GreenSox

The Sox don't need "trading partners". That philosophy resulted in the giveaways of Quentin, Jackson, Santos et al. to our friendly trading partners. Deal with the team that offers the the best deal, regardless of whether they are Williams' friends or in our division. Who cares if they're in our division or in our league? That's Scheuler/Williams irrelevant garbage that results in less-favorable deals, but "goodwill" to their friends who stiff us. Do the deal with the team that offers the most. Period.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly. I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing. I think they are because we are similar in many ways. They use their prospects and are willing to trade them, just like Williams has. The Giants will sign free agents, but don't go overboard. We probably have similar budgets. They aren't a favorite of the Sabre types, just like us. But they do one thing we don't do: they support and develop their farm system. That's what we need to do. If the Sox won't improve their scouting and player development, it won't matter. And the trades of the last 3 years have mostly been executed poorly as well (and we rarely got full value even before then, although many worked out a lot better). The Sox have one player with the opportunity to bring a haul: Peavy. Here is a 1/2 starter, with a reasonable contract for 2+more seasons. A contender absolutely should lust after him in July. They can't try to work trades with their friends, or having to get one prospect, or having to get a 3rd baseman since we're weak there. They have got to hold out for the best prospects they can get and from whomeever is willing to provide them.And if no one will, wait until next year. Extort everything you can get out of him. 2 years ago, Jackson should have brought a decent return. Williams instead dealt him to a team he was friendly with, for a questionable prospect and a middle reliever we didn't need. There was no need to fool with Toronto - he should have been dealt straight to St Louis. Peavy's far more valuable, but the execution must be 100% better.

Rios is killing our potential return in the upcoming fire sale.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 5, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) I'm not gonna blame Ventura, but I do wish Terry Francona was Ozzie's replacement. I think the Sox wanted somebody quiet after Ozzie. I think Francona would be in Hahn and KW's ear daily telling them that no manager could win with this collection of lousy hitters/fielders. I can't picture Francona going down without a fight. Robin is so passive he seems like the fall guy, the guy who has to lose quietly after Ozzie, despite the fact his players suck. I agree. The Sox haven't had a manager who the GM could trust to tell them what they needed, and could appropriately evaluate the talent on hand and the prospects, in ages. That is essential.

QUOTE (Baines3 @ Dec 6, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) I thought De Aza did good as a lead off hitter. He did. I don't understand this apparent zeal of the Sox to trade him. He gave us the best leadoff work in a decade.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 02:24 AM) People, it's obvious Law was wrong about Sale. But he doesn't pick on the White Sox. When was the last time the Sox hit on a first round pick? I didn't even have hair on my nuts last time that happened before Sale. The criticism, mostly, of the Sox drafting pedigree and overall system is justified. Law also predicted the Sox to lose 100 games this year. My problem with Law is that he's biased toward those organizations that use his theories, and biased against those that don't....regardless of the outcome of Win and Losses. He still considers Cleveland a "smart" organization, despite the fact that Cleveland has had one playoff appearance with this "Smart" management team. He is now claiming that the Sox taught Sale a new off-speed pitch (or developed the "lousy" one he had - forget exactly how he put it) that transformed him.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Aug 3, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) Wise is insurance for Danks or De Aza.. Good smart pick up... To call Wise insurance for De Aza is to have a $10,000 policy on a $500,000 home. Insurance for Danks - perhaps, as long as you don't let him bat.

QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) I think Millwood and Wolf are realistic expectations. Both should be able to be acquired basically for nothing. But they're not an upgrade, however, if Humber pitches decently and/or Danks returns.

Sale- Peavy-Quintana is strong. Floyd's inconsistent but better than Dempster or some mediocrity like him. That leaves fifth starter. Don't use a ton of resources on this. It rarely works out well. If Williams can do it without giving up a single decent prospect for utility and back of bullpen talent like he gave up for Youk, then fine.

None, to answer the question. Using scarce resources to chase veteran middle relievers is foolish. Several of our rookies will produce what those guys can produce.

Then I read that Mitchell has no trade value. Well, let's see, he's a FRDC, he gets injured, finally recovers, and is having a positive season in AA. Yes has weaknesses, like all prospects....but no value. Funny, we give a closer for a stunted prospect. We give TCQ for a stunted prospect. We hope both prospects develop, but neither are top tier, yet we gave a legitimate major leaguer for each. But our prospects have no value, and should be dumped for mediocrities with 1.4 WHIPS. Right. I will also point out that Rios' deal ends after 2013, about the time Mitchell should be ready (if he ever is). WE need him.

