White Sox acquire Juan Pierre

[ThunderBolt]

So he likes portabella mushrooms?

Suck, it KyYie. I checked this one before i posted it. fun⋅gi⋅ble. Adj-esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.

[Kyyle23]

Suck, it KyYie. I checked this one before i posted it. fun⋅gi⋅ble. Adj-esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.

 

Oh i looked it up too. Good use of a little used word.

 

but it was sitting there on a tee, so I had to see if I could at least leg out a double

[Marty34]

To me guys like Kotsay and Vizquel and Teahen haven't filled any holes. They aren't any better than options the White Sox already had available to them. Then when it comes to guys like Pierre, you can get a better player for the same kind of money. Finally when it comes to Putz, you're spending a premium to fill a not all that critical position on the team on a guy whose recent history ain't all that great. I don't like any of it.

 

They traded for Teahan because they wanted to move Beckham to second. Getz is limited because he can only play second and Fields had worn out his welcome here and shown he couldn't play third. I'm not huge fan of extending Teahan, but was there a better option at third for the money? I'm not so sure.

 

Vizquel was signed in part as a mentor for Ramirez. Ramirez had problems with the nuances of the position so the Sox are hoping Vizquel can help smooth out those rough edges, besides he's still a good glove at three positions something they also needed.

 

Putz won't be the third man out of the pen if Jenks falters.

 

Coco Crisp is on the verge of signing for $5M with the A's. The Pierre deal isn't the overpay it appeared to be.

 

As far as Nick Johnson goes, it's folly to think the Yankees would lose out on a player they wanted over 500K. If the Sox wanted him who knows how much they'd have to offer him.

[southsider2k5]

They traded for Teahan because they wanted to move Beckham to second. Getz is limited because he can only play second and Fields had worn out his welcome here and shown he couldn't play third. I'm not huge fan of extending Teahan, but was there a better option at third for the money? I'm not so sure.

 

Vizquel was signed in part as a mentor for Ramirez. Ramirez had problems with the nuances of the position so the Sox are hoping Vizquel can help smooth out those rough edges, besides he's still a good glove at three positions something they also needed.

 

Putz won't be the third man out of the pen if Jenks falters.

 

Coco Crisp is on the verge of signing for $5M with the A's. The Pierre deal isn't the overpay it appeared to be.

 

As far as Nick Johnson goes, it's folly to think the Yankees would lose out on a player they wanted over 500K. If the Sox wanted him who knows how much they'd have to offer him.

 

And Beckham for that matter.

[Ranger]

Uhh, Chris Burke being driven in by Jose Vizcaino. Arm strength matters

 

How much is the left fielders arm strength really going to have an effect? Over the course of a season, it's not significant. Catch the ball. That's what matters.

 

Well money spent on Vizquel on Kotsay to me are wastes. They're no better than guys like Mike McCoy and Ryan Langerhans who are available for league minimum, a handshake and a kind word. I'm not sure Kotsay is even much better than De Aza at this stage of their careers and the Sox already have him. Even if Kotsay and Vizquel are slightly better (extremely doubtful in Kotsay's case), if the two play enough to where "slightly better" has any meaning, the team is in trouble anyway. There's two million saved.

 

Then trading Getz and Fields for a player not any better than Getz but considerably more expensive is another two million gone.

 

Andruw was a decent pickup since he only costs you more than league minimum if he actually does something.

 

Third man out of the bullpen is probably not someone you want to be spending $3 million on, particularly when it means you can't tender a guy who was an effective workhorse out of the pen last year. Putz does have a track record of some success, but he's always had control problems and obviously 2009 wasn't the most encouraging season. I wouldn't have spent that money that way. That's $2.5 million saved.

 

$4 million on Juan Pierre is a considerable overpay in and of itself and Ely wasn't a completely worthless chip either. Pierre is the kind of bench player you spend $1.5 million on, but that wasn't on the table. So that's $3.5 million saved.

 

That's $12 million above league minimum for those slots. Fill guys like McCoy and Langerhans in at two of the slots. The Andruw deal is fine for one of the slots. So far we haven't spent any of that $12 million. $5 million for Nick Johnson or $5.5 if you think the White Sox needed to exceed the Yankees offer. So that's $6.5 million for an outfielder (Marlon Byrd or Rick Ankiel are both good players likely available for less than that) and a middle reliever to fill out the 25 (and a league minimum backup catcher).

