PDA

View Full Version : Rebuilding the White Sox


Pages : [1] 2

Dan H
06-20-2013, 08:39 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that a majority of White Sox fans think that the 2013 season has been and will continue to be a disaster. Most call for a massive rebuild and I cannot argue with that.

However, I believe the White Sox need much more than that. A few years ago Rocky Wirtz saw that his team was a failure on the ice and at the gate. He began to make to serious changes, and the results have been amazing. The Hawks won a Cup that alluded them for almost 50 years. The United Center is rocking again. And even if the Hawks cannot beat the Bruins, they have accomplished a great deal in a short period of time. How did this happen? Business as usual went out the window. The Hawks have a chance to become a true, elite NHL team.

The White Sox need someone outside the organization to come in and analyze what has gone wrong. They are on the verge on their first last place finish in 24 years, and merely trusting Rick Hahn alone to turn things around doesn't make sense to me.

This organization has been on a treadmill. It is time for serious change - not only changing players.

LITTLE NELL
06-20-2013, 08:42 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that a majority of White Sox fans think that the 2013 season has been and will continue to be a disaster. Most call for a massive rebuild and I cannot argue with that.

However, I believe the White Sox need much more than that. A few years ago Rocky Wirtz saw that his team was a failure on the ice and at the gate. He began to make to serious changes, and the results have been amazing. The Hawks won a Cup that alluded them for almost 50 years. The United Center is rocking again. And even if the Hawks cannot beat the Bruins, they have accomplished a great deal in a short period of time. How did this happen? Business as usual went out the window. The Hawks have a chance to become a true, elite NHL team.

The White Sox need someone outside the organization to come in and analyze what has gone wrong. They are on the verge on their first last place finish in 24 years, and merely trusting Rick Hahn alone to turn things around doesn't make sense to me.

This organization has been on a treadmill. It is time for serious change - not only changing players.

Could not agree more.

Golden Sox
06-20-2013, 09:10 PM
When the season started I thought the team might contend like they did in 2012. Up until 3 weeks ago the pitching staff held things together. The hitting and defense weren't any good. Now the entire team (pitching, hitting and defense) has collapsed. If there's any light at the end of the tunnel, I sure don't see it. It will be curious to see what Hahn does. I should point out also that everybody I have talked to tells me JR has no intention of selling the White Sox now.

doublem23
06-20-2013, 10:00 PM
For ****'s sake, they just need to get some better players

LITTLE NELL
06-20-2013, 10:09 PM
For ****'s sake, they just need to get some better players

Great idea, what a bunch of dummies we are around here not to think of that.

DSpivack
06-20-2013, 10:39 PM
The Blackhawks analogy does not really work. They did not bring in someone from outside the organization to understand why things were going wrong and correct their ways. They built their team like a few others have, stink for years and get top picks. Setting aside the line about ownership, which will lead to disagreements about credit here, the team stunk for years and got back to back #1 overall picks. They drafted Kane and Toews and successfully built talent around them. While baseball is not as dependent on top picks as is any other sport, the Sox have not sucked for years to continuously get the top pick of talent at the top of the draft. My guess right now is that they'll be picking somewhere around #5 in the 2014 draft. Here's to hoping they can get someone a lot better than Gordon Beckham, and to getting much needed top talent in the organization as a whole.

Dan H
06-20-2013, 10:46 PM
The Blackhawks analogy does not really work. They did not bring in someone from outside the organization to understand why things were going wrong and correct their ways. They built their team like a few others have, stink for years and get top picks. Setting aside the line about ownership, which will lead to disagreements about credit here, the team stunk for years and got back to back #1 overall picks. They drafted Kane and Toews and successfully built talent around them. While baseball is not as dependent on top picks as is any other sport, the Sox have not sucked for years to continuously get the top pick of talent at the top of the draft. My guess right now is that they'll be picking somewhere around #5 in the 2014 draft. Here's to hoping they can get someone a lot better than Gordon Beckham, and to getting much needed top talent in the organization as a whole.

I think the analogy does work. The point is this: First you have to admit something is wrong before you fix it. I do not think it is a coincidence that things turned around after Rocky Wirtz took over. It was a whole new mind set - and look at the results.

My point is this - The Sox have been on the same pattern. Build up the team, have some success, then watch everything fall apart. There has to be a reason this keeps happening. And it needs to stop.

Railsplitter
06-20-2013, 10:56 PM
I'd like to see a coaching staff that isn't made up of former Sox players who were seemingly hired because they were fan favorites. Let's get guys who have a record of working with players.

DSpivack
06-20-2013, 11:00 PM
I think the analogy does work. The point is this: First you have to admit something is wrong before you fix it. I do not think it is a coincidence that things turned around after Rocky Wirtz took over. It was a whole new mind set - and look at the results.

My point is this - The Sox have been on the same pattern. Build up the team, have some success, then watch everything fall apart. There has to be a reason this keeps happening. And it needs to stop.

That's not what happened, though. Dale Tallon was GM under the old man starting in 2005, Rocky took over the team from his father two years later. Tallon drafted Toews in 2006 and Kane in 2007, and Tallon was the architect for the 2010 championship team. Rocky and John McDonough changed team perception involving PR and marketing. The management responsible for the title was in place before Rocky took over.

jamokes
06-20-2013, 11:05 PM
The Sox can't draft Kane and Toews..........it's not the same. Yes we have to rebuild and sell off what we can,but then we have NOTHING in the minors to restock with. We are in trouble for a few years to come. Dunn is done, Paulie is gotten old quickly and our leadoff hitter is one of the leaders in strikeouts. Long year.

Mr. Jinx
06-20-2013, 11:05 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that a majority of White Sox fans think that the 2013 season has been and will continue to be a disaster. Most call for a massive rebuild and I cannot argue with that.

However, I believe the White Sox need much more than that. A few years ago Rocky Wirtz saw that his team was a failure on the ice and at the gate. He began to make to serious changes, and the results have been amazing. The Hawks won a Cup that alluded them for almost 50 years. The United Center is rocking again. And even if the Hawks cannot beat the Bruins, they have accomplished a great deal in a short period of time. How did this happen? Business as usual went out the window. The Hawks have a chance to become a true, elite NHL team.

The White Sox need someone outside the organization to come in and analyze what has gone wrong. They are on the verge on their first last place finish in 24 years, and merely trusting Rick Hahn alone to turn things around doesn't make sense to me.

This organization has been on a treadmill. It is time for serious change - not only changing players.

So what you're saying is we need to be ****ty for a long time, hope the owner dies, and become trendy. Got it.

captain54
06-20-2013, 11:06 PM
The Blackhawks analogy does not really work. They did not bring in someone from outside the organization to understand why things were going wrong and correct their ways. They built their team like a few others have, stink for years and get top picks.

That is true.. some of the pieces were already in place when Bill Wirtz was still around... The one thing that Rocky did do was bring in Hossa, which would probably have never happened under Bill Wirtz..

What Rocky did was give the franchise a fresh coat of paint.. bringing back Hull and Mikita brought a lot of old baby boomers back that couldn't stand Bill Wirtz..

Reinsdorf has suffered from a bad rep with the fans since he tried to move the team back in the late 80's..a lot of that is not an issue with the newer generation of fans, but it's really unfortunate that the Sox could not capitalize on the buzz from the 05 WS...

DSpivack
06-20-2013, 11:12 PM
That is true.. some of the pieces were already in place when Bill Wirtz was still around... The one thing that Rocky did do was bring in Hossa, which would probably have never happened under Bill Wirtz..

What Rocky did was give the franchise a fresh coat of paint.. bringing back Hull and Mikita brought a lot of old baby boomers back that couldn't stand Bill Wirtz..

Reinsdorf has suffered from a bad rep with the fans since he tried to move the team back in the late 80's..a lot of that is not an issue with the newer generation of fans, but it's really unfortunate that the Sox could not capitalize on the buzz from the 05 WS...

No one really cares now about what happened in the 80s. And as for bringing back players, in the case of the White Sox they have never left. There's too much loyalty and respect there.

Looking back on it, the decline of the team should not be too much of a shock, as KW's M.O. seemed to be to try and re-load with veterans every year, instead of relying on a younger and rising core. That is only sustainable for so long, and the lack of young talent in the organization began to rear it's ugly head over time, and here we are today.

TDog
06-20-2013, 11:12 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that a majority of White Sox fans think that the 2013 season has been and will continue to be a disaster. Most call for a massive rebuild and I cannot argue with that.

However, I believe the White Sox need much more than that. A few years ago Rocky Wirtz saw that his team was a failure on the ice and at the gate. He began to make to serious changes, and the results have been amazing. The Hawks won a Cup that alluded them for almost 50 years. The United Center is rocking again. And even if the Hawks cannot beat the Bruins, they have accomplished a great deal in a short period of time. How did this happen? Business as usual went out the window. The Hawks have a chance to become a true, elite NHL team.

The White Sox need someone outside the organization to come in and analyze what has gone wrong. They are on the verge on their first last place finish in 24 years, and merely trusting Rick Hahn alone to turn things around doesn't make sense to me.

This organization has been on a treadmill. It is time for serious change - not only changing players.

Of course, during the 1970 season, on the verge of their worst finish in franchise history, the White Sox hired a new GM and field manager from the Angels system, which really only worked because the manager was friendly with the enigmatic Dick Allen, whose curious career included one full season with the Sox that happened to be the greatest offensive year in franchise history. Compared with this year, the Sox were much worse off in 1970. They were worse off in 1977, although no one understood that at the time.

Maybe baseball should shorten the season by locking out the players for months only a few years after a work stoppage that leaves the sport with a salary cap. Not that the baseball teams that have money are automatically doing well. There really is nothing magical about going outside the organization. Most teams aren't getting it right. The Angels and Dodgers have spent all kinds of money, have had baseball analysts insist their the teams to beat, and they aren't much better off than the Sox. I really don't know that the other non-Michigan AL Central teams are really better off the Sox.

The Sox remind me of the Giants of about five years ago, no hitting but pretty good pitching, a team with some age and bad contracts. The promising young players that got a lot of playing time never panned out. The Giants had the advantage of playing in a park that helped their pitchers, and were able to draft Buster Posey, but when you have strong pitching, you aren't that far away, especially these days.

What the Sox need most is a good catcher to play good defense and handle the pitching staff. Unless I'm missing something, Flowers proved a fatal miscalculation, but Pierzynski wasn't going to be a longterm answer. I always thought signing Dunn was a mistake. If Guillen had used Quentin as his DH instead of Kotsay, he likely would have protected Quentin from injury while getting more production and keeping the team from making the offensively fatal mistake of committing big money to a low-average, high strikeout hitter who brought the offense down with him.

The best thing, I think, that could happen to the Sox this season would be a team claiming Dunn on waivers the way the Sox claimed Rios. I'm hoping that's not the longshot it seems because it would make improving the team so much easier. The Sox have some strong pitching, even if this roadtrip didn't display it. Filling in offensive holes is easier than finding pitching. The offense needs to severely cut down on the strikeouts and do a better job of making line-drive contact.

DSpivack
06-20-2013, 11:19 PM
The best thing, I think, that could happen to the Sox this season would be a team claiming Dunn on waivers the way the Sox claimed Rios. I'm hoping that's not the longshot it seems because it would make improving the team so much easier. The Sox have some strong pitching, even if this roadtrip didn't display it. Filling in offensive holes is easier than finding pitching. The offense needs to severely cut down on the strikeouts and do a better job of making line-drive contact.

This is I agree with and might be the only reason I'm optimistic about this team, along with future payroll flexibility. I would like to see them deal a couple older players this year for younger position players who can at least hit at a league-average level and play good D (not superstars, just slightly better versions of Conor Gillespie). I am confident in the organization's ability to find and/or develop pitching, as that seems their sole strength.

captain54
06-20-2013, 11:27 PM
No one really cares now about what happened in the 80s. And as for bringing back players, in the case of the White Sox they have never left. There's too much loyalty and respect there.
.

I thought I said the newer generations of fans don't care about the late 80's

Ozzie was gone and came back.. and left.. where was the loyalty and respect in that relationship?

DSpivack
06-20-2013, 11:28 PM
I thought I said the newer generations of fans don't care about the late 80's

Ozzie was gone and came back.. and left.. where was the loyalty and respect in that relationship?

Ozzie left on his own.

Reinsdorf hasn't fired anyone in management for, what, 20 years or more?

WhiteSox5187
06-20-2013, 11:57 PM
Ozzie left on his own.

Reinsdorf hasn't fired anyone in management for, what, 20 years or more?

I think the last person that Jerry fired was Roland Hemond. Larry Himes left on his own.

amsteel
06-21-2013, 12:10 AM
Rocky Wirtz brought the Blackhawks into the 1990s...in the late 2000s.

They were massively dysfunctional and he simply did what the other 29 teams were already doing. The Sox aren't that broken.

BigKlu59
06-21-2013, 12:50 AM
Great idea, what a bunch of dummies we are around here not to think of that.


Bada Bing Bada Boom....

TDog pretty much summed up the fundamental baseball culture needed to pull up out of this nosedive of the organization. You as well I as I know it always starts with "Strength Up The Middle", Contact hitting, Good pitching and top notch fielding. Out of the 4 the Sox are lacking in three parts of the equation..

BK59

ZombieRob
06-21-2013, 05:46 AM
So what you're saying is we need to be ****ty for a long time, hope the owner dies, and become trendy. Got it.
They will be in the top 5 next year in drafting, if not top 3

roylestillman
06-21-2013, 06:07 AM
One of the strengths of the Sox organization has always been its loyalty, but there is a fine between loyalty and complacency or business as usual. Whether its in hiring coaches, managers and general managers from within to drafting relatives of the organization, the whole thing has gotten unhealthy. Loyalty often means keep your mouth shut. A healthy dose of an outsider coming in and addressing problems from the clubhouse to scouting to parking lot operations is sorely needed. Hell, Rocky Wirtz came in, saw how dismal concessions were at the UC and fired his own brother.

Dan H
06-21-2013, 06:18 AM
So what you're saying is we need to be ****ty for a long time, hope the owner dies, and become trendy. Got it.

First of all, I don't hope the owner dies. The team will be bad, at least in the short run since turning this around will take more than one season. And no, not become trendy, but give the fans a team they can more identify with instead of running things from the top down which is how the Sox have done for years. So I don't think you get it.

My main point about Rocky Wirtz is that he saw some changes needed to be made in the way the club was run. That needs to happen with the Sox.

Is my analogy with the Hawks absolutely perfect? No. But in the Sixties and Seventies, that was an elite team that was run into the ground. Success after that came only occasionally. Now the team is winning again and the fans are back. And a lot of this started at the top.

doublem23
06-21-2013, 06:49 AM
Now the team is winning again and the fans are back. And a lot of this started at the top.

I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

Dan H
06-21-2013, 06:55 AM
I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

That's adds up for me, too, but I have always thought the problems the Sox have had are more complicated than that. But I do think fans will also care more when ownership can instill confidence. The Sox ownership are not doing this. Period.

SI1020
06-21-2013, 07:43 AM
That's adds up for me, too, but I have always thought the problems the Sox have had are more complicated than that. But I do think fans will also care more when ownership can instill confidence. The Sox ownership are not doing this. Period. I totally agree.

SCCWS
06-21-2013, 08:51 AM
I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.


You need to have good coaching at the major league level as well. Also, unless you are strictly going to get better players from free agency, you will need better scouting and minor league instructors.

Mr. Jinx
06-21-2013, 09:14 AM
They will be in the top 5 next year in drafting, if not top 3

So then stage 1 is going to plan then.

Mr. Jinx
06-21-2013, 09:15 AM
I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

Yup. Pretty much all they did was pile up high draft picks, do what every other team in the league does, and reap the benefits of being the only hockey team in the 3rd largest city in the country.

Golden Sox
06-21-2013, 09:26 AM
1) In my lifetime the Blackhawks ownership was probably the worse Chicago ownership of the 5 major Chicago teams. I remember in the 1960's when the Blackhawks had Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita and sold out every home game with 16,666 customers. The Blackhawks owner (Arthur Wirtz) was so cheap and greedy he would only have the 2nd and 3rd periods of every home game on radio. He wouldn't put the 1st period on radio. He thought it would hurt the home attendance. He also commited one of the great blunders in Chicago sports history by not resigning Bobby Hull. It took many years for the Blackhawks to recover from not resigning Bobby Hull.
2) To change the subject, there's a new book out called White Sox Heroes. Its about the players who played for the White Sox in the 1960's. The author is Carroll Conklin. I'm not familar with the author but just skimming through the book he talks about some forgotten White Sox stars from that era. I'm sure older White Sox fans will like the book. Reading about the White Sox players from the 1960's sure beats watching the present 2013 White Sox.

Jurr
06-21-2013, 09:38 AM
You don't have to be terrible for multiple seasons to rebuild.
The problem is with the teams that are MEDIOCRE.

Case in point, the NFL's Buffalo Bills.

In the 13 years since they made the playoffs, there have been a ton of 6-10 and 7-9 seasons. That is just good enough to keep you out of the top of the draft where true superstars live. The other problem with the Bills is that they don't spend quite enough money to be largely enticing to top coaches and free agents.

The Sox have one of these problems and not so much of the other.
They have been a middling team for a while, which has kept players on a roster much longer than they should have. They have plodded along on the same course for a while, and results have been BLAH.

The good news is that they will spend money, and that can turn around a team in a fast manner. They need to bottom out, dump as much of this payroll as humanly possible (please get hot, Adam Dunn!), and start from scratch.

If they can get decent value for those players (Crain, Konerko, Dunn, Peavy, etc), they should move them. Loyalty be damned.

Bottom out, get some elite prospects from the top of the next couple of drafts, then spend money to augment that talent.

It may take a few years, but the team can be built in a rapid manner.

Bobby Thigpen
06-21-2013, 10:28 AM
instead of running things from the top down which is how the Sox have done for years.
What organization or business isn't run from the people in charge downward? You think Apple asks their mail guy what features they should put in the next Iphone?

