So is no one falling on the sword for 2018?

[bmags]

The thing is, it just feels like an actual good front office can acquire talent even with an $80 mill payroll, an $120 mill payroll or a $200 mill payroll.

The sox said they were shifting to talent accumulation in 2013, with shifts in the road back and forth. I am very underwhelmed by everything aside from their returns to trading some of the most valuable, cheap talent available in baseball.

Milwaukee found great value on waivers. So have Dodgers. Padres found great value in LatAm market. So did Braves. Red Sox found great value in mlb draft. Yankees and Astros found it everywhere.

The white sox have really only shown to find great value by trading all stars on cheap contracts.

 

[Dick Allen]

5 minutes ago, bmags said:

The thing is, it just feels like an actual good front office can acquire talent even with an $80 mill payroll, an $120 mill payroll or a $200 mill payroll.

The sox said they were shifting to talent accumulation in 2013, with shifts in the road back and forth. I am very underwhelmed by everything aside from their returns to trading some of the most valuable, cheap talent available in baseball.

Milwaukee found great value on waivers. So have Dodgers. Padres found great value in LatAm market. So did Braves. Red Sox found great value in mlb draft. Yankees and Astros found it everywhere.

The white sox have really only shown to find great value by trading all stars on cheap contracts.

 

I agree. People are excited about Daniel Palka. He hits some balls really hard and really far. But, according to fangraphs own rule of thumb chart, his 0.7 fWAR translates to scrub.

 

 

Scrub0-1 WARRole Player1-2 WARSolid Starter2-3 WARGood Player3-4 WARAll-Star4-5 WARSuperstar5-6 WARMVP6+ WAR

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

My point is if you are going to go for it, go for it. You dive into the pool, don't just stick your toes in. They weren't nearly aggressive enough. It was not impossible to compete. 

They weren't totally committed. If they were, they would have had actual guys who should play well, not guys you hoped played well. Dioner Navarro, starting catcher? 

Yes it was absolutely impossible. You've made an argument that is refuted entirely by how the free agent market went - go take a look at the free agents those seasons. They had jack squat available on the trade market because they had no resources. If that team boosted its payroll to $200 million, who are they going to sign? They needed a 3b, so do you want Sandoval or Headley? No, death isn't an option. They needed an OF, so which do you want, Heyward or Gordon or Cespedes? No, death isn't an option. They needed pitching, so James Shields ok with you or do you prefer David Price for more money and years? They could have used 1b/Dh help, so yeah take your pick, Victor Martinez or Chris Davis? No, death isn't an option. I can keep going through positions, and every single one seems to include the phrase "no death isn't an option".

If they boosted their payroll to $200 million, yes they probably would have had a hit somewhere. They might have signed Upton or Scherzer, but at the same time they would have signed 1 or 2 of these other huge busts and that would have chewed up $25 million each. There's no possible way that you can only sign guys who do well. Even the teams that are in the playoffs right now signed guys those years that completely flopped. Boston is still paying the luxury tax on those guys this year.

Unless you can look through time to see which players are going to bust, even a $200 million payroll on that White Sox team was going to barely finish .500 and probably finish under it. The teams that "Won" free agency those years...wound up with players who stink. Go look at the free agent signings those years. They are TERRIBLE. 

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes it was absolutely impossible. You've made an argument that is refuted entirely by how the free agent market went - go take a look at the free agents those seasons. They had jack squat available on the trade market because they had no resources. If that team boosted its payroll to $200 million, who are they going to sign? They needed a 3b, so do you want Sandoval or Headley? No, death isn't an option. They needed an OF, so which do you want, Heyward or Gordon or Cespedes? No, death isn't an option. They needed pitching, so James Shields ok with you or do you prefer David Price for more money and years? They could have used 1b/Dh help, so yeah take your pick, Victor Martinez or Chris Davis? No, death isn't an option. I can keep going through positions, and every single one seems to include the phrase "no death isn't an option".

If they boosted their payroll to $200 million, yes they probably would have had a hit somewhere. They might have signed Upton or Scherzer, but at the same time they would have signed 1 or 2 of these other huge busts and that would have chewed up $25 million each. There's no possible way that you can only sign guys who do well. Even the teams that are in the playoffs right now signed guys those years that completely flopped. Boston is still paying the luxury tax on those guys this year.

