Who Are These Guys? (BP South Side Article)

[southsider2k5]

I can accept that, and in fact I could see you getting higher prices in the offseason for the 2 big pitchers given that competitive teams will be unlikely to move their big league players right now.

 

However, I for one don't think that there's any chance this team sells at either of those points, and if that surmise is the case, then given the high price you've outlined for getting better next offseason and the fact that they've already gotten to the midway point of the season above .500 - that logic presents a strong case for trading Fulmer, Adams, and perhaps Rodon right now for guys who are ready to push them into the playoffs this year.

 

While I don't see them selling, I also don't see any of the top prospects going anywhere either. Maybe a guy like Adams or Danish if they have given up on them, but Fulmer isn't going anywhere the way I read the cards. They are prepping him for the team right now.

[Balta1701]

While I don't see them selling, I also don't see any of the top prospects going anywhere either. Maybe a guy like Adams or Danish if they have given up on them, but Fulmer isn't going anywhere the way I read the cards. They are prepping him for the team right now.

That's exactly what I expect them to do also...and the end result of that is the path to hoping next year turns out better (maybe a new coach will do it!) and if not, a major risk of being trapped at or below this level for several more years as the current pieces start departing.

[GreenSox]

While I don't see them selling, I also don't see any of the top prospects going anywhere either. Maybe a guy like Adams or Danish if they have given up on them, but Fulmer isn't going anywhere the way I read the cards. They are prepping him for the team right now.

that's true but the only top prospects they have are Fulmer and the guys drafted this year. There's nobody else.

 

There are several others I would hate to lose - guys who are showing improvement and have ability, but who will never be hyped as prospects - especially for the usual Williams/Hahn veteran.

Edited July 12, 2016 by GreenSox

[greg775]

That summarizes the Hahn regime quite well....

 

You're over .500 right now and you've got tradeable assets in Fulmer, Adams, and Rodon.

Why do we have to trade THOSE guys. I prefer keeping those 3 and Anderson, Eaton and Abreu and Sale/Q and dumping the rest: Frazier, Robertson, Melky, Avila, Navarro, Duke, Avi, Lawrie will bring a NICE haul.

[captain54]

Therefore, the most sensible goal is to be "in the hunt" every single year. A successful plan to this end is one that sees the team in a state of constant but gradual system-wide improvement. And while our ML teams' records have been disappointing the past couple years, it's tough to argue that we haven't seen "gradual system-wide improvement" in each of those

 

The Sox had a decent record in 2012, and were "in the hunt" for the duration. Bottom line, they went home in October. At the risk of being labeled a whiner and moaner, that doesn't qualify as a successful season, in my book

 

The same could be said for every of the past ten seasons with exception of 2008

 

The decision makers that have compiled this dubious 10 yr record of achievement, have brought us to a point of near bottom attendance and TV viewing numbers.

 

I'm not trying to be bitter, or argumentative..but where's the logic in assuming that this brain trust is capable of "gradual system wide improvement" Ultimately leading to an elite, big market, perennial playoff contender?

 

[caulfield12]

15:$0.85M, 16:$2.75M, 17:$4M, 18:$6M, 19:$8.4M, 20:$9.5M club option ($1.5M buyout), 21:$10.5M club option ($1.5M buyout)

 

Eaton's contract

[caulfield12]

Why do we have to trade THOSE guys. I prefer keeping those 3 and Anderson, Eaton and Abreu and Sale/Q and dumping the rest: Frazier, Robertson, Melky, Avila, Navarro, Duke, Avi, Lawrie will bring a NICE haul.

 

Because 1) you're not going to get back what you paid in prospects for Frazier, 2) Robertson and Melky will get you another Avi Garcia and B prospect probably because their high salaries preclude mid-market teams from acquiring them unless you eat salary for prospects, which we rarely rarely do, 3) there's no market for Avila and Navarro 4) Duke and Lawrie will get you a B prospect back and 5) Avi Garcia has literally ZERO VALUE to any contending team right now, and could only be traded to an AL club at any rate.

