Possible Suitors for Gordon Beckham

[GreenSox]

Or for a 3rd round draft pick.

 

Williams got suckered into this line of thinking with big money deals for Dotel and Linebrink after 2007.

 

So what happens...those usually dependable guys, like a Scott Downs or Scott Shields, suddenly lose it and then you're stuck with ugly bullpen contracts.

 

Just follow the Tampa Bay Rays bullpen construction model the last decade, or the A's (until they foolishly went for Johnson, falling into that same "must have closer" mode which Beane has always run away from, trading closers at peak value and replacing them with cheaper, more promising youngsters). Or even the Royals (but ignore the rest of their issues, like hitting and starting pitching).

Absolutely. Using real assets (players, prospects or $$) to either trade for or keep bullpen pitchers is a fools' game.

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

How many world series have those models won? I don't want to model anything after the A's. The Rays are a nice story but they get pounced in the playoffs for a reason.

Probably all of them.

 

Look, you could spend $50M on a bullpen and still end up with MiLB FAs, waiver claims, prospects, etc. outperforming all of them.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Absolutely. Using real assets (players, prospects or $$) to either trade for or keep bullpen pitchers is a fools' game.

If I ran an MLB team this statement would be engraved on everything I owned and it would be dyed into the carpeting of my office. It's so easy to get tricked into overpaying for a reliever. Never let it happen.

 

Every time you trade a Reed for a Davidson, if things don't work out, you look at the way you evaluated that prospect, not the decision to trade the reliever. We could use another Karchner-for-Garland right about now.

[Y2Jimmy0]

If I ran an MLB team this statement would be engraved on everything I owned and it would be dyed into the carpeting of my office. It's so easy to get tricked into overpaying for a reliever. Never let it happen.

 

Every time you trade a Reed for a Davidson, if things don't work out, you look at the way you evaluated that prospect, not the decision to trade the reliever. We could use another Karchner-for-Garland right about now.

 

 

This is an excellent post, man.

[TaylorStSox]

When did I say to use assets for relievers? I would never do that.

 

A. Our bullpen sucks with little hope of improving this year. We have 1 or 2 guys with good stuff.

B. We have 2 good starters, AAAA filler and John Danks.

C. Trade some assets to keep building for that 2-3 year plan.

[witesoxfan]

When did I say to use assets for relievers? I would never do that.

 

A. Our bullpen sucks with little hope of improving this year. We have 1 or 2 guys with good stuff.

B. We have 2 good starters, AAAA filler and John Danks.

C. Trade some assets to keep building for that 2-3 year plan.

 

I have yet to see anyone suggest trading off big pieces (except me in hypothetical scenarios involving outrageous trade ideas, like acquiring Giancarlo Stanton), but if the team is competitive, it's counter productive to trade MLB players contributing towards that success for the future, even if the long run goal says it is for the best. And, if the team trades Tyler Saladino for a substantial upgrade in the rotation, bullpen, or lineup, are you really going to be upset?

[TaylorStSox]

I have yet to see anyone suggest trading off big pieces (except me in hypothetical scenarios involving outrageous trade ideas, like acquiring Giancarlo Stanton), but if the team is competitive, it's counter productive to trade MLB players contributing towards that success for the future, even if the long run goal says it is for the best. And, if the team trades Tyler Saladino for a substantial upgrade in the rotation, bullpen, or lineup, are you really going to be upset?

The Saladino point is just a strawman; not really worth acknowledging tbh.

 

I don't think it's counterproductive to trade assets for the long term future for this team. The offense is flukey, the bullpen sucks and the starting staff is hodge podge of good and awful. This current team has little to no upside.

[The Ultimate Champion]

The Saladino point is just a strawman; not really worth acknowledging tbh.

 

I don't think it's counterproductive to trade assets for the long term future for this team. The offense is flukey, the bullpen sucks and the starting staff is hodge podge of good and awful. This current team has little to no upside.

So basically you're saying that you wouldn't trade our best prospects (those guys who have a shot at becoming difference makers) for short term glory? I agree with that, and I'm sure Hahn & Kenny would also agree with you.

 

Saladino is a good mention. I'd trade him for just about anyone, prospect or vet, assuming the deal made sense for us.

[witesoxfan]

The Saladino point is just a strawman; not really worth acknowledging tbh.

 

I don't think it's counterproductive to trade assets for the long term future for this team. The offense is flukey, the bullpen sucks and the starting staff is hodge podge of good and awful. This current team has little to no upside.

 

The Saladino is not a strawman. If Youkilis, Myers, or Liriano become available for non-essential pieces in the minors, and the team is competitive, why wouldn't you make that move?

