Your 2023 Off-Season Plan

[Snopek]

12 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

He's a rental ,1 year and is a terrible OF. You want to give up a prospect for a rental ? They should done buying rentals. It fixes nothing. The rebuild is over .  1 year of Winker solves what exactly for the future of this franchise ?

I think this illustrates in general how difficult it is to field a competitive team in the present WHILE worrying about still staying competitive in the future. But even more so with the Sox and their self-imposed restrictions and insistence on getting in their own way.

Based on the current roster, contracts and closing window, I’d argue that this is exactly the time to buy a rental. It’s a win now move. And if they’re not actually trying to win now, then what are they even doing? Oh, that’s right, they’re trying to field a consistently second place team that prides itself on being “good enough” and relies on catching breaks and best case scenarios playing out.

To be clear, I’m with you that Winker probably doesn’t move the needle enough to be worthy of a rental, but this is the corner they’ve painted themselves in and I think it’s a slightly better move than continuing to half-ass it.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

5 minutes ago, Snopek said:

I think this illustrates in general how difficult it is to field a competitive team in the present WHILE worrying about still staying competitive in the future. But even more so with the Sox and their self-imposed restrictions and insistence on getting in their own way.

Based on the current roster, contracts and closing window, I’d argue that this is exactly the time to buy a rental. It’s a win now move. And if they’re not actually trying to win now, then what are they even doing? Oh, that’s right, they’re trying to field a consistently second place team that prides itself on being “good enough” and relies on catching breaks and best case scenarios playing out.

To be clear, I’m with you that Winker probably doesn’t move the needle enough to be worthy of a rental, but this is the corner they’ve painted themselves in and I think it’s a slightly better move than continuing to half-ass it.

They have to try something, and Winker is not the worst option out there. It really is a shame though that this team is stuck with someone like JR who constantly limits the full capabilities that this team should allow itself to have.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

1 hour ago, 2Deep said:

Sooooo teams that win don't sign one year rentals?  To go along with their core like Tim Anderson, Luis Robert, Moncada, Eloy, Vaughn......

This whole give up a prospect concept.......if this is a one year rental do you think the sox are giving up Oscar Colas?

Come on man.....make some sense.

 

I'm not advocating for Jesse Winker......I'm disagreeing with your premise.   

Are the White Sox championship caliber ? That's the only time a rental makes sense. There are way more trades for rentals at the trade deadline than there are in the off season. Smart teams wait to see how they do during the season before looking for that final piece or pieces to put them over the top and they are usually going to cost less to acquire for just a few months rather than a whole season.

Make your case for rentals for a whole season for a team that's been .500 for 1.5 years. Did it help the Dodgers trading for Kimbrel ?

Easy for you to ask "do you think the Sox are giving up Colas ?""  They'll just give up a Intl. prospect nobody knows anything about like this guy named Fernando Tatis, Jr. Come on man make  some sense. This is the White Sox.

 

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, Snopek said:

I think this illustrates in general how difficult it is to field a competitive team in the present WHILE worrying about still staying competitive in the future. But even more so with the Sox and their self-imposed restrictions and insistence on getting in their own way.

Based on the current roster, contracts and closing window, I’d argue that this is exactly the time to buy a rental. It’s a win now move. And if they’re not actually trying to win now, then what are they even doing? Oh, that’s right, they’re trying to field a consistently second place team that prides itself on being “good enough” and relies on catching breaks and best case scenarios playing out.

To be clear, I’m with you that Winker probably doesn’t move the needle enough to be worthy of a rental, but this is the corner they’ve painted themselves in and I think it’s a slightly better move than continuing to half-ass it.

I'm at the point where I'd rather not make the Samardzija and Shields mistakes again. 

If that means more 2nd place finishes, so be it. I have zero expectations with this core group anymore. I'm just biding time until all of their contracts have expired. 

They traded Montas, Bassitt, Semien and Tatis Jr for a failed bid at competition. Any of those players could have been the difference once they decided to trade Sale/Quintana/Eaton. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

1 minute ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

They have to try something, and Winker is not the worst option out there. It really is a shame though that this team is stuck with someone like JR who constantly limits the full capabilities that this team should allow itself to have.

I don't think "not the worst option out there" is something I'd put on my resume. Your minor leaguers are probably not the worst options out there either and its possible they develop into better than that at some point.

