The Ultimate Champion

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 29, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) On the other hand, Miguel Olivo was the key piece with getting Freddy Garcia back, even if Morse turned out to be the better player in the end, and was considered a big guy with not enough power for 3B/LF and too big for SS...more like a super-utility guy. Which is generally why you trade them, as the greatest value Miguel Olivo had in his career (trade value that is) was probably exactly when the Sox dealt him. Olivo however did become a pretty solid MLB catcher, pretty much all you can ask for as far as defense + speed on the basepaths + power, although supposedly he wasn't a pitcher's favorite guy to throw to, at least that was the wrap when he was with us. We'd do well to find someone like that though, a vet who can hit 7th or 8th, do some things defensively, but someone the pitchers like. I'll be perfectly happy letting other teams develop our next catcher and then acquire him in trade or through FA once he's an established Major Leaguer.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 29, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) Maybe you trade for a guy like AJ Ellis, John Buck, or even Jonathan LuCroy if you don't want to give Phegley a try. If 2B remains an issue, perhaps Chase Utley is an option. Relievers are always available, just as back of the rotation starters are. There will be options if the Sox are close. They don't need to make a huge splash. John Buck or someone like John Buck on a John Buck type of deal is a very smart move for the future. I don't care what he's doing now, he's someone who could help us next year and beyond. I've said it over and over, but I hate trying to develop catchers. It's such a hard position, so few come through, and you have to sit there and watch them turn into busts on the Major League field. There are probably a lot of things I'd do if I had a time machine, but one of the things I'd do is going back in time to just a few years ago when the Rangers had Saltalamacchia, Teagarden, and Ramirez all garnering attention in the prospect world & then let them know they're all garbage and that you'll be happier with Napoli the butcher who is already on the Angels & an older version of AJ who isn't going to leave the Sox for several more seasons.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) If the Sox aren't that far away, why trade guys like Peavy and Rios for prospects who are farther away, if they even get there at all? Even Marty said the rotation is shaping up. How long do rotations stay together? The time to try to win is while Sale's elbow and shoulder are intact. I don't like the idea of trading Rios & Peavy for unproven players who are far away *and then* having to rely on those players to come through. I am not looking at a 3-4 year development plan, I am looking at using the rest of 2013 plus potentially all of the 2014 season, or at least the first 2 months of 2014, to add to our core to see what we have and then add vets to it. In deals for Rios and/or Peavy (if they are traded at all, because I think they are young enough to build around as well assuming we would make a few Gillaspie/Uribe/DeAza-like "finds" along the way which we can afford) then I would want back MLB-ready players. But - with that said - I would definitely, definitely take back some really high-ceiling A+ ballers that everyone loves IF AND ONLY IF those players were going to be turned around in deals for impact types who are performing now and are either locked into team-friendly deals or appear to be extendable. I also don't think you count on Chris Sale's arm falling off anymore than you count on Courtney Hawkins or Keon Barnum as thumpers in the middle of the 2016/17 lineup.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 29, 2013 -> 09:00 AM) The phrase gets overused, and I'm going to continue with that, but crazier stuff has happened. Guys like Flowers have turned a corner, found a hitch in their swing, and started producing; or guys like Phegley have come up, continued hitting, and helped turn the tides for the team. The bullpen could use a boost, but their rotation is incredibly talented and it is going to keep the team in virtually every game for as long as they're healthy. It's simply way too early to give up on the season at this point in time. They're 4.5 back in the Central and 4.0 back in the Wild Card race on May 29th. There's plenty of time for them to get hot or fall off a cliff, so talking about them selling off pieces, even if you have a pretty good feeling that they won't be in the race, is absolutely silly. See I would normally agree with you but I think the future is more important than rolling the dice on this season. Look at our middle of the order for Christmas sake. We're not far away IMO. We really have some pieces. We have tons of starting pitching, a couple pieces in the pen, a couple position players.... we just need to finish the job. A gigantic chunk of regular SoxTalk conversation is either 1) b****ing about how "going for it" at the wrong times hurts the organization, 2) b****ing about lack of sustained success, 3) b****ing about lack of organizational depth, 4) b****ing about fans not showing up, and 5) launching totally unprovoked veiled "baseball criticisms" i.e. character assaults on the likes of Kenny Williams, Mark Buehrle, AJ Pierzynski, and Hawk Harrellson. Now we can't do much about #5, but the other 4 we may actually be able to address at least in part by finishing the job and putting the future first by building around this core. And if we're going to do that we need to do it now.