 

At the end of the day, I agree that I don't believe this team will remain competitive, but I'm not about to rule them out or start talking about trading guys yet. I have seen teams with 2 key pieces band pieces together and end up winning divisions and wild cards. The early 2000 Twins teams come to mind in that regard. Until that point comes, there's no point in even bothering trading pieces away.

[witesoxfan]

So basically you're saying that you wouldn't trade our best prospects (those guys who have a shot at becoming difference makers) for short term glory? I agree with that, and I'm sure Hahn & Kenny would also agree with you.

 

Saladino is a good mention. I'd trade him for just about anyone, prospect or vet, assuming the deal made sense for us.

 

Alert the authorities: I'm pretty sure we're in complete agreement on something.

[TaylorStSox]

The Saladino is not a strawman. If Youkilis, Myers, or Liriano become available for non-essential pieces in the minors, and the team is competitive, why wouldn't you make that move?

 

At the end of the day, I agree that I don't believe this team will remain competitive, but I'm not about to rule them out or start talking about trading guys yet. I have seen teams with 2 key pieces band pieces together and end up winning divisions and wild cards. The early 2000 Twins teams come to mind in that regard. Until that point comes, there's no point in even bothering trading pieces away.

If somebody wants to trade us a vet or a flier for a a non prospect, that's fine. I I don't have to pay the guy. Nobody's going to trade us a difference maker for a non prospect though.

 

I definitely would trade our older assets to build though. I'd be all over Ramirez for prospects, or anything for Beckham. I don't see either as part of a long term plan.

[harfman77]

If somebody wants to trade us a vet or a flier for a a non prospect, that's fine. I I don't have to pay the guy. Nobody's going to trade us a difference maker for a non prospect though.

 

I definitely would trade our older assets to build though. I'd be all over Ramirez for prospects, or anything for Beckham. I don't see either as part of a long term plan.

 

Both are more valuable in the offseason, so probably no deals this summer. If the Sox are looking to add it will need to be someone in the minors that has value, and there are not very many players in the system that would have the same value to other orgs that they do for the Sox. Saladino would be an exception as would Andy Wilkins.

[Balta1701]

I don't understand this argument. Why would a team in offseason give more than desperate team in July? In Beckham's case, his spot is permitting potential future pieces from getting playing time. If you trade Beckham in July, you can give the playing time to Semien/Johnson.

In Beckham's case, putting up solid numbers and staying healthy from May on during a full season could certainly help him have better value than after 2 months of a solid performance. Of course, in that case, the White Sox would be assuming the risk of him hurting something and struggling through the 2nd half again.

 

For Ramirez, maybe you can make that case because he's a long-term commitment. Teams might hesitate to commit $10 million of their salary next year to a guy who helps their team in the middle of this season if they think they have FA options. For example, imagine that the Yankees have their eyes set on Hanley Ramirez as their SS next year; if they did, they might not want to trade for Alexei at the deadline this year since they would struggle to find room for all of them.

[Dick Allen]

I don't understand this argument. Why would a team in offseason give more than desperate team in July? In Beckham's case, his spot is permitting potential future pieces from getting playing time. If you trade Beckham in July, you can give the playing time to Semien/Johnson.

For one thing, your market gets bigger. Usually only contenders are picking up money during the season.

 

And the other thing is money, although Beckham's contract isn't huge. Many teams have already spent their budget.

 

Maybe you could get a desperate team to really pay up, but generally teams taking on money during the season, don't tend to give up much.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Chicago White Sox]

For one thing, your market gets bigger. Usually only contenders are picking up money during the season.

 

And the other thing is money, although Beckham's contract isn't huge. Many teams have already spent their budget.

 

Maybe you could get a desperate team to really pay up, but generally teams taking on money during the season, don't tend to give up much.

The Sox really should be eating money in all deadline deals, but I'll believe when I see it.

 

The Keppinger release does give me an ounce of hope that Hahn has convinced Reinsdorf that it's ok to pay a guy to play for another team.

[caulfield12]

Will the real Gordon Beckham show his face?

 

2014 OPS

1.177 vs. lefties (30+ AB's), .655 vs. righties

 

2011-2013

.592 vs. lefties, .683 vs. righties

 

2009

.890 vs. lefties, .755 vs. righties

 

The numbers against righties have stayed within a 100 point range/spectrum for most of his career, but the real dramatic fluctuations have always been against left-handers.

 

Is it a troubling sign for him going forward his numbers against righties look so average/pedestrian? That's a huge differential between the two sets of numbers.

Edited May 30, 2014 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

Will the real Gordon Beckham show his face?

 

2014 OPS

1.177 vs. lefties (30+ AB's), .655 vs. righties

 

2011-2013

.592 vs. lefties, .683 vs. righties

 

2009

.890 vs. lefties, .755 vs. righties

 

The numbers against righties have stayed within a 100 point range/spectrum for most of his career, but the real dramatic fluctuations have always been against left-handers.

