35thstreetswarm

Is "afraid" really the right word to describe your reaction to the addition of a 30+ HR middle-of-the-order bat?

I said no to both. I'd be at peace with the RF decision. I think failing to add at least a mid-rotation SP -- at least by the trade deadline -- would be a mistake that will cost them down the stretch.

Impossible. They have failed to land my preferred FA right fielder and therefore receive a zero, which I’m pretty sure is less than 75.

I wasn’t planning on responding again, but “working to”? “Looking to replace”? Are you kidding? So in other words, other organizations get credit for imaginary transactions that haven’t happened, and “plans to replace” that you invented, and the White Sox do not—I see. And other teams have subtracted huge pieces…but they have “plans” so those subtractions don’t count against them? I’m afraid the old mask has slipped, my friend. Why not just say “those other teams are better because they’re not called the White Sox” and be honest about it? I have no idea what will happen the rest of the off-season and neither do you. Maybe the Sox will build a super team. Maybe they’re done adding. But there is no basis to penalize the White Sox for their incomplete offseason as of March 15 and credit their competitors, and your attempts to do so make your bias blindingly obvious. And by the way, none of this even bears on my original point, which is that the quoted article is a ranking of teams, not a list of “who won the off-season” (a contest history teaches you don’t necessarily want to win).

We get to count our own players as off-season acquisitions? Hooray, and thank you, Steve Stone!

I was happy with the Kimbrel trade? News to me, given that I wasn’t really, and said I thought we gave up too much in the trade at the time. It is also interesting to see you rest your entire evaluation of the Sox roster on the loss of Carlos Rodon, whom you trashed all last offseason. Anyway, I see you haven’t answered my invitation to explain what the Rays, Yankees, Astros, Red Sox have done in their offseasons to inspire you so much more than the Sox adding two of the best relievers in the game. I do think it would benefit you to aim your hyper-scrutiny on another roster once in awhile to gain some perspective.

Perhaps they are looking at, you know, the baseball teams rather than evaluating only the moves made by the White Sox FO in this incomplete off-season with tunnel vision. What have the other AL teams at the top of the list done to get so much better? The Rays? The Yankees? The Astros, besides as-of-now losing one of their best players? Boston? In the big world outside this board this is a reasonable ranking.

With a 3-0 count

What’s the point of discussion if you’re discouraged from expressing an actual opinion that other posters are being unreasonably negative?

Bummer - I was quietly hoping the Sox were in play for Freeman, and that they would advance their trailblazing effort to build a contender comprised solely of first basemen and relief pitchers.

I agree. A quality SP would be the biggest difference-maker for this team.

Fun trivia answer -- last pitcher to bat (at least in the pre-universal DH era)? Kendall Graveman

I kind of hope that cheater goes to the Cubs. Perfect fit. They will suck and I can hate him even harder.

Good company. Add CHC and BOS and you've got the entire Axis

Yes, the thank-you letter I sent to MLB today said this very thing. I frankly don't think I deserve April games anyway.

When you get a little older you'll learn that it's faster to say "for more than half my life" ?

Ditto. Makes it easier that my instinct says a shortened season will help the Sox.

You mean they of the 72nd largest city and 21st largest metro area?

This is true. I wasn't really commenting on the relevance of city size to the size of actual baseball markets (i.e. "staying on topic.")

Other than the meaning and scope of the First Amendment and historical/geographical crime rates, can't think of anything that gives rise to more common misconceptions than city size. Most people who haven't looked at a current list of the largest U.S. cities have their minds blown quickly (San Antonio is 7th and Miami is 41st?! San Diego is 8th and Cleveland is 54th?!) Anyway...I need baseball to come back

Yes -- everyone has fretted all offseason about how we are going to get Kopech through a full season on an innings limit. Well, that may be solved for us.

Yeah, I try to avoid blaming the refs except when it's really egregious, but I thought last night was pretty egregious, especially early on, which prevented us from really getting traction. The wheels came off and the injuries hurt us for sure, but the refs set the tone early. It was gonna be tough to win that game with that kind of officiating, and it will be tough to beat them in a series if three of their players are getting the "star treatment" from the refs. We really miss Caruso, but I think we've got an emergency at the 4 and need a trade soon.

That's a really interesting topic at the moment. I think we're in a reshuffling period for our popular conception of NBA superstars, with the old guard of consensus superstars aging out and a big group of potential "next wave" superstars jostling for position. As a result we're going to see teams winning that are going to "surprise" a lot of people because they lack a consensus superstar (even if they shouldn't be surprised, and even if their victory mints a brand new superstar). To me that's part of what makes this such a great NBA era. 1) To me the only clear-cut consensus "superstars" in the league are: Lebron KD Steph Giannis Kawhi (when occasionally healthy) (I think Harden was on the edge of this list but is dropping out with the way he's being officiated.) 2) Then there are some guys who I think should be considered superstars but for whatever reason aren't broadly placed in that category yet. Guys like: Jokic Luka Anthony Davis Embiid 3) Then there's a whole mess of guys who are in the conversation, and some of whom will be making the leap (along with some in tier 2) to superstar status in the coming years, depending in large part on how their teams perform in the playoffs. This is where I think you slot Lavine and Derozan (who are probably heading in opposite directions on this list in the longer term), along with the likes of CP3, Jimmy Butler, Devin Booker, Dame, Paul George, Trae Young, Bradley Beal, Julius Randle, Donovan Mitchell, etc. Lakers aren't winning it this year imo. Unless the Nets, Warriors, or Bucks do, which is far from certain, you're going to see a team breaking that "no superstars" mold, and its star becoming a superstar. Kind of like what happened with Toronto - they didn't have a superstar until they won, then all of a sudden they did. You could say the same of the Bucks and Giannis, at least in terms of his status in the mind of the casual fan.

46, lurker since '03/'04, occasional poster since '06 (though less occasional in the last couple years.) Surprised by the range (though I guess the sample is far from perfect--would like to see the results when the board is most active). Thought it it skewed a lot younger. Way to go Olds!

I have a few problems with this argument. First, your last paragraph aims this screed at people who "care" about the MLBPA's interests but don't "care" about those of teachers and nurses. Fair point -- those people are awful hypocrites. But who exactly are these monsters, and how many of them are there? Probably not too many. I haven't seen anyone on this board express this sentiment anyway. Same goes for the implication that pro-labor hearts are somehow bleeding for millionaire baseball players. I think everybody understands that these guys are (mostly) very wealthy and privileged in the extreme, and I don't think any reasonable person "cares" on an emotional level about pro athletes' ability to afford a larger mansion in the way they "care" about a teacher's ability to achieve a decent quality of life (though I do think people often overlook many MLB players impacted by these negotiations whose playing careers do *not* give them generational wealth). Lastly, I think that suggesting someone cannot take a principled stand on a negotiation simply because the parties are motivated by their respective economic self-interest kind of misses the point. *All* labor vs. management fights involve parties pressing their economic self-interest, not just this one. Parties aren't willingly giving up ground based on pure altruism in too many labor negotiations (maybe teachers' unions do). People who root on labor don't do so because they think unions are "nicer" during negotiations, (they shouldn't be - that's why workers have unions!) they do so because they think that gains by labor contribute to the greater public good in a way that management victories do not. Now I think most would concede that the outcome of the MLB negotiation will far have less impact on the public good than negotiations involving teachers and nurses, but imo it's not irrational to take a consistent, principled pro-labor stance on all negotiations , including in professional sports.