My patience is running out with KW

[TaylorStSox]

Prospect sites like BA, BP and Minor league ball are there to, well, talk about, break down and evaluate prospects. That's what they do. They don't care about when the last time a team made the playoffs was. The Blue Jays, led by AA, have built up their system at a rapid rate the last few years and that's why they get talked about so much.

I understand. I just think people overrate prospects more than anything in sports, by far. If I'm looking for an organization to emulate, it's not going to be one that hasn't been to the play offs since Joe f***in Carter was a stud.

[Marty34]

If Sale and Molina are top of the rotation starters, Reed is a top tier closer, Morel is an everyday 3B, and Beckham develops, that's pretty good production from one of the worst rated farm systems over the last three years.

[Jordan4life_2007]

If Sale and Molina are top of the rotation starters, Reed is a top tier closer, Morel is an everyday 3B, and Beckham develops, that's pretty good production from one of the worst rated farm systems over the last three years.

 

Ya think?

[TaylorStSox]

If Sale and Molina are top of the rotation starters, Reed is a top tier closer, Morel is an everyday 3B, and Beckham develops, that's pretty good production from one of the worst rated farm systems over the last three years.

You can count Santos, Gio and Hudson too really.

[southsider2k5]

Prospect sites like BA, BP and Minor league ball are there to, well, talk about, break down and evaluate prospects. That's what they do. They don't care about when the last time a team made the playoffs was. The Blue Jays, led by AA, have built up their system at a rapid rate the last few years and that's why they get talked about so much.

 

And there you have the problem. A teams prospect ranking doesn't matter. Making the playoffs is what matters.

[southsider2k5]

I understand. I just think people overrate prospects more than anything in sports, by far. If I'm looking for an organization to emulate, it's not going to be one that hasn't been to the play offs since Joe f***in Carter was a stud.

 

Thank you. And honestly has no real hope of making it anytime soon.

[caulfield12]

If Sale and Molina are top of the rotation starters, Reed is a top tier closer, Morel is an everyday 3B, and Beckham develops, that's pretty good production from one of the worst rated farm systems over the last three years.

 

Don't forget Viciedo.

 

Humber and DeAza aren't rookies or our organizational products, but they essentially are for all the money we spent on them.

 

Same with "producing" Sergio Santos.

[caulfield12]

I disagree, most of the pitchers and starting lineup came from trades or were in our farm system.

 

I agree Loaiza wasn't.

 

Karchner wasn't but Garland was 18 or 19 when we got him so he learned here.

 

Jenks was 1/2 year but the sox turned him into a releiver.

 

PK was here but it is still a product of the sytem (cameron) which got him here.

 

Everett was a trade.

 

No matter how you look at it most of the team was a product of the farm system or was acquired by a product of the farm system. Not everyone but most.

even the great theo got really lucky that a twins castoff decided to start taking PEDs to laed boston to a Series.

 

 

But that year, the "over the top" moves weren't farm related...

 

AJ

Iguchi

Dye

Hermanson

El Duque

 

[ptatc]

But that year, the "over the top" moves weren't farm related...

 

AJ

Iguchi

Dye

Hermanson

El Duque

I agree not the "whole" team was a farm system product but no team is. Those players are no more "over the top" than Garcia, Garland or Buherle. Most of that 25 man roster was farm system related.

[ptatc]

Don't forget Viciedo.

 

Humber and DeAza aren't rookies or our organizational products, but they essentially are for all the money we spent on them.

 

Same with "producing" Sergio Santos.

 

since the Sox were the team to convert him from an IF to a pitcher, I would consider him a sox product. We "made" him a pitcher.

[Marty34]

You can count Santos, Gio and Hudson too really.

 

Right and I forgot about Viciedo too. Farm system rankings are fun to read.

 

[caulfield12]

Marty34 is fun to read.

[TaylorStSox]

I think the Sox have a good pitching philosophy with an emphasis on starters who throw strikes and relievers with good arms. They do a good job identifying pitchers in that mold. The main problem is that they don't have much of a philosophy for positional players. I think Kenny favors toolsy players, but they seem to be more rare than ever and have a higher chance to flame out. They need to work on the direction in that regard.

[Jerksticks]

I for one hope the Sox are never a top farm system. Nothing worse IMO.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I for one hope the Sox are never a top farm system. Nothing worse IMO.

 

You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

[DirtySox]

You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

It's okay though. We won't need prospects when our powerhouse rotation that rivals the Braves of the 90's comes to fruition.

[caulfield12]

It's okay though. We won't need prospects when our powerhouse rotation that rivals the Braves of the 90's comes to fruition.

