Eminor3rd

I think most people drastically underestimate the amount of talent required to build a healthy, sustainably competitive system from top to bottom. The bust rate on prospects is very high. We do not have enough talent in our system to abandon opportunities to acquire the types of prospects that Quintana can bring. Don't forget that Quintana is, in all likelihood, this regime's last chance to acquire a "big" prospect from another system. There will be other trades to make, but none that can command a top-25 talent or two. After this deal, all of our studs are going to have to be drafted and developed from within. If you disagree with me, it means you think the pieces of our next competitor are mostly already here. If your best guess at our next contender depends on more than half of our prospects turning into productive big leaguers, you're way off. It's always "possible" for a miracle sot occur, but you don't go down this far down this road the bail early and launch a Hail Mary.

I'm willing to give the white Sox the benefit of the doubt on transitioning Cuban players to American baseball until I have reason to believe otherwise

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 6, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) Unlikely, but Rick Hahn grew up a Cubs fan. I think he would be more than happy to trade with them. Of course the great Theo would be at the other end. Isn't there a concern about being swindled? The only team I'm afraid of trading with is the Rays, because they literally ONLY make deals in which they're completely convinced they've ripped the other team off. Normal GMs are willing to make even exchanges of future and present value based on what they need the most at a given time, and there's no reason at all that they can't be mutually beneficial.

Guys like Pelfrey and Shields likely won't move until near the deadline or shortly after, when teams that need depth have already swung and missed on actual upgrades and are just looking for depth.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 6, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) But if guys have no trade value do you really need 2 scrubs of return to dump in A ball somewhere and release in 2 years? The Sox have two tradeable assets in Robertson and Q and that's it. The rest will bring scrubs who mean nothing to a rebuild. You guys perplex me. Anthony Swarzak is going to be a free agent. He is gone no matter what. What would be accomplished by keeping him an extra month in a lost year?

We aren't safely past Super Two yet -- he'll be up sometime after the trade deadline, but not sooner.

I still like him as a CF

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) Only because you haven't encountered yet. Great as always guys. I feel like my favorite section is definitely always the Bonus section. You! *shakes fist*

I don't think there's much to "analyze" in the numbers at this point, I just think it's nice he's generally doing really well instead of getting wrecked, especially with the layoff in playing time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 01:32 PM) I remember when Sox fans used to say that a playoff appearance was enough. Then it became a World title would be enough. Now they have to win every single year. Knowing this fan base, they would turn into the Atlanta Braves who didn't even sell out playoff games. The only chance we'll have to find out will be to actually see it happen. Will sustained relevance make it cool/fashionable/fun to be a White Sox fan, or will it simply get old and boring? I'll join the Doomsday Bandwagon if we actually see a few consecutive years of contention and the figure still doesn't climb, but not until then.

Good.

Awesome article. You guys are doing some great work.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 08:59 AM) I'm not sure it's that simple though. Some people watch and support both teams. There are definitely benefits to having access to 9.5M people, even if the hardcore fanbase is split across two teams. And your list above represents some of the largest markets in this country. So unless you only consider L.A. & New York large markets, half of Chicago should no doubt be included in that group as well. It's the Cubs factor and their draw with casuals that really prevents us from being in that group. You're right, it isn't that simple. But it illustrates the magnitude of the effect of the market being split by two teams, which si the point that Thad Bosley is trying to deflect. While you're correct that SOME people watch both, the overwhelming majority of consumers in the market are going to spend the bulk of their purchasing dollars consuming one of the two teams. The examples I provided are the markets of the Rangers, Mariners, Nationals, Braves, Padres, Diamondbacks, and the Marlins, which are just some random teams off the top of my head that I think most would consider to be "mid-market" teams.

Only means so much, but it's at least encouraging: G: 16 PA: 68 K%: 17.6 BB%: 23.5 AVG: .277 OBP: .500 SLG: .426 HR: 1 SB: 7 BABIP: .353 wRC+: 175

