In the event of a rebuild, stop comparing the Sox

[iamshack]

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.

Agreed...but there are some here that are acting as if moving from a bad situation to a good or great situation is near impossible in a relative short period of time. They've asked us to provide examples that it can be done.

[iamshack]

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...

They do, but I don't think their expenditures have been significantly higher.

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

The Yankees do not qualify. They haven't done any sort of rebuilding - they merely started bringing in other expensive talent and older players into the organization. And, unless you think Kuroda can keep up his 2.31 ERA, Overbay can keep up his .775 OPS, Wells can keep up his .870+ OPS, or Cervelli can keep up his .870 OPS, then no, I don't think they can keep this up either. I think they'll end up around .500, maybe worse. The Red Sox have predictably already started to fall off, and that will continue throughout the year too.

[caulfield12]

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

 

This is where someone will say the defending World Series champions also hired a manager with little to no experience in Matheny.

[Eminor3rd]

Agreed...but there are some here that are acting as if moving from a bad situation to a good or great situation is near impossible in a relative short period of time. They've asked us to provide examples that it can be done.

 

Indeed, my response was aimed more at those asking for the examples.

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

That is probably the best example. And, not that I'm arguing the point, they developed an innate ability to develop starting pitching (Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, f***ing Vogelsong? I mean some of that isn't even fair) and then fell into the best offensive catcher in the league in Buster Posey too. That can happen to the Sox too, especially with the pitching talent currently on hand, but if you can continue to build towards that without ever tearing the team down completely, you should probably try it. That's basically what I've been advocating.

[LittleHurt05]

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 Giants have taken advantage of their division and ballpark. They loaded up on pitching, developed two impact bats, and have just kept winning. The Sox are starting to stockpile arms, but their league/park requires them to have much more offense than SF does.

[Dick Allen]

This is where someone will say the defending World Series champions also hired a manager with little to no experience in Matheny.

Or someone will say Bochy has managed 8 teams that finished under .500 and 5 that have lost 90 plus games. The facts are, the better players you have, the better manager you are perceived to be. Even the Giants had 4 consecutive under .500 years, and then they were signing free agents. Not exactly a gut rebuild, and obviously they had players in their system who could play. Who do the White Sox have in their system were anyone could confidently say that by 2016 they will be a better than average hitter in the major leagues? They may be there, but there is going to have to be a big jump. The approach they are using is best moving forward. Why get rid of your best players? Why stop trying to win? They aren't that far off. If they could hit right now, they would be really good.

[caulfield12]

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!

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Bad/disappointing....2007, 2009, 2011, 2013?

Good/decent/competitive....2006, 2008, 2010, 2012

 

The problem is that the current offensive situation needs to be FIXED and nobody knows if Hahn's the man for the job, OR if the minor league system can produce a single starting position player in the next two years.

 

 

My scenario for 74-78 win seasons is not doing anything but holding onto the current roster and keeping the payroll about the same or lowering it roughly 5-10% a year to reflect veterans leaving and attendance falling.

 

If we did add those players like Matt Adams (for Ramirez/reliever), Morales, Utley, Granderson, McCann and kept every part of our rotation intact, then there's a VERY good chance we could get back to 88-90 wins UNLESS Sale goes down with an injury.

 

Obviously, not all five, but at least 2 and possibly 3.

 

 

 

 

[witesoxfan]

I will just say that I think the Sox are much more likely to trade Rios than they are Ramirez, and that's basically because it is much easier to find outfielders than it is to find shortstops like Ramirez. You might not get your Matt Adams, but there are certainly several other players that the team could acquire for him. Or you can package Rios and Dunn and eat a bad contract or take back nothing in return or whatever.

[caulfield12]

Or someone will say Bochy has managed 8 teams that finished under .500 and 5 that have lost 90 plus games. The facts are, the better players you have, the better manager you are perceived to be. Even the Giants had 4 consecutive under .500 years, and then they were signing free agents. Not exactly a gut rebuild, and obviously they had players in their system who could play. Who do the White Sox have in their system were anyone could confidently say that by 2016 they will be a better than average hitter in the major leagues? They may be there, but there is going to have to be a big jump. The approach they are using is best moving forward. Why get rid of your best players? Why stop trying to win? They aren't that far off. If they could hit right now, they would be really good.