SI1020
06-21-2013, 10:36 AM
2) To change the subject, there's a new book out called White Sox Heroes. Its about the players who played for the White Sox in the 1960's. The author is Carroll Conklin. I'm not familar with the author but just skimming through the book he talks about some forgotten White Sox stars from that era. I'm sure older White Sox fans will like the book. Reading about the White Sox players from the 1960's sure beats watching the present 2013 White Sox. Thanks for letting us know.

http://www.amazon.com/White-Sox-Heroes-Remembering-Baseballs/dp/1484850572/ref=sr_1_2/191-1307639-2041034?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371825227&sr=1-2

russ99
06-21-2013, 10:49 AM
I really don't think we need to do a pull-down rebuild, and frankly it's a hard sell for this franchise and fanbase especially with the current ownership.

With the young pitching we already have and continue to develop, what's necessary is a contract cleanout and selling high on young underperforming assets to with the result of bringing in the next group of younger offensive talent, augmented by some key FA signings.

Contracts expiring:

2013: Konerko, Floyd, Crain, Wise; Deal Konerko and Crain at deadline.
2014: Dunn, Rios buyout; Deal Rios this year, Dump Dunn next year, and eat cash if needed.
2015: Peavy, Keppinger, Beckham, DeAza; Peavy could be moved as early as this deadline if healthy, but I'd keep him longer to maximize value. Someone may take Keppinger off our hands before then.

Sell high:

I'd move Beckham and Viciedo while their contracts are low and trade value fairly high. IMO, last offseason was the best time to move both. Not sure if anyone would give us something decent for Flowers at this point, as he's obviously a AAAA player. I'd only consider moving Sale if we got an All-star bat in return.

This would bring back both prospects and payroll room. We'd be in for a tough 2014, but could be back as contenders as early as 2015, akin to what Boston did last year.

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2013, 11:16 AM
Don't "fix" what isn't broken: our pitching development system.

Do fix our heretofore inability to draft/sign amateur position players, and develop them into complete players who can execute all the fundamentals both in the field and at the plate, and field their positions well.

We won't get the next Frank Thomas/Magglio Ordonez cornerstone hitter via trade; we have to draft or sign those position players as amateurs.

But shrewd trades could turn our veteran position players and relievers into building blocks.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 11:18 AM
They will be in the top 5 next year in drafting, if not top 3

Next year's pitching crop is going to be very strong. if we draft in the top 5, we should be able to land a future #1, #2 type starter.

captain54
06-21-2013, 11:28 AM
I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. .

that's incorrect... like in any sport, a team gets high picks but they still have to have good scouts in the amateur scouting dept. to access players and then decide exactly who to pick..

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 11:34 AM
I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them.

This is not an accurate representation of what happened, nor is it fair to say that they "fell" into good players.

Besides Kane and Toews who were both drafted within the first 3 picks of the draft, none of the other great players were #1 draft picks. The Hawks front office is very savvy and deserves credit for the great teams they've put together.

Moses_Scurry
06-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Next year's pitching crop is going to be very strong. if we draft in the top 5, we should be able to land a future #1, #2 type starter.

As awesome as the thought of having a 1-2 punch of Sale, Ace #2 is, I would much rather they get the next Frank Thomas or Ken Griffey Jr. Who are front runner position players for next year's draft?

tstrike2000
06-21-2013, 11:59 AM
As awesome as the thought of having a 1-2 punch of Sale, Ace #2 is, I would much rather they get the next Frank Thomas or Ken Griffey Jr. Who are front runner position players for next year's draft?

The only problem is Frank and Griffey are both future HOF'ers. Hopefully, we can find that stud bat, especially with the draft position we'll probably have.

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2013, 12:06 PM
As awesome as the thought of having a 1-2 punch of Sale, Ace #2 is, I would much rather they get the next Frank Thomas or Ken Griffey Jr. Who are front runner position players for next year's draft?

If there's a lead-pipe lock hitter like Harper, Griffey, A-Rod, Teixeira, Frank, Cabrera, Gwynn, Puckett, Boggs, Schmidt, Mauer, etc., then yes, take him, especially if he can field well at a premium position.

But you can win a World Series with two aces and a team that can catch the ball and plays good fundamentals.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 12:12 PM
As awesome as the thought of having a 1-2 punch of Sale, Ace #2 is, I would much rather they get the next Frank Thomas or Ken Griffey Jr. Who are front runner position players for next year's draft?

The 2 I see mentioned most often are Alex Jackson a high school catcher and Trey Turner who is a shortstop at NC State. There are actually quite a few shortstops ranked highly going into 2014. But overall, it's going to be a banner year for pitchers.

Domeshot17
06-21-2013, 12:23 PM
If I am Rick Hahn, no one is untouchable. Now that is not to say I would not just trade Sale to trade him, but if I could get a return similar to what the Royals got for Shields, I would take it and not think twice. You need to rebuild with farm depth. Be it bullpen arms, pitchers, hitters. Stack up as much as you can, so you can spend the money wisely.

I would also like to see a purpose to our lineup. 3 or 4 guys with speed, a couple guys capable of hitting over .300, and 3 guys who can put out 30 homers, regardless of speed, for the middle. Right now, we lack a true 2 hitter (although, I thought Kepp would have been a PERFECT fit there), we don't have the power in the middle since PK is old and Tank has regressed terribly, and there is a huge lack of a consistent, pesky contact hitter.

doublem23
06-21-2013, 12:26 PM
that's incorrect... like in any sport, a team gets high picks but they still have to have good scouts in the amateur scouting dept. to access players and then decide exactly who to pick..

And even good teams make a mistake sometimes and bad teams get lucky and pick the right guy.

:shrug:

Tragg
06-21-2013, 01:08 PM
If you want a complete Royals/rays/Pirate start-over, you trade Sale and Reed. If you are doing this to compete in 2 years, you keep them. The 2 year plan depends on getting a lot out of Peavy, Rios and Crain.
I'd keep Alexei - who else do we have? And he wouldn't fetch squat anyway. I'd find a catcher who can catch the ball.....it's easier to find offense at other positions. Is Viciedo developing or is he "is what he is"? I'd probably keep De Aza - he can play better D than he has been. His O isn't terrible, and he'd yield little in return. Need a 3B, 1B and some outfielders.
And above all Ventura has got to stop pitching these young pitchers so many innings, using Reed (who the MLB network said this morning has lost 2 mph of of his fastball this year) 3/4 days, etc.

Domeshot17
06-21-2013, 01:14 PM
If you want a complete Royals/rays/Pirate start-over, you trade Sale and Reed. If you are doing this to compete in 2 years, you keep them. The 2 year plan depends on getting a lot out of Peavy, Rios and Crain.
I'd keep Alexei - who else do we have? And he wouldn't fetch squat anyway. I'd find a catcher who can catch the ball.....it's easier to find offense at other positions. Is Viciedo developing or is he "is what he is"? I'd probably keep De Aza - he can play better D than he has been. His O isn't terrible, and he'd yield little in return. Need a 3B, 1B and some outfielders.
And above all Ventura has got to stop pitching these young pitchers so many innings, using Reed (who the MLB network said this morning has lost 2 mph of of his fastball this year) 3/4 days, etc.

I have a feeling Crain is a guy we are going to get more for now than in July. Take the Red Sox for example, Bailey just lost the closing job, Hanranhan is hurt, they need a closer. Even if Tazawa (spelling?!) does well, who takes his spot? Crain makes a lot of sense there.

TheVulture
06-21-2013, 01:55 PM
If you want a complete Royals/rays/Pirate start-over, you trade Sale.

No way do I trade Sale. What for? So I can get a prospect who hopefully becomes half the pitcher Sale is when I have Sale wrapped up at a reasonable rate until 2019? If the Sox can't rebuild by 2019, I don't think trading Sale is going to help much.

The Sox can trade Rios, Crain, Reed, maaaaybbeee Konerko if he hits well over the next few weeks. They might even be able to trade Lindstrom or Thornton for a decent prospect if some teams are desperate for bullpen depth. That's a decent start, along with Floyd coming off the books. The Sox will have a lot of payroll available over the next two years, I just don't see the point in trading Sale.

Domeshot17
06-21-2013, 02:08 PM
No way do I trade Sale. What for? So I can get a prospect who hopefully becomes half the pitcher Sale is when I have Sale wrapped up at a reasonable rate until 2019? If the Sox can't rebuild by 2019, I don't think trading Sale is going to help much.

The Sox can trade Rios, Crain, Reed, maaaaybbeee Konerko if he hits well over the next few weeks. They might even be able to trade Lindstrom or Thornton for a decent prospect if some teams are desperate for bullpen depth. That's a decent start, along with Floyd coming off the books. The Sox will have a lot of payroll available over the next two years, I just don't see the point in trading Sale.

See, I think now is the perfect time to EXPLORE trading Sale. You have all the power. But lets say the Rangers called, and offered you something stupid, Profar, Olt, Martin Perez and Joey Gallo or Cody Buckel, how do you say no to that with the state of this team?

SoxSpeed22
06-21-2013, 02:22 PM
Sale is not untouchable, but any deal would really have to bring in star players and core pieces, otherwise no reason to deal. The Sox need to handle this carefully, but should keep their options open.

Stanley
06-21-2013, 02:25 PM
As great as having a home grown talent like Sale as a White Sox is, he should not be viewed as untouchable, and if it makes sense you have to deal him to someone willing to pay premium. Very few players in this game are truly untouchable. Yes, he'd be nice to have to build a staff around, but things look really bleak for the Sox for the foreseeable future, so I say deal him and start stocking up on young (and possibly less injury prone) talent. Basically, you have the White Sox banking that he will stay relatively DL stint-free and live up to his contract, so if another team feels the same way and will give up some top prospects for him, you have to do it and start the rebuild process.

Every team in this division looks like it has plans to, and in some instances is capable of making the playoffs, besides the White Sox and Twins. The Twins started a half-assed rebuild last off-season and it hasn't done them much good. I fear and expect the Sox will do just the same under Hahn.

I would without a doubt rather be bad for a few years than continually mediocre. You get nothing for being mediocre. You get prospects, top talent and a chance to be great and build a consistent contender for being ****ty.

RockJock07
06-21-2013, 03:00 PM
See, I think now is the perfect time to EXPLORE trading Sale. You have all the power. But lets say the Rangers called, and offered you something stupid, Profar, Olt, Martin Perez and Joey Gallo or Cody Buckel, how do you say no to that with the state of this team?

Yeah, I drive Sale to the airport for that trade. Even if they offered Profar and Olt i'd do it. I think Sale is awesome but in the back of mind I wonder if his arm is a house of cards ready to fall at any minute.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 03:09 PM
Trading Sale isn't going to happen. Not because he's untouchable, but because it's highly unlikely a team is going to bet the house on him. The price for a young, all-star pitcher signed reasonably for 6 years would be astronomical. IMO the days of teams going "all in" on trades are over.

That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but the odds are long and recent history says otherwise.

24thStFan
06-21-2013, 03:18 PM
I agree with the other posters who said, "no one is untouchable". Hahn needs to shop everyone around and take the best deals that fill the most critical needs (e.g., catcher, CF, 3B).

The question is whether Hahn and rest of the decision-makers in this organization are capable of evaluating the talent in any offered trade and making the correct long-term decision for the White Sox. I think we are about to find out the answer.

DSpivack
06-21-2013, 03:58 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/06/white-sox-getting-calls-on-veterans.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Not surprising.

blandman
06-21-2013, 03:59 PM
No way do I trade Sale. What for? So I can get a prospect who hopefully becomes half the pitcher Sale is when I have Sale wrapped up at a reasonable rate until 2019? If the Sox can't rebuild by 2019, I don't think trading Sale is going to help much.


This assumes that

1. Without trading Sale we can rebuild in time for his contract to still be valuable (since every rebuilding year his cost is an unnecessary expense)

2. Sale remains effective for that long

3. Sale defies the book on himself and doesn't suffer a career-ending/altering injury.

Those are all things the White Sox really need to look at. Just when will we be ready again? Is it worth paying tens of millions to Sale if we're not competing, especially given the lack of guarantee with his health?

He's got the most value on the team, and he's got the highest value he'll probably ever have. If you don't trade him now, it's quite likely you'll regret it.

ChiSoxGal85
06-21-2013, 04:00 PM
Hey, the Tigers DFA'd Valverde...

No, Rick. Just no.

Tigers Designate Jose Valverde For Assignment http://bit.ly/19ZomQY (http://t.co/SeMspLfcnW) #mlb (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23mlb&src=hash)

blandman
06-21-2013, 04:02 PM
Trading Sale isn't going to happen. Not because he's untouchable, but because it's highly unlikely a team is going to bet the house on him. The price for a young, all-star pitcher signed reasonably for 6 years would be astronomical. IMO the days of teams going "all in" on trades are over.

That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but the odds are long and recent history says otherwise.

I bet a team like the Yankees would bite. And given his salary structure, maybe even a team like the Rays.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 04:10 PM
3. Sale defies the book on himself and doesn't suffer a career-ending/altering injury.

Those are all things the White Sox really need to look at. Just when will we be ready again? Is it worth paying tens of millions to Sale if we're not competing, especially given the lack of guarantee with his health?

This is not the kind of speculation that good organizations do. Trading a guy because he "might" get hurt is a good way to continue floundering in the basement. Pitching is a violent act that takes it's toll on the human body no matter what your mechanics are. There's no proven method of throwing the ball that can prevent injury.

If someone blows Hahn away with a bevy of high quality prospects then so be it. Otherwise you'd have a hard time convincing me that keeping him is not our best option.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 04:15 PM
I bet a team like the Yankees would bite. And given his salary structure, maybe even a team like the Rays.

The Yankees have a decent farm system, but the Rays, as always, have more tantalizing prospects. Any team would love to have Sale, but I just don't see it happening in the current state of affairs.

blandman
06-21-2013, 04:29 PM
This is not the kind of speculation that good organizations do. Trading a guy because he "might" get hurt is a good way to continue floundering in the basement. Pitching is a violent act that takes it's toll on the human body no matter what your mechanics are. There's no proven method of throwing the ball that can prevent injury.

If someone blows Hahn away with a bevy of high quality prospects then so be it. Otherwise you'd have a hard time convincing me that keeping him is not our best option.

Whatever your personal opinion on injury projections, most teams (not just good teams) weigh injury projections incredibly carefully. Sale isn't a "might" get injured case. Sale is a "probably" will get injured case. You can disagree with that all you want, and you have the right to, but that doesn't change the fact that the "book" on Sale is that the risk is more on the expect it to happen side of things.

Tragg
06-21-2013, 04:31 PM
No way do I trade Sale. What for? So I can get a prospect who hopefully becomes half the pitcher Sale is when I have Sale wrapped up at a reasonable rate until 2019? If the Sox can't rebuild by 2019, I don't think trading Sale is going to help much.

The Sox can trade Rios, Crain, Reed, maaaaybbeee Konerko if he hits well over the next few weeks. They might even be able to trade Lindstrom or Thornton for a decent prospect if some teams are desperate for bullpen depth. That's a decent start, along with Floyd coming off the books. The Sox will have a lot of payroll available over the next two years, I just don't see the point in trading Sale.
You trade him because contending is 1/2 a decade away, if we do a complete makeover. If we're not competing, watching him pitch 115 innings for Ventura doesn't net us much.
We'd get about 3 elite prospects for him.

doublem23
06-21-2013, 04:40 PM
Somebody has to explain to me why anyone actually thinks the Sox are going to do the complete tear down and rebuild model?

TaylorStSox
06-21-2013, 04:41 PM
I need 2 impact players for Sale. True aces are too valuable and I believe he can be one of the few.

Tragg
06-21-2013, 05:08 PM
Somebody has to explain to me why anyone actually thinks the Sox are going to do the complete tear down and rebuild model?

Why? Because we don't have a single position player after this year, either on the ML team or in the high minors, who could be considered an above average hitter. It's tough to patch that.

Do I think we will do a total rebuild? No

doublem23
06-21-2013, 05:16 PM
Why? Because we don't have a single position player after this year, either on the ML team or in the high minors, who could be considered an above average hitter. It's tough to patch that.

Do I think we will do a total rebuild? No

Oh, I get the reasoning why people think we should do the whole tear down and rebuild, not that I necessarily agree, but I understand the argument.

I'm just saying, the Sox front office are never going go for that. May as well spend your time and energy on the realm of the possible, otherwise, we can discuss how many more HR the guys will hit if we moved the team to the Moon. :cool:

TomBradley72
06-21-2013, 05:58 PM
The last time the Sox were this bad was 2007- and this year might be even worse- BUT, 2007 was only 2 years removed from the 2005 World Series- so attendance was still OK and the fan base was willing to be patient, etc.

The last 3.5 months of this season could mark the lowest point of this franchise since 1999- how LOW the attendance gets in the 2nd half could be a real wake up call.

soltrain21
06-21-2013, 06:17 PM
The last time the Sox were this bad was 2007- and this year might be even worse- BUT, 2007 was only 2 years removed from the 2005 World Series- so attendance was still OK and the fan base was willing to be patient, etc.

The last 3.5 months of this season could mark the lowest point of this franchise since 1999- how LOW the attendance gets in the 2nd half could be a real wake up call.

2007 had injuries and a bad bullpen. Bullpens can be fixed year to year.

What this team is...? Yeah, it's gonna take a while.

SCCWS
06-21-2013, 06:21 PM
I have a feeling Crain is a guy we are going to get more for now than in July. Take the Red Sox for example, Bailey just lost the closing job, Hanranhan is hurt, they need a closer. Even if Tazawa (spelling?!) does well, who takes his spot? Crain makes a lot of sense there.

Unless Papilbon is their choice which is a strong rumor in New England right now.

blandman
06-21-2013, 06:30 PM
Somebody has to explain to me why anyone actually thinks the Sox are going to do the complete tear down and rebuild model?

