Rick Hahn on Inside the Clubhouse

[Harry Chappas]

White Sox Organizational Prospect Rankings (per Baseball America):

 

2011: 27

2012: 30

2013: 29

2014: 22

2015: 20

2016: 23

 

So when exactly did the Sox have this great farm system? GMAFB.

 

You said they did not have a good farm system since the Larry Himes days, that was not what the discussion was, the discussion was talking about the Twins farm and rebuild.

 

I said when Williams took over, ten years after Himes they had a good system which produced in one way or another the 2005 team.

 

That was 10 years after Himes.

 

GMAFB

 

 

 

[bmags]

Twins didn't trade away any core pieces, just some bullpen, their 29 year old career year player (when can the white sox get one of those?) and bad contract swaps. They got some young power arms back.

 

Kind of sounds like what the white sox should have done in 2015 instead of what they did.

[GreenSox]

Twins have more young talent than the Sox do...and have a much better record since mid-may as well.

They took a step back this year; but they'll be better next year.

[caulfield12]

I think you bring up a good point, in that, people still truly don't understand how this potential rebuild is different from some of those teams you've mentioned.

 

I'll start out first by saying, you're 100% correct that there is no guarantee a rebuild goes as planned. Sadly, neither have the Sox plans on contending. So let's stop comparing those two as if the alternative has worked out. It hasn't and we don't know how a rebuild will go until we do it.

 

On one side of this argument, you have proven talent on this club. You have some "star attractions" and that means something to fans. Trading them away, leaves you without a face of the organization potentially and your return may never pan out. That is 100% the reality. So it's not unreasonable for people who don't want to rebuild to fear the "worst case scenario" where we lose people and our front office gets garbage in return. Which they have done more times than not. Keeping those guys has negatives as well. As an example, some of these guys are short on their contracts. So they can leave and we may get nothing/draft picks. I see no way this owner pays what Sale and Q will command on an open market (in 3 years no less). They've avoided it forever, and when they finally bit the bullet and went 4 years on a pitcher. It was John Danks. That did not go well. Take that strategy this office has, mix it with questions on Sale's arm and that he is likely to be paid a fortune - I see no way we're touching that. Just my opinion.

 

On the flip side, and this is what I want to hammer home, the Sox rebuilding potential is unlike anything we've really seen before. They're a large market team and a middle of the road payroll. And they have some serious controlled assets.

 

You mentioned 3-5 years away, which is not unrealistic, but it is slightly unfair. You're comparing that model to teams who had to start from scratch. The point of what the Sox would be doing is to get several MLB ready pieces. Dealing for a bunch of 18 year olds, or building through 3 years of top 5 picks isn't what the Sox opportunity is. Think of it as the Cubs and Pirates had to draft a lot of guys to get to where they are. But the Cubs acquired their First Baseman, who was MLB ready, via trade. The "Rizzo" types are what the Sox can be seeking. Now the Cubs brought Rizzo up and he had to wait for the others. The Sox should be able to net several of them, or basically bring as many up as the Cubs have the last year+ (Bryant, Baez, Schwarber, Contreras, etc).

 

So I get people hear "rebuild" and they think it's a long process. In this case, we're fortunate enough to have assets on the big league club that other teams are willing to pay a premium for. We're bypassing, in theory, a few years of this rebuild.

 

A couple things can mess this up:

 

(1) Not having the value we think exists for guys like Abreu (thank god he is starting to play better), Frazier, Eaton, Q, etc. Those guys should be able to net us (1) Elite top 50 type guy each. I think that is conservative for Q and Eaton, potentially on the other 2 as well. Robertson and Melky, I thought would have value but I think the deadline showed us otherwise. So I have little hope for anything "mlb ready" from them. Sale should get us 2-3 minimum IMO.

 

(2) The front office messing this up. This can happen a variety of ways. Bad scouting being one. More important than that is simply the decision making. If the best package you're offered for a Sale, let's say is the Yankees. And their centerpiece of the deal is a guy like Torres. Well, regardless of how talented he may be, he is years away. So in that instance, you'd be correct and we would be slowing our timeline. From everything I've seen/heard, the Sox have been asking for a major premium of MLB ready or existing mlb players.

