Article: White Sox Winning Winter Meetings Through Day 1

[tobi0040]

The Samardzija deal is actually a 6 player deal.  Sox get Ynoa, who has flopped. 

 

 

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24876421/white-sox-acquire-samardzija-ynoa-in-six-player-deal-with-as

 

The A's think Semien will be there SS next year. 

 

Manual has Ravelo as #10 for them.

 

Bassitt has a 3.94 ERA in 30 IP in the big's.

 

Phegley is a 26 year old catcher that hit well in the minors the last few.  .966 and .861 the last two years.

Edited December 9, 2014 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

They've also devoted significant resources and been basically the same as us the last decade.

Using the yearly payrolls at Cot's, the White Sox are roughly within 10% of the Twins payroll every year since 2003, with the exception of the three years after their World Series victory (2006-2008).  And according to B-Ref, their payroll still projects within 10% going forward too, even after their most recent additions.

 

And the obvious "basically the same as us" doesn't include the World Series, it also doesn't include the fact that the White Sox entered the season as a realistic contender almost every season for 25 years, and have never been out of that for more than a year or two at a time.  That's got value.

[Mike Sixel]

I find it odd that the Sox and Tigers need to be lucky, with major league talent, but the Twins don't have to be more lucky to have minor leaguers be their future

[tobi0040]

I find it odd that the Sox and Tigers need to be lucky, with major league talent, but the Twins don't have to be more lucky to have minor leaguers be their future

 

We basically had the same record last year.  They add Jeff S. for either 1 year or a large contract.  They add Robertson and Duke and LaRoche.  Add in their system.

 

Versus our system.  

 

In my opinion if I was to rate the system:

 

1. Buxton

2. Sano

3. Rodon

4. Berrios

5. Meyer

6. Stewart

 

I think the depth of our system is better as well.

Edited December 9, 2014 by tobi0040

[Willihammer]

Just scanning their yearly rosters at B-Ref, I don't see many boneheaded moves.  The Nick Swisher fiasco in 2008 was obviously the big one, losing Gio Gonzalez in the process.  Carlos Quention was a loss in 2012, although his subsequent salaries and health greatly reduce the level of boneheadedness.  I've seen the Peavy trade cited a few times in this thread, but it didn't really hurt them (actually netted them Avisail Garcia in the end).  Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson?

 

Signing Dunn wasn't a good move, but it was only cash and not a crippling amount (Nolasco money).

 

This is a team that hasn't bottomed out much or for very long since I became a baseball fan (1990).

Yeah, I'm biased. Seems like they made more.

 

Actually if you want to extend the timeline back to 1990, the Whities hold a 2061-1940 win advantage over the Twins, although I'm not sure they were as aggressive in trading prospects back then. That was a little before my time.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Willihammer

[nicksaviking]

We basically had the same record last year.  They add Jeff S. for either 1 year or a large contract.  They add Robertson and Duke and LaRoche.  Add in their system.

 

Versus our system.  

 

In my opinion if I was to rate the system:

 

1. Buxton

2. Sano

3. Rodon

4. Berrios

5. Meyer

6. Stewart

 

I think the depth of our system is better as well.

 

Sure, but Chris Sale is worth more than all of them, likely so is Abreu.  Quintana would be pretty high too.  I'm not sure why we would look at each organization and only look at the prospects. 

[bird]

My post said "mostly" and I stand by it.  Sickels has Meyer and Berrios (and Stewart) as the only Twins pitching prospects above a B- grade. 

 

  A Sale-Quintana (plus Samardzija) situation anytime in the next few years would pretty much be a best-case scenario for the Twins plan

 

 

 

 

A minor quibble about this: Sickles has seven pitching prospects rated B- and above. Thorpe and May got B- borderline B grades, so that would be five pitchers at a pretty elite grade.  Find me another system with seven B- and higher pitching prospects and then see if they also have six others at C+. Also, four of these B- and better guys will likely see action with the Twins in 2015, so I still think, perhaps unintentionally by virtue of how you phrased it, you understated things by saying  "mostly" in conjunction with the "lower minors" tag. So, in reality, we have thirteen pitchers with a grade of C+ or better, and a majority of them are on a timeline to see MLB action within the next two years.

 

Shark is comparable to Hughes to me. So, what if Sale or Quintana gets hurt in the next year? Aside from Rodon, how many of their pitching prospects merit a grade of B- or better?

