This season is a statement on organizational resiliency

[caulfield12]

To say we're anything near a Top 5 organization RIGHT NOW is really stretching it, though.

 

We have a dysfunctional GM/manager relationship, there's no getting around that.

 

We have two players in hyperbolically bad slumps/seasons that won't go away...and that the fans have booed more than cheered in 2011.

 

We have one legit young hitting prospect in our minor league system, Viciedo.

 

We can't seem to get much over 25,000 in attendance for "key" match-ups even when school is out. In all likelihood, we'll have to shed $15-25 from our 2011 payroll if we don't make the playoffs, and, even if we do, we still probably won't be profitable.

 

We would be dead-and-buried playing in any other division.

 

Humber has probably been pushed past the point where he can be an effective starter we can count on down the stretch, and Stewart's an inexperienced rookie we had to acquire because KW was forced to shed Edwin Jackson in order to get something of value back immediately.

 

Beckham actually has succeeded in finally looking even worse than Dunn and Rios in recent weeks.

 

 

 

We have SOME reasons for optimism. Morel has turned it on. DeAza, Flowers and Lillibridge have really contributed. Outside of the fastball to Hafner in the 8th last night, Sale has been the best lefty reliever in baseball for going on 2 months.

 

With all the talent on this team, odds were at some point there would be a "regression" to mean.

 

It's hard to start being a revisionist historian and saying "Ozzie's just done a great managerial job" this season to get us back on the periphery of contention.

 

But in terms of going forward the next 3-5 years, there aren't many teams that are in worse positions in the AL.

 

The only ones you could argue would be the Mariners, possibly the Twins, and the Orioles. Because of their stadium issues, the A's and the Rays (and having to compete in the AL East).

 

But we're still closer to the Cubs or Astros in degrees of proximity (minor league system, bad contracts, attendance/revenue generation) than the Red Sox, Yankees and Rangers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

 

 

But general manager Ken Williams still isn’t sold. He’s like every other Sox fan who feels good about his team one day but not so good the next. He wants to feel great every day but he just can’t do it.

 

“Listen, I wish I did,’’ Williams said before the Sox faced the visiting Indians and right-hander Ubaldo Jimenez in their attempt to top the .500 mark for the first time since April 15. “But I’m not going to tell you something that I don’t believe. I don’t have a good feel after 120 games. And it’s just been inconsistent play. I’m still very optimistic. Again, if we start to click, even just a little bit, we can put together a heck of a run. But the fact of the matter is we haven’t, so I can’t assume it’s going to happen.’’

 

 

“All I can expect is the effort and intensity to be there every day,’’ Williams said. “We’ve got 42 games left. It’s not hard to keep your intensity level up with 42 games. That’s what I expect and hopefully we can get on a roll and some guys can get some confidence back maybe that they haven’t had thus far.’’

 

“I’ve made no secret about it for quite a while that we are limited from a payroll standpoint at this point and time,’’ said Williams, who trimmed payroll by dealing away Edwin Jackson at the deadline while adding to his bullpen by getting Jason Frasor. “We haven’t earned our fans’ patronage enough to put us in that position and that’s nobody’s fault except our own fault. Anything that would come across right now, even if it were appealing from a talent standpoint, we are not in a position to be able to do it. Again, that’s our fault. That’s nobody’s fault, except mine, my staff’s and the people in uniform.’’

 

Williams said he is optimistic before every game.

 

“I only get surprised at the end of the game where it’s again, we haven’t supported our pitching staff,’’ he said. “That’s my surprise. I keep waiting for it to come, waiting for it to happen.’’

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports

[ChiSox_Sonix]

How can you not blame KW? The player isn't producing.

 

It's like those who blame Ozzie for his players not producing.

 

Really? You mean KW should have foreseen this kind of production out of Adam Dunn this year? I mean, I guess you could be right. His career averages and lack of consistency should have really foretold this kind of epic collapse. The fact that KW did not see it coming when everyone else here and around the sport did is most definitely a fireable offense.

