Roster dead weight

[chisox0587]

This is a serious question:

 

Has Downs had a clean inning all year -- spring training included?

 

If he has, it's one at the most.

 

Lots of signs that he doesn't have it any more.

 

Jones coming back should help. Hopefully Bellasario gets better.

 

Leury Garcia has been a disappointment, especially with the glove.

 

Have to figure Nieto will struggle quite a long time. Can't remember many guys who have jumped from A ball to the bigs, especially a catcher.

 

Have to think he'd be better served by playing every day in the minors, but Hahn must have gotten firm word from the Nationals that they were going to buy him back for $25,000 or ask for something outrageous in a trade.

 

Scott Downs, 39 years old, ex cub enough said

[cabiness42]

This isn't a year where they are going for it. It's not a win now team. I expect the leashes for all of them are quite long.

 

Yeah, if the team is still .500 in June, then the leashes start getting shorter.

[GreenSox]

The only dead weight, frankly, is Konerko.

Some of the other guys (pitchers) are bad, but they are used and they play. Ventura has to force things to use Konerko, like he did today

[BigHurt3515]

The only dead weight, frankly, is Konerko.

Some of the other guys (pitchers) are bad, but they are used and they play. Ventura has to force things to use Konerko, like he did today

 

Once we start facing lefties in AL ball parks, Konerko will play.. Really hasn't had the chance to really use him yet.

[greg775]

The only dead weight, frankly, is Konerko.

Some of the other guys (pitchers) are bad, but they are used and they play. Ventura has to force things to use Konerko, like he did today

 

Oh come on.

All the bad players on this team to pick from and you choose Paulie as the dead weight?

[Eminor3rd]

Like, oh I don't know... Scott Feldman.

 

Precisely.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Oh come on.

All the bad players on this team to pick from and you choose Paulie as the dead weight?

 

 

Yep he did. It is pointless to have Konerko on this team. He hasn't had a chance to start vs many LH but Robin still hasn't used him properly. The other day, Leury Garcia was up to bat in a 4-4 tie against Cleveland. A LHP was on the mound and Ventura let Garcia and Gillaspie face him. If that isn't the time to use Konerko then I'm not real sure why he's even there. Actually, I know why he's there. JR didn't let his baseball people do their jobs.

[bmags]

There are worse things in the baseball world than JR giving Konerko a victory lap.

[Balta1701]

There are worse things in the baseball world than JR giving Konerko a victory lap.

If we're going to complain about a couple useless guys on the roster, then we need to complain about them all.

[Eminor3rd]

It's also probably fair to say that "depth" is not our problem right now. Konerkois useless on paper, sure, but his roster spot isn't keeping us from wins at this point. The "everyday" bullpen is the issue. So is Paulino, but it's typical for your 5th best starter to be in flux. We've actually been spoiled with good back-enders in recent years.

[Dick Allen]

It's also probably fair to say that "depth" is not our problem right now. Konerkois useless on paper, sure, but his roster spot isn't keeping us from wins at this point. The "everyday" bullpen is the issue. So is Paulino, but it's typical for your 5th best starter to be in flux. We've actually been spoiled with good back-enders in recent years.

Johnson has been horrid too, so that winds up making a fairly weak bullpen to begin with, weaker. Paulino and Johnson will get at least a little better, and that alone will help the bullpen, but right now, if Cleto and a rookie are the two guys you have any sense of confidence in, it is a pretty weak pen. I do think Veal is better than most think. He did give up runs Saturday but it was because he was the lamb. Normally he wouldn't have been out there that length of time.

[Balta1701]

Johnson has been horrid too, so that winds up making a fairly weak bullpen to begin with, weaker. Paulino and Johnson will get at least a little better, and that alone will help the bullpen, but right now, if Cleto and a rookie are the two guys you have any sense of confidence in, it is a pretty weak pen. I do think Veal is better than most think. He did give up runs Saturday but it was because he was the lamb. Normally he wouldn't have been out there that length of time.

