Unload...

[caulfield12]

I think it's worth noting that the combined annual costs of all the screwups you mention are less than the annual cost of Alex Rios, for example.

 

If you're going to screw up and overpay somewhat for guys that fill holes that you have on your team, but you keep that cost down to a couple million per player per season, that really isn't going to be the reason why you lose if you have a $100 million payroll.

 

And this is precisely the issue.

 

KW has ZERO margin for error now.

 

Add up MacDougal's and JD's buyouts, those 3 contracts....we're looking at an $85 million - $90 million payroll next year, agreed?

 

Even with Jenks, AJ, Konerko gone...we have other salary escalators built in.

 

If you want to look at the biggest per dollar invested failures, then you have to point at Buehrle, Peavy, Jenks, AJ and Linebrink, with Teahen and Pierre pulling in the rear end of those underperformances per contract dollar.

 

Beckham, Quentin and Ramirez are still bargains. No doubt, many many hitters could be outproducing them, though.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Really, those are the 3 players you think we most need to trade?

 

 

At this point, I'm not sure why I should care. If they can't pull off a winning streak before June 13th, I definitely won't care about AJ being gone and replaced by flowers, and if they can't get anywhere close to the race by mid July, why should I be angry about trades that hurt this year's ballclub?

 

 

Yes. Obviously Kotsay and Vizquel and Nix and Castro and Williams will go before them...

 

We have no choice but to wait out Pierre and Teahen and see what they can do. I'm fine platooning Nix/Teahen. We have to hope Pierre can get his average back to the 275-290 mark at least. Linebrink is beyond worthless. He's just occupying a roster spot and eating up precious dollars that could have gone to Damon, Matsui, Guerrero, Orlando Hudson, Thome, etc.

 

As for point 2, we might end up below 2 million in attendance and finish 22nd-26th in the majors in that category.

 

It's JR's call, though...it will be interesting to see KW try to blame the fans for not supporting his lousy work product (AGAIN).

 

 

[greg775]

We're stuck with Teahen's contract. Nobody will ever want him. He's too mediocre.

Same with Juan. Linebrink too.

Somebody would trade for Bobby and AJ and Paulie of course.

Edited May 19, 2010 by greg775

[iamshack]

That's far from an "outstanding core." It's a nice start, but I still don't see how the Sox have enough in-house position-player talent to compete over the next few years.

Well, we're going to have to disagree then. I happen to think a core of Rios/Beckham/Quentin/Peavy/Danksy/Floyd/Mark is about as good a core as you can ever expect to have unless you're the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs and can spend $150 million. If you compare those 7 players to the rest of the league, I think it compares favorably to just about any other roster in baseball.

 

As for the Tigers, I'm talking about their willingness to draft players who demand overslot money. Taking guys at 23rd who are legitimate top-10 talents goes a long way towards developing from within. How do you think a team like the Red Sox is able to win every year AND build strong farm systems?

[Balta1701]

Add up MacDougal's and JD's buyouts

MacDougal and JD have zero to do with next year's salaries, those hits have already been taken. We're probably looking at committed salary in the $80-$85 million range after arbitration hits for Quentin and D1: the throwing Danks.

 

If you want to look at the biggest per dollar invested failures, then you have to point at Buehrle, Peavy, Jenks, AJ and Linebrink, with Teahen and Pierre pulling in the rear end of those underperformances per contract dollar.

And in terms of next year, Jenks and AJ are gone. Linebrink, Pierre, and Teahen all earn basically a pittance, less than $5 million; even if they're just part time players, that doesn't hurt you. Hell, even AJ sucking really doesn't take that much of a hit, because he's still a fairly low salary. The problem happens if all of those suck...and then you combine that sucking with one of the other 2 big contracts, and then you have no young guys producing to make up the gap.

 

You've nailed the 2 real big contracts there though. Buehrle and Peavy. Those guys eat up nearly $30 million between the two.

[caulfield12]

Well, we're going to have to disagree then. I happen to think a core of Rios/Beckham/Quentin/Peavy/Danksy/Floyd/Mark is about as good a core as you can ever expect to have unless you're the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs and can spend $150 million. If you compare those 7 players to the rest of the league, I think it compares favorably to just about any other roster in baseball.

