Two-Gun Pete

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 05:10 PM) Doesn't Anderson only have to put up like .5WAR per season or something to justify the money? Again: Show us where I mentioned the money, with a specific dollar amount. He was given one of only 5 contract extensions given to players with Neither Sale, nor Q, nor Eaton got their contracts as quickly as Anderson did. And because of this, none of us yet know if Anderson is a decent player or not. What we do know is that he is unbelievably providing negative fWAR while being a starting SS, with a WRC+ that is matched by many pitchers, and a -7 DRS. In other words, he's been bad this year. If not for the contract, he would have been sent down to work out his performance issues. None of us know if he's a good player or not [including this FO], and yet, he's pretty much locked into the starting SS role for the foreseeable future. What other organizational behaviors will that impact? Will they pass on a SS prospect in the draft, or in the international market, or in trade? Will they not give more deserving candidates a shot to win the job? We'll see. I just wish Anderson could have been made to wait at least as long as Sale, Q, and Eaton had to wait to get their extensions, so that his ability or lack of ability could have been more fully vetted.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) Of course, if they "make" Anderson get his money, then you are talking about an extension in the $35-50 million range as opposed to $24 million. It's a risk they were willing to take. And that's perfectly fine. If it was OK for Sale to wait, why was it suddenly ALL-IMPORTANT to get Anderson signed, without having a body of work to properly judge him? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) If the money isn't important, then when do you keep mentioning it, yet pretending you aren't? Show us you work. Show us where I mentioned a dollar amount. We all noticed how you glossed over me emphasizing the STARTER'S ROLE when you quoted me. If you're going to make ridiculous claims about me, at the very minimum, make these claims based on what should be easily found by searching my posts, not imaginary claims without basis. See, the reality is that the only thing I've mentioned about this contract is that it was as premature as a virgin on prom night.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) Broken freakin record. People are done hearing it because it's the stupidest freaking argument out there. You're complaining about something that doesn't hurt the organization at all. And you've been doing it for months. Show your work. Show us where I mentioned a dollar amount. My position has been, & remains that they should have made Anderson wait to get his money. They should have let him prove that he was worth it, NOT stumble all over themselves after less than one whole season of work on his part.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) Well then I am glad to see you agree that it isn't an important amount of money and you will quit mentioning it ad naseum as it is irrelevant to the teams future, as well as it being a non sequitor to try to compare the amount to what past players have gotten as it is an exercise in things that are not really comparable. As to the service time meaning something as to signing an extension, that might the most ridiculous thing that you have ever posted here. There is absolutely zero logic in that statement. On the contrary, signing & playing bad players was one central reason why the previous "stars & scrubs" roster failed. In other words, despite having Sale & Q & Eaton, one reason why the 2014-2016 teams sucked is that there were too many sub-replacement level players playing significant time. (In turn, dragging the whole roster down.) With respect to the timing of Anderson's contract, they foolishly committed money, but more importantly, A STARTER'S ROLE to a guy that none of us know if he'll ever be a reliably-decent starter @ his position. With more MLB time, the FO could have had more info to make that determination. (As they did with Sale, Q, & Eaton.) So again: show your work. I've made mention of the idiotic timing of the contract. But I don't have a word to say about the dollar amount, nor have I previously to this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) Do you understand exactly how little money $21 million spread over 6 years actually is in modern baseball? Show us where I mentioned the dollar amount. Feel free. QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) Do you have any posts in the last few months besides whining about the very little money that we're paying Anderson? Again, show us where I mentioned a dollar amount. And as we learned in grammar school math, "show your work." The cogent part of the discussion is that Anderson got his money after having less than 1 year's service time. In other words, less than half of what Chris Sale put in to EARN his contract, less than half of what Q put in to EARN his, & less than half of what Eaton put in service time to earn his contract, if memory serves. Are we to believe that this FO truly thought that Anderson was twice the prospect, when compared to Sale, Q, or Eaton? After all, he didn't have to put in the time that the others did, amirite?

