FT35

Recently I've seen Micker Adolfo's name surface more frequently in Sox coverage and it's always been VERY positive. It makes me wonder why we don't talk about him more and why he's not on more people's projected lineups in our contending years. For those of you who are up on this sort of thing...is there a bigger reason (other than injury history) why he's not mentioned more in our top prospect conversations? Seems like this guy is healthy and a beast in the making. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0220-story.html https://sports.yahoo.com/chris-getz-describ...-194919118.html

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 10:57 PM) I bought mlb.com so we better go .500. I like the projection in this thread. FYI: My radio listening tonight was JT The Brick. Oddly I gladly heard somebody supporting my controversial position AGAINST tanking. He was furious and said pretty much what gets me in trouble on here. He said owners like Cuban should give money back to the fans if they admit tanking or it is obvious. He said sports are in great danger if teams disrespect the sport by tanking. He ripped the Sixers and he ripped the Astros saying their organization should not deserve credit for building a winner. He said they built a winner by tanking and getting tons of draft picks. What pleased ME the most is he backed my contant whining about owners gladly charging the fan for beer and parking and burgers big buck$$$$ when the team is trying to lose. Finally he said he realized fans embraced tanking and it is very dangerous to the integrity of sports to build teams that way. He said as a kid if the Yankees stunk they stunk. They didn't tank. He's a Yankee fan. There are other ways to win besides losing on purpose for 4-5 seasons, folks. And apparently I am not the only one who feels this way. If u think I'm lying listen to JT the Brick podcast when it's put up of tonight's show. Here's my thing...fans embrace tanking because it's a drastic measure taken to STOP the losing. People have to remember the reason why tanking is happening is because it's 2-3 bad years to set up LONG stretches of WINNING. The most competative message you can send to a fan base is...you know...we're so sick of losing that we're going to swallow our pride and take drastic measures to fix this mess because no one deserves to watch a losing team year after year. To me...it's the 3-4 years of limbo BEFORE a rebuild that's more destructive to a fan base--the time where ownership rides the ship to the bottom of the ocean before they realize it's time to stop. Those are the years that I struggle to pay the parking, buy the concessions, shoot...buy the tickets. They are aimless, stubborn and predicibly fatal. I embrace the full rebuild because it means the end is near.

Remember...there will be a subsequent secondary market that opens up for all the teams who either sign or resign a mega star. Their current and backup plans will become available as will any other counterproductive contracts that will need cleared to enable mega signings. Even if we miss out, we could be in line to pick up a couple of nice pieces from the fallout of the major signings. If we know for sure we’re not going to dish out a mega contract, we can serve the role of the enabler to help make it possible for another team to spend. There will be potential for major activity—even if the majority of these stars stay with their current teams. Also good times to sell high to teams who missed out and didn’t have a suitable backup plan.

Thing about this is...it's different from the "plugging holes with vets" strategy that caused repeated failure and forced us to be in this position of a full on rebuild. Moose is a legitimate piece being added into the mix who lines up with what we're trying to do from an age perspective. It's not that you're wasting at bats on someone who won't be here...they're going to someone who will be a part of it. If we could land him on an affordable 4-year deal we'd get age 29, 30, 31 and 32 seasons that would take us into our competitive window--and hopefully right up to the Jake Burger tenure at 3B. And I doubt that would handcuf our ability to add from the Super Free Agent pool next year--Even Machado--who, if you're luckey enough to sign, you make the corresponding moves at that time so you don't miss opportunities now. We're also looking at guys like Davidson and Sanchez being the guys most effected (which evaluating talent requires honesty), I'm OK with. I still think Sanchez has a spot on the team the next few years as a utility player--I'm just not sold on him being a big part of the core. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.

Hosmer was a 4+ WAR player with KC last year. Hunter Dozier is next 1B up on the depth chart. You have to think that his value at this point in his career isn't that much over replacement value. You also have to think that at least 1 of Hosmer's wins was against us!! So -4 Wins for KC and +1 for us...that's a 5 win impact on our year. Cool.

