iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) The way I look at it: Trading AJ Pierzynski at the start of June creates as much salary savings as trading Konerko at the end of July, and probably more salary savings than you'd get by dumping Jenks. Trading AJ at the start of June pays something like 75% of Linebrink's contract next year. Yeah, I mean every little bit counts, I suppose. AJ is an extremely difficult player to trade, IMO. He's going to be one of those players that is missed much more so when he's gone than he has been appreciated while he was here, at least in the last few years, anyways (I know many people appreciate his contributions in 05'-06'). He also is going to scare a lot of potential suitors away with his behavior, even though I think the fact that he has gotten along well with his teammates (as opposed to his issues with Brett Tomko in SF) will help. He's probably not going to net you in trade what he should be worth, especially with his poor start to this season, and so you have to look at the cost savings, as you said, and then more at the indirect results of what his departure would probably mean for the rest of the ballclub. His veteran leadership behind the plate and in the dugout will be missed. His durability will be greatly missed. His knowledge of the game will be missed. And his fire will be missed. But on the other side of that coin (as the Hawkeroo would say), trading him would send a message to the team and to the fanbase (albeit different messages, possibly), it would give Flowers a few months to start getting accustomed to our pitching staff (and for them to get accustomed to him), and it would give us an idea of what kind of backup we might need to bring in for next season. So I guess the question becomes, does the cost savings justify those indirect results, or possibly buttress them even? Or does the cost savings not stack up to all those results, given that some of them could be seen as negative?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) Yup. After June 13th, AJ Pierzynski essentially has a full no trade clause, and so far, he's indicated he'd use it. Well I don't think trading AJ or holding on to him for the remainder of the year necessitates much of anything for this team. If need be, they can deal him for a B level prospect or two and give Flowers some PT. If not, they're spending money that isn't really going to mean much in the grand scheme of things.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) He can't. He has a June 13th deadline. Is that the silly 10/5 date for AJ or whatever?

I think Joe makes some good points, but I think it's still too early for it to come to this yet. Williams has shown the resolve to make honest statements in the past, but he usually waits until it is necessary to do so. While the team is floundering, and falling deeper into the abyss, all is not lost yet. I think Kenny will wait another month or so before these types of statements start being made.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 21, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) One thing that some people (not necessarily you) tend to forget about the '93 Sox is that Frank's supporting cast was pretty solid. And many of these guys were highly-productive players on previous teams... Tim Raines - 880 OPS, .401 OBP, 21 SB Robin Ventura - .820 OPS, 22 HR, 27 2B Ellis Burks - .793 OPS, 24 2B Lance Johnson - .311 BA, 35 SB Joey Cora - .351 OBP Not a ton of HR power in that lineup, but when SIX of your starters are posting an OBP of .350 or higher, you're going to score runs. Absolutely. But how many of those guys experienced some significant additional success because of Frank being the monster offensive force that he was? I will admit that Joey posting a .351 OBP in front of Frank there is a minor miracle. Considering how limited his offensive skills were, he saw an incredible number of pitches and the fact that they didn't just throw him meatball fastballs to force him to hit his way on base is pretty surprising to me.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ May 21, 2010 -> 10:41 AM) Seeing as we won the division by 8 games, we'd have still won it with a replacement level 1B if you take WAR as a literal win measurement metric, but when you win a division by 8 games, you can say that about almost any player on a team. Frank is either the second or third best hitter I've ever seen. I think what WAR fails to take into account, especially in Frank's case, is the benefit he had on the rest of the hitters in our lineup. Undoubtedly SEVERAL hitters in our lineup benefitted tremendously from the damage (and potential damage) Frank did in our lineup. Take Frank out of that lineup, and replace him with a replacement-level player, and many of the other hitters around him probably see a pretty significant drop in their production as well. The entire character of the offense would have been dramatically affected.