PDA

View Full Version : Is Beltran the answer?


gosox41
11-04-2004, 08:53 AM
Nice to read in the paper that the Sox are 1. going to pursue Beltran and Vizquel and 2. look to raise payroll, even if it's not enough for some.

So before there are any more pipe dream colored threads projecting a line up of Beltran and Vizquel or whoever, a few issues need to be addressed.

First, what is the biggest hole on this team?

To me it's getting a good starting pitcher to fill the 5th starters role. The team's second biggest hole is a 2B/SS. After that a couple of good relievers would be nice. After that I would put getting an OF.

How much is Carlos Beltran worth?

There's talk of a 10 year contract and him asking $18-20 mill per year. Granted it's Boras tring to get negotiations going, but it will at least take a 7 year deal in the $15-17 mill. range.

So before we get the standard reply of whatever the market bears, realize most teams will go into negotiations knowing what they can afford and negotiate based off that. So hopefully KW has a plan when he goes to negotiate. How much is he really worth to this team. This ties in with the next question:

If the Sox got Beltran and Vizquel and did nothing else that was major, do you think this team would win?

Vizquel is an upgrade over Valentin. And Beltran replaces Ordonez with more offense. And there's a good chance that after those 2 signings the team won't have much money to spend elsewhere. But it still doesn't solve the pitching problems.

IMHO, while getting Beltran would be nice, it hardly solves the bigger problems of this team. Unless there's a plan to address those, I think signing Beltran is a mistake.



Bob

samram
11-04-2004, 09:06 AM
I think it's a mistake also if the fifth starter position is not addressed since even with Maggs the team had trouble winning when the fifth starter pitched. If they decide to do both, Beltran's value is very high to the team because he makes a good team very good. OTOH, if the other holes aren't filled, his presence won't make enough of a difference to justify signing him. I guess what I'm saying is his value to the Sox becomes greater as the team fills other holes, but OF is probably fourth on the list of priorities. If they filled the fifth starter spot with someone competent (or added a top starter pushing Garland back to the fifth spot), strengthened the BP, and found an actual lead-off hitter, I could live with J.D. Drew or Jose Guillen (if a trade could be worked) in RF, but Beltran would be icing on the cake in that scenario.

SoxFanTillDeath
11-04-2004, 09:15 AM
This has all been rehashed a million times, but just for the record, I agree with both of you. I don't believe we are solid enough to allocate that much money to one single player. If we were able to fill the other holes first, and then get Beltran, that would be perfect.

The question you have to ask yourself: Is Carlos Beltran worth J.D. Drew AND Carl Pavano/Derek Lowe?

gosox41
11-04-2004, 09:56 AM
This has all been rehashed a million times, but just for the record, I agree with both of you. I don't believe we are solid enough to allocate that much money to one single player. If we were able to fill the other holes first, and then get Beltran, that would be perfect.

The question you have to ask yourself: Is Carlos Beltran worth J.D. Drew AND Carl Pavano/Derek Lowe?
I know it's been talked about but it brings bringing up again for a couple of reasons. First, with the news of an increase in payroll it may change some opinions. Second, it's good to see what other fans are thinking (at least those that are willing to say this is a good/bad move). Third, it's a welcome break from the JR is cheap threads.

Last, on the outside chance that anyone from the Sox (specifically KW) reads WSI. It's good to remind them of the big picture. It's all warm and fuzzy to talk about getting an All Star CFer and making the big splash, or to go after Randy Johnson, but it doesn't amount to anything if the team is just trying to create a PR buzz. Even if Beltran or Johnson wind up here (which is a long shot) the team still has many holes that need to be filled. One of the faults with KW is he's always looking to make the big move to prove he's a BSD. And that's great to be aggressive. But it takes a lot mroe then just one star player to put this team over the top and those other holes shouldn't be ignored. And KW needs to realize and remember not forget that the goal is to build a WS team and this team is more then one player away.

Like you say, it's a better idea to fill some of the bigger gaping holes with the Beltran money then it is to simply raise payroll, sign Beltran, generate some PR and call it an offseason.

KW needs to thing through all the scenarios and start acting proactively here.



Bob

Mickster
11-04-2004, 09:57 AM
You also have to ask yourselves, from a marketing standpoint, who the Sox have to market.... For 15 years, it has been Frank Thomas. Since 98, it has been Frank and Maggs. After 2005, when Frank is finally gone (I think that they will pay the $3.5M team option to break the contract) who will the Sox have to market?

Not that I necessarily agree that they need at least 1 marquis player to market, but this flawed thinking might make the Sox push for Beltran. The report that I heard on the radio this morning was essentially: get Beltran, deal Konerko....

gosox41
11-04-2004, 09:59 AM
You also have to ask yourselves, from a marketing standpoint, who the Sox have to market.... For 15 years, it has been Frank Thomas. Since 98, it has been Frank and Maggs. After 2005, when frank is Finally gone (I think that they will pay the $3.5M team option to break the contract) who will the Sox have to market?

Not that I necessarily agree that they need at least 1 marquis player to market, but this flawed thinking might make the Sox push for Beltran. The report that I heard on the radio this morning was essentially: get Beltran, deal Konerko....
I prefer the deal Konerko, shore up the pitching by signing a good starting pitcher and 2 relievers thinking.


Bob

Mickster
11-04-2004, 10:00 AM
I prefer the deal Konerko, shore up the pitching by signing a good starting pitcher and 2 relievers thinking.


Bob
If the payroll truly will only be $70-75M, I agree with you completely. That is tough for me to say because I would really love to see Beltran patrolling CF for the Sox for a long time....

