HeGone7

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:34 PM) I guess people forget about Luis Basbae who has the potential to have 5 tools? He will have the speed, defense, and power for sure Great upside but far from on the level of Moncada or the level of the arms the Sox got. Tools are great. Production is what counts.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:00 PM) I can't believe you are this upset because we didn't get a couple more hitting prospects even though we are not done selling off right now. We aren't filling holes here, we are getting the best prospects possible for our players and we have done that. We got the best damn hitting prospect in the game and you seem to forget about that because we traded Eaton for the top pitching prospect and another one that is top 40? Come on man, get the hell out of here with that I think it's more about where we stand right now. If the plan was to sell everyone I get the frustration. The common feeling was the Sox needed an abundence of positional prospects. If you follow the Cubs, and now the Yankees model, it's acquire as many guys as you can offensively. Sign the pitching. So if you're a saber kind of guy and you're into the secondary statistics, you'd know that Eaton was one of our 3 biggest assets. I say that because if you're old-fashion or a mix, you may argue Abreu is the bigger name/better player. Which is fine. It'd be irrelevent to me for this conversation but it's important to note the difference since it effects how some fans value specific players. The point I'm making is many Sox fans see Eaton as one of our three elite guys to deal. If you say Sale, Q, Eaton are tier 1, and you have dealt two of them w/only 1 hitter to show for it. Yikes. This feels very risky to you in this situation because part of the reason many of us wanted a rebuild is because we don't have the elite hitters coming through. We don't have the Bryant, Scharber, Russell, Baez, etc. So the point of this firesale should've been to get as many high-end hitters you could. With two of your biggest chips gone, hard to imagine they'll accomplish this at the level they could have and needed to. The hope from here would be Q nets a package of hitters. Abreu and Frazier getting one/two would be nice. So I get the frustration "right now" but there is time left for people to come around when we have a finished product. That may take a while, too. On the flipside, there is also a reason to love what we have so I see where both sides have their gripe.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 04:00 PM) They've gotten better at all of that. It isn't 2013 anymore. Until the results are in the majors, you're totally off-base. Simply because they drafted a couple hitters and one guy is in the majors, doesn't mean they're going to pan out. Tim Anderson is not a star hitter. Guys like Josh Fields and Gordon Beckham had good halves as a rookie as well. You're wasting your best assets on arms that you already had/have.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 03:51 PM) This organization can find pitching. I want position players man. This... If they come out of this firesale with a ton of arms and then boom/bust lower level hitters - it will be safe to call this a failure. Which was what a lot of people feared allowing this regime to handle a rebuild. Regardless of the pitching talent acquired, you did not do what was desperately needed. If you weren't going to load up on hitters, you should've kept these guys who are under control and just continue to spiral in mediocrity while hoping your drafting gets better. It's almost as if they're oblivious to how bad they are at developing, scouting and drafting hitters.

I understand that the odds are slim on Turner. There is no way you package your two best remaining assets unless he is involved. Both guys have extreme value. Many feel Q is on par with Sale or just shy. He is not as dominant or talented, sure, but he is every bit as consistent, cheap and with that extra controllability he is in the same conversations. I expect less but not marginally less. If you're "throwing in Eaton" then there is no way you do not get Turner. I don't care what they say, you aren't trading just to trade. This has to be strategic. Selling them individually is far more strategic if you do not get everything made available to you in a package deal. I get it, they don't want to move him but part of that reason is the hole it creates. With Espinosa back, or having received his offer, that hole is likely in the OF (where Turner played). Eaton plugs that hole for the next 4-5 years. He and Q give them 2 All-Star (5+ War) players to help mix in with Harper. In the event they do need to pony up for Harper, these two contracts will give them the ability to wash some of that money on the front end. It's a no brainer to me if I'm Washington. You're sacrificing what? An extra year of control that Turner has. And if he peaks, what is he? A 6-7 War player? You'll get that from these two. Easily.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) Q and Robertson to the Rockies could make some sense around a package of Dahl and Rodgers. Far too much in all likelihood. If they're willing to entertain one of those for Q, I'd be all over the deal. Preferably Rodgers, but that is just me. Adding Robertson, who's value is pretty low right now, will not net you another player that caliber. I'm not saying Q isn't worth it. He is. But Sale was worth more, as well, and unfortunately this is where the market is. I liked the return on Chris. I think Hahn will hold firm to a similar price. But if those two weren't available for Sale, they won't both be for Q/DR. Now I think this Desmond to 1st base thing is partially a smokescreen to drive down the price on whatever they're considering at 1st. To me, it's a last resort. If you package Q w/anyone to Colorado, I'd say it is probably Frazier (or Abreu). At which point, I don't even respond if both of those two kids aren't in the deal. Not sure they'll bite but they certainly seem to be going for it and you cannot argue that Rodger's value is somewhat hurt by what is in front of him at the MLB level. If they can net a package beginning with those two for Q and whoever, I may be ok with it. Just Rodgers + more for Q would be nice. Unexpected though. I think everyone has individual trade value, but if it nets you two of them and more, I'll take my chances and increase our offer.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 08:18 PM) I find that hard to believe considering the Red Sox didn't include Moncada until today Is this true? I was watching mlbnetwork and I believe what they said was this was the offer from Saturday from Boston. I may have misunderstood, I'll say that, but I'm pretty sure that was what they said.

