Article: White Sox Winning Winter Meetings Through Day 1

[tobi0040]

At 1B== 4th in OPS.  8th in wOBA. 9th in wRC+.  And look for LaRoche's HR totals to go up in 2015, balls fly out of US Cellular at a 45% higher rate than Nationals Park (which was the 2nd lowest park in terms of HR output).

 

MLB.com has him at 8th in OPS among 1B, and that includes the qualifier, which I believe is north of 400 AB's.  If you take that out I get 13th.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2014&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1418741277019&position='3'&sortColumn=ops&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0

[jay]

I don't think anyone here is making that argument, at least not recently in the discussion. The claim being debated is tobi's "I think they [the White Sox] could have spent that money in a smarter fashion."

 

I and others frankly admitted these moves wouldn't make sense for the Twins. But that doesn't mean that in total they are bad moves, or notably sub-optimal moves, for the White Sox.

Since this has more to do with the White Sox and little to do with the Twins, could a moderator move this to the MLB Baseball forum?

[tobi0040]

I think the White Sox spent a lot of money, $52.5M to next years payroll (Shark 10, Laroche 12.5, Robertson 12, Melky 13, Duke 5).  In total they committed $130M and that number could jump another $100M if they give Shark an extension. which they are going to attempt per reports.

 

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24892457/white-sox-will-attempt-to-extend-jeff-samardzija

 

The first issue I have is they spent money in free agency at positions that are the easiest to develop in house (pen), or platoon (1b/Dh). 

 

The second issue I think they are taking a leap of faith on guys without long track records of success.  Really a buy high on Shark, Duke, and Melkey.  If you continually buy high, you will be dissapointed more often than not.

 

The third issue is in addition to a lot of these guys not really being the top at their positions, they have them under contract at relatively high rates for the following ages:

 

30-33, 35-37, 32-34, 30-34, and 30-36/37 if they extend Jeff.  These are not peak production years.

 

You guys seem to think they spent the money as good as they could and neither addressed whether or not spending on positions/ages is a good idea. But it is time to agree to disagree.

Edited December 16, 2014 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

Since this has more to do with the White Sox and little to do with the Twins, could a moderator move this to the MLB Baseball forum?

A site admin started the thread here, so I don't really know that moving it is necessary.

 

Also, it's the offseason.  We've had a lot of non-Twins discussions going, especially the past week (winter meetings).

 

I say let the thread die a natural death here, rather than sentence it to death in the "MLB Baseball" forum.

[Mike Sixel]

I think the White Sox spent a lot of money, $52.5M to next years payroll (Shark 10, Laroche 12.5, Robertson 12, Melky 13, Duke 5).  In total they committed $130M and that number could jump another $100M if they give Shark an extension. which they are going to attempt per reports.

 

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24892457/white-sox-will-attempt-to-extend-jeff-samardzija

 

The first issue I have is they spent money in free agency at positions that are the easiest to develop in house (pen), or platoon (1b/Dh). 

 

The second issue I think they are taking a leap of faith on guys without long track records of success.  Really a buy high on Shark, Duke, and Melkey.  If you continually buy high, you will be dissapointed more often than not.

 

The third issue is in addition to a lot of these guys not really being the top at their positions, they have them under contract at relatively high rates for the following ages:

 

30-33, 35-37, 32-34, 30-34, and 30-36/37 if they extend Jeff.  These are not peak production years.

 

You guys seem to think they spent the money as good as they could and neither addressed whether or not spending on positions/ages is a good idea. But it is time to agree to disagree.

 

Not sure what any of that stuff for the extension has to do with what they did to get better THIS YEAR. Choosing to extend Jeff has nothing to do with that.

 

Should they have just sat on the money, and NOT tried to get better? I don't understand your argument at all. They gave up nothing of real value in terms of players, and spent money. How is that bad?

[Dman]

I think the White Sox spent a lot of money, $52.5M to next years payroll (Shark 10, Laroche 12.5, Robertson 12, Melky 13, Duke 5).  In total they committed $130M and that number could jump another $100M if they give Shark an extension. which they are going to attempt per reports.

 

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24892457/white-sox-will-attempt-to-extend-jeff-samardzija

 

The first issue I have is they spent money in free agency at positions that are the easiest to develop in house (pen), or platoon (1b/Dh). 

 

The second issue I think they are taking a leap of faith on guys without long track records of success.  Really a buy high on Shark, Duke, and Melkey.  If you continually buy high, you will be dissapointed more often than not.