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 20, 2010 -> 11:30 PM) Isn't it amazing how in the last 2 years we never have had a significant winning streak? Even if we started playing winning baseball, it'd take us to the all-star break probably just to reach .500. Greg, this is your best post here at Soxtalk. Well done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) Unfortunately...it's really hard to move those 2 contracts and get back fair value. The Padres saw that last year; you're supposed to get a much better package for the guy who won the cy young award and pitching triple crown 2 years ago than what the Padres got, and trading Buehrle is, like it or not, the sort of major marketing hit that really hurts your revenue potential. Which is one more reason, in my opinion, not to rebuild, but to continue to develop and retool on the fly.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 20, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) Obviously, the Rays are in a unique position, as they have zero financial flexibility and play in the AL East. The Tigers sucked for five years (2001-2005), which doesn't constitute "forever" in my book. The Indians sucked throughout most of the '80s, and then went on to dominate the AL Central and win two pennants in the '90s. I'm not advocating that the Sox sell off EVERYBODY and fill out next year's 25-man roster with the cast of Major League. Like you, I think that they have some solid players left (Peavy, Rios, Beckham, Danks) who they could build around in the short-term. But for that to happen, they'd have to take a step back right now. If the Sox still aren't competitive at the beginning of July, I'd try to move most players whose contracts expire before 2012. That includes PK, AJP, MB, and Thornton, and try to get as many AA or ML-ready prospects as I could. I'd also try to sign Danks to a five-year deal. If Danks agrees, I'd deal Floyd for an ML-ready position player. I'd fire the entire coaching staff (except Coop, who would get a big raise). I'd then bring up Hudson, Flowers, and D2 and basically concede 2011. With the money saved, I'd spend heavily in free agency in December of '11 and begin to make another run in 2012. They may not be ready by late that year or 2013, but Rios, Peavy, Beckham, and Danks will still be under contract then. Then again, if Kenny continues his foot-on-the-gas approach for the next couple of years and the Sox continue to mire in mediocrity, they'll eventually have to sell of guys like Peavy and Rios because there won't be enough years left on their deals to justify keeping them around. Unless the farm system has an unexpected boom of productive players at that point, it's likely that the Sox will have to start from scratch going into 2013. I don't like the idea of paying Mark and Peavy $30+ million a year while we do this rebuilding...

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 20, 2010 -> 11:38 AM) I love how you launch veiled personal attacks on those who dare call out your bad arguments. If you want poorly-reasoned arguments backed with poor supporting evidence to go uncontested, posting them on a message board is probably not a good idea. I agree that Frank was a big part of the offense. And so was Robin Ventura, and I'm not sure that they win the AL West without him either. Then again, if the Sox drafted Mo Vaughn instead of Frank, I'm pretty sure that they would've been approximately as good as they were in '93 and '94. Either way, the pitching still overwhelmingly "carried us" in '93 and '94. The recent Rays teams disagree with you. Rebuilding with high draft picks obviously does not guarantee anything, but if your front office is reasonably competent, your chances are pretty good. There are other examples that I can give in recent memory (the '06 Tigers, the '03 Marlins), so implying that what Larry Himes did in the mid/late '80s was some sort of freak occurrence is just not true. I'm sorry that fact clashes with your own personal opinion of how Kenny Williams should proceed forward, but it is a viable model that has been used successful numerous times in the past. Tell me how long did it take the Rays to compete with the high draft choice model? What, 12 years? Do you want to suck for 12 years? The 06' Tigers are also an example of a team that sucked FOREVER. They were bad for 20 straight years before they figured it out. I'm not pretending that it is impossible to win with high draft choices or a good farm system. I have pointed this out on numerous, numerous occasions. What I am arguing is that the reward is simply not worth the risk. Blowing up this core to try and replicate the success of the Rays or the 06' Tigers is ruining a good thing for the slight chance of having a slightly better thing. It seems far too great a risk to take for a very small reward. Especially when you consider that pieces can be acquired by trading veteran pieces and drafting correctly, rather than the Bud Selig way.