Cespedes Re-signs with the Mets

[CB2.0]

If that same article had some from Chicago media, we'd be talking about how much fluff it was, and mocking it.

 

If Joe McEwing was saying that Semien was no good at SS "because he didn't know how to play it....but NOW he does" - yes, I'd definitely mock it.

 

With all of McEwing's minor league mgr. experience, I'd hope he'd know Semien started 70% of his 364 minor leagues games at that position. Well, that and....we don't teach anybody anything once they come up.

Edited January 22, 2016 by CB2.0

[CyAcosta41]

Well, that's all well and good, but the one thing you left out is the fact that "our" terms don't seem to be in line with the terms other teams are operating under in the open market at the moment. "Our" terms comprising the three year contract approach don't align with the five+ year contracts that the other similar talents are currently receiving in this free agent season. So we can stick to our guns and try to operate under "our" terms, but I'm afraid by doing so we'll be left out in the cold with no addition of the available premium talent that we definitely have a need for.

 

Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual.

 

Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball.

 

Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing.

 

On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves.

 

Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs.

 

Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have.

 

They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value.

 

That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

@JonHeyman Not many players would eschew a 5-year deal for 3. Is cespedes the 1 quirky enough to do it? We may know soon. #nats #mets

 

 

Seems like the Sox are out to me.

[ChiSox59]

Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual.

 

Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball.

 

Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing.

 

On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves.

 

Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs.

 

Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have.

 

They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value.

 

That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not.

 

Nice post.

 

One minor quibble, it was widely reported that Robertson had at least one better offer from the Astros, and perhaps as many as two or three higher offers, but he chose the Sox.

[hi8is]

@JonHeyman Not many players would eschew a 5-year deal for 3. Is cespedes the 1 quirky enough to do it? We may know soon. #nats #mets

 

 

Seems like the Sox are out to me.

I just want to watch the intro press conference this coming week - no matter where he signs. I've invested too much for too long not to.

[fathom]

At this point, I'm just surprised Cespedes isn't deciding on live television with a Mets, Yankees, White Sox, Orioles and Nationals hat on the table

[shipps]

At this point, I'm just surprised Cespedes isn't deciding on live television with a Mets, Yankees, White Sox, Orioles and Nationals hat on the table

 

This does feel sooo much like Lebron.

[Balta1701]

This does feel sooo much like Lebron.

That wasn't hats on the table, that was surrounded by adoring, caring children who would get no money.

[CB2.0]

More of the same, but this part was interesting:

 

There are the usual suspects: the White Sox, the Angels and the Cardinals. And one baseball official advised Wednesday night to keep an eye on the Orioles, who were interested in Cespedes before committing to Chris Davis. The Orioles still have financial flexibility, the source said.

 

I know Chen is gone, but they've got to pushing toward $120M territory with Davis, Jones, and Wieters all getting $15M+, right?

 

That would be something if they signed Davis AND Cespedes.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/22/cespedes-pote...ecedented-risk/

Edited January 22, 2016 by CB2.0

[shipps]

That wasn't hats on the table, that was surrounded by adoring, caring children who would get no money.

 

The kids were wearing hats then? I know there were some hats, I remember hats.

[jlally]

If he ends up taking a guaranteed 5 year deal in the $110-120 million range, then I don't think the Sox would look bad for refusing to go that high. Cespedes is not good enough to warrant that.

 

If the Sox get to the playoffs or are competing for the WS or even win the WS,then being tied down a year or 2 would be worth it.So they don`t want to offer 4 or 5 years so they won`t be tied down while NOT making the playoffs or even competing for them.Because since Reinsdorf took over they haven`t been perenial playoff contenders.If they were constantly in the mix for making the playoffs I could understand not wanting to be Fiscally Hamstrung by an obsolete contract but they aren`t competing every year.So to not go for it when you have the chance is one reason why alotta of us Sox Fans are disgusted with Reinsdorf.That`s this longtime Soxfan`s opinion

Edited January 22, 2016 by WSkid

[Harry Chappas]

This does feel sooo much like Lebron.

 

In this thread but does anyone that is not a Mets or White Sox fan really even care about this?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The kids were wearing hats then? I know there were some hats, I remember hats.

