White Sox Listening on Sale

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

The problem is you can do the same thing with the Royals and Tigers.

 

Strip away KC's fifth starter and they're on a pace for 94 wins and the playoffs despite everything else (tepid offense, Soria, injuries, Yost).

 

Take away Sanchez and Pelfrey, the Tigers suddenly become one of the best teams in baseball despite JD Martinez, Castellanos and Maybin missing time.

Neither team has gone 7-20 with an ERA just under 8 in starts by their fifth starter. I imagine the White Sox have gotten the least out of the fifth starter spot than any other team in baseball this year BY FAR.

Edited September 14, 2016 by JUSTgottaBELIEVE

[Kyyle23]

The problem is you can do the same thing with the Royals and Tigers.

 

Strip away KC's fifth starter and they're on a pace for 94 wins and the playoffs despite everything else (tepid offense, Soria, injuries, Yost).

 

Take away Sanchez and Pelfrey, the Tigers suddenly become one of the best teams in baseball despite JD Martinez, Castellanos and Maybin missing time.

 

lmao no

[southsider2k5]

A) your whole argument with SS2K is based on the notion that trading Sale will result in more wins next season which will lead to an increase in attendence so yes you did actually say it without saying it. If you don't think the Sox will win more games next season by trading Sale then why are you even arguing?

B) of course you left out Fowler and I stand by my opinion that these 4 acquisitions plus an improved bullpen absolutely put the Sox in a position to compete next season. Already stated this before but the Sox are 7-20 when Ranaudo/Shields/Danks start. Give me an average starter in place of these dopes and that results in a 13-14 record in those games (not asking for much). Consequently, the team is 6 wins better with just that one move: 76-68 or 3 GB of the wild card. Again, that's just addressing 1 spot on the 25 man roster while leaving the rest untouched.

 

He doesn't actually believe it, he's just arguing to argue because he likes stalking me.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Actually, I said no such thing. Go back and read a little bit closer. I never said trading Sale would result in more wins next season. Never said that once. What I said was attendance would not go down with a trade of Sale IF the team turned things around and started playing winning baseball next year. Another poster said attendance was going to go down no matter what in the event Sale was traded, and I simply countered that winning baseball would prevent that from happening. Big difference.

Haha ok and how are the White Sox going to be better next year by trading Sale and rebuilding? Your hypothetical situation is 100x more improbable than mine in which they can compete next season with the right signings this offseason.

[caulfield12]

Haha ok and how are the White Sox going to be better next year by trading Sale and rebuilding? Your hypothetical situation is 100x more improbable than mine in which they can compete next season with the right signings this offseason.

 

You keep forgetting the Royals have a mutual option on Volquez, so that might not get very far.

 

And the odds of the Sox signing Fowler aren't that great, either. And Wieters will draw a lot more interest than Austin Jackson did for Boras Corp.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-so...oncada-a-chance

Red Sox need to give Moncada a chance...The Globe is coming after prospect haters.

Edited September 14, 2016 by caulfield12

[Thad Bosley]

Haha ok and how are the White Sox going to be better next year by trading Sale and rebuilding? Your hypothetical situation is 100x more improbable than mine in which they can compete next season with the right signings this offseason.

Lol - will you please pay attention and read what I am saying? I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. Let me repeat this so it'll sink in this time: I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. What I did say was in response to a rather strange assertion that attendance would go down next year, no matter what, if Sale is traded. All I said was that would not be the case IF the Sox managed to turn things around next year and have a winning season. And that, of course, is true, because as I've also said, the game is bigger than any one player. So if our winning-starved fan base were to all of a sudden have a winning season drop in on its doorstep next year, the last thing that will happen is for attendance to go down, Sale or no Sale.

[Whisox05]

A) your whole argument with SS2K is based on the notion that trading Sale will result in more wins next season which will lead to an increase in attendence so yes you did actually say it without saying it. If you don't think the Sox will win more games next season by trading Sale then why are you even arguing?

B) of course you left out Fowler and I stand by my opinion that these 4 acquisitions plus an improved bullpen absolutely put the Sox in a position to compete next season. Already stated this before but the Sox are 7-20 when Ranaudo/Shields/Danks start. Give me an average starter in place of these dopes and that results in a 13-14 record in those games (not asking for much). Consequently, the team is 6 wins better with just that one move: 76-68 or 3 GB of the wild card. Again, that's just addressing 1 spot on the 25 man roster while leaving the rest untouched.

