nrockway

no they weren't. amusingly enough, the Royals were over .500 because they want a new ballpark. Their dumb ownership just did it a year too late (dumb for even letting it go in front of voters).

I'm not so sure Montgomery is that guy. We could've just drafted him, right? To me he looks like a corner outfielder that will quickly become a DH. I think Boston has a bunch of good players though. I'd really like to see Rafaela on the (appropriately-colored) Sox but I don't think he's the main piece you want back. His bat wasn't so good last year but his defensive versatility would be a good fit after Robert is traded and our Montgomery inevitably moves off SS. Mayer seems like a pipedream but maybe his injury history drops his status a bit; but would hate to wind up with another one of Boston's injury-riddled infield prospects. Mayer, Rafaela, Bleis for Crochet seems like a good starting point for a trade negotiation. Boston probably says no, so maybe you add in Robert and Boston adds Willkommen Gonzalez.

I tend to think, if you're dealing with contracts at that dollar amount, the player is probably more concerned with where he can get consistent playing time and have an opportunity to play himself into a multi-year contract. I don't imagine he's thinking super hard about what the fans think about the owner or whatever. If you're a professional baseball player and your career is up in the air, are you going to want to play for a team that will give you 500 at bats or you would rather sit on the bench in Cleveland? what's a 'quality org' in that circumstance? would you rather be the janitor at a 'quality org' or in a position you enjoy doing at the 30th best org, if the money is the same?

That team was doomed the moment they fired Hinkie. I think this is a pretty good analogy except the Sixers had more playoff success and sustained it somewhat. I think you still wouldn't want to face them in the play-in. I guess Paul George is kind of like Benintendi. bad, old, overpaid....or Joe Kelly.

There is no risk in professional sports, I think we discussed on this forum how a pro sports franchise is a safer investment than the S&P 500, offering at least double the return. It seems to be the safest investment there is. Reinsdorf mismanaged $20mil into $2il, he didn't successfully run a business, he was rewarded for being incompetent and for gettin' in when the gettin' was good. What does Reinsdorf deserve? A pat on the back for his hard and intelligent work running the White Sox into the ground? For being old and independently wealthy? Seemingly he did some intelligent things to initially make his fortune, but he became a billionaire while failing to run the Sox. Professional sports ownership is basically just failing up, I think it's the antithesis of a meritocratic and democratic society. Think about what the city or state could do with that revenue, the taxpayer foots the bill for anything actually 'risky' in sports regardless, such as stadium construction. The public is taking a risk, the owner isn't, thus it might be nice to see some of that publicly-created wealth, maybe there could be a stream of revenue for public services besides property taxes. America has such incredible sports leagues and talented players because the public places a lot of cultural importance on it. The team owners don't need to do a thing to develop their workforce, the public does it for them. Sport is fundamentally a public good and it always has been in 'western' society, there is really no rational argument to make in favor of team owners. Your point is fair, if you're taking a risk, you might expect some financial reward. I just don't see what 'risks' the owners are taking. They are leeches on the public, welfare queens really, and leeches on the sport. I also am not claiming that the sport is broken, I love watching and talking about baseball, I just think there should be rules in place that support a competitive and fair environment, for the sake of the fans. World Series victories is not a particularly good way to measure parity either. They play 162 games for a reason and the playoffs are a crapshoot. It definitely helps though when your entire roster is highly-paid superstars. It's a band-aid for being unable to develop players internally, only a few teams can do it, and it tends to work. Ohtani wasn't particularly good in the postseason, neither was Judge. So does that mean a winning strategy is cross your fingers and hope your roster gives their best David Freese impression? You can still enjoy the sport and also not be blind to something pretty glaring. As previously mentioned, the other major leagues in the USA operate this way, why shouldn't the MLB?

Well, of course they will do that. You could make a similar point about any business, the point is to make money, and 'winning' and 'making money' are not necessarily connected. Seems to be the case in most industries that profit is closer connected to cost-cutting than to improving the product or service. I don't think you could really expect any corporation to regulate itself effectively which is why society makes rules for them to follow. I'm just suggesting that MLB be regulated more like the NBA or NFL, it's not a wild assertion. Basketball would be incredibly boring (well, more boring than it already is) if the Lakers trotted out five guys making $50mil a year versus 15 teams emulating 'The Process' Sixers. It also adds a fun dimension to team-building where giving out bad contracts actually matters. What if retained salary counted against a team's ability to sign free agents? Maybe the Mets don't pay $35mil to Scherzer to play for a different team, maybe they aren't rewarded with a great prospect in exchange for a bad contract. Also the 20 year cutoff seems a little arbitrary. Why not mention the Yankees? I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every 'great' player from eras past played for the Yankees. Yes, you can win at baseball without spending a ton of money, but why shouldn't every team be compelled to follow the same standards? Why should the system be laissez-faire when it has an impact on the quality of the sport? Disparate spending on payroll obviously has an impact on how teams perform and it makes the league less competitive.