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 10:03 AM
On a team with Little Speed, and losing a .300/30HR/100 RBI guy (they dont come around too often, esp ones your team produced thru the farm system)
HECK YES, Beltran is the answer. You dont Let a .300/30HR/100 RBI guy
just leave, and take a chance with a minor leaguer, and hope he pans out .....
thats not how Winning Teams operate.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 10:05 AM
get Beltran, deal Konerko....

Rob Peter to Pay Paul (not Konerko) heh heh.

samram
11-04-2004, 10:10 AM
I prefer the deal Konerko, shore up the pitching by signing a good starting pitcher and 2 relievers thinking.


Bob
Yep, and I wouldn't mind something more certain in terms of a lead-off hitter. The candidates on the team right now don't thrill me.

wdelaney72
11-04-2004, 10:27 AM
Our outfield is already set. We have C. Lee, Rowand, and Crazy Carl (like it or not, we're stuck with his $4 million salary). If we were to sign Beltran, C. Lee would have to get traded, which I don't like. Our pitching staff needs help more than our outfield does.

I love Beltran, but to answer the question,

"NO".

mdep524
11-04-2004, 10:37 AM
You also have to ask yourselves, from a marketing standpoint, who the Sox have to market.... For 15 years, it has been Frank Thomas. Since 98, it has been Frank and Maggs. After 2005, when Frank is finally gone (I think that they will pay the $3.5M team option to break the contract) who will the Sox have to market?

Not that I necessarily agree that they need at least 1 marquis player to market, but this flawed thinking might make the Sox push for Beltran. The report that I heard on the radio this morning was essentially: get Beltran, deal Konerko....
Good point, Mickster. This certainly should NOT be the deciding factor in signing a Carlos Beltran to big money, but I do think it plays a role. Generating large scale excitement and national marketing opportunities would be a big plus for this organization. It would increase revenue, attendance and status- setting trends that could lead to higher payroll and higher expectations down the road.

Could the Sox win it all with Beltran in '05? Maybe, maybe not. But if they are competitive they would sure do a lot toward furthering a winning culture. Say they pass on Beltran and sign Vizquel, Eric Milton and Steve Kline instead. Will they win with those pick ups-mediocre players that fill a bigger hole on the team? Maybe, maybe not. But if they don't, they're right back to the drawing board in the offseason, and nothing has really changed structurally. Beltran is the kind of guy that can trigger a macro-style change, and this organization could use a catalyst like that. Just something to bring into consideration.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 11:15 AM
Beltran is the kind of guy that can trigger a macro-style change, and this organization could use a catalyst like that. Just something to bring into consideration.
That to me is the point in a Beltran signing. he does help this year, but there are arguably ways in which you can do that more effectively by spreading around the available resources. What Carlos does that you can't do as well with the alternate approach is give you a building block that you can restructure your nucleus around. I think a team nucleus of Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras-Garland-Marte-Shingo-Carlos-ARow-Beltran-Frank-Uribe CAN be a real contender in 2005, but would probably need some pitching additions during the season. However, with Beltran, you're adding in a long-term franchise player that you can rebuild around if things don't work out in 2005. I'm not sure that adding Drew & Pavano is as effective in terms of long-term franchise development.

Plus from a PR perspective, there's no comparison. And like it or not, the Sox DO have to be worried about PR in this town at this time. For them, generating buzz & excitement is crucial.

MisterB
11-04-2004, 11:19 AM
Good point, Mickster. This certainly should NOT be the deciding factor in signing a Carlos Beltran to big money, but I do think it plays a role. Generating large scale excitement and national marketing opportunities would be a big plus for this organization. It would increase revenue, attendance and status- setting trends that could lead to higher payroll and higher expectations down the road.

Could the Sox win it all with Beltran in '05? Maybe, maybe not. But if they are competitive they would sure do a lot toward furthering a winning culture. Say they pass on Beltran and sign Vizquel, Eric Milton and Steve Kline instead. Will they win with those pick ups-mediocre players that fill a bigger hole on the team? Maybe, maybe not. But if they don't, they're right back to the drawing board in the offseason, and nothing has really changed structurally. Beltran is the kind of guy that can trigger a macro-style change, and this organization could use a catalyst like that. Just something to bring into consideration.
No matter how much 'buzz' would be created by signing Beltran, if the Sox don't perform it won't mean squat. The Colon deal created a buzz in '03, but when the team fell apart, it ultimately led the Sox back to square one. Same thing with David Wells. Same thing with Albert Belle. I can't really see the Sox being significantly better with Beltran in the lineup than they were with a healthy Ordonez. There'd still be no one to get on base ahead of Beltran, a void at the back of the rotation, and a thin bullpen. The only way the Sox get anywhere is filling ALL their holes, not by putting a bigger pile of dirt in just one of them.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 11:20 AM
Plus from a PR perspective, there's no comparison. And like it or not, the Sox DO have to be worried about PR in this town at this time. For them, generating buzz & excitement is crucial.

:reinsy " Yeah, thats fine and dandy kids, but this has ALWAYS
been a Cubs town. We can try to get Good Players here, but why ? "

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 11:22 AM
The only way the Sox get anywhere is filling ALL their holes, not by putting a bigger pile of dirt in just one of them.




*************Nomination for POST OF THE YEAR************



:reinsy " does this mean I have to spend more money?"

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 11:24 AM
No matter how much 'buzz' would be created by signing Beltran, if the Sox don't perform it won't mean squat. The Colon deal created a buzz in '03, but when the team fell apart, it ultimately led the Sox back to square one. Same thing with David Wells. Same thing with Albert Belle. I can't really see the Sox being significantly better with Beltran in the lineup than they were with a healthy Ordonez. There'd still be no one to get on base ahead of Beltran, a void at the back of the rotation, and a thin bullpen. The only way the Sox get anywhere is filling ALL their holes, not by putting a bigger pile of dirt in just one of them.
Huge difference in a 1-yr Colon v. a 5-10yr Beltran.

