Eminor3rd

He's proven he can get through the lineup once. I have my doubts about more. This is cool though, the "modern bullpen" is so dumb and hierarchical, it's good to see it being used to solve problems creatively as they come up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 04:09 PM) But you know what? That simply isn't "Great pitching". Top of the league in ERA ought to be the standard for great pitching. With the ballpark factor you might tell me it's tolerable...it's clearly not "Bad" pitching, but it's not the level of pitching that will carry a team to the playoffs. I don't know if I'd call it "great" either, but another factor that has made the SP really good is the amount of innings they've covered, which is very valuable in maximizing the value of a bullpen. This is why the fWAR of our pitching is always so high.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 04:06 PM) I think the longer you hold on to Rios, Peavy, and maybe even De Aza beyond this trade deadline the lesser their trade value will be. As far as position goes, unfortunately because of the state of our minors, I would not make position a priority in any trade that's made. Sure, if Rios and Peavy are at peak value AND there is a team willing to give up surplus value for them, then it is the right time to trade and you've made a good long-term decision. As far as stocking the minors for position, I agree with you, but I think the other poster was talking about the suggestion of getting rids of controllable major league assets like De Aza and Viciedo, which I think is a bad idea unless you get a lopsided offer -- because you're just creating a different hole to fill later otherwise.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 03:50 PM) Yeah I know there's a ballpark effect built in, but in terms of ERA, the Sox haven't had "Great pitching" the last 3 years, they've had mediocre pitching. Each of the last 3 years the Sox have been 8th or tied for 8th in the AL in ERA. Compare that to 2009, they were 2nd in the AL in ERA. They've invested a lot in their pitching staff in both money and talent and it has not produced great pitching year to year. A whole lot of that, FWIW, is Jake Peavy and his associated injury, which has hurt every one of those years. But ballpark factor is exactly why ERA is not a good way to judge pitching.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) I can't answer your questions and to me they're not very important. The Sox desperately need cheap offensive talent regardless of position. But I think this process has started. Rushing it will only ensure you get less value out of the assets you use -- both talent and dollars. And those questions of positions are extremely important, ESPECIALLY if you advocated a scorched-Earth approach to rebuilding because if you don't have them covered, where are you when the core you want exists in a few years? You still have a bunch of other positions to fill and you dumped all of your tradeable assets for pennies on the dollar.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) True, but this seems to corrolate with age. They have to get younger. Definitely. That's what I mean about making sound long-term investments. The downside is that you have to wait for those opportunities to come rather than just deciding to go Blue Jays/Marlins one year. We would have to be content that the changes our team makes for next year may simply not be enough for next year. But, if those changes don't hurt us AFTER next year, then we'll be improving from a better base from then on.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) I do think the loss of Beckham hurts our lineup a lot. I just want to let that line sink in. Who would have expected THAT to be said at any point this year?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) Why spend money to try to stay in the middle though? Better to save resources as you rebuild. That option isn't perfect either of course. I don't think that's how it is though -- it's spending money as necessary to make sound investments in improving your team every year. Ideally, the money you spend nds up being on resources that produce long-term value. So it's NOT going for broke on the free agent market unless you have the chance to acquire a good buy, and it's NOT trading everyone for whatever you can get unless you feel like you are getting the better end of the deal. Very rarely do teams go from horrible to winners, much more frequently they go from decent to better, to winners.

I had a weird thought last night that I wanted to record here, just in case it happens. Seattle sours on Jesus Montero because Zunino keeps raking and they extend a revived Kendrys Morales. Sox acquire Montero over the offseason for some pitching prospects because Flowers isn't very good and Konerko retires and they figure he can play first if he never learns to catch.

You know they capped draft spending, and they're trying to find a way to have an international draft, right? Also, you know how it seems like every good young player is getting a long-term extension? ML-ready prospects are valued higher than ever, and you can't re-allocate major league money to get an advantage in prospect acquisition. Our guys aren't going to bring back impact talent in trades. You might as well keep trying to win at the major league level and focus more than ever on drafting and developing well. The only reasonable alternative is to completely tank for 5-7 years to try to rack up number one picks. Even that, though, is less effective than it probably feels because we're used to seeing Strasburgs and Harpers available when they usually aren't.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) I think it's premature to say he's not a bust. You don't spend two years waiting on a guy to develop as a LF'er and his K-to-BB ratio says it all. I thought you were making a funny joke. Then I read the second line.

