Balta1701
-
Posts
128,600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Balta1701
-
-
6 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:
I think in totality it's been a decent offseason. I just don't think you can judge Getz until he's got a couple years under his belt. It's hard for me to care too much about any and all the moves until we see if he's improved the Sox' overall talent by 2026.
I remain somewhat concerned that in a couple years we'll be regretting those two deals where we traded away the minor league pitchers, but other than that - they cleared out some guys they needed to move, one who I didn't even think was movable at all, and they avoided any gigantic "convert my 61 win team into a title contender" trades or signings that set them back years without much benefit, as has been their M.O. for the last 11 years.
But seriously, this Royal obsession is straight up weird.
-
1
-
-
-
5
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:
I mean it's pretty obvious the plan is to field a team while spending around the least money possible. Is what it is. Just wait until July when we've got 5 guys injured, you'll really see some stiffs.
Some of this is still a little bit weird. The obsession with the Royals is a little bit weird. Seemingly over-buying on veterans, I have no idea where they think they have roster spots for all these guys, and I'm the one who complained the most about lack of depth the last 3 years. Some of the money they spent on these veterans is a little excessive for a team trying to massively cut payroll (Maldonado is tops on that list).
Otherwise, despite the weirdness this would mostly be fine - if we weren't also making moves like the trades with the D-Backs and Cubs, where we gave away lower-level minor league pieces for back of the roster pieces to help improve the team now.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Dick Allen said:
It s because it's all BS. All of their projections are like Rick Hahn's team projections where nobody ever gets hurt and 26 players always put up career years.
Math can be done correctly and accurately if one wants to do math correctly.
-
2 minutes ago, Flash Tizzle said:
They’re not directly related, but Poles fortune with trading the #1 pick last year (and ending up with #1 again) has bought him a bit of leeway it seems. Now, if he botches the draft and has some terrible return for Fields, everything will immediately change. For now, a lot of Bears fans believe in Poles and have chosen to ignore the Claypool debacle.
While Claypool was a debacle of a 2nd round pick trade, the Sweat deal for a 2nd rounder had some very promising early returns.
If you're hitting on your first round picks, and meanwhile you trade away your 2nd rounders for guys who you extend - and you get one strong piece out of 2 trades, and you pick up some extra picks elsewhere to make up for the loss of depth from trading away the 2nd round picks - that's generally still going to work out.
-
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:
Why have Related and JR failed to tell us how we ALL will benefit from this, like they are saying we will?
Why is giving filthy rich people billions of public dollars so they can be richer , while ever doing half of that for poor people a no no?
Because Jerry Reinsdorf is a classic 80s billionaire. He thinks he can bully the government into giving him exactly what he wants, that was how he acted when he went to Springfield. He'd prepped his threats with his meetings in Nashville, he'd prepped his interview with Crains where he said "The team would move and it would totally not be my fault", he expected the government to cower before him. It worked last time, why wouldn't it work this time?
Literally we've heard both the governor and at least one representative say "we need to make sure this is a good deal for taxpayers", one of them quoted in here said that they wanted to see the detailed analysis of how this will work out for taxpayers using conservative numbers - Reinsdorf could have had that prepared! Hell I have been sitting here since this proposal came out asking for the same thing, that's what I need to sell this idea! The fact that he didn't have it was some combination of laziness, arrogance, and misunderstanding his audience.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:
Father time is going to make Jerry relocate away from this world at some point. Maybe even before any new ballpark in the South Loop ever opens.
A number of Sox fans are actually saying this. They would rather the Sox move to Nashville than he gets "ONE DIME" of public money toward a new ballpark. But then again, I suppose it can be argued that they're not "most reasonable people."
JR is no doubt is emboldened by the deals he got for New Comiskey and Nationals Park. This time, he won't get away without putting a big chunk of his own money toward this. There's probably some middle ground where he commits enough of his own funds to get a deal done. If he's going to refuse to pay anything, then the deal is dead IMO.
The people saying "not one dime" of public funding for what should be a good project are as unreasonable as the ones saying "we need $1 billion in public funding for a $1 billion stadium or the team will move to Nashville."
The difference? The former of those are random folks on a message board. The latter of those is...Jerry Reinsdorf.
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
Worst 4-5-6 of all time?
I do agree that our 4-5-6 of "random pixels" will make scoring runs a challenge.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, zisk said:
Snell has never allowed more than 16 homers in a season. Tampa and SD are pitchers parks, but still. Sox should sign him and try to win a weak division instead of trading Cease.
Blake Snell does not come close to making this an 85 win team.
