Would you have done things different?

[witesoxfan]

I wouldn't be surprised is Scherzer's multi-year demands are not met by any team, leaving him to consider a one-year deal and re-try. In that scenario, I could see the Sox in the mix, as we would have the lowest draft pick loss of any team, and would be sure to get back a higher one when Scherzer isn't re-signed.

 

Still a longshot. But not impossible.

 

I would be more surprised by that than I was at this exact combination of moves the Sox made this offseason.

 

Plus, if Scherzer took a 1 year deal to maximize his long-term return, I think you could easily see him get a 1 year, $30 million deal.

[LDF]

while Wite and ptat and others have made great post /

counters, i can't address each.

 

let me say, the sox, needs to ensure that the sox will have

viable pieces available for the unforeseen. just investing

the bare minimum and hope for the best is not going to cut

it. look at last yr and all the unforeseen failures and injuries.

that put the sox behind the 8-ball so to speak. this yr, with the

rebuild and expectations, they, the brass can't count on luck

or doing the bare minimum, as the sox have done thru JR's

and KW rein.

 

so yes they could've done more in the past to get the missing

pieces to a. get the team in a better position to win and b, by

winning taken over the fan base of chi.

 

how many time have the sox used and acquired players that were

reclamation projects to save money???

 

this yr, they, the sox have invested and rebuild the team to a tune

of 95-100+ mil and it is close, they have and looking at Rodon to

possible come up sometime during the next season. but what happen

if there is an injury, Hector does not continue his comeback, Erik

Johnson fails again, Beck is not ready to step up, the farm is not

ready to produce the players.

 

i am not saying getting Shields or Scherzer, too many yrs and at

what salary. there are other stop gap moves the team can do. there

were some other options in the fa market who could've and have been

had for 1 yr. better yet there are trade options for pitchers who are

1 or 2 yrs from FA.

 

As long as the core of Anderson, Rodon Adams and or Montas is not

touch., Mickler, Hawkins can be a nice center piece for trade. but

the sox brass will know more about that then us fans.

 

thanks

 

peace

 

btw a great discussions.

Edited January 6, 2015 by LDF

[BlackSox13]

You are endorsing a policy where Reinsdorf and the board spend $150 million a year on payroll. Regardless of the feasibility of that idea (according to these numbers, which are approximations, only 5 teams spent $150 million in payroll last year and the White Sox and Cubs COMBINED did not spend $150 million), what would you have spent that money on? It seems absurd that you are indicting Reinsdorf on not spending money and then not offering an alternative plan as to what would be done with that money. Are you implying that he should spend money just to spend money? Or are you using revisionist history and saying "they should have won more"? If you are going to say that they didn't win more in the last 10-15 years because Reinsdorf didn't spend money, then I will wholeheartedly and unabashedly disagree with you, because a sufficient amount of money was spent. If anything, that falls on the players on the field, the managers and coaches on the bench, and the people in the front office.

 

I do agree that they can spend more if the acquisition makes sense. At this juncture, how would you justify another expenditure like that? Bring in a guy like Scherzer, even though historical data shows us that pitchers who are worthwhile for 7 years are exceedingly rare? Bring in a guy like Shields who is already 33 and has shown some of the telltale signs of slowing down? Really, neither of those make sense and it takes an injury to either one of them to cripple the Sox and limit their flexibility in finding replacements. Frankly, the only sorts of moves that make sense are moves to shore up the depth of the club in the event that an injury strikes, and I think Hahn has shown just in the past years that he's constantly trying to do that. Considering they are also trying to allocate some money to sign Samardzija long-term while also accounting for raises to Abreu, Eaton, Sale, and Quintana, I think it makes sense to look at the current team through a long-term lens rather than a "spend everything, damn the margins, and try and win it this year!" This is a team that probably has a 40% chance of a playoff birth but they should be competitive and should win a lot more than they did last season. After the previous two meager seasons, I'd ultimately be happy with an 85 win team, even if there would be immediate disappointment if/when they were eliminated from playoff contention.

