southsider2k5

Herb Lawrence 15 hrs · 2005 White Sox only had 3 players that were drafted by the team on the World Series roster. Joe Crede, Aaron Rowand and Mark Buehrle

Chris De Luca ‏@ChrisDeLuca 1h1 hour ago Obama expected to sit courtside tonight at #Cavs and #Bulls game in #Chicago

FanGraphs Baseball ‏@fangraphs 1h1 hour ago The #WorldSeries has never featured two expansion franchises before this year.

Brian Hedger ‏@BrianHedger 21m21 minutes ago #Blackhawks reassign Hinostroza to Rockford. Plenty of LTIR relief, even if Rozsival returns Oct. 30, so they could recall a couple.

Jeffrey Flanagan ‏@FlannyMLB 14m14 minutes ago Raul Mondesi Jr. could become the first player in history to make his Major League debut in the World Series. #Royals #MLB

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS 3m3 minutes ago nats apparently still deliberating after re-interviewing baker & black monday. from earlier ... http://cbsprt.co/1S4zOOq

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 11:04 AM) Teams already spend it going over the international pool allotment and this would be away to give you a little more excess without circumnavigating the rules. The guys in the international pool are the top talents. It makes sense to go over for them. If we were talking about those kinds of players, it would make a lot more sense. But we are talking about guys who are WAY down the lists. This isn't even guys who slipped due to draft demands, because if they are looking for big money, an extra $20k a year isn't what they are looking for.

We are seeing that era right now as we speak for the Blackhawks. I can almost promise this era of dominance won't happen again for a Hawks team in my life time.

Most of this is conjecture, but it may be worth an off season read. The author does miss the most likely signing scenario, which involves signing Mark and trading Q for much needed 3B/C etc. http://sportsmockery.com/2015/10/mark-bueh...is-more-likely/

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 11:21 PM) The Mets really are the Sox of the NL Totally agree.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 07:34 PM) I think he'd be the opposite, I think he'd be a fool to ask. I could see if you were going somewhere where you had a proven manager getting close to retirement but asking to be the replacement and get a guarantee at it would be awful. Now he absolutely should ask management where they stand with Robin (because that is a relevant question) and he could even answer a question and state his future goals are to become a major league manager, but if Kenny were to hire someone because the intention is to replace Robin with that guy...well then Robin should already be gone and who you are bringing in has a ton of incentives not to help Robin (since he has more upside in Robin failing then helping). It would be a catastrophic failure in my mind. And I think it would be a loser move by the organization anyway. I don't want to tie my word into a promise for someone else a few years from now when I have no idea what managers would be out their (and whether I'd even want someone like Alomar at that point). Please note that my opinion would differ if this weren't the CEO job. And what does that say for your support of Robin if you did do this (and I'm not getting into a debate of whether you should or shouldn't)..but if you already think that low of Robin then he shouldn't be the manager to begin with. It tells me that managers are made to be fired, and the team and Alomar should be planning accordingly. After all he is getting this job because the guy before him... was fired.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 10:01 PM) Doing it before MLB forces it is exactly where the value lies. For the performance aspect, as you said... but the recruiting angle too. To wit... It could be many more than one or two guys. A team drafts about 30 guys a year for bonuses in the low 5 figures or 4 figure bonuses - and you give yourself an advantage on ALL those slots, to get the better available player. You are also not taking into account the Intl guys, most of which are getting 4 or 5 figure bonuses, or low 6. Plus other UDFA signees. The great majority of your signings are getting low enough bonuses that an extra 20k or more per year for 4-5 years even if they don't make the majors is a big deal. That is a whole lot money for an extreme niche market, and a pretty small pool at that. Guys who are getting small bonuses are getting them for a reason.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 07:15 PM) The one reason I could see changing the actual pay is your ability to sign more of those $100K flyer guys who wouldn't normally sign. Why can you sign more of them then the other team, because over a 3 year run in the minors, you are effectively doubling what they get paid (by paying more). Now to the player, is that enough to get you to forgo college (or an international guy to pick you vs. another team offering a similar amount) and sign with X team...I don't know (not involved in the negotiations to understand how much that amount could change). The downside is you would have to pay everyone else the same, so to give that extra little bit to a few select guys, you are essentially going to have to pay that additional cash to everyone else (but that is the cost to get that competitive advantage so you'd have to evaluate if it is worth it from a marketing ploy). If they aren't going to get a competitive advantage, then I really don't see why any owner would do it as it would just piss off the rest of the bunch. Note: This is also assuming you can actually change what you pay minor league players, which none of us actually know. The second scenario, which involves investing in facilities so your player is well rested (and to be frank, better monitored) and well fed, well that just seems like a no-brainer to me. I would be hard pressed to presume that the cost wouldn't be worth it (and couldn't be done effectively). Just think about the fact that you could have your young prospects watching film, working out, eating right, all in a top notch facility. Not saying all of them take advantage of it, but it would seem that the upside would be their. Given teams spend $300M on payroll, I'd think you'd at least some of these big market teams going down this path (although in reality, it is the small market teams who don't have access to unlimited resources who would best benefit from minor changes like this...problem is, once they work, everyone else will jump in and you lose that competitive advantage, but hey, take whatever advantage you can create while you can. Mathematically, you'd be looking at a few million dollars, to bring in an extra guy or two a year. Even then, for the kid in that situation, I don't think an extra 20 to 30k a year would make the difference. Most of those guys are looking for hundreds of thousands more, if not a million. An extra $30k a year isn't much for guys looking for a big bonus payday.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 07:17 PM) Rightfully so, I wouldn't make that guarantee to anyone. It isn't right to do...not for Ventura or the organization. When that time comes, you should evaluate whose right for your job then and you never want someone who is working for someone else with the express remind of replacing that person (because they were fired). It creates enhanced incentive to undermind said individual and create a negative / improper work environment. I would think pretty poorly of Alomar if he even asked for such a guarantee. That said, everyone here is speculating so none of us know. It is total speculation, but Alomar would be a fool if he didn't ask. If he is leaving for a side ways move, at the very least he should be looking at his career past that for the opportunity for the top Sox job. I'd also expect him to take the interest from the White Sox back to the Indians and look for the same promise for the job if the current manager leaves.