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 06:01 AM) Existing in a big market SHOULD make you a big market team. That's a no-brainer, and only an irrational angry mindset would not allow one to reach this easy conclusion. It's the embarrassingly ineffective management of the past several decades that has precluded this organization from taking advantage of the great market that is Chicago. Chicago Metro population = 9,512,999 Ok, let's assume the Cubs and White Sox can each capture half the market on average: Chicago Metro population divided by 2 = 4,756,500 Ok, now let's compare that to other market sizes: Atlanta = 5,710,795 San Diego = 3,263,000 Dallas/Ft. Worth = 6,426,214 Seattle = 3,733,580 Washington DC = 6,097,684 Phoenix = 4,574,531 Miami = 5,008,000 The White Sox are a mid-market team because, although Chicago is a large market by itself, the market is divided by additional competition, whereas most other baseball markets are not.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 3, 2017 -> 06:20 PM) I don't think it's necessarily fair to tell the long-suffering yet faithful fans to go away and watch hockey because they are voicing their discontent with the continued failures of the organization. Better served to join the increasing echoes of those looking for a change in ownership, given how the current owner (who is the LONGEST TENURED OWNER in MLB, mind you!) is just now "beginning" to "get those two things right" you referred to. Almost 40 years at the helm and they're just now getting around to that. Unbelievable. You'd think with having the longest tenured owner that the Sox would be the model franchise by now, the one by which the others are judged, with the "White Sox Way" copied over and over and over again. Yet it's almost exactly the opposite. Excessive failure on the field year in and year out, resulting in bottom-of-the-barrel attendance and TV/radio ratings. All of this for a franchise residing in a big market. Again, unbelievable, and again, time for a new owner. There's no problem with voicing your discontent with ownership, but I think most of us have a problem with jumping in and pissing on practically every other thread. I'm not saying it's necessarily you, and maybe it's mostly greg, but some of us still like to follow the team and try to get excited about the players and would rather do it without a doomsday post derailing every conversation.

Sox spend PLENTY of money to win a title. They've sucked primarily because of two things: (1) an overly aggressive contention strategy that continually bet heavy on a stars-and-scrubs approach, and (2) and eight year stretch of terrible drafting and player development. They'll be relevant again when they start to consistently get those two things right. And most signs point to them beginning to do it. It's going to take some time. If you don't like it, go watch hockey.

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Jul 3, 2017 -> 02:04 PM) Couple things that I'd like to add: 1. You said "typical" prospect. However, the research looked into the careers of position players that appeared in a Top 100/Top 150 list. This is actually the oposite of a "Cherry picked" sample, as you suggested. Adolfo has to look up about ~100 spots or so before he sniffs a Top 100 list. Because of this, his likelihood of busting is Higher, not lower. 2. You cite 21% as a success rate, but again, that's for all (high OR low OR average K rate) among Top 100 position players. When you further filter to Adolfo"s cohort (again, the exact opposite of "cherry picking ") the success rate (if he were in a Top 100 list, which he isn't ) is a mere 13%. For a non-Top 100 type, the success rate is likely less. Lastly, I agree that the research is dated. But, I challenge you to find a study that shows that it is a GOOD THING for a prospect to have a high K rate & low BB rate. If we have subsequent research that shows the opposite of this one, then I'll agree that this study should be disregarded. Thanks for disagreeing, without being disagreeable. And if you have contrary research, Id love to see it. What are you trying to accomplish with this argument? It's okay to think Adolfo is an overrated prospect, but you seem to be arguing that we should just release him immediately. Why? We all understand that he has swing and miss issues. We're hoping that he corrects them around the time he can legally drink.

No rush at all

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Jul 1, 2017 -> 06:09 PM) Adolfo simply isn't a prospect until he can drop the K rate. I think that perhaps, friend, you are mistaken as to what the word "prospect" means. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Adolfo simply won't be an MLB player until he can drop his K rate. This is reasonable and very probably true. However, the fact that he is an undeniably physically gifted and very young man who is succeeding in many ways despite a high K rate that results from a very raw approach means that he very much IS a prospect. Currently. If you're looking to the minor league system and expecting to find it full of prospects without flaws, that simply need time to grow bigger in order to step right into an MLB lineup and produce, you are ever bound to be disappointed. The object of a rebuild can not realistically be to acquire 10 Bryce Harpers, but it can certainly be to acquire 100 Micker Adolfo's, from which 10 MLB players will rise.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 07:03 PM) If you extended Martin or Cervelli at that same exact point in their careers...you'd have done just fine. Catchers don't mature until around 30 because of all the mental aspects of the game to master. Gary SANCHEZ has been the exception, not the rule. Wilson Contreras, as well. No reason they couldn't have kept him until 2019/20 as a bridge to the competitive team, like Abreu and Avi. Caulfield have you been following the White Sox over the past few years? The Chicago White Sox non-tendered Tyler Flowers after the 2015 season, fresh off a .239/.295/.356 campaign, before his final trip through arbitration in his age 29 season -- because the team was ALL-IN and desperately signed two free agent veterans in hopes of finding some offense. Wtf do you mean "kept him to be the bridge to a competitive team?" Also, the Francisco Cervelli contract has been HORRIBLE since basically a week after it was signed. If anything, Cervelli's situation would be illustrative of why NOT to believe in a random fluke career offensive performance for an aging, bad hitting catcher.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 04:33 PM) Caulfield...Flowers is 31. And spent six years on the MLB roster. A starter for like, three. We "developed" the f*** out of Tyler Flowers

JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL

My favorite recurring article on the entire internet.

Alcides Escobar is a garbage player.