Dump Koney, get Beltran - if it doesn't work out, after 2005 you'll have Frank's 8mil available (since it sounds like they'll decline their option in '06). Or IMO more likely, you'll have Frank back at a reduced salary and have the difference available. Same with Shingo & his 2.5, and you could potentially deal Contreras/Lee since they'll be in their last year. The point is that you'll have a lot of options to move forward with, but you'll have a much better core piece that you would in other scenarios.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 11:50 AM
There is no single complete answer here.

First off I think signing Beltran is a pipe dream, but for the sake of arguement let's say the Sox, through an alignment of the planets, have a realistic chance to get him.

Do you sign him for the PR value at the expense of filling multiple, gaping holes in other areas? (after all ownership considers this a 'small market' team.)

Or do you take that money and use it to try to fill two or three other badly needed areas? (Examples: 5th starter, middle relief, second base, catching, an outfield position)

If it was me as much as I'd love to have Beltran, he alone will not put the Sox over the top. There are far two many other shortcomings. Therefore you take that money and try to fill two or three other holes making for a better team.

IF the Sox could get to the playoffs, the PR will take care of itself, at least in the short term.

The risk is that if you believe that Williams is not a good or even an average GM (like gosox41) then if he doesn't sign two or three good players to fill holes, you've blown everything. (Which given the Sox organizational history the past 24 years is a definate possibility...)

Lip

Mickster
11-04-2004, 11:57 AM
*************Nomination for POST OF THE YEAR************



:reinsy " does this mean I have to spend more money?"
*******************Nomination that we permanently delete the "reinsy" tag********************

It is being used WAAAAY too much.

:reinsy
"Good point, Mickster"

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 11:57 AM
:reinsy " Yeah, thats fine and dandy kids, but this has ALWAYS
been a Cubs town. We can try to get Good Players here, but why ? "
Jeez - has any quote been more overblown? The attendance stats show that in the decade prior to current ownership, Cubs outdrew the Sox IIRC 8 of 10 years. Is it not possible that that's what he was referring to?

In other words, he wasn't saying "Since the dawn of time, or at least the founding of the city of Chicago, the Cubs have been more popular than the Sox", he was actually meaning to say "The Cubs had been more popular than the Sox for a while before I got here"? Or "The Cubs have been more popular than the Sox for a long while"?

ChiSoxJay
11-04-2004, 12:21 PM
IMO...The Sox really need to sign a young player like Beltran. Like a previous poster had stated, with Maggs gone and Frank probably a year away, the Sox need a big name to keep the fans interested in the team. Signing Beltran would send a message to us fans that management is serious about winning (not to mention it would really piss off the Cub fans since they really want him). It can't be the only move they make though. They also need to solidify the starting rotation with at least a #3 caliber pitcher and move Garland to #5. Then go after Omar for shortstop and add another arm to the bullpen.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 12:26 PM
Mickster:

We'll give it up the year the Sox get to (not even have to win) the World Series.

Fair enough?

Lip

Brian26
11-04-2004, 12:45 PM
If the Sox got Beltran and Vizquel and did nothing else that was major, do you think this team would win?

Nope.

See 2003. This team's offense was loaded. Pitching wins championships. We need more pitching.

Brian26
11-04-2004, 12:47 PM
*************Nomination for POST OF THE YEAR************



:reinsy " does this mean I have to spend more money?"

:reinsy

"I nominate that people stop nominating 'Posts of the Year' more than twice a week. So far in 2004, we've had a total of 483 'Posts of the Year'!"

Brian26
11-04-2004, 12:49 PM
IMO...The Sox really need to sign a young player like Beltran.

And then maybe one of our **** middle infielders who's hung over from staying out too late the previous night can run out to centerfield on a flyball, with his back to the ball, not listen to Beltran's wave-off, and crash into Beltran's knee so he can miss the next 18 months.

GiveMeSox
11-04-2004, 01:10 PM
This has all been rehashed a million times, but just for the record, I agree with both of you. I don't believe we are solid enough to allocate that much money to one single player. If we were able to fill the other holes first, and then get Beltran, that would be perfect.

The question you have to ask yourself: Is Carlos Beltran worth J.D. Drew AND Carl Pavano/Derek Lowe?
I agree as well. I would rather spend the $$ on filling various holes and solidifying vartious positions then go all out with beltran. Beltran made a good team in houston great. They had great starting pitching, and a great pen. We have neither. We need to address our holes with quality players. Filling the void left by ordonez by spending all our $$ on 1 player is not smart. If KW was gonna spend 15 mil on beltran our team would be much better if he spent that on a SS, Starter, and Reliver. I would rather have vizquel, Pavano, and Percival over just beltran for this team anyday.

Iwritecode
11-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Jeez - has any quote been more overblown? The attendance stats show that in the decade prior to current ownership, Cubs outdrew the Sox IIRC 8 of 10 years. Is it not possible that that's what he was referring to?

In other words, he wasn't saying "Since the dawn of time, or at least the founding of the city of Chicago, the Cubs have been more popular than the Sox", he was actually meaning to say "The Cubs had been more popular than the Sox for a while before I got here"? Or "The Cubs have been more popular than the Sox for a long while"?

I know I'm the one who posted the attendance figures you are referring to but this quote is a slap in the face to fans that remember the 50's and 60's when the Sox were THE team in town. JR is old enough to remember those years.

I have no idea what he was thinking when he made that comment so you may be right and it has been taken the wrong way.

IMO, he could have worded it better or not said it at all...

