The next month, and possible "false positives"

[Dick Allen]

What cost-controlled guy did the Cardinals give up there? Rasmus? They gave up a cost-controlled guy the league loved but who they hated and they turned out right on both points. Their scouts deserve a ton of applause for that one.

Rasmus had just has much success with the Cardinals as Hudson has had in AZ. And now Hudson is coming off surgery. For all this cost control, 2 years for Hudson will be for nothing.

[caulfield12]

So you would trade Daniel Hudson for a broken down , drug aided,veteran. You ripped him being traded for a serviceable pitcher, the very one you praised the Cardinals for trading their "cost controlled" prospect in order to acquire. You have come full circle.

 

We should be careful with that label. Should we also attach it to every Tyler Flowers or Jose Quintana mention?

 

After all, the year Flowers put up all those impressive offensive stats in the Braves' organization, it was also undoubtedly drug-aided.

 

 

We acquired a "broken down" Jermaine Dye and it led to a World Series title.

 

A decade before, we acquired a broken down Ellis Burks and he became a very solid contributor for the Sox.

 

Sometimes, that's the only way to get a quality veteran player, when their value has reached its nadir.

 

We're certainly not going to be getting McCann or Gattis via trade this June/July.

Edited May 27, 2013 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

It's also hard to read much into sweeping the Marlins, one of the two worst teams in baseball, at home.

 

We also didn't have to face Jose Fernandez, FWIW.

 

 

We beat up the Twins just as they were just starting to go ice-cold, we faced the Angels when they were in last place and split and we beat up the Marlins, although all three games were nail biters.

 

That said, the way we played against Boston was encouraging.

 

We're also still sitting in negative territory in the RS/RA stat.

 

Our expected record based on RS/RA is 23-25, so our record isn't even a statistical fluke.

 

The Sox record against teams who are currently in first place is 4-2 this year including Texas and Boston.

[Dick Allen]

And again...Tony LaRussa's ego wound up being perfectly 100% correct. Rasmus has been awful with Torotno.

And trading Hudson and Santos was the correct decision as well. Perhaps there were better packages to choose.

[Dick Allen]

We should be careful with that label. Should we also attach it to every Tyler Flowers or Jose Quintana mention?

 

After all, the year Flowers put up all those impressive offensive stats in the Braves' organization, it was also undoubtedly drug-aided.

 

 

We acquired a "broken down" Jermaine Dye and it led to a World Series title.

 

A decade before, we acquired a broken down Ellis Burks and he became a very solid contributor for the Sox.

 

Sometimes, that's the only way to get a quality veteran player, when their value has reached its nadir.

 

We're certainly not going to be getting McCann or Gattis via trade this June/July.

I think if you get suspended, it is a fair label.

[southsider2k5]

The Miami series meant nothing except it was nice to see the Sox complete the deal and sweep a minor league team. Obviously Sox could have lost one or two of the three, but didn't.

 

Detroit is in first place largely on beating these exact teams. They are 12-5 against Houston and Minnesota, and 1 game over against the rest of baseball. There is nothing wrong with beating up bad teams. Those games don't count for any less in the standings.

[Balta1701]

And trading Hudson and Santos was the correct decision as well. Perhaps there were better packages to choose.

I disagree on the trading Hudson part. The Sox were in need of a young, cost controlled RHP for the next couple years and gave it up for an expensive guy who wasn't under team control. Still up and down the list a terrible concept and idea in every way.

 

The Santos deal I tried to like, but my response was "Man I wish we'd gotten something else from low-A ball to go along with Molina". I didn't feel like we got enough back for him, but we had parts coming up that could replace Santos. Trading Hudson left a Hudson shaped hole.

[caulfield12]

Rasmus had just has much success with the Cardinals as Hudson has had in AZ. And now Hudson is coming off surgery. For all this cost control, 2 years for Hudson will be for nothing.

 

Put it the war or f/war test....who wins?

 

After all, I heard an argument made that Sale theoretically could be worth almost his entire contract extension for just this one year.

 

 

Hudson helped lead the DBacks to the playoffs, which generated additional revenues for the team, quite the ROI on his sub $1 million salary.

What has Rasmus led the Blue Jays to?

 

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

If you're not willing to change your position, then you're dead.

 

The White Sox were ready to sell off in 2007 and 2010 (in late May) and then changed their minds.

