MLB 2020-21 off season catch all

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

6 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Oh absolutely.  This isn't our year. Still 3 teams easily ahead of us.  (Dodgers, Padres, Yankees)

But the question should be why couldn't this be our year ? Which is the same question I have every year we make the playoffs. So not that often . And with that in mind, that playoff appearances are a rare thing, and will continue to be a rare thing until proven otherwise, I will continue to ask why wouldn't the Sox try to win a World Series every year in the window ?

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

I lived through that ERA but no where near this level of power arms...I dont think we knew who Buehrle was until he came up and was great...in 2000 he was just a lefty control pitcher.  Jon Rauch in 2000 was Kopech exciting...but only that one year.  Kip Wells but maybe Stiever exciting?  Great A pitcher...but age and stats all favor Stiever.  You didnt mention Garland who was 20 in 2000 and seemed exciting.  The other guys you mention I recall but not to the same level. I think if you were drafting 2000 Sox pitchers and 2021 Rauch top five...maybe third.  Wells maybe 7th?  Could be recency bias...and obviously in retrospect you have Buehrle and Garland in top five.  But I have to say from a potential point 2021 by a mile.  A better comparison is 1995....Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez , Jason Bere, Mike Sirotka, Scott Ruffcorn, James Baldwin...I remember being really excited about Baldwin and Ruffcorn.  But not much after them.  

Wells looked liked a TOR starter when he first came up...and put up huge numbers with the Pirates.  Second Sox season was step back.   Buehrle and Fogg the two that were least hyped, for sure.  Rauch, Garland and Wells were projected as frontline guys.

If Stiever came anywhere close at big league level, massive win.

Forgot to add Garland because he moved so fast and was originally with Cubs.

Ruffcorn was a high draft pick but a largely disappointing career.

At any rate, that group was main reason Sox were #1 farm system, along with Borchard/Rowand/Crede during that era.

[michelangelosmonkey]

8 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

But the question should be why couldn't this be our year ? Which is the same question I have every year we make the playoffs. So not that often . And with that in mind, that playoff appearances are a rare thing, and will continue to be a rare thing until proven otherwise, I will continue to ask why wouldn't the Sox try to win a World Series every year in the window ?

Who here doesn't think this could be our year?   You aren't suggesting we aren't trying to win this year are you?  In the playoffs you need three great starters, a dynamic bullpen, a strong defense and a strong offense.  Our weakness seems to be fourth and fifth starter...which is more likely to make getting to the playoffs harder...but honestly...slug one and slug two giving up 5 runs a game are going to win a lot of games with this offense.  I'm not sure I like anyone better than White Sox if the playoffs started tomorrow.  

 

[caulfield12]

1 minute ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Who here doesn't think this could be our year?   You aren't suggesting we aren't trying to win this year are you?  In the playoffs you need three great starters, a dynamic bullpen, a strong defense and a strong offense.  Our weakness seems to be fourth and fifth starter...which is more likely to make getting to the playoffs harder...but honestly...slug one and slug two giving up 5 runs a game are going to win a lot of games with this offense.  I'm not sure I like anyone better than White Sox if the playoffs started tomorrow.  

 

The problem is that Keuchel and Lynn have regression in their future...so it all comes down to Cease/Kopech or the White Sox making a Verlander or Greinke type acquisition like the Astros did.

If Severino comes back 100%, the Yankees’ rotation suddenly becomes a strength.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

5 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Who here doesn't think this could be our year?   You aren't suggesting we aren't trying to win this year are you?  In the playoffs you need three great starters, a dynamic bullpen, a strong defense and a strong offense.  Our weakness seems to be fourth and fifth starter...which is more likely to make getting to the playoffs harder...but honestly...slug one and slug two giving up 5 runs a game are going to win a lot of games with this offense.  I'm not sure I like anyone better than White Sox if the playoffs started tomorrow.  

 

The guy I quoted obviously. When you don't increase payroll and don't provide pitching depth it is always a question of making the playoffs rather than winning once there.

[michelangelosmonkey]

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Wells looked liked a TOR starter when he first came up...and put up huge numbers with the Pirates.  Second Sox season was step back.   Buehrle and Fogg the two that were least hyped, for sure.  Rauch, Garland and Wells were projected as frontline guys.

If Stiever came anywhere close at big league level, massive win.

