26 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Hahn should be fired. Yes, fired. Two first basemen and a DH with zero experience in RF on a team with championship expectations. Pitiful.

They have experience in RF, didn't you watch last season?

(its a joke by the  way)

17 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don't get it. Scott Boras is eagerly tuning into 670 The Score and punching air when he hears Levine say the Sox aren't looking to upgrade in RF?

That and wouldn't he already know our interest level by now? 

21 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Is your argument let’s never sign expensive free agents because there is some chance they don’t work out?

Historically, $100 mil+ free agents fail to meet expectations (previous career norms) around 2/3rds of the time.  Don't get me wrong, I think we should spend ALL the money, I just prefer it spread out on several pretty big contracts as opposed to one or two huge ones 

8 minutes ago, Tony said:

That jacket kinda rules.

22 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This is absolutely hilarious.  You think Hahn is pursuing relief pitching because he thinks it’s a market inefficiency?  ???.  At least we finally found Rick Hahn’s Soxtalk account.

I think this is true to an extent this year. With the shortened Spring training either more starters or a deeper bullpen will be a key to winning. 

Just now, Snopek said:

That jacket kinda rules.

Right??? Haha 

1 minute ago, sullythered said:

Historically, $100 mil+ free agents fail to meet expectations (previous career norms) around 2/3rds of the time.  Don't get me wrong, I think we should spend ALL the money, I just prefer it spread out on several pretty big contracts as opposed to one or two huge ones 

I haven't done it in a couple years, but back when the White Sox were signing guys to patch holes in 15-16, I looked at everyone who signed in the Rick Hahn money range of $8-18 million per year, and instead of previous career norms I used the standard of "would you sign this contract again now". In about 75% of the cases the answer was "no" at the time.

Just now, ptatc said:

I think this is true to an extent this year. With the shortened Spring training either more starters or a deeper bullpen will be a key to winning. 

I don't disagree with this idea, either.

I think the point is the Sox have other fairly serious needs that haven't been addressed, and them spending money on the bullpen seems to be the reason why, which has people upset, which I also understand. 

21 minutes ago, Tony said:

Do you know what's stopping the Sox from doing both? 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 

In theory, this is true. In reality we all know this isn't true. The will be a budget and they will not go over it. What we don't know is what the budget will be.

2 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I'm all for huge steps forward, but I'm not sure why they couldn't, for example, make a big trade for a starter with assets as we know them now.

I don't put too much stock in projections, particularly for teams like the Sox with young, ascendant core players.  I remember you making this same argument last offseason in support of projections that had the Sox at 83 wins and 3rd place in the Central.

The problem is the Sox aren't all that "young" or "ascendant" at this point. Their core has played a substantial enough amount of big league games at this point to where projections become a bit more efficient and reliable. 

Last year I had the Sox as one of the better teams in the AL and winning their division. I'm not a big fan of Pecota in general and said it was less efficient then the win totals posted by sportsbooks who had the Sox all as the best team in their division. 

I did mention that the Sox should have done more last off-season as well to eliminate some of the if's. I feel that way pretty much every off-season though.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

In theory, this is true. In reality we all know this isn't true. The will be a budget and they will not go over it. What we don't know is what the budget will be.

Correct. Which is why many have an issue with picking up the option on Kimbrel, seemingly not being willing to add in other areas because of it. Every team has a budget they work in. I expect the FO to create the best possible team within that working budget. I don't believe the Sox have done a good job executing on that plan over the last 9 months. 

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

They have experience in RF, didn't you watch last season?

(its a joke by the  way)

All I can think about is that scene from Moneyball when they are discussing teaching Hattenberg 1B.

So looking at other possibilities in RF, is Micker Adolfo a candidate? He's finally healthy. 25 hr last season between aa/aaa.  He's a mountain of a man. Strong. Still a great arm. 2 hr so far this spring. At least 4 rbis today. Should I  get excited?

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think this is true to an extent this year. With the shortened Spring training either more starters or a deeper bullpen will be a key to winning. 

No one is arguing that a good bullpen isn't important to win in the playoffs.

The argument is that no one had the Braves bullpen anywhere near the top last season; heck, no one even would have put them in the top 10 after the regular season ended last year. They were 12th in FIP, 13th in fWAR, 10th in ERA, 18th in K Rate. Then in the playoffs they got hot and carried. Trying to project and predict who is going to be great in a bullpen, and great in the playoffs, might as well be a crap shoot so investing heavily there doesn't move the needle enough to warran that substantial of an investment.

