Couch rips the White Sox for "staying put"

[fathom]

Cubs not spending money is such a myth. Their payroll has been high for quite a few years now.

[santo=dorf]

The Sox didn't "stay put," they made some bad moves.

[caulfield12]

The Sox didn't "stay put," they made some bad moves.

 

They pretty much stayed "status quo" with the core of their team.

 

Yeah, they signed Hall and dealt Garcia and McCarthy, but that only displaced one member of the starting rotation. They kept Pods one year too long and went with the cheapest possible solution in CF in Erstad, although that's actually worked out fairly well so far.

 

It was pretty difficult to argue they'd clearly improved the team this year coming out of spring training, and the results speak for themselves. We knew the bullpen had the potential to be better, but Jenks is a pretty large concern (literally and figuratively), Thornton's a mystery and Sisco's still walking way too many.

[chisoxt]

I agree -- now more than ever before we're going to need production from within the system. And not just league average replacement players. Prospects capable of competing within an American League division comprised of deep pitching staffs and numerous Top 10 positional players.

 

It's difficult enough to find average players to fill the positions you mentioned with a 100 million dollar payroll. If the payroll decreases marginally within the next several seasons because of declining ticket sales, it'll be even more improbable to field a contending team.

 

Looking at our problems in the immediate future, if Sweeney and Fields are not worthy of full-time positions to begin 2008 we're going to be in trouble. I believe the payroll for next season is already bordering on 95 million. Definitely not a good situation we find ourselves in.

 

This also begs the question about the alarming lack of productivity within the system. If our better prospects continue to struggle, and if the parent club gets buried in the next few weeks, a fire sale will be our only recourse. At htis point, I am glad that KW made the trades for Gio, Danks and Masset. He may want to turn his attention to position prospects next time.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, they signed Hall and dealt Garcia and McCarthy, but that only displaced one member of the starting rotation. They kept Pods one year too long and went with the cheapest possible solution in CF in Erstad, although that's actually worked out fairly well so far.

I'd just like to add...the only reason people would say that Erstad has worked out well is that everyone else on the team is making him look decent.

[Kalapse]

I'd just like to add...the only reason people would say that Erstad has worked out well is that everyone else on the team is making him look decent.

His .309 OBP isn't exactly sexy. I guess being a midget of above average (by midget standards) height pays afterall.

 

EDIT: .305 OBP

[greg775]

I think it was a good article.

He said one hot week this time of year can change everything.

How can you argue with what he wrote?

Like he pointed out, the signs are not good right now.

This team is nothing without pitching and the long ball.

The pitching has been good; no long ball.

Edited May 5, 2007 by greg775

[southsider2k5]

Cubs not spending money is such a myth. Their payroll has been high for quite a few years now.

 

It depends on what you mean by "spending money" they have had a payroll pretty similar to the White Sox for years now, except they have WAY higher revenues, both from the ballpark (higher prices+higher attendance), and especially from their TV and radio contracts. They have got to be one of the most profitable franchises in baseball on a year to year basis.

[caulfield12]

It depends on what you mean by "spending money" they have had a payroll pretty similar to the White Sox for years now, except they have WAY higher revenues, both from the ballpark (higher prices+higher attendance), and especially from their TV and radio contracts. They have got to be one of the most profitable franchises in baseball on a year to year basis.

 

 

I think they're #2, behind the Yankees.

 

The only other arguments are for the Dodgers and the Red Sox, but I think "pure profit" has the Cubs at #2, from everything I've read.

[joeynach]

This team actually has very good pitching, the problem is Kenny's offensive philosophy going into this year:

 

1. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Pods, who is both bad and fragile.

 

2. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Erstad, who is both bad and fragile (that's worked out ok though).

 

3. Was, like many, under the false premise that last year was a breakout year at the plate for Crede, when it was actually just a career year.

 

4. Took the caculated risk that Thome would stay healthy again, which could work out still if he does after this DL stint is over, but who knows.

