Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 08:02 PM) The way you do a quick rebuild is by dealing a player with value. Santos has value. This isn't fantasy baseball. Trading a player immediately after signing an extension would be bad business. It would definitely have an impact our ability to extend guys in the future.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 07:24 PM) Don't need a 36 year-old first baseman, a 31 year-old SS, or a 29 year-old closer if you're rebuilding. You can't trade Santos just yet, would look pretty terrible to deal a player you signed to an extension before he ever plays a game under said extension.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) DKnobler DKnobler Kenny Williams says if White Sox can make deals he wants, they would officially be "rebuilding" 50 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply Now that's interesting. I hope if we decide to do a legit rebuild, we can somehow move Konerko for a decent package and then make Dunn the regular 1B. I honestly think playing the field everyday could help his hitting. How much remains to be seen, but there's really nothing to lose if we're rebuilding.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 13, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Trade Danks, re-sign Quentin for a year and deal at the deadline if they aren't in it. I really don't think things are this simple. First, you try to extend Danks to a somewhat reasonable deal. If a deal can't be worked out, which seems likely, then you gauge his trade value on the market. You also see what Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton are worth. If you get the right offer, then you move any and all these guys (although I wouldn't trade both Floyd and Danks). There's no reason to give any of these guys away during the off-season. You can always explore moving these guys at the deadline. In a perfect world, we resign Beurhle and extend Danks. That allows you to move Floyd, who should have fairly good value this off-season. That leaves you with a 2012 rotation of Beurhle, Danks, Peavy, Humber, and Sale. Stewart opens the season in AAA and serves as insurance in case anyone goes down or Humber or Sale struggle. He'd also be the guy targeted to replace Peavy in 2013. This would give us five starters to potentially build around long-term, with only two of them earning big money. Unfortunately, I don't see Danks agreeing to an extension we'd willing be to do, but trying to work out deals with him and Beurhle should our priorities, as I agree the long-term pitching situation looks ugly without them.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) If that's the case given his sub-par defense and position, he should not be viewed as untouchable. He's not untouchable if the perfect offer was made, but you do not trade him for pitching prospects. Even if you could get a pitching prospect for him of equal value, I'd much rather hold on to Viciedo. The injury risk for the pitcher would be insanely higher. Viciedo is a fairly safe player to think we can build around offensively. Why in god's name would you give him away for a couple of unproven arms that could break down at any time?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) I truly think that's inevitable. What we're looking at right now is the same thing we do every trade deadline. We think we have a chance when we really don't have much of one at all. We should be focusing on the future, not clinging to a false hope that we're still in this thing. I know we're not in a good position to fully rebuild with the contracts of Dunn and Rios, but we're not in a position to compete either, IMO. We should start taking bids on every single guy that will draw interest besides guys like Sale, De Aza, Viciedo, Morel, etc. Let Dunn and Rios ride out their contracts or trade them if someone is stupid enough to take them, and continue to build up young talent. It's going to take years, but these are years where we won't be competing anyway. Imagine if we had started to rebuild with that horrendous 2007 team. We'd be on our 5th year. It's true that we might not have done a good job of it, but we also might be 5 years into a successful rebuild. We just refuse to accept the truth that we're not going to be serious contenders. I completely disagree with you. If we bring back Beurhle and don't trade Quentin, Floyd, Danks, or Thornton, I think we'd have a halfway decent shot at winning the division. Our pitching staff would have the potential to be one of the best in the league. It would also have incredible depth, as you'd have either Sale or Humber and Stewart available in the event of injury. That depth would allow you to try and get whatever you could out of Peavy this year without coddling him and if he broke down you'd have a solid replacement available. The real concern would be the offense, but if you inject Viciedo in RF and move Quentin back to LF, you'd have significantly improved your outfield. You'd also have De Aza and Lillibridge as insurance in case Rios doesn't bounce back. You'd still need Dunn and Beckham to play like they're capable of, but at least our new manager should be quicker to pull the plug on a struggling player. With some natural growth from Morel and minor improvement from Ramirez, I think you'd see significantly more production from our lineup. Now, the odds of keeping all these guys is practically zero, but as long as Buerhle is back and you only move one or two of those other guys, I think you still have a shot at the division. I agree that the organization needs to start thinking about the future at some point, but there is no reason not to go for it in 2012 if Reinsdorf will support a $115 million payroll. If next year flops, I'd be cool with a rebuild, but just not yet.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) Assuming ~$115M payroll Buehrle comes back @ 4y/$56M Quentin comes back at 1y/$8M SP Buehrle SP Peavy SP Humber SP Sale Deal Danks, Floyd, Thornton, Viciedo focusing on pitching prospects in return. Beckham added to this list with Lillibridge taking over at 2nd? Leaves about $10M to spend on upgrades, 5th starter comes from return on trades. Trading Viciedo is pure insanity. We have maybe one guy in our minor league system, Trayce Thompson, that projects to be a middle of the order bat and he's extremely raw and hasn't done anything yet to feel confident in him. We desperately need Viciedo to develop into a #3 or #4 hitter by the time Konerko's contract is done or we will be f***ed offensively. I get your love for pitching prospects, but trading Viciedo for them would be a fireable offense IMO.

