White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:19 AM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSox2K3 View Post
Time to move on.
Unfortunately there are many posters who have put so much effort into slamming management they feel obligated to stay the course because they have invested so much time doing it. The sunk cost fallacy lives on in this thread...
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:21 AM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JermaineDye05 View Post
Except the OP admits that this is just a wild guess.....
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:37 AM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
All 4 of these "points" have zero factual basis. Just made up stories based on innuendo and gut feelings...
Well, I think it's based more on recent history. If the Sox had actually signed a big name free agent since Albert Belle they would get the benefit of the doubt.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:10 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
Dear lord, talk about a rehashing of the same stuff that was talked to death at the beginning of the season.
All we’re doing is responding to the original post in the thread. We’re not even in Sox Clubhouse with this. Why is this such a problem?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:11 AM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,948
Default

This thread is kind of nonsense.

We would be in enormously better shape in the longrun with Machado, Anderson, and Moncada locked in, with wildcard Madrigal offering the potential to deal from depth any of the pieces in the future. Instead, we needed all three to hit, as well as everywhere else on the field since we won't have the kind of depth to trade for superstars. It's looking good for now, but I'm staunch in my view that this current group will not win a title because the avenues to add the talent necessary to take the last step (trading top prospect for an elite player which we can't do because now we need them, or spending $300+ million to fill gaps with an elite player) are simply not available to us. Boston, New York, et all isn't going to not spend that to add to their nucleus. That's the competition for that level and the Machado fiasco made it clear this current front office isn't interested in paying the price to get to that level.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:23 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
All 4 of these "points" have zero factual basis. Just made up stories based on innuendo and gut feelings...
I don’t know about “zero” factual basis. This team has never put ink to paper on a nine-figure contract. This team has never paid an individual player over $20 million in any individual season. The only thing we can point to that would suggest a change to this track record is Rick Hahn comments in press conferences, and I need a whole lot more than that.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:40 AM
guillensdisciple guillensdisciple is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
All 4 of these "points" have zero factual basis. Just made up stories based on innuendo and gut feelings...
They, um, just did this last offseason.
__________________
http://arsenalist.com/video/?id=xh2dx6

Greatest Arsenal goal I have ever witnessed. Chills to this day watching it.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:41 AM
guillensdisciple guillensdisciple is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
This thread is kind of nonsense.

We would be in enormously better shape in the longrun with Machado, Anderson, and Moncada locked in, with wildcard Madrigal offering the potential to deal from depth any of the pieces in the future. Instead, we needed all three to hit, as well as everywhere else on the field since we won't have the kind of depth to trade for superstars. It's looking good for now, but I'm staunch in my view that this current group will not win a title because the avenues to add the talent necessary to take the last step (trading top prospect for an elite player which we can't do because now we need them, or spending $300+ million to fill gaps with an elite player) are simply not available to us. Boston, New York, et all isn't going to not spend that to add to their nucleus. That's the competition for that level and the Machado fiasco made it clear this current front office isn't interested in paying the price to get to that level.

You all have put me in the minority with blandman, and it is making me question myself.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:56 AM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guillensdisciple View Post
They, um, just did this last offseason.
No they didn't.

1) Claiming to be “in the mix” to keep the team’s name in the news during the winter

Pure speculation based on....gut feelings?

2) Offering 70 or 80 cents on the dollar

Untrue as the AAV for Machado was the same as the Padres offer and that is a fact proven via multiple sources.

3) Losing Cole to another team who doesn’t treat the MLB free agency process like putting in a lowball bid on a house

Pure speculation based on more gut feelings.

4) Trying to suggest that signing the less-talented pitcher we sign instead of Cole is somehow a better overall choice for the team.

I don't even know what this is based on. The White Sox never came out and said that signing zero players was better than signing Machado or Harper.

What is the point of this anyway? It's played out, over, done with. This is the kind of stuff sports radio guys throw out to try and get callers.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:06 AM
guillensdisciple guillensdisciple is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
No they didn't.

1) Claiming to be “in the mix” to keep the team’s name in the news during the winter

Pure speculation based on....gut feelings?

2) Offering 70 or 80 cents on the dollar

Untrue as the AAV for Machado was the same as the Padres offer and that is a fact proven via multiple sources.

3) Losing Cole to another team who doesn’t treat the MLB free agency process like putting in a lowball bid on a house

Pure speculation based on more gut feelings.

4) Trying to suggest that signing the less-talented pitcher we sign instead of Cole is somehow a better overall choice for the team.

I don't even know what this is based on. The White Sox never came out and said that signing zero players was better than signing Machado or Harper.

What is the point of this anyway? It's played out, over, done with. This is the kind of stuff sports radio guys throw out to try and get callers.
1. Claiming to be in the mix when you knew the offer wasn't satisfactory is just claiming to be in the mix.

2. You're using AAV as an indicator when years and AAV are what was necessary. In that case, 70 to 80 % on the dollar is correct.

3. Using prior precedent, i.e. Manny, shows this is a possibility.

4. This one I will cede mostly because not even this idiotic ownership would do this one.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:00 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guillensdisciple View Post
You all have put me in the minority with blandman, and it is making me question myself.

Come to the dark side.


People are still worried that superstars get paid too much. The thing the White Sox have been best at is conditioning their fans to that narrative.


