Should White Sox Hold or Fold?

[Balta1701]

What are you getting at?

You described rebuilding as somehow a lesser gamble.

 

Selling off everything guarantees a loser. Trying to win does not.

 

The only way that statement makes sense is if you think losing is and end to itself, something to be proud of. Otherwise, losing on purpose is an enormous gamble.

[Marty34]

You described rebuilding as somehow a lesser gamble.

 

Selling off everything guarantees a loser. Trying to win does not.

The only way that statement makes sense is if you think losing is and end to itself, something to be proud of. Otherwise, losing on purpose is an enormous gamble.

 

What constitutes selling everything and what are you trying to win? They can keep everyone they have this year add McCann, Utley, and Morales and they still aren't good enough to make the postseason. What you've done though is lock yourself into a ton of guaranteed money.

[Balta1701]

What constitutes selling everything and what are you trying to win? They can keep everyone they have this year add McCann, Utley, and Morales and they still aren't good enough to make the postseason. What you've done though is lock yourself into a ton of guaranteed money.

They could also add those guys and win up a 95 win team. They could also add less than that and be a 95 win team with te quality in this pitching staff.

 

But if the only thing a person wants to do is complain, that's way too much of a gamble.

[Dick Allen]

What constitutes selling everything and what are you trying to win? They can keep everyone they have this year add McCann, Utley, and Morales and they still aren't good enough to make the postseason. What you've done though is lock yourself into a ton of guaranteed money.

Is the money coming out of your checking account? Don't you think Chairman Reinsdorf can cover the payroll? Why should Sox fans have to put up with a rebuild that could take 20 years?

[Marty34]

They could also add those guys and win up a 95 win team. They could also add less than that and be a 95 win team with te quality in this pitching staff.

 

But if the only thing a person wants to do is complain, that's way too much of a gamble.

 

I could not disagree more. They have no surplus to trade from to upgrade their areas of weakness and there's nothing but stopgaps in the free agency that you'd have to overpay for.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Is the money coming out of your checking account? Don't you think Chairman Reinsdorf can cover the payroll? Why should Sox fans have to put up with a rebuild that could take 20 years?

 

2033, you say? Wow.

[Dick Allen]

2033, you say? Wow.

It could. KC and Pittsburgh were two of the most proud franchises in MLB. They have gone a long time without being relevant.

[Jordan4life_2007]

It could. KC and Pittsburgh were two of the most proud franchises in MLB. They have gone a long time without being relevant.

 

It's just funny to me how extreme both sides (pro-rebuild vs anti-rebuild) are going in attempting to make their case. There's like no in-between.

 

Pro-rebuild: Stay the current course and continue to win 78-84 games for the next 20 years.

 

Anti-rebuild: Tear it down and we're the Pirates and Royals for the next 20 years.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Jordan4life

[Dick Allen]

It's just funny to me how extreme both sides (pro-rebuild vs anti-rebuild) are going in attempting to make their case. There's like no in-between.

 

Pro-rebuild: Stay the current course and continue to win 78-84 games for the next 20 years.

 

Anti-rebuild: Tear it down and we're the Pirates and Royals for the next 20 years.

I think if you want to tear it down, with the state of the farm system, it would be a minimum of 5 years before the Sox were relevant again, and that is drafting pretty well. They were awful for 4 years the last time they did a major rebuild with out much in the cubboard, and got McDowell, Ventura, Thomas and Fernandez in consecutive drafts. Even they didn't accomplish that "sustained success" that apparently now is a requirement.

[caulfield12]

Here's a better way of looking at it, perhaps.

 

All these "second tier" teams in the major markets....the Mets, the A's, the Angels and the White Sox, what's the longest their fans have gone along with "rebuilding" projects?

 

(Because comparing the Sox to the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Astros, Reds, Mariners, etc.) isn't exactly an accurate way of looking at it.

 

The A's are the only ones you could probably make a legit comparison to, and that's because of the stadium issues/attendance...arising out of their unique predicament of being stuck between a (rock) MLB and the Giants (a hard place).

[Marty34]

The anti-rebuilding crowd like to throw out scare tactics like "Astros" and "irrelevancy" while ignoring the fact that the Sox have 1 postseason win since 2006.

[caulfield12]

I think if you want to tear it down, with the state of the farm system, it would be a minimum of 5 years before the Sox were relevant again, and that is drafting pretty well. They were awful for 4 years the last time they did a major rebuild with out much in the cubboard, and got McDowell, Ventura, Thomas and Fernandez in consecutive drafts. Even they didn't accomplish that "sustained success" that apparently now is a requirement.