Forgot to add Garland because he moved so fast and was originally with Cubs.

Ruffcorn was a high draft pick but a largely disappointing career.

At any rate, that group was main reason Sox were #1 farm system, along with Borchard/Rowand/Crede during that era.

I guess I'm not saying how did their careers end up...because we know about the 2000 and 1995 staffs....but what was thought of them at the time.  If you look at Wells stats at the time he came up he wasn't nearly as good as Stiever's stats.  I remember being excited about him...but no where near the Kopech/Crochet/Cease excitement.  Garland had a nice career...but in 1998 we got him from the Cubs for 31 year old Matt Karcher who really wasn't very good.  At 19 he had an OK time at A+ but not dominating stuff...and then at 20 in 2000 he was in our rotation.  I don't think a person here would trade 19 year old Jared Kelly for 19 year old Jon Garland (again assuming we didn't know future performance).  I think the cautionary tale is that 1994 staff with a 28 year old McDowell, and very young Fernandez, Alvarez, Bere with Ruffcorn and Baldwin in the minors and it looked like 4 or 5 aces...sort of like now.  Then the next year McDowell signs with the Yankees (Gio), Bere after going 12-2 blew out his arm, Ruffcorn and Baldwin never developed and that dream team never happened...though that 1994 team that we lost the WS because of stupid strike....was the best I ever followed...until now.  

[michelangelosmonkey]

14 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

The problem is that Keuchel and Lynn have regression in their future...so it all comes down to Cease/Kopech or the White Sox making a Verlander or Greinke type acquisition like the Astros did.

If Severino comes back 100%, the Yankees’ rotation suddenly becomes a strength.

Yes that's why this year will be so interesting.  Keuchel and Lynn I think of more as the David Wells/Mark Buehrle sort...bulldogs that will throw lots of innings and get lots of wins because they keep you in games....which is great for regular season.  But playoffs you need guys like Gio that can throw a 7 inning 2 hitter....guys with other worldy stuff.   Cease/Kopech and Crochett can all be that sort but so early to tell.   So making a big add during the season...what do you think about Chris Sale...supposed to be back mid-year.   Boston will want salary relief.  We have money.   Could he be our Grienke?     

[michelangelosmonkey]

19 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

The guy I quoted obviously. When you don't increase payroll and don't provide pitching depth it is always a question of making the playoffs rather than winning once there.

I find you to be one of the reasoned voices on here...so I guess I'm surprised at your seeming anger at the off season.  Lynn was the best pitcher that changed hands in the AL this offseason...Hendricks is a great upgrade...Tony LaRussa is almost certainly going to be better than Ricky.  Eaton is a pro.  Cespedes and Vera seem like exciting young additions.  Vaughn instead of EE...Katz instead of Coop.   And we are keeping a tight budget to go buy someone at the trade deadline...like I mentioned a second ago...how about Chris Sale??      

[RagahRagah]

3 hours ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Who here doesn't think this could be our year?   You aren't suggesting we aren't trying to win this year are you?  In the playoffs you need three great starters, a dynamic bullpen, a strong defense and a strong offense.  Our weakness seems to be fourth and fifth starter...which is more likely to make getting to the playoffs harder...but honestly...slug one and slug two giving up 5 runs a game are going to win a lot of games with this offense.  I'm not sure I like anyone better than White Sox if the playoffs started tomorrow.  

 

Ownership has clearly shown that winning is not the main priority. (And the truth is our rotation might be a big crapshoot all the way this year; that is not trivial)

So the question is who are you referring to when you say "we?"

Edited February 24, 2021 by RagahRagah

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

2 hours ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

I find you to be one of the reasoned voices on here...so I guess I'm surprised at your seeming anger at the off season.  Lynn was the best pitcher that changed hands in the AL this offseason...Hendricks is a great upgrade...Tony LaRussa is almost certainly going to be better than Ricky.  Eaton is a pro.  Cespedes and Vera seem like exciting young additions.  Vaughn instead of EE...Katz instead of Coop.   And we are keeping a tight budget to go buy someone at the trade deadline...like I mentioned a second ago...how about Chris Sale??      

I'm not angry. I've been a Sox fan far too long to get angry. I enjoy every season of my favorite team on the planet. You don't have to sell me on the team. I just don't take making the playoffs for granted.

It's a good team capable of greats things if they live up to their potential and a little luck.  But that's the crux of the matter. The Sox depend on a lot of things going the right way.

