Your Realistic 2014 Lineup

[Chicago White Sox]

I hope you are right. A goal should be no deadwight contracts by 2016.

What's happening in 2016?

[2nd_city_saint787]

No, the the $20m doesn't hurt you right now, it hurts you for like 3 seasons later, which happen to be the seasons you might actually have a chance at winning.

 

Also, let's not ignore that defense. I know he doesn't belong in center, but with the Indians in 2012, he was a -16.7 defender in RF. That is insane-horribad. He's -15.6 so far this year. This is a guy who is worse than -30 runs defensively over the last two years.

 

And he'll be 32. Come on guys, what happens to players after age 32? They get worse. And guys who already have huge flaws in their game (extreme platoon splits, garbage defense) tend to get real bad, really quickly. Why are you all so eager to pay for a 32 year old platoon player's career year all of a sudden? To add an embarrassingly bad defender to the most embarrassingly bad defense in the majors? You're not paying for prime Choo, you're paying for post-prime Choo.

 

I love the OBP, but at this stage in his career, he's a hired gun on a contender that is willing to eat it for the final piece. That is not what this team needs. Maybe you guys haven't been watching lately -- this team BLOWS. I was at the game Saturday and left early for the first time in my life. It was just bad entertainment and not worth being there.

 

I hadn't gone that far(a whole year, I know) into the defensive metrics to know he was that bad in RF as well so that kinda curves my enthusiasm a bit but I'd still take the upside here.

 

I've been watching plenty enough and I think putting a guy like Choo atop the lineup, a guy like Abreu in the middle of the lineup(if he is who we hope he is), adding Semien over Beckham(see previous parenthesis), and then maybe trading/acquiring a guy for a CF and or a catcher will put us right back in contention next year. Ala the Cleveland Indians.

 

There are guys out there who are still doin work over the age of 35 even, it's not a given that he'll be awful come age 36. I think a guy like him who has a good eye could even pick up a contract after the 5 year he might get this offseason.

[Eminor3rd]

You make a pretty convincing case against signing Choo. Is there another player who you would suggest to quickly fix this team's terrible OBP? Would you still view his acquisition negatively, if he could be signed to a 3 year deal, at $15 million per year?

 

I'm not so sure that Sox management is thinking that they won't be competitive until 2016. Hell, by then the young, affordable pitching may not be so affordable anymore. Quintana and Santiago will be starting to earn big money, if they're still any good.

 

I'd love him at 3/$45, don't get me wrong. But I really think we're talking 5/$100m

[witesoxfan]

When David DeJesus signed with the Cubs, he was 32 and had splits of .284/.356/.421/.776. During his age 30 season - Choo's current season - he put up splits of .318/.384/.443/.827 over 91 games. His age 31 season, he struggled mightily with the A's. With the Cubs, DeJesus put up a .258/.343/.403/.746 line.

 

Through his age 30 season, Choo has a .289/.389/.466/.855 line. He's walked and slugged more, but they play similar styles. Choo putting up .260/.360/.415 is not out of the realm of possibility over the duration of the contract, and he could be a .250/.340/.380 type hitter or worse by the end of it. This is not a guy you give a lot of money too.

 

As far as a quick fix...you don't worry about that. This is not a team that is in position for a quick fix. Sign a few guys who can be good players for 3-5 years to reasonable contracts, and call it an offseason.

[witesoxfan]

I hadn't gone that far(a whole year, I know) into the defensive metrics to know he was that bad in RF as well so that kinda curves my enthusiasm a bit but I'd still take the upside here.

 

I've been watching plenty enough and I think putting a guy like Choo atop the lineup, a guy like Abreu in the middle of the lineup(if he is who we hope he is), adding Semien over Beckham(see previous parenthesis), and then maybe trading/acquiring a guy for a CF and or a catcher will put us right back in contention next year. Ala the Cleveland Indians.

