2015 Offseason

[Chisoxfn]

Sounds good in theory if Ethier's slump is an anomaly caused by inconsistent playing time and not the signal of a decline.

 

Also, his splits are even more pronounced than in 2011-2013.

 

The Dodgers are more likely to want to keep Hanley Ramirez and move him to 3B after Uribe leaves at the end of 2015, but there's also a very good chance Hanley ends up with an AL team where he can DH occasionally instead of being exposed to the rigors of SS everyday, where he's one of the 5-6 worst guys in baseball defensively but the best offensively.

 

They can patch the back end of their rotation, rather than take on a bad contract.

 

I think they'd be willing to send Ethier?Crawford AND money for something, but NOT take on Danks.

You clearly have to rely on your scouts but I'd reckon if you move Danks you can figure out a way to stay in an economic neutral position while getting one of Crawford / Ethier. I lean towards Ethier as I think he is a better bet to be healthy. Crawford is better character guy but injuries certainly have impacted his production. Ethier has been a pretty reliable offensive player and I think a lot of his struggles are more related to playing time, etc. I also think you can find a cheap platoon option that can hit left handed pitching (maybe it is Viciedo, I don't know..career 800+ OPS, although not a good OPS against lefties this year) and then you are truly maximizing productivity and ensuring guys stay fresh.

[Balta1701]

2 yrs is pretty short term in nature. You are talking about the season you are playing and one follow-up season. That is nothing to fill major positional holes on your team. The alternative, which is having below league average players at two positions, which are pretty crucial. Not when you are trying to contend. At some point, you will have some inefficiencies with the use of the cash if you are going to contend (unless you get extremely lucky). Nothing that is being discussed over a 2 year time frame is going to be an extreme detriment to the franchise. 4 years, sure, but 2 years, you aren't hindering yourself. Santana at the proposed 2 year deal is at a market friendly deal with minimized downside risk because if there was an injury you aren't looking at a huge capital outlay.

But it sure seems like even with the "Trade Danks for someone else's garbage" the end result is that we have a below league average player at least at 1 position in either case. Either its Danks or its whoever we trade Danks for. Either way we're overpaying for a below league average player for the next couple years.

 

Then, on top of that, we're paying market value for a player like Santana to fill a hole we created.

 

Every time someone comes up with another free agent plug I feel like I have the same response, all we're doing with that free agent signing is moving laterally and then hoping that our trash turns into treasure

[LDF]

 

I will give way for you guys who are soooo good with the advance stats.

 

saying that, I think the sox does need 1 sp pitchers. whether it is a reclamation project

or #4-5 pitcher. the reason is I would not like to have a hole in the starting lineup

for pitchers, like they did last yr. I also don't like to put all the eggs in the basket so

to speak on Noesi replicating his success. I just would like another arm until Rodon

can earn his spot.

[Balta1701]

I will give way for you guys who are soooo good with the advance stats.

 

saying that, I think the sox does need 1 sp pitchers. whether it is a reclamation project

or #4-5 pitcher. the reason is I would not like to have a hole in the starting lineup

for pitchers, like they did last yr. I also don't like to put all the eggs in the basket so

to speak on Noesi replicating his success. I just would like another arm until Rodon

can earn his spot.

The White Sox clearly need a starting pitcher right now, I agree with this, but I despise the idea of signing anyone to even a 1 year deal if they think Rodon can appear in the big leagues before the end of 2015. No matter what they do they should know exactly how he gets to the big leagues next year and that can't be "relying on someone to get hurt".

 

I'd rather go with Caroll/Rienzo out of the gates for a month, lose games, and then have Rodon take over, than sign someone to a 1 year deal and then have Rodon spend the year in the minors because of the big money guy we signed.

 

That's why I kinda think Masterson makes sense. After this season he should be cheap enough that we won't feel bad if he's replaced in June with Rodon if pitching poorly.

[Chisoxfn]

But it sure seems like even with the "Trade Danks for someone else's garbage" the end result is that we have a below league average player at least at 1 position in either case. Either its Danks or its whoever we trade Danks for. Either way we're overpaying for a below league average player for the next couple years.

