How do you rate the rebuild so far?

[greg775]

This is not a rebuild. Its simply a salary dump. The main objective is to have the White Sox with the lowest payroll in MLB in 2018 and 2019. When you have income of over $260 million a year and a payroll less than $50 million, you're looking at some enormous profits for the owners. JR did the same thing in 1998+1999. The team barely drew 1.3 million in attendance each of those years but they were 2 of the teams most profitable years with the low payrolls. If the so call rebuild works out, fine. Either way JR and his investors will be making some serious money. I realize that the White Sox are a business. The objective of any business is too make money.Still, I would rather have the team making money with a winning team than what we're going to be subjected to the next few years.

 

Not a bad post, but in a debate, you would lose because of the Robert signing. That was a big-buck signing. I am sure it is easier for the owners to stomach a rebuild if they are saving money in the process. Your post is interesting as didn't the Miami Marlins do what you suggest after winning it all and they never really started spending money again, did they? But as far as this just being a salary dump. IF that was true and I don't think it is true (it is a nice part of the rebuild for the owners, though, making it less painful if they are making tons of $$$), then this rebuild would totally prove interesting. Cause if their sole purpose is lowest possible payroll, then as the young guys advance and make the minimum possible dollars, the Sox would have to dump all of the ones who pan out as they near free agency.

 

Interesting post, but I think the Robert signing proves they want to win. Because they didn't have to get involved with him if they wanted to only reap huge profits. They still would be seen publicly as a team rebuilding step by step even without the Robert $$$s being spent.

[greg775]

What's really going to make or break our rebuild is our ability to develop our young hitters. And in that area, I'm only giving us a 4/10 so far. Look at the K rates below for four of our top hitting prospects coming into the season:

 

Moncada = 28.1%

Collins = 27.3%

Basabe = 24.6%

Adolfo = 29.4%

 

Those are horrific and there really hasn't been big signs of improvement. And honestly, nothing has really changed under Chris Getz, which greatly concerns me.

Good post on the strikeout rates. The Royals announcers were saying the other day, however, that all hitters and teams care about now are home runs and that strikeouts are not considered bad any more. Just something to consider. Throughout baseball won't strikeouts continue to progress at an alarming rate with hitters only trying to mash it out of the park? That's why there are so many shifts. All they are trying to do is hit home runs and if they don't strike out and don't hit the home run, they usually just pull a grounder or pull a weak fly ball thus the annoying shifts.

[BaconOnAStick]

There is no doubt a business rationale for rebuilding an cutting payroll. It just so happens that what is best for the business and what is best for the ballclub have aligned and the Sox have taken the correct path. But it's naïve to say they embarked on these trades for the sole reason of improving the team's chances of long term on-field success. There is an ulterior motive.

[greg775]

There is no doubt a business rationale for rebuilding an cutting payroll. It just so happens that what is best for the business and what is best for the ballclub have aligned and the Sox have taken the correct path. But it's naïve to say they embarked on these trades for the sole reason of improving the team's chances of long term on-field success. There is an ulterior motive.

A rebuild and the publicity prospects receive nowadays definitely take the pressure off teams. No matter how bad the on-field product, you can talk about how in 2 years the team will be dominant for a minimum 4-year window. Years ago, when a team sucked, it sucked.The fans wore paper bags and attendance sucked and without big TV deals, teams allegedly struggled. Now with all these prospects, a team like the Sox will be praised incessantly no matter what happens on the field currently.

When you say White Sox now, the baseball world doesn't even think of the current lousy team, it immediately thinks of the dominance that is coming. Strange world we live in.

[Quin]

Not a bad post, but in a debate, you would lose because of the Robert signing. That was a big-buck signing. I am sure it is easier for the owners to stomach a rebuild if they are saving money in the process. Your post is interesting as didn't the Miami Marlins do what you suggest after winning it all and they never really started spending money again, did they? But as far as this just being a salary dump. IF that was true and I don't think it is true (it is a nice part of the rebuild for the owners, though, making it less painful if they are making tons of $$$), then this rebuild would totally prove interesting. Cause if their sole purpose is lowest possible payroll, then as the young guys advance and make the minimum possible dollars, the Sox would have to dump all of the ones who pan out as they near free agency.

