White Sox acquire Joakim Soria, Luis Avilan and $3 Million

[hogan873]

I think what's lost in the argument over how bad Soria really is is the fact that this was a pretty damn good trade. I think we should be less concerned with Soria and more pleased about Avilan. That guy definitely fills a hole in the bullpen, and he could be worth a decent return at the deadline. Soria still fills a hole, and he could be an effective late inning guy if he bounces back a bit.

 

By June, Greg and the residents of Kansas City could be singing "I told you so", or others will be saying, "See, he's not that bad!". I imagine, however, there will be a lot of people saying "Meh." On a team not expected to compete, "Meh" will probably be good enough.

[Chicago White Sox]

Some players just scar fan bases from suckitude, good peripherals or not. Soria did enough stinkin to make the KC fans glad he’s gone. Off the top of my head I equate the feeling KC fans had when Soria was coming in to Linestink.

 

 

Sure Soria’s peripherals may suggest one thing. Thousands of KC fans glad he’s gone suggests differently. I think both are equally valid as data to form an opinion of the trade.

The Royals have also had one of the most dominant bullpens in recent memory, so I’m not exactly sure if they can be objective on what bad really is. Look, I’m not even making the argument that he was good, but saying he sucks seems disingenuous based on all available data and seems to be nothing more than an emotional overreaction by fanbase that has only known great as of late. And I still don’t see where Dick is coming up with his opinion from.

[ptatc]

Actually there are stats based on results rather then predictions that he could have used to make his argument. His WHIP was high last year. His HR/FB was abnormally low. His LD% was the highest it's ever been.

 

I mean he was hit hard last year of course his BABIP suggests he was still unlucky given all the other factors but there is risk. Saying he sucks though because he blew saves as a reliever is like saying a batter is great because of RBI.

 

It's just a meaningless stat and even if you end up being proven right it's more random chance then an accurate prediction.

With this statement, you are discussing a different point than him. He is saying he sucked last year and the fans are ready to get rid of him. blown saves is a stat that says he gave up the lead when the team was winning. That is important. All of this is correct. He did not discuss any predictive measures. He only said he sucked last year.

 

You are discussing measures which may predict future performance. These may or may not be good measures but it is a different discussion than his.

[ptatc]

Peripherals lie just like the eye test. It is hard for some to believe it but it's true. Look at the peripherals, Javy Vazquez was a far superior major league pitcher to Mark Buerhle . I don't know why people defend these peripheral kings to the death when you say they suck. Who is invested in Joakim Soria. I got the same crap you are getting a few years ago when the White Sox signed a pitcher from KC who I said sucked, but evidently the peripherals didn't agree, therefore I was a stooge. Felipe Paulino, how you doin?

 

Zach Duke, same thing.

 

Luckily for White Sox fans, Soria's stay will be closer in length to Paulino..

Prediction models aren't an analysis of results. This is why they don't always agree with the actual results of a players performance.

 

They are Boras' way of getting players more money when they don't have good results.

[Eminor3rd]

Peripherals lie just like the eye test. It is hard for some to believe it but it's true. Look at the peripherals, Javy Vazquez was a far superior major league pitcher to Mark Buerhle . I don't know why people defend these peripheral kings to the death when you say they suck. Who is invested in Joakim Soria. I got the same crap you are getting a few years ago when the White Sox signed a pitcher from KC who I said sucked, but evidently the peripherals didn't agree, therefore I was a stooge. Felipe Paulino, how you doin?

 

Zach Duke, same thing.

 

Luckily for White Sox fans, Soria's stay will be closer in length to Paulino..

 

Naming the exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. If you're going to list all the pitchers that DIPS got wrong, put them next to the massively larger list of pitchers DIPS got right.

 

No one has ever claimed that it works 100% of the time. It is a fact that it works most of the time. That is why it makes sense to target DIPS anomalies like Soria.

[Dick Allen]

Naming the exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. If you're going to list all the pitchers that DIPS got wrong, put them next to the massively larger list of pitchers DIPS got right.

 

No one has ever claimed that it works 100% of the time. It is a fact that it works most of the time. That is why it makes sense to target DIPS anomalies like Soria.

 

I will bet Soria's ERA, K-rate, FIP and x-FIP are all higher in 2018 than they were in 2017. If they are not I will apologize for ever questioning peripherals permanently at the bottom of my posts, if you will put at the bottom of your posts that Greg and Dick were correct if that does occur. How bout dat?

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[bmags]

Why would they need to do that when you would already remind them of it in every single post for the next four years?

 

edit: make it 10 years.

[Dick Allen]

Why would they need to do that when you would already remind them of it in every single post for the next four years?

 

edit: make it 10 years.

 

Another mod, another personal attack. More made up s***.

 

I really don't know why "I like the trade but Soria sucks " offends so many people.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[LittleHurt05]

Another mod, another personal attack. More made up s***.

 

I really don't know why "I like the trade but Soria sucks " offends so many people.