 

There are guys out there who are still doin work over the age of 35 even, it's not a given that he'll be awful come age 36. I think a guy like him who has a good eye could even pick up a contract after the 5 year he might get this offseason.

 

Of course there are guys who put up good seasons after the age of 35 though, but the far greater percentage of players begin breaking down around the age of 31 and by 35 they are a shell of their former self. Choo could still be a viable platoon player at 35, but you don't want to pay $20 million for that.

[southsider2k5]

Of course there are guys who put up good seasons after the age of 35 though, but the far greater percentage of players begin breaking down around the age of 31 and by 35 they are a shell of their former self. Choo could still be a viable platoon player at 35, but you don't want to pay $20 million for that.

 

Most of the people who did it had it happen during the steroid era. Draw your own conclusions there.

[Eminor3rd]

I hadn't gone that far(a whole year, I know) into the defensive metrics to know he was that bad in RF as well so that kinda curves my enthusiasm a bit but I'd still take the upside here.

 

I've been watching plenty enough and I think putting a guy like Choo atop the lineup, a guy like Abreu in the middle of the lineup(if he is who we hope he is), adding Semien over Beckham(see previous parenthesis), and then maybe trading/acquiring a guy for a CF and or a catcher will put us right back in contention next year. Ala the Cleveland Indians.

 

There are guys out there who are still doin work over the age of 35 even, it's not a given that he'll be awful come age 36. I think a guy like him who has a good eye could even pick up a contract after the 5 year he might get this offseason.

 

It's certainly possible it wouldn't be a disaster, it just isn't likely. Outliers are all over the place, but they're still way way less common than typical cases. I have nothing against him personally -- I've always liked him, actually. I just don't think this team is in a position to gamble on things happening contrary to historical precedent.

 

I'm for the Sox spending money as long as it's on guys that will be valuable several years down the road, because I don't think there's enough out there to fix the whole thing in one year. Abreu is target number one (assuming the scouts think he's for real) because he fills a hole and is only 26. I like McCann too, because I think his bat will still be very useful after he moves off of C in a couple years, and that also fills a hole for us. One of those two guys, even at market rates, makes sense to me, because they make the team better next year and also retain value for a few years after, forming a foundation to which we can continue adding talent.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[2nd_city_saint787]

When David DeJesus signed with the Cubs, he was 32 and had splits of .284/.356/.421/.776. During his age 30 season - Choo's current season - he put up splits of .318/.384/.443/.827 over 91 games. His age 31 season, he struggled mightily with the A's. With the Cubs, DeJesus put up a .258/.343/.403/.746 line.

 

Through his age 30 season, Choo has a .289/.389/.466/.855 line. He's walked and slugged more, but they play similar styles. Choo putting up .260/.360/.415 is not out of the realm of possibility over the duration of the contract, and he could be a .250/.340/.380 type hitter or worse by the end of it. This is not a guy you give a lot of money too.

 

As far as a quick fix...you don't worry about that. This is not a team that is in position for a quick fix. Sign a few guys who can be good players for 3-5 years to reasonable contracts, and call it an offseason.

 

 

Given the pitching staff that's already in place I don't understand why the team isn't in the position for a "quick fix". Also with the whole players "suck" after 32 talk being thrown around there aren't gonna be a few guys to sign who will live up to that 3-5 years of being good. Salty is the only player under 30 who's worth noting and I doubt the Red Sox let him go...I know there will be some guys who get non tendered or whatever that are going to be added to the current list of FAs but chances are those guys won't be good.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Carlton Fisk came to the White Sox as a 33 year old, often injured, catcher. Now, a lot of people here wouldn't have touched him.

 

With as much as Stone has been mentioning McCann, you would have to feel the Sox will at least inquire.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Lillian]

It's certainly possible it wouldn't be a disaster, it just isn't likely. Outliers are all over the place, but they're still way way less common than typical cases. I have nothing against him personally -- I've always liked him, actually. I just don't think this team is in a position to gamble on things happening contrary to historical precedent.