 

To me guys like Kotsay and Vizquel and Teahen haven't filled any holes. They aren't any better than options the White Sox already had available to them. Then when it comes to guys like Pierre, you can get a better player for the same kind of money. Finally when it comes to Putz, you're spending a premium to fill a not all that critical position on the team on a guy whose recent history ain't all that great. I don't like any of it.

 

 

No offense, but you probably wouldn't be a very good GM because I'm not sure you understand the economics here. Basically, you would've preferred they fill 4 or 5 holes with absolute unknowns? I think that would've been a terrible idea, and trust me, you would've been saying, "why didn't they get some proven guys to play here or there?" At least we know the realistic potential for everyone he's acquired. You would've complained if they didn't make a serious move to fortify the pen. You would've complained if they made one huge signing, but then filled the rest of the vacancies with $500,000 players.

 

On what planet would Pierre be getting $1.5 million? Coco Crisp is about to get $5 mil from the A's. Marlon Byrd? Really? Wow.

 

This team had a a few holes to fill, and they've done a good job of that.

 

I'll let League handle the rest...he did a nice job of it.

 

The White Sox have had money to spend. Since they have acquired Peavy, they have "spent" $82 million alone on Rios, Teahan and Pierre. I think there is an issue as to how they have spent it.

 

 

So then you have an issue with Peavy's acquisition? I can udnerstand some reservations about Rios, but Peavy? (Also keep in mind, they had to give up zero prospects for Rios). Teahen and Pierre are inexpensive.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Ranger

[Princess Dye]

For Rios' 08 production (which is not even his best) plus his glove...it's a market value contract.

[Mattchoo]

For Rios' 08 production (which is not even his best) plus his glove...it's a market value contract.

 

 

I agree with this, and hopefully he can return to that too

[Princess Dye]

I agree with this, and hopefully he can return to that too

 

 

I will take those 47 doubles any year gladly.

 

Hell, his 31 total for 2009 sadly wouldve let us for a whole year. Not that this says a ton about anything other than how bad we were.

[SouthsideDon48]

Oh i looked it up too. Good use of a little used word.

 

but it was sitting there on a tee, so I had to see if I could at least leg out a double

it seems like fungible is a fungible word.

[SouthsideDon48]

Well, as I said, I tend to agree with you, but how can you say for sure that Vizquel and Kotsay and Putz really are going to give you more than a few league-minimum type guys? And even if they did, you can definitely argue that getting a fewer high-profile guys who would be getting most of the playing time would have a far greater impact than some lesser role players who would be getting very little playing time.

 

I think the crux of the disapproval here is that many of the moves Kenny has made are moves a team like the Yankees or Red Sox make to shore up holes in their roster, after they have already addressed all their key needs. A lot of people think Kenny made these moves in lieu of actually addressing his key needs. I think KHP even stated that Kenny has approached things backwards, which is a pretty accurate way of looking at things.

 

Hey one point to point out...

 

I know Kenny is probably more than likely to not sign any of the big-name free agents out there, but maybe the reason why Kenny approached things backwards is so he can make the team more attractive to a potential free agent he has his eyes on.

 

It's totally possible. I mean, look at it this way, if Kenny went to the big-name free agent first and the free agent sees the team has a bunch of guys like Josh Fields, Chris Getz, a hole at left field, and a bench filled with only Kotsay so far, then the free agent might think, "Eh... no thank you." if he thinks the team is not built to win.

 

However, by going backwards by filling the roster with upgrades such as a leftfielder who can leadoff and has the numbers proving he can bunt and steal bases in Pierre, a former closer who was solid before injuries caught up to him in the set-up role in Putz, a bench consisting of solid veterans with winning track records such as Vizquel, Kotsay, and Jones; and Jones still has the ability to hit 20 homers as indicated last year. And by going "backwards" Kenny made the team much more attractive as a potential winning team to free agents who wants to sign with a team that will win now rather than just a team that will pay the most money.