Rentals are hit and miss and basically pointless unless you win a championship and they play a major roll. Even if many of the core pieces rebound and that propels the Sox to the playoffs and Winker provided  stats in the range he had before he went to the AL  you still now have to fill that hole again.

 

[2Deep]

3 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Are the White Sox championship caliber ? That's the only time a rental makes sense. There are way more trades for rentals at the trade deadline than there are in the off season. Smart teams wait to see how they do during the season before looking for that final piece or pieces to put them over the top and they are usually going to cost less to acquire for just a few months rather than a whole season.

Make your case for rentals for a whole season for a team that's been .500 for 1.5 years. Did it help the Dodgers trading for Kimbrel ?

Easy for you to ask "do you think the Sox are giving up Colas ?""  They'll just give up a Intl. prospect nobody knows anything about like this guy named Fernando Tatis, Jr. Come on man make  some sense. This is the White Sox.

 

There is a lot of hyperbole in your opinions here.

I get it.......this team/gm/organization lost much/all of the trust from many of us with what they did last year.  Again, I'm not claiming that trading for Winker is a "smart" move.

BTW- your point about Kimbrel is short sided because winning teams seem to have a few bullpen arms that are rentals for a year.  When they do well then teams sign them long term.    

[Jack Parkman]

What do the Sox need to add to Montgomery to get Chisholm? 

I'm actually fine with that because Jazz has 4 years of control. 

If they're going to go all in and empty the farm, go do it. idgaf. Pick a lane. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[Snopek]

36 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'm at the point where I'd rather not make the Samardzija and Shields mistakes again. 

If that means more 2nd place finishes, so be it. I have zero expectations with this core group anymore. I'm just biding time until all of their contracts have expired. 

They traded Montas, Bassitt, Semien and Tatis Jr for a failed bid at competition. Any of those players could have been the difference once they decided to trade Sale/Quintana/Eaton. 

I totally get this thinking. And honestly, if that’s the case, trade Gio, trade Lynn, trade Hendriks (and TA?).

Finish 2nd, finish 4th, whatever, it’s all the same.

What’s maddening to me is the balancing act of sort of focusing on the present and sort of focusing on the future, while not doing either effectively. Pick a lane.

 

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, Snopek said:

I totally get this thinking. And honestly, if that’s the case, trade Gio, trade Lynn, trade Hendriks (and TA?).

Finish 2nd, finish 4th, whatever, it’s all the same.

What’s maddening to me is the balancing act of sort of focusing on the present and sort of focusing on the future, while not doing either effectively. Pick a lane.

 

See, I'd be ok with them going all in if the entire team wasn't hurt and bad last year. 

If they wanted to trade Montgomery for Chisholm, who has 4 years of control left, fills a need and also bats lefty, I'm ok with that. Those are the type of deals they should be making. No 1-2 year rentals. 

If they're going to empty the farm, do it for guys with 3-4 years left. Also take a chance on a guy like Kelenic that might need a change of scenery. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

10 minutes ago, 2Deep said:

There is a lot of hyperbole in your opinions here.

I get it.......this team/gm/organization lost much/all of the trust from many of us with what they did last year.  Again, I'm not claiming that trading for Winker is a "smart" move.

BTW- your point about Kimbrel is short sided because winning teams seem to have a few bullpen arms that are rentals for a year.  When they do well then teams sign them long term.    

I don't see any hyperbole let alone a lot. What has Hahn/KW/JR done to make the Sox better since they let Renteria go? They have only become much worse.

And again support your claim. Show me some times that a full season 1 year rental helped teams win a championship. I know there are probably a lot of trades that ended up neutral, the player didn't help a team win a championship and the prospects didn't pan out , but there are still salary implications involved with trading for a rental whereas the team getting the prospects gets salary relief.

Kimbrel didn't help the Dodgers statistically but it actually was a smart trade for them because Hahn took back a player who ended up being more expensive than the guy he gave up. Kimbrel's salary was $16M for 2022 whereas at the very least Pollock was $12M + the $5M buyout for 2023. However if he had stayed with the Dodgers it's likely he doesn't get the AB's required to increase his salary for 2023 with the Dodgers but he still could have chose his player option @ $12M for 2023 with them. If ever a trade called for a prospect for a guy Kimbrel was it. But no Hahn doubled down on his trade deadline deal and it ended up being a bigger bust than it already was. Only by the grace of Pollock was that trade not extremely terrible but just terrible.

Basically by accepting that trade Hahn once again made it seem like he was working for the Dodgers rather than the Sox just as he did when now the Giants can get a draft pick back for Rodon instead of the Sox getting a draft pick for him.

