When the White Sox have a 1st baseman in his late 30's, any time he struggles, it's a sign he's getting old and doesn't even belong in the upper half of the order.

 

When the Tigers sign an OF in his late 30's, he's going to dominate.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=87755

When the White Sox have a 1st baseman in his late 30's, any time he struggles, it's a sign he's getting old and doesn't even belong in the upper half of the order.

 

When the Tigers sign an OF in his late 30's, he's going to dominate.

 

The difference is Hunter is not being counted on to be a primary part of the Tigers offense the way Konerko is for the Sox offense. If Konerko tanks, so does the Sox offense.

Considering the number of homers Konerko and Rios hit, Dunn will bat with guys on base hitting behind deAza and Keppinger just as much if not more than if he hits behind Konerko and Rios. So by batting him 3rd you maximize the amount he hits with runners on plus you have guys behind him that can drive him in when he walks.

 

If Viciedo and/or Flowers have breakout years then you might be able to make a case for sliding Dunn down to 5th behind Konerko/Rios and in front of Viciedo/Flowers, but as it stands now Dunn's walks will get wasted if he doesn't bat before Konerko/Rios.

Check out Dunn's numbers over his career. His walks have not translated into runs.

You have him bat behind those guys. Dunn drives people in with homers, so having Konerko on base when he is batting is almost like having Rickey Henderson on base when he's batting. If he bats in front of Viciedo, he'll score just as often after he walks as Viciedo homers at about the same clip as Konerko these days. I'd like a guy who gets more hits batting 3rd considering the Sox wouldn't be forfeiting OBP.

The difference is Hunter is not being counted on to be a primary part of the Tigers offense the way Konerko is for the Sox offense. If Konerko tanks, so does the Sox offense.

Oh no, then they'd only be as good as the Tigers offense last year!

Check out Dunn's numbers over his career. His walks have not translated into runs.

You have him bat behind those guys. Dunn drives people in with homers, so having Konerko on base when he is batting is almost like having Rickey Henderson on base when he's batting. If he bats in front of Viciedo, he'll score just as often after he walks as Viciedo homers at about the same clip as Konerko these days. I'd like a guy who gets more hits batting 3rd considering the Sox wouldn't be forfeiting OBP.

 

Dunn's walks not translating into runs is not something you can attribute to Dunn. It is dependent on who he has hitting behind him.

 

When you consider hits+walks-HR, deAza/Keppinger were on base after batting 33.2% of the time last year and Konerko/Rios were on base 30.7% of the time, so you actually get Dunn batting more often with people on base if he's hitting 3rd than anywhere else in the lineup, plus you have the added advantage of having him on base a lot when your two bets hitters are up.

 

Plus, with deAza/Keppinger on base Konerko will hit into a lot of ending inning DPs whereas Dunn is more likely to strike out and give Paulie a shot to drive them in.

 

If the Sox aren't going to make the playoffs (which they rarely do) I'd almost prefer they lose 100 for a few seasons, maybe luck into a Strasburg or Harper, than winning 83 or 85 and finishing in 2nd or 3rd every freakin' year like they mostly have been for the better part of the last decade plus...

If the Sox aren't going to make the playoffs (which they rarely do) I'd almost prefer they lose 100 for a few seasons, maybe luck into a Strasburg or Harper, than winning 83 or 85 and finishing in 2nd or 3rd every freakin' year like they mostly have been for the better part of the last decade plus...

How's it going for the Astros?

How's it going for the Astros?

 

Or the Cubs...

Or the Cubs...

Their tickets are still 85% sold. Houston's at 48% and falling. (Chisox were at 60% last year0.

When the White Sox have a 1st baseman in his late 30's, any time he struggles, it's a sign he's getting old and doesn't even belong in the upper half of the order.

 

When the Tigers sign an OF in his late 30's, he's going to dominate.

 

 

Are you accusing me of feeling this way? My point was that I wouldn't want Hunter. $13 million per? No Thank You.

Well the White Sox, Astros, and Cubs all missed the playoffs so really comparisons being made start there...

 

Maybe the Sox losing 100 turns into nothing, or maybe they turn into the Nats. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but if you're missing October, you're missing October.

Well the White Sox, Astros, and Cubs all missed the playoffs so really comparisons being made start there...

 

Maybe the Sox losing 100 turns into nothing, or maybe they turn into the Nats. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but if you're missing October, you're missing October.

And yet you can miss october in ways that set you up for the next season or in ways that destroy your franchise's revenue base for a decade.

And yet you can miss october in ways that set you up for the next season or in ways that destroy your franchise's revenue base for a decade.

 

They seem to keep setting up to finish just above .500 every time. That's cool with you?

They seem to keep setting up to finish just above .500 every time. That's cool with you?

As I just said, take a look at the Astros. They've been 10 games or more under .500 for 5 of the last 6 years. They lost 106 and 107 games the last 2 seasons. They have ~1000 people watching their games on TV if you believe the ratings are accurate with numbers that low. They're probably on their way to another 100 loss season again this year.

 

And they've done what people wanted, too. They've traded away their high priced veterans for whatever talent they could get. They even got an all star, Bourn, in one of those trades.