 

And doing this allows Kenny to use money to fill other holes before approaching a big-name free agent. Because if he approached a big-name free agent first and signed him to a big contract, then he'll have less money to fill other holes and we'd be stuck with scrubs like Fields and Lillibridge again. But by filling the other holes first with proven veterans with track records, Kenny puts himself in a postion of offering a contract to a potential big-name free agent for less money and saying something to him like "This is all we can afford to pay you, but our team is already built to win, you can accept less money to be with us than another club if you want to have a chance to be on a winning ballclub. Deal or no deal."

If this is what Kenny's strategy is,... then he is a freaking genius.

Edited December 20, 2009 by SouthsideDon48

[Dick Allen]

So then you have an issue with Peavy's acquisition? I can udnerstand some reservations about Rios, but Peavy? (Also keep in mind, they had to give up zero prospects for Rios). Teahen and Pierre are inexpensive.

The $82 million doesn't include Peavy. Rios is $60 million, Teahan $14 million Pierre $8 million. As for the zero prospects for Rios, doesn't that say anything? If an organizaton truly thought he is worth $12 million a year wouldn't they have given Toronto something for him?

[Princess Dye]

The Rios thing screws up things for this year's free agency...but the guys we're missing out on are either old or injury plagued (Matsui/NJohnson). The Sox are still going to have money freeing up next year with which they can go in several directions.

 

Plus of the things we're missing out on, I dont know that outfield defense was going to be helped in a different way this offseason with what was available. We needed it at two OF positions, not just one.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Princess Dye

[Dick Allen]

The Rios thing screws up things for this year's free agency...but the guys we're missing out on are either old or injury plagued (Matsui/NJohnson). The Sox are still going to have money freeing up next year with which they can go in several directions.

 

Plus of the things we're missing out on, I dont know that outfield defense was going to be helped in a different way this offseason with what was available. We needed it at two OF positions, not just one.

Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like they have about $21 less committed in 2011 vs. 2010, but Thornton has a $3 million option which unless he gets hurt is almost automatic and Quentin, Danks and Jenks still with the arb, you would figure each gets a couple million raise at the very least, so that's leaves about $12 million if payroll remained the same, and you have your entire bench to work on. It gets eat up pretty quickly. Then again, the roster will look quite different a year from now. Some of the committments will be gone and some new ones will be on the list.

 

 

 

It would be interesting listening to KW after taking some truth serum regarding Rios. I bet you he liked him but not $60 million worth. I believe he was in talks to acquire him, but wanted Toronto to eat some of the contract.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like they have about $21 less committed in 2011 vs. 2010, but Thornton has a $3 million option which unless he gets hurt is almost automatic and Quentin, Danks and Jenks still with the arb, you would figure each gets a couple million raise at the very least, so that's leaves about $12 million if payroll remained the same, and you have your entire bench to work on. It gets eat up pretty quickly. Then again, the roster will look quite different a year from now. Some of the committments will be gone and some new ones will be on the list.

It's also possible that if this team comes out and wins the division it could beat last year's revenue numbers substantially and create some extra room.

[southsider2k5]

it seems like fungible is a fungible word.

 

It is a term used in commodities trading all of the time.

[Balta1701]

It is a term used in commodities trading all of the time.

Thus, it's quite fungible.

[Dick Allen]

It's also possible that if this team comes out and wins the division it could beat last year's revenue numbers substantially and create some extra room.

Its possible. The problem is the attendance has been on the downswing and winning while it will help, might not be the answer. The Sox drew more in 2007 than they did winning the divison in 2008 and drew even less in 2009. Of course, they drew more in 2007 than they did in 2005. Part of the problem is the Sox are going to have a lot unattractive home games. Cleveland and KC are dregs. Detroit doesn't interest many. That's 1/3 of your home schedule. The economy is still poor, but playoffs and a nice run in them could get some extra funds in the coffers, although Minnesota should be very strong. They have to beat up on Cleve, KC and Det.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Ranger]

The $82 million doesn't include Peavy. Rios is $60 million, Teahan $14 million Pierre $8 million. As for the zero prospects for Rios, doesn't that say anything? If an organizaton truly thought he is worth $12 million a year wouldn't they have given Toronto something for him?

 

 

Yeah, it says Toronto wanted to get out of the contract. It says Toronto was no longer able to afford having Wells, Rios, and Halladay's contracts at the same time. They were not in position to be able to afford it. They would've loved to ship Wells, too. Look, Rios underperformed last year and it's possible he doesn't duplicate 2006 again. But even if he doesn't, I think people are overstating how much Rios would be overpaid.