Because we're beyond the point where stubbornness shows itself to be stupidity. All these years of being jealous of the Cubs...now we're in danger of becoming them. Five+ year serious rebuild is the BEST option. Going and handing out contracts this offseason would be devastating. You think a total rebuild is bad? Ask a Cubs fan what decades upon decades of throwing money at bad teams leads to.

As bad as our management has become, they couldn't possibly be that stupid. Right? Right?

RCWHITESOX
06-21-2013, 06:37 PM
Yeah, I drive Sale to the airport for that trade. Even if they offered Profar and Olt i'd do it. I think Sale is awesome but in the back of mind I wonder if his arm is a house of cards ready to fall at any minute.

Pitching is the hardest to come by; and no way should the Sox trade away a #1 starter for prospects. Profar or Olt might turn out to be great or just as easy turn out to be average or less. For every Mike Trout there are hundreds of Brian Andersons. I would rather see them keep Sale and Peavy and go after a CF like Bourjos and move Ramirez and Viciedo who have a hard time keeping their heads in the game. True this team has a lot of holes but trading your 2 or 3 best pitchers makes no sense. (Sale, Peavy, and Reed ). Trading Crain,Thornton,Konerko, for prospects makes sense; and trying to move Dunn and Danks contracts are a good starting point.

DSpivack
06-21-2013, 06:42 PM
Pitching is the hardest to come by; and no way should the Sox trade away a #1 starter for prospects. Profar or Olt might turn out to be great or just as easy turn out to be average or less. For every Mike Trout there are hundreds of Brian Andersons. I would rather see them keep Sale and Peavy and go after a CF like Bourjos and move Ramirez and Viciedo who have a hard time keeping their heads in the game. True this team has a lot of holes but trading your 2 or 3 best pitchers makes no sense. (Sale, Peavy, and Reed ). Trading Crain,Thornton,Konerko, for prospects makes sense; and trying to move Dunn and Danks contracts are a good starting point.

If we want to get good prospects, we have to trade good players. Crain might get us something in return, but I seriously doubt Thornton and Konerko, or Ramirez or Viciedo (maybe Alexei, as I think he still has some value) will. A contending Sox team is probably at least a few years away, thus I think it makes sense to move veterans whose window is perhaps not open that much longer. That's why I think dealing Rios and Peavy makes sense, and moving Sale and/or Reed does not (though I wouldn't be terribly upset to see Addison dealt, as I don't think he's an elite closer or anything like that).

SCCWS
06-21-2013, 06:46 PM
This assumes that

1. Without trading Sale we can rebuild in time for his contract to still be valuable (since every rebuilding year his cost is an unnecessary expense)

2. Sale remains effective for that long

3. Sale defies the book on himself and doesn't suffer a career-ending/altering injury.

Those are all things the White Sox really need to look at. Just when will we be ready again? Is it worth paying tens of millions to Sale if we're not competing, especially given the lack of guarantee with his health?

He's got the most value on the team, and he's got the highest value he'll probably ever have. If you don't trade him now, it's quite likely you'll regret it.

I don't have a problem trading Sale. However, I think your logic is wrong. If the "book" on Sale says a career ending/altering injury is coming, then other teams are not going to value him that high. He will be looked at as a short term solution and will not return the value of a Number 1 starter. So the Sox are better holding on to him and if he is till pitching effectively in 2-3 years the "book" will have a different ending and his value will be much higher.

blandman
06-21-2013, 07:48 PM
I don't have a problem trading Sale. However, I think your logic is wrong. If the "book" on Sale says a career ending/altering injury is coming, then other teams are not going to value him that high. He will be looked at as a short term solution and will not return the value of a Number 1 starter. So the Sox are better holding on to him and if he is till pitching effectively in 2-3 years the "book" will have a different ending and his value will be much higher.

The only problem with that is if he gets injured, you essentially get nothing out of him, only the tens of millions spent on his contract. It would be different if we were competing, but since we're not...

dickallen15
06-21-2013, 08:17 PM
I don't have a problem trading Sale. However, I think your logic is wrong. If the "book" on Sale says a career ending/altering injury is coming, then other teams are not going to value him that high. He will be looked at as a short term solution and will not return the value of a Number 1 starter. So the Sox are better holding on to him and if he is till pitching effectively in 2-3 years the "book" will have a different ending and his value will be much higher.

Not really. If you plan on a total rebuild, with the current state of the Sox system, you are looking at 5 years of meaningless games. The question is where will Sale be physically and performance wise when you are ready to compete again? It would be Silly having him on the roster if there was no chance to win. Every pitcher is a ticking time bomb. Especially him. I hope the Sox re-tool, and not re-build. The pitching is there to compete if the hang on to it, and they should be in decent shape to pick up a couple of hitters, but if tearing it down is what they decide to do, trading Sale is probably the most logical move they could make. Projecting any pitcher 5 or 6 years from now is difficult, Chris Sale especially.

DSpivack
06-21-2013, 08:42 PM
Not really. If you plan on a total rebuild, with the current state of the Sox system, you are looking at 5 years of meaningless games. The question is where will Sale be physically and performance wise when you are ready to compete again? It would be Silly having him on the roster if there was no chance to win. Every pitcher is a ticking time bomb. Especially him. I hope the Sox re-tool, and not re-build. The pitching is there to compete if the hang on to it, and they should be in decent shape to pick up a couple of hitters, but if tearing it down is what they decide to do, trading Sale is probably the most logical move they could make. Projecting any pitcher 5 or 6 years from now is difficult, Chris Sale especially.

What I hope is they can bring in some prospects to re-build the farm system by dealing away some of their older players, then sign some short-term talent in the offseason to hold them over until those younger players develop. The plus is pitching is the strength of this organization, and there is plenty of payroll flexibility going forward, as they have no bad long-term contracts. If we can plug in just some league-average players at a few positions, I think they contend in a couple years.

Jurr
06-21-2013, 09:14 PM
Not really. If you plan on a total rebuild, with the current state of the Sox system, you are looking at 5 years of meaningless games. The question is where will Sale be physically and performance wise when you are ready to compete again? It would be Silly having him on the roster if there was no chance to win. Every pitcher is a ticking time bomb. Especially him. I hope the Sox re-tool, and not re-build. The pitching is there to compete if the hang on to it, and they should be in decent shape to pick up a couple of hitters, but if tearing it down is what they decide to do, trading Sale is probably the most logical move they could make. Projecting any pitcher 5 or 6 years from now is difficult, Chris Sale especially.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Sale, if the trade is impactful, should be dealt. Sell high, buy low.
AJ, Contreras, Garcia, and Dye were acquired for very little, as it pertains to trades or free agent deals. Thornton was another such acquisition.

If you trade a guy like Dunn or Peavy, the value isn't there for teams. You're selling low. Trading a guy like Sale is where you make headway.
Instead of getting some middling prospects and financial flexibility, you get bona fide baseball players. That is what the Sox need.

There are no studs on this roster. If you can trade your one strong player for possibly 2 or 3 really good players, you make that move.

Sale's contract makes the market even more demanding.
Stupid fans won't get it if he's moved. The smarter folk will understand it clearly.

This team needs a young core of talent like that of Cincy or Pittsburgh. You can easily begin augmenting that talent with creative free agent deals, especially with a team like the Sox that can actually spend some money.

Getting that young core is where the team should begin. Getting MLB ready prospects or young current players is exactly what trading a guy like Sale would do.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 10:36 PM
Sale isn't a "might" get injured case. Sale is a "probably" will get injured case. You can disagree with that all you want, and you have the right to, but that doesn't change the fact that the "book" on Sale is that the risk is more on the expect it to happen side of things.

Most pitchers get saddled with injuries sometime in their career, that is not any sort of epiphany. However, there's no way to know if Sale will run into arm or shoulder problems 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 years from now. Trading players away on speculative, non-scientific hunches is not good business. I'm not saying Sale won't get injured in his career, but this book you speak of is closer to a conspiracy theory than a history textbook.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 10:38 PM
Somebody has to explain to me why anyone actually thinks the Sox are going to do the complete tear down and rebuild model?

Because it gives us something to talk about other than the forgettable play on the field right now?

Stanley
06-21-2013, 10:56 PM
Trading players away on speculative, non-scientific hunches is not good business. I'm not saying Sale won't get injured in his career, but this book you speak of is closer to a conspiracy theory than a history textbook.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the only people who speculate on this kind of thing are fans on message boards. It's just business, plain and simple. You don't need a degree in science to see that Sale has already had arm problems, and to the surprise of no one, really. All trades are speculative and are partly based on un-scientific elements.

What is the conspiracy theory?

PalehosePlanet
06-21-2013, 10:59 PM
Most pitchers get saddled with injuries sometime in their career, that is not any sort of epiphany. However, there's no way to know if Sale will run into arm or shoulder problems 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 years from now. Trading players away on speculative, non-scientific hunches is not good business. I'm not saying Sale won't get injured in his career, but this book you speak of is closer to a conspiracy theory than a history textbook.

Absolutely right. The Dodgers once upon a time traded a young pitcher by the name of Pedro Martinez because he weighed 150 lbs.; they figured his slight frame could not survive the rigors of pitching 30+ starts a season, that he was bound to break down.

Trying to predict pitching injuries is ridiculous. Per every guy with a funky delivery encountering arm trouble there is a guy with an ideal delivery with arm trouble.

Stanley
06-21-2013, 11:07 PM
Scouts and other people employed by MLB speculate on potential arm problems with pitchers all the time. It's not an exact science obviously, but it's not ridiculous either.

What is so hard to grasp about that?

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 11:08 PM
You're kidding yourself if you think that the only people who speculate on this kind of thing are fans on message boards. It's just business, plain and simple. You don't need a degree in science to see that Sale has already had arm problems, and to the surprise of no one, really. All trades are speculative and are partly based on un-scientific elements.

What is the conspiracy theory?

There is no conspiracy theory. I was trying to point out that saying Sale will get injured is a guess and not a fact.

Regardless, we're all just killing time with this subject. There's not been any sort of talk from the front-office about trading Sale and that will probably continue.

rdivaldi
06-21-2013, 11:11 PM
Scouts and other people employed by MLB speculate on potential arm problems with pitchers all the time. It's not an exact science obviously, but it's not ridiculous either.

What is so hard to grasp about that?

You're right, but I think what I and other are trying to say is that speculating that a player might get injured is a dangerous road to take.

I remember a few years ago that Gio Gonzalez was considered an injury risk and teams would be crazy to keep him around for long. 826 innings later, I wish we still had him.

Stanley
06-21-2013, 11:47 PM
I suppose if you are basing your opinion on this matter on the completely unscientific basis of: "well one time this guy you said was gonna get hurt didn't so what the heck!", then you would of course arrive at the conclusion you are apparently stuck under.

cards press box
06-22-2013, 12:07 AM
Somebody has to explain to me why anyone actually thinks the Sox are going to do the complete tear down and rebuild model?

I don't think that the Sox are going to go through a complete overhaul. I do think that they may move some veterans and players whose contracts end after 2013.

I would list the players who may be on the trading block this way:

Likely to go

1. Jesse Crain (contract expires after 2013)
2. Matt Thornton (contract expires after 2013)

May go

1. Jake Peavy (contract expires after 2014, option for 2015)

Peavy's injury makes it less likely that he is dealt but if he comes back by late July, it is possible. Dealing Peavy could net the Sox some young talent. And, in any event, the Sox rotation as soon as next year could be:

Chris Sale
John Danks
Hector Santiago
Jose Quintana
Erik Johnson

2. Paul Konerko (contract expires after 2013)

I don't think the Sox will bring Konerko back in 2014. And he could still help a contender down the stretch. He would have to approve a deal but he might to help the club and to make the playoffs one more time in what could be his last year.

Might go but don't be surprised if they stay

1. Jeff Keppinger (contract expires after 2015)

Sox would love to deal him and he might help a contender. I only see this happening, though, if the Sox make another team take Keppinger if they want Peavy or Rios.

2. Alex Rios (contract expires in 2014, option for 2015)

Sox might deal him but opposing club would have to make a great offer. I don't see the Sox trading Rios for anything less than top value.

3. Alexei Ramirez (contract expires after 2015, I think)

I don't really see the Sox moving him, as they don't have another SS ready to go unless you count Carlos Sanchez. But, again, if the Sox are bowled over with an offer, they could move in another direction and find another SS for a while. Heck, the A's seem to do that every season and they seem to do OK.

4. Adam Dunn (contract expires after 2014)

Before anyone starts laughing or rolls their eyes, consider this: by mid-to-late July, Dunn could easily be batting .210 with 25 HR and 60 RBI. And that might enough to make him tradeable.

I am not saying that the Sox wouldn't have to eat some of the contract but they might be able to deal Dunn to a team that desperately needs left handed power. And if the Sox got a low level prospect and some salary relief, they should declare victory and cut their losses on this guy.

gosox41
06-22-2013, 12:42 AM
When the season started I thought the team might contend like they did in 2012. Up until 3 weeks ago the pitching staff held things together. The hitting and defense weren't any good. Now the entire team (pitching, hitting and defense) has collapsed. If there's any light at the end of the tunnel, I sure don't see it. It will be curious to see what Hahn does. I should point out also that everybody I have talked to tells me JR has no intention of selling the White Sox now.

I am still trying to understand how a team of mostly veterans can all have down years at one time (almost all) and do it for half a season.

If you believe in reversion to the mean, then we are in for a lot of W's the second half.

In reality, this team is done and it's time to starting trading for prospects, dumping salary so we will have more money to spend going forward on FA's and, draft better.


Bob

gosox41
06-22-2013, 12:49 AM
There is no conspiracy theory. I was trying to point out that saying Sale will get injured is a guess and not a fact.

Regardless, we're all just killing time with this subject. There's not been any sort of talk from the front-office about trading Sale and that will probably continue.

That's because our front office may be inept. Sale is the biggest bargaining chip we have. If, as it is looking, it is going to take at least 3-4 years to rebuild this thing, then why keep him? So maybe when he is in the last year if his contract (and hopefully healthy) we may content.

Now before some fool goes off and says that GoSox41 is an idiot (already been said numerous times) because the Sox should dump Sale. I did not say that. A dump would be us giving away Adam Dunn for nothing. Sale will come at a high cost. Sure while prospects can turn into suspects, right now the Sox have neither. If this team wants to rebuild and contend in the 3-4 yr time horizon and not the 5+ year then we need some highly rated prospects. Sale can get us that.


As far as I'm concerned, just about anyone and everyone on this roster is fair game. Some have higher prices for various reasons. But for the most part, they can trade anyone of these guys and I wouldn't be sad. I would be pissed, however, if they didn't get fair value.


Bob

amsteel
06-22-2013, 12:51 AM
This season's shot so I have no problem giving Sale and Danks extra rest whenever they want/need it. There's too much time and $ invested to let them wear out on a pointless season.

Also the Sox won't move Sale since w/o him they have zero marketable players going forward. And it's not like Sale is exactly marketable. The Sox are too obsessed about their image to lose their sole star and half-personality.

gosox41
06-22-2013, 12:56 AM
I don't have a problem trading Sale. However, I think your logic is wrong. If the "book" on Sale says a career ending/altering injury is coming, then other teams are not going to value him that high. He will be looked at as a short term solution and will not return the value of a Number 1 starter. So the Sox are better holding on to him and if he is till pitching effectively in 2-3 years the "book" will have a different ending and his value will be much higher.

To look at it another way, Sale needs to have two more years like 2012 to jsutify his contract. Forgetting about the give up of free agency, arbitration, etc. If I'm a team trying to win now and have deep pockets (and need pitching), I can easily justfiy Sale today as that team's GM.

How much would it cost on the free agent market to go and get a Sale of 2012? You're probably looking at $18MM per year for 5-6 years. If Sale's 2013-2014 mimic his 2012 and then he blows his arm out the winter of 2014--you essentially paid him $30MM over 4.5 yrs instead of overpaying a free agent who you can owe 3 times taht money too.

At least that's how I would justify it if I were a team like the Yankees or Rangers.


Bob

blandman
06-22-2013, 02:04 AM
There is no conspiracy theory. I was trying to point out that saying Sale will get injured is a guess and not a fact.


But the guess isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from scouts and sports medicine professionals. Yeah, it's still a guess, but it's based on science. Not a whim.

SCCWS
06-22-2013, 09:13 AM
To look at it another way, Sale needs to have two more years like 2012 to jsutify his contract. Forgetting about the give up of free agency, arbitration, etc. If I'm a team trying to win now and have deep pockets (and need pitching), I can easily justfiy Sale today as that team's GM.

How much would it cost on the free agent market to go and get a Sale of 2012? You're probably looking at $18MM per year for 5-6 years. If Sale's 2013-2014 mimic his 2012 and then he blows his arm out the winter of 2014--you essentially paid him $30MM over 4.5 yrs instead of overpaying a free agent who you can owe 3 times taht money too.

At least that's how I would justify it if I were a team like the Yankees or Rangers.


Bob

You forgot the package of prospects. The original point was getting a package like Tampa got for Shields. So Sale burns his arm out in 2014 and you say the money is not a big deal. Agreed. But the "Yankees or Rangers' not only would have lost money, they would have gave up their top prospects as well.
The question you totally missed is this: If Sale is a risky acquisition long term for a contending team, are they still going to offer the Sox a great package of prospects in return. If yes, then I agree you trade him. But he is a legit Number One starter. Accepting less a package because his value is limited due to fear of injury is crazy. Then you hold him.

SCCWS
06-22-2013, 09:28 AM
But the guess isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from scouts and sports medicine professionals. Yeah, it's still a guess, but it's based on science. Not a whim.