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 6, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) We already have today's version of Jurickson Profar. His name is Leury Garcia. ...and both are better, smarter, and more versatile players than Anderson, full stop. Thank God we gave Anderson a contract extension after one lucky season.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 6, 2017 -> 12:30 PM) I can't believe people actually want abandon ship with Anderson in year one of our rebuild. I can't believe people are married to the worst SS in MLB, when there is at least one SS better than him already in the roster.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 30, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) They all were brought up within the organization within your time frame and made their debuts within your time frame. I don't disagree that the development has been bad but they have had some players I'm also not advocating bringing up Eloy, that is ridiculous But that's the point, isn't it? This team has been the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked for much of the past decade, & you had to go back 19 f***ing years to find a signee that ended up being worth a damn over more than 1 season. The speedy promotion of prospects may or may not have hurt, but it certainly hasn't helped, IMO. It doesnt look like its helped Tim Anderson, nor Carson Fulmer, nor (possibly) Carlos Rodon...

Alexeii: Ok, so how about the other questions: Examples of failed prospects because they were carefully promoted? What will he not learn in Birmingham in 2018, as opposed to 2017? What part of his game will be (permanently) hurt by sensibly promoting Jimenez? Thanks!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 30, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) Maggs, Lee, Rowand, Crede were pretty decent Let's see, I asked for those that were signed in the past 15-20 years, & you gave us: 1. Magglio Ordonez, signed in 1991. 2. Carlos Lee, signed in 1994. 3. Aaron Rowand, a 1998 draftee, so he does count, to be fair. 4. Joe Crede, drafted in 1996. In other words, we have to go back all the way to a 1998 draftee to find a consistently productive position player. (READ: Not a one-year wonder, like Beckham, Trayce Thompson, or perhaps even Tim Anderson.) Thank you for making my point so eloquently for me.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Jul 29, 2017 -> 06:02 PM) (you could argue the Sox are wasting time and hurting his development leaving him in W-S much longer) See what Boston did with Devers? It's not out of the ordinary to rocket a guy up to the majors who is playing well enough to justify such a quick ascension. I'm fascinated by this idea that the Sox are "hurting the development" of Jimenez by keeping him in W-S: 1. Could you describe in detail exactly how this could occur? 2. Can you point to more than one player whose development was "hurt" by going at a sensible pace in promoting him? 3. Exactly what part of Jimenez's game will be irreparably damaged by sensibly promoting him, rather than rushing him up? 4. What will Jimenez fail to learn, or fail to encounter in Birmingham in 2018, as opposed to 2017? Thanks in advance for indulging my curiosity about this topic. Insofar as Devers & Boston, I'd like you to show us an example of a positon player that was SUCCESSFULLY scouted, signed, & developed by this organization that went on to be a productive player over the long term. You know, someone. ANYONE in the past ~15-20 years in this system that was rushed up to The Show by this org? The point? Devers is likely up because Boston has been BETTER at scouting, signing, & developing position players that our White Sox, full stop.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 29, 2017 -> 08:31 AM) Granted he's slumping in his sophomore season but I think the Sox have done well with TA so far. TA was a good talent coming out of the draft but not in the same tier as Robert, Collins, Rutherford, Jimenez etc. The Sox have gotten TA to the big leagues so I like their chances in developing what they have on the farm. I admire your optimism, sir. With respect to TA, his pre-professional profile suggested that he should have been brought along slower, IMO. I also believe that while TA is here, I don't think his developmental track has maximized what he could be. In other words, the SOX picked unripe fruit in this case. In looking @ TA, it isn't "just" his results, it's his process: 1. He has no plan to his ABs, swinging @ everything not thrown directly @ his skull. 