Please - no legitimate prospects for mediocre pitchers. Honestly, considering Williams' trade record ( no good ones in 4 years), not trading is the best policy. We got a AAAA pitcher and a mediocre middle reliever for Edwin Jackson. That's what we should give up (and Edwin Jackson is better than mediocre). But Williams always pays top dollar in trades.

Kenny Williams hasn't made a positive trade since the Carlos Quentin trade. What we don't need is him making more trades. Stick to the waiver wire and call-ups and move upstairs and hand the GM role to someone else. We have so few prospects that we don't need to trade them anyway.

There was nothing good about either E Jax trade. The DBacks were mired in an awful season, looking to dump salary with their 5+ ERA pitcher. Williams ends up giving them our top pitching prospect plus the top prospect in the low minors. Notably, the D Backs are Williams' top trading partner. ONe year later, Williams is holding the top SP available at the deadline. He gets a career AAA pitcher from the Jays and a career middle reliever that we didn't need. Was this the result of Williams sending out his scouts to scour the farm system of potential trading partners (like he should have done)? This is the best he could do? Notably, Williams executed two more trades with the Jays.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jun 7, 2012 -> 06:37 PM) if ozzie was the coach still hed be starting and batting leadoff probably If Ozzie were manager, Fukudome would be playing everyday.

Giving up our best position prospect, Mitchell, for a Youkalis in sharp decline who Boston is trying to dump, would be clownish - absolutely insane. This division/playoffs will be won or lost based upon Sale, Peavy and hopefully an energized Danks, plus an effective pen. We have pop and can withstand a lineup hole. We need Mitchell to develop into a ML outfielder, or else we'll have DeWayne Wise Jr. in the outfield in 2014. Already we're ridiculously short in the outfield with Fukudome as our big bench bat.

We'd have to way overpay for Wright. We can get by with an average 3rd baseman, and hopefully we've found one. Williams should stay the course - we're best served by putting organization resources into developing young pitching (because that's where we're thin, and that's what you can't find on the scrap heap). I do think he should look for someone on the scrap heap to replace Fukudome.

Santiago's fine as closer. Our closer, and most closers, enter the game with no one on. Heck you can give up 2 hits and still close most games with that advantage. You don't need your best reliever as closer. And you certainly don't need your best strikeout reliever as closer. I figure Santiago back to the rotation at some point anyway.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 14, 2012 -> 06:03 PM) Floyd with the bend but don't break pitching performance. They didn't really hit Floyd much at all. He just didn't want to give them anything to hit, kept the ball down all day, and ended up putting several on through walks and HBP

Chris Young, Gio Gonzales, Dan Hudson, Clayton Richard. We have developed some players, primarily pitchers (and that was the strength of the systems 20 years ago and 12 years ago as well). We basically cut Jon Rausch when he left the park during the game. Our WS team had 3 starters who came up through the system. This team has 5, not including bullpen.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 12:35 AM) I never have a problem selling high on a closer, period. It's a guy you bring on to get 3 guys out. Random guys can come in and be successful closers, and it happens all the time. Hell, Santos was a converted SS who became a successful closer. I agree that selling high on a closer is wise. But we didn't really get a high price in return for selling high.

Bruney's terrible. Jones may need more minor league time, but he can also K a batter, and he throws hard and has a good curve, from what I've read.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) If your first sentence is true, your last 2 cannot be true. He's got 7, doesn't he? Who has more (in major professional sports) besides Buss?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 19, 2012 -> 01:14 AM) You're leveraging a kid you only paid $50,000 for into a 6 year, cost-controlled #2-3-4 starter. That's a huge positive swing. That analysis would work a year ago. But at the time we traded him, we leveraged a 30 save closer into a 2/3/4 prospect, with whom many scouts question that level of upside. That's not a lot of return. Trading him was smart - it just looks like to me it was another situation where Williams honed in on one prospect, and didn't cut a very savvy deal.

Ideal? No. But he's decent and certainly better than what we had the last 2 years, whom this organization seemed to think was ideal.