 

But they did have a very good run between 1990 and 1994.

 

The problem, as we all know, is what the strike did to the franchise. It's hard to look at that "sustained success" definition and not take something that was completely out of their control into the equation. (Well, some would actually blame Reinsdorf for the strike, partially....which is a different issue but related nevertheless).

Edited May 15, 2013 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

The anti-rebuilding crowd like to throw out scare tactics like "Astros" and "irrelevancy" while ignoring the fact that the Sox have 1 postseason win since 2006.

When you became a Sox fan, how long had they gone without a postseason win? And why does your plan just about guarantee they won't have any postseason wins anytime soon?

[Jordan4life_2007]

But they did have a very good run between 1990 and 1994.

 

The problem, as we all know, is what the strike did to the franchise. It's hard to look at that "sustained success" definition and not take something that was completely out of their control into the equation. (Well, some would actually blame Reinsdorf for the strike, partially....which is a different issue but related nevertheless).

 

And back then only two teams from each league made the playoffs. Under the current set-up, the Sox are easily in the playoffs in 1990 and possibly 1991. It's never been easier to get into the post-season than it is today. Which makes the Sox inability to get there with more consistency that much more frustrating.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Jordan4life

[caulfield12]

The anti-rebuilding crowd like to throw out scare tactics like "Astros" and "irrelevancy" while ignoring the fact that the Sox have 1 postseason win since 2006.

 

 

But to imagine that they couldn't win 90-95 games with our pitching staff (keeping Peavy and maybe adding in Johnson for Axelrod, and not knowing 100% what we have in Danks)....and the additions of McCann, Morales and Utley, that's also impossible for anyone to say with any authority.

 

If you were making the argument coming into 2005 that Dye (coming off a major leg injury), Pods (coming off a down season to follow up rookie year success), Hermanson (total question mark/castoff), AJ (character/attitude issues), Iguchi (KW scouted him by videotape) and El Duque were going to lead the team to the World Series that spring, EVERYONE in the world would have said you were INSANE, you agree?

 

Or coming into 2008, NOBODY was predicting we would have a chance to compete again that year.

 

Or in mid-May of 2010, etc.

 

Or coming into 2012, off the disappointment of 2011.

 

 

 

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

But to imagine that they couldn't win 90-95 games with our pitching staff (keeping Peavy and maybe adding in Johnson for Axelrod, and not knowing 100% what we have in Danks)....and the additions of McCann, Morales and Utley, that's also impossible for anyone to say with any authority.

 

If you were making the argument coming into 2005 that Dye (coming off a major leg injury), Pods (coming off a down season to follow up rookie year success), Hermanson (total question mark/castoff), AJ (character/attitude issues), Iguchi (KW scouted him by videotape) and El Duque were going to lead the team to the World Series that spring, EVERYONE in the world would have said you were INSANE, you agree?

 

Or coming into 2008, NOBODY was predicting we would have a chance to compete again that year.

 

Or in mid-May of 2010, etc.

 

Or coming into 2012, off the disappointment of 2011.

2005 is actually a great example. We went into that season without any major holes. We had a complete starting staff with a legitimate prospect in the minors as insurance, a full bullpen top to bottom with veterans who could fit their roles, we brought in a real catcher, a real 2B, picked up a lead-off hitter for the first time in forever, etc. We had starting pitching, a bullpen, offense, defense, power, speed and a mix of veteran leadership and youth. Go into every season like that and, while you're not even guaranteed a playoff spot much less a WS title, you at least have a chance. That team clicked and we won. The 2006 team looked really good too but didn't get it done, but we still had a chance. When you tear everything down and trade everyone then you have no chance, and when you go into the offseason you have to address every aspect of an offense, defense, and a pitching staff, rather than only needing to address a few select areas.

[caulfield12]

2005 is actually a great example. We went into that season without any major holes. We had a complete starting staff with a legitimate prospect in the minors as insurance, a full bullpen top to bottom with veterans who could fit their roles, we brought in a real catcher, a real 2B, picked up a lead-off hitter for the first time in forever, etc. We had starting pitching, a bullpen, offense, defense, power, speed and a mix of veteran leadership and youth. Go into every season like that and, while you're not even guaranteed a playoff spot much less a WS title, you at least have a chance. That team clicked and we won. The 2006 team looked really good too but didn't get it done, but we still had a chance. When you tear everything down and trade everyone then you have no chance, and when you go into the offseason you have to address every aspect of an offense, defense, and a pitching staff, rather than only needing to address a few select areas.