 

Paulino, Felipe.

 

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Is this really worth arguing over for like, a week's time? He will probably suck but it's possible he can be good due to the volatility of relief pitchers. At worst, he sucks and we cut him and he eats some innings. At best, he's decent enough to flip for something. Let it goooooo.

Edited January 9, 2018 by soxfan2014

[Dick Allen]

Paulino, Felipe.

So for years I've been reminding people I told you so. Show me some examples, or admit it's just made up bulls*** by yet another mod.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

Joakim Soria is 7th in WAR since entering the league. He was 21st last year.

And Javy Vazquez has a higher career WAR than Mark Buehrle in a lot fewer games. I was also told earlier don't use WAR for a reliever, and is his WAR from 2008 really relevant?

 

All I care about is what he does in 2018, and I am projecting it won't be pretty. It doesn't really matter to the White Sox, even if he bucked the odds, it isn't like the prospect they would get for him wouldn't have significant flaws, and if he sucks, winning doesn't matter this season. But there is a reason he was available for what he cost. The other guy was the prize. It wouldn't have happened without him.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

Mark Buehrle is an anomaly.

So is Javy Vazquez. You wouldn't want him on the mound if the team had to win to save your job. Soria has many of the same issues.

 

When the White Sox got rid of Bobby Jenks, there were no tears shed. Yet look at his peripherals during his last season with the White Sox.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

So for years I've been reminding people I told you so. Show me some examples, or admit it's just made up bulls*** by yet another mod.

 

Just quit contradicting yourself. if you thought a move was good without hindsight, there is no need to hammer it endlessly if it doesn't work out.

 

If a trade had to be made, your words, then if it doesn't work out accept you were wrong as well. If signings like Paulino are what business the Sox should be in don't work out, don't blast Hahn 2 years later and act like you never stated that. If you really think Jake Peavy is a bum, when he re-signs, don't call it good news and write it frees up guys like Quintana to be traded for a 3B. Just like with Desmond who you said sign in June and then tried to hide behind the Hahn would never give up the draft pick so you are just trying to be realistic, just be honest and admit it. Besides you put it in with give Latos $10 million and Parra $8 million. 2 things Hahn would do either.

 

Show me a post in the Shark trade thread where you said they have clearly given up on him? A year and a half later you are using it . I copy and pasted your no hindsight post . You are lying.

 

You have to give up something to get something. The White Sox had not given up on Semien. For you to use a line that was written today for what you where really thinking in December of 2014 is preposterous.

 

Not a stalker, just going to call you out for all of your lies. There are a lot more. We have Peavy, Semeienand you would have included any minor leaguer not named Momtas, Anderson or Hawkins. Ther was the blasting of The Paulino signing, where you said the move made too much sense. The White Sox should be in the business of more signings of the like You are a total BSer. Just admit once in a while you also had it wrong. It seemed to make sense to you at the time but for some reason it didn't work out instead of what kind of idiot makes a trade like this? Apparently someone like you.

You don't want to read the Shark trade thread. Your new lie would be totally exposed, plus your lack of hindsight determined Hahn and KW would be kings of Chicago if they could acquire Matt Kemp.

Don't complain about Avi getting time then Caulfraud.

 

They need to be back in the business of signing guys like Paulino. Too much logic in this one--

 

Caulfield12 in the Sox sign Felipe Paulino thread.

 

This is slightly more than it cost for Paulino, so not a bad gamble, although he really sucked. At the very least it shows they really weren't counting on Turner being able to step right into the rotation.

 

The Sox gave Paulino $2 million. He made 4 starts for them and 5 in Charlotte. I also don't think his contract is fully guaranteed until some time in spring training.

 

 

Theo signs Paulino. Bosio will fix him.

 

Paulino had upside, but Beckham has none. That just isn't accurate. The fact is the White Sox have brought loads of bench players from other teams in the past 10 years and they have been awful, even if Soxtalk favorites. Cintron and Mackowiak right away. I know, they sucked, but the argument will be they had upside. Who cares about upside if it isn't coming out. Gordon Beckham has as much upside as any of these dopes brought in over the past years:

Cintron

Mackowiak

Erstad

Richar

Toby Hall

Kotsay

Nix

Lillibridge

Castro

Teahen

Milledge

O-Dog Hudson

Fukudome

Olmed

Tyler Greene

Casper Wells

Tekotte

 

Of all the guys they brought in, the one guy that worked out OK was Omar Vizquel. Yet none of them get the mention Beckham does if he goes 0-2 in a game the first couple weeks of spring training.

 

Nonsensical? Your the guy who said Rickie Weeks had the upside of being able to play multiple positions.

 

He hasn't yet, but obviously you know something no one else does.

 

I'm saying if Rickie Weeks were half as great as you made him out to be, he would have received more than the White Sox gave Felipe Paulino last season.

 

?

 

For a guy who says I mention Paulino more than his mother, you would think you would know all hindsight did is validate my original thought about him.

