PDA

View Full Version : Garcia off the market - Extension To be Announced Today?


Pages : [1] 2

Clembasbal
07-06-2004, 08:25 AM
Link (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print)

CHISOXFAN13
07-06-2004, 08:33 AM
Wow, great news if that is indeed true. Wow, Colin is stealing money from Anaheim if we can get Garcia for only 9 million/year.

ondafarm
07-06-2004, 08:34 AM
What!!??!! Have the White Sox finally started to lock up good pitching??

ukigdog
07-06-2004, 08:36 AM
Wow, this is awesome news. I think that now if we keep Garcia, our front four lineup for years to come will be:

Garcia
Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland

That is awesome!! Now if the maggs stuff can get worked out like KW stated, and we resign him as well, well be in contention for years to come with this starting staff i think!!

ChiWhiteSox1337
07-06-2004, 08:40 AM
WOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN FOREVER THAT I CAN REMEMBER THE WHITE SOX RESIGNING A PITCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :supernana::supernana::supernana::supernana:

DaveIsHere
07-06-2004, 08:46 AM
:threadrules:

soxtalker
07-06-2004, 08:54 AM
Wow, this is awesome news. I think that now if we keep Garcia, our front four lineup for years to come will be:

Garcia
Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland

That is awesome!! Now if the maggs stuff can get worked out like KW stated, and we resign him as well, well be in contention for years to come with this starting staff i think!!
Isn't Loaiza a FA after this year?

WinningUgly!
07-06-2004, 09:03 AM
Isn't Loaiza a FA after this year?
Yup. Joe Torre has already started the Yankees run at him by putting him on the AS team.

gosox41
07-06-2004, 09:17 AM
Yup. Joe Torre has already started the Yankees run at him by putting him on the AS team.
If Loiaza pitches like he has recently then they can have him and I'll take the 2 draft picks.


Bob

Kilroy
07-06-2004, 09:27 AM
What!!??!! Have the White Sox finally started to lock up good pitching??
Seems to me that JR has been willing to go 3 years several times before with a pitcher, just that most of the time the player wouldn't take it. The one time he went above his 3 year rule, he got burned by this guy...

:jaime

I get so fru-STRATED when people say I didn't earn my 20 million over 4 years. I can only pitch. The bats have to get some runs, and I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to have to come up with 6 or 7 every time I pitch.

SaltyPretzel
07-06-2004, 09:28 AM
I read it here too. Look under "The Yankees."


http://www.nj.com/yankees/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/1089099044284690.xml

voodoochile
07-06-2004, 09:29 AM
Yup. Joe Torre has already started the Yankees run at him by putting him on the AS team.
I was thinking about this very concept on my way home last night. I think it is why he chose Magglio over Frank last year too. Makes it tough on other teams when Torre gets a chance to talk up his club, show the FA's to be how cool he is and sell the Yankees by stocking the backups with members of the team every year.

Yes, I realize that other teams are free to compete for the ASG management position, but it borders on tampering, IMO.

Iguana775
07-06-2004, 09:35 AM
:dtroll: :supernana: :dtroll: :supernana:

kraut83
07-06-2004, 09:41 AM
I would love to see this from a source more reputable than Newsday. Their "quality" of news is right up there with the NY Post. That aside, I sure hope its true!

Blob
07-06-2004, 09:46 AM
This is great news after a weekend of disappointments. Now we just need Maggs to sign and we can be done with this grabage!!!

BeerHandle
07-06-2004, 09:55 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print)


Garcia off market with new Sox deal


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/email.gif Email this story (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,5934100,email.story?coll=ny-sports-print)

http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/printer.gif Printer friendly format (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,5601856,print.story?coll=ny-sports-print)

Top Stories http://www.newsday.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Garcia off market with new Sox deal (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Trouble’s around the corner (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets063882837jul06,0,7550613.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Burned by not bunting (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmside063882852jul06,0,6485858.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Pudge lifting up Tigers (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spyside063882835jul06,0,4017342.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Lieber decides that less is more (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-sbyside063882850jul06,0,618655.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)



Ken Davidoff; THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 6, 2004


Neither the Yankees nor the Mets were able to acquire Freddy Garcia for this season. Now Garcia is off the market for the foreseeable future. The righthander, who could have become a free agent this winter, has signed a three-year, $27-million extension with the White Sox, according to two sources familiar with the situation. Garcia is 5-7 with a 3.35 ERA. The deal will be announced today. - Ken Davidoff

Viva Magglio
07-06-2004, 09:57 AM
Good news, for sure, I believe. But how does this affect efforts to re-sign Mágglio Ordóńez?

BeerHandle
07-06-2004, 10:06 AM
Good news, for sure, I believe. But how does this affect efforts to re-sign Mágglio Ordóńez?
Real good question? I'm not sure how it will play out. Maybe Mags Will wise up and take what the Sox offered.

Bruck35
07-06-2004, 10:07 AM
I would love to see this from a source more reputable than Newsday. Their "quality" of news is right up there with the NY Post. That aside, I sure hope its true!
Don't know if you'll feel any better about this source repeating the info, but the Score radio station just had a guy on who reports Tiger and White Sox news saying the Sox will announce later today that they have signed Garcia to a 3-year extension.

samram
07-06-2004, 10:19 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print)


Garcia off market with new Sox deal


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/email.gif Email this story (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,5934100,email.story?coll=ny-sports-print)

http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/printer.gif Printer friendly format (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,5601856,print.story?coll=ny-sports-print)

Top Stories http://www.newsday.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Garcia off market with new Sox deal (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Trouble’s around the corner (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets063882837jul06,0,7550613.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Burned by not bunting (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmside063882852jul06,0,6485858.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Pudge lifting up Tigers (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spyside063882835jul06,0,4017342.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)


http://www.newsday.com/images/icons/story.gif Lieber decides that less is more (http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-sbyside063882850jul06,0,618655.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines)



Ken Davidoff; THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 6, 2004


Neither the Yankees nor the Mets were able to acquire Freddy Garcia for this season. Now Garcia is off the market for the foreseeable future. The righthander, who could have become a free agent this winter, has signed a three-year, $27-million extension with the White Sox, according to two sources familiar with the situation. Garcia is 5-7 with a 3.35 ERA. The deal will be announced today. - Ken Davidoff

Newsday? I'll believe it when I see it.

SSN721
07-06-2004, 10:44 AM
I will also beleive it when I see it at chisox.com, but if it is true I am ecstatic that this happened this quickly. I only hope this doenst somewhat upset Loaiza and Mags seeing as how Garcia got his deal inked so quickly. If he performs the way I think he should I think it is a very fair deal and hopefully will set value for Maggs and Esty and make them want to stay, hopefully, maybe, please :D:

harwar
07-06-2004, 10:58 AM
This is great news.Freddy is a keeper.
I don't really expect Maggs to resign with the White Sox without at least trying the FA market.
I have to believe that the White Sox got the most out of Loiaza and if hes' back with us next year its because he wants to stay,not because of some big contract.

JoseCanseco6969
07-06-2004, 10:58 AM
If Loiaza pitches like he has recently then they can have him and I'll take the 2 draft picks.


Bob
I agree. I think that Loaiza's best year is behind him and it's probably all downhill from here with him. I'd hate to see JR overpay for Loaiza and see him suck ass in a year or so.

JRIG
07-06-2004, 11:03 AM
I know people will jump on me for this, and obviously I'm not trying to :dtroll: anybody here, but...

The first thing that went through my mind when I read this is the Billy Koch deal. KW extending a contract before a pitcher proves anything with the Sox. Garcia is a flyball pitcher who will be throwing in Coors East from now on. His past two seasons have been ERAs of 4.39 and 4.50.

I don't think Garcia will fall apart like Koch did. But again, it's just the first thing that went through my head.

Be gentle.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 11:04 AM
As long as Magglio is demanding 5/70 and not offering any protection to the club for the last year, he won't be resigned. And it is strictly his doing at this point in time. JR/KW are not the bad guys here. Magglio is not the bad guy. If it is all about the extra money/year, then Magglio will have to go elsewhere (Dodgers? Mets? Who knows?) to get it. If he doesn't re-sign with us, we can use the money we have slotted for him to do other things like lock Loaiza up and pursue another front of the rotation starter (Clement is available)

jabrch
07-06-2004, 11:05 AM
I know people will jump on me for this, and obviously I'm not trying to :dtroll: anybody here, but...

The first thing that went through my mind when I read this is the Billy Koch deal. KW extending a contract before a pitcher proves anything with the Sox. Garcia is a flyball pitcher who will be throwing in Coors East from now on. His past two seasons have been ERAs of 4.39 and 4.50.

I don't think Garcia will fall apart like Koch did. But again, it's just the first thing that went through my head.

Be gentle.
JR/KW are damned if they do - and damned if they don't.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 11:11 AM
As long as Magglio is demanding 5/70 and not offering any protection to the club for the last year, he won't be resigned. And it is strictly his doing at this point in time. JR/KW are not the bad guys here. Magglio is not the bad guy. If it is all about the extra money/year, then Magglio will have to go elsewhere (Dodgers? Mets? Who knows?) to get it. If he doesn't re-sign with us, we can use the money we have slotted for him to do other things like lock Loaiza up and pursue another front of the rotation starter (Clement is available)
Agreed. KW's quote on the latest offer was "nothing that takes away from the overall dollars" in terms of the "protection" in the 5th year. IMO - that means deferred money, not some sort of reduction in salary (although I know that the terms are what's key in the deferral).

I think it's a pretty fair compromise. They give him the salary he wants, and the length he originally wanted, in exchange he agrees to the last year being potentially deferred. Remember, this isn't like Frank's deal where he was effectively locked into a lower salary for a number of years (until they renegotiated). This is a potential deferral in the last year only.

Hopefully having Garcia locked up, having a (hopefully) winning team, etc and what sounds like a pretty fair deal will get Maggs X-ing on the bottom line. I think it would be a pretty big boost for the team psyche and fans/attendance if they basically locked up the majority of the team for a few years. Then even if you lose one of E-Lo/Shoney, you can fill that whole with an "experienced rookie" (Diaz, Rauch), or a cheap E-Lo/Shoney type of vet.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 11:13 AM
Agreed. KW's quote on the latest offer was "nothing that takes away from the overall dollars" in terms of the "protection" in the 5th year. IMO - that means deferred money, not some sort of reduction in salary (although I know that the terms are what's key in the deferral).

I think it's a pretty fair compromise. They give him the salary he wants, and the length he originally wanted, in exchange he agrees to the last year being potentially deferred. Remember, this isn't like Frank's deal where he was effectively locked into a lower salary for a number of years (until they renegotiated). This is a potential deferral in the last year only.

Hopefully having Garcia locked up, having a (hopefully) winning team, etc and what sounds like a pretty fair deal will get Maggs X-ing on the bottom line. I think it would be a pretty big boost for the team psyche and fans/attendance if they basically locked up the majority of the team for a few years. Then even if you lose one of E-Lo/Shoney, you can fill that whole with an "experienced rookie" (Diaz, Rauch), or a cheap E-Lo/Shoney type of vet.
As I understand it - the "protection" is a club option for the 5th year - of some incentive based pay on the 5th year. If that's not good for Magglio (after 4 years of making huge-ass money on top of what he has already made) then he is welcome to go seek happiness elsewhere. If this team does what some of us think it can this season, there will be no shortage of people wanting to take 12-14mm to come here and play.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 11:15 AM
As I understand it - the "protection" is a club option for the 5th year - of some incentive based pay on the 5th year. If that's not good for Magglio (after 4 years of making huge-ass money on top of what he has already made) then he is welcome to go seek happiness elsewhere. If this team does what some of us think it can this season, there will be no shortage of people wanting to take 12-14mm to come here and play.
I'm curious how that would work with "not taking away from the overall dollars". Seems to me that if Maggs wants 70mil/5yrs, and they give it to him, then it's hard to do it in incentives since if the protection kicked in, he'd make less money in that scenario.

Not trying to be argumentative (esp since you & I tend to agree on things!), just curious if you have any more detail on what you've heard?

gosox41
07-06-2004, 11:22 AM
As I understand it - the "protection" is a club option for the 5th year - of some incentive based pay on the 5th year. If that's not good for Magglio (after 4 years of making huge-ass money on top of what he has already made) then he is welcome to go seek happiness elsewhere. If this team does what some of us think it can this season, there will be no shortage of people wanting to take 12-14mm to come here and play.
I agree. I won't blame Magglio for taking guaranteed money elsewhere if he can get it. But if the Sox are offering 4 years guarranteed for what Magglio wants with an option for a fifth year that becomes locked in if Magglio plays X amount of games or has Y amount of at bats, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

Other teams may just guarantee all 5 years and that's their right. But let's face it if Magglio has an arthritic knee or recurring knee problems in the next 5 years and becomes a part time player, he's not going to give any money back. All the risk is on the Sox.

Speaking of that, did anyone see the quote by Dave Campbell (I think it was him) about Colon and Ponson needing to get away from the dinner table? Pretty funny. And so far it looks like it's true. It's only been half a season but do you think this is what the Angels were expecting from Colon when they signed him to a 4 year contract? Basically the Angels have paid Colon $6.5 million so far this year for a guy with a 6.57 ERA.


Bob

jabrch
07-06-2004, 11:40 AM
I'm curious how that would work with "not taking away from the overall dollars". Seems to me that if Maggs wants 70mil/5yrs, and they give it to him, then it's hard to do it in incentives since if the protection kicked in, he'd make less money in that scenario.

Not trying to be argumentative (esp since you & I tend to agree on things!), just curious if you have any more detail on what you've heard?
My interpretation of "not taking away from the overall dollars" means that they won't reduce the money if he is able to perform at an agreed up level. I may be dead wrong - but I think they are talking about finding a way to "insure" the 5th year. Simply - if Magglio can hit .290 with 30 HRs (below his averages) he'd still get the entire amount. But if he can't play for some reason, the franchise won't get screwed. It really seems prudent to me.

The deferred money seems to be in the middle of the deal - maybe backloaded a bit - maybe deferred. But either way, with the low cost of capital today, deferred money costs very little to convert into today's dollars for a player. At the same time, mlb has certain debt ratio requirements that teams must meet - so for them to convert future dollars to present dollars is not so easy. Assuming Magglio has a smart financial planner (or even a dumb but moderately competent one) this should be easy and logical for him to execute.

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 11:46 AM
I was thinking about this very concept on my way home last night. I think it is why he chose Magglio over Frank last year too. Makes it tough on other teams when Torre gets a chance to talk up his club, show the FA's to be how cool he is and sell the Yankees by stocking the backups with members of the team every year.

Yes, I realize that other teams are free to compete for the ASG management position, but it borders on tampering, IMO.
Magglio was chosen my mike soscia the angels manager last year. sorry for misspelling his name

mdep524
07-06-2004, 11:47 AM
:bandance: :D: :bandance: :D:

With Freddy locked up for 3 years, Brian Anderson tearing up AA pitching (ok, its only been 16 ABs...) and the Sox pursuing Jason Kendall, suddenly the Olivo-Reed trade doesn't look so bad! :smile: :cool:

rmusacch
07-06-2004, 11:48 AM
I do not think that Maggs could get upset, considering the contract that they offered him seemed more than fair.



I will also beleive it when I see it at chisox.com, but if it is true I am ecstatic that this happened this quickly. I only hope this doenst somewhat upset Loaiza and Mags seeing as how Garcia got his deal inked so quickly. If he performs the way I think he should I think it is a very fair deal and hopefully will set value for Maggs and Esty and make them want to stay, hopefully, maybe, please :D:

voodoochile
07-06-2004, 11:49 AM
Magglio was chosen my mike soscia the angels manager last year. sorry for misspelling his name
Oops... oh well. It made a nice conspiracy theory while it lasted though didn't it?:D:

Paulwny
07-06-2004, 11:56 AM
I would love to see this from a source more reputable than Newsday. Their "quality" of news is right up there with the NY Post. That aside, I sure hope its true!

The article is written by an AP writer and carried by Newsday, seems reliable.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 12:13 PM
:bandance: :D: :bandance: :D:

With Freddy locked up for 3 years, Brian Anderson tearing up AA pitching (ok, its only been 16 ABs...) and the Sox pursuing Jason Kendall, suddenly the Olivo-Reed trade doesn't look so bad! :smile: :cool:
Interesting - I'd think that any Kendall trade would basically signal the end of Maggs (unless we gave up some very good prospects and got them to pay all of Kendal's deal).

Actually, thinking about it that way - if we DO resign Maggs, I might be willing to trade Borchard for Kendall and $$$. You'd still have a core for a few years of Maggs, Frank, Lee, Harris, Crede, Kendall, Uribe, Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Marte, Cotts, Rauch, Diaz. And for another year you'd have Konerko, and hopefully Valentin.

That's a pretty solid contending core. Fill in a 1B/DH and CF cheaply (Rowand, vets) and you can afford to wait a couple of years for the guys we just drafted to develop.

IlliniSoxFan
07-06-2004, 12:29 PM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spbase063882848jul06,0,479506.story?coll=ny-sports-print

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 12:31 PM
I know people will jump on me for this, and obviously I'm not trying to :dtroll: anybody here, but...

The first thing that went through my mind when I read this is the Billy Koch deal. KW extending a contract before a pitcher proves anything with the Sox. Garcia is a flyball pitcher who will be throwing in Coors East from now on. His past two seasons have been ERAs of 4.39 and 4.50.

I don't think Garcia will fall apart like Koch did. But again, it's just the first thing that went through my head.

Be gentle.
You know the sad part is, all these bandwagon jumpers will use this to turn on Kenny in a couple years, after Garcia doesn't preform up to their expectations. If true, Freddy is being over paid and Mag will be wearing another uni next year. Good Job Kenny.

IlliniSoxFan
07-06-2004, 12:32 PM
Oops - my bad, missed the HUGE thread below.


:rolleyes:

sendimjoey
07-06-2004, 12:33 PM
I hope the White Sox have signed Freddy Garcia to this 3-year, $27 million deal. I think it's a pretty fair contract for both sides. (Did we get lucky that the Angels outbid us for Colon or what?)

If it's true and is announced today, I also think we should give the Sox a lot of credit for timing this right. He's making his home debut before what should be a really big crowd tonight. The Sox should get some good play in the media for this.

:) :supernana: :)

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 12:36 PM
ok why are we worrying about whats going to happen if he doesn't live up to the pitcher he has been? who cares about whats going to happen if he doesn't do well here. if we signed he and the report is true then great, and take one day at a time instead of whats going to happen in 2 years.

lowesox
07-06-2004, 12:56 PM
http://www.nj.com/yankees/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/1089099044284690.xml

This article, which I linked to from the sporting news reports that we signed Garcia to 3 years, 27 million. If that's true, I think it's a little too much, but exciting none the less.

DaveIsHere
07-06-2004, 12:58 PM
This is the 3rd thread in the past 30 miutes, yet there is one that has beend started since yesterday..........damn people.........

Lip Man 1
07-06-2004, 01:02 PM
I am just surprised that none of the Chicago media outlets has even hinted at this.

Hmmmm....

I guess we'll see shortly.

Lip

lowesox
07-06-2004, 01:02 PM
Whoops... hehehe.

pudge
07-06-2004, 01:05 PM
This is the 3rd thread in the past 30 miutes, yet there is one that has beend started since yesterday..........damn people.........
I'm not writing this to pick on lowesox, but this seems to be a seriously reoccurring problem - people just flat out are not reading the board and posting all sorts of repetitive, worthless stuff. A board like this is an INTERACTIVE process, not a one-way street. Read before you post, kinda like, think before you speak. I say the mods start getting a little nasty about this.

joeynach
07-06-2004, 01:07 PM
Wow, great news if that is indeed true. Wow, Colin is stealing money from Anaheim if we can get Garcia for only 9 million/year.
Screw Colon, he was overweight thats why he didn't get the extra year from us. Freddy is better anyway. I do think 9 mil per year is a little too much but still do able. I would have liked to see something around 3 years 24 mil, not 27 mil but oh well. My guess is the contract is backloaded, naturally.

05-7.5 mil
06-9.5 mil
07-10 mil

OfficerKarkovice
07-06-2004, 01:09 PM
I am just surprised that none of the Chicago media outlets has even hinted at this.

Hmmmm....

I guess we'll see shortly.

LipSame article is now posted on the Tribs website for what it's worth.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-040706soxgarcia,1,7014973.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

CWSGuy406
07-06-2004, 01:13 PM
You know the sad part is, all these bandwagon jumpers will use this to turn on Kenny in a couple years, after Garcia doesn't preform up to their expectations. If true, Freddy is being over paid and Mag will be wearing another uni next year. Good Job Kenny.
Dawg - If Kenny traded Ross Gload for Barry Bonds you'd find something to complain about... :rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 01:15 PM
Dawg - If Kenny traded Ross Gload for Barry Bonds you'd find something to complain about... :rolleyes:Yeah he didn't do it sooner. But that doesn't change the fact the Garica deal was bad and this compounds the matter. The only thing I really like about this deal is it is only for three years thus won't tie up Sox payroll for too long. The thing is this deal will cost the team Mags or might be indication that Kenny thinks Mags is gone already. Bad mouthing Mags in the press, is an attempt to cushion the blow from losing Mags.

lowesox
07-06-2004, 01:16 PM
Ok.

I'll be the next one to volunteer for verbal abuse, because the more i think about it the more this signing concerns me. Wasn't Seattle trying to dump Garcia's contract all offseason? And now we've just tied up 27-million to him? People are offering KW and JR kudos for spending some cash, but what if this is just a trade down from Magglio's contract, and we don't get anybody else this offseason.

I'm hoping this won't be another disaster but Garcia seems to have a history of being a bit of a roller coaster.
Let's hope this isn't painting ourselves into a corner?

samram
07-06-2004, 01:18 PM
Screw Colon, he was overweight thats why he didn't get the extra year from us. Freddy is better anyway. I do think 9 mil per year is a little too much but still do able. I would have liked to see something around 3 years 24 mil, not 27 mil but oh well. My guess is the contract is backloaded, naturally.

05-7.5 mil
06-9.5 mil
07-10 mil
Why would a free agent to be accept a three year backloaded contract in early July?

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 01:18 PM
Ok.

I'll be the next one to volunteer for verbal abuse, because the more i think about it the more this signing concerns me. Wasn't Seattle trying to dump Garcia's contract all offseason? And now we've just tied up 27-million to him? People are offering KW and JR kudos for spending some cash, but what if this is just a trade down from Magglio's contract, and we don't get anybody else this offseason.

I'm hoping this won't be another disaster but Garcia seems to have a history of being a bit of a roller coaster.
Let's hope this isn't painting ourselves into a corner?
stop worrying about the past and future and worry about now. he will be fine

lowesox
07-06-2004, 01:19 PM
For the record, I've started my share of threads and have never had a repeat before. I'm still adjusting to this new format because I actually did do a quick skim before posting - but the existing thread must have been in the softer red. Which is why I didn't see it.

lowesox
07-06-2004, 01:21 PM
stop worrying about the past and future and worry about now. he will be fine
Sorry, but this post makes zero sense. We'd have Garcia NOW regardless of whether we signed this deal or not. The whole discussion is about the future - not the present.

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 01:25 PM
Sorry, but this post makes zero sense. We'd have Garcia NOW regardless of whether we signed this deal or not. The whole discussion is about the future - not the present.
sorry for not making sense but what im trying to say is every1 is so worried about garcia signing turning into something bad. all im trying to say is i wouldnt worry about what garcia is going to do next may23th agianst the twins. lets get through this season first before we worry about him becoming a bust or not.

