Chisoxfn

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Flashback to Chris Rock/Jackie Chan scene in Rush Hour. I lold. Love me some rush hour. Tucker and chan had such fantastic chemistry and energy in those movies.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 05:06 PM) The last time a team led the league in cumulative WAR and played in the WS was 2010.results are more important than surplus WAR. Call it WAR, call it whatever you want. But you are best served by having good players who are cost-controlled, especially, when you have real salary confines. WAR is the easy stat for people to throw around, but it obviously isn't the end all, be all. Kind of like people are so focused on FIP, which has inherent limitations in its own right vs. the reality that the real driver of actual performance for any one season is by actual runs allowed and actual runs scored.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 05:03 PM) Surplus value is "not related to on the field performance"? So the total value generated by a person has nothing to do with how they actually play on the field? Ok then. I'm out. Lets spin it another way. The only way a team with a $130M payroll is going to win the world series is if they generate significant surplus value. They can't possibly pay the market rate for WAR (if we are going to focus on WAR) or the market rate for wins as they could never possibly get it in budget, so the importance of having surplus WAR when you have a confined payroll is it actually allows you to beat those teams with greater payrolls (not a novel concept). Best chance at producing surplus WAR is by developing your own internal talent (and we could say WAR or we could just say surplus performance). Guys like Sale / Q deliver that in buckets (so does Rodon & Eaton). It also provides you the means to add additional WAR more at the going rate (as you are going to pay market rate in FA and reality is FA is not your place to get surplus value, especially on big contracts and if you go dumpster diving, you have potential for more surplus value, but you also have super wide variability of performance which clearly isn't a goal either). Reality is the Sox benefit from having as many good, cost controlled players as possible (don't care what stat you want to measure it by) and to do that you need to develop internal talent (which you supplement through trades and free agency...i.e., to construct a roster that gels better and fills voids that you can't fill from within). Our current approach to roster development has largely been to develop position talent via trades and FA and that just doesn't provide the same value as if you can do it successfully internally and it puts us in a tough position. To some extent being awesome at developing pitchers helps combat that, but even than, when we have used FA resources, we have struggled (see: Adam LaRoce / Adam Dunn / PY Melky (CY Melky is producing just fine) and when we have tried via trade, we have largely missed (see: Matt Davidson / Avi Garcia....Frazier I'll give some credit there even though we clearly also gave in that deal with Trayce being a damn good performer with the Dodgers this year and Lawrie looks like an early win). Wendleken is with A's but wasn't blowing it out in AAA (too soon to say anything) and Erwin right now is struggling in A ball (not a good sign). That said, Lawrie hasn't been a total stud either. We talk highly about him but he hasn't been some awesome player by any stretch of the imagination. He's a league average player at best.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) I think this is similarly incorrect. Take the example of Trayce - he could darn well have a shot at an all star game this year, but his salary going out is a pittance. That would not be because Trayce is a failure, that would be because Trayce's salary is set by pre-arb. What you'd really have to do is take it a full step further and calculate "Surplus WAR" for every guy sent out, the total WAR they produce minus the WAR that is paid for by the team over the first 6 years, and this has become so much math that even I'm giving up. I think if you had a database you could run some vlookups off of with salary / war / etc all, there it would work and that includes a list of all players traded and received, etc. I'm not spending the time to do it, but theoritically a solid blog type piece from someone. There is some extent a difference between pre arb and post arb guys and the reality of what should be expected and clearly there is more value in a guy who puts up a higher WAR than two or three guys who equate that same total, but in general, I agree with your previous post. Theortically, best thing the Sox could have done is trade every positional prospect we had drafted over the past 15 years...only upside

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers. Doesn't do you any good if you can't hit. Baseball is more than just pitching and it isn't like they have a history of moving those pitching assets for really talented positional talents. Not to mention, teams just don't trade prospects for prospects that often so it doesn't work. I stick to my point, if you can't draft and develop positional talent, you can't have a franchise that will have any sort of sustained success. Now I'm not saying they can't do that now, they have new people, to some extent in charge, and maybe things will change, but Ken Williams has been here for a pretty long time to have no positional talents to show for.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) This is exactly why I am OK with these types of deals. Player development hasn't been their strength. Finding players from the higher levels of the minors, on through to major league veterans has been what they have been much better at. A deal like we saw for Frazier is exactly what the Sox do best. And that deal could end up working horrifically (if Trayce keeps doing what he's doing for a # of cost-controlled years). And either way, it is impossible to succeed as a MLB franchise if you can't develop position talent. Literally impossible. You can say that is why you are okay trading guys, but fundamentally, none of it matters if you can't develop. That is kind of the most critical part of the long-term success of a franchise, especially one that doesn't have the payroll of the Dodgers / Yankees / Red Sox.