2011-12 White Sox off season catch all thread

[Princess Dye]

But not as exciting as the most electrifying man in sports entertainment.

 

 

No, naturally

 

Though didn't KW once break a clubhouse table? That's WWE-like..

[daggins]

The Sox should replace Hawkeroo with Jim Ross

[Marty34]

Still have to play the games. Sure, things look dim. But an off-the-map young guy coming in and having a big year, it's not out of the question.

 

We might not be taken seriously as contenders, but if our youth produces with this chance its been given...things could be a lot more exciting. Even more exciting than hearing managers and GMs rant and rave on a mic, if you can believe that.

 

I'm just not on the Detroit bandwagon. Verlander is going to come back to earth a bit and while Jacob Turner probably will be in the rotation at some point, the rest of that rotation isn't overwhelming. In short, I think a lot more bad things can happen to the Tigers as compared to last year. I don't see their pitching staff putting the Sox away until September if at all.

 

[caulfield12]

Or Valverde not blowing a single save.

[Marty34]

Or Valverde not blowing a single save.

 

Yep. I just don't think the Tigers are going to have an easy time of it next year. Maybe it will be a postseason hangover or the wear and tear on Verlander. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic. Anyway, it would be nice for the Sox to have a solid April and see where that leads them.

[Milkman delivers]

The Sox should replace Hawkeroo with Jim Ross

 

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[hogan873]

The Sox should replace Hawkeroo with Jim Ross

And Steve Stone with Jerry Lawler?

[knightni]

And Steve Stone with Jerry Lawler?

A.J. Pierzynski with Buff Bagwell?

[hogan873]

A.J. Pierzynski with Buff Bagwell?

Adam Dunn with King Kong Bundy?

[Eminor3rd]

For anyone who has been on the "Sox have had a better system than the media gives them credit for, we just graduate our guys quickly" wagon:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/b...t-of-the-worst/

 

For those of you who don't want to click the link, the link shows a graph of total WAR from homegrown players drafted since 2002. The White Sox rank 29th of 30, with a grand total of 11.9 WAR. Before anyone brings up the "we haven't had enough high draft picks" argument, take note that the Red Sox rank first, with a total of 100.3 WAR.

[Balta1701]

For anyone who has been on the "Sox have had a better system than the media gives them credit for, we just graduate our guys quickly" wagon:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/b...t-of-the-worst/

 

For those of you who don't want to click the link, the link shows a graph of total WAR from homegrown players drafted since 2002. The White Sox rank 29th of 30, with a grand total of 11.9 WAR. Before anyone brings up the "we haven't had enough high draft picks" argument, take note that the Red Sox rank first, with a total of 100.3 WAR.

Let me guess, because they were traded away, the fact that the Sox drafted Daniel Hudson, Gio Gonzalez, Clayton Richard, Chris Young, etc., doesn't count.

[Eminor3rd]

Let me guess, because they were traded away, the fact that the Sox drafted Daniel Hudson, Gio Gonzalez, Clayton Richard, Chris Young, etc., doesn't count.

 

Correct. This isn't controlling for development though, so we're talking about judging both drafting prowess and player development in total. With the exception of Hudson, I can't think of any significant instance where we essentially polished a player and then sent him off to be successful elsewhere. I would assume that the effects of half-polishing a player and receiving half-polished players would cancel each other out on a league-wide level.

[Balta1701]

Correct. This isn't controlling for development though, so we're talking about judging both drafting prowess and player development in total. With the exception of Hudson, I can't think of any significant instance where we essentially polished a player and then sent him off to be successful elsewhere. I would assume that the effects of half-polishing a player and receiving half-polished players would cancel each other out on a league-wide level.

But for certain teams, say ones who consistently take the policy of trading away their best talent rather than spending the couple years it takes to develop them, it will put them at the bottom of lists like this one.

 

No one's going to excuse the awful 2005-2006 first round picks, but once again, this buries KW based on a quirk of the statistic.

[Eminor3rd]

For anyone who has been on the "Sox have had a better system than the media gives them credit for, we just graduate our guys quickly" wagon:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/b...t-of-the-worst/

 

For those of you who don't want to click the link, the link shows a graph of total WAR from homegrown players drafted since 2002. The White Sox rank 29th of 30, with a grand total of 11.9 WAR. Before anyone brings up the "we haven't had enough high draft picks" argument, take note that the Red Sox rank first, with a total of 100.3 WAR.