Randar68
07-06-2004, 01:34 PM
I'm not writing this to pick on lowesox, but this seems to be a seriously reoccurring problem - people just flat out are not reading the board and posting all sorts of repetitive, worthless stuff. A board like this is an INTERACTIVE process, not a one-way street. Read before you post, kinda like, think before you speak. I say the mods start getting a little nasty about this.Amen, I've been trying to say this for weeks. Some people get it, but there is a select group who are just too damned dense and stupid to "get it" and insist on repeatedly reposting stuff (not meaning you lowesox)...

A good rule of thumb: "If it's more than 10 minutes old there is MOST LIKELY already a thread for it"

BackInBlack
07-06-2004, 01:41 PM
Wow, who would have expected the Sox to have the best lineup in baseball and add a guy like Freddy Garcia to the starting 5 before the season started? Life is good on the SOUTH SIDE.

:cool:

bigfoot
07-06-2004, 01:43 PM
I agree. I won't blame Magglio for taking guaranteed money elsewhere if he can get it. But if the Sox are offering 4 years guarranteed for what Magglio wants with an option for a fifth year that becomes locked in if Magglio plays X amount of games or has Y amount of at bats, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

Other teams may just guarantee all 5 years and that's their right. But let's face it if Magglio has an arthritic knee or recurring knee problems in the next 5 years and becomes a part time player, he's not going to give any money back. All the risk is on the Sox.

Speaking of that, did anyone see the quote by Dave Campbell (I think it was him) about Colon and Ponson needing to get away from the dinner table? Pretty funny. And so far it looks like it's true. It's only been half a season but do you think this is what the Angels were expecting from Colon when they signed him to a 4 year contract? Basically the Angels have paid Colon $6.5 million so far this year for a guy with a 6.57 ERA.


Bob
This is as close to the facts as I've seen so far. Way to go '41'. The insurance on MLB contracts is available for three years usually. Insuring the owners of getting about 85% of the contract back from the insurance co. in case of major injury. The insurance cos. used to provide coverage for longer term contracts, but stopped that practice after being burned by several long term/high dollar busts. You'll notice that many of the contractual disagreements are concerning the 4th+ years guarnateed money and backloaded salary with no interest. If the $27M for Garcia are a std progression that would mean that he would be paid nearly the same $ for all 3 years in todays $.
~Now onto the important things in life.......how to steal Kendall from the Pirates and beating the Angels.:D:

hawkjt
07-06-2004, 01:57 PM
This is great news. I hope there might be a club option for a 4th year as Freddy is entering his prime at 27. I think we have seen that starting pitching is harder to get than hitting and I dont like what we have on the farm. If we go forward with Freddy,Burls,and Garland as a core starting staff I think we are in good shape. Esty is probably going to San Diego next year and we will need to fill that spot but with or w/o Maggs this team will be right there for the forseeable future. Go out tonite and shut them down Freddy!

StillMissOzzie
07-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Leave it to KW to time this for maximum splash effect, at his USCF debut. It's still not on whitesox.com, but the terms don't sound out of line for the most coveted SP in trade deadline activity. Maybe Maggs will see that the Sox ARE committed to winning and want to stick around.

SMO
:gulp:

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 02:32 PM
its offical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bruce levine broke into dan patrick show and said all the details although stupid me i always miss it

WSox8404
07-06-2004, 02:33 PM
Thank God. If we didn't sign him, that would have been bad.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 02:35 PM
FWIW - Seems to me like the salary's pretty fair to both sides. A quick perusal of guys I think are in Freddy's ballpark performance/potential-wise and their salaries:

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'm not here to say who Freddy's better or worse than, just that I think the evidence from this market sample seems to indicate that the 9m price tag is definitely in the ballpark, and actually IMO towards the lower end of the ballpark.

OfficerKarkovice
07-06-2004, 02:43 PM
Three years $27 million:


2005: $8.0 mil
2006: $9.0 mil
2007: $10.0 mil

JDub35
07-06-2004, 02:47 PM
Anyone know what time they are going to hold the press conference to make this announcement?

Realist
07-06-2004, 02:50 PM
It's on the official site. Done deal!!

:gulp: :cheers: :party: :yup: :drunken: :smokin: :dancers: :nod: :cool:

DaGame2584
07-06-2004, 02:55 PM
Here it is from the offical site:


CHICAGO -- The Chicago White Sox have agreed to terms on a three-year, $27-million contract extension with right-handed pitcher Freddy Garcia. Under terms of the agreement, Garcia will receive $8 million in 2005, $9 million in 2006 and $10 million in 2007.


Garcia, 28, was acquired by the White Sox from Seattle on June 27 with catcher Ben Davis and cash considerations in exchange for catcher Miguel Olivo and minor-leaguers Jeremy Reed and Michael Morse. The 6-4, 240-pounder is 5-7 with a 3.35 ERA (42 ER/113.0 IP) and 91 strikeouts in 16 combined starts with the Mariners (15) and Sox (one).

"When we acquired Freddy, our short-term goal was for him to help us reach the playoffs and beyond," said Ken Williams, White Sox general manager. "But in planning for the future, we also felt he was a necessary ingredient to help sustain the long-term success of the organization."

Garcia, who makes his White Sox home debut tonight vs. Anaheim, ranks among the American League leaders in baserunners per 9.0 IP (5th, 10.99), strikeouts (T5th), ERA (6th), opponents average (7th, .239), strikeout-to-walk ratio (8th, 2.84), IP (T8th) and strikeouts per 9.0 IP (10th, 7.25). He has received just 2.71 runs of support per 9.0 IP, fewest in the AL. Garcia won his White Sox debut on June 30 at Minnesota, allowing five runs (four earned) with a season-high tying nine strikeouts over 6.0 IP.

In five-plus major-league seasons with the Mariners (1999-2004) and White Sox, Garcia has gone 77-50 with a 3.90 ERA (478 ER/1,102.1 IP) and 828 strikeouts in 171 games (170 starts). Since the start of the 2001 season, he ranks among the AL leaders in IP (3rd, 776.2), games started (4th, 117), strikeouts (5th, 578), wins (8th, 51) and opponents average (8th, .245). Garcia, a two-time AL All-Star (2001-2002), owns nine career complete games and four shutouts. The native of Caracas, Venezuela, enjoyed his best season in 2001, going 18-6 with a league-leading 3.05 ERA. He also went 17-8 for Seattle in 1999 and 16-10 in 2002.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 02:55 PM
Excellent!


Now lets get going and play good games vs Anaheim the next 3 days - get back to our winning way from pre-wrigley.

Next good news needs to be Magglio's return to the field!

jabrch
07-06-2004, 02:57 PM
In five-plus major-league seasons with the Mariners (1999-2004) and White Sox, Garcia has gone 77-50 with a 3.90 ERA (478 ER/1,102.1 IP) and 828 strikeouts in 171 games (170 starts). Since the start of the 2001 season, he ranks among the AL leaders in IP (3rd, 776.2), games started (4th, 117), strikeouts (5th, 578), wins (8th, 51) and opponents average (8th, .245). Garcia, a two-time AL All-Star (2001-2002), owns nine career complete games and four shutouts. The native of Caracas, Venezuela, enjoyed his best season in 2001, going 18-6 with a league-leading 3.05 ERA. He also went 17-8 for Seattle in 1999 and 16-10 in 2002.
I am not surprised that there are people bitching about this. KW must have slept with someone's wives, daughters or girlfriends around here for everyone to hate everything he does so much.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 02:59 PM
I am just surprised that none of the Chicago media outlets has even hinted at this.

Hmmmm....

I guess we'll see shortly.

Lip
Lip, now that this is done, what's your take. I know this is only a step in the right direction, but JR (and KW) went out and signed a legit front-of-the-rotation guy to a 3 year, 27mm deal.

Kudos to them - right?

maurice
07-06-2004, 03:04 PM
Linky (http://whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_press_release.jsp?ymd=20040706&content_id=790757&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp)

:cheers:

dan
07-06-2004, 03:06 PM
I just checked on the official site and they have issued a press release that confirms that Freddy has been signed for an additional three years. What a relief!

Rocky Soprano
07-06-2004, 03:06 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_press_release.jsp?ymd=20040706&content_id=790757&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp

:bandance: :dtroll: :gulp:

SOXSINCE'70
07-06-2004, 03:07 PM
What!!??!! Have the White Sox finally started to lock up good pitching??
Uncle Jerry taking smart pills and letting KW wheel and deal as he sees fit??
Next thing you know,the Sox will have an 80 mill payroll.:D: :D: :D:

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 03:09 PM
I am not surprised that there are people bitching about this. KW must have slept with someone's wives, daughters or girlfriends around here for everyone to hate everything he does so much.

That's not an argument. That's an attack. You're accusing posters of bias instead of addressing their arguments. I'm sorry but I can't dumb down my approach to baseball so that it comes out "Yeah Freddy Garcia is good. Prospects bad. We have Garcia. Yey!!!!" or "Yeah Freddy Garcia is good. He's on our team for three more seasons. Yey!!!!!" It is all a little more complicated than that.

Most people here seem to assume that the only issue here is whether or not we resign Garcia. If we do we get his services and that's good if not we lose them and that's bad. This is a terrible viewpoint. We've just paid the man 9 million dollars. Do you guys think that money fall out of the sky? Unless JR is going to increase the budget 9 million each of the next three seasons to accomadate this contract then there's a give and take here. Signing a player to a contract does not automatically increase the team's budget it may just shift it around. If we traded a resigned Maggs for Garcia and Borchard would people have been happy? Cause that is likely the outcome of this deal on our roster next season. You don't just spend 9 million without it having serious implications elsewhere and if you're not going to consider those then your praise or rejection here is utterly meaningless.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 03:10 PM
Lip, now that this is done, what's your take. I know this is only a step in the right direction, but JR (and KW) went out and signed a legit front-of-the-rotation guy to a 3 year, 27mm deal.

Kudos to them - right?

Why the assumption that we're raising payroll again, that JR is breaking open the bank? If We let Maggs (14 mil) and Loaiza (3 mil) go this offseason to acommodate this contract, JR is lowering payroll which he was lambasted for all of the offseason (when he didn't in fact even do so).

Randar68
07-06-2004, 03:12 PM
Why the assumption that we're raising payroll again, that JR is breaking open the bank? If We let Maggs (14 mil) and Loaiza (3 mil) go this offseason to acommodate this contract, JR is lowering payroll which he was lambasted for all of the offseason (when he didn't in fact even do so).
Don't forget Koch, Sandy and Jose are all also FA's...

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:14 PM
Don't forget Koch, Sandy and Jose are all also FA's...
Sandy isn't getting paid much and won't get paid much next year. And who is going to play SS next year? Uribe? That is even worse.

harwar
07-06-2004, 03:14 PM
I am just surprised that none of the Chicago media outlets has even hinted at this.

Hmmmm....

I guess we'll see shortly.

Lip
Espn jumped on it right away.It was right in front of the kerry wood pitches tonight story.

mantis1212
07-06-2004, 03:16 PM
Sandy isn't getting paid much and won't get paid much next year. And who is going to play SS next year? Uribe? That is even worse.
Seeing that Koch's $6.5MM is off the books next year, and maybe assume we get Valentin back for $4MM (i think its possible) we theoretically only committed an extra $0.5MM for next year compared to this year so far...

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:18 PM
That's not an argument. That's an attack. You're accusing posters of bias instead of addressing their arguments. I'm sorry but I can't dumb down my approach to baseball so that it comes out "Yeah Freddy Garcia is good. Prospects bad. We have Garcia. Yey!!!!" or "Yeah Freddy Garcia is good. He's on our team for three more seasons. Yey!!!!!" It is all a little more complicated than that.

Most people here seem to assume that the only issue here is whether or not we resign Garcia. If we do we get his services and that's good if not we lose them and that's bad. This is a terrible viewpoint. We've just paid the man 9 million dollars. Do you guys think that money fall out of the sky? Unless JR is going to increase the budget 9 million each of the next three seasons to accomadate this contract then there's a give and take here. Signing a player to a contract does not automatically increase the team's budget it may just shift it around. If we traded a resigned Maggs for Garcia and Borchard would people have been happy? Cause that is likely the outcome of this deal on our roster next season. You don't just spend 9 million without it having serious implications elsewhere and if you're not going to consider those then your praise or rejection here is utterly meaningless.First off, payroll went up approx. $7mil from last season. With the 20% increase in attendance and IF we make it to the playoffs, I could honestly see another modest payroll increase in 2005 of approx. 5-6 mil. The signing of Garcia does not necessarily mean the end of the Maggs era. Especially since Magg's contract, if signed, will not pay him much more that he was making this year....

CWSGuy406
07-06-2004, 03:19 PM
Sandy isn't getting paid much and won't get paid much next year. And who is going to play SS next year? Uribe? That is even worse.
DD77 - an honest question here. Do you enjoy watching the Sox? Seriously? No offense intended here, but it seems like you have (sorry if this seems a little childish) no fun with this team. I realize that you are wanting what's best for the team, and the best to get this team a World Series, but I've never seen one positive from you about this team, other than analyzing every move this team makes (most of the time negative, IMHO).

:?:

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 03:19 PM
call me crazy if u want but i just have this feeling jr is actually going to spend money. i dont know why but since this winning now mentality kw and comp have i just have this feeling things r going to change

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:20 PM
Seeing that Koch's $6.5MM is off the books next year, and maybe assume we get Valentin back for $4MM (i think its possible) we theoretically only committed an extra $0.5MM for next year compared to this year so far...
I don't see Jose taking a pay cut to stay here. He may take a pay cut some where else just not here.

JackParkman
07-06-2004, 03:21 PM
Here's the AP story that just crossed the wires:

{White Sox, Garcia agree to $27 million, three-year extension}

CHICAGO (AP) — Pitcher Freddy Garcia agreed to a $27 million, three-year contract extension with the Chicago White Sox on Tuesday, 10 days after being traded from Seattle.

The 28-year-old right-hander was eligible to become a free agent after this season, but the White Sox traded for him June 27 in the hope they could sign him to a longer deal.

Under terms of the deal, Garcia will earn $8 million in 2005, $9 million in 2006 and $10 million in 2007.

"When we acquired Freddy, our short-term goal was for him to help us reach the playoffs and beyond," White Sox general manager Ken Williams said. "But in planning for the future, we also felt he was a necessary ingredient to help sustain the long-term success of the organization."

Garcia, who makes his home debut Tuesday night against Anaheim, is 5-7 with a 3.35 ERA and 91 strikeouts in 16 combined starts with the Mariners and White Sox this year. But those numbers are somewhat misleading because he’s received only 2.71 runs of support per nine innings, lowest in the American League.

He currently is fifth in the AL in baserunners per nine innings (10.99) and strikeouts, and sixth in ERA. Since the start of the 2001 season, Garcia ranks third in the AL with innings pitched (776.2), fifth in strikeouts (578) and eighth in wins (51).

A two-time All-Star, Garcia is 77-50 with a 3.90 ERA and 828 strikeouts in five-plus seasons. He has won at least 16 games in three of the past four seasons, and had his best year in 2001 when he was 18-6 with a league-best 3.05 ERA.

Garcia was acquired from the Mariners with catcher Ben Davis and cash in exchange for catcher Miguel Olivo and minor leaguers Jeremy Reed and Michael Morse.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:21 PM
I don't see Jose taking a pay cut to stay here. He may take a pay cut some where else just not here.
Actually, Jose took less money from the Sox than what was being offered to him when his current contract was signed.

Tekijawa
07-06-2004, 03:21 PM
:tomatoaward

For 100 threads started about the same topic!

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:22 PM
DD77 - an honest question here. Do you enjoy watching the Sox? Seriously? No offense intended here, but it seems like you have (sorry if this seems a little childish) no fun with this team. I realize that you are wanting what's best for the team, and the best to get this team a World Series, but I've never seen one positive from you about this team, other than analyzing every move this team makes (most of the time negative, IMHO).

:?:
Thats because most of the time Kenny makes bad moves imo. I fun watching the team, just bad decision making is frustrating to no end. I was season ticket holder till this year when disgust of another off season with Kenny at the helm and ticket prices rising cause me to drop the tickets.

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 03:22 PM
:tomatoaward

isnt it a little early for this?

mantis1212
07-06-2004, 03:24 PM
I don't see Jose taking a pay cut to stay here. He may take a pay cut some where else just not here.
Why? He's already done it once in his career, and I remember a quote from him saying he wants to retire with the White Sox. I can definitely see it.

JRIG
07-06-2004, 03:25 PM
Sandy isn't getting paid much and won't get paid much next year. And who is going to play SS next year? Uribe? That is even worse.
By my count, we'll have holes to fill next year in CF (unless Borchard is ready, I suppose), RF (Mags is a FA), SS or 2B (Uribe at one -- Harris is proving he can't get it done and Valentin is a FA), C, and a 3/4 starter.

We're committed to Konerko (8.5 mil), Garicia (7 mil), Lee (8 mil), Thomas (8 mil), Buehrle, Garland, and Shingo. Unless I'm forgetting someone.

That's about $40 million right there. I'll look up the exact numbers later this afternoon. Unless payroll is raised considerably that's a big chunk of our budget.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:26 PM
Actually, Jose took less money from the Sox than what was being offered to him when his current contract was signed.
He went from 1.3 million in 2000 to 5.1 million in 2001. He still got a good raise in pay, I think it could be an insult to cut his salary. How many people out there, continue to happily work for employer that cuts their wages? Most people get mad and a lot would walk away. Don't think ball players have the same type of feelings.

duke of dorwood
07-06-2004, 03:27 PM
I dont think the Magglio thing is dead yet either-but he'd never sign a backloaded thing like garcia did.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:28 PM
He went from 1.3 million in 2000 to 5.1 million in 2001. He still got a good raise in pay, I think it could be an insult to cut his salary. How many people out there, continue to happily work for employer that cuts their wages? Most people get mad and a lot would walk away. Don't think ball players have the same type of feelings.
Loaiza was getting paid $8m before we picked him off of the screp-heap and paid him a whopping $500K when we signed him to a minor league deal. What is your point?

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:29 PM
By my count, we'll have holes to fill next year in CF (unless Borchard is ready, I suppose), RF (Mags is a FA), SS or 2B (Uribe at one -- Harris is proving he can't get it done and Valentin is a FA), C, and a 3/4 starter.

We're committed to Konerko (8.5 mil), Garicia (7 mil), Lee (8 mil), Thomas (8 mil), Buehrle, Garland, and Shingo. Unless I'm forgetting someone.

That's about $40 million right there. I'll look up the exact numbers later this afternoon. Unless payroll is raised considerably that's a big chunk of our budget.
No need to look them up.
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_dugoutdollars_archive.html

It hasn't been updated for Garica but should soon. If you add his 8 to the 32 million already committed, you are right on target. Also Frank could chose to leave which would reduce the cost by 8 million, but then the Sox would really be ****ed.

Tekijawa
07-06-2004, 03:30 PM
isnt it a little early for this?
I wrote underneith it ,that it was 100 threads started about the same topic, it came from a thread that was started about 3 minutes ago on a topic that has been discussed for about 12 hours now...

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:31 PM
Loaiza was getting paid $8m before we picked him off of the screp-heap and paid him a whopping $500K when we signed him to a minor league deal. What is your point?
He switch teams and there wasn't a market for him. The point is very simple, you don't become a professional athlete without an ego, and usually that ego won't allow you to accept lower offer from your team esp in baseball. This isn't football where that is common practice. I would bet Jose would rather leave then take a pay cut and stay with the Sox.

If he leaves, the entire middle of the field becomes one major black hole for the Sox.

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 03:31 PM
I wrote underneith it ,that it was 100 threads started about the same topic, it came from a thread that was started about 3 minutes ago on a topic that has been discussed for about 12 hours now...

oops my bad

Randar68
07-06-2004, 03:31 PM
I dont think the Magglio thing is dead yet either-but he'd never sign a backloaded thing like garcia did.
Escalating Contract != Backloaded deal.

Methinks you are confused.

TDog
07-06-2004, 03:31 PM
Ok.

... Wasn't Seattle trying to dump Garcia's contract all offseason? And now we've just tied up 27-million to him? ...
Seattle management had told the media they had told Garcia they would try to sign him in the offseason. They traded their best pitcher because he was determine to become a free agent, they said. Mariners fans I know seemed convinced that Garcia would be back in 2005. M's Fans were no more happy about the deal than Sox fans were about trading Harold Baines to Texas for a couple of prospects. But they were optimistic that things would work out in the end.

Sox fans, on the other hand, seemed determined to find reason to complain about signing a pretty good pitcher.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:31 PM
No need to look them up.
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_dugoutdollars_archive.html

It hasn't been updated for Garica but should soon. If you add his 8 to the 32 million already committed, you are right on target. Also Frank could chose to leave which would reduce the cost by 8 million, but then the Sox would really be ****ed.
So, assuming that payroll is $70-75M next season, are you stating we can't sign Maggs and still have $18-20M to fill in the roster with viable players?

hawkjt
07-06-2004, 03:32 PM
I think if you took a vote on the kenny moves at the time the overwhelming concensus would favor them. He is doing a dam good job. He is going for it. I like that. Keep maggs and let chips fall where they may. Support the team down the stretch and maggs will be here for another 5 years along with freddy. Go Sox

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:33 PM
Why? He's already done it once in his career, and I remember a quote from him saying he wants to retire with the White Sox. I can definitely see it.
Those quotes are usually meaningless just thrown out there to look good toward the fans and help increase a players price or make a team look good.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:34 PM
He switch teams and there wasn't a market for him. The point is very simple, you don't become a professional athlete without an ego, and usually that ego won't allow you to accept lower offer from your team esp in baseball. This isn't football where that is common practice. I would bet Jose would rather leave then take a pay cut and stay with the Sox.

If he leaves, the entire middle of the field becomes one major black hole for the Sox.Funny how everyone dogged KW for picking up the option on Manos at $5M only 8 short months ago and now there is going to be a gaping BLACK HOLE if he leaves??? Sheesh.:?:

CWSGuy406
07-06-2004, 03:35 PM
Those quotes are usually meaningless just thrown out there to look good toward the fans and help increase a players price or make a team look good.
IMHO, Valentin will be resigned for another year or two at right around 5 million, maybe a wee bit more.

And just for reference - how old is Jose? 33? 34?

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:37 PM
Those quotes are usually meaningless just thrown out there to look good toward the fans and help increase a players price or make a team look good.
Now you are reading minds? Wow. What will be the outcome of today's game??

:cleo

jabrch
07-06-2004, 03:39 PM
Funny how everyone dogged KW for picking up the option on Manos at $5M only 8 short months ago and now there is going to be a gaping BLACK HOLE if he leaves??? Sheesh.:?:

KW gets dogged by a minority no matter what he does. He is KW - and that seems to be enough for some people.

mantis1212
07-06-2004, 03:39 PM
Those quotes are usually meaningless just thrown out there to look good toward the fans and help increase a players price or make a team look good.
??? Oh come on, Baltimore made a very public offer and Jose turned it down. If you don't believe anything you read why read anything at all?

StillMissOzzie
07-06-2004, 03:42 PM
I dont think the Magglio thing is dead yet either-but he'd never sign a backloaded thing like garcia did.
Why not, duke? His last deal, which was 3 years/$29.5M was paid out as:

2002: $ 6.5M
2003: 9.0M
2004: 14.0M

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the 5 year/ $70M deal he now seeks would be paid at a level $14M/year for those 5 years. While I don't think Maggs is worth the $70M, I'd guess his next deal would get paid out something like $10M, 12M, 14M, 16M, 18M over the 5 years, or some fraction thereof.

SMO
:gulp:

Tekijawa
07-06-2004, 03:42 PM
Funny how everyone dogged KW for picking up the option on Manos at $5M only 8 short months ago and now there is going to be a gaping BLACK HOLE if he leaves??? Sheesh.:?:
Bad Analogy... Black holes suck everything up... manos does not!