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) As highly rated as that group was, they pretty much all busted, pretty much like almost every player that has been traded away from this organization, except for a very few exceptions. If you really want to prove something, instead of just ranting, I would love to see a study done of the WAR we have traded away, and the WAR we have received in trades during Hahn and Williams time here. I have a feeling it would be incredibly slanted towards the Sox. I said this earlier...saying we haven't traded anyone of value is just another way of saying we haven't drafted anyone of value from a positional perspective in this century (cause we certainly haven't developed any who produced for the White Sox either). Only major rookie positoinal contributions made were international free agent signings involving more experienced players (Iguchi, Alexei and Abreu). Chris Young is probably the best position player traded away (along with Trayce) and from a WAR perspective, I presume Chris Young has the highest WAR of any positional player the Sox drafted this century (back in 2001) with a career WAR of 17. I honestly don't know how you go 16 years of drafting and not have any positional successes. Literally flabbergasts me (Trayce and Chris Young would be the two potential exceptions and Chris Young largely had his professional impact over 2 seasons) and other than those two years was really nothing more than a serviceable role player and who knows what Trayce will end up being. There in lies the crux of the situation....if we could actually develop worth a darn, we'd have better position players and a better overall team. We were able to get away with it early on, since we benefited from the successes of Rowand, Crede, Carlos Lee, Maggs of the late 90's (who made there professional impacts in the late 90's and early 2000's).

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:11 PM) And they will sign many other players similar to Tatis in a month. They can't just sign a million of them. They have a limited pool and limited resources in these areas and a farm system that has lacked. What I'm saying is you can't write this guy off because he is so young that he's more likely to bust. Initial reports have been very encouraging and he's the type of kid who has the talent to emerge as one of the better prospects in the system with time. This could be an impact player. Yes, I said could, but when you are trading a guy who could be that for a guy who another team had to eat half his contract and is only slightly better (at his current clip) than your other options at the respective position (while actually still costing a decent amount of financial flexibility), I say that you shouldn't give up that type of piece for said player. That is it. The Sox have gotten lucky that Trayce Thompson is the best guy they have given up in recent years, but he's also the best position prospect the Sox have developed since Joe Crede / Aaron Rowand. Seriously...that is embarassing and it starts with drafting and player development that has failed since 2000 / 2001 (I'm sure I'm missing someone) but it legitimately has been since the Schueler era ended that we have really developed any sort of meaningful positional talent. That, one would think, would be utterly impossible to have happen, but it has. Literally, nothing of any meaning and I don't know what is worse, that we haven't traded away many great position players (yeah, that can make us feel better) but who cares, we haven't drafted / developed any either (who went on to play with us or play somewhere else)) or that we literally haven't drafted / signed a meaningful position prospect this century.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:06 PM) It worked magically with Correa though. Correa was not seen as the #1 prospect. They took him #1 and got Lance McCullers because of it. I remember a lot of people mocking the Astros for taking Correa. Laughable looking back.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 12:57 PM) I like the trade for it's value, and hopefully moving Gonzalez to the bullpen helps as well. But still think we are a bat and bullpen piece away, if this trade doesn't impact our ability to grab those pieces then I'm a happy camper. I don't see Miguel as having the stuff to be a short-inning reliever. I usually look at the softer tossing starters as being guys who are not good relievers. I typically view relievers as guys who have that one plus plus type pitch but struggle having a plethora of pitches. Miguel clearly is a solid swing-men and maybe he can be more than that. I actually think he's better than Latos and they put the wrong guy in the pen, but given the Sox record with Latos and his stats, his contract (and why he signed here in the first place...i.e., the opportunity to start), as reasons why they put Miguel in the pen vs. Latos. Funny cause I think Latos in shorter stints actually has more of that "reliever" makeup.