PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Crede's situation to Mags


AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 09:11 AM
Alright, I'll admit I'm juiced up by the game last night but at this point, I want the Sox to shell out the dough for a long term contract for Crede. I think he currently leads the team in HR's and RBI, plays gold glove caliber D, and is sort of a clutch hitter. Is it so bad to pony up for a guy like that?

I just hate that this is going to end up the same way it did with Mags. After Mags got hurt in his last season on the South side, seemingly everyone here at WSI was claiming that the Sox were justified in letting him walk, his knee was mush, blah, blah, blah. Well, I guess that worked out OK for the Tigers. I only bring up Mags to point out that I don't want everyone to tell me that you can't sign Crede long term due to health issues.

I also wish the Sox would stop acting like they are a small market team when it comes to shelling out contracts for good players.

JorgeFabregas
04-25-2008, 09:15 AM
The Sox do not operate like a small market team in any way, shape, or form.

soxrme
04-25-2008, 09:15 AM
Amen

soxfan13
04-25-2008, 09:33 AM
Alright, I'll admit I'm juiced up by the game last night but at this point, I want the Sox to shell out the dough for a long term contract for Crede. I think he currently leads the team in HR's and RBI, plays gold glove caliber D, and is sort of a clutch hitter. Is it so bad to pony up for a guy like that?

I just hate that this is going to end up the same way it did with Mags. After Mags got hurt in his last season on the South side, seemingly everyone here at WSI was claiming that the Sox were justified in letting him walk, his knee was mush, blah, blah, blah. Well, I guess that worked out OK for the Tigers. I only bring up Mags to point out that I don't want everyone to tell me that you can't sign Crede long term due to health issues.

I also wish the Sox would stop acting like they are a small market team when it comes to shelling out contracts for good players.

I guess you havent seen the latest list of the top payrolls in baseball:rolleyes:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3324146

doublem23
04-25-2008, 09:35 AM
The Sox offered Magglio a long-term contract during Spring Training or early in the season and he turned the Sox down.

Let's not forget, that if the Sox had Maggs on the payroll in 2005, he'd have only played 82 games for us, meaning there'd be no Jermaine Dye, and we'd be subjected to a half season of a Joe Borchard/Timo Perez platoon in RF, and there'd be no World Series.

It sucks for the Sox that Magg's illegal in the United States knee therapy ended up working out and he's playing well for a division rival, but the White Sox were 100% correct in letting Ordonez leave after 2004. There was serious speculation that Magglio would never play again after that collision with Willie Harris.

asindc
04-25-2008, 09:37 AM
Alright, I'll admit I'm juiced up by the game last night but at this point, I want the Sox to shell out the dough for a long term contract for Crede. I think he currently leads the team in HR's and RBI, plays gold glove caliber D, and is sort of a clutch hitter. Is it so bad to pony up for a guy like that?

I just hate that this is going to end up the same way it did with Mags. After Mags got hurt in his last season on the South side, seemingly everyone here at WSI was claiming that the Sox were justified in letting him walk, his knee was mush, blah, blah, blah. Well, I guess that worked out OK for the Tigers. I only bring up Mags to point out that I don't want everyone to tell me that you can't sign Crede long term due to health issues.

I also wish the Sox would stop acting like they are a small market team when it comes to shelling out contracts for good players.

You might recall that things have worked out better for the Sox than the Tigers since Maggs joined them. Maybe that should be factored into the analysis.:scratch:

AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 09:42 AM
I guess you havent seen the latest list of the top payrolls in baseball:rolleyes:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3324146

I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:

Hitmen77
04-25-2008, 09:42 AM
The Sox offered Magglio a long-term contract during Spring Training or early in the season and he turned the Sox down.

Let's not forget, that if the Sox had Maggs on the payroll in 2005, he'd have only played 82 games for us, meaning there'd be no Jermaine Dye, and we'd be subjected to a half season of a Joe Borchard/Timo Perez platoon in RF, and there'd be no World Series.

It sucks for the Sox that Magg's illegal in the United States knee therapy ended up working out and he's playing well for a division rival, but the White Sox were 100% correct in letting Ordonez leave after 2004. There was serious speculation that Magglio would never play again after that collision with Willie Harris.

