Dick Allen

Flowers should sswing hard in case he hits it

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 06:44 PM) The nicest thing you could say about the White Sox is that they were "complacent" in spring training this year. Which really isn't understandable with how last season ended...with a very bitter taste in their mouths, with the 3-9 mark against the Royals in August/Sept, etc. Viciedo can't load his hands up as much there against guys throwing 96. Needs to be short and quick/er. Did you spend the spring at Camelback or just making things up?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 03:15 PM) You know, right now...I'm not sure I agree with this. I think we have a good chance that next year, or even late this year, Johnny Danks can be the theoretical Peavy replacement. As others have noted, that still leaves the team with a 4 lefty starting rotation, which is definitely an oddity, but it does kinda make some sense. And we'd still be sitting there 6-deep in the rotation thanks to EJ. That said, if we're 2-3 games out at the deadline, screw it, I want Peavy in my rotation for the stretch. No one on this board is a bigger fan of Danks than me. He is, however, a work in progress. He is one bad start from several around here telling us his career is over. Floyd, Konerko, Thornton off the books and $25 million more a year in the bank account anyway. Keep Peavy and improve the offense. As the Dodgers have shown, you never have enough starters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) The Tigers model also involved a long period of being one of the worst franchises in MLB history as well. That's the reason they have Verlander, they had one of the worst records in baseball. That's part of the reason why they were able to trade for Cabrera; they were able to draft people like Andrew Miller who fell in teh draft because of the messed up draft system (which has been fixed today) who they traded for Cabrera. Not to mention they have an owner willing to go into the red, even Forbes says they lose money, to keep adding players. It is an unrealistic model to copy, and I wonder how long it can or will be sustainable.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) That's the core of the argument here, why do we have to settle for this instead of the Cardinals/Giants/Tigers model? That in a big market, the White Sox as an organization should be capable of setting a higher standard, especially when you look at the relative weakness of the AL Central compared to the other divisions for most of the last 10-12 years (2006 being the exception). (Of course, this is where someone will argue we hadn't won a single playoff series since 1917/1919 going into 2005...and, that historically, going from there to 1959 to 1983 to 1993/94 and then following that up with 2000/2005/2008, the KW/Guillen Years were like manna from heaven, and they'll be 75% correct). A mixture of development/scouting, free agents and "value" acquisitions. Premium placed on pitching, and the benefit to the team outweighing individual superstars (letting Pujols go in favor of a balanced line-up and affordable payroll). The Tigers haven't won a WS since 1984. The Giants have won 2 out of the last 3 WS but over the past decade how much better have they been than the Whit Sox. The Cardinals have won a couple of WS recently. One by winning 83 games and another when they finished in 2nd place,. They have though, consistently win lots of games, and get contributions signing bats lile Beltran and Berkman , guys on Marty's wrong side of 30.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 27, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) The only redeeming quality of potentially dealing Peavy is that we would be trading from organizational strength, so we wouldn't be likely to be screwed without him. It would be very surprising to me if we couldn't have a good rotation without him. With that said, it will almost certainly be better with him. Peavy would be very hard to replace. Don't weaken your strength for question marks.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) General terms again, Dick Allen. Which "bats" this offseason? You prefer taking on contracts like the Jays, how's that working out?? ROFL! I think I mentioned Morales and Granderson a couple of weeks ago when you asked. Who is the free agent pitcher you are signing to take Peavy's spot, and what are the prospects you are acquiring for Peavy and Rios? Its funny, the guy who refuses to answer specifics asks them even though they have already been answered. The Red Sox won a couple of WS signing free agent bats. The Yankees did as well. Condolences on the Sox winning streak.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 11:58 AM) ROFL, you're the one bringing up 2005 and wanting to re-build like the Blue Jays. You write in general terms because when you're asked for specifics all you come up with are things like being for changes IF they help the team. Gee, thanks for THAT opinion. Learn to read Marty. I specifically said keep Peavy get bats this offseason. Pretty simple. You said get rid of pitching, the team's strength and sign a free agent to replace Peavy. One of us said to sign a free agent starter, you know, a guy like Buehrle, and it wasn't me. Now go back to posting how the Sox should guarantee they will be awful for the forseeable future so you will have something to moan about every summer. You should also explain the logic to everyone about waiving Ramirez and putting Keppinger at SS. That right there is proof you want the White Sox to suck. Trading Peavy makes no sense unless it is ridiculously in your favor. It's even more ridiculous than in 2005 when Soxtalk wanted the Sox to trade Contreras for AJ Burnett.