Mickster
07-06-2004, 03:45 PM
Bad Analogy... Black holes suck everything up... manos does not!
:roflmao: :rolling: :kneeslap:

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 03:49 PM
Bad Analogy... Black holes suck everything up... manos does not!
if manos does not, then who does?

one of the best ranges in baseball. . .


anyways, back on topic, I like this. Let's calm down and see what in the world happens with Magglio and payroll before we get excited. We've just added a viable starting pitcher to fill a possible hole in case the yankees overpay for Loaiza

So either the Yankees overpay for loaiza this offseason and we would have defintely needed to sign a good starter in the offseason (probably for more than 7 mill. next year) or else we resign loaiza and even if Maggs is gone the rotation of Buehrle, Loaiza, Garcia, and Garland is a very solid one to build around.

Of course, all you KW doggers are right - pitching is a risky proposition, and it could very well turn out we overpaid. . .but weren't you the ones whining about not signing colon or adding more pitching (at a high price) during the last offseason? or maybe I forgot about the pitchers on the market better than freddy who were asking elss than an avg. of 9 mill. a year

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:52 PM
So, assuming that payroll is $70-75M next season, are you stating we can't sign Maggs and still have $18-20M to fill in the roster with viable players?
Lets do the math.

Given: The Sox need a 25 man roster
Given: The Sox have 40 million committed to 6 players (Thomas, Lee, Konerko, Marte, Garcia)
Given: Shingo has 2.5 million option for next year of which only 250K is counted in the 40 million
Given: The Sox will have a 75 million payroll next year.
Given: The MLB min salary is 300K.
Given: Sox will exercise Shingo's option thus 42.25 million for 6 players. Thus the Sox have a minimum commitment of 47.65 million for next year.

So if Mags cost the Sox 12 million next year then the Sox would have 15 million to play with for 15 players.

Remember the Crede is enter arbitration years so he may take a million or so out of the 15 million.

So if the Sox raise the payroll to 75 million they could afford Mags and still put out a decent team but it would be lacking in several areas. The team wouldn't be a major contender, due to lack of pitching and major holes in the field.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:54 PM
IMHO, Valentin will be resigned for another year or two at right around 5 million, maybe a wee bit more.

And just for reference - how old is Jose? 33? 34?
That is what he is getting paid now. I never said I think he wants a big raise, just I think he won't take a pay cut.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 03:56 PM
Funny how everyone dogged KW for picking up the option on Manos at $5M only 8 short months ago and now there is going to be a gaping BLACK HOLE if he leaves??? Sheesh.:?:
Well this board is rather large and just because one poster said one thing, doesn't mean I said it nor agreed with it.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 03:59 PM
Of course, all you KW doggers are right - pitching is a risky proposition, and it could very well turn out we overpaid. . .but weren't you the ones whining about not signing colon or adding more pitching (at a high price) during the last offseason? or maybe I forgot about the pitchers on the market better than freddy who were asking elss than an avg. of 9 mill. a year

yeah - i still want to see this list of great FA pitchers who are as good or better than Garcia and who were signed for less than 9mm.

lowesox
07-06-2004, 04:04 PM
I think if you took a vote on the kenny moves at the time the overwhelming concensus would favor them. He is doing a dam good job. He is going for it. I like that. Keep maggs and let chips fall where they may. Support the team down the stretch and maggs will be here for another 5 years along with freddy. Go Sox
That's probably because different people have different philosophies on how to go about winning. Some believe in the 'putting all your eggs in one basket' approach and others believe in a more methodical patient approach.

Those of us who oppose Kenny's moves do so because we're afraid we won't win the world series and then we'll stink for the next five years. I personally would rather have 5-6 even kicks at the can then one big swing and a miss. Although, I promise that if we win the world series this year, I'll be the first to write a long post about how wrong I was.

Keep something in mind though: just because more people agree with something doesn't make it right.

harwar
07-06-2004, 04:05 PM
Black holes suck everything uphey .. i remember that movie :redface:

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:07 PM
Lets do the math.

Given: The Sox need a 25 man roster
Given: The Sox have 40 million committed to 6 players (Thomas, Lee, Konerko, Marte, Garcia)
Given: Shingo has 2.5 million option for next year of which only 250K is counted in the 40 million
Given: The Sox will have a 75 million payroll next year.
Given: The MLB min salary is 300K.
Given: Sox will exercise Shingo's option thus 42.25 million for 6 players. Thus the Sox have a minimum commitment of 47.65 million for next year.

So if Mags cost the Sox 12 million next year then the Sox would have 15 million to play with for 15 players.

Remember the Crede is enter arbitration years so he may take a million or so out of the 15 million.

So if the Sox raise the payroll to 75 million they could afford Mags and still put out a decent team but it would be lacking in several areas. The team wouldn't be a major contender, due to lack of pitching and major holes in the field.
According to my calculations:

7 Players will take Approx. 45 Mil. (Buehrle, Konerko, CLee, Marte, Shingo, Hurt & Garcia)

Assuming $75M payroll, leaves us with approx. $30M.

The Devil Rays have put together an entire .500 ballclub for $23M, for God's sake. We can't sign Maggs and throw together a bullpen and a few bench players to complete our roster?

And that is assuming KW doesn't make any deals. 1/2 the people on this board were willing to trade Konerko for a bag of used baseballs. Who's to say that there will not be a deal which will free up some money there?

I seriously doubt that KW is signing people knowing that he can's afford them. There is a bigger "master plan". If we're here adding up payroll dollars trying to see what the financial future of this team is, don't you think that he's doing the same? Would you give up Maggs and Jose for Crawford and Renteria in the off season. (I know that should be in DEEP PINK but the bottom line is that their salaries ($19mm combined) can be used to get 2 or 3 very good players to fill their spots). Let's not speculate.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm sure KW will deal with next season when this one is over...hopefully in late October.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:08 PM
yeah - i still want to see this list of great FA pitchers who are as good or better than Garcia and who were signed for less than 9mm.
Thanks, jabrch! :thumbsup:

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:12 PM
I personally would rather have 5-6 even kicks at the can then one big swing and a miss.
Lowe - would you rather have 5-6 kicks than 1 BIG BLAST? Lets not call this season a swing and a miss before we get to the break - ok? And if we discount the 5-6 kicks and call them 5-6 half-kicks, or possible kicks, since we never seem to be able to do enough to be better than NYY, BOS, etc. going into the season, then what?

I get your point. If there were any guarantees with any of the prospects, then sure - I'd rather have that. But I guess I have watched 30 years of Sox baseball and seen them finish win 3 divisions and finish 2nd 9 times, and just wondered what moving one or two more prospects might have gotten us.

As it was constituted, this team looked likely to win enough games to win the division, or at least finish second. But it did not look good enough to be considered a favorite win a playoff series, much less 2, against top teams. Now, this team is a favorite in the eyes of many baseball people. A favorite - or a darkhorse, but it is at least now a possibility.

To get 1 World Series win, I'd put up with a decade of mediocrity. If I am stuck with a decade of 2nd place finishes (6 of the last 8 years, for example) I would not be satisfied with my "5 or 6 kicks".

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 04:13 PM
According to my calculations:

7 Players will take Approx. 45 Mil. (Buehrle, Konerko, CLee, Marte, Shingo, Hurt & Garcia)

Assuming $75M payroll, leaves us with approx. $30M.

The Devil Rays have put together an entire .500 ballclub for $23M, for God's sake. We can't sign Maggs and throw together a bullpen and a few bench players to complete our roster?

And that is assuming KW doesn't make any deals. 1/2 the people on this board were willing to trade Konerko for a bag of used baseballs. Who's to say that there will not be a deal which will free up some money there?

I seriously doubt that KW is signing people knowing that he can's afford them. There is a bigger "master plan". If we're here adding up payroll dollars trying to see what the financial future of this team is, don't you think that he's doing the same? Would you give up Maggs and Jose for Crawford and Renteria in the off season. (I know that should be in DEEP PINK but the bottom line is that their salaries ($19mm combined) can be used to get 2 or 3 very good players to fill their spots). Let's not speculate.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm sure KW will deal with next season when this one is over...hopefully in late October.
The 7 players will take 42 million and add another 5.6 which the Sox will have to spend per the CBA. Mags, one player, will take a major portion of that 30 million chunk left over.

The difference between the Sox and Tampa Bay is Tampa has some very good young talent, the Sox trade theirs away. Young talent can produce at high levels and is cheap, thus you can get many star players for the price of one FA star player. Without quality young talent you have to spend money to win or find players the market under values.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:14 PM
That's probably because different people have different philosophies on how to go about winning. Some believe in the 'putting all your eggs in one basket' approach and others believe in a more methodical patient approach.

Those of us who oppose Kenny's moves do so because we're afraid we won't win the world series and then we'll stink for the next five years. I personally would rather have 5-6 even kicks at the can then one big swing and a miss. Although, I promise that if we win the world series this year, I'll be the first to write a long post about how wrong I was.

Keep something in mind though: just because more people agree with something doesn't make it right.
I generally agree with your statements lowesox. I disagree in the "5-6 even kicks". Shouldn't it be 87 "uneven, staggered kicks"?

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 04:16 PM
I generally agree with your statements lowesox. I disagree in the "5-6 even kicks". Shouldn't it be 87 "uneven, staggered kicks"?
When was the last time the Sox had a good plan for building a team. For how good Veck was at marketing a team, he wasn't all that good in putting them together. The last time the Sox had a good system of putting a team together, they all got kicked out of the game.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:17 PM
The difference between the Sox and Tampa Bay is Tampa has some very good young talent, the Sox trade theirs away. Young talent can produce at high levels and is cheap, thus you can get many star players for the price of one FA star player. Without quality young talent you have to spend money to win or find players the market under values.
There is an obvious difference. My point was not a literal one.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:22 PM
I posted this a few weeks back and here it is AGAIN.

Would you rather have 2 world series victories sandwiched between 5 crappy seasons ala Florida Marlins or have the last 9-10 seasons that we've had here (2 playoff appearances where you went 1 and out)?

I, for one, would rather have the former. I'm sick of waiting.

Number of Marlins WS in last 7 years? 2
Number of Sox WS in last 87 years? ............

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 04:25 PM
So I still haven't heard all of your pitching solutions.

What were we supposed to do this offseason when (possibly) Loaiza left and we had to build a rotation out of:

Buehrle
Garland
Schoenweis
Rauch
Diaz
DANNY WRIGHT
Jason Grilli
Kris Honel
Ryan Wing

Let me know when I come to a legitimate #2 starter. . ..


Or maybe I'm forgetting the old baseball maxim:

"Magglio Ordonez wins championships"

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:27 PM
in order to compare us to Tampa, we would have to suffer through 6 consecutive last place finishes to build the type of team that would have the draft picks to get the guys they got. If that were the case, and we had 6 straight last place finishes, some of the whiners and crybabies here would be going nuts.

This team has finished 2nd 6 of the last 8 years. It has finished in the top 3 in every single season in the past 15. It is really hard to compare us to a team that has not won more than 69 games in the past 7 years.


According to my calculations:

7 Players will take Approx. 45 Mil. (Buehrle, Konerko, CLee, Marte, Shingo, Hurt & Garcia)

Assuming $75M payroll, leaves us with approx. $30M.

The Devil Rays have put together an entire .500 ballclub for $23M, for God's sake. We can't sign Maggs and throw together a bullpen and a few bench players to complete our roster?

And that is assuming KW doesn't make any deals. 1/2 the people on this board were willing to trade Konerko for a bag of used baseballs. Who's to say that there will not be a deal which will free up some money there?

I seriously doubt that KW is signing people knowing that he can's afford them. There is a bigger "master plan". If we're here adding up payroll dollars trying to see what the financial future of this team is, don't you think that he's doing the same? Would you give up Maggs and Jose for Crawford and Renteria in the off season. (I know that should be in DEEP PINK but the bottom line is that their salaries ($19mm combined) can be used to get 2 or 3 very good players to fill their spots). Let's not speculate.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm sure KW will deal with next season when this one is over...hopefully in late October.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:28 PM
Or maybe I'm forgetting the old baseball maxim:

"Magglio Ordonez wins championships"

***** - that's awesome FQ....freaking awesome.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:29 PM
in order to compare us to Tampa, we would have to suffer through 6 consecutive last place finishes to build the type of team that would have the draft picks to get the guys they got. If that were the case, and we had 6 straight last place finishes, some of the whiners and crybabies here would be going nuts.

This team has finished 2nd 6 of the last 8 years. It has finished in the top 3 in every single season in the past 15. It is really had to compare us to a team that has not won more than 69 games in the past 7 years.
See my previous post above regarding the Marlins.

CWSGuy406
07-06-2004, 04:29 PM
But I still don't buy the whole 'swing and a miss' theory. It's not like we're throwing money at a 36 year old pitcher on the downside of his career. Garcia is 27 and entering his prime.

I'll bring up an example. Why do the Oakland Athletics win? They're built on three pitchers; Hudson, Mulder, Zito. Obviously, they'll have their bits and pieces placed around the Big 3 (Chavez, Durazo, Crosby, Tejada, Giambi, Damon, etc.), but the reason that they are able to stay successful for so long is because they have a good/great core of young pitching.

We now have, IMHO, a poor man's version of the Big 3 in Buerhle, Garcia, and Garland. Granted, the numbers won't be as good as the Big 3 - but Buerhle and Garcia are both solid pitchers, both entering their prime (at ages of 25 and 27 respectively), and I really think Jon Garland is going to come into his own, and he's shown flashes this year (People forget he's only 24.). Granted, he's had his times, and it seems like he can't pitch in big games, but he's done it before. We just need consistency.

My point is, if we build around Garcia, Buerhle, and Garland, and draft well (that has yet to be seen; if we can draft well. But wasn't Reed drafted by Kenny?), we will win. Though I agree, getting back to the initial trade, that Reed was exactly what we needed (high avg/high obp guy), I think we can find another one (such as Jason Kendall). I'm not saying they're a dime a dozen, but IMO we can find one.

Bleh - I'm done. :tongue:

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:30 PM
See my previous post above regarding the Marlins.
I totally agree with you...

2 WS Crowns with 10 crappy years, or 12 2nd place finishes or playoff series 3 and outs...

That's a no brainer to me. I am thrilled with KW's work. He has put this team closer to winning than it has been since the strike.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 04:33 PM
According to my calculations:

7 Players will take Approx. 45 Mil. (Buehrle, Konerko, CLee, Marte, Shingo, Hurt & Garcia)

Assuming $75M payroll, leaves us with approx. $30M.

Alright here's the math. This year's payroll is 63 million. Subtract 6 for Koch since he's definitely gone. That takes us down to 57. Then we'll subtract the money for our free agents Maggs (14), Valentin (5), and Loaiza (4), leaving us with 40 million committed. At that point we have to start making additions. 47 million with Garcia. A .75 million increase to Konerko, 2.25 million increase for Buehrle, 2 million increase for Carlos, 1.75 million increase to Shingo if he stays plus arbitration for Uribe and Garland which has to add up to at least 3 million. By that estimate we've increased the budget about 10 million which puts us at 57 million dollars. Assuming payroll stays the same we have 5 million remaining plus huge voids to fill with the departure of Maggs, Loaiza, and Valentin in addition to remaining voids in CF and the bullpen. It's possible payroll will increase but unless it increases quite a bit I'm not sure how we make up for the departure of three of our 6 or 7 best players. It's going to need to shoot through the roof and I'm not so confident there.

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 04:34 PM
My point is, if we build around Garcia, Buerhle, and Garland, and draft well (that has yet to be seen; if we can draft well. But wasn't Reed drafted by Kenny?),

well, as dadawg will be quick to point out, kenny doesn't really do much in the way of drafting, it's mostly the scouts. why do you think he had anything good to say about reed?

But yes, we have been able to make some decent draft picks as far as i can remember, and there's no reason to think we can't make some more.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:35 PM
Alright here's the math. This year's payroll is 63 million. Subtract 6 for Koch since he's definitely gone. That takes us down to 57. Then we'll subtract the money for our free agents Maggs (14), Valentin (5), and Loaiza (4), leaving us with 40 million committed. At that point we have to start making additions. 47 million with Garcia. A .75 million increase to Konerko, 2.25 million increase for Buehrle, 2 million increase for Carlos, 1.75 million increase to Shingo if he stays plus arbitration for Uribe and Garland which has to add up to at least 3 million. By that estimate we've increased the budget about 10 million which puts us at 57 million dollars. Assuming payroll stays the same we have 5 million remaining plus huge voids to fill with the departure of Maggs, Loaiza, and Valentin in addition to remaining voids in CF and the bullpen. It's possible payroll will increase but unless it increases quite a bit I'm not sure how we make up for the departure of three of our 6 or 7 best players. It's going to need to shoot through the roof and I'm not so confident there.Why subtract $6M from Koch? We paid all but $500K of his salary.....

Also payroll went from $58M last year to $64M this year. Attendance is up 20%. If we make the playoffs, is it difficult to imagine a payroll increase equal to last year???

CWSGuy406
07-06-2004, 04:38 PM
well, as dadawg will be quick to point out, kenny doesn't really do much in the way of drafting, it's mostly the scouts. why do you think he had anything good to say about reed?

But yes, we have been able to make some decent draft picks as far as i can remember, and there's no reason to think we can't make some more.
Well - I meant the White Sox organization as a whole drafting. Personally, I really don't care if Kenny drafts or not. As long as a good percentage of the players we draft turn out to be players, I can care less who drafts 'em.

BTW - speaking of drafts, I love Gio Gonzalez. :bandance:

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 04:40 PM
Alright here's the math. This year's payroll is 63 million. Subtract 6 for Koch since he's definitely gone. That takes us down to 57. Then we'll subtract the money for our free agents Maggs (14), Valentin (5), and Loaiza (4), leaving us with 40 million committed. At that point we have to start making additions. 47 million with Garcia. A .75 million increase to Konerko, 2.25 million increase for Buehrle, 2 million increase for Carlos, 1.75 million increase to Shingo if he stays plus arbitration for Uribe and Garland which has to add up to at least 3 million. By that estimate we've increased the budget about 10 million which puts us at 57 million dollars. Assuming payroll stays the same we have 5 million remaining plus huge voids to fill with the departure of Maggs, Loaiza, and Valentin in addition to remaining voids in CF and the bullpen. It's possible payroll will increase but unless it increases quite a bit I'm not sure how we make up for the departure of three of our 6 or 7 best players. It's going to need to shoot through the roof and I'm not so confident there.
I don't know about "shoot through the roof". If we make the playoffs, with the associated revenue boost from the team staying in contention, and the straight playoff revenues, then I'd anticipate a boost on the order of $10mil (I actually think it could go higher). That gives you say 11mil for Maggs (in yr1, with salary escalating through the deal), and 5mil left over for a veteran starter (say 2mil), some bullpen help (1mil), and 2mil for Valentin or a replacement.

Remember - added to the 57base, you still have Harris, Rowand, Rauch, Diaz, Cotts all making close to the minimum. Add to that Borchard (likely to be platooning with ARow in this scenario), and you've basically got a few slots to fill with the 5mil "left over". A utility IF, a #4/5 starter, and some middle relief. Not undoable. And I'd guess that coming off of a playoff run, budget will either go up more than $10mil, or if it's set at say $73mil and they need to go over by 1-3 mil to really solidify the team, the increase will be approved (ala this year).

amace020
07-06-2004, 04:43 PM
Since you nay-sayers will NEVER be satisfied or happy with the Pale Hose acquisition of the top pitcher on the trade market, no matter what any intelligent, educated and rational fan might think- I have a proposition for you!

How many games will Freddy have to win for the Sox this season before you get on his bandwagon? When can Freddy expect your support and devotion?

So no more- he played in a pitcher's park. Or that he isn't your kind of guy...

He's already 1-0 for the South Side.

How many wins will you need before you realize Freddy was a gem of a pickup?

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:44 PM
So - how bout them Angels????

HomeFish
07-06-2004, 04:44 PM
How many wins will you need before you realize Freddy was a gem of a pickup?

More than one.

However, due to the extension now being official, I will tentatively suspend my anti-Garcia trade stance and remove the reference to it from my sig, pending Garcia's performance tonight.

nitetrain8601
07-06-2004, 04:45 PM
WELCOME TO THE SOUTHSIDE FREDDY. :bandance:


It's great to know he'll be playing against the sCrUBs. We'll show them what's what.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 04:46 PM
More than one.

However, due to the extension now being official, I will tentatively suspend my anti-Garcia trade stance and remove the reference to it from my sig, pending Garcia's performance tonight.

Pending his performance tonight? My lord - it's a 162 game season. 1 (bad) start makes you change your mind to support him and you reserve the right to flip again pending tonight? Geez

Kogs35
07-06-2004, 04:47 PM
WELCOME TO THE SOUTHSIDE FREDDY. :bandance:


It's great to know he'll be playing against the sCrUBs. We'll show them what's what.
who cares about them right now?? lets worry about him throwing agianst the twins royals tigers a's angels, red sox,indians, m's. that series is over for the year lets concintrait on the al teams

HomeFish
07-06-2004, 04:50 PM
Pending his performance tonight? My lord - it's a 162 game season. 1 (bad) start makes you change your mind to support him and you reserve the right to flip again pending tonight? Geez

I opposed the Garcia trade from the moment I heard about it because I did not believe Olivo was worth a rent-a-player. With the extension, that belief, which I still hold, is irrelevant, because Olivo definately wasn't worth more than 3.5 years of Garcia.

However, I will be at the game tonight, and if Garcia melts down I don't want my sig sitting at home helpless with a pro-Garcia message in it.

Wealz
07-06-2004, 04:50 PM
1.) I'd estimate next year's payroll to be around $65M not $75M.
2.) Loaiza is as good as gone, probably a good thing as he's a big-time risk long-term.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:52 PM
1.) I'd estimate next year's payroll to be around $65M not $75M.
2.) Loaiza is as good as gone, probably a good thing as he's a big-time risk long-term.
We're currently at about $67M (with the additional $3M we are paying this year to Garcia). We will actually cut payroll $2M with a 20% increase in attendance??? Please explain your logic.

HomeFish
07-06-2004, 04:56 PM
We're currently at about $67M (with the additional $3M we are paying this year to Garcia). We will actually cut payroll $2M with a 20% increase in attendance??? Please explain your logic.

I won't speak for him, but I could answer your request in two words: Jerry Reinsdorf.

JRIG
07-06-2004, 04:57 PM
According to my calculations:

7 Players will take Approx. 45 Mil. (Buehrle, Konerko, CLee, Marte, Shingo, Hurt & Garcia)

Assuming $75M payroll, leaves us with approx. $30M.

The Devil Rays have put together an entire .500 ballclub for $23M, for God's sake. We can't sign Maggs and throw together a bullpen and a few bench players to complete our roster?


The problem is, according to your calculations, re-signing Mags at about $12 million would leave about $18 million for 17 players. But those are NOT bench and bullpen guys. It's finding a starting center fielder. Finding a 2nd baseman or shortstop. Agreeing to a deal or taking Uribe to arbitration. Finding a catcher, or two for that matter. Finding a 3/4 starter. Taking care of Garland. That $18 mil to fill 17 spots we be erased very quickly.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 04:58 PM
I won't speak for him, but I could answer your request in two words: Jerry Reinsdorf.
I don't buy it. Not that he's a great guy, but if he increased payroll last year, why not next year?

Deadguy
07-06-2004, 05:00 PM
This is great news. I'm surprised though, since I'm sure the upper brass would have wanted to see how well he handled being with the club on and off the field before investing that much in him.

I do remember the Sox offering Colon a 3 year, 36 million dollar contract in ST, with Bartolo turning it down, and once they observed his off the field work ethic, they simply left the offer on the table, for PR reasons, and didn't really care if he took it or not. As it turns out, we can be grateful that he and his agent were greedy and someone was dumb enough to overbid for him.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2004, 05:02 PM
A welcome change in attitude.

Perhaps they now are going to start focusing on the most important aspect of today's game...good pitching.