Not to mention that if we had signed Maggs to $15 million/year, there wouldn't have been much money left over for AJ, Iguchi, and El Duque in addition to no Dye.

But that's ok, who needs that '05 championship. Let's blame the Sox for letting Maggs go.

eriqjaffe
04-25-2008, 09:42 AM
The Sox offered Magglio a long-term contract during Spring Training or early in the season and he turned the Sox down.I thought the Sox even offered him a contract after his knee injury. Am I imagining that?

doublem23
04-25-2008, 09:43 AM
I thought the Sox even offered him a contract after his knee injury. Am I imagining that?

I don't think so. The knee injury wasn't what caused the Sox to pull their offer off the table, I think Magglio and his people a few weeks early basically told the Sox they could bid for Maggs' services at the end of the year, and he wasn't going to be signing an long-term extension during the season.

Flight #24
04-25-2008, 09:44 AM
IMO it's on Crede. Kenny offered to talk long-term deal last year and was shot down without even a preliminary "well, we want a market deal which is $X". It was "We want to hit the market".

So every time Joe says "I haven't even seen an offer from the Sox", I go :scratch: because that was his decision (or his agents).

Until/unless Joe comes forward to KW and says "I'm willing to talk long-term deal", it ain't happening. But hopefully the Sox continue to play strong and lead the division and we see a Buehrle/Dye type of situation where both sides agree that they want to keep it together and get something done. But I'm guessing Bora$$ will do everything in his power to prevent that and try to squeeze a few extra $$ out of someone.

Bucky F. Dent
04-25-2008, 09:44 AM
The only thing that gives me hesitation about shelling out a big five year deal to Crede is his back. It appears to be fine now but as anyone who has ever had a back problem before can tell you (myself included) it takes nothing more than a misstep coming down a flight of stairs to FUBAR the whole deal.

So, if we did a five year w/ Crede, I would want it to be a relatively low base and loaded to the gills with performance clauses.

doublem23
04-25-2008, 09:45 AM
I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:

Not frivolously throwing money around to big name veterans doesn't equate acting like a small market team.

soxfan13
04-25-2008, 09:46 AM
I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:

Yeah he is saying they are at about the max for payroll, which is fine. To say they are acting like a small market team when they have the 5th highest payroll in baseball is completely off the mark.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2008, 09:47 AM
Crede is nowhere near Maggs' level of play.

AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 09:48 AM
You might recall that things have worked out better for the Sox than the Tigers since Maggs joined them. Maybe that should be factored into the analysis.:scratch:

I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

I guess what I'm really asking in this thread (and yes, I realize it's been asked before) is this: are you all fine with simply letting Crede walk away?

VeeckAsInWreck
04-25-2008, 09:50 AM
When it comes to Maggs, all I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. Nobody knew that he was going to back the way he has. Also, as mentioned before Maggs turned down the Sox offer. In the end, it worked out for both sides. Maggs is doing good in Murder City and the money that was saved on him was used to bring in AJ, Duque, Iguchi, Hermanson which in turn got us that shiny trophy thats by the gift shop in the 100 level.

However I'm all for the Sox keeping Crede. In a perfect world you would be able to keep both Crede and Fields.

MisterB
04-25-2008, 09:54 AM
I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

I believe that as a general rule of thumb, tying up a huge amount of money in one player at the expense of the rest of the roster isn't the best way to operate.

:dunno:

JorgeFabregas
04-25-2008, 09:55 AM
I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:
The Sox reportedly offered big bucks to Hunter and, later, a larger contract to Fukodome than he ended up signing. They do not operate like a small market team. They have one of the highest salary rolls in baseball. They resigned Konerko, Buerhle, and Dye--all for big bucks. Some of Kenny's public comments are TACTICAL. You do not give players whatever contract they want, whenever they want. In fact, Dye's contract is/was cheaper than Maggs' and their performance has been very similar. One good/decent year (2006 for Maggs, 2005 for Dye), one injury-riddled, not so great year (2006 for Maggs, 2007 for Dye) and one fantastic year (2006 for Dye, 2007 for Maggs). Both are having good years so far in 2008.

