Offseason Thread

[SCCWS]

19 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

The Kimbrel trade was a classic buy high trade.  

Probably was. But that happens quite often when you think you have a shot at a World Series and end up trading at the deadline.  

[maloney.adam]

Maybe we should ask this question, did Hahn or anyone in the organization ever promise that we would win the World Series in 2021? 

Edited November 1, 2021 by maloney.adam

[Tony]

The idea that the Sox should have had a "conservative" deadline and they should try again next year when they have a better shot at a World Series is laughable. 

No one knows how long this window is going to be (trading Nick Madrigal didn't shorten it either, so save that snarky reply) and the Sox were one of the best teams in the AL this season. They would have gotten killed by the fan base if they took a "conservative approach" and rightly so. 

I was a fan of what the Sox did at the deadline. I, along with many others, including the Sox front office, got it very wrong. Trading for Kimbrel ended up being a very bad move, no matter the cost. 

But that doesn't change the fact it would have been borderline criminal for the Sox not to try and win it all this year. I've been told by many on here the playoffs are a crapshoot anyway, so why not? 

[Chicago White Sox]

21 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

He is right though. The evidence was there but people didn't want to see it, then will use hindsight as an argument. 

The evidence we couldn’t win a World Series was there?  Please elaborate.

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

The idea that the Sox should have had a "conservative" deadline and they should try again next year when they have a better shot at a World Series is laughable. 

No one knows how long this window is going to be (trading Nick Madrigal didn't shorten it either, so save that snarky reply) and the Sox were one of the best teams in the AL this season. They would have gotten killed by the fan base if they took a "conservative approach" and rightly so. 

I was a fan of what the Sox did at the deadline. I, along with many others, including the Sox front office, got it very wrong. Trading for Kimbrel ended up being a very bad move, no matter the cost. 

But that doesn't change the fact it would have been borderline criminal for the Sox not to try and win it all this year. I've been told by many on here the playoffs are a crapshoot anyway, so why not? 

They got killed by the fanbase for doing nothing last year, for example.

[Chicago White Sox]

31 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

The Kimbrel trade was a classic buy high trade.  

I mean, aren’t most deadline trades “buy high” trades?

[35thstreetswarm]

17 minutes ago, Chimpton said:

So let's not bother trying because on paper we are not the best team in baseball? Let's not try to improve at the trade deadline as we 'were never going to win it'. It may have escaped your attention but just winning the division is an achievement by White Sox standards, and back to back play off appearances has never been achieved before, but let's not bother because the Astros are better than us.

***Argument applies to every MLB team not called the Los Angeles Dodgers (who, incidentally, are sitting at home watching a World Series between two teams clearly "worse" than they are).

[Chicago White Sox]

Let me be very clear here.  If the Sox aren’t prepared to take the payroll to $175M or so, then trading Madrigal was very foolish.  I happen to believe our front office isn’t completely incompetent and actually have a multi-year outlook and realize the pressure losing a cost controlled player in Madrigal has on the broader budget.  Therefore, I’m going to operate under the assumption they feel they can replace him this offseason without disrupting the rest of their plans.

Also, and I say this as a big Madrigal fan, but 2B simply aren’t that valuable in today’s game.  Heading into last offseason, Kolton Wong was a free agent and was projected to give you similar production to Nick the next two seasons.  He got a whopping $18M over two years. Even if you assume a 5 win projection for him, that puts the cost of a projected win at only $3.6M.  Cesar Hernandez, another guy who consistently provides 2 win production, only got $5M for one year.  Overall, the cost of a win for a pure 2B was in the $2.5M to $3.6M range, which is far less than the $8M to $9M most experts use for broader valuation purposes.  Point is, the market does not value 2B the same way it does other positions at the moment.

So when you factor in positional market factors, Nick’s poor track record of durability, and well below expectations baseball instincts, defense, and base-running (to be clear, I’m not suggesting he’s bad in these areas, but not 70 grade like Fangraphs had indicated prior to joining the Sox), I’m not sure he was the asset some people make him out to be.  Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have him at 2B because I think he adds some great balance to the lineup (despite being RH) and he’s also cheap as fuck for a couple more years, but he’s definitely replaceable if the resources are there.  No doubt it sucks losing him for what we ultimately got from Kimbrel, but I seriously doubt he was going to be a centerpiece in a deal for a cost controlled star.  There is a reason the Sox cashed in when they did and I think it’s very clear the organization soured on him a bit despite good offensive results.

[southsider2k5]

 

[Snopek]

52 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

He is right though. The evidence was there but people didn't want to see it, then will use hindsight as an argument. 

What do you mean by "people didn't want to see it"? We were all well aware of the road record, the record vs winning teams, etc. Most of us just figured that it might be a good idea to let the games happen instead of deciding the outcome ahead of time.

[wegner]

Tony LaRussa was brought in here to put this team in the position to  succeed in the postseason and by that measure a grade of A- is rather comical imo.

