I see no point in trading Quentin in the off season. Him and Dayan are your starting corner OF, if the team is in it you keep him, if not you trade him at the deadline (which we should have done this season any way)

 

In it? You're going to be very disappointed if you think the plan for 2012 is to compete for a division title.

The Sox current core of young players isn't one you can build around. Sale, Viciedo, Morel, Beckham just isn't enough.

Of course not, but you left out half the roster! Ramirez is signed forever and is cheap, Humber is under team control forever, Flowers, Lillibridge, De Aza, Santos, going farther to guys like Reed and Stewart, none of them are even to their Arbitration years yet.

Of course not, but you left out half the roster! Ramirez is signed forever and is cheap, Humber is under team control forever, Flowers, Lillibridge, De Aza, Santos, going farther to guys like Reed and Stewart, none of them are even to their Arbitration years yet.

 

Reed, I forgot to add to the core, but Ramirez isn't young. Neither are Lillibridge, De Aza, Humber, or Santos. That core would be better if the Sox had $25M to spend to supplement it, but they are probably going to cut payroll by $25M.

Reed, I forgot to add to the core, but Ramirez isn't young. Neither are Lillibridge, De Aza, Humber, or Santos. That core would be better if the Sox had $25M to spend to supplement it, but they are probably going to cut payroll by $25M.

You're just being stubborn now in what you define as "Young". The reason you want "Young" talent in MLB is the MLB arbitration schedule. The fact that they're closer to their prime ages and actually still cheap is a pretty darn good thing for the Sox...it means that the Sox should hold their prime years at very low cost. For a guy like Viciedo, it's going to be costly to hold him through his prime years.

I see no point in trading Quentin in the off season. Him and Dayan are your starting corner OF, if the team is in it you keep him, if not you trade him at the deadline (which we should have done this season any way)

So you want Alejandro as the 4th of?

 

Trading Quentin makes way too much sense, him and Danks will be gone.

In it? You're going to be very disappointed if you think the plan for 2012 is to compete for a division title.

 

How many games back were we in mid August with 2 of the worst every day players in MLB history, blackholes at 2b, 3b, and LF for months on end?

 

I know you don't use logic, but give it a shot one time.

So you want Alejandro as the 4th of?

 

Trading Quentin makes way too much sense, him and Danks will be gone.

 

I want De Aza as the starting CF as of June 1 if Rios still can't hit.

You're just being stubborn now in what you define as "Young". The reason you want "Young" talent in MLB is the MLB arbitration schedule. The fact that they're closer to their prime ages and actually still cheap is a pretty darn good thing for the Sox...it means that the Sox should hold their prime years at very low cost. For a guy like Viciedo, it's going to be costly to hold him through his prime years.

 

I want "young" talent not only because it is cheap, but because it is more likely to improve as opposed to older talent. Much of the Sox young talent is 26 and above. In other words, the odds of them being at or near their talent ceiling is pretty good.

I want "young" talent not only because it is cheap, but because it is more likely to improve as opposed to older talent. Much of the Sox young talent is 26 and above. In other words, the odds of them being at or near their talent ceiling is pretty good.

 

If you are already a top 3 SS, there really isn't much of a need to improve.

If you are already a top 3 SS, there really isn't much of a need to improve.

 

What if you have only 2 decent starters?

How many games back were we in mid August with 2 of the worst every day players in MLB history, blackholes at 2b, 3b, and LF for months on end?

 

I know you don't use logic, but give it a shot one time.

 

 

Ended 15 games back after young talent given chance to play.

What if you have only 2 decent starters?

 

Then you aren't talking about the White Sox, and I don't really care.

Ended 15 games back after young talent given chance to play.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't bother with you.

Ended 15 games back after young talent given chance to play.

 

 

So if you were a fan of the Braves or Red Sox, you'd argue they have no talent either, right?

 

Because since the White Sox young talent failed, they still didn't do as poorly as the more-hyped young talent in Atlanta or the 2nd most expensive roster in the majors.

 

If you remember, we'd dumped Edwin Jackson and shut down Peavy. 1/3rd of our starting rotation was completely different. If the pitching staff put up the same numbers in August and September as the first four months, you'd have a more valid point.

