to pitchers are a different consideration, Danks being a case in point. Pitchers are so vulnerable to arm and shoulder injuries, and those injuries are usually career ending, or at least very damaging. Moreover, there is another side to the "double edged sword," which these multi contracts represent. Of course, the team is committed and obligated, but then they also have a good player locked up. There is an optimum number of years, and it certainly isn't advantageous to be committed to a player, beyond his prime. In the case of Cespedes, 4 years takes him through age 33, which seems ideal.

[caulfield12]

No teams in the AL Central are even close to approaching $200 million except Detroit.

 

The problem is a razor thin margin for error at $120-130 million compared to let's say $150-175 million even.

 

Mistakes like Dunn, LaRoche and Danks...even Cabrera to a lesser extent, block that financial flexibility the bigger spending teams typically have.

 

[caulfield12]

Long term contracts to pitchers are a different consideration, Danks being a case in point. Pitchers are so vulnerable to arm and shoulder injuries, and those injuries are usually career ending, or at least very damaging. Moreover, there is another side to the "double edged sword," which these multi contracts represent. Of course, the team is committed and obligated, but then they also have a good player locked up. There is an optimum number of years, and it certainly isn't advantageous to be committed to a player, beyond his prime. In the case of Cespedes, 4 years takes him through age 33, which seems ideal.

 

Except without steroids, 25-28 or 29 is a player's prime and anyone past age 30 a warning sign.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Long term contracts to pitchers are a different consideration, Danks being a case in point. Pitchers are so vulnerable to arm and shoulder injuries, and those injuries are usually career ending, or at least very damaging. Moreover, there is another side to the "double edged sword," which these multi contracts represent. Of course, the team is committed and obligated, but then they also have a good player locked up. There is an optimum number of years, and it certainly isn't advantageous to be committed to a player, beyond his prime. In the case of Cespedes, 4 years takes him through age 33, which seems ideal.

I bet the Angels wish they didn't have to pay Pujols and Hamilton for their age 33 seasons. 1 year with team options is optimal, but unrealistic. 3 years is better than 4, 2 better than 3.

 

3 years with an out after 2 seems like it could be something that interests him.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Lillian]

No teams in the AL Central are even close to approaching $200 million except Detroit.

 

The problem is a razor thin margin for error at $120-130 million compared to let's say $150-175 million even.

 

Mistakes like Dunn, LaRoche and Danks...even Cabrera to a lesser extent, block that financial flexibility the bigger spending teams typically have.

 

The other side of that coin is the risk of losing a guy, whom you would really like to keep. Abreu will be in his third year. I, for one, am very happy that it isn't going to be his last, his second last, or even third to last. How about you? If the deal is fair and reasonable, then locking up a guy, through his prime is not necessarily a disadvantage. I come back to my conviction that the greater concern is giving a guy, what he perceives will be the final contract of his career. It seems far more advantageous to have a player, playing for another future contract. It has to be more motivating.

[BlackSox13]

No but he isn't and wasn't blocking anyone either. Things change in 4 years. Things change in 3 years. The White Sox have no position players on their roster that were on the team on opening day 2013. Overpaying just to overpay is fine if you have a $300 million payroll and could just suck up the $25 million or so in 3 or 4 years, but the White Sox aren't that team. Maybe the ultimate price means they have to go 4 years, but it doesn't make sense for them to go there until they have to.

Neither Lillian nor myself said anything about overpaying for a FA. In fact, I agree and have said more than once that I think Hahn is doing the right thing by not offering more than 3 years to players that have not been offered more than 3 years and also that I feel the Sox are willing to go 4 years if necessary. The Sox offering 3 years to players seeking 5+ years is simply negotiating and posturing. I don't buy the "Sox only willing to go 3 years" nonsense one bit and believe it's purposely leaked PR bulls*** by either the Sox FO trying to gain leverage or the agent trying to make the Sox look cheap in an effort to apply pressure on the Sox publically by making them look cheap.

 

As you and I both have pointed out, the Sox have offered 4+ year contracts in the past so there's no reason to believe that all of the sudden they are unwilling to do so now, if necessary and within reason.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

I think it's a gamble with a double edged sword. On one side, if Upton performs as usual then he should hit paydirt next winter but if he under-performs he lowers his value.

 

I'm probably in the minority on this but I don't have interest in Upton for a 1 year deal, he either accepts a 3/4 year deal or f*** him and move on to someone else. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Upton in a Sox uni, just not for merely one season. There's just too many options available to give into his demands, he can either meet the Sox half way or he can piss off.