 

Interesting post, but I think the Robert signing proves they want to win. Because they didn't have to get involved with him if they wanted to only reap huge profits. They still would be seen publicly as a team rebuilding step by step even without the Robert $$$s being spent.

 

Good post.

[witesoxfan]

Good post on the strikeout rates. The Royals announcers were saying the other day, however, that all hitters and teams care about now are home runs and that strikeouts are not considered bad any more. Just something to consider. Throughout baseball won't strikeouts continue to progress at an alarming rate with hitters only trying to mash it out of the park? That's why there are so many shifts. All they are trying to do is hit home runs and if they don't strike out and don't hit the home run, they usually just pull a grounder or pull a weak fly ball thus the annoying shifts.

 

Strikeouts matter a great deal. If guys aren't making enough contact, then they can have all the power in the world but it won't save them at the end of the day.

 

What is more correct is the idea that strikeouts are not the end all, be all. A strikeout rate of 28% at AAA probably alludes to a strikeout rate nearing 32-35% in the majors, which is unacceptable. Moncada will strike out more than usual, but as long as he can keep his strikeout rate around 27% in the majors, I imagine he'll be a perfectly good player. That is something he will need to work on, but we won't know that for a few years.

[WBWSF]

Not a bad post, but in a debate, you would lose because of the Robert signing. That was a big-buck signing. I am sure it is easier for the owners to stomach a rebuild if they are saving money in the process. Your post is interesting as didn't the Miami Marlins do what you suggest after winning it all and they never really started spending money again, did they? But as far as this just being a salary dump. IF that was true and I don't think it is true (it is a nice part of the rebuild for the owners, though, making it less painful if they are making tons of $$$), then this rebuild would totally prove interesting. Cause if their sole purpose is lowest possible payroll, then as the young guys advance and make the minimum possible dollars, the Sox would have to dump all of the ones who pan out as they near free agency.

 

Interesting post, but I think the Robert signing proves they want to win. Because they didn't have to get involved with him if they wanted to only reap huge profits. They still would be seen publicly as a team rebuilding step by step even without the Robert $$$s being spent.

Another benefit of a low payroll is you have very little on the books in terms of long term contracts. Its easier to sell a team when you a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts on the books. When JR bought the team from

Veeck in 1981 he walked into a situation with a low payroll and no long term contracts. Both of my sources tell me that JR will sell the White Sox within the next 2 years. There are at least 2 groups of people who want to buy the team. They will be buying a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts.

[Quin]

Another benefit of a low payroll is you have very little on the books in terms of long term contracts. Its easier to sell a team when you a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts on the books. When JR bought the team from

Veeck in 1981 he walked into a situation with a low payroll and no long term contracts. Both of my sources tell me that JR will sell the White Sox within the next 2 years. There are at least 2 groups of people who want to buy the team. They will be buying a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts.

 

If those sources told you this whole thing is a salary dump, you may need new sources.

[Chicago White Sox]

Another benefit of a low payroll is you have very little on the books in terms of long term contracts. Its easier to sell a team when you a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts on the books. When JR bought the team from

Veeck in 1981 he walked into a situation with a low payroll and no long term contracts. Both of my sources tell me that JR will sell the White Sox within the next 2 years. There are at least 2 groups of people who want to buy the team. They will be buying a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts.

Funny the Tribune Company did the exact opposite with the Cubs and it seems like it worked well for them.

[greg775]

Another benefit of a low payroll is you have very little on the books in terms of long term contracts. Its easier to sell a team when you a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts on the books. When JR bought the team from

Veeck in 1981 he walked into a situation with a low payroll and no long term contracts. Both of my sources tell me that JR will sell the White Sox within the next 2 years. There are at least 2 groups of people who want to buy the team. They will be buying a team with a low payroll and no long term contracts.

Sweet on the team being sold. But ... if the Sox do this right and are a WS contender in 2 years and will be a contender for a 5-year window, why the hell would Jerry want to sell that?? Jerry loves baseball and if the Sox get dominant and he is healthy, he'll wanna smoke those victory cigars in the Bard's Room.

[Dominikk85]

I give the rebuild now a 9. The talent Hahn got is off the charts but it also is quite unusual that a rebuilding team has so many controllable assets in their prime, usually it is more like the Brewers or Phillies who have one or two solid assets to sell and a few more OK ones.