[southsider2k5]

Really? You mean KW should have foreseen this kind of production out of Adam Dunn this year? I mean, I guess you could be right. His career averages and lack of consistency should have really foretold this kind of epic collapse. The fact that KW did not see it coming when everyone else here and around the sport did is most definitely a fireable offense.

 

Yeah of the things you can hold against Kenny, this is not one of them. It isn't like he threw the money at a guy who was already hitting under .200 or something.

[Balta1701]

Yeah of the things you can hold against Kenny, this is not one of them. It isn't like he threw the money at a guy who was already hitting under .200 or something.

So who is responsible when you make a freakishly bad nearly-unforseeable signing?

[iamshack]

So who is responsible when you make a freakishly bad nearly-unforseeable signing?

Why does someone have to be responsible?

 

The player isn't performing.

 

There were literally no signs which foretold this.

 

Sometimes, s*** just happens.

[Balta1701]

Why does someone have to be responsible?

 

The player isn't performing.

 

There were literally no signs which foretold this.

 

Sometimes, s*** just happens.

In this league though, the player's contract is guaranteed. In the NFL you can hold the guy responsible by making him inactive then cutting him.

 

If **** just happens, then isn't it a mistake to put yourself in a position where **** can happen?

[southsider2k5]

So who is responsible when you make a freakishly bad nearly-unforseeable signing?

 

The player.

[southsider2k5]

In this league though, the player's contract is guaranteed. In the NFL you can hold the guy responsible by making him inactive then cutting him.

 

If **** just happens, then isn't it a mistake to put yourself in a position where **** can happen?

 

So your solution is to never sign players to large contracts essentially?

[caulfield12]

 

Is holding KW responsible for Dunn basically the same thing as saying you were there second-guessing President Obama and the administration that the stimulus package wasn't going to do nearly enough...wasn't going to have more than a short-term impact and then POOF, dissipate?? (of course it's NOT, right?)

 

(Paul Krugman from the NY Times was one who was right from the beginning, similar to a handful of the anti-Dunn posters...)

 

The point remains. KW is still ultimately responsible. And, in all likelihood, voters in 2012 will hold Obama accountable for his track record of economic decisions as well, regardless of what happened under the previous administration.

 

Just like KW has a similarly bad track record of trades and acquisitions since the end of 2008. One bad move can be excused. But a downward moving trendline...not so easily.

 

So ask yourself...if you're willing to let KW off the hook, shouldn't any executive be extended the same amount of leash?

[iamshack]

In this league though, the player's contract is guaranteed. In the NFL you can hold the guy responsible by making him inactive then cutting him.

 

If **** just happens, then isn't it a mistake to put yourself in a position where **** can happen?

Well of course you want some level of risk aversion, so maybe this signing influences that, but you can never eliminate all risk.

[caulfield12]

So your solution is to never sign players to large contracts essentially?

 

 

Isn't that what the White Sox have essentially done, since Jaime Navarro?

 

At least until KW took on the Rios guaranteed contract, traded for Peavy and signed Dunn.

 

 

The only long-term deals were for players already entrenched with the organization like Konerko, Buehrle, Contreras...with the notable exception of the Linebrink move (which wasn't megadollars).

 

Maybe you could point to the Garcia extension...or bringing Jim Thome's contract into the fold, or Javy Vazquez.

[Balta1701]

So your solution is to never sign players to large contracts essentially?

Being substantially more risk-averse might be the right move.

 

For a metaphor...it's the difference between going all in and having a King high and all in on a straight flush. One of them is a much better bet in most cases.

[iamshack]

Being substantially more risk-averse might be the right move.

 

For a metaphor...it's the difference between going all in and having a King high and all in on a straight flush. One of them is a much better bet in most cases.

Well, Adam Dunn may have been one of the most risk-adverse signings we could have possibly made. Production has been staggeringly consistent, and he possesses a skillset that traditionally declines at a very slow rate as a player ages.

 

Rios, on the other hand, was far more risk-intensive (obviously).

[Balta1701]

Well, Adam Dunn may have been one of the most risk-adverse signings we could have possibly made. Production has been staggeringly consistent, and he possesses a skillset that traditionally declines at a very slow rate as a player ages.

 

Rios, on the other hand, was far more risk-intensive (obviously).