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 03:15 PM
And then maybe one of our **** middle infielders who's hung over from staying out too late the previous night can run out to centerfield on a flyball, with his back to the ball, not listen to Beltran's wave-off, and crash into Beltran's knee so he can miss the next 18 months.

wow .......

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 03:18 PM
*******************Nomination that we permanently delete the "reinsy" tag********************

It is being used WAAAAY too much.




:reinsy "Yeah, get off my case Hangar! You know Id trade
all my Bulls rings for a World Series Crown "

Tekijawa
11-04-2004, 03:25 PM
I'm all for filling "all the holes" but i have a question. We've had one GLARING HOLE for at least 3 years now and we haven't been able to fill it with anything resembling "quality" in the 5 spot. This year you expect them to fill all the holes we have? I'd personally rather have Beltran and watch him for 10 years than 1-2 years of a Bad Shortstop, 2nd baseman, Bad Closer, Bad outfielder, and Bad 5th Starter for the 4th consecutive year.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 03:45 PM
The fact that Uncle Jerry has been a Chicago resident since 1957 also shows the arrogance and stupidity of his 'Cubs town' remark.

But them maybe he didn't care for baseball back then?
Lip

DumpJerry
11-04-2004, 03:47 PM
We don't need Beltran, Borchard is coming back for a full season.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 03:47 PM
The fact that Uncle Jerry has been a Chicago resident since 1957 also shows the arrogance and stupidity of his 'Cubs town' remark.

But them maybe he didn't care for baseball back then?
Lip
I thought he grew up in Brooklyn?

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 03:56 PM
The fact that Uncle Jerry has been a Chicago resident since 1957 also shows the arrogance and stupidity of his 'Cubs town' remark.

But them maybe he didn't care for baseball back then?
Lip
Or maybe he quite simply wasn't being as careful with his words and anticipating that they'd be picked apart. Or heck - maybe he didn't really follow local attendance in his first few years. When 1 team has been relatively dominant in terms of attendance for 30+ years, I think the term "always" can be appropriate in meaning, while not necessarily technically accurate. Much like when someone gets offered a beer and says "no thanks, I don't drink", they don't actually mean that the only way they take in fluids is via IV or osmosis.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 04:09 PM
Flight:

Me thinks you are a charter member of the **** club. I love the way you can always rationize his ineptness. In your eyes he's never wrong, it's always something or someone's fault. I can't stand the cur but at least I give him credit for being a brilliant businessman. With you I can't ever recall you saying anything negative about him to balance your views.

Hangar:

Uncle Jerry moved to Chicago in 1957 after graduating from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. He moved to Chicago, attending Northwestern where he got his law degree.

Lip

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 04:26 PM
Flight:

Me thinks you are a charter member of the **** club. I love the way you can always rationize his ineptness. In your eyes he's never wrong, it's always something or someone's fault. I can't stand the cur but at least I give him credit for being a brilliant businessman. With you I can't ever recall you saying anything negative about him to balance your views.


Lip
Well, I think I've said that he's overly risk-averse from a business perspective(or at least the investor group is), and I certainly think that from a PR perspective, he's been pretty poor about the comments he makes. Basically, he needs to realize that anything he says can & will be taken out of context & twisted, so he'd better make sure it's extremely well phrased & safe.

I think I probably comment more on the positive aspects because there's so much rampant irrational bashing that goes on. And honestly, I dont' know that there's anything negative left to be said!

Mickster
11-04-2004, 04:39 PM
......he needs to realize that anything he says can & will be taken out of context & twisted, so he'd better make sure it's extremely well phrased & safe. ..... there's so much rampant irrational bashing that goes on. Flight,

Where do come up with these crazy statements??? :D:

Foulke29
11-04-2004, 05:37 PM
You also have to ask yourselves, from a marketing standpoint, who the Sox have to market.... For 15 years, it has been Frank Thomas. Since 98, it has been Frank and Maggs. After 2005, when Frank is finally gone (I think that they will pay the $3.5M team option to break the contract) who will the Sox have to market?

Not that I necessarily agree that they need at least 1 marquis player to market, but this flawed thinking might make the Sox push for Beltran. The report that I heard on the radio this morning was essentially: get Beltran, deal Konerko....
Before Santana, who did the Twinkies have to market? Winning is what we need for marketing purposes.

Think back to that Yankee team of 1995 - Jeter's a rookie, Bernie's not a household name. Tino had a career year, but was not marquis. Who did they have that was marquis? David Wells? Winning brings the marquis players to town.

Foulke29
11-04-2004, 05:40 PM
Good point, Mickster. This certainly should NOT be the deciding factor in signing a Carlos Beltran to big money, but I do think it plays a role. Generating large scale excitement and national marketing opportunities would be a big plus for this organization. It would increase revenue, attendance and status- setting trends that could lead to higher payroll and higher expectations down the road.

Could the Sox win it all with Beltran in '05? Maybe, maybe not. But if they are competitive they would sure do a lot toward furthering a winning culture. Say they pass on Beltran and sign Vizquel, Eric Milton and Steve Kline instead. Will they win with those pick ups-mediocre players that fill a bigger hole on the team? Maybe, maybe not. But if they don't, they're right back to the drawing board in the offseason, and nothing has really changed structurally. Beltran is the kind of guy that can trigger a macro-style change, and this organization could use a catalyst like that. Just something to bring into consideration.
K.C. was packing 'em in while Beltran was there!