Unless you can look through time to see which players are going to bust, even a $200 million payroll on that White Sox team was going to barely finish .500 and probably finish under it. The teams that "Won" free agency those years...wound up with players who stink. Go look at the free agent signings those years. They are TERRIBLE. 

The logic here just seems off.

Money by itself doesn't guarantee success. But a quality FO + money theoretically had the opportunity to turn a $200 million into a playoff team. 

Some of that could have gone to a good free agent signing.

Some of that could have been picking someone like danny valencia off waivers or trade with what sox had.

Is danny valencia good? No, but in 2015/16 he returned a lot more than we did with Gordon Beckham and Conor Gillaspie.

Sox could have signed Justin Turner in 2014. Sox could have kept Junior Guerra. Sox could have signed Rich Hill.

And people will say "well you can't just take all of the success stories as if those teams knew" but the white sox have sure had bad luck with every free agent since jose abreu while other teams have signed on, traded or by some way acquired non $200 mill contracts that have been big contributors.

There is a total lack of surprise players in this org. The best example it feels we had was tommy kahnle

[southsider2k5]

29 minutes ago, bmags said:

The logic here just seems off.

Money by itself doesn't guarantee success. But a quality FO + money theoretically had the opportunity to turn a $200 million into a playoff team. 

Some of that could have gone to a good free agent signing.

Some of that could have been picking someone like danny valencia off waivers or trade with what sox had.

Is danny valencia good? No, but in 2015/16 he returned a lot more than we did with Gordon Beckham and Conor Gillaspie.

Sox could have signed Justin Turner in 2014. Sox could have kept Junior Guerra. Sox could have signed Rich Hill.

And people will say "well you can't just take all of the success stories as if those teams knew" but the white sox have sure had bad luck with every free agent since jose abreu while other teams have signed on, traded or by some way acquired non $200 mill contracts that have been big contributors.

There is a total lack of surprise players in this org. The best example it feels we had was tommy kahnle

I think the quiet turnover of the people in charge of the minor league system, as well as development, was a big response to this era.  I also feel like the early returns have been there at least so far.   I mean it is hard to evaluate draft classes this early, but it feels like the last 3 drafts have been our best in probably 15 years.  The 16/17/18 classes have been really exciting and are doing big things in the minors.

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I think the quiet turnover of the people in charge of the minor league system, as well as development, was a big response to this era.  I also feel like the early returns have been there at least so far.   I mean it is hard to evaluate draft classes this early, but it feels like the last 3 drafts have been our best in probably 15 years.  The 16/17/18 classes have been really exciting and are doing big things in the minors.

It wasn't a high bar to get over. From Jim Callis:

 

After hitting the jackpot in four straight years with Jack McDowell, Robin Ventura, Frank Thomas and Alex Fernandez from 1987-90, the White Sox experienced one of the worst first-round droughts in Draft history. They had 20 first-rounders from 1991-2009 and turned them into 14 big leaguers, none better than Kip Wells and Gordon Beckham. Wells and Beckham have combined for 15.4 Wins Above Replacement, while the other dozen have totaled -4.2.

[Balta1701]

43 minutes ago, bmags said:

The logic here just seems off.

Money by itself doesn't guarantee success. But a quality FO + money theoretically had the opportunity to turn a $200 million into a playoff team. 

Some of that could have gone to a good free agent signing.

Some of that could have been picking someone like danny valencia off waivers or trade with what sox had.

Is danny valencia good? No, but in 2015/16 he returned a lot more than we did with Gordon Beckham and Conor Gillaspie.

Sox could have signed Justin Turner in 2014. Sox could have kept Junior Guerra. Sox could have signed Rich Hill.

And people will say "well you can't just take all of the success stories as if those teams knew" but the white sox have sure had bad luck with every free agent since jose abreu while other teams have signed on, traded or by some way acquired non $200 mill contracts that have been big contributors.