 

As for the Tigers, I'm talking about their willingness to draft players who demand overslot money. Taking guys at 23rd who are legitimate top-10 talents goes a long way towards developing from within. How do you think a team like the Red Sox is able to win every year AND build strong farm systems?

 

 

Being the optimist, throw in an offensive force at C in Flowers (let's say he becomes like a Napoli), Viciedo (Cabrera Lite) at 1B, Hudson (as a quality 3-4 level starter)and Mitchell doing a Carl Crawford imitation, then you REALLY have something good.

 

I was going to stretch the point to Morel and Trayce Thompson, but that's pushing it a bit.

Edited May 19, 2010 by caulfield12

[iamshack]

I've been following the Sox longer than you've been alive, so I don't know where you get off telling me that I should follow a different team because I have a problem with spending $100M/year to finish in third or fourth place.

Ok, well I guess you weren't paying attention to the overhaul that has occurred over the course of the last 2-3 years, with THREE big pieces being added last year. Give them a chance to compete for more that 40 games together, shall we? KW recognized the need for some roster turnover, because 07' was awful, and 09' was underwhelming. Thus the recent additions. Now can we just give them some time before we blow the entire roster up?

 

What examples of rebuilding being predictably successful that I am missing?

[caulfield12]

MacDougal and JD have zero to do with next year's salaries, those hits have already been taken. We're probably looking at committed salary in the $80-$85 million range after arbitration hits for Quentin and D1: the throwing Danks.

 

And in terms of next year, Jenks and AJ are gone. Linebrink, Pierre, and Teahen all earn basically a pittance, less than $5 million; even if they're just part time players, that doesn't hurt you. Hell, even AJ sucking really doesn't take that much of a hit, because he's still a fairly low salary. The problem happens if all of those suck...and then you combine that sucking with one of the other 2 big contracts, and then you have no young guys producing to make up the gap.

 

You've nailed the 2 real big contracts there though. Buehrle and Peavy. Those guys eat up nearly $30 million between the two.

 

Don't forget Jenks at almost Papelbon numbers without being close to the same pitcher as the Red Sox have...

 

That's almost $40 million tied up in 3 underperforming pitchers. That's your black hole right now.

 

Granted, our offense sucks raw eggs.

[Balta1701]

That's almost $40 million tied up in 3 underperforming pitchers. That's your black hole right now.

 

Granted, our offense sucks raw eggs.

The part of the offense sucking raw eggs, though, remains the very cheap part that no one in their right mind would want to replace or get rid of. That's the catch 22 we're running into here.

 

You're happy to say that Pierre, Teahen, Linebrink should be replaced, because they're underperforming their contracts...but overall, they're underperforming what we're paying them by frankly only a little bit, if you go by the Fangraphs numbers. Linebrink by about $3 million. Pierre by only a tad, if at all after his recent hot streak.

 

If we had anyone out there out-performing their contracts, it really woudln't matter if we had a few people slightly underperforming. What does matter is a couple expensive people big-time underperforming, and no one other than Jones and Garcia stepping up to out-perform them.

[WCSox]

KW f'ed up, let's just admit it, going into both 09 an 2010. Let's be honest. Let's not blame KW's decisions on Ozzie either, as if that somehow exonerates him. I still think he's a #8-12 GM, and I'd MUCH rather keep him than Ozzie going forward....but he's made some very bad decisions with the likes of MacDougal, Teahen, Pierre and Linebrink (although we don't get to playoffs in 08 without him, is that worth paying him for 09-10-11, you tell me).

 

I'm not sure I'd paint with that broad a brush. Certainly, giving Teahen an extension and rounding out the roster with Jones/Vizquel were dubious decisions. Not providing Ozzie with better leadoff options than Wise and Anderson last year were bad decisions as well. And, of course, most would argue that Linebrink's contract was a complete disaster. That said, I can't remember the last Kenny Williams Sox team that I felt didn't have a chance. Even this year's team should be pitching well enough to be over .500, and well within striking distance of MIN. On paper, going into the season, I've been pretty satisfied with Kenny's 2006-2009 squads. Ultimately, I put it on the players for not producing and Ozzie for not motivating them to produce.