:bandance:

Foulke29
11-04-2004, 05:46 PM
I agree as well. I would rather spend the $$ on filling various holes and solidifying vartious positions then go all out with beltran. Beltran made a good team in houston great. They had great starting pitching, and a great pen. We have neither. We need to address our holes with quality players. Filling the void left by ordonez by spending all our $$ on 1 player is not smart. If KW was gonna spend 15 mil on beltran our team would be much better if he spent that on a SS, Starter, and Reliver. I would rather have vizquel, Pavano, and Percival over just beltran for this team anyday.
With Pettite injured most of the year and Wade Miller going down for a third of the season - leaving only Clemens and Oswalt as their experienced starters, tell me again how Houston had great pitching.

Paulwny
11-04-2004, 06:52 PM
Before Santana, who did the Twinkies have to market? Winning is what we need for marketing purposes.

Think back to that Yankee team of 1995 - Jeter's a rookie, Bernie's not a household name. Tino had a career year, but was not marquis. Who did they have that was marquis? David Wells? Winning brings the marquis players to town.
I agree about winning however, in 95 the yanks had Mattingly, Boggs, and Cone, some pretty big names at the time. Martinez came to the yanks in 96.

dickallen15
11-04-2004, 07:01 PM
Nice to read in the paper that the Sox are 1. going to pursue Beltran and Vizquel and 2. look to raise payroll, even if it's not enough for some.

So before there are any more pipe dream colored threads projecting a line up of Beltran and Vizquel or whoever, a few issues need to be addressed.

First, what is the biggest hole on this team?

To me it's getting a good starting pitcher to fill the 5th starters role. The team's second biggest hole is a 2B/SS. After that a couple of good relievers would be nice. After that I would put getting an OF.

How much is Carlos Beltran worth?

There's talk of a 10 year contract and him asking $18-20 mill per year. Granted it's Boras tring to get negotiations going, but it will at least take a 7 year deal in the $15-17 mill. range.

So before we get the standard reply of whatever the market bears, realize most teams will go into negotiations knowing what they can afford and negotiate based off that. So hopefully KW has a plan when he goes to negotiate. How much is he really worth to this team. This ties in with the next question:

If the Sox got Beltran and Vizquel and did nothing else that was major, do you think this team would win?

Vizquel is an upgrade over Valentin. And Beltran replaces Ordonez with more offense. And there's a good chance that after those 2 signings the team won't have much money to spend elsewhere. But it still doesn't solve the pitching problems.

IMHO, while getting Beltran would be nice, it hardly solves the bigger problems of this team. Unless there's a plan to address those, I think signing Beltran is a mistake.



Bob
I think improving the defense up the middle, and with Vizquel and Beltran you do that about as well as you can this offseason, improves the pitching. Rowand made great strides in CF in 2004, but came up a corner OF, and would probably be great in RF. Getting Beltran probably would allow you to trade Konerko or Lee for pitching. The offense may suffer a little bit from when it was a full strength, but you get guys who know how to play and can run the bases. Your defense improves, you strengthen the pitching staff, and finally overtake Minnesota.

Bisco Stu
11-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Isn't this thread much a (dog) do about nothing?

Sox have no chance vs. Skanks or Miracles in the CB sweepstakes.

CleeFan101
11-04-2004, 10:42 PM
if we signed beltran you can book it that grilli will be our starting pitcher in that 5th hole but think of the big picture. Assuming everyone is healthy are lineup can be possibly better then it was last year when frank and maggz were healthy and if the twins lose radke we are the better team. Also our rotation is better then it was at the begining of last year and b4 are 2 sluggers went down werent we tied for 1st. And lastly this team would at least put us in contention by the all star break where if needed KW would prob trade for a pitcher.

or instead of trading for a pitcher maybe bring up B-Mac which would be better then what was brought out there last year :cool:

StillMissOzzie
11-05-2004, 12:31 AM
For the AMOUNT of dough he wants ($17M - $20M/yr!!!???), and

for the DURATION of a contract he wants it for (10 Years!!!???)

As much as I'd love Beltran here, I'd much rather see the Sox invest in a stud SP, a leadoff hitter, and maybe some bullpen help too. And then tell Bora$ that you hope the door doesn't hit him in the a$$ on the way out.

SMO
:gulp:

NWSox
11-05-2004, 01:27 AM
Every offseason, it's tempting to think some big name free agents are the answer. No question, someone like Beltran or Johnson could add a few wins. But the Sox do not have a big enough budget to pursue the free agent route in earnest, so we always end up with partial fixes. Check out the business book "Good to Great." "Good" is the enemy of "great," because organizations that are "good" are afraid to make wholesale changes to become "great," and instead just tinker at the edges. The White Sox, and KW in particular, are stuck in this cycle, and locking up big dollars with a guy like Beltran or even, worse, Johnson, would perpetuate this cycle.

IMO, Pitching and defense are essential for teams that can't outspend the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, et. al. And this type of talent needs to come from within the system, because it's cheaper. I'm happy to read that KW and Ozzie want to build the team around defense and speed, but this transition takes time and requires more than just FA acquisitions and trades. Scouting and the farm system need to be revamped as well.

While I would love to think that 2005 is THE year, I'd also be happy with a losing team if I knew the organization was making wholesale changes to field a different type of team over the next five years.

Rocklive99
11-05-2004, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure if it's been posted, but Beltran wants a 10 year deal.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/view_content.asp?ID=805

Ol' No. 2
11-05-2004, 11:07 AM
I'm not sure if it's been posted, but Beltran wants a 10 year deal.And some fool will give it to him.

Mickster
11-05-2004, 11:11 AM
And some fool will give it to him.
Don't be too sure about that. Maybe 8 tops.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 11:18 AM
Don't e too sure about that. Maybe 8 tops.Either way - some fool will give him too much money for too many years. 7 years, 120mm... 10 years, 160mm... 5 years and 100mm... Whatever...too much money and too many years for any team that has the need to be fiscally responsible (probably over 90% of the clubs), rather than one has the luxury to be fiscally wreckless (really limited to under 5 clubs).