If moves that seem risk-free wind up having a non-zero probability of totally imploding on you, then you simply have to re-calculate your risk estimates.

 

Maybe you assume that the most risk-free move still has a 25% chance of being an utter failure and ask what that does to your whole team if it implodes.

[iamshack]

If moves that seem risk-free wind up having a non-zero probability of totally imploding on you, then you simply have to re-calculate your risk estimates.

 

Maybe you assume that the most risk-free move still has a 25% chance of being an utter failure and ask what that does to your whole team if it implodes.

I never stated that it was risk-free.

 

Even something that has a 5% chance of failure does actually fail 5% of the time.

[caulfield12]

And let's not acquiring Peavy when he was injured...it would be hard to argue the Rios and Peavy moves weren't even bigger gambles (than Dunn), both looking back with hindsight but also at the time they were made.

 

It's usually better to invest that type of money into difference makers at SS, 2B, CF and catcher. Offensively, buying production out of DH, LF and 1B is cheaper, or at least it should be.

 

And probably you can now add 3B as another position where it's better to shift limited resources in terms of ROI offensively.

[southsider2k5]

Being substantially more risk-averse might be the right move.

 

For a metaphor...it's the difference between going all in and having a King high and all in on a straight flush. One of them is a much better bet in most cases.

 

So something like signing a guy with a 10 year track record of being incredibly consistent from year to year would be more risk averse than signing a guy who is in his mid-30's and coming off of a career year, right?

[southsider2k5]

If moves that seem risk-free wind up having a non-zero probability of totally imploding on you, then you simply have to re-calculate your risk estimates.

 

Maybe you assume that the most risk-free move still has a 25% chance of being an utter failure and ask what that does to your whole team if it implodes.

 

Considering Dunn has gone from having the same numbers pretty much every single year to one of the worst seasons in MLB history, I am going with the odds of that happening being something way less than 25%.

[Balta1701]

Considering Dunn has gone from having the same numbers pretty much every single year to one of the worst seasons in MLB history, I am going with the odds of that happening being something way less than 25%.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. Given the damage that one bad contract can do to a roster, you have to massively overweight the risk of the highly unlikely collapse.

[caulfield12]

So then what are the odds of having two players (Rios AND Dunn) like that on the same roster?

 

1/500?

 

 

Essentially it was the leverage of those three contracts (Dunn/Rios/Peavy) working in concert that has jeopardized both this season and all immediate future seasons.

 

One...or maybe even two of them, but not all three. Imagine if Buehrle or Konerko weren't producing as well as they ever have?

Edited August 17, 2011 by caulfield12

[ScottyDo]

I think trying to generalize lessons from an anomalous situation is a mistake. You don't structure your policy around the surest possible thing failing. If you do, you will lose indefinitely.

[southsider2k5]

I think trying to generalize lessons from an anomalous situation is a mistake. You don't structure your policy around the surest possible thing failing. If you do, you will lose indefinitely.

 

If the Sox refused to hand out large contracts we would pretty much be the laughingstock of baseball.

[ScottyDo]

If the Sox refused to hand out large contracts we would pretty much be the laughingstock of baseball.

Yup. There are other teams that don't, and they are perpetually in the basement. Not that I'm advocating that the Royals and Pirates start inking huge contracts until they have a core built, but that's the situation where you stop taking risks: when you're terrible. We are not yet terrible and it's not time to slam on the brakes.

 

Exception: Atlanta, and even they dole out the occasional chunk of change. Plus, they are clearly the most consistent scouters in baseball so they are anomalous as well.

 

And let us not pretend like we really broke the bank for Dunn. Jason Werth got $23597923M to Dunn's $56M. Dunn's contract is nowhere near the risk ceiling in baseball.

Edited August 17, 2011 by ScottyDo

[Greg Hibbard]

records since May 6 (current playoff teams in bold):

 

 

BOS 60-29

NYY 56-34

TEX 54-36

CHW 50-38

DET 50-39

TAM 47-42

TOR 47-43

LAA 46-44

MIN 41-50

CLE 39-48

SEA 37-51

OAK 37-51

BAL 33-56

KC 33-58