 

I'm for the Sox spending money as long as it's on guys that will be valuable several years down the road, because I don't think there's enough out there to fix the whole thing in one year. Abreu is target number one (assuming the scouts think he's for real) because he fills a hole and is only 26. I like McCann too, because I think his bat will still he very useful after he moves off of C in a couple years, and that also fills a hole for us. One of those two guys, even at market rates, makes sense to me, because they make the team better next yeas and also retain value for a few years after, forming a foundation to which we can continue adding talent.

 

I agree with you, in principle, and therefore think that Abreu is worth whatever it takes to get him, in terms of years. I see these projections of 5 years @ $10 Million and I think that seems very reasonable. There are a lot of older players, who have had their free agent contracts, who make that much, and aren't really all that good, any more. This is a kid who could reasonably be expected to perform at the top of his game for the next 6 years. The question is; What will the "top of his game" look like?

I'd take my chances that it will be pretty good.

[witesoxfan]

Given the pitching staff that's already in place I don't understand why the team isn't in the position for a "quick fix". Also with the whole players "suck" after 32 talk being thrown around there aren't gonna be a few guys to sign who will live up to that 3-5 years of being good. Salty is the only player under 30 who's worth noting and I doubt the Red Sox let him go...I know there will be some guys who get non tendered or whatever that are going to be added to the current list of FAs but chances are those guys won't be good.

 

Because the bullpen is a mess right now too. Realistically, we can say there are, minimum, 6 places that can be improved upon - LF, CF, 3B, 2B, 1B/DH, and C (if you want to compete next year, you are going to have to do it with Dunn because if you want him gone, you'll have to eat money (which then obviously can't be spent anywhere else) which limits how much you can spend on a replacement). If you sign Abreu, McCann, and Choo and somehow able to deal De Aza and Beckham for Sandoval, you are left with (and this would be my ideal lineup, but probably not the real lineup):

 

Choo - RF (5/$100)

Dunn - DH

Sandoval - 3B ($8.25 in '14)

Abreu - 1B (6/$72)

McCann - C (4/$60)

Garcia - RF

Semien - 2B

Viciedo - LF

Ramirez - SS

 

I think that team has a chance, but you are talking about big weaknesses at the end of the lineup, and then you still have to worry about putting together a bullpen. Reed, Jones, Webb, Petricka, and Lindstrom are probably your righties. For lefties, we could be talking about signing guys or using Veal/Leesman or anything in between. It's young, and it's got some talent, but I don't think it's overall really that impressive. I'm not sure that team wins the division...and frankly, you are adding $55 million in new guys alone, which does not seem realistic, so get rid of Choo or McCann.

 

On top of that, you become the '07 Cubs if you sign all those guys. You end up with crummy contracts scattered throughout your team and once a few of them fall apart, you are screwed and can't get rid of them.

 

No, you show patience. Sale, Quintana, Santiago, Danks, Rienzo, and Johnson are all under contract through at least 2016. There is plenty of time to build a winner with this rotation. Build it slowly and do it right.

 

BTW, I understand why everybody loves the rotation, because it is very talented, but their rotation ERA is 3.99, which is 16th in the MLB and perfectly average. Compare the Sox rotation to the Tigers rotation and tell me whose rotation you'd rather have based solely on talent. I can tell you which I want.

 

Take it nice and slow, there's no need to compete for a division and introduce more poor contracts into the mix when you have maybe a 5% chance of winning the division.

[witesoxfan]

Carlton Fisk came to the White Sox as a 33 year old, often injured, catcher. Now, a lot of people here wouldn't have touched him.

 

With as much as Stone has been mentioning McCann, you would have to feel the Sox will at least inquire.

 

He was a Hall of Fame catcher who showed great longevity. Let's look at some numbers though, right?