Marty34 & Dick Allen need to fight it out at this point, bare fists, kicks are okay, no takedowns thats ghey.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 28, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) It was more like "stand pat" mode, except for Peavy. But if they really weren't going for it...at best, bringing Peavy has only succeeded in basically making us a 78-84 win team instead of a mid to low 70's team (assuming they were starting Santiago/Axelrod in that spot). In some ways, though, it's almost like the end of last season was MORE demoralizing than not being in the pennant race all season long...it seems counter-intuitive, but it feels like "we tried our best, the Tigers were better in the end, then the Tigers seemingly went out and improved, and there's really not much we can do about it for now." The division lead now for the Tigers is "only" 5 games, and there's a possibility we could be in 1st or near there at the end of this stretch against bad teams...but I just don't see how we can legitimately compete with them without adding to our offense. Nor do you see a realistic scenario where you can go into July trailing them by 5-6-7-8 games and make that deficit up. They aren't the 2003 Royals, doing it with smoke and mirrors, where everyone is just waiting for a collapse. And they aren't the 2008 Twins, either. I never thought of it like that. The Tigers did everything they could to give that division away and we just weren't good enough. We didn't have enough. Then in the offseason we did absolutely nothing to improve the team, nor did we trade off any veteran pieces for youth to maybe get excited about watching. The Tigers never mattered for me, because we weren't good enough then and we did nothing to get better. And besides, going into ST, I never really think much about beating the division and making the playoffs, I think more about whether or not we have a team that can win it all. If we played over our heads in a division so bad that we snuck into the playoffs then we still looked like a first round exit team.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 27, 2013 -> 04:31 PM) The Cardinals are the perfect comparison for the Sox. Get to the postseason and anything can happen. That's why when you have a rotation like the Sox's you go for it as long as your close come July 31st. Also, when did the Cardinals go through their rebuilding process? They did what the Sox are trying to do, they overhauled their scouting and development departments while still trying to win. Based on the young talent they've called up in recent years, it looks like their strategy has worked. Give the Sox some time and our system should improve significantly. We've been operating without a Latin American presence for years. Marco Paddy and the additional international scouts alone should pay big dividends. Throw in the new CBA changes and new leadership in Hahn and we're finally ready to step forward in a positive direction. We don't need to sell off some of our best players to get us there. I agree with what you are saying here. One question though: what happens when we *don't* win? The Sox have pitching, yes, but they have also run out far more talented teams than this one over the last decade plus which have come back empty handed. IMO, if we don't win, we get the following: 1) Peavy/Rios lose that little extra bit of value, especially Peavy. I'm against trading Peavy without getting MLB-ready pieces back anyway, but if that deal is out there, then he's worth more now then he will be in the offseason. 2) We potentially lose the opportunity to get something, rather than nothing, out of Crain, Thornton, Lindstrom, etc. 3) It gets harder to unload Alexei's contract. 4) Maybe most importantly, we lose the ability to audition players in August and September and then we have to do a repeat with several players in 2014 what we have done with Flowers this year, i.e. try to develop them but still expect him to produce early in the season while we still may turn into a contender. I think that if we don't win, all in all, we lose out on the chance to add some more talent to the organization, and we lose the ability to let that talent play for us whether that is at the MiLB or MLB level, and we also lose the opportunity to evaluate that talent over the rest of the season to help build a clearer picture of what we need to do over the offseason. I am not a proponent of "tanking" even though I do propose we make some trades which probably gives us a pretty s***ty record this year. But to me that's not tanking, because tanking involves dismantling our starting rotation and I don't think that is even remotely an option. Peavy only goes in an excellent deal that brings us back pieces right now, and beyond that, out of the bullpen we'd deal some guys who would likely be out of the picture after this year anyway. I would put Reed out there on the block to see if some contender is willing to give up a sweet looking position player or starting pitching prospect that we see as being only 2 years away or less, but even he stays otherwise. I think if we make some moves this season we will enter into the offseason with greater clarity, and after the next offseason, at worst, I think we'll enter into 2014 with a team very similar in quality and depth to the ones we had going into 2012 & 2013.