One down and two to go...Loazia and Schowenweis.

Lip

Wealz
07-06-2004, 05:04 PM
We're currently at about $67M (with the additional $3M we are paying this year to Garcia). We will actually cut payroll $2M with a 20% increase in attendance??? Please explain your logic.
Let's wait to see what the attendance increase is at the end of the year. I think a $75M payroll next year is a pipedream without a significant increase in season tickets and for that to happen they have to make a run in the playoffs.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:04 PM
Since you nay-sayers will NEVER be satisfied or happy with the Pale Hose acquisition of the top pitcher on the trade market, no matter what any intelligent, educated and rational fan might think- I have a proposition for you!

How many games will Freddy have to win for the Sox this season before you get on his bandwagon? When can Freddy expect your support and devotion?

So no more- he played in a pitcher's park. Or that he isn't your kind of guy...

He's already 1-0 for the South Side.

How many wins will you need before you realize Freddy was a gem of a pickup?
Well, I won't look at wins, with this O, you will have a good shot at winning every game you pitch. I will look at performance, but I still stand at my prediction of a 4+ ERA with the Sox.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 05:05 PM
The problem is, according to your calculations, re-signing Mags at about $12 million would leave about $18 million for 17 players. But those are NOT bench and bullpen guys. It's finding a starting center fielder. Finding a 2nd baseman or shortstop. Agreeing to a deal or taking Uribe to arbitration. Finding a catcher, or two for that matter. Finding a 3/4 starter. Taking care of Garland. That $18 mil to fill 17 spots we be erased very quickly.You conveniently left off the tail end of my post in your quote:


And that is assuming KW doesn't make any deals. 1/2 the people on this board were willing to trade Konerko for a bag of used baseballs. Who's to say that there will not be a deal which will free up some money there?

I seriously doubt that KW is signing people knowing that he can't afford them. There is a bigger "master plan". If we're here adding up payroll dollars trying to see what the financial future of this team is, don't you think that he's doing the same? Would you give up Maggs and Jose for Crawford and Renteria in the off season. (I know that should be in DEEP PINK but the bottom line is that their salaries ($19mm combined) can be used to get 2 or 3 very good players to fill their spots). Let's not speculate.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm sure KW will deal with next season when this one is over...hopefully in late October. Also, count 5-8 of these players to make the league minimum. Leaving 16M to fill 8 players (or so). That is not taking into consideration any deals that could happen (i.e. Konerko) that could free up additional salary.

doublem23
07-06-2004, 05:06 PM
Woo. Hoo.


:supernana:

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:07 PM
A welcome change in attitude.

Perhaps they now are going to start focusing on the most important aspect of today's game...good pitching.

One down and two to go...Loazia and Schowenweis.

Lip
The Sox really shouldn't re up Schowenweis. He is a dime a dozen type of pitchers. On E Lo, I would cautiously re up. He has slipped from last year and who knows where he will land. Was last year a fluke? If you think so, you shouldn't renew because you will end paying for that fluke.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:09 PM
I opposed the Garcia trade from the moment I heard about it because I did not believe Olivo was worth a rent-a-player. With the extension, that belief, which I still hold, is irrelevant, because Olivo definately wasn't worth more than 3.5 years of Garcia.

However, I will be at the game tonight, and if Garcia melts down I don't want my sig sitting at home helpless with a pro-Garcia message in it.Olivo and Reed weren't traded for 3 years of Garcia, but traded for .5 year of Garcia and .5 of exclusive negotiation time. The Sox if they hadn't traded for Garcia could have signed him on the free agent market for about the same price.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 05:11 PM
Olivo and Reed weren't traded for 3 years of Garcia, but traded for .5 year of Garcia and .5 of exclusive negotiation time. The Sox if they hadn't traded for Garcia could have signed him on the free agent market for about the same price.
I doubt it would be for the same price. Once other teams get im the mix, the price for him would increase. Think Colon.

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 05:13 PM
Well, I won't look at wins, with this O, you will have a good shot at winning every game you pitch. I will look at performance, but I still stand at my prediction of a 4+ ERA with the Sox.
What in the world makes you say that?

Our offense was by all accounts better equipped last year and we didn't win a damn thing.

What was the problem? I mean, you can only blame JM for so much. I can spell out for you in black and blanking white what at least ONE problem was: PITCHING

Remember - our 5th starter problems go back farther than this year, and if our O was as strong as you say it is, we should have got a 5th starter at least one win in the second half of the year (when it mattered). . .but instead our 5th starters have been like 3 and 20 something

If you think that we can give up both garcia and loaiza in this offseason and win just because we can resign maggs (which isn't even a given!!!) then you're basing your opinion as much on fancy as someone who thinks freddy's a perennial cy young winner.

Meanwhile, if Loaiza is being courted by New York as everyone seems to sense, we'll probably need to sign him for a lot more than 3.5 mill. . .6 seems about right. Of course now you'll probably tell me you'd rather have ELO for 6 Mill. (or more) than Freddy Garcia for 7.

I suppose that's a judgment call, but since Esty likely would sign a one year deal and is a 30 something downswinger and Garcia is young and has been successful in the past (excepting last year and the second half of the year before which seems to be explainable by an inner ear infection that has been corrected) i would think that Garcia is worth more.

Da Dawg, I suppose I'm expecting too much of an unabashed supporter of Billy Beane to admit that pitching is really the most important aspect of a ballclub. After all that wouldn't give Beane a real claim to his team's success even though his mediocre offense has been rescued year in and year out by pitching.

I close with three short points as to why this is a good deal:

a.) it gives us at least a shot at a solid rotation in the future

b.) we will not continue to lead the league in runs scored because paulie will slump and we will never click on all cylinders as we have been.

c.) look back to 2002 to see what a high potency offense will get you.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 05:14 PM
1.) I'd estimate next year's payroll to be around $65M not $75M.
2.) Loaiza is as good as gone, probably a good thing as he's a big-time risk long-term.
Payroll was 63mil to start this year, you think it's only going up 2mil after a pretty solid increase in attendance (IIRC, something like 20%+ so far), AND a playoff berth (and the associated games/revenues)?

Even using the widely reported budget of $60mil, you're only allowing for a $5mil increase? Using an average ticket price of $20, that's roughly 250k extra fans through the gates(just over 3k increase). And that doesn't include any ancillary revenues that they bring in - food, drink, parking, souvenirs, etc.

I'd guess that we can up the attendance by at least 5-7/game, bringing in an additional $20/ticket*6000*81 = $9.7mil. Almost all of that goes straight to the bottom line since the marginal cost of an extra fan is virtually 0 (almost all game costs are fixed). Now add in the profit that they make on concessions. Now add in the profit from a playoff series.

I think a $15mil increase is pretty reasonable - so I'll set my guesstimate of next year's payroll at $75-80mil. Unless we do some sort of swan dive and miss the playoffs (which I think is unlikely, barring injuries).

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 05:27 PM
The problem is, according to your calculations, re-signing Mags at about $12 million would leave about $18 million for 17 players. But those are NOT bench and bullpen guys. It's finding a starting center fielder. Finding a 2nd baseman or shortstop. Agreeing to a deal or taking Uribe to arbitration. Finding a catcher, or two for that matter. Finding a 3/4 starter. Taking care of Garland. That $18 mil to fill 17 spots we be erased very quickly.
See this post for a better rollup of our roster next year:

Originally Posted by jeremyb1
Alright here's the math. This year's payroll is 63 million. Subtract 6 for Koch since he's definitely gone. That takes us down to 57. Then we'll subtract the money for our free agents Maggs (14), Valentin (5), and Loaiza (4), leaving us with 40 million committed. At that point we have to start making additions. 47 million with Garcia. A .75 million increase to Konerko, 2.25 million increase for Buehrle, 2 million increase for Carlos, 1.75 million increase to Shingo if he stays plus arbitration for Uribe and Garland which has to add up to at least 3 million. By that estimate we've increased the budget about 10 million which puts us at 57 million dollars. Assuming payroll stays the same we have 5 million remaining plus huge voids to fill with the departure of Maggs, Loaiza, and Valentin in addition to remaining voids in CF and the bullpen. It's possible payroll will increase but unless it increases quite a bit I'm not sure how we make up for the departure of three of our 6 or 7 best players. It's going to need to shoot through the roof and I'm not so confident there.


Uribe's factored into the salary already. CF becomes a Rowand/Borchard platoon. Sure, we'd love to do better, but the rest of the offensive talent gives us the ability to platoon those 2. Or you possibly add in a cheap veteran to back them up in case one flops. Given that we have Timo already on the roster at $850k, I think we can manage with no net increase in payroll here.

So the REAL holes are C (where there are veteran, Benito Santiago-like options for 2mil), a #4/5 starter (where you can find someone for a couple of mil), and possibly middle relief. Not undoable with a payroll increase around 10mil.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:34 PM
What in the world makes you say that?

Our offense was by all accounts better equipped last year and we didn't win a damn thing.

What was the problem? I mean, you can only blame JM for so much. I can spell out for you in black and blanking white what at least ONE problem was: PITCHING

Remember - our 5th starter problems go back farther than this year, and if our O was as strong as you say it is, we should have got a 5th starter at least one win in the second half of the year (when it mattered). . .but instead our 5th starters have been like 3 and 20 something

If you think that we can give up both garcia and loaiza in this offseason and win just because we can resign maggs (which isn't even a given!!!) then you're basing your opinion as much on fancy as someone who thinks freddy's a perennial cy young winner.

Meanwhile, if Loaiza is being courted by New York as everyone seems to sense, we'll probably need to sign him for a lot more than 3.5 mill. . .6 seems about right. Of course now you'll probably tell me you'd rather have ELO for 6 Mill. (or more) than Freddy Garcia for 7.

I suppose that's a judgment call, but since Esty likely would sign a one year deal and is a 30 something downswinger and Garcia is young and has been successful in the past (excepting last year and the second half of the year before which seems to be explainable by an inner ear infection that has been corrected) i would think that Garcia is worth more.

Da Dawg, I suppose I'm expecting too much of an unabashed supporter of Billy Beane to admit that pitching is really the most important aspect of a ballclub. After all that wouldn't give Beane a real claim to his team's success even though his mediocre offense has been rescued year in and year out by pitching.

I close with three short points as to why this is a good deal:

a.) it gives us at least a shot at a solid rotation in the future

b.) we will not continue to lead the league in runs scored because paulie will slump and we will never click on all cylinders as we have been.

c.) look back to 2002 to see what a high potency offense will get you.
Give me a ****ing break man, first off anyone who evaluates pitching based mostly on win-lose record is a fool of the highest sort. Secondly, if you took your time to comprehend, guess I expect too much from a flat earther, you would realize I was talking about high quality pitching, which Garica won't bring.

Your relying on this crutch of inner ear infection is laughable at best, most medical reports that I have seen said it should have little if any effect. But guess that leg work would be too much to expect.

Thirdly, you complete exposed your lack of historical knowledge by your statement on Oakland. You would know that 2000 and 2001 Oakland teams were propelled by the offense. After Giambi left and maturation of the big three starter to hit all cylinders, the A's started to rely mostly on pitching of the Big 3.

We have a rotation of 2 guys who are number two starters at their best. Solid yes, but still weak, not enough to carry this team.

You must not be watching games lately, the team isn't clicking on cylinders. Different parts of the lineup have come through at various points of the season so far to carry this team. If the Sox get a healthy lineup starts which is clicking on all cylinders, watch out, this team could avg 6+ runs a game.

1901, 1917, 1919, 1983, 2000, and 2004. What do all those years have in common, the Sox led the league in scoring. Hmmmmm.... Maybe there is something to scoring runs.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:35 PM
See this post for a better rollup of our roster next year:


Uribe's factored into the salary already. CF becomes a Rowand/Borchard platoon. Sure, we'd love to do better, but the rest of the offensive talent gives us the ability to platoon those 2. Or you possibly add in a cheap veteran to back them up in case one flops. Given that we have Timo already on the roster at $850k, I think we can manage with no net increase in payroll here.

So the REAL holes are C (where there are veteran, Benito Santiago-like options for 2mil), a #4/5 starter (where you can find someone for a couple of mil), and possibly middle relief. Not undoable with a payroll increase around 10mil.
I would consider Uribe a real hole if he is an every day player.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 05:37 PM
1901, 1917, 1919, 1983, 2000, and 2004. What do all those years have in common, the Sox led the league in scoring. Hmmmmm.... Maybe there is something to scoring runs.
Tell me again in which of those years you mentioned had we won the World Series? :duck:

amace020
07-06-2004, 05:39 PM
Well, I won't look at wins, with this O, you will have a good shot at winning every game you pitch. I will look at performance, but I still stand at my prediction of a 4+ ERA with the Sox.
You won't look at wins????

Do you remember when the Cubs won the WS last year based on Wood's & Prior's coveted ERA performance? Those were good times for the North Side!

Oh wait... That didn't happen!

Well- with the way this team scores runs- we must not have needed Freddy- since we'd already have the best record in baseball... I mean- anybody can get wins, right?

Uhh.....

ERA, WHIP, K/9 IP- those are all SUPERCOOL stats- but BASEBALL is about only one thing- WINS and LOSSES.

Keep winning games- you go to the playoffs. Keep winning in the playoffs- they give you a ring. A big one.

And nowhere on the ring does it say- GREAT ERA!!! Even though Freddy's is among the league leaders....

Once again- it's time to get on the Freddy bandwagon. To the doubters- let's hear it- how many wins is it going to take THIS SEASON before you give Freddy your support???

He's already 1-0.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:40 PM
Tell me again in which of those years you mentioned had we won the World Series? :duck:Well considering we only won the World Series twice, and one of those years is repsented here. I say that is a very good perecentage. Then you factor in the Sox only made the playoffs(won the AL in 1901) nine times, and 5 of those times are in the list. That is a very good percentage too.

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:41 PM
You won't look at wins????

Do you remember when the Cubs won the WS last year based on Wood's & Prior's coveted ERA performance? Those were good times for the North Side!

Oh wait... That didn't happen!

Well- with the way this team scores runs- we must not have needed Freddy- since we'd already have the best record in baseball... I mean- anybody can get wins, right?

Uhh.....

ERA, WHIP, K/9 IP- those are all SUPERCOOL stats- but BASEBALL is about only one thing- WINS and LOSSES.

Keep winning games- you go to the playoffs. Keep winning in the playoffs- they give you a ring. A big one.

And nowhere on the ring does it say- GREAT ERA!!! Even though Freddy's is among the league leaders....

Once again- it's time to get on the Freddy bandwagon. To the doubters- let's hear it- how many wins is it going to take THIS SEASON before you give Freddy your support???

He's already 1-0.
LOL, Freddy won last time because the Sox scored runs not because of his "great" pitching. He was average at best out there last time.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 05:44 PM
Well considering we only won the World Series twice, and one of those years is repsented here. I say that is a very good perecentage. Then you factor in the Sox only made the playoffs(won the AL in 1901) nine times, and 5 of those times are in the list. That is a very good percentage too.
Huh?????? :whistle:

amace020
07-06-2004, 05:47 PM
LOL, Freddy won last time because the Sox scored runs not because of his "great" pitching. He was average at best out there last time.
This is my point. I want to know how many AVERAGE WINS Freddy will need to rack up before you give him your support.

After Buerhle and Loaiza- it's been hard for the Sox to dependably put together even average wins. The Boston Red Sox know what I am talking about- and they could be looking at making vacation plans during the postseason.

If Garcia pitches effectively enough to win, and wins- no matter "average" or not- how long before you give him his props? I'd like an answer. Freddy winning deserves your support.

Look at the Unit. He pitched a perfect game- and still had to have been worried about getting a W for his troubles...

Dadawg_77
07-06-2004, 05:49 PM
Huh?????? :whistle:
Okay lets make the math simple for you. White Sox have won the Series twice in their history, 1906 and 1917. In 1917 they scored the most runs in the league. Thus out of the two times the Sox have won it all, they scored the most runs in the league once or 50% of the time.

The Sox have won the AL or division 9 times. Five of those times, they have lead the AL with the most runs scored. Not bad. The team who won the Series 26 times AL 39 times and 43 Divisions, has led the league in scoring 27 times.

There is a nice correlation between having a top scoring team and winning it all. You want to deny that fine go ahead but you are wrong.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 05:54 PM
Of course, all you KW doggers are right - pitching is a risky proposition, and it could very well turn out we overpaid. . .but weren't you the ones whining about not signing colon or adding more pitching (at a high price) during the last offseason? or maybe I forgot about the pitchers on the market better than freddy who were asking elss than an avg. of 9 mill. a year

I'm still waiting for the list. If someone already posted it - and I missed it - then my apologies. But I haven't seen the list of front of the rotation starters who were signed for less than 9mm per last year, who were better than Garcia.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 05:57 PM
Okay lets make the math simple for you. White Sox have won the Series twice in their history, 1906 and 1917. In 1917 they scored the most runs in the league. Thus out of the two times the Sox have won it all, they scored the most runs in the league once or 50% of the time.

The Sox have won the AL or division 9 times. Five of those times, they have lead the AL with the most runs scored. Not bad. The team who won the Series 26 times AL 39 times and 43 Divisions, has led the league in scoring 27 times.

There is a nice correlation between having a top scoring team and winning it all. You want to deny that fine go ahead but you are wrong.
C'mon DD, surely I don't have to tell you of all people about sample size!!

The only meaningful stats there are the 26/39/43 WS-AL-division winners. FWIW - 27/(26+39+43) = 25%, means that 75% of the "winners" did not lead the league in scoring. The question is whether there is another statistic that better correlates to winning or if leading the league in scoring is the one.

I'd guess that if you expand the offensive stats to include "top 5 in scoring", you get a significantly greater correlation, and I don't think that given the Sox offensive core (including Maggs), that it's that hard for them to be in the top5 with an ARow/Borchard platoon, a veteran Benito Santiago-like catcher, and Uribe @ SS.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 05:59 PM
C'mon DD, surely I don't have to tell you of all people about sample size!!

The only meaningful stats there are the 26/39/43 WS-AL-division winners. FWIW - 27/(26+39+43) = 25%, means that 75% of the "winners" did not lead the league in scoring. The question is whether there is another statistic that better correlates to winning or if leading the league in scoring is the one.

I'd guess that if you expand the offensive stats to include "top 5 in scoring", you get a significantly greater correlation, and I don't think that given the Sox offensive core (including Maggs), that it's that hard for them to be in the top5 with an ARow/Borchard platoon, a veteran Benito Santiago-like catcher, and Uribe @ SS.
http://www.math.grin.edu/~leachale/banginghead.jpg

Mickster
07-06-2004, 06:00 PM
Okay lets make the math simple for you. White Sox have won the Series twice in their history, 1906 and 1917. In 1917 they scored the most runs in the league. Thus out of the two times the Sox have won it all, they scored the most runs in the league once or 50% of the time.

The Sox have won the AL or division 9 times. Five of those times, they have lead the AL with the most runs scored. Not bad. The team who won the Series 26 times AL 39 times and 43 Divisions, has led the league in scoring 27 times.

There is a nice correlation between having a top scoring team and winning it all. You want to deny that fine go ahead but you are wrong.
There is no doubt that scoring runs has something to do with winning championships. However, pitching is certainly more crucial. How many 11-2 games have we seen in the WS as opposed to 4-3, 3-2 or even 2-1 games.

You mention 2000 as an example. Not that I am going to hang my hat on 2000, but offense was our BIGGEST problem in the 2000 post-season.

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 06:00 PM
I'm still waiting for the list. If someone already posted it - and I missed it - then my apologies. But I haven't seen the list of front of the rotation starters who were signed for less than 9mm per last year, who were better than Garcia.
That's probably because it doesn't really exist.

Here's a rough draft of pitchers who were even available to the white sox (ignoring the fact that some refused to sign here)

colon
ponson
maddux

of course they were all a better deal than garcia . . .


and dadawg. . .you can throw away the inner ear infection idea if you want, although his trouble started right after he got it and he has been pitching well since he got it fixed (or at the VERY least, better). . .

Although, I guess experts say that it wouldn't have much effect on a pitcher. . .after all, who cares about BALANCE when you're pitching?

And you didn't address the main pt. of my argument.

You say with our O we can win for any pitcher. Maybe we can and that's one of the only reasons Buehrle wins anywhere near 20 games. But at the same time if you honestly want to rely on our offense to bail out bad pitching you should hold your breath and we'll drag your body off stage while the white sox finish second for the third straight year.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 06:01 PM
I'm still waiting for the list. If someone already posted it - and I missed it - then my apologies. But I haven't seen the list of front of the rotation starters who were signed for less than 9mm per last year, who were better than Garcia.

FWIW - I posted this list earlier of pitcher I'd put int he FG ballpark (i.e. no Pedro, RandyJ, Prior, etc who are either truly dominant, or cheap because they haven't hit FA yet).

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'd put FG squarely in the upper half of that group. Behind Schmidt, Vazquez but on par with Mussina, Brown, Millwood and ahead of the rest. But regardless of the individual ranking, I think it's safe to say that he belongs in that group and is paid a fair wage for that.

Mickster
07-06-2004, 06:04 PM
FWIW - I posted this list earlier of pitcher I'd put int he FG ballpark (i.e. no Pedro, RandyJ, Prior, etc who are either truly dominant, or cheap because they haven't hit FA yet).

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'd put FG squarely in the upper half of that group. Behind Schmidt, Vazquez but on par with Mussina, Brown, Millwood and ahead of the rest. But regardless of the individual ranking, I think it's safe to say that he belongs in that group and is paid a fair wage for that.
I agree that he belongs in the group of pitchers that you mention above. And, quite frankly, at $9M per on average, he is fairly cheap.

TDog
07-06-2004, 06:06 PM
... 1901, 1917, 1919, 1983, 2000, and 2004. What do all those years have in common, the Sox led the league in scoring. Hmmmmm.... Maybe there is something to scoring runs.
You left out 1977. While many revere 1977 as a special year (and for me it was a collegiate summer when I got to see a lot of fun baseball into August), it was a team that finished 13 games out of first after leading the division by 7.5 games at the end of July. Before the ball and players got juiced and the parks got smaller, the team held the record for the fewest shutout games won or lost. They were shut out twice in September, obviously tired from scoring all those runs despite their baserunning mistakes.

I am sick of hearing about how our offense is going to make up for our lack of pitching, much like the previous generation of Sox fans must have been tired about hearing how our pitching would make up for our lack of hitting. The 1967 White Sox nearly took corpseball to the World Series.

I would love to see the Sox lead the league in scoring. With Garcia in the rotation, I hope they don't have to.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 06:11 PM
That's probably because it doesn't really exist.

Here's a rough draft of pitchers who were even available to the white sox (ignoring the fact that some refused to sign here)

colon
ponson
maddux

of course they were all a better deal than garcia . . .

and dadawg. . .you can throw away the inner ear infection idea if you want, although his trouble started right after he got it and he has been pitching well since he got it fixed (or at the VERY least, better). . .
FQ - the only one I can think of is Pable Escobar's illigitmate stepchild Kelvim. He was less expensive - but rightfully so since he has been bounced between the pen and the rotation ever since coming to the bigs. I don't think he's nearly as good as Garcia.

Also, in addition to the inner ear infection, Freddy fought some personal demons. Moving Arthur Rhodes out of the clubhouse supposedly helped Garcia quite a bit. Rumor has it that Rhodes was a bad influence on roadtrips (and not much better at home). Put Freddy on a team with a bunch of latin american players, including many Venezuelans and he might really put it all together. Who knows? But it is hard to say this was a terrible signing if you look at it objectively.

Again, list all the SPs who were FAs the past 2 seasons who were better than Garcia who went for less than 3 years at 8/9/10mm? I dare ya...

jabrch
07-06-2004, 06:14 PM
FWIW - I posted this list earlier of pitcher I'd put int he FG ballpark (i.e. no Pedro, RandyJ, Prior, etc who are either truly dominant, or cheap because they haven't hit FA yet).