[hi8is]

4 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

You'd be surprised.  Lots of folks on this board hate next year's deadline moves already!

Welcome to Soxtalk

[bmags]

27 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Let me be very clear here.  If the Sox aren’t prepared to take the payroll to $175M or so, then trading Madrigal was very foolish.  I happen to believe our front office isn’t completely incompetent and actually have a multi-year outlook and realize the pressure losing a cost controlled player in Madrigal has on the broader budget.  Therefore, I’m going to operate under the assumption they feel they can replace him this offseason without disrupting the rest of their plans.

Also, and I say this as a big Madrigal fan, but 2B simply aren’t that valuable in today’s game.  Heading into last offseason, Kolton Wong was a free agent and was projected to give you similar production to Nick the next two seasons.  He got a whopping $18M over two years. Even if you assume a 5 win projection for him, that puts the cost of a projected win at only $3.6M.  Cesar Hernandez, another guy who consistently provides 2 win production, only got $5M for one year.  Overall, the cost of a win for a pure 2B was in the $2.5M to $3.6M range, which is far less than the $8M to $9M most experts use for broader valuation purposes.  Point is, the market does not value 2B the same way it does other positions at the moment.

So when you factor in positional market factors, Nick’s poor track record of durability, and well below expectations baseball instincts, defense, and base-running (to be clear, I’m not suggesting he’s bad in these areas, but not 70 grade like Fangraphs had indicated prior to joining the Sox), I’m not sure he was the asset some people make him out to be.  Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have him at 2B because I think he adds some great balance to the lineup (despite being RH) and he’s also cheap as fuck for a couple more years, but he’s definitely replaceable if the resources are there.  No doubt it sucks losing him for what we ultimately got from Kimbrel, but I seriously doubt he was going to be a centerpiece in a deal for a cost controlled star.  There is a reason the Sox cashed in when they did and I think it’s very clear the organization soured on him a bit despite good offensive results.

what sox are facing is if they just want to get 2b production, it won't cost much. If the sox want to use 2b to hedge against their dominant traits (RHP-deficient, ground ball heavy, low contact) then they have few options. It will be about balance. As it stands, hernandez is one of better options, which is gross. 

If the sox want a left-handed madrigal, they would have traded for Frazier. The sox did go after Cesar, but at this point it's not clear if the balancing of the lineup is a must-have for the sox, or a nice to have. 

re: bolded, I'm talking about from the sox FO perspective. For me it's a must have.

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, wegner said:

Tony LaRussa was brought in here to put this team in the position to  succeed in the postseason and by that measure a grade of A- is rather comical imo.

I struggle with both grades.  La Russa failed to get the job done in October, but you can’t blame that on just him.  That being said, some of the decisions he made in Houston were brutal and cost us significantly.  He also made quite of a few mind-boggling decisions during the regular season, although he did get a little better with time.  I also felt like we coasted a bit in the 2nd half and blew a great chance for HFA.  To me, I’d give him a B- for the year and that exceeded my pre-season expectations.

Hahn is also another one hard to grade.  He acquired two All-Stars plus was able to retrain a third at a reasonable cost, but also entered the season having barely done anything to improve the offense and generally with little depth across the board.  He also went for it with the Kimbrel trade at the deadline (which obviously flopped in hindsight), but failed to once again address the offense.  I’d give him a B+ given the payroll constraints he had to work with, but clearly another bat would have been helpful down the stretch.

[hankchifan]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

These A- ratings are a bad joke.  TLR may get an A for clubhouse harmony but certainly not for in game managerial decisions.  With the Sox talent most any MLB manager would have been successful. Hahn cannot get an A for the stupid Kimbrel trade and not bringing in a competent RF at trade deadline like Atlanta did with 4 very good outfielders.

[Chicago White Sox]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

what sox are facing is if they just want to get 2b production, it won't cost much. If the sox want to use 2b to hedge against their dominant traits (RHP-deficient, ground ball heavy, low contact) then they have few options. It will be about balance. As it stands, hernandez is one of better options, which is gross. 

If the sox want a left-handed madrigal, they would have traded for Frazier. The sox did go after Cesar, but at this point it's not clear if the balancing of the lineup is a must-have for the sox, or a nice to have. 

re: bolded, I'm talking about from the sox FO perspective. For me it's a must have.

Fully agree.  Which makes getting some balance out of RF absolutely critical.  As you said, getting cheap 2B production should be fairly easy to come by, but it may not address the broader lineup concerns we have at the moment.

[hankchifan]

17 hours ago, oldsox said:

What's really goofy is that Cleveland traded Rosario for 90 year old Pablo Sandoval, all 300 pounds of him, and they immediately cut Pabs.  Trade should not have been allowed.

They must have been dumping salary.

[kleedawg]

I'm going to state a couple of things that will hopefully lend some closure to the some of the ongoing debates so that we can have some fresh new ones that are more productive. Probably, no chance, but I'm goin to try anyway.