 

Ultimately, I see it this way: Kenny invested a ton of money in relatively pricey veteran players from 2006 through last year. Many of them were wildly-inconsistent and, ultimately, they couldn't do better than a 90-win season in a tough division and a division title two years later. What we've been seeing since last summer is the consequence of spending a ton of money on veterans on the wrong side of 30, and not having a farm system to fill the holes that their departures create.

 

[WCSox]

Ok, well I guess you weren't paying attention to the overhaul that has occurred over the course of the last 2-3 years, with THREE big pieces being added last year. Give them a chance to compete for more that 40 games together, shall we? KW recognized the need for some roster turnover, because 07' was awful, and 09' was underwhelming. Thus the recent additions. Now can we just give them some time before we blow the entire roster up?

 

As I said before, you can't fill all of those holes with Peavy, Rios, and whatever third player you're speaking of (Beckham)? Mind you, I'm not advocating moving those players, but rather building around them.

 

What examples of rebuilding being predictably successful that I am missing?

 

Nice straw man argument. I can play too: What examples of successful, sustainable, fourth-place $100M rosters can you give who don't regularly draw 35,000+ per game?

 

Selling/letting go of veterans, enduring a couple of bad seasons, and rebuilding from scratch has worked well for numerous teams (the late '80s and late '90s Sox, for example). It doesn't guarantee anything, but its track record is much better than Kenny perpetually trying to "retool on the fly" without the Yankees-like coffers to make it work.

Edited May 19, 2010 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

Nice straw man argument. I can play too: What examples of successful, sustainable, fourth-place $100M rosters can you give who don't regularly draw 35,000+ per game?

One thing worth pointing out...the "$100 million" level really doesn't mean as much as it did a couple years ago, especially with the fact that the Sox always have someone else kicking in to pay part of the bill for a player or two.

 

Right now, 14 teams are at $92 million or better.

[WCSox]

One thing worth pointing out...the "$100 million" level really doesn't mean as much as it did a couple years ago, especially with the fact that the Sox always have someone else kicking in to pay part of the bill for a player or two.

 

According to Kalapse's chart, their current roster including these cash considerations is just under $100M.

 

My point was that JR is already on record stating that the Sox will be pulling back financially if attendance drops (which is tied directly to winning).

 

[greg775]

Being the optimist, throw in an offensive force at C in Flowers (let's say he becomes like a Napoli), Viciedo (Cabrera Lite) at 1B, Hudson (as a quality 3-4 level starter)and Mitchell doing a Carl Crawford imitation, then you REALLY have something good.

 

It's wild how much different baseball is from the NBA. The NBA soon wll be drafting college freshmen (they'd be taking a s***load of high schoolers if they could) with NO minor league system in place for these 18 to 20 year olds. All these high draft picks will be expected to produce immediately in the NBA or be deemed busts. In baseball you have to play minor league ball for many years if you are a high schooler or college aged guy. Very interesting to me how baseball players have to be groomed and never rushed compared to NBA types salivating over drafting guys totally not ready for prime time. Yet there's no minor league for them except the D-League which is a joke, pretty much for non prospects and a place where top draft picks might play a few games a year.

 

I mean, why can't Hudson, Danks, Viciedo play in the bigs now? It's the same ball and bat.

[Jordan4life_2007]

It's wild how much different baseball is from the NBA. The NBA soon wll be drafting college freshmen (they'd be taking a s***load of high schoolers if they could) with NO minor league system in place for these 18 to 20 year olds. All these high draft picks will be expected to produce immediately in the NBA or be deemed busts. In baseball you have to play minor league ball for many years if you are a high schooler or college aged guy. Very interesting to me how baseball players have to be groomed and never rushed compared to NBA types salivating over drafting guys totally not ready for prime time. Yet there's no minor league for them except the D-League which is a joke, pretty much for non prospects and a place where top draft picks might play a few games a year.

 

I mean, why can't Hudson, Danks, Viciedo play in the bigs now? It's the same ball and bat.

