Dick Allen

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 21, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) It's not stupid. How is the NBA anywhere close to the same as MLB? You have to have one of the best individual players to win in the NBA. Again, my opinion is that it's just bad to get to the end of the season where lesser teams may be playing other teams with the postseason on the line, and maybe the bad teams aren't putting out their best product to win because it may mean the #1 pick the following year. And also maybe losing the last couple games to get a protected pick and all of that. So it's not stupid to eliminate some of those things, and build in rules to a Draft Lottery that teams can't have top 3 picks in consecutive years, or the #1 pick more than once in a decade. There's a fair of doing a Lottery that makes the outcome of a Mets-Astros game on the last day of the season irrelevant to the draft order. But losing games that do not matter still results in more ping pong balls . There still really isn't motivation to win those games. NBA teams still tank entire seasons . For a while the bad teams were not getting the better players because of signability. The best system is the worst team gets the highest pick. I wouldn't mind if thet did it like fantasy drafts and flip each round and give everyone the same pool amount. I also think most teams use their best line ups when facing teams who are in the hunt.

It isn't like the NBA where if you tank, you draft a guy who changes your team around in one year. They are already almost halfway through the next season when the next draft occurs. I don't think teams tank, at least not to the levels they would in the NBA to get a top pick. Just look at every team's last 10 games. 3-7 is the worst record. Leave it as is. Hopefully, the Sox will be better next year for a long time so top picks, or protected picks aren't even part of the discussion. Besides, if they had a lottery, it probably would be fixed, and the Cubs would win all the time. This draft is still more of a crapshhot than any other, and usually doesn't offer immediate rewards. iMO, there is no reason for a lottery except to possibly make the league more unbalanced. They have made changes to try to ensure the better players get drafted by the poorer teams. If there was evidence of widespread tanking, I could see it on a very limited basis. But there are some legitmately bad teams.

QUOTE (JoshPR @ Sep 20, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) He's no DeAza........ Speaking of De Aza, I saw Mike Trout De Aza a flyout to CF into a triple the other night.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Sep 20, 2014 -> 08:05 PM) So it appears that the Tampa Bay Rays are the only team that gave Konerko a momento without pretty much being forced to. The other teams were CLE, MIN, KC (AL Central teams), and the NYY (Payback for Jeter gift). And you'd assume the Tigers will do the same for Paulie next week. I was kind of thinking the Red Sox or Angels may be one of those teams, because of 2005 and all, but I guess not. Or maybe even the Dodgers because that's who gave him the first chance in baseball. There were a few others. The Cubs gave him the same thing they gave Jeter.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 20, 2014 -> 07:12 PM) Damnit Robin! Why didn't you teach Avi how to run bases!!! Didn't practice re touching 2nd base enough in spring training, so Avi misses it , has to go back and it out. Robin is the ringmaster of the White Sox circus. Andy Wilkins is getting closr to logging his first career game with at least one plate appearance and no strikeouts.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 20, 2014 -> 01:04 AM) What about overall fielding percentage and team uzr? Team's UZR rating is on the manager?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 20, 2014 -> 12:01 AM) So Ventura is now Joe Madden Lord this whole show is turning into the Cubs. Clearly, using your logic, after his first two seasons losing close to 200 games, the last thing Joe Maddon should be doing is managing major league baseball games. Losing that many games according to you, has to do with the manager, roster be damned.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 10:14 PM) He was when he was acquired and he very well could improve upon that. Any time you acquire a top 100 prospect for an average at best closer its a good deal, especially for a rebuilding club. He was a top 100 prospect in theory. Not in reality. And if he doesn't improve a lot it won't be a good deal. Also from his quotes Hahn fully expected him to play a lot for the White Sox this season and he couldn't even get a September call up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 10:16 PM) So to summarize, you want the opportunity to complain and nothing else. Right? Everything that went into the decision was fine, as you've said, no big mistakes that should require overhauls or firing were committed. Absolutely nothing should change. Yet: So "White Sox scouts have to be better than this, Matt Davidson cannot play", but there can't be any consequences for the GM or scouting staff. Nothing should change. They just need to be better with no changes. They have to be better. In baseball mistakes happen. Even you are wrong from time to time. I would be willing to bet anything if Hahn knew how Davidson would perform this season he would not have made the trade .

