Pre-Winter Meetings Best Course of Action

[Marty34]

I don't think you understand how team rebuild their cores.

 

I'd love to hear your plan.

[greg775]

Instead, it's better to pass the punishment for their mistake on to the fans by cutting payroll when their farm system isn't producing.

 

I get the feeling a lot of Sox fans want a low payroll for some reason. They always mask it by saying, "you don't understand the economics of baseball," when I complain about it. My philosophy is they aren't ever going to be lowering costs of tickets, hot dogs, beer, parking, soda, parking, parking so I want them to spend a ton of money. I do not care about the Sox investors' pocketbook when the team is worth what the magazines say it's worth. It's kind of like Wal mart. Why should I EVER feel sorry for a company that makes that kind of loot? Spend the money and let me b**** when you make bad decisions on a specific player.

[southsider2k5]

I'd love to hear your plan.

 

Step one: Pitch Chris Sale every fifth day until 2020.

[Eminor3rd]

I'd love to hear your plan.

 

Add players with surplus value that can be retained for several years. Only add market rate talent when it pushes you over the edge. The current state of free agency is that years are in demand more than dollars in some cases -- making market-rate acquisitions ALWAYS buys present value at the cost of future value, whether that's in terms of dollars or other players. Asking them to exhaust future resources on a team most likely destined for mediocrity is a recipe for short and long term disaster. It's like going all in on a low pair, hoping the river gives you three of a kind. It's a bad gamble.

[cabiness42]

I get the feeling a lot of Sox fans want a low payroll for some reason. They always mask it by saying, "you don't understand the economics of baseball," when I complain about it. My philosophy is they aren't ever going to be lowering costs of tickets, hot dogs, beer, parking, soda, parking, parking so I want them to spend a ton of money. I do not care about the Sox investors' pocketbook when the team is worth what the magazines say it's worth. It's kind of like Wal mart. Why should I EVER feel sorry for a company that makes that kind of loot? Spend the money and let me b**** when you make bad decisions on a specific player.

 

Nobody wants a low payroll in 2014 so the owners can make more profit. People want a low payroll in 2014 so there will be more available to spend in 2015 when the team will hopefully be in a position to contend. If I have a choice between spending $100M in 2014 and $105M in 2015, or spending $90M in 2014 and $115M in 2015, I'm going to choose the latter, because there is almost zero chance that this team can compete spending $100M in 2014.

 

[cabiness42]

Add players with surplus value that can be retained for several years. Only add market rate talent when it pushes you over the edge. The current state of free agency is that years are in demand more than dollars in some cases -- making market-rate acquisitions ALWAYS buys present value at the cost of future value, whether that's in terms of dollars or other players. Asking them to exhaust future resources on a team most likely destined for mediocrity is a recipe for short and long term disaster. It's like going all in on a low pair, hoping the river gives you three of a kind. It's a bad gamble.

 

Going all in with a low pair (if we are assuming preflop here) is a much better gamble than long term free agent deals.

[witesoxfan]

How is it adding fuel to the fire? They can afford to patch over their mistake by signing a couple of free agents over the next two years and by not cutting payroll.

 

Because what you are assuming isn't correct either. There's no guarantee that a moral and ethical development in Latin America presents the Sox with 2 regulars from Latin America. Williams was not spending much as it was on the minor league system, instead using that money on the major league team. The $600K Silveiro signing was the biggest for the Sox during a period of time when top amateur international free agents were signing for $2-4 million. They weren't spending down there as it was.

 

Right now, the major league roster is in very poor shape. With a ton of creativity and a lot of parts moving around, you can get some semblance of a competitive team this year. By simply throwing money at players on the wrong side of the aging curve and giving them 4 year deals, you are talking about buying their most productive years while the team is going to be poor and then seeing their performances fall off during the last 2 years when the team is supposed to be competitive. When you do that, you end up like the Mariners of the late 00s, fluctuating between 65 and 80 wins with one season where they found a lot of luck and ended up winning around 85 or 87 games. Instead, they should make like the Athletics and acquire packages of prospects, buy low on players, and bring in undervalued players. If you look at the current Athletics team, that's exactly what they've done with the one exception of Yoenis Cespedes.