 

In Boston - .284/.356/.481/.837

In Chicago - .257/.329/.438/.766

 

You see our point

[lasttriptotulsa]

Because the bullpen is a mess right now too. Realistically, we can say there are, minimum, 6 places that can be improved upon - LF, CF, 3B, 2B, 1B/DH, and C (if you want to compete next year, you are going to have to do it with Dunn because if you want him gone, you'll have to eat money (which then obviously can't be spent anywhere else) which limits how much you can spend on a replacement). If you sign Abreu, McCann, and Choo and somehow able to deal De Aza and Beckham for Sandoval, you are left with (and this would be my ideal lineup, but probably not the real lineup):

 

Choo - RF (5/$100)

Dunn - DH

Sandoval - 3B ($8.25 in '14)

Abreu - 1B (6/$72)

McCann - C (4/$60)

Garcia - RF

Semien - 2B

Viciedo - LF

Ramirez - SS

 

I think that team has a chance, but you are talking about big weaknesses at the end of the lineup, and then you still have to worry about putting together a bullpen. Reed, Jones, Webb, Petricka, and Lindstrom are probably your righties. For lefties, we could be talking about signing guys or using Veal/Leesman or anything in between. It's young, and it's got some talent, but I don't think it's overall really that impressive. I'm not sure that team wins the division...and frankly, you are adding $55 million in new guys alone, which does not seem realistic, so get rid of Choo or McCann.

 

On top of that, you become the '07 Cubs if you sign all those guys. You end up with crummy contracts scattered throughout your team and once a few of them fall apart, you are screwed and can't get rid of them.

 

No, you show patience. Sale, Quintana, Santiago, Danks, Rienzo, and Johnson are all under contract through at least 2016. There is plenty of time to build a winner with this rotation. Build it slowly and do it right.

 

BTW, I understand why everybody loves the rotation, because it is very talented, but their rotation ERA is 3.99, which is 16th in the MLB and perfectly average. Compare the Sox rotation to the Tigers rotation and tell me whose rotation you'd rather have based solely on talent. I can tell you which I want.

 

Take it nice and slow, there's no need to compete for a division and introduce more poor contracts into the mix when you have maybe a 5% chance of winning the division.

 

I don't mind that lineup (other than the fact that you have two right fielders), but I just can't see giving Choo 5/100.

[southsider2k5]

Carlton Fisk came to the White Sox as a 33 year old, often injured, catcher. Now, a lot of people here wouldn't have touched him.

 

With as much as Stone has been mentioning McCann, you would have to feel the Sox will at least inquire.

 

Going back 30 years to find a probable non-steroid case is pretty telling as to what happens to the vast majority of players as they age.

[Eminor3rd]

Given the pitching staff that's already in place I don't understand why the team isn't in the position for a "quick fix". Also with the whole players "suck" after 32 talk being thrown around there aren't gonna be a few guys to sign who will live up to that 3-5 years of being good. Salty is the only player under 30 who's worth noting and I doubt the Red Sox let him go...I know there will be some guys who get non tendered or whatever that are going to be added to the current list of FAs but chances are those guys won't be good.

 

The pitching staff that's in place is practically all 24 and younger and under team control for a long time. A lot of them also need to mature and continue to improve -- this is exactly why you DON'T want to rush this. If they were all 30 and entering contract years, that's when you would say "the pitching is in place, must act now!"

[Dick Allen]

He was a Hall of Fame catcher who showed great longevity. Let's look at some numbers though, right?

 

In Boston - .284/.356/.481/.837

In Chicago - .257/.329/.438/.766

 

You see our point

Not that huge of a difference considering he played until he was 45, and a catcher. In fact, his age 33 season was one of his worst as a White Sox. I think, while some players fall apart at 32, considering it a general rule, is way off, especially if speed isn't a major component of his effectiveness. Plenty of players are productive until they are 35 or 36 or even 38.