 

I might be willing to bet the Whities have a better rotation in three/four years, but I ain't betting the difference between the Twins and CWS salaries on it. 

[tobi0040]

Sure, but Chris Sale is worth more than all of them, likely so is Abreu.  Quintana would be pretty high too.  I'm not sure why we would look at each organization and only look at the prospects. 

 

And both were part of the team that had basically the same amount of wins as ours last year.  That is why I started with "they won almost the same amount of games last year"

Edited December 9, 2014 by tobi0040

[Platoon]

I think that the White Sox have definitely put themselves on pace with, and if the Tigers don't sign Scherzer, they should be the favorite...

 

Yeah, the Twins are back to being the little engine that could... and as I said coming into the Winter Meetings, that's probably OK. I think they need to let young guys play... I'd just like to see them be competitive in 2015. I'm tired of all the losses.

 

So why do the Twins operate this way? We don't want to pay top dollar, lose a draft pick, trade a top prospect, trade a over valued FA (Suzuki), or aggressively bring in young talent! The only option left is to have a GM who is positive he is the smartest guy in the room.

[TheLeviathan]

  That's got value.

 

Yeah?  What value exactly?  It hasn't won them over much in terms of fan support or a reputation as a perpetual contender.

 

The Sox have largely been a middling team with zero success for much of their existence, so I'm not sure what you're hanging your hat on here.

[bird]

So why do the Twins operate this way? We don't want to pay top dollar, lose a draft pick, trade a top prospect, trade a over valued FA (Suzuki), or aggressively bring in young talent! The only option left is to have a GM who is positive he is the smartest guy in the room.

 

A number of franchises operate with an almost identical strategy as the Twins. The Cards are one. The primary differences are related to overall execution (the Cards have executed the strategy better), phase of the cycle (the closer an organization is to the top of the cycle, the less needs, and the greater likelihood of trading a top prospect for a "final" piece of the puzzle), and avoiding mistakes ( see Billy Smith's record).

 

The Twins have been historically bad at selling high. Contrary to many opinions expressed here, the Twins are aggressive when it comes to moving the most elite prospects through the system.

 

Ryan is actually a humble man.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yeah?  What value exactly?  It hasn't won them over much in terms of fan support or a reputation as a perpetual contender.

 

The Sox have largely been a middling team with zero success for much of their existence, so I'm not sure what you're hanging your hat on here.

I didn't mean to hang my hat on anything.  I'm not a White Sox fan, in fact I've usually disliked their manager and style of play, but I've got to hand it to them, they've had a pretty decent run in the modern era.  Often second banana to Cleveland, Twins, and Detroit, but almost every single year of the last 25 they have given their fans legitimate hope, which isn't easy to do.

[TheLeviathan]

I didn't mean to hang my hat on anything.  I'm not a White Sox fan, in fact I've usually disliked their manager and style of play, but I've got to hand it to them, they've had a pretty decent run in the modern era.  Often second banana to Cleveland, Twins, and Detroit, but almost every single year of the last 25 they have given their fans legitimate hope, which isn't easy to do.

 

My wife, a lifelong White Sox fan, laughed when I read that last line to her.  And having lived in Chicago for awhile I can tell you that most White Sox fans do not have such a positive spin on what you're speaking of.

[Otto von Ballpark]

A number of franchises operate with an almost identical strategy as the Twins. The Cards are one. The primary differences are related to overall execution (the Cards have executed the strategy better), phase of the cycle (the closer an organization is to the top of the cycle, the less needs, and the greater likelihood of trading a top prospect for a "final" piece of the puzzle)

In my years of fandom (since 1990), off the top of my head, the Cardinals have pulled off major deals for McGwire, Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder (whoops!), and Holliday (and extended him).

 

Terry Ryan has basically never traded a prospect for MLB talent except the Luis Castillo deal, despite a number of seasons at the top of the "success cycle."

 

There is a greater expectation of winning in St. Louis too -- I think if they had some bad luck and their farm system didn't produce for a couple years, they would try to get out of that funk quicker, perhaps like the White Sox are doing today, rather than enter multi-season rebuild/waiting mode like the Twins have done.

[Otto von Ballpark]

My wife, a lifelong White Sox fan, laughed when I read that last line to her.  And having lived in Chicago for awhile I can tell you that most White Sox fans do not have such a positive spin on what you're speaking of.

