White Sox Acquire James Shields

[southsider2k5]

And that deal could end up working horrifically (if Trayce keeps doing what he's doing for a # of cost-controlled years). And either way, it is impossible to succeed as a MLB franchise if you can't develop position talent. Literally impossible. You can say that is why you are okay trading guys, but fundamentally, none of it matters if you can't develop. That is kind of the most critical part of the long-term success of a franchise, especially one that doesn't have the payroll of the Dodgers / Yankees / Red Sox.

 

They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers.

 

[ChiSox59]

I have no proof of this. But because of the team's performance I would say overpaid and selfish are ...

Lawrie, Melky, Eaton, Abreu, Frazier and Rollins. I think the bullpen guys are just bad, not selfish. Now I have no proof here, except for the Drake incident and how the "leaders" have done nothing to help this ballclub during it's struggles in losing almost every series in the last 8 series. Pathetic. Prove me wrong.

 

Ok, but literally none of those players except for Melky are overpaid, and in todays game, he gets paid just about what he'd get on the FA market, so he is hardly overpaid.

 

 

[chw42]

Ok, but literally none of those players except for Melky are overpaid, and in todays game, he gets paid just about what he'd get on the FA market, so he is hardly overpaid.

 

You just don't get it man, these guys are being paid millions to play a kids game. All of them are vastly overpaid!

Edited June 6, 2016 by chw42

[Chisoxfn]

They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers.

Doesn't do you any good if you can't hit. Baseball is more than just pitching and it isn't like they have a history of moving those pitching assets for really talented positional talents. Not to mention, teams just don't trade prospects for prospects that often so it doesn't work. I stick to my point, if you can't draft and develop positional talent, you can't have a franchise that will have any sort of sustained success. Now I'm not saying they can't do that now, they have new people, to some extent in charge, and maybe things will change, but Ken Williams has been here for a pretty long time to have no positional talents to show for.

[greg775]

You just don't get it man, these guys are being paid millions to play a kids game. All of them are vastly overpaid!

Cmon chw ... nobody including you has ever commented on my assertion that GMs and owners are so stupid. How many times have you seen a team acquire a guy for gazillions of dollars only to try to dump him a year to year and a half later? It's obscene. Just don't sign them in the first place? Just don't pay that kind of money in the first place. Shields is a prime example. SD had to have him for mega millions ... SD had to dump him shortly after.

[Balta1701]

As highly rated as that group was, they pretty much all busted, pretty much like almost every player that has been traded away from this organization, except for a very few exceptions.

 

If you really want to prove something, instead of just ranting, I would love to see a study done of the WAR we have traded away, and the WAR we have received in trades during Hahn and Williams time here. I have a feeling it would be incredibly slanted towards the Sox.

It should be. Because typically during the Ken Williams era the White Sox also take on salary.

 

Let's give an example. If Jeff Samardzija comes back and puts up 3 WAR but is paid $10 million to do it, and for simplicity we say that teams pay $5 million per WAR on average, then the break even point for that being a fair trade is 1 WAR from the guys given away if that's all you're hunting for - by a trade of that format you haven't just given away talent, you also have given away some ability to spend on the FA market. If Todd Frazier puts up 4 WAR this year and Trayce puts up 3 WAR, the White Sox would have 1 extra WAR per the metric you asked for, but they are also paying more for the player.

 

Do that sort of math for this trade - the White Sox are giving away, in the modern era, the money it would take to get about 1 WAR per year for the next 3 years. If Shields puts up the same 1.1 fWAR he put up last year for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and EJ and Tatis never amount to anything whatsoever, the deal would be a fair one for the White Sox. They'd be up 3 fWAR from it, but that would be a fairly compensated 3 fWAR.

 

If you just totaled "WAR coming back versus WAR going out" you'd get a totally unfair number if the team regularly takes on payroll, which they did in this trade. If the guys going out do nothing whatsoever, the White Sox breakeven point from Shields is "2015 James Shields". If he's any worse than that, the Sox overpaid in the strictly accounting sense, but they would still come out on top in the metric you asked for. If he's better than that, then that's a net gain for the White Sox if the 2 players sent out amount to nothing.