 

5. Relied on the contract year status to mean Dye would have a year again like 2006, when in reality that was another case of a career year, in this case from an aging player.

 

There are your problems. Our pitching is fine, but our offense is wrong in almost every way possible.

 

Yep this team, meaning KW needs to recognize when a player or players have downright ridiculously awesome years that aren't in flux with their career numbers, its an aberration not an upward trend. We see it over and over again. Very rare does a guy bust out with a great year thats not on par at all with his year to year to year numbers and then maintain that forever. Doesn't happen. Dye and Crede are examples last year; Hermanson, Cotts, Politte, Garland (ERA) in 2005. And its not just our team it happens all the time, look at Morgan Ensberg he had that monster year in 2005 then what. Adrian Beltre, Brady Anderson, even Justin Morneau (we will see), Johnny Peralta, Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez, etc. Its called regression towards the mean in logical terms. A good GM and organization would plan that following a guys one and only monster year that regression towards the mean is more likely than the player just putting up those career years #'s for the rest of his playing time.

[witesoxfan]

Yep this team, meaning KW needs to recognize when a player or players have downright ridiculously awesome years that aren't in flux with their career numbers, its an aberration not an upward trend. We see it over and over again. Very rare does a guy bust out with a great year thats not on par at all with his year to year to year numbers and then maintain that forever. Doesn't happen. Dye and Crede are examples last year; Hermanson, Cotts, Politte, Garland (ERA) in 2005. And its not just our team it happens all the time, look at Morgan Ensberg he had that monster year in 2005 then what. Adrian Beltre, Brady Anderson, even Justin Morneau (we will see), Johnny Peralta, Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez, etc. Its called regression towards the mean in logical terms. A good GM and organization would plan that following a guys one and only monster year that regression towards the mean is more likely than the player just putting up those career years #'s for the rest of his playing time.

 

and then what happens when you trade David Ortiz or Travis Hafner?

 

You are, what I like to refer to, jumping to conclusions. It's May 7th and you're already writing Dye, Crede, and Morneau off for the entire year. Why?

[southsider2k5]

and then what happens when you trade David Ortiz or Travis Hafner?

 

You are, what I like to refer to, jumping to conclusions. It's May 7th and you're already writing Dye, Crede, and Morneau off for the entire year. Why?

 

Jumping to conclusions is his favorite exercise?

[whitesoxfan101]

Its called regression towards the mean in logical terms. A good GM and organization would plan that following a guys one and only monster year that regression towards the mean is more likely than the player just putting up those career years #'s for the rest of his playing time.

 

The success of the A's for many years has been based on maximizing the performance they get out of guys, and then trading them to teams who will overpay for them, only to see the guy they got regress to the means (SEE: Mulder for Calero and Haren for example). In fact, they do it well in cases like Frank Thomas, Chad Bradford, etc as well in cases without trades. That is the true essence of moneyball, far more than on base percentage (although that is important too).

[ZoomSlowik]

The success of the A's for many years has been based on maximizing the performance they get out of guys, and then trading them to teams who will overpay for them, only to see the guy they got regress to the means (SEE: Mulder for Calero and Haren for example). In fact, they do it well in cases like Frank Thomas, Chad Bradford, etc as well in cases without trades. That is the true essence of moneyball, far more than on base percentage (although that is important too).

 

They also let Tejada and Zito walk rather than trade them, and have held on to Chavez despite his obviously declining performance (well, since his extension, had a solid year in 2004 right before he signed it, though he missed about 30 games). They could have had a king's ransom for those guys at one point if they really wanted to. Also, if they had a payroll closer to the Sox probably two out of Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Tejada, and Giambi would still be there, they did that out of financial necessity.

 

I'd credit their scouting which allows them to find affordable replacements a lot more than that particular strategy.

Edited May 7, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[GreenSox]

The success of the A's for many years has been based on maximizing the performance they get out of guys, and then trading them to teams who will overpay for them, only to see the guy they got regress to the means (SEE: Mulder for Calero and Haren for example). In fact, they do it well in cases like Frank Thomas, Chad Bradford, etc as well in cases without trades. That is the true essence of moneyball, far more than on base percentage (although that is important too).

