Look at Ray Ray Run

Not only are they investing heavily in money, but they also invested heavily in assets. That's a large investment. And this will be my last post on the topic, but reach out to me when the White Sox actually prove they're going to spend real money. They spent huge on a closer this off-season and it didn't mean shit when it came to opening up their pocket books. The Sox bullpen was viewed as the strength of this team pre-season and it's been trash because bullpens are volatile and investing a big % of your chips into that bucket is not an efficient or intelligent strategy imo.

Which is wild, since you could argue that Heuer/Madrigal is as good as the Rizzo package, and they ate all of Rizzo's contract to get those prospects back from the Yankees.

Not sure what this means at all, but the fact that even "top three reliever in baseball" was bad the two years prior kind of proves how risky it is to invest heavily in relievers, no?

The White Sox spent 54 million on a closer this off-season and they entered the year with the 16th highest payroll in baseball. Literally nothing about this acquisition proves the White Sox are going to open up the pocket books. The White SOx had like 25 million to spend this entire off-season (yearly) and spent 80% of it on a reliever. The White Sox haven't exactly proven to be intelligent with their allocation of limited resources.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue. The Sox just added 6 million in salary; they didn't sign some 100 million dollar contract. Their payroll is league average still while being all in. And if the Sox are spending 32 million on relievers next year with a 150 million dollar payroll, they're morons.

LOL, after the Kimbrel acquisition, the White Sox now have the 14th highest payroll in baseball. I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Resources are not all treated equally by different organizations. 80 million to the Dodgers is like 25 million to the White Sox. And from the other angle, controllable assets are much more valuable to the 25 million team than the 80 million team.

Come on... this can't be serious. This is the same team that had to put sun glasses on to hide their shock of being "outbid" for Manny Machado. The Sox do not deserve the benefit of the doubt on spending money until they actually spend money.

again, Rodon was merely an example of spending. Not at all meant to be the only avenue of spending. I've been pretty adamant that giving Rodon big money would not be a good strategy, but I'd argue it would be a better strategy than giving a set up man 16 million given this teams spending habits; which is really the point.

I get that, and I'm not saying I'd give Rodon 85 million - ftr, pretty concerned about paying up big for one year. But the point was more about investing heavily in a position player or SP that impacts a much greater inning load than a set up man. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face; The White Sox are not some fiscally lenient organization that can afford the luxury of overpaying two bullpen arms as a luxury. If they prove me wrong this off-season? Awesome, but until it happens I will never trust them to do so because they never have.

In the projection value of a young player? Not much. In the fv projection of an older reliever? Not much Which is my point entirely.

Sure, but the best way to win 1 world series is to maximize your playoff appearances. The best way to win a roll of the craps dice is to roll the dice more than once. I think it increases their chances this year, but by how much? Who can say. I think it potentially decreases their chances next year and beyond. What would you rather have done? Pay Kimbrel 16 million next year, or give Rodon 85 million over 4 years? Based on the Sox spending habits, they certainly won't be doing both. Just as I absolutely hated investing our primary off-season resources in a closer, I absolutely hate investing our primary trade assets in a bullpen arm, but that doesn't mean it doesn't improve their chances this year; which is great.

What big prospects did the Dodgers trade for Jansen? And to use the Dodgers, they made the horrible trade of sending maybe the best young hitter in baseball to the Astros for a rental reliever. A deal I bet they wish they never made.

I'm a big Madrigal fan, but I do have concerns about durability. I will never ever be a buy high, sell low guy. Just 4 months ago you could have had Kimbrel for Blake Rutherford, and Madrigal/Heuer likely could have netted you a controlled and cheap high quality position player or SP (like German Marquez) with maybe something smaller thrown in. Now four months later you're buying high on Kimbrel and selling low/injured on those two guys. That's never a great investment strategy.

Your optimism about this team and spending money on FA's is very enviable, but I would bet any amount of money you want that Cesar Hernandez is the 2nd baseman next year and this team will not make a major splash in FA (major being over 100 million).

Or I care about the previous 3 years as a key indicator of projected value like every other modeler in the history of the world who heavily weighs the three previous years over the years prior? Hope that helps!

This is exactly how I feel. Great teams don't spend a high percentage of their payroll on relievers. It's unreliable and inefficient. Starting this year, EVERYONE thought the White Sox had a dominant bullpen and it was the strength of their team. 4 months later everyone was desperate to add bullpen pieces. Looks like the Sox didn't learn their lesson.

I don't love the deal, but it just can't be argued how great it is for this year. And I think the Sox need to capitalize on any season they make the playoffs given how not often it happens. The Sox pitching staff is ready to roll now and they fixed their biggest issue (the bullpen). It's dominant and it's exciting and they're going to be amazing to watch. The process itself just feels really poor, but gotta trust their internal evaluations. I would have been much more pissed if it were Crochet, given that the difference between Crochet and Kimbrel the rest of this season is like 3-4 runs.

I'll take Hendriks all day everyday as well. People love focusing on like 30-40 inning samples for relievers and deciding that's who is better. It's absurd. Last year Codi Heuer was unhittable for a 35 inning stretch, this year no one trusts him. Hendriks has been way more consistent and the walks are still scary for Kimbrel.

Can't emphasize it enough, it's great for this year. Trading Heuer at the bottom point of his value and maybe Madrigal with value down due to injury could suck too.

I don't really care what 28 year old Kimbrel did. He's 33 going on 34. Guys who age typically don't permanently return to their peak years.

My beef is investing in RP's. It's just a terrible strategy. If I'm trading my assets, I'm trading for a Position player. Why not do Crochet, Madrigal and Burger for a Buxton? I'd like to shove like that.

oh, only 1/2 half of a season matters for relievers? You could have had Kimbrel, this past off-season, for a bag of balls.

And the two years prior he was worth -1 fWAR. Relievers are volatile as all hell. Which is why giving up big time assets for them instead of just paying them/developing them internally is overly risky.

The difference between Iglesias and Kimbrel was not at all "massive." Over the past three year sample, Iglesias has been better than Kimbrel. Has Kimbrel been lights out this year? Yes, does that mean he will be next year? No.