[southsider2k5]

It should be. Because typically during the Ken Williams era the White Sox also take on salary.

 

Let's give an example. If Jeff Samardzija comes back and puts up 3 WAR but is paid $10 million to do it, and for simplicity we say that teams pay $5 million per WAR on average, then the break even point for that being a fair trade is 1 WAR from the guys given away if that's all you're hunting for - by a trade of that format you haven't just given away talent, you also have given away some ability to spend on the FA market. If Todd Frazier puts up 4 WAR this year and Trayce puts up 3 WAR, the White Sox would have 1 extra WAR per the metric you asked for, but they are also paying more for the player.

 

Do that sort of math for this trade - the White Sox are giving away, in the modern era, the money it would take to get about 1 WAR per year for the next 3 years. If Shields puts up the same 1.1 fWAR he put up last year for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and EJ and Tatis never amount to anything whatsoever, the deal would be a fair one for the White Sox. They'd be up 3 fWAR from it, but that would be a fairly compensated 3 fWAR.

 

If you just totaled "WAR coming back versus WAR going out" you'd get a totally unfair number if the team regularly takes on payroll, which they did in this trade. If the guys going out do nothing whatsoever, the White Sox breakeven point from Shields is "2015 James Shields". If he's any worse than that, the Sox overpaid in the strictly accounting sense, but they would still come out on top in the metric you asked for. If he's better than that, then that's a net gain for the White Sox if the 2 players sent out amount to nothing.

 

Which also means these players aren't amounting to anything, otherwise they would also have large salaries eventually to match the WAR they would be putting up. But they aren't. The Sox are getting performance, which is what is actually the most important thing here.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Sure, but if I had nothing good to say about my girlfriend ever and she brought me zero joy, my guess is she would no longer be my girlfriend. Whats the point if she makes you miserable?

 

He never said he was miserable, you did. He's just speaking his mind on something he cares about and he is far from alone in that respect if you look at the titles of many of the threads. Do you ask the question to all the people who want to fire Ventura or think Abreu has been figured out , why Rollins is DHing , why Sands is on the roster, or saying the bullpen was smoke and mirrors ?

[Balta1701]

Which also means these players aren't amounting to anything, otherwise they would also have large salaries eventually to match the WAR they would be putting up. But they aren't. The Sox are getting performance, which is what is actually the most important thing here.

I think this is similarly incorrect. Take the example of Trayce - he could darn well have a shot at an all star game this year, but his salary going out is a pittance. That would not be because Trayce is a failure, that would be because Trayce's salary is set by pre-arb.

 

What you'd really have to do is take it a full step further and calculate "Surplus WAR" for every guy sent out, the total WAR they produce minus the WAR that is paid for by the team over the first 6 years, and this has become so much math that even I'm giving up.

[Chisoxfn]

I think this is similarly incorrect. Take the example of Trayce - he could darn well have a shot at an all star game this year, but his salary going out is a pittance. That would not be because Trayce is a failure, that would be because Trayce's salary is set by pre-arb.

 

What you'd really have to do is take it a full step further and calculate "Surplus WAR" for every guy sent out, the total WAR they produce minus the WAR that is paid for by the team over the first 6 years, and this has become so much math that even I'm giving up.

I think if you had a database you could run some vlookups off of with salary / war / etc all, there it would work and that includes a list of all players traded and received, etc. I'm not spending the time to do it, but theoritically a solid blog type piece from someone. There is some extent a difference between pre arb and post arb guys and the reality of what should be expected and clearly there is more value in a guy who puts up a higher WAR than two or three guys who equate that same total, but in general, I agree with your previous post. Theortically, best thing the Sox could have done is trade every positional prospect we had drafted over the past 15 years...only upside

[Balta1701]

I think if you had a database you could run some vlookups off of with salary / war / etc all, there it would work and that includes a list of all players traded and received, etc. I'm not spending the time to do it, but theoritically a solid blog type piece from someone. There is some extent a difference between pre arb and post arb guys and the reality of what should be expected and clearly there is more value in a guy who puts up a higher WAR than two or three guys who equate that same total, but in general, I agree with your previous post. Theortically, best thing the Sox could have done is trade every positional prospect we had drafted over the past 15 years...only upside

God I hate that Excel function. I wish it wasn't so useful.