Just throwing this out there, as an example, let's say the Sox can find a deal out there for Peavy that nets them the following: 1) A a pretty decent starting SS who is MLB ready right this second. Doesn't need to be a star, but does need to be a capable #7, #8, or #2 hitter who can do some things with the bat fundamentally and can either (1 of the following 4) get on base; hit for average; hit for a low average but make up for some of it with power (muscle type power, not SLG% inflated by speed); or hit for a relatively low average without much raw power but with better than average speed/excellent baserunning which can lead to some SB, long singles into doubles, doubles into triples, etc. Defense is a must, as well as smarts & work ethic. You don't want a dumb, lazy SS nor do you want a butcher. You want the leader of your next middle infield. 2) Another MLB ready player, again, not necessarily an All-Star type. A solid player, probably undervalued, more like a DeAza type who is at least 1+ seasons from arbitration, and he can play just about any position. Just a solid player, probably someone who would be a starter right now if not blocked by a better player at his current position. Contenders with deep systems have these types. This is the kind of player that the team acquiring Peavy probably wouldn't care much about losing, but he'd fill a spot somewhere in the lineup and on the field at a very low cost, and would be the type of player you think you would be able to lock up through his arb years at a nice price after a good year. Solid mechanics, maybe not really toolsy but probably not a K machine either. Someone you feel comfortable penciling in for the next several years. 3) One excellent looking high ceiling SP prospect somewhere in the low minors who is probably under the radar because he's seen as too far away still, but is the type of talent that rockets up the prospect charts once he starts performing well in High-A or above. This has to be someone Coop has personally seen video on and likes; if Coop doesn't like him then no deal. But take a pitcher in the low minors, not a hitter, because we suck at developing position players. 4) Some throw-in with some upside that can be anything from an overachieving 4th OF type who is very close but could realistically perform his way into a starting role or someone with a lot of potential but serious flaws in the core of his game; either a wildcard impact guy or a pretty realistic roster piece that is just about ready right now. I think it's pretty nuts to expect to "win" a Peavy deal, and targeting deals centered around prospects everyone is salivating over at the peaks of their value is a good way to end up with nothing 2 years down the road. But if you can turn Peavy around in a deal like this, get 2 more good core pieces for your MLB staff, then in a separate deal shed Alexei's contract, you can shed a whole lot of money while getting closer to the goal of becoming a buyer. I think it's best to look for surer things in a Peavy deal. For Crain, Thornton, etc. I think you're going to look for the impact types who are longshots but every now and then come through, the type of talent a team will give up because of the odds but not the talent. The Webb/Jaye return from Toronto is a pretty decent model I think, but in a perfect world we get our Casey Blake-for-Carlos Santana type of deal, especially since our players will be in more demand than that reliever whose name I already forgot and don't care about looking up. Unlikely, but the shot is worth it since we're dealing non-core pieces in the last years of their deals anyway. And if Rios goes I just want to build a deal around a big bat. I don't care if he is the worst defensive player anyone has ever seen in their life, because DH is open. Build the deal around a masher who can club the ball out of any ballpark. Hopefully not another Josh Fields though. But masher + lots pitching would work for me. You can trade pitching for almost anything and that's the one thing we can do, develop pitching.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 10:00 AM) The Angels haven't drafted well. Just Trout, Jared Weaver and Howie Kendrick....at least in comparison to all the pitching the Cardinals have developed. Even once-a-decade talents like Trout or Harper or Machado can't offset lousy starting pitching. Nick Adenhart looked really good. The Angels have actually done very well building from within, filling multiple positions. One of their problems has been drafting players like Brandon Wood which other teams thought were going to be world beaters, and then not trading them as prospects. But then again had they traded one of those guys and had that player turned into what some thought they were going to be, their fans would never let them hear the end of it.

