Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) Does to me Sox could not beat KC last year before they improved there team this year, and cost Sox the AL Central in 2012. Not beating a team head-to-head and finishing below a team are entirely different things. All 77 losses were equally responsible for us missing the playoffs.

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) Myles Jaye is a surprise in the top 10. Anyone else this high on him? I'm interested in what excites them about him. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) I questioned that in another thread. He's got a decent fastball and one good breaking pitch, along with an emerging change-up. But he has control issues as well. He's young. I think he's certainly worth keeping an eye on, but I don't get the 9th ranking at all. Here's this from the article, hope I'm not making people at BP angry

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Right, but Delmon Young as a prospect had 35+ HR power, if not 40+. He didn't reach it because of his mechanical flaws, but potential is based on what happens if all goes right for player A. Not what is likely or what will happen if his mechanical flaws persist. Well, I'm not saying that he'll have the same developmental path, I'm just using Young as an example of a guy who has way more raw power than game power. Parks says 7+ raw, and 7 power is much higher than 25 homer potential, so I think he's saying that he won't be able to utilize that raw power to its fullest extent against ML pitching. But I could be wrong.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) 25-home run potential for Hawkins? He had eight in 229 at-bats, which extrapolates to 21 HR over a full season. Mind you that was with a wood bat for the first time. Because it's potential and obviously no guarantee he would ever reach that, that seems awfully conservative. I don't think anyone questions his raw power, but game power is a massively different thing from A to the majors. His biggest flaw is his plate discipline, and his weakest tool is his hit tool, and those together can limit his game power. Think Delmon Young.

QUOTE (WilburWilhelm @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) The theory should have been - batting Adam Dunn third all year long was the difference between winning and losing the central. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) No it wasn't. Lineup changes don't make nearly that big of a difference. Indeed. Tango showed that the difference between the best possible lineup and the WORST possible lineup (pitcher batting 4th, best hitter 9th, etc.) if used every day, all season, was about 2 wins. So the difference between the best possible lineup (which also happens to NOT be what nearly everyone considers the best possible lineup) and practically anything that could arguably be the best lineup is very minimal.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 22, 2013 -> 09:29 PM) http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove12/...leeper-2013-mlb anybody have insider? interested to see this. Overall, a bunch of stuff we already know about who is playing on our team. Some highlights:

From Jason Parks: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=19444

Yeah, I'm pumped to see how that Luis Castillo guy develops.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=19444 1. OF Courtney Hawkins 2. OF Trayce Thompson 3. IF Carlos Sanchez 4. RHP Erik Johnson 5. LHP Scott Snodgress 6. RHP Andre Rienzo 7. CF Keenyn Walker 8. RHP Christopher Beck 9. RHP Myles Jaye 10. 1B Keon Barnum There's a paywall, but Jason Parks has the best format for analysis on these lists, by far, IMO. I would consider paying for it if I were you. I'll paste Hawkins' profile so you can get a taste of what you'd be getting:

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 22, 2013 -> 09:54 AM) I didn't think KW did a great job at the deadline last year. Had they addressed their easiest correctable issue, a platoon partner for Viciedo, they may have won the division. I guess I just disagree that a platoon partner for Viciedo was their biggest need. Third base, IMO, was way more important, and I'm fine with KW shoring up the bu,llpen and adding a starter, which he did. Platoon partner for Viciedo would have helped last year, but it had to be 4th or 5th on the list.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 05:23 PM) I don't think we'll be in the position we were in last year at the deadline in the next 2-3 years. For that reason, I thought he should have done more like find a platoon partner for Viciedo for the last two months QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 05:27 PM) If we aren't "in it" why would we worry about finding a platoon partner for a 23 year old OF? Yes, this. I don't understand the connection between those two sentences.

QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Well Kenny was supposedly asking "the moon"... If he had just lowered his standards a little maybe they'd have more to spend on a left handed hitter. It's not like Danks missing the season really hurt the team last year. We have to assume, though, that they had no idea he needed shoulder surgery. When you compare the decision at the time, it wasn't really prospects or nothing, it was prospects or the ability to have Danks pitching next year.

QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 05:05 PM) Exactly. Great post, Eminor3rd. Thank you, kind sir.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) You have to do one or the other. No half-measures at the deadline like last year. I think it's a cost-benefit analysis at the time. That's the core of what we're saying. It's not about "go for it" or "don't go for it," it's about "what can I do to improve this team? What does that cost? Does the situation call for trading the future value it will cost for the present value I'll get?" Depends on who is available and how far ahead or behind we are. I LOVED how KW handled the deadline last year. Those acquisitions were very close to getting us to the playoffs and they cost us NOTHING. Play those few months out a bunch of times and I bet we make the playoffs at least half of them. We had a very real chance -- all we had to do was not collapse at the end -- and we sacrificed almost nothing for the foreseeable future.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) What's the quickest way out of this mediocrity? If things go right with Sale, Danks Quintana, and Santiago there is an opportunity to build a team that can have sustained success. If things go wrong with those four we could be looking at a 3-5 year rebuild. Totally. I agree, we have the beginnings of a core we didn't have a couple years ago. That's sorta my point: I think the quickest way out is to stay the course, keep acquiring cost-controllable talent, keep making the organization healthier, don't chase shiny things to try to break out today. It sucks, but the quickest way might be a 2-3 year plan that could turn into 4-5 is everything doesn't break right. The good news is that we're a big enough market that we can stay in that middle zone of "plausible contenders" the whole time while we build. So you may never be expecting a championship, but you know that you have as good a shot as 8-10 other AL teams that fight for ~2 playoff spots each year. It's not perfect, but it's reasonable, and our patience has a good shot at paying off in a big way when the model matures.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) I'm saying you "take it when you can get it". This reminds me of that parable about the two bulls standing on a bluff overlooking a field of cows...one bull says, "let's run down there and screw one of those cows." The other says, "if we walk down, we can screw all of 'em.". You guys are advocating the "walk down" approach; I can respect that. Although, if you walk down, the cows might not be there when you get there. I guess that's why I advocate the "run down" position...ya gotta "strike while the iron is hot.". I understand this -- but I think we're finding out that baseball doesn't work that way. Once the Rays got good, I think there began a fetish among a lot of us (myself included) to want to "rebuild," thinking that the game was really a feast or famine situation. Writrs started talking about "competitive windows" and stuff. And it made sense intuitively. But the reality that has occurred over the last five years is different: 1. Teams like the Rays have NOT closed the "championship window." They've both landed on a model where they stay in the hunt every year, AND failed to win a championship. 2. There is a certain sort of parity that exists in baseball that we didn't predict -- the difference between the best and worse teams isn't nearly as much as we expect. A few hot or cold weeks can turn surefire contenders in busts and vice versa. That's why we end up with teams like the Orioles and A's of last year. THey don't have more talent than everyone else, but they had enough to be in contention and give themselves a chance to let things break right. The same is true for expensive teams -- even a really good roster can fail very easily. Would you trade rosters with the Rangers right now? I would, but that group has no championships. 3. You can't just build a winner in a single year. The Marlins and Angels are the best recent examples of this. Since the available pool of talent fluctuates from offseason to offseason -- and because of point #2 -- you have to take talent when you can get it, make good decisions all the time, and the sum of that will put your club in a good position eventually. Watch what happens with the Blue Jays over the next few years. I think they've been doing it just right, so if they fail, that will be a great argument against me. I think it's just REALLY hard to win a WS because there are so many things that have to work out beyond your control. Surely, a better team has a better shot, but the pool of teams in the middle that are merely "competitive," I believe, is much larger than we used to think. And if you're going to make a sacrifice to your future to imrpove the present, you better make sure that improvement is actually enough to boost you OUT of that massive middle group. I think the evidence shows that being aggressive just to claw your way up a spot or two doesn't help as much as it may seem li8ke it should.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that. If you don't win any arguments, it will be because you aren't addressing the content that we are writing to you. No, I don't think the 90's were a success, but how is that related? Are you saying I'm arguing for the Sox to run things like they did in the 90's? Because no one has said that. We would believe anything that KW/RH/JR tells us? What have they told us that we're supporting? How can you have been on this board for so long and think that we regular posters don't criticize the front office? I'm not discounting your opinions, I'm discounting your arguments. You're building strawmen arguments that don't describe our situation and don't describe anything that anyone here has argued for. People get frustrated at stuff like that because they feel like you're either not listening to what they're saying or that you're trolling.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?) If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them? That's a straw man, you're the only one that has called that period "sustained success."