If Eaton is going to receive full value, then you can start with Reyes. If that is deemed a pipe dream for whatever reason then I'm asking for Kelly, Bader, DeJong minimum. None of them are sure things to me or Elite prospects but they're still very good. I could stomach this package in the event we are going to hear more of this untouchable nonsense that has been used unlike anything I've seen with trade talks in the past.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) Step back and watch the other teams throw offer after offer at them. I don't think this will hurt but I do think they're better off striking while it's hot. You've got all that energy/excitement down there in one place. I highly doubt the Sox or other teams haven't done their due diligence on Q to this point. Feed off what is going on and don't give teams the opportunity to explore other options. The parties have discussed framework for Sale, and Q won't be much different. With Wash/Atl/LAD/Hou and others missing out on Sale, I wouldn't be shocked to see the one who was posturing the most and lost, cave on Q quickly. Apply the pressure.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) Could Q possibly fetch Robles? We're definitely not getting both Giolito and Robles, but I feel like one of them MIGHT be possible if we package Robertson in too. Q worries me the most. He and Eaton both do, but Q especially. The perception on both these guys is so undervalue that I hope the Sox hold firm on the main piece of any deal. If you don't get 4-6 guys, I'm ok with that but you cannot sacrifice quality. Q has been a top 15 WAR player in baseball the last X years. Eaton has averaged 5 WAR the last few and was top 10 overall last season I think. WAR isn't everything but it is definitely important to assess hard-value. Guys that are this good are not given away. So Robles and Giolito need to be on the table if the Nationals are serious. If the spin for Sale is that you got the #1 prospect in baseball, a top 5 pitching prospect in baseball/next Syndergaard (per the talent evaluator comment on mlbtr - first I had seen of that type of ceiling), 2 other high-upside young prospects and the entire Moncada contract paid for then this is a solid deal. The bar is set high for the other trades because Q isn't far behind Sale.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 02:28 PM) LA wants Turner back, not to deal for Frazier on a one year rental If LA offers him 4 years, $64 million he will likely resign I don't think this is entirely accurate. No doubt it's easier to sign/spend Turner but they may prefer the expiring contract/compensation and one more crack at things next year. I know Frazier struggled to hit for average last season but at one point his BABIP was the lowest in the history of baseball for qualified people. That was like at the All-Star break. It was like him and Aaron Hill or something to have a sub .200 babip. The league average is like a few ticks under .300. I checked and saw he ended up in the .230's. That is extreme. He still was a 3.6 OWAR player in a fluke luck down season. He's in his prime years. He isn't a liability defensively. I don't understand the distain for him on this board.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 02:06 PM) I know you're going to tempted to argue that Moncada and Collins injected into the line-up makes you competitive the second half of 2017. Or that Burdi is ready to be a big league closer. BUT...No. It doesn't. We have no real CFer, DH or ace any longer. Do the prudent thing and let Moncada, Collins, Burdi, Kopech and Basabe develop. Be patient, for once. It's extremely important to determine if Collins can stick as a catcher...rather than rushing his bat as a DH/1B and trying to preserve his health. The premium value comes from his being able to catch decently AND be a plus hitter at that position. Then you have 3 solutions up the middle, and a possible 4th in Basabe for CF in 2019. Look to trade Eaton, Q, Nate Jones and Melky at their peak respective values with the White Sox if the right deals come along. Don't accept anything less than fair deals, obviously. Hold Abreu and see the chemistry with him and Moncada until at least July. He seems to be a good mentor, from all we know about him. Jose, if he has another first half like he ended 2016, becomes