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

[hogan873]

Geez. I'm just trying to add some context here. I live here and I'm just relaying the relief of Royals fans getting rid of Soria. He was the whipping boy of fans all last year (much like me despising Dunn that one year and me despising Rios, etc) and the talk shows are blazing. Do you guys check Twitter? Type in Soria's name for gosh sakes. I don't like being negative Nancy but I'm just passing along what I KNOW from living here. Soria was booed; Soria was despised; Soria was a bad clubhouse guy; Soria was the scapegoat for all the Royals' bullpen woes. Soria will make me consider whether to buy mlb.com this year cause he will drive me insane UNLESS as I pointed out Coop fixes him. I also said the other reliever we got sounds fine. Read my posts before you guys say I'm totally out of line.

Don't you want info passed on? We can't be Sox shills all the time for gosh sakes. Be reasonable. He's awful; Coop easily could fix him. He's so bad greg doesn't want to watch him pitch on mlb.com in a Sox uniform so shoot me. You guys over-react. Read my tweets; they are not that negative since I do bring up Coop.

 

 

This goes both ways. Some of our players get trashed on here. Like take away two weeks of a hitter's 0 for 30 and the hitter is different. Look, I get it. Sox fans are excited cause he's new, the unknown. I'd love if Soria does what some relievers do and has a good year after a bad one.

You are extremely negative about Soria. Like he did something to you personally. Look at his stats, both traditional and advanced. He's not bad. He's better than Covey and Farquar. He fills a hole that the Sox needed to fill. The bullpen is a mess, and Soria makes it better. Is he overpaid? Yes, most likely. Does that really matter? Not right now.

 

This was a very good trade. It's not like the Sox gave up a top prospect or someone from the MLB roster. If the Sox acquiring Soria makes you not want to watch them, that's...odd. It just seems like your dislike for this guy is misguided.

[southsider2k5]

1.) Soria is not unknown, he's literally been in the division since 2007 (with the exception of 2013)

2.) Soria is not awful. His career numbers argue quite the opposite actually. 2.86 ERA, 3.07 FIP, 3.28 xFIP, 9.62 K/9, 2.71 BB/9, 204 S over 573 IP. Prettay, prettay good.

3.) Can you please provide us with some first hand accounts of Soria being a bad clubhouse guy?

 

Every fan base has their whipping boys. These tend to be irrational and based on single instances instead of rational and all encompassing. This sounds like exactly what is happening here.

[Dam8610]

Soria was worth 1.1 bWAR and 1.7(!) fWAR last year. A 1 WAR season is a good season for a reliever. A 2 WAR season is an amazing season for a reliever. As the above numbers suggest (bWAR is more reliant on stats that tell on field results, while fWAR relies more on peripherals and predictive stats), Soria pitched better than his results suggested, and even his results made for a good season for a reliever. He's going into his age 34 season, and effectively has 2 years of control. If he pitches well, he should bring a quality return in July should the Sox decide to move him. If he pitches poorly, they're not required to keep him beyond this year. The best part is Hahn got him for nothing. Peter went to LAD for Avilan. I don't understand how anyone could be unhappy about any part of this trade, and I liked Peter.

[chitownsportsfan]

Soria was worth 1.1 bWAR and 1.7(!) fWAR last year. A 1 WAR season is a good season for a reliever. A 2 WAR season is an amazing season for a reliever. As the above numbers suggest (bWAR is more reliant on stats that tell on field results, while fWAR relies more on peripherals and predictive stats), Soria pitched better than his results suggested, and even his results made for a good season for a reliever. He's going into his age 34 season, and effectively has 2 years of control. If he pitches well, he should bring a quality return in July should the Sox decide to move him. If he pitches poorly, they're not required to keep him beyond this year. The best part is Hahn got him for nothing. Peter went to LAD for Avilan. I don't understand how anyone could be unhappy about any part of this trade, and I liked Peter.

 

Yea he's a good reliever that ran into some bad luck. This is a great move.

[wrathofhahn]

Teams don't give away useful valuable pieces to dump a contract that is reasonable with a guy whose peripherals suggest will be halfway valuable.

 

If Greg is pissed at the trade, I disagree with him. If he just thinks Soria sucks, he has a point. Anything you get from him is gravy, but chances are it won't be much.

 

 

Happens all the time teams are looking to cut salary of players inorder to direct resources to other needs or in the KC Royals case appear to sign a FA and get the numbers in budget.

 

In any case I don't think with the cash considerations anyone thinks he is overpaid so why worry? It's a lottery ticket I feel some people are carrying on the conversation just for the sake of it. Noone is saying his peripherals are some guarantee he bounces back next year either all we are saying is it makes it worth the risk. Besides he wasn't even bad last year.

