Eminor3rd

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.

The loser of Santiago/Quintana for the fifth will most likely end up as the long man, because he would be the third lefty in the 'pen. I'd expect that role to be mopup/spot start but also LOOGY.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 09:23 PM) He's a great backup and backup plan in case Flowers sucks. Now my question is why would an organization like the A's get rid of him? Well they just got John Jaso to split time with Norris: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/01/mari...th-nats-as.html

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 08:31 PM) My choice for back-up catcher, George Kottaras, was DFA'd by the A's today Yeah that's almost TOO perfect. Rick better have already made that call.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 07:06 PM) Does he still have a boner for Charlie Blackmon? Haha, you should ask him on Twitter

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 07:00 PM) I mean, the people who actually have to write the articles and interpret the date that's forthcoming. Obviously, a computer can take someone like David Cook or CJ Retherford in AA and project major league totals for them...or Tyler Saladino, but it's pretty much a fruitless activity to give them much validity. Well, you have to understand Carson Cistulli. He's kind of obsessed with guys like Saladino, and he spends a lot of time bringing them to light and isn't exactly known for rigorous sabermetric truth (and he doesn't claim to be that kind of guy). I don't think he's saying that Saladino WILL be a good piece, I think he's just pointing out that Saladino would project to be useful, which is probably surprising and thus noteworthy, especially for a guy who likes to think about under-the-radar fringe guys.

He'll get hurt at some point, so his stamina should be fine.

QUOTE (bhawk99 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 08:05 PM) Kenny made some questionable deals that didn't pan out and he also made some excellent deals that really improved the team. The point being Kenny had the cahones to do a deal. He was never content with the roster and he was always looking for a way to make the team on the field better. Dumping AJ and adding Keppinger is a wash at best. Will Danks be ready for opening day, who knows? Will Flowers hit his weight or will he continue to be a .205 hitter? Will Dunn not strike out 200 times? Will Tank stop swinging at pitches 6 inches outside the plate? Will Beckham hit like he actually belongs in the big leagues? Will Thornton not lose 10 games again? Will the Sox actually score runners from 3rd with less then 2 outs? I say we have alot of questions to answer to be considered serious contender to the always strong and improved Tigers. If Hahn adds some more talent we will have a fun summer but he has to prove to a lot of us that he is actually serious about winning this year, so far he has not !!! But how do you know he hasn't tried? What if other teams are outbidding him in terms of talent/salary? Do you want him to overpay? I don't. I want him to make deals that make sense. It isn't about being risky, it's about determining how you value players and making an exchange of talent or money where you don't pay more than you think a guy is worth.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) DeAza had a .760 OPS playing CF and will get $1.7M. Beckham had a .668 OPS playing 2B and will get $3.1M. That seem out of whack to anybody else? It's because it's De Aza's first raise.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) Is Thornton going to be on this roster opening day? I seriously thought he would be gone this winter. Yeah, who knows. Doesn't look like a ton of opportunity left to move him. Also, I think they feel like they need his "veteran presence."

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:18 AM) Just wanna put my Justin Upton idea here in Pale Hose Talk for those who dont wander in to the Diamond Club...I think its pretty genius and I want it to be seen by the masses =p In reference to Upton using his NTC for a deal with the M's... Discuss here. The problem with that is that Taijuan Walker is SO SO much more valuable than Quintana/Santiago. It's not even close because of that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) GOD BLESS IT! Haha, I'm sorry. I really am such a downer sometimes.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) Seems like ZiPs ends up making every player closer to league average than an average fan would expect. Indeed, this is probably true by design. I could be totally wrong, but I think the two main things that fuel it are (1) tons of player comps for development and aging curves, and (2) regression to the current league run environment.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I don't know. I find it unlikely that we don't have a 30 HR hitter. I'd say it's as likely that we have 5 (PK, Dunn, Viciedo, Rios, Flowers?) as us having 0. Both being not very likely. I'd also be surprised if Sale with a mid 3 ERA is our only starter under 4. Peavy would be the obvious choice to be under 4, but it could be anyone. If we only get 29/77 from Dunn, 26/80 from PK, 18/70 from Rios...we're not looking good. Our success really does largely hinge on those guys though. Other than Rios, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect better years from PK and Dunn, especially Dunn. Dayan should be better as well. 3B production will be up. They seem a bit optimistic about our bullpen, but they aren't weighted very heavily in an overall calculation anyway. Yeah, again, these always tend to be conservative on an individual player level, but accurate league-wide. So the right way to look at these is the mean of a range of outcomes, many of them very extreme -- and when you have older guys, there's a better chance they bust than when they are younger, so I think guys like Dunn/PK are dragged down by the very real possibility that they just die completely. Of course, Dunn is haunted more by his 2011, PK by his age. Same thing with Peavy, really. He's good but there's still a very real chance he gets hurt and gives us well below average production.

This stuff is very interesting to me, and I thought this might lend some context for the piecemeal discussions we've been having about how we feel about the 2013 roster to date. Keep in mind that ZiPS is one of the most conservative projection systems, but also one of the most accurate in terms of league-wide variance. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2...cago-white-sox/ After seeing this, do you feel any better/worse about 2013?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 01:05 PM) You my friend are giving Mr. Hahn way too much credit for doing nothing at all. You are assuming he's making all these smart business decisions holding onto players he could trade, not clearing salary for players he'd like to sign, etc. But while it is bad to go out and actively make a mistake it is a whole lot worse to sit around with a bong in your hand waiting for that mistake to come find *you.* This is so, so, so wrong. This is so wrong. You really think it's better to make a bad move than to make no move at all? That's how guys like Juan Pierre end up making $12m/year in his mid-30's. Because teams decided it was "time to spend" rather than deciding on what was worth money. That's how the Marlins end up spending a bajillion dollars on one star and two solid regulars and still suck. Should we sign Kyle Lohse to a 4 year deal coming off his fluky career year because he's the best SP left on the market? There's definitely a good chance he'd make our rotation better next year.