bigruss

Absinthe is a hell of a drug hehehehehehehe

That s*** CRAY That s*** CRAY Back to campus and back to rowdyruss!!!!

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) I have this gut feeling that the Cubs are going to win it within 3 years. This year they might be competitive and either just miss, or even make the playoffs contrary to the popular consensus (that they're going to be garbage); but 2013 or 2014 will see a Cub WS winner. I kind of like it the way it is right now, and would rather keep it that way- but my gut feelings are usually pretty good. Usually I don't condone violence to fix problems, but Soxtalk members can punch you in the gut until it doesn't feel good anymore.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) But there's another thing you're investing in them...time. If Dunn starts off the first 2 months of this season with a .575 OPS, he's likely to take a seat on the bench again, and maybe you start looking at buyout options. He should have sat last year. If Beckham does that, you're going to keep playing him because you're trying to develop him. And he'll be taking playing time that could go to potentially developing other guys. Knowing when to move on occurs in any situation, whether its an acquired player or a developed player, it's not unique to either "in house development" or "free agents only" side.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 07:29 AM) Thanks for the reply, Russ. I'm convinced the development model is more complex than most would admit. Consider Gordon Beckham and Brent Morel, for instance. While we often hear about the benefits of cost-controlled young players, we rarely hear about the opportunity costs involved when they fail to live up to their potential. Secondly, I will watch with much interest some of these franchises that have implemented a heavy develop-from-within model, as I think it will be intriguing to see how their fanbase weathers losing homegrown players to FA or via trade, as this is sort of an unintended consequence of that model. And that's where having the mentality that it's okay to trade homegrown guys for established players when the situation arises. If the Sox had a decent farm system, these holes created by under performing players could be filled by trades. A GM thinking they can consistently produce playoff teams with just homegrown players is living in a delusion, imo.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) I agree mostly with your post but if there is a GM who thinks he'll get a better QB than Cutler either through the draft, FA or trading, I would be iffy on that...the starting QB position on the Bears is the least of our problems. While I agree, the last thing you want is to have restrictions coming into the job. You're telling a guy that you are putting him in charge, with all the responsibility and image that goes along with the job, but you are going to restrict the moves he makes. A candidate may feel that all the risk and blame is on him then, without him having the ability to do it his way. But yes, a smart GM would not trade Cutler at this junction.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) I'm just sick of people treating good farm systems like WS championships. I understand the importance of a good farm system. s***ty minor leaguers have definitely hurt the Sox the last 5 years. But until those top prospects perform in the majors, that's all they are prospects. Everyone has been slurping on the Royals for the last few years, but until they can at least break .500 in the majors, I don't need to constantly hear about how great they are. I get that frustration, but I don't think anyone here has said that (at least someone who wasn't trying to fuel a stupid discussion just for the sake of it). People slurp on the Royals, but that's moreso the individual players they have, not the team as a whole. Because if you follow baseball at all you would know the Royals are going to struggle with pitching for a few more years unless they sign or trade for guys. And honestly, the people I see bringing up the Royals and Jays the most now are from posts like yours.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:56 PM) Wow, I am glad I didn't notice this discussion when I was at work today...I would have gotten nothing done whatsoever! Great discussion guys, especially Russ...I think you're right on in a lot of your thinking, even though we probably differ a bit in terms of ways to build an effective organization. I agree with a lot of things that people on the "development" side of the fence are saying, but I still maintain that there are blatant inefficiencies in that method which remain unmentioned and unaccounted for. Additionally, there are inefficiencies in the free agent marketplace (due to a tremendous swing towards the develop-from-within philosophy) which can be capitalized upon to the advantage of a team that can sustain an above-average payroll. Yea I had half a day of nothing at work and felt like I was posting left and right. The thing is, no side is fully right, you can't build from FA primarily (Yankees are the prime example) mostly because the pitching level and depth a team needs just doesn't reach the open market enough. The development only side doesn't work because you do have to wait a few years for the prospects to reach the majors, but also really excel in the majors, and we have seen how those 2 can never truly happen in many cases. The best organizations identify this and they strategically split their resources to cover the pros of each side while minimizing the cons. These organizations realize the Law of Diminishing Utility applies to baseball very well. They know that if they invest $3mm in the draft, they can expect to get X quality of players. Im sure teams look at it this way: Where Income or Worth is X quality of players. At some point, the amount of money you invest just isn't worth the return you get, but investing a few million more than presently could mean huge returns. Finding that sweet spot of what the team can afford (or in other words not taking so much from the MLB payroll it kills the ability to resign or sign players) and what delivers a large investment return is vital. In other words, subtracting a salary like Teahen and investing $4-5mm more into the draft could be HUGE for the Sox. I am curious if these exist too, and if they are open to the public. In terms of sustaining attendance with a development model, I think that would be extremely difficult if you constantly lose your top players to FA or forced trades (like less than a year left under team control). I think it's possibly but it would be more of an exception to the rule, especially with the draft cap being implemented so teams cant just overspend to get top 5 round talent through the first 20 rounds.