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 12:54 PM) They didn't give up anything of note. Tatis is a long shot to make the majors by 2020 and EJ was done here and had no value. They got a solid #3-#4 starter that eats innings and he costs around $10 million per season. That's what those guys cost. He's also an asset moving forward because of how much the Padres are playing. The trade was a no brainer. Complaining about it is in fact quite stupid. If that is what those guys "cost", than I'd argue the trade isn't a no brainer since we are paying "what they cost" plus giving up assets. While Tatis is a long-shot, he is still a very talented long-shot for his age and someone we committed valuable international FA resources to and who has received pretty positive early reviews. I don't consider that a nobody. If it was just Johnson, I'd have less to complain about, but Tatis was what this org had to make strides on (actually getting meaningful contributions from its international front and while he was 5 years down the road, it takes a long time to do things like this) and it takes time to build up a system (something we continue to not do). And this is coming from someone who is all for leveraging prospects for trading and filling other needs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) Let me put it this way. 7 innings and 3 ER is an era of 3.86. Shields has been below a 3.86 era in every full season he has pitched since 2010. Shields had an era of just over 3 before the 10 run disaster where he was left out there to rot on the vine. In fact if Shields is pulled after he gave up 7 runs in 2 IP in that game, instead of being sent out again for the 3rd inning, his era for the season is sitting at 3.91, or almost exactly what 3 runs every 7 innings would average out to. Yes, his ERA would be that, but his ERA was not indicative of how he had been pitching this year. I agree his stats are skewed, plus there is a difference between 7 innings and 3 running's and something less than that. The bold statement if he's good for 7 innings and 3 runs most outings, well, that is not something a huge list of pitchers can do. And his ERA benefited from pitching half his games @ PETCO.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) Anyone who expects him to be an ace needs a new prescription. If he can go 7 and give up 3, he's that #4 guy (probably a 5 on a really good team). Latos, season wide, has been a 5. Gonzales not really that (but slowly improving I suppose). So, if the Sox can get 7 give up 3, he'll be a help. My issue is that I don't think he can deliver that. But maybe he can - when you're on a bad team like the Padres, it's easy to lose focus, etc. If he can go 7 and give up 3, he's a #2/#3 on most teams, a #3 on a good team.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) Carl Crawford made a lot of money. He should enjoy it. Its things like this that make you realize you really should just stay the hell away from big ticket free agency and focus your resources on cost-controlled players (via trade) and drafting and development and buying out known commodities good years. Missing on this type of deals can totally set a franchise back where as having a prospect bust doesn't necessarily financially jeopardize your team from contending, etc. You see far fewer teams win because of the game of FA then the other way around. If you are going to be a medium payroller and smaller franchise, you really can't intend on competing unless you really nail it on the draft, development and savy trade equation and than playing a little bit of lotto on shorter term / lower profile FA signings which fit defined needs.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) I wouldn't disagree. We will never know, but that outing certainly didn't help the Padres side of things. One of the national guys said a couple teams backed off after that. It would seem to me they weren't too serious then to begin with. Everyone has a bad game, and he actually was a bad call from saving himself 8 runs I believe. Yeah - I think it is absurd when people write off guys or don't acquire someone because of one game (unless an injury surfaced). Bad games are going to happen. That said, often times it is hard to seperate the emotion from the list.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) I think you are thinking of Hostetler. Yeah - I knew Hostetler was from the Braves, for whatever reason I thought somewhere Rick spent some time in Atlanta before joining Chicago (remembered his prevent agency background).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) That was definitely an issue. The rumored trade did come before the shaming, so that was probably done knowing he was gone. The only question would have been was there enough offered from other teams for him to move, or did the Padres owner know he was going to be a White Sox so he ripped him? I do agree, if they weren't trading him, that doesn't get said. And it was probably the timing that was the reason why the Sox got Shields. Usually in early June teams still aren't ready to start trading veterans (Padres clearly an exception) so given the Sox slide, I'm guessing the front office knew starting pitching was on there list, and given where they were, they needed to react sooner vs. later and this is the direction they had to go (I don't think they make this trade had they now had as bad of a slide as I think it would have bought them more time to wait out the market). I've long felt they were going to be aggressive this deadline and Hahn has given every indication that will be the case. Things don't work in a vacuum and it isn't like I think this is some awful deal and I hope Shields kicks butt (I like the fact that he's actually been on successful teams and pitched in a lot of success games cause the reality is, until this most recent off-season, by and large, the lockeroom was surrounded mainly by guys who have grown up around losing and who haven't benefited from a culture of winning). Yes, there were exceptions but a guy like Shields does bring some valuable intangibles. I hope Shields opts out cause it means he'd have pitched this club to like a world series cause it is going to take some epic run (including post-season success) to get him more money than what he currently is set to get.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Before coming to the White Sox, Hahn worked as an agent. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10...gency-rick-hahn My fault, I am confusing him with someone else in the org. Hahn just always references the "Braves" way.