 

If you combined Frazier and Robertson in a package...some combination of Frazier/Robertson/Melky/Lawrie...for a large market team desperate to fill two or three of those holes in one fell swoop, that's where you can get some good talent back (and because the FA market next offseason will be abysmal.)

 

We trade Cabrera, we end up signing Colby Rasmus for the exact same price or higher than we were paying Melky...and then probably have to replace him again in 2018 OR we take an even bigger risk and give someone like Rasmus a $60-75 million contract because we're forced to overpay in an absolutely brutal market.

[jenksycat]

Why do we have to trade THOSE guys. I prefer keeping those 3 and Anderson, Eaton and Abreu and Sale/Q and dumping the rest: Frazier, Robertson, Melky, Avila, Navarro, Duke, Avi, Lawrie will bring a NICE haul.

 

Your logic: Frazier, Robertson, Melky,Avila, Navarro, Duke, Lawrie are absolute garbage players & Hahn should be fired.

 

BUT

 

Sox could get an absolute HAUL trading them.

 

Does that make sense to you?

[Balta1701]

15:$0.85M, 16:$2.75M, 17:$4M, 18:$6M, 19:$8.4M, 20:$9.5M club option ($1.5M buyout), 21:$10.5M club option ($1.5M buyout)

 

Eaton's contract

My bad on that one, my eyes looked at the row for Duke.

[caulfield12]

Balta-

 

It is absolutely worth considering whether with his aggressive style of play and injury-risk, if Adam Eaton will continue to remain a TOP 5 MLB outfielder by OPS. Not to mention whether or not they will be able to find another CF (Colby Rasmus?) for 2017 so that they can keep Eaton in RF, where he's establishing his highest value due to defense and his arm, not to mention general comfort level out there at that position.

 

He has a very favorable contract. But it's hard to imagine the White Sox getting "fair value" back for him, compared to what they would get from trading Sale or Quintana, not to mention the obvious point that the longer you hold onto young/dynamic starting pitching, the higher the risk for significant injury (as the Mets are currently learning w/ Harvey/Wheeler/Syndergaard, Rangers w/ Darvish, etc.)

 

Rock/hard place.

Edited July 13, 2016 by caulfield12

[GreenSox]

That summarizes the Hahn regime quite well....

 

Anyway jokes aside...the organization has 3 contributors who hit free agency at the end of 2017. At the same time, the price of several other guys is creeping upwards, and then Eaton hits FA at the end of 2018. Like it or not, there is a literal clock on this roster - just to tread water, to stay where they are right now, will cost an extra $20 million+ at the end of 2017 and another $15 million+ at the end of 2018. And that's with players getting older too.

 

At some point before July of 2017, one of four things is going to happen. Either they're going to finally get extremely lucky and have everything work perfectly, they're going to have to majorly sell off a number of players to just get something for them, they're going to have to sell everything in their organization's upper levels even guys they don't want to move to try to put a competitor on the field, or they're going to have to be content with guys walking away for nothing.

 

They're an above .500 team right now but they are 4.5 games out of the wild card, and in the middle of a pack of 5 teams all within 1 loss column game of each other, all of whom are behind 3 other teams for those 2 slots. They could sit back and hope things go well in the 2nd half and maybe they're the team that gets lucky, but with that many opponents in the way the odds are low. They could sit back and hope things go well next year, but that's risky too - one bad luck injury could derail the franchise.

 

You're over .500 right now and you've got tradeable assets in Fulmer, Adams, and Rodon. Standing pat right now and hoping things work watches time tick on the clock you gave. If you're worried about that clock and you look at the other things that will happen to this franchise, and you're unwilling to sell guys, the other option is to make your move right now and try to turn it around, a-la the Blue Jays last year.

 

Doing nothing doesn't cost you anything this year, but it also eats away your time and is a high risk move itself. If you're worried about them "continuing to find lower to go", then sitting there and doing nothing big is a great path to that end result.

First, the Sox could have Eaton through 2021.

The idea is to build a team that can consistently compete.

