The window is half closing. The Sox can't compete with the Yankees, Astros maybe the Rays, Blue Jays but....BUT if they can actually stay healthy they should post a winning season and maybe have a shot for the divisional title.

Sorry, until this ownership changes and the front office on the baseball side is fired that's about the best you can hope for.

Division Winners Past Five Full Seasons *:

• Five (1) Houston
• Four (2) Atlanta, Los Angeles NL
• Three (1) Cleveland
• Two (4) Boston, Milwaukee, New York AL, Saint Louis
• One (6) Chicago AL, Chicago NL, Minnesota, San Francisco, Tampa Bay, Washington
• None (16) Arizona, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Colorado, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles AL, Miami, New York NL, Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Seattle, Texas, Toronto

91 + (20+ over .500) Win Past Five Seasons (2017-2019; 2021-2022) *

• Five (3) Houston, Los Angeles NL, New York AL
• Four (1) Cleveland
• Three (1) Boston
• Two (7) Atlanta, Chicago NL, Milwaukee, Oakland, Saint Louis, Tampa Bay, Toronto
• One (6) Arizona, Chicago AL, Minnesota, New York NL, San Francisco, Washington
• Zero (12) Baltimore, Cincinnati, Colorado, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles AL, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Seattle, Texas

Houston and Los Angeles are the only teams which consistently fielded legitimate championship level teams, and, with Atlanta and the Yankees fielding solid teams, or in Hahn parlance playing in a “multi-championship window” worthy teams.

The other 26 teams for most part did not give a rats ass about trying to field a championship caliber team over the past six years, including both Chicago teams.

Note *: 102 Game owner lockout faux season excluded.

I think the window is creeping towards closing, but it's not there yet. Instead of being 8-1 co-favorites or whatever they were a year or two ago, they're probably 25-1 or 30-1 maybe. Highly unlikely they win it, but the chance is there. A million things have to go right of course.

1 hour ago, SoxBlanco said:

This entire post is predicated on the fact that the Sox are NOT a perennial division winner during this stretch. I believe they are, and 2021 is the outlier. If the Sox win a World Series within the next few years, they will fit right in with several other teams on your list: “won the division every year from 2020 through 2024 (with one exception)”

How about this one.

Every single champion since 2003 has had a 94 win season or better. They may not have peaked in the regular season where they won their title, but they won at least 94 within 2 years of winning their title. 

The only one that peaked at 94 was the Giants. The Royals peaked at 95. The Red Sox had a run of 95 win teams.

if you want to win a title these days, you need to put a 95 win team on the field. Sometimes your 95 win team will have a bad playoff run but gain experience to win the next year, but they won that many games for a reason, and it wasn’t a crappy division.

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

How about this one.

Every single champion since 2003 has had a 94 win season or better. They may not have peaked in the regular season where they won their title, but they won at least 94 within 2 years of winning their title. 

The only one that peaked at 94 was the Giants. The Royals peaked at 95. The Red Sox had a run of 95 win teams.

if you want to win a title these days, you need to put a 95 win team on the field. Sometimes your 95 win team will have a bad playoff run but gain experience to win the next year, but they won that many games for a reason, and it wasn’t a crappy division.

The Sox won 93 games last year. Just grasping at straws and moving goal post to try and prove a team that basically meets your criteria to be a World Series contender doesn’t. 

1 hour ago, kev211 said:

The Sox won 93 games last year. Just grasping at straws and moving goal post to try and prove a team that basically meets your criteria to be a World Series contender doesn’t. 

They may have won 93 games but then went out tamely in the first round of the post season, like they did the year before. This team has a ceiling of qualifying for the post season (last season excepted) and then the inherent weaknesses that are constantly ignored or created by the FO are exposed when they come up against better teams.

13 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

I’d actually like to know which team is this example of a team that is built to maybe win 89 games, sneaks into the playoffs, and then wins a title. The most recent example I have might be the 03 Marlins? 
04 - Boston. Was a wild card team, improbable ALCS, but was also a perennial playoff team and will show up again soon.

05 - might be the team on here with the least sustained success. Might be the most out of nowhere title in 20 years.

06 - Cardinals - everyone makes a big deal of them winning 82 games, but the same team won 100 games the year before and was in the 04 World Series. That’s a sustained period of excellence.

07 - hey Boston again, maybe they weren’t a fluke.

08 - Phillies - was a surprise at the time but they made the playoffs 5 straight years.

09 - Yankees. Most recent example I have of a team getting a title in FA.

10. 12. 14. Giants. There were a couple wild card appearances in there but that’s seriously sustained success.

11 - Cardinals again. 

13 - Red Sox again.

15 - Royals - complete rebuild, “best system in baseball history”, two straight World Series appearances.