 

The Sox need to buy low on players (Josh Johnson and John Jaso are examples of that) while otherwise getting and remaining young. Signing, say, Curtis Granderson would not do that, especially now that they have to give up a 2nd round pick for him. He's older and had already shown signs of decline prior to this past (freak) injury plagued year.

[Eminor3rd]

Going all in with a low pair (if we are assuming preflop here) is a much better gamble than long term free agent deals.

 

I was assuming post-flop where you caught your pair in the flop. SHould have explained that more.

 

Regardless, the point remains

[Chicago White Sox]

Add players with surplus value that can be retained for several years. Only add market rate talent when it pushes you over the edge. The current state of free agency is that years are in demand more than dollars in some cases -- making market-rate acquisitions ALWAYS buys present value at the cost of future value, whether that's in terms of dollars or other players. Asking them to exhaust future resources on a team most likely destined for mediocrity is a recipe for short and long term disaster. It's like going all in on a low pair, hoping the river gives you three of a kind. It's a bad gamble.

No offense, this is a lot easier said than done. How would you go about acquiring these players?

[caulfield12]

Because what you are assuming isn't correct either. There's no guarantee that a moral and ethical development in Latin America presents the Sox with 2 regulars from Latin America. Williams was not spending much as it was on the minor league system, instead using that money on the major league team. The $600K Silveiro signing was the biggest for the Sox during a period of time when top amateur international free agents were signing for $2-4 million. They weren't spending down there as it was.

 

Right now, the major league roster is in very poor shape. With a ton of creativity and a lot of parts moving around, you can get some semblance of a competitive team this year. By simply throwing money at players on the wrong side of the aging curve and giving them 4 year deals, you are talking about buying their most productive years while the team is going to be poor and then seeing their performances fall off during the last 2 years when the team is supposed to be competitive. When you do that, you end up like the Mariners of the late 00s, fluctuating between 65 and 80 wins with one season where they found a lot of luck and ended up winning around 85 or 87 games. Instead, they should make like the Athletics and acquire packages of prospects, buy low on players, and bring in undervalued players. If you look at the current Athletics team, that's exactly what they've done with the one exception of Yoenis Cespedes.

 

The Sox need to buy low on players (Josh Johnson and John Jaso are examples of that) while otherwise getting and remaining young. Signing, say, Curtis Granderson would not do that, especially now that they have to give up a 2nd round pick for him. He's older and had already shown signs of decline prior to this past (freak) injury plagued year.

 

 

Of course, most of their (A's) success is predicated on pitching/bullpen and the trade for and eventual emergence of Josh Donaldson.

 

The White Sox simply need another version of Quentin/Donaldson (in 2008/09, Danks/Alexei/Floyd/Quentin). Easier said than done. And Abreu has to have a huge impact, like Cespedes and Puig. They simply can't afford to be wrong on that move.

 

But that's definitely the model the White Sox should be following. Then, when they're closer to being able to compete, they can add those "glue/complementary" pieces like a CoCo Crisp, Lowrie, Vogt, etc.

Edited November 21, 2013 by caulfield12

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Of course, most of their (A's) success is predicated on pitching/bullpen and the trade for and eventual emergence of Josh Donaldson.

 

The White Sox simply need another version of Quentin/Donaldson (in 2008/09, Danks/Alexei/Floyd/Quentin). Easier said than done. And Abreu has to have a huge impact, like Cespedes and Puig. They simply can't afford to be wrong on that move.

 

But that's definitely the model the White Sox should be following. Then, when they're closer to being able to compete, they can add those "glue/complementary" pieces like a CoCo Crisp, Lowrie, Vogt, etc.

In order for Abreu to have a huge impact I would feel much more comfortable with another bat behind him. If he shows he can hit he's going to be intentionally walked an awful lot without any protection.

