Jump to content
Marty34

Rebuild: So Far Better Than Could Have Hoped For

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 26, 2013 -> 06:53 PM)
How are they going to improve the offense and keep Peavy?

Trade a lesser starter for a bat and sign a couple free agents. I've already said names like McCann, Utley, Morales, & Granderson. All those guys would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:02 PM)
And don't forget your other genius idea, waive Ramirez and put Keppinger at SS.

 

If need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:02 PM)
Trade a lesser starter for a bat and sign a couple free agents. I've already said names like McCann, Utley, Morales, & Granderson. All those guys would help.

 

Wrong side of 30. Sell high on Peavy and Rios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bbilek1 @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:09 PM)
Under what circumstance do you think it is okay to have Keppinger as your starting SS?

Marty Is one of those guys that loves to point out failure. Keppinger at SS is a dream scenerio for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:07 PM)
Wrong side of 30. Sell high on Peavy and Rios.

McCann & Morales aren't even 30 yet. No doubt Utley is old, but he can help on a short-term deal. Same goes for Granderson.

 

You've been b****ing for over a year how the team won't spend money in free agency. I'm not sure who you expect the team to sign. The guys I've listed are solid free agents. If you expect us to sign the Robinson Cano's of the world you'll be real disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 26, 2013 -> 06:21 PM)
McCann & Morales aren't even 30 yet. No doubt Utley is old, but he can help on a short-term deal. Same goes for Granderson.

 

You've been b****ing for over a year how the team won't spend money in free agency. I'm not sure who you expect the team to sign. The guys I've listed are solid free agents. If you expect us to sign the Robinson Cano's of the world you'll be real disappointed.

 

 

For the White Sox, it's always better to spread that money over 2-3 guys than one huge contract.

 

Always.

 

You would think we would have learned our lesson with Dunn.

 

And we were fortunate to get out of the Belle deal before he became a salary albatross for the Orioles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:53 PM)
For the White Sox, it's always better to spread that money over 2-3 guys than one huge contract.

 

Always.

 

You would think we would have learned our lesson with Dunn.

 

And we were fortunate to get out of the Belle deal before he became a salary albatross for the Orioles.

I agree for the most part, although I don't think Dunn's contract is really that ridiculous. More has to do with paying your DH that much than anything.

 

And the more I think about it, Morales seems to make so much sense as Paulie's replacement. He's putting up a .286/.365/.451 slash line playing half his games at Safeco. Hopefully the low amount of HRs lessens the demand for him this coming offseason. He would fit nicely in our lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:11 PM)
I agree for the most part, although I don't think Dunn's contract is really that ridiculous. More has to do with paying your DH that much than anything.

 

And the more I think about it, Morales seems to make so much sense as Paulie's replacement. He's putting up a .286/.365/.451 slash line playing half his games at Safeco. Hopefully the low amount of HRs lessens the demand for him this coming offseason. He would fit nicely in our lineup.

 

 

It's either him or someone from the next tier down, such as Carlos Pena.

 

The closer we stay to age 30 players, and away from mid 30's, the better off we'll be. Easier said than done, though.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 26, 2013 -> 06:49 PM)
Free agency replaces Peavy, Peavy and Rios bring in position prospects.

 

Replace Peavy in free agency.....LMAO. You thing you are going to replace a guy with #1 stuff signed two a two year contract at market value in free agency. All I have to say is, Marty........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTgWDu9Sxkw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 26, 2013 -> 10:17 PM)
Replace Peavy in free agency.....LMAO. You thing you are going to replace a guy with #1 stuff signed two a two year contract at market value in free agency. All I have to say is, Marty........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTgWDu9Sxkw

 

 

With your repeated references to drug use, are you sure you're not sampling some of it yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 02:48 AM)
With your repeated references to drug use, are you sure you're not sampling some of it yourself?

 

I feel like I am with a lot of these posts around here itching for five years of 90+ losses all so we can get some more names on the BA Top 100 list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:41 AM)
I feel like I am with a lot of these posts around here itching for five years of 90+ losses all so we can get some more names on the BA Top 100 list.

So you are content missing the playoffs the last five years but only losing 80 games? The net effect is the same: Another year, another year sitting at home in October (in fact 11 of the last 14 years, we have been sitting out the playoffs despite arguably the weakest division in that time frame). Why not miss the playoffs while having a plan to be good five years down the road instead of this let's be good enough to be in the race, but not good enough to win the race.