 

Yes, I'd much rather be in the race much of the year and finish a few games above .500 than that. Of course, it would save me $200 a year on the DirectTV package.

They seem to keep setting up to finish just above .500 every time. That's cool with you?

 

Versus intentionally losing 100 games and turning the fan base back to the early 70's? Yes. I am good with that.

They seem to keep setting up to finish just above .500 every time. That's cool with you?

 

I will spend my money on a decent baseball team because I like to watch baseball.

 

I will not spend my time or money watching a team that is eliminated from any sort of baseball entertainment on April 1st.

 

Sucking and rebuilding are fine but what happens if the rebuild does not work out?

All of this discussion regarding Dunn batting 3RD can be settled by simply comparing our #3 and the Tiger's #3.

Maybe the best place for Dunn is 3RD, but that just demonstrates how much better their lineup is. Dunn is no Miguel Cabrera.

I will spend my money on a decent baseball team because I like to watch baseball.

 

I will not spend my time or money watching a team that is eliminated from any sort of baseball entertainment on April 1st.

Sucking and rebuilding are fine but what happens if the rebuild does not work out?

 

That is a great point, and one that NEVER gets talked about when rebuilding it bandied about like this is OOTP13 we are talking about.

That is a great point, and one that NEVER gets talked about when rebuilding it bandied about like this is OOTP13 we are talking about.

Like I just said, the best part is, we have a beautiful example of what happens when it fails in Houston. 4th largest city in the country, drawing fewer than 20k per game, ballpark is empty, their tv ratings are a late-night punchline.

 

They went from competing for the NL Central every year to literally being a small-market club. Their committed payroll next year is actually smaller than Miami's. All the new TV money the Rangers are getting? Teams like the Astros won't get that kind of deal...because nobody's watching!

The White Sox have made the playoffs 9 times out of 112 seasons. NINE.

 

If losing 100 games makes fans run away, then their standards were waaay too high.

Just for fun, here are our optimized lineups per baseballmusings.com's lineup analysis.

 

If we use players' career OBP/SLG: 4.900 runs/game

1. Dunn

2. Konerko

3. Beckham

4. Rios

5. De Aza

6. Viciedo

7. Ramirez

8. Flowers

9. Keppinger

 

If we use players' 2012 OBP/SLG: 4.936 runs/game

1. Keppinger

2. Konerko

3. Beckham

4. Rios

5. Dunn

6. Viciedo

7. Flowers

8. Ramirez

9. De Aza

The White Sox have made the playoffs 9 times out of 112 seasons. NINE.

 

If losing 100 games makes fans run away, then their standards were waaay too high.

 

It is easy to sit up and take shots like that when you aren't the one managing the budget. Fortunately Kenny, Rick, Jerry and company do consider the effects on the fan base. Sox fans are notorious fickle. Their history proves that.

It is easy to sit up and take shots like that when you aren't the one managing the budget. Fortunately Kenny, Rick, Jerry and company do consider the effects on the fan base. Sox fans are notorious fickle. Their history proves that.

 

Well if they're not going to spend money like the Tigers, I'd want them to try something different. This finishing just above or at .500 isn't doing it for me. The "fickle fans" shouldn't be satisfied with finishing in the middle of the pack if anything...

 

And yes, I KNOW it could fail miserably, but there's equal chance it'll work in a few years too. I'd gladly sit on a couple of s*** seasons if it meant building up a great base of young cost controlled talent that can compete instead of signing mid-tear nobody free agents and sitting in neutral, just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.

Well if they're not going to spend money like the Tigers, I'd want them to try something different. This finishing just above or at .500 isn't doing it for me. The "fickle fans" shouldn't be satisfied with finishing in the middle of the pack if anything...

 

And yes, I KNOW it could fail miserably, but there's equal chance it'll work in a few years too. I'd gladly sit on a couple of s*** seasons if it meant building up a great base of young cost controlled talent that can compete instead of signing mid-tear nobody free agents and sitting in neutral, just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

Equal chance? I think you over estimate the chances of this being successful. How many examples of complete teardowns followed by relatively quick levels of success are there? Tampa? The occasional A's team?

 

Honestly I feel like the "tear down" IS trying to catch lightning in a bottle. You are trying to time and guess on guys development and get it all to perfectly align into a one or two year span so as to have the big rebound year, but have that year happen before all of the players get expensive and you can't afford the team because you don't have any fans coming after the 90-100 loss seasons you just had.

The last time the Sox attempted a complete teardown was after the dissappointing 1986 season. They were brutal in 87,88,89 and hit the jackpot in drafting McDowell, Ventura, Thomas and Fernandez. It spured a good team for several seasons, but only 1 playoff appearance, and that is with a string of draft picks that would be almost impossible to replicate. If you tear it down, chances are you are going to be bad for a while unless you are a team like the Cubs and people will show up regardless. The Sox should be in the playoffs more often. I'm sure they would admit that. But looking at their draft history since Larry Himes was waxed wouldn't make anyone believe they could rebuild a team from rock bottom in 3 years. Doing it this way makes a lot of sense.

Edited January 9, 201313 yr by Dick Allen