In the event of a rebuild, stop comparing the Sox

[KPBears]

to teams like the Pirates and the Royals. I think the biggest argument I hear against a rebuild is "look at the Pirates and Royals, it can take 20 years and not work, and draft picks are not guaranteed to work out".

 

There's a big difference between the Sox and those teams. The Sox actually have money, and a willingness to spend it. The Sox aren't the Yankees, but despite JR's reputation, he's clearly invested in pretty high payrolls for several years now. The Pirates and Royals, on the other hand, are among the league's poor. They just can't spend the money to compete more often than not.

 

And for those who freak out and say you can't build through the draft, teams like the aforementioned poor teams actually have been drafting very good players for years, but just didn't have the revenue to keep them. I remember when the Royals had Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran. I'm confident that the Sox would be able to retain players like that if they are able to draft, and more importantly, develop them (which is my main concern with a rebuild).

 

I hate to be pessimistic, but the Sox are going to be awful for at least three or four more years, and it's time for a fire sale (and hopefully guys like Konerko and Peavy can be dealt to contenders so they can get another shot at a ring). But I'm also going to be optimistic, and believe that once the young players are in place after that time, the Sox will spend the money necessary to keep them.

[southsider2k5]

to teams like the Pirates and the Royals. I think the biggest argument I hear against a rebuild is "look at the Pirates and Royals, it can take 20 years and not work, and draft picks are not guaranteed to work out".

 

There's a big difference between the Sox and those teams. The Sox actually have money, and a willingness to spend it. The Sox aren't the Yankees, but despite JR's reputation, he's clearly invested in pretty high payrolls for several years now. The Pirates and Royals, on the other hand, are among the league's poor. They just can't spend the money to compete more often than not.

 

And for those who freak out and say you can't build through the draft, teams like the aforementioned poor teams actually have been drafting very good players for years, but just didn't have the revenue to keep them. I remember when the Royals had Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran. I'm confident that the Sox would be able to retain players like that if they are able to draft, and more importantly, develop them (which is my main concern with a rebuild).

 

I hate to be pessimistic, but the Sox are going to be awful for at least three or four more years, and it's time for a fire sale (and hopefully guys like Konerko and Peavy can be dealt to contenders so they can get another shot at a ring). But I'm also going to be optimistic, and believe that once the young players are in place after that time, the Sox will spend the money necessary to keep them.

 

That all evaporates when the Sox do a White Flag trade and fans plus advertisers leave in droves. If no one is at the park, you can't retain your own players.

[Disco72]

to teams like the Pirates and the Royals. I think the biggest argument I hear against a rebuild is "look at the Pirates and Royals, it can take 20 years and not work, and draft picks are not guaranteed to work out".

 

There's a big difference between the Sox and those teams. The Sox actually have money, and a willingness to spend it. The Sox aren't the Yankees, but despite JR's reputation, he's clearly invested in pretty high payrolls for several years now. The Pirates and Royals, on the other hand, are among the league's poor. They just can't spend the money to compete more often than not.

 

And for those who freak out and say you can't build through the draft, teams like the aforementioned poor teams actually have been drafting very good players for years, but just didn't have the revenue to keep them. I remember when the Royals had Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran. I'm confident that the Sox would be able to retain players like that if they are able to draft, and more importantly, develop them (which is my main concern with a rebuild).

 

I hate to be pessimistic, but the Sox are going to be awful for at least three or four more years, and it's time for a fire sale (and hopefully guys like Konerko and Peavy can be dealt to contenders so they can get another shot at a ring). But I'm also going to be optimistic, and believe that once the young players are in place after that time, the Sox will spend the money necessary to keep them.

 

So, to which rebuilds should a potential Sox firesale/rebuild be comparable? Houston? Seattle? Baltimore? I don't see a lot of positive examples no matter which team / market is doing the rebuilding.

[caulfield12]

So, to which rebuilds should a potential Sox firesale/rebuild be comparable? Houston? Seattle? Baltimore? I don't see a lot of positive examples no matter which team / market is doing the rebuilding.

 

 

The Rockies, perhaps.

 

They have the huge advantage in crowds (from a sheer numbers perspective), but we charge a lot more for tickets, parking, concessions...and, as a major market team, much less of our revenue is attendance-dependent.

 

Atlanta Braves, would be another one...going from a long playoff cycle and into a new stadium, peaking, falling off for awhile and then coming back.

 

The post new-stadium Brewers.