 

I think I remember some high school football player lining up hats for which college he would choose. Or maybe it was HS basketball player. I do remember seeing a press conference with hats though.

[LDF]

Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual.

 

Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball.

 

Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing.

 

On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves.

 

Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs.

Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have.

 

They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value.

 

That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not.

 

i have a major problem, that is i think too much and play all the angles. btw, nice post.

 

last nite i was chewing over somethings that been bothering me. first, i believe it was mention from someone in the sox org, that JR wanted another WS before he passes and at that point the sox can be sold, how ever that statement was made. i can't exactly remember how it was said.

 

what happen if the sox FO is maneuvering the way the sox are investing in FA's so if the sox can not win by 2 or 3 yrs, the sox will sell off the players ..... JA will be 1 yr from fa, the major contracts will have expired, the 2 or 3yrs is the end of life commitment for trying to get the team a WS..... and if, God Forbid, JR passes, the sox can be in a position to sell the team and max the money .... let the new owners deal with rebuilding and all that comes with it.

 

the lack of really making the push for Gordon or Cespy.... has me thinking really out there .... it doesn't make sense on many fronts, i just can't put my finger on it.

 

so maybe JR and the owners has this in mind and no other FO management.

 

[fathom]

If JR's plan is to sell the team in a few years, it would be a colossal mistake to have the team tank and minimize the payroll. I asked about this on the board the other day, and it seems like with a new TV deal coming up, having rock bottom ratings would hurt how valuable the franchise is more than having 20-30 million more in payroll.

[shipps]

i have a major problem, that is i think too much and play all the angles. btw, nice post.

 

last nite i was chewing over somethings that been bothering me. first, i believe it was mention from someone in the sox org, that JR wanted another WS before he passes and at that point the sox can be sold, how ever that statement was made. i can't exactly remember how it was said.

 

what happen if the sox FO is maneuvering the way the sox are investing in FA's so if the sox can not win by 2 or 3 yrs, the sox will sell off the players ..... JA will be 1 yr from fa, the major contracts will have expired, the 2 or 3yrs is the end of life commitment for trying to get the team a WS..... and if, God Forbid, JR passes, the sox can be in a position to sell the team and max the money .... let the new owners deal with rebuilding and all that comes with it.

 

the lack of really making the push for Gordon or Cespy.... has me thinking really out there .... it doesn't make sense on many fronts, i just can't put my finger on it.

 

so maybe JR and the owners has this in mind and no other FO management.

 

So the FO is getting their ducks in a row for JR's death?

[caulfield12]

Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual.

 

Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball.

 

Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing.

 

On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves.

 

Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs.

 

Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have.

 

They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value.

 

That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not.

 

That would be all fine and good...if if if....that process didn't lead to one of the worst defensive outfields in the major leagues and all-in contracts for guys like LaRoche and Robertson and Cabrera due to their ages.

 

It seems we completely missed on Avi and Davidson when we possibly could have had Iglesias and Inciarte with better scouting....that last name is speculation, but it's hard to imagine a more disappointing player in the DBacks' system.

 

Which would be fine if we had a strong minor league system filled with quality depth...the irony being that we keep pooh-pooing Semien's loss when one of our biggest current needs is a young, cost-controlled minor league SS who will be Top 5 in the majors.

 

If Anderson lives up to hype, the loss of Semien isn't such a big deal...just as we're weighing the risks of passing on the big-name outfielders, there's another set of attendant risks associated with Anderson, Fulmer and Adams, too.

 

Leading inevitably back to the second tier veteran options (those contracts won't kill us!) but by making a series of blunders in the evaluation of those decisions (Cabrera, LaRoche, Shark...Kepp, Duke, Bonifacio to a lesser extent), we keep putting ourselves in a disadvantageous financial situation with little wiggle room.

 

Players like Jackson, Fowler, Desmond, etc., carry their own set of risks. Doing nothing and going with Avi does as well, as we saw with giving Beckham and Viciedo so much time to figure things out.

