caulfield12 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 would you ever consider trades with the White Sox to intentionally shore up their weaknesses in order to make them more competitive vs. their AL Central rivals (that are beating the Sox up so badly and getting a disproportionate number of WC berths)? For example, a spare minor league CFer after Robert is traded or a competent SS? Thinking of teams like Seattle Boston TB Toronto Baltimore Texas and Houston specifically... Loaning Enrique Bradfield for 1 year to play CF, for example? If Manfred is going to allow the LAD Evil Empire (apologies to Japan) to continue expanding...why shouldn't coastal teams fighting for playoff berths in other divisions be able to think ”strategic alliance”... about how to legally assist the lowly White Sox? Concept of marginal utility/opportunity cost here...where benefits of a better White Sox team outweigh incremental improvements to one's own team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Seems like you’ve invented collusion. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 18 minutes ago, JoeC said: Seems like you’ve invented collusion. An/y individual team could do a slightly lopsided trade to help the White Sox and nobody could stop it...because 80% of the trades the White Sox have made the last two years were lopsided, right? I mean...isn't it a form of collusion against the other two divisions to deliberately not field a competitive team as a supposed large market team, when even the Oakland A's are going to spend $40-50 million more on payroll. Nobody in baseball is going to complain in 2025 if 3 of 4 of the AL Central teams (MIN DET KC CLE) make the playoffs YET again...? I'm sure there will be a lot of protesting, especially to teams that are spending $150+ million on their payrolls...as well as the Orioles, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 This is a weirdly interesting concept for once. I actually had to think about it. The answer is no because even on July 31 if a guy could help the White Sox with a win or two down the stretch he could help your team with a win or two down the stretch as well, but getting to that actually wasn’t simple. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: This is a weirdly interesting concept for once. I actually had to think about it. The answer is no because even on July 31 if a guy could help the White Sox with a win or two down the stretch he could help your team with a win or two down the stretch as well, but getting to that actually wasn’t simple. If you stuck Enrique Bradfield in CF (after Robert trade) for the White Sox versus let's say Fletcher, versus on the bench behind Cedric Mullins at Camden Yards...he's going to have much more of an impact defensively/runs saved for the White Sox wins in close games than for simply backing up CF/PR/defense in BALT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydBannister1983 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 9 hours ago, caulfield12 said: An/y individual team could do a slightly lopsided trade to help the White Sox and nobody could stop it...because 80% of the trades the White Sox have made the last two years were lopsided, right? I mean...isn't it a form of collusion against the other two divisions to deliberately not field a competitive team as a supposed large market team, when even the Oakland A's are going to spend $40-50 million more on payroll. Nobody in baseball is going to complain in 2025 if 3 of 4 of the AL Central teams (MIN DET KC CLE) make the playoffs YET again...? I'm sure there will be a lot of protesting, especially to teams that are spending $150+ million on their payrolls...as well as the Orioles, etc. I’m not sure you know what collusion means if you’re suggesting the Sox, on their own, are colluding be uncompetitive. There is now a more balanced schedule than pre-2024. Three AL Central teams were among the final four in the AL. The East and West should have beat them when they faced them in the playoffs. They should get better, not collude to help the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, FloydBannister1983 said: I’m not sure you know what collusion means if you’re suggesting the Sox, on their own, are colluding be uncompetitive. There is now a more balanced schedule than pre-2024. Three AL Central teams were among the final four in the AL. The East and West should have beat them when they faced them in the playoffs. They should get better, not collude to help the White Sox. Collusion in the sense there’s always been a bottom 5-7 teams that don’t even pretend to compete, and the Commissioner’s Office won’t do a thing…which is not quite like working together to suppress FA salaries of players over 32 or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, caulfield12 said: Collusion in the sense there’s always been a bottom 5-7 teams that don’t even pretend to compete, and the Commissioner’s Office won’t do a thing…which is not quite like working together to suppress FA salaries of players over 32 or whatever. Unless they are all working together to not be competitive, that isn't collusion, that is coincidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 15 hours ago, caulfield12 said: If Manfred is going to allow the LAD Evil Empire (apologies to Japan) to continue expanding... Outside of the USA most sport leagues have two or three super teams that "everyone" watches and then they also support their local club. With baseball's organic randomness and playoff format, I think you'd still get some parody as far as who the wins the World Series (the regular season would be a different story) and unfortunately I think that situation could be the most profitable for the league. 