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

The question remains, if you have money and are willing to spend it, why do a gut rebuild? Why get rid of your good players for guys like Simon Castro and Nestor Molina? If you aren't supposed to compare them to other teams who did gut rebuilds, who should you compare them to? What team gets rid of all its good players and is back with this "sustained success" 2 or 3 years later?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

In 1992, the Pirates and Royals were 10th and 11th respectively in league payroll, which is the top half of the league, but roughly middle of the pack. Then they lost, and lost, and continually lost, and eventually they lost their fans and market share, which in turn caused them to lose further revenue, and suddenly they were in a neverending spiral.

 

As recently as 2007, the Astros spent $87 million on their payroll. They have new ownership now too, who I'm sure have money, but they still didn't spend and still have absolutely no talent with no end of their rebuild in site.

 

Meanwhile, the Cardinals have gone through phases of losing players either to injury or free agency. That's a team that should have had to rebuild but, because of shrewd trades and free agent signings, they've been able to patch together very good teams over the last 3-5 years.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing. I would like you to show me one good example of a very short-term rebuild where the team found steady success after tearing it down. The only example that even begins to work is probably the Braves, and they've been one of the best run organizations in all of sports for the last 25 years.

[Dick Allen]

The Rockies, perhaps.

 

They have the huge advantage in crowds (from a sheer numbers perspective), but we charge a lot more for tickets, parking, concessions...and, as a major market team, much less of our revenue is attendance-dependent.

 

Atlanta Braves, would be another one...going from a long playoff cycle and into a new stadium, peaking, falling off for awhile and then coming back.

 

The post new-stadium Brewers.

The Rockies? When have they won anything? Clearly not "sustained success". Besides, since 2005, where the Sox results have been unacceptable, they still have won a lot more games than the Rockies.

 

The Braves have never done a gut rebuild and have not had 2 consecutive seasons under .500 in 23 years.

 

The Brewers results certainly don't qualify as sustained success either and they have the same record as the White Sox this season.

 

People want the Sox to be the Rays, who btw, haven't won any titles themselves. That took a very long time and a lot of losing to accomplish.

 

This isn't the NBA. You can't totally transform your team in 2 years with a couple of high lottery picks.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

That all evaporates when the Sox do a White Flag trade and fans plus advertisers leave in droves. If no one is at the park, you can't retain your own players.

 

 

How do you know you're right this time?

 

Can you guarantee we won't lose 33% of the fanbase anyway if we continue to muddle through three more season with 74-78 win teams that have no realistic chance at the playoffs even with additions at the trade deadline?

[Jake]

The question remains, if you have money and are willing to spend it, why do a gut rebuild? Why get rid of your good players for guys like Simon Castro and Nestor Molina? If you aren't supposed to compare them to other teams who did gut rebuilds, who should you compare them to? What team gets rid of all its good players and is back with this "sustained success" 2 or 3 years later?

 

Right -- though trading CQ is the exact type of thing we should do when our minor leagues provides a replacement. But not spending for the sake of losing is silly. I am fine with calling a spade a spade when necessary, but there's no reason to be get as bad as you can. If we can maximize our benefit by trading someone, so be it. If we're trading someone just because it is a sin to have good players on a bad team, then that's silly. If we're out of it in July, then of course we should trade Thornton, Crain, and Lindstrom. They're leaving anyway. Rios and Peavy are far trickier because they are under contract for two more years at a fair price, Peavy for three if we take his option/it vests. We should never plan on being bad for two years.

[KPBears]

The question remains, if you have money and are willing to spend it, why do a gut rebuild? Why get rid of your good players for guys like Simon Castro and Nestor Molina? If you aren't supposed to compare them to other teams who did gut rebuilds, who should you compare them to? What team gets rid of all its good players and is back with this "sustained success" 2 or 3 years later?

 

The problem is the Sox don't have any good position players, except for maybe Rios (sorry Dayan fans, I think the guy's a free-swinging hack). I'm still undecided on Santiago and Quintana. The only really good players the Sox have are Sale (who should be untouchable unless there's the baseball equivalent of the Herschel Walker trade offered) and Peavy.

 

I've mentioned before that I like what the Astros are now doing. Before people criticize that, realize that they are really just starting their rebuild. Their current GM is in his 2nd year. Unfortunately for them, they took a few years screwing around before they finally got direction. But he's committed to a plan, and like the Sox, the Astros have the money to keep good players. Instead of wasting a few years, I'd like to see the Sox commit to a complete rebuild now. The team maybe garbage for a while, but if the Sox can go through four or five bad years (like the late 80's) for 20+ years of consistent winning (like 1990 - 2012), I'll take it.