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 10:07 PM) He wasnt tagged for the majors until 2015 at the earliest, so how do we know this? .199 165 strike outs. I think it is pretty safe to assume he won't be considered a top 100 prospect this winter like he still seems to be considered by a few here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:52 PM) So you can't support your own statements and need to go for a low/outside blow. You follow your own logic and it implies something needs to change. That's one helluva risk to have blow up in your face. If that happens a couple times a franchise is ruined for years. The team can't afford to miss things like that. This was a $20 million+ decision that we seem to have blown. As you said, the concept was sound, that means that the work that led into it was faulty. That is a giant, multimillion dollar mistake. How many multi million dollar mistakes can a team afford? If a scout being paid a pittance causes you to blow a $20 million decision, maybe the problem is that you're not paying the right scouts? All I have written is the trade was bad and Davidson isn't as good as he was supposed to be. The numbers support it. You started with the heads must roll crap. But thanks for the opportunity you were so kind to provide me earlier.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:43 PM) So you're now agreeing with me that someone committed a fireable offense by poor scouting since that isn't true and you're obviously being sarcastic in this statement. Thanks for your support. As you said, the principle was sound, but the team failed to scout the player appropriately and that's the kind of thing that should have consequences. Considering your ego, I think you need to be reminded what you thought about Andre Rienzo. Look at him now. If you can be that far off, I think you can understand a scout not making millions making similar errors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:39 PM) Why? Scouts don't have long term contracts. The only people who do are players and managers and I wouldn't have extended a manager after a debacle like 2013. Scouts, Ventura, coaches.....someone always must be fired in your mind.bad trades happen. It is just weird some just can't and won't say this one was bad.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:35 PM) Yeah, the return here was worth a lot more than the last time we traded a closer and this seemed like a solid price for a closer. They scouted the player poorly and someone should have gotten fired for that poor level of scouting because the team is supposed to scout players better than random people who compile lists for BA, but that was a fair return based on the general feelings. If you owned the White Sox, you would be paying so many people for not working. The good news is if Hahn wants a closer, he can probably get a decent one because he still has Davidson.What GM wouldn't want a potential 30 HR guy with 6 years of control (but apparently they do get really expensive after 3 years) for the low low price of an established closer.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 06:48 PM) Well of course not. 2 horrendous seasons, but the manager can't possibly have anything to do with it. He's Robin. It's been a long time since this organization prioritized winning. Tampa Bay must be a bunch of fools. Joe Maddon, despite losing 101 games his first year and 96 his second is STILL managing the team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 06:14 PM) But when I gave you the opportunity to say how close to a "fireable offense" this became for the GM, you defended the GMs for making bad trades saying that if every GM were fired for a bad trade it would be an extremely high turnover job. Who are you criticizing? You won't criticize the managers or guys in the organization for poor play on the field, you won't criticize the GM for putting crappy talent on the field 2 years in a row and making trades that you want to harp about their terrible-ness. So what should happen as a consequence if Davidson blows up but the reasoning is solid? If we do the same thing 3 more times and they all blow up is that fireable? Based on this statement, no. It is fireable when it becomes a pattern or when the talent level of the team doesn't improve even with expanded resources. I criticize the players all the time. I don't know where you get that I don't.