There is no such thing as hyperbole when talking about the Sox FO ineptitude.

[Balta1701]

14 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

What do the Sox need to add to Montgomery to get Chisholm? 

I'm actually fine with that because Jazz has 4 years of control. 

If they're going to go all in and empty the farm, go do it. idgaf. Pick a lane. 

From the Trade Simulator, assuming that he's actually movable in a fair value deal and not "you need to overpay for him", it was Montgomery + Crochet for the easiest match, Montgomery + Ramos + Sosa/Martin/Vera/Romy (and several other guys) also generally works.

There are other options involving guys like Giolito, Anderson, Hendriks since they have value as well, but it seems likely that would need a third team to take on the money.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Kimbrel didn't help the Dodgers statistically but it actually was a smart trade for them because Hahn took back a player who ended up being more expensive than the guy he gave up. Kimbrel's salary was $16M for 2022 whereas at the very least Pollock was $12M + the $5M buyout for 2023. However if he had stayed with the Dodgers it's likely he doesn't get the AB's required to increase his salary for 2023 with the Dodgers but he still could have chose his player option @ $12M for 2023 with them. If ever a trade called for a prospect for a guy Kimbrel was it. But no Hahn doubled down on his trade deadline deal and it ended up being a bigger bust than it already was. Only by the grace of Pollock was that trade not extremely terrible but just terrible.

 

Or maybe the Dodgers recognized that Pollock was at about the end of his career and viewed him as having negative value to them, so they dumped the 2023 contract risk off onto someone else...and since he had effectively 0 value Kimbrel wouldn't have returned this "fantastical prospect." 

[bmags]

I threw out a 2023 plan in like early october that I hadn't actually run numbers on but using the fangraphs crowdsource numbers it actually ended up working out pretty decent:

Basically trade giolito for outman/amaya/$$, trade liam for Gleybar, sign Jose, sign bassitt.

SP: Cease/Lynn/Quintana/Bassitt/Kopech, rely on graveman and hope team is good and can add at deadline and let some of its prospects improve.

I still think if they actually did this it would be a pretty good club. That outfield would scare people, and my initial expectation was AJ Pollock was there. You are thus at a crossroads with using sheets or eloy in LF or seeing if outman is for real.

But the original argument was creating a lot more competition on players and less complacency.

I was looking to see if Leury could be sent for a bad reliever contract but the only teams that gave multi year contracts last year to disappointing relievers was the chicago white sox.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Or maybe the Dodgers recognized that Pollock was at about the end of his career and viewed him as having negative value to them, so they dumped the 2023 contract risk off onto someone else...and since he had effectively 0 value Kimbrel wouldn't have returned this "fantastical prospect." 

Either way that trade still was terrible for the Sox. I already said it was a smart trade for the Dodgers so however you look at it the Dodgers GM aced Hahn. Hahn may have never asked for a prospect. I have my doubts that the Dodgers didn't have a few decent prospects they would have been willing to give up including Outman. On paper a 3 WAR RH Pollock may have looked better to Hahn than a guy who might not have contributed to the Sox in 2022. Even without Pollock the LH Outman only got in 4 games with the Dodgers and kicked ass and was promptly sent back down.

Outman should be a starting OF for somebody in 2023. Will it be the Dodgers ?

Edited November 17, 2022 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Jack Parkman]

BTW I expect them to trade Giolito this winter and sign Manaea/Quintana and another SP. If they could get both Manaea and Quintana I think they'd do that. They'd probably cost $10M each. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Either way that trade still was terrible for the Sox. I already said it was a smart trade for the Dodgers so however you look at it the Dodgers GM aced Hahn. Hahn may have never asked for a prospect. I have my doubts that the Dodgers didn't have a few decent prospects they would have been willing to give up including Outman. On paper a 3 WAR RH Pollock may have looked better to Hahn than a guy who might not have contributed to the Sox in 2022. Even without Pollock the LH Outman only got in 4 games with the Dodgers and kicked ass and was promptly sent back down.

This one I was pretty emphatic about last season, Kimbrel did not look like a player who was worth anything other than a bad contract, he wasn't getting back any sort of prospect of any value from anyone. Teams that had that much money to spend on relievers - the Phillies, Braves - they found better options on the FA market where they didn't have to give up talent. Teams that were willing to make trades for relievers - Padres - found better options on the trade market. 