-
1
-
2
-
-
40 minutes ago, WBWSF said:
If the Royals can give a big money contract to Bobby Witt The White Sox can sign Cease.
If Blake Snell can’t get a contract worth $200 million when he has 2 Cy Young awards on his record, what is Dylan Cease worth? Right now I don’t have a clue. He certainly wouldn’t be a guy I would want to commit to for 8 years based on his current performance.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, pcq said:
They could have expanded the existing Ballpark and saved a lot of trouble. It is not very old. Both the A's and Sox need a boatload of other people's money. Good luck.
...I'm pretty sure this is completely false? That spot isn't in good shape at all.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:
Don Letts stated many Texans have not seen a live armadillo in person.
Is this a true statement, and have you seen a live armadillo in nature or walking down the street during your time in Texas?
Dog and I spotted one out walking.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:
This pretty much describes the failed rebuild strategy started by Hahn and company once Sale was traded away.
It didn't work last time. It won't work this time.
You are correct in that rebuilding and hopi my they can make it work is the strategy both times.
You are also correct that it is being done in a Reinsdorf organization so full skepticism is warranted.
However, let us also consider that Rick Hahn was a uniquely terrible GM in just about every way. While Getz can be as bad as Hahn, it will take effort to be that bad.
Furthermore, also consider that the only reason the White Sox have any playoff appearances since 2008 is that rebuilding was a correct enough strategy that it overcame how awful Hahn was and got them a playoff spot. Had they continued trying to patch holes like they did in 2012-2016, do you see any path to a playoff appearance?
If you aren’t going to at least hope Getz can figure some things out, then what’s the point? They aren’t going to turn themselves into an 80 win team through trades, they aren’t going to sign free agents to make them an 80 win team (ask the Mets how that goes), at the very least Getz so far has done the right things in general with the overall Strategy, now it must play out.
-
17 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
Too old for the Sox next window of competition, or gave up too much to acquire them?
Gave up too much for guys who are likely to produce too low of an impact.
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Okay, I guess I'm getting as negative towards the frustrated people. I would think that if Fletcher was an effective platoon piece still on the team, and Bailey Horn was one of the late inning options, those would be good developments.
yes they would be.
That doesn't change the problems with these two deals.
-
10 hours ago, tray said:
OK, but that not the best analogy. Different dynamic at play, i.e., the amount of starting players and the degree to which superstar talent impacts teams in the NBA.
Anyway, something should be done to foster some degree of parity in mlb and frankly I don't know what the answer is.
I do agree that the "Profit-taking" teams in MLB is a problem - the teams that have lower payrolls than they receive during revenue sharing. This does hurt the whole league as it leaves those markets under-served, with little chance at a multi-year run of competitive baseball.
I think that what the Dodgers did this year - backloading a $550 million contract and relying on revenue growth to deal with it - is a potential new threat to competition, as most markets won't be able to do that. I don't know whether that will make a huge difference until we see the results.
I think that baseball has an impressive degree of parity despite these couple of problems. The teams that make the playoffs nearly every year - one of them has a lot of resources (The Dodgers) but they also have a front office that is as good as any in the league and regularly develops their own talent. Other franchises that regularly make the playoffs get there because they have skilled employees. The Rays, the Astros, the Braves, the Guardians - they have front offices that are doing their job. With a few financial exceptions (Pittsburgh, Florida), the teams that are always at the bottom of their division are there because their front offices are poor. The Rockies, the White Sox, the Mariners, the Royals - they can't compete because they can't identify or develop talent, so they make the playoffs once every decade or so.
I think it's especially impressive in baseball that teams like the Yankees and the 2023 Mets cannot buy their way to the playoffs. That tells me the financial difference between teams still is less importance than the skill of the front office. Teams like the Rangers make the playoffs by spending money, but who was key to the Rangers last year - Adolis Garcia in the playoffs, for example, was a guy they picked up and developed. The Diamondbacks made the playoffs last year. The Rays overcame a key player seemingly having his career ended early in their biggest contract. Aside from the teams where the owner is a parasite just taking in money, parity in MLB is mostly fine, hire good people, have them do a good job, and your team will have a competitive run soon enough.
Finally, I see no problem with the cycle of competing and tanking. That is absolutely normal in most sports. Normal behavior in sports should involve a team developing a lot of players, peaking for a couple of years, trying to win a title, then backing off to rebuild, get younger, and restructure their financial situation. The Golden State Warriors drafted and developed an incredible team, but it seems like their guys have gotten old and there's only so far they can push them. The Buffalo Bills couldn't get past Mahomes in their best chances, now they're losing a lot of their players to free agency. The teams that manage to shortcut these cycles tend to be ones that have elite front offices regularly developing players - the Chiefs and 49ers in the NFL, the Rays and Dodgers in MLB.