I'll go a step further. We've been especially weak at the bottom of the order, giving away too many automatic outs. Replace Sanchez with Machado's elite bat and I'd argue that with the way the division has shaken and Cleveland's fall, we'd be competing with the Twins for a Central title. Probably would fall short, but might have been interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:58 PM
ChiTownTrojan ChiTownTrojan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
No one would have moved to the outfield. Machado would have played 3B, Anderson and Moncada would have stayed at SS and 2B respectively, Yolmer would have moved to the bench, and Rondon would have been gone.

Yolmer’s 0.4 WAR would be replaced by Machado’s 1.9 WAR, and Rondon’s -0.2 WAR would have been replaced by Yolmer’s 0.4 WAR. Machado would have been a 200-point OPS upgrade to the everyday lineup and provided some much-needed thump to the middle of this order.

There is absolutely no way we are a better baseball team without Manny Machado than we would have been with him.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the Sox would be better this year with Machado than without him. The question is whether they'll be better long term without him, because they are able to put that money to better use.

You mention the upgrade that Machado would bring to the lineup, which amounts to a 1.5 WAR upgrade (to the starting lineup... it's not possible to really know what Yolmer's WAR as a backup would be but it would likely be less than 0.4). But the Sox are throwing out starting pitchers such as Banuelos (-0.5 WAR), Covey (0.1), and Despaigne (0.1... somehow despite the ERA over 8). There are simply greater opportunities for improvement to the starting rotation than the starting position players. If that same amount of money that was ticketed for Machado gets used on the rotation this coming season, or really even a fraction of it, they could see larger than a 1.5 bump in WAR (through 6/20).

Couple that with the fact that there is an internal option at 2B who should be ready in the next 1-2 years, as well as the fact that 2B is typically a cheaper position to fill than SP, and it's certainly possible that the Machado failure was a blessing in disguise.

I know lots of people question the Sox ability to sign FAs especially in the light of the Machado failure, but I think a big part of the Sox unwillingness to go all in this past offseason was knowing that they were still at least a year too early to contend. That's the same reason a lot of us were surprised they were even in the running going into it.

This coming offseason I don't expect the same restrictions. I expect them to be in the running for Cole, but there are some other factors that may mean it will never happen, some self-imposed (unwillingness to take on the risk of signing pitchers to long term deals) and some circumstantial (a bidding war could price them out if another team is willing to overpay by more than the Sox). But there should be some help for the rotation coming, that would be more than if they had $30 million+/year tied up in Machado.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:06 PM
shingo10 shingo10 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,439
Default

I find Machado to be hard to root for. Would probably feel much differently if he were here but his throwing of the bat the other night was awful.
__________________
TWTW
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:11 PM
insp insp is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Chappas View Post
Had the Sox spent the $300mm+, it would have meant that either Anderson or Moncada would have been pushed to the OF. I'm not sure either would be enjoying a breakout season if that were the case. You also add a player that for all of his talent, is kind of a jackass. I'm not sure that would have been the best in terms of clubhouse chemistry which seems to be amazing right now.

Now, they know that pitching is their achilles and the money that they'd earmarked for Machado can be used to fill some of those holes. Cole is obviously the biggest target but it's pretty easy to improve upon Nova, Despaigne, Banuelos, Santana, Covey, etc. even if they miss on him. Just adding Kopech and Cease to the rotation will be an immediate improvement even if they go through some growing pains.

They'll also likely be adding Robert and Madrigal at some point which will improve both their defense and offense.

We're on the cusp of seeing this rebuild come to fruition and it's going to be glorious.

Problem is that this was patently obvious even when Rodon was in good health and it did not look like Giolito would be having a breakthrough season.

Hahn has failed to do anything much to improve the team's starting pitching and if you remember Scott Ruffcorn, it's a bad idea to bet on the farm. Taking part of what was supposed to be Machado money and spending it on Eloy was also stupid since Eloy was already under the team's control.

One thing that Hahn should have done and still could do is sign up the proven innings eater James Shields especially since Shields has shown a willingness to sign up at a discount. There are still decent pitchers out there in free agency and no I don't mean the pretty much washed up Dallas Keuchel since Keuchel has refused to even consider signing up at a discount.

It's not too late to either seriously contend for a playoff spot or greatly improve the starting pitching for next season.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:07 PM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guillensdisciple View Post
1. Claiming to be in the mix when you knew the offer wasn't satisfactory is just claiming to be in the mix.

2. You're using AAV as an indicator when years and AAV are what was necessary. In that case, 70 to 80 % on the dollar is correct.

3. Using prior precedent, i.e. Manny, shows this is a possibility.

4. This one I will cede mostly because not even this idiotic ownership would do this one.
1) No, they were in negotiations with Machado, that is known to be a fact.
2) AAV is an indicator and a darn good one. Years are important, but what about the option years the Sox offered? Do they count?
3) The original poster made this claim: "Losing Cole to another team who doesn’t treat the MLB free agency process like putting in a lowball bid on a house." That is "thinking with your gut" as there is no evidence or confirmed report of the Sox lowballing anyone.
4) I can't imagine that any semi-intelligent GM would ever make such a statement. Maybe in hindsight, but that would likely be dishonest.

I'll stop now...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.