Criticize for the contract option being picked up if you want, that's correct it shouldn't have been done. Kimbrel on the FA market might have gotten a contract close to what he was actually paid, but he wasn't going to get more than his salary this year (note that Jansen got the same money Kimbrel got), and that means Kimbrel was not worth a prospect of any value. 

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This one I was pretty emphatic about last season, Kimbrel did not look like a player who was worth anything other than a bad contract, he wasn't getting back any sort of prospect of any value from anyone. Teams that had that much money to spend on relievers - the Phillies, Braves - they found better options on the FA market where they didn't have to give up talent. Teams that were willing to make trades for relievers - Padres - found better options on the trade market. 

Criticize for the contract option being picked up if you want, that's correct it shouldn't have been done. Kimbrel on the FA market might have gotten a contract close to what he was actually paid, but he wasn't going to get more than his salary this year (note that Jansen got the same money Kimbrel got), and that means Kimbrel was not worth a prospect of any value. 

Hahn did the best he could do with Kimbrel. I didn't even think Kimbrel was movable without eating over half of the deal. 

[Balta1701]

8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Hahn did the best he could do with Kimbrel. I didn't even think Kimbrel was movable without eating over half of the deal. 

Clearly based on what Jansen got "eating over half the deal" is an exaggeration, you could likely have gotten someone to absorb most of that deal without having to eat money, but he wasn't worth a prospect in addition to taking on his contract. 

[Dick Allen]

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Hahn did the best he could do with Kimbrel. I didn't even think Kimbrel was movable without eating over half of the deal. 

The best he could have done was give his his $1 million buyout and tell him to go scratch. Instead he traded for a guy who couldn't hit righties and couldn't play RF. You almost have to try to be that wrong.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Dick Allen

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This one I was pretty emphatic about last season, Kimbrel did not look like a player who was worth anything other than a bad contract, he wasn't getting back any sort of prospect of any value from anyone. Teams that had that much money to spend on relievers - the Phillies, Braves - they found better options on the FA market where they didn't have to give up talent. Teams that were willing to make trades for relievers - Padres - found better options on the trade market. 

Criticize for the contract option being picked up if you want, that's correct it shouldn't have been done. Kimbrel on the FA market might have gotten a contract close to what he was actually paid, but he wasn't going to get more than his salary this year (note that Jansen got the same money Kimbrel got), and that means Kimbrel was not worth a prospect of any value. 

I was very upset when Hahn picked up the option and maybe it took him a long time to trade him because of he couldn't get a prospect but yeah still disgusting the whole Kimbrel situation from beginning to end with Pollock luckily turning down the option and taking the buyout instead.

Decline the option and you have salary to work with. Pick it up take your chances you can move the whole salary or get something useful back for the the same amount of salary or less salary. Hahn actually managed to do neither and ends up trading him and taking on more salary for his typical veteran trade that of course bombs. That's a level of bad that cannot be emphasized enough. Hahn did more for the NL West than he did for the Sox.

[Balta1701]

Just now, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

 Hahn did more for the NL West than he did for the Sox.

To be fair, the Dodgers weren't particularly happy with Kimbrel either. So I guess yeah he did a lot for the Padres too, because the Dodgers couldn't go out and get a better bullpen piece? 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

To be fair, the Dodgers weren't particularly happy with Kimbrel either. So I guess yeah he did a lot for the Padres too, because the Dodgers couldn't go out and get a better bullpen piece? 

Dodgers got Kimbrel for how ever much they saved on the Pollock contract which was what, $8M max. or more if he got the amount of AB's with the Dodgers he got with  the Sox. The Dodger got what they paid for which was an $8M gift from the Sox.

[Jack Parkman]

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Clearly based on what Jansen got "eating over half the deal" is an exaggeration, you could likely have gotten someone to absorb most of that deal without having to eat money, but he wasn't worth a prospect in addition to taking on his contract. 

I didn't even think they could do that. I thought his value was so bad that even after eating half or more it was still a pure salary dump. 

[Jack Parkman]

13 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The best he could have done was give his his $1 million buyout and tell him to go scratch. Instead he traded for a guy who couldn't hit righties and couldn't play RF. You almost have to try to be that wrong.

This was the no brainer. They fucked that up. 

[maxjusttyped]

99% of Hahn criticism is valid, but Pollock was coming off a 3 WAR season & 2 consecutive years with a wRC+ of 130 or higher. It was impossible to foresee him falling off a cliff like this.