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) If you are to believe attendance, not even a playoff birth prevents a decrease in attendance. 2006 - 2.95 mill 2007 - 2.68 mill 2008 - 2.5 mill 2009 - 2.28 mill That means, in a matter of 4 years, the Sox pretty consistently lost between 180,000-300,000 fans per season over the course of 4 years. During those 4 years, they went from a 90 win team, to a 90 loss team, to a tie-breaker and division winner, to a mediocre jumbled mess. The ony thing to be a proven cure-all is a World Series championship. My best guess would lead me to believe that an extended playoff run and/or multiple playoff births would do it as well. Yeah, the answer is probably that the attendance issue can't be solved in one year. The bottom line is that the fans have to believe in the team, and the Sox have flirted with success a couple times, but it has so often felt like a failed charge and a fluke -- or at the very least, it's never felt good going into next year. Two or three consecutive playoff appearance would cure that. Whether consciously or not, I'd feel a lot better about my team going into the year if they'd been in the playoffs a few years in a row.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:48 AM) If the Sox had 3 more wins last year (and 3 less losses) they'd have been in the playoffs! 1.) We aren't talking about last year, we're talking about this year. They made tons of acquisitions last year to maximize their season wins. 2.) You continue to ignore the most crucial part of what I'm telling you: future implications. I'll ask again -- if you could guarantee 2-3 more wins this year to this team, at the cost of 4-5 wins each year for the next 4, would you do it? Because that is roughly (obviously the numbers can't be exact) what you're signing up for if you add top market aging free agents to a club that is near is maximum payroll. Again, my point isn't that we shouldn't sign anyone, it's that we shouldn't make bad signings just because they are the only ones available. If you feel like there are free agents this year that we could have added for the price they ended up signing that WOULDN'T cause #2 to happen, then argue for those guys. But please don't argue that the Sox should just be getting anyone that will help 2013 as if that's the only thing that matters. It isn't just about owner money, though that's an easy thing to argue; as a fan, I don't want to watch an old crappy team for the next 5 years, and especially not at the cost of giving THIS .500-ish team a 2% better shot at the playoffs now. Like you, I would sacrifice the long-term for a WS championship -- but this team is not one massive overpay from as WS title.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) Question: Were there players available vis free agency this off season who's acquisition(s) woul've improved the team's chances for success? Of course, but there's no way you don't understand that there's SO much more to it than that. Compare the upgrade you'd get this year to how much it improves THIS team's chances to succeed in THIS environment, then compare the cost and how it will affect your franchise financially and competitively for the next 5 years to come. We could have signed several players that would have added a couple wins to our .500 team this year that would have blown open the payroll as they decline for the next five years, putting the team in horrible financial shape for the next half decade, unable to make any improvements at all while the players all get worse. Would you guarantee 2-3 more wins to this year's team against this year's competition if you knew it you'd be taking lots more wins away from the team the next four years?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I don't see it as complaining. Lindstrom needs to be handled with care. I think it would be best if he split the set up role with Crain meaning I'd rarely like seeing him and Crain in the same game. That's probably true, but that seems more strategic considering their roles more than it is a problem with the signing. I think Lindstrom is a good, useful piece who won't be asked to anchor the bullpen -- and that it's a good pick up regardless of how well Ventura uses it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) I wrote it, so I guess it would be my opinion. Passan has described our worst case scenario, which is indeed plausible. However, it is definitely not the most likely outcome. This team COULD be a 90 loss team, but you can't look at it, look at the competition, and not feel like it's much more likely a .500 team. Yes, we need everything to go right to end up with 90 wins, but we'd need everything to go wrong to end up with 90 losses. Neither is very likely.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:46 AM) Here's what you don't seem to understand...the Sox' "window" for playoff success is rapidly closing. We have several players who won't be around (or effective) much longer and we don't really have viable replacements for them in the minors. The time to "go for it" is now, before Konerko is gone, before Peavy is gone, before Dunn is gone, etc. If they go around picking up a "Keppinger" here, a "Lindstrom" there...those are nice pieces to have but, without something "major", the Sox won't catch Detroit. You can't just GET players. The opportunity has to be there to make trades and you DON'T just sign any free agent at market level solely because he's the best guy available. If Hahn acted like you seem to be wanting him to, you'd be calling for his head in two years when you find your team full of washed up old guys on massive multi-year contracts. It's practically that way now, and we've made a ton of progress the last two years toward a more balanced, sustainable roster, and you just want to go right back to where we were before?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Lindstrom's 50ish innings make Crain look like an innings eater. Ventura is going to have to handle the pen better than he did last year for this move to be a good one. This is REALLY digging to find something to complain about. You say that like we don't have any depth in our bullpen.