 

The third issue is in addition to a lot of these guys not really being the top at their positions, they have them under contract at relatively high rates for the following ages:

 

30-33, 35-37, 32-34, 30-34, and 30-36/37 if they extend Jeff.  These are not peak production years.

 

You guys seem to think they spent the money as good as they could and neither addressed whether or not spending on positions/ages is a good idea. But it is time to agree to disagree.

 

I guess I for one ignored your premise.  Although i do agree with you that those positions can typically be filled in house or cheaply the White Sox have been bad in those areas and needed to take fairly drastic measures if they wanted to fix them quickly.

 

For myself I look at resource allocation with a wide view.  I think the Twins have more money wrapped up in their rotation than the WhiteSox with far worse results.  The Twins have a potentially declining first baseman taking up 20M per year and I don't think the Whitesox have that kind of problem right now.  

 

So in my view the WhiteSox had the money to waste so speak to get better now and they used it to do that.  Your premise is still correct but in the grand scheme of allocating dollars I don't see that it hurts them that much.  Thus I don't think the moves are that bad and ultimately make them better.  How much better will depend on injuries as they don't have much depth.

[tobi0040]

Not sure what any of that stuff for the extension has to do with what they did to get better THIS YEAR. Choosing to extend Jeff has nothing to do with that.

 

Should they have just sat on the money, and NOT tried to get better? I don't understand your argument at all. They gave up nothing of real value in terms of players, and spent money. How is that bad?

 

Your premise ignores that extending Jeff S. was not their plan all along.   I would not want the Twins to trade for him, then give him $120M over 6 years, from ages 31-37 (would not kick in until he is 31 next year).  By their own admission, that is their plan.

 

I think the Cubs and A's, both relatively well run franchises under Beane and Theo decided that Shark was not worth it and/or too risky to extend. They both sold high.  The White Sox swoooped in and bought high.  I would not have wanted the Twins to do that.  The theme of the thread was "look at all the great moves that the White Sox are doing.....the Twins are falling behind......it is real frustrating to see them aggressive....

 

Let's just wait a year or two and ensure we lost out on this one.  That is all.

Edited December 16, 2014 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

The trade and the extension are 100% independent events. You are wrong on that.

 

They didn't even really give up much to get him. 

 

The theme is that for NEXT YEAR, the Sox looked better when the thread was started, and that they had added a lot of players. Is that wrong? Have they not gotten better?

[jokin]

Your premise ignores that extending Jeff S. was not their plan all along.   I would not want the Twins to trade for him, then give him $120M over 6 years, from ages 31-37 (would not kick in until he is 31 next year).  By their own admission, that is their plan.

 

I think the Cubs and A's, both relatively well run franchises under Beane and Theo decided that Shark was not worth it and/or too risky to extend. They both sold high.  The White Sox swoooped in and bought high.  I would not have wanted the Twins to do that.  The theme of the thread was "look at all the great moves that the White Sox are doing.....the Twins are falling behind......it is real frustrating to see them aggressive....

 

Let's just wait a year or two and ensure we lost out on this one.  That is all.

 

I seem to recall you were saying that the Sox were going to, along with Semien, probably empty their farm system of a couple of their Top Five prospects-  and cripple the franchise going forward with this move.  Exactly the opposite happened.  

 

The A's didn't sign Shark because they can't afford it.  

 

The Cubs signed Lester instead, because they can afford it.

[tobi0040]

The trade and the extension are 100% independent events. You are wrong on that.

 

They didn't even really give up much to get him. 

 

The theme is that for NEXT YEAR, the Sox looked better when the thread was started, and that they had added a lot of players. Is that wrong? Have they not gotten better?

 

Just another thing we need to disagree about.  If the White Sox intended all along to hand Jeff S. and extension and are actively planning to do so, then the whole reason they did this was to have him for the next 7 years at $130M or so. 

 

I see this as pretty black and white. They are either going to have a 1 year rental or hand him $130M.  The rental does not make any sense to me, as they won 73 games last year. I don't think they are a contending team even after the money they have spent.  The extension is too much money locked up in a guy that has not been that great in his career (ERA+ of 101).  On top of pithcers from 31-37 not pitching well.   So I think this will end up being a lose-lose.   It made them better next year, but to what end?  I think the extension they give him will be one of the best things that could happen to the Twins.

[tobi0040]

The Cubs signed Lester instead, because they can afford it.