a much more coveted piece. His value is still down, now. It's also easier to imagine him sticking around, on the other hand. Frazier and Robertson, hold and wait on a rebound...look to trade in July, decide if Frazier might be a long-term stabilizing force to keep in the fold, do you get more back immediately from a trade or go through the QO process? Extend? Depends on what pieces are left from Q/Eaton. Does Trey M. make any progress? But Robertson goes with the first/best offer. Fulmer is the obvious choice for the rotation spot at the moment. Do not rush Burdi. Give him at least one full season in the minors starting. Same with Kopech, and Hansen, for that matter. If someone blows you away with an offer for Gonzalez, great. If not, he is a rotation place holder. Same with Shields, who's seemingly a sunk cost at this point but might have some value yet. Let Tilson, Lawrie/Garcia (DH) play and see what you can get out of those latter two or move on. Right now, Saladino's going to have 2-3 months of regular at-bats at second until Moncada's deemed ready. I think that is a little off-base/rush to a conclusion but one thing you brought up is something I've been curious about. With this being Moncada, do we keep Abreu around for a little while to at least help ease the transition? I'm not someone who wants to keep Abreu. His struggles in the early season were/are crippling in my opinion when you have a boom/bust type team like we have had. I think he is on the decline, I think his secondary statistics show this. People may like seeing the 25-30 bombs and 100 rbi's but the rest of his measurables tell a different story. In saying that, if you view his expected production, his potential upside and his cultural relationship to Moncada to be a positive or necessity for the Moncada investment - then keep him.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 01:50 PM) Bruce Levine ‏@MLBBruceLevine 3m3 minutes ago Fort Washington, MD Wow-The Red Sox will pay the entire $31.2 million left on Yoan Moncada's original $63 million deal. White Sox get sweet deal on the money. Wow. Wow. If you weren't getting teams to bite on prospects, this is a nice twist thrown in. Well done.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 01:28 PM) Al of that money is spent and gone, White Sox are not liable for any of it. Thanks

QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) In FanGraph's trade value series last summer, they had Sale at #15 with 17.1 projected WAR from 2017-19 and Moncada at #26 with 15.6 projected WAR from 2017-21. From their write-up on Moncada: The best prospect in baseball, the market has already put a high value on Moncada once, back when he came with more uncertainty and was even further from the big leagues. 15 months after signing Moncada for $31.5 million, plus paying another $31.5 million in penalties because of the deal, Moncada looks to be worth well more than what Boston paid, and is generally considered to be the best prospect in baseball at this point. Overflowing with upside, Moncada looks like a potential franchise player with both speed and power, and while he doesn’t offer the present value that most of the rest of the players on this list do, people in the game think he could be a regular as early as next year, and be a star not too long after that. Given his upside, it’s very unlikely the Red Sox trade him; if they do, they’re going to have to get back a pretty great player, because Moncada’s now the kind of prospect that doesn’t get traded very often. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-trade-value-21-to-30/ Can someone explain to me how this will effect the Sox. I assume it hindered the package a little if Boston eats that 31.5 penalty. Which is understandable, it was a question I had during the process. If the Sox don't have to absorb it, then I'm ok with it. But I don't know with certainty how that plays into these deals w/international guys. Never paid attention to the monetary aspect. Thanks

Not what we expected but from the sounds of it, Hahn held out to make sure he got one of these five "untouchable guys"(Bregman, Turner, Swanson, Urias and Moncada) so I'm happy this is underway and happy it's an elite hitter, even if it is a little less than I hoped for.

Not to be a chooch but can we make this thread say Colombia.

