bigruss

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 27, 2010 -> 11:55 AM) Anybody check it out last night? My boss went to it last night, he liked it alot, but beers were $7.50 each.

Ive seen commercials for Its Always Sunny and Sons of Anarchy for new episodes coming soon, I am f***ing hyped as s*** right now. And Las Vegas is a fun show, def one of the better daytime shows (it airs on TNT I believe during weekdays, or atleast it used to). Great sickday tv.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 04:14 PM) We saw why in The Club. JR stated how "we like to pick up guys after a down year or 2 that want to prove something". I understand that philosophy and really, I do agree with it. The Jones contract was low risk/possible high reward. But they have to learn when to cut ties and move on, and its not just in situations like these. This organization struggles to move on from mistakes in general.

So Virgin Mobile has been advertising unlimited everything minus minutes for $25 a month (300 mins per month, which is fine with me, I dont talk much but I def would like to use email, internet, etc more but wont pay the extra $30/month it costs for Verizon). But their phone options suck, anybody know that if you buy an HTC droid phone or something like that that they could still hook it up with their service? Anybody ever use their service? Good quality?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) Poreda was a 1 pitch pitcher who was out of college. Skaggs was a top prep arm who fell due to signability concerns more than concerns over upside. Wasnt comparing those two, I was comparing Skaggs to Carter. Both had big time arms and were pitching well at the lower levels.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) So you're saying you would gamble Beckham/Hudson/Viciedo/Flowers away for Fielder/Dunn/Haren/Oswalt (fill in the blank)? And then what...if 2009 repeats itself? In your desire to create a team capable of winning the World Series this year, you've blown a huge hole in our future ability to compete. Kenny Williams is as much of a gambler as anyone in baseball, and even he sees more downside to going all in for 2010 than sitting this one out and playing the cards he's been dealt. If we still had Peavy, it might be a different result, but we don't have that luxury anymore. Or you don't want us to make a big move, we're (or you're) just collectively lamenting the fact that we can't do so? I don't think anyone in the organization is in danger of acting like they're satisfied with what they've accomplished, it's simply a matter of balancing the short and long-term interests of the ballclub, ownership group and fanbase. No, Im saying the organization cant make these moves because the system is too weak to supplement the after effects of such a move.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) I can't agree with this. Skaggs is better than anyone we gave up in the Peavy deal. Saunders is better than Richard. Corbin couldn't have been much different than Dex. Both were relatively high round picks who have had minor league success. Lets not forget we didn't give up a whole hell of a lot in that Peavy deal. It was just a lot of arms that we traded, but the quality of which could be debated. None with major upside, with the potential exception of Dex who still had a lot of issues. Richard should be quite solid in the NL and will be a valuable mid of the rotation starter. And Adam Russel couldn't make it with the Sox so not a whole hell of a lot different than the 4th the Angels gave up. It depends on the scouts you ask, for Poreda couldve been looked at as a potential ace in some eyes, and in others a potential lights out closer. Skaggs has potential, but is still at A ball. Comparable to Dex, but probably better. Ive never been impressed my Saunders and would put him around Richard's value, especially when you consider you will have to pay around 6 million for him next year. And when you consider the contracts/injuries of Peavey/Haren I would give the edge to Haren and the package given up for him as a better trade for the Angels than peavey for the Sox.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:21 AM) I do not think for one second that KW's philosophy is "things are better than they used to be so this it is all peachy" I dont believe he is thinking like that either, but his actions with the farm system and international FAs is telling me that they still are not doing the necessary actions to really improve our farm system. Yes, we are doing a much better job, especially with our first few picks, but where is the depth of going after hard to sign guys later on? There has been improvement, but not enough IMO.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:18 AM) The Diamondbacks did get a few years of elite pitching out of Haren, so lets not act like they didn't get his production for a period of time. And Haren also was cheaper at the time they acquired him which meant they had to give up a decent amount. But those guys happen to be prospects who panned out (Gonzalez and Anderson). I would say that the package for Peavey was better than the package the DBacks got for Haren at teh time of each trade. Especially when you consider injury histories for both pitchers, and the contracts they have.

