PDA

View Full Version : More important streak?


santo=dorf
07-15-2007, 03:30 PM
Which of these those things would you rather have for this waste of a season?

...and unless you're Patrick134, assume the .500+ record isn't good enough to make the playoffs.

letsgosox1592
07-15-2007, 03:35 PM
I would much rather have them be a .500 team than hit 200 homers.

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 03:35 PM
200 homers.

If we're not going to make the playoffs it's better that we lose for better draft position. Now that doesn't necessarily mean we'll take the best available player, but it does mean we get a shot at one of the better cheap signs. Also if we finish in the bottom 15 that means that we won't lose our first rounder by signing a FA.

WhiteSox5187
07-15-2007, 05:14 PM
.500 easily.

TDog
07-15-2007, 05:37 PM
It comes down to whether you would rather your team won games or hit home runs. If the Sox won 100 games and didn't hit a home run all season, I would be happier than if they won just 80 games and hit 300 home runs.

In fact, I would be a lot happier.

chisoxmike
07-17-2007, 12:29 AM
200 homers.

If we're not going to make the playoffs it's better that we lose for better draft position. Now that doesn't necessarily mean we'll take the best available player, but it does mean we get a shot at one of the better cheap signs. Also if we finish in the bottom 15 that means that we won't lose our first rounder by signing a FA.

This isn't the NBA. Baseball draft is the most overrated thing to gage a player from.

chisoxmike
07-17-2007, 12:30 AM
Have some ****ing pride. Finish .500 or a little above.

MUsoxfan
07-17-2007, 12:31 AM
I think extremely embarrassing to hit 200+ bombs and win less than 80 games

FedEx227
07-17-2007, 12:36 AM
.500, who cares about 200 bombs?

It's like asking if you'd like a team full of Adam Dunns.

UserNameBlank
07-17-2007, 01:11 AM
This isn't the NBA. Baseball draft is the most overrated thing to gage a player from.
Teams focus on different players dependant upon where they pick (obviously). The better our position the better type of player we can target. I highly doubt we'd have picked Broadway, McCulloch, and Poreda over our last three drafts if we had better position.

If the season ended right now we'd pick 10th in the draft. Winning a few more games yet still failing to reach our goal (the playoffs) sets us back another few spots, and if we win enough to climb into the top 15 and sign a Type A FA we lose our first rounder. Let's say we sign someone. Which would you rather have, a shot at say #10 overall and a sub-.500 record or say #60 overall and the pride of finishing at .500? Maybe it doesn't matter because it's not the NBA...

Maybe it's just me, but any team that doesn't make the playoffs is a losing team, regardless of record. We won 90 games last year and it was nothing to be proud of. Certainly finishing .500 isn't anything special. Neither is 200 homers, but the amount of homers we hit doesn't impact the future of our farm system like record does.

Domeshot17
07-17-2007, 02:05 AM
I hate how people wish-wash on the draft. Ive been *****ing about how poor we draft and develop for a while now, and all the people who don't see it use the "well Kenny never has top 10 pick to use on a star" excuse. Now we actually are looking at a top 10 pick, and people are saying what a crapshoot the draft is. Yes, its true stars come from every round, thats why theres 40+ rounds in the draft. I guess it wouldn't make a difference though, we had a top 5 pick fall to us this year, and we passed on him to get a kid who throws 97 without another pitch (sound familiar) and the Tigers jumped on him 2 picks later. Add him to Verlander Miller Bonderman, and those guys are going to be tough for years.

chaerulez
07-17-2007, 08:20 AM
I hate how people wish-wash on the draft. Ive been *****ing about how poor we draft and develop for a while now, and all the people who don't see it use the "well Kenny never has top 10 pick to use on a star" excuse. Now we actually are looking at a top 10 pick, and people are saying what a crapshoot the draft is. Yes, its true stars come from every round, thats why theres 40+ rounds in the draft. I guess it wouldn't make a difference though, we had a top 5 pick fall to us this year, and we passed on him to get a kid who throws 97 without another pitch (sound familiar) and the Tigers jumped on him 2 picks later. Add him to Verlander Miller Bonderman, and those guys are going to be tough for years.