 

 

Again, the Sox spend $9 million on a 40 year old LOOGY, a non tender middle reliever from the NL, and a guy who pitched about 20 innings in AAA the season previously after surgery. Betting under a $1 million , and at most $4.4 million on a 25 year old guy who can hit the ball a mile is no greater risk. In fact, IMO, it is far less risky. Paying Zach Duke $15 million the next 3 years based on 40 or so really good innings in 2014 blows that risk away, yet some who hate Viciedo, gave that signing kudos.

 

 

I could keep going, but you get the point. Besides Soxtalk won't let me quote anymore posts.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I could keep going, but you get the point. Besides Soxtalk won't let me quote anymore posts.

Another productive day at work for you I see.

[bmags]

Is this really worth arguing over for like, a week's time? He will probably suck but it's possible he can be good due to the volatility of relief pitchers. At worst, he sucks and we cut him and he eats some innings. At best, he's decent enough to flip for something. Let it goooooo.

 

Yes. When I like the process of the move I can accept failure. The process here was good, because regardless of anything else I do actually subscribe to the idea that putting a horrible bullpen behind young starting pitchers could cause some bad mental habits. The other side of it is possible trade assets for a better asset than I feel we gave up ($$ + peter).

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes. When I like the process of the move I can accept failure. The process here was good, because regardless of anything else I do actually subscribe to the idea that putting a horrible bullpen behind young starting pitchers could cause some bad mental habits. The other side of it is possible trade assets for a better asset than I feel we gave up ($$ + peter).

 

I get everything you are saying but it's not really worth arguing over for a week's time. What's done is done. Time to see if it pays off or not. Nothing really to argue over until we see results.

Edited January 9, 2018 by soxfan2014

[southsider2k5]

Another productive day at work for you I see.

 

I will take that as an apology to the mods you lied about.

[bmags]

I get everything you are saying but it's not really worth arguing over for a week's time. What's done is done. Time to see if it pays off or not. Nothing really to argue over until we see results.

 

Ha, sorry I wasn't actually replying to your question, I meant to be replying to your assessment of the accepted volatility within the trade.

[Bob Sacamano]

Ha, sorry I wasn't actually replying to your question, I meant to be replying to your assessment of the accepted volatility within the trade.

 

Haha thanks for clarifying.

[ChiSoxFanMike]

Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade?

 

In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone.

 

Am I missing something?

[Kyyle23]

Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade?

 

In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone.

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

there arent many at all

[Bob Sacamano]

Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade?

 

In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone.

 

Am I missing something?

 

I don't think anyone dislikes it. The argument has been about if Soria will be good or not. The general consensus is the trade is good because of the Avilan part and more than likely, neither of these guys are here when we are good again. People on here (including myself) have wanted the Sox to take on bad money to acquire prospects or other useful pieces and this is an example of that.

Edited January 9, 2018 by soxfan2014

[ptatc]

Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade?

 

In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone.

 

Am I missing something?

The discussion isn't about the trade. It's about a few people (myself included) who said Soria sucked last year while others say the peripherals said he did ok.

[Eminor3rd]

I will bet Soria's ERA, K-rate, FIP and x-FIP are all higher in 2018 than they were in 2017. If they are not I will apologize for ever questioning peripherals permanently at the bottom of my posts, if you will put at the bottom of your posts that Greg and Dick were correct if that does occur. How bout dat?

 

I have no interest at ALL in a dick measuring contest with you. God forbid someone point out that the random, free, lost-year bullpen flyer that the White Sox picked up might have some reasons for hope in his peripherals. If you have to pick up random dudes for your pen so that Dylan Covey doesn't have to pitch all year, it's smart to buy low on a guy with better peripherals than results. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that?

 

I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding the BASICS of probability. Mathematics factually proves that pitchers with the numbers that Joakim Soria had last year are MORE LIKELY to improve (assuming health) than those that do not. Nothing, anywhere, EVER has suggested that it's LOCK that Joakim Soria improves. A guessing game, therefore, means nothing. If he sucks because you guessed he would suck based on nothing at all, it doesn't make you smart or correct about anything useful. If Soria becomes the best reliever in the league, it will not prove that low FIP always leads to improvement. No matter what happens, it will just be another data point contributing to a general trend that currently, whether or not Soria ultimately strengthens or weakens the argument, shows that low-FIP pitchers are more likely to improve.

 

I know you love to contradict everything I say, though, so I'm sure you'll reply again with something that either (1) quibbles with some specific component of what is above, despite the fact that it doesn't change the argument at all, to try to get me away from my point, or (2) presents absolutely no useful information, likely including a snide comment about biased moderators or making some pathetic "wager" involving comment signatures like we're a couple of s***ty third graders on a playground. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It won't change the tiny, non-controversial anecdote of a claim that all of us are making that there may be some hope to Soria in the numbers. And I know that you understand it, even if you pretend not to.