QUOTE (since56 @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) Been a Sox fan since the sixties. A few good years here and there. Since Kw and Ozzie have been running things we either win or are competitive every year This franchise has gained alot of respectability in the last 5-7 years. We have become accustomed to being close and or in the playoffs and world series. Lets not get greedy and end up worse off than we are now. I believe the Sox will continue to knock on the door and even win another championship with this tandem. ..........There are times they can really piss ya off though! This type of attitude that everything is alright because we are better than we used to be will be the downfall of the organization if that is what they believe. They should continually be looking to get better in all facets of management, whether it be upgrading the ballpark, enhancing the fan's experiences, developing and drafting better, etc. This franchise does alot well and alot right, but it has major areas to improve upon and to say "well, we're better than we used to be, so its all peachy" will put you right back into a crappy position.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) Well the Angels paid a very significant price to get Haren. Saunders, despite his struggles this year, is a legitimate big league pitcher who has had a ton of success in the AL and on top of that they gave up 2 very good prospects and other pieces. Which is proving the point alot have been stating that the Sox's farm system is crippling their ability to make impactful moves right now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 09:50 AM) I do not agree with the base of this thread and period. This is all over the Angels getting Haren? Lets not act as if they didn't take on a good size contract and a pitcher who is having one of his worse seasons in a long time and gave up some decent talent. The White Sox should not have been acquiring Haren anyway, adding another large pitching contract would really put the Sox in a s***ty position for the future. I saw this thread started more in response to the Sox not having the pieces to go after an impact player like Haren, Dunn, Fielder, etc because of a weak farm system that wouldnt have any MLB ready impact pieces left ove if we traded for one of those guys.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:36 PM) I very much grasp the concept, Russ. Where we are failing to have a meeting of the minds, so to speak, is because you are insinuating that there are no downsides to having a franchise built on developing the majority of your talent from within. First of all, Smoak was the Rangers 1b of the future. My guess is that they would have preferred to keep him around as opposed to having to deal him for a 3 month rental, even if it was for the great Cliff Lee. They have no chance of resigning Lee, and so unless he helps deliver an World Series title this season, they will have traded their 1b of the future for 3 a chance that didn't pan out. Now if their system was as loaded with players able to help their MLB team as much as you contend it is, one would venture to guess that they could have enticed either the Mariners or some other team to trade them an ace without having to trade their 1b of the future. Shockingly, they were forced to do the same thing we would have had to do - open up a hole somewhere else and try to fill it with it someone who is probably not going to get the job done adequately. Whether they have some remaining depth to pull off another trade to replace Smoak seems pretty irrelevant, since they do not have the money to take on anymore payroll. They will probably have to go with Davis for the remainder of the year or acquire someone like Mike Lowell because their organization is bankrupt. Secondly, trying to develop your own talent has many pitfalls, from prospects that cause you to let other producing veterans walk away because the prospect was blocked, to prospects that perform one year and then never again as the league adjusts to them and you are forced to sit through years of below replacement value performance in the name of being "patient," to trades you didn't make because that prospect was just too untouchable to move. With the rate of attrition as high as it is, I would rather just trade 95% of them for players that give you some sort of performance certainty than to mess around with trying to guess which prospects will pan out and not pan out. I'm not claiming, however, that having a good farm system is a bad thing. What I am claiming is that there are a lot of things this organization does very well - far better than other organizations do. And while the farm system is not one of them, I'm not so sure that I would rather we be worse off at the other things we do well in the name of improving our farm system. First off, I would just like to say that the conversation we have had today/tonight has been outstanding IMO, and is alot better than how this thread started to go (not pointing at you J4L, just the few posts made in reaction to yours). I do enjoy your posts Iamshack as you bring a unique perspective and insight into the conversation. That said, I had pointed out earlier that the biggest problem with the Sox is that they dont draft/develop well enough. I could care less if the prospects are brought up to contribute to the team or if they are used as trade bait as long as the team is in first place. The problem I have is that the Sox dont draft/develop well