Article: White Sox Winning Winter Meetings Through Day 1

[tobi0040]

Watching all these moves made early in a pretty aggressive manner reminds me of Beane's moves during the season.  However, I feel like I can usually see the logic behind some of his moves, even if they're risky.

 

I can't say the same for the Sox in this case.  Will it improve them? Yes. Do they have a bright future? Yes (and adding Rodon to the mix soon will make the pitching top-notch).  That said, they're giving up a lot of money, and a lot of lottery tickets (picks, prospects) for middling upgrades.  I say middling not because they're bad players, but because the total benefit:cost ratio isn't the best. Closer or not, I'd rather not invest like that in relievers, and dealing prospects for a rental wouldn't be my approach to climbing out of the cellar.

 

Then again, my opinions are probably skewed by being a bitter Twins fan who wants to see the Sox in a state of continual dumpster fire.

 

I agree....look at the four moves in isolation.

 

-Traded for a 30 year old closer and gave him $46M over four years, giving a 2nd round pick in the process (a low second round pick to boot).

 

-Spent $25M over two years for a 35 year old 1B/DH type that has a career OPS of .811.  Career OBP is .340, coming off a career high .362

 

-Traded 3 young players/prospects for a 30 year old pitcher that is one year away from a large payday.  Truly a buy high move.  The next move is probably to throw $100M at him, basically been good for two or three years.  Career numbers are rather pedestrian (ERA + of 101). 

 

-Signed a set up guy for $5M dollars a year for three years.  Coming off a great year.  Basically has not been good since he was a rookie in 2006 (prior to this year).  4.46 career ERA.

 

These are not the type of moves that sustain winning over any length of time. Each has a ton of risk.  Classic White Sox.  I get the feeling of feeling left out.  But over time I think we should be glad we don't make these type of moves.

Edited December 9, 2014 by tobi0040

[nicksaviking]

 I can't say there's much evidence to support the Sox' way of doing things is any more likely to generate success on the field.

 

Exhibit A:

http://mlbreports.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aj-2005.jpg

 

Exhibit B:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_139882729899394.jpg

Edited December 9, 2014 by nicksaviking

[TheLeviathan]

1) Given the rumored package I think there is absolutely no contingency that Shark has to sign an extension.  You wouldn't be getting him for this discounted price if it didn't come with a ton of risk.  It's still a reasonable gamble, but it's more than likely a rental.

 

2) I love the post above that says this is just what the Sox do.  In 2010 it was Dunn and Crain.  They've also traded for Peavy and made all sorts of other moves over the years that didn't pan out in much.  We're ten years removed from the flukey run to the World Series (credit to them, this system did pay off spectacularly once), but this is a lot of hot air about what the typical Sox do.

 

They are still generally a bunch of mediocre to bad fielders, with thin depth, and a thin lineup that has a tendency to be streaky.

 

Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen this before and it generally doesn't work for them.

[Seth Stohs]

The White Sox certainly won the headlines for Day 1 of the winter meetings. Obviously we'll see what happens. I do like their pitching staff. 4 very good starters and 4 really good relievers is a good start. We'll see what happens on the field. Will still depend a lot on the development of players like Tyler Flowers and Avisail Garcia.

[bird]

No, my logic was there were only a few teams who had the immediate need for Abreu, so there wasn't much of a bidding war, and it didn't include the big pocket teams, no matter how you spin it, this was a major miss.  And nobody should have missed that Abreu's numbers in Cuba were comparable or better than the guys who had already succeeded at the major league level.

Gotcha. So by your logic, only a few teams had an immediate need for Sano. And Abreu was a major miss for the incompetent Twins, but not for a majority of the other teams, according to the way YOU spin it. Got it.

[jokin]

1) Given the rumored package I think there is absolutely no contingency that Shark has to sign an extension.  You wouldn't be getting him for this discounted price if it didn't come with a ton of risk.  It's still a reasonable gamble, but it's more than likely a rental.