 

Thus a high return was expected and I would have liked a few more "safe" hitters (low to medium high Ks with a high walk rate which limits the bust potential).

 

But then again those safe mlb ready hitting prospects like benintendi probably just weren't available and hahn still get an off the charts haul of talent even though a few of them have big risk and some recent clouds of doubt around them.

 

But maybe it was even good that hahn bought a little low on giolito and moncada after their early big league struggles rather than buying a safer prospect with a lower ceiling because it could mean that the value increases again. The guys are still risky but them again you want to win a WS and not just build an OK team so you probably need to take some gambles.

 

Personally I'm more of a fan of building around safer hitters with good plate discipline but I can see why one would go with the upside and to his credit hahn did get some "safe" types of hitters in the draft (collins, burger) although they are more 1B types.

 

Overall it is still a very good and especially fast effort by hahn and he can make it even better the next months.

[caulfield12]

The significance of high minor league k rates for BA Top 100 prospects over nearly twenty years

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/4/22/2...-league-k-rates

 

Perhaps one of the most interesting conclusions is that six years ago, 22-24% was the cutoff number, not 30%.

 

Admittedly, there are not a ton of revolutionary conclusions here. Traditional prospecting wisdom is supported strongly, as it's abundantly clear that, ceteris paribus, high strikeout rates are not helpful in a prospect's development. It appears as though the success rates for prospect development drop sharply when strikeout rates hit about 22%. Furthermore, minor league strikeout rates are strongly negatively related with both major league at-bats and OPS.

 

However, among successfully developed prospects, minor league strikeout rates are positively related with major league OPS, indicating that the prospects that become the best MLB hitters tend to be sluggers with moderately high strikeout rates. A second point to note is the abundance of defensive-minded players who don't strikeout much, but also don't produce much offensively. Lastly, it's clear that players tend to increase their strikeout rates in the minors upon graduation to the majors by about 1%.

 

Again, the conclusions made here are by no means revolutionary. That being said, it's good to have the numbers to back up conventional wisdom, and I'm sure there are various extensions to this study that could increase its usefulness. For now, though, we can use the data to help make predictions about prospects going forward, and become a little more wary of high strikeout rates.

 

 

 

 

. . .extremely excellent actually. I’m going to need some time to absorb this good info but, a couple points come to mind.

 

Personally, as far as my own comments on this matter, I may have said that striking out is a good thing but, what I also said and really MEAN was that . . .

 

just as many, if not more players fail because they dont make hard contact as players fail becasue they can’t make contact.

 

I’m not certain If that was completely adressed here or not. Maybe you guys can tell me?

 

The reason I found it hard to initialize a study was because its hard to “isolate” just the strikeouts . . . An example: If you have two prospects, both are 19, both played in full-season A ball and they hit like THIS

 

Player A: 500 Pa’s , 35 2B, 25 Hrs, 125 Ks

Player B: 500 Pa’s, 34 2B, 26 Hrs, 70 Ks

 

I would obviously expect player B to have more future sucess.

 

My point though us that player A types tend to have more power , not equal power, than players with less strikouts and if we match thier numbers, other than the Ks, you adding in a group of players with a better skillset.

 

I still think that what Nick Franklin is doing has a more sucessful track record that say, what a Carlos Triunfel is doing, number wise. I feel like we tend to notice the guys who strike out and then fail more than the guys, who don’t strike out and fail perhaps?

 

In either case, great work much appreciated!

Edited July 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[GreenSox]

It's absolutely nowehere near time to "build the team back up". It's 2 years at best away for all these 20 year olds to work their way up to the majors.

If the plan is to wait until they fill out a championship team with this specific set of prospects plus whoever they draft in the next year or 2, then it likely will take 10 years. That's the Royals method.

[Dominikk85]

The significance of high minor league k rates for BA Top 100 prospects over nearly twenty years

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/4/22/2...-league-k-rates

 

Perhaps one of the most interesting conclusions is that six years ago, 22-24% was the cutoff number, not 30%.

 

Admittedly, there are not a ton of revolutionary conclusions here. Traditional prospecting wisdom is supported strongly, as it's abundantly clear that, ceteris paribus, high strikeout rates are not helpful in a prospect's development. It appears as though the success rates for prospect development drop sharply when strikeout rates hit about 22%. Furthermore, minor league strikeout rates are strongly negatively related with both major league at-bats and OPS.