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'd put FG squarely in the upper half of that group. Behind Schmidt, Vazquez but on par with Mussina, Brown, Millwood and ahead of the rest. But regardless of the individual ranking, I think it's safe to say that he belongs in that group and is paid a fair wage for that.
Now of those, how many were FAs the past year?

Other than Colon (11) I don't know if any were.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 07:35 PM
Now of those, how many were FAs the past year?

Other than Colon (11) I don't know if any were.

True, but I guess some might argue that since we "gave up so much" (in quotes because that's not my argument, but one I've seen from others), we could have traded for one of the other guys. Personally, I don't buy it. Much like I don't buy that Ben Sheets was ever on the market.

The point of the list is just to say that to all those who say the $9mil/yr deal is "overpaying" for Freddy - based on a quick perusal of the comparables, I don't think that's true. In fact, I think he's better than most of the pitchers in the group I showed.

Now that list is by no means comprehensive, I just clicked through some various rosters and picked off the pitchers in the 7+mil range.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2004, 07:50 PM
Millwood was.

Lip

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 09:27 PM
We now have, IMHO, a poor man's version of the Big 3 in Buerhle, Garcia, and Garland. Granted, the numbers won't be as good as the Big 3 - but Buerhle and Garcia are both solid pitchers, both entering their prime (at ages of 25 and 27 respectively)

The problem is the big three are dirt cheap and that's the major reason Oakland can win with them despite a small payroll. Garcia and even Buehrle are now making tons more than any of those guys and aren't on the all world level that Mulder and Hudson are.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 09:30 PM
The problem is the big three are dirt cheap and that's the major reason Oakland can win with them despite a small payroll. Garcia and even Buehrle are now making tons more than any of those guys and aren't on the all world level that Mulder and Hudson are.
Well then, we'll see how the A's manage as IIRC, Hudson's FA after this year and Mulder after next. So when you look at it that way, long term (i.e. the next 3 or so years), the Sox "Big 3" might actually be better then the A's big 3 of Mulder, Zito, Harden/Redman/Blanton.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 09:33 PM
Why subtract $6M from Koch? We paid all but $500K of his salary.....

Also payroll went from $58M last year to $64M this year. Attendance is up 20%. If we make the playoffs, is it difficult to imagine a payroll increase equal to last year???

Because we're trying to subtract players that figure into this seasons payroll but will not cost the team money next year. Would you rather I add 6 million to pay Koch next season? That would be illogical and hurt your argument.

If payroll goes up 15 or 20 million as a result of this deal and stays that way for the next three seasons obviously I'm not complaining. However, I think most baseball fans and Sox fans in particular are going to greet the idea of a large budget increase by Jerry Reinsdorf with great skepticism. Furthermore, attendance is in fact DOWN this season from 23.9 thousand last season to 23.5 thousand this season!! I fail to see what is screaming a huge increase in payroll here and with our owner I don't see how you'd assume that the default is a large increase.

jabrch
07-06-2004, 09:49 PM
Millwood was.

Lip

Are you sure Lip? I thought they offered Milwood arbitration and he accepted? I may be wrong on that. In any case - Garcia at 9, or Milwood at 11. I surely don't think we overpaid.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 09:49 PM
I don't know about "shoot through the roof". If we make the playoffs, with the associated revenue boost from the team staying in contention, and the straight playoff revenues, then I'd anticipate a boost on the order of $10mil (I actually think it could go higher).

Why? We were in contention til the last week of the season last time, how much longer could we possibly in contention this season? How much extra money is going to be generated by 4 or 6 more home games where we're "in contention". We might have clinched by then and in some ways that'd have the same results. We made the playoffs in '00 and payroll was raised to 62 million ie what it is now at a time when there was much more spending going on throughout the league. Again to say that an increase of 10 million dollars is more likely than not seems awful naive to me.

That gives you say 11mil for Maggs (in yr1, with salary escalating through the deal), and 5mil left over for a veteran starter (say 2mil), some bullpen help (1mil), and 2mil for Valentin or a replacement.

Again first of all you're assuming that it is a given that we'll make the playoffs, that this will generate much more revenue, and that this revenue will be put towards a 10 million increase in payroll by Jerry Reinsdorf. Even if that is the case (and it's nearly impossible KW could know that this is true on this date when he signed Garcia) there are still questions. First of all, where does the money come from to give Garcia and Maggs raises every season especially with Carlos and Paully becoming free agents in '06? Not only are you forcasting a 10 million dollar increase in payroll next season but a 15 million one in '05? Is our payroll 100 million in '06? 5 million dollars left over for a starting shortstop, bullpen help, and a starting pitcher is very little money. You're going to walk out with very little quality. Valentin makes 5 million this season and he's performing better than last season. Why is he going to even consider a 3 million dollar paycut? With a 2 million dollar starter we might as well go with a home grown starter. Either way we're not going to have a great pitcher there.

Is our payroll 100 million in '06?Remember - added to the 57base, you still have Harris, Rowand, Rauch, Diaz, Cotts all making close to the minimum. Add to that Borchard (likely to be platooning with ARow in this scenario), and you've basically got a few slots to fill with the 5mil "left over". A utility IF, a #4/5 starter, and some middle relief. Not undoable. And I'd guess that coming off of a playoff run, budget will either go up more than $10mil, or if it's set at say $73mil and they need to go over by 1-3 mil to really solidify the team, the increase will be approved (ala this year).[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's doable but we're worse than this season. We're trading in Loaiza for a mediocre five. We're downgrading from one of the most productive short stops in baseball. It's not exciting to me that IF JR feels nice and somehow raises payroll 10 million we can field a team worse than this seasons which figures to be the worst playoff team, at least in the AL.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 09:56 PM
Since you nay-sayers will NEVER be satisfied or happy with the Pale Hose acquisition of the top pitcher on the trade market, no matter what any intelligent, educated and rational fan might think- I have a proposition for you!

How many games will Freddy have to win for the Sox this season before you get on his bandwagon? When can Freddy expect your support and devotion?

So no more- he played in a pitcher's park. Or that he isn't your kind of guy...

He's already 1-0 for the South Side.

How many wins will you need before you realize Freddy was a gem of a pickup?

This is just ridiculous. You're touching on absolutely none of the developed arguments made in this or any other thread. Again, personal attacks that those that didn't like the Garcia move aren't intelligent, educated, and rational. Insinuations that the only reason anyone would dislike the move is a deepseated bias against KW. Accusations that because someone dislikes the trade and/or signing the person doesn't support Garcia and the White Sox. I really find this to be immature and petty. Myself and others have laid out reasons to dislike the trade/signing such as the players we gave up, the give and take in a 9 million a season contract, Garcia's road stats (which you refer to but don't actually discuss), Garcia's past performance and you aren't engaging with any of these arguments. If you can't explain in logical terms why you like the trade/signing I'm not sure what the point of posting on the matter is, especially if you're going to antagonize other posters.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 09:56 PM
If payroll goes up 15 or 20 million as a result of this deal and stays that way for the next three seasons obviously I'm not complaining. However, I think most baseball fans and Sox fans in particular are going to greet the idea of a large budget increase by Jerry Reinsdorf with great skepticism. Furthermore, attendance is in fact DOWN this season from 23.9 thousand last season to 23.5 thousand this season!! I fail to see what is screaming a huge increase in payroll here and with our owner I don't see how you'd assume that the default is a large increase.
Hmmm.... I have total attendance so far (from ESPN) at 872,404 for 37 games (23,578avg). For 1st half, 2003 I have 911,845/44 games (20,723 avg). Through the first 34 home games last year we had 609,607 (17,929 avg.). (These totals do not include 2 games for which ESPN has no attendance.)

So by my calculations, we're reasonably ahead of last year's pace and with more home games in the 2d half, we have the ability to leverage the increased attendance for more games and bump the average higher.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:05 PM
Olivo and Reed weren't traded for 3 years of Garcia, but traded for .5 year of Garcia and .5 of exclusive negotiation time. The Sox if they hadn't traded for Garcia could have signed him on the free agent market for about the same price.

Amen. I've been arguing this point since we made the deal. Now that the extension is done, does anyone honestly believe that 9 mil for three seasons wouldn't have landed Garcia in the offseason? Obviously it didn't take a lot of convincing if it took a week to complete the extension. Clearly Chicago and the team didn't win him over since it was only one week. The trade was for half a season of Garcia and to hold onto our first round pick next season, nothing more, nothing less.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:15 PM
Meanwhile, if Loaiza is being courted by New York as everyone seems to sense, we'll probably need to sign him for a lot more than 3.5 mill. . .6 seems about right. Of course now you'll probably tell me you'd rather have ELO for 6 Mill. (or more) than Freddy Garcia for 7.

I haven't seen anything to suggest New York wants Loaiza. Loaiza's going to have to start pitching a lot better if he wants more than 3 or 4 million in the offseason. Finally, it seems deliberately deceptive to say "Freddy Garcia for 7" when he averages 9 million per season over the life of the deal and he's getting paid 8 million next year. We do have to pay him the 9 million on '05 and 10 million in '06, no?

Da Dawg, I suppose I'm expecting too much of an unabashed supporter of Billy Beane to admit that pitching is really the most important aspect of a ballclub. After all that wouldn't give Beane a real claim to his team's success even though his mediocre offense has been rescued year in and year out by pitching.

What a shock, more personal attacks and accusations of bias. You also got in my favorite argument: that Billy Beane deserves absolutely no credit for acquiring Zito, Hudson, and Mulder.


I close with three short points as to why this is a good deal:

a.) it gives us at least a shot at a solid rotation in the future

b.) we will not continue to lead the league in runs scored because paulie will slump and we will never click on all cylinders as we have been.

c.) look back to 2002 to see what a high potency offense will get you.

And of course none of those have anything to do with the actual deal and how it will affect the team's payroll. Why not just pay Garcia 25 million a year. Is that a good deal, according to your critiera it is.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:18 PM
Payroll was 63mil to start this year, you think it's only going up 2mil after a pretty solid increase in attendance (IIRC, something like 20%+ so far), AND a playoff berth (and the associated games/revenues)?

Even using the widely reported budget of $60mil, you're only allowing for a $5mil increase? Using an average ticket price of $20, that's roughly 250k extra fans through the gates(just over 3k increase). And that doesn't include any ancillary revenues that they bring in - food, drink, parking, souvenirs, etc.

I'd guess that we can up the attendance by at least 5-7/game, bringing in an additional $20/ticket*6000*81 = $9.7mil. Almost all of that goes straight to the bottom line since the marginal cost of an extra fan is virtually 0 (almost all game costs are fixed). Now add in the profit that they make on concessions. Now add in the profit from a playoff series.

I think a $15mil increase is pretty reasonable - so I'll set my guesstimate of next year's payroll at $75-80mil. Unless we do some sort of swan dive and miss the playoffs (which I think is unlikely, barring injuries).

Where do you come up with this?!?! I'm sorry but there's no basis for any of this. Attendance is down but it's going to generate an extra 10 million dollars? We're going to increase attendance 5-7 thousand per game?!?!?! That's virtually unheard of and all you have supporting this is that we'll play well with Garcia. You're going to have to buy about 3 or 4 thousand tickets a game yourself for that to happen.

gobears1987
07-06-2004, 10:18 PM
after the top of the 1st today, 3 faced, 3 Ks. Hawk will say alot of HE GONEs:bandance:

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:19 PM
Uribe's factored into the salary already.

How? He's in the midst of a breakout season and he'll be arbitration elligible.

fquaye149
07-06-2004, 10:23 PM
And of course none of those have anything to do with the actual deal and how it will affect the team's payroll. Why not just pay Garcia 25 million a year. Is that a good deal, according to your critiera it is.
Maybe you missed what that was addressing: the fact that dadawg tried to claim that no matter whom we put on the mound our offense will give us a chance to win.

No I don't base the fact that this was a good deal on that Garcia's better than the fifth starters we've put out there. I base it on what starters are being paid and what we would be able to get for next year.

There aren't a lot of starters of the caliber of Freddy available and the ones who are as good as Freddy are getting paid more than 7 million next year or the average of the deal which is 9 million a year.

RedPinStripes
07-06-2004, 10:24 PM
Now i can say this was a good trade for Garcia. Way to go KW! :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :bandance:

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:24 PM
FWIW - I posted this list earlier of pitcher I'd put int he FG ballpark (i.e. no Pedro, RandyJ, Prior, etc who are either truly dominant, or cheap because they haven't hit FA yet).

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'd put FG squarely in the upper half of that group. Behind Schmidt, Vazquez but on par with Mussina, Brown, Millwood and ahead of the rest. But regardless of the individual ranking, I think it's safe to say that he belongs in that group and is paid a fair wage for that.

That's ridiculous. Nearly all of those players were signed a few years back when salaries were much higher. What do you think that the fact that spending has went down a good 20% has had no effect on the free agent market? Last season Escobar and Ponson who were considered more or less just as desirable were signed for 7-8 million. At best this deal would be fair on the market, there's no way it's a great value.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 10:25 PM
Why? We were in contention til the last week of the season last time, how much longer could we possibly in contention this season? How much extra money is going to be generated by 4 or 6 more home games where we're "in contention". We might have clinched by then and in some ways that'd have the same results. We made the playoffs in '00 and payroll was raised to 62 million ie what it is now at a time when there was much more spending going on throughout the league. Again to say that an increase of 10 million dollars is more likely than not seems awful naive to me.3 reasons. 1)Attendance is ahead of last year's pace so far, based on the team doing much better than 1st half last year, and the excitement generated by Ozzie, chemistry, aggressiveness of KW, etc. 2)Unlike last year's acquisitions, FG's now signed for a few years, another indication that the team seems ready to put more resources on the field. 3)Unlike last year, this is now a team that contended for a year and is now doing so again (and in an improved fashion). Last year's team was coming off of a few disappointing years, and there was a lot more skepticism (partially based on JM still being manager).

The bottom line is that attendance is ahead of last year so far. So unless you think it's somehow going to decline from last year's pace in the 2d half, we'll have an increase.



Again first of all you're assuming that it is a given that we'll make the playoffs, that this will generate much more revenue, and that this revenue will be put towards a 10 million increase in payroll by Jerry Reinsdorf. Even if that is the case (and it's nearly impossible KW could know that this is true on this date when he signed Garcia) there are still questions. First of all, where does the money come from to give Garcia and Maggs raises every season especially with Carlos and Paully becoming free agents in '06? Not only are you forcasting a 10 million dollar increase in payroll next season but a 15 million one in '05? Is our payroll 100 million in '06? 5 million dollars left over for a starting shortstop, bullpen help, and a starting pitcher is very little money. You're going to walk out with very little quality. Valentin makes 5 million this season and he's performing better than last season. Why is he going to even consider a 3 million dollar paycut? With a 2 million dollar starter we might as well go with a home grown starter. Either way we're not going to have a great pitcher there.
I'll break this into a couple of parts for ease of discussion.
1) As for the likelihood of playoffs, I think they're significantly enhanced from before the deal, and I think we're the favorites to win the Central. Nothing's guaranteed, but right now we have as good a shot as any team to get to the playoffs. (And FWIW - I believe the WSI and national media consensus is in agreement with me.)

2) Playoffs = revenues. I think it's pretty simple to say that making the playoffs = additional revenues. There are more games, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those games will generate more revenue and profit than not playing those games. I hope this isn't a point of debate.

3) Revenues -> Payroll. I know that it was posted a little while back, but looking at the attendance and payroll data for the Reinsdorf era, there's a pretty strong correlation where payroll increases the year after attendance does (i.e. attendance is the leading indicator). It also declines after an attendance decline. This indicates that the increased revenues from attendance and playoffs will likely be put into payroll.

4) "Out year" payrolls. As you say - Paulie's an FA after next year. I'm not 100% certain, but either after next year or the year after, the team's got a buyout on Frank. That's somewhere around 16mil freed up. Now you have to resign them or get replacements (or restructure their deals), but the Sox have some options in our minor league OFs, Fields (the 3B), and FAs, which is a viable place to get cheaper at 1B/DH. Not to mention that keeping this team together another year will likely result in another attendance boost. Chicago's a big baseball market and a consistent winning team will draw.

5) Valentin - he took less money to stay with the Sox a few years ago (IIRC, had a better offer from Baltimore). He's said he wants to retire with the team. Is that a 3mil paycut? Maybe it' a 1mil paycut and we go cheaper on the veteran starter or lose a more experienced backup OF or middle reliever. There are options to shift around 1-2 mil.

6) 2mil on a veteran starter last year would have gotten you Kenny Rogers, IIRC (or Loaiza). This year, Shoney's making a lot less than that. There are guys out there that can come in and provide solid innings relatively cheaply, especially to play on a winning team. Given that plus this team's track record with those types of pickups, I'm not worried about finding a serviceable starter.



Yeah it's doable but we're worse than this season. We're trading in Loaiza for a mediocre five. We're downgrading from one of the most productive short stops in baseball. It's not exciting to me that IF JR feels nice and somehow raises payroll 10 million we can field a team worse than this seasons which figures to be the worst playoff team, at least in the AL.
We're worse this season? I fail to see how we're worse with Garcia because of losing Olivo who was playing half time and hitting .192 against righties. We're worse keeping Maggs and possibly losing Valentin than the other way around? I fail to see your logic. I would love to see them both resigned (and it's not impossible since I see a decent bump in revenues & payroll coming), but given a choice I'll take Maggs and send Val packing any day.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:26 PM
I agree that he belongs in the group of pitchers that you mention above. And, quite frankly, at $9M per on average, he is fairly cheap.

Yeah if he was signed the season Arod got 25 million, a deal which became next to immovable this offseason it was so large. I dare you to find any takers for Brown or Mussina with deals signed when the market was huge. Ditto for guys like Jeter and Giambi. But hey if it helps your argument we'll pretent it's 2000 instead of 2004.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:32 PM
Well then, we'll see how the A's manage as IIRC, Hudson's FA after this year and Mulder after next. So when you look at it that way, long term (i.e. the next 3 or so years), the Sox "Big 3" might actually be better then the A's big 3 of Mulder, Zito, Harden/Redman/Blanton.

My guess is they'll resign one of the three and then destroy our "Big 3" with Blanton and Harden. Regardless that's not the point. The A's had the good sense to develop those guys so they wouldn't be aribtration elligible for three seasons and then sign all three to reasonable extensions through arbitration early. That's not what we did by dealing top prospects for an already expensive Garcia and waiting to long and then signing Buehrle to a lucrative extension. So we can already compare our team this season and the next few to the A's teams the past several seasons. I think the A's come out on top most likely.

jeremyb1
07-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Hmmm.... I have total attendance so far (from ESPN) at 872,404 for 37 games (23,578avg). For 1st half, 2003 I have 911,845/44 games (20,723 avg). Through the first 34 home games last year we had 609,607 (17,929 avg.). (These totals do not include 2 games for which ESPN has no attendance.)

So by my calculations, we're reasonably ahead of last year's pace and with more home games in the 2d half, we have the ability to leverage the increased attendance for more games and bump the average higher.

Well I think it's pretty hard to forecast the rest of the season's attendance based on the first 34 games. The weather could be different. Assuming that an increase through 34 games will lead to a similar increase through the remaining home games seems like a bit of a stretch. Last season interest was obviously low until further through the season since we were far out of first place. Interest went up when we made the Everett and Alomar deals. What's going to drive up attendance a ton in the second half this season? Who's to say 24,000 isn't a peak of sorts?

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Where do you come up with this?!?! I'm sorry but there's no basis for any of this. Attendance is down but it's going to generate an extra 10 million dollars? We're going to increase attendance 5-7 thousand per game?!?!?! That's virtually unheard of and all you have supporting this is that we'll play well with Garcia. You're going to have to buy about 3 or 4 thousand tickets a game yourself for that to happen.

Easy - average attendance so far this year is up a couple of thousand from last year. That should only increase as weather continues to improve and the team continues to contend AND demonstrate that they're willing to increase payroll and take a shot at a title. If you're arguing that the team is suddenly less likely to do that than prior to the deal.....well then, I'll have to disagree with you.

As for the #s - where are you getting your attendance figures? Using ESPN's #s (from the team schedule page), and looking at 2003 first half, I have a couple of thousand/game increase. Even using relatively conservative #s of 3000/game (about the current rate) and an average ticket price of $20, we get 5 mil. Factor in concessions, playoff revenues, and I don't think 10 is difficult to hit.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 10:38 PM
How? He's in the midst of a breakout season and he'll be arbitration elligible.
Reread the post I quoted. He has Garland and Uribe factored in at IIRC 3mil increased salary from this year. Uribe's having a breakout year, but as DaDawg77 will tell you, he's slumped significantly since his hot start.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 10:41 PM
My guess is they'll resign one of the three and then destroy our "Big 3" with Blanton and Harden. Regardless that's not the point. The A's had the good sense to develop those guys so they wouldn't be aribtration elligible for three seasons and then sign all three to reasonable extensions through arbitration early. That's not what we did by dealing top prospects for an already expensive Garcia and waiting to long and then signing Buehrle to a lucrative extension. So we can already compare our team this season and the next few to the A's teams the past several seasons. I think the A's come out on top most likely.
Well, my guess is that Harden and Blanton won't be as effective as any 2 of the 3 Sox pitchers. As for the comparison, why would I compare the A's over the past few years to the Sox of the next few years? I'll compare both over the next few years since that's what will actually matter in the team's performance.

Flight #24
07-06-2004, 10:48 PM
Well I think it's pretty hard to forecast the rest of the season's attendance based on the first 34 games. The weather could be different. Assuming that an increase through 34 games will lead to a similar increase through the remaining home games seems like a bit of a stretch. Last season interest was obviously low until further through the season since we were far out of first place. Interest went up when we made the Everett and Alomar deals. What's going to drive up attendance a ton in the second half this season? Who's to say 24,000 isn't a peak of sorts?Are you seriously saying that the weather from here on out is likely to be WORSE for baseball than the April/May Chicago weather???

As for 1st & 2d half attendance, we had a 7k increase in the average attendance between pre and post ASG in 2003. That's based mainly on the team moving into contention and on the acquisitions of Everett & Alomar. I don't think it's a stretch to say that we could experience something similar this year due to 1)being in contention longer (i.e. people feel better about the team), 2)Ozzie instead of JM, 3)The acquisition and resigning of Garcia being more impactful than the acquisitions of Everett & Alomar. But even if it's not a 7k increase and only say a 5k increase, it's still a pretty solid increase from last year (net's out to about 4k/game).

The interest will go up from the FG deal. That should already be happening (and from the reaction to the trade, I beleive it has).

EDIT: by the way, where did you get your attendance #s? I'm surprised that there would be ANY that would show a decrease, especially given the putrid start the team had last year. Were you possibly looking at total attendance? because we're played a lot fewer home games this year (especially factoring in that my data is missing attendance for 2 games).

gobears1987
07-06-2004, 10:49 PM
the good news is we just slapped the ****ing Yankees and Joe Torre in the face. Take that you jag-bag, next time don't screw us in the ASG. Of course you will not manage one for many years as Ozzie will take your place as AL Champion.

pissonthecubs
07-06-2004, 11:49 PM
Great job KW!!! this is some really great news! Kenny always wanting to make a blockbuster move, and this time he did it with a great young pitcher. no david wells, not Todd Richie. a real #1 or 1.a starting pitcher who is in or has yet to reach his prime. great job!

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 01:24 AM
3 reasons. 1)Attendance is ahead of last year's pace so far

Well see my other post for my thoughts on comparing the first 34 games through two seasons and articulating a trend based on 34 games.

based on the team doing much better than 1st half last year, and the excitement generated by Ozzie, chemistry, aggressiveness of KW, etc.

Can I see your market research that says that?