Also...looks like the Covey move was so they could sign Chris Volstad?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 18, 2018 -> 07:07 PM) He’d be a potential flip candidate. The 600+ DH plate appearances are an asset and the Sox have to decide what is the best use of them. I’ve personally seen enough of Matt Davidson to move onto a different option. I won’t be upset if they simply use the spot to rotate a bunch of young guys, but I’m totally ok if they want to roll the dice on the right veteran. IMO, DHing isn’t easy and a lot of players struggle with the routine. Dickerson was pretty awesome as a DH last year (SSS I know) and his power could really play up at the Cell. A strong first half along with his ability to play the OF (even if we don’t use him their regularly) & his cheap ass salary could result in him netting us something of value at the deadline. I can see the logic if the Sox’s scouts are high on him and the price is basically nothing. Love the idea of making the DH another spot for the kids to play—my only problem with rotating players on positions is that it’s tough for a single player to find a rhythm and stand out at 1 particular position—even DH. The result is a handful of guys out of rhythm, making fundamental mistakes and overthinking their swing to the tune of a lot of 0-4’s and it’s deceiving to the talent evaluators trying to decide who to keep/cut. Kind of reminds me of the parents who have their kid in soccer, baseball, golf, marching band, chess club, basketball, hockey and swimming. I feel sorry for those kids because they never get a chance to refine their skills and get GOOD at anything. They could be a world class swimmer and not even know it because after an hour in the pool, they’re off to the golf course! Baseball is so much a sport of routine. Even winning and losing become routine. Time is still on our side now to give players long looks at their primary position and let them learn and master the nuances of that position.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Feb 18, 2018 -> 05:27 PM) The season is already a success. The Sox canned that stiff Covey. Hahaha!! This made me laugh! I’m kind of with you...I never really saw the draw outside of him not being in our plans, so let’s get some innings out of his arm. You know as soon as we say this, he’ll become a star.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 10:13 AM) comps are so silly. All you are going to get for Hansen is some major leaguer that's really tall, Jimenez a big power hitter, Kopech someone that throws hard, and Dunning somebody that wears glasses. Nobody knows what Robert really looks like yet on this board at least. But he'll probably get comped to a Cuban. Yes and no...you're right about the physical aspect--those comps don't really serve a good purpose. But when you're trying to analyze a prospect's game and you can put a big leaguer's skill-set out there as a comp--it helps people understand the type of player they are shaping up to be. It's not a good gauge of certainty, but it gives people ideas. The Moncada/Robinson Cano comp was a good one as long as you don't look at Moncada and expect him to turn out like Cano. The short, compact swing compares well, the skill set compares well--the stat range compares well (solid average, good batter's eye, some pop) and the potential for stardom compares well. It gives someone who might not follow prospects a little baseline in their understanding and expectations. When they see a name like Robinson Cano linked to Moncada's name (and not Yolmer Sanchez), they think...hmm...he's not your average prospect and has a pretty high ceiling. As long as you treat comps with that mindset, I don't mind it. The way you know player comps are valid is that you know when there's a bad comp! Tim Anderson doesn't comp to Frank Thomas but more people nod when you say "Orlando Cabrera." When Billy Hamilton came up--you didn't see many Rickey Henderson comps even though they were both stolen base kings because there was no power/consistent average component to Hamilton's game...the comp was always Vince Coleman--which is still a pretty decent comp.

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Feb 15, 2018 -> 10:37 PM) I'm sort of over the trade but I hope Tatis is a teachable moment and they correct whatever caused them to mis-evaluate him so badly. I think some of that teachable moment is this: Sometimes I think our evaluations are too often 1. "sure he's a hot mess right now, but he's had good years in the past...maybe he just needs a change of scenery." and/or 2. "Coop'll fix him." The effect is that we end up with numerous "project" guys and our coaching staff is run thin on how much they can help everyone. Their time is spent getting players back to the "satisfactory" production level--from mess to good, rather than taking players to the NEXT level--from good to great. Problem is, that we've had enough times where that's worked that they keep pouring resources into that philosophy--which is at best break-even and that's debatable. Also...one simple, yet frequent mistake that a lot of teams make is the gross underestimation of a player's performance level when switching leagues--in particular a NL player coming to the AL. It's hard enough to figure out opponents in 1 league--let alone both. Obviously, again, there are success stories in there, but most of the time you get struggles and long adjustment periods for average and even above average players who switch leagues.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 12, 2018 -> 06:20 PM) This is pretty general. I don't mind general comments but I got roasted for making general statements about Soria's stint with the Royals. I wouldn't mind seeing some stats to back up your Robertson statements. Well Greg, there’s a bit of a difference between general comments based on observation and general comments based on opinion. You can look up the stats on your own if you’d like, or you can call Josh Donaldson and have him fill you in on some Robertson “metrics.” Or ask around...I bet I’m not the only one around here who watches Sox games. Don’t mean to sound demeaning...we still love ya...not sure the board would be the same without your posts!