 

Plus Upton costs a pick. A 1-yr deal is dumb.

[maggsmaggs]

Plus Upton costs a pick. A 1-yr deal is dumb.

You would recoup it next year with a qualifying offer to Upton.

[BlackSox13]

Plus Upton costs a pick. A 1-yr deal is dumb.

Yep, agreed. And unless we can be sure Jacob May will be ready in '17 or that Engel miraculously goes from A+ in '15 to being MLB ready by the end of '16, the outfield search will continue again next off season with less available options at a more costly price. Now is the time to secure an outfielder for the next 2-4 years, IMHO.

[caulfield12]

A one year deal doesn't make sense for any one remaining FA at $23-27 million...well, Cespedes, maybe...because you wouldn't lose the draft pick with him. And you'd take away flexibility to add another key piece at mid-season barring some unexpected farm system developments in the first half.

 

Upton or Desmond would definitely have to be minimum two years deals, though. That would be hard to commit to not knowing where Tim Anderson will be in July or August development-wise in the case of Desmond.

 

Any one year deal forces you back into the market against more bidders for less offensive talent next offseason...

 

 

[Lillian]

Except without steroids, 25-28 or 29 is a player's prime and anyone past age 30 a warning sign.

 

You raise an interesting question; What really is the point at which a baseball player should be expected to experience a serious decline in performance?

If you go back to the pre-steroid era, there were many position players who were extremely productive into their mid 30's. When you consider that those players did

not have advanced fitness routines, as do players today, I seriously doubt that a player should be unable to maintain a high level of performance, simply because he has passed the magic age of 30. Of course, injuries are another issue. If a player is injured, it can end his career, at any age.

 

There is also a factor that helps to offset the negative effects of physical aging, and that is experience. Baseball is a difficult sport to master, and the learning curve does not peak at 30. Guys can learn to be better players, even if they have lost a step in speed. Moreover, with proper strength training, they can be stronger at age 33 to 35, than they were in their 20's. The point is that this is a very complex issue.

 

On a personal note; it is a little amusing for someone at my advanced age of 71, to hear 30 year olds, referred to as "over the hill". Ouch.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Lillian

[caulfield12]

You raise an interesting question; What really is the point at which a baseball player should be expected to experience a serious decline in performance?

If you go back to the pre-steroid era, there were many position players who were extremely productive into their mid 30's. When you consider that those players did

not have advanced fitness routines, as do players today, I seriously doubt that a player should be unable to maintain a high level of performance, simply because he has passed the magic age of 30. Of course, injuries are another issue. If a player is injured, it can end his career, at any age.

 

There is also a factor that helps to offset the negative effects of physical aging, and that is experience. Baseball is a difficult sport to master, and the learning curve does not peak at 30. Guys can learn to be better players, even if they have lost a step in speed. Moreover, with proper strength training, they can be stronger at age 33 to 35, than they were in their 20's. The point is that this is a very complex issue.

 

On a personal note; it is a little amusing for someone at my advanced age of 71, to hear 30 year olds, referred to as "over the hill". Ouch.

 

Well, that's definitely the case with tennis and gymnastics.

 

Think of the NFL, where other than Qb's and kickers/punters, the average career is over in 3-5 seasons.

 

Tiger Woods is done at age 40, but golf is one of the few sports where you can actually peak at 35-45 due to the mental side of the game being equally important. Vijay Singh, for example.

 

[Whisox05]

Thad Levine #Rangers told us that they have always been an admirer of Justin Upton and continue to monitor his status in free agency XM89

https://twitter.com/JimBowden_ESPN/status/686234500641230849

[BlackSox13]

This sounds more like the Astros kicking the tires but ya never know if they trade one of their outfielders.

 

http://houseofhouston.com/2016/01/08/houst...nd-ian-desmond/

 

"The Houston Astros have had preliminary discussions with both Justin Upton and Ian Desmond according to Evan Drellich (Houston Chronicle)."

 

"Upton is a big name, but the Astros currently have their outfield and DH set. Luhnow could look into trading an outfielder to open up a spot for a guy like Upton, but at this point it’s likely the Astros stand still unless they find a way to get creative."

 

Ya know, the Sox need to get "creative" and the Astros need to get "creative" so why not get "creative" together?