 

The main frustration is the two steps forward, one step back thing. A year or so ago, it looked like we were really going to make a concerted effort to become at least a consistent top 12-18 farm system, but our jumping up in the ratings temporarily was more about the accumulation of high first round picks. If they had gone over budget one year and loaded up on international signings, dipped into South Korea (Kang, for example was available but "blocked" by Gillaspie and Davidson) or Japan, it just feels like Groundhog Day where we keep repeating the same exact pattern but expecting a different set of results.

 

Looking at the minor league top ten...and what positions we'll need to cover again in 2018, why would the conversation about risk/reward in free agency be any different at that time than now? If you feel confident we have 2-3 major league regulars in Trey, Adam and Jacob, then you're probably not so worried. If you are skeptical about all three, then an even bigger problem is looming that we keep pushing back into the future without having a good enough team to compete. What is the risk of missing the playoffs two more seasons in a row? What's going to improve about the overall financial situation of the team between now and then to prevent a sell-off? We're making a huge bet on Anderson and Fulmer here and absolutely can't afford failure from either player.

 

I can just imagine the same type of thread in 18-20 months with a cost/benefit analysis of trying to retain an aging Frazier...similar to what KC just went through with Alex Gordon.

Edited January 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[L. Ron Paultard]

Thread too long. to a casual part-time fan like me this is how it looks

 

Cespedes:

 

pros:

 

-7-8 WAR upside (real line-up protection? crazy Chicago party scene-fueled excitement? Summertime Cell? that beautiful hitter's background that makes the seams/rotation so clear, the ball the size of beachball? Konerko and Big Hurt are said to really love it post-renovation)

-could make the line-up truly terrifying assuming Eaten & Abreu wrist are healthy.

-star factor

-more athletic than typical corner OF, cannon arm

-won't lose pick

 

Cons:

 

-huge contract by Sox modest financial means. Could cripple.

-may be older than 30

-2015 may have been a fluke ala Puig's 2013 (whether outright chemically-enhanced, or just based on unsustainable "try hard" adrenaline outburst)

-lazy, if not uncoachable, possible clubhouse issue JR won't be thrilled with

-defensive/baserunning instincts mediocre at best

 

 

Avi Garcia - can't believe gonna defend what is IMO another in a string of typical Sox scouting failures. But do people realize this guy is still not that old; played through 3 different injuries? Came back too early from a shoulder surgery with a hitch in his swing (mental or mechanical); plus in 2015 added bad knee & back. Ask Konerko what just 1 injury can do to a hitter...

 

Yeah defensively, his instincts aren't that good, but athleticism, arm, aggressiveness may allow Avi to become decent RF. HR thief. 'sides, not like Alex Rios was any good toward the end of his tenure on the Southside. And then there was the curious case of the potted plant named Jermaine, just sayin'

 

Rich Hahn, coaches have more inside information than we do. If they trust Avi is completely healthy & refocused, with no hitch & his old batspeed returning.... then let's give him 1 last shot. Beats paying 12-13 million per to Fowlers of this world.

 

 

Disclaimer: haven't followed Sox closely since childhood, but apparently nothing's changed fundamentally: White Sox still cannot afford a (long-term) rebuild. If only because White Sox fans are maybe the least loyal or most fickle weirdos on the face of the earth. Myself included. People don't want to hear it, but it's even more true now that the Cubs are really good & exciting. As are the Bulls, Blackhawks. Not to mention the truly unlimited entertainment options a Smartphone swipe away....

 

It's always hilarious to hear self-styled blogger GM's blablabla about 5 years down the road. At this rate in 5 years, there may not even be Chicago White Sox. Must win now. Knowing how bizarre baseball is year-to-year, especially the playoffs roulette, it could be the Sox hoisting the Trophy in late October. Or they could finish under .500 again, haha if Melky once again decides not to wake until mid-June and rash of injuries hits. Such is baseball/life.

 

Optimism > alternative, tho. Sign Cespedes!

 

 

 

.

[Baron]

Yeah defensively, his instincts aren't that good, but athleticism, arm, aggressiveness may allow Avi to become decent RF.

 

 

You ofcourse understand there's zero evidence to hang any hope concerning this right?