Branch Rickey said " Things worthwhile generally don’t just happen. Luck is a fact, but should not be a factor. Good luck is what is left over after intelligence and effort have combined at their best. Negligence or indifference are usually reviewed from an unlucky seat. The law of cause and effect and causality both work the same with inexorable exactitudes. Luck is the residue of design.”

[michelangelosmonkey]

1 hour ago, RagahRagah said:

Ownership has clearly shown that winning is not the main priority. (And the truth is our rotation might be a big crapshoot all the way this year; that is not trivial)

So the question is who are you referring to when you say "we?"

To stupid to argue with.  

[michelangelosmonkey]

2 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I'm not angry. I've been a Sox fan far too long to get angry. I enjoy every season of my favorite team on the planet. You don't have to sell me on the team. I just don't take making the playoffs for granted.

It's a good team capable of greats things if they live up to their potential and a little luck.  But that's the crux of the matter. The Sox depend on a lot of things going the right way.

Branch Rickey said " Things worthwhile generally don’t just happen. Luck is a fact, but should not be a factor. Good luck is what is left over after intelligence and effort have combined at their best. Negligence or indifference are usually reviewed from an unlucky seat. The law of cause and effect and causality both work the same with inexorable exactitudes. Luck is the residue of design.”

Brilliant words by Branch.  Still...it seems like the 2013-16 Sox were the team counting on luck...Sale and Quintana and if we can just make the playoffs we could make a run.  The 2021 team has been built methodically and the off season seemed to be a part of the plan.  I like where the team is at and you know who else is counting on a little luck?  The Dodgers...for ten years they've had one of the highest payrolls, one of the best teams in baseball and one of the best farm clubs...last 8 years averaging 98 wins, went to the playoffs 8 times and won one world series.  You are right that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves...but I also think it's fun to dream a bit.   Dynasties rarely happen but it's every fan's dream.   That's why I pooh pooh adding Musgrove or Teheran or Brantley or Cruz...the team as constructed should make the playoffs and none of those guys is going to make them a can't lose team...but a breakthrough by Cease...and Vaughn...and Madrigal...and Kopeck...could boost us from good team to legendary.  When legendary is still a possible outcome I think you try to play that hand to see if it can happen.    

[RagahRagah]

1 hour ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

To stupid to argue with.  

*Too

Stop the act. It's old and transparent. The more you say this the more obvious it is you just can't handle the argument in the first place. Only reason to respond with garbage like this is to be an asshole. You're weak. (And what I'm saying is pretty well established, anyway)

Edited February 24, 2021 by RagahRagah

[Balta1701]

Shin-Soo Choo signed to play in Korea for a little over $2 million

https://es.pn/3dNQVrB

[caulfield12]

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/padres-have-tossed-aside-small-market-stigma-to-act-like-a-model-franchise-heres-why-its-great-for-mlb/

 

Speaking of which, Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic in response to the Tatis extension voiced a concern that wasn't hard to find among some corners of the baseball cognoscenti. He wrote: 

"Fans in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and some larger major-league cities would love their clubs to operate as aggressively the Padres, who are locking up their 22-year-old superstar rather than starting their countdown to trading him. And yet, there's a danger here, and it can't be dismissed, even in the giddy elation of Fernando Tatis Jr.'s 14-year, $340 million extension.

How the heck are the Padres going to sustain this?"

That question gets it precisely wrong. A better way to frame the Padres' boldness would be to use it as a cudgel against the vast majority of other teams. That is: "If the Padres, denizens of one of the smallest markets in MLB, have achieved all this, then what the hell have you been doing?"

For all the diversionary oxygen being devoted to pacing concerns and the dearth of balls in play and the like, the gravest current crisis in MLB is the overabundance of team owners who have no interest in winning as many baseball games as possible. Not only does treating cherished civic institutions like portfolio holdings disaffect fans (i.e., customers), but it also makes ongoing labor peace between players and owners much less likely. It's the hometown nine, not a tranche of debt instruments. When a team like the Padres gives primacy to the goal of winning -- as they darn well should -- it puts the lie to all those risible claims of financial woe emanating from most other C suites around the league. 