[caulfield12]

This sounds more like the Astros kicking the tires but ya never know if they trade one of their outfielders.

 

http://houseofhouston.com/2016/01/08/houst...nd-ian-desmond/

 

"The Houston Astros have had preliminary discussions with both Justin Upton and Ian Desmond according to Evan Drellich (Houston Chronicle)."

 

"Upton is a big name, but the Astros currently have their outfield and DH set. Luhnow could look into trading an outfielder to open up a spot for a guy like Upton, but at this point it’s likely the Astros stand still unless they find a way to get creative."

 

Ya know, the Sox need to get "creative" and the Astros need to get "creative" so why not get "creative" together?

 

That's the situation where we end up with Tucker, Marisnick or Rasmus instead...

[Whisox05]

That's the situation where we end up with Tucker, Marisnick or Rasmus instead...

 

Probably Rasmus lol

[BlackSox13]

That's the situation where we end up with Tucker, Marisnick or Rasmus instead...

You read my mind, although I don't think Rasmus can be traded at this point due to his accepting the QO.

 

I know Tucker would cost an arm and a leg and don't really see a potential match but I think Marisnick could be had, not sure for what though.

 

I wouldn't mind a trade for Marisnick to play CF, sign Cespedes for LF, move Eaton to RF, Melky becomes the DH. That would be defensively upgrading all three OF positions.

Edited January 10, 2016 by BlackSox13

[ChiSoxFanMike]

You read my mind, although I don't think Rasmus can be traded at this point due to his accepting the QO.

 

I know Tucker would cost an arm and a leg and don't really see a potential match but I think Marisnick could be had, not sure for what though.

 

I wouldn't mind a trade for Marisnick to play CF, sign Cespedes for LF, move Eaton to RF, Melky becomes the DH. That would be defensively upgrading all three OF positions.

Who do you think the Sox would have to trade to get Marisnick?

 

I'd like him for sure as a Gold Glove quality defender in CF.

[caulfield12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-012919320.html

 

At least one NL team is pushing to acquire RA Dickey, which would open more payroll space for Toronto...

[caulfield12]

Who do you think the Sox would have to trade to get Marisnick?

 

I'd like him for sure as a Gold Glove quality defender in CF.

 

Probably Adams...if you're Houston, with an already deep system, nobody else will get your attention. Limited upside offensively...but that defense.

 

Of course, by that argument, why not just hold onto Trayce Thompson?

Edited January 10, 2016 by caulfield12

[BlackSox13]

Probably Adams...if you're Houston, with an already deep system, nobody else will get your attention. Limited upside offensively...but that defense.

 

Of course, by that argument, why not just hold onto Trayce Thompson?

Thompson helped net the Sox Frazier and the Dodgers wanted Thompson for his RHB to potentially platoon CF with Pederson.

 

If Houston wanted Adams for Marisnick I'd have a hard time saying no. I think Marisnick has some power left in his 6'4" frame. I wonder if the Astros would do Avi + Danish or Guerrero? Probably not but ya never know.

Edited January 11, 2016 by BlackSox13

[BlackSox13]

Who do you think the Sox would have to trade to get Marisnick?

 

I'd like him for sure as a Gold Glove quality defender in CF.

In 2012, Marisnick was rated as the 35th overall prospect and from what I've been reading is still considered a potential 5 tool player. Might cost more than Adams? I really have no idea.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

In 2012, Marisnick was rated as the 35th overall prospect and from what I've been reading is still considered a potential 5 tool player. Might cost more than Adams? I really have no idea.

 

I think any trade talk starting with the Sox would almost immediately revolve around Anderson or Fulmer. Teams would be stupid to not at least try. Doesn't mean that's a fair deal, but I can't see any team not attempt to pry either away.

[Frank_Thomas]

I gotta imagine we see some action this week with the Of market. I read on MLBTR the Os may have a date set for Davis before the contract is really off the table. Even with that said I gotta believe you see guys like Cespedes and Fowler signing sometime midweek.

[caulfield12]

Well, on one hand, the Astros just drafted Tucker's brother as well, right?

 

They might want to keep them together like the Sox did with the Danks brothers, or sell high on Tucker if they perceive him more as a 4th outfielder than regular going forward.

 

If they can't trade Rasmus due to the QO being accepted, that only leaves Marisnick and Springer's obviously not going anywhere.

 

The only way to possibly make it work without trading top pieces is also taking on Singleton's contract, seemingly.