[Eminor3rd]

No offense, this is a lot easier said than done. How would you go about acquiring these players?

 

None taken -- it isn't easy.

 

In a word: patience. Divert budget to drafting and developing them -- and then extending them when applicable. Trade players with only short term value for them. Sign international free agents that fit the bill. The key is that you have to let the opportunities come to you, you can't just throw money at the issue to make it work in the present.

[Eminor3rd]

In order for Abreu to have a huge impact I would feel much more comfortable with another bat behind him. If he shows he can hit he's going to be intentionally walked an awful lot without any protection.

 

Fortunately for Abreu, every attempt ever to find an observable affect of lineup protection on player performance has failed, leaving as currently one of the most widely cited myths in baseball analysis. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have another good hitter behind him, though

[greg775]

Fortunately for Abreu, every attempt ever to find an observable affect of lineup protection on player performance has failed, leaving as currently one of the most widely cited myths in baseball analysis. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have another good hitter behind him, though

 

Bill James has been calling lineup protection a myth for years. Baseball PLAYERS, however, insist it's true and important.

Edited November 21, 2013 by greg775

[Eminor3rd]

Bill James has been calling lineup protection a myth for years. Baseball PLAYERS, however, insist it's true and important.

 

It seems like it should be, but when you look at how guys perform in both situations, there's little to no difference. It's just how it is, people have been TRYING to find an effect for a very long time.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[NorthSideSox72]

People continue to ignore that the farm system HAS been run differently in the past few years, for the better. More draft money, more international money, fewer prospects traded, better scouting, rebuilding the LatAm operations are all in evidence.

 

However, as Eminor3rd said, you have to have patience. These types of changes take years to really take hold and start producing results. The farm system is already a lot better now than it was a few years ago, and will likely be a lot better than that in a few years.

 

[harfman77]

It seems like it should be, but when you look at how guys perform in both situations, there's little to no difference. It's just how it is, people have been TRYING to find an effect for a very long time.

 

It is pretty impossible to prove, because if a player has protection, there is no way to measure what his performance would be without it and if he doesn't have it what it would be if he did.

[witesoxfan]

Of course, most of their (A's) success is predicated on pitching/bullpen and the trade for and eventual emergence of Josh Donaldson.

 

The White Sox simply need another version of Quentin/Donaldson (in 2008/09, Danks/Alexei/Floyd/Quentin). Easier said than done. And Abreu has to have a huge impact, like Cespedes and Puig. They simply can't afford to be wrong on that move.

 

But that's definitely the model the White Sox should be following. Then, when they're closer to being able to compete, they can add those "glue/complementary" pieces like a CoCo Crisp, Lowrie, Vogt, etc.

 

Yes, build your team around pitching and defense while continuing to bring in prospects. The idea is that, eventually, you will have the players at the MLB level to build around. This year Donaldson was their best player, but it's not as if the rest of their roster was chopped liver. They had a ton of good players. They are on different levels as players, but dealing Quintana for a similar package as to what the A's got for Gonzalez wouldn't be a good start. I don't think the Sox want a rebuild that drawn out though.

[harfman77]

Yes, build your team around pitching and defense while continuing to bring in prospects. The idea is that, eventually, you will have the players at the MLB level to build around. This year Donaldson was their best player, but it's not as if the rest of their roster was chopped liver. They had a ton of good players. They are on different levels as players, but dealing Quintana for a similar package as to what the A's got for Gonzalez wouldn't be a good start. I don't think the Sox want a rebuild that drawn out though.

 

I think the pitching and defense, while I agree is a good philosophy, is a lot easier to execute in Oaklands park than it is in the Cell.

[witesoxfan]

I think the pitching and defense, while I agree is a good philosophy, is a lot easier to execute in Oaklands park than it is in the Cell.

 

I agree because of the size of the foul ground, but I think USCF is one of the easiest parks to get away with the pitching and defense philosophy. Because of how small it is, it's easier for guys to cover "more" ground, so if you have the ability to keep the ball in the field, you can get to a lot more balls than you can in larger parks.