Crede may be back, he may be gone. I'm not convinced as to which option would be better at this point--it depends on his health and what type of contract he wants. It also depends on Fields' development.

asindc
04-25-2008, 09:57 AM
I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

I guess what I'm really asking in this thread (and yes, I realize it's been asked before) is this: are you all fine with simply letting Crede walk away?

I'm not fine with "letting him" walk away, but I'm more than ok with Crede leaving if the Sox offer him a fair deal and he turns it down, which would be directly analogous to the Maggs situation. A Tigers fan friend of mind admitted that the Tigers overpaid Maggs, and this was on the day he hit the pennant-winning HR for them.

I don't believe in overpaying for players. Ask Yanks fans about Carl Pavano. Ask Boston fans about Matt Clement. Steam will come out of their ears. I've been at odds with the way JR has overseen his baseball operations over the years, but I have always agreed with this statement from him: "When it comes to paying players, we [the Sox] are at the mercy of our dumbest competitor." Count me as a firm believer that we would be in the midst of our 91st straight year without a WS title if the Sox had signed Maggs in 2005.

doublem23
04-25-2008, 09:59 AM
I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

But it's not like the Sox just sat on that Magglio money, the reinvested in their team. Even if Maggs is healthy and ready to go for the whole 2005 season, the Sox wouldn't have had Iguchi at 2B (replaced by Willie Harris), Pierzynski behind the plate (some conglomeration of Chris Widger, Raul Casanova, and Jamie Burke), and no 5th starter (Brandon McCarthy). Maggs is a great talent, yes, but you can make a strong argument the Sox made the right move letting him walk even if he was healthy.

As for Crede, I know you're convinced by three weeks of play that his back is fine, but I am not. He is still a serious health risk. Who is to say that he doesn't throw it out tonight diving for a ground ball? I am fully prepared to take that risk, let him play out this season, and try to sign him to a contract extension following this season. If he plays great and earns a big payday somewhere else, oh well... I think the likelihood of that scenario is far outweighed by the very real possibility that Crede signs a lucrative contract and during its lifetime, suffers another debilitating injury.

It's not as if the White Sox are just allowing their best players to leave for greener pastures, they're simply not willing to overpay and stretch their budget for guys, even if they're fan favorites.

spiffie
04-25-2008, 10:07 AM
I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

I guess what I'm really asking in this thread (and yes, I realize it's been asked before) is this: are you all fine with simply letting Crede walk away?
Yup.

I love the fact Joe is hitting very well the first few weeks of the year. I suppose if Joe keeps a 928 OPS going the entire season I might want to revisit the question. But I would need to see more proof that he is worth the quite large deal he will almost certainly command. He is still someone who at age 30 (tomorrow is his 30th birthday) had a great month and 3/4 of a great season.

The only way I would be interested in resigning him to a true market level deal is if Fields can be leveraged into a major piece via trade. I saw something about Roy Oswalt possibly being willing to be traded...

Steelrod
04-25-2008, 10:28 AM
If I recall correctly, their was also the problem of not being allowed to medically examine Maggs prior to signing him, which resulted in his free agency.

DumpJerry
04-25-2008, 10:37 AM
I thought the Sox even offered him a contract after his knee injury. Am I imagining that?

If I recall correctly, their was also the problem of not being allowed to medically examine Maggs prior to signing him, which resulted in his free agency.
Yeah, eriq, you were imagining that. Maggs was arbitration eligible coming out of 2004. KW said they would not offer arbitration to Maggs until they could see his medical records and could make a knowing decision as to whether not to pursue keeping him. Boarass refused to release the medical records to the Sox. The Sox, rightly so, refused to offer arbitration because they did not know what they were looking with Maggs because of his mysterious Austrian surgery. 28 of the other 29 teams IN MLB refused to talk with Borass about Maggs because they, too, were denied access to the medical records unless they signed him first.

The Kitties were the only ones to take a gamble on Maggs. Borass offered the Kitties a Rodriguez type of deal where the contract could be killed after the first year if Maggs spent a certain number of days on the DL because of the knee injury. This looked good to the Tigers because if the knee was still a problem, it would have made itself known in the first year and they would not be stuck with the out years on the contract. When Maggs went out for the hernia operation in April, 2005, the Tigers looked like chumps because the hernia kpet Maggs out so long, it was impossible for his knee to put him on the DL for the number of days needed to void the contract.