1. We all have our own feeling on how the sox finished down the stretch. I think we can agree that we wished they finished on all cylinders. However what you do in the first 162 games ins NOT a good predicter of what you will do in the playoffs. For every team you can come with as an example to support you argument, you can find one that refutes it just as easily. You just have to put the best team out there under your current limitations and hope for the best.

 

2. The Kimbrel trade. It turned out to be a bad trade because it did. It was NOT an unreasonable trade on the day it was consummated. You can debated the value of trading controllable assets for short terms gains. Those are valid arguments. However the trade was not unreasonable. We traded and injured player and a reliever with a lot of potential having a bad year for the best available closer in the game. We also traded for another good reliever in Tepera. At the time, We had the best starters in the AL, if not in baseball. On Paper, we had the best bullpen as well. It looked like if we had a lead after 5 the game was over. This is a formula that has worked recently very well for clubs. This is a reasonable thing to do to win now. This is not my opinion, this is what every analyst on the mlb network was saying. This is what most analyst believed. This is what the dodgers, rays, & red sox wanted to do. but, the game isn't played on paper and it turned out bad. Trades don't always work out. The cardinals were lambasted for only acquiring washed up J.A. Happ &  Jon Lester. Yet, those trades worked out (and were still awful trades).

3. record against winning clubs. This fallacy is a media talking point that has little meaning. In 162 games you are going to play hot where you can beat anybody and cold when you can lose to anybody. Some teams yo cannot beat because the matchup is always bad. You are going to play certain teams when you are hurt and other while they are hurt. The sox did not play bad against above .500 teams They played horrible in Houston and against the yankees. The won the season series against the cardinals, a's, redsox, & Jays. Split with the rays. Be beating the tribe they made them an under 500 team and get no credit, but had they lost the series to them they would be another above 500 team they lost (damned if they do damned if they don't situation. The beat a lot of other teams that were above 500 when we played them but didn't finish there. Lots of teams have won the world series with a sub 500 record against above 500 teams.

 

 

[Quin]

46 minutes ago, wegner said:

Tony LaRussa was brought in here to put this team in the position to  succeed in the postseason and by that measure a grade of A- is rather comical imo.

This should be universally agreed on, but will not be.

[SonofaRoache]

1 hour ago, Snopek said:

What do you mean by "people didn't want to see it"? We were all well aware of the road record, the record vs winning teams, etc. Most of us just figured that it might be a good idea to let the games happen instead of deciding the outcome ahead of time.

That is called a prayer. We needed to win games to get that 2 seed to have any chance against Houston as we don't pitch well there. Great teams fix issues as they arise and try not to wait until the post season happens to possibly win. The Dodgers won it all last year and didn't just let games play out, they brought in Max and Trea. 

[SonofaRoache]

1 hour ago, wegner said:

Tony LaRussa was brought in here to put this team in the position to  succeed in the postseason and by that measure a grade of A- is rather comical imo.

TLR was brought in here to get us to the post season first and foremost. He was outcoached big time but our pitchers shit the bed against Houston too. They didn't give us any chance in that series. Coming into this season Minnesota was the slight favorite to win the ALC. 

[southsider2k5]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

They were 9-9 in one run games after the trade deadline, it looks like they took 2/3 from San Francisco in Atlanta, lost 2/3 in San Francisco, were swept by the Dodgers in LA, lost a 2 game series at home to the Yankees, swept the Cardinals in St. Louis. Lesser competition, but they also had a 9 game winning streak entirely on the road in there.

We can also sit here and make a lot of exceptions for the White Sox season as well.  I think there is some definite confirmation bias in the original post, as it is obviously possible to win it all with the list of problems that he just listed, as the Braves are quite literally knocking on that doorstep.  Personnel is part of it, but so is luck and very good in game management.

[bmags]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

We can also sit here and make a lot of exceptions for the White Sox season as well.  I think there is some definite confirmation bias in the original post, as it is obviously possible to win it all with the list of problems that he just listed, as the Braves are quite literally knocking on that doorstep.  Personnel is part of it, but so is luck and very good in game management.

There is one thing that is my absolute takeaway on the braves.

They went into the 2020 playoffs as did the white sox. They left knowing they had Max Fried and Ian Anderson who could thrive. They went out and got Charlie Morton, who pitches for the playoffs.

The sox left with a brilliant Giolito, but saw Keuchel crater and the bullpen collapse.

The braves now know they have post season pitchers, and I 100% believe that's a thing. It's probably not a thing, but it is a thing.

The sox got lynn, and 2 years later we still don't have a guy we know will win a game 7. 

[reiks12]

I am being ultra pessimistic but with our minors being DEAD LAST and our MLB team suffering from old school philosophy I just can't get excited with the potential of this clubs short window. 

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

Everybody say it with me! TONY STINKS, TONY STINKS, TONY STINKS!