 

 

WAVE 1=Sale, Stewart, Axelrod

 

WAVE 2=Molina, Santiago, Castro, Petricka, Leesman, Er. Johnson, Rienzo, etc.

 

TSUNAMI ALERT=oodles and oodles of prospects galore back from Gavin Floyd, Matt Thornton, Crain, etc.

[TaylorStSox]

It's okay though. We won't need prospects when our powerhouse rotation that rivals the Braves of the 90's comes to fruition.

Wasn't Glavine the only guy that came through their system? Maybe Avery too. I don't remember.

[caulfield12]

Wasn't Glavine the only guy that came through their system? Maybe Avery too. I don't remember.

 

 

Smoltz was from the Tigers, the infamous Doyle Alexander deal.

 

Steve Avery, definitely.

 

Jason Schmidt came through their system, as well.

 

 

[iamshack]

Wow, I am glad I didn't notice this discussion when I was at work today...I would have gotten nothing done whatsoever!

 

Great discussion guys, especially Russ...I think you're right on in a lot of your thinking, even though we probably differ a bit in terms of ways to build an effective organization.

 

I agree with a lot of things that people on the "development" side of the fence are saying, but I still maintain that there are blatant inefficiencies in that method which remain unmentioned and unaccounted for. Additionally, there are inefficiencies in the free agent marketplace (due to a tremendous swing towards the develop-from-within philosophy) which can be capitalized upon to the advantage of a team that can sustain an above-average payroll.

 

I guess my questions, which I have consistently asked but not really received input on, with the possible exception of qwerty, are the following:

 

a) Have there been studies published which show the economic impact of "A" rated prospects which bust?

b) Have there been studies published, whether using anecdotal evidence or historical salary data, which predict the optimum levels of capital allocation across the different levels of a MLB organization?

c) Can a MLB franchise using the development model sustain attendance in the top third of the League when it will consistently lose homegrown players to FA or trade them away? I know some of you will raise the point that by winning with the development model, you thereby draw more and thus become able to sustain higher payrolls. However, I think this is a dangerous unintended consequence of the develop from within model, as homegrown players become fan favorites, forcing teams to spend to keep them or risk fan alienation, i.e. Joe Mauer. I'll be very interested moving forward to seeing how the Twins fanbase reacts with what might be an underperforming team combined with the luster wearing off a new stadium.

 

Anyways, just some of my thoughts in regards to the discussion that I never really see mentioned.

[gatnom]

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I think a lot of people are confusing the need of being a well run organization for the need of having a top 10 farm system. Anybody whose end goal is a top 10 farm system is not looking at organizational structure properly, and I actually don't recall anybody voicing this opinion here. There is a big difference between having the best farm system and understanding that your organization needs to strike a balance of prospect development and big league spending. Constantly bringing up how we have to suck to achieve the goal of a top 10 farm system is a gigantic straw man argument which completely misses the point. If you make your organization as top heavy as the Sox have been, you risk becoming, well, the White Sox.

 

Nothing in baseball is guaranteed. You can spend tens of millions of dollars on "proven" big league players who do have a much, much higher chance of producing for you, but they also run the risk of becoming terrible contracts. At the very least, they are rarely underpaid. Or, you can spend a significantly smaller amount on prospects who, even though they do not pan out often, produce well above what they are paid. You need to try to balance these two things in order to have a good level of cost-effectiveness.

 

And, for what it's worth, the Sox scouting/drafting has actually been pretty good the past few years. They just have absolutely no intention on financially backing that scouting to any degree. It's maddening.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Wow, I am glad I didn't notice this discussion when I was at work today...I would have gotten nothing done whatsoever!

 

Great discussion guys, especially Russ...I think you're right on in a lot of your thinking, even though we probably differ a bit in terms of ways to build an effective organization.

 

I agree with a lot of things that people on the "development" side of the fence are saying, but I still maintain that there are blatant inefficiencies in that method which remain unmentioned and unaccounted for. Additionally, there are inefficiencies in the free agent marketplace (due to a tremendous swing towards the develop-from-within philosophy) which can be capitalized upon to the advantage of a team that can sustain an above-average payroll.

 

I guess my questions, which I have consistently asked but not really received input on, with the possible exception of qwerty, are the following:

 

a) Have there been studies published which show the economic impact of "A" rated prospects which bust?

b) Have there been studies published, whether using anecdotal evidence or historical salary data, which predict the optimum levels of capital allocation across the different levels of a MLB organization?

c) Can a MLB franchise using the development model sustain attendance in the top third of the League when it will consistently lose homegrown players to FA or trade them away? I know some of you will raise the point that by winning with the development model, you thereby draw more and thus become able to sustain higher payrolls. However, I think this is a dangerous unintended consequence of the develop from within model, as homegrown players become fan favorites, forcing teams to spend to keep them or risk fan alienation, i.e. Joe Mauer. I'll be very interested moving forward to seeing how the Twins fanbase reacts with what might be an underperforming team combined with the luster wearing off a new stadium.

