So is no one falling on the sword for 2018?

[Dick Allen]

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The Brewers didn't start completely from scratch in part because they had Braun, but other than him they have entirely turned over their roster since their previous playoff team in 2011, and it took them 6 seasons of missing the playoffs before they were able to put together a run from the moment where they lost Fielder, Greinke, etc. They didn't get awful, but it sure took them a long time. 

I don't disagree with you that the White Sox put themselves into a far worse position than those teams thanks to their foolish, idiotic, dumb moves between 2013 and 2016 that set the franchise back by half a decade. 

It took some time, but they didn't have to go full awful, and had a couple of entertaining seasons along the way. The clowns running the White Sox had rebuilding records when they were trying to win. Most teams with Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, and Adam Eaton signed to long term team friendly contracts, can make some things happen. Rick, Kenny and Jerry can get you 78 wins. It's one huge reason why I can't buy the team will have all these great young players and then augment them with more stars because they will have so much money to spend. They should have had some money to spend with these 3, and again, maxed out at 78 wins.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Dick Allen

[greg775]

14 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

As long as you can tell me that Paul Konerko was unimportant to that team and you hated him on that team, then you're fine. Paul Konerko was acquired by trading Mike Cameron, a more developed starting Center Fielder, to the Reds in exchange for a blocked 3b that the White Sox shifted to 1b. That set the team back a couple years, they had to start developing a player from scratch. Hell, that guy hit .234 with only 18 home runs in 2003, what a waste of time. So like you said, Paul Konerko is awful and you hated him on the White Sox, you think that acquiring him was a terrible decision and you wish the White Sox never did things like that. 

Great trade for the Sox.

[greg775]

3 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

Well, no one LIKES to have to rebuild. At some point, though, if you run your organization into the ground with unwise spending (whether on bad players or bad development processes), it becomes the quickest way back to relevance. Unfortunately, both organizations did that. 

The plan for both the cubs and the White Sox is to never have to do it again. They won’t be able to avoid a year or two of being “less competitive” here and there, but the disasterpiece rebuild is a desperation move that should be avoided if possible. But, like filing bankruptcy, it is a legitimately good option if you find yourself fucked. 

That is the best line ever on this topic. Tanking is like filing bankruptcy. Yes sir. That's how I feel about it! I like your analogy much.

[greg775]

1 hour ago, LittleHurt05 said:

The two teams in this city have combined for two World Series titles in the last 202 combined seasons, yet you think the Cubs rebuild was poor because they only won one World Series?

No. I was saying they got their one WS from the tank/rebuild. We got one doing it the normal way. Just trying to field good teams every year and hoping for lightning in a bottle. 

[LittleHurt05]

33 minutes ago, greg775 said:

No. I was saying they got their one WS from the tank/rebuild. We got one doing it the normal way. Just trying to field good teams every year and hoping for lightning in a bottle. 

How many years did it take doing it the normal way? 80+ years?  The Cubs rebuilt and within the same decade had a WS and 4 consecutive playoff trips, with more possible coming up.  But sure, lightning in a bottle was genius on the Sox part.  Their 4 playoff trips took 25 years. 

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

It took some time, but they didn't have to go full awful, and had a couple of entertaining seasons along the way. The clowns running the White Sox had rebuilding records when they were trying to win. Most teams with Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, and Adam Eaton signed to long term team friendly contracts, can make some things happen. Rick, Kenny and Jerry can get you 78 wins. It's one huge reason why I can't buy the team will have all these great young players and then augment them with more stars because they will have so much money to spend. They should have had some money to spend with these 3, and again, maxed out at 78 wins.

I agree with this and it is hard to have revionist history, but it really was an inept failure by the existing management team to not be able to build around the trio of players you mentioned under those affordable contracts.  They tried to win and go for it, etc, but they flat out made the wrong moves. Period.  It isn't as if you couldn't have made the right moves. Now I'm not saying I would have done better or it would have been easy, but the outcome could have been much different.

Even now, I laugh at how easy everyone thinks a rebuild is. Blow it up and miraculously get better. Yes, a few teams have hit the reset button recently with pretty immediate success, but a long term historical view of the baseball world indicates to me that such an outcome isn't necessarily as likely.  

[Thad Bosley]

16 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you need winning to be a fan, you aren't a fan.

If you don't need winning, you are a casual fan, which you have proven yourself to be over and over and over again with comments like these. 

If you are a die-hard fan, which most posters at this board are, then winning is your number one goal.  Period.    

[greg775]

27 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

How many years did it take doing it the normal way? 80+ years?  The Cubs rebuilt and within the same decade had a WS and 4 consecutive playoff trips, with more possible coming up.  But sure, lightning in a bottle was genius on the Sox part.  Their 4 playoff trips took 25 years. 