 

 

They'll have the next 2 1/2 months for Beckham, Flowers and Gillaspie to prove themselves.

 

And Dunn and Konerko to become reasonable facsimiles of their former selves.

 

 

If they can't do that, no amount of good pitching is going to fix things.

 

And, most importantly, we need to start seeing an improvement trend with the mental and physical errors...MUCH better defense has to be a part of this rebound.

 

We've given away at least 3 and as many as 5-6 games already this year. We don't have that kind of margin for error to keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for the offense to climb out of.

 

And we can't just expect Sale/Santiago/Axelrod/Peavy to pitch this way the entire season.

 

 

 

[KPBears]

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.

 

As you mentioned, you're looking at a "limited" sample of Viciedo. I'm looking at his total body of work at this point. He kind of reminds me of a lesser Carlos Lee. Yeah, Lee has a fair amount of hits and home runs over his career. But it took him a long time to amass those stats, and he's never meant that much to any of his teams. When the Sox got Pods for him, I think the Sox fleeced the Brewers in that trade (I don't care that the rest of Soxtalk hates Pods, face it, 2005 doesn't happen without him). And I see Dayan as a worse version of Lee.

 

I think De Aza is a solid leadoff hitter, but there's a difference between solid and good (I'll throw Alexei and Beckham, maybe, into the solid but not good category as well).

 

Dunn is done (pun intended, and spot on as well).

 

Konerko is also done. I love Paulie. Carried himself as a true professional on and off the field. I want his number retired, and a statue in 5 years. But he has almost nothing left. Regardless of the return, I want the Sox to trade him to a contender, because Paulie deserves one more chance at a ring.

 

Keppinger is pure garbage. He kills lefties? You know what that means? He's a platoon player at best. You don't make your big offseason move a platoon player. It's ok to do that midseason when you're just trying to fine tune a team that's already good/great (like the 2005 Sox when they just added Blum).

 

I like what Gillaspie has done so far, but lately he's been coming back to Earth, and he's got a long way to go to prove he's for real considering his track record.

 

This team has more holes than Swiss cheese. With the possible exception of Rios, there's not a single above average hitter on the team at any position, and in most cases, they are far below average. It's not the matter of guys underachieving (because they're not, the lineup is just that bad) or adding a couple of pieces in the offseason. The pitching staff is strong (although, assuming Peavy isn't dealt and stays healthy, I think we still need a number three starting pitcher, and I have my doubts that Danks is ever coming back as an effective pitcher), but the lineup needs at least three good hitters, and at least two of whom are big on base guys, and a major comeback from Konerko. There's no help on the farm, and there is zero chance that this team can compete this year. Stockpile prospects and invest money, and more importantly time and effort, in player development.

[caulfield12]

I will just say that I think the Sox are much more likely to trade Rios than they are Ramirez, and that's basically because it is much easier to find outfielders than it is to find shortstops like Ramirez. You might not get your Matt Adams, but there are certainly several other players that the team could acquire for him. Or you can package Rios and Dunn and eat a bad contract or take back nothing in return or whatever.

 

 

And which team/s going to be willing to commit $50-55 million to Dunn/Rios for the next two years?

 

 

Even if you offloaded BOTH those contracts, the RF hole wouldn't be addressable until the offseason/free agency, in all likelihood.

 

We don't have anyone close to being ready to start on Opening Day 2014 from the Mitchell/Walker/Thompson group. So then we're having to go out and bid for players on the open market (like a Granderson) instead of replacing them from within.

 

Trading Peavy or Ramirez or Rios is the only way to get something decent back in return....along with Reed. There's no way you can afford to trade Santiago or Quintana without knowing Danks' future.

 

Heck, we might not know Danks' future after 2013, as far as whether we can rely on him or not. We'll have no choice but to go into 2014 with him in the starting rotation, pretty much regardless of the results this year.

