OneDog847 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: Players like Colome, Herrera, Nova, and Jay aren’t necessarily bad additions. Those guys are useful pieces for many contenders. They only look bad because there is nothing else around them. If the prospects develop as we are hoping, those guys are solid complementary pieces. Colome and Herrera would be high leverage relievers on most teams. Nova would be a #5 starter at worst on most teams. Jay would be a 4th OF on a lot of teams. The thing is the Sox are nowhere near ready to compete. Those guys make no sense on a tanking team. Give the playing time to the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, OneDog847 said: The thing is the Sox are nowhere near ready to compete. Those guys make no sense on a tanking team. Give the playing time to the kids. I agree but to say we signed a bunch of nobody’s for $45M isn’t accurate. They aren’t stars but they are still quality big league players. I wouldn’t be opposed to those types of acquisitions when this team is near contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Hopefully Hahn doesn't come out like this year talking about top FA's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDog847 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: I agree but to say we signed a bunch of nobody’s for $45M isn’t accurate. They aren’t stars but they are still quality big league players. I wouldn’t be opposed to those types of acquisitions when this team is near contention. That 45 Million should have went to Machado as guaranteed money. What this team really needs is three or four guys who are 5+ WAR players. We currently have zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 Just now, OneDog847 said: That 45 Million should have went to Machado as guaranteed money. What this team really needs is three or four guys who are 5+ WAR players. We currently have zero. That ship has sailed. This is still a 90 loss team even with Machado and likely still a 80+ loss team in 2020 even with him as well. Signing him alone would have made no difference in their playoff hopes for either this year or next unless it was supplemented with a number of other significant additions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 28 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said: Until a contract greater than $100M is signed it is not BS. Remember when they were going to get Tanaka or way back when A-Rod. The White Sox will pay over $100M for a free agent if they are getting a good deal on said free agent . I’m not going to defend the organization because it’s embarrassing they haven’t signed someone to a 10 figure contract, but there is no artificial policy/cap in place preventing them from doing so. As much as we give them shit for the Machado offer (and rightfully so), they were prepared to pay him $31M/year for eight seasons. This idea they won’t pay someone 4/$100M or 5/$100M because they haven’t up to this point is just stupid IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjm676 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 hour ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: Players like Colome, Herrera, Nova, and Jay aren’t necessarily bad additions. Those guys are useful pieces for many contenders. They only look bad because there is nothing else around them. If the prospects develop as we are hoping, those guys are solid complementary pieces. Colome and Herrera would be high leverage relievers on most teams. Nova would be a #5 starter at worst on most teams. Jay would be a 4th OF on a lot of teams. Don't forget Rodon is only under control for 3 more seasons. Hopefully, he has a decent first half to up his trade value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 hour ago, OneDog847 said: The thing is the Sox are nowhere near ready to compete. Those guys make no sense on a tanking team. Give the playing time to the kids. Q: What do you do when: a) you're nowhere ready to compete and b) the kids aren't ready yet A: Shop at the bargain bin. That is exactly what they did. I couldn't blame them if they signed CarGo to a 1yr 4M deal. They don't have anyone competent in RF, and none of the kids are ready. They've always said that Eloy is a LF. There are no kids that are worth giving playing time to at the upper levels that aren't going to already get playing time this season. The only other option is to lose 115 games. Nobody wants that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDog847 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 hour ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: That ship has sailed. This is still a 90 loss team even with Machado and likely still a 80+ loss team in 2020 even with him as well. Signing him alone would have made no difference in their playoff hopes for either this year or next unless it was supplemented with a number of other significant additions. Signing Machado gets you one 5+ WAR player though. The Sox are gonna need 3-4 or those in order to be a contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDog847 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 44 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Q: What do you do when: a) you're nowhere ready to compete and b) the kids aren't ready yet A: Shop at the bargain bin. That is exactly what they did. I couldn't blame them if they signed CarGo to a 1yr 4M deal. They don't have anyone competent in RF, and none of the kids are ready. They've always said that Eloy is a LF. There are no kids that are worth giving playing time to at the upper levels that aren't going to already get playing time this season. The only other option is to lose 115 games. Nobody wants that. Play Palka or Cordell/Tilson/Delmonico every day in Right field until Adolfo, Rutherford, Gonzalez, Walker are ready. Houston lost 100 plus games for three years straight. Do you think any of their fans care about that now? I'd rather lose 115 games and draft first then lose 90 and draft another Carson Fulmer or Zack Collins. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, OneDog847 said: Signing Machado gets you one 5+ WAR player though. The Sox are gonna need 3-4 or those in order to be a contender. White Sox had three 5+ WAR players in 2014 and were nowhere near contention. There’s more than one way to build a contender. The complimentary pieces are just as important as the cornerstones, otherwise you end up with a repeat of 2014. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: White Sox had three 5+ WAR players in 2014 and were nowhere near contention. There’s more than one way to build a contender. The complimentary pieces are just as important as the cornerstones, otherwise you end up with a repeat of 2014. Disagree, the cornerstones are always the most important of a team. That doesn’t mean you can survive with a stars & scrubs roster, but it’s much easier to find the latter than the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Disagree, the cornerstones are always the most important of a team. That doesn’t mean you can survive with a stars & scrubs roster, but it’s much easier to find the latter than the former. The Sox had three great players (5+ fWAR players) and one really good player (near 4 fWAR player) in 2014 but still lost 89 games. How many 5+ fWAR players did the ‘05 team have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 minute ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: The Sox had three great players (5+ fWAR players) and one really good player (near 4 fWAR player) in 2014 but still lost 89 games. How many 5+ fWAR players did the ‘05 team have? That 2005 core made one playoff series, not exactly a glowing example of sustained success there. The 2014 team sucked because the front office had traded away all their prospect depth, couldn’t draft or develop worth a shit, and were just starting to repair their broken pipeline to LatAm. Again, it’s infinitely easier to find average players than it is stars. If you plan on building through depth expect a lot of 2nd place finishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: That 2005 core made one playoff series, not exactly a glowing example of sustained success there. The 2014 team sucked because the front office had traded away all their prospect depth, couldn’t draft or develop worth a shit, and were just starting to repair their broken pipeline to LatAm. Again, it’s infinitely easier to find average players than it is stars. If you plan on building through depth expect a lot of 2nd place finishes. At this point, I’d take 2005 again as the outcome of this rebuild. That’s probably a best case scenario because it’s damn hard to win a title in MLB. And the 2005 team didn’t consist of average players. It had a roster full of solid to above average players. Not many holes. Add 3 “stars” to this current team and it’s still a disaster. Even teams loaded with multiple stars (Dodgers, Nationals, Indians, etc) have yet to win a title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 3 hours ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: Players like Colome, Herrera, Nova, and Jay aren’t necessarily bad additions. Those guys are useful pieces for many contenders. They only look bad because there is nothing else around them. If the prospects develop as we are hoping, those guys are solid complementary pieces. Colome and Herrera would be high leverage relievers on most teams. Nova would be a #5 starter at worst on most teams. Jay would be a 4th OF on a lot of teams. That’s like saying the Eaton and Sale trades were good, except for the fact those acquired players are underperforming expectations. If you don’t execute the plan, identify the wrong players to target...or put the apple cart before the horse (could have waited until after Machado signed to go out and get Alonso, Jay and Kimbrel instead of Colome/Herrera), then it’s still a failure. In the end when those players contribute to a 68-72 win team, fans won’t remember. Baseball is about entertainment. Without a star, and the belief your team can legitimately compete, fans won’t turn out for most MLB markets. In lieu of that, you need exciting/dynamic young position players to rally around, not Fulmer/Collins/Burger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thad Bosley Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 9 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: At this point, I’d take 2005 again as the outcome of this rebuild. That’s probably a best case scenario because it’s damn hard to win a title in MLB. And the 2005 team didn’t consist of average players. It had a roster full of solid to above average players. Not many holes. Add 3 “stars” to this current team and it’s still a disaster. Even teams loaded with multiple stars (Dodgers, Nationals, Indians, etc) have yet to win a title. Well, the outcome probably needs to be a little more than that. We can't have a 2005 outcome (although that is always the ultimate goal), but then have the team essentially disappear for the next 13, 14 years. SUSTAINABILITY, Baby! This organization desparately needs SUSTAINABILITY!