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 20, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) So your argument has morphed from Frank "carrying us" to "carrying a big part of the load." Perhaps you simply misspoke the first time? You don't need to luck out and draft one of the "best 10 hitters or so of all time" to go from bad to multi-year contender. I shouldn't have to point that out, but apparently you're THAT desperate to defend a bad argument. Honestly, I'm just not accustomed to having to spell everything out in precise detail in every post and in every statement I make. There are certain assumptions I make when I post here, one of which, is that those who respond understand the obvious. And that obvious is that not any one player is responsible for the success of an entire baseball team. I guess I have to spell everything out in my responses to you, otherwise you will latch on to silly periphery points instead of debating the crux of the statement. I admit, Frank could not pitch for us. In order for the White Sox to win, some very solid pitchers had to take the ball and limit the opposition to a reasonable number of runs. So for your benefit, and yours alone, I will rephrase: Frank Thomas was the dominant offensive force on the White Sox for the majority of the 1990's. Without him in the lineup, I shudder to think how many fewer wins would have resulted. Let me ask you this. Who is the first-ballot HOF'er? Frank? Or Black Jack? Frank? Or Alex Fernandez? Frank? Or Wilson Alvarez? Obviously Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee were great hitters. And Jack McDowell, Alex Fernandez and Wilson Alvarez were very solid pitchers, briefly great pitchers. But without Frank Thomas in that lineup, I'm not sure any of those teams win or compete for a division. I'm merely saying you don't decide to rebuild because 20 years ago you happened to find a Frank Thomas at #6 or #7 or wherever he went in the draft. That result is not typical. Yes, sucking for 5 years straight will yield higher draft picks. But that simply is not a model for which to achieve success. That is a competitive safeguard for the league.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 20, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) Actually, it was the pitching that carried the successful '90s Sox teams. Once that began to thin out (ca. 1995), the Sox stopped winning. Claiming that Frank was the main reason for the Sox's success in the '90s and implying that it would've been impossible without his "once-in-a-generation" talent is incorrect. Albert Belle had the best offensive season in Sox history and he didn't help the '98 team win anything. I think that the Sox are a safe bet to draft another Robin Ventura, Jack McDowell, and Alex Fernandez at some point in our lifetimes. I'm also pretty sure that they'd be able to find Latin American free agent players comparable to Maggs and Carlos Lee at some point during our lives. Ok, now you are just looking to argue. Right....the best hitter in franchise history and one of the probably best 10 hitters or so of all time didn't carry a big part of the load. Ok.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 20, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) Soxtalk always comes before family. Hah, I was making her wait while I was arguing...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 20, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Actually, the last five (I believe that is the number) times the White Sox had a top 10 pick in the draft, they struck gold. They have a good track record of drafting in the top 10. I don't think you even responded to that post. Well, I was referring to the fact that Thomas was a once-in-a-generation type player. He carried us through the 90's. Do you really want to depend on finding another Frank Thomas in the next few drafts? As for responding to your post Milk, sorry, my mom was in town visiting and I had to go to the Outlet Mall yesterday when we got into our discussion. Some of my responses were from my phone. Couldn't participate as much as I would have liked.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2010 -> 08:11 AM) Like Beckham, our can't miss prospect? Exactly. This is what I was trying to get to yesterday when I asked Milkman who our two biggest culprits in the offense have been. Quentin and Beckham. Two highly, highly rated prospects who have been going through their fair share of growing pains. For all of those who are advocating trading away the core for prospects, Q and Gordo are two prime examples of why rebuilding can be incredibly frustrating and frightening.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2010 -> 07:11 AM) He's 3 for his last 22. Yeah, hard to tell if he's just in a bit of a slump or if he maybe started trying to hit a home run every time up and is reverting back to the old habits. He's had a few REALLY good pitches to hit lately and has popped them up to the shallow outfield... I'm hoping it's just a slump.