2)Unlike last year's acquisitions, FG's now signed for a few years, another indication that the team seems ready to put more resources on the field.

Well that's what this entire discussion is about and we're not going to know til the offseason.

3)Unlike last year, this is now a team that contended for a year and is now doing so again (and in an improved fashion). Last year's team was coming off of a few disappointing years, and there was a lot more skepticism (partially based on JM still being manager).

We were still contending for large parts of the season in '01, '02, and '03. Furthermore we were coming off a division chapionship in '00.

The bottom line is that attendance is ahead of last year so far. So unless you think it's somehow going to decline from last year's pace in the 2d half, we'll have an increase.

Well it wouldn't have to decline. If it simply equaled last seasons attendance in the second half attendence would only be up 4 or 5 % which isn't going to go all that far.

I'll break this into a couple of parts for ease of discussion.
1) As for the likelihood of playoffs, I think they're significantly enhanced from before the deal, and I think we're the favorites to win the Central. Nothing's guaranteed, but right now we have as good a shot as any team to get to the playoffs. (And FWIW - I believe the WSI and national media consensus is in agreement with me.)

I think we've got a great shot too. I thought so before we made the deal. My point was that to take it as a given that we'll make it when we're in second place and after the difficulties we've had the past few seasons.

2) Playoffs = revenues. I think it's pretty simple to say that making the playoffs = additional revenues. There are more games, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those games will generate more revenue and profit than not playing those games. I hope this isn't a point of debate.

Well how substantial the increased revenue for a team that is eliminated in the first round may be but otherwise, no.

3) Revenues -> Payroll. I know that it was posted a little while back, but looking at the attendance and payroll data for the Reinsdorf era, there's a pretty strong correlation where payroll increases the year after attendance does (i.e. attendance is the leading indicator). It also declines after an attendance decline. This indicates that the increased revenues from attendance and playoffs will likely be put into payroll.

Ok, but "likely" does not mean "definitely". It wouldn't be unfathomable for JR to state that the budget was too high this season but he didn't want to have a firesale so instead it'll have to remain constant. Or even if an increase in revenues does equal an increase in payroll, it doesn't mean it will lead to an equal increase, meaning a 20% increase in revenue could mean a 7% increase in payroll. Additionally, a 20% increase in attendance doesn't necessarily mean a 20% increase in revenue since factors such as merchandising and television also come into play. My point here is that it's one thing to aruge that there's a decent chance payroll will increase next season but to argue that we should sign a player to a contract based on the assumption that payroll will increase is insanity unless the words have been spoken by JR himself. Unless we're absolutely certain that 1) Garcia is the best use we have for that 9 million (8 next season) or that 2) our budget will be increased by 8 million next offseason this move is not a particularly good one in my opinion. You make some solid arguments that there's a decent chance payroll will increase but the burden of proof is stronger than that if this move leaves us with gaping holes and seriously hurts our chances of contention otherwise.

4) "Out year" payrolls. As you say - Paulie's an FA after next year. I'm not 100% certain, but either after next year or the year after, the team's got a buyout on Frank. That's somewhere around 16mil freed up. Now you have to resign them or get replacements (or restructure their deals), but the Sox have some options in our minor league OFs, Fields (the 3B), and FAs, which is a viable place to get cheaper at 1B/DH. Not to mention that keeping this team together another year will likely result in another attendance boost. Chicago's a big baseball market and a consistent winning team will draw.

The problem is that with the exception of Brian Anderson's 20 AA at bats, most all of the prospects we have are in the low minors which means that there's a lot of risk involved there. Letting a player like Carlos, Maggs, or Paully go is something you can do when you have outstanding prospects in the high minors or majors that have less to prove such as Reed, Olivo, and even Morse perhaps.

5) Valentin - he took less money to stay with the Sox a few years ago (IIRC, had a better offer from Baltimore). He's said he wants to retire with the team. Is that a 3mil paycut? Maybe it' a 1mil paycut and we go cheaper on the veteran starter or lose a more experienced backup OF or middle reliever. There are options to shift around 1-2 mil.

Perhaps but they're at the expense of other positions and again this relies on a 10 million dollar increase in payroll. It accepts it as fact. If it only goes up 6 or 7 million there's zero chance of keeping him.

6) 2mil on a veteran starter last year would have gotten you Kenny Rogers, IIRC (or Loaiza). This year, Shoney's making a lot less than that. There are guys out there that can come in and provide solid innings relatively cheaply, especially to play on a winning team. Given that plus this team's track record with those types of pickups, I'm not worried about finding a serviceable starter.

It also could've gotten you some pretty poor pitchers. KW has done a decent jobs with those types of moves in the past but what will happen with Scho remains to be seen and Ritchie was a veteran starter KW was fond of. It's certainly no slam dunk.

We're worse this season? I fail to see how we're worse with Garcia because of losing Olivo who was playing half time and hitting .192 against righties. We're worse keeping Maggs and possibly losing Valentin than the other way around? I fail to see your logic. I would love to see them both resigned (and it's not impossible since I see a decent bump in revenues & payroll coming), but given a choice I'll take Maggs and send Val packing any day.

No, we're worse next season than this season. It seems highly unlikely we keep Maggs, Loaiza, and Valetin. Guys like Garland and Crede could improve but guys like Frank and Takatsu figure to decline some as they get older. If we have to get a 10 million dollar payroll increase to keep a team together that's not better than our team this season which is not considered a top flight playoff contender I'm not so excited.

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 01:27 AM
Reread the post I quoted. He has Garland and Uribe factored in at IIRC 3mil increased salary from this year. Uribe's having a breakout year, but as DaDawg77 will tell you, he's slumped significantly since his hot start.

Well I agree but all players typically get raises in arbitration because prior to that they're getting whatever the team decides to pay them which is rarely more than 500,000 (Uribe makes 350,000 this season). So, Uribe doesn't need a huge raise to get to that figure. If he gets 2 million which isn't much for a SS with any offense whatsoever, that's an increase of 1,650,000. Figure on a similar raise for Garland and you're at 3 million.

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 01:29 AM
Well, my guess is that Harden and Blanton won't be as effective as any 2 of the 3 Sox pitchers. As for the comparison, why would I compare the A's over the past few years to the Sox of the next few years? I'll compare both over the next few years since that's what will actually matter in the team's performance.

Well Harden is 22 and he has an ERA better than any starter save Garcia so I beg to differ. He was an extremely good prospect and has pitched quite well in the majors despite his age. I'd take Mulder and Harden over any two Sox starters over the next 3 seasons especially because Harden will make less than 500,000 for the next two.

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 01:35 AM
Are you seriously saying that the weather from here on out is likely to be WORSE for baseball than the April/May Chicago weather???

I'm saying that when you're looking at only 34 games over only two seasons the weather isn't necessarily constant. There could've been far worse weather last spring which could've driven down attendance in the first half compared to this season.

As for 1st & 2d half attendance, we had a 7k increase in the average attendance between pre and post ASG in 2003. That's based mainly on the team moving into contention and on the acquisitions of Everett & Alomar. I don't think it's a stretch to say that we could experience something similar this year due to 1)being in contention longer (i.e. people feel better about the team), 2)Ozzie instead of JM, 3)The acquisition and resigning of Garcia being more impactful than the acquisitions of Everett & Alomar. But even if it's not a 7k increase and only say a 5k increase, it's still a pretty solid increase from last year (net's out to about 4k/game).

The thing is that attendance was much higher to begin with in the first half this season. It could be that fans interest in the club was a 3 last season and rose to a 9 last season when we made the moves while this season it started a 6 and rose to a 9, meaning the attedance could be the same in the second half. Possibly the deals KW made last year won over more fans and they stayed through yet there aren't a lot of fans left for KW to win over with Garcia because they already joined our side last season. I'm not saying the increase doesn't indicate the potential that we'll increase attedence this season but when you're only looking at two seasons it's really hard to definitively say "we made moves last season and attendance shot up by this percentage in the second half so therefore this season after we made a move the attendance will also shoot up by a similar percentage". When you're looking at trends in attendance throughout the course of a season, looking at only one season is a rather small sample size.

EDIT: by the way, where did you get your attendance #s? I'm surprised that there would be ANY that would show a decrease, especially given the putrid start the team had last year. Were you possibly looking at total attendance? because we're played a lot fewer home games this year (especially factoring in that my data is missing attendance for 2 games).

Our average attendance this season is lower than last season, those are the figures I was looking at. I didn't realize you could track last season's attendance up to a certain point in the season.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 09:51 AM
FWIW - I posted this list earlier of pitcher I'd put int he FG ballpark (i.e. no Pedro, RandyJ, Prior, etc who are either truly dominant, or cheap because they haven't hit FA yet).

Mussina (16m), K. Brown (16mil), Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Sele (9), Moyer (7), CHPark (14), Hampton (13), Paul Byrd (7), Glavine (10), Leiter (10), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Matt Morris (12.5), Nomo (9), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I'd put FG squarely in the upper half of that group. Behind Schmidt, Vazquez but on par with Mussina, Brown, Millwood and ahead of the rest. But regardless of the individual ranking, I think it's safe to say that he belongs in that group and is paid a fair wage for that.
LOL, I love the way you put that list together. Lets throw in crappy pitchers like Park, Byrd, Nomo and Hampton. I am shocked you didn't include Darren Dreifor in the list.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 09:57 AM
You left out 1977. While many revere 1977 as a special year (and for me it was a collegiate summer when I got to see a lot of fun baseball into August), it was a team that finished 13 games out of first after leading the division by 7.5 games at the end of July. Before the ball and players got juiced and the parks got smaller, the team held the record for the fewest shutout games won or lost. They were shut out twice in September, obviously tired from scoring all those runs despite their baserunning mistakes.

I am sick of hearing about how our offense is going to make up for our lack of pitching, much like the previous generation of Sox fans must have been tired about hearing how our pitching would make up for our lack of hitting. The 1967 White Sox nearly took corpseball to the World Series.

I would love to see the Sox lead the league in scoring. With Garcia in the rotation, I hope they don't have to.
I sick and tired of everyone whining that this team isn't the GO-GO White Sox, a team that won AL once while being spanked constiantly from a team that could score runs called the New York Yankees. You may want a team built around Fox and Aparicio but I rather have one with Mantle and Marris since a team would win more games with M&M.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 10:03 AM
Are you sure Lip? I thought they offered Milwood arbitration and he accepted? I may be wrong on that. In any case - Garcia at 9, or Milwood at 11. I surely don't think we overpaid.
While you probally won't read this, it does show your ignorance of the arbitration process. The Phillies offered arbitration to get draft picks if a team signed Millwood. If Millwood was receiving serious offers from other teams, he wouldn't have accepted arbitration as it was he was a UFA last year.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 10:04 AM
LOL, I love the way you put that list together. Lets throw in crappy pitchers like Park, Byrd, Nomo and Hampton. I am shocked you didn't include Darren Dreifor in the list.
The list includes ALL the starting pitchers making similar money from a random sampling of rosters. Is it the market's fault that some of those are crappy? I don't see you complaining about my including Mussina, Brown, Vazquez, Wood. Or would you rather see a list with just the good pitchers making similar money? No selection bias there, right? I can see it now "Hey - Freddy's overpayed because he's not better than these 8 guys who I handpicked with similar salaries!".

Some are better, some are worse of the pitchers within the same salary range. That says it's a pretty fair deal.

Sheesh - go make your own list if you don't like it.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 10:06 AM
While you probally won't read this, it does show your ignorance of the arbitration process. The Phillies offered arbitration to get draft picks if a team signed Millwood. If Millwood was receiving serious offers from other teams, he wouldn't have accepted arbitration as it was he was a UFA last year.
Or he may not have thought he'd receive anything significantly greater than his current salary and decided the guaranteed 11 was worth more than the riskier shot at more (with the possibility of less). IIRC, it wasn't like he was expecting to take a big paycut if he went UFA.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 10:14 AM
The list includes ALL the starting pitchers making similar money from a random sampling of rosters. Is it the market's fault that some of those are crappy? I don't see you complaining about my including Mussina, Brown, Vazquez, Wood. Or would you rather see a list with just the good pitchers making similar money? No selection bias there, right? I can see it now "Hey - Freddy's overpayed because he's not better than these 8 guys who I handpicked with similar salaries!".

Some are better, some are worse of the pitchers within the same salary range. That says it's a pretty fair deal.

Sheesh - go make your own list if you don't like it.Like was said before you list main flaw it is comparing two different Markets. Vazquez and Wood would be very comparable because of service time and they were signed in this market. If you want to make a list it would have to be UFA signings and reups, I would ignore arbitrations just because they don't reflect fair market value as it is skewed by contracts like Brown's and Mussina's which were signed before the market shift with the latest CBA.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 10:17 AM
Or he may not have thought he'd receive anything significantly greater than his current salary and decided the guaranteed 11 was worth more than the riskier shot at more (with the possibility of less). IIRC, it wasn't like he was expecting to take a big paycut if he went UFA.
The thing is, he doesn't have to accept arbitration without looking at the market. So his agent looked at the market realized that arbitration would net him more money and decided to go that route. So I am not saying the Sox should have grabbed him, but he was on the market even though he accepted arbitration.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 10:23 AM
I'm consolidating responses to a number of posts here.

1) Average attendance is up from this point last year. Given the traditional Chicago April/May weather, it's a poor comparison to look at spring attendance and compare to a full year's. (FYI - ESPN has game logs that show attendance and goes back to 2002. You can easily cut&paste the data into Excel to do some quick totals & averages.) Could it taper off - sure. But that seems unlikely. It seems more likely that you would see at least a slight increase over last year's 2d half attendance given a team that's been much more consistent in contending, that seems to ahve much better chemsitry, that's arguably BETTER than last year, and that is making it look like they're willing to raise payroll and attempt to sign guys to long term deals. None of this was the case last year. FWIW - we've already gotten about a 5% increase over last year's final attendance (i.e. at this point we have about 100k more fans than at this point last year, which equates to 5% of the total 1.9mil 2003 attendance).

2) Revenues: History and KW comments all make it seem like increased revenues will go towards the payroll. KW's been quoted as saying that he wants to up the payroll from mid-market to upper market, and that they way to do that is to win games, make the playoffs, & increase attendance. Couple that with the historical correlation between revenues & payroll and there's a significantly greater chance that we'll see an increased payroll than that we'll see a flat or decreasing payroll. Also, I highly doubt that KW makes the payroll comment without knowing what JR's philosophy & plan are.

3) "Out year" players: 2 years from now (when Paulie's deal is up), we'll have a lot of options. A lot of things can change in that timeframe (2 years ago, Jeremy Reed wasn't the Messiah that he appears to be today), and options abound, especially for 1B/DHs. As for pitching - there are always a number of veteran pitchers that can be found relatively cheaply. A few off the top my of head include Rogers, Suppan, Carpenter, Rusch. All making less than 2mil (in fact, IIRC less than 1mil). All are solid #4/5 type of guys.

4) A 10mil increase, keeping Maggs and losing Jose while replacing Loaiza with a similar pitcher (see the list in #4, add in Schoenweis as a possibility) keeps the team better than this year. You have Garcia factored in. You don't have Koch. You have better options for 5th starter. And unless you're figuring on another couple of months without a key player, you have an expectation of a full year of Maggs. FYI - this already factors in the 3mil combined arb increases for Uribe/Garland.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 10:29 AM
Like was said before you list main flaw it is comparing two different Markets. Vazquez and Wood would be very comparable because of service time and they were signed in this market. If you want to make a list it would have to be UFA signings and reups, I would ignore arbitrations just because they don't reflect fair market value as it is skewed by contracts like Brown's and Mussina's which were signed before the market shift with the latest CBA.That's a valid point. Without going and doing more research, here's the ones from the lsit that IIRC fall into that category:

Contreras (8.5mil), Vazquez (9mil), Colon (11), Paul Byrd (7), Millwood (11), Wood (8), Schmidt (8), Radke (11)

I still think Freddy's in the middle of that group. Worse than Schmidt/Vazquez, but better than Contreras, Byrd, Millwood.

Edit: Colon's probably the best comp, and FG's better at a lower price tag.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 10:32 AM
The thing is, he doesn't have to accept arbitration without looking at the market. So his agent looked at the market realized that arbitration would net him more money and decided to go that route. So I am not saying the Sox should have grabbed him, but he was on the market even though he accepted arbitration.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that in his look at the market (which didn't include actually talking to teams about offers, since that would be tampering) - he didn't necessarily conclude that he'd be taking a significant paycut. So it's incorrect to say that he stayed because his current contract was higher than his actual market value. Even if he did take a cut, he'd still be in the FG ballpark since Freddy's $9mil is a reasonable drop from Millwood's 11.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 10:40 AM
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that in his look at the market (which didn't include actually talking to teams about offers, since that would be tampering) - he didn't necessarily conclude that he'd be taking a significant paycut. So it's incorrect to say that he stayed because his current contract was higher than his actual market value. Even if he did take a cut, he'd still be in the FG ballpark since Freddy's $9mil is a reasonable drop from Millwood's 11.
Actually I believe a player who is UFA, could talk to other teams about offers. If the player doesn't like what they are being offered they can accept arbitration if a team offers it to them.

jabrch
07-07-2004, 11:32 AM
Does it hurt Flight? It must. You must like it that way too. I am seeing about 2/3 of the arguement - and it looks like it hurts. It's a black and white world for some people - there are no shades of grey.

Lip Man 1
07-07-2004, 01:35 PM
Dadawg:

Check the records, ERA's and strikeout totals of those Yankee pitchers. I saw them, those guys could pitch.

And as someone who has done a number of historical pieces on the Sox I can tell you the Sox were the ONLY team to consistently give the Yankees fits during the 1950's through the 1964 season, when the New York dynasty ended.

Not Detroit, not Boston, not Cleveland but those poor punchless White Sox.

The Sox have tried bashing the ball since the start of the 2000 season without success. 'It's time,' to try something else.

But the Sox won't because frankly great pitching costs big money and the Sox claim they don't have it.

There is no way of knowing for sure without a 'magic time machine,' but I have no doubt, that if you could put together the Sox staff from 1959 or 1964 or 1967 and let them play today that they'd kill these 'all or nothing' long ball thinking teams.

My God... guys like Pierce, Wynn, Donovan, Peters, Horlen, John, Pizarro, Herbert, Buzhardt, Wilhelm, Locker, Mossi, McMahon and Fisher would eat these steroid induced baseball dumb sluggers alive. Those guys knew how to pitch, spent years in the minor leagues learning their trades (unlike today) and could exploit any weakness a hitter had in a heartbeat.

Lip

jabrch
07-07-2004, 01:37 PM
But the Sox won't because frankly great pitching costs big money and the Sox claim they don't have it.
Lip

geez Lip - JR spends 27mm on a SP and you can't even give him a 2 day break from this?

Lip Man 1
07-07-2004, 01:47 PM
Jabrch:

One pitcher does not a great staff make does it?

My comment was directed towards Dadawg and the philosophy of hitting versus pitching.

In today's game great hitters are a lot easier to find then great pitchers, therefore the cost of pitching is sky high. That's a fact, it has nothing to do with Sox ownership, it is what the market is dictating.

What does have to do with Sox ownership is that it has already been stated by the current general manager that the Sox can not afford to take the Yankees philosophy of 'buying' a staff of aces.

"Unless you're willing to spend forty million dollars just on a pitching staff, you better have some of your kids come through." -- Ken Williams to the Chicago media answering a question about the Sox relying on young pitching prospects.

Lip

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 01:51 PM
Jabrch:

One pitcher does not a great staff make does it?

My comment was directed towards Dadawg and the philosophy of hitting versus pitching.

In today's game great hitters are a lot easier to find then great pitchers, therefore the cost of pitching is sky high. That's a fact, it has nothing to do with Sox ownership, it is what the market is dictating.

What does have to do with Sox ownership is that it has already been stated by the current general manager that the Sox can not afford to take the Yankees philosophy of 'buying' a staff of aces.

"Unless you're willing to spend forty million dollars just on a pitching staff, you better have some of your kids come through." -- Ken Williams to the Chicago media answering a question about the Sox relying on young pitching prospects.

Lip
Lip:

I think the point is that no one outside of the Yanks has the ability to behave in a Yankee-like manner. They're just in a different situation. So expecting the Sox to behave like them is not a question of "philosophy", it's a question of 2 different realities.

jabrch
07-07-2004, 01:57 PM
What we need to do is balance out the two approaches. I think we are doing a decent job right now - don't you?

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garcia
Garland
Scho/Rauch/Diaz

That's a decent rotation, isn't it? I mean - I agree with your point. You need pitching to win. You have made it over and over again - and almost everyone agrees. But come on... How many teams in the AL have better rotations than us? How many in the NL? KW and JR have done a decent job. Bash them for what they do wrong - but on the eve of the Garcia signing, I am surprised you aren't happy to address the strength of our pitching staff, rather than the weaknesses of the past pitching staffs.

Jabrch:

One pitcher does not a great staff make does it?

My comment was directed towards Dadawg and the philosophy of hitting versus pitching.

In today's game great hitters are a lot easier to find then great pitchers, therefore the cost of pitching is sky high. That's a fact, it has nothing to do with Sox ownership, it is what the market is dictating.

What does have to do with Sox ownership is that it has already been stated by the current general manager that the Sox can not afford to take the Yankees philosophy of 'buying' a staff of aces.

"Unless you're willing to spend forty million dollars just on a pitching staff, you better have some of your kids come through." -- Ken Williams to the Chicago media answering a question about the Sox relying on young pitching prospects.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
07-07-2004, 02:02 PM
Signing Garcia to this extension makes the price of acquiring him (Olivo, Reed and Morse) worth it, IMHO.

Now it's time to work on Loaiza and sign Buehrle and Garland to a longer-term deals.

I agree with Lip. Put more emphasis on pitching. Offensive firepower is inexpensive and abundant. Good pitching is rare and expensive. Having the best rotation in the AL Central guarantees the Sox contend for the foreseeable future.

If the Sox have decent, average players up the middle who won't lose games with their gloves (Valentin and Crede fit the bill, while Harris, Uribe and Rowand are acceptable as role-players), they can fill in power threats at 1B, DH, RF and LF. In fact, they have good power threats at those positions right now with Lee, Maggs, Frank and Paulie. Too many right-handed, slow-footed hitters. If Maggs leaves (which I hope he doesn't), it opens payroll to sign a left-handed hitter, or maybe LTP is the answer. If Maggs stays, either Paulie or Lee should be traded for a left-handed CF this offseason. Again, perhaps LTP is the answer in right with Maggs moving to left.

But as long as the starting rotation is strong, the Sox will be in good shape. :bandance:

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 03:18 PM
1) Average attendance is up from this point last year. Given the traditional Chicago April/May weather, it's a poor comparison to look at spring attendance and compare to a full year's. (FYI - ESPN has game logs that show attendance and goes back to 2002. You can easily cut&paste the data into Excel to do some quick totals & averages.) Could it taper off - sure. But that seems unlikely. It seems more likely that you would see at least a slight increase over last year's 2d half attendance given a team that's been much more consistent in contending

I agree it's a reasonable expectation for attendance to increase in the second half when the weather improves especially if we're contending. The question is how much. Last season it was an enourmous increase which I feel could be the result of particularly low team interest in the first half, particularly bad weather in the spring, or a particularly high increase in support after the Alomar/Everett deals which is unlikely to be duplicated. So, yes an increase in attendance from this point in the season is likely and yes we'll probably draw more than last season. Your argument however relies on the certainty that we'll draw 20% more and that this will lead to a 20% payroll increase and as I've said even if that is true, it is not a near certainty and therefore it shouldn't figure too heavily into this signing unless Garcia is the best possible use of our money at 7 mil which I quibble with.