 

6/150 that Lester got may not be a big difference between what Shark may get.  And I think the Cubs picked Lester over Shark because he has been better for a longer period of time.  This was about risk/reward.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think the White Sox spent a lot of money, $52.5M to next years payroll (Shark 10, Laroche 12.5, Robertson 12, Melky 13, Duke 5).  In total they committed $130M and that number could jump another $100M if they give Shark an extension. which they are going to attempt per reports.

 

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24892457/white-sox-will-attempt-to-extend-jeff-samardzija

 

The first issue I have is they spent money in free agency at positions that are the easiest to develop in house (pen), or platoon (1b/Dh). 

 

The second issue I think they are taking a leap of faith on guys without long track records of success.  Really a buy high on Shark, Duke, and Melkey.  If you continually buy high, you will be dissapointed more often than not.

 

The third issue is in addition to a lot of these guys not really being the top at their positions, they have them under contract at relatively high rates for the following ages:

 

30-33, 35-37, 32-34, 30-34, and 30-36/37 if they extend Jeff.  These are not peak production years.

 

You guys seem to think they spent the money as good as they could and neither addressed whether or not spending on positions/ages is a good idea. But it is time to agree to disagree.

That $52.5 mil to next year's payroll added 5 players.  The $130 mil total commitment added 13 player seasons.  Neither seems particularly unreasonable, especially considering their expirations (as well as those of Ramirez and Danks already under contract) are staggered over the next 4 seasons.

 

As to your specific objections:

 

1) Bullpen and 1B may be the easiest positions to develop outside free agency, but what do you if you don't have internal bullpen or platoon pieces?  Claim Chris Parmelee?  Do nothing?  Both of these spots are also highly dependent on handedness, making them harder to address on short notice (as opposed to the Twins just needing serviceable starters).

 

2) Cabrera just turned 30 years old, Robertson has yet to turn 30, and each has a solid 4 season run under his belt.  I am not sure what kind of Grecian ideal of track record you are holding for them.  Also, their "buy high" of Cabrera was for about 60% of the years/money that MLBTR forecasted for him.  Duke I will grant has a short track record, but he also has a pretty trivial contract (3/15) by modern MLB standards.

 

3) Feels like you are adding years here, or implying the deals are longer than they really are?  Cabrera is signed for his age 30-32 seasons, Robertson 30-33.  Duke will be 32-34 but he's a lefty reliever.  LaRoche is older but only signed for 2 years (35-36).  Samardzija is not quite 30 yet.

 

Again, if you feel they could have spent this money better, saying each player/contract isn't perfect is hardly valid evidence of that claim.  It seems like your approach of waiting to drive harder bargains would have left a lot more uncertainty at these spots in the next few seasons, in return for lower short-term payroll obligations.  That does not appear to be an obviously good trade-off, especially with 4 star level peak performers cheaply under contract right now (Abreu, Eaton, Sale, Quintana).

[jokin]

6/150 that Lester got may not be a big difference between what Shark may get.  And I think the Cubs picked Lester over Shark because he has been better for a longer period of time.  This was about risk/reward.

 

You're all over the map here. First you have been saying over and over that Shark will probably get less than 20M/year.  Now you're saying he'll be close to Lester. $5M-6M/year is a big difference, and this is one case where the home discount + win-now! pitch should really come into play.  

 

And finally, a point of agreement, Lester is better than Shark, you know it, I know it, and most importantly, the Cubs know it.

Edited December 16, 2014 by jokin

[jokin]

MLB.com has him at 8th in OPS among 1B, and that includes the qualifier, which I believe is north of 400 AB's.  If you take that out I get 13th.

 

 

 

Yeah, my mistake.  I was trying to answer your charge that he was only a DH, in which case, he would have had the 4th best OPS among all DH-only guys.  But he will likely play more 1B than DH. Whatever the case, he was the best quality guy available in Free Agency at the position, had significant playoff experience, and also filled the hole the Sox had with the lack of a big producing LH bat.  You can argue that they should have tried to trade with Colorado for Morneau, instead, maybe they did, but the Rockies were asking too much.... but regardless, they had the money, and they filled the need, and only committed to two years...  Possibly a slight overpay, but I don't get why this is much of a problem with a team really going for it this year and next.

Edited December 16, 2014 by jokin

[Mike Sixel]

Just another thing we need to disagree about.  If the White Sox intended all along to hand Jeff S. and extension and are actively planning to do so, then the whole reason they did this was to have him for the next 7 years at $130M or so. 