 

I'm probably just a cynic and a perpetual pessimist with the Sox, but there is good reason. I see the same thing year in and year out where they simply don't have enough over the long haul of the season to do anything but "be in the race" only to fall out of it in September.

Edited by maggsmaggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:43 AM)
So you are content missing the playoffs the last five years but only losing 80 games? The net effect is the same: Another year, another year sitting at home in October (in fact 11 of the last 14 years, we have been sitting out the playoffs despite arguably the weakest division in that time frame). Why not miss the playoffs while having a plan to be good five years down the road instead of this let's be good enough to be in the race, but not good enough to win the race.

 

I'm probably just a cynic and a perpetual pessimist with the Sox, but there is good reason. I see the same thing year in and year out where they simply don't have enough over the long haul of the season to do anything but "be in the race" only to fall out of it in September.

 

I think in five years both plans have about the same chance to succeed. However under the "re-tool" plan you haven't alienated the fanbase and presumably have some talent on the major league level to work with (if you are winning 80-82 games then you have some guys that can play). Under the set the world on fire plan in THEORY you could end up with the Rays (we will ignore the fact that they were godawful for 10 years before they became a 90 win team) but you also have a great chance to become the Pirates, Royals, Mariners, etc.

 

I would rather delude myself with the re-tool method, because nothing about being out of the race on opening day for 5-7 years sounds appealing to me. All-stars can be found anywhere in the draft, ask the Angels and Cardinals. I would rather do it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:56 AM)
I think in five years both plans have about the same chance to succeed. However under the "re-tool" plan you haven't alienated the fanbase and presumably have some talent on the major league level to work with (if you are winning 80-82 games then you have some guys that can play). Under the set the world on fire plan in THEORY you could end up with the Rays (we will ignore the fact that they were godawful for 10 years before they became a 90 win team) but you also have a great chance to become the Pirates, Royals, Mariners, etc.

 

I would rather delude myself with the re-tool method, because nothing about being out of the race on opening day for 5-7 years sounds appealing to me. All-stars can be found anywhere in the draft, ask the Angels and Cardinals. I would rather do it that way.

 

 

The Angels haven't drafted well.

 

Just Trout, Jared Weaver and Howie Kendrick....at least in comparison to all the pitching the Cardinals have developed.

 

Even once-a-decade talents like Trout or Harper or Machado can't offset lousy starting pitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:56 AM)
I think in five years both plans have about the same chance to succeed. However under the "re-tool" plan you haven't alienated the fanbase and presumably have some talent on the major league level to work with (if you are winning 80-82 games then you have some guys that can play). Under the set the world on fire plan in THEORY you could end up with the Rays (we will ignore the fact that they were godawful for 10 years before they became a 90 win team) but you also have a great chance to become the Pirates, Royals, Mariners, etc.

 

I would rather delude myself with the re-tool method, because nothing about being out of the race on opening day for 5-7 years sounds appealing to me. All-stars can be found anywhere in the draft, ask the Angels and Cardinals. I would rather do it that way.

Exactly. The Sox try to win, they draft Chris Sale. The Cubs tank, their reward appears to be Mark Appel. Who would you rather have?

 

Saying the Sox draft position is the reason for their weak system is BS. There have been plenty of all stars they have had the opportunity to select.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunn earned his contract. Usually lefty bats with that kind of OBP & those kinds of home run totals are going to be worth more money per year and over a longer period of time. The problem is that Dunn hasn't played up to the standards he set which that contract is based on. Spreading that money around? You could say that about any player that is making a good chunk of cash, but you only focus on the ones who aren't earning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:00 AM)
The Angels haven't drafted well.

 

Just Trout, Jared Weaver and Howie Kendrick....at least in comparison to all the pitching the Cardinals have developed.

 

Even once-a-decade talents like Trout or Harper or Machado can't offset lousy starting pitching.

Nick Adenhart looked really good. The Angels have actually done very well building from within, filling multiple positions. One of their problems has been drafting players like Brandon Wood which other teams thought were going to be world beaters, and then not trading them as prospects. But then again had they traded one of those guys and had that player turned into what some thought they were going to be, their fans would never let them hear the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the White Sox had drafted Trout instead of Mitchell, would anyone other than one poster be clamouring for a rebuild?