The Nick Swisher trades were bad. The reasoning solid the trades turrible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 04:42 PM) The intent is to improve the team? OK. By your own standards... at the time of the trade, nothing occurs. Here a year in, we've replaced one cheap and below average closer with a committee of cheap and below average closers. Davidson does nothing. So as of now, it's a wash. Next year, Reed gets expensive. And Davidson may, or may not, be a contributor. So it could become a good trade, or it could end up remaining neutral. The only way it is a losing trade is if Davidson never contributes AND Reed suddenly becomes an elite closer. So there's a good chance the trade is a wash or a win. And you just keep refusing to acknowledge that you cannot work this entirely in hindsight. At the time it looked like a clear winner. Basically, I fail to see a way this was a losing trade at this point. And it only could be later if those two things I noted earlier both occur, which is pretty unlikely. You traded an asset the team has few of and basically received nothing. That is why it is a loser. And Reed won't be as expensive as Belisario or Downs, so lets get away from that thought. You can say it looked like a winner at the time it was made, but again, that is just your opinion. I am sure there were people in the DBacks organization that thought the same thing about their trade. You can say a guy with 30 saves on the major league level vs. a guy who can't hit or field in AAA cannot be a loser, and that Reed has to be an elite closer and Davidson never contributes is the only way it can be a loser, but I think if you actually think about that, you will realize it doesn't make sense. If the White Sox trade a prospect who never makes it for a decent and not elite, reliever this offseason, you will say it was a good trade, a trade the Sox won.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 04:25 PM) I don't think it's so much that people are upset about calling it a bad trade but are more upset or agitated that you aren't acknowledging the intent behind the trade. The intent was good, but thus far the trade has been bad. It's similar to trading Sergio Santos to Toronto. Neither has worked out for the Sox, but it's not a bad process. You are essentially gambling that a prospect who will play 2-4 times as often as a reliever will pan out versus a solid but not spectacular reliever who has a limited ceiling. The intent with just about every trade is to improve the team. This one did not. If Adam Eaton blew out his hammy and Hector Santiago was a Cy Young contender, I bet all of these process people wouldn't have any problem saying it was a bad trade. Trades ultimately aren't determined by the initial intent. Most trades are made with the idea of improving your team. Some are made with he idea of saving money. As far as I know. Kevin Towers intent was to improve his team. Why is it fair game to call his trades poor? Why when people have posted time and time again you need a couple years to judge a trade weren't there these posts that say you judge a trade the moment it is made?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:52 PM) Something that's got a 90% chance of succeeding still fails one out of every ten times. Something that fails 90% of the time still works out one out of ten times. You're going to make some very poor decisions if you're playing the results and not the probabilities. I am actually a math guy. I do know the probabilities that Addison Reed contributes on the major league level vs. Matt Davidson was definitely greater coming into this season, and are now even greater at this point moving forward. BTW, if I am playing the results, I will win every time. I get to put my chips on red after the ball as landed.and that is what I am getting at. We have hindsight to show this was a bad trade. Somewhere along the line, the White Sox failed on this one. It is obvious. I don't know why some are so offended that this could possibly be called a bad trade. Matt Davidson just isn't as good as what many thought. He won't be the last.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) I don't think it's too late for it to redeem itself, but up to this point, you are correct. I also don't mind the intention behind the move and would support any similar move Hahn would make moving forward too. Frankly, I doubt Davidson becomes a contributor. But maybe and I hope, not getting the couple extra wins the Sox might have had with Reed on the team gets them to draft a perennial all star maybe even in a later round instead of a guy who never makes it. Sometimes things work out in the end. Hawk as a GM got ripped for trading Bobby Bonilla after drafting him in the rule 5. Who knows, maybe Frank Thomas or Robin Ventura or Alex Fernandez are never White Sox if that doesn't happen. The Bulls lost a coin flip and got David Greenwood instead of Magic. If they had Magic, they never would have had Michael. I will take Michael.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) South Side Sox ‏@SouthSideSox 25m First two seasons: Edwin Jackson w/Cubs: 14-32, 5.47 ERA, 70 ERA+ Jaime Navarro w/Sox: 17-30, 6.05 ERA, 74 ERA+ But his xFIP......... It has been 5 seasons and 4 teams since Jackson"s actual results have been better than his advanced. Makes me think there is a pattern here.

I hope Paulie puts one on the board next weekend.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) If you are this results oriented in everything that you do, I would love to get in a big poker game with you sometime. I usually do OK when I gamble. The fact is part of the process is identifying and projecting talent. It has become a new pastime ripping Kevin Towers, yet somehow, he has been the GM of at least 5 playoff teams, and took over a team that lost 97 games, and his first year, won 94. I couldn't understand what he saw in Trumbo. To me he is a right handed Adam Dunn without the walks. He gives up Skaggs and Eaton. I thought that was crazy at the time, and it still seems it now, but the point is, he wanted power, yet was willing to dump Davidson and all his power for a so-called mediocre closer who is about to become really expensive. I think he and his people knew something a lot of the publications and the White Sox scouts did not. I don't think this trade is the difference between winning the division and where the Sox are now. I am just saying it was a bad trade. You can't win them all.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) I don't want to pile on or anything but project based on what? Meaningless minor league numbers? You can look at what he can and cannot do physically, you scout him, you go over the video, and you take the numbers with a grain of salt. You can't project anything really until there's a history there. It's like projecting what a player in Low-A would do if you immediately bumped him up to AAA and had him face a bunch of competition he's never faced in his life. Except it's worse because there really is no jump like AA/AAA to MLB. All you can do is look at whether your GM seems to be 1) identifying what the real problems are and 2) making sound decisions to address those areas at the time. If we tried to evaluate him in any other way we'd be foolish because he's not a psychic, and if we expected him to accurately project MiLB players into MLB players then we'd have to expect him to use tools that nobody else seems to possess either. Aren't prospect rankings basically projections? The White Sox have reports on every player. Apparently they liked Davidson a lot. In the end, it is the result that matters. If Matt Davidson doesn't help the White Sox, trading for him was a mistake. It won't be Hahn's last mistake. If it is, he will go down as the greatest GM in history. The hope was the Sox got a middle of the order bat who could hold his own defensively and would be called up as soon as his super 2 chances were at zero. The reality is they have a poor fielding strike out machine (contact was always a red flag) who couldn't make enough contact against mediocre AAA pitching to hit .200. Yes he still will only be 24, but it looks like he has a long ways to go to get anywhere near what a lot of people thought he was when he was acquired.