The Tigers lucked out. But, so did the Sox. There really is no argument with the proposition that there would have been a White Sox World Series in 2005 if Maggs stayed with the team. He would have missed most of the year with the hernia, Frank was out for all but 36 games and the FA's we signed would have been elsewhere.

voodoochile
04-25-2008, 10:40 AM
I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:

That's only because he already spent the other $120M...

hawkjt
04-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I have always defended Joe ,back to his horrid stretches in 03 and 04. He paid us off for hanging with him when he came back from the wrist injury in early Sept,05. From that point on..he was lights out at the plate. And if you eliminate his lost year last year..he has been very good and clutch at the plate ever since.

This is going end badly and painfully for Sox fans like me who have an emotional attachment to the player who I feel was the MVP of the 11-1 run in the playoffs in 05. He is going to be part of Sox lore forever. And the bittersweet parting will be excruciating if he has another big year.
Nobodys fault really, just bad timing for the Sox and good timing for Joe,who has patiently paid his dues on the field in the minors and the majors without the big payday to date. He probably has only one big contract left.

I do not blame Kenny nor Joe for this impasse. It is business. Fans lose.

Lip Man 1
04-25-2008, 12:16 PM
A few points.

Dump Jerry has it very accurate on what transpired but he forgot one thing that also played a factor. Magglio was going to work out for teams in California shortly before he wound up going to Austria. It is my understanding that the Sox were going to be one of the teams watching it. That workout was cancelled by Scott Boras literally at the last second without any explanation.

Then Magglio went to Austria so obviously he was having major problems with that knee.

I can't blame the Sox on that one. They did what they could but were hamstrung by his agent and the rules regarding arbitration at the time.

I think Joe's situation is going to evolve along similar line just without all the injury intrigue.

Voodoo:

One point... just a small one. If you mean the Sox payroll is 120 million that appears to be incorrect. You are talking about the figures put out by Forbes Magazine. I was under the impression it was around 109 million counting the money other clubs were paying the Sox on the Carbrera and Thome deals.

I had this in another thread here at WSI but the short version is that I asked Mark Gonzales about this to try to find out what was the correct figure.

He said Forbes was wrong because they were averaging all contracts instead of taking into account how some players get more money earlier or later. He listed four Sox players then he said, he knew Forbes contract numbers were wrong. He told me it was closer to the 109 million figure.

Just FYI.

Lip

Tragg
04-25-2008, 12:20 PM
If Crede will really command $12 mill, the money is better used elsewhere, imo. Like in pitching.

Ordonez was an elite hitter and an all star talent...Crede isn't.

EMachine10
04-25-2008, 12:22 PM
I guess you missed KW's comment this past offseason about having 50 cents to spend. :rolleyes:
We have 50 cent?

SoxyStu
04-25-2008, 12:33 PM
Oh yes, pay him! Just 20 games is enough of an audition for his cured back to deserve that long term deal.

Noneck
04-25-2008, 12:49 PM
One point... just a small one. If you mean the Sox payroll is 120 million that appears to be incorrect. You are talking about the figures put out by Forbes Magazine. I was under the impression it was around 109 million counting the money other clubs were paying the Sox on the Carbrera and Thome deals.

I had this in another thread here at WSI but the short version is that I asked Mark Gonzales about this to try to find out what was the correct figure.

He said Forbes was wrong because they were averaging all contracts instead of taking into account how some players get more money earlier or later. He listed four Sox players then he said, he knew Forbes contract numbers were wrong. He told me it was closer to the 109 million figure.

Just FYI.

Lip

Thanks for the info. Do you know of anywhere this 109m figure is published? I'm getting tired of people stating how much money the Sox have thrown around since last year.

JorgeFabregas
04-25-2008, 12:54 PM
Did Forbes get their numbers from the AP, because there are a heckuva lot more publications that list the Sox' salary at $120 million than Forbes.

http://sportsline.com/mlb/salaries

Payrolls and average salaries for the opening day rosters of the 30 major league teams. Figures were obtained by The Associated Press from management and player sources and include salaries and pro-rated shares of signing bonuses. In some cases, parts of salaries deferred without interest are discounted to reflect present-day values.