If they see a good pool of talent they want I would love to see a flurry of signings before the international signing cap starts.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Wait really? Brandon Paul has the game of his life, which he will never replicate, it's still a close game and you're complimenting the coach?! Excuse me? Well he didn't f*** it up at the least.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) There is no doubt that as a player personnel guy, talent evaluation is the most critical skill. Your General Manager is more than just about evaluating talent, however. It's about communicating with other organizations, representing your organization, being the face of your FO. My feeling is that Reggie was probably best in the position he just left. That's why I included "implement a smart organizational plan" because to me that includes some of the above skills. But you can get away with some of the other skills too, you don't have to be a huge public figure, yes you'll have to represent the organization in press conferences, etc. But at the same time you can somewhat hide from the media in a large way if you go to a smaller market (Chicago may not be a good choice at all for that, and Oakland may not be a great choice either). Once again, not saying he shouldn't clean up his grammar, but you don't have to be eloquent in football management to be effective.

Pretty amazing how accurate some of those were.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) typically you give a signing bonus in the year you sign. look at the nfl. since they have a salalry cap, signing bonuses became the norm. a bonus that was paid out in the first year. it went down a bit as the CBA was adjusted to make the signing bonus part of the cap, but spread out over the life of the contract. now, baseball dosent have a cap, so contracts can be front or back loaded in any which way or form. the sox ARE giving danks 8 million in 2012, but the signing bonus is being treated as a 2011 expense. it's like borrowing from yourself in a way. I just don't get how it's a 2011 expense, if it was it would have been paid in 2011. At least that's how it works in accounting...

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) I know that press conference was brutal since he seems to struggle with the English language but if he is a moron, what the heck was he doing in the Packers FO?The Packers have one of the best if not the best football organization...I'm gonna wait to see what he does before passing judgement. You don't have to be a word-genius to be a good GM, if he can evaluate talent and implement a smart organizational plan than he will be successful.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) PAID in 2012. he was SIGNED in 2011. So it still hits the books in 2012, so how would that help?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) Looks like the Royals get to hang another "Top Minor League System Champions banner" up at Kaufmann Stadium. The fans must be so proud. Okay, Im sick a tired of posts like these. Most people on this site who are advocating for a better farm system believe this: The farm system should not really be judged on the quality of players coming out of it (though that is a factor into other areas), but for the talent it brings your MLB club, whether that's through trade, calling up prospects, etc. If a team has an amazing farm system but they get traded for players that don't pan out or don't help the club then the farm system is useless. Edit: So teams with stellar ranked farm systems only matter if they commit to keeping this talent around, and if they are aggressive enough to trade some prospect depth for impact players. Building a team only through the draft is hard as hell to do without subsequent moves (extensions, trades, FA signings, etc) but having a stellar farm system makes it infinitely easier to win consistently because it provides a buffer zone for mistakes (which every team makes).

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) lol. So the Sox get credit for Hudson, even though they foolishly and inexplicably traded him after three starts? The farm system should not really be judged on the quality of players coming out of it (though that is a factor into other areas), but for the talent it brings your MLB club, whether that's through trade, calling up prospects, etc. If a team has an amazing farm system but they get traded for players that don't pan out or don't help the club then the farm system is useless.

Overall this was a s***ty job by Rogers, and that's not surprising from him. I know most articles start with some background as to why the system is the way it is, but he spent like 3/4 of the article bashing the Sox and not talking about who they do have. It should be a mix of discussion as to how the prospects got there, and then about the prospects themselves. This gave little to no insight on Sox prospects.

I was talking with my dad during the game, but we were saying that no matter what the final outcome was, the way the Illini played that game was a win. It showed the players that they can hang with a top ranked team, and to take leads throughout the game even when they fall behind. And hopefully this is a coming out game for Paul, but I do think he needs to attack the basket more to complement his shot and not rely on the shot falling like crazy. I also love Bertrand, talk about an efficient player, he's really come into his own the last 3-4 games.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) the signing bonus hits 2011's budget. seeing as 2011 took a loss, might as well make 2012's books better looking. Maybe Im reading this wrong, but the bonus still comes in 2012...

I still can't believe that 3 Paul made with the defender's arm on his face. What a win! I also couldn't believe how much the refs let go in that game, at least it was on both sides.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) Just think of rotation of Gio Gonzalez John Danks Daniel Hudson Gavin Floyd Chris Sale. Pisses me off that we gave up that much talent.. I don't blame KW for the Peavy trade but the Gio and Hudson deals were brutal... I don't even mind the Gio trade, we targeted a young, cost controlled OF with OBP and power, unfortunately it didn't work out (s*** happens in baseball). The Hudson deal was flat out stupid, and really pointed to the necessity of change in perspective for the White Sox FO.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) Absolutely. Which makes me even more dumbfounded that the farm has gotten to this point. Kenny the trader should want to have as many trading bullets as possible. The more quality prospects he has to flip, the more potential for adding the proven MLB players he so desires to the team. But he has to sign Teahen and friends to ridiculous contracts! Seriously, I've stated this many times on this site, if the Sox had cut $5mm ish from each year's payroll they would have seen that investment return huge dividends, and you probably avoid the need to go to a $125mm payroll in the first place.

BTW, ranked farm systems don't mean much to me if it means having a sustainably competitive MLB team. If you are trading 3-4 prospects for young, stud cost controlled MLB players than I think that is a viable use of the farm system. I understand the failure rate of prospects, and using them to acquire young studs is fine because that is the point of a farm system anyways.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Indeed. Graduating players happens everywhere. Decent farm systems have depth, and the ability to replenish said graduations. With the White Sox, it's "oh s***, there's nothing left." Exactly, you're left with a bare cupboard after 1 trade or 1 call up, or you can't make a trade because you only have that one piece and can't afford to give it up.