What would you prefer?

[Dominikk85]

1. A good 6 year run of success with 4-5 playoff appearances but no WS win

 

2. A single year success winning the WS but not much after?

Ideally would be getting both of course but if you had to choose one which would you take?

[soxfan49]

4 minutes ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

1. A good 6 year run of success with 4-5 playoff appearances but no WS win

 

2. A single year success winning the WS but not much after?

Ideally would be getting both of course but if you had to choose one which would you take?

Give me #2. I don’t watch my favorite teams for good, I watch them and hope for championships.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

#2. Easily.

[Lip Man 1]

#1 easily. The Sox have already accomplished #2. The state of this franchise right now is that they badly meed a run of sustained success even if that doesn't mean a title simply multiple playoff appearances. TV ratings are rock bottom, fan interest is iffy, and they are the only one of the original 16 major league franchises to have never made the playoffs in consecutive seasons. (To say nothing of trying to become relevant again in their own home market)

Having four or five good years in a row will solve a lot of their problems and issues.

 

 

[TheTruth05]

World Series count,nothing else matters. #2

[Balta1701]

#2. 

[Quin]

Ask Tigers fans if they'd rather their run, or have won in 2006.

I'd have rather won.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

Playoff appearances don't mean a thing if you don't win it all. I don't even know why this is a debate.

[iWiN4PreP]

If you haven’t won in some x amount of years than it's better to win a world series.

 

If you have won in some x amount of years than it would be better to go to the playoffs more often than just winning once again.

 

methinks x is roughly 50 years

Edited December 24, 2018 by iWiN4PreP

[greg775]

I want the WS title. A lot of you guys despise Ozzie, whom I love. He brought us the title in 2005. His letting those starters go so deep in games was really a good managerial move. Now it's Ricky's turn. WS titles are all that matter. We don't realize how good we have it completing the deal in 05 and not just making the WS then losing.

[Vote4Pedro]

#2 World Series or bust....if you can’t close the big deal it doesn’t matter anyways.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I would prefer multiple years of the  playoffs....

 

 

 

 

 

and winning multiple World Series. #bestanswer

[bschmaranz]

21 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I would prefer multiple years of the  playoffs....

 

 

 

 

 

and winning multiple World Series. #bestanswer

[Eminor3rd]

2

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

No debate - #2

[SoxBlanco]

I would rather have one World Series, followed by 50 straight seasons of 60-win baseball than 50 straight playoff appearances with no championships. 

In other words, #2 without a doubt. 

[Marky Mark]

Because we have already won the WS in recent enough memory, I would say number one.  The excitement of a playoff hunt for half a decade where we would be known as a dominant team would be stronger than a season of championship that may be called a fluke.  Now if we didn't win in 05, my answer would be different.

[iWiN4PreP]

Some of you voting #2 (world series) are outta your mind! 

Check out how bad this past season has been and how bad this past decade has been. The only tolerable thing going for the Sox now is that they have a loaded farm system of young guys due to the trades. Can you imagine going 50 years like this? 

We already won one in 2005, I'd be a much happier W'Sox fan if we put a consistent competitor on the field for the next 10 years.  If the Sox go the next 5 years as trash that might be the end of it for me. 

[OmarComing25]

8 hours ago, Markbilliards said:

Because we have already won the WS in recent enough memory, I would say number one.  The excitement of a playoff hunt for half a decade where we would be known as a dominant team would be stronger than a season of championship that may be called a fluke.  Now if we didn't win in 05, my answer would be different.

Agree with this. We’ve already seen the “win a title and then suck” story play out, but we’ve never seen this franchise be consistently competitive for a stretch, I’m leaning #1.

Edited December 24, 2018 by OmarComing25

[turnin' two]

2 minutes ago, OmarComing25 said:

Agree with this. We’ve already seen the “win a title and then suck” story play out, but we’ve never seen this franchise be consistently competitive for a stretch, I’m leaning #1.

What is the point in being competitive?  You play to win.  #2.  

 

But I think the entire point of this rebuild was to accomplish both.  

[OmarComing25]

2 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

What is the point in being competitive?  You play to win.  #2.  

 

But I think the entire point of this rebuild was to accomplish both.  

Because to me competitive seasons are infinitely more interesting as a fan than non competitive seasons are and I think 6 interesting seasons is better entertainment value than 1 amazing season and 5 seasons of suck. And if this front office can prove they can actually build a consistent competitor then that’s better for the future of this franchise than if they just luck into a title again. #1 means I’m more confident in more titles happening in the future than if #2 happened.

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, OmarComing25 said:

Because to me competitive seasons are infinitely more interesting as a fan than non competitive seasons are and I think 6 interesting seasons is better entertainment value than 1 amazing season and 5 seasons of suck. And if this front office can prove they can actually build a consistent competitor then that’s better for the future of this franchise than if they just luck into a title again. #1 means I’m more confident in more titles happening in the future than if #2 happened.

Very much disagree with the concept. Look at the teams not named the Dodgers or Yankees - what happens if they win for 5 or 6 straight years? Their system gets tapped out completely because they need to trade away their minor league talent to keep winning 90 games. The key players who helped them build those teams start getting expensive to the point that you have to pick 1 or 2 to keep, and the rest you trade away. Those teams get a choice - gradually get worse and worse every year, or suddenly hit a cliff. The Cubs, the team that laughs at native americans, the Royals, the Giants, the Rangers, the Tigers. They had multi year runs of 90+ wins but eventually the money runs out and the supply of players doesn't keep up with demand. The Astros have survived 5 years, but this year Cole and Verlander hit free agency and that's going to be a tough batch to hold onto or replace. Then Springer does the next year. Then Correa does the next year. 

[Capital G]

I am torn as the end game should always be a WS.

However, I think the play-off run may be better for the Sox future. Why?

-We have seen plenty of people share that were not a great FA landing spot bc were not perennial winners. Being in it for 5-6 years in a row, even if no WS, could work out in the end as more FAs see us as winners (of course we all know $ would still reign supreme)

-The more years in a row we are in the play-offs the more money/fan interest

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

People saying #1 are insane..

[OmarComing25]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Very much disagree with the concept. Look at the teams not named the Dodgers or Yankees - what happens if they win for 5 or 6 straight years? Their system gets tapped out completely because they need to trade away their minor league talent to keep winning 90 games. The key players who helped them build those teams start getting expensive to the point that you have to pick 1 or 2 to keep, and the rest you trade away. Those teams get a choice - gradually get worse and worse every year, or suddenly hit a cliff. The Cubs, the team that laughs at native americans, the Royals, the Giants, the Rangers, the Tigers. They had multi year runs of 90+ wins but eventually the money runs out and the supply of players doesn't keep up with demand. The Astros have survived 5 years, but this year Cole and Verlander hit free agency and that's going to be a tough batch to hold onto or replace. Then Springer does the next year. Then Correa does the next year. 

That’s not what I’m arguing.

Hypothetical scenario A: The White Sox get a bunch of fluky career years out of otherwise mediocre players and win a title, but for the following 5 seasons the team averages 68 wins a season and don’t sniff the playoffs. Talent evaluation is still highly questionable.

Hypothetical scenario B: The White Sox average 95 wins over a six year stretch with 5 playoff appearances and two pennants but zero titles.

Even if the window of contention is now closing in scenario B which do you feel better about going forward and which one does more to generate fan interest?

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by OmarComing25