3 or 4 super teams win 70% of the time, the next 10 clubs from relatively large markets win 20% of the time and the final 15 or so clubs shock the world once a decade. Manfred has some tough decisions to make, but owners (and players) made their bed during the last labor dispute. Both parties only cared about their total piece of the pie. Neither seemed to care about how the $ was distributed. Boras did almost nothing for pre-arb players and owners should have been willing to see the forest through the trees and traded a salary floor for a cap. Edited January 15 by GREEDY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 10 hours ago, GREEDY said: Outside of the USA most sport leagues have two or three super teams that "everyone" watches and then they also support their local club. With baseball's organic randomness and playoff format, I think you'd still get some parody as far as who the wins the World Series (the regular season would be a different story) and unfortunately I think that situation could be the most profitable for the league. 3 or 4 super teams win 70% of the time, the next 10 clubs from relatively large markets win 20% of the time and the final 15 or so clubs shock the world once a decade. Manfred has some tough decisions to make, but owners (and players) made their bed during the last labor dispute. Both parties only cared about their total piece of the pie. Neither seemed to care about how the $ was distributed. Boras did almost nothing for pre-arb players and owners should have been willing to see the forest through the trees and traded a salary floor for a cap. The players actually did quite a bit for pre arb players. Over the CBA they got a 20% raise, and they also got bonuses applied for guys who win ROY along with a bit of effort to limit service time manipulation. Considering that this was one of the Owners big issues, that was money directly coming out of their pocket forever, that was a decent win. Second, it's Parity. Not Parody. Third, yes, they have yet to solve the bigger issue of the noncompetitive, non spending teams. I do not know what the answer to this is. The Owners don't want a floor, the players don't want a cap, and as of right now they've agreed to have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I think it would be slightly more possible in the NBA where a single player could make a bigger impact. But also less likely for the same reason. It's actually a weirdly interesting concept. I'm also thinking if I'm an East Coast or West Coast team every game against the Central becomes much more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Collusion would be an arrangement between the Sox and sending team to give back the player at the deadline. Now that would be interesting. We'll send you John Doe for a player to be named later who wow! Is John Doe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Texsox said: Collusion would be an arrangement between the Sox and sending team to give back the player at the deadline. Now that would be interesting. We'll send you John Doe for a player to be named later who wow! Is John Doe. In a way that has actually happened: August 2, 1968 - The Sox and Senators completed a trade as infielders Tim Cullen and Ron Hansen were exchanged for each other. Why the notoriety? Because the same two players were traded for each other by the same two clubs on February 13th! The players even wore the same uniform number with the White Sox and had the same identical locker location! Hansen had been with the club since 1963 and played a solid shortstop. And you have this oddity: October 16, 1952 - The Sox sent infielder Willie Miranda to the St. Louis Browns in a trade. So what? Well, consider this; it marked the third time in four months that he was dealt between the two clubs! Miranda was traded to the Browns on June 15… 13 days later the Sox re-acquired him and finally on this date they sent him back. The entire situation developed like this. He was traded along with Al Zarilla to the Browns for Tom Wright and Leo Thomas on June 15. The Browns then waived him on June 28, the Sox claimed him and he returned. Then on October 16 he was sent back to St. Louis along with Hank Edwards for Joe DeMaestri and Tommy Byrne. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: played a solid shortstop. That was before my time, but I thought he was basically gold glove level SS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 12 hours ago, 46DidIt said: That was before my time, but I thought he was basically gold glove level SS Hansen has the 4th highest fielding percentage for a shortstop in team history. I interviewed him several years ago. He also had a season where he hit 20 home runs for the Sox in an era when shortstops did not do that. He was a good player on some excellent Sox teams of the early/mid 1960's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTB Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Tito Fucking Landrum, that is his given name is it not, was the PTBNL from the Orioles to the Cardinals after being traded the other direction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, JTB said: Tito Fucking Landrum, that is his given name is it not, was the PTBNL from the Orioles to the Cardinals after being traded the other direction. You're conjuring up nightmares of him and Jerry Dybs. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Hansen has the 4th highest fielding percentage for a shortstop in team history. I interviewed him several years ago. He also had a season where he hit 20 home runs for the Sox in an era when shortstops did not do that. He was a good player on some excellent Sox teams of the early/mid 1960's. Baseball reference has him with a career high defensive war of 4.0 which is basically Ozzie Smith level. Ozzie had one season of 4.0+(4.8) 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.