 

And Takatsu as the closer for the first month.

 

A lot of people forget that.

[Chicago White Sox]

The anti-rebuilding crowd like to throw out scare tactics like "Astros" and "irrelevancy" while ignoring the fact that the Sox have 1 postseason win since 2006.

Because we never went over slot in the draft and had no presence in Latin America. The new CBA has changed everything and the organization is actually embracing these changes. People need to give it some time though. The Latin American players we signed last year were only 16 years old. It's going to be a year or two before we even see them over here. It will be four or five years until the Latin American pipeline is running full circle. Same goes for the draft. The 2011 & 2012 drafts were big improvements IMO, but it's going to take more than two good drafts to get the system where it needs to be on a consistent basis. Unfortunately, patience is not a virtue on this board.

 

Also, if you think signing a couple of stopgaps is riskier than rebuilding than I'm at a loss of words. Look where our system is at right now. Give it some time to self correct. Meanwhile, make a few calculated free agent signings to plug big holes and/or fix the offense. They may not work out, but at least you buy some time until your system is finally up and running.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Chicago White Sox

[caulfield12]

Because we never went over slot in the draft and had no presence in Latin America. The new CBA has changed everything and the organization is embracing these changes. People need to give it time though. Unfortunately, patience is not a virtue of this board.

 

Also, if you think signing a couple of stopgaps is riskier than rebuilding than I'm at a loss of words.

 

 

Especially when logic dictates that 3-4 veteran McCann/Utley/Morales/Willingham/Morse type players is 10X better than putting all your eggs in the Greinke/Hamilton/Pujols basket for a team that can't just wildly throw money around with the 6-8 biggest franchises.

 

Not until our ComCast deal starts bringing in a lot more revenue in 2019.

 

 

Back to 2005...lots of "stopgaps" came into the roster.

 

Would anyone have thought, the day he was acquired, that Dye would be a member of the Sox through 2009?

AJ through 2012?

Jenks, not self-destructing and even making the big leagues when he was acquired on waivers?

Contreras through 2009?

Iguchi, who nobody had ever seen and already an established veteran in Japan?

That Takatsu would barely last a full year?

That Hermanson would be one of the best pitchers in baseball for 4 months that year and then disappear into the abyss...same with Cotts/Politte?

 

The point is, a lot of those "stop gap" guys ended up hanging around a LONG time, maybe too long.

 

[Y2Jimmy0]

Dishing out money in the offseason to Curtis Granderson and Brian McCann sounds like a realistic option to me. Let's just pretend that the Sox could get Matt Adams for Ramirez as well. If the Sox added Granderson, McCann, and Adams to their offense, they'd be able to compete with the pitching that they have. They need to spend some $$ though. The pitching is too good to completely tear it down in my opinion. Peavy, Sale, Quintana, Danks, Santiago, Axelrod, and Erik Johnson is some nice depth. You could even afford to deal one of Quintana/Santiago to acquire some offense.

[TaylorStSox]

If we trade Ramirez, who plays SS?

[Y2Jimmy0]

If we trade Ramirez, who plays SS?

 

 

Can Carlos Sanchez play SS? I have no idea. But if you could make that trade you'd make it. Adams is a potential middle of the order impact bat for the next 5-8 years. It's just more valuable.

[Balta1701]

Can Carlos Sanchez play SS? I have no idea. But if you could make that trade you'd make it. Adams is a potential middle of the order impact bat for the next 5-8 years. It's just more valuable.

The best answer might be "Maybe". He'd probably start off as a pretty below average defender there. He might grow into the position if he was given time and that was the only thing he was working on, but he'd probably be comparable to Keppinger at 2b right now. He's spent about 50% of his games at 2b, 40% at short, and 10% at 3b in his minor league career. They've effectively used him like a utility player...which kinda makes sense if the team doesn't think they have obvious openings at either 2b or SS or 3b right now and wants to keep its options open for the future.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Matt Adams has been mentioned about thirty times in this thread. Is there anything more to this other than it being fathom's unrealistic fantasy? The Sox could never swindle the Cardinals like that.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Jordan4life

[Y2Jimmy0]

Matt Adams has been mentioned about thirty times in this thread. Is there anything more to this other than it being fathom's unrealistic fantasy? The Sox could never swindle the Cardinals like that.

 

 

Probably not. He doesn't really have a full time spot for them though.