 

Then, on top of that, we're paying market value for a player like Santana to fill a hole we created.

 

Every time someone comes up with another free agent plug I feel like I have the same response, all we're doing with that free agent signing is moving laterally and then hoping that our trash turns into treasure

I don't see how you are moving laterally. At the very worst, you are upgrading a position. That is not a lateral decision. Under your ideology it would be impossible to ever field a contending team unless you happened to have 9 young players all develop during the same 1-2 year stretch which to be frank, would appear to have been proven to be nearly impossible. And then, only then, is it okay to spend some money on other guys that would put you over the top. The reality is at some point, you have to make what are less efficient signings from a pure value perspective to generate the wins necessary to make your team a contender. What you can't do is saddle yourselves with 5 years of potential poor decisions as part of that process, but right now, spending 12 M/yr over 2 years at a market value for a pitcher who is above WAR is a move that makes this club better and if Rodon develops quicker then expected, you are talking about a top of the line rotation that makes them very much ready to compete. And again, if you are able to trade Danks for a player with a better WAR then him (which is possible depending on the desperation of various teams) then you are also upgrading at another area, even if it is a slight upgrade. Again...making the team better.

 

I'd understand if people are talking about signing Santana to a 5 year deal but that is not the case (or are talking about Shields at 5 years).

[Chisoxfn]

The White Sox clearly need a starting pitcher right now, I agree with this, but I despise the idea of signing anyone to even a 1 year deal if they think Rodon can appear in the big leagues before the end of 2015. No matter what they do they should know exactly how he gets to the big leagues next year and that can't be "relying on someone to get hurt".

 

I'd rather go with Caroll/Rienzo out of the gates for a month, lose games, and then have Rodon take over, than sign someone to a 1 year deal and then have Rodon spend the year in the minors because of the big money guy we signed.

 

That's why I kinda think Masterson makes sense. After this season he should be cheap enough that we won't feel bad if he's replaced in June with Rodon if pitching poorly.

Bottom line, you want to waste another season or hope the offense and other 4 starters can make up for the gap in production. When you have Quintana, Sale, and Abreu, plus other Alexei, Eaton, Avi, etc, that just seems like a gigantic waste of those players. By signing a quality vet starter to a short term deal, you are not impeding future progress (or tying up future money that can go to young players) nor are you blocking the space of a productive player, as by moving Danks, you have another spot for Rodon to pitch and in a less pressure situation.

[LDF]

The White Sox clearly need a starting pitcher right now, I agree with this, but I despise the idea of signing anyone to even a 1 year deal if they think Rodon can appear in the big leagues before the end of 2015. No matter what they do they should know exactly how he gets to the big leagues next year and that can't be "relying on someone to get hurt".

 

I'd rather go with Caroll/Rienzo out of the gates for a month, lose games, and then have Rodon take over, than sign someone to a 1 year deal and then have Rodon spend the year in the minors because of the big money guy we signed.

 

That's why I kinda think Masterson makes sense. After this season he should be cheap enough that we won't feel bad if he's replaced in June with Rodon if pitching poorly.

 

well I agree, I look at the season, the sox need a 4 man rotation in the first month. then the sox

extend the bullpen. this is when the sox will need answers at the sp.

 

undecided factors is Rodon, will he have a great spring? Danks is he going to be better?

Noies (sp) will be able to put up quality starts?

[caulfield12]

I don't think Ethier in LF, Viciedo at DH is much of an upgrade over Viciedo in LF, Dunn at DH....and spending that money on Santana when we might be able to get similar production out of Bassitt or Beck, for example. If we were getting younger, that would be one thing, but Ethier and Dunn are both closer to retirement than their prime productive years. (Of course, you can also make the assumption that another bat would be brought in to face RH pitching at DH/LF).

 

As far as pitching goes, those were the arguments made consistently last year about not pulling the trigger on Jimenez or Santana....that Paulino MIGHT be even better and for a fraction of the cost.

 

So I'd argue it's better to hedge some bets and spend less money on say Haren or Josh Beckett and use that extra money to patch the bullpen.