 

2) I love the post above that says this is just what the Sox do.  In 2010 it was Dunn and Crain.  They've also traded for Peavy and made all sorts of other moves over the years that didn't pan out in much.  We're ten years removed from the flukey run to the World Series (credit to them, this system did pay off spectacularly once), but this is a lot of hot air about what the typical Sox do.

 

They are still generally a bunch of mediocre to bad fielders, with thin depth, and a thin lineup that has a tendency to be streaky.

 

Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen this before and it generally doesn't work for them.

 

Over the last 10 years, the White Sox have a .504 winning percentage- plus a WS win.  The Twins in the same time frame have a .489 winning percentage- and are currently riding four straight 92+ loss seasons. As documented previously, the Twins have a history of very long boom and bust cycles- I prefer that the down cycles be shorter.

[TheDean]

With the Duke and Robertson signings, plus their alleged continuing pursuit of Gregerson,  the Sox are trying to emphatically answer what the Royals did, and buying a high-quality pen.  

 

I am also guessing that the Sox are betting that, given they are Shark's hometown team, he won't just be a rental.  If every one of these high-priced pitching deals work out, plus at least two of Rodon, Montas, Adams and Danish really blossoming, the Sox might have the best pitching staff in the AL Central for a few years.

 

I totally agree. The Sox should have an excellent pitching staff.  And I also agree that they'll probably move to keep the hometown kid on a long deal.  Any way you cut it, they're building what should be a better team for next year and probably years to come. I suppose I'm just acknowledging that there's a lot of risk involved here, and as a Twins fan, I hope that none of it pans out.

[nicksaviking]

The White Sox certainly won the headlines for Day 1 of the winter meetings. Obviously we'll see what happens. I do like their pitching staff. 4 very good starters and 4 really good relievers is a good start. We'll see what happens on the field. Will still depend a lot on the development of players like Tyler Flowers and Avisail Garcia.

 

Seperately, I don't think I really like any of the White Sox moves, but combined, they now have few holes.  When you put it in those terms, it really puts it in perspective, the Twins should be so lucky if their remaining concerns were lack of offense from their catcher and the development of one of their top prospects.

[TheLeviathan]

Over the last 10 years, the White Sox have a .504 winning percentage- plus a WS win.  The Twins in the same time frame have a .489 winning percentage- and are currently riding four straight 92+ loss seasons. As documented previously, the Twins have a history of very long boom and bust cycles- I prefer that the down cycles be shorter.

 

Where, at any point, did I compare the White Sox to the Twins?  

[jokin]

Gotcha. So by your logic, only a few teams had an immediate need for Sano. And Abreu was a major miss for the incompetent Twins, but not for a majority of the other teams, according to the way YOU spin it. Got it.

 

This is a conversation about Abreu, I've no idea why you would bring up Sano, totally irrelevant to this discussion- signing Sano at 16 and Abreu at 26 aren't just 10 years apart in age, in terms of relevance to this discussion, they're 10 Light Years apart.  

 

And regarding the circumstances around the Abreu signing, that was not spin, that was the straight facts leading up to the Sox signing Abreu.

[Otto von Ballpark]

As far as Robertson goes,  I love that move.  He reminds me of a certain closer.   Robertson 2014: 4-5, 3.08 ERA, 39 saves, 2.68 FIP.  Matt Capps 2010: 5-3, 2.47 ERA, 42 saves, 3.22 FIP. 

Comparing relievers by W-L, ERA, Saves, and FIP is almost certainly worse than paying $40 million for a relief pitcher.

 

I probably wouldn't have done it, but the Robertson deal looks much better than the Nathan extension from 2008.  Heck, many of us (probably not you ) consider the Perkins deal to be team-friendly, and he's guaranteed almost $25 mil over the next 4 years (albeit with an option).  I wouldn't make a practice of paying big money to relievers, but making an exception to target a fairly young, big K guy like Robertson in a year when your first round pick is protected doesn't look crazy to me.

[jokin]

Where, at any point, did I compare the White Sox to the Twins?  

 

You didn't, I did, if that's OK. (May I suggest decaf?)

Edited December 9, 2014 by jokin

[TheLeviathan]

You didn't, I did, if that's OK.