It's like constantly trading down in the draft, trading down in the draft. Ultimately, you'll end up with 32 choices in this and next year's 7th round. Prospects dont' win titles - what prospects become wins titles. So at some point, yoiu have to let them mature and risk perhaps keeping them on the downside.

At some point it's overkill.

And spending 10Mill a year on Jason Kendall, a high proportion of their budget, is a dubious choice..

He's one 1 playoff series, but has a consistently good team. Shapiro is looking for his first playoff club. The guy in LA was a disaster, zip from Toronto.

 

As for a fire sale, people don't pay much for rents of, say, Dye. We could probably move a starter or reliever for something decent. BUt what we really neeed are a couple of bats. We've got good pitching and good defense. And I think our pitching remains the best in the Central, overall, and I therefore think we'll remain in the race, albeit on the fringes.

Edited May 7, 2007 by GreenSox

[Balta1701]

As for a fire sale, people don't pay much for rents of, say, Dye. We could probably move a starter or reliever for something decent. BUt what we really neeed are a couple of bats. We've got good pitching and good defense. And I think our pitching remains the best in the Central, overall, and I therefore think we'll remain in the race, albeit on the fringes.

Well, it sort of depends on a couple things, first, what are we asking for, and second, how are the folks performing. If Mark Buehrle keeps up his potential All-Star first half again, and looks solid, and someone like the Mets take another blow to their rotation, then its all going to be a question of price. Or if Dye starts hitting and the Dodgers/Angels finally decide how desperate they are for an OF bat, then it all depends on the price.

 

If we're locked in on a young potential #1 starting pitcher for either of those guys, we're not going to get it. If we're locked in on a top 10 prospect in baseball, we're not getting it. But if we target someone a step back from that, or a couple players who could fill in and who aren't pitchers, then it becomes more possible. The Dodgers have soured somewhat on Billingsly, the Mets have soured somewhat on Milledge, a ton of the Angels' guys not named Brandon Wood have been let downs. If I'm in KW's chair, the simple question you have to weigh when thinking about a sell-off, if your record winds up in the place where you should, is...is the talent I'm getting back better than what I would get with 2 high draft picks?

[caulfield12]

Well, it sort of depends on a couple things, first, what are we asking for, and second, how are the folks performing. If Mark Buehrle keeps up his potential All-Star first half again, and looks solid, and someone like the Mets take another blow to their rotation, then its all going to be a question of price. Or if Dye starts hitting and the Dodgers/Angels finally decide how desperate they are for an OF bat, then it all depends on the price.

 

If we're locked in on a young potential #1 starting pitcher for either of those guys, we're not going to get it. If we're locked in on a top 10 prospect in baseball, we're not getting it. But if we target someone a step back from that, or a couple players who could fill in and who aren't pitchers, then it becomes more possible. The Dodgers have soured somewhat on Billingsly, the Mets have soured somewhat on Milledge, a ton of the Angels' guys not named Brandon Wood have been let downs. If I'm in KW's chair, the simple question you have to weigh when thinking about a sell-off, if your record winds up in the place where you should, is...is the talent I'm getting back better than what I would get with 2 high draft picks?

 

 

What type of ERA and record does Buehrle need to qualify as a Type A FA? I'm assuming it's not going to be a 4.99 ERA, but what are the criteria for this classification? Some complicatd SABR formula with quartiles and VORP correlation coefficients?

[Balta1701]

What type of ERA and record does Buehrle need to qualify as a Type A FA? I'm assuming it's not going to be a 4.99 ERA, but what are the criteria for this classification? Some complicatd SABR formula with quartiles and VORP correlation coefficients?

Well, that's sort of hard to say, I don't see the rules posted anywhere obvious, and it depends a lot on what the other folks do and how many people actually hit the market. Be glad he's not hitting the market 2 years from now, when Garland hits, along with I believe guys like Santana, Peavy, Sheets, and a couple others IIRC.