 

Are they better off now as a franchise because of making the playoffs in 2008 and coming close in 2010 and 2012?

 

Hard to say. But I wouldn't want a GM who was going to force Tyler Flowers down our throats the entire season...one who wouldn't at least look into improving the bullpen...or be completely unwilling to revise their strategy as the season unfolded.

 

KW made a lot of emotional decisions himself. He got stiffed on acquiring Adam Dunn by Rizzo, surrendering Daniel Hudson to the DBacks after a grand total of 3 starts (only one which could be defined as "bad") in the heart of a pennant race...then ultimately gave Jackson up for nothing in order to get Teahen off the books and erase a bad personnel decision which should never have been made in the first place.

 

He gave Sergio Santos an extension, then turned around and flipped him weeks later...then signed John Danks to a long-term extension. If Toronto was willing to take on that contract, they too would have been willing to give it to Sergio, so how could that possibly have been part of the plan from the very beginning? Why wasn't he shopped around to all the teams in baseball, who could have made an agreement (had they wanted) with the Sox that negotiating an extension would be part of the deal, had they so desired (like our Freddy Garcia move in 2004). At that point, he still had four more years before free agency.

 

He got so frustrated with our minor league system that he forced Nick Swisher into CF and lead-off (two places he didn't belong), then gave Swisher up for absolutely nothing, costing us one of the best young lefty prospects in the game.

 

If there was EVER a long-term plan that wasn't more a combination of Mississippi River boat gambling and hoping and praying a bunch of talented players who came from different systems could be miraculously thrown together into a cohesive whole...I'd like to know what it was.

 

Our scouting of undervalued players from other organizations, pitching expertise/Cooper and run of anomalous good health (Herm Schneider) has always been offset by changeable, inconsistent decision-making in the front office.

 

 

And there are some players I've never once advocated trading: Sale, Viciedo, Quintana and Santiago, to name 4.

Reinsdorf decided he'd pay for a winner in 2010 rather than trade off pieces. Kenny switched gears and built a very talented team that played like absolute crap under a loudmouth egomaniac. That's life a guess, nothing is certain.

 

Re: other points...

 

Hudson was traded for a chance to win. Why are we still b****ing about this around here? Kenny knew Hudson was good, that's why he was so aggressive with him in the first place. And at that same time you had Hudson out there in trade rumors you had scouts/FO people in other organizations calling Hudson a #4/#5 which is why Kenny didn't get back a better return. And Rizzo stiffed Kenny on Dunn? Rizzo f***ed up not taking that deal, that's a bad move on Rizzo. But the larger point is that Kenny traded a good young player for a vet with much better stuff to try to win. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but that's a good on-paper move at the time. You can't "go for it" and yet be all wishy washy on a prospect like Hudson at the same time. For example, Zack Wheeler was traded to the Mets for Beltran as a "win now" move because the Giants won the WS the prior year. The Giants didn't win that season, but they did win it again the following year, and they still weren't afraid to go after an impact type and acquire Hunter Pence. Better prospects than Hudson are traded quite often to try to win, and no one regrets it when you do win. Think the stupid Cardinals were really so stupid afterall trading Colby Rasmus for a World Championship? I credit Kenny for going for it when he had the chance. The logic was sound when that deal was made & so it is unfair to make the GM out to be "emotional" when he made that move. I want a GM that will go for it when he feels he needs to.

 

I have no idea what went on with the Molina-Santos deal. Honestly, that is one of the more confusing Sox transactions in recent history. So much was going on behind the scenes, the move seemed rushed, I have no idea what to think there. And I don't know who you even blame there individually, I would put that move on the organization as a whole, from Kenny to Hahn to Paddy to the other people in the FO that are supposed to sign off/give their blessings on that kind of move.