 

Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that.

 

I'm not arguing that Rios is better, because he has not been a better player than Hunter has over his career. I'm merely using Hunter as a reference point for value. What I am arguing is that if Rios performs to even something like what he's capable, he won't be all that overpaid. In fact, he may not be overpaid at all compared to what others will be getting in his position.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Ranger

[Ranger]

Its possible. The problem is the attendance has been on the downswing and winning while it will help, might not be the answer. The Sox drew more in 2007 than they did winning the divison in 2008 and drew even less in 2009. Of course, they drew more in 2007 than they did in 2005. Part of the problem is the Sox are going to have a lot unattractive home games. Cleveland and KC are dregs. Detroit doesn't interest many. That's 1/3 of your home schedule. The economy is still poor, but playoffs and a nice run in them could get some extra funds in the coffers, although Minnesota should be very strong. They have to beat up on Cleve, KC and Det.

 

 

The higher attendance in '06 and '07 are season-ticket hangovers from the World Series euphoria. You've kind of touched on what I've said quite a few times here: regardless of how good this team is out of the gate in 2010, it will take a while for people to start really showing up to the park. Remember, they didn't start regularly selling out games in 2005 until the month of August. This is why, when the team sets payroll for the upcoming season, they can't just assume people will show up to cover the amount they've spent. They have to be damn sure people will be there.

[Balta1701]

Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that.

Hunter gets a lot of props for making the stellar play and for bringing back as many HR balls as anyone, but if you believe the defensive stats out there, it's been a long time since Hunter has been an above average CF. He doesn't play balls very well and doesn't have great closing speed. He's had a negative UZR each of the last 4 years, for example. Rios has so far been a much better CF than what Hunter currently is; he's faster, plays the ball better, and sets himself up better.

 

Rios doesn't make the stellar, over the wall catch (at least that we've seen so far, can you even do that in the Rogers Center's CF?) so he doesn't get the cheap, every-year gold glove like Hunter, but his defensive numbers are significantly better every year. That could obviously change with age, but if Rios gave us an .800+ OPS next year, not withstanding the number of bases he steals at a high percentage, he'd be worth every cent we'd be paying him, esp. since we've had a hole in CF since 2004 basically.

[Dick Allen]

Yeah, it says Toronto wanted to get out of the contract. It says Toronto was no longer able to afford having Wells, Rios, and Halladay's contracts at the same time. They were not in position to be able to afford it. They would've loved to ship Wells, too. Look, Rios underperformed last year and it's possible he doesn't duplicate 2006 again. But even if he doesn't, I think people are overstating how much Rios would be overpaid.

 

Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that.

 

I'm not arguing that Rios is better, because he has not been a better player than Hunter has over his career. I'm merely using Hunter as a reference point for value. What I am arguing is that if Rios performs to even something like what he's capable, he won't be all that overpaid. In fact, he may not be overpaid at all compared to what others will be getting in his position.

If they just owed him the $9.7 million or whatever it is for 2010, he's worth the gamble, but considering how they seem to always be up against a wall with their budget and you really can't count on an attendance spike, especially in this economy, $5 years, $60 million is a crazy committment. He obviously has the tools to live up to the contract, and perhaps even make it look like a bargain, but he also seems to be a threat to be a poster boy for people who just deteriorate after they get the money.

[beck72]

The higher attendance in '06 and '07 are season-ticket hangovers from the World Series euphoria. You've kind of touched on what I've said quite a few times here: regardless of how good this team is out of the gate in 2010, it will take a while for people to start really showing up to the park. Remember, they didn't start regularly selling out games in 2005 until the month of August. This is why, when the team sets payroll for the upcoming season, they can't just assume people will show up to cover the amount they've spent. They have to be damn sure people will be there.

The 2008 attendance was also poor, even though they made the playoffs, because they were mediocre most of the year, and backed into the playoffs.

[beck72]

If they just owed him the $9.7 million or whatever it is for 2010, he's worth the gamble, but considering how they seem to always be up against a wall with their budget and you really can't count on an attendance spike, especially in this economy, $5 years, $60 million is a crazy committment. He obviously has the tools to live up to the contract, and perhaps even make it look like a bargain, but he also seems to be a threat to be a poster boy for people who just deteriorate after they get the money.

