OmarComing25

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 16, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) falling to #3 would be better, but yeah i agree #10 is the best safe number. Not happening unless we lose out, even then that might not do it.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 16, 2015 -> 10:09 AM) They were 50-52 on July 31. They’ve gone 27-15 since then. The Sox were 49-52 on July 31. They’ve gone 19-23 since then. Although even if the Sox had gone 27-15, they’d only be in 2nd place in the division and one game back for the 2nd wild card. Should have double-checked. The morning of July 30th the Sox were 49-50, and the Rangers were 48-52.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 10:46 PM) Because it's easy. I'll say it again. You could continue to smash that round peg into the square hole to try to prove your point. Your debate is quite boring and not really worth my time. I answered your questions. I'm going to waste my time watching Tex vs. Hou. It's boring because you're not actually giving real answers or giving any actual evidence to support any of your bogus claims. You gave 2 examples, and then didn't explain why the (allegedly) losing organizations were the cause of their poor play for us, how is that proving a point? You also have yet to give me an example of an actual losing organization and what makes them a loser. It just seems like you're trying to sound smart with your nonsensical analogies. Case in point: "Round peg into a square hole", go ahead and keep repeating that, it doesn't mean anything and it's just you continually avoiding the question.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 10:22 PM) Dunn, LaRoche ( as I said before = aging NL sluggers) Go back a decade. or you could continue to smash that round peg into the square hole to try to prove your point. See how players from losing organizations translates into other sports. Way to avoid the question. Who are the losing organizations? Also explain how these players can perform well for these "losing organizations" but then suddenly regress hard just by the act of coming here. It's not like there's a lot of pressure to play here. You're not making any sense. Also Dunn was hardly an aging slugger at 31 years old when we signed him, especially for the DH position.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 10:01 PM) Bryant = A's organization. Rookie. Big difference. I'd prefer young players if you get them out of the NL. These are NL veterans they keep wasting money on. They fail. There's a pattern - stop. Not too much has changed since the Williams era - acquiring players from losing organization. Nice try. What other players did we acquire from losing organizations? We got Dunn and LaRoche from the Nationals. Why are they considered a losing organization? Who are the teams you consider losing organizations anyway? Many of the teams that would fall under that if you looked at the last 20 years are in line to make the playoffs this year. Would Felix Hernandez fall under this umbrella as a player with a "losing mentality"? Or is he different just because Seattle is in the AL?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 09:23 PM) "Paying premium prices for mid level free agents" seems to be a particular recipe for failure and it's been our favorite move for a decade. Aside from this past off-season and maybe Dunn in 2011, when did we pay premium price for a free agent in the last decade? One off-season doesn't make a trend.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 08:08 PM) I'll go with history. You can sniff what comes out of a bull. So if we somehow traded for Kris Bryant we should expect him to suck because he comes from the same losing organization that Samardzija did? Did LaRoche also come from a "losing" organization? Smells like bulls***.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 07:50 PM) A trait of getting players from losing organizations. 100% bulls***

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 15, 2015 -> 07:42 PM) 100 mil window is gone and has been for months. Doesn't mean he still wouldn't cost himself additional money with more poor performances to finish the year.

Remember when people thought the Rangers traded for Hamels for next season? If the current score holds, they'll be leading the West. Hurts to think we were ahead of them at the Trade Deadline.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2015 -> 02:03 PM) Yeah, a quick look shows that mine didn't include Kang or Tomas, so that's part of what's different. Out of your list, >50% underperform and 25% are absolute disasters. So we did get unlucky somewhat in disasters, but that's not unexpected with odds that bad. What if you did a multi-year analysis on this? It'd be interesting to see data points beyond this year.

Trayce...

Loved the fist pump by Brantly in the bullpen there. He looked so happy.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 08:44 PM) It's the expected WAR there's no other way to look at it. It's like saying "oh I expect THIS lottery ticket to really pay off!" If the Sox were getting comp pick after comp pick sure, then there is a coherent strategy but this is a one off thing and it comes at a very real cost -- overpaying a 1 WAR Shark when they are already approaching max payroll. If the Sox committed to a full tear down and rebuild then HOLISTICALLY you could justify taking the comp pick as part of an internally coherent strategy but it's quite clear that is not the plan. The only way to look at these things is through the expected WAR. Yea, they could hit the jackpot but the odds are stacked against them. In my risk assesment the odds of Shark taking the QO and f***ing them for 2016 is a greater risk than the upside of picking in the 40-50 range. I mean WTF about the White Sox drafting in that pick range makes you think they are EVEN going to get that? This is the last I will post on this. Draft picks are highly, highly over valued by most fans. If the Sox could sell the the pick they'd get about 12-15 million for it at absolute most, which reflects the value of the expected WAR perfectly. Just FYI the pick would be in the mid-to-late 20s range, not 40-50. Not that it would change your valuation of it that much.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 08:35 PM) Samardzija deserves credit for doing his best to get the Sox a top ten pick. s*** we're 14th now? The damn Orioles are behind us now. Arizona has fallen off a bit the last two weeks too.

That now makes 9 of Jeff's last 11 starts where he's given up at least 4 runs.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 08:10 PM) Samardzija next year if he signs with us: 8-12, 5.00 ERA, 4.25 FIP, 195 IP, 168 K If he signs elsewhere: 16-7, 3.34 ERA, 3.05 FIP, 214 IP, 200 K I hope Jeff feels that way too.

Trayce gets an initial bad read but makes up for it with his athleticism. Also with every run Samardzija gives up it makes me more worried he won't get signed until after next year's draft. That ERA won't stop rising.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 07:36 PM) They often come from losing organizations and only have to worry about playing for a new contract. There's no pressure in August and Sept. Sounds like a bunch of psychoanalytical BS to me. Sarcasm?

Trayce! Man the ball jumps off his bat.

QUOTE (Mike F. @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 07:17 PM) Guppy fuggin blows. When guys have an off-year in a White Sox uniform, they don't just regress slightly, they fall off a cliff. So annoying.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 07:27 PM) Saying they would be under .500 in the AL is a bit of a stretch, but I do think their record would be worse. Same with the Cardinals and Pirates too.

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 06:09 PM) Just a few observations, hoping they're a contending team next year. 10 of the first 13 on the road, including starting in Oakland. Hopefully that means they stay in Arizona through Saturday, and pair up with the D-backs on some exhibitions. They don't play the Tigers until June, and play all 19 games in the season series over 85 games total. Starting the second half on the West coast...that could pose a focus problem. Playing the Angels and Mariners, and immediately come home to face the Tigers, Cubs, and Twins. That's tough stuff. The final 2 weeks of the season aren't that bad. Phillies and Indians on the road. Rays and Twins at home. Could be worse. It's not a bad schedule for a team that intends to compete. This all assumes those teams stay relatively the same quality next year. A bunch of teams make big jumps in both directions every season (see the entire AL West, hell almost the entire AL). Regression, injuries, off-years, career years, surprise rookies, a lot can change a year from now.

How does Clark rate as a prospect?

QUOTE (Mike F. @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 06:28 PM) What? They play so many bad teams. The Phillies, Braves, Marlins, Reds, Brewers, Rockies, and Diamondbacks are all horrible and playing them is a guaranteed win most of the time. The bottom of the NL is indeed horrific but c'mon now. They've fared pretty well against the Giants, Mets, and Pirates.