35thstreetswarm

No, the basics of the competing offers get out, too (as in the examples I gave). I did do my own research and found nothing at all - looks like I'm not alone. So I'm back to my original belief (also supported by simple logic) that nobody is giving up $20M because they like a team's "history." I'll be shocked if Machado or Harper take anything but the highest bid.

I don't know about that...the basic financial terms come out pretty regularly. Everyone knew how much the Tigers overpayed for Magglio, for example. The ins and outs of the Heyward deal were well publicized (and a good example where it appeared -- contrary to normal practice -- that he may have taken less money, though that turned out to not really be accurate).

So, I'm seeing the answer to my original question as: (1) nobody can come up with a single instance of a major free agent (not end-of-career short-term deals) turning down real money because of "history" or any other non-monetary considerations, but (2) lots of people are willing to repeat, without any evidence, the conventional wisdom that it happens all the time. Thanks!

But again, the question is where is the evidence any of this matters? Manny Machado is not a historian. He isn’t being asked to decide which team’s story is the coolest. If the Sox offer him the best contract it’s hard for me to believe he would leave millions of real, U.S. dollars on the table because of factors as “soft” as history or quality of narrative.

That's my understanding. I don't think Heyward is an example of a true "underpay."

I have an honest question for those of you who may follow free agent bidding wars/contract matters more closely than I do. Is there really evidence that big-time MLB free agents (not lower-value, end-of-career type guys) turn down money, and accept clearly lower dollar offers for non-monetary reasons? When has that actually happened? I ask because there is a prevailing belief among fans that we will have to "convince" big-name free agents to come here in some way beyond giving them the best monetary offer. As in, they have to believe in Kopech, they have to like the direction of the rebuild, etc. That seems dubious to me. I think the question of whether we get Manny Machado/Bryce Harper boils down to whether our FO is willing to outbid the competition, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Wow, you’re incredibly brave

Oh man, he tweeted about the "pussification of America?" That's more annoying than I thought.

I have become convinced that a significant number of posters here are a) young children; and/or b) Cub fan trolls. Looking at it this way helps me stay sane while I navigate my way to the informed commentary.

Awesome. Further confirmation that Hahn gets it.

Will be interesting to see if the DL stint delays the arrival of "September Sale."

So do I. I always assumed they were brought back in an ironic, "so dated and bad they're funny" kind of way. Only recently did I realize that the organization isn't joking.

I think this is subject far from trivial! I started a "Uniforms" thread last year and am obsessed with uniforms myself. Though I take a less traditionalist approach than you, I am all in favor of the White Sox wearing white socks. In fact, my proposal was to maximize the "white" in the uniform given our name, maybe even have a super clean "white-on-white" look ala the big three-era Miami Heat/current Vanderbilt baseball alternate. I'd like to stick with the black and white color scheme and current logo, and would like to avoid the "default" baseball color scheme of red/blue/white. I'm not a huge pinstripe fan.

Um, yeah. Call ME crazy but I have the most fun...watching the White Sox win the World Series. I hereby challenge you to a battle of non-responsive irrelevancies. GO!

Try "CubFan4Life" or "BrixenIvy" -- or whatever handle you use when you post that lone comment on a White Sox Trib article with a crack about bad attendance/the Ligue brothers/the "White Sux".

Rock bottom for me was in 2016, coming off yet another mediocre season that I, and most hard core fans, knew deep down would be a mediocre season even before it started. Just like 2015, and 2014, and 2013, and so on. We had a terrible farm system and lacked the assets to supplement the small core of plus MLB players on our roster and create a contending team. The situation looked totally hopeless to me. I'll say that I'm having more fun checking Charlotte and Birmingham box scores, watching Eloy lay waste to MiLB pitching, and following the development of our farm than I ever did trying to convince myself every April-June that the team could somehow luck its way into a wild card.

The argument wasn’t Eloy vs Gleyber right now, or in the future. It was whether 2017 Eloy’s trade value as an A ball prospect (at the time he was traded) was equal to Gleyber’s trade value right now—after already blowing through the minors and succeeding at the ml level. Those values are obviously not equivalent. The fact that Eloy’s value has exploded since the 2017 trade due to his production at the AA and AAA levels only further proves that point.

I don’t know what any of this means. When he was traded, Jimenez was an A ball prospect who had not yet torched AA and AAA like he did over the last year. If Torres were traded tomorrow he’d be a major league player who has already blown through the minors and is currently succeeding at the major league level (and at a premium position). The values of the two are not equivalent.

Eloy Jimenez was an A-ball prospect. Gleyber Torres is a 22-year-old slashing .289/.347/.542/.889 for the New York Yankees .

I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think he’s definitely ready. I also think he should be called up next season. I’ll think the same if he hits 1.000 for the rest of the season. It’s about team control, not whether he needs to hit .350 or .360 or .370. The dude is a stud and will remain so next year barring injury.

Yeah, it's not fun having a bad season. If it makes you feel any better, when we go home without a WS trophy this season it will be because we're in year 2 of a rebuild. When they do, it will mean another year of their supposed "dynasty window" squandered.

Totally agree with the second half and overall sentiment of your post. But as to the Cubs experience: I knew a lot of die-hard Cub fans who were very impatient throughout their rebuild, and I'm sure there are Cub message boards with 2014 archives that look a lot like the dark corners of Soxtalk today. I remember a lot of griping when the Cubs lost out on Tanaka. When Javy Baez, their first big prospect to arrive, was setting strikeout records there was widespread talk of him being a bust. There was considerable angst on sports talk radio toward the end of the rebuild about how long things were taking, and news stories showing scads of empty seats at supposedly sold-out Cubs games in 2014. It's easy to forget all of that, just like these low points will hopefully be unmemorable blips if/when the rebuild starts to get traction at the major league level.

You keep saying this, but I think you know that the plan IS for the Sox's highly-touted farm system to turn out a core of elite talent comparable to Houston's. If all goes according to plan, Eloy, Moncada, Robert, Madrigal, etc. will be comparable to the young cores of Houston and other successful rebuilds. That's the whole idea. Now, nobody yet knows for sure if that will happen since they are still just touted prospects and not established MLB stars (just like Altuve, Correa, Springer, and Bregman a few years ago). You don't have to believe it. Maybe the baseball world was wrong about Moncada and Eloy. But the Sox have built a top farm system with projected star power, which is all you can really ask at this stage of a rebuild . Your issue really seems to be with the talent the rebuild has assembled (and the projections for that talent), not the rebuild process. And if you just think that the talent in the Sox system is no good, we're pretty much sunk and free agent signings aren't going to save us.

This was my main problem with the article - it suggests that KW bought into the premise that the timeline had changed, but it's not at all clear. I suspect the premise the author's, and I'd be surprised if Kenny really conceded that the timeline of the rebuild has changed. In any event, I don't think anything has happened this year to dramatically alter the 2020 arrival date, but rather just standard dog-days of the rebuild stuff. This is the malaise period. The last week's rash of (hopefully short-term) injuries provide a good opening for an anti-rebuild type to post an article reflecting the malaise. Nothing to see here.

I think the problem is that the thread title question is too provocative and kind of begs for "no, you can't have too much" as an answer. It seems to me like what you're really asking is more like: what if we already have four guys in the rotation that are pitching well enough next season that it's not fair to bench them -- how do we make room to audition the group of prospects (hopefully) knocking at the door? Am I right? I think that's a fair question. Maybe we can test some guys out in the bullpen? Go with a 6-man rotation?