 

Also, you're being totally revisionist with the Swisher deal. We had no solution in CF, no solution in LF (Quentin was just acquired & he had to fight for the spot in ST), Dye was up there in age and his defense was slipping, Thome at DH and Paulie weren't looking long for the team either. Swisher was an excellent idea at the time because he was there to be a long-term solution at one of several possible positions, with CF being temporary. The problem was that Swisher is a douchey little b**** who isn't a mentally solid baseball player. Between the ears he wasn't what Kenny thought he was. But again, this wasn't some "emotional" move, on paper it was a move where we traded 2 good pitching prospects (DLS was the headliner there & he's a bust) and an OF in Sweeney who was ready but never picked up that power. Good move that turned out bad. If anything it was the 2nd deal that was emotional, but that deal is still one of my favorite Kenny Williams deals, because he sent Swisher's prissy little ass the f*** out of this town with the quickness, and thank god, because he's a douche. Now if JR had granted Kenny the power to do the same with Ozzie after the 2010 season then we all might be talking about the 2012 "all in" team in a very different way than we are now.

 

Also you are suggesting there never was a plan. There always is a plan, but sometimes they don't work out. Baseball is a hard game to predict & you never know which prospects are going to come through to fill which positions, nor do you ever know which veteran players are going to disappear for entire seasons right in the middle of their primes.

 

And how about that Peavy move again? And how about that Rios claim? SoxTalk seems to have STFU about those two now even though Kenny's effigy burned throughout the 2012 season over those moves. Both were good on-paper moves that look good now, just much later than was anticipated.

[Dick Allen]

Put it the war or f/war test....who wins?

 

After all, I heard an argument made that Sale theoretically could be worth almost his entire contract extension for just this one year.

 

 

Hudson helped lead the DBacks to the playoffs, which generated additional revenues for the team, quite the ROI on his sub $1 million salary.

What has Rasmus led the Blue Jays to?

My point is there is no guarantee Hudson is any better than Rasmus moving forward. Rasmus was very good his first year and a half. Hudson was very good for a year and a half. The wheels fell off both for apparently different reasons. Were all of Huson's struggles in 2012 because of his injury? Will he get back to where he was?

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I disagree on the trading Hudson part. The Sox were in need of a young, cost controlled RHP for the next couple years and gave it up for an expensive guy who wasn't under team control. Still up and down the list a terrible concept and idea in every way.

 

The Santos deal I tried to like, but my response was "Man I wish we'd gotten something else from low-A ball to go along with Molina". I didn't feel like we got enough back for him, but we had parts coming up that could replace Santos. Trading Hudson left a Hudson shaped hole.

Hudson will have basically 2 lost seasons, and who knows where he will be at next season. The Hudson shaped hole would have occurred if they traded him or not.

[LittleHurt05]

Detroit is in first place largely on beating these exact teams. They are 12-5 against Houston and Minnesota, and 1 game over against the rest of baseball. There is nothing wrong with beating up bad teams. Those games don't count for any less in the standings.

 

If the Sox had beaten a bad KC team last year, they may have made the playoffs.

[southsider2k5]

If the Sox had beaten a bad KC team last year, they may have made the playoffs.

 

Exactly.

[Dick Allen]

Considering how Dunn, Paulie and Keppinger have hit. Missing Beckham's defense, and Viciedo for a while, and with Flowers yet to blossom, .500 4 games out is actually pretty positive right now.

[Y2Jimmy0]

My only problem with the Hudson and Santos deals were that they did not get enough. It just was not a good enough return. Hudson could have been packaged in that following offseason with something else and the Sox could have gotten an impact player. I understand why they did it. It still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[nickofypres]

Get another arm and hitter if possible. Try to find ones heading into free agency so the pieces traded in return is minimal.

[caulfield12]

Considering how Dunn, Paulie and Keppinger have hit. Missing Beckham's defense, and Viciedo for a while, and with Flowers yet to blossom, .500 4 games out is actually pretty positive right now.

 

Axelrod, Quintana, Santiago, Crain and Reed have kept us from being a sub .500 team.

 

You might be waiting a while on the "Flowers yet to blossom" line.

 

And DeAza has been, at best, an enigma.

[caulfield12]

Considering how Dunn, Paulie and Keppinger have hit. Missing Beckham's defense, and Viciedo for a while, and with Flowers yet to blossom, .500 4 games out is actually pretty positive right now.

 

Axelrod, Quintana, Santiago, Crain and Reed have kept us from being a sub .500 team.

 

You might be waiting a while on the "Flowers yet to blossom" line.

 

And DeAza has been, at best, an enigma.

[DukeNukeEm]

Are they better off now as a franchise because of making the playoffs in 2008 and coming close in 2010 and 2012?

