White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 11-01-2013, 11:27 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 53,927
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRS1 View Post
What the crap? Seriously? Because I don't want a player who would actually manage to make one of the worst lineups in baseball - EVEN WORSE - I'm now a delusional dreamer?
Young's numbers plummeted coming to Oakland which is probably the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball by quite a mile. While never great, he was always at least a serviceable hitter in Arizona and if he still can bring the D, he can help split time with De Aza. I am convinced for the interim, we need to find someone to take some at bats from De Aza in CF, he's just too brittle to play there 150 games or so.

The Sox minor league system is pretty bare, but most of our better prospects are outfielders, so if there's one area the team should be going for veteran, stopgap players, it's there. Trayce Thompson may be ready for a September call up next year. Brandon Jacobs is in AA. Hawkins still has a long way to go, but he's still probably our system's highest ceiling player. The Sox IF is pretty rough, we only have 1 position locked down for years (1B with Abreu).
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-5

LAST GAME: August 4 - Twins 16, Sox 3
NEXT GAME: I don't know, but I'll be sure to warn you when I know
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-02-2013, 12:00 AM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
While never great, he was always at least a serviceable hitter in Arizona
The long running joke surrounding his uncanny ability to SO or IF popup with RISP was well-earned. The guy was a 239/318/437 career hitter in a hitters park in the NL who battled Mark Reynolds for the most ridiculously embarrassing ABs in the West. Watching him play down here for six seasons tells me his AL dropoff was no fluke.
__________________
People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-02-2013, 12:01 AM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
The Sox only have three players worth keeping and need to replace 22 in order to win a championship? Really? These hyperbolic statements are beyond silly.
Well...other than Sale, Quintana, Garcia and now Abreu, who are your absolute keepers? Santiago, maybe? Danks? I'm sure I am forgetting a couple but it's not like the White Sox have much more than five players worth keeping.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:59 AM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,276
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
Well...other than Sale, Quintana, Garcia and now Abreu, who are your absolute keepers? Santiago, maybe? Danks? I'm sure I am forgetting a couple but it's not like the White Sox have much more than five players worth keeping.
My point is that the Sox dont have to replace everyone on the roster. They only need to overhaul certain spots. For example, if they find the right catcher, there is no reason to think Flowers cannot be a competent backup. Even the 2005 team had guys like Marte, Widger, Timo Perez, etc. They dont need 22 new players. In reality, they could probably transform the team with seven new guys strategically and with a little luck.
__________________


2014 Attendance Record: 3-4, 0.429
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-02-2013, 09:17 AM
Noneck Noneck is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
In reality, they could probably transform the team with seven new guys strategically and with a little luck.

I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-02-2013, 10:07 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 12,888
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.
Agree...to get themselves 7, they're going to have to thin out starting pitching, which isn't that great to begin with. (it's good, but we don't have that many of them).
But, as happens every year, a month or so after the season, I have caught the fever again and think we aren't that far away. We'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-02-2013, 03:46 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
I agree but 7 may as well be 22 when you have so little to get these 7. In order to get the 7 they will have give up some keepers. Its a tough situation to solve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
Agree...to get themselves 7, they're going to have to thin out starting pitching, which isn't that great to begin with. (it's good, but we don't have that many of them).
But, as happens every year, a month or so after the season, I have caught the fever again and think we aren't that far away. We'll see.
Yup...And they'd also have to be a pretty damn magnificent 7. There's Cano, and maybe Ellsbury out there for that route. But that's not happening so saying you can change the team in 7 players means nothing because it's actually not possible. In a fantasy realm where we can draft 7 players off other rosters? Sure, we'll compete. But reality is the signings we make are either for three years from now or filler to help the young players along. That's not been short-sighted, as the original poster said. That's being realistic. Sorry that reality is that we're not close. But it doesn't make it not reality. Signing Young would be a good move.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-02-2013, 04:22 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,276
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Yup...And they'd also have to be a pretty damn magnificent 7. There's Cano, and maybe Ellsbury out there for that route. But that's not happening so saying you can change the team in 7 players means nothing because it's actually not possible. In a fantasy realm where we can draft 7 players off other rosters? Sure, we'll compete. But reality is the signings we make are either for three years from now or filler to help the young players along. That's not been short-sighted, as the original poster said. That's being realistic. Sorry that reality is that we're not close. But it doesn't make it not reality.
The Sox don't need to replace 22 players on their current 25-man roster in order to win a championship. They also don't need seven "magnificent" players. I'm not saying this with my head in the clouds, but six-to-eight strategic moves, with luck and good health, puts them in a really good position when you have Sale anchoring the pitching staff and two good young bats in Garcia and Abreu batting 3rd and 4th. I recall people here one year ago mocking the Steven Drew and Gomes moves. They need upgrades in several areas, but to say the entire rotation, front end of the bullpen and the entire infield need to be wiped out is misguided.

