gatnom

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Mar 4, 2012 -> 03:22 AM) I don't think he was saying Nicks wouldn't improve this team but saying we are better at the OG spot with with Spencer/Louis/Williams than WR clearly and if you had to choose the easy option is an upgrade at WR. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Paying a lot of money for a guard is a luxury at this point, and paying for luxuries gets you in a position like the Eagles.

Getting Nicks would be an imprudent use of money. We have plenty of talent on the interior of the line, regardless of how much of an upgrade he would be. If we are going to actually use that cap space, we should use it where it would do the most good.

The Bears can't afford to risk a first round pick on a wide receiver. There are plenty of free agents available, and the Bears are far enough under the cap that they should be able to snag a #1 target for Cutler. We need youth on defense badly, and we should be able to fill our primary need on offense through free agency. I can't see any reasonable scenario where it makes sense to go WR in round 1.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 12:50 PM) So you wouldn't spend a first round pick on Tom Brady because he was a guy who only went in the 6th round himself? Seriously, where the Bears pick, there won't be any instant difference makers left. And as for WR, only Blackmon - and possibly Jeffery - would be be WRs i'd want over Mike Wallace They don't have to draft a WR in the first, and considering the state of the team, they really shouldn't. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) I would imagine even with Angelo gone, that doesn't change. I believe I read that they held onto the guy who took care of the cap for Angelo.

So, has anybody played Curt Schilling's new game, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning? I saw a guy playing it for a bit and the combat system looked pretty fun. I had no idea Schilling was a big rpg guy...

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) Morons in Lions management. Nearly a third of their CAP is "eaten" by two players! (Stafford and CJ). I don't remember exactly, but weren't the two of them number 1 picks in the old draft where a number 1 pick would essentially command the money of a top free agent? If so, you really can't blame them...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) BCS title contender isn't on top of every recruit's list. Playing time, going pro, close to home etc., also matter. and where the nearest Chick-Fil-A is located

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 05:46 AM) They don't need to be dicks about it. I am certain all the drunk college kids are polite and respectful while they have their IDs checked. They certainly aren't, and I know from experience as part of my job is checking ID's. However, when they "busted" me, I was stone cold sober, and they still treated me like trash. I wasn't too happy about that.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 11:35 PM) So in Chambana, do cops come into the bar itself and check IDs of people holding/otherwise possessing drinks? That happened once when I was in Wisconsin, and thought it was really weird, because in Bloomington (Indiana) that never happened. There'd be cops outside the bars, especially at close, to make sure nothing got way too out of hand, but never in the actual bar. However, in Bloomington you needed to be 21 just to get in the door. Yeah, they usually come around every once and awhile after 9 when the bars are required to have only 19+ year olds inside. The cops are usually complete dicks about it too, as if they are pissed off that they have to waste their night busting a bunch of drunk college kids. It's not like we drive their economy or anything. The fines are getting kind of out of hand too. They were up to $320 when I had one last semester.

I'd like to see the Bears fill their holes on offense in free agency and then draft heavy on defense. There's not going to be a tackle much better than the ones we have by the time we draft, and we don't really have the luxury of developing a 1st round wide receiver. Plus, I'd like to take advantage of the 1-2 years that our defense might still have being good while attempting to add some youth to that side of the ball.

Floyd's replacement

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) We can argue to death over why we've missed those Octobers though. If we had just drafted slightly better over that time period, if we had 1 extra bullet to fire, or we had 1 fewer trade blow up on us, that number could change hugely. Let's at least put it this way...for a team with the system where it has been the last 6+ years, the Sox have been incredibly successful. A minor imporvement to the system or a minor improvement to the trades that have been made, or even a minor improvement to our luck might well have put this team in the playoffs more than that. And that's not even saying anything about the manager for that time period. I think you're proving the point that our current model doesn't work right here. Way more often than not, we have not had seasons where we make it to the playoffs regardless of how you want to define us as being competitive. Our model needs to be adjusted to take into account that minor league system because that's the thing we have the most control over. Also, we must have different definitions of incredibly successful...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) But there's another thing you're investing in them...time. If Dunn starts off the first 2 months of this season with a .575 OPS, he's likely to take a seat on the bench again, and maybe you start looking at buyout options. He should have sat last year. If Beckham does that, you're going to keep playing him because you're trying to develop him. And he'll be taking playing time that could go to potentially developing other guys. Good point. However, I think we would be looking at it differently if Beckham were playing on Dunn's level as opposed to capable role player with potential. You could consider sending him to AAA or benching him without the business of baseball aspect getting in your way. This also assumes that there are other players' development are hurt by Beckham being in their spot, but obviously that is not always the case.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 07:29 AM) Thanks for the reply, Russ. I'm convinced the development model is more complex than most would admit. Consider Gordon Beckham and Brent Morel, for instance. While we often hear about the benefits of cost-controlled young players, we rarely hear about the opportunity costs involved when they fail to live up to their potential. Secondly, I will watch with much interest some of these franchises that have implemented a heavy develop-from-within model, as I think it will be intriguing to see how their fanbase weathers losing homegrown players to FA or via trade, as this is sort of an unintended consequence of that model. Obviously, predicting which prospects to develop and which to trade away is a judgement call, and continuously picking the wrong ones can get your organization in trouble. I think the most important thing about the costs of these failed prospects is that they don't drag your entire team down with them if they do fail. Let's just say, hypothetically, Beckham officially becomes a bust after another disappointing season this year. He will have only made approximately 7-8% of Adam Dunn's total contract over his 4 years here.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 06:52 PM) The ideal farm sytem would produce high quantity and quality players. But most don't. I would prefer the 10 MLB players vs. 1 superstar for a few reasons. 1. In baseball 1 player will not win you anything. 2. You can field a team of the 10 players or package a deal of 5 for a better player and still have the team of 5 average players and one really good one. It's a matter of preference but I would still base it on the number of MLB players. The thing is that putting a bunch of Nick Puntos together will never add up to a truly impact player, making your scenario of trading 5 of them unrealistic. My whole point of that metaphor was to illustrate that you cannot just judge a system based on pure output of players (and on the flip side pure quality of players). You conveniently ignored my scenario of the 5 very good players versus the 10 role players. By your logic, the system which produced the 10 role players is better even though I think you would agree that 5 very good players are better than 10 role players.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) But if the 10 Nick Puntos were as highly regarded coming up as our own Nick Punto (Beckham), they could be the basis of a really strong farm system. This is true. However, it also highlights the difficulty people have with focusing on farm system rankings. I think a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees with this issue. The fact that we are ranked essentially last among these experts is merely a symptom for our poor drafting philosophy which leads to our largely unproductive system. As I was saying earlier, not only do you need to develop major league players, but you also need to develop some impact players within that group in order to have a truly productive system. Developing Morel and Beckham (currently) along with a couple of impact relievers over a 4 year period is not all that good. Sale could obviously move from impact reliever to impact starter, and Beckham could obviously move from role player to impact middle infielder. But, as of right now they are not. I think it says a lot about us as an organization that our only two potential impact players were only drafted because we had to be in a high position to get them. Although, I guess I am selling our toolsy outfielders with strikeout problems in A ball a little bit short.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) If those were the only two prospects from respective organizations, I would say both were abysmal failures. If you produce only 1 MLB players it's pure luck not a good organization. You're completely ignoring an entire dimension of evaluation. Is a farm system that produces 10 Nick Puntos better than a farm system that produces, say, 5 John Danks? Hell, I'd rather have 1 Albert Pujols than 10 Nick Puntos. The ideal farm system would produce a large quantity of high quality players, not just one or the other.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:33 PM) Free university education? Ha, we sure showed him! My first thought as well