 

 

[caulfield12]

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.

 

 

 

As you mentioned, you're looking at a "limited" sample of Viciedo. I'm looking at his total body of work at this point. He kind of reminds me of a lesser Carlos Lee. Yeah, Lee has a fair amount of hits and home runs over his career. But it took him a long time to amass those stats, and he's never meant that much to any of his teams. When the Sox got Pods for him, I think the Sox fleeced the Brewers in that trade (I don't care that the rest of Soxtalk hates Pods, face it, 2005 doesn't happen without him). And I see Dayan as a worse version of Lee.

 

I think De Aza is a solid leadoff hitter, but there's a difference between solid and good (I'll throw Alexei and Beckham, maybe, into the solid but not good category as well).

 

Dunn is done (pun intended, and spot on as well).

 

Konerko is also done. I love Paulie. Carried himself as a true professional on and off the field. I want his number retired, and a statue in 5 years. But he has almost nothing left. Regardless of the return, I want the Sox to trade him to a contender, because Paulie deserves one more chance at a ring.

 

Keppinger is pure garbage. He kills lefties? You know what that means? He's a platoon player at best. You don't make your big offseason move a platoon player. It's ok to do that midseason when you're just trying to fine tune a team that's already good/great (like the 2005 Sox when they just added Blum).

 

I like what Gillaspie has done so far, but lately he's been coming back to Earth, and he's got a long way to go to prove he's for real considering his track record.

 

This team has more holes than Swiss cheese. With the possible exception of Rios, there's not a single above average hitter on the team at any position, and in most cases, they are far below average. It's not the matter of guys underachieving (because they're not, the lineup is just that bad) or adding a couple of pieces in the offseason. The pitching staff is strong (although, assuming Peavy isn't dealt and stays healthy, I think we still need a number three starting pitcher, and I have my doubts that Danks is ever coming back as an effective pitcher), but the lineup needs at least three good hitters, and at least two of whom are big on base guys, and a major comeback from Konerko. There's no help on the farm, and there is zero chance that this team can compete this year. Stockpile prospects and invest money, and more importantly time and effort, in player development.

 

 

I'm not going to have this whole Viciedo argument. But a kid at his age putting up an 800+ OPS and showing a lot more patience recently...that's just as likely to be him going forward as your scenario, but it's up to you if you want to think it's below average for a 23 or 24 year outfielder to hit 25 home runs in basically his rookie season.

 

You can't compare Viciedo and Lee mainly because that was 90% a Lee salary dump (along with Magglio and Ordonez) going into 2005.

 

Lee was already a well-established, veteran player who had settled into career historical trends by that point. He also had a fair share of detractors in the clubhouse and front office due to character issues and perceived selfishness in his game.

 

 

That trade had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with freeing up money and also dramatically altering clubhouse chemistry.

 

[flavum]

Hahn was on the Score this morning.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/986-670-...-interviews#986

[caulfield12]

Hahn was on the Score this morning.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/986-670-...-interviews#986

 

 

Not buying that there's no "carryover effect" at all from last season.

 

He's the GM, he can't admit to that...but whatever.

 

 

And the argument about the defense "getting to more balls put into play" is so hard to quantify or defend. If you've followed the team closely and compared it to last year, there's just 5X more mental mistakes (throwing to the wrong bases, missing cutoff men, lackadaisical routes, throws bouncing, wild pitches and passed balls, etc.) than just physical ones "caused by pressing," which seems to be the company line (Beckham and Konerko basically said the same thing). He also said the pitchers weren't pitching over mistakes as well as they did last year (well, before the final six weeks). "Execution equalling ability." Hmmmm...

 

Plus, there's no denying the dropoff comparing Kepp vs. Beckham.

 

 

But, that said, if we win today, 17-21 would match out record at the same point last year.

Except I'm 98% sure that we weren't in last place with four teams stacked ahead of us and still a good distance out of 4th place (which would obviously also change with another win today).

 

 

[iamshack]

Not buying that there's no "carryover effect" at all from last season.