Edited January 22, 2016 by Baron

[hi8is]

Thread too long. to a casual part-time fan like me this is how it looks

 

Cespedes:

 

pros:

 

-7-8 WAR upside (real line-up protection? crazy Chicago party scene-fueled excitement? Summertime Cell? that beautiful hitter's background that makes the seams/rotation so clear, the ball the size of beachball? Konerko and Big Hurt are said to really love it post-renovation)

-could make the line-up truly terrifying assuming Eaten & Abreu wrist are healthy.

-star factor

-more athletic than typical corner OF, cannon arm

-won't lose pick

 

Cons:

 

-huge contract by Sox modest financial means. Could cripple.

-may be older than 30

-2015 may have been a fluke ala Puig's 2013 (whether outright chemically-enhanced, or just based on unsustainable "try hard" adrenaline outburst)

-lazy, if not uncoachable, possible clubhouse issue JR won't be thrilled with

-defensive/baserunning instincts mediocre at best

 

 

Avi Garcia - can't believe gonna defend what is IMO another in a string of typical Sox scouting failures. But do people realize this guy is still not that old; played through 3 different injuries? Came back too early from a shoulder surgery with a hitch in his swing (mental or mechanical); plus in 2015 added bad knee & back. Ask Konerko what just 1 injury can do to a hitter...

 

Yeah defensively, his instincts aren't that good, but athleticism, arm, aggressiveness may allow Avi to become decent RF. HR thief. 'sides, not like Alex Rios was any good toward the end of his tenure on the Southside. And then there was the curious case of the potted plant named Jermaine, just sayin'

 

Rich Hahn, coaches have more inside information than we do. If they trust Avi is completely healthy & refocused, with no hitch & his old batspeed returning.... then let's give him 1 last shot. Beats paying 12-13 million per to Fowlers of this world.

 

 

Disclaimer: haven't followed Sox closely since childhood, but apparently nothing's changed fundamentally: White Sox still cannot afford a (long-term) rebuild. If only because White Sox fans are maybe the least loyal or most fickle weirdos on the face of the earth. Myself included. People don't want to hear it, but it's even more true now that the Cubs are really good & exciting. As are the Bulls, Blackhawks. Not to mention the truly unlimited entertainment options a Smartphone swipe away....

 

It's always hilarious to hear self-styled blogger GM's blablabla about 5 years down the road. At this rate in 5 years, there may not even be Chicago White Sox. Must win now. Knowing how bizarre baseball is year-to-year, especially the playoffs roulette, it could be the Sox hoisting the Trophy in late October. Or they could finish under .500 again, haha if Melky once again decides not to wake until mid-June and rash of injuries hits. Such is baseball/life.

 

Optimism > alternative, tho. Sign Cespedes!

 

 

 

.

Ok, gotta ask:

 

What / who the hell is that in your avatar???

[scotty22hotty]

I'm still not counting out the Sox because the 3 year deal thats being reported is simply idiotic. Especially since the Sox only have a 4 year window to compete and only 2 with Frazier. A +3 WAR swing for the poorest corner outfielding duo in baseball is a gamble you have to take if you want to win.

 

Hopefully I'm not putting too much faith in the FO offering Cespedes a fair deal thats on par with his future projections. Like others here, I suspect a 4 year front-loaded opt-out friendly contract (4/88M) is on the table or will be offered before he finally decides.

[LDF]

If JR's plan is to sell the team in a few years, it would be a colossal mistake to have the team tank and minimize the payroll. I asked about this on the board the other day, and it seems like with a new TV deal coming up, having rock bottom ratings would hurt how valuable the franchise is more than having 20-30 million more in payroll.

 

as i said, this is some crazy notions that somehow seep-into my conscience thought process. believe you me, i really was extremely hesitant i mentioning it until i worked out the angles. even then it still bother me.

 

but not to minimize payroll, but to minimize huge contracts that will saddle whomever the new owners may be and to lessen the overhead.... but i do not think the sox will want to tank, b/c the owners will still want that WS ring.

 

btw the tv deal is with the secondary company JR owns but the contract is the sox corp.

[caulfield12]

Topics covered:

-Signing old players

-Jake Peavy trade

-Inciarte (of course)

-Marcus Semien

-Anderson and other top prospects

-2014-2015 offseason

-Current FA options

-Past development failures

-Arbitrary ranking of overall farm system.