Yes. It shouldn't even be a choice. It should be like every other sport. Why should we have faith that the team owner is going to 'do the right thing'? He should be compelled to 'do the right thing' and one team shouldn't be able to sign every single good free agent. The Dodgers are such an overrated team. When was the last time they actually produced a homegrown player that's any good? Miguel Vargas? Michael Busch? Pages? Lux? The only guys on their playoff roster that they can be credited for 'developing' weren't very good. It's easier to win at baseball when you can pay unlimited money to every superstar in the league. It isn't the 'only' thing, you can certainly win without spending a ton of money, so why isn't it a rule that every team has to spend within the same window? It objectively produces a non-competitive environment. It's the worst thing about professional baseball honestly.

Right, seems pointless to shop him now. If he can just hit for his career average numbers next season, he looks a whole lot better with only two years left on the deal. I can't imagine a scenario where the Sox eat $50 mil or whatever he's still owed. Some team might take on $30mil in salary if he can produce 3 WAR next season.

Totally agree. I just don't see why you'd keep a guy like that in AAA. It's not like there's anybody blocking him. Do you think he's a softie and his MLB career will be over the second he sees a pitch he can't hit? Perhaps. Better to learn that sooner than later though; especially in a down year, I think. If the team wants to compete in 2026, might be nice to realize you need a SS/3B and it's an easier decision to make if Montgomery takes 500ish at bats in 2025. I don't think he's going to 'save' the franchise, I just want to see if he's any good. I'm optimistic. Seems like a hard worker with a nice attitude, confident yet realistic. Realism suggests he's the opening day SS. I'll eat my Birmingham Barons hat if he's not (the hat I have on, some guy asked me tonight if it was a Red Sox hat...what you get when you go north. 'Oh are you from Alabama?' I digress). I tend to think another year in MILB is just going to be detrimental. What do you think about the coaching staff point? Should the same losers be allowed to work with him? The minor league coaches seem to be failing, this new hitting coach might be pretty good. The mailman asked me for a lighter the other day so he could light up his blunt in his federal vehicle and we talked about the hitting coach specifically, for some reason. I thought it was a Black n Mild, but our man unpacked the tobacco and filled it with marijuana. shout out. I guess. you probably shouldn't drive a vehicle like that. He said something about trading Crochet but I didn't understand the west side accent immediately. We agreed the hitting coach might be pretty good, "those guys in Baltimore can hit" they sure can. I plagiarized points I read on SoxTalk in order to impress the mailman. Thanks, guys. He was less interested in the Rule 5 draft discussion. I said 'you gotta let the kids play' and he agreed. I appreciate the team telling me Austin Slater was a major league contract, that certainly influenced the discussion. "yeah he played in Baltimore but what about Wilfred Veras bro." I digress again. Colson should 'earn' the spot, sure, but, ya know, I think he kinda earned it already because he's transcended his draft slot; and yes, I am also thinking about an arbitrary timeline. What's that got to do with Rick Hahn specifically? 4 years to finish university is also an arbitrary timeline, but people seem to be OK with that. Sometimes it takes longer, but occasionally brilliant people finish it in 2 years. In this analogy, Colson just finished his 4th year. We all like smoking pot and hitting on girls, Colson, but it's time to join the workforce, pal. Rick Hahn's problem is that he's an antisocial dumbass from Winnetka who simply doesn't understand how baseball works. Sounds like everybody's former manager in a way. Baseball is moving toward these guys making the league sooner. If Colson debuts at 25, that's sort of a problem, I think. Have you ever heard of a good baseball player that debuted with a receding hairline? I wrote some more relevant points, but I deleted them. They might be relevant in this thread later. Something to do with Vaughn and Ramos and velocity. I think the mailman bit was funnier. We can wait and see on Montgomery but I think he's gonna be pretty good. Just a feeling.

I see your point, it’s a good one that I don’t really dispute. I just don’t think you can start the guy off in the minors again, specifically for his development. Do I know what I’m talking about? Not really. But in a way, he needs to grow up. What is he going to learn at AAA, he needs another 600 at bats to see a fastball? The velocity difference between AAA and MLB is not that huge. I think it’s worth mentioning he crushed some flamethrowers in AFL (DL Hall). The new criticism is he can’t hit anything inside. I don’t know dude. Do any of us? It’s fun to talk about anyway. I like to point out what I think is a contradiction on fan thought in the “rushing” of a player.

Maybe not. I’m not sure if Colson is ready for the majors. I just don’t think you can call it “being rushed” when he qualifies for a rule specifically created to prevent teams from stashing their prospects in the minors forever. Most of the big name high school guys from his class haven’t debuted yet but I suspect they will debut next year. Colson was also a year older than the typical HS kid (why he’s even rule 5 eligible, right?). It’s not a rush, we all expected him last year, he’s out of time as far as I’m concerned (and I suspect the White Sox and Colson Montgomery agree).

