Dick Allen

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?

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:09 PM) Under what circumstance do you think it is okay to have Keppinger as your starting SS? Marty Is one of those guys that loves to point out failure. Keppinger at SS is a dream scenerio for him.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 26, 2013 -> 06:18 PM) By improving the offense for the return you get for Peavy and Rios. And don't forget your other genius idea, waive Ramirez and put Keppinger at SS.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 26, 2013 -> 05:15 PM) Chris Sale ERA when moved to the pen: 2.81 Hector Santiagos ERA when moved to pen: 2.81 Don't put up a post like this and call anyone clueless.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 26, 2013 -> 05:11 PM) Oh god, we now have actually resorted to using team W/L when talking about who should be a starter. Come on Soxtalk, you are better than that! You were the one saying the team was clueless. They won today. The other problem is Santiago has gone over 100 innings once in his career. You might as well ride Axelrod while he is doing OK then let Santiago take his place when things go south.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 26, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) Not only that Ax has more starts than any WS pitcher since Peavy and Sale have been scratched once each. He's been the glue. 5-5 in Axelrod's starts 7-2 in Sale's 6-3 in Peavy's 0-5 in Floyd's 4-5 in Quintana's 1-0 in Danks' 1-4 in Santiago's

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 26, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) This is all about Hector being a lefty. He's better in every role compared to Dylan but since we need another left handed reliever in the bullpen he gets the demotion. Ther might be something to that. The Sox always have preferred harder throwers out of the bullpen, and really Axelrod has been fine as a 5th starter. If he starts getting hit around, Santiago will get his shot to try to make it to the 5th inning before he hits 100 pitches again.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 26, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) It is really key that we have the best long reliever in the game! Haha. He is a second lefty. Thornton can't pitch every game.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 26, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) It's as simple as this... Axelrod has been in the rotation all season, and he hasn't pitched himself out of the role--and is probably a better pitcher as a starter. Danks is off the DL, and makes 14.25 mil. He's got to start. Santiago will probably be in the rotation in 2014 or later this season, but they need a second lefty in the pen right now. And he can still be very valuable coming out of the pen. So until Axelrod starts having back-to-back bad starts, there's no reason to beef right now. This is correct. I personally can't believe Axelrod is getting major league hitters out, but he is doing his job. The Sox need bullpen help. Santiago can handle that, and has shown he doesn't need long to get back to throwing 110 pitches a game.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 26, 2013 -> 04:24 PM) Yes. They happened to have a nice May. Which coincides with Santiago becoming a srarter. No surprise there. Yes. The 1-4 record in his starts clearly indicates he being in the rotation is and will be the reason for any White Sox success this year.