Sox Sign Matt Lindstrom

[ZionrulZ]

The way I interpret it, you'd be telling your son the exact same thing.

 

"Best team possible" and "Best team they can afford" means the exact same thing to me, so this is basically an argument of semantics.

 

Now, if you are seriously advocating that they spend more then they can afford...keeping it PC again...then you are not wishing for what is best for the organization long-term.

I already said I'd sacrifice "long term" for another WS Championship.

[LittleHurt05]

I already said I'd sacrifice "long term" for another WS Championship.

 

How long are you willing to sacrifice? it's been 7 seasons since the last WS title, and you already are upset with management.

 

If they truly went all-in and sacrificed the future, it could be 10-20 years before they are competitive again. You claim you are OK with that, but your comments today show that you won't be.

Edited January 21, 2013 by LittleHurt05

[Dick Allen]

How long are you willing to sacrifice? it's been 7 seasons since the last WS title, and you already are upset with management.

 

If they truly went all-in and sacrificed the future, it could be 10-20 years before they are competitive again. You claim you are OK with that, but your comments today show that you won't be.

What's funny is most think the Patriots are the epitome of a team with sustained success. A lot of people here think making the playoffs is not good enough. Championships are all that counts. The White Sox world championship drought isn't as long as New England's right now.

[witesoxfan]

I already said I'd sacrifice "long term" for another WS Championship.

 

Which is terribly short-sighted. As mentioned, it's been 7 years. Are you sure you won't just be complaining again in 5-7 years after this one?

 

Still, you are looking, in the best case scenario, at a 1:8 shot, and that's assuming you get to the postseason. If you go cold or catch a few unlucky breaks, you're done with a bazillion dollar aging roster.

 

The best thing to do is to attempt to sustain success over a long period of time while still attempting to remain competitive. That appears to be the Sox goal right now.

[Eminor3rd]

If the Sox had 3 more wins last year (and 3 less losses) they'd have been in the playoffs!

 

1.) We aren't talking about last year, we're talking about this year. They made tons of acquisitions last year to maximize their season wins.

 

2.) You continue to ignore the most crucial part of what I'm telling you: future implications. I'll ask again -- if you could guarantee 2-3 more wins this year to this team, at the cost of 4-5 wins each year for the next 4, would you do it? Because that is roughly (obviously the numbers can't be exact) what you're signing up for if you add top market aging free agents to a club that is near is maximum payroll.

 

Again, my point isn't that we shouldn't sign anyone, it's that we shouldn't make bad signings just because they are the only ones available. If you feel like there are free agents this year that we could have added for the price they ended up signing that WOULDN'T cause #2 to happen, then argue for those guys. But please don't argue that the Sox should just be getting anyone that will help 2013 as if that's the only thing that matters. It isn't just about owner money, though that's an easy thing to argue; as a fan, I don't want to watch an old crappy team for the next 5 years, and especially not at the cost of giving THIS .500-ish team a 2% better shot at the playoffs now. Like you, I would sacrifice the long-term for a WS championship -- but this team is not one massive overpay from as WS title.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[3E8]

My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford?

I think what the Sox are doing is buying the best car we can afford without taking a high-interest loan or dipping into that money we promised we'd put away for our son's education. Good for now and good for later.

[fathom]

I think Sox management should articulate its plan. That they don't makes me question if they have a clear direction.

 

Is Katie Couric available for an interview with Rick Hahn?

[ZionrulZ]

Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?)

 

If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them?

[Balta1701]

Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?)

 

If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them?

Neither of these sound correct to me.

 

If this source is right, then the Sox were below .500 for the 1980's.

 

I'm not going to check, I'm just going to assume it was the Braves in the 1990's.

[Kyyle23]

Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?)

 

If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them?

 

I think you should check those numbers and get back to us with your argument

[Eminor3rd]

Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?)

 

If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them?

 

That's a straw man, you're the only one that has called that period "sustained success."

[witesoxfan]

Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?)

 

If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them?

 

You are making the 2012 Miami Marlins argument for building a baseball team and organization. You are not going to win that argument.

[ZionrulZ]

That's a straw man, you're the only one that has called that period "sustained success."

Sorry...4th most wins in the 90s.

 

Would any of you consider the 90s a successful decade for the White Sox? (I would not.)