16 - Cubs - made NLCS the year before, 5 straight playoff appearances.

17 - Astros. Bit of help from a trash can, but have made the playoffs every year since.

18 - Red Sox again.

19 - Nationals - was a wild card team, but had 5 playoff appearances and 4 division titles since 2012, never finished worse than second.

20 - Dodgers. Definition of sustained success.

21 - Braves - have now won the NL East 5 straight years.

22 - Astros again.

This seems very non random to me. There are zero examples of the Rockies or Marlins or Diamondbacks or Pirates sneaking in with an 88 win season and winding up with a title. Teams like that have made the World Series a couple times but I don’t see a win. Every one of them is a multi-year contender who wins their division repeatedly, the shortest stint other than the 05 White Sox is probably the Royals who couldn’t afford to keep a team that made two straight World Series appearances together.

Titles are going to franchises that are excellent for years.

So the giants in 14, cardinals in 06 and 11, nationals 19 actually do define your random appearances and winning because they were the teams that snuck in as wildcard and we all thought had no shot.  Being teams that make the playoffs frequently after or before doesn’t really matter, being a surprise at the time is the point, not their pedigree.  
 

now the overall argument that you just need to make the playoffs and let the chips fall doesn’t make every team automatically level with each other of course.  The Sox as currently constructed I would have a hard to saying could get to and win the World Series, but we have seen teams get on hot streaks that carry them in some of the above teams.  I’m just sick of waiting for every right thing to happen and them being unwilling to spend the money to lean the odds in their favor.  

15 hours ago, TheFutureIsNear said:

If Moncada bounces back to at least a .270/.350/.420 hitter

If Giolito can bounce back to 180+ innings if sub 4 ERA pitcher

 If TA, Robert, and Eloy can all play at least 135+ games

If Vaughn and Kopech take the next development step forward

If Grandal can catch 85+ games and be a useful hitter

 

IF those things happen…sure we are a World Series contender

 

*(Didn’t mention the uncertainties of Lynn, Clevinger and whoever our 2B is)

 

Yes we need those things to happen but we also need a second baseman.

No, blow it all up. But they can't because so many key pieces have lost so much trade value. So, hopefully some value is rebuilt in the first couple of months, then blow it all up.

46 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

No, blow it all up. But they can't because so many key pieces have lost so much trade value. So, hopefully some value is rebuilt in the first couple of months, then blow it all up.

Do we really want these dopes in charge of another half-assed rebuilding effort?

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

So the giants in 14, cardinals in 06 and 11, nationals 19 actually do define your random appearances and winning because they were the teams that snuck in as wildcard and we all thought had no shot.  Being teams that make the playoffs frequently after or before doesn’t really matter, being a surprise at the time is the point, not their pedigree.  
 

now the overall argument that you just need to make the playoffs and let the chips fall doesn’t make every team automatically level with each other of course.  The Sox as currently constructed I would have a hard to saying could get to and win the World Series, but we have seen teams get on hot streaks that carry them in some of the above teams.  I’m just sick of waiting for every right thing to happen and them being unwilling to spend the money to lean the odds in their favor.  

The Phillies just made it into the WS. They wouldn’t have even made the playoffs in previous seasons. As long as you have 3 or 4 starters, and a decent bullpen capable of getting on a roll, you have a shot if you get invited. IMO, the 2020 White Sox were one playoff team with no shot at a title because they basically had 2 starters.  I think the good news is if the White Sox make the playoffs enough of their players turned it around where even the current naysayers will then say , with one or two exceptions, they have a shot. The others will hold out because one team wins and they can play the chalk and say I told you so.

4 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The Phillies just made it into the WS. They wouldn’t have even made the playoffs in previous seasons. As long as you have 3 or 4 starters, and a decent bullpen capable of getting on a roll, you have a shot if you get invited. IMO, the 2020 White Sox were one playoff team with no shot at a title because they basically had 2 starters.  I think the good news is if the White Sox make the playoffs enough of their players turned it around where even the current naysayers will then say , with one or two exceptions, they have a shot. The others will hold out because one team wins and they can play the chalk and say I told you so.

Does it matter if you have a shot if in reality it’s an extremely remote shot?

The setup you’re describing illustrates the point. Yes, the Diamondbacks, the Rockies, the Phillies have reached the World Series, but in all those cases they have to go through multiple really good teams on the way there. They drain everything they have getting to the title round and then get finished off by a championship caliber team from the other league, a team which has more depth and can sustain their run.