Jaffar
04-25-2008, 01:02 PM
I get $112,689,332 (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html)

2008: $121,189,332

- $ 7,000,000 (est.) (Jim Thome)
- $ 1,500,000 (Orlando Cabrera)

= $112,689,332

Lip Man 1
04-25-2008, 01:19 PM
I don't know who had it first Forbes or the AP, I was just passing along that the numbers seemed very high to me, asked Mark Gonzales about it and he said the 120 million figure is inaccurate for the reasons that he told me about.

Basically if a player has a five year, 50 million dollar deal, Forbes / AP says he makes 10 million a season. Mark said that's very incorrect because contracts are front loaded and backloaded. He then said there were at least four wrong figures in that total regarding individual Sox players.

Take it for what it may be worth.

And I've seen the 109 figure listed in some Tribune stories.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 01:28 PM
Yeah he is saying they are at about the max for payroll, which is fine. To say they are acting like a small market team when they have the 5th highest payroll in baseball is completely off the mark.

Alright, point taken. My comment there was wrong. I guess it just seems like KW is always complaining about not being able to afford guys, and it seems like you don't hear other GM's complaining about that. That may just be my perception though, which of course may be wrong.

I guess my concern is this: The Sox didn't hit last year. I know it's VERY early this year, but so far, they aren't hitting this year either. Given that, I hate to see them just let a solid hitter and fielder just walk away.

Noneck
04-25-2008, 01:28 PM
I don't know who had it first Forbes or the AP, I was just passing along that the numbers seemed very high to me, asked Mark Gonzales about it and he said the 120 million figure is inaccurate for the reasons that he told me about.

Basically if a player has a five year, 50 million dollar deal, Forbes / AP says he makes 10 million a season. Mark said that's very incorrect because contracts are front loaded and backloaded. He then said there were at least four wrong figures in that total regarding individual Sox players.

Take it for what it may be worth.

And I've seen the 109 figure listed in some Tribune stories.

Lip
That 120m always seemed high to me also. I just wish I had a published source to throw back at people that use the Forbes, AP or sportsline source. One has to put up or shut up, I hate to shut up cause the supposed facts out there are not correct. Oh well.

AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 01:30 PM
Crede is nowhere near Maggs' level of play.


Sheesh. I got that, and I never said that. I was saying that their SITUATIONS are similar. ie - both were in the last year of a contract, both had health issues, both had been very solid players for the Sox, and both had generated lots of discussion about whether or not the Sox should re-sign them.

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2008, 01:30 PM
$109M or $120M. Doesn't matter. The difference is splitting hairs.

The bottom line is that the Sox have a "big market" payroll.

They just have not overspent for flashy top-tier free agents. Instead, they lock up their own players (Paulie, Buehrle, Dye) who deal with them in an above-board, honest way. Maggs and Boras were sneaky, and Boras has a well-earned reputation for dishonesty.

They did try for Hunter, and got outbid by a team with deeper pockets (Angels) at the last second, and actually outbid the Cubs for Fukudome, but he chose a smaller contract to be the first Japanese player to play for the Cubs.

If Crede doesn't want to talk contract, fine. Just keep hitting and fielding.

AZChiSoxFan
04-25-2008, 01:37 PM
But it's not like the Sox just sat on that Magglio money, the reinvested in their team. Even if Maggs is healthy and ready to go for the whole 2005 season, the Sox wouldn't have had Iguchi at 2B (replaced by Willie Harris), Pierzynski behind the plate (some conglomeration of Chris Widger, Raul Casanova, and Jamie Burke), and no 5th starter (Brandon McCarthy). Maggs is a great talent, yes, but you can make a strong argument the Sox made the right move letting him walk even if he was healthy.

As for Crede, I know you're convinced by three weeks of play that his back is fine, but I am not. He is still a serious health risk. Who is to say that he doesn't throw it out tonight diving for a ground ball? I am fully prepared to take that risk, let him play out this season, and try to sign him to a contract extension following this season. If he plays great and earns a big payday somewhere else, oh well... I think the likelihood of that scenario is far outweighed by the very real possibility that Crede signs a lucrative contract and during its lifetime, suffers another debilitating injury.

