And that's a White Sox season

[greg775]

Wrong.

 

 

Last year was a good year.

 

By YOUR very reasoning I don't understand how you now say last year was a good year. That goes against all the points you have been making. The Sox choked the last two weeks and didn't make the playoffs, meaning they had an "average" year by your printed standards on this board. You said, "If you aren't going to have a good year, the next best thing is a bad year. The order in fates you want for your team go.... 1) Very good 2) Very bad 3) Average"

 

So now last year was a good year?? I mean to many of us, it was a good year because we were .500ish and in the race. How so by your standards? We fell off the map and we were not 1.) Very good. So that means you want No. 2. Very bad. And the Sox were not very bad. Seems like you are backtracking.

Edited September 30, 2013 by greg775

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

By YOUR very reasoning I don't understand how you now say last year was a good year. That goes against all the points you have been making. The Sox choked the last two weeks and didn't make the playoffs, meaning they had an "average" year by your printed standards on this board. You said, "If you aren't going to have a good year, the next best thing is a bad year. The order in fates you want for your team go.... 1) Very good 2) Very bad 3) Average"

 

So now last year was a good year?? I mean to many of us, it was a good year because we were .500ish and in the race. How so by your standards? We fell off the map and we were not 1.) Very good. So that means you want No. 2. Very bad. And the Sox were not very bad. Seems like you are backtracking.

 

Show me where I stated you can only have a good year if you made the playoffs. That's the part of the argument you are pulling out of thin air and trying to use against me.

[southsider2k5]

What does winning 70 games every season for 50 years get you?

 

The fact that the worst teams get the best draft picks is EXACTLY why being average is the worst thing you can be. You don't get anything good for being an average team.

 

EDIT: And I never said being terrible was better than being great. If you aren't going to have a good year, the next best thing is a bad year. The order in fates you want for your team go.... 1) Very good 2) Very bad 3) Average

 

That is so simplistic.

[witesoxfan]

Wrong.

 

 

Last year was a good year.

 

85 wins is barely above average, and they missed the playoffs. How is that a good year?

 

You are moving the goal posts.

 

This was not a good year by any stretch of the imagination. You can argue that the team needed this year, but arguing that this was a good year is absolutely ridiculous.

[pettie4sox]

This thread will probably be ended soon.

[Jake]

It is not the NBA. Tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player

[LittleHurt05]

It is not the NBA. Tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player

 

The Nationals got back-to-back once in a lifetime #1 draft picks and they still can't make the playoffs.

[cabiness42]

It is not the NBA. Tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player

 

No, tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player.

 

As much as we've focused on that #3 pick in the first round, remember that the Sox also get the #3 pick in every round, along with the additional slot money that comes along with those picks. While it doesn't carry the magnitude of the NBA, having the #3 pick is still better than having the #19 pick, and you get to play the exact same number of postseason games.

 

Also, I think the thing the 99 losses did more than anything was magnify the lack of offensive talent, especially in the area of OBP, that this organization currently has. In 2012, scoring the 4th most runs in the AL and being in a pennant race until the last week of the season was a total fluke, and it blinded everybody, myself included, as to how little offensive talent was actually there.

[witesoxfan]

No, tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player.

 

As much as we've focused on that #3 pick in the first round, remember that the Sox also get the #3 pick in every round, along with the additional slot money that comes along with those picks. While it doesn't carry the magnitude of the NBA, having the #3 pick is still better than having the #19 pick, and you get to play the exact same number of postseason games.

 

Also, I think the thing the 99 losses did more than anything was magnify the lack of offensive talent, especially in the area of OBP, that this organization currently has. In 2012, scoring the 4th most runs in the AL and being in a pennant race until the last week of the season was a total fluke, and it blinded everybody, myself included, as to how little offensive talent was actually there.

 

I agree with all of this. I really do think the Sox as a franchise needed this as a wakeup call to make drastic changes to the team's landscape.

[Dick Allen]

No, tanking is unlikely to magically net you a franchise-saving player.

 

As much as we've focused on that #3 pick in the first round, remember that the Sox also get the #3 pick in every round, along with the additional slot money that comes along with those picks. While it doesn't carry the magnitude of the NBA, having the #3 pick is still better than having the #19 pick, and you get to play the exact same number of postseason games.

 

Also, I think the thing the 99 losses did more than anything was magnify the lack of offensive talent, especially in the area of OBP, that this organization currently has. In 2012, scoring the 4th most runs in the AL and being in a pennant race until the last week of the season was a total fluke, and it blinded everybody, myself included, as to how little offensive talent was actually there.