I think he's gonna eat us up. He's a better version of all the Royals pitchers that destroy us every time

The batting order isn't going to change the outcome of this season. If we're going to compete, everyone has to play average to above average. It probably won't happen, but it might. Doesn't matter where Dunn bats or how much you hate him.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 12, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) I bet they don't pull up another infielder. They could use a spot starter, actually. Oh, didn't see the move was made.

I bet they don't pull up another infielder. They could use a spot starter, actually.

Yeah guys, I wish we never signed Adam Dunn. Remember how much better it was when we had Mark Kotsay?

Actually the answer would be Rios to cleanup.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 10, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) It is reality though. Look at the attendance from 2005 and 2006. Guess which one is higher? But since they didn't do anything in 2006 it went down in 2007. The previous season absolutely matters. Exactly. So the team won 85 games last year -- the last thing that happened was a ridiculous collapse, where they blew it all AGAINST THE ODDS, proving all the skeptics right that they were worse than the Tigers. That's the taste in everyone's mouths. And, during the offseason, they gave us Jeff Keppinger and nothing. I'm not saying I don't like the move or think they should have signed Hamilton, but who is really surprised that the general fan isn't pumped to go to the park in April?

QUOTE (TRU @ Apr 9, 2013 -> 05:29 PM) No. Uh... touche.

Good day to rest ol' Dunner

QUOTE (Papa Tru @ May 30, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) All you did was name players that those teams let walk away from them, our numbskull GM TRADES these players away for nothing in return. We really are a poorly run organization that lucked into a World Series in 05 which has kept this awful GM in office ever since. This is such a meatball thing to say. Prospects are probabilities. Gio's value at the time was not what it is at his ceiling, it's the average of all possible outcomes. More often than not, hard throwing lefties with major control issues become relievers. Occasionally, they hit their absolute ceilings and become frontline starters. KW traded lottery tickets for established talent, which was what he needed at the time. Oakland bought lottery tickets at the cost of established talent, which made more sense for them at the time.

QUOTE (My_Sox_Summer @ Apr 9, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) What I was asking was, if winning was the cure, the Sox would have been selling out at the end of the year. They weren't. People do what they feel like doing. If you create excitement around a team, people will want to be a part of it. 2-3 months of leading the division by a few games en route to another disappointing season with no playoffs, evidently, does not create sufficient excitement. It's been seven years since the team did anything outside of getting throttled in the ALDS once. I'm not surprised that people don;t get excited about the team. A few good teams in a row, though, I guarantee, would create some excitement. People want to be a part of a winning culture. It's probably true, unfortunately, that it's way easier to lose that feeling than to gain it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 9, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Wow, the Tribune did a great job of brainwashing Sox fans over the years to make them think they're 2nd class fans. I don't read the Tribune, but the Score definitely does.

The White Sox are a business, they have a product they are trying to sell to us, the fans. We don't OWE them anything -- it's their job to sell something to us. Likewise, when we buy their product, they don't owe US anything -- they don't have to boost the payroll or do anything. It's in their best interest to keep us happy and engaged so that we buy more of their product, and they will invest as much and as wisely as is necessary to do so. If they fail (either in terms of the on-field product or the stadium/media experience), they run the risk of losing revenue if fans decide not to buy more product. It's that simple, there is no morality or code of conduct here. You can complain about attendance, but if the attendance was there, you'd probably be complaining about payroll, because why would the White Sox find it necessary to invest more in the product than they need to? While those two numbers are surely correlated because they are both related to revenue, you are plain wrong to assume that they "reward" us with payroll for performing our "responsibility" of attendance. Do you go to McDonald's twice a week in hopes that you'll boost revenue and they'll create a better sandwich for you? The White Sox, just like McDonald's, are making a ton of money, and probably always will. If they weren't, the ownership group would fold.

QUOTE (My_Sox_Summer @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) Did you complain and say that price was the only thing holding you back from going to more games? If not, this whole thread doesn't apply to you anyways. Cheers! No, I didn't. Point taken.