 

Since it had nothing to do with my point, not really.  Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen these same moves flop for them many times.  So I always treat them as very wait and see.

[jokin]

Exhibit A:

http://mlbreports.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aj-2005.jpg

 

Exhibit B:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_139882729899394.jpg

 

Two pictures worth at least 1000 words, each.

[bird]

With the Duke and Robertson signings, plus their alleged continuing pursuit of Gregerson,  the Sox are trying to emphatically answer what the Royals did, and buying a high-quality pen.  

 

I am also guessing that the Sox are betting that, given they are Shark's hometown team, he won't just be a rental.  If every one of these high-priced pitching deals work out, plus at least two of Rodon, Montas, Adams and Danish really blossoming, the Sox might have the best pitching staff in the AL Central for a few years.

 

(When you're going to go after "hometown" boys, I much prefer bringing home Shark and Gregerson to Hunter and Guerrier).

 

I mostly agree with this, if everything works out.

 

While Rodon is a stud, the others are less exciting. The scouting reports on Montas are mixed, despite his ability to throw it fast. He projects as a #3 starter or likely bullpen guy.  May, Meyer, Berrios, Stewart, Thorpe, and Gonsalves all have higher ceilings than Spencer and Danish, from what I've read. They compare more favorably to Rogers, Eades, and the like.

 

So, if by some stroke of luck, Sale, Rodon, Quintana, and now Shark remain free of injury, I'd grant that this will be a top 5 rotation when they're all healthy and going well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The White Sox obviously aren't perfect, but I like that they are never content to accept 4-5 year rebuilding plans (even if they are unlikely to win a pennant in that 4-5 year window anyway).  They've been really aggressive, even in the draft (Sale, Rodon), and while not every move has worked out for them, I have never gotten the impression that any of their failed moves have really prevented any other significant moves.

[nicksaviking]

Two pictures worth at least 1000 words, each.

 

Let's all pray there isn't a third one detailing what happened in the clubhoust after that passionate Hrbek/Morris embrace.

[jokin]

Since it had nothing to do with my point, not really.  Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen these same moves flop for them many times.  So I always treat them as very wait and see.

 

I'll politely suggest decaf, yet again.

 

My pont is, yes, aggressive moves can flop, but so can making only safe moves.  And playing safe, and playing the woe-is-me mid-market team, can lead to long, long dry spells, that the Twins are so famous for.  We'll wait and see on the Sox, heck, we're used to a lot of waiting and seeing on the Twins, and all of the "just wait until tomorrows" they're selling year after year to the fan base.

 

There's nothing wrong with going for it and missing, if you can quickly bounce back towards relevancy.  The Sox finished 2nd in the Central in 2012, hit rock bottom and cleaned house in 2013, and now just a year later, they're already being called a legitimate contender by the national media.  I hate the Sox, but I prefer this cycle to the one the Twins are on. 

Edited December 9, 2014 by jokin

[Otto von Ballpark]

So, if by some stroke of luck, Sale, Rodon, Quintana, and now Shark remain free of injury, I'd grant that this will be a top 5 rotation when they're all healthy and going well.

They don't really need future luck to have a meaningfully strong rotation -- they've got one at present.  Sale, Quintana, and now Samardzija.

 

I'd argue that even with TR's guidance, the Twins draft-and-develop approach is probably more dependent on "luck" (with less yearly breakout potential) than the White Sox more aggressive approach.

[Willihammer]

People have cried "the White Sox are mortgaging their future!" since the David Wells trade. Since then they've won 1150 games. The Twins? 1153.

[minnesota transplant]

As mentioned above:  Chisox need a cather, 3rd baseman an outfelder, now second baseman.  This team needs to learn to play defense and for some reason every year they dont.  Did I mention, just as the Twins, they need to get key hits.  Are they a better team after the last two days?  Yes, Have they improved on a 73 win season to get 20 more wins to win the division?  No  just saying

[TheLeviathan]

People have cried "the White Sox are mortgaging their future!" since the David Wells trade. Since then they've won 1150 games. The Twins? 1153.