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 12, 2018 -> 09:16 AM) Arenado doesn't really have those split issues. Guy can hit away from Coors. Sure his numbers are better at home, but if you check a good amount of players, you'll likely find a good amount of players that are better home than away as well. Yes...and I think GRF is a great place to hit and he could approach those COL numbers. He does hit 50 points higher at Coors, slugs 100+ points higher and his OPS is 150 points higher, but power looks the same. Also the black and white pinstripes is the most similar uniform so maybe that will help with the transition. He's absolutely who I would go after from a personnel standpoint, but I think the biggest risk to an Arenado signing is the Rockies. I think they are building around him and want him to stay badly...I think they're ready to pay to keep him. It'd suck to chase Arenado only to see him re-sign with COL--while the other top names come off the board. Baltimore expects Machado to leave--they even tipped their hand by publicly putting him on the market now "to try to get something out of him before he leaves." They might extend an offer to keep him, but there's a lot to suggest they are coming to terms with the fact that he will demand more than what they are willing to give him. Arenado is the safer sign, Machado is the safer chase.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 12, 2018 -> 12:17 AM) I question what our front office's evaluation of his character is. Agree with this...it's kind of been a growing concern of mine as time goes by. Is his "edge" because he's competitive or is it because he's a punk? Is he the TYPE of person you want to invest in and does he fit our brand? OR...is the better all-in option someone like Nolan Arenado--who's going to represent you well? Then you have that Colorado splits issue--and someone switching leagues...a lot to be factored in. Bryce Harper is both...a punk...but he channels it into his competitiveness. If that's the case with Machado, I'm cool with it.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Feb 11, 2018 -> 12:29 PM) Wouldn’t you still want a guy who’s as talented as Machado anyway, to play 3B perhaps? Absolutely! Just think Merkin’s claim is a little questionable if he thinks Tim Anderson would be a major road block in bringing Machado in at SS. Timmy is talented, but Manny is an elite talent. I’d have to have a guy like Carlos Correa at SS before I would think about convincing Machado to play 3rd, if him playing SS was a pivotable factor to where he would sign. Kind of like saying, we’re out on Nolan Arenado because Matt Davidson is already there.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 8, 2018 -> 08:09 PM) Maybe he wants to be a SS. Some players desire to play glamour positions like SS or CF. But if the talks w the Sox get serious, let him play SS and move Anderson to CF or trade him for something we need. I think his agent convinces him 3B may be easier on the body than SS but then again some SS have had long and successful careers. I truly hope...that someday...we’re in a position where we can decline to sign Manny Machado because we’re satisfied with Tim Anderson at shortstop.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 10, 2018 -> 02:44 PM) 1) they are rebuilding 2) they are rebuilding 3) they are rebuilding, and nobody cares about David Robertson’s feelings when he is a reliever making 10+ million a year I liked him when he was here, but if Robertson wants to be a closer for a top team, he simply needs to be better. He’s a pitcher with great stuff and at times overwhelming to hitters. But those times come and go and he goes through stretches of struggles where he gets lit up with regularity. Closers on top teams might have an outing here and there where they get hit hard, but not often a WEEK here and there where they get hit hard (or they are removed from the role). If he wants to close, it’ll be for a mid-tier team, and those are exactly the types of guys who get moved to contending teams as set up guys at trade deadlines. I bet he looks at the Kimbrels, the Jansens and the Chapmans of the world and gets why it’s like that for him.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Feb 9, 2018 -> 03:25 PM) That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect. Right--NY picked up all the $ owed to these guys as well. If given the choice, I'd probably rather add another decent prospect to make the deal look better, but the $ off the books stands as value--just the word "cash" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Andujarrrr." I cringed a little too at first glance, but what I liked about it was that Hahn was able to squeeze another (at the time) top 30 prospect out of the remaining pieces that we had--which many of us didn't think would be possible--AND moved the $ tied to them.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 9, 2018 -> 11:41 AM) I disagree. Like I said, the real value of that trade was Kahnle. Robertson was good but was still owed a lot of money, and Frazier was...well, Todd Frazier. Time will tell with Rutherford and even Tito Polo. Maybe the Sox could have gotten a little more, but definitely not a lot more. Agree with you...can't ROB every team on every deal. We maybe could have gotten a little more but in the end, the players who needed moved from our team got moved and not another team's--and Rutherford is in our system instead of another team's. Our team moved closer to our goal with the deal.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2018 -> 10:27 AM) Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and Tigers not spending is killing it. Exactly. I simply don't see why the players are so surprised that there hasn't been much activity on the FA market this winter. Honestly, I think agents should have seen this slow winter coming a few years back in their databases. All of the facts line up with prudent business rather than owner coercion like the players and agents have suggested. I'm sorry, I don't think choosing to hold my FA money back on a 3B like Moustakas for a historically loaded FA class next year that includes Donaldson, Arenado and Machado is anything but smart management of risk/funds. Let the super 7 (NYY, BOS, LA, CHC, HOU, WAS, CLE) fight over a 1-year deal with Moose (which he'll likely hold out for more years) and then them battle it out for the 2018 WS title--THEN go all in on a player(s) who can make a much larger impact next winter. Smart business. Surprise teams always have the trade deadline to make a move if elevated success puts them into the same conversation as MLB's elite teams for a playoff push. They simply don't need to sign anyone now.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 7, 2018 -> 04:41 PM) I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see us be a bottom 3 team next year, I'm just banking on most of our young core take incremental steps forward this year, as well as solid debuts from Kopech and Eloy. Absolutely possible and likely! I think we will be a very bad team—one of the worst records in MLB, but we play 60 games against bad teams who we beat at a .500 clip last year when we were awful and they were not rebuilding. Comparing last year’s apples to this year’s oranges, maybe! But logically, it’s conceivable to win 30+ games vs. KC, Det & Min. Of the remaining 100, I think it’s possible to win 40 (7 games vs Pit and Cin). If I remember correctly when I crunched those numbers a while back, 72 wins would’ve put us around the 8th worst record by last year’s standings. Lots more teams going the rebuild route this year too. Who knows...it’s fun to speculate!