 

You can get by in basketball with premium athleticism. Can you max out your talent on athleticism alone? Nope. But you can get by. Baseball is a totally different animal. Look at Jordan Danks' K-rate in the minors. Now how would he fare against a 98 MPH FB from Verlander followed by that devastating curve? Or maybe a Greinke slider? He'd have no chance.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Jordan4life

[iamshack]

As I said before, you can't fill all of those holes with Peavy, Rios, and whatever third player you're speaking of (Beckham)? Mind you, I'm not advocating moving those players, but rather building around them.

 

 

 

Nice straw man argument. I can play too: What examples of successful, sustainable, fourth-place $100M rosters can you give who don't regularly draw 35,000+ per game?

 

Selling/letting go of veterans, enduring a couple of bad seasons, and rebuilding from scratch has worked well for numerous teams (the late '80s and late '90s Sox, for example). It doesn't guarantee anything, but its track record is much better than Kenny perpetually trying to "retool on the fly" without the Yankees-like coffers to make it work.

Let me let you in on a little secret which I keep repeating but you continue to miss:

 

EVERY TEAM HAS HOLES with the possible exception of the Yankees/Red Sox! Stop establishing some nonsensical baseline that the White Sox should measure up to that only the two wealthiest teams in the league can. The teams that win are the ones that guess the best in the offseason and at the trade deadline and end up having those holes filled. But nearly every one of them is gambling in some respect that someone will step up. It happens every year, and you can point to these players who come out of nowhere with a career year, or a huge second half, or a huge postseason, etc. WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN ALL-STAR CALIBER PLAYER TO FILL EVERY POSITION/ROLE ON THIS ROSTER. Accept that.

 

It's not a straw man argument. You and others are advocating a theory or model which is impliedly better than the one we are utilizing currently. I am simply looking for some past history of success that this model has. Show it to me. With the ferocity with which many are arguing for a rebuild, one would think the examples are everywhere, just waiting to be plucked out of the annals of history for all to see.

 

As for your question about our current model, look at 2005. Kenny did something very similar to what he did this year as well as in 2008. He retooled the roster using smart acquisitions in sectors of the market which were undervalued. Jake Peavy, Alex Rios, Tadahito Iguchi, Alexei Ramirez, Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Jose Contreras, etc., these are all examples of this. It doesn't work every year obviously, but it has worked.

 

 

[Balta1701]

It's not a straw man argument. You and others are advocating a theory or model which is impliedly better than the one we are utilizing currently. I am simply looking for some past history of success that this model has. Show it to me. With the ferocity with which many are arguing for a rebuild, one would think the examples are everywhere, just waiting to be plucked out of the annals of history for all to see.

Some examples from this year of a rapid, successful retooling based on a couple intelligent moves appear to be the Tigers, who rebuilt their bullpen and rotation and freed up salary that they used to sign Damon by trading away Granderson and Jackson, the Padres who are now competitive in the West after dumping Peavy's salary, and perhaps the Blue Jays who dumped Halladay and Rios and look better this season than last at this point.

 

You can argue "Yeah, those are extenuating circumstances" in every case...each team has gotten production from guys not acquired in those deals in helping them step up, but it's a workable formula.

 

Another one I should have thought of before editing this post was the Rockies, who dumped Holliday and rode that deal to the Wild Card last year.

[caulfield12]

Let me let you in on a little secret which I keep repeating but you continue to miss:

 

EVERY TEAM HAS HOLES with the possible exception of the Yankees/Red Sox! Stop establishing some nonsensical baseline that the White Sox should measure up to that only the two wealthiest teams in the league can. The teams that win are the ones that guess the best in the offseason and at the trade deadline and end up having those holes filled. But nearly every one of them is gambling in some respect that someone will step up. It happens every year, and you can point to these players who come out of nowhere with a career year, or a huge second half, or a huge postseason, etc. WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN ALL-STAR CALIBER PLAYER TO FILL EVERY POSITION/ROLE ON THIS ROSTER. Accept that.

 

It's not a straw man argument. You and others are advocating a theory or model which is impliedly better than the one we are utilizing currently. I am simply looking for some past history of success that this model has. Show it to me. With the ferocity with which many are arguing for a rebuild, one would think the examples are everywhere, just waiting to be plucked out of the annals of history for all to see.