There is a total lack of surprise players in this org. The best example it feels we had was tommy kahnle

Hopefully we have one of those in Palka now also. Yes, it was possible to get those kind of guys - that was what I thought the White Sox should have been doing in 2015 and 2016, looking for guys who could contribute who other teams let go, and who we could develop by giving them playing time. That was a key part of the Dodgers getting Justin Turner - they gave him a platoon role for a couple years and worked with him to develop before he became an all star. If Justin Turner wasn't a useful signing, the Dodgers were going to win that division anyway, they had Greinke and Kershaw leading them. The Dodgers had a strong enough roster that they can drop those guys into platoon roles and let them grow into it. Same thing with Rich Hill and the A's - the A's were just giving a spot to a guy, they weren't expecting Rich Hill to carry them to the playoffs. With a weak roster, signing bargain basement guys and hoping some stick is a poor strategy for building a competitive team "This year", but it might have worked over a couple years. The White Sox couldn't do that, because they needed guys to help out "RIGHT NOW!" 

Had they done that, then maybe by 2017 on paper they start looking better...but that's when Eaton and Quintana collapsed. Even if they'd done some of those moves and had success, when those 2 fell apart, that would have undercut any positive moves they had made.

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It wasn't a high bar to get over. From Jim Callis:

 

After hitting the jackpot in four straight years with Jack McDowell, Robin Ventura, Frank Thomas and Alex Fernandez from 1987-90, the White Sox experienced one of the worst first-round droughts in Draft history. They had 20 first-rounders from 1991-2009 and turned them into 14 big leaguers, none better than Kip Wells and Gordon Beckham. Wells and Beckham have combined for 15.4 Wins Above Replacement, while the other dozen have totaled -4.2.

You are pretty well making Balta's point for him.

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You are pretty well making Balta's point for him.

Color me shocked this post was coming. The prospects have sucked. But they have always managed to get major league players for many of them. They have made some poor decisions. Balta's argument suggests the only way to add to your team is via free agency. 

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Color me shocked this post was coming. The prospects have sucked. But they have always managed to get major league players for many of them. They have made some poor decisions. Balta's argument suggests the only way to add to your team is via free agency. 

Major league players who, like you said, "Didn't quite work out" as big time players. Because they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Because the White Sox had so little value to trade, they got guys who were overrated and very close to free agency.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Color me shocked this post was coming. The prospects have sucked. But they have always managed to get major league players for many of them. They have made some poor decisions. Balta's argument suggests the only way to add to your team is via free agency. 

You should be.  Your line of reasoning as me agreeing with Balta.  That alone should be reason enough to make you wonder.

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Major league players who, like you said, "Didn't quite work out" as big time players. Because they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Because the White Sox had so little value to trade, they got guys who were overrated and very close to free agency.

They also spent money on guys like Adam Dunn. Jeff Keppinger. 

If it is as impossible as you suggest to add good players other than the draft, the White Sox are going to be bad a very long time.

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

You should be.  Your line of reasoning as me agreeing with Balta.  That alone should be reason enough to make you wonder.

Of course you would agree. You can't ever find fault with JR, KW or RH. Granted, some of the criticism is a bit meatheaded. But there is some that is warranted. And the record, the draft picks, the trades, the free agent choices....a lot of it leaves a lot to be desired. 

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

Of course you would agree. You can't ever find fault with JR, KW or RH. Granted, some of the criticism is a bit meatheaded. But there is some that is warranted. And the record, the draft picks, the trades, the free agent choices....a lot of it leaves a lot to be desired. 

Which pretty clearly makes it much harder to simply outspend the mistakes.  This isn't a Yankees or Dodgers budget we are talking about here.  The simplicity of "SPEND!" while the easiest answer, isn't always realistic.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

They also spent money on guys like Adam Dunn. Jeff Keppinger. 

If it is as impossible as you suggest to add good players other than the draft, the White Sox are going to be bad a very long time.

Like I said, the free agent market is garbage. That's the garbage you get on it. If you're not ready to spend $200 million and have $100 million be wasted, then your roster isn't ready for the free agent market. 

Technically, trading for minor leaguers and developing them, or trading minor leaguers for really strong and controlled players works too. For example - the Red Sox got one of the best pitchers in baseball by developing minor leaguers partially and then trading them to the White Sox. The Brewers traded a top 20 prospect (was he top 10?) for Yelich. The only guy we had that we could have done that with was Rodon...and we were so desperate for assets that we had to race Rodon to the big leagues and put him in the rotation.