 

He's the GM, he can't admit to that...but whatever.

 

 

And the argument about the defense "getting to more balls put into play" is so hard to quantify or defend. If you've followed the team closely and compared it to last year, there's just 5X more mental mistakes (throwing to the wrong bases, missing cutoff men, lackadaisical routes, throws bouncing, wild pitches and passed balls, etc.) than just physical ones "caused by pressing," which seems to be the company line (Beckham and Konerko basically said the same thing). He also said the pitchers weren't pitching over mistakes as well as they did last year (well, before the final six weeks). "Execution equalling ability." Hmmmm...

 

Plus, there's no denying the dropoff comparing Kepp vs. Beckham.

 

 

But, that said, if we win today, 17-21 would match out record at the same point last year.

Except I'm 98% sure that we weren't in last place with four teams stacked ahead of us and still a good distance out of 4th place (which would obviously also change with another win today).

There are still 125 games left...I'm not concerned about being 5 games back or whatever. Obviously, they need to drastically cut back on their mental and physical errors in the field and start actually hitting the ball. If we can start playing like we are capable, we can start worrying about standings later. Otherwise, it's a moot point.

[Dick Allen]

When they were 17-21 last year, they were in 3rd place 4 1/2 out.

[Jake]

Trying to wrap my head around this --

 

A.) Dump players because they cost money.

 

B.) Who cares if we have a young prospect behind them, because ^^^

 

C.) The free agent market sucks, we don't want any of those players.

 

So why do we care about A if B and C are true?

[caulfield12]

When they were 17-21 last year, they were in 3rd place 4 1/2 out.

 

 

 

Except they were a LOT closer to the Tigers, and didn't have four teams stacked ahead of them.

 

 

CLE 22-16

DET 18-20

CHW 17-21

MN 15-23

KCR 12-26

 

 

Most importantly, they were RIGHT ABOUT to go on a 14-2/13-1 run that put them well over .500 and in first place (starting on May 29th) for MOST of the remainder of the season.

 

If anybody believes this team's going to put together a similar, 2010/2012 streak, well, they better go to Las Vegas.

Edited May 15, 2013 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

It's going to be a good trade market for Jake Peavy, too.

[witesoxfan]

Except they were a LOT closer to the Tigers, and didn't have four teams stacked ahead of them.

 

 

CLE 22-16

DET 18-20

CHW 17-21

MN 15-23

KCR 12-26

 

 

Most importantly, they were RIGHT ABOUT to go on a 14-2/13-1 run that put them well over .500 and in first place (starting on May 29th) for MOST of the remainder of the season.

 

If anybody believes this team's going to put together a similar, 2010/2012 streak, well, they better go to Las Vegas.

 

Why couldn't they? They don't play a good team until May 31st.

[Jordan4life_2007]

There are still 125 games left...I'm not concerned about being 5 games back or whatever. Obviously, they need to drastically cut back on their mental and physical errors in the field and start actually hitting the ball. If we can start playing like we are capable, we can start worrying about standings later. Otherwise, it's a moot point.

 

Um, I disagree completely. We need to worry about the standing RIGHT NOW. I don't want to be 8+ games out when/if this team "starts to play like they're capable." Detroit is significantly better than they were last year - leading all of baseball in runs scored and third in ERA. They have easily the highest run differential at +62 (only team close is the Cards at +51).

[Jake]

We don't have to go on a 10 game win streak so long as we don't go 2-10 leading up to our elimination in September.

[flavum]

When they were 17-21 last year, they were in 3rd place 4 1/2 out.

 

They also had a tougher schedule last year, and had played the Tigers 8 games. They were 4-4 against them, and then would go 2-8 the rest of the way.

 

By my calculations for competing, the Sox were 2 games behind where they should have been last year after 37 games. This year, we're 4 games behind where we should be.

 

I'm kind of already booking 8-11 against the Tigers this year as a best case scenario. If you look at it that way, the Sox are 24-32, and they have the rest of the schedule to go 65-39 to finish 89-73.

 

Bleak enough for you?