35thstreetswarm

I was happy with the Kimbrel trade? News to me, given that I wasn’t really, and said I thought we gave up too much in the trade at the time. It is also interesting to see you rest your entire evaluation of the Sox roster on the loss of Carlos Rodon, whom you trashed all last offseason. Anyway, I see you haven’t answered my invitation to explain what the Rays, Yankees, Astros, Red Sox have done in their offseasons to inspire you so much more than the Sox adding two of the best relievers in the game. I do think it would benefit you to aim your hyper-scrutiny on another roster once in awhile to gain some perspective.

Perhaps they are looking at, you know, the baseball teams rather than evaluating only the moves made by the White Sox FO in this incomplete off-season with tunnel vision. What have the other AL teams at the top of the list done to get so much better? The Rays? The Yankees? The Astros, besides as-of-now losing one of their best players? Boston? In the big world outside this board this is a reasonable ranking.

With a 3-0 count

What’s the point of discussion if you’re discouraged from expressing an actual opinion that other posters are being unreasonably negative?

Bummer - I was quietly hoping the Sox were in play for Freeman, and that they would advance their trailblazing effort to build a contender comprised solely of first basemen and relief pitchers.

I agree. A quality SP would be the biggest difference-maker for this team.

Fun trivia answer -- last pitcher to bat (at least in the pre-universal DH era)? Kendall Graveman

I kind of hope that cheater goes to the Cubs. Perfect fit. They will suck and I can hate him even harder.

Good company. Add CHC and BOS and you've got the entire Axis

Yes, the thank-you letter I sent to MLB today said this very thing. I frankly don't think I deserve April games anyway.

When you get a little older you'll learn that it's faster to say "for more than half my life" ?

Ditto. Makes it easier that my instinct says a shortened season will help the Sox.

You mean they of the 72nd largest city and 21st largest metro area?

This is true. I wasn't really commenting on the relevance of city size to the size of actual baseball markets (i.e. "staying on topic.")

Other than the meaning and scope of the First Amendment and historical/geographical crime rates, can't think of anything that gives rise to more common misconceptions than city size. Most people who haven't looked at a current list of the largest U.S. cities have their minds blown quickly (San Antonio is 7th and Miami is 41st?! San Diego is 8th and Cleveland is 54th?!) Anyway...I need baseball to come back

Yes -- everyone has fretted all offseason about how we are going to get Kopech through a full season on an innings limit. Well, that may be solved for us.

Yeah, I try to avoid blaming the refs except when it's really egregious, but I thought last night was pretty egregious, especially early on, which prevented us from really getting traction. The wheels came off and the injuries hurt us for sure, but the refs set the tone early. It was gonna be tough to win that game with that kind of officiating, and it will be tough to beat them in a series if three of their players are getting the "star treatment" from the refs. We really miss Caruso, but I think we've got an emergency at the 4 and need a trade soon.

That's a really interesting topic at the moment. I think we're in a reshuffling period for our popular conception of NBA superstars, with the old guard of consensus superstars aging out and a big group of potential "next wave" superstars jostling for position. As a result we're going to see teams winning that are going to "surprise" a lot of people because they lack a consensus superstar (even if they shouldn't be surprised, and even if their victory mints a brand new superstar). To me that's part of what makes this such a great NBA era. 1) To me the only clear-cut consensus "superstars" in the league are: Lebron KD Steph Giannis Kawhi (when occasionally healthy) (I think Harden was on the edge of this list but is dropping out with the way he's being officiated.) 2) Then there are some guys who I think should be considered superstars but for whatever reason aren't broadly placed in that category yet. Guys like: Jokic Luka Anthony Davis Embiid 3) Then there's a whole mess of guys who are in the conversation, and some of whom will be making the leap (along with some in tier 2) to superstar status in the coming years, depending in large part on how their teams perform in the playoffs. This is where I think you slot Lavine and Derozan (who are probably heading in opposite directions on this list in the longer term), along with the likes of CP3, Jimmy Butler, Devin Booker, Dame, Paul George, Trae Young, Bradley Beal, Julius Randle, Donovan Mitchell, etc. Lakers aren't winning it this year imo. Unless the Nets, Warriors, or Bucks do, which is far from certain, you're going to see a team breaking that "no superstars" mold, and its star becoming a superstar. Kind of like what happened with Toronto - they didn't have a superstar until they won, then all of a sudden they did. You could say the same of the Bucks and Giannis, at least in terms of his status in the mind of the casual fan.

46, lurker since '03/'04, occasional poster since '06 (though less occasional in the last couple years.) Surprised by the range (though I guess the sample is far from perfect--would like to see the results when the board is most active). Thought it it skewed a lot younger. Way to go Olds!

I have a few problems with this argument. First, your last paragraph aims this screed at people who "care" about the MLBPA's interests but don't "care" about those of teachers and nurses. Fair point -- those people are awful hypocrites. But who exactly are these monsters, and how many of them are there? Probably not too many. I haven't seen anyone on this board express this sentiment anyway. Same goes for the implication that pro-labor hearts are somehow bleeding for millionaire baseball players. I think everybody understands that these guys are (mostly) very wealthy and privileged in the extreme, and I don't think any reasonable person "cares" on an emotional level about pro athletes' ability to afford a larger mansion in the way they "care" about a teacher's ability to achieve a decent quality of life (though I do think people often overlook many MLB players impacted by these negotiations whose playing careers do *not* give them generational wealth). Lastly, I think that suggesting someone cannot take a principled stand on a negotiation simply because the parties are motivated by their respective economic self-interest kind of misses the point. *All* labor vs. management fights involve parties pressing their economic self-interest, not just this one. Parties aren't willingly giving up ground based on pure altruism in too many labor negotiations (maybe teachers' unions do). People who root on labor don't do so because they think unions are "nicer" during negotiations, (they shouldn't be - that's why workers have unions!) they do so because they think that gains by labor contribute to the greater public good in a way that management victories do not. Now I think most would concede that the outcome of the MLB negotiation will far have less impact on the public good than negotiations involving teachers and nurses, but imo it's not irrational to take a consistent, principled pro-labor stance on all negotiations , including in professional sports.

Boy does it make me feel old that we're now OK Boomering Lebron James ? Totally agree, though. The Lakers roster is such a weird 2011 all-star team.

I feel like people forgot very quickly that the guy was playing in the big leagues at a stage of his career when most prospects would have been in Birmingham...and then asked to learn a new position! The dude was thrown into the deep end with an anchor tied around him and still held his own.

I have a feeling we're not going to do much on the SP front until the deadline. They've been on the sidelines for a lot of relatively affordable SP free agents that would have been good fits, and I think they've moved on from Rodon for reasons I've explained before. Not ideal *but* I'm OK with it if they address it at the deadline. I think our real need is for a playoff starter and that our current rotation can propel us within the Central, especially if it's only for half a season.

Yeah, the game 4 crowd was very good at the beginning of the game, especially considering it was mid-day on a work/school day after being canceled the day before and scrambling thousands of peoples' plans. I hope we can see a lot of night games in the future, especially weekend night games. I think that's when you'll really see the crowd at its full, fully-lubricated best.

Yes, I agree that it makes sense to look at their payrolls when they're attempting to compete rather than dinging them for having low payrolls during years when it was literally the point to have low payrolls. Here's their payroll ranks in years before the above chart, i.e. the last time they were really in a contending period. 2005: 13th 2006: 4th 2007: 5th 2008: 5th 2009: 12th 2010: 7th 2011: 5th Man, it's like Groundhog Day around here sometimes. The point is, the Sox have a history of top-of-market payrolls during contention periods.