 

As for the fans going away, guess what, the fans are going away regardless, because the Sox are going to be miserable. But the Sox, through WGN and merchandise sales, have revenue sources beyond attendance. And again, I'm confident that JR will spend when the time's right, as he did prior to the 2005 season adding Dye, AJ, and Iguchi (yes, they weren't elite free agents, but they were a lot bigger deals than Keppinger).

[caulfield12]

The Rockies? When have they won anything? Clearly not "sustained success". Besides, since 2005, where the Sox results have been unacceptable, they still have won a lot more games than the Rockies.

 

The Braves have never done a gut rebuild and have not had 2 consecutive seasons under .500 in 23 years.

 

The Brewers results certainly don't qualify as sustained success either and they have the same record as the White Sox this season.

 

People want the Sox to be the Rays, who btw, haven't won any titles themselves. That took a very long time and a lot of losing to accomplish.

 

This isn't the NBA. You can't totally transform your team in 2 years with a couple of high lottery picks.

 

 

Okay, the Nationals then.

[Jake]

Right -- though trading CQ is the exact type of thing we should do when our minor leagues provides a replacement. But not spending for the sake of losing is silly. I am fine with calling a spade a spade when necessary, but there's no reason to be get as bad as you can. If we can maximize our benefit by trading someone, so be it. If we're trading someone just because it is a sin to have good players on a bad team, then that's silly. If we're out of it in July, then of course we should trade Thornton, Crain, and Lindstrom. They're leaving anyway. Rios and Peavy are far trickier because they are under contract for two more years at a fair price, Peavy for three if we take his option/it vests. We should never plan on being bad for two years.

 

There's an argument that we have a minor league replacement for Peavy, which is to be seen but might be right FWIW

[Jordan4life_2007]

The Rockies? When have they won anything? Clearly not "sustained success". Besides, since 2005, where the Sox results have been unacceptable, they still have won a lot more games than the Rockies.

 

The Braves have never done a gut rebuild and have not had 2 consecutive seasons under .500 in 23 years.

 

The Brewers results certainly don't qualify as sustained success either and they have the same record as the White Sox this season.

 

People want the Sox to be the Rays, who btw, haven't won any titles themselves. That took a very long time and a lot of losing to accomplish.

 

This isn't the NBA. You can't totally transform your team in 2 years with a couple of high lottery picks.

 

The Nationals have. But yeah, that's pretty rare in baseball.

[witesoxfan]

Oh, and BTW, the Sox are 16-21 with 3 players - Dunn, Keppinger, and Konerko - underachieving badly, another starter - Beckham - on the DL and another starter - Viciedo - who was on the DL already this year. On top of that, 14 of their 21 losses have been by 2 runs or fewer, and 9 of those 21 have been by 1 run.

 

It's going to take about one of those three underachieving bats to get back and heated up, and the Sox will start winning those 1 and 2 run games, and if two of them heat up, they won't be having nearly as many 1 and 2 run games.

[Jake]

Oh, and BTW, the Sox are 16-21 with 3 players - Dunn, Keppinger, and Konerko - underachieving badly, another starter - Beckham - on the DL and another starter - Viciedo - who was on the DL already this year. On top of that, 14 of their 21 losses have been by 2 runs or fewer, and 9 of those 21 have been by 1 run.

 

It's going to take about one of those three underachieving bats to get back and heated up, and the Sox will start winning those 1 and 2 run games, and if two of them heat up, they won't be having nearly as many 1 and 2 run games.

 

Dunn, Kepp, Kong underachieving. Gordon comes back and likely replaces Kepp, eliminating an underachiever.

 

T Flow is back over .200, so who knows what we're getting there. Since Dunn abandoned that crap approach, he has posted a .750 OPS...which isnt great, but might be a sign of better things to come.

 

Konerko...hopefully he gets it going again. He's been a guy that has gone through a lot of prolonged slumps, so it is hard to say whether old age or just his typical slumping self is at fault here.

[Dick Allen]

The Nationals have. But yeah, that's pretty rare in baseball.

They also had 7 consecutive years of below .500 baseball.

[Jordan4life_2007]

They also had 7 consecutive years of below .500 baseball.

 

That's not what you said. You said you can't totally transform your team with a couple of high picks. The Nationals draft Strasburg and Harper in '09 and '10, and now they're one of the elite teams in baseball. They probably win it all if they don't shut Stras down last year.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Jordan4life

[caulfield12]

The problem is the Sox don't have any good position players, except for maybe Rios (sorry Dayan fans, I think the guy's a free-swinging hack). I'm still undecided on Santiago and Quintana. The only really good players the Sox have are Sale (who should be untouchable unless there's the baseball equivalent of the Herschel Walker trade offered) and Peavy.