 

I see this as pretty black and white. They are either going to have a 1 year rental or hand him $130M.  The rental does not make any sense to me, as they won 73 games last year. I don't think they are a contending team even after the money they have spent.  The extension is too much money locked up in a guy that has not been that great in his career (ERA+ of 101).  On top of pithcers from 31-37 not pitching well.   So I think this will end up being a lose-lose.   It made them better next year, but to what end?  I think the extension they give him will be one of the best things that could happen to the Twins.

 

Except it's not a matter of opinion.

 

they traded for him. that's done. 

 

They can attempt to sign him, but they are 100% independent events. They just are. Whether they sign him or not has nothing to do with what they gave up for him. It just doesn't. It's simple logic/math. They are independent events.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Your premise ignores that extending Jeff S. was not their plan all along.   I would not want the Twins to trade for him, then give him $120M over 6 years, from ages 31-37 (would not kick in until he is 31 next year).  By their own admission, that is their plan.

 

I think the Cubs and A's, both relatively well run franchises under Beane and Theo decided that Shark was not worth it and/or too risky to extend. They both sold high.  The White Sox swoooped in and bought high.  I would not have wanted the Twins to do that.  The theme of the thread was "look at all the great moves that the White Sox are doing.....the Twins are falling behind......it is real frustrating to see them aggressive....

 

Let's just wait a year or two and ensure we lost out on this one.  That is all.

First of all, reports that the are interested in extending Samardzija are pretty generic and premature right now.  Who says they aren't just doing their due diligence, looking for a possible discount, etc.?  Not saying it won't happen, but let's just wait to judge it when it happens.  Right now, they gave up a package of not really impressive prospects for him -- not sure how that's a "buy high" compared to the A's who gave up a top 10 MLB prospect for him just a few months ago.

 

Lastly, I agree that I don't think Samardzija would necessarily have been a good play for the 2015 Twins.  But that's not to say it wasn't a good move for the 2015 White Sox.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I've reconsidered.  Mods, go ahead and move the thread if you so desire.  

 

Or just lock this one and link here:

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16089-white-sox-add-laroche-duke-and-now-maybe-the-shark/

 

Dang you all for making me visit another forum!

Edited December 16, 2014 by spycake

[tobi0040]

Except it's not a matter of opinion.

 

they traded for him. that's done. 

 

They can attempt to sign him, but they are 100% independent events. They just are. Whether they sign him or not has nothing to do with what they gave up for him. It just doesn't. It's simple logic/math. They are independent events.

 

I think if you leave your house to get gas, the drive there and act of pumping gas are really one event.  Not two.  But this part of the discussion is silly.

 

If Jeff S. is a rental....a non playoff team gave up potentially a 25 year old starting short stop for a rental that meant nothing.  Semien has an inimpressive .673 OPS in 300 AB's.  But the guy has hit mid teen HR three years running with an OPS of .880 in the minors the last three years and BA had him as the 91'st best prospect before the season.  He is under control until 2021 while Ramirez will be 33 next year in his last year with the option of paying him $10M in 2016.  It sounds like they gave up "something" to me.  The going rate for a short stop in free agency is enormous and they may kick themselves for this one.

 

If Jeff S. gets the extension the White Sox are going to try and sign him too....i think it is high probably that ends poorly too. 

 

So I don't really see either being a good baseball move no matter what happens.

Edited December 16, 2014 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

If Jeff S. is a rental....a non playoff team gave up potentially a 25 year old starting short stop for a rental that meant nothing.

Semien is almost universally considered not a MLB caliber SS, perhaps not even a 2B.

 

On their list of offseason moves, the trade is definitely closer to murky territory than the FA signings -- hinges a lot on their judgement of Semien, obviously, so the verdict is far from in.  Still, getting Samardzija for something less than Addison Russell is not on its face a bad deal or a bad risk for this team.

 

Also, while they get the rental benefits right now at minimum, there is still further value they could get from Samardzija: extension discount in money or years, deadline trade or 2016 comp pick, long-term deal that starts 1 year earlier than if they waited for him in FA, long-term deal for pitcher with less mileage on his arm, etc.

 

Again, good move/risk for the White Sox does not necessarily mean good move/risk for the Twins.

[tobi0040]

Semien is almost universally considered not a MLB caliber SS, perhaps not even a 2B.

