ptatc

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 01:17 PM) The kid is 19/20 in high-A, I wouldn't make any decisions based on that assumption. They need to base all of their decisions on what is going on in the minors. He may not make it and all prospects are suspects until they reach the MLB. However, unless the payroll projects to 200 million, they will need to reply on the minors and project when to give the players a chance.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) Isn't one of the White Sox better prospects a 3B who should be ready in a couple of years? Yes. In one interview RH basically said that Frazier is here until Trey M. is ready. He's basically a really good stopgap.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) I agree. The thing that is funny is that whenever there's a report about another team being out (Tigers and Angels Luxury Tax Issues) everyone thinks it's total nonsense and doesn't believe it. But when someone says that the White Sox are only willing o go 3 years and low money, everyone takes it as gospel. It really is quite absurd. Yes, the organization hates all of us. They are being stupid on purpose. This place is a dumpster fire right now. But entertaining. As I said before, come here to watch a NASCAR race, lots of boring time but when there is a wreck, it's entertaining.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) If he went to the Angels on a 6 year deal or the Mets on a 1-2 year deal, can we really be upset about it though? If he stays in New York it's because he wants to be in New York. If he happens to get a 6 year deal, the Sox were never entertaining a 6 year deal anyway. Oh wait nevermind. Of course this fanbase will be mad. I agree. I will only be really critical if he signs a 4 year deal somewhere other than New York. If he signs a 5-6 year deal, good for him bad for the team.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 11:28 PM) You are a terrific poster on this site, and I enjoy your many contributions. On the bolded, though, may I ask how you know this? How could one LT contract for someone of Cespedes' caliber, with none other like it on the roster and with all of the VERY team-friendly contracts currently on the books, how could this one potential contract possibly "cripple" the team's finances? What happens if Cespedes' contributions translate into a return to the postseason in the way his presence on the Mets did last year? Won't that go a long ways towards paying off the investment? Just because we've been conditioned by the current owner/management team to just automatically shun all investments of this kind, doesn't make them all bad. Sometimes you have to take a risk or two in the name of trying to win. You can't wait around to build an entire roster of team-friendly contracts to get there. Cespedes is still young enough to make this kind of investment worthwhile which, at least in the early years of the contract, should help management achieve it's stated objective of "maximizing its opportunity to return to the postseason with the current core". There are ways to deal with the remaining years of an expensive contract if players begin not performing to the levels for which they are being paid. We see that happen all the time. But with the additions of Lawrie and Frazier, how does not bringing Cespedes into the fold now make no sense? I haven't been conditioned by the ownership to believe anything. Im going by their track record. If they sign a player to a 22 million dollar deal, that is about 1/6 of the maximum payroll we've seen them use. Do you really want that much money tied up in a player that is this inconsistent? I would not. It wouldn't be a big deal if they had a 200 million dollsr payroll, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. Im just using common sense and their track record. Its not the only way to solve this problem but in my view its the better way. They could just spending away ala Ilitch but I dont think its likley to happen. If they were spending this money on Miguel c abrera or Mike trout or someone with a track record it would be a different story.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 11:19 PM) How do you know they wouldn't survive a strip down? That is what irritates me so much, this defeatist attitude of accepting mediocrity and "going for it" (meanwhile we're at best a .500 team) based upon the same f***ing system that hasn't led us anywhere since 2008! I was all in support of rebuilding this offseason, but after trading for Frazier and Lawrie (which were both good deals) we almost had to sign one of Gordon, Upton or Cespedes to add another legitimate mid-order bat. Whatever excuse there is, thus far we've failed. Improving to .500 and wasting yet another season of our starting pitching is a disgrace. If you're going to go for it......gor for it all the way. How are we going to acquire a middle of the order bat next offseason with slim pickings? I don't see building this way as mediocrity. I see that as the procees of sacrificing the future with long term deals. Its just my guess they would survive the strip down. They might. If you were the FO, would you take that chance? I don't think I would