Not going back to reread all of this but I wanted to post earlier when Washington was the hot name. This deal, while on the surface is less than we thought, is far better in my eyes than Washington. Your most important asset acquired is a near mlb-ready hitter, not another arm that would be heavily compared to Sale. You got a high upside guy for the lower end prospect (Basabe), which is essentially what you were doing by taking a risk on Robles (who is undoubtedly better and further along in his development - but upside to me is there for both). With Washington, the biggest benefit the Sox had was they could sell this to the fanbase from a PR standpoint "two top 10 prospects for Sale." They just would've been the wrong prospects for what this team needed and I don't agree with the notion that their lower level guys are nearly as talented as Bostons (even if we don't know who they would've been including). My feeling is Basabe is probably borderline top 5 for Washington, maybe a little lower. So if he is a "lesser" guy in this deal, that is a nice addition and he exceeds what likely was rounding out the Wash deal. Overall, I'm happy we got an elite and rounded prospect to go with the rest. Go get a couple more without the added depth of trades and you could be onto something.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Aug 18, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) ENLIGHTENING POST!!! I didn't think much else needed to be said. You suggested Carlos Gomez and wished upon a star for Abreu to "bounce back." Wow. Best of Luck.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Aug 18, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) Pretty simple really. Let's say the Sox do some patchwork acquisitions to fill CF, C and DH this offseason like many suspect....signing Carlos Gomez, Jason Castro, and resigning Morneau, for instance. Then the Sox are under .500 come mid-July 2017...they're going to trade off pieces. Beyond those three that presumably would have been signed to one year deals you have.... Melky, Frazier and Lawrie who are all FAs after next year. Trading those three alone (in addition to the patchworks acquisitions) completely changes the complexion of the roster. Gonzales would be moved with only a few months of control left. Shields if someone would take on what the Sox owe him. Robertson will be moved. You're going to get the same type of package for Sale and/or Q next July as you would have this July, but you actually get 30 more starts out of those guys (why I was never for trading them to begin with). It still may be hard to get max value with pitchers of that skill level with 2.5 and 3.5 years of control still left, though. Guessing they'll still be held onto until winter following 2017. At that point, what is left? No reason to trade Rodon or Anderson. They should keep Eaton around as hes very good and cheap. Maybe Abreu will have a big bounce back year and will be worth a ton again, if not, keep him as he's still a value. Selling next season always made more sense than this season, IMO. With so many contracts coming off the books after 2017, it made sense to give it one shot. Wow. Best of luck.

Late to the party on this and don't have time to scroll through everything. Was this confirmed at some point in this thread as a legit possibility? I'm all for a sale. Not sure what the consensus has been on here but from weeks past, it sure seemed like this would be something welcomed by Sox fans. I can see Cuban's name mentioned above and Berlin's. I don't know much about Berlin, but I'd love Cuban if the owners would approve him.

What's best for a kid in this situation? I've always been curious what the opinions are of better baseball minds than mine. On one hand, the common theory is to let a guy get seasoning and work things out in the minors. It doesn't effect your big league club, less pressure perceivably on the prospect, etc. One the other hand, we supposedly have this great pitching guru in Cooper. So wouldn't it be more beneficial for the organization, and the player, to have him working with Coop as much as possible? I'd argue on talent alone he could be in our bullpen (even if it doesn't appear so right now). We know we aren't competing next year regardless of a fire sale or not. So what is better for your organization in these kinds of situations? Especially, when it comes to your top pitching prospect/top prospect in general?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) OK. All I pointed out was 3 straight years of decline is inaccurate. 2 straight years of decline is accurate. But nice to see you want to get involved. I know you have never pointed out a post not being accurate. Can we all compromise on 2.5 years? Since really it was one great half that has gone down followed by solid or disappointing hitting for your most important hitter. Last year was a solid season but that first half of 2014 is what people want/expect. Really, it's what this team needed if they were going to have had a shot. Unfortunately, it's not coming back. And this season is an epic failure for him, regardless of where he ends up statistically. Boosting your power numbers in September off call-ups won't change the fact we were absent of a 3 hitter until August. He is by far and away the biggest disappointment on this squad. Which may be a product of that one great half. You built around him, got him protection and guys around him in the order have played pretty well, or at least done their part. The rest of the lineup was trash but no one expected miracles from Lawrie, the catching duo, Jackson, or the lack of DH we run out there. I'm not sure if he is done but I'd certainly cut bait if I can. Either that, or we accept that he is a role player and go find some stars.

