Sox Sign Matt Lindstrom

[Kyyle23]

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?

 

My problem is your effing problem with acknowledging the effing reality of the effing situation.

 

Its funny how everytime you feel a percieved slight when your arguments are challenged with any sort of sarcasm, you mention admins wanting to ban you. Tell me, WHY IS THAT?

[Eminor3rd]

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.".

 

I understand this -- but I think we're finding out that baseball doesn't work that way. Once the Rays got good, I think there began a fetish among a lot of us (myself included) to want to "rebuild," thinking that the game was really a feast or famine situation. Writrs started talking about "competitive windows" and stuff. And it made sense intuitively. But the reality that has occurred over the last five years is different:

 

1. Teams like the Rays have NOT closed the "championship window." They've both landed on a model where they stay in the hunt every year, AND failed to win a championship.

 

2. There is a certain sort of parity that exists in baseball that we didn't predict -- the difference between the best and worse teams isn't nearly as much as we expect. A few hot or cold weeks can turn surefire contenders in busts and vice versa. That's why we end up with teams like the Orioles and A's of last year. THey don't have more talent than everyone else, but they had enough to be in contention and give themselves a chance to let things break right. The same is true for expensive teams -- even a really good roster can fail very easily. Would you trade rosters with the Rangers right now? I would, but that group has no championships.

 

3. You can't just build a winner in a single year. The Marlins and Angels are the best recent examples of this. Since the available pool of talent fluctuates from offseason to offseason -- and because of point #2 -- you have to take talent when you can get it, make good decisions all the time, and the sum of that will put your club in a good position eventually. Watch what happens with the Blue Jays over the next few years. I think they've been doing it just right, so if they fail, that will be a great argument against me.

 

I think it's just REALLY hard to win a WS because there are so many things that have to work out beyond your control. Surely, a better team has a better shot, but the pool of teams in the middle that are merely "competitive," I believe, is much larger than we used to think. And if you're going to make a sacrifice to your future to imrpove the present, you better make sure that improvement is actually enough to boost you OUT of that massive middle group. I think the evidence shows that being aggressive just to claw your way up a spot or two doesn't help as much as it may seem li8ke it should.

[chw42]

lol you can't even say something nice without saying something negative!

 

We can win the World Series and Marty can find something negative to say.

[witesoxfan]

I understand this -- but I think we're finding out that baseball doesn't work that way. Once the Rays got good, I think there began a fetish among a lot of us (myself included) to want to "rebuild," thinking that the game was really a feast or famine situation. Writrs started talking about "competitive windows" and stuff. And it made sense intuitively. But the reality that has occurred over the last five years is different:

 

1. Teams like the Rays have NOT closed the "championship window." They've both landed on a model where they stay in the hunt every year, AND failed to win a championship.

 

2. There is a certain sort of parity that exists in baseball that we didn't predict -- the difference between the best and worse teams isn't nearly as much as we expect. A few hot or cold weeks can turn surefire contenders in busts and vice versa. That's why we end up with teams like the Orioles and A's of last year. THey don't have more talent than everyone else, but they had enough to be in contention and give themselves a chance to let things break right. The same is true for expensive teams -- even a really good roster can fail very easily. Would you trade rosters with the Rangers right now? I would, but that group has no championships.

 

3. You can't just build a winner in a single year. The Marlins and Angels are the best recent examples of this. Since the available pool of talent fluctuates from offseason to offseason -- and because of point #2 -- you have to take talent when you can get it, make good decisions all the time, and the sum of that will put your club in a good position eventually. Watch what happens with the Blue Jays over the next few years. I think they've been doing it just right, so if they fail, that will be a great argument against me.

 

I think it's just REALLY hard to win a WS because there are so many things that have to work out beyond your control. Surely, a better team has a better shot, but the pool of teams in the middle that are merely "competitive," I believe, is much larger than we used to think. And if you're going to make a sacrifice to your future to imrpove the present, you better make sure that improvement is actually enough to boost you OUT of that massive middle group. I think the evidence shows that being aggressive just to claw your way up a spot or two doesn't help as much as it may seem li8ke it should.

 

Very well stated.

 

Relating to the parity of the league, more than any other league, the difference in talent level between the worst 5 teams and the best 5 teams is closer in baseball than it is in every other sport. There are really only about 3 teams I believe I can safely say won't be competitive this year - the Astros, Marlins, and Twins - and it's certainly possible that one of those 3 ends up right around .500 this year. You can generally tell the best teams from the worst teams, but in any given series, the worst team can beat the best team.

 

The 2010 team I felt was closer to a .500 team, but thanks to an incredible stretch to end the first half, they had a great shot to win the division and ran into a better team. All it really takes is one extended stretch of playing great baseball to get a team in the race for the remainder of the season while also staying out of an extended slump.

 

This team has the pitching and the offense to do just that.

 

Let it ride.