[GreenSox]

Since 2000, the KW reign only 2 teams have more World Series wins than the White Sox. Boston has 3 and SF 2. There are 7 others that have won 1 like the White sox. So in this timeframe they are better than 20 teams and equal to 7.

 

Now you can say that it is time to move on and change things, which I wouldn't disagree with. However, you can't say that under KW they have done nothing and he wasn't an effective GM.

he has a ring; I never said he never was (although I think others were better).

I said he isn't now.

And it's not because of lack of skills. His methods will work if you have a strong foundation (Dombrowski does what he does; so does Brian Sabean, although Sabean has toned it down a lot under their GM). But those teams have much stronger org. foundations that I believe KW has put insufficient attention into rebuilding. Brandon Crawford was never super in the minors; he certainly wasn't super in the majors for 3 years...but they stuck with him. Around here, he'd have been put in the utility infielder dustbin.

I thought they were making progress in 2013, and they stopped.

Edited June 6, 2016 by GreenSox

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

These are the two major points. Drafting and developing. I think it's the developing. Early in the KW tenure they drafted high floor low ceiling guys. It didn't work. They made some changes and started drafting Low floor high ceiling guys. It still hasn't worked. They need to somehow come up with the formula to get these to work together.

 

If someone made this argument to fire the front office I wouldn't disagree.

 

And there's the whole Dave Wilder situation. Many many Dominicans went on to become stars.How many did the Sox have. None that I can recall. Sox seemed to think Venezuela was the place to be because of the past results maybe. Luis Aparicio, Chico Carrasquel, Freddy Garcia, Ozzie Guillen Magglio Ordonez. Even now they have Quintana, Carlos Sanchez, Avisail Garcia and Dionner Navarro all from Venezuela.

[ptatc]

he has a ring; I never said he never was (although I think others were better).

I said he isn't now.

And it's not because of lack of skills. His methods will work if you have a strong foundation (Dombrowski does what he does; so does Brian Sabean, although Sabean has toned it down a lot under their GM). But those teams have much stronger org. foundations that I believe KW has put insufficient attention into rebuilding.

I thought they were making progress in 2013, and they stopped.

your implication that he has not been as effective as his predecessors sure made it sound like his methods are wrong and he wasn't an effective GM.

[GreenSox]

They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers.

Sale but he was a first round draft choice.

Rodon was "can't miss"....

And.....? A few here and there, most of whom they traded. Maybe you can count Q but he pitched like 50 minor league innings.

I'm not convinced that they're so much better at pitchers than hitters, especially recently. the top prospect is a hitter. Trayce was a hitter. Semien can hit. Saladino, imo, will hit pretty well for an IF. Who's #2 in Charlotte behind Anderson? Delmonico? Hitter.

I think they're getting okay with hitters. But it takes some time.

Edited June 6, 2016 by GreenSox

[southsider2k5]

I think this is similarly incorrect. Take the example of Trayce - he could darn well have a shot at an all star game this year, but his salary going out is a pittance. That would not be because Trayce is a failure, that would be because Trayce's salary is set by pre-arb.

 

What you'd really have to do is take it a full step further and calculate "Surplus WAR" for every guy sent out, the total WAR they produce minus the WAR that is paid for by the team over the first 6 years, and this has become so much math that even I'm giving up.

 

Eventually he would have a salary, which would be reflective of the fact that he put up a big WAR. But because the players we trade away don't put up numbers for the most part, they aren't getting big contracts. The whole "surplus" idea doesn't really matter as far as actual team performance. It is a function of payroll, and doesn't matter for on the field performance at all. It is a needless misdirection of the fact that the Sox are bringing in talent that outperforms that talent they trade away.