 

Finally, there's no indication that teams like the Dodgers or Yankees are even interested in Danks, even with a significant subsidy or bad contract going the other way to compensate.

Edited September 23, 2014 by caulfield12

[LDF]

 

if the sox does not address the starting lineup, depending on what they have and

their own prospects. fine, they I am sure they will spend on holes the team has.

 

again I will say this again, I need to see which players will get a QO.

[LDF]

I don't think Ethier in LF, Viciedo at DH is much of an upgrade over Viciedo in LF, Dunn at DH....and spending that money on Santana when we might be able to get similar production out of Bassitt or Beck, for example. If we were getting younger, that would be one thing, but Ethier and Dunn are both closer to retirement than their prime productive years. (Of course, you can also make the assumption that another bat would be brought in to face RH pitching at DH/LF).

 

As far as pitching goes, those were the arguments made consistently last year about not pulling the trigger on Jimenez or Santana....that Paulino MIGHT be even better and for a fraction of the cost.

 

So I'd argue it's better to hedge some bets and spend less money on say Haren or Josh Beckett and use that extra money to patch the bullpen.

 

Finally, there's no indication that teams like the Dodgers or Yankees are even interested in Danks, even with a significant subsidy or bad contract going the other way to compensate.

 

I agree with you. I wonder if there is really a team interested in danks. however I still think

danks is going to surprise a lot of people next yr.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I agree with you. I wonder if there is really a team interested in danks. however I still think

danks is going to surprise a lot of people next yr.

 

 

I think a team like the Pirates would be interested for like $6 million per season. That means the White Sox would have to eat like $16 million to get it done. Not sure they will be willing to do that.

[shysocks]

The White Sox clearly need a starting pitcher right now, I agree with this, but I despise the idea of signing anyone to even a 1 year deal if they think Rodon can appear in the big leagues before the end of 2015. No matter what they do they should know exactly how he gets to the big leagues next year and that can't be "relying on someone to get hurt".

 

I'd rather go with Caroll/Rienzo out of the gates for a month, lose games, and then have Rodon take over, than sign someone to a 1 year deal and then have Rodon spend the year in the minors because of the big money guy we signed.

 

That's why I kinda think Masterson makes sense. After this season he should be cheap enough that we won't feel bad if he's replaced in June with Rodon if pitching poorly.

If we're taking it as a given that Rodon will be ready for prime time once we're past Super 2, how about he takes Noesi's spot? Everyone seems to be slotting Noesi ahead of Danks on the depth chart because their expectations are light years apart. But just put their seasons side-by-side, independent of any salary or handedness concerns, and there isn't really a compelling reason to anoint Noesi. He's not that special, you guys, and there's a good chance this is the best he'll ever be. So even if you can't move Danks, I bet there's room for Rodon.

 

I don't think Ethier in LF, Viciedo at DH is much of an upgrade over Viciedo in LF, Dunn at DH....and spending that money on Santana when we might be able to get similar production out of Bassitt or Beck, for example. If we were getting younger, that would be one thing, but Ethier and Dunn are both closer to retirement than their prime productive years. (Of course, you can also make the assumption that another bat would be brought in to face RH pitching at DH/LF).

I strongly doubt Bassitt or Beck could give the production Santana would.

 

I'm not all-in on Santana or anything, especially for much more than the 2/$25 figure I threw out there. The home run rate would still have me worried. I'd rather have him than Masterson, and I'd rather have him than James Shields, I know that for certain.

[Balta1701]

If we're taking it as a given that Rodon will be ready for prime time once we're past Super 2, how about he takes Noesi's spot? Everyone seems to be slotting Noesi ahead of Danks on the depth chart because their expectations are light years apart. But just put their seasons side-by-side, independent of any salary or handedness concerns, and there isn't really a compelling reason to anoint Noesi. He's not that special, you guys, and there's a good chance this is the best he'll ever be. So even if you can't move Danks, I bet there's room for Rodon.

 

 

I strongly doubt Bassitt or Beck could give the production Santana would.