Dunn earned his contract. Usually lefty bats with that kind of OBP & those kinds of home run totals are going to be worth more money per year and over a longer period of time. The problem is that Dunn hasn't played up to the standards he set which that contract is based on. Spreading that money around? You could say that about any player that is making a good chunk of cash, but you only focus on the ones who aren't earning it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:28 AM) If you're not willing to change your position, then you're dead. The White Sox were ready to sell off in 2007 and 2010 (in late May) and then changed their minds. Are they better off now as a franchise because of making the playoffs in 2008 and coming close in 2010 and 2012? Hard to say. But I wouldn't want a GM who was going to force Tyler Flowers down our throats the entire season...one who wouldn't at least look into improving the bullpen...or be completely unwilling to revise their strategy as the season unfolded. KW made a lot of emotional decisions himself. He got stiffed on acquiring Adam Dunn by Rizzo, surrendering Daniel Hudson to the DBacks after a grand total of 3 starts (only one which could be defined as "bad") in the heart of a pennant race...then ultimately gave Jackson up for nothing in order to get Teahen off the books and erase a bad personnel decision which should never have been made in the first place. He gave Sergio Santos an extension, then turned around and flipped him weeks later...then signed John Danks to a long-term extension. If Toronto was willing to take on that contract, they too would have been willing to give it to Sergio, so how could that possibly have been part of the plan from the very beginning? Why wasn't he shopped around to all the teams in baseball, who could have made an agreement (had they wanted) with the Sox that negotiating an extension would be part of the deal, had they so desired (like our Freddy Garcia move in 2004). At that point, he still had four more years before free agency. He got so frustrated with our minor league system that he forced Nick Swisher into CF and lead-off (two places he didn't belong), then gave Swisher up for absolutely nothing, costing us one of the best young lefty prospects in the game. If there was EVER a long-term plan that wasn't more a combination of Mississippi River boat gambling and hoping and praying a bunch of talented players who came from different systems could be miraculously thrown together into a cohesive whole...I'd like to know what it was. Our scouting of undervalued players from other organizations, pitching expertise/Cooper and run of anomalous good health (Herm Schneider) has always been offset by changeable, inconsistent decision-making in the front office. And there are some players I've never once advocated trading: Sale, Viciedo, Quintana and Santiago, to name 4. Reinsdorf decided he'd pay for a winner in 2010 rather than trade off pieces. Kenny switched gears and built a very talented team that played like absolute crap under a loudmouth egomaniac. That's life a guess, nothing is certain. Re: other points... Hudson was traded for a chance to win. Why are we still b****ing about this around here? Kenny knew Hudson was good, that's why he was so aggressive with him in the first place. And at that same time you had Hudson out there in trade rumors you had scouts/FO people in other organizations calling Hudson a #4/#5 which is why Kenny didn't get back a better return. And Rizzo stiffed Kenny on Dunn? Rizzo f***ed up not taking that deal, that's a bad move on Rizzo. But the larger point is that Kenny traded a good young player for a vet with much better stuff to try to win. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but that's a good on-paper move at the time. You can't "go for it" and yet be all wishy washy on a prospect like Hudson at the same time. For example, Zack Wheeler was traded to the Mets for Beltran as a "win now" move because the Giants won the WS the prior year. The Giants didn't win that season, but they did win it again the following year, and they still weren't afraid to go after an impact type and acquire Hunter Pence. Better prospects than Hudson are traded quite often to try to win, and no one regrets it when you do win. Think the stupid Cardinals were really so stupid afterall trading Colby Rasmus for a World Championship? I credit Kenny for going for it when he had the chance. The logic was sound when that deal was made & so it is unfair to make the GM out to be "emotional" when he made that move. I want a GM that will go for it when he feels he needs to. I have no idea what went on with the Molina-Santos deal. Honestly, that is one of the more confusing Sox transactions in recent history. So much was going on behind the scenes, the move seemed rushed, I have no idea what to think there. And I don't know who you even blame there individually, I would put that move on the organization as a whole, from Kenny to Hahn to Paddy to the other people in the FO that are supposed to sign off/give their blessings on that kind of move. Also, you're being totally revisionist with the Swisher deal. We had no solution in CF, no solution in LF (Quentin was just acquired & he had to fight for the spot in ST), Dye was up there in age and his defense was slipping, Thome at DH and Paulie weren't looking long for the team either. Swisher was an excellent idea at the time because he was there to be a long-term solution at one of several possible positions, with CF being temporary. The problem was that Swisher is a douchey little b**** who isn't a mentally solid baseball player. Between the ears he wasn't what Kenny thought he was. But again, this wasn't some "emotional" move, on paper it was a move where we traded 2 good pitching prospects (DLS was the headliner there & he's a bust) and an OF in Sweeney who was ready but never picked up that power. Good move that turned out bad. If anything it was the 2nd deal that was emotional, but that deal is still one of my favorite Kenny Williams deals, because he sent Swisher's prissy little ass the f*** out of this town with the quickness, and thank god, because he's a douche. Now if JR had granted Kenny the power to do the same with Ozzie after the 2010 season then we all might be talking about the 2012 "all in" team in a very different way than we are now. Also you are suggesting there never was a plan. There always is a plan, but sometimes they don't work out. Baseball is a hard game to predict & you never know which prospects are going to come through to fill which positions, nor do you ever know which veteran players are going to disappear for entire seasons right in the middle of their primes. And how about that Peavy move again? And how about that Rios claim? SoxTalk seems to have STFU about those two now even though Kenny's effigy burned throughout the 2012 season over those moves. Both were good on-paper moves that look good now, just much later than was anticipated.

