As always, thanks for your questions and your support.
Asinwreck asks:
Are there any Sox Machine-related activities that you plan to do now that you’ve been vaccinated?
Well, I hope to be able to get to check out the White Sox affiliates, since being within driving distance was a big part of the appeal of moving down here. Likewise, I'm hoping I'll be able to see some Vanderbilt games and potential White Sox draft targets.
I'll still be wearing a mask in public and avoid large-scale public gatherings until the numbers suggest it's safe for everybody, because it's possible that vaccinated people can still be carriers of the virus, and there's still the same responsibility to the public. But if media members are allowed to cover games in person before fans can flood in, there's probably a way to do that responsibly, assuming there's room to spread out.
Since MLB is proceeding with business as usual in 2021 are you a little surprised there hasn’t been much talk (or action) regarding the pending CBA expiration?
It's business as usual in terms of the calendar, but not so much in terms of some very big questions. For instance, baseball still doesn't know the shape of the 2021 postseason or whether there will be universal DH (the MLBPA just rejected the proposal that included both). Both of which are seen as major big-picture bargaining chips for the upcoming CBA, so I think even if the CBA isn't getting a whole lot of specific public play, it is driving a lot of the motivations on both sides.
Then when you see the potential of the Cactus League being delayed, I think it's probably smart of everybody to be on the lookout for gaps in their approach to the 2021 season, whether it's safety protocols for the league, or the MLBPA being on the lookout for back-door season-shortening.
Calvin asks:
With Quintana signing for 8 mil and Richards for 10... is there thought/concern that there will not be many bargain deals for the Sox to fill out their roster?
Thought, yes. Concern, no. At least I don't have concern for their budget. I could understand if the White Sox had a few guys they liked to solve various problems equally, and wanted to see if the game of musical chairs would leave somebody out there in the cold. But if the market is healthy enough to pay credible major leagues reasonable going rates for one-year deals, then it's incumbent on the White Sox to meet those numbers.
I'm not necessarily concerned that they won't. I think I'd be more resigned if they didn't. Which leads to...
Michael asks:
How can we reconcile being diehard fans of the White Sox with feeling increasingly like the people running the White Sox will never do everything they can to win? I could never see myself letting go of the Sox, but I'm starting to feel like my remaining a fan is a form of cognitive dissonance.
One of the nice things about writing about the same team for 15 years is that it altered my sense of purpose for following the White Sox. I still have the basic motivations of fandom in me, but I've accumulated so much knowledge about how the White Sox have conducted business from 2006-present that it'd be a waste to not share what I'm noticing, especially since the same people have been in charge the entire time. In that sense, the motivation is self-propelling.
Two other things that skew my perspective:
- It's easy for me to root for the White Sox despite misgivings because the better they do, the higher the demand for White Sox content.
- I feel like I'm rooting for White Sox fans, who also happen to be my readers and listenings, who I happen to like.
I don't know if No. 1 is applicable to those who don't have a Sox-based business, but I think pulling for the happiness of your friends and family is a way to reframe your emotions without feeling like you're wasting your time or supporting ownership in which you hold little faith yourself.
Southpaw Jackson asks:
Scale of 1-10, how likely do you think the Sox are to sign any of the following players, Marcell Ozuna, JBJ or Eddie Rosario? Follow up how likely are the Sox done with making additions?
I don't think they're done making additions. I'd give Rosario a 4, Ozuna a 3 and Bradley a 2. Rosario feels like a guy who could be productive enough at DH and be fine starting in left field in case of an injury, especially if his demands drop below his arbitration projection. Ozuna is probably too expensive no matter the price, but he'd fill an obvious position and his presence would be exciting as hell. Signing Bradley makes Adam Eaton a waste of money, but he'd help the roster, which keeps him above a "1."
Philip asks:
Apparently I am out of touch with the out of town perception of Tim Anderson. Were you just as surprised by him getting on the cover of RBI Baseball as I was?
I can't say I'm surprised, if only because I hadn't really thought about it in a way that set expectations in any way. This is what comes to mind when I think "R.B.I. Baseball cover."
I'm much more aware of MLB The Show's cover, and if Anderson were selected for that one, I'd be shocked, just because that's the premier cover gig, and any White Sox seems at least a year away. Then again If you look at R.B.I. Baseball in the context of a game that's trying to gain some of The Show's turf, it makes sense to go with a guy who's managed to force himself into baseball's consciousness before his team propelled him onto that stage.
Based on San Diego building a pitching staff and only giving up 1 top 100 prospect, did the Sox overpay for one year of Lynn by giving up top 100 prospect Dunning?
I'd say no, because Dunning isn't a consensus top-100 prospect, Lynn's way cheaper than Darvish, and he's provided a lot more innings than Snell or Musgrove. I also don't know who else the Sox had to trade if teen talent is the most popular currency of the offseason. Perhaps 26-year-old prospects weren't the way most teams would've wanted to go. On both sides of the deal, the Lynn trade seemed to involve a unique guy who commanded a unique price.
AJ asks:
Liam Hendriks has said he wants to be used as much as possible by La Russa, that one of his goals is to "try and pitch in exactly half the games". Is that a good idea?
I'd say the goal is a good idea if it serves the purpose of providing a mindset to be ready to get the job done that frequently. But as Yoán Moncada said with his post-COVID goals, the mindset is no longer 162 games, but 162 games + October. I think Hendriks will be hard-pressed to come within 10 games of that number because load management is a bigger deal across all sports these days, and Tony La Russa's history with relievers suggests he's not afraid to spread saves around if he thinks multiple guys can get the job done. If Hendriks has closed out two games in a row or four out of five, La Russa has other options to keep his closer from getting run down..
Chef Eric asks:
What’s the over/under that a full season (162 games) will be played out? Especially with possibility some teams can’t have fans at games I think some owners wouldn’t want to play a full season, like how the 2020 season unfolded.
It does seem like MLB can't shorten the schedule unless shutdowns across the country prohibit baseball being played. All the other leagues are putting their heads down and crossing days off the calendar despite postponements, and so I wouldn't expect baseball to be any different. The economic activity of the league suggests that teams have adjusted to their revenue pictures in their own way. The Mets and Padres are adding like there's a major payoff at the end of this, whenever it ends. The NL Central appears to be fixated on the bottom line. The Pirates are responding to the idea of "no fans" about as literally as it gets.
As I alluded to before, the one way I can see a shortening is if Arizona and/or Florida interrupt spring training with some kind of pronouncement banning gatherings. That doesn't seem likely, because both states are hosting other professional sports, and it's particularly hard to imagine Florida cracking down considering its response over the last 12 months.