2. He lacks certain skills, to include hunting for a base hit (which is different than Ricky's stupid sac bunts), 3. He doesn't have good instincts on the basepaths, either using his speed to steal, taking the secondary lead, or taking the additional base, 4. Defensively, he looks to be less than the sum of his natural gifts. As a result, he's looked hesitant (See the bad sac bunt & not running it out, & strugglesto throw accurately to Abreu), & he's lashing out on Twitter. IMO, none of these things are really on TA, so much as they are on this organization. IMO, @ best, they've set him up to be less successful than he could have been, and @ worst, they've set him up to fail. If they stupidly drafted a HS player, they'd probably do the same stupid thing they did to TA. Here's hoping it works out.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 28, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) I get what you are saying, but I absolutely would draft a high school player in the first round if he were the best available prospect. Passing over superior talent because you feel he won't impact the major league team for 3-5 years is not a good idea. For me, if it were ANY other MLB org, Id be OK with drafting a HS player. For THIS org? When was the last time they successfully drafted a HS player, brought him thru the system, properly developed him, & the result was the player became a consistent producer over a number of years? I honestly can't remember. Was it Joe Crede? That's going on 21 f***ing years since they did that. He was drafted in 1996. To my memory, that was the last successful HS draftee (that was productive for multiple years) for this org. Again, when I say "no HS players," I'm speaking more to the failures of organizational behaviour with this team. I don't think they have the patience, nor the right people to develop a HS player, PERIOD. Therefore, better to go with an advanced college bat because they're simply incapable of developing a HS draftee.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) You forgot "rushing" Burdi to AAA (potentially a late-season callup to finish 2016 pennant race)... And drafting another elite "MLB-ready" collegiate pitcher in Carson Fulmer instead of other candidates (particularly, position players, with Happ among many available). Without question on both Burdi & Fulmer. What's worse, is that this org compounded their error on Fulmer by: 1. stupidly rushing him up during a lost season last year (thus burning an option), and further, 2. by not properly assigning him to a level where he might succeed (AA this season), and 3. by not admitting that he is simply a reliever, & working towards that end sooner, rather than later. The Fulmer case illustrates this organization's lack of patience, & also, this organization's tendency to not make a course correction in the face of overwhelming evidence. (See Courtney Hawkins, his complete and total failure as an OF, and why is he not already making the conversion to pitching as another example.)

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 09:36 AM) Crazy to think that will probably get a top 3 pick in the 2018 draft, and most likely a top 5 pick in the 2019 draft, to add to this loaded farm system. I'll agree that this is exciting to think about. I only hope they don't stupidly draft a HS player, then rush him through the system as if he were a DOMINANT 3-year all conference player in the SEC. More advanced college bats, please.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 08:13 AM) You seem cool enough, but most of what you have said here is kind of meh. There's a difference between being a realist and being chicken little. The sky is not failing, the Sox have a ton of near MLB prospects followed by a ton of top prospects right beneath. This thing is going to go faster than you think. Look, I'm not debating the "why" of TA'a underperformance, nor Rodons performance. I'm speaking to something called, "organizational behavior." In other words, while there may be "reasons" for TA & Rodon to be here, but were they rushed, yes or no? Was it smart to bring up TA after 55 AAA games, yes or no? Was it smart to pay ANYTHING for Shields, when they could have exercised patience, & waited for him to be DFAed from SD, yes or no? Is it smart to have Rodon here after 17IP in his rehab stint, or could he start developing his leadership skills around his future rotation mates down on the farm? As it pertains to a forward-looking view, yes, it's true that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But the history of this organization's behaviors are what I'm calling into question. NOT the individual performances of any one player. The other angle is for the fans. Will Greg and others sit tight as Ricky calls another stupid bunt, & the team sinks to 20 below .500? Will cub apologists in the media be as patient for our SOX as they were for "their" cubs? (Before you answer, remember how the media just "HAD TO" put out a story about crime around The Cell during the 2005 WS, & cubs fellators like Levine just "HAD TO" ask Sale about Arrieta in the clubhouse after a SOX game.)