This theory will help chances in 16 and 17, but turn the Sox into the Reds for 2018 and likely beyond.

Yes, the Sox lose players after 2017....of course, that's their own doing as Williams contrived this fictitious "3 year window" and dutiful Hahn executed accordingly. But it is Sox reality - players are done after 17.

Big deal, none are difference makers.

The better plan would be to accelerate the dispersal, move Frazier, Lawrie and Cabrera on now..include Robertson in the mix.

Or don't. Stick with this group and see what they can do. Continue to build the organization.

But jamming more resources into this "16/17 or bust" window is not the answer.

Edited July 13, 2016 by GreenSox

[Jose Abreu]

Who do the Sox theoretically lose after 17 aside from Lawrie, Frazier, and Cabrera? I am sure we'll exercise all the team options on Sale/Q/Eaton/Jones etc.

[GreenSox]

The problem with this is that the game simply doesn't work this way anymore. The traditional idea of a "contention window" is obsolete, for two primary reasons:

 

1. Free agency is no longer a reliable way to build a winner. Players are peaking earlier, declining quicker, and being signed to pre-arbitration extensions that gobble up their prime years. The "all in" strategy doesn't work when you can't buy enough talent with your money.

 

2. The best team is no more likely to win the playoffs than any other playoff team. The massive cost required to earn the talent required for an extra few wins above the rest of the field is wasted in October. The best way to win a WS is to maximize the number of chances you can take, not to optimize any particular chance.

 

Therefore, the most sensible goal is to be "in the hunt" every single year. A successful plan to this end is one that sees the team in a state of constant but gradual system-wide improvement. And while our ML teams' records have been disappointing the past couple years, it's tough to argue that we haven't seen "gradual system-wide improvement" in each of those years.

 

The answer is not to gut the system, nor is it to tear down and restock. The answer is to stay the course.

I don't know how I missed this post.

What an eloquent and accurate description of the situation.

This post should be framed, with a gold medal attached.

 

[caulfield12]

Which is, once again the reason why Lawrie, Frazier, Cabrera and Robertson won't be traded.

 

The ONLY one of those that's defensible is Robertson, based on:

 

1) Clearing $22 million in salary (which can be used for a hitter/hitting/bench)

 

2) Believing Nate Jones is ready to step in

 

3) Having confidence that Fulmer/Burdi/Hansen/Danish/Ynoa/Guerrero/Stephens can help to fill the bullpen void this year and next

 

4) Getting back some additional pitching help in that deal...although hitting's the primary target as outlined below

 

5) Belief that one of Putnam/Petricka makes it back for next season (at the same performance level)

 

 

Of course, if you're trading with the Cubs (for Robertson), you're asking for Baez or Almora, Jr., back in return. Almora can play CF, so you keep Eaton in RF.

 

Not sure how ready they are to trade Baez. I think they're hedging their bets, and have already moved on from the idea of Soler being a significant contributor. That said, there's going to be a jam of DH/corner outfield types if Contreras doesn't stick at catcher and Schwarber isn't traded.

 

I guess McKinney's the other player they would be targeting....as well as Vogelbach, although he seems to be one of those guys who puts up huge numbers in the minors but ends up a AAAA player in the end. Then again, he could surprise everyone, the "overlooked" prospect who made good despite being hyped less than guys like Lake and Alcantara.

Edited July 13, 2016 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

The Sox had a decent record in 2012, and were "in the hunt" for the duration. Bottom line, they went home in October. At the risk of being labeled a whiner and moaner, that doesn't qualify as a successful season, in my book

 

The same could be said for every of the past ten seasons with exception of 2008

 

The decision makers that have compiled this dubious 10 yr record of achievement, have brought us to a point of near bottom attendance and TV viewing numbers.

 

I'm not trying to be bitter, or argumentative..but where's the logic in assuming that this brain trust is capable of "gradual system wide improvement" Ultimately leading to an elite, big market, perennial playoff contender?