In the next 1-2 seasons we are going to need a new 1B, a new DH, we don't know what is going to happen up the middle with the C position/Beckham's development/Alexei getting older and more expensive, and then of course we're always going to have to fill holes due to trades, injuries, fall offs, etc. like any other team. I want the Sox to use this season to address more long-term needs, and then hopefully answer a couple questions heading into the offseason. I think we need to continue to build to do that. I think we need to deal some pieces and play guys like Flowers and Beckham no matter what they're doing, because it is make or break for them. If however we try to contend then we had better win, because otherwise we'll have gained no ground, and in the process, we will have probably just used up a pre-arb year on some of our new core players while pushing our contention window back another season and making it more expensive. I think we should put players on the block and look to sell. DeAza, Alexei, Thornton, Crain, and if the deals are right then Rios and maybe Peavy if the organization really gets a hell of a deal. There's no reason to tear down the walls and try to play horrible baseball, but getting caught in the middle could really set us back. Also, our starting staff is great but I'm not sure I'd believe in them in the playoffs this year anyway. That would be a long way off and both Santiago & Q will probably be at new innings highs, while Danks is still recovering, and Axe still has more to prove in the Majors IMO. We'd have Sale & Peavy leading a spotty offense with a ton of holes in it plus a reasonably good pen which should improve beyond where it is. We'd be dangerous if we were able to start Sale in Game 1 of the playoffs should we get there, but I'm not confident enough in this team as it is currently constructed to risk a better 2014 on it. I think that's stupid, because I really don't think we're far away from a longer contention period where we can look to add *vets* around a young core, not the other way around. It's a whole lot easier to patch together a winning team when you can trade unproven prospects that are probably going to bust/underwhelm anyway & hand out free agent money in order to acquire players with track records, but you can't do that when you don't have the youth & payroll space, and I don't think we're quite there yet.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 24, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) Vegemite. f***ing Australians Everything about Australia is great save for that. People always talk about all the posionous snakes & spiders, the jellyfish, the rays, the man-eating salties, etc. but the one thing that will kill you faster than any of that is a teaspoonful of vegemite on a cracker.

Looking back on it, Ehren Wassermann's time here may have been one of the first obvious on-field manifestations of the behind the scenes conflict between Ozzie & Kenny Williams. It seemed to me then, and even more now in hindsight, that Ozzie was using Ehren as a means of telling Kenny "I want guys who can throw to both sides of the plate & for multiple innings" rather than accept the guy for what he was. And that hurt me deeply as a fan, because Wassermann was one of my favorite stories in the organization at the time and I really wanted him to succeed. In that s***ty 2007 pen he was the one guy with the least amount of stuff but unlike the rest of them, in his case, something actually did exist between the ears & he helped out that pen a lot because of it. Then after that Ozzie just seemed to be like "f*** this guy" which I didn't understand. Specialists are still very much undervalued in the game because though they may only be able to pitch to one side of the plate for a couple batters, they do often come into some of the toughest situations you will see during the course of the game. Veal last year owned Prince Fielder with the game on the line, and it's nice when you have someone you can trust to come into those situations. Remember Kelly Wunsch? If you ever see that man, buy him a drink because he was the man.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:18 AM) http://forums.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.asp...&tid=113032 90% sure it's Dan Remenowsky you're referring to. Kyle Bellamy, I remember now. What's he been up to?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 23, 2013 -> 07:04 PM) Do we have a guy with a funky delivery like Ehren Wasserman/Chad Bradford/Takatsu we could try? Probably not. Someone that throws slow enough to throw off hitters who are used to all gas coming from the bullpen...Remenowsky? We still have that righty, forget his name. We had Drew O'Neill as I believe a 2nd rounder from a low 3/4 who was compared to Linebrink stuff-wise, but his arm burst into flames (I think he's retired now) and then the following year we drafted another one who was supposed to be better, and who was supposed to move quickly. That guy got hurt but I think he's back in the system again. I think it was NSS who was all about that guy. Maybe we'll go to that one. I still can't remember his name, but he's a righty specialist prospect.