I bet that Alomar asked for a promise that he was next in line for the job, and the Sox didn't give it, which is why he is back in Cleveland.

Taking the other side of the argument, why would teams really want to push through the financial part of the changes? In baseball, once you draft a guy, you pretty effectively own him for a long period of time. There isn't a big recruiting process where you need to differentiate yourself to stand out and attract talent. The players aren't free agents (unless they are undrafted, but that isn't exactly a booming market) I can get improving things related to performance, such as food and facilities, but as to pay, I see no good reason for it to change without a broader push from MLB to do so. As an organization, you'd be adding a big cost to your bottom line with literally no change in productivity or play.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) A sample of one just isn't enough to make mathematical equivalency conversions, though I applaud your efforts, ss2k5. Realistically, this decision is 100% on the scouts. I'd like them to gamble in the KBO assuming prices don't seem inflated, but only if the scouts like what they see (like they did with Abreu). It is not going to be perfect, obviously, but a guy like Kang was the BIG guy coming out of Korea, and we all see the hit he took.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:49 PM) I actually think Hillary, and by her I mean her husband's, biggest weakness was was willingness to accept a bad compromise over no compromise. DADT probably lengthened the time it took to remove bans on homosexuality in the military as it made it seem like "something" was done. She is the coach that always recruits the 2 stars that she knows she can woo vs ever attempting to hit a 4 star game changer. OTOH, she's a politician. And that can be a bad thing, it was bad when the "reasonable" position was to be a hawkish democrat. But it also means she pays attention to the base wants and what will help her sell. With Obama, people kept thinking there would be an American President moment where he inspires politicians to give up their long-held beliefs for...basically nothing. With Hillary, we know that won't happen. Obama put a lot of effort into pushing popular support into congressional action. Hillary is going to put a lot more effort into institutional action IMO. But I may be off. Frankly Obama was the first real president to have to deal with a lack of any pork in congress. There isn't much horsetrading to be done. Maybe we are just living in a delusion now that has not crashed, where the whole nation thinks the President can get things done, and the institution is just not set up for that. I don't think it has anything to do with compromise, but more of what is most popular. What was right was to overturn the ban on gays in the military, but it wasn't popular, so they didn't do it. There are all kinds of stories about how closely the Clintons pay attention to polling numbers, and shaped policy around them while Bill was President. I have no reason to believe Hillary would be any different.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 01:46 PM) I think it is totally a talent acquisition issue. The Sox FO is enamored of the idea of power (especially RH power) and have prioritized that too much over all else in selecting top tier amateur players. Players like Viciedo, Jacobs, Davidson, Barnum, Hawkins, Adolfo have been high profile acquisitions although their scouting profiles with the bat are similar - huge BP power, a lot of swing and miss, poor pitch recognition, hit tool may not progress enough to let the power come through in games. The team has to change its organization approach to identifying hitters. Get guys that put the ball in play and work on developing power instead of vice versa. This is one type of player they have signed. This is not the only type of player they have drafted and signed. For example, they have also been loading up the team on speedsters. Though I will note that the list is an motley crew of acquisitions... in order of the list in bold Free Agent Trade Trade Draft Draft LatAm signing