The NBA, because of the dominance of a few stars and the way their max contracts work, has in many ways been the least competitive, lowest parity league, but even with them we're now seeing teams go through cycles. The Bucks weren't that great, but built a great team and won a title. The Heat are seemingly an elite coaching and front office combination. The Spurs fall apart, get a #1 draft pick, then build championship teams around them. The Thunder sold off Durant, Harden, and Westbrook, piled up tons of draft picks, now those draft picks are growing up and they're back to a #2 seed. This is normal, it's how leagues should work.
-
4
-
-
46 minutes ago, T R U said:
Either way, a 61 win season wasn't in the realm of possibilities going into last season. Most thought Tony was the problem as well as playing in a terrible division.
Most, not all. Some of us did say that the roster looked just plain bad coming into the season. Throw in guys being traded away, and dropping into the 60s was entirely within the realm of possibilities. It was an old, bad team.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Hey, if this is Getz finding a market inefficiency for filling a bullpen, I'll take it.
But yeah, I should just start talking about Sampson Quinones, our hotshot lefty starter, and see who calls BS.
I think the market inefficiency on relievers is always going to be what it has been - finding starters who have stuff but who hit limits in the upper minors or big leagues and converting them to relievers.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, WestEddy said:
I think they'll get 8 adequate, healthy options by opening day. Then when Knebel, the guy from Boston, Brebbia, Barlow, and all that, when they get well, work them in. Bullpen is the one area I'm not worried about this spring.
You could have literally included John Q Fakename in your list of reasons why you’re aren’t concerned about the bullpen and I’d totally have believed he was a real person.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, tray said:
I am against the tank and rebuild cycle. It wreaks havoc on the fan base and many times it just doesn't work. Also, not that excited by the wealthiest owners trying to buy championships with mega player contracts. Maybe the best way for the mlb is some form of salary cap arrangement so that fans of every team stay involved and every team shows up to compete in every game.
After all, no teams tank in the NBA thanks to their salary cap.
-
45 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:
What I want is to keep all our good prospects down in AAA for pretty much the entire year. Keep them together in Charlotte and let them build confidence and enjoy being on a winning team.
Keep them all down there: Montgomery, Quero, Ramos; those young arms, keep them down there, starting with Crochet, and add to it Nastrini, Cannon, and Eder. Let them all build innings and build some confidence also.
I would be fine with bring a bunch up in September to get their feet wet, but try to keep them in AAA and have a really outstanding year and team in Charlotte.
I think we should try to muddle through this year with our inexpensive veterans and try to get lucky and win 70 games. Knowing that we have all that talent down in Charlotte will make this year a lot, a lot easier to take.
I don’t care one bit about any of this.
Promote guys and call them up when they deserve it. We just spent 10 years with a GM who would find any reason possible to bring people up or leave them down other than how they were actually performing.
If a guy earns a call up, call them up. Nastrini and Eder are guys we’d like to see make progress and earn a call up, but if they struggle or get hurt, don’t call them up just to save the bullpen or to meet some artificial deadline.
Montgomery was injured last year and struggled in his AA stint. If he doesn’t tear up the minors, take your time, he doesn’t have to come up. Ramos outperformed Monty last year, if he does that again bring him up to AAA and then see if he earns a call up. Quero is probably two years away if we’re being honest, take our time with him.
Actually make these as baseball decisions. It’s the one thing Hahn basically never did.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, poppysox said:
Maldonado is a "black hole" that has played a big part on winning teams. This lineup is better than last year's opening day lineup that was picked by most pros to win the Central.
Yasmani Grandal made the playoffs 7 years in a row, we should have signed him.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:
And who is to say if that were to happen Soroka and Kopech wouldn't be traded either.
If they were truly a ".500 team" like the poster I replied to suggested, I'd imagine they'd convince themselves not to sell guys.
-
12 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
I certainly don't see these guys as a possible .500 team, but I don't totally agree with the pitching being bad. Soroka and Kopech have a chance to break out. Fedde will have to adjust, I think, to lefty lineups.
What are the odds that everyone breaks out? That no one gets hurt (including Soroka and Kopech), and that things go well for everyone?
People were predicting that for the roster last year, that everyone would be excellent and break out, and that might have been enough to get them back into competing for a weak AL Central. That was with a stronger roster than this one, and we saw how it went.
-
4
-
Cease To Padres per Passan
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
True. After all, this is the first note from any so-called insiders we've heard the entire offseason. It's not like they've yelled "Things are about to go down" after literally every other thing that happened the entire offseason and been wrong every time.