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 7, 2018 -> 02:57 PM) 73 wins is right around what I was thinking as well. 72-73. Me too! I even took some crap on here for posting that I thought it was possible for us to win 72-75 games. I think one of these sites (ZiPS?) projected just over 60 wins and I think that's considerably lower than where they will be. There are too many horrific teams in our division to only win 60 games.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:56 PM) Just be sure you have a replacement for September and October. Oh now this is good! Unfortunately for us...now Boston...it's very true... Of course he's only had 1 shot at the post season but he's starting to carry that first-half hero tag. If he helps get his team into the playoffs, he'll likely help get them out of the playoffs as well...

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 01:48 PM) You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying if you think I'm saying, "I'm not offended so it's wrong to change it!" I'm not trying to make an argument for keeping it or anything and I'm not making it about what I believe. I'm simply saying in a hypothetical scenario if no one from that race was/is offended, should it be considered offensive? Kinda going back to what the poster above said about changing the school's name in his region where they checked with the tribe who stated they weren't offended by it at all. I would say no. Edit: I think Cleveland should come up with a new name for it's baseball team in general, especially if they can't even use the logo nor mascot. Bring back the Cleveland Spiders. And I think you are hitting on some key points. If it's important to a particular group, let them come forward and make their voices heard and let's all work together to find a solution so the new name can reflect resolution by 2 sides to extinguish something felt as racism. But don't go forging ahead supercharged with racist claims and completely leave out the group that's supposed to be offended from the resolution or assume they want it to be changed. And honestly, there is great strength in the Native American population to fight and win a battle like this. They don't NEED help...but you better bet if they set out to end slurs like that and ran into injustice in their attempts, THAT'S WHEN they would gain steam from the silent majority who would rise and fight with them until a resolution was found that kept the intended integrity and honor in place. The renaming of the school in THIS case, turned out to be a solution in search of a problem. The school story ended like this: the kids in the school voted on 3 finalist names and the Native American tribes got to choose the winning name--the name Legends was chosen in reference to the Native Americans--to keep the honor in tact, but to drop the Redskins phrase that some could find as derogatory. But honestly, no one really came out "ahead" because no one was super offended by the name to begin with--and all it did was raise our taxes to help fund the re-branding of the school! I'm ALL for working together to better the place we live, and no one wants anyone to live in a state of suppression or as the object of racism. Let's just make sure we're fighting the real fights out there and not dumping our resources into a small, unrelated group of people who are piggy backing on a minority by self-creating drama so they can have something to post about on their social media pages that riles everyone up. Ladies and Gentlemen...THOSE are the truly divisive people--as their number 1 goal is to create or increase division rather than bringing people together. Don't fall for it...get the truth, the real story from both sides and see if there's even a problem! Many times there isn't. There are better ways to allocate valuable resources than dumping them into something that doesn't stand to produce true gain.