Obviously the White Sox have quite the historical reputation as losers, but the fact of the matter is that the last quarter-century, they've basically been a steady runner-up with a handful of playoff appearances and one glorious October run.

 

A White Sox fan who started following baseball when I did (1990) would have yet to experience consecutive seasons with a winning percentage as bad or worse than the 2014 Twins, much less the 2011-2013 or 1997-2000 Twins.  Heck, the last two years are the first time since the 1980s that the White Sox have been notably under .500 for consecutive seasons.

 

I can't speak to their numbers of fans or their mindset, but what fans they have almost certainly haven't been lost at any point over the last 25 years (unless they were among the many groups offended by their former manager ).

[TheLeviathan]

I can't speak to their numbers of fans or their mindset, but what fans they have almost certainly haven't been lost at any point over the last 25 years (unless they were among the many groups offended by their former manager ).

 

I look at their strategy as tantamount to banging your head against the wall.  Constantly being "second banana" because your team building strategy has the patience and long-term thinking of a fruit fly leads to plenty of frustration too.  I know the Sox fans I know from down there often get as frustrated with the up and down nature of the team as they do with the losing.  It speaks to either having no vision of the future or one that frequently fails - hard to see any other way around such erratic play from year to year.

 

To go back to my analogy, just because you occasionally take a bit of plaster out of the wall doesn't mean you're getting any closer to knocking down the wall.  I like elements of what they do, but I wouldn't want the Twins to emulate them in total.

Edited December 10, 2014 by TheLeviathan

[tobi0040]

On the cards front. They also had a 10 year deal at 210 or 220 million on the table for a 32 year old pujols. When it is all said and done that may be one of the worst in all of sports.

[Platoon]

A number of franchises operate with an almost identical strategy as the Twins. The Cards are one. The primary differences are related to overall execution (the Cards have executed the strategy better), phase of the cycle (the closer an organization is to the top of the cycle, the less needs, and the greater likelihood of trading a top prospect for a "final" piece of the puzzle), and avoiding mistakes ( see Billy Smith's record).

 

The Twins have been historically bad at selling high. Contrary to many opinions expressed here, the Twins are aggressive when it comes to moving the most elite prospects through the system.

 

Ryan is actually a humble man.

 

My point was not to define Terry Ryan's personality. I don't have an issue with him, I have a question about his philosophy. Signing a Hunter like player for this outfield, and dabbling in #4 type starters seems less a plan, than a form of fan appeasement. If we do not have several pitchers in the minors that are not capable of being 4's or 5's, and no one better than a soon to be 40 yr old in the OF, then we will be in the same place for a long time. There is not a lack of major league players on this team, most are. The problem is the level of their ability. Almost all are of the same ability, there is no one to carry the load! Tinkering and tweaking the roster will not do.

 

 

[bird]

In my years of fandom (since 1990), off the top of my head, the Cardinals have pulled off major deals for McGwire, Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder (whoops!), and Holliday (and extended him).

 

Terry Ryan has basically never traded a prospect for MLB talent except the Luis Castillo deal, despite a number of seasons at the top of the "success cycle."

 

There is a greater expectation of winning in St. Louis too -- I think if they had some bad luck and their farm system didn't produce for a couple years, they would try to get out of that funk quicker, perhaps like the White Sox are doing today, rather than enter multi-season rebuild/waiting mode like the Twins have done.

 

Nice job, spy. I think you're right.

 

And that would mean I'm mostly not, although I have always said they are horrible at disposing of surplus assets at the top of the market, which I've defined as a problem with overall execution. Now I'm rethinking this, because, although I don't think retaining veterans and avoiding selling high is a part of their strategy, Ryan leaves the impression that he has a phobia about getting fleeced. 

[USAFChief]

Nice job, spy. I think you're right. And that would mean I'm not.

My new all time favorite TD post.

[Squirrel]

Obviously the White Sox have quite the historical reputation as losers, but the fact of the matter is that the last quarter-century, they've basically been a steady runner-up with a handful of playoff appearances and one glorious October run.

 

A White Sox fan who started following baseball when I did (1990) would have yet to experience consecutive seasons with a winning percentage as bad or worse than the 2014 Twins, much less the 2011-2013 or 1997-2000 Twins.  Heck, the last two years are the first time since the 1980s that the White Sox have been notably under .500 for consecutive seasons.