 

 

Sorry man but your fowler, moreland, volquez, and wieters isn't turning the sox into contenders. Volquez has a 5.00+ era and puting up -.4 war this year. Sox would be better running out fulmer tho will probably have growing pains. Moreland isnt going to upgrade the lineup that much. Lets put him to comparison of Melky. Melky has a .292 avg, .343 obp .437 slg, .780 ops, 32 2b, 10 hrs, 71 rbi's, 114 ops+ and 1.8 war vs moreland .242 avg, .312 obp, .451 slg, .762 ops, 21 2b, 22 hrs, 58 rbi's, 98 ops+ and a 1.3 war for their 2016 stats sofar. So ya moreland will give you more homeruns and higher slugging. If the sox were to contend they need a better run producer then moreland. Hes pretty much a lesser version of dunn. Fowler isn't even guaranteed to be a free agent. Still has a mutual option with the cubs for next year. If he were to become a free agent i would imagine a qualifying offer being attached and sox weren't willing to give up a pick last year for him and dont imagine again this offseason. Being that hes a boras client i imagine the cost will be pretty high and sox dont cough up money. Wieters is again a boras client so I imagine boras trying to get as much out of him as possible money wise. He probably will have qualifying offer attached too and again sox didnt want to give up pick last and probably not this year. Plus again the sox dont cough up money. Also dont know how this going to be improved pen looks like. Petricka and Putnam arent going to put the sox over top especially not knowing how healthy they will be. Sox aren't going to throw money at chapman. The 2 biggest parts of the pen in jones and Robertson have blown 16 saves together of the 28 blowns saves from the entire pen that leads the majors. Thats 57% of the blown saves coming from you best options in the pen. Sox have some holes and being in one of the weakest free agent classes is not a good place to be in. Not much in minors to fill the gabs either at the majors or not alot of depth to trade

Edited September 14, 2016 by WhiteSoxLifer

[Thad Bosley]

He doesn't actually believe it, he's just arguing to argue because he likes stalking me.

Well, let's not get carried away and wander off into some unwarranted flattery land. I'm not stalking you. Think of it more like a gaper's delay. Whenever you put out one of your wild and denigrating opinions on the fan base, I can't help but just slow down and stare at the wreckage.

[southsider2k5]

Well, let's not get carried away and wander off into some unwarranted flattery land. I'm not stalking you. Think of it more like a gaper's delay. Whenever you put out one of your wild and denigrating opinions on the fan base, I can't help but just slow down and stare at the wreckage.

 

Making up imaginary scenarios that you don't even really believe in to try to obscure actual history isn't really a great way to go about anything, unless you are running for President.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Lol - will you please pay attention and read what I am saying? I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. Let me repeat this so it'll sink in this time: I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. What I did say was in response to a rather strange assertion that attendance would go down next year, no matter what, if Sale is traded. All I said was that would not be the case IF the Sox managed to turn things around next year and have a winning season. And that, of course, is true, because as I've also said, the game is bigger than any one player. So if our winning-starved fan base were to all of a sudden have a winning season drop in on its doorstep next year, the last thing that will happen is for attendance to go down, Sale or no Sale.

That's the whole problem with your argument, your "if" statement. I will guarantee the Sox have a worse record next year if they trade Sale and start the rebuilding process this offseason.

 

And if you don't think people come out to watch Chris Sale, then why were so many people upset and disappointed when Sale was a late scratch as a result of his suspension for ripping up the throwback jerseys? They should have been just as satisfied to watch Matt Albers start right? I think the Sox even won that game.

[Thad Bosley]

Making up imaginary scenarios that you don't even really believe in to try to obscure actual history isn't really a great way to go about anything, unless you are running for President.

You are the only one making things up as you go along in this discussion.

[Dick Allen]

That's the whole problem with your argument, your "if" statement. I will guarantee the Sox have a worse record next year if they trade Sale and start the rebuilding process this offseason.

 

And if you don't think people come out to watch Chris Sale, then why were so many people upset and disappointed when Sale was a late scratch as a result of his suspension for ripping up the throwback jerseys? They should have been just as satisfied to watch Matt Albers start right? I think the Sox even won that game.

And I guarantee, just like in 2012 when they got rid of Buehrle, even if they somehow in 1st place most of 2017, if they trade Sale, attendance will drop. It really isn't Sale alone per se, it is what trading him represents.

[Thad Bosley]

That's the whole problem with your argument, your "if" statement. I will guarantee the Sox have a worse record next year if they trade Sale and start the rebuilding process this offseason.

 

And if you don't think people come out to watch Chris Sale, then why were so many people upset and disappointed when Sale was a late scratch as a result of his suspension for ripping up the throwback jerseys? They should have been just as satisfied to watch Matt Albers start right? I think the Sox even won that game.

No argument from me, my friend. Again, all I'm saying is simply that attendance will not go down with Sale gone if the Sox were to find a way to have a winning season next year. Nobody expected them to have winning seasons with such young rosters like they had in 1990 and 2000, and yet that's exactly what they went onto have. I have not suggested at all that it is probable it will happen again next year. My only statement is that if it did, then attendance will go up, just as it did in '90 and '00.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

No argument from me, my friend. Again, all I'm saying is simply that attendance will not go down with Sale gone if the Sox were to find a way to have a winning season next year. Nobody expected them to have winning seasons with such young rosters like they had in 1990 and 2000, and yet that's exactly what they went onto have. I have not suggested at all that it is probable it will happen again next year. My only statement is that if it did, then attendance will go up, just as it did in '90 and '00.