I'd just like to point out that making the playoffs in 2008 and at least competing for them (more or less) every year is extremely important. You do not want to get mired in Pittsburgh/KC-land where the culture of winning around the organization just disappears and losing becomes such habit that decades go by before the team even sniffs the playoffs. That's the risk you inherit with selling off, that you cede being bad and since everyone expects to be bad actually being bad isn't considered a big deal. The first couple years you justify it, "this is what rebuilding looks like guys!", but the guys you're rebuilding around dont work out and it becomes habit.

 

Now you have no assets. What few guys wind up being stars you have to trade because you cannot afford them since nobody goes to see a loser and, honestly, you need 5 good players much more than you need 1 great one when you're awful in this league... it's just a disaster.

 

Staying competitive, even if you are just pretending to be competitive to keep up appearances, means you always have players that other teams want and that fans want to see. Every season the team will be at least worth watching until ~ASB and you never know when you'll catch lightning in a bottle one year.

[caulfield12]

I'd just like to point out that making the playoffs in 2008 and at least competing for them (more or less) every year is extremely important. You do not want to get mired in Pittsburgh/KC-land where the culture of winning around the organization just disappears and losing becomes such habit that decades go by before the team even sniffs the playoffs. That's the risk you inherit with selling off, that you cede being bad and since everyone expects to be bad actually being bad isn't considered a big deal. The first couple years you justify it, "this is what rebuilding looks like guys!", but the guys you're rebuilding around dont work out and it becomes habit.

 

Now you have no assets. What few guys wind up being stars you have to trade because you cannot afford them since nobody goes to see a loser and, honestly, you need 5 good players much more than you need 1 great one when you're awful in this league... it's just a disaster.

 

Staying competitive, even if you are just pretending to be competitive to keep up appearances, means you always have players that other teams want and that fans want to see. Every season the team will be at least worth watching until ~ASB and you never know when you'll catch lightning in a bottle one year.

 

That's the core of the argument here, why do we have to settle for this instead of the Cardinals/Giants/Tigers model? That in a big market, the White Sox as an organization should be capable of setting a higher standard, especially when you look at the relative weakness of the AL Central compared to the other divisions for most of the last 10-12 years (2006 being the exception).

 

(Of course, this is where someone will argue we hadn't won a single playoff series since 1917/1919 going into 2005...and, that historically, going from there to 1959 to 1983 to 1993/94 and then following that up with 2000/2005/2008, the KW/Guillen Years were like manna from heaven, and they'll be 75% correct).

 

A mixture of development/scouting, free agents and "value" acquisitions. Premium placed on pitching, and the benefit to the team outweighing individual superstars (letting Pujols go in favor of a balanced line-up and affordable payroll).

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

I'd just like to point out that making the playoffs in 2008 and at least competing for them (more or less) every year is extremely important. You do not want to get mired in Pittsburgh/KC-land where the culture of winning around the organization just disappears and losing becomes such habit that decades go by before the team even sniffs the playoffs. That's the risk you inherit with selling off, that you cede being bad and since everyone expects to be bad actually being bad isn't considered a big deal. The first couple years you justify it, "this is what rebuilding looks like guys!", but the guys you're rebuilding around dont work out and it becomes habit.

 

Now you have no assets. What few guys wind up being stars you have to trade because you cannot afford them since nobody goes to see a loser and, honestly, you need 5 good players much more than you need 1 great one when you're awful in this league... it's just a disaster.

 

Staying competitive, even if you are just pretending to be competitive to keep up appearances, means you always have players that other teams want and that fans want to see. Every season the team will be at least worth watching until ~ASB and you never know when you'll catch lightning in a bottle one year.

 

That's the core of the argument here, why do we have to settle for this instead of the Cardinals/Giants/Tigers model? That in a big market, the White Sox as an organization should be capable of setting a higher standard, especially when you look at the relative weakness of the AL Central compared to the other divisions for most of the last 10-12 years (2006 being the exception).

 

(Of course, this is where someone will argue we hadn't won a single playoff series since 1917/1919 going into 2005...and, that historically, going from there to 1959 to 1983 to 1993/94 and then following that up with 2000/2005/2008, the KW/Guillen Years were like manna from heaven, and they'll be 75% correct).

 

A mixture of development/scouting, free agents and "value" acquisitions. Premium placed on pitching, and the benefit to the team outweighing individual superstars (letting Pujols go in favor of a balanced line-up and affordable payroll).