 

Yes, Viciedo was disappointing, but it seems he wasn't 100% healed from his wrist problems. He was expected to be the biggest contributor, and it actually turned out to be DeAza instead, along with Flowers and Morel showing some encouraging pop as well.

 

You're also discounting the nearly historic run that the Tigers put on for six weeks, the presence of Justin Verlander and Miguel Cabrera (2 of the 5 best players in baseball and true superstars) and the fact that our manager was more concerned with money and Miami and his next contract or his impending sojourn to Spain. How would that inspire the team? Finally, you're discounting what any of these players (including Dunn/Beckham/Rios, all "relatively" young, especially Gordon) can do with a new hittting coach and manager in place. Surely, after 2007, your pronouncements about trading Jerry Owens, Josh Fields, Andy Gonzalez and Ehren Wasserman would have been just as bleak, right?

 

Finally, you keep arguing we should trade one of our cheapest and highest ROI players in Santos because of two blown saves to the Tigers. If we finished 11 games out instead of 15, would that have meant you would still have wanted to keep him and the White Sox young talent wasn't as bad as you're arguing?

Edited September 29, 201114 yr by caulfield12

So if you were a fan of the Braves or Red Sox, you'd argue they have no talent either, right?

 

Because since the White Sox young talent failed, they still didn't do as poorly as the more-hyped young talent in Atlanta or the 2nd most expensive roster in the majors.

 

If you remember, we'd dumped Edwin Jackson and shut down Peavy. 1/3rd of our starting rotation was completely different. If the pitching staff put up the same numbers in August and September as the first four months, you'd have a more valid point.

 

Yes, Viciedo was disappointing, but it seems he wasn't 100% healed from his wrist problems. He was expected to be the biggest contributor, and it actually turned out to be DeAza instead, along with Flowers and Morel showing some encouraging pop as well.

 

You're also discounting the nearly historic run that the Tigers put on for six weeks, the presence of Justin Verlander and Miguel Cabrera (2 of the 5 best players in baseball and true superstars) and the fact that our manager was more concerned with money and Miami and his next contract or his trip to Spain. How would that inspire the team?

 

Finally, you keep arguing we should trade one of our cheapest and highest ROI players in Santos because of two blown saves to the Tigers. If we finished 11 games out instead of 15, would that have meant you would still have wanted to keep him and the White Sox young talent wasn't as bad as you're arguing?

 

I'm personally offended by your use of logic

I'm personally offended by your use of logic

 

 

Well, sometimes it works.

 

Surely, it will end up with a brief, pithy one or two sentence deflection about Kenny "The Genius" Williams.

So the gist of all this is the Sox aren't 15 games worse than the Tigers? If you believe that, good for you.

 

Well, sometimes it works.

 

Surely, it will end up with a brief, pithy one or two sentence deflection about Kenny "The Genius" Williams.

Well, sometimes it works.

 

Surely, it will end up with a brief, pithy one or two sentence deflection about Kenny "The Genius" Williams.

 

You called that one. Although thats a pretty easy call to make

So the gist of all this is the Sox aren't 15 games worse than the Tigers? If you believe that, good for you.

 

 

Well, Marty "The Genius" 34.

 

We finished 9-10 games back of the Twins in 2004.

 

Clearly they were more talented, they'd crushed the White Sox in 2003 and won three consecutive division championships.

 

So tearing apart the entire organization and dumping everyone to rebuild at that point in time would have been the prudent move from a financial standpoint in order to protect JR's pocketbook. Oooops, they did that, well, sort of....getting rid of Ordonez, Lee and Valentin.

 

But KW clearly didn't trade away every talented player left for "prospects/suspects," like you're suggesting with Ramirez and Santos.

 

And we actually won the World Series the following year. What do you know?

 

A clever retort besides we finished 15 games behind the Tigers would be nice, but I'm not expecting much...thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

 

So Marty, how is 2011-12 any different for this organization with KW in charge than 2004-2005?

 

Because we finished 9-10 GB instead of 15 and were OH SO CLOSE (seemingly) to the juggernaut Twins?

Edited September 29, 201114 yr by caulfield12

Well, Marty "The Genius" 34.

 

We finished 9-10 games back of the Twins in 2004.

 

Clearly they were more talented, they'd crushed the White Sox in 2003 and won three consecutive division championships.

