Greg Hibbard

I don't really understand people who DON'T want Abreu back in a DH-only role. Given all the issues we have had since 2011 finding a consistent DH, it seems like as streaky as he is, Abreu can be counted on to reliably deliver an .800ish OPS. It's not like those grow on trees, or that they come without cost. We would either need to sign a FA DH for a similar amount of money as a DH or slot in one of our relatively unproven kids like Collins as DH (not Eloy - he still belongs in the field with Robert's range being huge and as long as he calls him off a lot). He makes the most sense here, he wants to be back, we want him back. Even if they overpay, who fucking cares? Reinsdorf has billions and you're crazy if you think $10 or $12 million a year makes a big difference. He might make the fans feel that way, but all of these owners could afford $500 million dollar payrolls even if they treat their fanbases like they can't afford it.

Does that IL time you're citing account for the 162 games lost for Michael Kopech, for example?

You are making up pressure that doesn't exist. Are you fucking joking? This is a guy who defected from Cuba to come here, thrived under pressure at every level (including the majors) in order to become one of the best offensive players of his era, and you're saying that the TRADE DEADLINE is causing him to lose sleep and crack under pressure? GMAFB, dude. The routine is old, and what you've thought over the past 3 years has largely been incorrect. I find it hilarious that Jose will be back next year, and all of your trolling on this board won't have any impact on that.

They will be in the hunt for the division all of next year. They are currently on pace to win 10 or 11 games more than last season, and that's with a rash of injuries. If we have a healthy Moncada, TA7, and Robert and Madrigal come up and inject major league numbers into replacement level placeholders, and if Kopech returns to form and Cease and Lopez are better, and if Giolito is still good we should win 85 games.

No, ron, I'm not going to let you pound this into your agenda. Jose isn't magically better post trade deadline. He's just a much worse hitter in cold weather. The August sample size isn't big enough to mean anything in terms of deviating from June or July or September. His June-September numbers are way, way better than his March-May numbers, though.

I don't understand why everyone thinks every starting player on this team needs to be a 2+ WAR player. That's not the way it is on virtually any team. It certainly wasn't the case on the 2005 White Sox. Pods was a 1.7, Crede was a 1.6. Carl Everett was a 0.0 and Frank Thomas was a 0.4 - so our combined DH was a 0.4. Why should the standards be different for Jose Abreu than any other position? If we take him out of defense, his WAR for this season goes way up - warts and all. I think he has one more hot streak in him. Yes, when he hits he's amazing and when he doesn't he looks done. His last 120 at bats are what everyone's focusing on in making a referendum about whether his career is over. I'd be careful with that. 120 ABs is still a miniscule sample size.

Gonna be at this one.

I wasn't alive in that era, so I don't have the insight, but I appreciate the perspective.

Just before the all star break we were like 6th or 7th out of 15 AL teams.

This is my point. When you challenged "why haven't they won more wild cards during that era?" I provided a reasonable explanation as to WHY (because they didn't exist or they would have in some cases). That is a reasonable RESPONSE to YOUR question? I'm not the one who thinks winning the wild card even MATTERS. The answer to YOUR questions is that for the first FIVE seasons of those 23 years they COULDN'T. For the rest of that era there was no second wildcard so they COULDN'T win that either. If it existed, they WOULD have. Jeez. As for 1951-1967, what I specifically meant to say was that they largely sucked for 60 years between 19 and 83. I stand by that statement. Go ahead and grab the preceding 6 seasons before 1951 (1945-50) or the six seasons after (1968-1973) and tell me which era you want as your 23 years to go up against the one I've been championing. In the first six years of that '51-'67 era, they finished 4th and then 3rd five times in a row. Out of 8 teams. When you get to beat up on the 50s Washington Senators a million times a season, of course you're going to have a huge W-L differential. '60-'62? 3rd, 4th, 5th - in expansion years where there were absolute doormats getting rolled over. The last two years of that era? 4th twice. Context matters.

Dude, you questioned why the White Sox hadn’t won any wild cards in the time frame I’ve been citing for the last few pages, and now you’re making fun of me for responding to why they were good enough to have won wild cards if they were applicable. Great look.

I can’t believe I’m arguing with any White Sox fan about whether 1990-2012 was a successful enough 23 years. They sported a winning percentage which translated to winning 86 out of 162 every single year. They had premiere, homegrown players, including the best right handed hitter I’ve ever seen and several bona fide stars. Three of those players from that era have their numbers retired in the stadium. Compare it any other 23 year stretch in this franchise’s history outside of the initial 20 years and get back to me with a timeframe we did better. Outside of a fluke pennant in ‘59, we were a competitive joke for the 60 years between the 19 series and the 80s.

So I want to be clear about this. You asked me why they never won a WC in that timeframe and when I point to where they would have won one had it existed, your position is...it was too long ago in the timeframe you asked about? they would have also won the second wildcard had it existed in 2006.

I see. I wonder how you would have done as a Yankees fan from 1982 to 1993.

I’m not ok with mediocrity, either. You seem to discount 2008 as a successful season. Was it not? Because that division title set the tone for the next three seasons, two of which were near misses. Robin’s first season was a near miss. Exactly what should they have done differently from 2006-2012?

We have had a lot of near misses in close divisional races that we lost down the stretch (2003, 2011, 2012) and some of those other seasons had injury circumstances (2004) and 1994...we all know what happened there. I also wonder how many of those precious playoff appearances the Tigers, Twins, Indians, Rays and Orioles would trade for a World Championship sometime in those years .

They would have had one in 1990 if it existed at the time. Should we blame the organization on that too?

It's not at all odd to me. The AL east has been the WC representative more often than not because the Yankees and Red Sox almost always ate up two playoff spots. The second WC wasn't even around until 2012.

Their combined record over those 23 seasons is 1925-1733. That's nearly 200 games over .500. Per season average (a bit hinky because of the strike) is 84 wins. (the average season is 84-75 - again hinky because of the strike). How many other teams won an average of more than 84 games per season during that 23 year stretch? Edit - double checked my math and I added something wrong so I fixed it.

I guess in this whole thing I would counter that the White Sox organizationally were a very competitive team from 1990-2012. More often than not, they were above .500, and they won the division 4 times and won a world series. And yes, no need to start linking data about how historically bad this franchise is overall, I know. I have read it. However, I guess I would say that that the 23 seasons in which they routinely won 80 games and won 90 a handful of times, and the world series...that all means just a little bit more in terms of equity than the 6 bad seasons we have endured recently, which have required a great deal more patience. Oddly, this 6 season timeframe is somewhat very similar to the 6 bad years before 1990, after the magical '83 season.

Do you really think RH had full control over what was going on during the 2016 campaign and leading up to it? Were the players all his guys/acquisitions?

Well he's made most of his acquisitions through trade, though, so that's not all he had to do. The FA signed in many cases were intentional stopgaps. Evaluating him on moves like Yonder make no sense in some regards.. When he goes out and has to get a big ticket RF then I think you can hang his legacy on that, but we are a year out from knowing.

fathom, he was an all-star and he has a 2.5 WAR right now. McCann was an A++++ move considering his stats coming into this year.

I wonder if the same people who say Hahn and co. can't evaluate talent at the ML level or bring in quality FA can give him even some credit for McCann, who could be really really important to this whole thing.

This isn’t about 10 years. 8-10 years ago the approach, manager, personnel was entirely different. So was everything up to when we decided to actually rebuild. 18 GAMES ago, nearly all of the board would have said we were ahead of schedule with the rebuild at 41-42 and in the hunt for a wild card. And 18 games later, many of the same people are jumping off of a bridge.