The Tigers have drafted very well in the past few years. Some of it is luck, since a lot of talent has passed their way and they aren't afraid to take the risk. We draft poor because we don't take high risk, high reward players, we've generally taken low ceiling guys. I think Kenny's future legacy with the Sox (meaning will he have success beyond 2005), will depend on if he can get the organization to develop talent. Because I don't think we're going to be able to build a championship team just on free agency.

itsnotrequired
07-17-2007, 08:55 AM
I vote neither. The streak I want to see stay alive is the 17 seasons in a row finishing third or better in the division. By default, that would most likely result in a +.500 season.

7.5 back on the Twins, they can do this...

Hitmen77
07-18-2007, 04:02 PM
Absolutely I prefer the .500 season. I know some folk here are of the "may as well lose 100 games if we aren't going to win it all" mentality, but I think finishing on a high note will help this franchise. One issue is the matter of ticket sales (season tickets and other advanced sales). I think continuing to play as bad as we have been through the end of the season will really kill ticket sales. Sales will drop regardless, but a decent 2nd half and finishing .500 will soften the blow. This could be a factor in giving the Sox enough payroll flexibility to help fill some holes.

The Sox haven't lost 90 games since 1989 (2nd longest streak in the majors). I'd rather keep that going than hit 200 HRs. The Sox haven't finished below .500 since 1999, I'd rather make that 8 straight seasons instead of 200 HRs.

The draft pick argument is intriguing. I can see how losing alot and getting a high pick could possibly land us a future star. But that's not guaranteed and I'm not going to go around for the rest of the season *rooting* for the Sox to lose because of draft picks.

palehozenychicty
07-18-2007, 04:10 PM
Absolutely I prefer the .500 season. I know some folk here are of the "may as well lose 100 games if we aren't going to win it all" mentality, but I think finishing on a high note will help this franchise. One issue is the matter of ticket sales (season tickets and other advanced sales). I think continuing to play as bad as we have been through the end of the season will really kill ticket sales. Sales will drop regardless, but a decent 2nd half and finishing .500 will soften the blow. This could be a factor in giving the Sox enough payroll flexibility to help fill some holes.

The Sox haven't lost 90 games since 1989 (2nd longest streak in the majors). I'd rather keep that going than hit 200 HRs. The Sox haven't finished below .500 since 1999, I'd rather make that 8 straight seasons instead of 200 HRs.

The draft pick argument is intriguing. I can see how losing alot and getting a high pick could possibly land us a future star. But that's not guaranteed and I'm not going to go around for the rest of the season *rooting* for the Sox to lose because of draft picks.

It's not guaranteed, but then again, it isn't guaranteed that free agency is going to adequately replenish all of the team's needs. Baseball economics are slowly shifting away from free agency as teams keep their best and fittest players. The available players tend to be starting their down cycle nowadays. The Sox would be wise to get as much young talent as possible.

Hitmen77
07-18-2007, 04:55 PM
It's not guaranteed, but then again, it isn't guaranteed that free agency is going to adequately replenish all of the team's needs. Baseball economics are slowly shifting away from free agency as teams keep their best and fittest players. The available players tend to be starting their down cycle nowadays. The Sox would be wise to get as much young talent as possible.

Yeah, but I'm still not going to "hope they lose" more games because of draft pick potential. If that's the way it all works out, then fine - I'll look forward to the higher picks.

santo=dorf
07-18-2007, 07:15 PM
Just to throw it out there, plenty of teams have gone at least .500 for 8 years. Only two teams in the history of baseball have a 200 homer streak for 6+ years.

Railsplitter
07-18-2007, 08:09 PM
.500+ every time.

thechico
07-24-2007, 10:21 PM
Grinder Rule 10. Only one statistic matters: W