It may seem like a crazy committment now, but to truly judge the deal we will have to look at how Rios performs the entire length of the contract. Teams are still overpaying for free agents this offseason, so the $9.7 mill. this year isn't all that outrageous. If the economy turns around some in late 2010 and into 2011, the $12 mill. may also seem in line

 

Williams went out on a limb and is counting in Rios to perform near to what he's going to get paid. If Rios tanks, it's a contract that isn't a killer. But it would keep the sox from spending on other free agents in the future--not that the sox spend money on FA's anyway. This is uncharted territory for Kenny. Maybe after the Peavy deal, he got a little ahead of himself and went to that "take on the big long term contract" well when he shouldn't. But time will tell.

[gatnom]

I'm kind of digging out this post from awhile back Ranger, but I felt like some of your points weren't completely addressed.

 

No offense, but you probably wouldn't be a very good GM because I'm not sure you understand the economics here. Basically, you would've preferred they fill 4 or 5 holes with absolute unknowns?

 

Not all holes are created equal, Ranger. I don't exactly agree with all of his points, but the holes on the bench are nowhere near as important as the holes in the everyday lineup, especially in the AL. Whether the money from the players they acquired for the bench could have been used to fill a bigger hole such as our DH or LF/RF remains to be seen, but I would rather have a good everyday lineup and an unknown bench than a meh everyday lineup and a good bench. It's not that I even dislike the signings at face value either. If we had already set up a good everyday lineup, I would be happy with these veteran signings for the bench, but as I believe KHP said elsewhere, it seems like the Sox are going about things backwards.

 

I think that would've been a terrible idea, and trust me, you would've been saying, "why didn't they get some proven guys to play here or there?" At least we know the realistic potential for everyone he's acquired. You would've complained if they didn't make a serious move to fortify the pen. You would've complained if they made one huge signing, but then filled the rest of the vacancies with $500,000 players.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to presume exactly how he would react. Some people would definitely be freaking out over it, but how do you know for sure this poster would be angry with such a scenario?

 

On what planet would Pierre be getting $1.5 million? Coco Crisp is about to get $5 mil from the A's. Marlon Byrd? Really? Wow.

 

The last four years Juan Pierre has posted an OPS of .703. Mark Kotsay, who just happens to be making $1.5 million, has put up the paltry OPS of .700. Kotsay actually has the superior OPS when you take into account the park factors (84 OPS+ versus 83 for Pierre). I realize OPS isn't an end all be all statistic, but it seems to point out that Pierre making $1.5 million can and probably should happen on the planet we know as Earth. Let's not also forget that these numbers include the couple months that Pierre played way over his head, at least for recent history.

 

The problem is that this team simply was not good last year. These acquisitions like Teahen, Pierre, and the guys we signed for the bench are the kind of acquisition that you make to round out a roster, not play a vital role in its success. I believe in a previous post I made to you I outlined all the various question marks this team has, and we haven't added anything in the form of a certain bat to look to that will make it seem like this team has at least improved going forward. We have lost a lot of production from Thome, first half Dye, and even Podsednik who even though he probably won't repeat his numbers again this year, did put up decent numbers last year. I believe that Kenny knows this as well as we do, and that's why we are hearing (or at least were) that he was looking into acquiring a bat. If we say signed Jim Thome and called it an offseason, the team as constructed could definitely make some noise even deep into the playoffs, but you are putting a lot of hope into the fact that all these underachieving players can turn it around, which some people around here are taking for granted.

 

[iamshack]

Agreed on most counts, Gatnom.

 

I think there is room for reasonable minds to disagree here, and therefore, telling someone they don't understand, or that they wouldn't make a good GM, or how they would have reacted had things been done differently is going a bit far.

 

I hope things work out for the best. Maybe Andruw Jones will turn things around and end up being the bat we are all pining for right now. Maybe Pierre and Teahan have a bit of a renaissance and turn into vital everyday players. Maybe none of this matters because our pitching staff will carry the team all year.

 

But as of right now, there is definitely room for debate that a different approach could have been taken to accomplish more than the moves that were made will.

 

And hey, that's why we're all here to do - to debate the offseason moves - so let's keep it up and enjoy ourselves, because the Bears sure do suck.

Edited December 21, 2009 by iamshack