Edited January 5, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Dick Allen]

 

Happens all the time teams are looking to cut salary of players inorder to direct resources to other needs or in the KC Royals case appear to sign a FA and get the numbers in budget.

 

In any case I don't think with the cash considerations anyone thinks he is overpaid so why worry? It's a lottery ticket I feel some people are carrying on the conversation just for the sake of it. Noone is saying his peripherals are some guarantee he bounces back next year either all we are saying is it makes it worth the risk. Besides he wasn't even bad last year.

Examples?

 

If Soria was thought of as highly around MLB as he is on this board, not only would the Royals have been able to trade him and not eat money, they wouldn't have had to include a valuable piece with him. They had to do both.

[Dam8610]

Examples?

 

If Soria was thought of as highly around MLB as he is on this board, not only would the Royals have been able to trade him and not eat money, they wouldn't have had to include a valuable piece with him. They had to do both.

 

Or maybe they like the prospects they got back?

[Eminor3rd]

Examples?

 

If Soria was thought of as highly around MLB as he is on this board, not only would the Royals have been able to trade him and not eat money, they wouldn't have had to include a valuable piece with him. They had to do both.

 

Just to be clear, the argument you're making is "Soria can't be good because if he was, the Royals wouldn't have traded him."

 

The argument you're NOT making is "Soria is bad as evidenced by his peripherals."

[Dick Allen]

Just to be clear, the argument you're making is "Soria can't be good because if he was, the Royals wouldn't have traded him."

 

The argument you're NOT making is "Soria is bad as evidenced by his peripherals."

No. Teams trade good players all the time. They don't include good players and money for basically junk prospects if these players are as valued as some want to believe. I have no problem with the trade. I think it's a no brainer. I just think all the Soria optimism is misguided. The guy sucks. It's the reason why this trade was available to the White Sox.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dick Allen

[thxfrthmmrs]

No. Teams trade good players all the time. They don't include good players and money for basically junk prospects if these players are as valued as some want to believe. I have no problem with the trade. I think it's a no brainer. I just think all the Soria optimism is misguided. The guy sucks. It's the reason why this trade was available to the White Sox.

 

No. They’re trying to shred payroll and re-sign Hosmer. Paying $10 mil for a setup man does not work for their payroll. Soria isn’t the best reliever, but I can name 200 relievers who “sucked” more than Soria in 2017.

[iamshack]

No. Teams trade good players all the time. They don't include good players and money for basically junk prospects if these players are as valued as some want to believe. I have no problem with the trade. I think it's a no brainer. I just think all the Soria optimism is misguided. The guy sucks. It's the reason why this trade was available to the White Sox.

One of the prospects they got back was not junk, to be fair.

 

I was surprised they had to move a talented relief arm for the privilege of moving Soria. They really didn’t eat much money, but having to include a good young asset was indeed a bit surprising.

 

Soria has certainly had some ups and downs over the last several years.

 

For you to say he “sucks” is just not accurate. He’s throwing harder than he has in years, he had the k-rate to show for it, as well as the peripherals. Even if you just take his ERA for what it was, for instance, and ignore the FIP number, he’s still not a terrible gamble to take for the Sox given his history.

 

Does he have the potential to suck? Yes. We all know relief arms are volatile, and his best days are behind him, but to say that he must suck simply because this trade occurred is ridiculous.

Edited January 5, 2018 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

No. They’re trying to shred payroll and re-sign Hosmer. Paying $10 mil for a setup man does not work for their payroll. Soria isn’t the best reliever, but I can name 200 relievers who “sucked” more than Soria in 2017.

Yes, but relievers are valuable and there are 30 teams looking for them. If he is a good bet to be well worth his money why did KC have to include one of their better relievers with him, and pay some money? It's pretty obvious not many teams think very highly of the guy.

[Dick Allen]

There are not 30 teams looking for a 33 year old RP making 8 million. That's false.

 

You're arguing a small point made on this board because....well it's what you've done here for the last decade.

 

If Soria is pitching well in July, the Sox could absolutely flip him to a team for a prospect better than Peter. The Sox could also throw money into the deal to sweeten the pot.

 

If Soria sucks.....then he sucks and the Sox lost Jake Peter for him. Oh well.

Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal...

[iamshack]

Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal...

People tend to disagree when someone says something that is clearly contrary to the most recent available evidence.

[Dick Allen]

People tend to disagree when someone says something that is clearly contrary to the most recent available evidence.

See, I don't see the evidence. His advanced stats were the worst of his career in 2016, just beating out his 2015. Last year they rebounded a bit as he kept the ball in the park, and suspiciously threw the ball harder during his age 33 season. His age 34 season projections seem to take him more toward the replacement level pitcher he was in 2016. Replacement level 34 year olds aren't too flippable.