 

People here worried about Detroit being the greatest team ever because they signed a 38 year old and had a 34 year old coming back from injury.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Not that huge of a difference considering he played until he was 45, and a catcher. In fact, his age 33 season was one of his worst as a White Sox. I think, while some players fall apart at 32, considering it a general rule, is way off, especially if speed isn't a major component of his effectiveness. Plenty of players are productive until they are 35 or 36 or even 38.

 

Unless you have some overall data that shows differently, I think the adage is great as a general concept. The players that do as well or better as they get old are the exception to the rule, and not the norm. Again, I really think the steroid era distorted that, but history would bear me out.

[southsider2k5]

Unless you have some overall data that shows differently, I think the adage is great as a general concept. The players that do as well or better as they get old are the exception to the rule, and not the norm. Again, I really think the steroid era distorted that, but history would bear me out.

 

A recent paper that shows large regression beings at age 29.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a....52164340,d.aWM

[Eminor3rd]

Not that huge of a difference considering he played until he was 45, and a catcher. In fact, his age 33 season was one of his worst as a White Sox. I think, while some players fall apart at 32, considering it a general rule, is way off, especially if speed isn't a major component of his effectiveness. Plenty of players are productive until they are 35 or 36 or even 38.

 

People here worried about Detroit being the greatest team ever because they signed a 38 year old and had a 34 year old coming back from injury.

 

Detroit was already a playoff team, and then they added a 38 year old on a short term, low risk contract. It may not be a general rule that players fall apart at 32, but absolutely IS a general rule that they get worse, sometimes gradually and sometimes suddenly. Those moves made sense for Detroit, who was just in the World Series, not for us and our 100ish loss season.

[witesoxfan]

Not that huge of a difference considering he played until he was 45, and a catcher. In fact, his age 33 season was one of his worst as a White Sox. I think, while some players fall apart at 32, considering it a general rule, is way off, especially if speed isn't a major component of his effectiveness. Plenty of players are productive until they are 35 or 36 or even 38.

 

People here worried about Detroit being the greatest team ever because they signed a 38 year old and had a 34 year old coming back from injury.

 

You are telling me that just because he was a productive player until he was 43 and played until he was 45, there is not that big of a different between an .837 OPS and a .766 OPS? Because that's a silly argument. There is absolutely a significant difference and using an example of a guy who most consider to be one of the most durable players of all time is probably not a good comparison to most players in the majors.

 

I thought Hunter and Martinez would struggle. Martinez did in the first half. Hunter has an OBP of .286 in the second half. None of this surprises me. I expect the struggles to continue next year and, while that team is great right now, I expect them to be in trouble in 3-5 years. I seriously would not be surprised to see the standings reversed come 2017.

 

Detroit was already a playoff team, and then they added a 38 year old on a short term, low risk contract. It may not be a general rule that players fall apart at 32, but absolutely IS a general rule that they get worse, sometimes gradually and sometimes suddenly. Those moves made sense for Detroit, who was just in the World Series, not for us and our 100ish loss season.

 

If the Sox sign guys to 1 and 2 year deals this offseason and then deal them at the deadline (assuming they don't compete), I have absolutely no problem with it so long as they aren't blocking prospects.

[Dick Allen]

Detroit was already a playoff team, and then they added a 38 year old on a short term, low risk contract. It may not be a general rule that players fall apart at 32, but absolutely IS a general rule that they get worse, sometimes gradually and sometimes suddenly. Those moves made sense for Detroit, who was just in the World Series, not for us and our 100ish loss season.

I am not talking about this year, and I don't endorse signing someone for 7 years who is 32 years old. But walking away from every 32 year old is a mistake. There are plenty of 32 year olds who can have a small regression but still be better than what the White Sox can put on the field right now. I think they are going after Abreu and McCann myself. Ideally, they get both, but I'm thinking they would be happy with at least one. I also think they try to add a couple more guys to very short term make good contracts, and depending on how well that goes, trade from their pitching strength to get someone who can hit. They have to bolster the offense, and while they may not be able to totally do so in 1 offseason, I think they will make enough moves to at least keep it interesting. We probably have to hope for Tank and Garcia and Beckham to blossom next year to be elite, but there could be enough to win even if they don't. Look at Cleveland. Reynolds was so bad he was DFA'd. Swisher and Bourne haven't exactly been spectacular, and Asdrubal has been not so good himself, yet they have a shot.