 

As for your question about our current model, look at 2005. Kenny did something very similar to what he did this year as well as in 2008. He retooled the roster using smart acquisitions in sectors of the market which were undervalued. Jake Peavy, Alex Rios, Tadahito Iguchi, Alexei Ramirez, Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Jose Contreras, etc., these are all examples of this. It doesn't work every year obviously, but it has worked.

 

 

Well, then I'll play along.

 

You build your team around dominant starting pitching and upper tier farm systems and let the chips fall where they may.

See Atlanta Braves, Oakland A's, Marlins, Twins, Padres about 5 years ago

 

You build with money and retool on the fly.

Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Mets, Dodgers (until McCourt divorce fiasco)

 

You take even an riskier route and build around dominant offense:

Cleveland Indians from 1994-2002

 

You follow an organizational philosophy of attacking and strong fundamentals, let opponents beat themselves:

Twins again, Angels

 

Not sure how to classify the Cardinals, they're the one franchise I think does the best job overall (considering budget limitations), but then they don't have to share a city. Minnesota's right up there with them at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

Some examples from this year of a rapid, successful retooling based on a couple intelligent moves appear to be the Tigers, who rebuilt their bullpen and rotation and freed up salary that they used to sign Damon by trading away Granderson and Jackson, the Padres who are now competitive in the West after dumping Peavy's salary, and perhaps the Blue Jays who dumped Halladay and Rios and look better this season than last at this point.

 

You can argue "Yeah, those are extenuating circumstances" in every case...each team has gotten production from guys not acquired in those deals in helping them step up, but it's a workable formula.

 

Another one I should have thought of before editing this post was the Rockies, who dumped Holliday and rode that deal to the Wild Card last year.

 

The Tigers also brought into "new blood" in Perry, Porcello, Boesch (that guy's like Beckham in 2009, maybe better, but a defensive nightmare), Sizemore (2B), Raburn, Clete Thomas, Josh Anderson (I know he's gone now), Austin Jackson, Scherzer, etc.

 

It helped that they let Lyon/Rodney go and were able to find the money for Valverde, as well.

 

Hey, at least we helped make the Padres competitive by developing Clayton and Garland, lol.

 

 

 

 

[WCSox]

Let me let you in on a little secret which I keep repeating but you continue to miss:

 

I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios this morning, but the condescending tone that you're displaying today isn't making your arguments any stronger.

 

EVERY TEAM HAS HOLES with the possible exception of the Yankees/Red Sox! Stop establishing some nonsensical baseline that the White Sox should measure up to that only the two wealthiest teams in the league can. The teams that win are the ones that guess the best in the offseason and at the trade deadline and end up having those holes filled. But nearly every one of them is gambling in some respect that someone will step up. It happens every year, and you can point to these players who come out of nowhere with a career year, or a huge second half, or a huge postseason, etc.

 

Think of how bad this lineup is going to be next year with Viciedo, Flowers, and God-knows-who replacing PK, AJ, and Jones. I'm sure that there would be enough cash on hand to make one significant free agent move and maybe a couple more minor ones. But with JR already poised to slash payroll, expecting more than that is a stretch at best. Using your model, the Sox will be relying HEAVILY on Quentin, Alexei, and Beckham to carry the offense next year. That hasn't worked very well this year, has it? Hell, the former two weren't able to step up and do anything last year, either.

 

It's not a straw man argument.

 

No, but this is...

 

WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN ALL-STAR CALIBER PLAYER TO FILL EVERY POSITION/ROLE ON THIS ROSTER. Accept that.

 

Thanks for that hard-hitting analysis. I guess I'll go out and purchase a Yankees hat now.

 

You and others are advocating a theory or model which is impliedly better than the one we are utilizing currently. I am simply looking for some past history of success that this model has. Show it to me. With the ferocity with which many are arguing for a rebuild, one would think the examples are everywhere, just waiting to be plucked out of the annals of history for all to see.

 

Since you missed it, I'll say it again: How about the rebuilding that this same organization did in the mid/late 1980s? Veterans (some still productive, some not) like Baines, Kittle, Seaver, and Calderon were dealt/let go and the draft picks that resulted from a few bad years netted several studs (Frank, Robin, Blackjack, Fernandez) that set the stage for a really nice run in the early/mid '90s.