I pretty much agree here. The pen appears to be a weakness but it's not as weak as it looks right now, between Jones being out and it being the start of the season.

[Marty34]

Alright, Marty. I'll bite again.

 

 

 

1. This is completely unrelated to the topic

 

2. What does "performance vs. track record" even mean? Is performance not the primary component of track record? They are not mutually exclusive. It makes no sense.

 

3. What I DID say in an earlier thread is that GMs should (and increasing DO) pay for players (in both money and assets) based on the performance they expect going forward as opposed to the performance that has occurred in the past. Track record is one thing that can inform a projected performance going forward, but it would be foolish to use it exclusively. Why could Carlos Beltran only sign a 2yr/$26m contract this offseason? His track record suggests he's a borderline hall of famer! Should someone have paid him $100m? Because that's what Ellsbury got and Ellsbury doesn't have as good a track record.

 

4. Regarding Peavy/Feldman: There are more factors that go into trade value than simply the quality of one player versus the other. Here are some examples: number of suitors, contract length, contract dollars, budget of teams involved, value of marginal wins to team involved, personality of front office, ownership expectations, near and long-term revenue opportunities, perceived window of competition, etc. You're comparing two different players with different contracts who were traded from two different teams to two other different teams at different parts of the season and expecting that their trade values should be compared apples to apples. That's like saying "if this burger isn't better than steak, how come it cost the same today as a steak cost in 1911?"

 

 

 

What in this god-forsaken world does FanGraphs have to do with the NY Times? If I want to learn about the latest in global politics, I'll read the NY Times. If I want to know if Dayan Viciedo has stopped swinging at s***ty pitches, I'll read FanGraphs. I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

 

 

 

You shouldn't, now that we actually know he's bad. But there was reason to believe we could fix him at little cost when we acquired him, and that's a good thing.

 

3. Age is the player stat that matters most. Track record caps whatever trade value a player has. Paulino even if he had a good first half wasn't going to get you much do to his track record.

 

4. of course there are many factors.

 

As far as Fangraghs goes, it is their opinion that Viciedo swings at sh**ty pitches. I watch his AB's and have the same opinion.

 

As far as Paulino goes, he was bad before he was signed. I'd rather have spent money on a capable Ml starter.

[Dick Allen]

2 weeks ago the dead weight list would have been different. 2 weeks from now , it will be different again.

[Eminor3rd]

Track record caps whatever trade value a player has.

 

This is not true. I'll give you an example: when we were trading Alex Rios, the Pirates were involved. It was rumored that the Sox wanted Alen Hanson but that the Pirates were not interested in making such a deal. Alex Rios had a long track record as an effective major leaguer, whereas Hanson had literally NO track record, and in fact, his stock had recently fallen from a disappointing minor league season. Why would the Pirates not be anxious to make that trade, given their obvious need and the very, very obviously better track record for Rios?

 

Because projection is more important.

 

Track record is definitely a factor in projection, but the ultimate measure of a player's value on the field is what he WILL produce when you acquire him. What matters is projection. This is also why team control affects trade value so highly -- you're buying future performance, NOT past performance.

 

4. of course there are many factors.

 

Then why did you ask me the question about Peavy and Feldman, insinuating that the only thing different was track record?

 

As far as Fangraghs goes, it is their opinion that Viciedo swings at sh**ty pitches. I watch his AB's and have the same opinion.

 

No, it's NOT a matter of opinion. FanGraphs reports Pitch F/X data that records exactly how many s***ty pitches Viciedo swings at based on the academic definition of the strikezone. It's fact. And I still don't understand what this has to do with the New York Times.

 

As far as Paulino goes, he was bad before he was signed. I'd rather have spent money on a capable Ml starter.