Good points. I think most fans would prefer just trying to field a good team as the Sox had in 05 and after that continue trying to stay on top by acquiring free agents where necessary, making smart trades when necessary. True, you aren't going to get many top first round draft picks, but if you pick wisely you still can get a good MLB caliber player in round one. This is off topic, but regarding this current Sox rebuild. If you were the front office, you actually could continue this and do it on the cheap and still have most media/fans on your side. Three seasons from now, the Sox could field both a starting rotation and bullpen from guys currently in the organization. By then Rutherford and Robert and Madrigal and all those guys will be on the parent club as well as Collins. All will be making pennies, same as our pitchers. Even though I want free agents to supplement the rebuild, the front office could get away with not doing it. Because in terms of quantity, there's going to be tons of pitchers and everyday players that we groomed for the rebuilt Sox, ready to play. You could conceivably field a WS winner with a 50 million payroll if you just play all the guys we acquired and skip the free agency part of all this. Why acquire Manny when in 2-3 years you have an infield of 1B (whoever we keep there, Palka or Davidson, whomever), Madrigal, Timmy and Moncada. My point is ... your outfield is eloy, robert and rutherford. Collins is your catcher; and tons of homegrown pitchers.  If you were Hahn wouldn't you just go with all the guys you've acquired? Screw the free agents and let Jerry have more spending money for Christmas gifts, etc., to boot.

Edited October 17, 2018 by greg775

[greg775]

8 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I agree with this and it is hard to have revionist history, but it really was an inept failure by the existing management team to not be able to build around the trio of players you mentioned under those affordable contracts.  They tried to win and go for it, etc, but they flat out made the wrong moves. Period.  It isn't as if you couldn't have made the right moves. Now I'm not saying I would have done better or it would have been easy, but the outcome could have been much different.

Even now, I laugh at how easy everyone thinks a rebuild is. Blow it up and miraculously get better. Yes, a few teams have hit the reset button recently with pretty immediate success, but a long term historical view of the baseball world indicates to me that such an outcome isn't necessarily as likely.  

Now that's a great post. 

[Chisoxfn]

4 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

As you said to Greg in another thread, if you are going to claim something, you might want to look it up. Mike Cameron was a mid .600 OPS guy when the Sox traded him for Paulie, and Paulie paid immediate dividends. There were no growing pains for him. You mention 2003. That was his 5th season with the team. He already put up 4 seasons of over .840 OPS. 

The best thing about Paulie was that magical "hip" injury he had for his entire career. Yes he was slow, but man, I always wonder how that internet rumor started, but if you were a heavy fan of the Sox and followed Paulie you knew / theorized that he was going to have a short career because of some degenerative hip issue.  I presume none of that was actually factual given how long of a career he had. 

And yes, Paulie was a great trade. Cameron also had some good news and became much better appreciated as advanced metrics came about, but Paulie was very good. We can really thank the Dodgers who panicked and traded him for Jeff Shaw in a deadline deal.  

[bmags]

10 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I agree with this and it is hard to have revionist history, but it really was an inept failure by the existing management team to not be able to build around the trio of players you mentioned under those affordable contracts.  They tried to win and go for it, etc, but they flat out made the wrong moves. Period.  It isn't as if you couldn't have made the right moves. Now I'm not saying I would have done better or it would have been easy, but the outcome could have been much different.

Even now, I laugh at how easy everyone thinks a rebuild is. Blow it up and miraculously get better. Yes, a few teams have hit the reset button recently with pretty immediate success, but a long term historical view of the baseball world indicates to me that such an outcome isn't necessarily as likely.  

And zero of those teams did it with the same management staff. The sox model is very strange.

[Chisoxfn]

28 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

How many years did it take doing it the normal way? 80+ years?  The Cubs rebuilt and within the same decade had a WS and 4 consecutive playoff trips, with more possible coming up.  But sure, lightning in a bottle was genius on the Sox part.  Their 4 playoff trips took 25 years. 

The Cubs rebuilt for 100 years. Tanking didn't support that much. They just had better baseball people making better decisions during this rebuild and they spent money on international signings (arbatraging existing rules, etc). They rebuilt quickly because they made amazing draft decisions, lucked out on a trade (Arrietta) and spent money on many solid FA acquisitions + international FA signings and combined it with an improved developmental team + coaching staff.  

 

[Dick Allen]

29 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

How many years did it take doing it the normal way? 80+ years?  The Cubs rebuilt and within the same decade had a WS and 4 consecutive playoff trips, with more possible coming up.  But sure, lightning in a bottle was genius on the Sox part.  Their 4 playoff trips took 25 years. 

They have had several rebuilds over the years that resulted in no titles. I don't think it's fair to say a successful season has to include a championship. If that's the standard, everyone is going to be unhappy most of the time. But there is no guarantee here. Just because it worked for the Cubs and Astros, doesn't mean it will work for the White Sox. Different people making decisions, different players.  You can give me and a top chef the same ingredients to make a cake, and I know they won't come out the same. So change everything, and what happens? 

My question is, using an old JR scenerio....if a guy can't get you from point B to point C, why on earth do you even consider he can get you from point A to point C?

[southsider2k5]

15 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

If you don't need winning, you are a casual fan, which you have proven yourself to be over and over and over again with comments like these. 

If you are a die-hard fan, which most posters at this board are, then winning is your number one goal.  Period.    

Nope, that would be insecure.  Winning a great bonus, but if you really need winning to feel good about your fandom, you picked the wrong team.