As bad as the Sox have been, they were in a lot of close games where any kind of offense gets them wins. These losses at the end count, but they aren't playing with a full deck because of being out of the race so early.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Meh, me arguing is all based off bucket, who supposedly has insider knowledge, saying Hahn and Co won't be punting on 2014. That to me means they're opening up the check book.

 

Wite that lineup you posted would be fantastic...I'd also have Lexi bat 2nd in that lineup because as I said in another post Lexi, for the last 3 years, has batted .304/.343/.451 in 763 ABs with runners on. Having a guy ahead of him who has the ability to get on base at a good clip then increases the value of Lexi in the process. Lexi with no one on has batted .248/.285/.359. Also to that point, Adam Dunn the last 2 years has been a much better hitter with runners on as well (.731 ops vs .888 last year and .732 vs .782 this year) so I'd bat him 3rd....Adding a good "table setter" has a ripple effect that I think would turn this ball club around.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2013 by scs787

[Dick Allen]

You are telling me that just because he was a productive player until he was 43 and played until he was 45, there is not that big of a different between an .837 OPS and a .766 OPS? Because that's a silly argument. There is absolutely a significant difference and using an example of a guy who most consider to be one of the most durable players of all time is probably not a good comparison to most players in the majors.

 

I thought Hunter and Martinez would struggle. Martinez did in the first half. Hunter has an OBP of .286 in the second half. None of this surprises me. I expect the struggles to continue next year and, while that team is great right now, I expect them to be in trouble in 3-5 years. I seriously would not be surprised to see the standings reversed come 2017.

 

 

 

If the Sox sign guys to 1 and 2 year deals this offseason and then deal them at the deadline (assuming they don't compete), I have absolutely no problem with it so long as they aren't blocking prospects.

If someone could guarantee you McCann would be your catcher for the next 4 years and put up a .766 OPS, I bet you would think signing him is a good idea.

 

And Hunter's OBP the second half is cherry picking stats. I don't know how you say that's because he was 38. Don't 25 year olds have halfs like that? I could come up with stretches for every player where they aren't so good. Hunter signed as a FA with the Angels as a 32 year old. He had a higher OPS with the Angels than he did with the Twins.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

A recent paper that shows large regression beings at age 29.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a....52164340,d.aWM

Yes, but that's on average. There are guys that regress when they are 22. It may be playing Russian Roulette, but signing 31-32 year olds who are in good physical condition, and have been putting up good numbers for several years IMO isn't a bad idea, as long as you aren't going crazy with the years. Obviously, you should look for red flags. If Prince Fielder were a free agent this year, even though he will be 30, I wouldn't sign him to a 5 or 6 year deal at what he would command even if I had unlimited funds. His dad fell off a cliff right around that age, and Prince's body screams breakdown. I wonder how many hits Tony Gwynn would have had if he would have eaten a few less donuts and been able to stay on the field more often. I think guys can play very overweight when they are younger, but after 30, playing 50 lbs or more overweight probably isn't going to work.

 

Most guys don't even become free agents until they are 28 or 29.

[Marty34]

If someone could guarantee you McCann would be your catcher for the next 4 years and put up a .766 OPS, I bet you would think signing him is a good idea.

And Hunter's OBP the second half is cherry picking stats. I don't know how you say that's because he was 38. Don't 25 year olds have halfs like that? I could come up with stretches for every player where they aren't so good. Hunter signed as a FA with the Angels as a 32 year old. He had a higher OPS with the Angels than he did with the Twins.

 

How many games is he going to play?