Jump to content

Cespedes Re-signs with the Mets


dayan024

Recommended Posts

You can make an argument for Gordon or Upton going shorter because of the horrific FA market next year and their injuries (Gordon) or inconsistency (Upton).

 

For a player in the prime of his career, you're not hearing about many teams aggressively pursuing Upton, at least not in the press. Could be a smokescreen.

 

That said, you could imagine Gordon coming off an injury-filled year betting on himself bouncing back and signing a shorter deal for one year.

 

On the other hand, Cespedes is never going to have a better season and age 30 is the perfect time to strike.

 

Still, there are at least 9-12 teams who would love one of those four.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 11:27 PM)
You can make an argument for Gordon or Upton going shorter because of the horrific FA market next year and their injuries (Gordon) or inconsistency (Upton).

 

For a player in the prime of his career, you're not hearing about many teams aggressively pursuing Upton, at least not in the press. Could be a smokescreen.

 

That said, you could imagine Gordon coming off an injury-filled year betting on himself bouncing back and signing a shorter deal for one year.

 

On the other hand, Cespedes is never going to have a better season and age 30 is the perfect time to strike.

 

Still, there are at least 9-12 teams who would love one of those four.

 

I thought I read somewhere that teams were questioning Upton's effort/work ethic or something along those lines. I could be mistaken, but I swear I saw that in an article recently (could have even been on this board too). If that's true, then that might be why there literally doesn't seem to be any market for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The common theme I keep seeing amongst twitter & here seems to be an opt out with these guys & I see 1 big issue with that.

 

It's been said the Sox would probably need to backload the first year of a deal to make it work since they obviously aren't dealing LaRoche to clear cap room.

 

If they need to backload the first year, it would not benefit a player at all to have a lower salary year 1 & on top of that have an opt out a year or two later. It would involve them losing out on money.

 

From what I've read, it sure just seems like the market is not developing & these FAs are having a hard time coming to grips with that. From what I can tell, no teams have made any offers & even if they did, they haven't been nearly good enough to warrant an agreement.

 

Sooner rather than later, players are going to have to sign & simply bite the bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 11:33 PM)
I thought I read somewhere that teams were questioning Upton's effort/work ethic or something along those lines. I could be mistaken, but I swear I saw that in an article recently (could have even been on this board too). If that's true, then that might be why there literally doesn't seem to be any market for him.

 

Didn't stop the Red Sox with Ramirez and Sandoval last year...talent always gets opportunity, despite question marks, on character/work ethic, until the cost/benefit no longer comes out positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 09:10 PM)
Max Wildstein is a buddy of mine & just told me that he spoke w/ a source that told him Nightengale's tweet was pure posturing on the White Sox's part. Take it FWIW but he went out of his way to tell me about it.

 

Starting off the day better today. Looking forward to a one of the big three signing!! I would really be happy with RH and the FO!! That lineup would be looking good and then a few more tweaks and we're ready to compete!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 12:27 AM)
You can make an argument for Gordon or Upton going shorter because of the horrific FA market next year and their injuries (Gordon) or inconsistency (Upton).

 

For a player in the prime of his career, you're not hearing about many teams aggressively pursuing Upton, at least not in the press. Could be a smokescreen.

 

That said, you could imagine Gordon coming off an injury-filled year betting on himself bouncing back and signing a shorter deal for one year.

 

On the other hand, Cespedes is never going to have a better season and age 30 is the perfect time to strike.

 

Still, there are at least 9-12 teams who would love one of those four.

 

 

They should've taken their QOs then. I don't see many teams lining up to give them 1 year deals and giving up a pick in the process. That said it only takes 1 to make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 08:06 AM)
If they only want 3 years, then frontload, not backload.

Offer Cespedes 3/102, with an opt out after 3.

24 per for 3 years, then it drops to 15 per for 2. Opt out after 3.

 

 

That is conceptually what I've been advocating. None of us know what the numbers would have to be, but the idea is very compelling to me. The goal is to get the guy to play for the Sox during his best prime years. The Sox' motive for giving the

player the opt out is to encourage him to leave. By front loading the contract, and reducing the amount he would earn, if he elects to stay, the player has the greatest motivation to leave.

 

The other factor that really intrigues me is that, with that kind of a contract, the player has every incentive to remain highly motivated, until he reaches the point where he can opt out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the White Sox would be $30-35 million over their supposed budget this year...that big a jump would be unprecedented without following playoffs or competitive seasons.

 

Next year, less of an issue.

 

Essentially it's deliberately spending into a loss for at least one year or more if it backfires..for a payoff more likely in 2017 and 18.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 08:34 AM)
The problem is the White Sox would be $30-35 million over their supposed budget this year...that big a jump would be unprecedented without following playoffs or competitive seasons.

 

Next year, less of an issue.

 

Essentially it's deliberately spending into a loss for at least one year or more if it backfires..for a payoff more likely in 2017 and 18.

What have the White Sox publicly announced as their 2016 payroll budget?

 

And how is saying it is a big problem when in another thread you said they should sign Latos, Desmond, and Parra for $30 million ?

 

Just try once to be consistent.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 2, 2016 -> 08:51 AM)
Announcing an official intended budget would kind of be counterproductive...we can do it fairly closely looking at attendance, projected season ticket sales, profit/loss in the prior year and following all the Forbes numbers cumulatively.

Can you provide links to projected season ticket sales, and the 2015 P&L?

 

You have no idea what the budget it. No one here does.

 

And if you are following Forbes numbers you will have to conclude they are sitting on a pile of cash.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...