 

The other piece I feel that is continuously overlooked is the Sox can spend money. This isn't the Marlins organization, or the Rays, or Oakland. If you had any brains as an ownership group/front office, all that payroll you'd be shedding in potential trades - that money needs to go elsewhere. That is how you prove you're serious about contending, or making it even more simple, signing players at positions where you haven't restocked, it will help your team. That means you sign a middle of the road OF, like Austin Jackson, instead of running JB Schuck - who has no real potential - out there. The guys you're acquiring are likely under control for a while, meaning they're inexpensive. There are plenty of guys out there you can sign to still improve your team. In fact, you can be more competitive with what you offer on a contract because of the inexpensive cost all over the field with your youth movement. As you see what pieces have panned out, you can add/subtract from there. If you acquire (2) first baseman and still have Abreu or a DH - that guy can be moved. Much like the Cubs did with a Vogelbach (I think that's his name). You can still move guys to get pieces/stars you may need. I understand this is all "in theory" but that is what we're working with. This needs to be their plan if they want to rebuild quickly and be more competitive.

 

If you really want to go overboard and if the Sox really had brains, you create a revolving door for acquiring prospects during this "rebuild." You take your 1-2 year fliers on relievers, or starters...guys like Rich Hill, etc. Players who either need to boom or bust for their next contract, or guys who teams have longevity concerns about and are forced to take shorter deals (but their talent is still of value to acquire at a deadline). Maybe this is too in-depth for right now, but the point is, the Sox have options.

 

Long story short, "rebuilding" may take 3-5 years like you're saying. However, the opportunity the Sox are presented with is to not only flip their roster and fill it with young talent we haven't seen this organization pump out before, but it's also how quickly that team can be ready to compete. "Opportunity" really is the best word for this and I use it a lot. It isn't a guarantee anything pans out, and we don't know what value we truly have, but point is - this isn't like what you're used to seeing with rebuilds because we're selling off assets that should jump us into year 3 of a typical rebuild. The irony here for those who want to compete with our current group is by not selling and continuing to not win (or lose enough to get a valuable pick), we may be in a scary place in a few years with what you're speculating in a rebuild. Minimal assets to sell, less coming back in return for those assets, and a long rebuild from there. This is why I'm heavily in the camp of selling.

 

Second to final paragraph.

 

We've heard every spring training for three years now "take a flier" guys like Paulino and Belisario could be dealt at the break.

 

Some of it has been bad luck (injuries to Crain and Floyd), or injuries such as Jackson or Avila (really too long to count) but we haven't managed to turn many of those types into gold like we used to. For every Phil Humber we hold onto too long, there have been another five Bonifacios, Teahens and Beckhams with even less value than when they were acquired.

 

Even the classic names like DeAza, Santos and Reed were't turned into anything that helped the big league club.

 

Conor Gillaspie would be another fine example...someone who is exposed long term and whose value, however negligible it was, was wiped out because the Sox don't have any other options from the minors than overplaying him.

 

 

 

Even this year, they could have dealt Shields or Gonzalez and didn't pull the trigger, for whatever reason. Last year, one of the first cuts was Junior Guerra in October. Just lots of questionable decision making. To protect who, at that time?

Edited August 9, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Second to final paragraph.

 

We've heard every spring training for three years now "take a flier" guys like Paulino and Belisario could be dealt at the break.

 

Some of it has been bad luck (injuries to Crain and Floyd), or injuries such as Jackson or Avila (really too long to count) but we haven't managed to turn many of those types into gold like we used to. For every Phil Humber we hold onto too long, there have been another five Bonifacios, Teahens and Beckhams with even less value than when they were acquired.

 

Even the classic names like DeAza, Santos and Reed were't turned into anything that helped the big league club.

 

Conor Gillaspie would be another fine example...someone who is exposed long term and whose value, however negligible it was, was wiped out because the Sox don't have any other options from the minors than overplaying him.

 

 

 

Even this year, they could have dealt Shields or Gonzalez and didn't pull the trigger, for whatever reason. Last year, one of the first cuts was Junior Guerra in October. Just lots of questionable decision making. To protect who, at that time?

 

Who was offered for Shields and Gonzalez?

[caulfield12]

Who was offered for Shields and Gonzalez?

 

Now you sound like Dick Allen.

 

Probably nothing because Hahn would look stupid for dumping Shields for pennies on the dollar and there would better, more appealing options than Gonzalez on the market since nobody overbid for either OR we don't have any internal solutions for the rotation next year.