The venue holds like ten people. This is honestly so funny.

thirsty thursday is alive and well in berkeley

It's not a prediction of anything. I'm offering an example of how, frankly, none of us really know what we are talking about in regards to Montgomery's development, outside of what is reported, ie the fastball issue and his back. And general pessimism about the Sox ability to develop players. You might've been saying the same thing about Merrill based on looking at a baseball-reference page was my point. And the point is certainly not that he will be as good as Merrill based on a projection of AA numbers or that they 'comp' on anything related to baseball tools, simply that one ought to not judge a 22-year-old's "readiness" based on some minor league numbers. You prefer he hit 2.000 OPS, right, but there's also reason to believe he was playing hurt and it was affecting him, considering the numbers were trending up the last month at Charlotte and in AFL. Can't put a ton of stock in that sample size, but there's an argument to make. .700ish OPS is not terrible anyway, just not what we expected. The actual point I wanted to make in this thread is that we can't call a guy "rushed" when he's rule 5 eligible! Sink or swim time, Monty! I think he's gonna be just fine.

AA, pal. And 2023, not 2024. Disappointing that you replied without actually reading the post.

Well right, it sounds like we agree. If all of Colson's options are used, he probably just sucks at baseball. What's the point in waiting until a mid-season call up to find out? To win a couple extra games with a 30something SS with no trade value? Seems like you're actually hampering the player's development by starting him off with a staff he definitely won't finish the season with; plus it's just offensive. I'd take it personally. Get him around the major league team ASAP and the new coaching staff. I'm genuinely surprised that people think he is being rushed, he's practically graying. By the way, Jackson Merrill OPS'd considerably lower than Colson in AA in 2023 and was rewarded with a major league call-up. How'd that work out for the Padres. I think they're comparable players. Same draft class, both high schoolers, both play 'defense-first' positions and had similar prospect rankings. Not a 1:1 comparison, but he had a mediocre AA season then immediately had an excellent MLB season.

oh that's hilarious! "hey internet, how much should we pay Severino?"

Where'd you see those? I opened the application but couldn't find it.

It's fairly arbitrary but there was also a league-mandated deadline to add him to the roster. I don't think it's about 'earning' it so much as he has run out of time to be babied and he should prove that he's an MLB player. I don't think you can say a guy is being rushed if he makes it to rule 5 eligibility. Especially someone with his supposed credentials and in an environment where guys are making the majors earlier than ever before. He's been in MILB forever, it's time to show something. At this point, it's on the player, and I suspect Colson thinks so too. I just think every party involved, Colson, the team, the fans wants to see him make the opening day roster and I don't see a good argument why he shouldn't make it. Or why the entire roster shouldn't be 25 or younger. If he really sucks, fine, option him, but nobody rushed him to the majors. There's a contradiction between two common fan perspectives: "why are these old bums playing over the kids?" and "why are these kids being rushed when old bums could be playing?". Two reasonable, context-specific questions, but what is gained by signing Jose Iglesias? so Colson can 'earn' it? Strikes me as poor management, a good way to piss off a player the organization holds in high esteem. That almost certainly affects job performance. What happens to Colson if he makes the opening day roster and blows it? His back is going to explode and he'll fall into a deep, Steve Blass-esque depression? Is everybody already writing off Jackson Holliday and his sub.600 OPS?

Sure, Martinez had a very nice season and was paid a fair contract. You could say the same thing about Wacha, a very good pitcher paid a fair amount (perhaps underpaid). Fedde was objectively a steal though. Somebody within the organization thought it was a good idea to pay him. If the Mets were in on him, they definitely could've used him and have an unlimited budget, they could've paid him. As I say, glass half full, that feels like a good sign. Now just figure it out with every other department, not just 30+ pitchers.

out of that list, I'd call Fedde the 'steal' of it. it's too bad it turned into Vargas (jury's still out on him I guess), but you gotta give the front office credit for seeing something there though, that evidently only 'wunderkind' Stearns also saw. I suppose the discussion is about something different, but I don't know what Fedde's deal has to do with anything. He was probably in discussion with teams well before he eventually signed with the Sox...but the market was dry for him. Had to think he was expecting a bigger payday. Do we think the Reds would've rather paid Nick Martinez $21mil for 4.0 bWAR or Erick Fedde $7.5mil for 5.6 WAR? Easy to say in hindsight. I guess this is to say, glass half full perspective, it's probably a good thing that the Sox were able to identify Fedde as a useful player when other teams didn't. There was no point in signing Martinez, Gibson, Maeda, re-treading Lance, etc. I tend to think there's reason to be optimistic that the organization is at least competent on the pitching side of things. My hope going into next season is that some of these new hires can help out on the other side of the ball. Jury's out on Getz.

Is that not a minor league deal? edit: nope. hmm.

Not much to discuss! I was wondering the same thing about the Nicky Lopez clearing waivers thread; I blinked and it was four pages.

Oh duh I forgot if a team selects the player, he has to be on the major league roster the whole season. You’re right, Gladney wouldn’t last. Hack might (his glove is ok, arm great, bat bad) and so might some of those pitchers. Colson is obviously a no brainer. Mcgough, hoopii, schoenle (try spelling these names on mobile from memory) could probably stick on a mlb team. I’d keep any one of those guys over, say, Gavin sheets.

Someone like Salvy? I wish it was offseason 2023 and the worst thing we could’ve done was trade for Perez.