 

Paulino had loud tools and a career derailed by injury. The White Sox felt that he was fully healthy and that he could be successful under their tutelage. It seems they were wrong, but I'd much rather they try when they feel they've got a shot. It isn't about Paulino, it's about what Paulino represents: a team that has had a great deal of success with pitching reclamation projects continuing to try to be successful with pitching reclamation projects. It sucks that it hasn't worked in this instance, but it's good that they continue to take the shot.

 

[caulfield12]

3. Age is the player stat that matters most. Track record caps whatever trade value a player has. Paulino even if he had a good first half wasn't going to get you much do (due) to his track record.

 

4. of course there are many factors.

 

As far as Fangraghs goes, it is their opinion that Viciedo swings at sh**ty pitches. I watch his AB's and have the same opinion.

 

As far as Paulino goes, he was bad before he was signed. I'd rather have spent money on a capable Ml starter.

 

 

Esteban Loiaza had a crappy career for 2-3 years before we gave him a spring training invite and he got us the best pitcher in baseball for 4-5 months and a World Series trophy.

 

[sammy esposito]

Esteban Loiaza had a crappy career for 2-3 years before we gave him a spring training invite and he got us the best pitcher in baseball for 4-5 months and a World Series trophy.

Loiza pitched well in 03 but was not on the 05 team.

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

IIRC, Loiaza came back in 2009 out of the bullpen and was topping out at 79 MPH

[caulfield12]

Loiza pitched well in 03 but was not on the 05 team.

 

Someone said Paulino having a great or even good season wouldn't earn much back in return.

 

Loaiza was a non-roster/spring training invite in 2003 and turned into Jose Contreras. The point being, sometimes in the right time and place (Contreras was struggling mightily in NY, especially against the Red Sox), you can pick up an extremely talented pitcher for next to nothing (in terms of your original investment).

 

Likely? No. Possible? Sure. Even with a Phil Humber success, holding onto them too old instead of trading them leads to getting nothing back in return as well. Yet, at the time, Cooper/KW/Hahn didn't think Phil was completely going to fall off the map the following year or they surely would have traded him with that foresight.

Edited April 15, 2014 by caulfield12

[Marty34]

This is not true. I'll give you an example: when we were trading Alex Rios, the Pirates were involved. It was rumored that the Sox wanted Alen Hanson but that the Pirates were not interested in making such a deal. Alex Rios had a long track record as an effective major leaguer, whereas Hanson had literally NO track record, and in fact, his stock had recently fallen from a disappointing minor league season. Why would the Pirates not be anxious to make that trade, given their obvious need and the very, very obviously better track record for Rios?

 

Because projection is more important.

 

Track record is definitely a factor in projection, but the ultimate measure of a player's value on the field is what he WILL produce when you acquire him. What matters is projection. This is also why team control affects trade value so highly -- you're buying future performance, NOT past performance.

 

 

 

Then why did you ask me the question about Peavy and Feldman, insinuating that the only thing different was track record?

 

 

 

No, it's NOT a matter of opinion. FanGraphs reports Pitch F/X data that records exactly how many s***ty pitches Viciedo swings at based on the academic definition of the strikezone. It's fact. And I still don't understand what this has to do with the New York Times.

 

 

 

Paulino had loud tools and a career derailed by injury. The White Sox felt that he was fully healthy and that he could be successful under their tutelage. It seems they were wrong, but I'd much rather they try when they feel they've got a shot. It isn't about Paulino, it's about what Paulino represents: a team that has had a great deal of success with pitching reclamation projects continuing to try to be successful with pitching reclamation projects. It sucks that it hasn't worked in this instance, but it's good that they continue to take the shot.

 

On Rios: Erratic past performance, and contract are the reason few wanted him. Again, track record of erratic past performance.

 

On Peavy/Feldman: You're the one who said track record didn't matter.

 

On Fangraghs: The academic version of the strike zone isn't necessarily the strike zone they use in games. It may be the "best data we have", but it doesn't make assumptions based off of it any closer to fact than those not based off of it.