 

However, among successfully developed prospects, minor league strikeout rates are positively related with major league OPS, indicating that the prospects that become the best MLB hitters tend to be sluggers with moderately high strikeout rates. A second point to note is the abundance of defensive-minded players who don't strikeout much, but also don't produce much offensively. Lastly, it's clear that players tend to increase their strikeout rates in the minors upon graduation to the majors by about 1%.

 

Again, the conclusions made here are by no means revolutionary. That being said, it's good to have the numbers to back up conventional wisdom, and I'm sure there are various extensions to this study that could increase its usefulness. For now, though, we can use the data to help make predictions about prospects going forward, and become a little more wary of high strikeout rates.

 

 

 

 

. . .extremely excellent actually. I’m going to need some time to absorb this good info but, a couple points come to mind.

 

Personally, as far as my own comments on this matter, I may have said that striking out is a good thing but, what I also said and really MEAN was that . . .

 

just as many, if not more players fail because they dont make hard contact as players fail becasue they can’t make contact.

 

I’m not certain If that was completely adressed here or not. Maybe you guys can tell me?

 

The reason I found it hard to initialize a study was because its hard to “isolate” just the strikeouts . . . An example: If you have two prospects, both are 19, both played in full-season A ball and they hit like THIS

 

Player A: 500 Pa’s , 35 2B, 25 Hrs, 125 Ks

Player B: 500 Pa’s, 34 2B, 26 Hrs, 70 Ks

 

I would obviously expect player B to have more future sucess.

 

My point though us that player A types tend to have more power , not equal power, than players with less strikouts and if we match thier numbers, other than the Ks, you adding in a group of players with a better skillset.

 

I still think that what Nick Franklin is doing has a more sucessful track record that say, what a Carlos Triunfel is doing, number wise. I feel like we tend to notice the guys who strike out and then fail more than the guys, who don’t strike out and fail perhaps?

 

In either case, great work much appreciated!

 

 

Mlb k rate is now 3% higher than 2011. 150 Ks is nothing huge anymore.

 

Above 25% it probably still is a red flag though. You can still succeed but a lot needs to go right

- you need to hit the ball hard

- you need to keep it off the ground

-you need to walk

- you need to limit weak contact and pop ups

 

If the Ks are high there is a lot of pressure on your other bat skills.of you have 80 game power and you walk 12+% it can work even with above 30% (gallo) but with 60 power and 10% walks it doesn't really work anymore.

 

[Dominikk85]

If the plan is to wait until they fill out a championship team with this specific set of prospects plus whoever they draft in the next year or 2, then it likely will take 10 years. That's the Royals method.

 

No trades or FA signings obviously won't work and at some point additions need to be made but now is not the time for that. The core needs to be internal and then you can make a couple additions at the right spot with FA signings or trades. Cubs didn't sign a Harper either but they had two big signings with Heyward and Lester and a couple more smaller ones with lackey, zobrist and others.

[ron883]

I'm not quite sure if I'm ready to call this a rebuild or not yet

[Dick Allen]

I'm not quite sure if I'm ready to call this a rebuild or not yet

Yeah, they were just clearing out the Drake LaRoche fans. That's why they traded their best 3 players and acquired 0 major leaguers.

[ron883]

Yeah, they were just clearing out the Drake LaRoche fans. That's why they traded their best 3 players and acquired 0 major leaguers.

Never doubt the vindictiveness of KW

[harkness99]

pretty impossible to rate it at this point.

 

 

[GreenSox]

No trades or FA signings obviously won't work and at some point additions need to be made but now is not the time for that. The core needs to be internal and then you can make a couple additions at the right spot with FA signings or trades. Cubs didn't sign a Harper either but they had two big signings with Heyward and Lester and a couple more smaller ones with lackey, zobrist and others.

I'm not really talking about signing FA....they can do that when they have a hole or 2 to plug when they are ready to go. That's the mistake this (same) FO made in 2014-2015: tried to plug 8 holes with free agents. They will have to sign a few cheapies here and there just to field a team next year.

