1 hour ago, poppysox said:

You can take the team and spend 100 million to fill it out, and it would be a competitive and watchable team.  I don't have a better CF player than Robert at this point.  My interest is not in waiting 3 years for us to make an effort 

 

Yeah...probably the only game in those 5 seasons that was really exciting.  I'm sure you can follow the point I'm making.  At the trade deadline, I advocated for 14 or 15 million per year for 4 or 5 years for Robert.  You and others said that was way low, blah...blah...blah.  Now he is hot garbage IYO.  I few Robert as a 5 tool player who has had real problems staying on the field.  But, until we have someone better to play CF the WS have much bigger problems to solve than reducing payroll.  

Unless you are talking about 1 years worth of payroll,  you aren't even close. Realistically you could spend over a billion dollars in contracts this off season and get this group back to .500.

This is a team that needs 3-4 starters, almost an entire bullpen, and 6 to 7 starting position players next season to have a playoff chance.  

7 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Unless you are talking about 1 years worth of payroll,  you aren't even close. Realistically you could spend over a billion dollars in contracts this off season and get this group back to .500.

This is a team that needs 3-4 starters, almost an entire bullpen, and 6 to 7 starting position players next season to have a playoff chance.  

I'm talking about adding 100 million in additional payroll per year.  In other words...$170 million per year.of total payroll instead of 70.  Your opinion that the WS are 9 to 11 players short of being competitive is also an exaggeration of our situation.  $100 million per year would easily buy the 5 or 6 good players needed to compete.  That is, if we don't need to find a Robert replacement. 

50 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I'm talking about adding 100 million in additional payroll per year.  In other words...$170 million per year.of total payroll instead of 70.  Your opinion that the WS are 9 to 11 players short of being competitive is also an exaggeration of our situation.  $100 million per year would easily buy the 5 or 6 good players needed to compete.  That is, if we don't need to find a Robert replacement. 

In what alternative universe can you spend just $28-48 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) added on top of the existing $57-77 million payroll (depending on whether Robert is included or not and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's FA.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

You now have just $36 million to spend on the 2026 roster to get to $100 million that will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins...

Edited December 8, 2025Dec 8 by caulfield12

11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

In what alternative universe can you spend just $28-48 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) added on top of the existing $57-77 million payroll (depending on whether Robert is included or not and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's FA.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

You now have just $36 million to spend on the 2026 roster to get to $100 million that will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins...

I mean, he literally says a $100M of additional payroll to get to $170M total…

If you gave Getz a $170M payroll, you’d certainly be better, but you’d run into the same issue as always with Jerry afraid of the long-term commitments needed to sign the true impact guys.  Unfortunately, we need to wait a bit longer for the SP prospects and Braden to make the show and then start to establish themselves.  Once that happens, post union negotiation, we should be ready to make some bigger investments and hopefully will have seaized more influence in the org.

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If you gave Getz a $170M payroll, you’d certainly be better, but you’d run into the same issue as always with Jerry afraid of the long-term commitments needed to sign the true impact guys.  Unfortunately, we need to wait a bit longer for the SP prospects and Braden to make the show and then start to establish themselves.  Once that happens, post union negotiation, we should be ready to make some bigger investments and hopefully will have seaized more influence in the org.

It's all irrelevant anyway.

It will be a small miracle to end the 2026 season at $90-100 million.

$80-85 million feels a lot more realistic.

23 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

In what alternative universe can you spend just $100 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) million and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's free agency.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

That $100 will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins...

 

Edited December 8, 2025Dec 8 by caulfield12

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

It's all irrelevant anyway.

It will be a small miracle to end the 2026 season at $90-100 million.

$80-85 million feels a lot more realistic.

Sure, but you went on a long rant that completely ignored his main theoretical point even though he painted that assumption very clearly

Just now, caulfield12 said:

 

?

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

?

In what alternative universe can you spend just $100 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) million and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's free agency.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

That $100 will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins.

 

 

What is the point of talking about a hypoethical that's completely unrealistic?

