A post got me to thinking. In my organization, supervisors have an obligation to help every employee to be promoted. Even if this happens to be detrimental to a specific location when someone moves. Should the White Sox, as an organization, have as a goal, every player reaching the 25 man roster, even if it is with another team? I hate to use this example in fear of this getting thread jacked, but it's the best I have as I sit here.

 

IF Crede was resigned to say a 5 year deal, should the Sox feel a moral or ethical calling to trade Fields to where he would have a true MLB roster shot?

A post got me to thinking. In my organization, supervisors have an obligation to help every employee to be promoted. Even if this happens to be detrimental to a specific location when someone moves. Should the White Sox, as an organization, have as a goal, every player reaching the 25 man roster, even if it is with another team? I hate to use this example in fear of this getting thread jacked, but it's the best I have as I sit here.

 

IF Crede was resigned to say a 5 year deal, should the Sox feel a moral or ethical calling to trade Fields to where he would have a true MLB roster shot?

 

Well, I guess it depends on how you think a business should act. Personally, I think any organization should do their best to help an employee move up, whether it be with that company or not. Why? Because it breeds good will. And in good economic times, when jobs are aplenty, more people will want to work at that place. Or in the case of a baseball organization, more agents will consider you for their clients. When I say consider, that doesn't mean you are going to get the majority of their clients, but you will at least be in the running.

 

Finally, while I do believe in the above, in the case of sports, I do think there is a limit. Mainly by trading within the division. I don't think that the Sox should trade, let's say Fields in your example, to any other AL Central team. That still leaves 25 teams and a good sample size.

The Sox organizational goal is to win the World Series every year. Every move they make revolves around that final goal. If that means not making another team better by trading within the division, they won't. If it means they think they can make their team "more" better as compared to the other team they are trading with in the division, they will do it.

I think for some players, yes, they would trade him. But for players like Fields who got first round bonus money, you have every right to dick him around because you paid a lot for him to begin with.

The Sox have, at times, helped players make careers elsewhere, when they knew they'd do better in another organization. Its not usually with high end players though. Guys like Ross Gload (who was blocked), or Ryan Wing (who wanted a fresh start), have been traded or let go in order to achieve those goals.

 

But its of course a secondary concern, to winning at the major league level.

 

IF Crede was resigned to say a 5 year deal, should the Sox feel a moral or ethical calling to trade Fields to where he would have a true MLB roster shot?

 

I think the team with the greatest need (and opportunity) would probably offer the most in return.

 

So, economic calling and ethical calling probably end up being one in the same.

 

 

What's the organizational goal? To Win.

What should it be? Well, I wouldn't be averse to a win top-to bottom (majors-to minors) approach. Although, this would open complaints as to where the organizations priorities lie. I wouldn't mind our young players being shaped by a win now, and win always approach.

 

It would be great if the needs of the organization and the desires/wishes of it's employees were always in line with one another that would be great but the bottom line is that the sox are in the business of winning baseball games, if they cease to do so the business suffers. The needs of the employees are always a close second to the goals of the organization and that is how it is in just about any business that I can think of.

 

That being said, if a player has the talent to play at the major league level he will find a way to get there one way or another. If the organization chooses to just let him rot in the minors then they probably are a team that it out of touch with the talent that they have. For example, if next year Brandon Allen starts in AAA and kills the ball all season showing that he's ready for the majors what do the sox do because he is blocked by not only PK but also Swisher.

We can

a. do nothing, let him stay at AAA

b. move him up and let him sit on the bench

c. move him up and move pk/swish to the bench

d. trade pk/swish and make BA the starter at 1b

e. trade BA to a team in need of a 1b and fill a hole that we have on the team

 

if somebody really has the skills the team will either to options d or e because otherwise you are not taking full advantage of the talent you have and are not maximizing the team's ability to win.

 

recent example of this happening was a few years ago with ryan howard. we was in the phillies organization but was blocked by jim thome. the phils decided that they wanted howard at 1b so they moved thome to a team that had a hole at DH, us.

 

To repeat, if a player has the goods, he'll end up in the show one way or another.

We really need Brandon Allen to change his initials.

We really need Brandon Allen to change his initials.

 

Not just BA...

 

TBA

 

The Brandon Allen

Edited October 22, 200817 yr by scenario

Not just BA...

 

TBA

 

The Brandon Allen

As long as he earns that "The".

The Brandon Allen Train

 

I believe that the organizations goal is too win at the major league level and secondly to develop as many major league talents as possible. whether they play for that organization or help that organization through trades isnt as important.

We really need Brandon Allen to change his initials.

 

what's really odd is that's the first thing I thought of when I saw his post too