Then the return on Sale would probably be limited and it may not be worth trading him. Again I ask you, if his value is diminished due to this injury around the corner, then why not hold him and if he is still putting up solid numbers 2-3 years from now, the injury concern will be less of an issue. At least for the White Sox, he is a Number 1 starter. If his value is a number 3 or 4 starter due to fear of injury, you hold him. But if you get a great package, you take it.

blandman
06-22-2013, 09:41 AM
Then the return on Sale would probably be limited and it may not be worth trading him. Again I ask you, if his value is diminished due to this injury around the corner, then why not hold him and if he is still putting up solid numbers 2-3 years from now, the injury concern will be less of an issue. At least for the White Sox, he is a Number 1 starter. If his value is a number 3 or 4 starter due to fear of injury, you hold him. But if you get a great package, you take it.

Oh I agree, if you get a great package, you take it. People trading on Sale need him now, not five years from now. But if you get the package, you have to take it. Those solid couple of years could cost us better draft position and money that could be spent on development.

Chez
06-22-2013, 10:01 AM
While no one is untouchable, the Sox pitching staff has a nice nucleus that doesn't necessarily need to be broken up. I would hold onto Sale, Reed, Santiago and Quintana. And call me crazy, but I would also try to hold onto Beckham -- I still believe!!

Golden Sox
06-22-2013, 10:10 AM
Obviously the 2013 season is down the tubes. That being said I just wish that Hahn would do something/anything to improve this team. I'm just hoping he does something and gives us something to look forward to. It's tough going out to the Cell watching this present team. Changes have to be made with this team,the sooner the better.

Huisj
06-22-2013, 10:58 AM
Absolutely right. The Dodgers once upon a time traded a young pitcher by the name of Pedro Martinez because he weighed 150 lbs.; they figured his slight frame could not survive the rigors of pitching 30+ starts a season, that he was bound to break down.



And they were right. He broke down. They just were off by a few years. But after age 28, he didn't even win another Cy Young award. He finished a measly 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in his age 30-32 season. :)

doublem23
06-22-2013, 11:08 AM
But the guess isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from scouts and sports medicine professionals. Yeah, it's still a guess, but it's based on science. Not a whim.

I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say it's based on science. I'm not saying it's a whim, but science suggests there's a universally accepted system across the board. The guess is based on data, but it's still a guess.

doublem23
06-22-2013, 11:11 AM
While no one is untouchable, the Sox pitching staff has a nice nucleus that doesn't necessarily need to be broken up. I would hold onto Sale, Reed, Santiago and Quintana. And call me crazy, but I would also try to hold onto Beckham -- I still believe!!

If the return on Beckham is going to be some middling AA or AAA prospect, I keep Beckham, he's still proven to have one above average MLB-level tool (defense) and, again, he's not a terrible burden offensively. But, if the Sox found a team willing to part with another former high prospect whose struggled (say, Justin Smoak from Seattle?) who maybe wanted to swap the guys and see if new scenery helps, I could be talked into that.

I also don't buy this idea that the Sox are doomed to a 5-year at minimum rebuild. The Tigers went from 43-win laughingstock to AL champs in what? 3 seasons? This Sox team is nowhere near as broken or dysfunctional as those early-00's Tigers teams. It can be done, for sure.

Chez
06-22-2013, 11:21 AM
If the return on Beckham is going to be some middling AA or AAA prospect, I keep Beckham, he's still proven to have one above average MLB-level tool (defense) and, again, he's not a terrible burden offensively. But, if the Sox found a team willing to part with another former high prospect whose struggled (say, Justin Smoak from Seattle?) who maybe wanted to swap the guys and see if new scenery helps, I could be talked into that.

I also don't buy this idea that the Sox are doomed to a 5-year at minimum rebuild. The Tigers went from 43-win laughingstock to AL champs in what? 3 seasons? This Sox team is nowhere near as broken or dysfunctional as those early-00's Tigers teams. It can be done, for sure.


:superman: And I thought I was the only one who thought all was not lost!

TaylorStSox
06-22-2013, 11:43 AM
If it was me, I'd have a couple plans in place dictated by the trade market. The only way I go into tear it down mode is if somebody offers the moon for Sale. Lets say somebody will give us a top 10 prospect with a top 20 guy and a few other high upside, low level minor leaguers (that team probably doesnt even exist). In that case, I jump on it and everyone is on the market. I'd look to move Reed, Santiago and Quintana. I'd call up every AAAA/Dan Black type player in the minors and tank the season to ensure the top pick. With that pick, I'd take the best pitcher, unless there's a Harper type. If you go that route, you have to have some crazy deals at the park to get people into the stands. $1 tickets, $1 hot dogs, $2 beers, giveaways etc.

Personally, I have the patience for a rebuild and the Sox do too. One thing I've learned is that the Sox are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The fans will find something to cry about no matter what direction they take. I'd almost prefer a total rebuild because I don't trust the Sox ability to lure free agents even if they overpay.

doublem23
06-22-2013, 11:49 AM
:superman: And I thought I was the only one who thought all was not lost!

I mean, this year is toast, no doubt about that, I just don't buy the doom and gloom that says "oh, we're definitely not going to be any good until 2017-2018 at earliest." I mean, sure, maybe that happens, but the Sox will have enough payroll flexibility coming off the books that a few savvy moves here or there and they could be a decent team quicker than most think.

The division is going to be open again sooner than people think, IMO, as well. Detroit is very, very good right now, no doubt, but they're not built to last right now. Verlander's looking somewhat human already, having his worst season in 7 years... Maybe it's just a fluke bad half or maybe it's the wear and tear of pitching over 1,000 innings the last 4 seasons... Cabrera and Prince are both on the wrong side of 30 by next May... Their farm system is currently rated as bad, if not worse, than ours.

I could buy the idea that the Sox need to do a total teardown if they had to compete with the likes of the Yankees or Rangers or Cardinals every year, but right now that doesn't look like the case. Just got to find some better ****ing players. If we were getting even average production THIS YEAR from say, 2-3 extra players, we're probably right in this thing now as is.

SCCWS
06-22-2013, 12:26 PM
I mean, this year is toast, no doubt about that, I just don't buy the doom and gloom that says "oh, we're definitely not going to be any good until 2017-2018 at earliest." I mean, sure, maybe that happens, but the Sox will have enough payroll flexibility coming off the books that a few savvy moves here or there and they could be a decent team quicker than most think.

The division is going to be open again sooner than people think, IMO, as well. Detroit is very, very good right now, no doubt, but they're not built to last right now. Verlander's looking somewhat human already, having his worst season in 7 years... Maybe it's just a fluke bad half or maybe it's the wear and tear of pitching over 1,000 innings the last 4 seasons... Cabrera and Prince are both on the wrong side of 30 by next May... Their farm system is currently rated as bad, if not worse, than ours.

I could buy the idea that the Sox need to do a total teardown if they had to compete with the likes of the Yankees or Rangers or Cardinals every year, but right now that doesn't look like the case. Just got to find some better ****ing players. If we were getting even average production THIS YEAR from say, 2-3 extra players, we're probably right in this thing now as is.

I do think management has a big decision they need to make quickly. Because if they think they need to get 2-3 better positional players to turn it around, then it is important they don't deplete their foundation of pitching. You mentioned the Detroit turnaround of 10 years ago. They had good young positional players in 2004 when they started rebuilding ( Inge-Granderson-Rodriguez-Guillen) and no pitching. They kept them and went out and got pitching via trades and draft.

blandman
06-22-2013, 01:12 PM
I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say it's based on science. I'm not saying it's a whim, but science suggests there's a universally accepted system across the board. The guess is based on data, but it's still a guess.

When did medicine stop being a science? :?:

If your doctor tells you not to do something because, say, he thinks it will cause arthritis, it's both a guess and based on science. He doesn't know that you will get arthritis, but he's pretty sure based on previous cases. Doctors saying Sale will likely get hurt bad is not any different.

DSpivack
06-22-2013, 01:43 PM
When did medicine stop being a science? :?:

If your doctor tells you not to do something because, say, he thinks it will cause arthritis, it's both a guess and based on science. He doesn't know that you will get arthritis, but he's pretty sure based on previous cases. Doctors saying Sale will likely get hurt bad is not any different.

Which doctors have said this about this Sale? And they're not his doctors, as they would be violating HIPAA.

SI1020
06-22-2013, 01:54 PM
In any statistical study there are outliers. Just the fact that one is a MLB pitcher seems to carry a lot of risk these days. They seem so incredibly fragile as a group. You have to look at the individual some times, not just the aggregate. Some people are not just going to beat the odds, they're going to trounce them. Also, didn't I read somewhere about a year ago comparing Sale's mechanics and delivery to a pitcher they called the Big Unit?

captain54
06-22-2013, 02:17 PM
One thing I've learned is that the Sox are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The fans will find something to cry about no matter what direction they take.

that's really a bunch of crap.. the diehards that have been around awhile have been plenty patient, endured a lot of frustration and heartbreak with this team for a lot of years, yet keep coming back. Cut the passionate and knowledgeable White Sox fan in 2013 some slack, please.

captain54
06-22-2013, 02:23 PM
I could buy the idea that the Sox need to do a total teardown if they had to compete with the likes of the Yankees or Rangers or Cardinals every year, but right now that doesn't look like the case.

Ultimately, to win the World Series, the Sox would have to go thru the elite teams in MLB, which would include the Yankees, Rangers and Cardinals.. so I'm not following you... If you mean competing in a BS division every year I could see your point.. but what's wrong with building a team to dominate? Why settle for just being competitive and playing for a winning record, yet missing the playoffs, which has been the norm for a while now?

WLL1855
06-22-2013, 03:08 PM
When did medicine stop being a science? :?:

If your doctor tells you not to do something because, say, he thinks it will cause arthritis, it's both a guess and based on science. He doesn't know that you will get arthritis, but he's pretty sure based on previous cases. Doctors saying Sale will likely get hurt bad is not any different.

This screed never gets old with you does it?

blandman
06-22-2013, 05:54 PM
Which doctors have said this about this Sale? And they're not his doctors, as they would be violating HIPAA.

Your statement is built on the premise that teams, television programs that analyze baseball, websites that analyze baseball, etc. don't hire or at least consult with sports medicine professionals. I'm going to be nice and leave it at that.

It doesn't have to be Sales personal doctor. That's not how it works. You don't have to be my doctor to give me sweeping medical advice, just a doctor. What Sale does for a living, the way he does it, is probably the largest red flag in sports medicine in today's game.

This screed never gets old with you does it?

It's stubbornness like this that sometimes makes me wonder whether its the team's fault or the fans. A large portion of our fanbase might be more stubborn than the team. Which feeds off which? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like a portion of our fanbase might actually deserve this team.

SI1020
06-22-2013, 06:51 PM
In any statistical study there are outliers. Just the fact that one is a MLB pitcher seems to carry a lot of risk these days. They seem so incredibly fragile as a group. You have to look at the individual some times, not just the aggregate. Some people are not just going to beat the odds, they're going to trounce them. Also, didn't I read somewhere about a year ago comparing Sale's mechanics and delivery to a pitcher they called the Big Unit? Here it is.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1369666-chicago-white-sox-why-comparing-chris-sale-to-randy-johnson-is-not-ludicrous

Dan H
06-22-2013, 08:03 PM
It's stubbornness like this that sometimes makes me wonder whether its the team's fault or the fans. A large portion of our fanbase might be more stubborn than the team. Which feeds off which? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like a portion of our fanbase might actually deserve this team.[/QUOTE]

All I can say is that they fans don't make one trade or sign one free agent. I went to my first Sox game in 1960. Since then I have seen one Sox team go to the World Series. You telling me that I deserve to watch Tyler Flowers let another pitch get by him?

Huisj
06-22-2013, 08:33 PM
Verlander's looking somewhat human already, having his worst season in 7 years... Maybe it's just a fluke bad half or maybe it's the wear and tear of pitching over 1,000 innings the last 4 seasons...

This is a tough point to agree with. Don't forget his 11-17 season 5 years ago.

This year he had two weirdly bad starts back to back in May (in one he still struck out 9 in 5 innings), and one lousy start last week. His K rate is at a career best so far, his HR rate is normal, line drive rate, ground ball rate, flyball rate, etc. are all about normal. Basically he's walking just a few more people and seemingly has had rather bad luck on batted balls (bad defense?) with a crazy high .344 BABIP. I guess maybe his fastball is down a little, but he's always kind of seemed like someone who threw it all different speeds depending on the situation anyway.

doublem23
06-22-2013, 11:55 PM
Ultimately, to win the World Series, the Sox would have to go thru the elite teams in MLB, which would include the Yankees, Rangers and Cardinals.. so I'm not following you... If you mean competing in a BS division every year I could see your point.. but what's wrong with building a team to dominate? Why settle for just being competitive and playing for a winning record, yet missing the playoffs, which has been the norm for a while now?

Because you really just have to get to the playoffs, man. The World Series last year featured the 4th or 5th best team from the NL vs. the 7th best team from the AL. All those more "dominant" teams didn't do **** in the postseason. I'm not saying don't try and build the best team you can, I'm just saying, the bar you have to reach isn't as high in the AL Central.

WLL1855
06-23-2013, 01:09 AM
It's stubbornness like this that sometimes makes me wonder whether its the team's fault or the fans. A large portion of our fanbase might be more stubborn than the team. Which feeds off which? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like a portion of our fanbase might actually deserve this team.

Explain to me the stubbornness here. Is it the refusal to cow to your fanatical zeal about the inevitability that Sale is destined to devastating injury?

Please enlighten me.

(In case you are wondering, I really don't want to you attempt to enlighten me.)

Tragg
06-23-2013, 01:19 AM
I am not worried about Sale getting an injury - anyone can get injured. But I am worried about him losing effectiveness due to being overworked by the manager. I know I've said it a lot lately, but we have 4 top flight young pitchers, and Ventura over-works all 4 of them.
And there's no reason to be taxing any pitcher in this lost season.

blandman
06-23-2013, 01:54 AM
Explain to me the stubbornness here. Is it the refusal to cow to your fanatical zeal about the inevitability that Sale is destined to devastating injury?

Please enlighten me.

(In case you are wondering, I really don't want to you attempt to enlighten me.)

Once again, right there. Exactly the kind of stubbornness the team has. Any notion on the science of baseball injuries affecting those that do things proven to cause them, and it's "fanatical zeal". Not the disbelief of what's proven itself time and again in baseball mind you. Everyone else on the planet is wrong. History is wrong. Doctors are wrong. Sale doesn't have an increased chance of injury. Why? White Sox, that's why.

doublem23
06-23-2013, 01:57 AM
Once again, right there. Exactly the kind of stubbornness the team has. Any notion on the science of baseball injuries affecting those that do things proven to cause them, and it's "fanatical zeal". Not the disbelief of what's proven itself time and again in baseball mind you. Everyone else on the planet is wrong. History is wrong. Doctors are wrong. Sale doesn't have an increased chance of injury. Why? White Sox, that's why.

If you think that's what people are arguing, you're off your rocker

JoeYoung
06-23-2013, 05:15 AM
Here it is.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1369666-chicago-white-sox-why-comparing-chris-sale-to-randy-johnson-is-not-ludicrous

There's no better way to back up your point, then linking to an article from Bleacher Report, apparently.

SI1020
06-23-2013, 09:55 AM
There's no better way to back up your point, then linking to an article from Bleacher Report, apparently. That's funny. I'm a resident old school old fart and have taken my share of whup for not bowing at the altar of everything saber. A very prominent and learned poster here keeps telling us that Sale's pitching arm is destined to go lame. I mean it's predetermined science. All I've been trying to do is show that is not necessarily the case. I have a limited amount of time and happened to pull up the article I linked. Not a big fan of BR, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to summarily dismiss everything they write. Just like I'm not going to assume that Sale is destined to be a left handed Mark Prior. Sometimes you just can't ****ing win around here.

DonnieDarko
06-23-2013, 10:14 AM
There's no better way to back up your point, then linking to an article from Bleacher Report, apparently.

Yes, Bleacher Report is generally awful, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day. :P

SoxSpeed22
06-23-2013, 10:15 AM
Pitchers with "good" mechanics get hurt all the time. Danks was not an injury risk and then his shoulder went out last year. It's really just a crapshoot with pitchers.
Back to the actual topic, I am also on the side of only trade Sale for the right deal, don't be too stubborn one way or the other. Sometimes it's better to trade a $100 bill for a $50, two $20's and a $10.

DonnieDarko
06-23-2013, 10:31 AM
Pitchers with "good" mechanics get hurt all the time. Danks was not an injury risk and then his shoulder went out last year. It's really just a crapshoot with pitchers.
Back to the actual topic, I am also on the side of only trade Sale for the right deal, don't be too stubborn one way or the other. Sometimes it's better to trade a $100 bill for a $50, two $20's and a $10.

I disagree. While yes, this team isn't going to compete for anything for awhile, when it DOES start to compete, having a guy like Sale anchor the rotation is what we need.

blandman
06-23-2013, 11:42 AM
If you think that's what people are arguing, you're off your rocker

I never said "Sale will get injured". But to act like, on a team that isn't winning in the next half decade, trading a player with the very strong injury concern Sale has doesn't make sense because somehow he's not likely to get injured is pretty damn preposterous. He is likely to get injured. Probably more likely than anyone else. Once again, I did not say he will get injured. But not planning on what's most likely, and instead arguing from an all or nothing position of "he will or will not get injured and you say he will!", when this team is going nowhere in the time he's here? Come on. It doesn't matter if Sale gets hurt or not. It only matters whether we get something out of him in the next five years. His value will never be higher.

That's funny. I'm a resident old school old fart and have taken my share of whup for not bowing at the altar of everything saber. A very prominent and learned poster here keeps telling us that Sale's pitching arm is destined to go lame. I mean it's predetermined science. All I've been trying to do is show that is not necessarily the case. I have a limited amount of time and happened to pull up the article I linked. Not a big fan of BR, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to summarily dismiss everything they write. Just like I'm not going to assume that Sale is destined to be a left handed Mark Prior. Sometimes you just can't ****ing win around here.

Bleacher has some decent articles and authors. This is not one of them. The author is an internet blogger who, surprise, only writes fluff about his favorite team.