 

On their list of offseason moves, the trade is definitely closer to murky territory than the FA signings -- hinges a lot on their judgement of Semien, obviously, so the verdict is far from in.  Still, getting Samardzija for something less than Addison Russell is not on its face a bad deal or a bad risk for this team.

 

Also, while they get the rental benefits right now at minimum, there is still further value they could get from Samardzija: extension discount in money or years, deadline trade or 2016 comp pick, long-term deal that starts 1 year earlier than if they waited for him in FA, long-term deal for pitcher with less mileage on his arm, etc.

 

Again, good move/risk for the White Sox does not necessarily mean good move/risk for the Twins.

 

It sounds like a good shot Semien is the SS for the A's next year.

 

I guess I don't get why the Twins and White Sox are in such different spots. They won 3 more games than us this year.  I don't think this is a 90 win team next year.

Edited December 16, 2014 by tobi0040

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Did the White Sox try to get Samardzjia from the Cubs at the deadline (or last off-season)?

 

It sure seems like the price to acquire the Shark has gone down as time went by. Very different circumstances, of course, for the Cubs letting him go vs. the A's trying to get something of value for him...

 

I think the White Sox, if they were after him before this offseason, they were pretty quiet about it. It's possible they couldn't afford to acquire him via trade with the Cubs (they definitely would not have matched the A's offer).

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess I don't get why the Twins and White Sox are in such different spots. They won 3 more games than us this year.  I don't think this is a 90 win team next year.

The White Sox basically have 4 studs at their peak right now, and all controlled relatively cheaply for the next 4-6 seasons. Prior to their recent signings, they also had less guaranteed money committed in the future (mostly not having Mauer, but also Nolasco's deal is longer than Danks', no contract correlating to Perkins/Suzuki, etc.).  They should be more aggressive trying to win immediately.

[tobi0040]

The White Sox basically have 4 studs at their peak right now, and all controlled relatively cheaply for the next 4-6 seasons.

 

Why did they win 73 games last year?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Why did they win 73 games last year?

Because large chunks of the rest of their roster sucked?

 

Despite similar records, I think the 2014 White Sox were definitely more top-heavy in terms of talent than the 2014 Twins (especially on the offensive side).  Could be a good thing (stars already in place) or a bad thing (more likely to be devastated by a small number of injuries) going into 2015, depending on how you look at it.

 

But in any case, the 2015 White Sox didn't really have the option of hoping for steady improvements from the 2014 club -- for the most part, the good players were already great, the bad players were already bad.  Nor could they expect much immediate help from the minors.  Nor could they expect to add one key superstar to lift them up.  They needed a large quantity of decent talent to shore up various parts of their roster if they wanted a chance at serious contention in 2015, and their prime currency to acquire that talent was available payroll over the next 1-4 seasons (plus their protected 1st round pick in 2015).

[Mike Sixel]

It's hard to understand how people don't see that two teams with similar records could arrive there differently........the Sox were top heavy, with awful players, the Twins had a bunch of meh players, and one great player. The Sox had little in the minors to help, the Twins supposedly have a lot in the minors to help soon. Their approach and outlook should be different. If the Sox can get rid of the massive holes, they can add wins fast. The Twins need to fix pitching holes, and either wait for the minors, or hope for improvement. 

 

The context of the two teams is very, very different, even if the results were the same last year.

[tobi0040]

It's hard to understand how people don't see that two teams with similar records could arrive there differently........the Sox were top heavy, with awful players, the Twins had a bunch of meh players, and one great player. The Sox had little in the minors to help, the Twins supposedly have a lot in the minors to help soon. Their approach and outlook should be different. If the Sox can get rid of the massive holes, they can add wins fast. The Twins need to fix pitching holes, and either wait for the minors, or hope for improvement. 

 

The context of the two teams is very, very different, even if the results were the same last year.

 

 

At the end of the day, I don't think they have a contending team the next 1-2 years.  Adding the guys they added to a 73 win team does not add 17+ wins IMO.

 

So I am just not very worried.  We may differ on that, we may also differ on the throught process of the guys they signed and roster construction.  That is fine. 

[Mike Sixel]

At the end of the day, I don't think they have a contending team the next 1-2 years.  Adding the guys they added to a 73 win team does not add 17+ wins IMO.

 

So I am just not very worried.  We may differ on that, we may also differ on the throught process of the guys they signed and roster construction.  That is fine. 

 

I'm not sure they added 17 wins either, not sure anyone is saying that anywhere on this thread.