[Marty34]

I think it's just REALLY hard to win a WS because there are so many things that have to work out beyond your control. Surely, a better team has a better shot, but the pool of teams in the middle that are merely "competitive," I believe, is much larger than we used to think. And if you're going to make a sacrifice to your future to imrpove the present, you better make sure that improvement is actually enough to boost you OUT of that massive middle group. I think the evidence shows that being aggressive just to claw your way up a spot or two doesn't help as much as it may seem li8ke it should.

 

What's the quickest way out of this mediocrity? If things go right with Sale, Danks Quintana, and Santiago there is an opportunity to build a team that can have sustained success. If things go wrong with those four we could be looking at a 3-5 year rebuild.

 

[Eminor3rd]

What's the quickest way out of this mediocrity? If things go right with Sale, Danks Quintana, and Santiago there is an opportunity to build a team that can have sustained success. If things go wrong with those four we could be looking at a 3-5 year rebuild.

 

Totally. I agree, we have the beginnings of a core we didn't have a couple years ago. That's sorta my point: I think the quickest way out is to stay the course, keep acquiring cost-controllable talent, keep making the organization healthier, don't chase shiny things to try to break out today. It sucks, but the quickest way might be a 2-3 year plan that could turn into 4-5 is everything doesn't break right.

 

The good news is that we're a big enough market that we can stay in that middle zone of "plausible contenders" the whole time while we build. So you may never be expecting a championship, but you know that you have as good a shot as 8-10 other AL teams that fight for ~2 playoff spots each year. It's not perfect, but it's reasonable, and our patience has a good shot at paying off in a big way when the model matures.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Marty34]

Totally. I agree, we have the beginnings of a core we didn't have a couple years ago. That's sorta my point: I think the quickest way out is to stay the course, keep acquiring cost-controllable talent, keep making the organization healthier, don't chase shiny things to try to break out today. It sucks, but the quickest way might be a 2-3 year plan that could turn into 4-5 is everything doesn't break right.

 

Being that team in the middle really hurts around the trade deadline. Do they keep guys like Rios, Peavy, Floyd, etc ... if they are on the fringe of a playoff spot if they can get something of value for them?

[witesoxfan]

Being that team in the middle really hurts around the trade deadline. Do they keep guys like Rios, Peavy, Floyd, etc ... if they are on the fringe of a playoff spot if they can get something of value for them?

 

That depends upon their position in the standings (both division and Wild Card), the number of teams ahead of them, and the team's record. If they're in 2nd place in the Central but 7+ games out of the Wild Card and division, you sell; if you are in 3rd place in the division but 2 games out and tied for the 2nd Wild Card spot, you trade for small upgrades. The key to all of it is that you don't give up premier prospects unless it's someone who will be with the club long-term and is worth it. Giving up Trayce Thompson for a reliever would be suicide, but I strongly, strongly doubt Hahn does so.

[Marty34]

That depends upon their position in the standings (both division and Wild Card), the number of teams ahead of them, and the team's record. If they're in 2nd place in the Central but 7+ games out of the Wild Card and division, you sell; if you are in 3rd place in the division but 2 games out and tied for the 2nd Wild Card spot, you trade for small upgrades. The key to all of it is that you don't give up premier prospects unless it's someone who will be with the club long-term and is worth it. Giving up Trayce Thompson for a reliever would be suicide, but I strongly, strongly doubt Hahn does so.

 

You have to do one or the other. No half-measures at the deadline like last year.

[witesoxfan]

You have to do one or the other. No half-measures at the deadline like last year.

 

They quite clearly went in one direction last year, and that was pushing for a division title. That's exactly what I'm advocating they do again.

 

Oh, and if they're 5 games out but like 3 out of the Wild Card, then they don't have to decide one way or the other. They don't need to trade pieces away, because selling off is a white flag, and fans don't appreciate it.

[Eminor3rd]

You have to do one or the other. No half-measures at the deadline like last year.

 

I think it's a cost-benefit analysis at the time. That's the core of what we're saying. It's not about "go for it" or "don't go for it," it's about "what can I do to improve this team? What does that cost? Does the situation call for trading the future value it will cost for the present value I'll get?" Depends on who is available and how far ahead or behind we are.

 

I LOVED how KW handled the deadline last year. Those acquisitions were very close to getting us to the playoffs and they cost us NOTHING. Play those few months out a bunch of times and I bet we make the playoffs at least half of them. We had a very real chance -- all we had to do was not collapse at the end -- and we sacrificed almost nothing for the foreseeable future.

[nickofypres]

I think it's a cost-benefit analysis at the time. That's the core of what we're saying. It's not about "go for it" or "don't go for it," it's about "what can I do to improve this team? What does that cost? Does the situation call for trading the future value it will cost for the present value I'll get?" Depends on who is available and how far ahead or behind we are.

 

I LOVED how KW handled the deadline last year. Those acquisitions were very close to getting us to the playoffs and they cost us NOTHING. Play those few months out a bunch of times and I bet we make the playoffs at least half of them. We had a very real chance -- all we had to do was not collapse at the end -- and we sacrificed almost nothing for the foreseeable future.