 

Anyways, just some of my thoughts in regards to the discussion that I never really see mentioned.

 

 

I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

 

In general, you'd have to think that any team that wasn't able to push their payroll up in the $90-105 million range, at a minimum, would have serious trouble sustaining itself for more than a 2-3 year run.

 

There are only 10-12 markets in the majors that can produce that kind of revenue and spending, regardless of the team's win/loss record.

 

I think the Brewers are one of the few examples of a small/mid-market club that have really done exceptionally well...and their fanbase has increased exponentially as a result. Obviously, the new stadium helped significantly, but so did producing/drafting stars like Fielder, Braun or Weeks and trading for Greinke, etc.

 

The point about alienating the fanbase by not signing a Mauer or Fielder is a very good one. The Cardinals, same situation with Pujols...White Sox with Buehrle, because of 3-4 bad contracts. The Twins put all their eggs in the Mauer basket and it has already forced them to part with Nathan, D. Young, Cuddyer and Kubel. Probably Liriano as well, sooner or later. They kind of got hit by a double whammy with Morneau's possibly career-ending medical problems on top of Mauer's issues.

 

Mariners, another comparison with a declining Ichiro sticking around (because the revenues he generates offset the value of his contract from a cost/benefit standpoint)...or the White Sox, with Konerko.

 

15-18 teams, they would be in a position where they would have to dump Konerko, Thornton, Floyd, Crain, AJ, etc. We, fortunately, are not.

 

In the end, the A's and Rays couldn't sustain their success because of ballpark/financial reasons.

 

For every example like that, there's the Brewers and Rangers to examine. Or look at the Tigers as well, because on the surface, we should be able to dominate our division more consistently...and yet we're getting outspent from a payroll standpoint, outdrawn and outmaneuvered by a more bold and daring ownership group and GM combo. In Cabrera and Verlander, they have two absolute studs that nobody else in the division can measure up against.

 

Maybe the DBacks this year would be another organization to look at, although they've struggled to put fannies in the seats ever since the glow of the 2001 World Series championship wore off. It will be interesting to see how much an extended run of success will reinvigorate their season ticket base.

 

The MAIN consolation in our particular division is that the likelihood of the Royals or Indians being able to keep their "waves" of talent intact and affordable in order to make that extended performance run....at best, 25%.

 

In the end, that's the biggest single issue facing AA...no matter how well they perform, if they're still considered the second tier to the Yankees and Red Sox and can't ever get over that hump once or twice, then the acquisition of all that talent in their system will have been for naught, because they'll eventually have to blow it apart and sell off the spare parts.

Edited January 11, 2012 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtKx...n_astros_011012

 

For the complete rebuild backers out there, look at the LASTROS.

 

Similar comparison organizationally...in terms of media market, revenues/attendance, past history of winning or competing most of the time, etc.

 

We do not want to be where they are, that's for darned sure.

 

At least we have a decent chance to win the division if everything goes right for the Sox.

[gatnom]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtKx...n_astros_011012

 

For the complete rebuild backers out there, look at the LASTROS.

 

Similar comparison organizationally...in terms of media market, revenues/attendance, past history of winning or competing most of the time, etc.

 

We do not want to be where they are, that's for darned sure.

 

At least we have a decent chance to win the division if everything goes right for the Sox.

 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't the Astros very similar to the Sox in that they retooled and went for it every year? If so, are they in a terrible situation because they are rebuilding or because of the decisions they made beforehand? As far as your last statement goes, we very much would become the Astros if everything were to go wrong, not that I think it will.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't the Astros very similar to the Sox in that they retooled and went for it every year? If so, are they in a terrible situation because they are rebuilding or because of the decisions they made beforehand? As far as your last statement goes, we very much would become the Astros if everything were to go wrong, not that I think it will.

 

 

Carlos Lee was probably the biggest mistake....which eventually led to their dumping Oswalt, Pence, Bourn, Berkman, etc.

 

Bagwell, like Frank Thomas, got old or "de-PED'ed" fast. Lidge pretty much just blew up on them.

 

Obviously Berkman still had some life left in that bat of his.

 

Wallace never worked out there, and Chris Burke totally played himself out of baseball.

 

Luke Scott ended up in BALT.

 

Plus, they had a lot of injuries to their pitching staff...kind of like a perfect storm of things going wrong, not unlike the 2011 White Sox season (albeit they were relatively healthy).

Edited January 11, 2012 by caulfield12