The #3 pick is the prize. The #3 pick in the second round isn't as high as the #19 pick in the first round, the #3 pick in the 3rd round isn't as high as the #19 pick in the 2nd round, on and on and on, which apparently isn't good enough to build a team, although some teams don't seem to have the problems the Sox do developing hitters, even drafting late.

 

Hopefully 5 years from now we will look back and be very happy the Sox selected #3, but don't kid yourself. If they drafted last in every round, they will still would have the opportunity to draft a future all star.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

85 wins is barely above average, and they missed the playoffs. How is that a good year?

 

You are moving the goal posts.

 

This was not a good year by any stretch of the imagination. You can argue that the team needed this year, but arguing that this was a good year is absolutely ridiculous.

 

LOL, how am I moving the goal posts, when I never defined them? You and your boy Greg are making up what my definition of "good" is, and then trying to use whatever you come up with against me. You never asked me what I consider a good season, only that whatever you THINK I will say.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Chilihead90

[Dick Allen]

LOL, how am I moving the goal posts, when I never defined them? You and your boy Greg are making up what my definition of "good" is, and then trying to use whatever you come up with against me. You never asked me what I consider a good season, only that whatever you THINK I will say is wrong.

You are basing a lot on the NBA. NBA hell is a .500 record because you aren't good enough to win it all, and aren't bad enough to get much better because of salary caps and immediate impacts of draft picks, and the fact that if you don't have a pick in the top few, chances of drafting a star that can lead you to a title aren't that great. That is different in the other sports. In fact, .500 next year for the Sox could be considered the next step to contention. It might not be, but baseball hell is going decades without a chance to win, like KC and Pittsburgh. Or what Houston or the Cubs or Minnesota are doing. Maybe it pays off in the end, but I would be willing to bet at least 2 of the 3 wind up very dissappointed if they are totally relying on prospects for their "sustained success".

[Texsox]

As much as we've focused on that #3 pick in the first round, remember that the Sox also get the #3 pick in every round,

 

That is a damn good point.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

You are basing a lot on the NBA. NBA hell is a .500 record because you aren't good enough to win it all, and aren't bad enough to get much better because of salary caps and immediate impacts of draft picks, and the fact that if you don't have a pick in the top few, chances of drafting a star that can lead you to a title aren't that great. That is different in the other sports. In fact, .500 next year for the Sox could be considered the next step to contention. It might not be, but baseball hell is going decades without a chance to win, like KC and Pittsburgh. Or what Houston or the Cubs or Minnesota are doing. Maybe it pays off in the end, but I would be willing to bet at least 2 of the 3 wind up very dissappointed if they are totally relying on prospects for their "sustained success".

 

Hah, trust me, I base NOTHING on the NBA.

[Hawkfan]

And I thought the end of the season might create a topic change for once...

[witesoxfan]

LOL, how am I moving the goal posts, when I never defined them? You and your boy Greg are making up what my definition of "good" is, and then trying to use whatever you come up with against me. You never asked me what I consider a good season, only that whatever you THINK I will say.

 

Then define it.

 

To me, 81-81 is average. The Sox won 85 games last year. I don't understand how 85 wins and a second place finish is really that much different than that. Then again, I fail to see how a 63-99 season can be classified as "good" on any level. As I said, I think a season like this was necessary so the Sox can ultimately get a more accurate feel for the team - this team overall wasn't that much different than the 85 win team from a year ago, but it seems to me that team "overachieved" and this team "underachieved" and that their true talent level was probably in the 74-78 win range (before the Peavy and Rios trades, as the true talent then probably dropped down to 68-72 wins). Necessary does not mean good though.

[Eminor3rd]

And I thought the end of the season might create a topic change for once...

 

Why? lol

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Then define it.

 

To me, 81-81 is average. The Sox won 85 games last year. I don't understand how 85 wins and a second place finish is really that much different than that. Then again, I fail to see how a 63-99 season can be classified as "good" on any level. As I said, I think a season like this was necessary so the Sox can ultimately get a more accurate feel for the team - this team overall wasn't that much different than the 85 win team from a year ago, but it seems to me that team "overachieved" and this team "underachieved" and that their true talent level was probably in the 74-78 win range (before the Peavy and Rios trades, as the true talent then probably dropped down to 68-72 wins). Necessary does not mean good though.