PaleHoseGeorge
11-05-2004, 11:21 AM
Either way - some fool will give him too much money for too many years. 7 years, 120mm... 10 years, 160mm... 5 years and 100mm... Whatever...too much money and too many years for any team that has the need to be fiscally responsible (probably over 90% of the clubs), rather than one has the luxury to be fiscally wreckless (really limited to under 5 clubs).
Again, you *know* this how?

jabrch
11-05-2004, 11:27 AM
Again, you *know* this how?
PHG - are you asking me how I know that he will get long term/long $? Or are you asking me how I know that there is a small number of teams that can afford to be more fiscally wreckless while there are a smaller number that must be more fiscally conservative? I'm confused as to what your point of that question is?

Lip Man 1
11-05-2004, 11:29 AM
The funniest line of the day on Beltran comes from Jay Mariotti's Friday column in the Sun-Times. He says if Beltran signs with the Sox he will personally shine Hawk Harrelson's shoes.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
11-05-2004, 11:33 AM
PHG - are you asking me how I know that he will get long term/long $? Or are you asking me how I know that there is a small number of teams that can afford to be more fiscally wreckless while there are a smaller number that must be more fiscally conservative? I'm confused as to what your point of that question is?
I don't know how much more specific I can be. Note the language you used highlighted in red.


Originally Posted by jabrch
Either way - some fool will give him too much money for too many years. 7 years, 120mm... 10 years, 160mm... 5 years and 100mm... Whatever...too much money and too many years for any team that has the need to be fiscally responsible (probably over 90% of the clubs), rather than one has the luxury to be fiscally wreckless (really limited to under 5 clubs).

So how do you *know* this to repeatedly characterize everything you've written in red? Obviously you're convinced. So let's hear it. How do you *know* all of this?

Mickster
11-05-2004, 11:51 AM
The funniest line of the day on Beltran comes from Jay Mariotti's Friday column in the Sun-Times. He says if Beltran signs with the Sox he will personally shine Hawk Harrelson's shoes.

Lip
It's worth signing Beltran just to see that!!!! Opening Day, before the ceremonial first pitch on the mound???? :D:

jabrch
11-05-2004, 12:06 PM
I don't know how much more specific I can be. Note the language you used highlighted in red.


So how do you *know* this to repeatedly characterize everything you've written in red? Obviously you're convinced. So let's hear it. How do you *know* all of this?
OK George...

Here goes


too much money for too many years.

By all accounts in any credible media outlet, Beltran's asking price is both over 15mm and the time frame is over 7 years. I consider that as too much and too many becasue it exposes the franchise to significant risk. Consider that contracts are insurable only to 4 years, and that few teams can absorb the loss of a large contract like that and remain competitive (remember what Belle did to Baltimore for a long time - or Mo Vaugn to the Mets), I consider that both too much money and too many years for a franchise other than NY to take a risk on.

need to be fiscally responsible (probably over 90% of the clubs), rather than one has the luxury to be fiscally wreckless (really limited to under 5 clubs).
I guess I don't understand what you are challenging here. There are few baseball teams that are able to spend that sort of money on their teams. Boston, with much more revenue than we have, regretted paying that kind of money to Manny Ramirez - and he is a producer. NY is already regretting what they did with Giambi. Texas obviously regretted A-Rod. The first two are franchises where the revenue models are significantly more projectable than ours. Yes and Fenway generate a significant amount of guaranteed revenue. In the case of Hicks and Texas, they admitted their wreckless mistake - and took actions to correct it. The White Sox current projectable revenues include about 2mm seats sold, decent stadium revenues and a moderate TV contract. Nothing comparable to the revenue models of the Red Sox or the Yanks...or the Tribune/Cubs for that matter. Spending an extra 30mm in payroll to bring us from 70ish to 100ish would be based on hopes and dreams, not projectable revenues. That is fiscally irresponsible. That is not smart business. That is unreasonable to expect from any business.

If your arguement is that JR and the owners should not run the Chicago White Sox like a business, and should win at all costs, and that anything short of spending every penny they can (which we know guarantees nothing) then that's fine. I can accept that as your opinion. But it is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask ANY franchise to do that. The number that have, and not regretted it, are few... In fact, I can't think of one team in baseball that has spent UNPROJECTABLE REVENUES on players to win, actually won, and not regretted it.

Flight #24
11-05-2004, 12:28 PM
The funniest line of the day on Beltran comes from Jay Mariotti's Friday column in the Sun-Times. He says if Beltran signs with the Sox he will personally shine Hawk Harrelson's shoes.

LipIf I'm KW, I take that article over to the org meetings, show it to JR, and say "OK, let's get this guy just to that we can make Marriotti do this". I think there's enough enmity there to make it possible & worthwhile.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-05-2004, 12:32 PM
OK George...

Here goes


By all accounts in any credible media outlet, Beltran's asking price is both over 15mm and the time frame is over 7 years. I consider that as too much and too many becasue it exposes the franchise to significant risk.


Nonsense. There have been entire BOOKS written about the ongoing growth of players' salaries the last 30+ years. Any "credible media outlet" who says otherwise is bucking that trend to claim otherwise. How did YOU draw the conclusion they were credible?

However I'll give you credit for one thing, the part I highlighted in red. As usual, you're stating an opinion. For some unknown reason you keep confusing it with fact.

...


I guess I don't understand what you are challenging here. There are few baseball teams that are able to spend that sort of money on their teams. Boston, with much more revenue than we have, regretted paying that kind of money to Manny Ramirez - and he is a producer.