 

This is not an overnight process. Hopefully in 3 years, given what Hahn and the front office are doing to ensure long-term viability of the club while also doing their best to make the current club competitive, the Sox will be spending $150 million a year. There's no guarantee that this works. Thus, spending some and going out on a limb to try and put together a competitive team will either further justify spending or will allow them to trade a lot of these pieces off. If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract because the surplus value from either contract is not enough to justify another team trading for them. The current philosophy makes sense.

 

This is one of the most impressive and insightful posts I've read on this board. You know your stuff man.

 

 

[LDF]

This is one of the most impressive and insightful posts I've read on this board. You know your stuff man.

 

i agree.

[pettie4sox]

What are people's beef with Mark Cuban?

[LittleHurt05]

What are people's beef with Mark Cuban?

 

Hoosier

[shago]

I have also read over and over again during the years that the ownership takes no money out of the franchise, and instead re-invests those funds.

Investors bought the team for x and it is now worth................ No need to take money out, it's a free ride up the MLB valuation curve. Cash flow comes out of the parking lot.

[Eminor3rd]

What are people's beef with Mark Cuban?

 

My impression is that he's a bit of a loose cannon -- he'll do whatever it takes to be successful, even if it's eccentric. That's great for fans, but I get the sense that the MLB owner's club wants guys they know are willing to play nice with the status quo.

[Kyyle23]

My impression is that he's a bit of a loose cannon -- he'll do whatever it takes to be successful, even if it's eccentric. That's great for fans, but I get the sense that the MLB owner's club wants guys they know are willing to play nice with the status quo.

 

I agree, his issues with the NBA office have really hurt his ability to get in with other sports. The funny thing is he has really been a lot better than he was at the beginning, it's just a stigma that follows him around now.

[bmags]

What are people's beef with Mark Cuban?

 

I would love Mark Cuban, I find him to be selectively aggressive and smart. But he knows when to let it ride for a few years.

[LDF]

My impression is that he's a bit of a loose cannon -- he'll do whatever it takes to be successful, even if it's eccentric. That's great for fans, but I get the sense that the MLB owner's club wants guys they know are willing to play nice with the status quo.

 

 

i don't think it stop Charlie Finley and George Steinbrenner.

[Boopa1219]

This has been a perfect offseason but I might have signed Andrew Miller over David Robertson because he fits that mold of being a traditional closer with the high velocity more than Roberston who tops out at 94.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

This has been a perfect offseason but I might have signed Andrew Miller over David Robertson because he fits that mold of being a traditional closer with the high velocity more than Roberston who tops out at 94.

 

Miller has never been the "closer" on any team he's ever been on. I wouldn't shell out $30 Million+ for a good reliever that might not be able to close games.

[BlackSox13]

Miller has never been the "closer" on any team he's ever been on. I wouldn't shell out $30 Million+ for a good reliever that might not be able to close games.

Your point is a good one and reminds me of Matt Thornton.

[witesoxfan]

This has been a perfect offseason but I might have signed Andrew Miller over David Robertson because he fits that mold of being a traditional closer with the high velocity more than Roberston who tops out at 94.

 

Trevor Hoffman is one of the greatest closers of all time. In his last 9 years on the mound, his average fastball velocity was about 85 MPH.

 

Velocity is good. It is not everything. I have absolutely no qualms with David Robertson.

[Thad Bosley]

You are endorsing a policy where Reinsdorf and the board spend $150 million a year on payroll. Regardless of the feasibility of that idea (according to these numbers, which are approximations, only 5 teams spent $150 million in payroll last year and the White Sox and Cubs COMBINED did not spend $150 million), what would you have spent that money on? It seems absurd that you are indicting Reinsdorf on not spending money and then not offering an alternative plan as to what would be done with that money. Are you implying that he should spend money just to spend money? Or are you using revisionist history and saying "they should have won more"? If you are going to say that they didn't win more in the last 10-15 years because Reinsdorf didn't spend money, then I will wholeheartedly and unabashedly disagree with you, because a sufficient amount of money was spent. If anything, that falls on the players on the field, the managers and coaches on the bench, and the people in the front office.