It's not as if the White Sox are just allowing their best players to leave for greener pastures, they're simply not willing to overpay and stretch their budget for guys, even if they're fan favorites.

Great point. I guess I should just learn to trust KW, but I'm a little thick headed.

Noneck
04-25-2008, 01:44 PM
$109M or $120M. Doesn't matter. The difference is splitting hairs.


Not really. When I hear that the Sox are throwing away money even after having a horrible year and attendance figures don't matter in whom they can and should have obtained. I've been told they are a deep pocket team and can afford anyone that's out there because of the increase in payroll from 07-08. Wasted money I've been told. While another team signs their players , gets FA's and has a lower payroll than the Sox. It matters.

champagne030
04-25-2008, 01:50 PM
I knew this argument would come up. Yes, things worked out quite well for the Sox in 2005. However, I believe that as a general rule of thumb, not re-signing your best players, who go on to continue to be great players, isn't the best way to operate.

I guess what I'm really asking in this thread (and yes, I realize it's been asked before) is this: are you all fine with simply letting Crede walk away?

I'm only fine with letting him walk away if we have a viable plan to fill 3B. And Fields is not a viable plan.

UofCSoxFan
04-25-2008, 01:56 PM
All I know is for Crede (and for Cabrera and Thome, etc...) my advice is hope they all play really well for us this year, win us a World Series, and worry about the contracts when we have to. I for one never thought we'd resign Buerhle and we did. A lot can happen between now and free agency.

Nellie_Fox
04-25-2008, 02:18 PM
Sheesh. I got that, and I never said that. I was saying that their SITUATIONS are similar. ie - both were in the last year of a contract, both had health issues, both had been very solid players for the Sox, and both had generated lots of discussion about whether or not the Sox should re-sign them.
They are not remotely similar situations. Maggs was not able to play for most of his last year, and it was not at all certain he'd ever play again, yet he was asking for a long-term guaranteed contract without allowing the Sox to examine him or even see his medical records. The Tigers took a HUGE risk, and it has paid off for them.

Crede is playing in the final year of his contract, giving the Sox the ability to evaluate his future. If they re-sign him, they won't be "buying a pig in a poke."

voodoochile
04-25-2008, 02:19 PM
Voodoo:

One point... just a small one. If you mean the Sox payroll is 120 million that appears to be incorrect. You are talking about the figures put out by Forbes Magazine. I was under the impression it was around 109 million counting the money other clubs were paying the Sox on the Carbrera and Thome deals.

I had this in another thread here at WSI but the short version is that I asked Mark Gonzales about this to try to find out what was the correct figure.

He said Forbes was wrong because they were averaging all contracts instead of taking into account how some players get more money earlier or later. He listed four Sox players then he said, he knew Forbes contract numbers were wrong. He told me it was closer to the 109 million figure.

Just FYI.

Lip

I got that from the link posted in this thread. It sounded high to me too and I assumed it had to do with the Thome payments from the Phillies and other stuff I didn't know about.

Still, can't spend $0.50 because he already spent $109M still sounds pretty silly.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2008, 02:46 PM
Its interesting too because if you put us at 109 million and assume the other numbers are about right on that espn list (which may be a little off because if ours was off, why not other teams,) but it puts us either below or in the ballpark of teams like : angels, cubs, dodgers and SEATTLE.

We dont have more revenue than seattle? Its also bothersome because you see teams like the angels, obviously spending money stupidly with hunter, gary matthews jr, etc. and still being one of the best teams in the AL. Where is our exaggerated/stupid contract? More likely, these teams balance big money spending (which we only have 50 cents for) and farm development (which I doubt we have a nickel for).

I'm interested to see what KW does for 2009. Our DH has to cost less, period. There's no defense with those numbers. If Jim really wants to play just to compete for championships, enjoy your previous bags of money. We have most of our starting pitching at an awesome price. Its one of those situations your just dumbfounded where all this cash is going. Maybe we have some of the best paid backups/2nd options in the league.

