Home-grown Sox players

[caulfield12]

It's funny how "cohesive" a team gets when they win a few games.

 

I think there's definitely an effect for chemistry, but I think it's close to completely unpredictable, both in magnitude and frequency. As a GM, the best you can do is put the best talent you can on the field and respond to behavioral outliers as they show up.

 

 

But there's plenty of examples like the Twins from 2001-2010, the Rays, the Royals this season, the Cardinals since around 2005....where their minor league system excelled and they had the talent/depth for a group of players to progress a level at a time, building a winning tradition at every stop along the way...by the time they got to the big leagues together, they simply expected to keep playing at a championship level just like they did in the minors.

 

When they've had 3-4 seasons playing together, let's say a set of middle infielders, or a catcher being familiar with all of the pitching staff, it makes a HUGE difference for a team.

 

They develop a trust and a bond with each other....that you will never see when those guys are just throw together for the first time in Chicago.

 

IMO, that's one of the major reasons for some of the defensive issues we've had over the last decade or so...along with favoring offense/home runs over "defense first" players because of the stadium. Getting rid of guys like DeAza and Viciedo...if the Sox continue to make mental mistakes, you might have to start pointing the finger at the dugout instead of the players themselves if the trend repeats itself with a whole new cast of characters.

 

 

MAYBE, JUST maybe...we finally have that with the Rodon/Hawkins/Anderson/Danish/Montas/Barnum/Rondon group in A ball. 2009 Birmingham started out to be that kind of a team as well. But it has been super rare.

Edited October 9, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Still trying to figure out the 2013 White Sox. According to Hawk, there was "not a butthole on the team" (direct quote from ~April 2013). They were then the most undisciplined team I've ever seen. Fits into that topic somehow.

 

 

Peavy was the closest.

 

But it never came from guys like Konerko, Thome, Dye, Dunn, Rios....quite clearly.

 

Abreu is more the "strong silent" type as well, following in the Carlos Quentin tradition, albeit not quite so self-absorbed and tightly wound.

 

 

Then Rowand/Everett from the 2005 team.

[witesoxfan]

That's kind of the point (along with the fact that the Cardinals are bringing up 2-4 players together each year, wave after wave after wave of young talent). Obviously, the White Sox haven't developed any players worth trading to other teams, as none have developed to the point where they even had significant value in trade to another organization....unless you want to count the return on Gordon Beckham this August. We've had far too many Molinas and Zach Stewarts when we SHOULD have had the opportunity to replace guys like Santos and Edwin Jackson with young/impactful big league talent.

 

Essentially, you only have Sale/Abreu/Ramirez and you can also include Petricka and Viciedo, although most would argue Viciedo has little to or no value at the current time. Of course, those first three spent little or no time in the minors, and Rodon's following the same path.

 

 

At any rate, we haven't had the minor leaguers to trade which would amount to anything significant...even at the current moment, you're talking Sanchez/Semien/Micah, maybe Beck or Erik Johnson or Davidson, you'd be hard-pressed to put them all together and get even a starting player in return, certainly not a Top 1-75 player.

 

Maybe if you added Bassitt/Webb you'd spark some interest.

 

 

In the end, Mitchell, Walker and Thompson all appear to be busts, and that's hurt the system quite a bit. Johnson and Davidson aren't far behind.

 

We can talk all we want about trading Quintana or Ramirez, but we can't do that without seriously damaging our chances to compete in 2015 and 2016 IMO. Not having the minor league depth of quality talent has hurt for three seasons in a row. Even today, trading Anderson/Hawkins/Danish/Montas makes a lot less sense than holding onto them and seeing what we have in two years.

 

What are you defining as "home-grown" talent? That's why I've been putting it in quotes the entire time. You keep mentioning names like Molina, Stewart, Santos, Jackson, Webb, Abreu, Ramirez, Viciedo, Davidson, Quintana, Montas...those are players the White Sox all brought in via trade or signing.

 

Yes, the White Sox need to do a better job at finding minor league talent (whether through the draft, int'l free agency, trade, waivers, minor league free agency, or whatever else), but the bottomline is that they need to bring in talent, period. They appear to be improving that, but they also splurged on older players 3-5 years ago which sets back any sort of building process towards the future. Beyond that, even teams that can spend a ton of money have gone through periods of struggling. The Yankees have missed the playoffs two years in a row and the Phillies look like probably the worst situation out there. Those periods are following World Series titles for both franchises. It makes sense because this entire process is cyclical and you just hope that you can put together enough talent to produce good teams consistently for a period of time.

 

The Sox minor league system is in better shape after this season than it was after last season, and it was in better shape after last season than it was the previous season. Things are improving.

[Eminor3rd]

Also, my favorite SoxTalk rant about homegrown players.

 

Specifically Gio.

 

A classic, indeed.

[Eminor3rd]

But there's plenty of examples like the Twins from 2001-2010, the Rays, the Royals this season, the Cardinals since around 2005....where their minor league system excelled and they had the talent/depth for a group of players to progress a level at a time, building a winning tradition at every stop along the way...by the time they got to the big leagues together, they simply expected to keep playing at a championship level just like they did in the minors.

 

When they've had 3-4 seasons playing together, let's say a set of middle infielders, or a catcher being familiar with all of the pitching staff, it makes a HUGE difference for a team.

 

They develop a trust and a bond with each other....that you will never see when those guys are just throw together for the first time in Chicago.

 

IMO, that's one of the major reasons for some of the defensive issues we've had over the last decade or so...along with favoring offense/home runs over "defense first" players because of the stadium. Getting rid of guys like DeAza and Viciedo...if the Sox continue to make mental mistakes, you might have to start pointing the finger at the dugout instead of the players themselves if the trend repeats itself with a whole new cast of characters.

 

 

MAYBE, JUST maybe...we finally have that with the Rodon/Hawkins/Anderson/Danish/Montas/Barnum/Rondon group in A ball. 2009 Birmingham started out to be that kind of a team as well. But it has been super rare.

 

That just seems like post-hoc reasoning to me -- you list some examples, sure, but what about every other team that also won? Or what about the 2013-14 Red Sox: cited as posterchildren for a rebooted clubhouse chemistry for going worst-to-first, only to find themselves right back at worst the next season with essentially the same team. Also, that's a team built almost completely through free agency and trades in a single offseason, the very opposite of a crop of guys being developed at the same time.

 

Like I said, I believe strongly that chemistry affects wins and losses, but I don't think there's anything remotely close to a consistent, predictable explanation for what creates good chemistry. There are a whole bunch of different personalities in a whole bunch of difference situations, and I don't think you ever really know what you're going to get.

 

[Eminor3rd]

I pretty much agree with this. But there are also times where, if signing or trading for a new player, it is at least worth knowing a bit about the personality involved. Really just looking for those outliers - guys like Zambrano whose behavior and reputation indicate they could have a significant effect on the clubhouse (and there are some on the positive end too). Then you consider that with all the other factors. But you don't want it to weigh a lot (unless it is an extreme like Zambrano) because, as you said, there's really no predicting the final outcome.

 

Yeah, definitely. The outliers have "baggage," and a team needs to investigate that kind of a guy and add it to the list of risk factors. But then, sometimes the mercurial guy fits perfectly, i.e. Yunel Escobar amidst Tampa's "Island of Misfit Toys."

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, definitely. The outliers have "baggage," and a team needs to investigate that kind of a guy and add it to the list of risk factors. But then, sometimes the mercurial guy fits perfectly, i.e. Yunel Escobar amidst Tampa's "Island of Misfit Toys."

Absolutely. AJP is a great example.

 

[Dick Allen]

Absolutely. AJP is a great example.

Not including his release from Boston, the last 3 teams AJP left, the Giants, White Sox, and Rangers averaged 21 less wins the season after his departure. The Twins improved 2 games.

Edited October 10, 2014 by knightni

[LittleHurt05]

Not including his release from Boston, the last 3 teams AJP left, the Giants, White Sox, and Rangers averaged 21 less wins the season after his departure. The Twins improved 2 games.

 

Before this season, the last two teams AJP was on choked away playoff berths in September.

[caulfield12]

That just seems like post-hoc reasoning to me -- you list some examples, sure, but what about every other team that also won? Or what about the 2013-14 Red Sox: cited as posterchildren for a rebooted clubhouse chemistry for going worst-to-first, only to find themselves right back at worst the next season with essentially the same team. Also, that's a team built almost completely through free agency and trades in a single offseason, the very opposite of a crop of guys being developed at the same time.

 

Like I said, I believe strongly that chemistry affects wins and losses, but I don't think there's anything remotely close to a consistent, predictable explanation for what creates good chemistry. There are a whole bunch of different personalities in a whole bunch of difference situations, and I don't think you ever really know what you're going to get.

 

I'll just add this (minor league development) is a much better working model for middle and third tier payrolls.

 

With the Red Sox, they had the money to spend their way out of the problem by bringing in Napoli, Victorino, Uehara, Drew, etc.

 

They also had the financial flexibility being one of the top 2-3 payrolls to buy their way out of the Gonzalez, Beckett and Crawford deals...whereas the White Sox couldn't even escape from either Danks OR Dunn, at least until this point.

 

 

[LDF]

I'll just add this (minor league development) is a much better working model for middle and third tier payrolls.

 

With the Red Sox, they had the money to spend their way out of the problem by bringing in Napoli, Victorino, Uehara, Drew, etc.

 

They also had the financial flexibility being one of the top 2-3 payrolls to buy their way out of the Gonzalez, Beckett and Crawford deals...whereas the White Sox couldn't even escape from either Danks OR Dunn, at least until this point.

 

that was a point many yrs ago, that kw said of JR, that if JR wanted to, sox could pay / sign fa's

like the other owners. the point is, JR did not want to b/c he wanted to work within a budget.

Edited October 11, 2014 by LDF