 

Yup, a lot of Twins fans do it with the Tigers too and it's just not the right way to approach this.  The reverse is also true - just because a team is aggressive doesn't mean they've automatically done the right thing either.  I get that people want to fawn over a way of doing things that contrasts with what we are accustomed, but that doesn't make it sounds strategy.

 

The moves the Sox have made are aggressive and interesting, but they've had trouble fitting these sorts of moves together for some time.  That's the real key.  But not every evaluation of another team needs to keep coming back to a compare and contrast with the Twins.  That's unnecessary and sidetracking.

Edited December 9, 2014 by TheLeviathan

[LJHoes]

Over the last 10 years, the White Sox have a .504 winning percentage- plus a WS win.  The Twins in the same time frame have a .489 winning percentage- and are currently riding four straight 92+ loss seasons. As documented previously, the Twins have a history of very long boom and bust cycles- I prefer that the down cycles be shorter.

And over the past 9 years, they have a .495 winning percentage, with 1 post season appearence (thanks to a Jim Thome homer). The same period of time shows the Twins to have a .485 WP, and 3 post season entries. Since 2006, the Sox have yet to post consecutive winning seasons. I don't think the Twins want to go about emulating that. 

[jokin]

And over the past 9 years, they have a .495 winning percentage, with 1 post season appearence (thanks to a Jim Thome homer). The same period of time shows the Twins to have a .485 WP, and 3 post season entries. Since 2006, the Sox have yet to post consecutive winning seasons. I don't think the Twins want to go about emulating that. 

 

if it means counting that 10th year, as I did, and getting a World Series ring, plus no 4 straight years of 92+ losses, I'm all for the emulating.

[tobi0040]

I'll politely suggest decaf, yet again.

 

My pont is, yes, aggressive moves can flop, but so can making only safe moves.  And playing safe, and playing the woe-is-me mid-market team, can lead to long, long dry spells, that the Twins are so famous for.  We'll wait and see on the Sox, heck, we're used to a lot of waiting and seeing on the Twins, and all of the "just wait until tomorrows" they're selling year after year to the fan base.

 

There's nothing wrong with going for it and missing, if you can quickly bounce back towards relevancy.  The Sox finished 2nd in the Central in 2012, hit rock bottom and cleaned house in 2013, and now just a year later, they're already being called a legitimate contender by the national media.  I hate the Sox, but I prefer this cycle to the one the Twins are on. 

 

I question if these are the types of moves you can easily bounce back from. They may hand Jeff S. $20M a year over 5-6 years.  Paying $17M a year for a set up guy and closer are not moves you can rid yourself of easily if they go sour.  And $25M for LaRoche could be deadweight come May 1.

 

Last year they fielded a 73 win team for 90M.  They don't lose any large contracts.  They add $39M from what I can tell with Jeff S. (10M).  LaRoche (12M).  The two relievers (17M).  They may rip up jeff's deal and double his pay.  I would guess Sale, Danks, and Abreu's deals increase next year among others. 

 

I think we need to take a deep breathe here.  The $140M team they will field next year looks to me as not quite a perennial contender.  They were 15-20th in offense and 28th or so in defense.   Not sure you go all in after adding basically three pitchers, two of which are relievers and frankly a below average 1b/dh addition.

[Willihammer]

Yup, a lot of Twins fans do it with the Tigers too and it's just not the right way to approach this.  The reverse is also true - just because a team is aggressive doesn't mean they've automatically done the right thing either.  I get that people want to fawn over a way of doing things that contrasts with what we are accustomed, but that doesn't make it sounds strategy.

 

The moves the Sox have made are aggressive and interesting, but they've had trouble fitting these sorts of moves together for some time.  That's the real key.  But not every evaluation of another team needs to keep coming back to a compare and contrast with the Twins.  That's unnecessary and sidetracking.

I don't think anyone believes the White Sox have been a perfectly run franchise or even a better one than the Twins. I certainly wouldn't have traded what the Sox did for a 38 year old David Wells, for example. A 6th rounder and a 16th rounder for a 30 year old Samardzija, who worshipped the White Sox as a kid, seems a lot more reasonable IMO.