But as the prospects get called up, they are going to have to be fluid and flexible - move some to find players who may better fit what they are trying to do....especially as they don't draft very well (I'll believe the improvement when I see it) and this set of prospects may very well be it. And they have some young players right now that they will have to figure out what to do with to minimize the amount of "rotting on the vine."

[greg775]

pretty impossible to rate it at this point.

If you are objective that's absolutely true. There's no way to give it anything HIGHER than a 5. Why? Cold hard evidence. The current FACTS are the Sox have a horrible baseball team on the field right now. So in that regard the rebuild is frankly a zero. However, in the prospect world, the prospects push it to a 9. So average it out and you get a 4 or 5. The facts are that the team stinks right now and for some time to come. But the experts say the prospects guarantee a future WS or several WS. So you have to average both factions, folks. Like harkness said it is hard to impossible to rate it at this point because the prospects are amazing according to the analysts; the current team is so bad it is beyond belief. If the prospects don't pan out, the current team's lousiness would forevermore deem the rebuild a failure.

Edited July 17, 2017 by greg775

[knightni]

I'm not really talking about signing FA....they can do that when they have a hole or 2 to plug when they are ready to go. That's the mistake this (same) FO made in 2014-2015: tried to plug 8 holes with free agents. They will have to sign a few cheapies here and there just to field a team next year.

But as the prospects get called up, they are going to have to be fluid and flexible - move some to find players who may better fit what they are trying to do....especially as they don't draft very well (I'll believe the improvement when I see it) and this set of prospects may very well be it. And they have some young players right now that they will have to figure out what to do with to minimize the amount of "rotting on the vine."

If they're ready, they'll play. If they're not, they'll be in AAA.

 

Many of these guys are 20-22 and will not be playing in the majors for 2 to 3 seasons.

 

Starting pitching is the only future logjam that I see, and honestly, having a large pool of quality arms is actually a great thing and not something to be concerned about. Depth is a great luxury to have.

 

What position guys are blocking each other right now?

[knightni]

If you are objective that's absolutely true. There's no way to give it anything HIGHER than a 5. Why? Cold hard evidence. The current FACTS are the Sox have a horrible baseball team on the field right now. So in that regard the rebuild is frankly a zero. However, in the prospect world, the prospects push it to a 9. So average it out and you get a 4 or 5. The facts are that the team stinks right now and for some time to come. But the experts say the prospects guarantee a future WS or several WS. So you have to average both factions, folks. Like harkness said it is hard to impossible to rate it at this point because the prospects are amazing according to the analysts; the current team is so bad it is beyond belief. If the prospects don't pan out, the current team's lousiness would forevermore deem the rebuild a failure.

The current mlb team's success or lack-there-of, has zero to do with the success or failure of the rebuild.

 

I don't see how trying to improve yourself through youth is a bad thing. The Sox have certainly had minimal success with less talented minor league guys and above average free agents.

 

The 2000, 2005 and 2008 players - for the most part, never really had super talent. They just hit all cylinders at the right time.

 

 

 

[SCCWS]

The current mlb team's success or lack-there-of, has zero to do with the success or failure of the rebuild.

I don't see how trying to improve yourself through youth is a bad thing. The Sox have certainly had minimal success with less talented minor league guys and above average free agents.

 

The 2000, 2005 and 2008 players - for the most part, never really had super talent. They just hit all cylinders at the right time.

 

 

I don't agree. The current MLB team's lack of success can be blamed on either poor drafting/identifying talent and /or poor player development with positional players. Critical with this rebuild is that the FO identify quality young players in both trades and the draft. Second, they must develop them once they get them. Anderson is our only real positional roster player that the farm has produced that has a chance to be a building block in the rebuild. So far the results are still mixed. Sanchez and Saladino still border on utility type players.

 

[knightni]

I don't agree. The current MLB team's lack of success can be blamed on either poor drafting/identifying talent and /or poor player development with positional players. Critical with this rebuild is that the FO identify quality young players in both trades and the draft. Second, they must develop them once they get them. Anderson is our only real positional roster player that the farm has produced that has a chance to be a building block in the rebuild. So far the results are still mixed. Sanchez and Saladino still border on utility type players.

I'd estimate that Anderson would barely be in top 15 if he was in our minor league system right now.

Sanchez and Saladino were never MLB starting caliber guys to begin with. They'd probably be way down in the 20s on the present list.