 

I'm not saying the Sox have been successful, I'm saying that the suggestion that the reaction to their failure should be to tear down and rebuild is ill-advised. I'm also pointing out that the Sox have made progress toward the goal of perennial threat in each of the last three seasons, even if that progress has been slower and more methodical than we would all like.

 

Sometimes a good plan can yield undesirable results. In professional sports (ESPECIALLY baseball), that happens more often than not. Only one team in 30 actually succeeds at winning the World Series. That doesn't mean that only 1 team in 30 did a good job; that 29 front offices should be fired. It's simply the nature of competition. When you go head to head, only one winner can emerge.

 

This front office has not tasted success, but analysis suggests that it's still moving in the direction of success. It makes sense to stay on that course until the direction changes.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Eminor3rd

[captain54]

Sometimes a good plan can yield undesirable results. In professional sports (ESPECIALLY baseball), that happens more often than not. Only one team in 30 actually succeeds at winning the World Series. That doesn't mean that only 1 team in 30 did a good job; that 29 front offices should be fired. It's simply the nature of competition. When you go head to head, only one winner can emerge.

 

This front office has not tasted success, but analysis suggests that it's still moving in the direction of success. It makes sense to stay on that course until the direction changes.

 

Your analysis of why a teardown might be ill advised is spot on, but I don't think it addresses the root of the Sox problems..

 

And I don't think a reasonable fan is expecting a WS title every year. However, with a playoff drought of this duration, I think we need to look deeper in the organization than just shuffling players around, constantly throwing the players under the bus as "non performing"… the fact that the Sox haven't even been able to sniff a WC 2 since it's inception, is telling..

 

That a FO pretty much remains static despite the track record…is sending the message that the organization accepts mediocrity.. reflective in the attendance and TV viewership numbers…

 

I read somewhere recently that watching the Sox every year is like watching someone build a sandcastle too near the incoming tide…. it looks pretty good going up, but somehow you get the imminent feeling of it being washed away...

[Hatchetman]

I did an analysis a year or so ago. Teams that won 95 games during the year won about 60% of their playoff series. So it is not a total crapshoot. Better teams have a better chance on average. but teams that don't make the playoffs have 0% chance.

[Eminor3rd]

I did an analysis a year or so ago. Teams that won 95 games during the year won about 60% of their playoff series. So it is not a total crapshoot. Better teams have a better chance on average. but teams that don't make the playoffs have 0% chance.

 

The cost of piling up enough talent to "guarantee" 95 wins is astronomical, especially when you consider the multitude of injury/underperformance risks baked in. All to improve your playoff series odds from 5 in 10 to 6 in 10? When you still have to win three of them?

 

It's not a total crapshoot, but it's close. And that's using ad hoc analysis on the teams that DID win 95. What about the ones that were SUPPOSED to win 95? Like the Nationals recently, for example. My point is that if you were in charge of allocating resources for an upcoming season, you'd be incredibly discouraged at the success rate of the "best team on paper" relative to the costs associated.

[Eminor3rd]

Your analysis of why a teardown might be ill advised is spot on, but I don't think it addresses the root of the Sox problems..

 

And I don't think a reasonable fan is expecting a WS title every year. However, with a playoff drought of this duration, I think we need to look deeper in the organization than just shuffling players around, constantly throwing the players under the bus as "non performing"… the fact that the Sox haven't even been able to sniff a WC 2 since it's inception, is telling..

 

That a FO pretty much remains static despite the track record…is sending the message that the organization accepts mediocrity.. reflective in the attendance and TV viewership numbers…

 

I read somewhere recently that watching the Sox every year is like watching someone build a sandcastle too near the incoming tide…. it looks pretty good going up, but somehow you get the imminent feeling of it being washed away...

 

I think you can make real and fair criticisms on the organization's ability to properly recognize talent and put that talent in the best position to succeed. But it's difficult to argue that the current team isn't moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

 

I guess I just wonder if there aren't about 25 other fan forums having similar discussions. In a sport where failure is so pervasive, you're bound to deal with a lot of failure, sometimes unfairly. But when you are forced to evaluate your options going forward, you have to look at the process as it is today. If it makes sense, it makes sense.