I can't believe it... the "curse" is lifted yet you're still here claiming Boston regrets signing Ramirez even while admitting he produced? Omigod... you behave as though the real point of playing 87 years worth of losing baseball was to be found on a balance sheet... even as all New England rejoices.

:kukoo:


NY is already regretting what they did with Giambi. Texas obviously regretted A-Rod. The first two are franchises where the revenue models are significantly more projectable than ours. Yes and Fenway generate a significant amount of guaranteed revenue. In the case of Hicks and Texas, they admitted their wreckless mistake - and took actions to correct it. The White Sox current projectable revenues include about 2mm seats sold, decent stadium revenues and a moderate TV contract. Nothing comparable to the revenue models of the Red Sox or the Yanks...or the Tribune/Cubs for that matter. Spending an extra 30mm in payroll to bring us from 70ish to 100ish would be based on hopes and dreams, not projectable revenues. That is fiscally irresponsible. That is not smart business. That is unreasonable to expect from any business.


Hicks made a mistake? How many championships has Texas won? Ever?

I could highlight everything above in red, but obviously you simply can't distinguish your opinion from fact. It's all the same to you. How about some sources? How about some analysis? How about ANYTHING besides "I believe... my opinion... " and your other favorite rhetorical device, the glittering generality... "Everyone knows... all the teams... nobody can afford..."


This is beyond pathetic, really.

LVSoxFan
11-05-2004, 12:44 PM
Go ahead, sign Beltran. First, if you think this can even happen (see Mariotti's column today) er, okay, if you think this can happen, we'll have a great CF who will make us all forget... that we're going to lose every fifth game.

If I have to never see the latest Frankenstein fifth starter they drag out for a guaranteed loss again, it will be too soon.

Use the money for the PITCHING PITCHING PITCHING. Geez, for what Beltran would cost we could get a pitcher AND Vizquel, right? And more.

If you think one franchise, marquee name is going to turn us around, just look at Texas with A-Rod. They started winning when he LEFT.

Time to see if this team is going to realize its potential or not. Crede's not going anywhere, nor is Harris, Uribe or Gload... so let them play, let them gell... instead of the constant shuffling of last season, weighted down by the slumping Valentin and his noodle bat.

The only one I can't stand is Borchard; couldn't we play somebody else in RF?

But to blow that kind of cheddar on one guy when we have other holes to fill? Forget it. :gulp:

Hangar18
11-05-2004, 01:04 PM
.................. weighted down by the slumping Valentin and his noodle bat.


YOu have to Admit, Bostons version of Jose Valentin, Mark Bellhorn,
proved Valuable to the BoSox run at the title. Every team needs a free-swinging-Gamer type guy with a bat with some pop in it, because its so
important. The key however, is to NOT have 4 guys like that in the lineup (Crede, Borchard, Valentin, Gload Burke, were all automatic outs at one point).
And NOT pay him outrageously, which the SOX surely did. Jose wouldve
stayed cheaper, he loves the SOX, loves the City, and loves SOX fans.
Now, because of his price tag, everyone is quick to Get "Rid" of him.
A team like the Braves, Yankees, even the Red Sox will pick him up
FASTER than lightning, to be the Bat off the bench, the glue to a clubhouse that makes teams Winners.

And next year, we'll be watching Jose get a World Series ring with someone else because we Mis-Used him in
the lineup. *sighs*

Flight #24
11-05-2004, 01:07 PM
YOu have to Admit, Bostons version of Jose Valentin, Mark Bellhorn,
proved Valuable to the BoSox run at the title. Every team needs a free-swinging-Gamer type guy with a bat with some pop in it, because its so
important. The key however, is to NOT have 4 guys like that in the lineup (Crede, Borchard, Valentin, Gload Burke, were all automatic outs at one point).

Without the Frank & Maggs injuries, you'd not only have 2 fewer of those guys, you'd also add in 2 top-level hitters. He wasn't so much misused as he was necessarily thrust into a position he wasn't suited for because of injury.

Hangar18
11-05-2004, 01:14 PM
Without the Frank & Maggs injuries, you'd not only have 2 fewer of those guys, you'd also add in 2 top-level hitters. He wasn't so much misused as he was necessarily thrust into a position he wasn't suited for because of injury.
Yes, I agree with this also. The SOX let Valentin go, and they will
need a guy like him off the Bench ........... Veteran, experienced, a leader,
left-handed, Pop off the bat ......

Game 5, American League Championship Series ........
Sox need a pinchhitter off the Bench ........... DO you use Jose Valentin ......
Or Jamie Burke?

:reinsy " Hhmmmmmmm, which one of the two is Cheaper? "

Mickster
11-05-2004, 01:47 PM
Game 5, American League Championship Series ........
Sox need a pinchhitter off the Bench ........... DO you use Jose Valentin ......
Or Jamie Burke?

:reinsy " Hhmmmmmmm, which one of the two is Cheaper? "
:reinsy "Hhmmmmmmmmmmm, a .216 hitter with 140K's in 450 at bats oorrrrr a .333 hitter with 13K's in 140 at bats???"

jabrch
11-05-2004, 02:01 PM
This is beyond pathetic, really.You are entitled to your opinion...but I am not sure why you seem to think it is fact.

hitlesswonder
11-05-2004, 02:17 PM
Hicks made a mistake? How many championships has Texas won? Ever?

I have to agree with PHG. I think Hicks mistake was trading A-Rod. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but they paid the Yankees a good chunk of his salary, which is ridiculous to start with. But more importantly, with A-Rod they would have had a very good chance of making the playoffs this year. I'm not an owner, so to me I'll take a better shot at the postseason over money anyday.