 

Also, in case anyone is interested, here's the blurb that accompanies the Sox entry:

 

#29) Chicago White Sox — 11.9 WAR (0.54 WAR/player)

 

The White Sox have never been known for spending money in the draft, and like it or not, spending money (for the most part) acquires better talent. Gordon Beckham has provided the most value (+4.6 WAR) of any homegrown player drafted since 2002. Gordon Beckham has also been labeled an underachiever thus far in his big league career, which illustrates the level of success the White Sox have experienced over the past decade. It gets worse. The legendary Chris Getz is the organization’s second-best position player acquired through the draft since 2002. Chris Getz and his whopping +0.8 WAR through 117 games with the White Sox. Eesh. The light shines a little more brightly now that Chris Sale has firmly broken into the majors, though he may turn out to be nothing more than a set-up man down the road and nothing is percolating down in the minors.

[Eminor3rd]

But for certain teams, say ones who consistently take the policy of trading away their best talent rather than spending the couple years it takes to develop them, it will put them at the bottom of lists like this one.

 

No one's going to excuse the awful 2005-2006 first round picks, but once again, this buries KW based on a quirk of the statistic.

 

You're absolutely right, that there's more going on than this shows. I think the idea though, is that the most efficient way to get a good team is to develop and utilize cost-controlled talent, because veteran trades and free agents are so much more expensive. We're experiencing the downside of this now, which is that when things go south with our talent (as they will go with every team from time to time) our bloated payroll leave sus with little flexibility to right the ship, so we have no choice but to soldier on, potentially mired in our mess for a long time, micuh like the Astros and Cubs of the last five years or so. If we'd prioritized player development, however, we'd be able to rely on arb and pre-arb guys more heavily, allowing us the flexibility to either sign guys to fill holes and right the ship or dump the expensive underperformers for cheap guys that will be upgrades, which equates to a much much quicker turnaround.

[Balta1701]

You're absolutely right, that there's more going on than this shows. I think the idea though, is that the most efficient way to get a good team is to develop and utilize cost-controlled talent, because veteran trades and free agents are so much more expensive. We're experiencing the downside of this now, which is that when things go south with our talent (as they will go with every team from time to time) our bloated payroll leave sus with little flexibility to right the ship, so we have no choice but to soldier on, potentially mired in our mess for a long time, micuh like the Astros and Cubs of the last five years or so. If we'd prioritized player development, however, we'd be able to rely on arb and pre-arb guys more heavily, allowing us the flexibility to either sign guys to fill holes and right the ship or dump the expensive underperformers for cheap guys that will be upgrades, which equates to a much much quicker turnaround.

I just went through and totaled up the WAR, as of this year, for Brandon McCarthy, Chris Young, Daniel Hudson, Gio Gonzalez, Ryan Sweeney, and Clayton Richard...6 players that the Sox have traded away. I came up with over 47 fWAR within those 6 players, and there's probably another kid or two the Sox have traded away since 2002 I'm forgetting. If one were to add that to the 12 that the Sox have, that would put the Sox in the upper 1/2 of the league. But that's not how the Sox have operated. The Sox have instead traded away those guys to go after this quality of player:

 

The Sox got 15 fWAR out of Gavin Floyd, 16 fWAR out of John Danks, and 15 fWAR out of Javier Vazquez. That of course doesn't even count the big fWAR steal that was Alexei Ramirez. And then there's 8 fWAR from Carlos Quentin, who was also obtained by trading away prospects.

 

Yes, there is a downside, but there is a downside to trying to hold onto prospects whenever possible as well. Some guys take time to develop (Gordon Beckham). Some guys develop and then break down, when instead you could have traded them for a guy who wouldn't break down (Brandon McCarthy for John Danks, for example).

 

Yes, the Sox have been weaker in the draft than they should have been. But the statement that the Sox are not prioritizing player development simply isn't supported here...the Sox just identify their value in a different way.

[southsider2k5]

For anyone who has been on the "Sox have had a better system than the media gives them credit for, we just graduate our guys quickly" wagon:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/b...t-of-the-worst/

 

For those of you who don't want to click the link, the link shows a graph of total WAR from homegrown players drafted since 2002. The White Sox rank 29th of 30, with a grand total of 11.9 WAR. Before anyone brings up the "we haven't had enough high draft picks" argument, take note that the Red Sox rank first, with a total of 100.3 WAR.

 

Except someone just posted the other day that since the 2008 draft, the Sox lead the league in WAR out of their drafts.

[Eminor3rd]

I just went through and totaled up the WAR, as of this year, for Brandon McCarthy, Chris Young, Daniel Hudson, Gio Gonzalez, Ryan Sweeney, and Clayton Richard...6 players that the Sox have traded away. I came up with over 47 fWAR within those 6 players, and there's probably another kid or two the Sox have traded away since 2002 I'm forgetting. If one were to add that to the 12 that the Sox have, that would put the Sox in the upper 1/2 of the league. But that's not how the Sox have operated. The Sox have instead traded away those guys to go after this quality of player:

 

The Sox got 15 fWAR out of Gavin Floyd, 16 fWAR out of John Danks, and 15 fWAR out of Javier Vazquez. That of course doesn't even count the big fWAR steal that was Alexei Ramirez. And then there's 8 fWAR from Carlos Quentin, who was also obtained by trading away prospects.