QUOTE (BrianAnderson @ Aug 8, 2016 -> 09:52 AM) This may not be exactly 100% on topic of the thread, but I keep reading about rebuilds across this board. Just one thing to point out - not all rebuilds go as planned. Not every rebuild turns into the Cubs. Look at the Pirates - they were rebuilding for over a decade and always in the cellar. Prospects don't all turn into something like Schwarber and Rizzo and Bryant, etc. Also not all GM's and Teams have the ability to spend money on add'l pieces like a Lester or Heyward when their young talent is hitting the majors. In fact, not many teams have the allure of playing at Wrigley. Just saying. We are in like year 8 of a playoff drought. Even with a tear down, IF all things went 100% great we wouldn't be back in the playoff picture for probably 3-5 years.... I think you bring up a good point, in that, people still truly don't understand how this potential rebuild is different from some of those teams you've mentioned. I'll start out first by saying, you're 100% correct that there is no guarantee a rebuild goes as planned. Sadly, neither have the Sox plans on contending. So let's stop comparing those two as if the alternative has worked out. It hasn't and we don't know how a rebuild will go until we do it. On one side of this argument, you have proven talent on this club. You have some "star attractions" and that means something to fans. Trading them away, leaves you without a face of the organization potentially and your return may never pan out. That is 100% the reality. So it's not unreasonable for people who don't want to rebuild to fear the "worst case scenario" where we lose people and our front office gets garbage in return. Which they have done more times than not. Keeping those guys has negatives as well. As an example, some of these guys are short on their contracts. So they can leave and we may get nothing/draft picks. I see no way this owner pays what Sale and Q will command on an open market (in 3 years no less). They've avoided it forever, and when they finally bit the bullet and went 4 years on a pitcher. It was John Danks. That did not go well. Take that strategy this office has, mix it with questions on Sale's arm and that he is likely to be paid a fortune - I see no way we're touching that. Just my opinion. On the flip side, and this is what I want to hammer home, the Sox rebuilding potential is unlike anything we've really seen before. They're a large market team and a middle of the road payroll. And they have some serious controlled assets. You mentioned 3-5 years away, which is not unrealistic, but it is slightly unfair. You're comparing that model to teams who had to start from scratch. The point of what the Sox would be doing is to get several MLB ready pieces. Dealing for a bunch of 18 year olds, or building through 3 years of top 5 picks isn't what the Sox opportunity is. Think of it as the Cubs and Pirates had to draft a lot of guys to get to where they are. But the Cubs acquired their First Baseman, who was MLB ready, via trade. The "Rizzo" types are what the Sox can be seeking. Now the Cubs brought Rizzo up and he had to wait for the others. The Sox should be able to net several of them, or basically bring as many up as the Cubs have the last year+ (Bryant, Baez, Schwarber, Contreras, etc). So I get people hear "rebuild" and they think it's a long process. In this case, we're fortunate enough to have assets on the big league club that other teams are willing to pay a premium for. We're bypassing, in theory, a few years of this rebuild. A couple things can mess this up: (1) Not having the value we think exists for guys like Abreu (thank god he is starting to play better), Frazier, Eaton, Q, etc. Those guys should be able to net us (1) Elite top 50 type guy each. I think that is conservative for Q and Eaton, potentially on the other 2 as well. Robertson and Melky, I thought would have value but I think the deadline showed us otherwise. So I have little hope for anything "mlb ready" from them. Sale should get us 2-3 minimum IMO. (2) The front office messing this up. This can happen a variety of ways. Bad scouting being one. More important than that is simply the decision making. If the best package you're offered for a Sale, let's say is the Yankees. And their centerpiece of the deal is a guy like Torres. Well, regardless of how talented he may be, he is years away. So in that instance, you'd be correct and we would be slowing our timeline. From everything I've seen/heard, the Sox have been asking for a major premium of MLB ready or existing mlb players. The other piece I feel that is continuously overlooked is the Sox can spend money. This isn't the Marlins organization, or the Rays, or Oakland. If you had any brains as an ownership group/front office, all that payroll you'd be shedding in potential trades - that money needs to go elsewhere. That is how you prove you're serious about contending, or making it even more simple, signing players at positions where you haven't restocked, it will help your team. That means you sign a middle of the road OF, like Austin Jackson, instead of running JB Schuck - who has no real potential - out