 

I do agree that they can spend more if the acquisition makes sense. At this juncture, how would you justify another expenditure like that? Bring in a guy like Scherzer, even though historical data shows us that pitchers who are worthwhile for 7 years are exceedingly rare? Bring in a guy like Shields who is already 33 and has shown some of the telltale signs of slowing down? Really, neither of those make sense and it takes an injury to either one of them to cripple the Sox and limit their flexibility in finding replacements. Frankly, the only sorts of moves that make sense are moves to shore up the depth of the club in the event that an injury strikes, and I think Hahn has shown just in the past years that he's constantly trying to do that. Considering they are also trying to allocate some money to sign Samardzija long-term while also accounting for raises to Abreu, Eaton, Sale, and Quintana, I think it makes sense to look at the current team through a long-term lens rather than a "spend everything, damn the margins, and try and win it this year!" This is a team that probably has a 40% chance of a playoff birth but they should be competitive and should win a lot more than they did last season. After the previous two meager seasons, I'd ultimately be happy with an 85 win team, even if there would be immediate disappointment if/when they were eliminated from playoff contention.

 

This is not an overnight process. Hopefully in 3 years, given what Hahn and the front office are doing to ensure long-term viability of the club while also doing their best to make the current club competitive, the Sox will be spending $150 million a year. There's no guarantee that this works. Thus, spending some and going out on a limb to try and put together a competitive team will either further justify spending or will allow them to trade a lot of these pieces off. If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract because the surplus value from either contract is not enough to justify another team trading for them. The current philosophy makes sense.

Very thoughtful response, and thank you for that. I do appreciate it. A few reactions to your reply:

 

A.) Am I endorsing a policy where the current ownership group allocates $150 million to payroll? Yes, I certainly am. And that is solely because the reigning division champs - the team that has won the division four years in a row now - have a payroll in that vicinity, will continue to do so, and are still widely expected to repeat as division champs. To your point that there is no guarantee having such a high payroll works, you are absolutely correct about that, but it sure as heck greatly increases the team's chances of winning.

 

B.) Re: Max Scherzer. Case in point - if the Sox brought him in right now, even at the amount he's commanding, he would bring that team payroll up in the vicinity of $150 million, more or less. More importantly, though, is the impact he would have in this very interesting 3-5 year window the Sox are heading into as someone who I really think could put the team over the top and make them a true powerhouse. Forget about years 6 & 7 in that contract and how he might fall off at that time. That drop off would be well worth it if he could be the major catalyst who, if healthy, would be a primary contributor in taking the team to levels we have not seen in our lifetimes during this window. Despite the great moves Hahn has already made this winter, the complexion of our roster looks entirely different, and the teams chances are far more enhanced, with Scherzer on this team vs. not. So under the rule "Sometimes you have to spend money to make money", for the life of me I don't understand how the Sox don't strike at this moment and try to sign this guy and finish off this offseason with a bang. I know the Sox historically have not given out those kind of contracts, but that's part of my beef. How have these operating philosophies worked out for us in the past? I'm calling into question many aspects of the Sox' approach to matters only because they have simply not yielded desirable results. We hardly ever win!! So if it's changing course and taking on a little more risk than we have in the past, then so be it. Let's do it! Let us win the division four years in a row for a change and at least get into the stinkin' playoffs and then take our chances then. But the team in the division currently doing all the winning is spending substantially more than us, so all I'm saying is we need to start doing the same, and for me, a good starting point would be signing Mr. Scherzer.

 

C.) "If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract..." And what if they signed either of them and within a year and a half the team became a league powerhouse and went to the World Series one, two, three times, a la the San Francisco Giants, for example. What if! Again, it's a question of taking on a little risk, but the payoff could well be worth it. The team typically doesn't take on that type of risk, and how has that worked out for us.

[Heads22]

Trevor Hoffman is one of the greatest closers of all time. In his last 9 years on the mound, his average fastball velocity was about 85 MPH.

 

Velocity is good. It is not everything. I have absolutely no qualms with David Robertson.

 

 

He's kinda short.

 

I'm actually surprised that no one's brought up the fact that Robo has only really closed for one year.