Considering how Dunn, Paulie and Keppinger have hit. Missing Beckham's defense, and Viciedo for a while, and with Flowers yet to blossom, .500 4 games out is actually pretty positive right now.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) They're not going to deal Peavy and Rios for Single-A guys. What are they going to get for them? Let me guess....its not your job.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) ROFL, you really want Buehrle back? Where do you get that? I love when you make stuff up to try to turn the attention away from some previous BS that you have posted. You are the one that said replace Peavy with a free agent. I've mentioned hitters. You are arguing with yourself.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) Don't want to rebuild the offense around 30 something y.o. free agents. A recipe for disaster. Dealing Peavy and Rios would be the equivalent of getting high draft picks which is what this team needs at this point. Yeah, the Sox should have learned their lesson when they signed Dye as a 31 year old. Everyone stops hitting when they are 30.

If the White Sox had drafted Trout instead of Mitchell, would anyone other than one poster be clamouring for a rebuild? It hasn't been a case of draft postion. It has been case after case of choosing the wrong player.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) I think in five years both plans have about the same chance to succeed. However under the "re-tool" plan you haven't alienated the fanbase and presumably have some talent on the major league level to work with (if you are winning 80-82 games then you have some guys that can play). Under the set the world on fire plan in THEORY you could end up with the Rays (we will ignore the fact that they were godawful for 10 years before they became a 90 win team) but you also have a great chance to become the Pirates, Royals, Mariners, etc. I would rather delude myself with the re-tool method, because nothing about being out of the race on opening day for 5-7 years sounds appealing to me. All-stars can be found anywhere in the draft, ask the Angels and Cardinals. I would rather do it that way. Exactly. The Sox try to win, they draft Chris Sale. The Cubs tank, their reward appears to be Mark Appel. Who would you rather have? Saying the Sox draft position is the reason for their weak system is BS. There have been plenty of all stars they have had the opportunity to select.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) I disagree on the trading Hudson part. The Sox were in need of a young, cost controlled RHP for the next couple years and gave it up for an expensive guy who wasn't under team control. Still up and down the list a terrible concept and idea in every way. The Santos deal I tried to like, but my response was "Man I wish we'd gotten something else from low-A ball to go along with Molina". I didn't feel like we got enough back for him, but we had parts coming up that could replace Santos. Trading Hudson left a Hudson shaped hole. Hudson will have basically 2 lost seasons, and who knows where he will be at next season. The Hudson shaped hole would have occurred if they traded him or not.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) Put it the war or f/war test....who wins? After all, I heard an argument made that Sale theoretically could be worth almost his entire contract extension for just this one year. Hudson helped lead the DBacks to the playoffs, which generated additional revenues for the team, quite the ROI on his sub $1 million salary. What has Rasmus led the Blue Jays to? My point is there is no guarantee Hudson is any better than Rasmus moving forward. Rasmus was very good his first year and a half. Hudson was very good for a year and a half. The wheels fell off both for apparently different reasons. Were all of Huson's struggles in 2012 because of his injury? Will he get back to where he was?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) We should be careful with that label. Should we also attach it to every Tyler Flowers or Jose Quintana mention? After all, the year Flowers put up all those impressive offensive stats in the Braves' organization, it was also undoubtedly drug-aided. We acquired a "broken down" Jermaine Dye and it led to a World Series title. A decade before, we acquired a broken down Ellis Burks and he became a very solid contributor for the Sox. Sometimes, that's the only way to get a quality veteran player, when their value has reached its nadir. We're certainly not going to be getting McCann or Gattis via trade this June/July. I think if you get suspended, it is a fair label.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) And again...Tony LaRussa's ego wound up being perfectly 100% correct. Rasmus has been awful with Torotno. And trading Hudson and Santos was the correct decision as well. Perhaps there were better packages to choose.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) What cost-controlled guy did the Cardinals give up there? Rasmus? They gave up a cost-controlled guy the league loved but who they hated and they turned out right on both points. Their scouts deserve a ton of applause for that one. Rasmus had just has much success with the Cardinals as Hudson has had in AZ. And now Hudson is coming off surgery. For all this cost control, 2 years for Hudson will be for nothing.