 

On Paulino: I don't care if they signed him for the pen, but to be a 4th starter was a ridiculous leap of faith on Hahn's part.

[caulfield12]

Paulino was never projected to be the 4th starter, Erik Johnson was, based on last season's minor league run and 5 major league starts.

 

If there's any problem pitching-wise with the Sox going forward (short-term), it's Johnson and Beck not being ready in 2014/15.

[Eminor3rd]

On Rios: Erratic past performance, and contract are the reason few wanted him. Again, track record of erratic past performance.

 

What about Hansen's past performance? Was it better than Rios?

 

What about the Beltran vs. Ellsbury example from this post?

 

Why were the Rays willing to give up James Shields for Wil Myers?

 

Why wouldn't anyone give up prospects with no track record for David Price this offseason? He's a year removed from the Cy Young!

 

How come the Yankees only gave Jeter $15m/yr on his last contract? He made more than that before, hadn't his track record improved?

 

Why does David Ortiz keep getting short-term deals, even though he continues to put up All-Star seasons?

 

On Peavy/Feldman: You're the one who said track record didn't matter.

 

I'm just going to repost this until you read it or stop pretending I didn't say it. This time I'll bold parts that most directly contradict what you keep claiming I say. If you're still having trouble, maybe I'll try to come up with a way to draw a picture:

 

3. What I DID say in an earlier thread is that GMs should (and increasing DO) pay for players (in both money and assets) based on the performance they expect going forward as opposed to the performance that has occurred in the past. Track record is one thing that can inform a projected performance going forward, but it would be foolish to use it exclusively. Why could Carlos Beltran only sign a 2yr/$26m contract this offseason? His track record suggests he's a borderline hall of famer! Should someone have paid him $100m? Because that's what Ellsbury got and Ellsbury doesn't have as good a track record.

 

4. Regarding Peavy/Feldman: There are more factors that go into trade value than simply the quality of one player versus the other. Here are some examples: number of suitors, contract length, contract dollars, budget of teams involved, value of marginal wins to team involved, personality of front office, ownership expectations, near and long-term revenue opportunities, perceived window of competition, etc. You're comparing two different players with different contracts who were traded from two different teams to two other different teams at different parts of the season and expecting that their trade values should be compared apples to apples. That's like saying "if this burger isn't better than steak, how come it cost the same today as a steak cost in 1911?"

 

Track record is definitely a factor in projection, but the ultimate measure of a player's value on the field is what he WILL produce when you acquire him. What matters is projection. This is also why team control affects trade value so highly -- you're buying future performance, NOT past performance.

 

On Fangraghs: The academic version of the strike zone isn't necessarily the strike zone they use in games. It may be the "best data we have", but it doesn't make assumptions based off of it any closer to fact than those not based off of it.

 

In terms of player evaluation, it doesn't matter, because the academic strikezone is a constant from which pitch location can be judged. Variances in umpire behavior can be expected to cancel each other out over the course of a season because each player faces a random sampling of the same umpires. Using the academic strike zone may not give us an accurate representation of called strikes on some given nights, but it will still tell us which players swing at worse pitches relative to one another or relative to the league average.

 

Additionally, I'm still not sure why any of this makes FanGraphs crap and what it has to do with the New York Times.

 

On Paulino: I don't care if they signed him for the pen, but to be a 4th starter was a ridiculous leap of faith on Hahn's part.

 

I think that we can come close to agreeing on one thing: that the Paulino move is much worse in the context of the rest of the offseason. It is a good practice to buy low on players you think you can fix, but you must also acquire depth in order to protect against failure of the hail mary. My guess is that the Sox overestimated Rienzo's ability/readiness, and that they probably needed another back-end veteran retread.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

I do think Flowers will eventually make his way back to the dead weight list. He has started 11 games and fanned at least twice in 7 of them.