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 01:01 PM) I'm much more nervous about the next stages of the rebuild than the trading of the big chips. For instance, how does Hahn handle future FA signings, contract extensions, drafting, more under the radar trades, etc. The exciting part from the perspective of the fans is over, crossing my fingers that Hahn and crew can make good decisions the next few years. I agree that I'm nervous about the next stage of the rebuild. I think it was (comparatively) fun to amass the youngsters, & for the front office to absorb the kudos of the fans and media. But when the team will be ~20 games below .500 on Fathers Day next season, will this front office and ownership have the requisite PATIENCE to stay the course? Will they keep the "end in mind," as the losses pile up? Or will they stupidly rush the youngsters through the system instead of patiently allowing each prospect develop at his own pace? So far, this team has been anything BUT patient: 1. Rodon was rushed, & he STILL can't consistently locate his FB. 2. Tim Anderson played all of 55 games in AAA, & was rushed to the contract extension. 3. Moncada was brought up, despite his craptacular splits hitting as a righty. 4. Hell, when they just "HAD TO" have James f***ing Shields, had they waited a few days, he probably would have been DFA'ed, instead they stupidly gave away value for him. So, on balance, I question this team's ability to be patient. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 01:05 PM) This stage is 100% about player development. If that doesn't happen, this franchise is screwed for a long, long time. And that's the other side of the coin: Does this org have the know-how to develop hitters? Do they have the right people in the right jobs, or is Chris Getz only in his position because he played here? Can they properly interpret their prospect' results, or do they take the Charlotte bandbox results at face value, for example? Can we as fans have faith in this org in developing hitters in their own farm system, when they have utterly failed to do so over the past ~15-20 years? We will see. But again, I think we'll be entering the "hard part" of the rebuild, which is to WAIT PATIENTLY for the kids to make it here. We won't have Sale/Eaton/Q or any other big chip to trade away. We won't have a high prospect in a trade return to drool over. And we won't have a new international FA to distract us from the crappiness of Ricky's bunting operation. To me, this will be the hard part for the fans, this impatient front office, this impatient ownership, and the stupid cub-centric media.

Yeah, I think he'll become a quality starter, but it'll be with another team. This is the downside of rushing prospects to the Bigs, & letting them "develop @ the MLB level:" You burn through their years of control while they figure it out. I'll guess he signs with the cubs once he becomes an FA; they've got the wherewithal, they'll probably have open rotation spots, & they don't mind giving Boras piles of cash. Or perhaps another team like them.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) If TA turns into league average That is the cogent question, isn't it? If not for this contract, we would all be wanting TA to be sent down, given his struggles in every aspect of the game. The best thing that could happen for TA/this team is a minor injury, so that he can be sent down on a "rehab" stint, because he's been bad so far.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) I mean, the dollar amount is absolutely the point. You can b**** about it as much as you want but the fact is it's not going to hurt the Sox at all going forward and it absolutely could benefit them greatly. No, it isnt so much about the $25MM or $26MM, so much as it is giving that money & committing those years to a guy who looks like the next Tim Beckham. QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) This seems like an odd criticism, I just looked up the top 10 ranked SS prospects right now and the only ones who have played more than a handful of games at positions other than SS is Mateo and Rodgers, playing them at multiple positions does not seem to be a common practice. I don't see much reason for it either, and it's not like 20 games at 2B is going to make a huge difference (like what Rodgers has done). OK. And how many of those players you searched had "ONLY" 2 years of HS ball, followed by 2 years as a non-scholarship JUCO player? All the TA apologists want to fall all over themselves to use his pre-professional inexperience as an excuse. But then, those same apologists don't also admit that it may have been a problem for his development as well. QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:21 PM) Everyone knew Anderson was super raw and needed a lot of development time at short when he came out college. So of course the best way to develop him at short would have been to get him reps at a bunch of other positions... Yes. He has such scant baseball experience that it would have been worth it to give him a few reps @ other positions. It would have helped him develop a better understanding of his responsibilities @ SS, while keeping his team mates responsibilities in mind. Or maybe, he could have found a better spot on the diamond for himself by trying out other positions. At the same time, there are those that foster this fantasy that TA can be moved to the OF, or used as a utility player, despite him never having played anywhere else. In a day and age where players who can play multiple positions is valued, it's odd that this org never had him play elsewhere. On balance, this has narrowed his margin of error to make good on the contract he was given. Either he's a starting SS, or he's a waste of money, full stop. And so far, his (snicker) 64 wrc+ and (snicker) -6 DRS and (snicker) NEGATIVE fWAR don't look good this year. Here's hoping it turns around for him.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 12:28 PM) It's $24 million over 6 years. Relax hombre. And you're missing the point. Nowhere did I mention a dollar amount. What makes the Anderson extension a bad one is that they did not allow him to play long enough to be sure enough that he is a good player to give him a contract. Sale, Q, & Eaton all PROVED their caliber over several seasons; TA only played part of one season prior to his gift. That aside, they've done him no favors in developing him. His scant pre-professional background & lack of having played anything other than SS means that he'll either make it as a starter, or be a waste of money. There is no option to make him a utility player, because he's never played anywhere else but SS. (Not his fault, so much as it was the fault of Capra & others involved with the farm system in the org.)