there. The guys you're acquiring are likely under control for a while, meaning they're inexpensive. There are plenty of guys out there you can sign to still improve your team. In fact, you can be more competitive with what you offer on a contract because of the inexpensive cost all over the field with your youth movement. As you see what pieces have panned out, you can add/subtract from there. If you acquire (2) first baseman and still have Abreu or a DH - that guy can be moved. Much like the Cubs did with a Vogelbach (I think that's his name). You can still move guys to get pieces/stars you may need. I understand this is all "in theory" but that is what we're working with. This needs to be their plan if they want to rebuild quickly and be more competitive. If you really want to go overboard and if the Sox really had brains, you create a revolving door for acquiring prospects during this "rebuild." You take your 1-2 year fliers on relievers, or starters...guys like Rich Hill, etc. Players who either need to boom or bust for their next contract, or guys who teams have longevity concerns about and are forced to take shorter deals (but their talent is still of value to acquire at a deadline). Maybe this is too in-depth for right now, but the point is, the Sox have options. Long story short, "rebuilding" may take 3-5 years like you're saying. However, the opportunity the Sox are presented with is to not only flip their roster and fill it with young talent we haven't seen this organization pump out before, but it's also how quickly that team can be ready to compete. "Opportunity" really is the best word for this and I use it a lot. It isn't a guarantee anything pans out, and we don't know what value we truly have, but point is - this isn't like what you're used to seeing with rebuilds because we're selling off assets that should jump us into year 3 of a typical rebuild. The irony here for those who want to compete with our current group is by not selling and continuing to not win (or lose enough to get a valuable pick), we may be in a scary place in a few years with what you're speculating in a rebuild. Minimal assets to sell, less coming back in return for those assets, and a long rebuild from there. This is why I'm heavily in the camp of selling.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) The White Sox are pretty lucky to have anyone left to tell other fans how to act/behave. The Score guys were doing the exact same thing yesterday afternoon....everyone questioning the front office or ownership was told quite bluntly...why be a fan of that team if it bothers you so much or you don't trust them to make the right decisions? Well, that leads to the whole point of fandom...none of us started following the White Sox franchise because of the ownership group or GM, it's because of the uniform itself, and the players who wear that jersey. So I'll have to disagree on that point, that just because you don't believe in the front office or JR means you have to stop being a fan of the team itself. That's pretty much ridiculous. I'd like to consider myself a rational person. For me, I love sports. Played them, love to talk them, prefer to watch them over standard TV, etc. It doesn't effect my life but I'd say I'm a passionate fan. If they lose, I'll give it a "damn it" or "these guys suck" but then I go on with my day. So it isn't "my life" per say, but I love the game. I don't pass any judgement on those where it plays a bigger role in their lives, I just see it for what it is. Entertainment, hobby, etc. This franchise though, given the geographic situation (2 teams splitting a city), is comprised mainly of the "die hard" fans. Which is a big deal to me because they have always stuck by you through thick and thin, and 95% of this franchise is in that thin category. They put up with the step-child type attitudes socially. They expect more and so on. I've seen "fair weather" used to describe people, and I'm sorry, if you're on a board like this, you're not a fair weather fan. You don't go to those lengths to talk about your team. So using that as an insult is silly/immature. My friends who are Sox fans are all big baseball fans. I have a lot of friends who really, truly don't care but if they had to pick - they choose to be a Cub fan. Not an attack on the Cubs, it's just the reality. They have more casual fans. Now, as far as this fan base goes, I have to say, this feels different. It's beyond the normal "we stink". And that is troublesome. I can't recall a time in my life where so many people I've talked to are so upset, or "sickened," that it would alter them being a fan of the team permanently. And these people aren't just venting, there is a genuine distain that has taken a toll on them. That kind of thing only happens to people who truly care. That doesn't stem from bad play, because you can stomach that. It stems from feeling like the organization doesn't care about them. Which in all the bad years I've seen, this is a first to hear/feel from those people. My dad has been a fan for 65+ years and he literally watches the Cub games. Doesn't root for them, but he can't stand the Sox anymore and still loves