My dad fought this battle last year as the president of his high school alumni here in town. They were formerly known as the Redskins. He scheduled meetings with the Native American groups in the area whom the school's name originated from to get their thoughts so he could communicate their perspective accurately to the school board and was surprised to hear that the Native Americans themselves had no issue with the name and actually saw it as an honor that, to that point, the community had upheld the name of the school despite this modern day outrage. Dad said the perception that more than one of the Native Americans left him with was wondering why such a small group of individuals were so offended and had so much power to remove the name that didn't offend the people they thought it should. 2 quotes from those meetings that stuck out were 1. "Isn't this our battle to fight?" and 2. "Fight with, not for." They also noted that none of the offended met with them to get their thoughts prior to fighting against the name. Kind of interesting. Results differ across the map, I'm sure, as there are some Native Americans who might actually be offended--and they should absolutely be heard, but that is how things went down here in Indiana. The name was ultimately changed despite the input from the Native American groups who the school was named after to "please the masses" that, in reality, were neither masses or the Native Americans themselves, but the perception of such by those who were a part of that political movement.

This really comes down to the essence of today's game: 1. How do you get better and 2. how do you win consistently. 1. How do you get better--you have a choice. You can trade something away or go out and take a chance on a mediocre Free Agent--that chance will cost you 10's of millions of dollars and like everything else, there are no guarantees. 2. How do you win consistently? You have to create a winning culture that is built on both talent and chemistry. You can do that by rolling the dice on free agents all coming together at the right time and having career years at the same time--AND PERFORMING IN THE POST SEASON at the same time, or you can build a core of young talent and work them up to the big leagues together and raise your probability of a 5-7 year period of above normal winning rates. The costs of these choices are tough to compare, because in the rebuilding model, a good chunk of what you're saving in player salary, you're losing in team revenue because no one wants to watch a lame product. In my opinion, it's Boras who has destroyed the game and forced the owners' hands to go cheap. Look how owners handle pending free agents...they trade them! They don't want anything to do with them--they'd rather get some prospects for them then have to deal with the whole risk involved in resigning a star player with equal bust potential as the next guy. Rebuilding is a more practical road to sustaining long-term winning. 100 million dollars goes a long way in the rebuilding model. In the contending model, it buys you 1 player for a few years. Obviously, we are passionate baseball/White Sox fans, but if you were a GM where baseball was your business 1st and passion second, and you were trying to change the course of an organization from a product enhancement standpoint, and you had a relatively short leash on your job to accomplish it, how would you do it? 1. Spend a ton of $ over a 10+ year period trying to find the right combinations of Scott Boras' free agents (players who your fans have likely been rooting against for years) year after year and have 1 playoff appearance to show for it (aka the model that had the White Sox dead in the water)? OR...do you wipe the slate clean and rebuild for a period of 3-4 years and set yourself up for a 5-7 year run of winning with a young core of internally developed players that fans have watched grow up and become winners--making them more attached to your product? If Boras would like the game to get back to the way it was, then he needs to make his model seem more practical to owners. Obviously he's set for life and money will NEVER be an issue for him as long as he lives, but MLB owners are HIS clients...he needs to decide whether the mega contracts model brings more revenue than if he would to make free agents more obtainable by lowering the risk for owners building a winning model around them.