 

I can't speak to their numbers of fans or their mindset, but what fans they have almost certainly haven't been lost at any point over the last 25 years (unless they were among the many groups offended by their former manager ).

Except for 2003 (Cubs) and 2005 (White Sox), in my years of living in Chicago (since 2000), what I've heard more often than not, midway into baseball season, it's 'How are the Bears looking this year?'  Both teams could still be competing and playing good ball, but if they aren't winning it all, it's onto the Bears.  And then that goes away by the first of October.  That's the Chicago culture around the Sox and the Cubs, in my experience.  More so for the Sox even.  The Sox have never generated much 'enthusiasm' (outside of 2005 ... and even that was pathetic compared to the World Series wins the Twins have been a part of).  Few are even talking about what the Sox have done so far in the off season.  I seem to know more than the Sox fans I know here.  And I honestly try not to know anything about the Sox.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nice job, spy. I think you're right.

 

And that would mean I'm mostly not, although I have always said they are horrible at disposing of surplus assets at the top of the market, which I've defined as a problem with overall execution. Now I'm rethinking this, because, although I don't think retaining veterans and avoiding selling high is a part of their strategy, Ryan leaves the impression that he has a phobia about getting fleeced.

Sounds right -- a big part of making deals and taking risks is a willingness to sell high. Sometimes even to "buy high" like a Holliday (or drafting a JD Drew).

[Otto von Ballpark]

I look at their strategy as tantamount to banging your head against the wall. Constantly being "second banana" because your team building strategy has the patience and long-term thinking of a fruit fly leads to plenty of frustration too. I know the Sox fans I know from down there often get as frustrated with the up and down nature of the team as they do with the losing. It speaks to either having no vision of the future or one that frequently fails - hard to see any other way around such erratic play from year to year.

Is it necessarily impatience, or just realism/confidence that with their abilities and resources, they don't need to lose for 3-4 seasons and wait for their farm system to build a winner again? Or recognizing that letting the MLB roster stagnate over several poor years carries risks of its own, like falling into a KC style rut?

 

Furthermore, the start of this solid modern White Sox era was adding a HOF level bat in Frank Thomas in 1990. I think being unwilling to go long-term rebuild during his tenure makes some sense, as long as you go about it fairly smartly. And by the end of his Sox career, they won a WS with a pretty solid roster, another good reason to look more year-to-year for awhile than full rebuild. You could even argue that they have been rebuilding a little lately, just with an accelerated timeline -- and why not, when you find talents like Sale and Quintana? I am not sure that waiting to add players/payroll until their farm system ranking improves would be in their best interest. I guess they may be a little less likely to have a juggernaut, dynasty type team 3-4 years from now, but aiming for that as the end product of a rebuild is probably a fool's errand anyway in present day MLB.

 

I know being a fan of any team is a source of frustration, and I do not mean to imply that I am jumping ship for the "dark side" , but I have some grudging respect for what the White Sox have been able to accomplish, modest as it may be. The fact that they have been able to maintain it through 3-4 GMs is interesting too.

[TheLeviathan]

Is it necessarily impatience, or just realism/confidence that with their abilities and resources, they don't need to lose for 3-4 seasons and wait for their farm system to build a winner again?

 

The fact that they have been able to maintain it through 3-4 GMs is interesting too.

 

But confidence in what?  That they'll have a temporary, eventually fruitless, rebound for a year and be no closer to a sustainable winning track?  I'm not sure why yo-yoing from awful to pretty decent is something to admire.  I put it about the same as being pretty decent for a long stretch followed by awful for a decent stretch.

 

I admire some of what they do and I'm certainly not putting the Twins way ahead of them.  I think they're two very different ways to get largely the same results.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But confidence in what?  That they'll have a temporary, eventually fruitless, rebound for a year and be no closer to a sustainable winning track?  I'm not sure why yo-yoing from awful to pretty decent is something to admire.  I put it about the same as being pretty decent for a long stretch followed by awful for a decent stretch.

 

I admire some of what they do and I'm certainly not putting the Twins way ahead of them.  I think they're two very different ways to get largely the same results.

Confidence that they can achieve notable on-field improvement right away, not just a few years from now.  Remember, sports are a zero-sum game, and basically two MLB franchises seem to have a real "sustainable winning track" by this narrow definition.  Alternating between 78 and 88 wins isn't that bad of an outcome for the vast majority of MLB teams.