Seidler, who rose to the top of the Padres' org chart late last year, is not deluded about such matters. He knows MLB is a wildly profitable industry. He knows the claims of financial hardships resulting from the COVID-compromised 2020 season are temporary and almost certainly overstated. He knows that owning an MLB team yields investment growth that can be duplicated almost nowhere else. He knows the best way to get fans to care is to improve the product. So that's what he's doing even if few other owners have the fortitude to behave similarly. That kind of behavioral pressure from within is exactly what the current guild of MLB owners badly needs. Promising $340 million and a wire-to-wire no-trade clause to Tatis isn't a sign that the Padres are doing too much. Rather, it's a sign that many of the more well-heeled MLB teams aren't doing enough. The next time your team's owner costumes "I choose not to" as "I can't," cite for them the wee-market Padres and Tatis. 

After all the lies and self-defeating avarice on the part of MLB owners, we need to deprogram ourselves and stop thinking of signing a deliriously popular and deliriously excellent young franchise shortstop as something to wring hands over. Again, they're doing what they should be doing. With their fine and many-splendored ballpark, near-perfect weather, and re-imagined uniforms that evoke the strong franchise identity that was there in the beginning, the Padres have the trappings and settings of a model franchise. That they've lately been acting like a model franchise is an unqualified good thing and should serve as an example for the rest of baseball. 

 

Nice to see someone calling out the Pirates, Orioles, Royals, Tigers, Indians, Rays (understandable enough), A’s, Mariners, Cubs, Brewers, Rockies, Reds...although this could just as easily be aimed at White Sox and Twins’ ownership as well.

Edited February 25, 2021 by caulfield12

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Quote

"If the Padres, denizens of one of the smallest markets in MLB, have achieved all this, then what the hell have you been doing?"

They've been making dump trucks full of money under the guise of being "smart" and "efficient."  I'll give these ivy leaguers one thing; they can sell ice to an eskimo. 

[caulfield12]

19 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They've been making dump trucks full of money under the guise of being "smart" and "efficient."  I'll give these ivy leaguers one thing; they can sell ice to an eskimo. 

Any team in baseball could have tried to spend $60 million on Latin American prospects alone in 2016, with half the money going to taxes and penalties.   Was that smart?   Well, it certainly boosted their minor league system into the upper tier, and in a hurry that bottoming out and drafting like the Royals or mid to late 80s White Sox would require hitting on nearly every first first rounder  before the competitive window pushed picks down.

We can criticize the Hosmer and Myers deals...or even Pomeranz before last year, but it’s certainly more fun to follow a team willing to dream big dreams rather than one getting by by exploiting market inefficiencies or niches like the Rays or A’s.

Look at what’s happening in Atlanta, or with the Blue Jays.   It’s not rocket science.   Even the Marlins are getting up off the deck.

 

I mean, honestly, that sounds exactly like a complaint of White Sox fans against the Cubs the last 20-30 years...calling them yuppies, that they’re only there to skip work, party/drink, play on their cell phones, aren’t as knowledgeable as Sox or Cardinals’ fans, pee everywhere, frat nerds ogling babes in bikinis, it’s all the same currency being spent, whether it’s a grandma from Des Moines or Pete from Peoria at the park.

Edited February 25, 2021 by caulfield12

[Dominikk85]

Tigers top prospect spencer torkelson will miss the start of spring training because he cut his finger in a kitchen accident.

[Ducksnort]

Reds fans will be allowed into the park

30% capacity

Fans physically distanced and required to wear masks.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, ScooterMcGee said:

Reds fans will be allowed into the park

30% capacity

Fans physically distanced and required to wear masks.

Meanwhile, JR has signed a deal with the City of Chicago to limit in-person attendance so he has a. legitimate excuse not to invest any more money in the on-field product. 

[Ducksnort]

11 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Meanwhile, JR has signed a deal with the City of Chicago to limit in-person attendance so he has a. legitimate excuse not to invest any more money in the on-field product. 

You just couldn't help yourself, could you?

[Tnetennba]

 

[caulfield12]

5 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

 

Another Hahn special, Emilio Bonifacio...not officially retired yet but don’t see him connected to a team.  Will probably end up in an international league.

[Sleepy Harold]

 

[caulfield12]

13 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

That's a positive sign for the financial health of the KC Royals...those are the kinds of players the bottom 10-12 franchises don't blink about letting go when they get too expensive in their arbitration years.   Not to mention this deal stretches into his early 30's, which makes it even "riskier" from the club perspective.