27 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don't get it. Scott Boras is eagerly tuning into 670 The Score and punching air when he hears Levine say the Sox aren't looking to upgrade in RF?

No one seriously believes they will go into the season with no LH RFer addition or SP addition after backing themselves into a corner by publicly stating these were their top needs.

Even if TLR won the battle for how the budget got spent (relievers), it is STILL not realistic to believe they are done. It might not be Conforto. It might not be an OAK pitcher. It could very well be a mediocre unsatisfactory short term addition but there will be an addition. 

We didn't offer 4/73-ish (Jimmy) and then magically decide there's no more room because a couple relievers got signed on even shorter term deals. 

Edited March 21, 20223 yr by SoCalChiSox

21 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

 Wow getting the full soxtalk treatment...mockery, insults, attacks.  Go enjoy your hatred.   I'm going to go watch the game...no room for me on Soxtalk  

No one wants you to leave Soxtalk, but when you make silly arguments you will be called out for them.  Works that way for all of us.

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

I don't disagree with this idea, either.

I think the point is the Sox have other fairly serious needs that haven't been addressed, and them spending money on the bullpen seems to be the reason why, which has people upset, which I also understand. 

Agreed. It all depends on what you think the greatest weakness is. In my opinion a lineup with 7 out of 9 spots filled was less of a weakness than a bullpen with Hendriks, Bummer, Crochet and....... (assuming Kimbrel is traded).

So while they do need a RF the bullpen was really a weakness, especially this year where pitching innings is going to be limited.

Both are understandable weaknesses just where is the greatest weakness as we know the salaries are near the luxury tax limit.

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

Correct. Which is why many have an issue with picking up the option on Kimbrel, seemingly not being willing to add in other areas because of it. Every team has a budget they work in. I expect the FO to create the best possible team within that working budget. I don't believe the Sox have done a good job executing on that plan over the last 9 months. 

Which is all valid. But again what was their greatest weakness? Everyone will have an opinion. I just think it was the pitching staff.

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No one is arguing that a good bullpen isn't important to win in the playoffs.

The argument is that no one had the Braves bullpen anywhere near the top last season; heck, no one even would have put them in the top 10 after the regular season ended last year. They were 12th in FIP, 13th in fWAR, 10th in ERA, 18th in K Rate. Then in the playoffs they got hot and carried. Trying to project and predict who is going to be great in a bullpen, and great in the playoffs, might as well be a crap shoot so investing heavily there doesn't move the needle enough to warran that substantial of an investment.

Correct. So where should they allocate their resources? I know I'm in the minority but I think the pitching especially the bullpen was the greatest weakness.

The bullpen prior to signing anyone was Hendriks, Bummer and Crochet.

1 hour ago, fathom said:

Supposedly Levine was on the radio today saying Sox aren’t going after another RF.  

Did he say what they are going after?

Edited March 21, 20223 yr by maloney.adam

12 minutes ago, ptatc said:

They have experience in RF, didn't you watch last season?

(its a joke by the  way)

If Eloy gets hurt again in LF that would be a fireable offense IMO. Unless Eloy has really worked on his defense, which is possible, it's unacceptable for a GM to trot him out there daily where he can get hurt. Just my thoughts.

Well was there some disconnect between Hahn and Jerry? How did he know the budget but also do this bad of a job preparing for the offseason? Why did he refuse to upgrade needs? Was there a misunderstanding as to what the budget was? This just makes no sense.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Which is all valid. But again what was their greatest weakness? Everyone will have an opinion. I just think it was the pitching staff.

The White Sox pitching staff had the highest fWAR in baseball last year. Their relievers had the 2nd highest. 

Their RF was 23rd in baseball. Their 2B ranked 23rd.

13 minutes ago, sullythered said:

Historically, $100 mil+ free agents fail to meet expectations (previous career norms) around 2/3rds of the time.  Don't get me wrong, I think we should spend ALL the money, I just prefer it spread out on several pretty big contracts as opposed to one or two huge ones 

All fair points…I just don’t think Conforto on a 4/$80M deal constitutes a huge contract.  It may be big for us, but it’s not giant for most clubs.

Just now, ptatc said:

Correct. So where should they allocate their resources? I know I'm in the minority but I think the pitching especially the bullpen was the greatest weakness.

The bullpen prior to signing anyone was Hendriks, Bummer and Crochet.

But bullpen is the single most volatile position in baseball. And even then, they didn't have to go and sign three of them to player friendly deals. Especially when there are bigger, more important holes to fill like guys that play everyday in RF and 2B.