White Sox Winning Winter Meetings Through Day 1

  On 12/16/2014 at 2:24 PM, spycake said:

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?

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 3:33 PM, mike wants wins said:

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 3:45 PM, mike wants wins said:

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 3:56 PM, jokin said:

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 4:22 PM, mike wants wins said:

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 5:06 PM, spycake said:

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.

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).

  On 12/16/2014 at 5:42 PM, spycake said:

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?

  On 12/16/2014 at 6:36 PM, mike wants wins said:

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. 

  On 12/16/2014 at 7:41 PM, jokin said:

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.

  On 12/16/2014 at 7:58 PM, jokin said:

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?

Do you think it would be possible for a 73 win team to sign five players, adding $52.5M to next seasons payroll and not improve?  I mean they could have signed 4 Nolasco's and every one theoretically could drop off the career norms, but it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen.  Clearly they have improved.  But every single decision is risky, they are over-paying, and adding 30+ somethings, many coming off career years.  These are not the type of decisions that should scare us at all.