 

I've mentioned before that I like what the Astros are now doing. Before people criticize that, realize that they are really just starting their rebuild. Their current GM is in his 2nd year. Unfortunately for them, they took a few years screwing around before they finally got direction. But he's committed to a plan, and like the Sox, the Astros have the money to keep good players. Instead of wasting a few years, I'd like to see the Sox commit to a complete rebuild now. The team maybe garbage for a while, but if the Sox can go through four or five bad years (like the late 80's) for 20+ years of consistent winning (like 1990 - 2012), I'll take it.

 

As for the fans going away, guess what, the fans are going away regardless, because the Sox are going to be miserable. But the Sox, through WGN and merchandise sales, have revenue sources beyond attendance. And again, I'm confident that JR will spend when the time's right, as he did prior to the 2005 season adding Dye, AJ, and Iguchi (yes, they weren't elite free agents, but they were a lot bigger deals than Keppinger).

 

 

I'm 98% sure our ComCast deal actually provides us more money per game than the WGN broadcasts, but WGN is available to a much wider audience, so it's a far better marketing tool than a regional sports network.

 

As for Viciedo, he has to be a franchise cornerstone offensively or there's no reason NOT to start rebuilding now, when you look at the status of our minor league system, Dunn/Konerko and the fact that Rios is aging and starting to make some lackadaisical plays in the OF again....I just can't believe the Sox are going to give him a long-term extension. And still would be pretty shocked if they picked up his 2015 option.

 

Peavy is the ONE player on the roster (other than Sale) and to a lesser extent, Santiago/Quintana, with a good amount of trade value.

 

If you keep Peavy, there's zero point in selling off the rest of the team because you're not going to be competitive in either 2013 or 2014.

 

He's worth more to the 2015 team in terms of bringing in future offensive talent and cutting payroll simultaneously.

 

 

That said, I don't prefer that model because I believe in Viciedo...AND firmly believe we could trade off SOME pieces (like Ramirez/Peavy/Crain/Thornton/Lindstrom...and possibly Reed or Jones), keep all of our starting pitching intact EXCEPT for Peavy, and have at least a 60/40 chance of being competitive offensively in 2014.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

How do you know you're right this time?

 

Can you guarantee we won't lose 33% of the fanbase anyway if we continue to muddle through three more season with 74-78 win teams that have no realistic chance at the playoffs even with additions at the trade deadline?

 

Even as "bad" as the Sox have been in recent years, they still haven't had back to back losing seasons since Manuel's first two years managing. So why on god's green earth do you think they'd "muddle" their way through three 74-78 win seasons right now? In this scenario, you even have them making additions to the club!

 

 

The problem is the Sox don't have any good position players, except for maybe Rios (sorry Dayan fans, I think the guy's a free-swinging hack). I'm still undecided on Santiago and Quintana. The only really good players the Sox have are Sale (who should be untouchable unless there's the baseball equivalent of the Herschel Walker trade offered) and Peavy.

 

I've mentioned before that I like what the Astros are now doing. Before people criticize that, realize that they are really just starting their rebuild. Their current GM is in his 2nd year. Unfortunately for them, they took a few years screwing around before they finally got direction. But he's committed to a plan, and like the Sox, the Astros have the money to keep good players. Instead of wasting a few years, I'd like to see the Sox commit to a complete rebuild now. The team maybe garbage for a while, but if the Sox can go through four or five bad years (like the late 80's) for 20+ years of consistent winning (like 1990 - 2012), I'll take it.

 

As for the fans going away, guess what, the fans are going away regardless, because the Sox are going to be miserable. But the Sox, through WGN and merchandise sales, have revenue sources beyond attendance. And again, I'm confident that JR will spend when the time's right, as he did prior to the 2005 season adding Dye, AJ, and Iguchi (yes, they weren't elite free agents, but they were a lot bigger deals than Keppinger).

 

OK, you think Viciedo's a "free-swinging hack." His .800+ OPS in his limited plate appearances disagrees with you. And, since he's gotten back, he's been an incredibly different looking hitter.

 

De Aza is a fine position player, probably a 2-3 WAR player. He's good for a .750ish OPS, good average, good speed, a little pop. He already has 7 homers this year. He strikes out a lot, but I can live with that if and when he starts drawing a few walks on top of his solid contact ability. Alexei Ramirez is still one of the best shortstops in the AL, and it really is difficult to name many guys better than him. Even with a .low .700s OPS, he's incredibly valuable. Konerko put up an .857 OPS last year, and he's shown in the past that he can basically flip a switch at any point and turn it on. Dunn put up an .800 OPS last year. Keppinger kills lefties. Gillaspie is showing to be a really, really solid hitter. You are underselling an absolute ton of players by throwing a blanket statement of "they're not good" merely because they have struggled for a month.

