caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) http://local.sandiego.com/sports/padres-se...n-trades-rumors Of course, there are some key differences with the Sox, Padres and other teams. We haven't shown a willingness to go through 3-5 years of losing/late 80's and 90's "these kids can play" seasons with long-range development as the strategic plan. We haven't been able to pile up high draft picks, nor have we shown a "concerted willingness" to spend much internationally (beyond Viciedo) and on the June draft. However, we clearly have the ability to post a payroll between $100-130 million, compared to other teams like the Pirates, Royals, Padres, Indians, Blue Jays, Rays, A's, etc., that don't have the organizational/front office resources to jack up their spending. Just thought it was a good "flip side" read to the tenor of most posts (including many of mine!) the last 2-3 seasons of "malaise ball." Now we're oscillating between "complete rebuild" and "rebuilding on the fly" camps. If nothing else, some of us (obviously not Milkman, J4L or Fathom) are starting to buy into the Kool Aid that we can be competitive in 2012, while others remain rightfully a bit skeptical or even cynical where it comes to KW. Edited January 1, 2012 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) It's so bizarre to me that anyone would say "oh no but now we can't win" when we didn't win last year The division sucks. We can afford to lose some pieces and still have a few spots where we will have to depend on a surprise performance. We may not win in '12, but rebuild or not, we were going to need some magic to come our way. if '12 success ever had a chance of happening in the first place Edited January 1, 2012 by Princess Dye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 It's bizarre to me that competing in 2012 is so important. The goal is sustained excellence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 31, 2011 -> 11:10 PM) It's bizarre to me that competing in 2012 is so important. The goal is sustained excellence. Its also bizarre to me that a guy like you who says all the Sox players are worth about nothing on the trade market still wants to get rid of them and lose 100 games a year so you can have better draft picks. Everyone wants to be the Tampa Bay Rays. They had 10 years straight of 90 loss seasons before they turned it around. 10 years averaging 95 losses a season. There is no one here, not J4L not the milkman and not you that has patience for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Author Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 31, 2011 -> 11:10 PM) It's bizarre to me that competing in 2012 is so important. The goal is sustained excellence. Even if our best SS prospect (Saladino) is close to being a major league regular, he won't make much of an impact until 2013 at the earliest. You have Ramirez signed for the next 4 years, ages 31-32-33-34 in his contract. Essentially, according to most here, the only two players who are "trustworthy" offensively are Konerko and Ramirez, and Paulie's due for a decline at some point, yes? Other than that, the surest thing in the current projected line-up is Viciedo, unless you count DeAza. AJ will be AJ, which is about major league average if you consider all aspects of his game. So that leaves the building to occur around Morel, Beckham, Flowers (maybe), Lillibridge, DeAza, Rios and Dunn (the last 2 due to their contracts being as immovable as the iceberg than sank the Titanic). Of that aforementioned list of 7 hitters, are there any that you (currently) believe would be connected with the term "sustained" excellence? If you start over from scratch around a young starting rotation and youthful bullpen, you're going to have to hit every single position player acquisition, FA/international signing and June 1st round draft pick right on the head...and almost all of them to hit the majors in a 1-2 year "wave" because if it's just 1-2-3 players per year, by the time they're peaking in years 4-6 of their careers, they're all becoming expensive at the same time and you're only buying yourself that 2-3 year window (realistically) when they're all making maximum contributions and affordable simultaneously. With your theory, only Sale, Molina, Addison Reed (and not even Reed, although there has to be a closer and Reed on the cheap makes 10X more sense than Thornton/Crain/Frasor, etc.) are not to be traded, and from the position players, you're basically asking to get rid of them all, including Viciedo. You haven't said much on the Konerko front, but one would have to assumed that Paul Konerko and forward-looking sustained excellence is a bit of an oxymoron. Edited January 1, 2012 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 12:10 AM) It's bizarre to me that competing in 2012 is so important. The goal is sustained excellence. Doesn't the phrase "Sustained excellence" require that you also compete in 2012? Because otherwise you're not "Sustaining" excellence, you've taken a year off from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) Doesn't the phrase "Sustained excellence" require that you also compete in 2012? Because otherwise you're not "Sustaining" excellence, you've taken a year off from it. Well we haven't had "excellence" since 2008 (and that required a one-game playoff and we didn't even win 90 games), so we couldn't possibly be taking a year off from it. The goal is sustained excellence in the future, and the only way to do that was to tear this ship down and get talented prospects via the draft, trades and foreign free agency. We are going to be in the same position in next year's off-season as this year off season where we came off another disappointing with a fickle, trigger-happy GM. I am all for three years of horses*** baseball in order to rebuild a barren farm system and get these horrible contracts off the books. We cannot have sustained excellence without a fruitful minor league system. Edited January 1, 2012 by maggsmaggs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySox Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 11:00 AM) Doesn't the phrase "Sustained excellence" require that you also compete in 2012? Because otherwise you're not "Sustaining" excellence, you've taken a year off from it. The Sox aren't close to sustaining anything remotely similar to excellence at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 My view is a very good cheap rotation is the most essential part of sustained excellence. If they can put that together in the next three years they will be in good shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 09:17 AM) Its also bizarre to me that a guy like you who says all the Sox players are worth about nothing on the trade market still wants to get rid of them and lose 100 games a year so you can have better draft picks. Everyone wants to be the Tampa Bay Rays. They had 10 years straight of 90 loss seasons before they turned it around. 10 years averaging 95 losses a season. There is no one here, not J4L not the milkman and not you that has patience for that. The Rays had 10 straight 90 loss seasons because they were an expansion team led by Chuck LaMar. Not a valid comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 06:40 PM) The Rays had 10 straight 90 loss seasons because they were an expansion team led by Chuck LaMar. Not a valid comparison. And our team is led by Kenny Williams? Really? Losing is no fun. When there are 2 baseball teams in the same city and one is named the Cubs, the White Sox and their nonlegions of fans (compared to the Flubs) cannot afford to be irrelevant in May every year the next 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Author Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) And our team is led by Kenny Williams? Really? Losing is no fun. When there are 2 baseball teams in the same city and one is named the Cubs, the White Sox and their nonlegions of fans (compared to the Flubs) cannot afford to be irrelevant in May every year the next 10 years. 3-5 years, we've managed to pull that off 3 times in the last 30-40 years...a full decade, with Epstein lurking and the potential of a new stadium with Emmanuel as mayor, no way. JR and KW/Hahn have to get this one right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 If you've ever wondered who Jim Rome is imitating when he does his over-the-top gravely voice thing, it's the writer of this article, Hacksaw Hamilton. Rome used to have a feud going with the guy when was getting started in San Diego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) And our team is led by Kenny Williams? Really? Losing is no fun. When there are 2 baseball teams in the same city and one is named the Cubs, the White Sox and their nonlegions of fans (compared to the Flubs) cannot afford to be irrelevant in May every year the next 10 years. You are comparing Chuck LaMar to Kenny Williams. At its worst, that's comparing death by a million paper cuts to breaking a finger or maybe even an arm or something. If only the White Sox still had Ozzie Guillen, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
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.