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

I'd just like to point out that making the playoffs in 2008 and at least competing for them (more or less) every year is extremely important. You do not want to get mired in Pittsburgh/KC-land where the culture of winning around the organization just disappears and losing becomes such habit that decades go by before the team even sniffs the playoffs. That's the risk you inherit with selling off, that you cede being bad and since everyone expects to be bad actually being bad isn't considered a big deal. The first couple years you justify it, "this is what rebuilding looks like guys!", but the guys you're rebuilding around dont work out and it becomes habit.

 

Now you have no assets. What few guys wind up being stars you have to trade because you cannot afford them since nobody goes to see a loser and, honestly, you need 5 good players much more than you need 1 great one when you're awful in this league... it's just a disaster.

 

Staying competitive, even if you are just pretending to be competitive to keep up appearances, means you always have players that other teams want and that fans want to see. Every season the team will be at least worth watching until ~ASB and you never know when you'll catch lightning in a bottle one year.

 

That's the core of the argument here, why do we have to settle for this instead of the Cardinals/Giants/Tigers model? That in a big market, the White Sox as an organization should be capable of setting a higher standard, especially when you look at the relative weakness of the AL Central compared to the other divisions for most of the last 10-12 years (2006 being the exception).

 

(Of course, this is where someone will argue we hadn't won a single playoff series since 1917/1919 going into 2005...and, that historically, going from there to 1959 to 1983 to 1993/94 and then following that up with 2000/2005/2008, the KW/Guillen Years were like manna from heaven, and they'll be 75% correct).

 

A mixture of development/scouting, free agents and "value" acquisitions. Premium placed on pitching, and the benefit to the team outweighing individual superstars (letting Pujols go in favor of a balanced line-up and affordable payroll).

 

 

 

SORRY...DREADED CHINESE INTERNET with VPN/PROXY...keeps sticking/reloading...delete

Edited May 27, 2013 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

That's the core of the argument here, why do we have to settle for this instead of the Cardinals/Giants/Tigers model? That in a big market, the White Sox as an organization should be capable of setting a higher standard, especially when you look at the relative weakness of the AL Central compared to the other divisions for most of the last 10-12 years (2006 being the exception).

 

(Of course, this is where someone will argue we hadn't won a single playoff series since 1917/1919 going into 2005...and, that historically, going from there to 1959 to 1983 to 1993/94 and then following that up with 2000/2005/2008, the KW/Guillen Years were like manna from heaven, and they'll be 75% correct).

 

A mixture of development/scouting, free agents and "value" acquisitions. Premium placed on pitching, and the benefit to the team outweighing individual superstars (letting Pujols go in favor of a balanced line-up and affordable payroll).

The Tigers haven't won a WS since 1984. The Giants have won 2 out of the last 3 WS but over the past decade how much better have they been than the Whit Sox. The Cardinals have won a couple of WS recently. One by winning 83 games and another when they finished in 2nd place,. They have though, consistently win lots of games, and get contributions signing bats lile Beltran and Berkman , guys on Marty's wrong side of 30.

[Balta1701]

The Tigers haven't won a WS since 1984. The Giants have won 2 out of the last 3 WS but over the past decade how much better have they been than the Whit Sox. The Cardinals have won a couple of WS recently. One by winning 83 games and another when they finished in 2nd place,. They have though, consistently win lots of games, and get contributions signing bats lile Beltran and Berkman , guys on Marty's wrong side of 30.

The Tigers model also involved a long period of being one of the worst franchises in MLB history as well. That's the reason they have Verlander, they had one of the worst records in baseball. That's part of the reason why they were able to trade for Cabrera; they were able to draft people like Andrew Miller who fell in teh draft because of the messed up draft system (which has been fixed today) who they traded for Cabrera.

[Dick Allen]

The Tigers model also involved a long period of being one of the worst franchises in MLB history as well. That's the reason they have Verlander, they had one of the worst records in baseball. That's part of the reason why they were able to trade for Cabrera; they were able to draft people like Andrew Miller who fell in teh draft because of the messed up draft system (which has been fixed today) who they traded for Cabrera.

Not to mention they have an owner willing to go into the red, even Forbes says they lose money, to keep adding players. It is an unrealistic model to copy, and I wonder how long it can or will be sustainable.