 

And outside of 2013 the White Sox yo-yoing hasn't swung that "awful" -- their second worse performance in the last 25 years is 72 wins -- the Twins have nine seasons below that mark in the same span.

 

Personally, I think being "awful for a decent stretch" is something to avoid.  It should almost never be part of the plan.  It's just not that necessary or valuable in baseball to stockpile multiple high draft picks, if you are using all of the resources at your disposable and you're willing to take even a modicum of risk.  It's pretty much an admission the you made major mistakes and/or are too passive.  And I've seen too many clubs where that awfulness stretches for an awfully long time...

 

In some ways, the White Sox method and performance seem more sustainable.  They've been alternating like this for awhile, balancing risk etc.  TR pulled the team up from the bottom of the well once, and we're all hoping he does it again, but it's not an easy thing to do.  If Sano and Buxton don't become stars... or if TR is forced to step aside...

 

I won't quibble much with your last paragraph, though.  I'd probably rank the Twins and White Sox pretty close in MLB performance the last 25 years.  The Twins got to a couple more postseasons, the Sox had more competitive seasons.  Both won a WS if you stretch back that far, otherwise the 2005 White Sox championship would probably break the tie in just the TR era.  The next few years should break the tie one way or the other.

 

Last 25 seasons:

Twins

1st - 7

2nd - 3

3rd - 2

10 times under 10 GB

 

White Sox

1st - 5

2nd - 11

3rd - 6

16 times under 10 GB

[jay]

I can't quite tell if it's the intent, but spy, your posts seem to be saying the White Sox approach is "better" than the Twins approach.  I don't personally see a clearly distinguishable difference in the results.  As I think levi has been saying, they are certainly vastly different approaches with each having their merits of generating some success and aspects that might be preferable. 

 

The White Sox should be able to support consistently larger payrolls due to their larger market size and franchise valuation.  Beyond that point, if I had to pick one strategy or the other, it'd be tough but... I think I'd personally prefer boom and bust to consistently not quite good enough.

Edited December 10, 2014 by jay

[TheLeviathan]

Confidence that they can achieve notable on-field improvement right away

 

But what you seem to ignore is that they can be almost as equally confident to be notably worse soon after.  So as a fan and a club you are basically using the scatter-gun approach of team building.

 

I prefer a more sustainable model, something neither the Twins nor the Sox feature because of how extreme their tendencies are.

[Brandon]

Its starting to look like we won't be outdone by he Whitesox this offseason.  We are a reliver short of matching the Whitesox moves man for man.

 

Hunter vs La Roche

 

Santana vs Samardzija

 

Reliever to be announced vs Robertson

 

Granted we are not likely to top Robertson, Torii and Santana match up fairly close to their counterparts.  If the Twins would have signed Neshek this would have been close to even across the board. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think I'd personally prefer boom and bust to consistently not quite good enough.

I don't know if that's an accurate characterization of Twins results vs White Sox results, though.  The White Sox basically "boomed" as much as the Twins, just spread out rather than concentrated.  They haven't "busted" nearly as much.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But what you seem to ignore is that they can be almost as equally confident to be notably worse soon after.  So as a fan and a club you are basically using the scatter-gun approach of team building.

But the White Sox moves to stay afloat and near contention most seasons aren't really the reasons they drift out of contention the following year.  It's not like they have traded a lot of future stars or signing crippling free agent contracts.  They're not perfect, but that would be a pretty high bar to attain.

 

I think they know you can win with holes in your team and roster.  This idea that their short-term vision has left them with too many holes to sustain success sounds cute, but I don't know that it reflects reality.  Heck, the Twins from 2002-2010 had tons of holes too -- Jason Tyner was our playoff starting DH in our best season, with our offense at full health, for crying out loud.  The White Sox aren't great every year because very few baseball teams are, not because their approach is obviously lacking some grand vision of sustained success.

 

I am actually pretty agnostic on the White Sox, but I just realized they haven't bottomed out for a long time, which is fairly notable.  For Twins comparisons, I worry a lot about what happens to the Twins without TR, a problem the White Sox don't seem to have (multiple seamless GM transitions in recent memory).  Also because the Twins success was so concentrated in the 2002-2010 seasons, was it more a result of timing (post-Indians, pre-Tigers) than great franchise building?  For what it's worth, the White Sox seem to have been doing their shtick for 25 years now.  It will be interesting to see how they come out of their mini-rebuild next year.