QUOTE (GermanSock @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 06:26 PM) Probably the number one thing allowing that rebuild was the cheap extensions. Hahn did a solid job but the contracts was what made those assets so desirable. I also like the anderson extension even though I am not a fan of his hitting profile. If he doesn't work out some millions are lost but if it works you have a cheap asset to keep or trade. I don't mean to bury TA, but lets put to rest this idea that his gift of a contract extension was anything at all like the previous extensions offered to others in the past: Prior to his extension, Sale pitched ~300 IP over 2 1/2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he was a 1st round pick, before which he pitched 3 years on a scholarship in D1. Prior to his extension, Quintana pitched ~300 IP over 2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he pitched for 8 seasons in MiLB. Prior to his extension, Eaton had had ~900 PA over 1 full season here, & 2 cups of coffee in AZ. Prior to that, he'd played 5 seasons in MiLB; prior to that, he played 3 seasons on scholarship in D1. By contrast, Tim Anderson was gifted financial independence after a measly 99 or so games, & 55 AAA games. He wasn't even on scholarship when he went to juco, & he'd only played 2 years in HS. On balance, he hadn't done enough to CONCLUSIVELY prove that he EARNED the contract; he was GIVEN it. So, when someone wants I conflate the gift to Anderson with the contracts that Sale, Q, & Eaton EARNED, I have to roll my eyes. Don't get me wrong, as a Sox fan, I want TA to become a star. But his contract extension was premature at best, & ill-advised, at worst.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 12:23 AM) Or, maybe next season, when he has gotten over the unexpected death of his best friend, he'll play better. Look, I feel bad for him having lost his friend, but I think that's been a bit overplayed. His K-rate is every bit as obese as it was before he lost his friend. His BB-rate is every bit as laughable as it was beforehand. Again, I feel bad for him, but plenty of folks fight through personal loss and do just fine, in his walk of life, and in other professions as well. I think you're speculating just a bit by blaming his personal loss for his lack of ability.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:51 PM) Derailing the thread , but the Sox basically bet on TA being a 1 WAR or better SS over the next 5-7 years. That's not exactly a bad bet. You have to pay him one way or another. 25 million is almost ash tray money. And if they kept him on the league minimum, they'd have paid him less, and not committed the SS role to him. This is where having a modicum of meritocracy could have saved this org both money on an underperformer, & saved time by being able to move on more easily from Anderson. (KW to RH: "s***, we can't send him down, we just gave him $25MM, & we'll all look stupid if we do, Rick!") As it stands, they'll ride Anderson and his (snicker) 64 wrc+ until they gather the courage to admit that his extension was a gift he didn't earn.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:40 PM) How can any Sox fan complain about an extension to a young guy? It's been the best thing the organization has done over last five years. Anderson might flop, but it doesn't mean it was a bad idea. I can't conflate the extensions to Eaton, Sale, or Q to the one given to Anderson. There was much more evidence supporting good outcomes for the other three, whereas Anderson hadn't earned it, other than his artificial Babip he had in 2016. Anderson hadn't earned his extension, any more than Moncada earned his call up.