I hope, regardless of pride, that the Sox offer Joe a good deal and then it will be on him to bolt or stay. As I mentioned in previous threads, trying to get a bargain when a player is hurt does NOT count as trying to get a deal done and faxes are basically FREE. I don't understand this "we need to talk about it" crap. Really? What is there to talk about. Offer a deal, THEN its on the player if he doesnt "want to talk".

UofCSoxFan
04-25-2008, 03:15 PM
We dont have more revenue than seattle?

The Mariners have been spending like drunken sailors lately...that Adrian Beltre contract was terrible in my opiniion.

I think Kenny's point is just b/c you have money doesn't mean you need to spend it NOW if the talent doesn't justify it. If you tie up your money in bad contracts, you will have less money to spend in the future should a good player actually become available. It really isn't that unreasonable of an arguement.

This team may not be the Yankees but they are far from cheap. I think the people that still call this team a cheap team or a "small market thinking" team made up their minds about 10 years ago and haven't adjusted their thinking to reality. The debate between whether or not the payroll is $109m or $120m is really moot to that point.

There are times were a GM may actually strategically not spend money (since it will kill them later) than to spend it because they have it. Hell if Jim Paxson realized this we wouldn't have been stuck with Ben Wallace who now is Larry Hughes.

Remember, they don't give trophies out for the highest payroll, but for the best team.

asindc
04-25-2008, 03:37 PM
Remember, they don't give trophies out for the highest payroll, but for the best team.

Words to live by if you are a GM of any sport.

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2008, 08:12 PM
The Sox are not being cheap with overall MLB payroll.

You may not like how they are spending their money, but they are not cheap.

The Sox don't have any "budget busting" contracts, but they do have a lot of players who are signed to large contracts: Dye, Thome, Paulie, Buehrle, Cabrera, Linebrink, Vazquez, Dotel, Contreras and AJ.

Even Hall, Swisher, MacDougal, Uribe and Crede make millions each year.

All those contracts add up.

Tragg
04-25-2008, 08:20 PM
Even Hall, Swisher, MacDougal, Uribe and Crede make millions each year.

All those contracts add up.
Exactly - last year the Sox gave 1.9 million to Cintron. This year it's $4 million to Uribe. In both cases, equal production could have been had for near minimum.

Daver
04-25-2008, 08:23 PM
Exactly - last year the Sox gave 1.9 million to Cintron. This year it's $4 million to Uribe. In both cases, equal production could have been had for near minimum.

Equal production how?

What are you basing it on?

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2008, 08:24 PM
Exactly - last year the Sox gave 1.9 million to Cintron. This year it's $4 million to Uribe. In both cases, equal production could have been had for near minimum.

Fine. Agreed. But that doesn't make the Sox cheap.

I think the Sox would be better served cutting MLB payroll by $15 million and plowing that into hiring the best scouts and more of them, and the best minor league coaches and instructors, and more of them. Heck, just overpay to hire away all the Twins' scouts and player development folks.

I think that would ensure that within two or three years, a torrent of talented young players would be ready to contribute to the Sox on the mound, at the plate and in the field.

Steelrod
04-26-2008, 07:26 AM
Fine. Agreed. But that doesn't make the Sox cheap.

I think the Sox would be better served cutting MLB payroll by $15 million and plowing that into hiring the best scouts and more of them, and the best minor league coaches and instructors, and more of them. Heck, just overpay to hire away all the Twins' scouts and player development folks.

I think that would ensure that within two or three years, a torrent of talented young players would be ready to contribute to the Sox on the mound, at the plate and in the field.
Money spent guarantees nothing.

SoxNation05
04-26-2008, 11:08 AM
I haven't read the entire thread just the original poster but I think he missed the main point. Maggs back up was Timo Perez. Crede's back up is an up and coming top prospect in Josh Fields.

Tragg
04-26-2008, 11:12 AM
Equal production how?

What are you basing it on?
You can get good field no hit infielders for far, far less than 4 million. Adam Everett, for example, makes 2.8 million. The 4 million is less of an overpayment were he playing SS. But I still maintain that putting a poor hitter like Uribe at 2b long term is absolutely silly (as were Guillen's comments in the paper about his stressing defense - whither Rob M.)

As for Cintron, he couldn't hit and he played poor defense.... you can get that for league minimum.

I don't think the Sox are cheap...but they don't always allocate their funds well, imo.