Look at Ray Ray Run

Although Paulie never had a 4 or 5 fWAR season; Abreu has a 5.3 and a 4.4 fWAR season already. They are similar though.

If you think Konerko is more deserving than Buehrle you're smoking that good stuff today!

Yeah, I'm wrong on this; I had thought I read this but it's not accurate. He was 3rd in IP and 8th in wins.

Cliff Lee is off the ballot already I believe. Lee's problem is he didn't really get started until he was 30 years old. I think Buehrle checks a lot of boxes in the modern era; leading a decade in innings and wins would almost guarantee you a trip in past era's. I would need to do the research, but I don't think anyone who has done that has been left off. Here's a list of players who have led their decades in wins and finished top 3 in IP: 1900's - Christy Mathewson 1910's - Walter Johnson 1920's - Burleigh Grimes 1930's - Lefty Grove 1940's - Hal Newhouser 1950's - Warren Spahn 1960's - Juan Marichal 1970's - Jim Palmer 1980's - Jack Morris 1990's - Greg Maddux Every single player on that list is a HOF'er. Mark Buehrle would be the first one left out, and it would be a joke.

I'm pretty sure he'll take the job guaranteed to him since no MLB club is going to give him a big league contract.

You guys joking? Konerko wouldn't be a HOF'er if he was a Yankee; that's nuts. If you guys want to go to bat for someone who is ABSOLUTELY deserving, who will likely be overlooked, it's Buehrle. I've been pretty vocal that for a career, I use bWAR over fWAR for pitchers - for season to season, and projections I'd use fWAR. Buehrle falls right around 60-65th all-time, which is borderline and plenty haven't gotten in from that tier BUT, accomplishments really do matter. Buehrle was the best fielding pitcher of his generation, he threw a nono and a perfect game, had a dominant post-season run, and was the most durable pitcher in the modern era. He lead the league in wins and IP for a decade. Buehrle is a unique case, but imo he's a HOF'er based on all the intangibles and achievements.

Hard to evaluate hostetler when he took over in 2015. He has been a part of some pretty decent results 2011-on. Hahn and Hostetler certainly havent failed in the draft and if Mad and Vaughn are impact players and Collins is a long time big leaguer then I'd say they did exceptional - stiever being a bonus.

One amazing pick? So you dont give credit for multiple picks at the beginning of the decade through 2015, and then you also wont give them credit for Madrigal or Vaughn because they were higher picks. This is some incredible mental gymnastics. Plenty of top 5 picks bust. The astros took mark Appel #1. The Twins took Kohl Stewart 4th. I could go on and on. Every year multiple top 5 picks end up being blah. Of course the White Sox deserve credit.

Yeah they cant be assessed, but Madrigal and Vaughn sure look solid to me.

Over the years? I said in the past decade theyve drafted well. It's a fact regardless of how many times you want to disagree with it. It happened, you were wrong and its OK.

So you cant defend your position so you're resorting to a goal post move? Got it.

BA does the decade every close, but it might as well be a "who had the best first 6 years."

I honestly have no idea why people think the league sentiment is that Castellanos is better than Ozuna. Ozuna has been twice as valuable thus far in his career, and while hes 2 years older which evens it out, by no means is Castellanos easily better. Ozuna actually probably had more of an NL market too because he can defend. Castellanos will be lucky to draw 2/40 after how the league just valued ozuna.

They felt they needed to try and replace some of Donaldsons bat after missing. Seems short sighted but maybe it works for them.

Yeah, but seems the Cardinals were serious about not spending. Doesnt look good.

Pretty embarrassing that the Cardinals didnt even match or beat that offer.

1 year 18 million. Well I guessed one of those guys would take a haircut and it looks to be Ozuna. Poor Castellanos, this doesnt bode well for his payday.

No one in their right mind judges a baseball draft 3 and 4 years removed from said draft.

I think youd be crazy to do a trade like that. Agree to disagree. Arenado has 2 years of guaranteed control left. And hes already paid market value.

It doesnt mean everytime a star is available you should say the sox should get him. That's not exactly quality team building now is it. If you want to spin the Sox not being in on Arenado negatively, be my guest but it's absurd.

What? Of course they deserve credit. The people who run and evaluate drafts arent the ones deciding to trade a minor leaguer for a win now asset. The people who scouted and identified the asset is what is being assessed when evaluating the successes of draft classes. The sox drafted well even if they traded semien. Tatis is irrelevant and pointless in this discussion.

Wait, please explain what is bogus about rating drafts over a decade based on WAR produced? You have yet to even present a reasonable or rational argument in defiance against the study. You said stars; the Sox got three stars in 7 years (Sale, Semien and Anderson). Sale and Semien were two of the best picks of the entire decade - if not the two best picks. The Sox excelled at drafting players; I have no idea why you continue to insinuate that it's fake. There's nothing fake about it.

That's great; usually teams with better players win more. Also, usually teams that win more have a process and plan for roster development and they don't simply jump at every star on the market just because they're great players. Spending 25% of your payroll to acquire a player who plays the same position as your best player is a mis-allocation of resources; especially considering you may need to give up a piece that was a part of your roster building future to do it. It's cool to build all-star teams in video games, but making bad moves or misfit moves tend to harm organizations in the long run one way or another.

I find it funny that you think just adding a star because they're a star is always the right answer.

Or maybe, the Sox have no interest in investing that much money at third base for a guy with an opt out in 2 years who would cost not only money, but prospects? Especially if they forecast Madrigal to be worth more over 7 years than Arenado is over 2. There's a ton of factors that go into a decision like this, and I think this whole "just move Yoan" sentiment is just wrong. It's amazing how every time a star is available, peoples take is "get him no matter what!" They then go on to cite cheapness or some other angle, completely ignoring the real reason; team and roster building matters.