The problem with the current system is that anyone can take advantage of it. So yes, the Pirates can throw a ton of money at the draft, but so can the Cubs. The difference is that the Cubs have more dollars to play with. The Cubs can outspend the Pirates on draft bonuses, with the hit being a much smaller portion of their total budget. How do the Pirates come out ahead in this system? With hard slotting, the Cubs would have no way to cheat the system and would be penalized for good performance with poor draft position. Their talent inflow would be crippled, while bad teams would be able to take the best players available at more reasonable costs. This would allow them to use this money to try and improve their major league team. How do the Pirates not have a better chance against the Cubs long-run with hard slotting?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) From the sounds of it, the vast majority of items have already been agreed to behind the scenes, and this one isn't big enough to stop the CBA from happening for. The consensus seems to be a luxury tax on high spending teams instead of hard slotting. Oh I've heard that it's probably not going to happen, I'm just disputing the claim that the previous poster made that it shouldn't. He made it sound like hard slotting would be bad, which makes no sense to me, especially for a White Sox fan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Because: 1. Several of the teams with high revenues like having the small market teams unwilling/unable to compete for big money players. I don't think the Angels are mad about Jared Weaver falling to them because of signability. 2. The players don't want limits to signing revenue to decrease the earnings of the new players coming in. Obviously I know why the players don't want hard slotting, but your first reason doesn't cut it. There are more teams that would benefit from hard slotting than teams currently taking advantage of the system. From a parity standpoint, hard slotting is a must. Sure, if you're a Red Sox, Tigers, or Cubs fan, you want to keep the current system. However, the poster who said there shouldn't be hard slotting is a White Sox fan, so his claim makes zero sense.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Oct 31, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Hard-slotting isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. Sounds like a tax will be imposed if teams spend over a certain amount in the draft overall. Why shouldn't hard slotting happen? I can only see good coming from it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 31, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) Pen from right side: Frasor Crane Santos Reed Payroll @ $94M Are any of these guys very good at getting lefties out too? If so, it reduces the need for a left-handed setup man and maybe you can by with Santiago or Leesman as a second loogy.

We're definitely strong from the right-side. The bullpen as a whole would be a real strength if we held onto Thornton, although I still think he's gone if we get a half-way decent offer for him.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Oct 31, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Kevin Goldstein of BP said the White Sox system might be the worst he has ever seen. I just wish this team spent money in the draft and didn't follow the Selig slotting reconmendations. Well, that's not going to happen. We just need to hope that the new CBA will include hard slotting or else we'll continue to be at a disadvantage. Also, having some presence in Latin America (outside of Cuba) would help.

Is there going to be an official press conference, because I'd like to the reasoning behind the Parent hiring. There's got to be something we don't know, because on the surface it's a bizarre hiring.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 30, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) I'd say the Blue Jays and the Cardinals won it. The Cardinals got a needed starter for a talented, albeit struggling outfielder. The Blue Jays got a high-upside outfielder and a Kenny contract for Jason Frasor. The White Sox got Jason Frasor and a busted SP spect. There are two winners, and one clear, obvious loser. This post is just ridiculous. Rasmus has done s*** so far for the Blue Jays, yet you have the nerve to call them a clear winner. You can say the Cardinals did well in the trade, but let's wait a couple years before we judge the Sox or the Blue Jays. Only an idiot would try to speak in absolutes right now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 06:26 AM) The only area that Mac excelled over Frank was steroid aided long balls. Agreed. It's a shame that his greatness will be overlooked by some because of this, although I think almost all smart baseball fans give him credit for being one of the clean guys in a dirty, dirty era. I know it's unrealistic and never going to happen, but I still feel that Frank should have been awarded his third MVP when Giambi admitted to steroid use during that season. I'm still pissed off about that. Anyways, I take Frank over Mac any day of the week. While Mac had a nice steroid fueled run, Frank had one of the greatest 7 year stretches of all-time.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I'm pretty sure they are picking him up. Picking up his option or bringing him back? The guy is from Chicago and might be willing to accept a more reasonable deal to stick around. I don't how we can afford to pay our third or fourth reliever from the right side $3.75 million when we are looking to cut salary. If they do pick up that option, it's clear as day Thornton won't be returning and we'll be going the cheap, in-house route to replace him. I'm fine with that if you can get a nice return for him and you think Santiago or Leesman can be an adequate replacement. CL: Santos SU: Crain SU: Reed MR: Frasor MR: Ohman MR: Leesman/Santiago LR: Axelrod I could live with that bullpen next year as long as Ohman is used properly (i.e. loogy) and not forced into Thornton's role.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) That's just it. If you were going to keep him, you;d pick up his option. If you aren't, you aren't going to offer him arbit because there is a good chance he accepts and ends up with a better salary than last year. There is no chance in hell Frasor gets more than $3.75 million in arbitration.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) Haha, I should stay away from PHT when I drink. I'd think a discount from market value for Mark would be around 12 per. I think if he really wanted to play hardball, he could get 14 from one of the big market teams. I agree, I think a 3 year/$37.5 million offer would be fair and one he might accept.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 01:56 AM) What can I say? I support Ozzie all the way. He gave me the only title of my lifetime and probably the only title of my lifetime. Odds are very slim we'll win one again. And who put that team together???

I like McEwing getting the 3rd base job, but the Mark Parent hiring is bizarre IMO. The relationship to Robin seems fuzzy and he's only had two years of minor league managing experience. Hopefully we find out more in the press conference, because I'm not impressed with this move.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 8, 2011 -> 02:56 AM) Seriously? With a manager that has no experience at all, we'd hire a bench coach that has no major league coaching history? That's about right. I agree. Let's hope they are interested in this guy to be 3rd base coach or something.

My guess is Lamont will be the bench coach. I also think McEwing will get the 3rd base coach job and Manto will get the hitting coach job. I'd prefer Laker be the hitting coach, since he's familiar with the young guys, but the Tribune hinted more towards Manto. I wonder if he speaks Spanish, because we're going to need someone to help with the Cubans and other Latin players.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2011 -> 07:58 AM) I could get with Pena or Lamont as a bench coach. Those guys have years of managerial experience. Lamont makes perfect sense, because he's a former manager with ties to the Sox & Robin. Plus he's currently not a bench coach, which means his current team is much more likely to grant permission.