southsider2k5

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.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) None, but 2 playoffs in 16 seasons after inheriting a stocked farm and MLB team isn't exemplary results. That should show you how much a "stocked farm system" promises you as a MLB team.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) True, but they really should have been in anyway, considering the absence of heavy hitters this year. Except it looks like plenty of teams are overspending anyway, even without the teams thought of as traditional spenders.

MLB Daily Dish ‏@mlbdailydish 1h1 hour ago The Indians might be without Michael Brantley for a significant amount of time http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2016/6/6/11871..._source=twitter …

Winston-Salem Dash @WSDashBaseball Congrats to Matt Cooper, who earned the Carolina League's Pitcher of the Week award for his great work last week! http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...80&sid=t580 …

MLB Trade Rumors ‏@mlbtraderumors 37m37 minutes ago Juan Lagares Diagnosed With Partially Torn Ligament In Thumb http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/06/juan...thumb-mets.html …

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:41 PM) Right on the money I didn't realize I had such an ally! Sox should have spent the Laroche savings on the international market. They are nowhere to be found. The reality is that the middle of March was way too late to do this for 2016. Those deals are being made a year in advance, if not more, for the kind of players you are wanted to make those deals with. Teams are already working on the class of 2017, not 2016, except for a very few cases.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) This is the team you root for though. This is what they do. They are going for it. They are going for it next year. They aren't rebuilding. I wish they would spend $25-$30 million in the international market but they just don't do it. How did they deplete their system with this move? I'd argue that they could trade Shields in 2 months and acquire more than they gave up. I am looking at it as just what it was. Acquiring a middle of the rotation pitcher for a cheap price because he was available in a year where they think they could make the playoffs. It also doesn't really hamper them going forward. They are in at this point though and basically have no choice but to go for it. If Shields gets here and rebounds back to a near career normal level, his value will go up for sure assuming the Sox pass along the money from the Padres in a deal.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Josh Norris ‏@jnorris427 4m4 minutes ago Phillippe Aumont has announced his retirement. He went from being really good in the spring, to just awful at Charlotte. With a retirement and his awfulness, I wonder if he was hurt at all?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) 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. Gonzalez is going to be the long man, or the worst of the middle relievers.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:54 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. While left-handed a 33 year old JA Happ got 3 years at 36 million this off season.

For all of the PBS types out there, Genius with Steven Hawking has been a great series so far.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) I wouldn't go so far as to say they are stupid. That is rude and ill informed. It's basically a move for this year and next year. It seems as though many moves the Sox have made have no future beyond 2017 and that's the whole point All have been patchwork moves giving up talented cost controlled youngsters who do have futures that will vary greatly but have a chance to be better. How have all these moves worked out the past few years ? Are the Sox any better now than they might be if they had just kept some of these kids ? Hard to know, but it's just seems as though the Sox are spinning their wheels the past few years while giving the fans nothing to look forward to . It is very fair to look at this as a free agent signing for 2017 and 2018, in addition to being a trade for 2016.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) 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. Agreed. A solid innings eating pitcher is not an easy thing to find. Getting a guy who will pull down 200 to 230 innings per year makes a big difference. Let me put it this way. If you get 210 innings out of Shields (30 starts x 7 IP average) versus 165 innings out of a guy like Gonzalez (30 x 5.5 IP average) that is a difference of 45 IP being pitched by your bullpen. Dan Jennings pitched 56 innings last season. Adding a guy like Shields is literally saving almost an entire season's worth of IP for a reliever in your bullpen.