Any article comparing Sale to Randy Johnson doesn't deserve your time. Randy Johnson does not have the same body frame as Chris Sale. Johnson added more than 40 pounds of upper body muscle to his frame. If Chris Sale stood next to Randy Johnson, he would look like a tiny child.

TomBradley72
06-23-2013, 11:47 AM
We're dead last in the AL in team OPS and we're 13th in fielding- we desperately need to upgrade our talent with position players who can hit and can field- and other than Josh Phegley- there is no help in AA or AAA coming through the system.

We especially need a CF (replace De Aza, no help in farm system), a 1st baseman (this has to be PK's last year), a 3rd baseman (Gillaspie looks ok, but doesn't look like anything more than average).

I don't think Sale should be viewed as "untouchable"- the one possible strength of the Sox org is starting pitching (Sale, Quintana, Santiago, Eric Johnson (just promoted to AAA)- in our situation you have to trade from your strength- thanks to 10 years of KW overseeing one of the worst farm systems in MLB- we may have to move Sale as part of restocking the talent.

Tragg
06-23-2013, 11:54 AM
In my opinion, the Sox have 3 high end young starters: Sale, Santiago (whom I fear the Sox undervalue) and Quintana. They also have 2 young relievers, JOnes and Reed. That may be enough to build around and to prevent the need for total overhaul.
Can the combination of Rios, Peavy, Crane, Thornton yield 2 good position players ready in 2 seasons?
If so, we could then sign a right handed starter, plug catcher and maybe even SS with defensive specialists and be back in the game fairly quickly.

The AStros, the latest demolish and rebuild club, had more tradeable talent than we do (Oswalt, Berkman, Rodriguez, Pence, Myers, and a few other pieces), but they didn't have the young pitching on their club like we do. We aren't nearly in as bad a position as they were.

SI1020
06-23-2013, 12:01 PM
There's no better way to back up your point, then linking to an article from Bleacher Report, apparently. Am I forgiven now?

http://first-thoughts.org/on/Randy+Johnson/Chris+Sale/

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/sports/chris_sales_story_still_a_myst.php

http://baseballnewshound.com/?p=161

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130418&content_id=45188324&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

blandman
06-23-2013, 12:17 PM
Am I forgiven now?

http://first-thoughts.org/on/Randy+Johnson/Chris+Sale/

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/sports/chris_sales_story_still_a_myst.php

http://baseballnewshound.com/?p=161

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130418&content_id=45188324&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Only one of those articles is a scouting report (the rest are fluff). But, once again, this ignores two very important things:

1. Johnson was injury prone and had to totally redesign his body in way that is really insane.

2. Chris Sale's body is tiny. He's way tinier than Randy Johnson was. Heck, he's tinier than the shorter (and frail himself) Pedro Martinez was.

blandman
06-23-2013, 12:20 PM
In my opinion, the Sox have 3 high end young starters: Sale, Santiago (whom I fear the Sox undervalue) and Quintana. They also have 2 young relievers, JOnes and Reed. That may be enough to build around and to prevent the need for total overhaul.
Can the combination of Rios, Peavy, Crane, Thornton yield 2 good position players ready in 2 seasons?
If so, we could then sign a right handed starter, plug catcher and maybe even SS with defensive specialists and be back in the game fairly quickly.

The AStros, the latest demolish and rebuild club, had more tradeable talent than we do (Oswalt, Berkman, Rodriguez, Pence, Myers, and a few other pieces), but they didn't have the young pitching on their club like we do. We aren't nearly in as bad a position as they were.

You don't replace 9 position players effectively in a year or two. Not if you're doing your due diligence and getting good players.

A. Cavatica
06-23-2013, 01:01 PM
The Sox have (1) basically nobody but Sale who projects to be among the best at his position for a long time; (2) very little projectable talent in the minors; (3) lots of bad contracts that prevent them from adding veterans; (4) questionable talent evaluators at all levels; (5) a fickle fan base.

I think the Sox need to start from scratch. Expansion teams can be built in five years, that's the looming challenge.

Talent evaluators are a lot cheaper than talent. Sox should clean house in the scouting department, starting immediately. Then they should build a top-of-the-line scouting and development organization, whatever it costs. It would help to move some of the minor league teams closer to Chicago so fans can get excited about prospects sooner.

Then they need to get the talent evaluators something to work with. They are not going to be far from the worst team in baseball over the next several years; they must accept it and start stockpiling high draft picks by losing.

Meanwhile, the bad contracts will take care of themselves. As opportunities present themselves to unload veterans, the Sox should do so. They can free up cash (needed to pay for scouting and development) and make themselves even worse on the field in the short term. Any real prospects they pick up are a bonus.

The few players with trade value, like Sale, need to be evaluated for how good they will be in five years and not how good they are now. Pitchers are risky long-term investments; pitchers with stressful deliveries are even riskier long-term investments. Sale needs to be converted into at least three players with best-at-their-position ceilings who are still several years from those ceilings.

The fan base will not be happy with a last-place team, but guess what? The team's already in last place. The die-hards will appreciate the five-year plan and will still support the Sox. The bad contracts at least have recognizable names to pacify the few casual fans who might still come to the park. The Sox should replace them with less-expensive veterans who are more popular with the fans; they've historically done that a lot anyway. If they brought in, say, Buehrle then he would also eat innings and be a good mentor to younger players.

This is the plan I thought Ventura was hired for, but the team got even more of a bounce out of firing Ozzie than I expected, so it's a year behind schedule.

blandman
06-23-2013, 01:10 PM
The Sox have (1) basically nobody but Sale who projects to be among the best at his position for a long time; (2) very little projectable talent in the minors; (3) lots of bad contracts that prevent them from adding veterans; (4) questionable talent evaluators at all levels; (5) a fickle fan base.

I think the Sox need to start from scratch. Expansion teams can be built in five years, that's the looming challenge.

Talent evaluators are a lot cheaper than talent. Sox should clean house in the scouting department, starting immediately. Then they should build a top-of-the-line scouting and development organization, whatever it costs. It would help to move some of the minor league teams closer to Chicago so fans can get excited about prospects sooner.

Then they need to get the talent evaluators something to work with. They are not going to be far from the worst team in baseball over the next several years; they must accept it and start stockpiling high draft picks by losing.

Meanwhile, the bad contracts will take care of themselves. As opportunities present themselves to unload veterans, the Sox should do so. They can free up cash (needed to pay for scouting and development) and make themselves even worse on the field in the short term. Any real prospects they pick up are a bonus.

The few players with trade value, like Sale, need to be evaluated for how good they will be in five years and not how good they are now. Pitchers are risky long-term investments; pitchers with stressful deliveries are even riskier long-term investments. Sale needs to be converted into at least three players with best-at-their-position ceilings who are still several years from those ceilings.

The fan base will not be happy with a last-place team, but guess what? The team's already in last place. The die-hards will appreciate the five-year plan and will still support the Sox. The bad contracts at least have recognizable names to pacify the few casual fans who might still come to the park. The Sox should replace them with less-expensive veterans who are more popular with the fans; they've historically done that a lot anyway. If they brought in, say, Buehrle then he would also eat innings and be a good mentor to younger players.

This is the plan I thought Ventura was hired for, but the team got even more of a bounce out of firing Ozzie than I expected, so it's a year behind schedule.

This is pretty spot on, and my sentiments exactly. Especially on the scouting department.

Tragg
06-23-2013, 01:47 PM
You don't replace 9 position players effectively in a year or two. Not if you're doing your due diligence and getting good players.

They don't have to replace 9. Probably 5 (c, 1B, 3B, DH, RF). We replaced 4 to start 2005 and 5 for most of 2005. WE also replaced closer (twice) and set-up man. I know there was a once-in-a-generation synergy involved in 2005's championship team, but when you have some pitching foundation, it's a lot, lot, lot easier to retool. And the team did win 90 games the following year.
I think people undervalue Santiago and Quintana.

Frater Perdurabo
06-23-2013, 02:02 PM
They don't have to replace 9. Probably 5 (c, 1B, 3B, DH, RF). We replaced 4 to start 2005 and 5 for most of 2005. WE also replaced closer (twice) and set-up man. I know there was a once-in-a-generation synergy involved in 2005's championship team, but when you have some pitching foundation, it's a lot, lot, lot easier to retool. And the team did win 90 games the following year.
I think people undervalue Santiago and Quintana.

I'm with you. The pitching is fine. Don't fix what isn't broken. And not all position players need to be replaced, either.

We can be competitive in 2015 while simultaneously drafting and developing better.

Tragg
06-23-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm with you. The pitching is fine. Don't fix what isn't broken. And not all position players need to be replaced, either.

We can be competitive in 2015 while simultaneously drafting and developing better.


Anyway, what I would do (my today's thinking):
This year and off-season.
Keep Alexei unless someone offers us a really good prospect
Acquire high ceiling prospects, even if in the lower-minors, from trading Peavy, Rios, Crain and Thornton. Don't worry about ML-ready. Do everything people have suggested to improve our player development, scouting, etc.
Sign a RHP, a RF, one reliever and defensive catcher and defensive SS if we need one. That should be accomplished for $20 million.
Sign PK to a 1 year deal.
That should stabilize us for 2014; after that, a couple of prospects should be rolling up and we can sign another couple of FA.

TaylorStSox
06-23-2013, 04:30 PM
We're dead last in the AL in team OPS and we're 13th in fielding- we desperately need to upgrade our talent with position players who can hit and can field- and other than Josh Phegley- there is no help in AA or AAA coming through the system.

We especially need a CF (replace De Aza, no help in farm system), a 1st baseman (this has to be PK's last year), a 3rd baseman (Gillaspie looks ok, but doesn't look like anything more than average).

I don't think Sale should be viewed as "untouchable"- the one possible strength of the Sox org is starting pitching (Sale, Quintana, Santiago, Eric Johnson (just promoted to AAA)- in our situation you have to trade from your strength- thanks to 10 years of KW overseeing one of the worst farm systems in MLB- we may have to move Sale as part of restocking the talent.

Thompson is quietly having a very good year.

SoxSpeed22
06-23-2013, 05:27 PM
I think Trayce can be our center fielder in the future, but I would like to see him keep this up in AA for this year and then spend next year in Charlotte. He is (probably) the best defensive outfielder in the organization, he's got power too. His main improvement this season was in shortening his swing, and I would like to see him keep that up.

blandman
06-23-2013, 06:27 PM
They don't have to replace 9. Probably 5 (c, 1B, 3B, DH, RF). We replaced 4 to start 2005 and 5 for most of 2005. WE also replaced closer (twice) and set-up man. I know there was a once-in-a-generation synergy involved in 2005's championship team, but when you have some pitching foundation, it's a lot, lot, lot easier to retool. And the team did win 90 games the following year.
I think people undervalue Santiago and Quintana.

I'm with you. The pitching is fine. Don't fix what isn't broken. And not all position players need to be replaced, either.

We can be competitive in 2015 while simultaneously drafting and developing better.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that caused our current situation.

You guys are suggesting we continue to polish a turd. We've been a turd for years, just adding a few pieces here and there. But more and more, no matter what you throw at it, the **** starts to really stink.

This team reeks. At it's core. No amount of polishing is going to stop it from reeking. It needs to be rebuilt. That can't be done in free agency. That can't be done in trades (given we have nothing in the system to do that with). If we add four-five players, it's going to be another polish job. You can't be serious about turning this around if you're giving in to the illusion that we're not a ****ty smelling turd that cannot possible hope to compete.

Frater Perdurabo
06-23-2013, 07:14 PM
This is exactly the kind of thinking that caused our current situation.

You guys are suggesting we continue to polish a turd. We've been a turd for years, just adding a few pieces here and there. But more and more, no matter what you throw at it, the **** starts to really stink.

This team reeks. At it's core. No amount of polishing is going to stop it from reeking. It needs to be rebuilt. That can't be done in free agency. That can't be done in trades (given we have nothing in the system to do that with). If we add four-five players, it's going to be another polish job. You can't be serious about turning this around if you're giving in to the illusion that we're not a ****ty smelling turd that cannot possible hope to compete.

Position players as a whole are a turd. Pitching is fine, and would be even better with better fielding.

Flush the turd. Don't fix what isn't broken. Sometimes a five-year plan isn't necessary; sometimes it can be fixed in 2-3 years. I think this is the case, especially in this division.

Tragg
06-23-2013, 07:47 PM
Position players as a whole are a turd. Pitching is fine, and would be even better with better fielding.

Flush the turd. Don't fix what isn't broken. Sometimes a five-year plan isn't necessary; sometimes it can be fixed in 2-3 years. I think this is the case, especially in this division.

I agree but at the same time, we need to get talent into the farm system. No trading for past their prime veterans.

blandman
06-23-2013, 08:05 PM
Position players as a whole are a turd. Pitching is fine, and would be even better with better fielding.

Flush the turd. Don't fix what isn't broken. Sometimes a five-year plan isn't necessary; sometimes it can be fixed in 2-3 years. I think this is the case, especially in this division.

This team isn't 2-3 years away. Acquiring five players that will be stars in that timeframe is not realistic. And yes, they have to be stars if you're going to throw the same crap out there at the other four spots.

I don't share your optimism of the rotation. Obviously, I don't think Sale will hold up. I don't hold Quintana in any sort of high esteem. I appreciate what he's doing, but guys with decent control and bad pitches that get by with deception tend not to keep it up (as deception generally only works long term with guys that have good stuff). Santiago's upside is similarly 4-5-6 in the rotation. And there's not a lot starters down in our minors. Not any that'll be heading our rotation in 2-3 years.

Frater Perdurabo
06-23-2013, 08:45 PM
It is possible to acquire "replacement level" position players who play great defense and can execute fundamentals with the bat and the glove. This can become a "pitching and defense" team that can compete in 2015.

To get protptype 3-4-5 hitters, we need to draft them.

blandman
06-23-2013, 09:18 PM
It is possible to acquire "replacement level" position players who play great defense and can execute fundamentals with the bat and the glove. This can become a "pitching and defense" team that can compete in 2015.

To get prototype 3-4-5 hitters, we need to draft them.

Pitching and defense teams usually have good enough hitters though, at least at the key spots. And...significantly better pitching. After Sale, our next best starter ERA (not counting Peavy who is old and will be gone) is almost four. Remember, for that type of team, you don't just need a good rotation. You need a significantly better rotation than all other teams. Everyone would have to have a top 30 ERA in our league. We're not even close this year HAVING PEAVY, let alone in a few years. Don't believe the hype about us going into the season. We do not have a deep or good rotation. We have a bad rotation anchored by two good pitchers.

Everyone keeps saying "in our division" like the Tigers aren't there. The Tigers are the best team in the league and aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Rebuilding now seems great considering it may be five years before they allow a window.

WhiteSox5187
06-23-2013, 10:00 PM
I think the reason you have to completely rebuild is that other than Sale, there aren't many pieces you can really build around. When the White Sox lost 90 games in 2007 some people were calling for a total rebuild but the White Sox still had some pieces that they could at least build around and plug in some gaps.

Right now they have Sale, that's about it. The pitching is okay but Peavy is old (and hurt) and I think the jury is still out on Quintana and Santiago (God only knows if Danks will ever recover). The White Sox don't have anyone that they can build around to compete in 2014 and even 2015 seems to be a bit unrealistic to me. Maybe with some good trades they can go out and get some young players that are capable of competing in 2015 but it would require really good scouting and even if we had the good scouting who do we have that teams would be willing to part with several prospects over? Rios maybe? Reed?

I think the White Sox need to bite the bullet and start rebuilding with an eye towards contending in 2016 however they need to be thinking contending to be the best team in the AL year in and year out, not "contending to win the AL Central."

Tragg
06-23-2013, 10:43 PM
I think the reason you have to completely rebuild is that other than Sale, there aren't many pieces you can really build around. When the White Sox lost 90 games in 2007 some people were calling for a total rebuild but the White Sox still had some pieces that they could at least build around and plug in some gaps.

Right now they have Sale, that's about it. The pitching is okay but Peavy is old (and hurt) and I think the jury is still out on Quintana and Santiago (God only knows if Danks will ever recover).

I don't think the jury's in on Sale, Quintana, Santiago, Reed and Jones. Danks was never particularly good in the first place. He may belong in the pen - certainly a waste of his salary, but it's a sunk cost.
When you don't have to rebuild a staff, it's a lot easier.
That said, I don't want to use Peavy, Rios, etc. to acquire mediocre AAA prospects that are ML ready either.

Frater Perdurabo
06-23-2013, 11:11 PM
The Tigers aren't as good as some make them out to be.

They are winning divisions because they beat up on AL Central teams that beat themselves. If we stopped beating ourselves with our current roster, we would be neck-and-neck with them, just like 2012.

I realize, though, that certain players on our team have a predilection to making dumb mistakes (Flowers, DeAza, Alexei) and need to be changed out, because they don't produce enough offensively to overcome their dumb play and poor fundamentals. Others on our roster need to go because they are old and can no longer produce. Replace these players with fundamentally sound players, and we will compete again.

We will overcome the Tigers if/ when we have good pitching, play fundamentally sound baseball with good fielding, and draft/develop our own core of 3-4-5 hitters.

We have good pitching. We can get the second part over two offseasons. The third part requires shrewd drafting and top-notch player development.

gosox41
06-23-2013, 11:20 PM
You forgot the package of prospects. The original point was getting a package like Tampa got for Shields. So Sale burns his arm out in 2014 and you say the money is not a big deal. Agreed. But the "Yankees or Rangers' not only would have lost money, they would have gave up their top prospects as well.
The question you totally missed is this: If Sale is a risky acquisition long term for a contending team, are they still going to offer the Sox a great package of prospects in return. If yes, then I agree you trade him. But he is a legit Number One starter. Accepting less a package because his value is limited due to fear of injury is crazy. Then you hold him.