 

Yes, there is a downside, but there is a downside to trying to hold onto prospects whenever possible as well. Some guys take time to develop (Gordon Beckham). Some guys develop and then break down, when instead you could have traded them for a guy who wouldn't break down (Brandon McCarthy for John Danks, for example).

 

Yes, the Sox have been weaker in the draft than they should have been. But the statement that the Sox are not prioritizing player development simply isn't supported here...the Sox just identify their value in a different way.

 

Great points. I have no reply. I'm posting your comment on FG to see if the author will reply.

 

EDIT: The fWAR for the Sox players you mentioned is 57 (I'm not counting Alexei because he was an international FA), so +10 on those away. Of course there are other examples of players, but the rest probably add up to a wash.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Eminor3rd

[Balta1701]

Great points. I have no reply. I'm posting your comment on FG to see if the author will reply.

Keep in mind I was specifically noting your statement that the Sox hadn't "Prioritized player development" if you're going to post that elsewhere.

[Balta1701]

If you go through that chart you can make similar cases about other teams, it turns out. The Phillies, for example, sit at spot #24. However, people have been marveling at the Phillies system and the things it has produced over the past 5 years...but instead of holding on to guys, they've made an effort to win now by trading away virtually everything home-grown not named Cole Hamels. Their number may change a bit this year with Brown taking an OF spot, but the fact is, they've been unwilling to put up with the opportunity cost associated with developing talent when they have a team that can win the world series with an extra part or two.

 

Conversely up at the top you've got Boston, but you've also got great examples with Boston of the potential cost of holding on to guys...their bust last year happened despite huge production from Ellsbury and Pedroia...and it happened in part because a number of the other guys they held...Buchholz, Lester, Jed Lowrie, Daniel Bard...didn't have the kind of season that they were hoping, either because of injury or because of struggles.

 

Similar story for the Braves. Tons of prospects, even gave a ton to Texas, but the key guys they held onto for last year, Heyward, Hanson, simply broke down and couldn't win things for them.

[caulfield12]

And you also have to look at players like Viciedo and Iguchi's contributions, as well.

 

Loiaza, Jenks, Santos and Humber. How many teams have unearthed four guys like that in less than a decade, for virtually zero cost?

 

As far as developing Chris Young, he was pretty much OUR guy, how we can not take credit for him, I don't know.

 

Take it one step further...we SHOULD get SOME credit for Michael Morse's 2011 season, which further mitigates the lower standing or ranking.

 

Danks was essentially a rookie when we got him from the Rangers, so we leveraged McCarthy for Danks.

 

Someone else noted Quentin for Carter, etc.

 

Trying to think of other players we've dealt....and their WAR's. Brandon Allen got quite a few AB's in the last couple of years, not sure where his WAR number sits, probably not so high. Definitely the same with Carter.

 

Another player I just remembered, Miguel Olivo...was a AA guy when we picked him up.

 

A statistic like this is very misleading, particularly when you factor in the additional contributions of Humber, Santos, Loaiza and Jenks. Yeah, I realize Esteban was an established major league veteran, but those other 3 clearly were not.

[Balta1701]

Stark:

Most Unimproved American League Teams

 

1. Chicago White Sox

2. Baltimore Orioles

3. Oakland Athletics

 

White Sox

 

It was no secret last summer that White Sox GM Kenny Williams couldn't wait to blow his under-performing roster to smithereens. But when he finally got his chance this winter, his peers in the industry had a tough time figuring out what his blueprint was. It was one thing to ship out Carlos Quentin and Jason Frasor. But hiring a manager (Robin Ventura) who not only has never managed a game, but who has basically been away from the sport for most of the past eight years? A head-scratcher. And dealing an effective, low-budget closer (Sergio Santos) for what most clubs regard as a second-tier prospect (RHP Nestor Molina)? Another puzzler. Here's just a sampling of the comments we got on this team's offseason: "They dumped without getting much in return. A mess." … "I don't know what they're doing. If they were trying to dump money, why'd they trade Santos? I just don't get it." … "Did they add a new bat boy or hot dog vendor so that they can at least make it seem that they are moving forward?" Get the picture? Youch!

[Quin]

We're gonna win the AL Central just to piss everyone else off

[caulfield12]

I'm assuming the A's were not included on that list after signing Cespedes?

 

Must be a bit older.

 

That "negative" article also doesn't give us credit for inking Danks, that's definitely at least ONE positive.

 

It also doesn't acknowledge the "insider" we had involved with Molina...in Marco Paddy.

 

 

[Jerksticks]

We're gonna win the AL Central just to piss everyone else off

Absolutely. I hate all the blatant ignorance out there; like our moves aren't even worth really looking at or thinking about.