 

This pitching staff is incredibly deep and talented, and rebuilding now would be an absolute waste of that, because by the time you'd be "ready" offensively, most of these guys would have become too expensive to keep anymore. Then the cycle starts over.

 

Beyond that, you say you'd take 5 years of losing for 20 years of winning, but as of last year, the White Sox were "winning" as much as they have at any point in the last 20 years. If you want that, then why would you rebuild in the first place? They'll almost certainly end up around 81-85 wins this year anyways.

 

I honestly think if the Sox just stick out this year, make a trade or two if necessary to clear some payroll, and make additions in the offseason, everyone will give up this silly idea of rebuilding. You bring in guys like Morales, Utley, McCann, or Granderson, and suddenly you have power and excitement in the lineup again, and then the fans get excited too. I've admitted that the current Sox team is incredibly boring to watch and there's no real personality, but I can recognize that the team is good enough to win some games.

[The Ginger Kid]

In 1992, the Pirates and Royals were 10th and 11th respectively in league payroll, which is the top half of the league, but roughly middle of the pack. Then they lost, and lost, and continually lost, and eventually they lost their fans and market share, which in turn caused them to lose further revenue, and suddenly they were in a neverending spiral.

 

As recently as 2007, the Astros spent $87 million on their payroll. They have new ownership now too, who I'm sure have money, but they still didn't spend and still have absolutely no talent with no end of their rebuild in site.

 

Meanwhile, the Cardinals have gone through phases of losing players either to injury or free agency. That's a team that should have had to rebuild but, because of shrewd trades and free agent signings, they've been able to patch together very good teams over the last 3-5 years.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing. I would like you to show me one good example of a very short-term rebuild where the team found steady success after tearing it down. The only example that even begins to work is probably the Braves, and they've been one of the best run organizations in all of sports for the last 25 years.

 

The Cardinals are such an impressive organization. I have to believe it's not just great drafts, but player development as well. Like the Rays, they have a philosophy of play which they insist their players execute.

 

And would you say the Yankees of '13 qualify as a short term re-build finding success? I know it's only May, but what they've done w/o their "star" talent is very impressive.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

That's not what you said. You said you can't totally transform your team with a couple of high picks. The Nationals draft Strasburg and Harper in '09 and '10, and now they're one of the elite teams in baseball. They probably win it all if they don't shut Stras down last year.

 

This is true. The have a decent team outside of Harper and Stras, but really, if not for getting two of the most talented amateur prospects of the last 25 years in back to back years, where are the Nats? Personally, I don't think they make the trade for Gio, and they probably have a bunch of talent but a worse overall team than the Sox right now.

[iamshack]

In 1992, the Pirates and Royals were 10th and 11th respectively in league payroll, which is the top half of the league, but roughly middle of the pack. Then they lost, and lost, and continually lost, and eventually they lost their fans and market share, which in turn caused them to lose further revenue, and suddenly they were in a neverending spiral.

 

As recently as 2007, the Astros spent $87 million on their payroll. They have new ownership now too, who I'm sure have money, but they still didn't spend and still have absolutely no talent with no end of their rebuild in site.

 

Meanwhile, the Cardinals have gone through phases of losing players either to injury or free agency. That's a team that should have had to rebuild but, because of shrewd trades and free agent signings, they've been able to patch together very good teams over the last 3-5 years.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing. I would like you to show me one good example of a very short-term rebuild where the team found steady success after tearing it down. The only example that even begins to work is probably the Braves, and they've been one of the best run organizations in all of sports for the last 25 years.

I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly.

 

I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing.

[The Ginger Kid]

I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly.

 

I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing.

I also think Bruce Bochy is one of the best if not the best managers in baseball

[Eminor3rd]

You can't compare our situation to anyone else's situation. The teams that have sucked did so because they made bad draft choices/acquisitions and failed to develop their players. The ones that have been successful have done just the opposite. Those results don't have anything to do with what the Sox should or shouldn't do in 2013.

 

The answer, as nearly always, lies between the two extremes. It may require punting next year, but it doesn't have to come down to SPEND MOAR or SUCK FOR DECADES. It's just making sound long-term decisions, one-by-one.

[caulfield12]

I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly.

 

I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing.

 

 

Two choices. Pull in additional revenue (higher attendance) or spend that money much more wisely.

 

The Giants have a lot more margin for error (Zito) than we've had with Dunn/Danks.

 

They're the "first team" in that market, and they have one of the most picturesque stadiums in all of baseball...

Edited May 15, 2013 by caulfield12