southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (bhawk99 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:15 PM) Oh I see its the fans fault theat management traded away good, inexpensive, young talent for Nick Swisher and Edwin Jackson Um, uh, what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) Sure it is. The Sox problem is a fickel fan base, not talent evaluation. For a guy who gets pissy about how his words get taken, you again have taken something and turned it into something that was never said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) The entire situation is a giant Catch-22. The only thing the front office can do from this point forward, and from every point forward after that, is to put the best product on the field they can while also taking into consideration the future of the organization. That's what they do. They shouldn't be in the middle. They should have either added $25-$30M to the 2013 payroll or cut payroll setting up for 2014 and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) So ss2k said it was the fan's fault that those trades were made? Exactly. The context of the conversation was a full rebuild versus a rebuild on the fly. Talent evaluation wasn't even in the discussion until Marty added it completely out of context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) For a guy who gets pissy about how his words get taken, you again have taken something and turned it into something that was never said. You seem to get just as pissy. Please tell me what you meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) You seem to get just as pissy. Please tell me what you meant. I wouldn't have even bothered if the pattern hadn't been to blame someone else every time you are involved in a conversation that ends up like this. Now I am making sure you understand how these conversations actually end up this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) It has everything to do with the type of team gets fielded. Because the bandwagon empties for even a .500 team, it is impossible to have a full sell off. Understanding your customer is a part of being a smart company in any field. A team like the Cubs can do a full sell off because they know their fans will still show up. So it is more important to sell tickets than giving your team the best chance to win a World Series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) They shouldn't be in the middle. They should have either added $25-$30M to the 2013 payroll or cut payroll setting up for 2014 and beyond. The only legitimate addition they could have made to this team was Josh Hamilton, and that is a gorilla sized risk you are taking on by adding him. Beyond that, any other addition is a marginal improvement, if that. They made a better offer to Eric Chavez but he took money out west instead. They improved 3B. The only other way they can add payroll is to trade or make irrational and impatient free agent signings, and given the state of the organization, neither of those are optimal at this point. I think Hahn is still testing the waters, but he will go into Spring Training with this team if that is what is necessary. I'd eat crow then, but I think that's a situation we're faced with. Cutting payroll in 2013 to set up for 2014 beyond is incredibly short-sighted. If you WERE to cut payroll in 2013, it would be for 2016 and beyond because you have to assume atleast 3 years of rebuilding if you slash and tear. They are putting the best product that they can on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) I wouldn't have even bothered if the pattern hadn't been to blame someone else every time you are involved in a conversation that ends up like this. Now I am making sure you understand how these conversations actually end up this way. You seem to be involved in quite a few of these conversations too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZionrulZ Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 If I understand what you guys are saying, the Sox' choices are to 1) add pieces to their current nucleus (not "impact players"), try to stay competitive, and be "fiscally responsible" while trying to build through the draft; or 2) "blow the team up" and rebuild. (Death is NOT an option!) I don't know what to say...IMO, both options SUCK! Maybe current ownership will cash in their chips, and sell the team to a "Mark Cuban" or a "Mikhial Prokhorov" type who's ego (and wallet) wouldn't settle for mediocrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) So it is more important to sell tickets than giving your team the best chance to win a World Series? You have to sell tickets at some point to fund the team. The Sox aren't anywhere near the top of the league in off of the field monies such as tv revenue, so where else is it supposed to come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) You seem to be involved in quite a few of these conversations too. Yeah, funny how that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) So it is more important to sell tickets than giving your team the best chance to win a World Series? And I also posed the question a while back... What was the last team to undergo a full rebuild and see some relative level of success in a short period of time (say under five years)? What was the last team to do a full rebuild and win a World Series over the same sort of time period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) The only legitimate addition they could have made to this team was Josh Hamilton, and that is a gorilla sized risk you are taking on by adding him. Beyond that, any other addition is a marginal improvement, if that. They made a better offer to Eric Chavez but he took money out west instead. They improved 3B. The only other way they can add payroll is to trade or make irrational and impatient free agent signings, and given the state of the organization, neither of those are optimal at this point. I think Hahn is still testing the waters, but he will go into Spring Training with this team if that is what is necessary. I'd eat crow then, but I think that's a situation we're faced with. Cutting payroll in 2013 to set up for 2014 beyond is incredibly short-sighted. If you WERE to cut payroll in 2013, it would be for 2016 and beyond because you have to assume atleast 3 years of rebuilding if you slash and tear. They are putting the best product that they can on the field. I don't think it's likely this team contends in 2013. Maybe the idea is to deal guys like Peavy, Konerko, and Rios at the trade deadline. Hahn and the Sox are in a tough spot over the next couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) If I understand what you guys are saying, the Sox' choices are to 1) add pieces to their current nucleus (not "impact players"), try to stay competitive, and be "fiscally responsible" while trying to build through the draft; or 2) "blow the team up" and rebuild. (Death is NOT an option!) I don't know what to say...IMO, both options SUCK! Maybe current ownership will cash in their chips, and sell the team to a "Mark Cuban" or a "Mikhial Prokhorov" type who's ego (and wallet) wouldn't settle for mediocrity. No, those are the Marty's optimal choices. The Sox best option is to sit back and let it ride. They'll be competitive this year, with a break here or there will improve as a team, and they may be able to go out and trade for someone big at or before the deadline. I think they're about an 83-85 win team, but we'll see. It's better than spending frivolously or selling everything off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) I don't think it's likely this team contends in 2013. Maybe the idea is to deal guys like Peavy, Konerko, and Rios at the trade deadline. Hahn and the Sox are in a tough spot over the next couple of years. Not sure about dealing guys at the deadline, because I think they'll be in the race at the deadline, but I don't disagree overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZionrulZ Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 No, those are the Marty's optimal choices. The Sox best option is to sit back and let it ride. They'll be competitive this year, with a break here or there will improve as a team, and they may be able to go out and trade for someone big at or before the deadline. I think they're about an 83-85 win team, but we'll see. It's better than spending frivolously or selling everything off. 83-85 wins does not get them into the playoffs. It puts them in ".500 purgatory". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) 83-85 wins does not get them into the playoffs. It puts them in ".500 purgatory". There was a baseball simulation that was run with 30 completely average teams equal in every way, and it was run like 1000 times. In most of those simulations, one or two teams won 92 games and one or two lost 92 games. This is done because of injuries and players having outlier years. I think you understand my point here. My secondary point is that this isn't a simulation. I feel that the Tigers are more talented, but to get to the Tigers talent level this offseason, they would had to have committed $55-60 million per year over the next 5 years, as opposed to the $20 million they are instead committing with Keppinger and Peavy. On top of that, they would have had to gut any depth that they've built up in the minor league system. Neither are very smart, and the Sox have done enough to set themselves up to perform well this year while looking towards the future. With Viciedo improving to an .800+ OPS, Beckham getting to .750, Alexei getting above .700, Flowers putting up .750+, Dunn and Konerko staying healthy, Rios remaining the same, yada yada yada...best case scenario, this is a playoff team with about 95 wins. Worst case I see is , at the very most, 90 losses, but probably a lot closer to 83-85 loss team in a bad case scenario. Bottomline, they have the best and most economical team on the field right now that is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) 83-85 wins does not get them into the playoffs. It puts them in ".500 purgatory". That is so White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) There was a baseball simulation that was run with 30 completely average teams equal in every way, and it was run like 1000 times. In most of those simulations, one or two teams won 92 games and one or two lost 92 games. This is done because of injuries and players having outlier years. I think you understand my point here. My secondary point is that this isn't a simulation. I feel that the Tigers are more talented, but to get to the Tigers talent level this offseason, they would had to have committed $55-60 million per year over the next 5 years, as opposed to the $20 million they are instead committing with Keppinger and Peavy. On top of that, they would have had to gut any depth that they've built up in the minor league system. Neither are very smart, and the Sox have done enough to set themselves up to perform well this year while looking towards the future. With Viciedo improving to an .800+ OPS, Beckham getting to .750, Alexei getting above .700, Flowers putting up .750+, Dunn and Konerko staying healthy, Rios remaining the same, yada yada yada...best case scenario, this is a playoff team with about 95 wins. Worst case I see is , at the very most, 90 losses, but probably a lot closer to 83-85 loss team in a bad case scenario. Bottomline, they have the best and most economical team on the field right now that is possible. Which does nothing to boost attendance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 05:44 PM) Which does nothing to boost attendance. Neither does 3 years of losing 90+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 04:11 PM) Neither does 3 years of losing 90+ So what route do you want? .500 does nothing for attendance, 90+ losses kills attendance... So winning = attendance, but how do they put a competitive team out there (that wasn't like last years first place for 100+ days team that wasn't sexy enough to boost attendance I guess) without increasing payroll, which only happens if attendance goes up? (I just had a stroke haha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 06:21 PM) So what route do you want? .500 does nothing for attendance, 90+ losses kills attendance... So winning = attendance, but how do they put a competitive team out there (that wasn't like last years first place for 100+ days team that wasn't sexy enough to boost attendance I guess) without increasing payroll, which only happens if attendance goes up? (I just had a stroke haha) We are doing it now. Revitalize the system, move the veterans out, try to pick up prospects when you get a good deal. For a bit of history, 1997 the Sox drew 1.865 million fans. White Flag happened at the deadline of July 31. The Sox drew 1.39 and 1.35 million over the next two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) We are doing it now. Revitalize the system, move the veterans out, try to pick up prospects when you get a good deal. For a bit of history, 1997 the Sox drew 1.865 million fans. White Flag happened at the deadline of July 31. The Sox drew 1.39 and 1.35 million over the next two years. That's .500-ville though, I thought you didn't want that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 06:30 PM) That's .500-ville though, I thought you didn't want that. I don't WANT to be .500. I WANT everyone to hit up to their full potential and win the division. 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.