 

As for your question about our current model, look at 2005. Kenny did something very similar to what he did this year as well as in 2008. He retooled the roster using smart acquisitions in sectors of the market which were undervalued. Jake Peavy, Alex Rios, Tadahito Iguchi, Alexei Ramirez, Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Jose Contreras, etc., these are all examples of this. It doesn't work every year obviously, but it has worked.

 

In 2008, the Sox still had a productive Jim Thome and Jermaine Dye to anchor the middle of the lineup. Quentin had a career year and Alexei played well enough to come in second in the ROTY voting. They also had a lot more payroll flexibility than they'll have next year. In 2005, the Sox had a horrible team OBP, which wasn't helped out much by the free agent acquisitions of JD and Iguchi (I believe that Pods and PK were the only players with OBPs above .350). The '05 Sox got ridiculously lucky with career years (or near-career years) in the starting rotation (particularly Garland and Contreras), were helped by Crede going on a tear down the stretch, three of their mediocre bullpen arms had career years, and a rookie closer was able to step up when Hermanson's back went out. I can't take anything away from the '05 Sox but, on paper, they weren't all that. Talent-wise, the '08 team was a lot better.

 

Who is going to anchor the middle of the lineup next year? Quentin? Alexei? Beckham? Are you comfortable with that? How about Pierre or Teahen? Or are you confident that Kenny will go out and sign two Johnny Damon-caliber players and Adrian Gonzalez? Over the next couple of years, I like Rios and Beckham. I'm not confident in anybody else.

 

The retooling of the past worked because the Sox had a lineup of proven veteran talent to build around. It doesn't work when you build around inconsistent, injury-prone, and inexperienced young players. The Sox can't fill four or five positions with average or above-average talent via free agency with a $40M staring rotation and a payroll cut on the horizon. Since the Sox have little in-house talent ready to step up, I don't see how continued FA spending is going to work - especially after it's failed miserably over three of the past four seasons. The Sox need more young, cheap, ML-ready position players. There's no way around that.

 

Edited May 20, 2010 by WCSox

[greg775]

You can get by in basketball with premium athleticism. Can you max out your talent on athleticism alone? Nope. But you can get by. Baseball is a totally different animal. Look at Jordan Danks' K-rate in the minors. Now how would he fare against a 98 MPH FB from Verlander followed by that devastating curve? Or maybe a Greinke slider? He'd have no chance.

 

Yeah I guess that makes sense.

It's crazy how tough it is to hit a baseball where the fielders ain't.

Beckham just is a wreck and one at bat tonight he raked one to right field. Right in outfielders mitt.

Not talking about Danks right now, but what if a prospect that was 20 was just raking the ball to all fields and not striking out much and excelling all over?

He still wouldn't have a chance to get called up, whereas in basketball that guy would be on an NBA roster making zillions.

I understand what yu are saying though.

[SoxAce]

Some great discussion going on here. WC, Caulfield, Balta, etc.. carry on.

[ThunderBolt]

THe White Sox are on pace to score 676 runs this year. That's 48 less then last year, and 44 less then my projected output. We all agreed that the offense was going to be a problem, that this organization was counting on lightning in a bottle mixed with solid pitching to take it to the promise land. Next time, the focus needs to be on the "sure" thing. This organization is in a very dire place.

[hogan873]

Obviously nothing is going to happen in the near future. If there is going to be a fire sale, it'll happen when the trading normally begins. It is just so damn frustrating right now watching this team. I don't see a major turnaround coming, so myabe it's wait and see mode. We can at least theorize as to who gets traded where and for what.

[iamshack]

I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios this morning, but the condescending tone that you're displaying today isn't making your arguments any stronger.

 

 

 

Think of how bad this lineup is going to be next year with Viciedo, Flowers, and God-knows-who replacing PK, AJ, and Jones. I'm sure that there would be enough cash on hand to make one significant free agent move and maybe a couple more minor ones. But with JR already poised to slash payroll, expecting more than that is a stretch at best. Using your model, the Sox will be relying HEAVILY on Quentin, Alexei, and Beckham to carry the offense next year. That hasn't worked very well this year, has it? Hell, the former two weren't able to step up and do anything last year, either.

 

 

 

No, but this is...