And I'm saying it's a silly hypothetical because they are not going to improve (in terms of number of wins) year over year by trading 3 or 4 of their best players for prospects, Sale included. Did they trade their best player before the 1990 and 2000 seasons?

[Hatchetman]

It really isn't Sale alone per se, it is what trading him represents.

 

yeah, it represents that you had yet another crappy year with little prospect of things improving.

[captain54]

I am nothing like the typical Sox fan. I don't require years of winning to go to games.

 

There's a team on the north side of town that just might be the the ticket for you. They're called "the Lovable Losers"

 

Check it out!!

[Thad Bosley]

And I'm saying it's a silly hypothetical because they are not going to improve (in terms of number of wins) year over year by trading 3 or 4 of their best players for prospects, Sale included. Did they trade their best player before the 1990 and 2000 seasons?

They sure did, at least in 1989 they did. They traded the great Harold Baines at the trade deadline that season and brought in the very young and untested Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and they not-so-young Scott Fletcher. Both Sosa and Alvarez would go onto contribute to the 94 win season in 1990, as would a young Ventura, Fernandez, and Frank Thomas. So you see, it's not a hypothetical. It can and has been done before. Now I'll give you it's not common for this to happen, but it can happen, which is the premise for my stance. Which again brings me back to my original point in this whole discussion, which is IF it happens (again), attendance will go up, as it did in 1990.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[Kyyle23]

Captain, Thad, SS2K5, just stop talking to each other. You three turn threads into nonsense repeating the same tired things over and over. Guess what? you wont change each others minds. The end.

[southsider2k5]

There's a team on the north side of town that just might be the the ticket for you. They're called "the Lovable Losers"

 

Check it out!!

 

 

Oh hey, there is an original one. You going to get a gay joke in there to cover all of the stereotypes?

[southsider2k5]

They sure did, at least in 1989 they did. They traded the great Harold Baines at the trade deadline that season and brought in the very young and untested Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and they not-so-young Scott Fletcher. Both Sosa and Alvarez would go onto contribute to the 94 win season in 1990, as would a young Ventura, Fernandez, and Frank Thomas. So you see, it's not a hypothetical. It can and has been done before. Now I'll give you it's not common for this to happen, but it can happen, which is the premise for my stance. Which again brings me back to my original point in this whole discussion, which is IF it happens (again), attendance will go up, as it did in 1990.

 

1990 was also the last season in Comiskey Park, which had a lot to do with attendance.

[captain54]

And I'm saying it's a silly hypothetical because they are not going to improve (in terms of number of wins) year over year by trading 3 or 4 of their best players for prospects, Sale included. Did they trade their best player before the 1990 and 2000 seasons?

 

The state of baseball, the state of the Sox prior to 1990 and 2000 were no where near where things are now. Think about what you post, before you post.. That would be awesome

 

[Quin]

Captain, Thad, SS2K5, just stop talking to each other. You three turn threads into nonsense repeating the same tired things over and over. Guess what? you wont change each others minds. The end.

 

This. Please.

 

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

They sure did, at least in 1989 they did. They traded the great Harold Baines at the trade deadline that season and brought in the very young and untested Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and they not-so-young Scott Fletcher. Both Sosa and Alvarez would go onto contribute to the 94 win season in 1990, as would a young Ventura, Fernandez, and Frank Thomas. So you see, it's not a hypothetical. It can and has been done before. Now I'll give you it's not common for this to happen, but it can happen, which is the premise for my stance. Which again brings me back to my original point in this whole discussion, which is IF it happens (again), attendance will go up, as it did in 1990.

1. DH Harold Baines was not the best player on the 1989 roster. That would be HOF catcher Carlton Fisk.

2. What you are talking about isn't just trading Chris Sale. If you are trading Chris Sale, you are also trading 3 or 4 of Todd Frazier, Melky Cabrera, David Robertson, Adam Eaton, Jose Quintana, and Jose Abreu. To equate that to 1989, they would be also trading Carlton Fisk, Bobby Thigpen, and Ozzie Guillen in addition to Harold Baines. Unless I am wrong and you are only in favor of moving Chris Sale and no other veterans this offseason?

[Dick Allen]

1990 was also the last season in Comiskey Park, which had a lot to do with attendance.

Ding, ding, ding. And both the 1990 season and 2000 season, the attendance was still only 9th in the AL.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Dick Allen

[captain54]

Captain, Thad, SS2K5, just stop talking to each other. You three turn threads into nonsense repeating the same tired things over and over. Guess what? you wont change each others minds. The end.

 

Point well taken, and duly noted.

 

Just to clarify. You have an admin of a Sox fan board that takes every opportunity to rip and belittle Sox fans. Doesn't that strike you as odd? it's tiresome and annoying.

 

Shouldn't putting out fires effectively begin with squelching the source?