and now were in a position where making a move for a Fielder/Dunn would be extremely beneficial for this year. The problem is, the Sox would be handcuffed financially next year because they would be trading the only prospects that could have an impact in a starting role next year in a deal for Fielder/Dunn. If they had the depth in the farm system, they could make a move for one of those guys and still have enough pieces left int he minors to fill holes on the team next year. The Rangers could still easily trade for anothr big piece if they wanted to, since Lee only cost them another 1.5 mil, and they still have a ton of prospects left. They have the flexibility to do so, the Sox do not. I am also not trying to label the Rangers as a team to emulate, because I am still skeptical of their team. There is no doubt though that they are young, talented, and have the ability to add to that team and make it a force in the playoffs.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:15 PM) The whitesox need to invest more into their drafting as well as the international free agency period. That investment can pay off in future trade capital as well as to help shore up our major league ball club with talent. But that is only part of the puzzle. We need to a much better job of preparing our young players from the first day that they step into our organization to be a major league ball player. Every step on the way for a minor leaguer should be teaching fundamental baseball, and how to play it. Each level should have the same organizational philosophy so when a player arrives they know how to plug into the team and start playing. That, over any scouting, is why the Twins have a good approach with their minor leagues. You can have all the talent in the world, but if you mess up their preparation you will never get the full talent out of that player. We have rushed flawed hitters and pitchers through our system for years, either to showcase them for a future trade or because their physical talents could overcome any deficiencies. Only later do we find out that major league scouts can exploit any major hole. The one time I was completely head over heads livid with our lack of talent in the minor leagues was when Miguel Cabrera was available. Kenny would of traded the entire farm for him, however the farm was bare. Too many Josh Fields and Lance Broadways. If we spent a little more time on development, and maybe a bit more on the draft we may have had him. Now that guy is a game changer, and a building block. Thats a guy to get upset about. Not random X rental player. I would like to see the sox pick up a bat, because the Andruw Jones/Kotsay DH thing is sad. But in the same token. I dont want to sack half my team for a rental player. Sure if Miguel Cabrera is on the block, then sure. Pretty much exactly what I have been saying.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:06 PM) Well, his OPS went from .843 in 2006 to .680 last year and this year. Those are his age 26-27 year old seasons. The reason he sucks, I could care less. The point is that this is the price you pay in opportunity costs for developing your own players. I don't know how many times I have to point this out. You dont seem to be able to grasp/accept the fact that a strong minor league system can either deliver youth on your team (like Beckham) or impact players via trade (like Lee).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:03 PM) That may be the case...I'm not claiming that Smoak wasn't a great prospect. What I am claiming is that the White Sox could have acquired Lee by trading Beckham and opened up the same hole as the Rangers did. The difference is that the White Sox don't need pitching as badly as the Rangers do. Now whether we will address our offense as the Rangers did their pitching, remains to be seen. But simply because the Rangers shoot their wad on a top prospect does not mean that the other prospects will develop into anything. Irregardless, I don't even know why I am engaging in this nonsense. Certainly the Rangers have what is perceived to be a stronger farm system than the White Sox. But I follow baseball to cheer on the major league team. If success to you, equals who has the highest rated system, by all means, let's pack your bags and send you to Arlington. Meanwhile, I'll stay here and cheer on the major league team that has produced results. We're on two different planes apparently, because I wasnt arguing whether or not the Sox couldve gotten Lee with a Beckham package (which I dont know wouldve enticed them more). Im saying that the Rangers did not "shoot their wad" by trading Smoak, in fact, they have quite a bit left to still be able to trade if they wanted to and could keep adding to their team now or keep the prospects to develop more. That ability to keep adding pieces to a first place team is what makes them amazing right now. Somehting the Sox can't do because they have so little depth. Yes, the MLB talent is what matters, but if you dont have the minor league talent to add to the MLB talent then youre in a s***ty position.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:43 PM) I don't know, I thought the yankee offer was better. Montero over Smoak IMO The Mariners thought otherwise though, and that was what mattered.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) That's just bs...if the Rangers have 6 or 7 other great pieces they could have moved them instead. The Mariners were not obsessed with Smoak by any means. They were interested in major league ready players, and apparently the Rangers had just as few in their system as we have. Then why did they turn away from an agreed deal with the Yankees?