2) Revenues: History and KW comments all make it seem like increased revenues will go towards the payroll. KW's been quoted as saying that he wants to up the payroll from mid-market to upper market, and that they way to do that is to win games, make the playoffs, & increase attendance. Couple that with the historical correlation between revenues & payroll and there's a significantly greater chance that we'll see an increased payroll than that we'll see a flat or decreasing payroll. Also, I highly doubt that KW makes the payroll comment without knowing what JR's philosophy & plan are.

Again I agree payroll with most likely increase with a substantial increase in attendance but that doesn't secure a 20% increase in payroll at this point in time. Also, what does that mean if we get off to a slow start next season and fall out of contention? Most likely a fire sale.

3) "Out year" players: 2 years from now (when Paulie's deal is up), we'll have a lot of options. A lot of things can change in that timeframe (2 years ago, Jeremy Reed wasn't the Messiah that he appears to be today), and options abound, especially for 1B/DHs.

I don't understand this argument at all. Just because we didn't know how good Reed was going to be when we drafted him it's a given that other players will have a similar development? As I've said before we haven't had a better position player prospect since Frank Thomas. No one has yet to name one for me in that 14 year span, so it looks like landing a prospect of Reeds calliber is rare. Maybe you're right and we'll get another one in 7 or 8 seasons if we're lucky. The odds of landing two back to back seem slim.

As for pitching - there are always a number of veteran pitchers that can be found relatively cheaply. A few off the top my of head include Rogers, Suppan, Carpenter, Rusch. All making less than 2mil (in fact, IIRC less than 1mil). All are solid #4/5 type of guys.

And this is true but there are always a number that are huge busts. You're not trying to suggest those are the only four pitchers signed in that price range or that most pitchers in that price range share similar success are you?

4) A 10mil increase, keeping Maggs and losing Jose while replacing Loaiza with a similar pitcher (see the list in #4, add in Schoenweis as a possibility) keeps the team better than this year. You have Garcia factored in. You don't have Koch. You have better options for 5th starter. And unless you're figuring on another couple of months without a key player, you have an expectation of a full year of Maggs. FYI - this already factors in the 3mil combined arb increases for Uribe/Garland.

Okay, I know I've said it quite a few times at this point but just to repeat it one more time, this is more or less the best case scenario. You're treating a 10 million dollar increase as a virtual certainty. If for whatever reason that doesn't occur (and I've listed more than a few) then we're not keeping Maggs so this above plan is in pretty poor shape.

As for this proposal, which goes into effect under the best case scenario, we're a worse team that we are this season. Jose has been tremendous this season with a 24.8 VORP, indicating he gives us five more wins than a replacement player over the course of a full season at this rate. Considering that his likely replacement would be Uribe sliding over to SS with the remainder of the playing time being eaten up by Rowand, Harris, and Borchard we're most likely going to lose a couple games in the standings there. It's not a small loss. While Loaiza hasn't been great this season he's been solid and he's thrown a lot of innings. Yeah we could replace him with a guy that ends up being a great signing but we could also end up with a guy that's a huge bust leaving us with a hole in the rotation comperable to the one we had in the fifth spot this season placing a lot of stress on the pen.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 03:42 PM
Dadawg:

Check the records, ERA's and strikeout totals of those Yankee pitchers. I saw them, those guys could pitch.

And as someone who has done a number of historical pieces on the Sox I can tell you the Sox were the ONLY team to consistently give the Yankees fits during the 1950's through the 1964 season, when the New York dynasty ended.

Not Detroit, not Boston, not Cleveland but those poor punchless White Sox.

The Sox have tried bashing the ball since the start of the 2000 season without success. 'It's time,' to try something else.

But the Sox won't because frankly great pitching costs big money and the Sox claim they don't have it.

There is no way of knowing for sure without a 'magic time machine,' but I have no doubt, that if you could put together the Sox staff from 1959 or 1964 or 1967 and let them play today that they'd kill these 'all or nothing' long ball thinking teams.

My God... guys like Pierce, Wynn, Donovan, Peters, Horlen, John, Pizarro, Herbert, Buzhardt, Wilhelm, Locker, Mossi, McMahon and Fisher would eat these steroid induced baseball dumb sluggers alive. Those guys knew how to pitch, spent years in the minor leagues learning their trades (unlike today) and could exploit any weakness a hitter had in a heartbeat.

Lip
The Yankees had Ford and a bunch of average to above average pitchers. They were a good staff so did the Sox but what drove those teams to win was the offense. The Sox did battle them and lost all but once. Why, cause the Yankees crossed the plate more then the Sox on a consistent basis. Anyone who wants to end this drought of championships, advocating going back to the Go-Go White Sox way things is severely mistaken. This team only needs an average pitching staff to win, see the 2002 Angles.

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 04:03 PM
What we need to do is balance out the two approaches. I think we are doing a decent job right now - don't you?

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garcia
Garland
Scho/Rauch/Diaz
...
How many teams in the AL have better rotations than us? How many in the NL? ...
Teams with better pitching or equal, assuming full health.

AL:
A's
Yankees
Boston
Twins (Close)
Angles (Close)
Not yet but look out next year, Clevand.

NL:
Braves (Close)
Cubs
Marlins
Houston
Dodgers (Close with Nomo gone and Jackson in)
If anyone could support Sheets, Brewers would be up here but not yet
Mets, Lieter and Glavine are one nice one two punch
San Diego (Close)

So far this year support netural win loss record for the Sox is 26.7- 30.6, 20th in the Majors. If you add in Freddy's production in Seatlle with Sox and take out the fifth starter for the entire year that puts the Sox in the top six teams.
The Support-Neutral statistics evaluate starting pitchers by measuring the probability that each outing will lead to the starter getting a win (SNW), the starter getting a loss (SNL), and the starter's team winning (SNVA), given league average support from the offense and the bullpen. More information can be found in a short summary (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snwl/snwl.html) of the stats, or in a long detailed article (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snwl/snwlart/).

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 04:13 PM
Your argument however relies on the certainty that we'll draw 20% more and that this will lead to a 20% payroll increase and as I've said even if that is true, it is not a near certainty and therefore it shouldn't figure too heavily into this signing unless Garcia is the best possible use of our money at 7 mil which I quibble with.
Not really, I argue that the combination of increasd attendance and a playoff bid will provide about 10mil in payroll. As for Garcia, I think there's a significantly lower probability of that happening without him, increasing the value of that deal.

Again I agree payroll with most likely increase with a substantial increase in attendance but that doesn't secure a 20% increase in payroll at this point in time. Also, what does that mean if we get off to a slow start next season and fall out of contention? Most likely a fire sale.
Which would be true regardless given history. And IMO, a team with Garcia & Maggs added to the rest of the core we have is pretty unlikely to go into the kind of funk you describe. (In fact, it's a lot more likely had we been going into the season with a rookie in Reed and Olivo still trying to develop. And no, that's not a reason to deal them, but the deal does make the team more likely to be successful next year.)



I don't understand this argument at all. Just because we didn't know how good Reed was going to be when we drafted him it's a given that other players will have a similar development? As I've said before we haven't had a better position player prospect since Frank Thomas. No one has yet to name one for me in that 14 year span, so it looks like landing a prospect of Reeds calliber is rare. Maybe you're right and we'll get another one in 7 or 8 seasons if we're lucky. The odds of landing two back to back seem slim. The point was not Reed specifically, but that 2 years out, the guys we'll be trying to replace are generally replaceable at a decent price via FA. The Reed comment was more sarcasm at your continued implication that he was virtually guaranteed to be a superstar major leaguer.



And this is true but there are always a number that are huge busts. You're not trying to suggest those are the only four pitchers signed in that price range or that most pitchers in that price range share similar success are you?It's a low risk thing to do, and given the Sox history at it, a fairly high probability of success. Given that Loaiza's not exactly the dominant pitcher he was last year, I think we can find someone to pitch similarly.



Okay, I know I've said it quite a few times at this point but just to repeat it one more time, this is more or less the best case scenario. You're treating a 10 million dollar increase as a virtual certainty. If for whatever reason that doesn't occur (and I've listed more than a few) then we're not keeping Maggs so this above plan is in pretty poor shape.

As for this proposal, which goes into effect under the best case scenario, we're a worse team that we are this season. Jose has been tremendous this season with a 24.8 VORP, indicating he gives us five more wins than a replacement player over the course of a full season at this rate. Considering that his likely replacement would be Uribe sliding over to SS with the remainder of the playing time being eaten up by Rowand, Harris, and Borchard we're most likely going to lose a couple games in the standings there. It's not a small loss. While Loaiza hasn't been great this season he's been solid and he's thrown a lot of innings. Yeah we could replace him with a guy that ends up being a great signing but we could also end up with a guy that's a huge bust leaving us with a hole in the rotation comperable to the one we had in the fifth spot this season placing a lot of stress on the pen.
Your reasons why we won't have revenues available don't make a lot of sense. You admit that it's likely we'll continue to have increased attendance over last year. An extra 250k fans bring in at least 5mil in profit (margina cost of additional fans at games is virtually 0). A couple of playoff games, likely brings in another 2mil. And that doesn't even factor in revenues from concessions, parking, and any playoff revenues form merchandising, broadcasting, etc. We're already over 100k above last year's attendance at this point. So I think it's actually relatively conservative to say we can add 7-10mil to the bottom line. History and current comments from KW suggest that that will flow to payroll. Is it guaranteed? No. But it's a pretty good bet.

As for next year, Olivo = Uribe offensively given his struggles against RH. So the only real dropoff is Valentin to Borchard. That's a loss, but we have a corresponding gain by adding Garcia to the rotation. We also have Maggs for a full year under this scenario, along with the full year of Garcia. So the only real question mark is with the 4th starter, and given the Sox history of finding veterans, their general availability, and the fact that we don't need one to come in and replace the Loaiza of 2003 but rather the ELo of 2004, I think we've got a better than average chance of having a team of similar strength.

Flight #24
07-07-2004, 04:19 PM
Teams with better pitching or equal, assuming full health.

...

So far this year support netural win loss record for the Sox is 26.7- 30.6, 20th in the Majors. If you add in Freddy's production in Seatlle with Sox and take out the fifth starter for the entire year that puts the Sox in the top six teams.
Now way Yanks have better pitching. Brown can't stay healthy, so that invalidates part of your argument. Mussina's been somewhat poor with a .302BAA, 5.2ERA, and 1.43WHIP. It's early, but he's not exactly coming out of it with his poorest #s being the recent ones. Contreras is the definition of inconsistent, and Lieber's not a lot better. Vazquez is a stud, but IMO it's a stretch to say that the Yanks have a better rotation, at best it's as good as the Sox. BoSox similarly have a better 1-2, but 3-5 are nowhere near as good.

IMO, the best you can hope for is to have as good a shot as the other top teams in the league. Then it comes down to whichever team is hot. The Sox have positioned themselves in that manner now where they can beat the Yanks or BoSox in a playoff series. That's all you can ask for. Their pitchign is in the top 3-4 in the league, and their offense is near the top as well (despite the recent slump).

jeremyb1
07-07-2004, 07:16 PM
Not really, I argue that the combination of increasd attendance and a playoff bid will provide about 10mil in payroll. As for Garcia, I think there's a significantly lower probability of that happening without him, increasing the value of that deal.

We have Garcia for the rest of the season no matter what, so for that to be true signing Garcia to an extension has to create a significant increase in attendance for the remainder of the season. That seems unrealistic to me. You really think 2,000 more fans are going to come out to the park every night just because we signed Garcia to an extension?

Which would be true regardless given history. And IMO, a team with Garcia & Maggs added to the rest of the core we have is pretty unlikely to go into the kind of funk you describe. (In fact, it's a lot more likely had we been going into the season with a rookie in Reed and Olivo still trying to develop. And no, that's not a reason to deal them, but the deal does make the team more likely to be successful next year.)

The deal only makes us more likely to be successful next season if Garcia's contributions surpass Olivo's plus Reed's plus wherever the 8 million going to Garcia next season would be spent. Assuming Garcia's extension prevents us from resigning Valentin, I'm willing to bet the loss of Valentin and Olivo alone will outweigh Garcia's signing. The problem is we have a team that is becoming increasingly expensive and we traded two young valuable pieces for a good but very expensive piece. Even under your rather optimistic projections we can't keep the entire team together. Everyone will probably blame JR in the offseason again for being cheap but signing Garcia for so much money will have played a big role just how signing Konerko to 8 million and Koch to 6 million played a huge role in losing Everett, Gordon, Sullivan and (thankfully) Alomar this offseason.

The point was not Reed specifically, but that 2 years out, the guys we'll be trying to replace are generally replaceable at a decent price via FA. The Reed comment was more sarcasm at your continued implication that he was virtually guaranteed to be a superstar major leaguer.

Jesus, I never even said Reed would be an All-Star, just that I feel it's quite likely he'll be a well above average contributor and most imporantly he'll do so for very little money. I suppose there are some veteran bargains out there in free agency, your Carl Everetts and the like, but I'm not sure they're a dime a dozen and more importantly I'm not fully convinced KW can make those moves.

It's a low risk thing to do, and given the Sox history at it, a fairly high probability of success. Given that Loaiza's not exactly the dominant pitcher he was last year, I think we can find someone to pitch similarly.

I think guys like Loaiza tend to be undervalued because they're only average or a bit above average but replacement player level is much further down the scale. Again with our fifth starter situation this season I wouldn't say it's risk free to sign a veteran for cheap. If he doesn't pan out you could be left with a gaping hole in your rotation. Furthermore, if everyone could sign a good starter for 2 million there wouldn't be guys with 5 ERAs in baseball. The Twins wouldn't be relying on Guerrier and Greisinger, the Blue Jays wouldn't be relying on Josh Towers, the Orioles wouldn't have mostly rookies in their rotation. It's just not that simple. Regardless, you're misunderstanding me if you think that we'll have a huge hole that needs to be filled if Loaiza leaves. It's more that you're going to have to do awfully well to replace his production for 2 million. Most guys you sign won't. Furthermore, it's not just the one rotation spot, it's that combined with SS and the pen IF we up payroll 10 million. I can't envision any sceario in which we improve ourselves with the ten million increase and I can't envision any sceario where it increases more than 10.

Your reasons why we won't have revenues available don't make a lot of sense. You admit that it's likely we'll continue to have increased attendance over last year. An extra 250k fans bring in at least 5mil in profit (margina cost of additional fans at games is virtually 0). A couple of playoff games, likely brings in another 2mil. And that doesn't even factor in revenues from concessions, parking, and any playoff revenues form merchandising, broadcasting, etc. We're already over 100k above last year's attendance at this point. So I think it's actually relatively conservative to say we can add 7-10mil to the bottom line. History and current comments from KW suggest that that will flow to payroll. Is it guaranteed? No. But it's a pretty good bet.

I admit it's likely we'll have increased attendance. You're projecting as virtual certainty an extra 3,000 fans a game for the remaining 41 home games. That's a pretty huge increase. I don't think projecting an increase that large is anywhere near conservative. Conservative would be 1,000 fans a game more than over this stretch last season. You have to remember we made two large deals and we were very close to the Twins from this point on, virtually the same situation we find ourselves in this season. There's no reason to be so sure that the increase in attendance from the first half of last season compared to this season will duplicate itself over the second half. Even if we get 7 million that may not be enough to keep Maggs. If we do get 10 we lose Jose and Loaiza.

As for next year, Olivo = Uribe offensively given his struggles against RH.

I don't understand that comment. You're saying you don't think Olivo's very good and we'll find an equally good replacement for less than 500,000?

So the only real dropoff is Valentin to Borchard. That's a loss, but we have a corresponding gain by adding Garcia to the rotation. We also have Maggs for a full year under this scenario, along with the full year of Garcia. So the only real question mark is with the 4th starter, and given the Sox history of finding veterans, their general availability, and the fact that we don't need one to come in and replace the Loaiza of 2003 but rather the ELo of 2004, I think we've got a better than average chance of having a team of similar strength.

Well you could argue that swapping Garcia for Loaiza improves the team more than swapping Valentin for Borchard. Personally I disagree. We're not just adding Borchard. We're adding more at bats for Harris particularly against lefties who he doesn't hit. Also that assumes that if we didn't sign Garcia we coudln't have found a better value pitching wise for that money. Regardless even if you're, while we may have improved our team for next season we're worse than this season which makes securing a playoff spot questionable with the rapidly improving Tribe and the Twins and we've lost some of our best young building blocks.

Lip Man 1
07-07-2004, 11:19 PM
Dadawg:

You need to check the names on those Yankee rosters a little closer and look at their numbers. They had far more then Ford and a bunch of 'average' guys. 'Above average' is more like it.

Lip

Tragg
07-08-2004, 12:17 AM
Seriously if KW is paying Garcia 9 Mill then the whole team should go on strike and KW will officially become the league's worst GM

How much will he pay MB? 14 Mill? (MB is a much better pitcher)

How much will he now offer MAggs? 20 mill?

Flight #24
07-08-2004, 10:51 AM
We have Garcia for the rest of the season no matter what, so for that to be true signing Garcia to an extension has to create a significant increase in attendance for the remainder of the season. That seems unrealistic to me. You really think 2,000 more fans are going to come out to the park every night just because we signed Garcia to an extension?If I said the resigning would generate 2k fans, I misspoke. What I was trying to say was that the trade should generate some attendance "pop", which hasn't really had a chance to happen yet. The resigning should enhance that.


The deal only makes us more likely to be successful next season if Garcia's contributions surpass Olivo's plus Reed's plus wherever the 8 million going to Garcia next season would be spent. Assuming Garcia's extension prevents us from resigning Valentin, I'm willing to bet the loss of Valentin and Olivo alone will outweigh Garcia's signing. The problem is we have a team that is becoming increasingly expensive and we traded two young valuable pieces for a good but very expensive piece. Even under your rather optimistic projections we can't keep the entire team together. Everyone will probably blame JR in the offseason again for being cheap but signing Garcia for so much money will have played a big role just how signing Konerko to 8 million and Koch to 6 million played a huge role in losing Everett, Gordon, Sullivan and (thankfully) Alomar this offseason.I don't think there will be a pitcher of Garcia's caliber that you'll get at significantly less than his 9mil. And FWIW, Everett was never resigning because the Sox couldn't offer him arbitration (or his salary would be close to the 9mil he got last year), and without that they cound't resign him until May. As for Val - if Maggs leaves, I think it's highly likely that Val stays. If Maggs stays, then Val leaves, but the addition of Garcia outweighs the downgrade from Val/Olivo to Uribe/Santiago-like veteran C


Furthermore, if everyone could sign a good starter for 2 million there wouldn't be guys with 5 ERAs in baseball. The Twins wouldn't be relying on Guerrier and Greisinger, the Blue Jays wouldn't be relying on Josh Towers, the Orioles wouldn't have mostly rookies in their rotation. It's just not that simple.
...
Furthermore, it's not just the one rotation spot, it's that combined with SS and the pen IF we up payroll 10 million. I can't envision any sceario in which we improve ourselves with the ten million increase and I can't envision any sceario where it increases more than 10. The Sox have a very good history at finding solid veteran starters. That seems to be a strength of their scouting and coaching, so I think the chances that we can do that are pretty solid and better than most teams. We're not losing anyone of value from the 'pen (and Koch can be argued as a net gain!), so I dont' really understand that comment.



I admit it's likely we'll have increased attendance. You're projecting as virtual certainty an extra 3,000 fans a game for the remaining 41 home games. That's a pretty huge increase. I don't think projecting an increase that large is anywhere near conservative. Conservative would be 1,000 fans a game more than over this stretch last season. You have to remember we made two large deals and we were very close to the Twins from this point on, virtually the same situation we find ourselves in this season. There's no reason to be so sure that the increase in attendance from the first half of last season compared to this season will duplicate itself over the second half. Even if we get 7 million that may not be enough to keep Maggs. If we do get 10 we lose Jose and Loaiza.First off, I think this deal is alot bigger than the 2 last year. I also think that the fact that we not only took on salary (and are supposedly willing to do so again), but also resigned him are strong signs to fans that will provide some additional boost. We are also now something of a national contender, with national media identifying us as a WS contender. Finally, I think that given this team's history, continuing to contend and make strong moves year after year will continnue to provide additional attendance boosts. It's not like we're anywhere close to saturating our market. We're already over a 5% increase (100k fans more than at this point last year, compared to 1.9mil total attendance). Add a couple of mil from playoff games. Now factor in KW's public comments on increasing payroll and that winning is the way to do that (by getting more attendance/revenues), and it's a strong case that any additional revenues will go to the payroll and that a 10mil increase is not at all aggressive.


I don't understand that comment. You're saying you don't think Olivo's very good and we'll find an equally good replacement for less than 500,000?I mean that offensively, Uribe will likely meet or exceed Olivo's performance. So having him in the lineup fulltime offsets the loss of Olivo.



Well you could argue that swapping Garcia for Loaiza improves the team more than swapping Valentin for Borchard. Personally I disagree. We're not just adding Borchard. We're adding more at bats for Harris particularly against lefties who he doesn't hit. Also that assumes that if we didn't sign Garcia we coudln't have found a better value pitching wise for that money. Regardless even if you're, while we may have improved our team for next season we're worse than this season which makes securing a playoff spot questionable with the rapidly improving Tribe and the Twins and we've lost some of our best young building blocks. My argument is that Garcia+veteran starter+Borchard>Loaiza+Shoney+Valentin. I doubt highly that we'd have been able to get a similar caliber pitcher to Garcia for significantly less. Colon's contract being a major example of how pitchign tends to get bid up, especially for relatively young (<30) established starters.

As for the Twins - they're losing players after this year, so unless you expect their replacements from the minors to step in, not have any rookie struggles, and be as good as the lost players right away, we'll be better. Indians - have young talent, but are still unproven and I'd say are at least another year away from being better than the Sox if we keep Maggs.

Dadawg_77
07-08-2004, 10:54 AM
Seriously if KW is paying Garcia 9 Mill then the whole team should go on strike and KW will officially become the league's worst GM

How much will he pay MB? 14 Mill? (MB is a much better pitcher)

How much will he now offer MAggs? 20 mill?
MB doesn't have six years of service time. You can not forgot to look at service time when figuring out how much some one should get paid.

jeremyb1
07-08-2004, 06:01 PM
I don't think there will be a pitcher of Garcia's caliber that you'll get at significantly less than his 9mil. And FWIW, Everett was never resigning because the Sox couldn't offer him arbitration (or his salary would be close to the 9mil he got last year), and without that they cound't resign him until May. As for Val - if Maggs leaves, I think it's highly likely that Val stays. If Maggs stays, then Val leaves, but the addition of Garcia outweighs the downgrade from Val/Olivo to Uribe/Santiago-like veteran C

You're thinking too narrowly in terms of the value of Garcia's contract. I'm not saying that we could necessarily sign a similar player for the same amount of money but quality players are quality players. Maybe we could use the money on Beltran and that'd be more valuable. Maybe we could replace Jose with Nomar and that'd be more vlauable. Maybe we could sign two good starters instead of one quite good starter and that'd be more valuable. There's no reason that this team necessarily needs a player exactly like Garcia. Any strong player that fills any kindof hole on the club is going to be an upgrade and since I feel that it's generous to call the Garcia extension an average value since 9 million is more than most starters have received lately and Garcia should fall off some coming off a stellar first half and leaving a park that helped him limit his HRs.

The Sox have a very good history at finding solid veteran starters. That seems to be a strength of their scouting and coaching, so I think the chances that we can do that are pretty solid and better than most teams.

Even if we are better than most teams I still think that it's going to largely be a crapshoot. However, if you're right I think you'd weaken your arguments in favor of signing Garcia more than ever. If our great ability to sign good veteran starters will allow us to most likely grab a Loaiza or at least a Chris Carpenter for 2 million then it's clearly an awful management of resources to spend 9 million a season on Garcia unless you believe he'll post an ERA in the low 3s at which point we're wasting time arguing over the wrong set of issues here.