 

It hasn't been a case of draft postion. It has been case after case of choosing the wrong player.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:21 PM)
McCann & Morales aren't even 30 yet. No doubt Utley is old, but he can help on a short-term deal. Same goes for Granderson.

 

You've been b****ing for over a year how the team won't spend money in free agency. I'm not sure who you expect the team to sign. The guys I've listed are solid free agents. If you expect us to sign the Robinson Cano's of the world you'll be real disappointed.

 

Don't want to rebuild the offense around 30 something y.o. free agents. A recipe for disaster. Dealing Peavy and Rios would be the equivalent of getting high draft picks which is what this team needs at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been known to be quite the homer on this board (remember the "this is real" post??) so this may just be that side of me speaking but I really see no reason to think about rebuilding. Especially after the last month where the Sox have the 3rd best record in the AL, just 1 game behind the Indians and .5 games behind the Rangers in that time frame. If PK or Dunn can step up and have sustained success then I see a good enough offense with this pitching to potentially sneak into the playoffs.

 

Gordon was looking pretty good the little bit we saw of him and if he can keep that up I'd really like to see him get put into the 2 hole. Move Lexi down in the order behind Conor and Tank to hopefully give him more opportunities to drive in some runs. Average wise he's been a much better hitter with runners on than with the bases empty. That said if ADA continues to struggle then a lead off hitter is what I'd be looking to acquire around the deadline if possible.

 

Put it this way, I think our offense can be better than the 2010/2012 Giants and you see what they did with that pitching staff.

Edited by 2nd_city_saint787

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:24 AM)
Don't want to rebuild the offense around 30 something y.o. free agents. A recipe for disaster. Dealing Peavy and Rios would be the equivalent of getting high draft picks which is what this team needs at this point.

Yeah, the Sox should have learned their lesson when they signed Dye as a 31 year old. Everyone stops hitting when they are 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 11:00 AM)
The Angels haven't drafted well.

 

Just Trout, Jared Weaver and Howie Kendrick....at least in comparison to all the pitching the Cardinals have developed.

 

Even once-a-decade talents like Trout or Harper or Machado can't offset lousy starting pitching.

 

My point is they have drafted franchise cornerstones like Trout and Weaver despite not picking in the top ten. If teams are picking up franchise players outside the top ten of the draft what is the point of tanking? I thought the entire point of tanking was to get high draft picks so you could get good players, if we don't need to do that to get good players, what am I missing?

 

I agree great offensive talents can't offset lousy starting pitching......BUT WE ALREADY HAVE GOOD STARTING PITCHING!!! We have filled the hardest hole, offense can be fixed a hell of a lot easier and more quickly than pitching can. So you stick with this team and try to make shrewd moved to get some guys that can hit on this team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 11:23 AM)
If the White Sox had drafted Trout instead of Mitchell, would anyone other than one poster be clamouring for a rebuild?

 

It hasn't been a case of draft postion. It has been case after case of choosing the wrong player.

Would Trout have destroyed his leg on the same play as Mitchell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:04 AM)
Exactly. The Sox try to win, they draft Chris Sale. The Cubs tank, their reward appears to be Mark Appel. Who would you rather have?

 

Saying the Sox draft position is the reason for their weak system is BS. There have been plenty of all stars they have had the opportunity to select.

The problem is that people still think we can throw unlimited resources at the draft and international free agents which simply isn't the case. Losing teams still have an edge under the new CBA, but it's nowhere near what it used to be.

 

What I don't get is how people don't realize developing prospects takes a s***-load of time. It's going to take the players in a given draft class 3 to 6 years to be major league ready. You'll need multiple strong drafts to eventually form a young core of players that you can compete with. Assuming you have 4 strong drafts in a row, maybe this can be accomplished in 5 or 6 years. If you start relying on lots of high school players and Latin American free agents then it will likely take even longer. This assumes that not only do you hit on a ton of your draft picks, but you can also successfully develop them into good big leaguers.

 

I don't know when rebuilding suddenly got so cool, but going through one is painful. Summers filled with 90 loss seasons suck. Talk to some Cubs fans. The initial dream of a few years of losing followed by endless World Series championships is starting to fade away. Cubs fans are starting to realize this rebuilding is going to take longer than expected. Meanwhile, their fans don't want to go to games. People are already sick of losing and it's only year 2. Imagine what happens if guys like Almora and Baez flop. Tack on a few more years to the rebuilding effort. I'm sure Cubs fans will still be for the rebuilding at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×