 

I'm not all-in on Santana or anything, especially for much more than the 2/$25 figure I threw out there. The home run rate would still have me worried. I'd rather have him than Masterson, and I'd rather have him than James Shields, I know that for certain.

The issue with all of this in my eyes is that we have to recognize we have limited resources.

 

Bassit and Beck are very unlikely to give the same production as Santana, and Noesi might not as well (although there's clearly promise there).

 

But there is an opportunity cost associated with any player we spend free agent money on. If we go out and sign a person like Santana, yes he's an upgrade over those guys but how much of an upgrade are we talking? If Rodon is taking Noesi's spot and we spend money on Santana, we might improve the record a little bit, but we've done so at a cost that is >$10 million per year in signing Santana.

 

By doing that, we've made a tiny improvement, spent a load of cash, and left us still having holes to fill.

 

Somewhere down the line we're going to have to get contributions from guys already in our organization. There is not enough free agent money available for this team to fill all its holes, and this roster doesn't have enough trade chips to bring in A-listers either. If we have guys like Noesi who seem plausibly able to give a non-terrible season as a #4-ish starter, and do so for the MLB minimum, that frees up money to be spent filing other holes.

 

I don't want us to spend a lot of free agent money on a position where we'll only get a minor upgrade. That makes sense if you're an 87 win team trying to get to 90 wins. That makes no sense when you're a team in the low 70s.

[shysocks]

I understand opportunity cost and the win curve and all that, so what other spots are there that we would reasonably spend on?

Catcher - we already have an average one and the only expensive one is going to be prohibitively expensive.

Second - will be filled internally

Third - internally

Outfield - we can spend here

DH - we can spend here (or we'll see a rotating DH situation)

Bullpen - we can spend here but it would be ill-advised

 

Upgrading the rotation would seem give us the most marginal benefit. Our starters amassed 11.9 WAR this year and 10.4 of it was from 2 spots. This is not some overcrowded rotation, even if you throw in Rodon. I think we fundamentally disagree about Noesi's potential. To me he is not somebody to be altering decisions for, so it still looks like starting pitching is the most obvious place to spend.

[Balta1701]

I understand opportunity cost and the win curve and all that, so what other spots are there that we would reasonably spend on?

Catcher - we already have an average one and the only expensive one is going to be prohibitively expensive.

Second - will be filled internally

Third - internally

Outfield - we can spend here

DH - we can spend here (or we'll see a rotating DH situation)

Bullpen - we can spend here but it would be ill-advised

 

Upgrading the rotation would seem give us the most marginal benefit. Our starters amassed 11.9 WAR this year and 10.4 of it was from 2 spots. This is not some overcrowded rotation, even if you throw in Rodon. I think we fundamentally disagree about Noesi's potential. To me he is not somebody to be altering decisions for, so it still looks like starting pitching is the most obvious place to spend.

The elephant in the rotation remains Danks. If we could have gotten rid of him with limited cost, then spending in the rotation becomes obvious. But as long as we're stuck with him, the comparison winds up being a signing in the rotation versus Noesi, not a signing in the rotation versus Carroll, if we're leaving a Rodon slot.

 

John Danks is the problem there. Noesi right now is fine at the back of the rotation. If we could slot in a legit pitcher into Danks's spot with Danks's money, that would work, but if Danks is going to get a rotation slot because of his contract, then we're sorta stuck. As long as Danks is in that rotation and performing at this level, you'll be able to say this is a weak rotation in a WAR sense.

[Balta1701]

Must you only look at the construction of this team through the frame of WAR?

The WAR numbers were quoted to me!

 

[shysocks]

Must you only look at the construction of this team through the frame of WAR?

To be fair, I brought up the total WAR of the rotation.

[shysocks]

The elephant in the rotation remains Danks. If we could have gotten rid of him with limited cost, then spending in the rotation becomes obvious. But as long as we're stuck with him, the comparison winds up being a signing in the rotation versus Noesi, not a signing in the rotation versus Carroll, if we're leaving a Rodon slot.

 

John Danks is the problem there. Noesi right now is fine at the back of the rotation. If we could slot in a legit pitcher into Danks's spot with Danks's money, that would work, but if Danks is going to get a rotation slot because of his contract, then we're sorta stuck. As long as Danks is in that rotation and performing at this level, you'll be able to say this is a weak rotation in a WAR sense.

Again, not such a problem to me. I think I'll leave it at that.

[witesoxfan]

What the hell, let's look at it through the context of WAR

 

First, these are the offensive players that we'll hypothesize won't be on the roster next season in any sort of meaningful way:

 

De Aza - 0.6

Dunn - 0.1

Michael Taylor - -0.2

Josh Phegley - -0.2

Gordon Beckham - -0.4

Andy Wilkins - -0.6

Dayan Viciedo - -0.7

Paul Konerko - -1.0

Leury Garcia - -1.1

 

That's -3.5 WAR that is replaced offensively.

 

Pitching wise, these are the guys we can assume won't be with the Sox:

 

Ronald Belisario - 0.6

Scott Downs - 0.1

Charles Leesman - -0.1

Taylor Thompson - -0.1

Matt Lindstrom - -0.1

Frank Francisco - -0.1

Maikel Cleto - -0.2

Andre Rienzo - -0.4

Felipe Paulino - -0.5

 

That's -0.8 WAR that is no longer being added (and this is not including Leury Garcia and Adam Dunn, who accounted for -0.1 WAR pitching).

 

This removes context, but some of those innings were incredibly important and some were totally meaningless. We'll leave it as such.

 

We'll assume the Sox make, bare minimum, 4 moves (names aren't important but will be included as examples), and other reasonable assumptions about others.

 

Andre Ethier (2 WAR) for De Aza/Viciedo - +2

Ervin Santana (2.5 WAR) for John Danks - +1.7

Scott Caroll (0 WAR) for multiple mopups - +0.3

Joba Chamberlain (1 WAR) for Belisario/Lindstrom - +0.5

Carlos Rodon (3 WAR) for Carrol/Rienzo/Paulino - +2.5

Carlos Sanchez (1 WAR) for Carlos Sanchez/Gordon Beckham - +1.7 WAR

Marcus Semien (1 WAR) for Marcus Semien/Leury Garcia - +1.8 WAR

 

That alone adds 10.5 WAR. If you assume that the Sox will use guys like Gillaspie and Ethier at 1B (and yes, raBBit, I thought Ethier had played more 1B in his past) with Semien as the utility player, you've removed the two biggest blackholes offensively. And, if you rotate guys around, Dunn's WAR as a DH will not be hard to improve either. Further, if you remove guys who are likely not going to play in games that matter (Wilkins, Phegley, Taylor), you can add another win to that total as well. Assuming 2 more wins in the next 5 games, the Sox will end the year at 74-88. Add roughly 11-12 wins to that, and the team is at 85 or 86 wins. That's a team that's in contention.

 

Again, I generally hate looking at WAR as black and white as this, so take this with a huge, huge grain of salt, but the concept of contention without spending a large chunk of money is most definitely possible.

[Chisoxfn]

What the hell, let's look at it through the context of WAR

 

First, these are the offensive players that we'll hypothesize won't be on the roster next season in any sort of meaningful way:

 

De Aza - 0.6

Dunn - 0.1

Michael Taylor - -0.2

Josh Phegley - -0.2

Gordon Beckham - -0.4

Andy Wilkins - -0.6

Dayan Viciedo - -0.7

Paul Konerko - -1.0

Leury Garcia - -1.1

 

That's -3.5 WAR that is replaced offensively.

 

Pitching wise, these are the guys we can assume won't be with the Sox:

 

Ronald Belisario - 0.6

Scott Downs - 0.1

Charles Leesman - -0.1

Taylor Thompson - -0.1

Matt Lindstrom - -0.1

Frank Francisco - -0.1

Maikel Cleto - -0.2

Andre Rienzo - -0.4

Felipe Paulino - -0.5

 

That's -0.8 WAR that is no longer being added (and this is not including Leury Garcia and Adam Dunn, who accounted for -0.1 WAR pitching).