 

So tearing apart the entire organization and dumping everyone to rebuild at that point in time would have been the prudent move from a financial standpoint in order to protect JR's pocketbook. Oooops, they did that, well, sort of....getting rid of Ordonez, Lee and Valentin.

 

But KW clearly didn't trade away every talented player left for "prospects/suspects," like you're suggesting with Ramirez and Santos.

 

And we actually won the World Series the following year. What do you know?

 

A clever retort besides we finished 15 games behind the Tigers would be nice, but I'm not expecting much...thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

 

So Marty, how his 2011-12 any different for this organization with KW in charge than 2004-2005?

 

Because we finished 9-10 GB instead of 15 and were OH SO CLOSE (seemingly) to the juggernaut Twins?

This is considering we don't acquire anybody that will contribute to the ML roster next year.

Lineup

1. De Aza CF

2. Ramirez SS

3. Dunn DH

4. Konerko 1B

5. Viciedo LF

6. Pierzynski/Flowers C

7. Rios RF

8. Morel 3B

9. Beckham/Lillibridge 2B

 

If Dunn and Rios actually play like they're paid, then that won't be such a bad offense. You can trade Quentin for prospects for all I care.

 

This is considering we don't trade Danks away and Buehrle won't be brought back.

Rotation

1. Danks

2. Floyd

3. Peavy

4. Sale

5. Humber/Stewart/Axelrod

 

Bullpen

LR Stewart/Axelrod

MR Filler RP

MR Ohman

MR Reed

SU Crain

SU Thornton

CL Santos

 

If things go right next year, this team still has a chance to succeed. There is still a decent amount of talent on this team, it just has to perform.

Edited September 29, 201114 yr by chw42

Well, Marty "The Genius" 34.

 

We finished 9-10 games back of the Twins in 2004.

 

Clearly they were more talented, they'd crushed the White Sox in 2003 and won three consecutive division championships.

 

So tearing apart the entire organization and dumping everyone to rebuild at that point in time would have been the prudent move from a financial standpoint in order to protect JR's pocketbook. Oooops, they did that, well, sort of....getting rid of Ordonez, Lee and Valentin.

 

But KW clearly didn't trade away every talented player left for "prospects/suspects," like you're suggesting with Ramirez and Santos.

 

And we actually won the World Series the following year. What do you know?

 

A clever retort besides we finished 15 games behind the Tigers would be nice, but I'm not expecting much...thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

 

So Marty, how his 2011-12 any different for this organization with KW in charge than 2004-2005?

 

Because we finished 9-10 GB instead of 15 and were OH SO CLOSE (seemingly) to the juggernaut Twins?

 

Well if Marty were running the team, think of what we could have gotten for Crede, Rowand, Buehrle, PK, Garland, and Garcia after '04!!! That 2007 team would have been STACKED

Edited September 29, 201114 yr by Jenksy Cat

This is considering we don't acquire anybody that will contribute to the ML roster next year.

Lineup

1. De Aza CF

2. Ramirez SS

3. Dunn DH

4. Konerko 1B

5. Viciedo RF

6. Pierzynski/Flowers C

7. Rios RF

8. Morel 3B

9. Beckham/Lillibridge 2B

 

If Dunn and Rios actually play like they're paid, then that won't be such a bad offense. You can trade Quentin for prospects for all I care.

 

This is considering we don't trade Danks away and Buehrle won't be brought back.

Rotation

1. Danks

2. Floyd

3. Peavy

4. Sale

5. Humber/Stewart/Axelrod

 

Bullpen

LR Stewart/Axelrod

MR Filler RP

MR Ohman

MR Reed

SU Crain

SU Thornton

CL Santos

 

If things go right next year, this team still has a chance to succeed. There is still a decent amount of talent on this team, it just has to perform.

 

That's why I want Francona.

BTW rightfield is crowded in your scenario and left is left vacant.

Well if Marty were running the team, think of what we could have gotten for Crede, Rowand, Buehrle, PK, Garland, and Garcia after '04!!! That 2007 team would have been STACKED

 

 

Just like the Twins and Indians really took off with the hauls they got back for Johan Santana and CC Sabathia...clearly the White Sox could have leveraged an even bigger haul for their remaining stable of players.

 

We could have sold "high" on Bobby Jenks before he ever pitched for the Sox because clearly he was going to break down in 2010 and 2011 as he was only a one inning, 60 IP per season pitcher.