First off, I think this deal is alot bigger than the 2 last year. I also think that the fact that we not only took on salary (and are supposedly willing to do so again), but also resigned him are strong signs to fans that will provide some additional boost.

Well the trade is largely independant of the signing so I'm not sure that taking on salary there comes into play. Any aspects of the trade that generate fan interest should be unrelated because we could've waited until the end of the season to ink Garcia, most likely at the same price, and have better knowledge of what next season's budget will be based on attendance, the playoffs, etc. Regardless, you're talking about a large increase in attendance from the first half where we've been contending and by your own admission have energized fans with our new style of play as well as a large increase in attendance from the second half of last season where we made some very visible moves that also garnered media attention.

We are also now something of a national contender, with national media identifying us as a WS contender.

Is that really true? I watched the entire game on ESPN today and they were talking about us catching the Twins. They weren't making comments to the effect of "this team sure has teams scared about facing them in the playoffs" or anything to that effect. There was considerable hype immediately after we made the deal but isn't that always the case? It seems to have faded quickly. I don't think our media attention and talk of the series are anywhere near the level of the Yankees, A's, or Cubs at this point.

I think that given this team's history, continuing to contend and make strong moves year after year will continnue to provide additional attendance boosts. It's not like we're anywhere close to saturating our market. We're already over a 5% increase (100k fans more than at this point last year, compared to 1.9mil total attendance). Add a couple of mil from playoff games. Now factor in KW's public comments on increasing payroll and that winning is the way to do that (by getting more attendance/revenues), and it's a strong case that any additional revenues will go to the payroll and that a 10mil increase is not at all aggressive.

I guess that's possible but in '00 we were stellar and yet despite being .500 in '01 the fans weren't around that much. Sure a lot of that can be blamed on our early swoon but who's to say we won't struggle again in the future? We made strong moves that season by acquiring Wells and we made strong moves last season also. Clearly the ingredient isn't only making moves to win but having those pay off every single time. There seems to be very little room for error when it comes to attracting new fans of this club. Furthermore, if we make the playoffs this season and then fail to next season will that be another failure even if we contend? What if the Cubs make the playoffs next season and we don't? Are we going to have any of the spotlight in the city? If anything's been demonstrated over the past four seasons which included a playoff birth, a decent amount of contention, and no season in which we finished below .500 it's that it is not easy to jump start attendance with this club. If winning is the only thing capable of doing that we're in trouble because that's hardly ever guaranteed.

I mean that offensively, Uribe will likely meet or exceed Olivo's performance. So having him in the lineup fulltime offsets the loss of Olivo.

That doesn't really work though. First of all Olivo is a catcher and Uribe is a SS so there's no trade off between their at bats. Secondly, Uribe is an everday player this season so you won't be adding at bats for him next season. He won't be filling any voids created. As the team stands right now, those at bats will come from Harris, who would play 2B every day including against lefties, and whoever takes up the at bats Harris has had in CF this season (Rowand, Perez, Borchard).


My argument is that Garcia+veteran starter+Borchard>Loaiza+Shoney+Valentin.

Well first of all, just to clarity that's actually 10 million+Garcia+veteran starter+Borchard>Loaiza+Shoney+Valentin and we don't know whether we'll have the ten million or not at this point. If not for the ten million you have to add Ordonez onto the right side of the equation (and subtract Valentin or Loaiza most likely). Furthermore, you have to remove Borchard if you're talking about players we have at our disposal since he's in the organization with or without this extension. If more appropriately you're talking about at bats then you most likely also have to add in 100 at bats for Harris against lefties which are going to being quite awful most likley. If we do this equation using half season values for VORP we'd get 34.4 + ? + Borchard (?) > 18.1 + 12.3 + 25. Even if we say that the free agent pitcher equals Schoeneweis that leaves up 10 VORP (20 over the course of a full season) for Borchard to pick up in the 200 or 300 extra at bats that go to centerfield with Harris moving to 2B fulltime. So even with the dubious assumption that Garcia will be as good as he was in the first half all of next season and failing to account for Harris' likely - VORP at bats vs. lefties, it's an even proposition at best.

As for the Twins - they're losing players after this year, so unless you expect their replacements from the minors to step in, not have any rookie struggles, and be as good as the lost players right away, we'll be better. Indians - have young talent, but are still unproven and I'd say are at least another year away from being better than the Sox if we keep Maggs.

Well I think Morneau is better than Mientkievich right now so if that swap takes place I expect them to improve. Restovich also looks like a good player and Crain and Balfour should make for soilid relievers in the near future. Factor in improvement from Mauer and retaining Santana, their best player, along with a lot of their position players and I think they'll be pretty good. As far as the Indians go, that's what people said about our club in '00 although we were probably only as far along as they are now in '00. They'll be past that point next season. They're already .500, they don't figure to lose any key players in the offseason, and you have to expect vast improvements throughout their roster with all the incredibly talented, very young players they have. I'm not saying either club would necessarily be the front runner but if you have two teams that aren't tons worse than you competing, the odds are against you winning the division.

Flight #24
07-08-2004, 06:25 PM
You're thinking too narrowly in terms of the value of Garcia's contract. I'm not saying that we could necessarily sign a similar player for the same amount of money but quality players are quality players. Maybe we could use the money on Beltran and that'd be more valuable. Maybe we could replace Jose with Nomar and that'd be more vlauable. Maybe we could sign two good starters instead of one quite good starter and that'd be more valuable. There's no reason that this team necessarily needs a player exactly like Garcia. Any strong player that fills any kindof hole on the club is going to be an upgrade and since I feel that it's generous to call the Garcia extension an average value since 9 million is more than most starters have received lately and Garcia should fall off some coming off a stellar first half and leaving a park that helped him limit his HRs.
That's an argument against signing any player for any salary above say 5mil (or whatever your "good" player costs). I think that Garcia has room to improve, being only 28, and that he's shown the ability to be a dominant ace, and that he has pitched well for teams down the stretch and in the playoffs. That + a decent (i.e. cheaper than your "good") player is better for the team than 2 good ones.

Even if we are better than most teams I still think that it's going to largely be a crapshoot. However, if you're right I think you'd weaken your arguments in favor of signing Garcia more than ever. If our great ability to sign good veteran starters will allow us to most likely grab a Loaiza or at least a Chris Carpenter for 2 million then it's clearly an awful management of resources to spend 9 million a season on Garcia unless you believe he'll post an ERA in the low 3s at which point we're wasting time arguing over the wrong set of issues here.It's a lot easier to find a pitcher that can give you a decent but not great ERA of say 4.5 than one that can give you one in the 3s. Loaiza this year is pitching more like the former than the latter, so he's easier to replace.



Well the trade is largely independant of the signing so I'm not sure that taking on salary there comes into play. Any aspects of the trade that generate fan interest should be unrelated because we could've waited until the end of the season to ink Garcia, most likely at the same price, and have better knowledge of what next season's budget will be based on attendance, the playoffs, etc. Regardless, you're talking about a large increase in attendance from the first half where we've been contending and by your own admission have energized fans with our new style of play as well as a large increase in attendance from the second half of last season where we made some very visible moves that also garnered media attention. The difference is that in last years trades, we were limited by taking on no salary. This year, we're able to do that (as demonstrated by the Garcia deal). It's also being shown by the fact that supposedly, KW's talking to teams about otehr higher salaried players (Kendall, RandyJ). And yes, I think that attendance can get further boosted even if it's already improved based on the team making a move that significantly improves them this year.



Is that really true? I watched the entire game on ESPN today and they were talking about us catching the Twins. They weren't making comments to the effect of "this team sure has teams scared about facing them in the playoffs" or anything to that effect. There was considerable hype immediately after we made the deal but isn't that always the case? It seems to have faded quickly. I don't think our media attention and talk of the series are anywhere near the level of the Yankees, A's, or Cubs at this point.Peter Gammons picked us to win the WS (at least that's what I read here on WSI). Even noted cub-lovers like Mariotti have changed their Sox stance post-deal to talk much more about the Sox's chances to get to the WS. Obviously, since we're slumping right now the talk is how we get to first place. But the comments noted above are what I was referring to.



I guess that's possible but in '00 we were stellar and yet despite being .500 in '01 the fans weren't around that much. Sure a lot of that can be blamed on our early swoon but who's to say we won't struggle again in the future? We made strong moves that season by acquiring Wells and we made strong moves last season also. Clearly the ingredient isn't only making moves to win but having those pay off every single time. There seems to be very little room for error when it comes to attracting new fans of this club. Furthermore, if we make the playoffs this season and then fail to next season will that be another failure even if we contend? What if the Cubs make the playoffs next season and we don't? Are we going to have any of the spotlight in the city? If anything's been demonstrated over the past four seasons which included a playoff birth, a decent amount of contention, and no season in which we finished below .500 it's that it is not easy to jump start attendance with this club. If winning is the only thing capable of doing that we're in trouble because that's hardly ever guaranteed.The Sox have been a consistent winning team without the ability to be a real WS contender. That hasn't done it for the fans (based on attendance results). Showing that they will take a shot when appropriate is IMO a much more attractive thing for fans and will be borne out by better attendance. If we flop next season, sure, we lose most if not all of what we gain (unless we win it all!). But given the likely changes between this year and next if we can keep Maggs, I think a flop is unlikely. A veteran pitching staff, a solid offensive core, good chemistry all make injuries the key thing that can derail it, and that's always there for anyone but the Yanks.




Well first of all, just to clarity that's actually 10 million+Garcia+veteran starter+Borchard>Loaiza+Shoney+Valentin and we don't know whether we'll have the ten million or not at this point. If not for the ten million you have to add Ordonez onto the right side of the equation (and subtract Valentin or Loaiza most likely). The 10mil is what gives you Maggs, and from all indications, the increase in payroll is not what's holding up the Maggs deal. Garcia doesn't limit the Maggs signing if the "budget" isn't what's limiting their offer.

Furthermore, you have to remove Borchard if you're talking about players we have at our disposal since he's in the organization with or without this extension. If more appropriately you're talking about at bats then you most likely also have to add in 100 at bats for Harris against lefties which are going to being quite awful most likley. If we do this equation using half season values for VORP we'd get 34.4 + ? + Borchard (?) > 18.1 + 12.3 + 25. Even if we say that the free agent pitcher equals Schoeneweis that leaves up 10 VORP (20 over the course of a full season) for Borchard to pick up in the 200 or 300 extra at bats that go to centerfield with Harris moving to 2B fulltime. So even with the dubious assumption that Garcia will be as good as he was in the first half all of next season and failing to account for Harris' likely - VORP at bats vs. lefties, it's an even proposition at best.
not having the VORP stats at my fingertips, I can't effectively comment. Isolate Valentin, Harris, Borchard, Olivo VORPs so I can see them and maybe we can talk further on this.


Well I think Morneau is better than Mientkievich right now so if that swap takes place I expect them to improve. Restovich also looks like a good player and Crain and Balfour should make for soilid relievers in the near future. Factor in improvement from Mauer and retaining Santana, their best player, along with a lot of their position players and I think they'll be pretty good. As far as the Indians go, that's what people said about our club in '00 although we were probably only as far along as they are now in '00. They'll be past that point next season. They're already .500, they don't figure to lose any key players in the offseason, and you have to expect vast improvements throughout their roster with all the incredibly talented, very young players they have. I'm not saying either club would necessarily be the front runner but if you have two teams that aren't tons worse than you competing, the odds are against you winning the division.I find it highly unlikely that the Twins guys are going to come up and not have the common rookie struggles. And as you say - the Indians are where the Sox were in 2000, and we didn't develop as expected. It's highly unlikely for all of their young players to develop, some will regress. There may be an overall positive improvement, but I think we'll likely still have better pitching and offense. Also, IIRC, they lose their longtime SS (and I'm rdawing a blank on his name, even though I can picture im and know he's a potential HOFer).

jabrch
07-08-2004, 06:40 PM
Omar Vizquel?

Flight #24
07-08-2004, 07:33 PM
Omar Vizquel?
That's it, thanks.

But for the record, I'm not sure that any post shorter than 50words is allowed in this thread!!!:)

jeremyb1
07-08-2004, 08:08 PM
That's an argument against signing any player for any salary above say 5mil (or whatever your "good" player costs). I think that Garcia has room to improve, being only 28, and that he's shown the ability to be a dominant ace, and that he has pitched well for teams down the stretch and in the playoffs. That + a decent (i.e. cheaper than your "good") player is better for the team than 2 good ones.

Well personally I don't think there are all that many players and pitchers in particular worth 9 million a season. I think to pay a pitcher that much money you'd better be sure he's a rare talent, one of the top 10 or 15 best starters in baseball. It's not an argument why not to sign anyone for that much though. I'd pay that for Mulder or Hudson or Sheets but those guys post ERAs of 3. I'd be suprised to see Garcia post one under 3.7 away from Safeco over the coures of a full season.

It's a lot easier to find a pitcher that can give you a decent but not great ERA of say 4.5 than one that can give you one in the 3s. Loaiza this year is pitching more like the former than the latter, so he's easier to replace.

If you're willing to pay 9 million for a guy with a 3.8 ERA when you can have a guy with a 4.5 ERA for 2 million or less, that's at least 4.5 times as much, I'd say that's a poor allocation of resources. The former player is maybe 2.5 times as valuable but not 4.5 times as valuable.

The difference is that in last years trades, we were limited by taking on no salary. This year, we're able to do that (as demonstrated by the Garcia deal). It's also being shown by the fact that supposedly, KW's talking to teams about otehr higher salaried players (Kendall, RandyJ). And yes, I think that attendance can get further boosted even if it's already improved based on the team making a move that significantly improves them this year.

But that's just it, the Garcia extension doesn't improve the team at all this season. So the 7 million we're paying him that is dependent on our revenues for the rest of this sesaon is very unlikely to increase those revenues in and of itself.

Peter Gammons picked us to win the WS (at least that's what I read here on WSI). Even noted cub-lovers like Mariotti have changed their Sox stance post-deal to talk much more about the Sox's chances to get to the WS. Obviously, since we're slumping right now the talk is how we get to first place. But the comments noted above are what I was referring to.

I don't know about the veracity of the Gammons claim but assuming it is true, has me mentioned our name in the same sentence as World Series since the day the deal went down? Like I said before I have no doubt we were heaped with priase and hype immediately after the deal. However, one day of hype because we made a big move isn't going to generate huge increases in attendance weeks and months later.


The Sox have been a consistent winning team without the ability to be a real WS contender. That hasn't done it for the fans (based on attendance results). Showing that they will take a shot when appropriate is IMO a much more attractive thing for fans and will be borne out by better attendance. If we flop next season, sure, we lose most if not all of what we gain (unless we win it all!). But given the likely changes between this year and next if we can keep Maggs, I think a flop is unlikely. A veteran pitching staff, a solid offensive core, good chemistry all make injuries the key thing that can derail it, and that's always there for anyone but the Yanks.

I don't understand why we're World Series contenders this season but not in the past. We won 95 games in '00 and we were in the race until the final days last season. In terms of regular season performance we've done nothing to position ourselves for a World Series run this season that we haven't done twice in the past four seasons at a minimum. What I'm getting here is that this is all based on your own value judgement of the quality of the team at this point and I don't really know how to argue against that since it's just your opinion. How would you determine that that viewpoint is shared by the average Sox fan or average casual baseball fan that might attend games?


The 10mil is what gives you Maggs, and from all indications, the increase in payroll is not what's holding up the Maggs deal. Garcia doesn't limit the Maggs signing if the "budget" isn't what's limiting their offer.

Well those reports are pretty sketchy. Today during the ESPN broadcast all Kenny said was that he told Maggs the same offer was still on the table. We don't know exactly how much that offer is for or how much is deferred. Furthermore, we don't know if Maggs accepting that offer would necessitate more moves. We offered Colon 12 million on the offseason but that didn't mean we were going to increase payroll by that margin. Had he accepted it is widely known that we would've dumped Maggs salary to accomodate him. Resigning Maggs isn't all that great if we have to dump Carlos and/or Paully.

not having the VORP stats at my fingertips, I can't effectively comment. Isolate Valentin, Harris, Borchard, Olivo VORPs so I can see them and maybe we can talk further on this.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/

Olivo doesn't figure in. He's gone no matter what. Valentin, Garcia, and Loaiza were listed in the same order of your equation with ?'s for the unknown values. Borchard doesn't have a VORP listed because he's in the minors. Harris' wouldn't be accurate because you're not adding his production from this season. He's already playing at least three fourths of the time. All you'd be adding is about 150 at bats versus left handing pitching over the course of a season. VORP splits do not exist and it'd be hard to calculate for that exact number of at bats.


I find it highly unlikely that the Twins guys are going to come up and not have the common rookie struggles. And as you say - the Indians are where the Sox were in 2000, and we didn't develop as expected. It's highly unlikely for all of their young players to develop, some will regress. There may be an overall positive improvement, but I think we'll likely still have better pitching and offense. Also, IIRC, they lose their longtime SS (and I'm rdawing a blank on his name, even though I can picture im and know he's a potential HOFer).

"Common rookie struggles" are largely a myth. That takes place largely among (starting) pitchers and players that have been rushed and have not spent considerable time in the upper minors. Morneau is in his second straight season hitting the snot out of the ball in AAA. You can make a strong argument that he can hit better than any other player in the minors if he was called up today (he did hit quite well in a callup earlier this season) and that he'd hit better than a fair amount of major leaguers. This includes Mientkievich who has been absolutely terrible this season.

Well the Indians are where we were in '00 in terms of how far the players in their rebuilding effort have matured. In terms of talent the guys they have more or less blow the young players we had in '00 out of the water. Furthermore, we didn't struggle because players in '01. We struggled because 4/5ths of our starting rotation suffered incredibly serious injuries. Also, we didn't win the division in '01 but we did contend so the Tribe wouldn't have to be light years better to win especially if competition is weaker than in '01.

Dadawg_77
07-09-2004, 10:19 AM
I find it highly unlikely that the Twins guys are going to come up and not have the common rookie struggles. And as you say - the Indians are where the Sox were in 2000, and we didn't develop as expected. It's highly unlikely for all of their young players to develop, some will regress. There may be an overall positive improvement, but I think we'll likely still have better pitching and offense. Also, IIRC, they lose their longtime SS (and I'm rdawing a blank on his name, even though I can picture im and know he's a potential HOFer).
The thing with the Twins they seem to keep good players in the minors longer then most people. This allows the player more seasoning which help prevents rookie struggles. The main reason the Twins do it is to prevent service time clock from starting.

Flight #24
07-09-2004, 10:23 AM
I don't know about the veracity of the Gammons claim but assuming it is true, has me mentioned our name in the same sentence as World Series since the day the deal went down? Like I said before I have no doubt we were heaped with priase and hype immediately after the deal. However, one day of hype because we made a big move isn't going to generate huge increases in attendance weeks and months later.


I beleive Gammons said after the deal that is projected WS winner was the White Sox. IIRC, it was in a chat he had, but I'm sure there are those on this board that know exactly.

Flight #24
07-09-2004, 10:59 AM
Rather than reply to the individual smaller points, I'm going to try and take this back to the initial discussion.....

There seem to be 3 major topics here.

1) Increased attendance leading to greater payroll (thereby validating the trade for Garcia since it makes the team significantly better this year and enables the increased payroll). - We both agree that the deal is likely to continue to increase attendance. Through 40 home games, we have (per ESPN), 947,836. Through the first 40 home games last year, we had 786,793. (Now we've actually played 42 home games, but ESPN doesn't have attendance for 2 of those). That's a difference of 161,043 people which at an average ticket price of $20 and average concessions of $10 results in $4.8mil. That's virtually all pure profit given the marginal cost of an additional fan at a preexisting game is near 0. Given that, I'd say a 7-10mil increase is VERY possible, especially if you factor in playoff games & associatd revenues. And the $10/fan concessions is IMO an extremely conservative #. Combine that with the history of attendance & payroll, and KW's comments and I think putting the revenues towards payroll is highly likely. (And as for the Gammons comment, IIRC, he picked the Sox to win the WS after we made the Garcia trade, which counts for me as pretty strong national recognition which will help raise the image of the team and boost attendance).

2) Next year's team - Expiring contracts or traded players net us $14 (Maggs) + $5 (Val) + $6(Koch) + $4(ELo) = $29. Someone earlier (in another thread) calculated the raises for other players (Frank, Carlos, Buehrle, etc) to be IIRC $10mil. Factor in 3mil for Garland/Uribe via arb and you're at 13. So you now have $25mil left over after using up the 10mil increase. Resign Maggs at a deal starting at say $11mil/yr with increases, add in Garcia's '05 salary of $8, and you have $6mil left over for some combo of a veteran C, a veteran P, and/or Valentin. After next year, you lose Paulie's contract (8mil), and he's replaceable at a significant discount with either a rookie or a veteran 1B/DH. That money goes to the increases for Garcia (1m), Maggs (2m), and others. So with a minimal increase in payroll again (which given the makeup of the team and likely continued contending is highly doable), you don't have any financial problems. If you do, it's a few mil worth, and JR's shown that he'll go a few mil over budget if necessary this year. After '06, Lee's up and he's almost certain to be replaced with Anderson/Sweeney, but that's so far out that it's hard to project who will or won't be a viable player or what the baseball economic situation might be. The '05 team will still be better than the Twins or the Indians. Injuries can blow this whole thing to bits, but that's the case for any team.

3) Value of Garcia and the $9mil avg salary - recent comparable signings: Colon (51m/4yrs), Ponson (22.5/3), maddux (24/3), Pettite (31.5/3), Clemens (5/1), Millwood (11/1). Those are all from this past offseason and are all in the same ballpark financially. So that appears to be what the market will bear. As for the value, it's hard to argue whether a Garcia-like pitcher is worth 2.5 or 4.5 more than a $2mil guy. All I can say is that I think any true playoff contender needs to have at least 2 guys that have the potential to win close to 20 games. Those are the types of guys that get the big salaries. If you have those guys, then you can succeed with the 10-15game winners with the higher ERAs as a #3 or 4 pitcher, but I don't think you'll be successful with say Buehrle, Garland, Rauch/Diaz and 2 4mil pitchers (or this year's Loaiza) versus Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, Rauch/Diaz and 1 1-2 mil pitcher.

jabrch
07-09-2004, 11:11 AM
3) Value of Garcia and the $9mil avg salary - recent comparable signings: Colon (51m/4yrs), Ponson (22.5/3), maddux (24/3), Pettite (31.5/3), Clemens (5/1), Millwood (11/1). Those are all from this past offseason and are all in the same ballpark financially. So that appears to be what the market will bear. As for the value, it's hard to argue whether a Garcia-like pitcher is worth 2.5 or 4.5 more than a $2mil guy. All I can say is that I think any true playoff contender needs to have at least 2 guys that have the potential to win close to 20 games. Those are the types of guys that get the big salaries. If you have those guys, then you can succeed with the 10-15game winners with the higher ERAs as a #3 or 4 pitcher, but I don't think you'll be successful with say Buehrle, Garland, Rauch/Diaz and 2 4mil pitchers (or this year's Loaiza) versus Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, Rauch/Diaz and 1 1-2 mil pitcher.
I'll take it one step further Flight. Most 4.5 mm starters are mediocre - unless you scrap-heap-rescue like KW has with Loaiza. 2.5mm starters are even worse - unless you scrap-heap-rescue like KW did with Schoenweis (early performances) Few teams win championships without high end starters. KW has done an excellent job acquiriing players and spending money where he needs to, with a few exceptions (PK and Koch's contracts) to build a team that can win it all this year and is set to be competitive for the immediate future. A rotation of Garcia, Buehlre, Garland, Loaiza or another FA SP (Clement?) and Rauch/Diaz next year will keep this team in the top tier in the AL, provided we don't lose Frank, Magglio and Valentin and not replace them collectively with similar calibre players.