[Greg Hibbard]

33 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

They have had several rebuilds over the years that resulted in no titles. I don't think it's fair to say a successful season has to include a championship. If that's the standard, everyone is going to be unhappy most of the time. But there is no guarantee here. Just because it worked for the Cubs and Astros, doesn't mean it will work for the White Sox. Different people making decisions, different players.  You can give me and a top chef the same ingredients to make a cake, and I know they won't come out the same. So change everything, and what happens? 

My question is, using an old JR scenerio....if a guy can't get you from point B to point C, why on earth do you even consider he can get you from point A to point C?

The last two pure rebuilds before this one were 1997-99 and 1986-88?

[Thad Bosley]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Nope, that would be insecure.  Winning a great bonus, but if you really need winning to feel good about your fandom, you picked the wrong team.

Am I reading this right?  Are you saying White Sox fans have picked the wrong team if winning is important to them?  

[whitesoxbrad]

1 hour ago, Fan O'Faust said:

If you don't need winning, you are a casual fan, which you have proven yourself to be over and over and over again with comments like these. 

If you are a die-hard fan, which most posters at this board are, then winning is your number one goal.  Period.    

Bingo

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Am I reading this right?  Are you saying White Sox fans have picked the wrong team if winning is important to them?  

If you are saying you are a fan because of winning like you claim? Absolutely. Being a fan of a team is totally different than needing a team to provide something that you can't provide for yourself. 

[Dick Allen]

1 hour ago, Greg Hibbard said:

The last two pure rebuilds before this one were 1997-99 and 1986-88?

1997 they signed Belle. Pretty much the rebuild portion was just 1999 , except for the  white flag trade,and even then they won 75 games. 3 off of Rick Hahns career high as a GM.

1986 they tried to win but it was a disaster.  Some on Hawk, some was just fate. Seaver wanting the east coast. Britt Burns traded and never pitching again. Hawk didn't do himself any favors, but the main reason he got the job was because the farm was so awful.  When they lost productivity,  they had nothing to replace it with. 87-89 Himes rebuilt, although he didn't need top 3 picks every year. The team won 94 games in 1990 with the lowest payroll in baseball,  so naturally, the GM was replaced

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Thad Bosley]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you are saying you are a fan because of winning like you claim? Absolutely. Being a fan of a team is totally different than needing a team to provide something that you can't provide for yourself. 

Well, that last part is a bit of a diversion into psychobabble that doesn't make any sense, so we'll just set that to the side and properly ignore it.  

In the meantime, what you can't seem to separate is the difference between being a fan of the game of baseball, which means appreciating it in all of Abner Doubleday's intended glory, and being a fan of a team.  When you actually select a team to follow and support, it seems very odd that the team's success evidenced through winning wouldn't be at the top of your priority list.  Otherwise, why bother being a fan of a team?  Just put on random baseball games and enjoy watching two teams play with no interest in the outcome.  

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Fan O'Faust

[southsider2k5]

4 hours ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Well, that last part is a bit of a diversion into psychobabble that doesn't make any sense, so we'll just set that to the side and properly ignore it.  

In the meantime, what you can't seem to separate is the difference between being a fan of the game of baseball, which means appreciating it in all of Abner Doubleday's intended glory, and being a fan of a team.  When you actually select a team to follow and support, it seems very odd that the team's success evidenced through winning wouldn't be at the top of your priority list.  Otherwise, why bother being a fan of a team?  Just put on random baseball games and enjoy watching two teams play with no interest in the outcome.  

 

That's funny. You talk about appreciation yet hold a decades long grudge against your team. I love it when you destroy your own insecure arguments. 

[Baker]

The mega-rich teams in baseball have plenty plenty of money to top off the talent on their clubs in free agency. But they’ve also scouted and drafted major stars. Can the Sox afford the best scouts and development people in the industry? Surely just the tax money on Luis Robert’s signing would allow them to lure the best people from LA, NY STL. Where’s our Severino, Judge, Andujar, Bellinger, Buehler, Betts, Benentendi, etc. ?   It’s depressing. 

[Thad Bosley]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

That's funny. You talk about appreciation yet hold a decades long grudge against your team. I love it when you destroy your own insecure arguments. 

“Winning” White Sox baseball is not important to you.  We get it.  

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

“Winning” White Sox baseball is not important to you.  We get it.  

White Sox baseball is the part that actually matters, at least to me.

[SCCWS]

15 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Nope, that would be insecure.  Winning a great bonus, but if you really need winning to feel good about your fandom, you picked the wrong team.

Perhaps diehard fans is the correct term. There are people in New England who revel in the Patriot success. But some of them sat for 20 years watching mediocre teams in dumpy stadiums.  Cub and Red Sox fans waited a long time for the success they have these days.  I think the difference is the times. There are so many options w curent media trends that fans are not as patient as the 1960-1990 fans.  Now fans who relocate can still be up to date w the happenings of their team and watch all their games. I think in the previous era, a lot of fans took on a new allegiance to the are they moved to since they couldn't keep curent w their childhood team.