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:29 PM) If Mitchell and Thompson were healthy and producing at their expected ability levels, this conversation wouldn't exist. If Jake Peavy was still healthy... Even if Joe Borchard defied the logic of Sox first round busts and became the franchise player. Actually, we had enough depth in the middle infield that we could waive Jason Nix. Let's face it, almost EVERYTHING that could go wrong with our minor league system has happened, and we're still standing. Jordan Danks and Flowers have lost a lot of their shine (especially Jordan Danks), we've lost our two players with perhaps the most future potential as impact players, we've lost our most expensive starting pitcher and "ace" in Peavy, and yet we're still in first place. Viciedo and Hudson have demonstrated their potential and youth at the same time, which is the problem with prospects, they're not finished products. Heck, even Beckham, with the college pedigree in the SEC, numerous awards, accolades and honors, he still fell victim to the dreaded Sophomore Slump. I think we also have to give a lot of credit to KW for the acquisitions of Santos, JJ Putz, Omar Vizquel and Andruw Jones (for the first six weeks, but he's still valuable as the 25th man/PR/PH). The only mistake, and it's the biggest and most obvious one, was staying with Jones and Kotsay for so long. But we were winning games with them (the same argument for leaving Brian Anderson in the line-up in 2006)...so Ozzie didn't want to change things up. Fine, understandable. We're now 4-6 after the All-Star break and we have to look at getting better again (although we should be 6-4 and up 3 games on the Twins STILL). They really have a quandary to decide if Mark Teahen taking at-bats from Kotsay is enough of an upgrade to justify not making a move that will cost them in the future...versus someone like LaRoche or Luke Scott, etc. Depth as in Lillibridge?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:28 PM) Then why didn't they trade all these other "pieces" instead of Smoak in the first place? Because the Mariners wanted him and they had enough leverage to get him. Cmon, really? You're going to ask that?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:23 PM) No, they have the illusion of depth. They have Chris Davis. Who still has potential, and if not, they still have plenty of pieces in the farm to trade for a 1b.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:45 PM) Not true. The Rangers had a bigger need in the starting rotation than we did, and thus were forced to open up another hole in order to fill the one in their rotation. We did not have the hole in our pitching staff, and thus it would have been silly to open up another hole just so we could add another SP. I personally think Smoak has looked even worse than Beckham did when he was lost in April and May, and so I don't know if that will end up costing the Rangers. But make no mistake about it. They traded their equivalent of Gordon for the chance at winning it all this year. Kenny went out and got Peavy last year so we wouldn't have to. They had depth in their organization to replace Smoak and not worry too much about the short term/future implications that come with that trade. The Sox dont have much depth at all behind Beckham.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:29 PM) We could have done the same thing. We were actually reported to have been "right there" in the talks. We just didn't want to move Beckham. Keep in mind we have been competitive and have won a title. The Rangers have done nothing in like, their entire history in the league. So because they were able to acquire Cliff Lee this season we should try and replicate their model? Give me a break. You just reinforced my point, the Sox werent able to acquire Lee because they didnt have enough in the system and they couldnt detract from the MLB team by losing Beckham. The Sox overall have a pretty bleak history too, but Im not talking about history, Im talking about improving the franchise now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:19 PM) EVERY SYSTEM IS OVERRATED. The internet has made everyone an armchair GM. Someone reads some glowing reviews on BA and suddenly the Rangers have the best system in the history of the game, fully stocked with certain future all-stars, even though none of us has ever seen any of them play. Yet, they were able to trade for Cliff Lee and launch themselves into top 3 AL team talks.

QUOTE (CWSOX45 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:53 PM) I'm well aware. However they also have a track record of developing talent at the minor league level, not all of their picks were signed "over slot" The Angels and the Twins are two of the most successful organizations in terms of developing talent form their minor league farm system. However in my opinion the Angels made this move because they had 5 of the top 40 picks in this years draft. Pretty easy to stock a farm system when you have those picks. Its a cycle though, you draft well, you develop all star players, they leave in FA because you have farm system depth, you gain draft picks, you replenish your farm system depth. Repeat. You keep your MLB talent level along with your payroll and the amount of flexibility for trades, etc.