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:59 PM) Cespedes is only $$ tho, in a non salary cap sport. With big dollars coming off the books next year. How is signing Cespedes a sellout? I could see a draft pick was involved, or we were trading prospects for an older player...but a straight purchase, as it were, doesn't define 'sellout' to me. Only if the deal is longer than 4 years. If its only 4 it would work. I know there is no MLB cap but we know the ownership has one and if cespedes is dead money for 3 years it will cripple the finances.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:53 PM) Yes actually, I'll take a World Series win every 11 or 12 years, because the organization hasn't shown the ability to be able to put together a year-in, year-out playoff contender...ever. The idea of building from within for a sustained period of success is a great notion, but it doesn't fit the reality of what this front office has done over the past however many years. Ok. I know you understand it but the people who are complaining that they have only made one playoff appearance in the last decade need to understand it. You cant have a consistent playoff contender and go for it every year. They are mutually exclusive. The go for it every year philosophy depletes resources and means they will need to start over. And I'm not saying that signing cespdes to the long term deal wont produce a winner in the next few years. I'm saying that I wouldn't do it because it will lead to another dry spell if it fails. You think people were on the FO for the 4vyear Dunn deal, imagine if the deal for cespedes is 6 years.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:37 PM) Therein lies the problem...even if Anderson and Fulmer are even better than expected (in 2017), you're wasting another season and lowering your aggregate revenues even more prior to next year. Unless there are tremendous breakthroughs in the farm system, then we'll be in that rare position of having a 3rd quartile payroll, a Bottom 5 farm system and lacking the front office willpower to take on any more longer-term deals because of the fear they'll bust like Dunn/LaRoche/Cabrera. Our orientation is neither towards the future nor towards the present. It just makes giving four years to Robertson when now two of them might have been wasted seem even more ill-advised...we would have been better off letting the Yankees claim him and freeing up that money for hitting, because we've historically been much better at unearthing closers than developing outfielders. I agree with the Robertson part. However with the rest of it, I'm the first to say that ALL prospects are suspects. However since it is obvious the the team ownership/management either cant or won't have a near 200 million payroll, it is the only viable optiin to build a consistent winner.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:37 PM) He had trade value, obviously. Using him on Todd Frazier means you can't use him for someone else. Also find it hilarious we can be so patient in not breaking bank on a needed improvement, but can't possibly wait and see if some of our infield prospects are worthwhile. I dont know about you but what I saw from him last year didnt give me any indication he could be an impact player. Major league player possibly but not impact.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:33 PM) Rainbows, unicorns, fluff....stop blowing smoke!! Sarcasm aside. At least I think it is, as a little better than Sheldon at picking it up. They are better. Selling out now for a winner this year just puts them on the same path and position they are in today

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:29 PM) Dude, we have Sale & Abreu under control for four more years. We can't be overly patient and wait for all these prospects to fill holes because we don't have them in our system. And most draft picks take years before they contribute. The absolute worse thing we can do right now is waste more cost-controlled of our key players. This is a good point and that's why its tough. However, the point still remains do you sell out because of your reasons and maybe win a world series but then only make the playoffs once in the decade after the world series. This is what the complaints are now. If they went ahead and did it posters 10 years from now would be saying the same things you are.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:26 PM) What, in your mind, has shown the Sox willingness to build a consistent winner? Smart drafting? Going big in J2? Going after guys that are perfect fits for a competing team (ex. Heyward)? The Sox FO has no idea how to build a consistent winner, that's why this organization has been in the playoffs 6 times in the last 80 years. This is where they need to focus. I think the last two years with trading marginal prospects for good players on short deals and signing FA deals no longer than 3 years shows steps in the right direction. I agree that before ladt year they have not shown this ficys. I think they are on the right trach though.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:21 PM) Pick a lane? How does trading away prospects for 2 players with 2 years of control & standing pat after that make any sort of sense? You either go for it or you rebuild. You don't half ass things & come in at or under .500 each year. Because the prosepects weren't really good. If they traded possible impact players it would be different. The team is better than it was last year without sacrificing the future. I dont think tge sox fanbase as a group would tolerate a true re-build. I would and some would but I'm not sure the team could survive it.