watching baseball. Right now, the Cubs have a watchable product - even if you're rooting for them to lose. To your point, you don't root for the ownership, you root for the team. What you're misunderstanding, and what those people are saying, is whether you're a casual fan, an intense fan, or whatever - this ownership/management group has essentially ruined their ability to enjoy baseball. So while I get your point "people should be a fan of the team itself," this continuous failure/incompetency/etc is having an effect on their ability to enjoy the team itself. That is a major, major problem. It's one thing if you're bad. Things happen. Your star players who help you draw fans can still perform well in those cases, just other teams may be better that season. You look at it and search for the optimism, "there is always next year". When you can't even say that, you get that "what's the point?" feeling. Why waste the energy? And when your fan base is smart enough to point the blame at the front office/ownership, hostility/animosity grows because you can't blame players for simply just not being good. The guys who are lining their pockets based off the money you're spending to see the team are the issue. They're responsible for assembling a product warranting your money being spent. They're failing miserably. Not 100 losses every year miserably, but this is potentially worse. I'm of the business mindset that you're better off being terrible so you can, in theory, get better. You get franchise changing players through the draft (see the Cubs, Astros, Royals, disregard the 76ers, etc.). We're "mired in mediocrity." If it's the team, that's one thing. When your hand is being forced by ownership/executives to not care about their product, it's another. So I get where those people are coming from. I've never understood people who can change what team they root for. At the same time, those are frustrated people and eventually, enough is enough. That same thing applies to a job, a gf/spouse, a friend, whatever. Eventually, it isn't worth their time, effort, energy, and in this case, their money. This situation is unique because you have a fan base who is so tired of failure that a majority of them feel the only way it's possible to win is to tear it down. Most teams fear tearing it down because it'll be bad for business. When you're already one of the worst draws in baseball, both for tv and the ticket sales, it would appear to be a disaster to do it if you're in the FO. However, this fan base is begging for it because they know it's necessary. They know that the front office has badly damaged the franchise by not doing their job well. The brand itself, which we should be rooting for, is suffering and they're to blame. When given the opportunity and support from the fanbase to sell, something both parties know is greatly needed, they hold and do nothing. They don't add, they hardly subtract - they hold. Yikes. The way I see it. When a player stinks, you cut/trade him. When a manager is bad, he gets fired. If your GM/President make bad moves - they get fired. And when all of that is occurring but these people all still have jobs - you have to point to the highest ranking person and place the blame there. Once you do, you're holding him accountable. So it's up to him to completely turn-over everything, or leave. Knowing it's a business and how unlikely that is, you're left feeling hopeless as a fan. So why bother? I get that and I get where everyone is coming from. And I agree, this franchise would be better with a new owner. Being that most of us see him doing the same nonsense with his other team, it really screams that this guy is part of the problem. He needs to go but unlike players, coaches, fans - that is extremely unlikely. Basically, you're F'd. Now, I am willing to give them through the offseason. I'd have preferred they sold at the deadline but I understand a complete franchise shift may take more time than the few weeks of preparation before the deadline. In saying that, should nothing change, I will feel like one of those people who is tired of wasting time on this group. I'll cheer for them if they're on but I won't care enough to follow them religiously. The point of sports is to compete. This is not a competitive team/organization right now. They're "mediocre" in record and a joke in reality. And when you know where the problems are but they're still around, it says they really don't care about you - the fan. When you're a passionate fan, like most Sox fans appear to be, that is a really bad look. You've managed to alienate a vast majority of your formerly unwavering fan base. That, regardless if I share the sentiment, is a disaster. Sports is such a big business now, I'm not sure it matters, but it would not shock me to see this go way south if they make the wrong moves this offseason. Anything short of an overhaul offensively, where you are a realistic contender, or a complete fire sale - will be a big mistake for the White Sox. You will lose what little casual "Chicago Fan" contingency that you have, and you will lose a lot of "die hards" who are just tired of the same incompetence. Not a good situation.