One thing that this thread makes me think about is how the local Seattle beat writers had that national hissy fit over the Mariners waiving Casper the friendly ghost and going with the ghost of Jason Bay instead. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to tear everything down Cubbie/Mariner style should remember that. As annoying as non-winning seasons are, imagine what it would be like if things were so bad here that such an event became one of the biggest baseball stories of the young season, and just imagine what it would be like to be so infuriated at the thought of losing such a s***ty baseball player. That's Mariners baseball and I hope that never happens here again.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 23, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) So are Casper Wells and Tyler Green now fighting to the death for the last roster spot? Every time I see Casper Wells I go, "That guy's on our team?" And I know he's on our team, it's just that I don't care so powerfully that I forget to not be surprised.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 23, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) Jesus, careful watch how hard you pat yourself on the back, you might break a hand. He's just here to make the rest of us look good. That's his job.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 23, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) I'd rather see him get fixed. A FB that averages around 98? Why waste it in the minors. You saw what he could do last year. Right. Relievers have up-and-down careers. This is baseball. Jones has a nice arm & has had success before. There's nothing flukey about what he throws up there. Why would any team in the Sox current position send down someone like Nate Jones when they do not absolutely have to?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 23, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) Red flag was he was 26 before he showed anything. I'm trying to think, and it's difficult to recall if I have ever agreed with anything you have ever posted aside from your wanting Alexei's contract gone. I agree there. The age argument for pitchers is one of the dumbest arguments ever put forth, and every year pitchers prove it wrong. If you have the arm and you can learn how to throw strikes with it, then you can get MLB hitters out. Put away the graphs, take your head out of the sand, it's really not that hard to understand.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 23, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) Dave Wilder was fired 5 years ago. If the White Sox are still reeling from that, how is it people think they can totally rebuild their team in 2 or 3 years? Given our payroll situation (we can run out a $110M payroll pretty easily) and all the turn-over you see around the league, you can more or less rebuild a Major League team's 25-man roster in 2-3 years. Even great teams with excellent cores turn their rosters over quite a bit year-to-year. OTOH, believing you can totally rebuild an organization in that span is ridiculous, can't happen. That's playstation thinking, and if the organizational philosophy is still problematic, and I think it probably is, then you're still running in sand, maybe just with a better pair of tennis shoes.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ May 23, 2013 -> 12:10 AM) Maybe they are horrible. It seems the busts in the system are the multi sport players. They seem to get athletes but not baseball players. Some flaws can't be fixed at the professional level. Drafting and developing may be the two biggest problems in this organization. You have to point a finger the JR since they draft the agent instead of the player. Better players will get the better agents. The same group of people are repeating the same mistakes. Things need to be gutted at the top. One of the biggest reasons I hate seeing KW hate is way too much of the farm system issues are put on the GM position (irrespective of who is sitting in the chair) and not so much on ownership. We, as an organization, stuck to our guns re: bonuses to unproven draftpicks/international signees under the last CBA and the fallout from that is ENORMOUS. Just think, if we go overslot for a player in 2003 that we took a bust over, and he turns out, then even though he's probably gone from the 2013 squad, we've likely traded him for pieces that have helped us or at least got a draft pick out of it - or if neither, having said player allowed us to fill a hole without trading further pieces from the farm and/or kept us from spending in free agency on an unnecessary player. The fallout from the old CBA, and the change over to our new system, is going to take several years. The Wilder event - same thing - that's still not over, we're still reeling from that s***, because prospects take several years to pan out usually and when they do they often create their own individual acquisition trees, where player X is traded for Y & Z, Z is released but Y goes as part of a deal for A & B, etc. We've taken some steps definitely but the biggest positive is seeing us spend like a Major League organization, which is something we haven't done in the past and really never did much of under the old CBA. Also there is the anti-Buddy Bell sentiment developing here. It's hard to know how much input he really has as far as the direction an organization takes with a player but, while I am not advocating running this thing backwards like the Pirates organization, we need to be more disciplined I think in the way we offer instruction and we also need to demand core peripheral results sooner out of our minor league players. We also shouldn't be hesitant to look at more trades involving our prospects for other teams' prospects. Every now and then we get the rare Aaron Cunningham-for-Danny Richar deals where 2 teams swap unproven players who have some upside, but I don't think we make enough of those types of deals. I think we need to hire as many good people as we can, and have as many people on the ground as we can, and we need a couple relatively useless bean-counters in here to compile all that information objectively and pass it on without adding a bunch of "Have mercy dadgummit this kid can play!" subjective interference that prevents a good move from happening or worse, turns a good move or a non-move into a bad move.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 23, 2013 -> 12:22 AM) Josh Fields and Joe Borchard immediately come to mind, and RHP Brian West was a football player at LSU, I can't remember if Brian Anderson was just a baseball player...he also fits the toolsy/athletic mold without a refined technical approach. Mitchell over Trout (the Yankees are the only other team who were on Trout, because he grew up in their backyard)...Keenyn Walker was an All-State football player at Judge Memorial High School in Utah, another example. Trayce Thompson's father and brothers, NBA family. Crossing fingers on Barnum and Hawkins for the moment. Then we have all those "weird" draft picks like Royce Ring and Aaron Poreda, where nearly everyone had them pegged as relievers from the get-go...like drafting a punter or kicker in the 1st three rounds of the NFL draft. Finally, the "limited upside" college pitcher selections of Broadway (relatively high) and McCulloch. It's so easy to pull mediocre, low-ceiling types out of other organizations that I always always always am comfortable going with raw tools and ceiling. That should always be the focus IMO. Yes we've picked some very raw types who have busted, and the list goes beyond yours, you caulfield are actually being pretty kind to the Sox here. I think the biggest problem may be the organizational philosophy of developing players - the thought process that leads the way before any action is taken on the field - especially the completely ludicrous & idiotic idea that a player should have to "fail" before he changes anything. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You can talk all you want about wanting to be like the Braves and Twins, but at the end of the day, when you need a player to make a change then you ask him to make a change. If he's not receptive then you trade him. If there's an attitude issue then you trade him. If you get the idea that said player isn't mentally strong enough to make it through the process, or that he's not going to put in the extra work, then you trade him. And you do it early while he still has some value, that way you don't end up shipping him off to Boston for your future slap-hitting grinder DH. It's not so difficult, and I'm not sure why we can't seem to do that. Other teams can turn raw, talented kids into good baseball playing men, but with us they seem to need to be either pretty close to a finished product when we get them or else a pitcher.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 22, 2013 -> 10:41 PM) Good post, and I agree. It's one of the reasons I've advocated for using Alexei as a trade chip. The Sox did a great job of unloading Santos when they did, it's just too bad they overvalued Molina. Yeah that Molina deal hurt. I'm not sure what happened there. Kenny didn't seem to know much about him, the deal was done quick.... there was a lot going on then. Kenny knew he was stepping away, Hahn was about to step in, Paddy came over & Molina was Paddy's guy... somewhere along the line I think the chain broke down and people didn't do their homework. Personally I believe you should always make the best of whatever resources you are fortunate enough to have. For us IMO no deal for a pitcher should EVER go down without a personal OK from Don Cooper after Coop has seen a good amount of video on the kid. If Coop believes in the arm, the mechanics, etc. and the FO thinks he's a good kid who will work hard and adjust, then I make that deal, simple as that, and if I get burned, oh well it happens. But that Molina deal didn't seem to be the product of a very thorough process.