Flight #24
11-05-2004, 02:23 PM
I have to agree with PHG. I think Hicks mistake was trading A-Rod. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but they paid the Yankees a good chunk of his salary, which is ridiculous to start with. But more importantly, with A-Rod they would have had a very good chance of making the playoffs this year. I'm not an owner, so to me I'll take a better shot at the postseason over money anyday.
That's true, but this offseason, they'll probably try to sign a pitcher or 2, something the wouldn't have been able to do had they kept ARod. That's my opinion, but based on their history and Hicks comments, it seems like it's the case.

Ol' No. 2
11-05-2004, 02:25 PM
That's true, but this offseason, they'll probably try to sign a pitcher or 2, something the wouldn't have been able to do had they kept ARod. That's my opinion, but based on their history and Hicks comments, it seems like it's the case.They also signed Kenny Rogers last year which they probably would't have been able to do if they still had Rodriguez' contract around their neck.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-05-2004, 02:30 PM
You are entitled to your opinion...but I am not sure why you seem to think it is fact.
It's NOT MY OPINION that entire books have been written debunking your silly notion that "credible media sources" believe Beltran is about to be overpaid for too many years.

Here are just two I can name right off the top of my head.

Lords of the Realm by John Helyar.
Baseball and Billions by Andrew Zimbalist.

BTW, the next time you resort to silly game saying posts like you did (again) quoted above in this latest childish retort, we're going to start a whole thread in the Roadhouse just for you. This message board is NOT the third grade. I have no doubt you're capable of populating it over and over again.

Fair warning.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 03:12 PM
I have to agree with PHG. I think Hicks mistake was trading A-Rod. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but they paid the Yankees a good chunk of his salary, which is ridiculous to start with. But more importantly, with A-Rod they would have had a very good chance of making the playoffs this year.
How much better was Texas going to be with A-Rod and Michael Young over Young and Soriano in the short term, or Young and some payroll flexibility going forward? Hicks wanted to unload A-Rod to give him more flexibility in the future so that he can go out and have a more well rounded team. Having A-Rod and Park and a bunch of junk and low priced players would not have likely amounted to much - right? It sucks that they had to absorb part of A-Rod's contract, but nobody seemed willing to take it on. If Hicks could have it all over again, do you think he would have signed A-Rod to that deal? I doubt it - now that he has freed up about 15mm or so, he will probably use that over the next few years to try and surround his good young offensive club with some pitching.

FightingBillini
11-05-2004, 04:22 PM
YOu have to Admit, Bostons version of Jose Valentin, Mark Bellhorn,
proved Valuable to the BoSox run at the title. Every team needs a free-swinging-Gamer type guy with a bat with some pop in it, because its so
important. The key however, is to NOT have 4 guys like that in the lineup (Crede, Borchard, Valentin, Gload Burke, were all automatic outs at one point).
And NOT pay him outrageously, which the SOX surely did. Jose wouldve
stayed cheaper, he loves the SOX, loves the City, and loves SOX fans.
Now, because of his price tag, everyone is quick to Get "Rid" of him.
A team like the Braves, Yankees, even the Red Sox will pick him up
FASTER than lightning, to be the Bat off the bench, the glue to a clubhouse that makes teams Winners.

And next year, we'll be watching Jose get a World Series ring with someone else because we Mis-Used him in
the lineup. *sighs*Bellhorn:
G138AB523R93H1382B373B3HR17RBI82TB232BB88SO177SB6C S1OBP.373SLG.444AVG.264

Valentin:
G125AB450R73H972B203B3HR30RBI70TB213BB43SO139SB8CS 6OBP.287SLG.473AVG.216

I think you are overrating Jose. To bat .216 over a full season - inexcusable. Bellhorn was better than Valentin in hits, RBI, average, walks, OBP and salary. And no, Jose would not have stayed cheaper. He said after the season that he loved it here and would stay;he said he would take a lesser role but not a lesser salary. We dont need a $5mil 139K pinch hitter.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 04:25 PM
Bellhorn:
GABRH2B3BHRRBITBBBSOSBCSOBPSLGAVG20041385239313837 317822328817761.373.444.264

Valentin:
GABRH2B3BHRRBITBBBSOSBCSOBPSLGAVG20041254507397203 30702134313986.287.473.216

Thanks for clarifying that.... :D:

FightingBillini
11-05-2004, 04:30 PM
Sorry, the chart messed up. I corrected it

MrRoboto83
11-05-2004, 06:06 PM
I believe Aaron Rowand will be our new .300/30hr/30sb/100rbi guy next year, and I also believe if the Sox were to pick up Beltran Rowan would be moved to right field. I don't think picking up Beltan is a good idea, I could totally see Beltran becoming injury prone after he signs a deal like that. I like the idea of moving Konerko and taking a chance on Gload and Thomas at first, and perhaps signing Alou at a discount to play outfield and DH platoon with Everette, then spend the rest on picking up Pedro to ace our staff.

hitlesswonder
11-05-2004, 07:45 PM
They also signed Kenny Rogers last year which they probably would't have been able to do if they still had Rodriguez' contract around their neck.
Maybe -- I'll be honest and say that I don't know what their budget was. But Rogers was pretty cheap (2.4 million). If they couldn't scrape that together, well like I said I don't know. This is just speculating, but even if you accept that the Texas budget was the real deal (as opposed to what PHG is saying), the contract that really killed them was Park, who they got nothing from.

Looking at the stats though, jabrch is right that at the plate this year there wasn't a 14 million dollar difference between Soriano and Rodriguez. The actual savings are less than that (maybe 8 million? I don't remember) because of the money Texas threw in, but the point is the same. So I'll concede that and stop posting about the Texas Rangers :smile: