Have you noticed the difference?

[LDF]

True. However, it is also more of a gamble going with the prospects because you have no idea how good they will be. Plus it usually takes a couple of years for the young player to settle in, if they ever do. you have a better idea MLB proven player is going to do. It's less of a risk.

 

exactly and the opportunity is now.

 

oops i need to go, brb in 1/2 hr.

 

peace.

[southsider2k5]

The other thing to mention here is that if you are of the belief that the Sox have more money to spend, or should be sending prospects to trade for players to finish out the 25 man roster, it isn't all black or white.

 

If the Sox leave themselves a scenario where they don't spend all of their resources, that now allows them to evaluate the team through April and May, identify what they believe will help the team the most, and then still have the flexibility to identify a player in another organization who can help them down the stretch. Part of baseball is the unknown happens a lot. It isn't a crazy scenario to envision at least one of the guys the Sox are counting on being a bust this year. Heck it is probably a likely scenario that at least one guy who is an assumption now, will bust. There is also a decent chance that someone comes out of no where to fill a hole shock on the team. If the teams blows all of its resources now, they won't maintain the flexibility to fix problems later.

[gatnom]

True. However, it is also more of a gamble going with the prospects because you have no idea how good they will be. Plus it usually takes a couple of years for the young player to settle in, if they ever do. you have a better idea MLB proven player is going to do. It's less of a risk.

 

It doesn't change the fact that you're still gambling with major league players. Adam Dunn failed spectacularly while being paid quite a bit more than, say, Viciedo or Beckham. It's all basic probability with expected values.

 

You're missing the overall point, though. We were able to spend big this offseason, trade prospects for good mlb talent, AND we still have a roughly top-15 system. You can have both a good minor league system and have a good, well paid, major league team. It's not one or the other.

 

 

[ptatc]

It doesn't change the fact that you're still gambling with major league players. Adam Dunn failed spectacularly while being paid quite a bit more than, say, Viciedo or Beckham. It's all basic probability with expected values.

 

You're missing the overall point, though. We were able to spend big this offseason, trade prospects for good mlb talent, AND we still have a roughly top-15 system. You can have both a good minor league system and have a good, well paid, major league team. It's not one or the other.

It is a gamble. It's always a gamble with the mix of players and egos. However, the gamble with proven veterans is less.

 

I'm not saying that the building of the farm system to the exclusion of trading them is wrong. It can work and does in several cases. I'm just saying that teams to not NEED to have a top ranked system to succeed.

 

I'm lean more to the philosophy of retaining young pitching due to the injury rate and trading position players to get more pitching. I think too many people get caught up in hanging on to prospects when obtaining proven players has a better rate of success of retaining talent. However, it is more expensive.

 

I agree with your overall point but the first post in the thread was essentially challenging the people who prefer veterans over prospects. My basic point is that the aspect of having a top ranked system really isn't that important. Ron Schueler hoarded prospects and had a top ranked system in the 90's. Where did it get the Sox? Nowhere (although you can make a case for the 94 WS canceled team) until KW took over and started trading some of them for proven talent.

 

Again I'm not arguing against the minors, I'm saying that you cannot hoard the prospects and expect all of them to pan out. You can to trade some for proven players to be successful.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ptatc

[Dick Allen]

The other thing to mention here is that if you are of the belief that the Sox have more money to spend, or should be sending prospects to trade for players to finish out the 25 man roster, it isn't all black or white.

 

If the Sox leave themselves a scenario where they don't spend all of their resources, that now allows them to evaluate the team through April and May, identify what they believe will help the team the most, and then still have the flexibility to identify a player in another organization who can help them down the stretch. Part of baseball is the unknown happens a lot. It isn't a crazy scenario to envision at least one of the guys the Sox are counting on being a bust this year. Heck it is probably a likely scenario that at least one guy who is an assumption now, will bust. There is also a decent chance that someone comes out of no where to fill a hole shock on the team. If the teams blows all of its resources now, they won't maintain the flexibility to fix problems later.

The research has shown midseason acquisitions rarely pay big dividends. I hope the Sox get away from the philosophy of being OK being a little short thinking adding in July will put them over the top. That hasn't worked. If you are trying to win, try to be as strong as you can day 1. Hahn has admitted they still are not where they want to be. It obviously takes some time. But there is no doubt they can win. There have been seasons they weren't as highly thought of as they are now, and made the playoffs. This team might win 95 games. They might lose 95 games. No one really knows until the games are played.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

The research has shown midseason acquisitions rarely pay big dividends. I hope the Sox get away from the philosophy of being OK being a little short thinking adding in July will put them over the top. That hasn't worked. If you are trying to win, try to be as strong as you can day 1. Hahn has admitted they still are not where they want to be. It obviously takes some time. But there is no doubt they can win. There have been seasons they weren't as highly thought of as they are now, and made the playoffs. This team might win 95 games. They might lose 95 games. No one really knows until the games are played.

 

I think the best thing to do with midseason acquisitions is replacing a blackhole with a positive value player. I hate the idea of acquiring the traditional high value players at the deadline for the reasons you've implied.

 

Personally, I think the best midseason acquisition the Sox have made in recent memory was acquiring Youkilis. That move alone nearly sent them to the postseason simply because he was an OK player replacing a terrible player.

[thxfrthmmrs]

And once again, the Sox are a team that is set up better for the playoffs than they are for the regular season. So if we can sneak into a Wild Card spot, we'll be extremely dangerous.

 

Nitpicking a little bit here. But I don't think you can really count on this yet. The trio of Sale, Q and Shark has exactly 0 playoff starts at the moment, it isn't the biggest concern in the world, but it matters to a certain extent. On top of that, Sale has looked gassed in the last month of the season each of the past 3 years. We'll need some creative planning to keep him fresh in the postseason, but that will come at the cost of valuable regular season wins, and that matters a lot to this team as it stands. Lastly, I am not convinced Q is a quality playoff starter, at least not one where I would say he a clearly a better number 3 than the other team's number 3 in a series. Without opening a can of worm, Q doesn't go deep in games, and always seems to blow up in the 5th or 6th inning because hitters hit him better the second time around. It's hard to trust a guy like that, especially if he has to pitch 2 games in a series.

[gatnom]

It is a gamble. It's always a gamble with the mix of players and egos. However, the gamble with proven veterans is less.

 

I'm not saying that the building of the farm system to the exclusion of trading them is wrong. It can work and does in several cases. I'm just saying that teams to not NEED to have a top ranked system to succeed.

 

I'm lean more to the philosophy of retaining young pitching due to the injury rate and trading position players to get more pitching. I think too many people get caught up in hanging on to prospects when obtaining proven players has a better rate of success of retaining talent. However, it is more expensive.

 

I agree with your overall point but the first post in the thread was essentially challenging the people who prefer veterans over prospects. My basic point is that the aspect of having a top ranked system really isn't that important. Ron Schueler hoarded prospects and had a top ranked system in the 90's. Where did it get the Sox? Nowhere (although you can make a case for the 94 WS canceled team) until KW took over and started trading some of them for proven talent.

 

Again I'm not arguing against the minors, I'm saying that you cannot hoard the prospects and expect all of them to pan out. You can to trade some for proven players to be successful.

 

Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time.

 

 

[LDF]

Nitpicking a little bit here. But I don't think you can really count on this yet. The trio of Sale, Q and Shark has exactly 0 playoff starts at the moment, it isn't the biggest concern in the world, but it matters to a certain extent. On top of that, Sale has looked gassed in the last month of the season each of the past 3 years. We'll need some creative planning to keep him fresh in the postseason, but that will come at the cost of valuable regular season wins, and that matters a lot to this team as it stands. Lastly, I am not convinced Q is a quality playoff starter, at least not one where I would say he a clearly a better number 3 than the other team's number 3 in a series. Without opening a can of worm, Q doesn't go deep in games, and always seems to blow up in the 5th or 6th inning because hitters hit him better the second time around. It's hard to trust a guy like that, especially if he has to pitch 2 games in a series.

 

and this is a major point of my spouting about a real good quality sp. to help in the rotation for the sp to have enuf rest, let alone help in the innings in the playoff. the biggest problem i had from this beginning of the offseason is they believe in sox management of no money. next, even Hahn said they needed more, but it is not going to happen. lets deal with the certainty, b/c the sox have most of the players now, finish the job. now, they may need to tap into the trade market, whereas before, they wouldn't had to.

[LDF]

Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time.

 

it wouldn't had to be, if the sox didn't get the gift of some very surprising players. now they have to fast track the rebuilding schedule b/c of that..... and of course, the fans were not comiing out.

[LDF]

The other thing to mention here is that if you are of the belief that the Sox have more money to spend, or should be sending prospects to trade for players to finish out the 25 man roster, it isn't all black or white.

 

If the Sox leave themselves a scenario where they don't spend all of their resources, that now allows them to evaluate the team through April and May, identify what they believe will help the team the most, and then still have the flexibility to identify a player in another organization who can help them down the stretch. Part of baseball is the unknown happens a lot. It isn't a crazy scenario to envision at least one of the guys the Sox are counting on being a bust this year. Heck it is probably a likely scenario that at least one guy who is an assumption now, will bust. There is also a decent chance that someone comes out of no where to fill a hole shock on the team. If the teams blows all of its resources now, they won't maintain the flexibility to fix problems later.

 

you are sooo right in this, that is why none of us work for the baseball org. but i would Hahn to have more of a knowledge than us. now it only to convince the owners to let him spend just a little more, now it is pointless, unless it is the trade rt.

[ewokpelts]

That is what you get when you have a powerful owner.

 

But let's not pretend that following that system didn't cost the White Sox a lot of potentially great players that they passed on in order to say in those slots, in order to funnel more money to the major league roster.

The philosophy of the system has clearly changed. Kenny was building teams that can win in the postseason. He didn't focus on GETTING in.

I think rick's mo is get in AND win.

[Eminor3rd]

Nitpicking a little bit here. But I don't think you can really count on this yet. The trio of Sale, Q and Shark has exactly 0 playoff starts at the moment, it isn't the biggest concern in the world, but it matters to a certain extent. On top of that, Sale has looked gassed in the last month of the season each of the past 3 years. We'll need some creative planning to keep him fresh in the postseason, but that will come at the cost of valuable regular season wins, and that matters a lot to this team as it stands. Lastly, I am not convinced Q is a quality playoff starter, at least not one where I would say he a clearly a better number 3 than the other team's number 3 in a series. Without opening a can of worm, Q doesn't go deep in games, and always seems to blow up in the 5th or 6th inning because hitters hit him better the second time around. It's hard to trust a guy like that, especially if he has to pitch 2 games in a series.

 

Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now.

 

Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned.

[Eminor3rd]

Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time.

 

Yes, well put.

[thxfrthmmrs]

Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now.

 

Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned.

 

You're right, bullpen is important in the playoffs, but you are not looking at this in context. Many say that this team is built better for the playoffs because our top 3 is among the best in the league. But come playoff time, are we really comfortable saying we have an edge in our starting pitching if Q can only go 4 or 5 innings for us and we have to rely on a shaky bullpen to hold down the fort? If you're the Royals, sure, if you're the White Sox, no. That, along with no playoff experience, and Sale's second half fatigue really poke a lot of holes in the claim that "we are built for the playoffs".

 

[LDF]

You're right, bullpen is important in the playoffs, but you are not looking at this in context. Many say that this team is built better for the playoffs because our top 3 is among the best in the league. But come playoff time, are we really comfortable saying we have an edge in our starting pitching if Q can only go 4 or 5 innings for us and we have to rely on a shaky bullpen to hold down the fort? If you're the Royals, sure, if you're the White Sox, no. That, along with no playoff experience, and Sale's second half fatigue really poke a lot of holes in the claim that "we are built for the playoffs".

 

exactly and they cannot in all reality expect a rookie to pitch what will be a heavy workload and not feel fatigue. the sox need another pitcher (horse) to bridge all that.

[ptatc]

Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time.

That's true. However, as you pointed out it is often more successful. So you will win more than you lose which is how you build a good team. The trading prospects away for Samardzja only worked because he is a one year rental and now will become very expensive to keep. It's the reason the price was so low, compared to the talent received. It's a somewhat unique situation where the team hopes to get a little hometown discount or at least an edge to keep him. So the sox may be giving away 4 players for a player for one year. Continuously doing that will deplete the farm system very quickly so you are really arguing against maintaining minor league talent if the Sox do this type of deal often. Unless they are willing to give out huge deals to veterans on a regular basis.

[ptatc]

Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now.

 

Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned.

He has gone 200 innings but his performance toward the end of the season really drops off. This is not the situation the sox want to be in if they want to go deep in the playoffs.

[ptatc]

Yes, well put.

So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

[LDF]

So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

 

it was a cost that needed to be paid while not damaging the system. good management.

[witesoxfan]

So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

 

It depends. If I were in the Twins or Phillies position right now, not at all. If I were fairly close to being a competitive team, and the prospects weren't special by any stretch of the imagination, I'd probably do it most of the time, but I'd evaluate each on a case by case basis.

 

The Sox also got a prospect out of it too. We can't simply forget about Ynoa.

[LDF]

It depends. If I were in the Twins or Phillies position right now, not at all. If I were fairly close to being a competitive team, and the prospects weren't special by any stretch of the imagination, I'd probably do it most of the time, but I'd evaluate each on a case by case basis.

 

The Sox also got a prospect out of it too. We can't simply forget about Ynoa.

 

you have a great point and i wish i had the ability to have said this long time ago.

 

one can not arbitrarily use the same parameters on all trades. it need good management control to assess it and act according.

[caulfield12]

The research has shown midseason acquisitions rarely pay big dividends. I hope the Sox get away from the philosophy of being OK being a little short thinking adding in July will put them over the top. That hasn't worked. If you are trying to win, try to be as strong as you can day 1. Hahn has admitted they still are not where they want to be. It obviously takes some time. But there is no doubt they can win. There have been seasons they weren't as highly thought of as they are now, and made the playoffs. This team might win 95 games. They might lose 95 games. No one really knows until the games are played.

 

 

See Oakland A's, 2014.

[Eminor3rd]

So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

 

What? How did you possibly come to that conclusion from his post?

 

The whole point of this thread, and his response in summary, is that the team has reached a point where it can AFFORD to make some moves with prospects and still be left with a middle-of-the-pack system. The key to maintaining that is moderation -- realizing that the cost of going ALL IN is too high and return too little in the current MLB environment, and that a balanced approach to remaining competitive without ebing the best team in the league allows you to also maintain a decent farm which leads to sustained competitiveness.

 

What you just said I agree with is exactly the opposite of what I agree with.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

See Oakland A's, 2014.

 

And for evidence to the contrary, see Brewers, 2008 (Sabathia).

 

That said, Dick Allen's point here is generally correct.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Eminor3rd