-Lack of activity in Asian markets

-Failed 3B

-2018

-Risk of FA

-Financial health of organization

-Playoffs?

 

Times Cespedes mentioned: 0.

 

 

Obviously it was a reply to Cy Acosta...if we can't talk about the risks of standing pat that goes along with the assumption that Cespedes isn't worth the attendant risk, then what's the point of discussing Cespedes at all anymore?

 

Great, Cespedes...too risky!

 

So then what?

 

Please explain what move doesn't carry a downside. Cali has been arguing about Cespedes for weeks and nobody has rebutted his point that we don't have enough proven run producers...highlighting that fact with his RBI and RISP (which will inevitably be described as luck or random or anomalies) numbers but I have yet to see a good response other than just a string of personal character attacks on Cespedes from shadowy sources.

Edited January 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[GreenSox]

The main frustration is the two steps forward, one step back thing. A year or so ago, it looked like we were really going to make a concerted effort to become at least a consistent top 12-18 farm system, but our jumping up in the ratings temporarily was more about the accumulation of high first round picks. If they had gone over budget one year and loaded up on international signings, dipped into South Korea (Kang, for example was available but "blocked" by Gillaspie and Davidson) or Japan, it just feels like Groundhog Day where we keep repeating the same exact pattern but expecting a different set of results.

I agree with you.

The Sox FO simply lacks the patience to build the org. They tried for one year, improved the team 10 games, and then the Kenny Williams philosophy roars back in. Trade 4 young players for 1 year of Shark...who by the way gave the Sox the SAME WAR he generally puts up, but for the career year that the Sox, predictably, chased.

 

And they did the same thing this year. Trade young players ("fourth outfielder" they tell us) for 2 years of Frazier; but this time the NL slugger will finally slug....we hope.......

They better get Cespedes, or the hole will only get deeper. They aren't standing pat: it will be lose a high draft choice for the averageish Fowler or load up the prospects for someone in July.

Edited January 22, 2016 by GreenSox

[Thad Bosley]

Again, a gross oversimplification of things. I wouldn't think that Hahn would need to add the obvious caveat of "without destroying the future" to the end of that, but apparently for some he does. If it was just about today, guys like Anderson and Fulmer would have already been dealt for upgrades, and they would have already signed a FA that requires draft pick compensation.

 

2019 and 2020 might not matter for you, but in a market where fan response is about as warm as Lake Michigan, mistakes get amplified. Having $20+ million in dead payroll would be a huge blow to the ballclub in those years that the fans won't tolerate. I can already see the handwringing going on full of hindsight and simplification.

Lol - apparently I didn't oversimplify enough. You still don't get it! But ok, let me try and spell it out this way to see if this will help get the point across to you.

 

The Exec VP of Baseball Operations and the General Manager are on record of saying they want to "maximize" the opportunity presented by the current core of players in the next few years to compete for a championship.

 

We still have some big holes surrounding the core that if they go uncorrected, will not allow us to "maximize" this opportunity.

 

Any solution available to us at the moment to correct one of these holes will have an impact on the future, be it trading away elite talent we have in the minors to acquire a solution, or spending money in the open market that could limit options in the future beyond the current window of opportunity.

 

Signing Yoenis Cespedes to a five year contract is the best option at the moment to both solve one of the remaining obstacles to "maximizing" the current window, while having the least amount of impact on future endeavors. Because of the team friendly contracts currently in place through '19 and '20, the addition of Cespedes at this point in time in no way resembles a scenario that "destroys the future". Not even close. So which is better - having Cespedes on the books in '19 and '20 or potentially not having Anderson and Fulmer on this team then in the prime of their careers. I think the answer is pretty obvious.

 

So take your pick, SS2K5. Either trade away Anderson or Fulmer to acquire Major League talent to help boost this team over the top, or sign Cespedes. Those are the two options that will best enable the team to "maximize" blah blah blah. Doing nothing and standing pat because we're shaking in our boots about possible ramifications down the road ain't gonna get it done. Signing a second tier, cheaper outfield solution does not "maximize" our ability to compete because Cespedes >>> than those options. If you have a better answer, let's hear it. We're all ears!!

Edited January 22, 2016 by Thad Bosley