The reason I misinterpreted what he said is that there's simply no way to fathom that level of spending under this current ownership.  It's just pie in the sky numbers.

Edited December 8, 2025Dec 8 by caulfield12

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

In what alternative universe can you spend just $100 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) million and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's free agency.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

That $100 will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins.

 

 

What is the point of talking about a hypoethical that's completely unrealistic?

The reason I misinterpreted what he said is that there's simply no way to fathom that level of spending under this current ownership.  It's just pie in the sky numbers.

We literally spent that amount a couple of years ago under this leadership…

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

In what alternative universe can you spend just $100 million (subtracting the Robert salary) in this year's FA to add 20-30 fWAR?

The going rate would be $140-210 million (at $7 million/fWAR) million and far likelier $160-240 million in this year's free agency.

Let's just pretend you added Cedric Mullins for $7 million and traded Robert..and that Mullins is still a 2-3 fWAR player.

That $100 will only provide you ONE five fWAR pitcher or hitter.

Still not anywhere close to a competitive roster unless Braden Montgomery also wins RoY, Colson hits 50 bombs and Teel at least 20-25.

That puts you around let's say 73-77 wins.

 

 

What is the point of talking about a hypoethical that's completely unrealistic?

The reason I misinterpreted what he said is that there's simply no way to fathom that level of spending under this current ownership.  It's just pie in the sky numbers.

Congrats on 100k!

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

I'm talking about adding 100 million in additional payroll per year.  In other words...$170 million per year.of total payroll instead of 70.  Your opinion that the WS are 9 to 11 players short of being competitive is also an exaggeration of our situation.  $100 million per year would easily buy the 5 or 6 good players needed to compete.  That is, if we don't need to find a Robert replacement. 

Except you aren't finding the 5 to 6 players you think we are short for one year deals.  This would take multi-year commitments.  If you are looking at quality players, A guy like Bregman is coming off of an opt out at $40 million a year, by himself.  Kyle Tucker will be in that same 30 to 40 million a year per year, for a long term contract as well.  In those two players you are out say $70 million for one year conservatively, trying to rebuild one of baseballs worst offenses.  You still haven't touched the bad starters, or the disastrous bullpen guys.

 

Tell me what 5 or 6 players, signing 1 year deals, would put this team with something like 30 more wins, because I don't see it.

46 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Except you aren't finding the 5 to 6 players you think we are short for one year deals.  This would take multi-year commitments.  If you are looking at quality players, A guy like Bregman is coming off of an opt out at $40 million a year, by himself.  Kyle Tucker will be in that same 30 to 40 million a year per year, for a long term contract as well.  In those two players you are out say $70 million for one year conservatively, trying to rebuild one of baseballs worst offenses.  You still haven't touched the bad starters, or the disastrous bullpen guys.

 

Tell me what 5 or 6 players, signing 1 year deals, would put this team with something like 30 more wins, because I don't see it.

There are many players available in the 5 to 13-million-dollar-per-year range who would improve the club's prospects for competitiveness.  Sung-moon Song, Max Kepler, Caeb Ferguson, Iglesias, O'Hearn, Cody Ponce, Zack Littell, and the list goes on.  My thought is that watching a competitive baseball team while I wait for a new owner might keep me interested.  I know that what will now happen is that some posters will tell me they disagree with some of the above-mentioned players being good.  That, however, is not the point I am making.  When we get a new owner, we will hopefully be in the bidding for the so-called superstars.  Until then, as a major market team, let's at least try to compete in our division.

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

There are many players available in the 5 to 13-million-dollar-per-year range who would improve the club's prospects for competitiveness.  Sung-moon Song, Max Kepler, Caeb Ferguson, Iglesias, O'Hearn, Cody Ponce, Zack Littell, and the list goes on.  My thought is that watching a competitive baseball team while I wait for a new owner might keep me interested.  I know that what will now happen is that some posters will tell me they disagree with some of the above-mentioned players being good.  That, however, is not the point I am making.  When we get a new owner, we will hopefully be in the bidding for the so-called superstars.  Until then, as a major market team, let's at least try to compete in our division.