Edited December 16, 2014 by mike wants wins

[jokin]

At the end of the day, I don't think they have a contending team the next 1-2 years.  Adding the guys they added to a 73 win team does not add 17+ wins IMO.

 

So I am just not very worried.  We may differ on that, we may also differ on the throught process of the guys they signed and roster construction.  That is fine. 

 

Rick Hahn is the only one talking, he just said 90 wins was his goal.  Just off of 2014 WAR,  the Sox potentially improved by 4.1 in LF by removing Viciedo and his -1.0 WAR and adding Melky's 3.1 WAR.  LaRoche had 2.2 WAR- vs. practically 0 WAR from Konerko and Dunn combined, maintaining that production, and moving Abreu off of 1B for a big chunk of games could mean a net increase of 3 WAR.  The 3 additional RPs all replaced negative WAR RP arms,  look for a possible 3-4 WAR increase there, and it could be worth more than the WAR numbers if the additions can hold leads better, which is a fair bet.  Finally, Shark's 3.7 WAR is replacing Bassit at 0.3 WAR.  

 

That's a potential 14 WIN improvement, right there.  

 

Now add in potential improvements from their young players who are still on the upswing (ie, Steamer projects Garcia to improve by 1.5 fWAR),  Adam Eaton and Chris Sale staying healthy all season, a possible solid contribution from rookie Rodon, and maybe Johnson, and the fact that Hahn says he isn't done making improvements, finding 3-5 more wins doesn't seem impossible to imagine.  

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen, lots of things would have to fall in place just right, but there is a rationale for this roster construction.

Edited December 16, 2014 by jokin

[jokin]

At the end of the day, I don't think they have a contending team the next 1-2 years.  Adding the guys they added to a 73 win team does not add 17+ wins IMO.

 

So I am just not very worried.  

 

Maybe we should be worried, at least a little.  Over the last two seasons, the Twins only have a winning record in the AL Central with the Sox.  Without the Sox being pretty bad, the Twins could easily have been looking at 100 loss seasons, in 2013, and maybe even 2014. It's hard to say for sure how much the Sox have improved, but there's little doubt that these moves have improved them, and improved their chances on taking the season series from the Twins.. Where do the Twins go to make up those assumed-won games that are now more problematic, and that padded their record a bit in 2013 and 2014?

[tobi0040]

Rick Hahn is the only one talking, he just said 90 wins was his goal.  Just off of 2014 WAR,  the Sox potentially improved by 4.1 in LF by removing Viciedo and his -1.0 WAR and adding Melky's 3.1 WAR.  LaRoche had 2.2 WAR- vs. practically 0 WAR from Konerko and Dunn combined, maintaining that production, and moving Abreu off of 1B for a big chunk of games could mean a net increase of 3 WAR.  The 3 additional RPs all replaced negative WAR RP arms,  look for a possible 3-4 WAR increase there, and it could be worth more than the WAR numbers if the additions can hold leads better, which is a fair bet.  Finally, Shark's 3.7 WAR is replacing Bassit at 0.3 WAR.  

 

That's a potential 14 WIN improvement, right there.  

 

Now add in potential improvements from their young players who are still on the upswing (ie, Steamer projects Garcia to improve by 1.5 fWAR),  Adam Eaton and Chris Sale staying healthy all season, a possible solid contribution from rookie Rodon, and maybe Johnson, and the fact that Hahn says he isn't done making improvements, finding 3-5 more wins doesn't seem impossible to imagine.  

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen, lots of things would have to fall in place just right, but there is a rationale for this roster construction.

 

That might have been the most optimistic summary I have ever read. If these were Twins players, virtually every single one on the Twins thread would be in the regression bucket. 

 

LaRoche has had 2 or more WAR 3 x in his career, out of 11 seasons.  He has actually been negative twice and at 0 one other time.

 

Jeff S. WAR by year:

 

2011 - 1.1

2012 - 1.8

2013 - 1

2014 - 3.7

 

Penciling him in for another 3.7 seems a bit rosy.

 

Career year out of Sale with a full run better than the last few years, sure pencil him in for another as well.   Abreu, sure he won't regress off the .964 OPS like Puig or Cespedes did year 1 to 2.  Lock it in.

 

2014 Robertson and Duke summed a WAR of 2.4. Duke's K per 9 basically doubled his career averages and his ERA was half his career average.

 

If five or six guys had career years and are just penciled in to get to 90 wins, I am taking the under.