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 01:40 PM) I really don't think that's a fair way of evaluating players from overseas leagues. Not saying there's a better way, but I don't know. I'm not sure baseball works like that. You HAVE to assume that their numbers will take some sort of significant hit. We see it from every single non-MLB league. Players see their numbers suffer coming to a superior MLB experience. The question is how much. When you see the guy who was universally regarded as the top player in Korea take a HUGE haircut on his numbers, I think it is absolutely fair to expect a guy who is putting up numbers that run somewhere around Marcus Semien with a better batting average in a far inferior league will take a big hit in MLB.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) My prediction: Loss in the ECF to the Cavs. Unless Lebron tears an ACL, no way the Bulls get past a healthy Cavs team. Too many weapons. If they couldn't do it last year without Love, without JR Smith for some games, and a hobbled Kyrie, it's not happening. That said, they'll be the one seed. I think the Cavs take a page out of the Spurs' book and they start resting guys more often. Lebron in particular. They'll be so-so early with all their guys hurt, but when it counts they'll still be the overwhelming favorite. Beyond that I think the Cavs lose to whoever comes out of the West. I'm picking OKC. Durant is going to have a monster "FU" type year. He's the MVP too. LeBron having back problems to the point of a shot before the regular season has even started is a huge red flag.

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) The beat writers didnt even report that anything happened until the next day. It seems like they are trying to get into some good graces with a regime that is withholding a bunch of information from the get go of this season. So I don't really think any party that was there is going to give a real accurate story to the public of what happened. Its all fishy to me. It is like this for all Chicago sports.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) You are relentless. :eeyore

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) Turns 28 this upcoming ST. Lefty who hit .330/.406/.472 over the past 6 seasons in Korea. Averaging 12 HR's and 16 steals over those 6 years as well. With Kang's success for the Pirates this year I don't expect Son to go nearly as under the radar as Kang did out of Korea. These guys are professional hitters. After Kang I've read that Son's contract could get into the 20 millions over 4 years, but to me that is a small price to pay for a guy who could potentially hit .300 with good on base skills and hopefully above average D(haven't read anything about his D). Anybody else think taking a gamble on him could pay off as a relatively cheap way to fill an OF hole for an extended period of time? Kang went from .356/.459/.739/1.198 with 40 homers and 117 RBI in 501 PA in his last year in Korea to .287/.355/.461/.816 in the US in 467 PA's. Just eyeballing, his US AVE and OBP stats were about 80% of what they were in Korea. His power number dropped off even more, at about 60% of OPS. Kang hit homers at less than half the pace he did in Korea. His doubles pace was also much lower. If that were to happen for this guy, he'd be looking at hitting about .265 with an OBP of .325 and an OPS around .525. Taking into account that his OPS couldn't fall that low with those BA and OBP's, he is probably looking at an OPS of around .650 to .700 on the high end, when you look at how low his power numbers were in Korea, and taking a decent cut out of them as well. His career highs for homers is 18, and only 28 for doubles. If he takes a hit like Kang, we are looking at around 10 homers, and 20 to 25 doubles, I would guess. Tyler Saladino put up a .602 OPS at 3B in his cup of coffee here, for perspectives sake.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 11:03 AM) The key here is that the option decision has to be made before there is time to pursue any FA or trade options. That makes it more likely that the option is picked up. The other big SS on the trade market is Starlin Castro who put up numbers not too far away from what Alexei put up, but in that case you are married to him for an addition $30 million + and another three years after 2016.