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) Why does it FEEL like Paddy is having more of an impact than Hahn? Molina, the Frasor trade, the rumored Floyd deal, this signing...now, if we can only start to finally see some progress again in the DR. Pretty sure Jesus Pena was the last one to come out of there, and that was seemingly ages ago. Just joking Rickster, surely the Danks deal was 75-80% your doing, and Danks' agent. And, to feel better, we should accept the idea this signing now pushed us past the Indians and Marlins...of course, they sign Cespedes, that goes out the window. We sign Cespedes and he doesn't play in the big leagues before SEPT and we're quickly #20-25. We should certainly see progression from our starting pitching prospects...and bounceback years from Mitchell and Walker. If anything, it is that Paddy's arrival is endemic of a much needed change in organizational philosophy.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) This is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter how they were rated, where they drafted etc. How many of the draft picks are on MLB rosters. That is what makes a successful draft. To rate a farm system you add the component of what players these drafted players helped to acquire, who then are on MLB rosters. These two variables are will tell you how successful your farm system is. Yeah, you're right. Albert Pujols and Nick Punto should be weighted evenly in terms of draft success.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 11:17 PM) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtKx...n_astros_011012 For the complete rebuild backers out there, look at the LASTROS. Similar comparison organizationally...in terms of media market, revenues/attendance, past history of winning or competing most of the time, etc. We do not want to be where they are, that's for darned sure. At least we have a decent chance to win the division if everything goes right for the Sox. Correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't the Astros very similar to the Sox in that they retooled and went for it every year? If so, are they in a terrible situation because they are rebuilding or because of the decisions they made beforehand? As far as your last statement goes, we very much would become the Astros if everything were to go wrong, not that I think it will.

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I think a lot of people are confusing the need of being a well run organization for the need of having a top 10 farm system. Anybody whose end goal is a top 10 farm system is not looking at organizational structure properly, and I actually don't recall anybody voicing this opinion here. There is a big difference between having the best farm system and understanding that your organization needs to strike a balance of prospect development and big league spending. Constantly bringing up how we have to suck to achieve the goal of a top 10 farm system is a gigantic straw man argument which completely misses the point. If you make your organization as top heavy as the Sox have been, you risk becoming, well, the White Sox. Nothing in baseball is guaranteed. You can spend tens of millions of dollars on "proven" big league players who do have a much, much higher chance of producing for you, but they also run the risk of becoming terrible contracts. At the very least, they are rarely underpaid. Or, you can spend a significantly smaller amount on prospects who, even though they do not pan out often, produce well above what they are paid. You need to try to balance these two things in order to have a good level of cost-effectiveness. And, for what it's worth, the Sox scouting/drafting has actually been pretty good the past few years. They just have absolutely no intention on financially backing that scouting to any degree. It's maddening.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) I have nothing to base it on, but with the way this off-season has gone, I'll bet the Danks extension finally came together because Kenny was going to trade John to somewhere like Baltimore or Toronto where he didn't want to go, so his "price" for an extension quickly dropped. It happened way too randomly at a time when Kenny was/is selling this team to the highest bidder. It's certainly possible, but Docsox, the guy with the best sources on this site by far, has been saying for a very long time that we would be resigning Danks. I really don't think Kenny ever planned on trading him, at least not for a realistic package.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) And Mitchell was drafted in 09 Don't mind me. Oh yeah. Forgot about that Sale guy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) Ah. I took a year ago as 2010. You might be right... Walker technically wasn't a first round pick either.