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said: Well, the outcome probably needs to be a little more than that. We can't have a 2005 outcome (although that is always the ultimate goal), but then have the team essentially disappear for the next 13, 14 years. SUSTAINABILITY, Baby! This organization desparately needs SUSTAINABILITY!! Let’s be real. The only way to build true sustainability is a change in ownership (to maintain a top 7-10 team payroll). Since that’s not happening any time soon, I will surely take the 2005 outcome as the end product of this rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 If they don’t make any big free agent moves, they’re essentially stuck with a 2-3 year window like the Royals had (also due to unexpected rash of injuries to key players in 2016 and the inability to keep their bullpen intact as it became more and more expensive). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: If they don’t make any big free agent moves, they’re essentially stuck with a 2-3 year window like the Royals had (also due to unexpected rash of injuries to key players in 2016 and the inability to keep their bullpen intact as it became more and more expensive). I'm totally ok with a 2-3 year window where they are actually in the playoffs and winning 95+ games per year, so that it's not just a one and out Wild Card. Right now that still seems remote. Frankly, with the rise of what I believe to be the "Superteam era", I think that's what you have to play for. I think the notion of sustainable winning is going to wind up being a myth, because to compete with the 105 win teams you're eventually going to have to trade players away from the guys you don't want to give up. That's what has happened to the Cubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDog847 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I'm totally ok with a 2-3 year window where they are actually in the playoffs and winning 95+ games per year, so that it's not just a one and out Wild Card. Right now that still seems remote. Frankly, with the rise of what I believe to be the "Superteam era", I think that's what you have to play for. I think the notion of sustainable winning is going to wind up being a myth, because to compete with the 105 win teams you're eventually going to have to trade players away from the guys you don't want to give up. That's what has happened to the Cubs. 33 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said: Well, the outcome probably needs to be a little more than that. We can't have a 2005 outcome (although that is always the ultimate goal), but then have the team essentially disappear for the next 13, 14 years. SUSTAINABILITY, Baby! This organization desparately needs SUSTAINABILITY!! With the way the last decade has gone, I'll just be happy if this team is actually playing meaningful baseball in September sometime within the next 5 to 7 years. I think Rick Hahn would agree with me as well. Winning a division is tough and for the big boys. Finishing second is nothing to sneeze at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thad Bosley Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 26 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said: Let’s be real. The only way to build true sustainability is a change in ownership (to maintain a top 7-10 team payroll). Since that’s not happening any time soon, I will surely take the 2005 outcome as the end product of this rebuild. You have to dream before your dreams can come true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Balta1701 said: I'm totally ok with a 2-3 year window where they are actually in the playoffs and winning 95+ games per year, so that it's not just a one and out Wild Card. Right now that still seems remote. Frankly, with the rise of what I believe to be the "Superteam era", I think that's what you have to play for. I think the notion of sustainable winning is going to wind up being a myth, because to compete with the 105 win teams you're eventually going to have to trade players away from the guys you don't want to give up. That's what has happened to the Cubs. Not in the AL Central you don’t. Once the Indians start losing their core guys (or the pitching staff simply ages) this division will be wide open. We should theoretically be in a great spot for a long, multi-year run. That remains to be seen with a Jerry led organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnin' two Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 On 3/9/2019 at 1:10 PM, southsider2k5 said: I'd settle for acquiring some middle tier posters. This is like Gregory Infante asking for a better bullpen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 hours ago, turnin' two said: This is like Gregory Infante asking for a better bullpen. Poster to be named later here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.