[bmags]

23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I think the quiet turnover of the people in charge of the minor league system, as well as development, was a big response to this era.  I also feel like the early returns have been there at least so far.   I mean it is hard to evaluate draft classes this early, but it feels like the last 3 drafts have been our best in probably 15 years.  The 16/17/18 classes have been really exciting and are doing big things in the minors.

It is taken as true that we need to wait for draft classes. I know that that is probably true.

That said, I am less confident that our 16/17/18 classes are very strong. I love Madrigal. I think the 17 class looks really bad right now. The 16 class looks like some possible starters. But 5 years averaging top ten, it's just not good enough. It's "fine". It's one foot in, one foot out.

I can obviously demand more, but I'm asking that the White Sox org demands more.

[Dick Allen]

17 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Hopefully we have one of those in Palka now also. Yes, it was possible to get those kind of guys - that was what I thought the White Sox should have been doing in 2015 and 2016, looking for guys who could contribute who other teams let go, and who we could develop by giving them playing time. That was a key part of the Dodgers getting Justin Turner - they gave him a platoon role for a couple years and worked with him to develop before he became an all star. If Justin Turner wasn't a useful signing, the Dodgers were going to win that division anyway, they had Greinke and Kershaw leading them. The Dodgers had a strong enough roster that they can drop those guys into platoon roles and let them grow into it. Same thing with Rich Hill and the A's - the A's were just giving a spot to a guy, they weren't expecting Rich Hill to carry them to the playoffs. With a weak roster, signing bargain basement guys and hoping some stick is a poor strategy for building a competitive team "This year", but it might have worked over a couple years. The White Sox couldn't do that, because they needed guys to help out "RIGHT NOW!" 

Had they done that, then maybe by 2017 on paper they start looking better...but that's when Eaton and Quintana collapsed. Even if they'd done some of those moves and had success, when those 2 fell apart, that would have undercut any positive moves they had made.

Eaton's "collapse" was injury related, and was a blown out knee on a wet base hustling one out. He may have gotten injured if he had stayed with the White Sox some other way, but it isn't like a pitcher blowing out his elbow. That was a freak, and has led to more problems. He's still pretty good when he plays.

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Which pretty clearly makes it much harder to simply outspend the mistakes.  This isn't a Yankees or Dodgers budget we are talking about here.  The simplicity of "SPEND!" while the easiest answer, isn't always realistic.

Other teams are able to do it. The White Sox haven't show that. 

[bmags]

20 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Hopefully we have one of those in Palka now also. Yes, it was possible to get those kind of guys - that was what I thought the White Sox should have been doing in 2015 and 2016, looking for guys who could contribute who other teams let go, and who we could develop by giving them playing time. That was a key part of the Dodgers getting Justin Turner - they gave him a platoon role for a couple years and worked with him to develop before he became an all star. If Justin Turner wasn't a useful signing, the Dodgers were going to win that division anyway, they had Greinke and Kershaw leading them. The Dodgers had a strong enough roster that they can drop those guys into platoon roles and let them grow into it. Same thing with Rich Hill and the A's - the A's were just giving a spot to a guy, they weren't expecting Rich Hill to carry them to the playoffs. With a weak roster, signing bargain basement guys and hoping some stick is a poor strategy for building a competitive team "This year", but it might have worked over a couple years. The White Sox couldn't do that, because they needed guys to help out "RIGHT NOW!" 

Had they done that, then maybe by 2017 on paper they start looking better...but that's when Eaton and Quintana collapsed. Even if they'd done some of those moves and had success, when those 2 fell apart, that would have undercut any positive moves they had made.

I don't disagree with your assessment that the strategy the sox had put themselves on with a maxed out payroll and no farm meant they could not compete with that core.

But I disagree that it was circumstantial, or inevitable. I think a different group in charge could have done worse than Hahn and co, or better than hahn and co. I think talent for team building is a thing and Hahn isn't good at either recognizing those in the org who are good at it or the organization isn't allowing those who are good at things to thrive.

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

I don't disagree with your assessment that the strategy the sox had put themselves on with a maxed out payroll and no farm meant they could not compete with that core.