Like I said, I would only trade him for a great set of prospects. And never under estimate the stupidity of some GM's when they think they can win now. Look at some of the idiotic contracts given out to guys like Howard, Hamilton, Puljos, A-rod, and yes Verlander. If I were a GM, I'd rather lose 3 prospects and $30MM for a year and half of an ace starter (with the possibility of more) then be paying some of the guys above $25MM per year when they are 35+.

Only one way to find out what the market is for Sale and that is to listen to inquiries (and I am sure teams are inquiring about him.)


I don't think Hahn has the guts to trade him anyway.


Bob

doublem23
06-23-2013, 11:39 PM
This thread is always good for a laugh

blandman
06-24-2013, 03:14 AM
The Tigers aren't as good as some make them out to be.

They are winning divisions because they beat up on AL Central teams that beat themselves. If we stopped beating ourselves with our current roster, we would be neck-and-neck with them, just like 2012.

I realize, though, that certain players on our team have a predilection to making dumb mistakes (Flowers, DeAza, Alexei) and need to be changed out, because they don't produce enough offensively to overcome their dumb play and poor fundamentals. Others on our roster need to go because they are old and can no longer produce. Replace these players with fundamentally sound players, and we will compete again.

We will overcome the Tigers if/ when we have good pitching, play fundamentally sound baseball with good fielding, and draft/develop our own core of 3-4-5 hitters.

We have good pitching. We can get the second part over two offseasons. The third part requires shrewd drafting and top-notch player development.

:o:

I have no words for this.

Man.

kobo
06-24-2013, 11:04 AM
Then they should build a top-of-the-line scouting and development organization, whatever it costs.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

That's the problem with this team, when it comes to the minor leagues and scouting and player development they go cheap. They have been going that route for years now and look where the organization is now. What makes you or anyone else on this board think this philosophy is going to suddenly change? We can sit here all day and talk about what the Sox need to do and what they should be doing in drafting and developing players but we've already been doing that for a few years. And nothing has changed. I have no faith that the organization is able or willing to change their philosophy. As has been pointed out previously, the club is still making money doing what they are doing and I don't think ownership is really interested in making these type of organizational changes that we as fans know need to happen.

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 11:21 AM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

blandman
06-24-2013, 11:35 AM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

No, you can't. Not if you're starting with nothing like we are. If we were able to trade for high end core players ready to play in the next year or so, then sure. But we've got a total of one guy you could trade for that and none of those players currently in our system.

No team signs an entire team worth of free agents. Not even the Yankees do that.

The Immigrant
06-24-2013, 11:40 AM
No, you can't. Not if you're starting with nothing like we are. If we were able to trade for high end core players ready to play in the next year or so, then sure. But we've got a total of one guy you could trade for that and none of those players currently in our system.

No team signs an entire team worth of free agents. Not even the Yankees do that.

You keep ****ing that chicken, Munch. This team has starting pitching. It can sign a couple of free agents to shore up the offense and be competitive again next year.

doublem23
06-24-2013, 11:40 AM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

Eh, it's just some people trying to out-pessimist each other, it is what it is.

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 11:41 AM
No, you can't. Not if you're starting with nothing like we are.

Hyperbole. We're starting with almost a complete starting 5 and a closer.

blandman
06-24-2013, 12:29 PM
Hyperbole. We're starting with almost a complete starting 5 and a closer.

We have one starting pitcher, another who won't likely be here or effective in 3 years, and a bunch of guys that would be fifth starters on good teams. I know Quintana's got like a 3.80 era, but he also doesn't have good stuff.

doublem23
06-24-2013, 12:35 PM
We have one starting pitcher, another who won't likely be here or effective in 3 years, and a bunch of guys that would be fifth starters on good teams. I know Quintana's got like a 3.80 era, but he also doesn't have good stuff.

You'll have to understand, I'm sure, why people are skeptical of a scouting report coming form a guy who told us (repeatedly) that DLS was going to be a Hall of Famer.

Quintana is one of 3 Sox pitchers in the Top 16 of the AL in WAR. He has thrown 223 innings in the Majors and all his peripherals are better in 2013 than 2012 (some significantly). It is absolutely plausible at this point to see him in the starting rotation of a good team for at least another several years.

Look, I get that it's your shtick to take the extreme negative route no matter what, but you're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that not everybody sees things the way that you think we all should.

blandman
06-24-2013, 12:41 PM
You'll have to understand, I'm sure, why people are skeptical of a scouting report coming form a guy who told us (repeatedly) that DLS was going to be a Hall of Famer.

Quintana is one of 3 Sox pitchers in the Top 16 of the AL in WAR. He has thrown 223 innings in the Majors and all his peripherals are better in 2013 than 2012 (some significantly). It is absolutely plausible at this point to see him in the starting rotation of a good team for at least another several years.

Quintana is effective because of deception. Guys like that are effective for a few years. Then, if the stuff isn't there, it gets real easy to read. Quintana's stuff isn't there. And he doesn't have the control of say, a Mark Buehrle, to compensate for it.

One of those three is Peavy, who won't be here. The other is Sale. I seriously don't know where all of these 2015 pitchers are coming from for a championship quality rotation. Unless the goal is to get back to "form" of an 82 win perennial "winner". And then to polishing these turds. Yay. Great plan, guys.

Tragg
06-24-2013, 01:33 PM
Quintana is effective because of deception. Guys like that are effective for a few years. Then, if the stuff isn't there, it gets real easy to read. Quintana's stuff isn't there. And he doesn't have the control of say, a Mark Buehrle, to compensate for it.

One of those three is Peavy, who won't be here. The other is Sale. I seriously don't know where all of these 2015 pitchers are coming from for a championship quality rotation. Unless the goal is to get back to "form" of an 82 win perennial "winner". And then to polishing these turds. Yay. Great plan, guys.

What about Santiago? He's pitched like a beast as the starter, although the Sox frequently use him as middle relief fodder.

If it's all deception, they'd catch on quicker than that. It's not like the contenders have 3 number 1 starters.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 01:41 PM
I'm as bad as anybody with the hyperbole, but my god, Munch is on a whole different level.

SI1020
06-24-2013, 01:52 PM
Trying to debate Munch is like getting beat in the back of the head with a phone book and the body with a rubber hose at the same time. All right! I admit it! The Sox will never ever be good in any of our lifetimes. Now will you please stop beating me?

Daver
06-24-2013, 01:53 PM
I'm as bad as anybody with the hyperbole, but my god, Munch is on a whole different level.

One of the side effects of being the smartest person you know.

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 02:00 PM
Quintana is effective because of deception. Guys like that are effective for a few years. Then, if the stuff isn't there, it gets real easy to read. Quintana's stuff isn't there. And he doesn't have the control of say, a Mark Buehrle, to compensate for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "deception". Doesn't every starting pitcher use deception? Not to mention, Quintana is very young. Barring injury, he should be able to pitch another 4- 6 years with basically the same "stuff".

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 02:03 PM
It's not like the contenders have 3 number 1 starters.

This is very true. Most teams don't have 2 #1 starters either.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 02:09 PM
There's nothing wrong with Quintana's stuff. I like both he and Santiago's arms. Neither has a devastating out pitch, but they both throw hard and are learning to pitch. I don't like the screwball, but Santiago misses a lot of bats with it.

JB98
06-24-2013, 02:13 PM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

Yeah, the "5 years away" stuff is complete garbage. The Sox have a lot of money coming off the books between now and the end of the 2014 season. It's likely to be painful the rest of this year and likely next, that much is true, but things can change quickly in pro sports.

If the Sox make a couple of astute trades, allocate resources wisely and get anything at all from their minor leagues, they can be a better club by 2015.

Stanley
06-24-2013, 02:14 PM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

You suggesting we go "ALL IN" again?

Throwing money at Adam Dunn is a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place. Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years, which players in FA are you going to grab?

Scouting and drafting good players is much harder, yet much more effective, at building a consistent winner than just throwing money at bs in free agency. It's clear we've only excelled at one of those so far for quite a while.

blandman
06-24-2013, 02:21 PM
Quintana uses a variation on a 3/4 motion to hide the baseball before he throws it.

The guy has a 88-91 fastball that's straight that he can place decently, a cutter that he doesn't spot that well, a curve that's probably his only average pitch, and a change that is below average. Eventually, the league will see him enough to get used to they way he's coming to the plate. And when that happens, it's going to be over for him.

blandman
06-24-2013, 02:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with Quintana's stuff. I like both he and Santiago's arms. Neither has a devastating out pitch, but they both throw hard and are learning to pitch. I don't like the screwball, but Santiago misses a lot of bats with it.

There is nothing wrong with Santiago being at the bottom of your rotation. The problem is there's only one bottom of your rotation.

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 02:22 PM
You suggesting we go "ALL IN" again?

(yes, I know that's not going to happen)

I think that pretty much sums up my stance.

Throwing money at Adam Dunn is a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place. Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years, which players in FA are you going to grab?

Throwing money at Adam Dunn did not get us in this "mess". A dearth of properly developed position players played a much bigger role.

Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years, which players in FA are you going to grab?

Setting up a straw man I see. Nice try.

blandman
06-24-2013, 02:25 PM
Setting up a straw man I see. Nice try.

It's not a straw man. It's a legit question. How are you building a world series contender in two years? Where are the 18-24 additions to this roster over the course of two years (depending on your opinion of the organization)?

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 02:26 PM
Eventually, the league will see him enough to get used to they way he's coming to the plate. And when that happens, it's going to be over for him.

But that's assuming Quintana will never improve and will approach every team/game in the same manner. If the league hasn't seen him enough after 40 starts in 1 1/2 seasons, then the league isn't doing their due diligence. There is more than enough video and data on Quintana to track his pitching patterns and style.

It could just be that Quintana is a pretty good middle of the rotation pitcher. He's not an ace, but he's someone that you can use and win with.

JB98
06-24-2013, 02:29 PM
You suggesting we go "ALL IN" again?

Throwing money at Adam Dunn is a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place. Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years, which players in FA are you going to grab?

Scouting and drafting good players is much harder, yet much more effective, at building a consistent winner than just throwing money at bs in free agency. It's clear we've only excelled at one of those so far for quite a while.

You don't have to give one player $15 million.

Take a look at what KW did in between 2004 and 2005. He traded Lee and let Ordonez walk in free agency.

He used the savings to sign Dye, Pierzynski, Iguchi, Hermanson and Hernandez. He was also able to ink Garcia to an extension after trading for him in the middle of the 2004 season.

None of these were big-ticket free agent acquisitions. None of these moves made hearts go pitter-patter with excitement. But in combination, the team was completely transformed in one offseason.

And, yes, I know the Sox will not be winning the World Series in 2014. The 2013 Sox don't have nearly as many pieces in place as the 2004 Sox did.

I merely use this as an illustration of how a GM can quickly change the makeup of a roster without signing a big-ticket free agent, or embarking on some five-year rebuild. The Sox are not going to undertake a Cubs-style rebuilding, nor should they. Or, to use an example within the AL Central, I'm still waiting for that awesome Kansas City farm system to produce multiple playoff appearances at the big-league level.

I don't know why people think rebuilding through the draft and the minor-league system is a surefire solution. For every Tampa Bay and Washington, there's a Kansas City and a Pittsburgh. Those two organizations went through about four five-year plans. The Pirates might finally be starting to pull out of it, but the Royals still blow.

The Sox do need to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing. That's obvious. But the bigger problem here is tying up too much money in just a handful of players. For years, the Sox have suffered from having a top-heavy roster. Now, the guys who are making the bucks have stopped producing, and this is what you get -- a team that's completely out of balance and stuck between a rock and a hard place in the short run.

rdivaldi
06-24-2013, 02:29 PM
It's not a straw man. It's a legit question. How are you building a world series contender in two years? Where are the 18-24 additions to this roster over the course of two years (depending on your opinion of the organization)?

No, that's a complete straw man argument.

"Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years".

No one has said that and no one is arguing that. It's a complete garbage statement to try and discredit an opinion and confuse the argument.

"Stanley" has done that twice already. I'm beginning to wonder is someone is using 2 ids.

asindc
06-24-2013, 02:32 PM
no, that's a complete straw man argument.

"since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years".

No one has said that and no one is arguing that. It's a complete garbage statement to try and discredit an opinion and confuse the argument.

"stanley" has done that twice already. i'm beginning to wonder is someone is using 2 ids.

LOL funny!

blandman
06-24-2013, 02:38 PM
But that's assuming Quintana will never improve and will approach every team/game in the same manner. If the league hasn't seen him enough after 40 starts in 1 1/2 seasons, then the league isn't doing their due diligence. There is more than enough video and data on Quintana to track his pitching patterns and style.

It could just be that Quintana is a pretty good middle of the rotation pitcher. He's not an ace, but he's someone that you can use and win with.

It's the pitch quality. I don't think he's suddenly going to gain significant velocity or start snapping off Koufax quality curve balls. The guy doesn't have a single above average pitch. He's getting by with okay control and smoke and mirrors. When the smoke an mirrors are gone, what then? I suppose we could hope he gains elite control...but how likely is that, really?

No, that's a complete straw man argument.

"Since some here seem to think we are set up to be world series bound in the next 2 years".

No one has said that and no one is arguing that. It's a complete garbage statement to try and discredit an opinion and confuse the argument.

"Stanley" has done that twice already. I'm beginning to wonder is someone is using 2 ids.

What are you proposing in two years then? Because if you're not suggesting we're world series bound, why on Earth are we targeting two years from now instead of when newly acquired prospects from the last draft and future drafts start being ready?

I am not "Stanley", if that's what you're implying.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 02:45 PM
It's the pitch quality. I don't think he's suddenly going to gain significant velocity or start snapping off Koufax quality curve balls. The guy doesn't have a single above average pitch. He's getting by with okay control and smoke and mirrors. When the smoke an mirrors are gone, what then? I suppose we could hope he gains elite control...but how likely is that, really?



What are you proposing in two years then? Because if you're not suggesting we're world series bound, why on Earth are we targeting two years from now instead of when newly acquired prospects from the last draft and future drafts start being ready?

I am not "Stanley", if that's what you're implying.

His fastball and cutter are both above average for a LH starter.

doublem23
06-24-2013, 02:48 PM
It's the pitch quality. I don't think he's suddenly going to gain significant velocity or start snapping off Koufax quality curve balls. The guy doesn't have a single above average pitch. He's getting by with okay control and smoke and mirrors. When the smoke an mirrors are gone, what then? I suppose we could hope he gains elite control...but how likely is that, really?

Well again, you've proven yourself to be a pretty terrible scout so you're just going to have to live in a world where not everyone takes your opinions as 100% fact.

What are you proposing in two years then? Because if you're not suggesting we're world series bound, why on Earth are we targeting two years from now instead of when newly acquired prospects from the last draft and future drafts start being ready?

Because part of the 5-year plan to build a perpetual winner could easily include a 2-year plan to be competitive again? Very, very few teams go from last to first place overnight even after years of hording away young kids in the minors hoping they develop into MLB talent. Almost every team makes small steps in the process of rebuilding.

Foulke You
06-24-2013, 03:27 PM
His fastball and cutter are both above average for a LH starter.
I think Blandman is getting Quintana confused with Axelrod. Jose regularly has been snapping that fastball at 91-93mph all season long. The cutter he features is also above average.

Also, since Quintana has been deemed a #5 on a good team, I would like to point out that injuries are the only reason that he has been bumped higher in the rotation order. On opening day, Quintana was our #5. Just for grins though, here is a look at how Quintana's numbers stack up against some #3s on some good MLB teams this year. You'll find that Quintana's numbers are comparable or better:

WHITE SOX: Jose Quintana- 3W-2L 3.83 E.R.A. 1.25 WHIP
RED SOX: Ryan Dempster- 4W-8L 4.23 E.R.A. 1.35 WHIP
RANGERS: Justin Grimm- 6W-5L 5.57 E.R.A. 1.54 WHIP
REDS: Homer Bailey- 4W-5L 3.75 E.R.A. 1.14 WHIP
BRAVES: Paul Maholm- 8W-6L 3.75 E.R.A. 1.27 WHIP
YANKEES: Phil Hughes- 3W-6L 5.09 E.R.A. 1.42 WHIP

blandman
06-24-2013, 03:33 PM
Well again, you've proven yourself to be a pretty terrible scout so you're just going to have to live in a world where not everyone takes your opinions as 100% fact.



Because part of the 5-year plan to build a perpetual winner could easily include a 2-year plan to be competitive again? Very, very few teams go from last to first place overnight even after years of hording away young kids in the minors hoping they develop into MLB talent. Almost every team makes small steps in the process of rebuilding.

I feel like no one here reads a scouting report that isn't given by Hawk. Seriously. What I've said shouldn't be new knowledge or even questioned. It's been mentioned by numerous sites, like fangraphs and espn, and even by local outlets (like southside sox and white sox observer). Everyone pretty much has the same to say. The stuff isn't there, he's placing decently (especially early in games), and it's his motion that's helping.

I'm not arguing that a 5-year plan to build a perpetual winner couldn't easily include a 2-year plan to be competitive. I believe that to be so. Instead, I'm arguing that a 5-year plan to build a perpetual winner cannot include a 2-year plan to be competitive given the assets of this team, because of it's current roster, lack of any semblance of organizational depth, high salaries on the books, shoddy scouting, poor player development, and a dearth of quality free agents likely to be available within our price range.

doublem23
06-24-2013, 03:44 PM
I feel like no one here reads a scouting report that isn't given by Hawk. Seriously. What I've said shouldn't be new knowledge or even questioned. It's been mentioned by numerous sites, like fangraphs and espn, and even by local outlets (like southside sox and white sox observer). Everyone pretty much has the same to say. The stuff isn't there, he's placing decently (especially early in games), and it's his motion that's helping.

