southsider2k5

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) Well you certainly have. On the bright side, with all of these people who have given up, the game thread should be much better tonight.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 11:45 AM) Right, I've been a fan for 55 seasons. I must be a masochist. LOL. Try something else please. Mark tasty irony.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) I would expose both Seabrook and Hossa before Pokka and TVR. However, especially in the Hossa case, I think they have an agreement worked out with him to eventually go on LTIR Totally agree on the end idea.

Anyone else watching After the Thrones?

In a non-traditional sense, now might be the time to trade Corey Crawford. His value will probably never be higher, and it would free up $6 million a year.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 09:13 PM) So who is going to recommend some shows? 12 Monkey's has been excellent again this season. Looking forward to Mr Robot.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 10:08 AM) That's why I think the the Blackhawks will likely expose at least one core player in the expansion draft. The problem remains, though, a guy like Seabrook or Hossa can still hose the Blackhawks by retiring early even from another franchise. Expansion draft doesn't help for this year at least.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) Maybe, but if they can just continue to make the playoffs, they still have a shot with their top end talent. I still maintain their core is too big by one Seabrook. Panarin next season is going to be tough to pay. If the cap drops, like is being talked about, the team is pretty much capped out, and one of the core has to go.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:33 AM) 42 years old and in better shape than most. Heart attacks are weird. I don't know the guy, but what you take to get into that shape can destroy your heart.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) Ummm they traded 6. None of the above crazy spending happens without Cabrera, which necessitated gutting their system at the time They also traded a ton to get Juan Gonzalez. November 2, 1999: Traded by the Texas Rangers with Danny Patterson and Gregg Zaun to the Detroit Tigers for Alan Webb (minors), Frank Catalanotto, Francisco Cordero, Bill Haselman, Gabe Kapler and Justin Thompson.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:12 AM) Then how did it happen in Detroit? Ilitch spent the money, built a winner...and then the fans started showing up and became loyal customers. They didn't come out first and buy season ticket packages after having historically some of the worst seasons in franchise history, THEN he authorized spending the money. So we should say it could never happen with the Reinsdorf family still in charge of the team. That's all fine and good, maybe 17-18 franchises work in that same fashion. The other teams prioritize winning first, budgets second. Ironically the best thing to happen to Detroit during that stretch wasn't any move they made. It was Gonzalez not signing the 7 year $140 extension before falling apart and busting.

This cap situation really has the potential to finally do in the Hawks.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:08 AM) Now that there is Caulfield post.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 08:07 PM) Structural racism isn't a two way street. The prejudices and assumptions minorities face aren't the same as a white person is going to face. That's why it doesn't work in reverse. That's easy the Supreme Court will throw out a case when it's shown that the prosecution worked to get an all white jury for a minority defendant - they are well aware of these realities. So it's not linear, and trumps racism doesn't actually flow logically from a recognition of structural racism. Which is exactly why Trump is so popular. The left has honestly convinced itself that racism only works one way, which drives the right crazy, so now they are returning the racism favor. Hate begets hate, racism begets racism.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 08:35 AM) If our top prospect can't outplay Rollins, our minor leagues are in worse shape than I thought. Or he is just not ready yet, but yeah, that couldn't be right.