[Balta1701]

Eventually he would have a salary, which would be reflective of the fact that he put up a big WAR. But because the players we trade away don't put up numbers for the most part, they aren't getting big contracts. The whole "surplus" idea doesn't really matter as far as actual team performance. It is a function of payroll, and doesn't matter for on the field performance at all. It is a needless misdirection of the fact that the Sox are bringing in talent that outperforms that talent they trade away.

See this is where I think you're 100% wrong.

 

The average team spent $8-$9 million per WAR on the free agent market last season. With some error, if you want to be the 2015 Cubs you ahve to figure out how to get to 45+ WAR. If you want to have a good shot at the playoffs you need to get to 35-ish. If you did that entirely with "fairly paid" players, you're talking a $300 million payroll right now. That means getting to the playoffs is ENTIRELY about generating enough surplus value from your players to overcome the fact that even the Dodgers don't have that payroll.

 

If the White Sox acquired 9 players, each of whom made $15 million and performed fairly, this would still be a losing roster unless they had some highly performing players who were dramatically underpaid. You cannot make the playoffs without a number of people who do that.

 

Of course, the White Sox do have some guys who are doing that - Chris Sale first and foremost. But the entire reason why you can afford "James Shields, David Robertson" signed to "fair" contracts is that you also have guys who generate surplus value. If you don't have enough guys generating surplus value, then you'll have your handful of expensive players and they'll be surrounded with an extremely weak roster incapable of competing, or you'll have the Dodgers payroll. Team performance will be terrible without enough "surplus value players". They are directly linked.

[GreenSox]

Thus the need for a strong organization; a foundation of young players first if you want to win.

Pin this Balta post please.

 

[southsider2k5]

See this is where I think you're 100% wrong.

 

The average team spent $8-$9 million per WAR on the free agent market last season. With some error, if you want to be the 2015 Cubs you ahve to figure out how to get to 45+ WAR. If you want to have a good shot at the playoffs you need to get to 35-ish. If you did that entirely with "fairly paid" players, you're talking a $300 million payroll right now. That means getting to the playoffs is ENTIRELY about generating enough surplus value from your players to overcome the fact that even the Dodgers don't have that payroll.

 

If the White Sox acquired 9 players, each of whom made $15 million and performed fairly, this would still be a losing roster unless they had some highly performing players who were dramatically underpaid. You cannot make the playoffs without a number of people who do that.

 

Of course, the White Sox do have some guys who are doing that - Chris Sale first and foremost. But the entire reason why you can afford "James Shields, David Robertson" signed to "fair" contracts is that you also have guys who generate surplus value. If you don't have enough guys generating surplus value, then you'll have your handful of expensive players and they'll be surrounded with an extremely weak roster incapable of competing, or you'll have the Dodgers payroll. Team performance will be terrible without enough "surplus value players". They are directly linked.

 

You can all of the surplus value in the world, but it is actual performance that matters. Returning the favor of using an extreme example, in the surplus model, having a team full of 500k players would absolutely be the best thing on the planet, because they take barely any performance to out perform their cost. There is about 100% chance of that team being the worst team in baseball though. This is where your theory of how important this is falls apart. No Sox fan is going to show up to see surplus value. They are going to show up for performance. If you get half a WAR on average from each minimum wage player, that adds up to 12.5 WAR at a price of $12.5 million or about $100 million in surplus value. Tell me how that 12.5 WAR team would finish in the standings?

 

[caulfield12]

They can't just sign a million of them. They have a limited pool and limited resources in these areas and a farm system that has lacked. What I'm saying is you can't write this guy off because he is so young that he's more likely to bust. Initial reports have been very encouraging and he's the type of kid who has the talent to emerge as one of the better prospects in the system with time. This could be an impact player. Yes, I said could, but when you are trading a guy who could be that for a guy who another team had to eat half his contract and is only slightly better (at his current clip) than your other options at the respective position (while actually still costing a decent amount of financial flexibility), I say that you shouldn't give up that type of piece for said player.

 

That is it. The Sox have gotten lucky that Trayce Thompson is the best guy they have given up in recent years, but he's also the best position prospect the Sox have developed since Joe Crede / Aaron Rowand. Seriously...that is embarassing and it starts with drafting and player development that has failed since 2000 / 2001 (I'm sure I'm missing someone) but it legitimately has been since the Schueler era ended that we have really developed any sort of meaningful positional talent. That, one would think, would be utterly impossible to have happen, but it has.