I need a scouting report on guys who play from other teams who I don't get to see regularly. I need a scouting report on minor league or amateur players who I pretty much never see out of select clips that have been uploaded to YouTube. I don't need to use a scouting report as a crutch for a guy who has thrown 200+ innings for the Sox. I've watched a number of Quintana's starts, I am telling you, based on what I've seen from him, he's a perfectly fine option as a SP for even a good team. I was wary of him when he came up as well, but he's progressively gotten better as he has come along, he's hitting the mid-90s with his fastball now (FanGraphs has his max velocity at 94-95).

Again, you want to disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but people are disagreeing with you based on what we have seen from the guy, not being spoon fed **** by Hawk. We're all amateurs on this board, nobody's opinion is more or less valid than anyone else's, despite what you may think.

Stanley
06-24-2013, 03:49 PM
The Sox do need to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing. That's obvious. But the bigger problem here is tying up too much money in just a handful of players. For years, the Sox have suffered from having a top-heavy roster. Now, the guys who are making the bucks have stopped producing, and this is what you get -- a team that's completely out of balance and stuck between a rock and a hard place in the short run.

We both get it, I think, but people keep simplifying each others' thoughts, and that's a problem. But, does it not come down to trusting and committing to one approach over the other? I feel we've given the patch-work, rebuild on-the-fly, ALL-IN, Mark Kotsay DH and Adam Dunn 56 mil. route a full go at it.

I don't doubt any GM's ability to turn a team around quickly, relatively speaking. But if the Sox were the Rays (or the Twins of several years ago), I think we'd be making the playoffs more consistently and have an edge if we did make the playoffs, due to the emphasis on contact hitting, going the other way, pitching and defense etc. We already preach some of that, but you get what I mean. Since you don't have to rely as much on FA or finding lightning in a bottle, you don't have to do stupid things like the Rays would probably never do (even if they had the money), like sign Dunn to that contract. And I get it, it's not just Dunn.

But it is the cronyism, the dysfunction, and the sad state of play that lead me to believe that things may very well continue down a similar path until things are a bit more seriously shaken up. This is compounded by the fact that, although maybe not not fully ready to become a winner, teams like the Royals and Indians have again started down the path that has lead to spending a bit of dough and they are at least pretending to be competitive.

blandman
06-24-2013, 03:50 PM
I need a scouting report on guys who play from other teams who I don't get to see regularly. I need a scouting report on minor league or amateur players who I pretty much never see out of select clips that have been uploaded to YouTube. I don't need to use a scouting report as a crutch for a guy who has thrown 200+ innings for the Sox. I've watched a number of Quintana's starts, I am telling you, based on what I've seen from him, he's a perfectly fine option as a SP for even a good team. I was wary of him when he came up as well, but he's progressively gotten better as he has come along, he's hitting the mid-90s with his fastball now (FanGraphs has his max velocity at 94-95).

Again, you want to disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but people are disagreeing with you based on what we have seen from the guy, not being spoon fed **** by Hawk. We're all amateurs on this board, nobody's opinion is more or less valid than anyone else's, despite what you may think.

You're welcome to have your impression, but my impressions are at least somewhat validated by the resources that are out there. When I get dumped on for it, I start to feel like perhaps people aren't doing their due diligence.

Regardless, I don't think Quintana's going anywhere anytime soon (as, at the very least, scouts are not overly fond of him). So will get to see firsthand what becomes of him.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 03:52 PM
You're welcome to have your impression, but my impressions are at least somewhat validated by the resources that are out there. When I get dumped on for it, I start to feel like perhaps people aren't doing their due diligence.

Regardless, I don't think Quintana's going anywhere anytime soon (as, at the very least, scouts are not overly fond of him). So will get to see firsthand what becomes of him.

Then link these articles that say he sits at 89 and gets by on deception. I already know they're BS, but would love to read them.

blandman
06-24-2013, 03:55 PM
Then link these articles that say he sits at 89 and gets by on deception. I already know they're BS, but would love to read them.

:dtroll:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jose+quintana+scouting+report

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 03:58 PM
:dtroll:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jose+quintana+scouting+report

Bluff called.

blandman
06-24-2013, 04:05 PM
Bluff called.

Or, you know, click some of the links. :rolleyes:

I'm not feeling overly helpful considering you chose to insult me instead of discuss.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 04:12 PM
Or, you know, click some of the links. :rolleyes:

I'm not feeling overly helpful considering you chose to insult me instead of discuss.

Well, that search doesn't lead me to any articles that aren't a year old. I must have misunderstood when you claimed that your opinion was backed by professionals. None of those articles are even relevant.

*edit*
Considering in the nearly 10 years I've been on the board that I've spent 1 week banned, I don't consider myself a troll.

doublem23
06-24-2013, 04:15 PM
Or, you know, click some of the links. :rolleyes:

I'm not feeling overly helpful considering you chose to insult me instead of discuss.

Because they don't ****ing exist. Clicking through the links provided, the only ones with a negative outlook on Quintana still say he tops out in the high 80s or low 90s with the fastball. He hasn't been that pitcher all year long.

Domeshot17
06-24-2013, 04:19 PM
The Tigers aren't as good as some make them out to be.

They are winning divisions because they beat up on AL Central teams that beat themselves. If we stopped beating ourselves with our current roster, we would be neck-and-neck with them, just like 2012.

I realize, though, that certain players on our team have a predilection to making dumb mistakes (Flowers, DeAza, Alexei) and need to be changed out, because they don't produce enough offensively to overcome their dumb play and poor fundamentals. Others on our roster need to go because they are old and can no longer produce. Replace these players with fundamentally sound players, and we will compete again.

We will overcome the Tigers if/ when we have good pitching, play fundamentally sound baseball with good fielding, and draft/develop our own core of 3-4-5 hitters.

We have good pitching. We can get the second part over two offseasons. The third part requires shrewd drafting and top-notch player development.

Was this meant to be a joke? The Tigers have questions in the bullpen, but they have the 2 best SP in the AL Central, Probably the 2 best hitters in the Central, they are a really good team, a world series caliber team.

We have Chris Sale.....

In terms of the 3 things you need, you realize they have to happen all at once? I am not a huge Quintana fan, but he is fine as a back end guy, better than a 5, not an ideal 3, probably a 4. However, it means we have to find a number 2 when Peavy leaves, since developing a 3-4-5 hitting core is going to take 3 or 4 years, and we don't have any of those in our system now, and have not produced one in what, 15 years?

Foulke You
06-24-2013, 04:42 PM
I feel like no one here reads a scouting report that isn't given by Hawk. Seriously. What I've said shouldn't be new knowledge or even questioned.
Jose Quintana used a new offseason strength conditioning program heading into the 2013 season with Allen Thomas to improve his stamina and arm strength. This arm strength conditioning was done to address his struggles in September of last year when he ran out of gas after pitching more innings than he ever had before in his career. The added benefit to this new conditioning is that he has added mph to his fastball this season. If you don't believe me that Quintana's stuff has improved this season, check out this article from CBS Sports (not written by Hawk Harrelson) that highlights Quintana's increased velocity in 2013. It even uses Fangraphs as a reference. He averages 91.3 mph this season and not 89. Velocity topping out at about 94 as others have mentioned.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/news-update/22307193/jose-quintana-sees-fastball-velocity-increase

doublem23
06-24-2013, 04:59 PM
Jose Quintana used a new offseason strength conditioning program heading into the 2013 season with Allen Thomas to improve his stamina and arm strength. This arm strength conditioning was done to address his struggles in September of last year when he ran out of gas after pitching more innings than he ever had before in his career. The added benefit to this new conditioning is that he has added mph to his fastball this season. If you don't believe me that Quintana's stuff has improved this season, check out this article from CBS Sports (not written by Hawk Harrelson) that highlights Quintana's increased velocity in 2013. It even uses Fangraphs as a reference. He averages 91.3 mph this season and not 89. Velocity topping out at about 94 as others have mentioned.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/news-update/22307193/jose-quintana-sees-fastball-velocity-increase

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Thumbs-up-montage.gif

blandman
06-24-2013, 05:02 PM
Jose Quintana used a new offseason strength conditioning program heading into the 2013 season with Allen Thomas to improve his stamina and arm strength. This arm strength conditioning was done to address his struggles in September of last year when he ran out of gas after pitching more innings than he ever had before in his career. The added benefit to this new conditioning is that he has added mph to his fastball this season. If you don't believe me that Quintana's stuff has improved this season, check out this article from CBS Sports (not written by Hawk Harrelson) that highlights Quintana's increased velocity in 2013. It even uses Fangraphs as a reference. He averages 91.3 mph this season and not 89. Velocity topping out at about 94 as others have mentioned.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/news-update/22307193/jose-quintana-sees-fastball-velocity-increase

Hi Foulke,

This is a nice piece. I did, however, say he sits 89-91, which he pretty much does all game. Guys that sit in that (or any) range tend to top out higher. But it isn't like he's throwing a ton harder. He's still in the soft tosser range, and that four seamer is still as straight as it gets.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 05:08 PM
It's pointless to have a discussion with somebody that thinks that a LH starter who sits in the low 90's and can hit 94 is a soft tosser.

asindc
06-24-2013, 05:24 PM
It's pointless to have a discussion with somebody that thinks that a LH starter who sits in the low 90's and can hit 94 is a soft tosser.

Hey, it's not like a regular rotation pitcher in MLB doesn't routinely hit 94-95 all game long.

blandman
06-24-2013, 05:26 PM
Hey, it's not like a regular rotation pitcher in MLB doesn't routinely hit 94-95 all game long.

If anyone wants to actually talk and not post flame-bait, that would be great.

91 mph on a straight fastball isn't a plus. It's not fast enough to miss bats. It's effectiveness comes from the slot, which eventually players are going to get used to.

SoxSpeed22
06-24-2013, 05:40 PM
Because everybody needs a 96 MPH fastball in order to succeed.
Quintana is at his strongest whenever he can work both sides of the plate. He keeps the ball down well. He still uses his fastball a little bit too much, but he is improving his changeup and cutter. Besides, the guy is only 24 years old, and still has a lot of room to improve.

blandman
06-24-2013, 05:45 PM
Because everybody needs a 96 MPH fastball in order to succeed.



Please stop framing the argument in such a way that it does not reflect what I am saying. No you don't need to throw 96. But if you rely heavily on your fastball, and it's straight, then you do need to throw 96. Or have exemplary breaking pitches. Quintana has neither. At least not yet. I'm not saying it's impossible. But is it likely? Or is it more likely the league gets used to his arm slot? That's why I'm questioning the logic of considering him a rotation piece in the future.

TaylorStSox
06-24-2013, 05:58 PM
How long does the league need to catch up to his arm slot? 220 innings. Is the AL on a 28k modem and still waiting for the jpeg to load?

TheVulture
06-24-2013, 07:10 PM
This assumes that

1. Without trading Sale we can rebuild in time for his contract to still be valuable (since every rebuilding year his cost is an unnecessary expense)



If the team is rebuilding, why would there be concern for an unnecessary expense for an ace? I'd only be concerned if I was looking to spend, and I wouldn't be looking to spend during a rebuild. He's only making an average of 4.75 mil in 2014 and 2015 (barely 3 million average if you include this year), and then eleven a year the next two. You'd pay more than that for a borderline #4 in the open market. Thornton was paid more for 2012-2013 than Sale will be paid for 2014-2015. It's not like the Sox are the Marlins and need to pair down payroll to 20 million in order to rebuild. Who are you saving that five mil for that is going to outproduce Sale?

If you want to argue that whoever he returns is going to be collectively be more productive in the long run that's one thing, but the unnecessary expense argument is pretty weak considering Sale's contract.

Now Danks' contract, on the other hand, I would dump for a bag of balls.

blandman
06-24-2013, 07:34 PM
If the team is rebuilding, why would there be concern for an unnecessary expense for an ace? I'd only be concerned if I was looking to spend, and I wouldn't be looking to spend during a rebuild. He's only making an average of 4.75 mil in 2014 and 2015 (barely 3 million average if you include this year), and then eleven a year the next two. You'd pay more than that for a borderline #4 in the open market. Thornton was paid more for 2012-2013 than Sale will be paid for 2014-2015. It's not like the Sox are the Marlins and need to pair down payroll to 20 million in order to rebuild. Who are you saving that five mil for that is going to outproduce Sale?

If you want to argue that whoever he returns is going to be collectively be more productive in the long run that's one thing, but the unnecessary expense argument is pretty weak considering Sale's contract.

Now Danks' contract, on the other hand, I would dump for a bag of balls.

I'm not saying give Sale away by any means, but if you're not trading him that's still money that could have been spent on scouting, development, the japanese market, etc. You're right it's not that much money, but why spend it if you can get something to speed up your return for less money (and more years overall, since the clock starts on those pieces closer to your team's arrival date).

TheVulture
06-24-2013, 08:17 PM
I'm not saying give Sale away by any means, but if you're not trading him that's still money that could have been spent on scouting, development, the japanese market, etc. You're right it's not that much money, but why spend it if you can get something to speed up your return for less money (and more years overall, since the clock starts on those pieces closer to your team's arrival date).

The Sox could pare down the payroll significantly each of the next two seasons without dumping Sale. You think his value is highest now, what if he puts up CY award seasons the next two years(including this one), his trade value would be through the roof. He'd still have three years at 9 mil/yr with two option years left. I'd rather the Sox hold on to him, if it looks hopeless in three years, then trade him. Giving up young ace pitchers doesn't usually turn out well, it's not like they're just growing on trees.

blandman
06-24-2013, 08:34 PM
The Sox could pare down the payroll significantly each of the next two seasons without dumping Sale. You think his value is highest now, what if he puts up CY award seasons the next two years(including this one), his trade value would be through the roof. He'd still have three years at 9 mil/yr with two option years left. I'd rather the Sox hold on to him, if it looks hopeless in three years, then trade him. Giving up young ace pitchers doesn't usually turn out well, it's not like they're just growing on trees.

I don't think a Cy Young is going to change his value much, I think teams view him as one of the best pitchers in the game period. The problem is the health risk, and yeah a lot of people here don't think he'll get injured but if you're not competing in the meantime, why risk it? His value could go from marque to zilch overnight.

DumpJerry
06-24-2013, 10:14 PM
The problem is the health risk
Is there a professional athlete in Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, Football, etc. who is not at risk for an injury at any moment during a game or match? If so, who is this and why is s/he not at risk for injury?

blandman
06-24-2013, 11:43 PM
Is there a professional athlete in Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, Football, etc. who is not at risk for an injury at any moment during a game or match? If so, who is this and why is s/he not at risk for injury?

Okay, it's the increased health risk. You don't have to agree with it, but it's the opinion of every sports medicine professional that the motion Sale uses causes extreme stress on his elbow and back that other players do not face. Don't say "show me that", it's common knowledge that's been repeated by everyone from team execs to scouts to analysts to even agents who try to alter the approaches of their clients.

Tragg
06-24-2013, 11:57 PM
I'm all for listening on Sale. But it would take many of the best prospects in baseball...probably more than any one team has.

DumpJerry
06-25-2013, 12:13 AM
Okay, it's the increased health risk. You don't have to agree with it, but it's the opinion of every sports medicine professional that the motion Sale uses causes extreme stress on his elbow and back that other players do not face. Don't say "show me that", it's common knowledge that's been repeated by everyone from team execs to scouts to analysts to even agents who try to alter the approaches of their clients.
Standing at Home Plate with your cheekbone exposed while a very hard and unforgiving ball is coming at you at 95 MPH is very risky. Potentially fatal, in fact.

Daver
06-25-2013, 01:17 AM
Okay, it's the increased health risk. You don't have to agree with it, but it's the opinion of every sports medicine professional that the motion Sale uses causes extreme stress on his elbow and back that other players do not face. Don't say "show me that", it's common knowledge that's been repeated by everyone from team execs to scouts to analysts to even agents who try to alter the approaches of their clients.According to every sports medicine professional every pitcher in MLB is at risk of arm injury because the act of throwing a baseball is an unnatural act, it's well documented, if you put the effort in you can find results from orthopedic surgeons as well as motion therapists that deal with pitcher recovery.

Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough.

WLL1855
06-25-2013, 02:23 AM
Okay, it's the increased health risk. You don't have to agree with it, but it's the opinion of every sports medicine professional that the motion Sale uses causes extreme stress on his elbow and back that other players do not face. Don't say "show me that", it's common knowledge that's been repeated by everyone from team execs to scouts to analysts to even agents who try to alter the approaches of their clients.

I just love how you can't help yourself to posit every situation in the worst possible light. Its cute. Really.

blandman
06-25-2013, 02:56 AM
According to every sports medicine professional every pitcher in MLB is at risk of arm injury because the act of throwing a baseball is an unnatural act, it's well documented, if you put the effort in you can find results from orthopedic surgeons as well as motion therapists that deal with pitcher recovery.

Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough.

Yes, and living causes death. That doesn't mean instead of walking on the sidewalk, I'm going to jump off a cliff.

Sale has the worst possible motion in the history of baseball, one that has never not lead to a severe injury in it's purest form. Only those with a borderline inverted W (Glavine, Smoltz, Drysdale, Pedro Martinez, Blylevin) survived it, some better than others. The key difference is they never let their elbow get above the level of their shoulder (which in the traditional and dangerous inverted W is what causes catastrophic injury). The only thing that could make it more dangerous for his arm is if he cut it off and threw that at home plate. That isn't hyperbole. Sale has a true inverted W. If he pitches his career with that and doesn't blow out his elbow, he'll be the first person in baseball history to do so.

I know everyone's going to run and look that up. Make sure your site differentiates between a true inverted W and borderline. The key difference is the location of the elbow in relation to the shoulder.

KRS1
06-25-2013, 03:56 AM
All health concerns aside, there's not a single player on this team I wouldn't trade - Sale included. Sometimes you have to move elite talent to get bulk average talent for a better overall and more sustainable club, it's the way of the game. Having said that, I don't see him going anywhere.

GoSox2K3
06-25-2013, 09:06 AM
What is this "5 years away" garbage that keeps popping up? You can rebuild your major league team in 1 year if you spend the money (yes, I know that's not going to happen) and in 3 years pretty easily.