JR has never run this franchise as a "major market" team. Never has, never will. 

8 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

JR has never run this franchise as a "major market" team. Never has, never will. 

Tell me about it.

3 hours ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Congrats on 100k!

Thanks...

2 hours ago, poppysox said:

There are many players available in the 5 to 13-million-dollar-per-year range who would improve the club's prospects for competitiveness.  Sung-moon Song, Max Kepler, Caeb Ferguson, Iglesias, O'Hearn, Cody Ponce, Zack Littell, and the list goes on.  My thought is that watching a competitive baseball team while I wait for a new owner might keep me interested.  I know that what will now happen is that some posters will tell me they disagree with some of the above-mentioned players being good.  That, however, is not the point I am making.  When we get a new owner, we will hopefully be in the bidding for the so-called superstars.  Until then, as a major market team, let's at least try to compete in our division.

Those guys get us no where near "contention".  

5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Those guys get us no where near "contention".  

That is why the question of who...is always turned into a discussion point that the person isn't trying to make.  Pick any players you want... don't tell me you are trying with a payroll under 90 million.  We have experts in the organization who, in theory, know dozens of players in our price range who could improve the club.  Spend another 100 million and make the team competitive within the division.

29 minutes ago, poppysox said:

That is why the question of who...is always turned into a discussion point that the person isn't trying to make.  Pick any players you want... don't tell me you are trying with a payroll under 90 million.  We have experts in the organization who, in theory, know dozens of players in our price range who could improve the club.  Spend another 100 million and make the team competitive within the division.

Those types of veteran players are not going to be sustainably successful.

It's the KW philosophy all over again.

It does work occasionally, like 2005.

Or last year with the Brewers. To a point.

But pure talent/ability always wins out in the end.

You're asking the White Sox to operate like Iowa football or Wisconsin basketball and that level of  development against the blue bloods is almost impossible to replicate on a consistent basis.

The problem is we don't even get the equivalent of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons from a fan perspective anymore.

 

5 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Those types of veteran players are not going to be sustainably successful.

It's the KW philosophy all over again.

It does work occasionally, like 2005.

Or last year with the Brewers. To a point.

But pure talent/ability always wins out in the end.

You're asking the White Sox to operate like Iowa football or Wisconsin basketball and that level of  development against the blue bloods is almost impossible to replicate on a consistent basis.

The problem is we don't even get the equivalent of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons from a fan perspective anymore.

 

I want something to be interested in until a new owner changes the way we operate.  100-loss seasons are unacceptable in my opinion. For the record...I like Getz.  It's Jerry who has worn out his welcome with me.

55 minutes ago, poppysox said:

That is why the question of who...is always turned into a discussion point that the person isn't trying to make.  Pick any players you want... don't tell me you are trying with a payroll under 90 million.  We have experts in the organization who, in theory, know dozens of players in our price range who could improve the club.  Spend another 100 million and make the team competitive within the division.

It IS the most important question though because you have to do it practice,  not fantasy. 

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It IS the most important question though because you have to do it practice,  not fantasy. 

It's only important if I'm the GM.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It IS the most important question though because you have to do it practice,  not fantasy. 

Again...the organization pays people to do this analysis.  Most of us have very limited coverage of all players in both leagues.  I am advocating for Jerry to free up some resources so Getz and company can do their jobs.  

4 minutes ago, poppysox said:

It's only important if I'm the GM.

Look, anyone can make up imaginary standards for the sake of discussion,  but if it doesn't have a foot in the real world,  it is never going to exist in reality anyway, so why?

-The Sox aren't adding $100 million in payroll until their revenues recover to support it.  We are talking YEARS down the road.

-Even if in some made up world you disgard the Sox financial reality,  the Sox have a terrible offense,  a terrible starting staff, and one of the worst pens in baseball.  The cost to fix it all is WAY over $100 million per year.  This was a 61 win team, not an 80 win team last season.