 

Literally, nothing of any meaning and I don't know what is worse, that we haven't traded away many great position players (yeah, that can make us feel better) but who cares, we haven't drafted / developed any either (who went on to play with us or play somewhere else)) or that we literally haven't drafted / signed a meaningful position prospect this century.

 

Preller knows his Latin American prospects. Just look at the LONG list of players on the Rangers (especially infielders and now Mazara and Chi Chi Rodriguez) signed and developed during AJ's time there. They had too many good prospects, so they traded Herrera to the Phillies and couldn't even find a place to play Profar (once a Top 10 MILB prospect overall) in that line-up.

 

I'd be more worried about Tatis with his (father's) background making it. Surely, they could have asked for Adolfo instead.

 

[Balta1701]

You can all of the surplus value in the world, but it is actual performance that matters. Returning the favor of using an extreme example, in the surplus model, having a team full of 500k players would absolutely be the best thing on the planet, because they take barely any performance to out perform their cost. There is about 100% chance of that team being the worst team in baseball though. This is where your theory of how important this is falls apart. No Sox fan is going to show up to see surplus value. They are going to show up for performance. If you get half a WAR on average from each minimum wage player, that adds up to 12.5 WAR at a price of $12.5 million or about $100 million in surplus value. Tell me how that 12.5 WAR team would finish in the standings?

Interestingly, they'd finish at approximately the same position as a $140 million team generating no surplus value - 12.5 WAR.

 

Put it another way. The White Sox, at their payroll, can fairly pay for 12.5 WAR. They need to get to 35, or better. They need to underpay by 25 WAR, give or take the error bars, and underpaying by 35 would be nicer. James Shields, if he repeats his 2015 performance, is 1 of those 12.5 WAR. If he repeats his 2014 performance, he also would cover 2 of the remaining 25.

[Dick Allen]

Fun fact for using WAR and money. Javy Vazquez made about $37 million less in his career than Mark Buehrle and had a higher career war.

[southsider2k5]

Interestingly, they'd finish at approximately the same position as a $140 million team generating no surplus value - 12.5 WAR.

 

Put it another way. The White Sox, at their payroll, can fairly pay for 12.5 WAR. They need to get to 35, or better. They need to underpay by 25 WAR, give or take the error bars, and underpaying by 35 would be nicer. James Shields, if he repeats his 2015 performance, is 1 of those 12.5 WAR. If he repeats his 2014 performance, he also would cover 2 of the remaining 25.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what is paid for. It matters what performance you get. Surplus value is worthless on the field. Having a ton of surplus doesn't get anyone out or drive anyone home.

[caulfield12]

Since 2000, the KW reign only 2 teams have more World Series wins than the White Sox. Boston has 3 and SF 2. There are 7 others that have won 1 like the White sox. So in this timeframe they are better than 20 teams and equal to 7.

 

Now you can say that it is time to move on and change things, which I wouldn't disagree with. However, you can't say that under KW they have done nothing and he wasn't an effective GM.

 

SF has 3.

 

Heck, the Marlins won two in 1997 and 2003, but not sure we want to emulate them.

 

At least through 2012, we could have said we had a Top Five winning percentage in all of baseball from let's say 1990 or 1993 through 2010/12 except for the Yankees, Braves and Cardinals.

 

That was the argument used to justify not teardown...that the White Sox at least have been competitive over most of those seasons...but that argument doesn't hold water with fans anymore, certainly not over the last 3 years and after the disappointment of 2011, 2012 and 2015 all fizzling despite high fan hopes.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Fun fact for using WAR and money. Javy Vazquez made about $37 million less in his career than Mark Buehrle and had a higher career war.

Another interesting fact - this is only true if you go to fangraphs, which does have some issue with how it handles strikeouts and perhaps defense at the pitchers' spot. If you go to B-R, Vazquez put up 43.3, Buehrle put up 59, which is right on the edge of HOF-worthy.