 

To your second point, the Twins and White Sox are basically polar opposites of each other in how they handle prospects - one uses them as a pipeline of talent and the other uses them as currency, its interesting to compare the results of the two strategies. And 1150 wins doesn't mean much without some context. Also this is a Twins forum.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Willihammer

[jokin]

  I get that people want to fawn over a way of doing things that contrasts with what we are accustomed, but that doesn't make it sounds strategy.

 

 

 

Let's just forget about the last 4 years of being the worst team not the Astros, despite a new ballpark, for exemplary sound strategy. Yeah, that last 10 years in the wilderness is the 90s up until 2001, offering a General Admission Season Ticket for $81 (One dollar per game!) and almost getting contracted because the franchise had been so beaten down, that was some sound strategy, right there.

[bird]

This is a conversation about Abreu, I've no idea why you would bring up Sano, totally irrelevant to this discussion- signing Sano at 16 and Abreu at 26 aren't just 10 years apart in age, in terms of relevance to this discussion, they're 10 Light Years apart.  

 

And regarding the circumstances around the Abreu signing, that was not spin, that was the straight facts leading up to the Sox signing Abreu.

Spun facts regarding Abreu, my friend. Again, you characterize the Twins as bunglers for having missed on a no-brainer like Abreu, and grant them no room for possibly having other priorities than a DH/1B, or for missing him in the same way 29 teams missed him, i.e. for their own reasons. You continually paint a picture that portrays the Twins as being in an elite category in terms of missing out on this guy.

 

I used Sano as an example of another guy, another no-brainer, that 29 teams missed on. I could have used Hughes, I suppose, but the point to be made is that it's patently unfair to castigate 29 teams as bunglers for missing out on Hughes or Sano. Or Abreu.

 

The Twins bungle plenty. So do other teams. Abreu is not an example of a bungle, that's all.

[JB_Iowa]

I question if these are the types of moves you can easily bounce back from. They may hand Jeff S. $20M a year over 5-6 years.  Paying $17M a year for a set up guy and closer are not moves you can rid yourself of easily if they go sour.  And $25M for LaRoche could be deadweight come May 1.

 

Last year they fielded a 73 win team for 90M.  They don't lose any large contracts.  They add $39M from what I can tell with Jeff S. (10M).  LaRoche (12M).  The two relievers (17M).  They may rip up jeff's deal and double his pay.  I would guess Sale, Danks, and Abreu's deals increase next year among others. 

 

I think we need to take a deep breathe here.  The $140M team they will field next year looks to me as not quite a perennial contender.  They were 15-20th in offense and 28th or so in defense.   Not sure you go all in after adding basically three pitchers, two of which are relievers and frankly a below average 1b/dh addition.

It's only money. Isn't there some middle ground between the Sox and Twins?

[jokin]

I question if these are the types of moves you can easily bounce back from. They may hand Jeff S. $20M a year over 5-6 years.  Paying $17M a year for a set up guy and closer are not moves you can rid yourself of easily if they go sour.  And $25M for LaRoche could be deadweight come May 1.

 

Last year they fielded a 73 win team for 90M.  They don't lose any large contracts.  They add $39M from what I can tell with Jeff S. (10M).  LaRoche (12M).  The two relievers (17M).  They may rip up jeff's deal and double his pay.  I would guess Sale, Danks, and Abreu's deals increase next year among others. 

 

I think we need to take a deep breathe here.  The $140M team they will field next year looks to me as not quite a perennial contender.  They were 15-20th in offense and 28th or so in defense.   Not sure you go all in after adding basically three pitchers, two of which are relievers and frankly a below average 1b/dh addition.

 

I trust the Ivy League and Northwestern Kellogg School of Management guy to understand how to make the new economics of baseball work- and they've proven more than capable of extricating themselves from no longer desirable contracts just over the last year.  I think the new tidal wave of money flowing into baseball isn't fully yet appreciated.