[Dick Allen]

The cost of piling up enough talent to "guarantee" 95 wins is astronomical, especially when you consider the multitude of injury/underperformance risks baked in. All to improve your playoff series odds from 5 in 10 to 6 in 10? When you still have to win three of them?

 

It's not a total crapshoot, but it's close. And that's using ad hoc analysis on the teams that DID win 95. What about the ones that were SUPPOSED to win 95? Like the Nationals recently, for example. My point is that if you were in charge of allocating resources for an upcoming season, you'd be incredibly discouraged at the success rate of the "best team on paper" relative to the costs associated.

I agree. These days you are paying for WAR. The WAR champion hasn't won the WS since 2010. Lately they have been teams in the 8-10 range.

[Chicago White Sox]

I think you can make real and fair criticisms on the organization's ability to properly recognize talent and put that talent in the best position to succeed. But it's difficult to argue that the current team isn't moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

I agree with your general premise, but I'm not sure how well it applies to the Sox's current situation. We have a bottom five farm system and are about to hit two consecutive poor free agent classes. We have three key hitters that will hit free agency after next season. Meanwhile, we have three to four years of control on most of our core assets. That may seem like a lot of time, but when you're only making "gradual" improvements, you're real window of opportunity will be very short.

 

IMO, given how much organizational value is tied up into our core, we definitely need to pick a direction. Either fill the holes around them so you can be a legit playoff contender or convert these assets into other sources of value while it's still an option. The worst thing we can do right now is hold our ground for the next couple years and wait for the system to replenish itself. Half-assing it is exactly why we've had a long playoff drought while still having a s***ty farm system.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Chicago White Sox

[Hatchetman]

I'm not arguing the point in general. But people take that to mean, "well if X, Y, and Z happens the Sox can win 88 games and have just a good a shot at a championship as anybody."

 

 

 

 

[Y2Jimmy0]

Which is, once again the reason why Lawrie, Frazier, Cabrera and Robertson won't be traded.

 

The ONLY one of those that's defensible is Robertson, based on:

 

1) Clearing $22 million in salary (which can be used for a hitter/hitting/bench)

 

2) Believing Nate Jones is ready to step in

 

3) Having confidence that Fulmer/Burdi/Hansen/Danish/Ynoa/Guerrero/Stephens can help to fill the bullpen void this year and next

 

4) Getting back some additional pitching help in that deal...although hitting's the primary target as outlined below

 

5) Belief that one of Putnam/Petricka makes it back for next season (at the same performance level)

 

 

Of course, if you're trading with the Cubs (for Robertson), you're asking for Baez or Almora, Jr., back in return. Almora can play CF, so you keep Eaton in RF.

 

Not sure how ready they are to trade Baez. I think they're hedging their bets, and have already moved on from the idea of Soler being a significant contributor. That said, there's going to be a jam of DH/corner outfield types if Contreras doesn't stick at catcher and Schwarber isn't traded.

 

I guess McKinney's the other player they would be targeting....as well as Vogelbach, although he seems to be one of those guys who puts up huge numbers in the minors but ends up a AAAA player in the end. Then again, he could surprise everyone, the "overlooked" prospect who made good despite being hyped less than guys like Lake and Alcantara.

 

 

Why do you keep bringing this up? The Sox aren't trading Robertson to the Cubs. It's just not happening.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not arguing the point in general. But people take that to mean, "well if X, Y, and Z happens the Sox can win 88 games and have just a good a shot at a championship as anybody."

 

The Sox have as good of a shot as anybody in the playoffs because they have legitimate #1 starter, plus another #1 starter type behind him. It is all about your front line pitchers.

 

 

[Hatchetman]

The Sox have as good of a shot as anybody in the playoffs because they have legitimate #1 starter, plus another #1 starter type behind him. It is all about your front line pitchers.

 

Last time I checked they had about a 15% chance of even MAKING the playoffs. That is the point.