witesoxfan

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) You have to do one or the other. No half-measures at the deadline like last year. They quite clearly went in one direction last year, and that was pushing for a division title. That's exactly what I'm advocating they do again. Oh, and if they're 5 games out but like 3 out of the Wild Card, then they don't have to decide one way or the other. They don't need to trade pieces away, because selling off is a white flag, and fans don't appreciate it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 04:34 PM) Being that team in the middle really hurts around the trade deadline. Do they keep guys like Rios, Peavy, Floyd, etc ... if they are on the fringe of a playoff spot if they can get something of value for them? That depends upon their position in the standings (both division and Wild Card), the number of teams ahead of them, and the team's record. If they're in 2nd place in the Central but 7+ games out of the Wild Card and division, you sell; if you are in 3rd place in the division but 2 games out and tied for the 2nd Wild Card spot, you trade for small upgrades. The key to all of it is that you don't give up premier prospects unless it's someone who will be with the club long-term and is worth it. Giving up Trayce Thompson for a reliever would be suicide, but I strongly, strongly doubt Hahn does so.

Cinder blocks are still incredibly dangerous.

But boobs

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) Time to sound silly...Benching with cinder blocks on the bar...does it add anything more than the 35 pounds they weigh? Not sure if the fact that they hang and wobble a little does anything. Other than sounding incredibly dangerous, the wobbling and keeping it steady as you go up might help your stabilizers a little bit. If you are going to lift, do yourself a favor and get a gym membership. Then you can lift and workout in a much safer and more controlled environment.

And can we stop talking about an argument of semantics and PLEASE just stare at her rack?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) I understand this -- but I think we're finding out that baseball doesn't work that way. Once the Rays got good, I think there began a fetish among a lot of us (myself included) to want to "rebuild," thinking that the game was really a feast or famine situation. Writrs started talking about "competitive windows" and stuff. And it made sense intuitively. But the reality that has occurred over the last five years is different: 1. Teams like the Rays have NOT closed the "championship window." They've both landed on a model where they stay in the hunt every year, AND failed to win a championship. 2. There is a certain sort of parity that exists in baseball that we didn't predict -- the difference between the best and worse teams isn't nearly as much as we expect. A few hot or cold weeks can turn surefire contenders in busts and vice versa. That's why we end up with teams like the Orioles and A's of last year. THey don't have more talent than everyone else, but they had enough to be in contention and give themselves a chance to let things break right. The same is true for expensive teams -- even a really good roster can fail very easily. Would you trade rosters with the Rangers right now? I would, but that group has no championships. 3. You can't just build a winner in a single year. The Marlins and Angels are the best recent examples of this. Since the available pool of talent fluctuates from offseason to offseason -- and because of point #2 -- you have to take talent when you can get it, make good decisions all the time, and the sum of that will put your club in a good position eventually. Watch what happens with the Blue Jays over the next few years. I think they've been doing it just right, so if they fail, that will be a great argument against me. I think it's just REALLY hard to win a WS because there are so many things that have to work out beyond your control. Surely, a better team has a better shot, but the pool of teams in the middle that are merely "competitive," I believe, is much larger than we used to think. And if you're going to make a sacrifice to your future to imrpove the present, you better make sure that improvement is actually enough to boost you OUT of that massive middle group. I think the evidence shows that being aggressive just to claw your way up a spot or two doesn't help as much as it may seem li8ke it should. Very well stated. Relating to the parity of the league, more than any other league, the difference in talent level between the worst 5 teams and the best 5 teams is closer in baseball than it is in every other sport. There are really only about 3 teams I believe I can safely say won't be competitive this year - the Astros, Marlins, and Twins - and it's certainly possible that one of those 3 ends up right around .500 this year. You can generally tell the best teams from the worst teams, but in any given series, the worst team can beat the best team. The 2010 team I felt was closer to a .500 team, but thanks to an incredible stretch to end the first half, they had a great shot to win the division and ran into a better team. All it really takes is one extended stretch of playing great baseball to get a team in the race for the remainder of the season while also staying out of an extended slump. This team has the pitching and the offense to do just that. Let it ride.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) I'm saying you "take it when you can get it". This reminds me of that parable about the two bulls standing on a bluff overlooking a field of cows...one bull says, "let's run down there and screw one of those cows." The other says, "if we walk down, we can screw all of 'em.". You guys are advocating the "walk down" approach; I can respect that. Although, if you walk down, the cows might not be there when you get there. I guess that's why I advocate the "run down" position...ya gotta "strike while the iron is hot.". That parable requires that there be cows down the bluff to begin with. I would argue that you look down again and see that there are no cows down there. It's best to wait until there are cows down there to begin with. There's nothing the White Sox can acquire at this point that will make them the proverbial favorites in the AL Central, so the best bet is to go into the season as is and acquire pieces if and when the time comes. The cow that runs down the hill right now is far likelier to be caught and taken to the slaughterhouse than they are to screw other cows. (that parable makes me feel dirty)

He sure could, because the technical definition of acquitted is different then the one used by Anna Welker by way of procedural differences. Everything else she said was true. If Ray Lewis wants to spend his time and money suing Anna Burns Welker for defamation due to the technical difference in the definition of a word she used, then he can do so, but the hard-nosed, tough guy reputation will be gone at that point too. In the meantime, let's continue to stare at Anna Welker's rack.