 

 

 

Thanks for that hard-hitting analysis. I guess I'll go out and purchase a Yankees hat now.

 

 

 

Since you missed it, I'll say it again: How about the rebuilding that this same organization did in the mid/late 1980s? Veterans (some still productive, some not) like Baines, Kittle, Seaver, and Calderon were dealt/let go and the draft picks that resulted from a few bad years netted several studs (Frank, Robin, Blackjack, Fernandez) that set the stage for a really nice run in the early/mid '90s.

 

 

 

In 2008, the Sox still had a productive Jim Thome and Jermaine Dye to anchor the middle of the lineup. Quentin had a career year and Alexei played well enough to come in second in the ROTY voting. They also had a lot more payroll flexibility than they'll have next year. In 2005, the Sox had a horrible team OBP, which wasn't helped out much by the free agent acquisitions of JD and Iguchi (I believe that Pods and PK were the only players with OBPs above .350). The '05 Sox got ridiculously lucky with career years (or near-career years) in the starting rotation (particularly Garland and Contreras), were helped by Crede going on a tear down the stretch, three of their mediocre bullpen arms had career years, and a rookie closer was able to step up when Hermanson's back went out. I can't take anything away from the '05 Sox but, on paper, they weren't all that. Talent-wise, the '08 team was a lot better.

 

Who is going to anchor the middle of the lineup next year? Quentin? Alexei? Beckham? Are you comfortable with that? How about Pierre or Teahen? Or are you confident that Kenny will go out and sign two Johnny Damon-caliber players and Adrian Gonzalez? Over the next couple of years, I like Rios and Beckham. I'm not confident in anybody else.

 

The retooling of the past worked because the Sox had a lineup of proven veteran talent to build around. It doesn't work when you build around inconsistent, injury-prone, and inexperienced young players. The Sox can't fill four or five positions with average or above-average talent via free agency with a $40M staring rotation and a payroll cut on the horizon. Since the Sox have little in-house talent ready to step up, I don't see how continued FA spending is going to work - especially after it's failed miserably over three of the past four seasons. The Sox need more young, cheap, ML-ready position players. There's no way around that.

Oh come on man, I'm being condescending?

 

As for the early 90's teams, are you claiming that we traded veterans like Baines and Seaver, etc., for draft picks? Or are you arguing that we need to be worse now so we can get better draft picks like we had back then? I think it's the latter, so in fact your model is to suck for 6 years straight and rebuild via the high draft picks? I don't really consider that to be an option.

 

The Sox struck gold with Thomas, who turned out to be one of the best right-handed hitters of all time. I'm not going to count on another Big Hurt coming along in the draft in the next few years (or at least not enough to justify sucking for several years for the incredibly minimal chance of one coming along AND being the team that happens to draft him). Ventura was a great player, but nothing that can't be found at #25 in the draft if we pay overslot money for players that fall. Fernandez and Alvarez were great pitchers for the White Sox, but if you remember our farm system later on in the 90's and early 2000's, for every Fernandez and Alvarez we had in the early 90's, there were countless other busts that never panned out into anything later on. I remember toward the end of Schuler's tenure and at the beginning of Williams', we had a top 3 farm system in baseball. That vaunted farm system yielded almost nothing, outside of maybe Mike Sirotka. It's just no sure thing to rely on prospects IMO, any more so than it is to acquire undervalued players in the market as we currently have been doing.

 

I still like our core, despite the setbacks suffered thus far this season, and I think blowing the whole thing up would be taking some unnecessary steps back at this point. We may indeed have to sell off parts this season, such as PK, Jones, AJ, Jenks, Putz, etc., but that doesn't mean a rebuild is the next logical step. Rather, you re-evaluate, plug in some current prospects such as Flowers, Danks, Viciedo, as well as the prospects acquired via the trades of veterans, and then look to add through free agency again next offseason. But from what I understand, many of you guys are advocating moving Mark, Jake, Rios, Quentin, Alexei, Danks, and Gavin and reloading the entire organization with prospects and using our sustained period of failure to build through the drafts with higher picks. I simply can't advocate that at this point in time.

 

What every team seeks to do is establish a strong core from which to build around for a sustained period of time. I like our core. I guess that is where we disagree.