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) Then 50% of the posters will say our attendance/fan support can't possibly justify adding another $10-12-15 million in salaries at the deadline. Maybe Hahn/JR will even say it, after these two Cubs' games, if they are not well-attended (less than 30,000). All of our opinions mean nothing. Hahn has already stated the money is ther to add to the team. The White Sox know how many tickets they have sold. BTW yesterday's walk up of 2600 was the largest of the season. It was chilly but nice in the sun when it was out. The Sunday pricing probably has a lot to do with it. I think Sundays should be well attended in the summer months.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) I'm sure we could get Carlos Ruiz and money coming back...and a new lease on life for him with a contending team. No matter what happens, I'll take my chances on that (just like Youkilis last year) over Flowers/Gimenez. So you would trade Daniel Hudson for a broken down , drug aided,veteran. You ripped him being traded for a serviceable pitcher, the very one you praised the Cardinals for trading their "cost controlled" prospect in order to acquire. You have come full circle.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) The 2011 Cardinals is my example there. They cleared out Rasmus/crap, had everyone here whining about how the Sox coulda had Rasmus, and rode their new bullpen to a world series title. You blast the White Sox for trading "cost controlled" guys for veterans, then a couple of posts later praise the Cardinals for doing the same thing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) The 2011 Cardinals is my example there. They cleared out Rasmus/crap, had everyone here whining about how the Sox coulda had Rasmus, and rode their new bullpen to a world series title. Oh, the same team that traded for Edwin Jackson? PICK A SIDE BTW, no one is giving you a starring catcher worth anything right now for Daniel Hudson.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:40 AM) Trading 1 1/2 seasons for 6 seasons is never a good idea, unless you make the playoffs. It's what the Royals will discover soon enough with the Wil Myers trade. FWIW, Daniel Hudson is expected back in late June/early July. TJ is not a death warrant. Lots of pitchers are actually better when they come back...at least in the 2nd year. I guarantee having Sale-Peavy-Danks-Quintana-Axelrod-Santiago-Hudson would have given this team the needed flexibility to make a trade to improve the catching spot or bullpen. And yeah, you could argue that AJ Pierzynski wasn't a wise re-sign because he got hurt too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a back-up plan in place at the very least. So you blast a guy for signing a guy who gets hurt, and blast him for trading 2 guys that got hurt. Danks is back. Hudson, not yet. You are being Mitt Romney again. You are using Danks, a signing you blasted as a reason they can get a catcher if they had Hudson, a guy who isn't even pitching yet, and probably won't be anywhere near full tilt this season. The problem with being on both sides in order to look like you have all the answers is that half your answers are wrong no matter what the circumstance.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:28 AM) If you're not willing to change your position, then you're dead. The White Sox were ready to sell off in 2007 and 2010 (in late May) and then changed their minds. Are they better off now as a franchise because of making the playoffs in 2008 and coming close in 2010 and 2012? Hard to say. But I wouldn't want a GM who was going to force Tyler Flowers down our throats the entire season...one who wouldn't at least look into improving the bullpen...or be completely unwilling to revise their strategy as the season unfolded. KW made a lot of emotional decisions himself. He got stiffed on acquiring Adam Dunn by Rizzo, surrendering Daniel Hudson to the DBacks after a grand total of 3 starts (only one which could be defined as "bad") in the heart of a pennant race...then ultimately gave Jackson up for nothing in order to get Teahen off the books and erase a bad personnel decision which should never have been made in the first place. He gave Sergio Santos an extension, then turned around and flipped him weeks later...then signed John Danks to a long-term extension. If Toronto was willing to take on that contract, they too would have been willing to give it to Sergio, so how could that possibly have been part of the plan from the very beginning? Why wasn't he shopped around to all the teams in baseball, who could have made an agreement (had they wanted) with the Sox that negotiating an extension would be part of the deal, had they so desired (like our Freddy Garcia move in 2004). At that point, he still had four more years before free agency. He got so frustrated with our minor league system that he forced Nick Swisher into CF and lead-off (two places he didn't belong), then gave Swisher up for absolutely nothing, costing us one of the best young lefty prospects in the game. If there was EVER a long-term plan that wasn't more a combination of Mississippi River boat gambling and hoping and praying a bunch of talented players who came from different systems could be miraculously thrown together into a cohesive whole...I'd like to know what it was. Our scouting of undervalued players from other organizations, pitching expertise/Cooper and run of anomalous good health (Herm Schneider) has always been offset by changeable, inconsistent decision-making in the front office. And there are some players I've never once advocated trading: Sale, Viciedo, Quintana and Santiago, to name 4. You mention 2 names often, I haven't kept up with them, but how have Hudson and Santos been the last couple of seasons? How would keeping them around hve improved the chances for last year and this?