[iamshack]

See, I don't see the evidence. His advanced stats were the worst of his career in 2016, just beating out his 2015. Last year they rebounded a bit as he kept the ball in the park, and suspiciously threw the ball harder during his age 33 season. His age 34 season projections seem to take him more toward the replacement level pitcher he was in 2016. Replacement level 34 year olds aren't too flippable.

No, Dick, you are only seeing what you want to see because you’ve always enjoyed playing devil’s advocate.

 

There is certainly a chance he regresses; I think most concede that. But it’s not a foregone conclusion by any means, given his performance last year.

 

If you want to believe his improvement is “suspicious,” that is your prerogative, but I don’t suspect it will be a popular opinion amongst a crowd that is relying on his overall career history as well as 2017 data.

 

 

[hogan873]

Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal...

Well, to be fair, Greg didn't say Soria isn't so good. He said he's awful, essentially one of the worst pitchers the Royals had, and apparently a really bad guy. Kansas City (the city) is rejoicing because he was traded.

 

That's why folks have "their panties in a bunch".

[Y2Jimmy0]

See, I don't see the evidence. His advanced stats were the worst of his career in 2016, just beating out his 2015. Last year they rebounded a bit as he kept the ball in the park, and suspiciously threw the ball harder during his age 33 season. His age 34 season projections seem to take him more toward the replacement level pitcher he was in 2016. Replacement level 34 year olds aren't too flippable.

 

 

Evidence has been posted. You are choosing to ignore it. 3.70 ERA, 2.23 FIP, 3.08 xFIP, 10.29 K/9, 3.21 BB/9, 54% GB rate. 1.7 fWAR. I'm sorry. That's not a pitcher who sucks. It just isn't. The biggest gripe is the home runs allowed and the blown saves. He probably doesn't have to close in Chicago. There's literally no downside to the trade.

[ptatc]

And that's one of many reasons ERA isn't a stat that should be thrown around as often as it is for relievers. One bad outing completely shatters it, and thus makes the pitcher seem a lot worse than he actually is. Sure, the stat is simply displaying an average, but said average doesn't really say much about how good a reliever is over time.

Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance

[Eminor3rd]

Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal...

 

The only issue I have with what you said is that the peripheral argument is weak, because you're not providing any evidence for that claim. You're saying that Soria must suck, otherwise the Royals wouldn't have traded him for so little. That might be true, but that doesn't invalidate evidence to the contrary.

[iamshack]

Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance

That’s the issue though — it’s a small sample size.

 

The conclusions you are mentioning aren’t ones that are reached through looking at the average. That is entirely the point. You are reaching those conclusions by digging deeper into his performance and pulling out specific instances. This is essentially the very point the poster was making — you need to look deeper into the numbers to really get a sense of who the player is the vast majority of the time.

 

The ERA skews that.

[ptatc]

Evidence has been posted. You are choosing to ignore it. 3.70 ERA, 2.23 FIP, 3.08 xFIP, 10.29 K/9, 3.21 BB/9, 54% GB rate. 1.7 fWAR. I'm sorry. That's not a pitcher who sucks. It just isn't. The biggest gripe is the home runs allowed and the blown saves. He probably doesn't have to close in Chicago. There's literally no downside to the trade.

There is no downside because of the LA pitcher, no doubt.

 

Blown saves are a big deal with middle relievers. It means the team had the lead and no longer do. The whole object of the game is to have more runs than the other team after 9 innings. Pitchers who come in the game and give up the lead are not useful pitchers. Blown saves are a far more important stat than saves.

[ptatc]

That’s the issue though — it’s a small sample size.

 

The conclusions you are mentioning aren’t ones that are reached through looking at the average. That is entirely the point. You are reaching those conclusions by digging deeper into his performance and pulling out specific instances. This is essentially the very point the poster was making — you need to look deeper into the numbers to really get a sense of who the player is the vast majority of the time.

 

The ERA skews that.

Exactly, the average is is true performance.

 

They can look deeper to see if they can find a reason for the high average, that's the deeper, small sample size part. However, the average is the true performance over time.

Edited January 5, 2018 by ptatc

[bmags]

Is it just me or did we also get 2 relievers back.

[Eminor3rd]

Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance

 

This is a great point and it's especially true for relievers, who pitch fewer innings than I think people consciously realize. James Shields probably pitched 50 great innings last year, but it was the other 100 bad ones that made him a disaster. Well, many relievers pitch ONLY 50 innings in a year. What does it say about them going forward?

 

Compounding the issue is that by the times you get that 150-200 IP of sample on a guy, three or four years have passed, and you're no longer evaluating the same guy. This is why relievers are so hard to predict, and it's not unreasonable for a guy to buck a trend suddenly if you see some underlying signs that don't match the previous season.