Edited January 21, 2013 by Lamar Johnson 23

[ZionrulZ]

You are making the 2012 Miami Marlins argument for building a baseball team and organization. You are not going to win that argument.

I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that.

[Kyyle23]

Sorry...4th most wins in the 90s.

 

If we are going to pick random numbers and talk sustained success, then why do the Sox have the same amount of world series wins as the atlanta braves in the past 20 years?

[Kyyle23]

I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that.

 

False. But then again, most of this board doesnt play the front office boogeyman game like you do

[witesoxfan]

I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that.

 

No, you are saying they should sacrifice 1 year for 7-10 years. That's the same argument the Miami Marlins made. It's a terrible way to build and run a franchise.

 

Beyond that, the Sox DID just do that in 2011. It failed magnificently.

[ZionrulZ]

Things could be worse, according to that site, the Cubzzz haven't had a winning decade since the 1920s!

Edited January 21, 2013 by Lamar Johnson 23

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that.

 

If you don't win any arguments, it will be because you aren't addressing the content that we are writing to you.

 

No, I don't think the 90's were a success, but how is that related? Are you saying I'm arguing for the Sox to run things like they did in the 90's? Because no one has said that.

 

We would believe anything that KW/RH/JR tells us? What have they told us that we're supporting? How can you have been on this board for so long and think that we regular posters don't criticize the front office?

 

I'm not discounting your opinions, I'm discounting your arguments. You're building strawmen arguments that don't describe our situation and don't describe anything that anyone here has argued for. People get frustrated at stuff like that because they feel like you're either not listening to what they're saying or that you're trolling.

[ZionrulZ]

No, you are saying they should sacrifice 1 year for 7-10 years. That's the same argument the Miami Marlins made. It's a terrible way to build and run a franchise.

 

Beyond that, the Sox DID just do that in 2011. It failed magnificently.

I'm saying you "take it when you can get it".

 

This reminds me of that parable about the two bulls standing on a bluff overlooking a field of cows...one bull says, "let's run down there and screw one of those cows." The other says, "if we walk down, we can screw all of 'em.".

 

You guys are advocating the "walk down" approach; I can respect that. Although, if you walk down, the cows might not be there when you get there. I guess that's why I advocate the "run down" position...ya gotta "strike while the iron is hot.".

[bigruss]

I'm saying you "take it when you can get it".

 

This reminds me of that parable about the two bulls standing on a bluff overlooking a field of cows...one bull says, "let's run down there and screw one of those cows." The other says, "if we walk down, we can screw all of 'em.".

 

You guys are advocating the "walk down" approach; I can respect that. Although, if you walk down, the cows might not be there when you get there. I guess that's why I advocate the "run down" position...ya gotta "strike while the iron is hot.".

The iron ain't that hot to begin with.

[ZionrulZ]

The iron ain't that hot to begin with.

Strike while the iron is as hot as its gonna get???

[Kyyle23]

*find parables and metaphors that fit my argument but not the situation*

 

let me pull out my jump to conclusions mat so that I can decide what to do with my day

[witesoxfan]

I'm saying you "take it when you can get it".

 

This reminds me of that parable about the two bulls standing on a bluff overlooking a field of cows...one bull says, "let's run down there and screw one of those cows." The other says, "if we walk down, we can screw all of 'em.".

 

You guys are advocating the "walk down" approach; I can respect that. Although, if you walk down, the cows might not be there when you get there. I guess that's why I advocate the "run down" position...ya gotta "strike while the iron is hot.".

 

That parable requires that there be cows down the bluff to begin with. I would argue that you look down again and see that there are no cows down there. It's best to wait until there are cows down there to begin with.

 

There's nothing the White Sox can acquire at this point that will make them the proverbial favorites in the AL Central, so the best bet is to go into the season as is and acquire pieces if and when the time comes.

 

The cow that runs down the hill right now is far likelier to be caught and taken to the slaughterhouse than they are to screw other cows.

 

(that parable makes me feel dirty)

[ZionrulZ]

*find parables and metaphors that fit my argument but not the situation*

 

let me pull out my jump to conclusions mat so that I can decide what to do with my day

You're just trying to goad me cuz you're an admin and you want to ban me.

 

I said that I was happy that the Sox signed Lindstrom but that they still have more to do if they're gonna catch the Tigers. What's your effing problem?