But I disagree that it was circumstantial, or inevitable. I think a different group in charge could have done worse than Hahn and co, or better than hahn and co. I think talent for team building is a thing and Hahn isn't good at either recognizing those in the org who are good at it or the organization isn't allowing those who are good at things to thrive.

Right. It may have been impossible for these guys with the restrictions they put on them, but to say no one could have done better is crazy. Larry Himes would have had the balls to tell JR, we aren't winning a WS with Jimmy Rollins at SS, Dioner Navarro behind the plate, and Mat Latos in the rotation.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Right. It may have been impossible for these guys with the restrictions they put on them, but to say no one could have done better is crazy. Larry Himes would have had the balls to tell JR, we aren't winning a WS with Jimmy Rollins at SS, Dioner Navarro behind the plate, and Mat Latos in the rotation.

I did not say that no one could have done better. I said it was impossible to put a winning team on the field in any of the years 2015-2018, starting with where we were after 2014. Had someone done better, we could be in better shape this year, we could have been closer to .500 those years, but none of that would have changed the end results of those seasons where we missed the wild card badly, and when Eaton and Quintana fell apart, that would still have demolished us in '17 and '18 unless we had traded them earlier to rebuild.

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I did not say that no one could have done better. I said it was impossible to put a winning team on the field in any of the years 2015-2018, starting with where we were after 2014. Had someone done better, we could be in better shape this year, we could have been closer to .500 those years, but none of that would have changed the end results of those seasons where we missed the wild card badly, and when Eaton and Quintana fell apart, that would still have demolished us in '17 and '18 unless we had traded them earlier to rebuild.

You are saying no one could have put a winning team on the field. That is crazy talk. Oakland traded crappy prospects for guys who turned out decent. They didn't have a top of the line farm system. In fact, some of their guys are ex White Sox.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

What is your point then if it is not that they made poor decisions with the money that they spent and the trades they made? My point has been that their decisions did not matter, the decision that they were a competitive roster was fundamentally flawed, it was impossible for them to compete. You keep giving examples of moves they made that were limited by the lack of resources available, and then seemingly suggesting that they should have made smarter moves. $7 million is the budget for a starting SS and pitcher when you are trying to win with a pathetically weak core. It's the budget for a starting pitcher and starting SS when you have totally failed to understand your roster. How good or bad the moves they made were...that didn't matter. They did not have enough to compete those seasons and every example you keep giving is an example of exactly that.

Competing in 2015 and 2016 was impossible. The failure was not selecting bad players, it was declaring that the task was possible when it wasn't. 

If they had signed Cespedes originally, Puig in 2012, Darvish to his original deal, Tanaka, Grandal, Ryu...they were completely unwilling to break the bank. They sort of lucked into Ramirez and Abreu, but our spending on international free agents before Luis Robert was pretty consistently among the bottom 3~5 teams.  

Just a couple of those guys could have made a significant difference.

Edited October 18, 2018 by caulfield12

[Greg Hibbard]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

I agree. People are excited about Daniel Palka. He hits some balls really hard and really far. But, according to fangraphs own rule of thumb chart, his 0.7 fWAR translates to scrub.

 

 

Scrub0-1 WARRole Player1-2 WARSolid Starter2-3 WARGood Player3-4 WARAll-Star4-5 WARSuperstar5-6 WARMVP6+ WAR

Taking his 0.7 fWAR for 449 plate appearances and presenting it here as if it's a seasonal statistic is really fair to you, right?

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If they had signed Cespedes originally, Puig in 2012, Darvish to his original deal, Tanaka, Ryu...they were completely unwilling to break the bank. They sort of lucked into Ramirez and Abreu, but our spending on international free agents before Luis Robert was pretty consistently among the bottom 3~5 teams.  

Just a couple of those guys could have made a significant difference.

Like I said - now you're doing what you can't do. You're saying "In hindsight these deals worked out" so if we had signed these it would have been great. You can't do that, you can't just predict these guys would be the ones who will work. They could also have signed Rusney Castillo. They could have signed Yasmany Tomas. The Dodgers spent $25 million on someone named Erisbel Arruebarrena, $28 million on someone named Alex Guerrero, and $62.5 million on someone named Hector Olivera, and I can't remember any of them even existing.