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 05:25 PM) It really hasn't. no manager would have won games with the 2013-2015 White Sox. But keep kidding yourselves, While I don't think Robin is the worst manager in the world, you are who you are based upon track record and performance and right now this team is dogging it and this is coming off of an awful 3 year run. We all knew Robin was in a make it or break it year (and he's alluded to it as well IIRC), so everyone knew if this team didn't perform, Robin was likely out. Given the start they had and where they are now, you can't make moves that show you are still in it, while still passing the buck on the overall struggles. At some point, you have to try and see if a change in manager changes things up. Its happened before for teams and could very well happen now. One thing I will say, I don't think Ventura is a good / great manager, if anything he's mediocre (and that is the nicest thing I can say about him). That said, there are very few great managers as the game of baseball is far more reliant on the individual players and I will always say a managers most critical job is actually just handling the clubhouse (vs. day to day / in game aspects, especially in this current era). I think the runway right now has to be extremely short. His track record doesn't merit anything but that (and last year we were expected to contend and this year the expectation was similar and while we have, we certainly haven't been trending in the right direction and if it keeps going much longer, they are going to have to try something and knowing your manager was already gone if you didn't have a successful year, than I think that "lever" is one of the first they'll pull to try and change things.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 04:40 PM) Here's the thing with Hahn...though. He's the flip side of AJ Preller, whose success in the Rangers' front office was almost entirely wrapped up in international scouting, running the minor league system/new trends in coaching and player evaluation and development. What evidence do we have that Hahn really knows how to pull that off? Because if he was mentored by Hahn and JR over all those years, their approach has been the completely, exact opposite of what the organization SHOULD have been doing? So, because Hahn is very good at "negotiating contracts," that makes him the best qualified to create and manage an entirely new ecosystem, a "White Sox Way" or whatever you want to call it? Is keeping someone who is too close to see "the forest for the trees" involved in turning things around really the best approach here? It's certainly the most LOYAL, but we've seen where that's getting the Bulls and Sox these days. Dysfunction. Hahnh grew up in the Braves organization, IIRC. I think Hahn is a strong tactician and a good GM, but I think the strategy he's been given and the plan of attack handed down by JR / KW (as well as the overall budget) has hamstrung them to for a lack of a better word, half ass contention.

Bottom line, I really don't think this deal was a very good use of resources. While I think our 4th / 5th starters, more specifically the 4th, needed to be upgraded (especially considering Rodon, like any extremely young pitcher, will have his up's and down's (just look at my preseason posts), I don't know that Shields is really a guy who provides such an upgrade (yes, name value is > than Gonzalez / Latos and we all know I am not a Latos fan) but this guy isn't a huge difference maker (at least hard to bet on him being that given advanced stats and declining velocity) and while Pads ate a ton of money on that contract, we used financial resources (knowing Reinsdorf has a budget) not just for this year, but the next two years, plus a guy like Tatis who has real potential (and obviously more likely he will be a bust, but still pretty short sited) and a guy like Johnson, who is a valuable piece towards any rebuilding team (as he's a guy who can work on his craft at the big league level and ultimately prove himself to be a reliable, cost controlled #4 / #5 (Johnson won't be an ace, we know that, but I'd bet on him having a good back of the rotation career on the cheap which is a real value). If we are going to use the resources, use them on difference makers. A lot of this goes back to the fact that we kind of half-assed it this off-season and never really put together the team needed to contend and it puts you in a tough "middle" ground where you aren't developing for the future as effective as you could and you aren't really contending. All this said, I am sure the Sox are going to make a full frontal effort to add another bat and another reliever. Seems they are hell bent on contending and I don't know how they can without doing those things. I also can't really figure out how they can give Ventura much more rope. Everyone knew it was a make or break year for him and now with that start and them using longer term resources on Shields, they are looking at this from the perspective of, they need to do this now, and well, if that is the case, than, you got to try everything possible and I'd have to think Ventura is out of if they can't turn it around soon. Good news is, of the guys they acquired, all still have quality trade value (Shields would probably have more suitors now than he did before....and we could clearly always move Frazier or Lawrie, etc, if need be).

Lue lost me when he said they needed to play faster against the Warriors (playing right into Golden State's strength). Doesn't help when Richard Jefferson is your 2nd leading scorer in the finals. I wonder if they get swept, does Lebron opt out and leave Cleveland?

Guaranteed win...new version of thunderstruck to get the clubs and the fans mojo back!!!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2016 -> 04:28 PM) The stuff revealed about trumps scam University is pretty terrible. Structured like a high pressure multi level marketing scam. Why does an alleged multi billionaire need to bilk the elderly and poor single mothers of of thousands of dollars? Cause he's a slimeball.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jun 1, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) Christopher Kamka ‏@ckamka 47s47 seconds ago Albers is first #WhiteSox reliever (non-position player pitcher) to score a run snice Cliff Politte 6/8/2005 Most meaningful stat of the year. We won the series that year...therefor....oh yes...October is going to be fun!!!