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 10:17 PM) Great. Be patient. Trade Sale,Q and Abreu. That'll require ultimate patience going through multiple years of losing and waiting for prospects. That would be an option. However, I wouldn't trade a number 1 starter unless they near the end of the deal and are sure he won't re-sign. They can't go for it every year and field a consistent winner.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:57 PM) I mean, I believe that as well but that's absolutely not a certainty. Either way, while I'm certainly not freaking out about anything yet and by themselves I like all the deals the sox have made, if you trade for a star with 2 years on his deal you best put something together that's better than a .500 team year one. No its not a certainty. But we know they won't have a budget even asbig as theCubs so it is thebest chance to have a consistent winner. Posters keep using the criticism of "only one playoff appearance since 2005". This is because they haven't taken the time to build it, they have just tried to win this year.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:54 PM) So, by that logic, the Sox have a crap farm system. If top 10 guys in your system are not impact players, you've got a lot more to worry about. Just goes to show much f***ed this franchise is right now. Correct. Currently only a few keepers. This is why they need to be patient and continue to make good trades and short term FAs. This way can have good teams until they can produce better players. They won't survive a total strip down like the Cubs.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:58 PM) I can see the direction Hahn is taking. He's incredibly patient, and that is driving a lot of fans nuts. Better he be in his job than many of us. Breathe, people. As for Ventura, can't argue with that. I agree. People complain about not building a consistent winner but then want them to sign long term deals that willbe awful in 3-4 years. Pick a lane. I prefer the patient uild the team through prudent trades and drafts.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:42 PM) Soxfest will be a riot Just like this board and specifically this thread. Entertainment at it's best.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:42 PM) They just traded away 5 prospects for two players with two years of control. Two of those players were in their top 10. How is that not hurting their future? This only applies if the prospects have a chance of being impact players. These were not. He traded marginal prospects for mlb talent to improve the team. Trading these prospects did not hurt the team's future.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:39 PM) AN obvious direction that has led to the playoffs once since 2005? They are making incremental gains with that strategy, nothing more. It's a new game and you have to spend to compete consistently, it's not 1985 anymore. Can they open their eyes and see a big splash is needed? Apparently not, so far... I don't think this has been the plan in pre ious years. I think they have been in "win now" mode and haven't taken the right approach. Too many short sighted deals which limited future flexibility.

QUOTE (soxfan85 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:29 PM) And the White Sox would be defined as a "joke." A team without any direction. I think they have an obvious direction. They are improving the team without damaging the future by signing deals too long or trading away the most important prospects.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 09:02 PM) Are you really using an example from 19 years ago? And while Albert underperformed in his first season, he put up 9 WAR over his two seasons with us. Not exactly the disaster you are painting. I never said he didn't play well. Im just using itas an example of big contracts aren't always the way to go. Even on the few that that white sox have handed out. While he played well it didnt get them anywhere. Would Jaime Navarro be a better example. I would not hand out a contract like the one the tigers offered.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 08:33 PM) No one is expecting them to spend "a lot", just some. As in on this one contract to a top tier talent to address a glaring weakness on the ball club. This team is now one of only three teams in baseball to never offer a contract greater than $70M. They can swing it, and they should; that is, if they are serious about winning and taking advantage of the window of opportunity they bring up all of the time as it relates to the prime years of the team's core. You mean like they did when they signed Joey Belle to the richest contract at that time. I believe it was 5/55. It worked out well.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 01:43 AM) Ifit was so important to win now with this core you finish the the win now. I don't recall anyone from the sox organization saying they have to win now. Ive heard RH say they've improve the team from last year. I would agree.