 

Is it a troubling sign for him going forward his numbers against righties look so average/pedestrian? That's a huge differential between the two sets of numbers.

 

Very interesting observation.

[cabiness42]

Will the real Gordon Beckham show his face?

 

2014 OPS

1.177 vs. lefties (30+ AB's), .655 vs. righties

 

2011-2013

.592 vs. lefties, .683 vs. righties

 

2009

.890 vs. lefties, .755 vs. righties

 

The numbers against righties have stayed within a 100 point range/spectrum for most of his career, but the real dramatic fluctuations have always been against left-handers.

 

Is it a troubling sign for him going forward his numbers against righties look so average/pedestrian? That's a huge differential between the two sets of numbers.

 

Yes, it's troubling, especially since his own team is hoarding all the lefty starters.

 

[harfman77]

Yes, it's troubling, especially since his own team is hoarding all the lefty starters.

 

Well played.

[CyAcosta41]

Will the real Gordon Beckham show his face?

 

2014 OPS

1.177 vs. lefties (30+ AB's), .655 vs. righties

 

2011-2013

.592 vs. lefties, .683 vs. righties

 

2009

.890 vs. lefties, .755 vs. righties

 

The numbers against righties have stayed within a 100 point range/spectrum for most of his career, but the real dramatic fluctuations have always been against left-handers.

 

Is it a troubling sign for him going forward his numbers against righties look so average/pedestrian? That's a huge differential between the two sets of numbers.

 

Sure ... you can look for troubling signs.

 

You can also see the "glass half-full" aspects of it.

 

I'm far from a professional in this field, but I've always enjoyed studying the Science of Hitting, both in my own playing days and as a true hardcore fan.

 

With Beckham's hands-centric style of hitting (and he is what he is ... that's not going to change), he SHOULD always be a lefty masher ... that is, UNLESS he gets pull happy and tries to yank left-handed offerings to his pull field. In 2009, he just wore out that right-center gap. THAT is his strength. He's capable of pulling the ball with power too, but with his swing that should only be on pitches right on the corner (or even a bit off the plate). Everything else he should be taking back up the middle and to right-center.

 

The glass half-full? He's doing that. Sure, his numbers against lefties are going to regress somewhat. But don't discount the fact that his overall confidence (golly ... everybody likes to feel good about themselves) will help him get back to his best possible numbers against righties too.

 

The guy is too stiff and perhaps a little too high-maintenance psychologically to BE Michael Young (as many had once hoped), but if he plays to his own strengths, his way, he has the physical talent to be a consistent .280, 15-20 HR, 30-2B type. That's solid-plus for a MI.

 

Good stat catch, Caulfield.

[Dick Allen]

Will the real Gordon Beckham show his face?

 

2014 OPS

1.177 vs. lefties (30+ AB's), .655 vs. righties

 

2011-2013

.592 vs. lefties, .683 vs. righties

 

2009

.890 vs. lefties, .755 vs. righties

 

The numbers against righties have stayed within a 100 point range/spectrum for most of his career, but the real dramatic fluctuations have always been against left-handers.

 

Is it a troubling sign for him going forward his numbers against righties look so average/pedestrian? That's a huge differential between the two sets of numbers.

Throw away the first 2 games after he came back from his rehab and his OPS is over .700.

[southsider2k5]

With the White Sox, but you cannot dismiss the rest of his work. Most of his runs were given up in early innings. It had nothing to do with not being stretched out. Jimenez gave up some runs late during his first few starts. Should those not count?

 

We will see where everything settles at the end of the season.

 

 

Throw away the first 2 games after he came back from his rehab and his OPS is over .700.

 

Still trollin it hard today I see.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm having trouble finding league average strong side split data. Is that kind of an OPS even remotely sustainable?

[Dick Allen]

Still trollin it hard today I see.

Yeah that's trolling. I'm pointing out 2 games makes a big difference. With the other argument, we were talking ERA this year but apparently didn't want to count the ERA he accumulated with his first 2 teams this year.

 

But keep up the fine work.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Yeah that's trolling. I'm pointing out 2 games makes a big difference. With the other argument, we were talking ERA this year but apparently didn't want to count the ERA he accumulated with his first 2 teams this year.

 

But keep up the fine work.

 

That's 7 plate appearances against RHP you are accounting for, which is 6.8% of his plate appearances total against RHP. So, here's Hector Noesi:

 

 

Against all teams other than the Chicago White Sox

40.2 IP, 4.46 ERA, 1.33 WHIP

 

Against all teams including the Chicago White Sox

41.2 IP, 5.83 ERA, 1.51 WHIP

 

That's 2.4% of his playing time this year.

 

I'm not trying to get into an argument here, but if you're going to cherry pick, so can everybody else.