 

 

It's obviously going to be on a case-by-case basis. There is no magic number that applies to every team, because they all will have different expectations based on the team and the context of the season, but GENERALLY I would say any team that contends for a playoff spot for most the year, especially towards the end of the season would be considered to have a good year. The 2012 White Sox had a good year. The 2013 White Sox had a terrible year, but a productive one in the end. You never want to be somewhere in the middle.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Chilihead90

[witesoxfan]

It's obviously going to be on a case-by-case basis. There is no magic number that applies to every team, because they all will have different expectations based on the team and the context of the season, but GENERALLY I would say any team that contends for a playoff spot for most the year, especially towards the end of the season would be considered to have a good year. The 2012 White Sox had a good year. The 2013 White Sox had a terrible year, but a productive one in the end. You never want to be somewhere in the middle.

 

Productive is a far better word to use.

 

All the same, I'd rather go into the year with 81-83 win team talent wise than 73-75 win. Baseball has so much variability that you can get hot at end up winning 90 games and earning a playoff birth, like the Indians did this year. I won't say they were lucky, and I won't say their team isn't good, but that team didn't look good coming into the year and they had some guys step up and have really big years for them, including Ubaldo and Salazar. That's why it's nice to have even average talent - you can upgrade your team either with trades or through your minor league system and something might click and then you end up winning a lot of games. If the Sox had a little more depth down the stretch last year, they probably would have won the division, but without trading for Youkilis, Liriano, and Myers, I doubt that team even ends up above .500.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Productive is a far better word to use.

 

All the same, I'd rather go into the year with 81-83 win team talent wise than 73-75 win. Baseball has so much variability that you can get hot at end up winning 90 games and earning a playoff birth, like the Indians did this year. I won't say they were lucky, and I won't say their team isn't good, but that team didn't look good coming into the year and they had some guys step up and have really big years for them, including Ubaldo and Salazar. That's why it's nice to have even average talent - you can upgrade your team either with trades or through your minor league system and something might click and then you end up winning a lot of games. If the Sox had a little more depth down the stretch last year, they probably would have won the division, but without trading for Youkilis, Liriano, and Myers, I doubt that team even ends up above .500.

 

And productive is the exact word I used in my original comment...

 

The worst thing you can be in professional sports is average.

 

For that reason, I believe this was a very productive season for the White Sox.

 

I give us an A- grade for this season. Well done.

 

 

And I too would rather have an 81-83 win team talent wise GOING IN TO THE YEAR than a 73-75 win team talent wise. My philosophy about wanting 1) a good team then 2) a bad team then 3) an average team is referring to the result at the end of the season. You never want to END UP with an average season. You can surely go in to the year being average, experience luck, a trade, injuries to opponents, rookies being called up, career years, whatever, and become a contender like the 2012 White Sox, but I am saying by the end of October, the worst thing you could have had was an average season.

[Eminor3rd]

And productive is the exact word I used in my original comment...

 

 

 

 

And I too would rather have an 81-83 win team talent wise GOING IN TO THE YEAR than a 73-75 win team talent wise. My philosophy about wanting 1) a good team then 2) a bad team then 3) an average team is referring to the result at the end of the season. You never want to END UP with an average season. You can surely go in to the year being average, experience luck, a trade, injuries to opponents, rookies being called up, career years, whatever, and become a contender like the 2012 White Sox, but I am saying by the end of October, the worst thing you could have had was an average season.

 

I disagree. There aren't many cases of "first to worst." They happens sometimes, but most of the time team's need to get decent before they get good. Next year, for example, I'd be plenty happy with 75 wins if I feel like team came by them via legitimate, sustainable improvement. That means we're moving in the right direction and can keep getting better.

[Balta1701]

I disagree. There aren't many cases of "first to worst." They happens sometimes, but most of the time team's need to get decent before they get good. Next year, for example, I'd be plenty happy with 75 wins if I feel like team came by them via legitimate, sustainable improvement. That means we're moving in the right direction and can keep getting better.

It seems like both the Indians and the Red Sox went from worst (or close t worst) in the al this year.

[MEANS]

We've been average for so long and tried the band-aid type fixes, this season was an eye opener for the entire organization and sometimes that's what a team needs, we went from a 1st place team to a dead last team in one year with a lot of the same players. It's time for a serious change and it's very apparent now. Some of this started at and after the trade deadline so they at least are trying to fix the problems and build for the future. Let's see what RH and company can do to make us a viable contender each season going forward.

[witesoxfan]

It seems like both the Indians and the Red Sox went from worst (or close t worst) in the al this year.

 

You know those are the extreme outliers in this situation. And, on top of that, both spent well over $100 million in free agency to get there.

[Balta1701]

You know those are the extreme outliers in this situation. And, on top of that, both spent well over $100 million in free agency to get there.

I would be more than a little Angry if the white sox do not spend $100 million this offseason given that they knocked their payroll down below $50 million right now.