It's been 5 seasons since the Sox made the playoffs and 5 years since they brought in Buddy Bell to fix their minor league system.

To think that this team is another 5 years away from being a legitimate contender might be pessimistic, but it's not "garbage".

The Sox can spend their way to a possible wild card or "tallest midget" AL Central title rather quickly if they chose to do so, but it would probably mean handing a lot of money to declining veterans. That's not "rebuilding".

GoSox2K3
06-25-2013, 09:20 AM
You don't have to give one player $15 million.

Take a look at what KW did in between 2004 and 2005. He traded Lee and let Ordonez walk in free agency.

He used the savings to sign Dye, Pierzynski, Iguchi, Hermanson and Hernandez. He was also able to ink Garcia to an extension after trading for him in the middle of the 2004 season.

None of these were big-ticket free agent acquisitions. None of these moves made hearts go pitter-patter with excitement. But in combination, the team was completely transformed in one offseason.

And, yes, I know the Sox will not be winning the World Series in 2014. The 2013 Sox don't have nearly as many pieces in place as the 2004 Sox did.

I merely use this as an illustration of how a GM can quickly change the makeup of a roster without signing a big-ticket free agent, or embarking on some five-year rebuild. The Sox are not going to undertake a Cubs-style rebuilding, nor should they. Or, to use an example within the AL Central, I'm still waiting for that awesome Kansas City farm system to produce multiple playoff appearances at the big-league level.

I don't know why people think rebuilding through the draft and the minor-league system is a surefire solution. For every Tampa Bay and Washington, there's a Kansas City and a Pittsburgh. Those two organizations went through about four five-year plans. The Pirates might finally be starting to pull out of it, but the Royals still blow.

The Sox do need to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing. That's obvious. But the bigger problem here is tying up too much money in just a handful of players. For years, the Sox have suffered from having a top-heavy roster. Now, the guys who are making the bucks have stopped producing, and this is what you get -- a team that's completely out of balance and stuck between a rock and a hard place in the short run.

The Kansas City/Pittsburgh example isn't a good one, IMO. Those teams either can't or won't spend much on major league payroll. So, they're trying to win through farm system only. The Sox aren't in that situation.

I agree that the Sox need to do a mix of both - better scouting/drafting/developing PLUS spending money on key veterans to fill out the roster and that could make themselves a contender.

The free agents that you mentioned above that KW acquired before the 2005 season was masterful. But the problem is that the Sox have come to rely almost solely on under the radar players and a "maybe we'll surprise everyone this year" approach to competing. Those kind of players definitely play a part in winning teams. But they can't be the cornerstone of our playoff efforts and this team will never be a consistent playoff contender if they just keep trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

SI1020
06-25-2013, 09:52 AM
Yes, and living causes death. That doesn't mean instead of walking on the sidewalk, I'm going to jump off a cliff.

Sale has the worst possible motion in the history of baseball, one that has never not lead to a severe injury in it's purest form. Only those with a borderline inverted W (Glavine, Smoltz, Drysdale, Pedro Martinez, Blylevin) survived it, some better than others. The key difference is they never let their elbow get above the level of their shoulder (which in the traditional and dangerous inverted W is what causes catastrophic injury). The only thing that could make it more dangerous for his arm is if he cut it off and threw that at home plate. That isn't hyperbole. Sale has a true inverted W. If he pitches his career with that and doesn't blow out his elbow, he'll be the first person in baseball history to do so.

I know everyone's going to run and look that up. Make sure your site differentiates between a true inverted W and borderline. The key difference is the location of the elbow in relation to the shoulder. You forgot about Yu Darvish. It all looks so hopeless. I think baseball has to consider having mechanical pitchers on the mound. It's just too dangerous for humans.

http://pitchingguru.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Yu-Darvish-is-Headed-Toward-Arm-Injury-Disaster

blandman
06-25-2013, 10:26 AM
You forgot about Yu Darvish. It all looks so hopeless. I think baseball has to consider having mechanical pitchers on the mound. It's just too danger for humans.

http://pitchingguru.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Yu-Darvish-is-Headed-Toward-Arm-Injury-Disaster

That's an interesting piece. I don't know if I share the author's opinion that eliminating dangerous throwing methods is the most effective way, some guys might flat out lose their effectiveness. Yeah, it worked for Nolan Ryan. But that's NOLAN RYAN. I guess we'd have to actually see high end pitchers effectively make a switch on a large scale before we knew how effective it was.

TheVulture
06-25-2013, 05:10 PM
It's been 5 seasons since the Sox made the playoffs and 5 years since they brought in Buddy Bell to fix their minor league system.

To think that this team is another 5 years away from being a legitimate contender might be pessimistic, but it's not "garbage".

The Sox can spend their way to a possible wild card or "tallest midget" AL Central title rather quickly if they chose to do so, but it would probably mean handing a lot of money to declining veterans. That's not "rebuilding".

Yes, that's one thing I have to agree with munch on, I can't see this team turning it around in a couple of years. Sure you can spend money on a mediocre team and turn it around, but this is a worse than mediocre team with horrible fundamentals throughout and very few pieces to rebuild around. This team doesn't just need a few good players, the entire system needs overhauled.

That said, I would still like them to acquire a few good players for next season and aspire for mediocrity in the short term while rebuilding with a five year plan.

DSpivack
06-27-2013, 05:53 PM
Jon Heyman: Everyone but Sale and Konerko available.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/22550045/chisox-are-open-for-business-all-but-sale-konerko-are-available

blandman
06-27-2013, 06:31 PM
Jon Heyman: Everyone but Sale and Konerko available.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/22550045/chisox-are-open-for-business-all-but-sale-konerko-are-available

Because trading Konerko would be the last straw for fans.

mahagga73
06-27-2013, 08:35 PM
Because trading Konerko would be the last straw for fans.
Why? Not me. Any fan with any semblance of baseball IQ knows this team needs to be greatly restructured , and that means hard decisions. I disagree, I think most Sox fans know these kinds of things need to be done for the betterment of the future. If you are sore because an aging Konerko is gone you don't know baseball or the Sox. Konerko is a 10/5 player so any trade would have to have his ok.

Frater Perdurabo
06-27-2013, 09:06 PM
Why? Not me. Any fan with any semblance of baseball IQ knows this team needs to be greatly restructured , and that means hard decisions. I disagree, I think most Sox fans know these kinds of things need to be done for the betterment of the future. If you are sore because an aging Konerko is gone you don't know baseball or the Sox. Konerko is a 10/5 player so any trade would have to have his ok.

Based on your posted WSI join date, I believe you missed the mid-2000s peak usage of teal-colored typeface to designate sarcasm on WSI. I believe blandman was being sarcastic.

I also would trade Paulie. Then again, I've been trying to trade him on WSI since late 2003.

:)

TaylorStSox
06-28-2013, 12:08 AM
I'd guess it because Konerko has already told the team that he won't accept a trade.

doublem23
06-28-2013, 06:47 AM
I'd guess it because Konerko has already told the team that he won't accept a trade.

Probably, I'd have to assume this is going to be Paul's last season, probably doesn't want to uproot his family for a three month rental elsewhere, and really, whatever worthless prospect we'd fetch for him won't be worth not letting him retire as a member of the White Sox. I'd hate to have to see something as pathetic as this again:

http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/michael-jordan-wizards.jpg

Noneck
06-28-2013, 07:41 AM
I'd hate to have to see something as pathetic as this again:

http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/michael-jordan-wizards.jpg



Paul has always seemed like a class guy, I am sure he wouldnt whore himself out, knowing he doesnt have much left in the tank.

mahagga73
06-28-2013, 09:30 AM
Based on your posted WSI join date, I believe you missed the mid-2000s peak usage of teal-colored typeface to designate sarcasm on WSI. I believe blandman was being sarcastic.

I also would trade Paulie. Then again, I've been trying to trade him on WSI since late 2003.

:)I sure did.

Tragg
06-28-2013, 10:25 AM
They also probably want to keep Konerko close to the organization. Heck he could be the next manager.

SoxSpeed22
06-28-2013, 10:37 AM
If Paulie doesn't want a trade, I can handle that. He can retire with the Sox and make it as a decent hitting coach.

TaylorStSox
06-28-2013, 10:42 AM
Yeah, the Sox can definitely use more coaches that don't have anything to say. Might as well bring Manual back while we're at it. Robin, Baines and Konerko sounds like a fun time.

WLL1855
06-28-2013, 07:05 PM
Yeah, the Sox can definitely use more coaches that don't have anything to say. Might as well bring Manual back while we're at it. Robin, Baines and Konerko sounds like a fun time.

You want a coach with something to say? I hear Ozzie is available.

Noneck
06-28-2013, 07:28 PM
They also probably want to keep Konerko close to the organization. Heck he could be the next manager.

If Paulie doesn't want a trade, I can handle that. He can retire with the Sox and make it as a decent hitting coach.


Players that made the kind of money Paul did rarely become managers and and even more rarely become hitting coaches.

Viva Medias B's
06-28-2013, 11:16 PM
This could actually be the worst season under Jerry Reinsdorf's ownership. We finished in last place in 1989, but that was a young team with a young Jack McDowell and a young Robin Ventura that we knew was going to be good down the road. Little did we know at the time that we would realize that goodness the following season in 1990. Other than years we made the postseason, 1990 remains one of my favorite White Sox seasons ever. That was a really fun year.

We really need to blow this thing up and rebuild. L'Ancien Régime needs to go. I am not necessarily saying Jerry Reinsdorf needs to sell the team, in spite of him playing Emperor Nero's fiddle at this point. I think JR ought to clean house in the front office and buy proven winners from other ballclubs in to rebuild the team. No more KW and his minions. No more White Sox Alumni Association members forming the coaching staff. Bring in Walt Jocketty. Or bring in Mike Rizzo. How about John Mozeliak or John Sabean? Bring in a proven winner from another organization.

I believe JR when he says he wants the White Sox to win more than anything, but he has to put forth the necessary effort if his desire is to be truly realized. In both the White Sox and the Bulls, he has been loyal to a fault. And that has been an impediment to both teams achieving more success than they have.

Noneck
06-29-2013, 12:44 AM
Reinsdorf wont bring in people he cant control, he never has and I highly doubt he will start at this stage of his life. The controlling that some people call loyalty will continue until he is dirt. It is, what it is, with this organization.

Dan H
06-29-2013, 08:57 AM
Viva - Actually this has been the worst three seasons in Reinsdorf's ownership. Guillen should have been fired in May 2011 since he had become an incompetent embarrassment. And hiring Ventura without even interviewing other candidates was inexcusable. Finally, the offseason after 2012 was totally uninspiring.

Does he care that much? I couldn't sit in the owner's box and watch this nonsense no matter how rich I was. This team has become worse than the Marlins.

Sadly, it looks like Paul Konerko, the last symbol of 2005, will have to retire. That should send a message to Reinsdorf that 2005 is becoming an old memory and that he needs to do something to turn this franchise around. It is time so see how much he cares.

guillensdisciple
06-29-2013, 09:23 AM
Horrible time frame of the rebuild. The white sox did this to themselves. This horrible season was going to happen because we kept on adding veterans who were just aging and we're only gong to Reach mediocrity ir worse. We're there now. It would have been smarter to go through with this a year Orr two ago when some of these players had higher value, but whatever.

KingXerxes
06-29-2013, 11:41 AM
A rebuild of the team doesn't necessarily mean the White Sox can't pack US Cellular while losing. Here's a plan:

Hire, or bring out of retirement, every single juicer, malcontent, jerk, dingbat or horse's ass who has played major league baseball in the past fifteen years. I imagine a line up consisting of such names as Milton Bradley, Robert Fick, Jose Canseco, Jeff Kent, Albert Belle, John Rocker can be had for a song and dance, and the entire present roster can be traded for prospects. Hell - have the team managed by Gilbert Arenas (and contend that his absolute lack of baseball knowledge, and formidable firearms collection is an asset), and Ken Harrelson can fill the blank spots in his broadcasts by informing the audience of the latest locker room brawl or run-in with the media - and how this shows the collective "will to win" of the entire roster.

In a couple of years (of what I'm sure would be national coverage and sell out crowds), bring up all the prospects who can actually play the game.

doublem23
06-29-2013, 11:45 AM
They also probably want to keep Konerko close to the organization. Heck he could be the next manager.

He was almost the ****ing manager 2 years ago

shingo10
06-29-2013, 01:24 PM
He was almost the ****ing manager 2 years ago


Haha, a big part of me wishes this had happened. Entertainment value would have been tremendous.

A. Cavatica
06-29-2013, 02:53 PM
A rebuild of the team doesn't necessarily mean the White Sox can't pack US Cellular while losing. Here's a plan:

Hire, or bring out of retirement, every single juicer, malcontent, jerk, dingbat or horse's ass who has played major league baseball in the past fifteen years. I imagine a line up consisting of such names as Milton Bradley, Robert Fick, Jose Canseco, Jeff Kent, Albert Belle, John Rocker can be had for a song and dance, and the entire present roster can be traded for prospects. Hell - have the team managed by Gilbert Arenas (and contend that his absolute lack of baseball knowledge, and formidable firearms collection is an asset), and Ken Harrelson can fill the blank spots in his broadcasts by informing the audience of the latest locker room brawl or run-in with the media - and how this shows the collective "will to win" of the entire roster.

In a couple of years (of what I'm sure would be national coverage and sell out crowds), bring up all the prospects who can actually play the game.

Heck, with this plan you could bring back Ozzie.

TheVulture
06-29-2013, 04:35 PM
Players that made the kind of money Paul did rarely become managers and and even more rarely become hitting coaches.

There's plenty of coaches out there right now I could cite who made boatloads of money. Some guys just like being part of a major league team.

DSpivack
06-29-2013, 09:09 PM
There's plenty of coaches out there right now I could cite who made boatloads of money. Some guys just like being part of a major league team.

Don Mattingly seems a somewhat similar example.

Mr. Jinx
06-29-2013, 09:23 PM
Don Mattingly seems a somewhat similar example.

The guy who was wildly rumored to be fired about a month ago.

Bucky F. Dent
06-29-2013, 09:38 PM
Beckett is done for the year, let's send Peavy back west for some Dodger prospects!

blandman
06-29-2013, 09:54 PM
Beckett is done for the year, let's send Peavy back west for some Dodger prospects!

The Dodgers are more likely to be sellers than buyers at this point.

Bucky F. Dent
06-29-2013, 10:02 PM
The Dodgers are more likely to be sellers than buyers at this point.

I had not been paying attention to the NL West. They're almost as bad as we are....almost.

DSpivack
06-29-2013, 10:33 PM
The Dodgers are more likely to be sellers than buyers at this point.

They're only 6 games back, plus no way is that team selling right now. Only exception there is Ethier, if anyone is willing to take him.

doublem23
06-29-2013, 11:16 PM
I had not been paying attention to the NL West. They're almost as bad as we are....almost.

Yeah but the whole NL West has been pretty underwhelming, a lot of pretty vicious winning and losing streaks for most of the teams already.

I would be surprised to see the Dodgers go in full sell mode, but that doesn't mean I think they will be buyers, either. Except for the aforementioned Ethier.

Noneck
06-29-2013, 11:32 PM
There's plenty of coaches out there right now I could cite who made boatloads of money. Some guys just like being part of a major league team.


There are some but not that many.

Brian26
06-30-2013, 12:10 AM
The Dodgers are more likely to be sellers than buyers at this point.

They have almost unlimited payroll. They can be buyers if they want to.

Tragg
06-30-2013, 01:09 AM
The Dodgers are more likely to be sellers than buyers at this point.

They're 5.5 out in a mediocre division. Don't count on it.

Moses_Scurry
07-01-2013, 10:11 AM
So for those in the know, who are some of the names we can look forward to in the '14 draft? As is stands now, the Sox would have the third pick and are not very far off the first. I doubt they'll lose enough to overtake the Marlins, but it's pretty likely they'll at worst be in the top 5. I suppose it's too much to hope for a Harper type. I have read that it will be a deep draft, so even if they are later in the top 10, they should be able to get somebody good. I want a position player, even though it would be hard to pass on an Ace.

DirtySox
07-01-2013, 01:44 PM
So for those in the know, who are some of the names we can look forward to in the '14 draft? As is stands now, the Sox would have the third pick and are not very far off the first. I doubt they'll lose enough to overtake the Marlins, but it's pretty likely they'll at worst be in the top 5. I suppose it's too much to hope for a Harper type. I have read that it will be a deep draft, so even if they are later in the top 10, they should be able to get somebody good. I want a position player, even though it would be hard to pass on an Ace.

Some top 10 candidates. Obviously still very early.

Carlos Rodon
Trea Turner
Tyler Beede
Touki Toussaint
Sean Newcomb
Michael Cederoth
Alex Jackson
Jacob Gatewood
Nick Gordon
Jack Flaherty
Aaron Nola
Dylan Cease
Kel Johnson

rdivaldi
07-01-2013, 02:27 PM
Some top 10 candidates. Obviously still very early.

Carlos Rodon
Trea Turner
Tyler Beede
Touki Toussaint
Sean Newcomb
Michael Cederoth
Alex Jackson
Jacob Gatewood
Nick Gordon
Jack Flaherty
Aaron Nola
Dylan Cease
Kel Johnson

It is supposed to be a banner year for pitchers, middle infielders and catchers.

blandman
07-01-2013, 03:24 PM
Yeah but the whole NL West has been pretty underwhelming, a lot of pretty vicious winning and losing streaks for most of the teams already.

I would be surprised to see the Dodgers go in full sell mode, but that doesn't mean I think they will be buyers, either. Except for the aforementioned Ethier.

They have almost unlimited payroll. They can be buyers if they want to.

They're 5.5 out in a mediocre division. Don't count on it.

It's more personal expectation. I think the Dodgers are pretty bad, and will continue their pace (meaning by the time it's decision time, the decision will likely be to fold because they'll fall further back).