QUOTE (Coach @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 07:55 AM) I know a lot of people may not like what I am posting but Theo Epstein came into the Cubs organization and told everyone he had a 5 year plan. He redeveloped their minor league system much like the Cardinals. How is that working out so far? I have been saying for years the WS should do the same. Why can't the WS develop good players? Maybe it's the minor league coaches. Maybe start there and replace them with better ones. It seems the front office is hell bent on obtaining aging veterans (Dunn, LaRoche, Griffey Jr., Rollins, etc.) to help the cause. How has that worked so far? If the Sox had the Cubs fan base, they could do this. Remember the rebuild was based around not only the farm system rebuild, but bringing in about half a billion dollars worth of free agents, even with Wrigley Field filled during terrible seasons. This could never happen on the south side.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 06:55 PM) I feel this has basically become a tautology at this point, because basically you're saying "it doesn't matter what is paid for, it matters you get performance, but even though you can't pay for performance I don't like your language". It's a distinction without a difference. It's saying "people pay to see runs scored, they don't pay to see hits and walks". That is false because all three things are related to on the field performance. In your example, only actual performance is related to actual performance. Surplus is not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 06:39 PM) Interestingly, they'd finish at approximately the same position as a $140 million team generating no surplus value - 12.5 WAR. Put it another way. The White Sox, at their payroll, can fairly pay for 12.5 WAR. They need to get to 35, or better. They need to underpay by 25 WAR, give or take the error bars, and underpaying by 35 would be nicer. James Shields, if he repeats his 2015 performance, is 1 of those 12.5 WAR. If he repeats his 2014 performance, he also would cover 2 of the remaining 25. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what is paid for. It matters what performance you get. Surplus value is worthless on the field. Having a ton of surplus doesn't get anyone out or drive anyone home.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 06:28 PM) See this is where I think you're 100% wrong. The average team spent $8-$9 million per WAR on the free agent market last season. With some error, if you want to be the 2015 Cubs you ahve to figure out how to get to 45+ WAR. If you want to have a good shot at the playoffs you need to get to 35-ish. If you did that entirely with "fairly paid" players, you're talking a $300 million payroll right now. That means getting to the playoffs is ENTIRELY about generating enough surplus value from your players to overcome the fact that even the Dodgers don't have that payroll. If the White Sox acquired 9 players, each of whom made $15 million and performed fairly, this would still be a losing roster unless they had some highly performing players who were dramatically underpaid. You cannot make the playoffs without a number of people who do that. Of course, the White Sox do have some guys who are doing that - Chris Sale first and foremost. But the entire reason why you can afford "James Shields, David Robertson" signed to "fair" contracts is that you also have guys who generate surplus value. If you don't have enough guys generating surplus value, then you'll have your handful of expensive players and they'll be surrounded with an extremely weak roster incapable of competing, or you'll have the Dodgers payroll. Team performance will be terrible without enough "surplus value players". They are directly linked. You can all of the surplus value in the world, but it is actual performance that matters. Returning the favor of using an extreme example, in the surplus model, having a team full of 500k players would absolutely be the best thing on the planet, because they take barely any performance to out perform their cost. There is about 100% chance of that team being the worst team in baseball though. This is where your theory of how important this is falls apart. No Sox fan is going to show up to see surplus value. They are going to show up for performance. If you get half a WAR on average from each minimum wage player, that adds up to 12.5 WAR at a price of $12.5 million or about $100 million in surplus value. Tell me how that 12.5 WAR team would finish in the standings?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 05:11 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. Eventually he would have a salary, which would be reflective of the fact that he put up a big WAR. But because the players we trade away don't put up numbers for the most part, they aren't getting big contracts. The whole "surplus" idea doesn't really matter as far as actual team performance. It is a function of payroll, and doesn't matter for on the field performance at all. It is a needless misdirection of the fact that the Sox are bringing in talent that outperforms that talent they trade away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:58 PM) It should be. Because typically during the Ken Williams era the White Sox also take on salary. Let's give an example. If Jeff Samardzija comes back and puts up 3 WAR but is paid $10 million to do it, and for simplicity we say that teams pay $5 million per WAR on average, then the break even point for that being a fair trade is 1 WAR from the guys given away if that's all you're hunting for - by a trade of that format you haven't just given away talent, you also have given away some ability to spend on the FA market. If Todd Frazier puts up 4 WAR this year and Trayce puts up 3 WAR, the White Sox would have 1 extra WAR per the metric you asked for, but they are also paying more for the player. Do that sort of math for this trade - the White Sox are giving away, in the modern era, the money it would take to get about 1 WAR per year for the next 3 years. If Shields puts up the same 1.1 fWAR he put up last year for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and EJ and Tatis never amount to anything whatsoever, the deal would be a fair one for the White Sox. They'd be up 3 fWAR from it, but that would be a fairly compensated 3 fWAR. If you just totaled "WAR coming back versus WAR going out" you'd get a totally unfair number if the team regularly takes on payroll, which they did in this trade. If the guys going out do nothing whatsoever, the White Sox breakeven point from Shields is "2015 James Shields". If he's any worse than that, the Sox overpaid in the strictly accounting sense, but they would still come out on top in the metric you asked for. If he's better than that, then that's a net gain for the White Sox if the 2 players sent out amount to nothing. Which also means these players aren't amounting to anything, otherwise they would also have large salaries eventually to match the WAR they would be putting up. But they aren't. The Sox are getting performance, which is what is actually the most important thing here.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) 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. They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:35 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) Please explain. FWIW, you just asked greg to be rational.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) Or how the stocked farm was managed - and whatever it was, it wasn't restocked well. He inherited a winning MLB team as well. Look, prove me wrong. Load up with proven veterans and actually win. They just keep doing the same things that haven't worked. And they don't do the things that seem to work at the winning organizations. So yes, when they keep doing the same thing and getting the same inadequate results, I'm looking for a change in course. 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.