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

So the giants in 14, cardinals in 06 and 11, nationals 19 actually do define your random appearances and winning because they were the teams that snuck in as wildcard and we all thought had no shot.  Being teams that make the playoffs frequently after or before doesn’t really matter, being a surprise at the time is the point, not their pedigree.  
 

now the overall argument that you just need to make the playoffs and let the chips fall doesn’t make every team automatically level with each other of course.  The Sox as currently constructed I would have a hard to saying could get to and win the World Series, but we have seen teams get on hot streaks that carry them in some of the above teams.  I’m just sick of waiting for every right thing to happen and them being unwilling to spend the money to lean the odds in their favor.  

I would say that if you want to win a title in the modern era you need to build a team that can push nearly 100 wins. 

Now a team good enough to win 100 games may not do so. They may lose multiple players to injuries and win 90 or even 82 games. They may win 97 games and not win a title that year or ever. They may need to come in as a number 1 seed , disappoint, and get playoff experience first. But basically all of them start as teams that can win 95 or more games, that talent level is a baseline. If you don’t have that talent level, you will run into too many teams better than you and you can’t find your way through that gauntlet.

This window stuff is a fiction propagated on behalf of front offices that can't identify and develop talent.
If an org can't develop talent, its "window", if it exists, lasts maybe 2 years, when everything comes together.
Conclusion: for the Sox, the "window" is already closed, unless the young players rise (Vaughn, Sheets, Sosa et al, Colas, Kopech, Martin or some other young pitchers).

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Do we really want these dopes in charge of another half-assed rebuilding effort?

You know Hahn's motto "if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again"

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Do we really want these dopes in charge of another half-assed rebuilding effort?

No, but it's a better option than deluding themselves into thinking that this roster can do something in the postseason. 

From appearances of this offseason, the FO thinks it can contend. Of course, that is if the core of impact players stay healthy all season.  And that is a big if. But the FO really didn't make any big moves because it believes Eloy, Robert, Kopech, et all will all have good and relatively injury free seasons. 

2023 will demonstrate what kind of "window" exists. If 2023 is just another mediocre season, decisions will have to be made because fans will truly lose patience. Regardless, I don't know how committed the FO is to advancing the team to the WS. Division title? Yes. World Series is another story.

43 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, but it's a better option than deluding themselves into thinking that this roster can do something in the postseason. 

Even if you want to rebuild (which I don't), after a season of poor production and injuries, these players need to have their values built back up for proper trade value,. 
As it is, the Sox might have one of the best starting rotations in the league, especially if Giolito rebounds.  The players are still in their prime and they aren't that many players away anyway. They have a chance.

Either way, you have to roll with it this season.

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Does it matter if you have a shot if in reality it’s an extremely remote shot?

The setup you’re describing illustrates the point. Yes, the Diamondbacks, the Rockies, the Phillies have reached the World Series, but in all those cases they have to go through multiple really good teams on the way there. They drain everything they have getting to the title round and then get finished off by a championship caliber team from the other league, a team which has more depth and can sustain their run.

I get what you are saying here and we both agree that we want them to do much more to ensure a higher chance of victory, but I have to answer the question honestly, and yes it always matters to make the postseason.  No matter how shitty a chance you have, it always matters.

7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I get what you are saying here and we both agree that we want them to do much more to ensure a higher chance of victory, but I have to answer the question honestly, and yes it always matters to make the postseason.  No matter how shitty a chance you have, it always matters.

How about this version.

If you don’t look at your roster at the start of the year and think “this team should win 100 games”, you need to be thinking about how you will get there long term, because titles go to Teams with good answers to that question:

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

How about this version.

If you don’t look at your roster at the start of the year and think “this team should win 100 games”, you need to be thinking about how you will get there long term, because titles go to Teams with good answers to that question:

Balta, how many teams win 100 games on a yearly basis 

Just now, Kyyle23 said:

Balta, how many teams win 100 games on a yearly basis 

Many of them get derailed. But if your team doesn’t have the talent of a team that should win that many, you won’t survive the season and playoffs. 

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Many of them get derailed. But if your team doesn’t have the talent of a team that should win that many, you won’t survive the season and playoffs. 

this is simply untrue and you know it is.  If you believe your team can win 100 then you believe your team is at worst a top 3 team in the league.  Not many teams go into any season thinking this, because isnt simply isn’t rational.  That’s a goal, not knowledge from the jump.

also many teams adjust mid season with trades and such to either solidify their already contending team or enhance their team to get a better chance to make the playoffs.  They aren’t all teams thinking “I can win 100” at the beginning of every season.  
 

that’s just a wildly over the top scenario from a fan that’s sick of all the s%*#.  I get it but stop moving goalposts and just accept that the Sox have to get better without making it some magic number to believe they are capable of

7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Balta, how many teams win 100 games on a yearly basis 

He's talking about on paper. 

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

He's talking about on paper. 

Thank you for explaining Jack