 

Exactly.

 

Great post, Eminor3rd.

[Eminor3rd]

Exactly.

 

Great post, Eminor3rd.

 

Thank you, kind sir.

[Marty34]

I LOVED how KW handled the deadline last year. Those acquisitions were very close to getting us to the playoffs and they cost us NOTHING. Play those few months out a bunch of times and I bet we make the playoffs at least half of them. We had a very real chance -- all we had to do was not collapse at the end -- and we sacrificed almost nothing for the foreseeable future.

 

I don't think we'll be in the position we were in last year at the deadline in the next 2-3 years. For that reason, I thought he should have done more like find a platoon partner for Viciedo for the last two months

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't think we'll be in the position we were in last year at the deadline in the next 2-3 years. For that reason, I thought he should have done more like find a platoon partner for Viciedo for the last two months

 

If we aren't "in it" why would we worry about finding a platoon partner for a 23 year old OF?

[Eminor3rd]

I don't think we'll be in the position we were in last year at the deadline in the next 2-3 years. For that reason, I thought he should have done more like find a platoon partner for Viciedo for the last two months

 

If we aren't "in it" why would we worry about finding a platoon partner for a 23 year old OF?

 

Yes, this. I don't understand the connection between those two sentences.

[Jerksticks]

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

This is a super valid stance to take. I understand why some disagree but I'd like to hear more arguments for it personally.

 

The thing is we might not have anybody on the offensive side of the ball to market after next year. If Paulie goes then we are toast. Nobody is gonna shell out cash to watch our guys not get on base. Rios? Tank or Beckham or Flowers if we're super lucky and get a breakout season?

 

I don't think many kids are Adam Dunn fans- I've yet to see one. Haha kids are pretty smart these days- they can tell that a turd in the street with corn in it is always gonna garner a look, but it's still just a stinky worthless turd that somebody has to pick up.

 

Lamar I think management ultimately sides with you and will strike during the season. Maybe they suspect some of our prospects are gonna have huge seasons and want to wait til they peak value or something in June/July. I dunno man.

[Jake]

We can win the World Series and Marty can find something negative to say.

 

11-1? Why did we lose 1?

 

1 championship? Why not 6 like the Bulls?

[chw42]

11-1? Why did we lose 1?

 

1 championship? Why not 6 like the Bulls?

 

There are guys on this board that can be labeled as pessimistic (especially in game threads, but that's just about everyone). But the majority of them aren't always doom and gloom. I also think the more pessimistic posters on this board tend to be more knowledgeable about the team and baseball in general. However, I think Marty just takes pessimism to another level when it comes to the White Sox.

Edited January 22, 2013 by chw42

[ZionrulZ]

My problem is your effing problem with acknowledging the effing reality of the effing situation.

 

Its funny how everytime you feel a percieved slight when your arguments are challenged with any sort of sarcasm, you mention admins wanting to ban you. Tell me, WHY IS THAT?

There are intelligent "posters" like Eminor3 who offer astute analyses and address issues, while there are "posters" like you who just like to criticize me (and others), if they don't agree with you.

[Kyyle23]

There are intelligent "posters" like Eminor3 who offer astute analyses and address issues, while there are "posters" like you who just like to criticize me (and others), if they don't agree with you.

 

You ignore points I make, regardless of sarcasm.

[NorthSideSox72]

There are intelligent "posters" like Eminor3 who offer astute analyses and address issues, while there are "posters" like you who just like to criticize me (and others), if they don't agree with you.

I started a thread just for you. You should check out the "Fun with Numbers" thread.

 

[harfman77]

I think they are taking the right approach at this point. Adding some pieces that will keep this team competitive, Lindstrom and Keppinger are upgrades over the players they are replacing, with reasonable contracts and not tying the front offices hands when they need to replace Peavy, PK, AD and Rios in the coming years. At the same time start to amass talent in the minors that can potentially step in and contribute. Its rebuilding but not a white flag style rebuild. This also means that you are open to trading anyone on the roster if it can help you when are ready to make a run again. When you build organizationally as Tampa has, you can sustain your success by drafting players to build your system, using those players to acquire needs, and trading soon to be budget breaking players for replacements and upgrades elsewhere. The advantage the Sox have in this model is that they will be able to spend more money to lock up key players or fill in roster wholes.

[Marty34]

Yes, this. I don't understand the connection between those two sentences.

 

I didn't think KW did a great job at the deadline last year. Had they addressed their easiest correctable issue, a platoon partner for Viciedo, they may have won the division.

[Kyyle23]

I didn't think KW did a great job at the deadline last year. Had they addressed their easiest correctable issue, a platoon partner for Viciedo, they may have won the division.

 

 

IIRC you were gung ho for Grienke at the deadline. and your second "want" was Juan Pierre as a platoon. I dont really think they would have won the division if either of those deals were made