 

This removes context, but some of those innings were incredibly important and some were totally meaningless. We'll leave it as such.

 

We'll assume the Sox make, bare minimum, 4 moves (names aren't important but will be included as examples), and other reasonable assumptions about others.

 

Andre Ethier (2 WAR) for De Aza/Viciedo - +2

Ervin Santana (2.5 WAR) for John Danks - +1.7

Scott Caroll (0 WAR) for multiple mopups - +0.3

Joba Chamberlain (1 WAR) for Belisario/Lindstrom - +0.5

Carlos Rodon (3 WAR) for Carrol/Rienzo/Paulino - +2.5

Carlos Sanchez (1 WAR) for Carlos Sanchez/Gordon Beckham - +1.7 WAR

Marcus Semien (1 WAR) for Marcus Semien/Leury Garcia - +1.8 WAR

 

That alone adds 10.5 WAR. If you assume that the Sox will use guys like Gillaspie and Ethier at 1B (and yes, raBBit, I thought Ethier had played more 1B in his past) with Semien as the utility player, you've removed the two biggest blackholes offensively. And, if you rotate guys around, Dunn's WAR as a DH will not be hard to improve either. Further, if you remove guys who are likely not going to play in games that matter (Wilkins, Phegley, Taylor), you can add another win to that total as well. Assuming 2 more wins in the next 5 games, the Sox will end the year at 74-88. Add roughly 11-12 wins to that, and the team is at 85 or 86 wins. That's a team that's in contention.

 

Again, I generally hate looking at WAR as black and white as this, so take this with a huge, huge grain of salt, but the concept of contention without spending a large chunk of money is most definitely possible.

Obviously you are using WAR from a standpoint that doesn't exactly work out, but the reality of the situation, doing those moves doesn't put your team in a hole going forward and moves you much closer and into contention. A couple things bounce your way and you win 90 games and are a playoff team and maybe you are looking to acquire another piece. Your young talent continues to get developed (no one of any value is getting blocked in these scenarios). It really is the perfect way of moving forward.

 

Note: I also condone us making a major foreign signing as well, presuming our scouting department has confidence in the player.

[caulfield12]

Why would we just magically assume Ethier's going to put up a 2 WAR converting to the American League when he's a 0 WAR or slighly negative player right now...?

 

And that Dayan would be a -0.7 again in 2015 when he's the far younger player? That's not even taking into consideration WAR/$. If Viciedo has another bad season, you non-tender him, but you're stuck for years with an aging Ethier (see Dunn/Rios/Danks).

 

Believing that playing Carlos Sanchez over Gordon Beckham next year will make much of a difference...not buying that one, either.

 

Joba? Yikes.

 

I'm not even going to buy that Santana's going to pitch that well as is being projected, back in the AL again with how tough the Tigers, Indians and even Twins (Buxton and Sano) and Royals (only losing Butler and Aoki, Perez and Hosmer should be better, along with Moustakas) look offensively.

 

The Twins have a bunch of guys in Vargas, Arcia, Salazar, Plouffe, Dozier, Suzuki, Mauer, Buxton, Sano, etc., that will be able to hurt you....

 

 

Finally, assuming Rodon's already going to be a +3....well, we would have said the same thing about Erik Johnson heading into this year. I'm not counting on those numbers until 2015.

Edited September 24, 2014 by caulfield12

[bmags]

Scott Downs had a positive WAR?

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

Scott Downs had a positive WAR?

 

...enough said.

[Eminor3rd]

Scott Downs had a positive WAR?

 

 

...enough said.

 

All that means is he performed slightly better than a random minor league scrub would have been expected to perform.

 

And when I say slightly, I mean effectively exactly the same. He had a 0.1 fWAR.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[greg775]

Since so many people on here are trying to save the Sox money, just acquire Butler for 5 million a year for 3 years, 15 million total and gamble that he gets good again. There's the replacement for Dunn at DH. He's a better gamble than somebody like Keppinger or Paulino were.

Edited September 24, 2014 by greg775