Hummus might be the greatest thing in the world

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) I'm not going to win ANY arguments with you guys...if Reinsdorf or Hahn or KW said 2+2=5, most of you would be "on board" with that. No, you are saying they should sacrifice 1 year for 7-10 years. That's the same argument the Miami Marlins made. It's a terrible way to build and run a franchise. Beyond that, the Sox DID just do that in 2011. It failed magnificently.

Wes wins

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) Correct me if I'm wrong...weren't the White Sox the winningest team of the 1980s? (Maybe 1990s?) If so, how many championships did their "sustained success" get them? You are making the 2012 Miami Marlins argument for building a baseball team and organization. You are not going to win that argument.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) so... while you're right and mass-market granola bars are awful, that pizza muffin thing ain't too great either. but at least that way you KNOW what you're eating vs the lies on the granola bar wrappers. haha But when looking to satisfy a craving for pizza, that's about the healthiest I've seen.

Did you guys hear about Manti Te'o?

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) I already said I'd sacrifice "long term" for another WS Championship. Which is terribly short-sighted. As mentioned, it's been 7 years. Are you sure you won't just be complaining again in 5-7 years after this one? Still, you are looking, in the best case scenario, at a 1:8 shot, and that's assuming you get to the postseason. If you go cold or catch a few unlucky breaks, you're done with a bazillion dollar aging roster. The best thing to do is to attempt to sustain success over a long period of time while still attempting to remain competitive. That appears to be the Sox goal right now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) I think this is the disconnect. There is building the best organization possible, and then there is building the best team possible. They may sound alike, but they are two very different and distinct things. Personally, I prefer the organizational thing. Put another way, I'd rather be Alabama than Auburn right now.

Yesterday's loss snapped Tom Brady's 67 game home winning streak when leading at half-time (or something like that).

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) I know all about "financial constraints" and "working within a budget", etc. I get it. But when the Sox try to tell it's fans that "we are doing everything possible to put a winner on the South Side.", what they're doing is pissing on our heads, and trying to convince us that it's raining. My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford? The way I interpret it, you'd be telling your son the exact same thing. "Best team possible" and "Best team they can afford" means the exact same thing to me, so this is basically an argument of semantics. Now, if you are seriously advocating that they spend more then they can afford...keeping it PC again...then you are not wishing for what is best for the organization long-term.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) Forget the Sox for a moment... I think you fail to understand the basics of baseball roster building. In any given year, there are 2-3 teams that are willing to pay anything, spend stupid money, to go for broke that season. This year, it appears to be the Dodgers and Nationals. Sometimes those teams succeed - other times they don't (see; 2012 Marlins). And almost no teams have every gone on binges like that for more than a few seasons But almost every team, every year, have financial constraints to deal within. That includes the Sox. So the question really isn't "are they spending top money at all positions", it is, are they doing the best they can with the dollars they have to spend. Unwaveringly and most certainly, the answer to that question is yes.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:26 AM) Super-slow motion version is so, so much better

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) This team will do what 80% of our teams going back to 1999 have done, they will win between 79 and 87 games. They are set up to be competitive and to have a less than 50% chance of winning this division. I am sincerely hoping that once we shake loose of these huge contracts in the next 2-3 year, the general White Sox strategy of ensuring that the team is "competitive" and "has the opportunity to win the division" every year (at the expense of bottoming out) gets revised. White Sox fans aren't interested in a competitive team anymore, and if 2012 taught us anything, it's that being in first place even most of the year isn't going to put asses in seats unless the team wins the division. Pre-05, the 80+ win strategy ensured interest and some fans coming to games. Moving forward, it will be better to completely scrap heap the team every few years. The floor of ticket sales and budget is easier to deal with than the ceiling. There apparently is nothing to be done to raise that ceiling these days, especially considering live baseball is a particularly good entertainment value anymore at the price points it has swelled to, given the HD home entertainment alternatives. That's a whole 'nother thread and conversation. If you are to believe attendance, not even a playoff birth prevents a decrease in attendance. 2006 - 2.95 mill 2007 - 2.68 mill 2008 - 2.5 mill 2009 - 2.28 mill That means, in a matter of 4 years, the Sox pretty consistently lost between 180,000-300,000 fans per season over the course of 4 years. During those 4 years, they went from a 90 win team, to a 90 loss team, to a tie-breaker and division winner, to a mediocre jumbled mess. The ony thing to be a proven cure-all is a World Series championship. My best guess would lead me to believe that an extended playoff run and/or multiple playoff births would do it as well.

When it comes to eating pre-packaged bars like that, the only ones I will eat are Cliff Bars. There's a bit of a cardboard taste, but they aren't bad and are generally pretty good for you (though they do consist of a lot of sugar all the same)

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) Followup question: Are these players affordable according the the actual(not your percieved) financial model? Because the answer to the first question is "of course". The answer to the second question is a resounding "NO" Please leave logic out of future discussions. Thank you.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:46 AM) Here's what you don't seem to understand...the Sox' "window" for playoff success is rapidly closing. We have several players who won't be around (or effective) much longer and we don't really have viable replacements for them in the minors. The time to "go for it" is now, before Konerko is gone, before Peavy is gone, before Dunn is gone, etc. If they go around picking up a "Keppinger" here, a "Lindstrom" there...those are nice pieces to have but, without something "major", the Sox won't catch Detroit. This is very likely the best product the Sox can put on the field. If it's not good enough - oh well. Spending irrationally to try and make the playoffs before your intangible playoff window closes should not be a priority - setting the team up for sustainable success in the long-run should be the entire goal right now, and going out and signing 30-somethings for $100 million contracts is the worst thing the organization could do. /repeated for the 50th time