 

For reference, Eric Gagne was a type A FA last year after having pitched 16 innings the previous 2 years. For starting pitchers, Jeff Suppan and Woody Williams qualified as type A last year, Chan Ho Park was in the type B class, etc.

[joeynach]

and then what happens when you trade David Ortiz or Travis Hafner?

 

You are, what I like to refer to, jumping to conclusions. It's May 7th and you're already writing Dye, Crede, and Morneau off for the entire year. Why?

 

Im not writing them off im siding with the #'s. Those guys u meantion are blips on the radar in terms of what im talking about. Sure u get a few who break out and become stars but most regress. Just look at the numbers. And im not saying what is or isn't going to happen, just what the trends are historically. THats why I talk about planning for the event that the most likely will happen, the trend being regression. I liked the idea of Eduardo Perez as a decent insurance or backup (at least against LHP) but they released him. Now see what happens when Dye and Crede dont match last years #, just like Cotts and Politte from 05 to 06. Need insurance against possible, more like probable, regression.

 

 

The success of the A's for many years has been based on maximizing the performance they get out of guys, and then trading them to teams who will overpay for them, only to see the guy they got regress to the means (SEE: Mulder for Calero and Haren for example). In fact, they do it well in cases like Frank Thomas, Chad Bradford, etc as well in cases without trades. That is the true essence of moneyball, far more than on base percentage (although that is important too).

 

Exactly.

Edited May 8, 2007 by joeynach

[witesoxfan]

Im not writing them off im siding with the #'s. Those guys u meantion are blips on the radar in terms of what im talking about. Sure u get a few who break out and become stars but most regress.

Exactly.

 

Regress from superstar numbers to very good overall numbers.

 

and, again, you're contradicting yourself. You can't say you're not writing them off and then go ahead and side with the numbers come May 7th. There are no substantial numbers to side with. It's likely Dye won't hit 40+ homers again, but I wouldn't write off him putting up .300 30 .900 at all, and that would be perfectly acceptable.

[StrangeSox]

The success of the A's for many years has been based on maximizing the performance they get out of guys, and then trading them to teams who will overpay for them, only to see the guy they got regress to the means (SEE: Mulder for Calero and Haren for example). In fact, they do it well in cases like Frank Thomas, Chad Bradford, etc as well in cases without trades. That is the true essence of moneyball, far more than on base percentage (although that is important too).

 

How successful has moneyball been in winning a WS or even getting to one?

[witesoxfan]

How successful has moneyball been in winning a WS or even getting to one?

 

the Red Sox won

[StrangeSox]

the Red Sox won

 

Boston had the second highest payroll in the MLB. Doesn't that go against the principles of moneyball?

[joeynach]

Regress from superstar numbers to very good overall numbers.

 

and, again, you're contradicting yourself. You can't say you're not writing them off and then go ahead and side with the numbers come May 7th. There are no substantial numbers to side with. It's likely Dye won't hit 40+ homers again, but I wouldn't write off him putting up .300 30 .900 at all, and that would be perfectly acceptable.

 

Isn't .300/30/90 regression since his #'s moved toward his career averages from where they were in 06. And once again im not saying its all over on May 7th im speaking of a trend here, not the absoulte certainty.

 

How successful has moneyball been in winning a WS or even getting to one?

 

Well apparently $200 Mil payroll hasn't been succesful either how many WS have the yanks had recently.

[witesoxfan]

Isn't .300/30/90 regression since his #'s moved toward his career averages from where they were in 06. And once again im not saying its all over on May 7th im speaking of a trend here, not the absoulte certainty.

Well apparently $200 Mil payroll hasn't been succesful either how many WS have the yanks had recently.

 

.900. As in OPS. But 90 works too, so that's fine.

 

And that's why KW didn't trade Dye, because it's very likely he's going to be really productive this year. It's also why he hasn't signed him to an extension. I mean, honestly, name me one logical replacement for Dye's production.