You are presenting strawman arguments to defend your original statement, which, within the context of the discussion, was intended to say the Sox need 22 *better* players than they have now. The intent and context was not that the Sox need to use many of their current players to make trades for other players. You're coming up with that rationale after the fact.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-02-2013, 04:56 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
The Sox don't need to replace 22 players on their current 25-man roster in order to win a championship. They also don't need seven "magnificent" players. I'm not saying this with my head in the clouds, but six-to-eight strategic moves, with luck and good health, puts them in a really good position when you have Sale anchoring the pitching staff and two good young bats in Garcia and Abreu batting 3rd and 4th. I recall people here one year ago mocking the Steven Drew and Gomes moves. They need upgrades in several areas, but to say the entire rotation, front end of the bullpen and the entire infield need to be wiped out is misguided.

You are presenting strawman arguments to defend your original statement, which, within the context of the discussion, was intended to say the Sox need 22 *better* players than they have now. The intent and context was not that the Sox need to use many of their current players to make trades for other players. You're coming up with that rationale after the fact.
I'm glad you're able to see into my mind and tell me what I meant.

My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek because the OP's statement was way over the top in the other direction, calling my support of a move to pickup a defensive specialist to help our young guys along myopic. He's the one that should be nailed to the cross. That's just plain lunacy.

That said - I vehemently disagree that there are 7 "moving pieces" moves that will turn this team into a world series contender. I downright think that's impossible.

How many players on the end of year roster were league average offensively and defensively? How many pitchers that were left didn't start having the results catch up to their ability? I'm not going to say that MAYBE some of the young guys in the system aren't pieces, but you can't just up and count on that either. The number of players that aren't in our system that'll be on our next world championship caliber roster is a hell of a lot closer to 22 than it is to 7. Hell...that number is probably in the 18 - 20 range. The only way 7 trades is going to win us a title is with an inordinate amount of luck. Because, given our division, we'd have to have a million things go right for us and wrong for others just to get into the playoffs.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:18 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,276
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
I'm glad you're able to see into my mind and tell me what I meant.
The context of the discussion defined your statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek
Ok, my point is proven then. Please try not to be so dramatic and hyperbolic, as it doesn't assist your debate style.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:32 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
Ok, my point is proven then. Please try not to be so dramatic and hyperbolic, as it doesn't assist your debate style.
I was trying to be an ass, because I thought the original poster was doing the same.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:35 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
My original statement was meant to be over the top/tongue in cheek because the OP's statement was way over the top in the other direction, calling my support of a move to pickup a defensive specialist to help our young guys along myopic. He's the one that should be nailed to the cross. That's just plain lunacy.
Signing another SO per game CF who consistently hit in the low 200s against inferior NL pitching (in his prime) doesn't help anyone or anything "along," regardless of his defense. It's a completely lateral move from the universally tarred Jordan Danks.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:37 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRS1 View Post
Signing another SO per game CF who consistently hit in the low 200s against inferior NL pitching (in his prime) doesn't help anyone or anything "along," regardless of his defense. It's a completely lateral move from the universally tarred Jordan Danks.
Except Danks isn't as good a defender, isn't a veteran, and doesn't have any pop or any chance to have it.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:38 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
I was trying to be an ass, because I thought the original poster was doing the same.
I wasn't trying to be an ass, just stating the truth after watching Chris Young suck for the Dbacks for the better part of a decade. There might be some who have watched more of him than me, here, and I can only imagine they would agree with my assessment of his game. I'd rather spend any spare change on actual upgrades, not lateral moves for a fourth OF.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-02-2013, 05:44 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Except Danks isn't as good a defender, isn't a veteran, and doesn't have any pop or any chance to have it.
Four years ago he wasn't, today I'd just as quickly trust Danks to cover CF as I would Young. Prorate Danks' season to Young's and you have virtually identical power numbers. I'm sure most would argue the big ballpark Young played in affected his HR number, but then you have to concede the doubles Danks missed out on relatively. Veterans are overrated - especially when they suck.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.