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 06:01 PM) I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios this morning, but the condescending tone that you're displaying today isn't making your arguments any stronger. Think of how bad this lineup is going to be next year with Viciedo, Flowers, and God-knows-who replacing PK, AJ, and Jones. I'm sure that there would be enough cash on hand to make one significant free agent move and maybe a couple more minor ones. But with JR already poised to slash payroll, expecting more than that is a stretch at best. Using your model, the Sox will be relying HEAVILY on Quentin, Alexei, and Beckham to carry the offense next year. That hasn't worked very well this year, has it? Hell, the former two weren't able to step up and do anything last year, either. No, but this is... Thanks for that hard-hitting analysis. I guess I'll go out and purchase a Yankees hat now. Since you missed it, I'll say it again: How about the rebuilding that this same organization did in the mid/late 1980s? Veterans (some still productive, some not) like Baines, Kittle, Seaver, and Calderon were dealt/let go and the draft picks that resulted from a few bad years netted several studs (Frank, Robin, Blackjack, Fernandez) that set the stage for a really nice run in the early/mid '90s. In 2008, the Sox still had a productive Jim Thome and Jermaine Dye to anchor the middle of the lineup. Quentin had a career year and Alexei played well enough to come in second in the ROTY voting. They also had a lot more payroll flexibility than they'll have next year. In 2005, the Sox had a horrible team OBP, which wasn't helped out much by the free agent acquisitions of JD and Iguchi (I believe that Pods and PK were the only players with OBPs above .350). The '05 Sox got ridiculously lucky with career years (or near-career years) in the starting rotation (particularly Garland and Contreras), were helped by Crede going on a tear down the stretch, three of their mediocre bullpen arms had career years, and a rookie closer was able to step up when Hermanson's back went out. I can't take anything away from the '05 Sox but, on paper, they weren't all that. Talent-wise, the '08 team was a lot better. Who is going to anchor the middle of the lineup next year? Quentin? Alexei? Beckham? Are you comfortable with that? How about Pierre or Teahen? Or are you confident that Kenny will go out and sign two Johnny Damon-caliber players and Adrian Gonzalez? Over the next couple of years, I like Rios and Beckham. I'm not confident in anybody else. The retooling of the past worked because the Sox had a lineup of proven veteran talent to build around. It doesn't work when you build around inconsistent, injury-prone, and inexperienced young players. The Sox can't fill four or five positions with average or above-average talent via free agency with a $40M staring rotation and a payroll cut on the horizon. Since the Sox have little in-house talent ready to step up, I don't see how continued FA spending is going to work - especially after it's failed miserably over three of the past four seasons. The Sox need more young, cheap, ML-ready position players. There's no way around that. Oh come on man, I'm being condescending? As for the early 90's teams, are you claiming that we traded veterans like Baines and Seaver, etc., for draft picks? Or are you arguing that we need to be worse now so we can get better draft picks like we had back then? I think it's the latter, so in fact your model is to suck for 6 years straight and rebuild via the high draft picks? I don't really consider that to be an option. The Sox struck gold with Thomas, who turned out to be one of the best right-handed hitters of all time. I'm not going to count on another Big Hurt coming along in the draft in the next few years (or at least not enough to justify sucking for several years for the incredibly minimal chance of one coming along AND being the team that happens to draft him). Ventura was a great player, but nothing that can't be found at #25 in the draft if we pay overslot money for players that fall. Fernandez and Alvarez were great pitchers for the White Sox, but if you remember our farm system later on in the 90's and early 2000's, for every Fernandez and Alvarez we had in the early 90's, there were countless other busts that never panned out into anything later on. I remember toward the end of Schuler's tenure and at the beginning of Williams', we had a top 3 farm system in baseball. That vaunted farm system yielded almost nothing, outside of maybe Mike Sirotka. It's just no sure thing to rely on prospects IMO, any more so than it is to acquire undervalued players in the market as we currently have been doing. I still like our core, despite the setbacks suffered thus far this season, and I think blowing the whole thing up would be taking some unnecessary steps back at this point. We may indeed have to sell off parts this season, such as PK, Jones, AJ, Jenks, Putz, etc., but that doesn't mean a rebuild is the next logical step. Rather, you re-evaluate, plug in some current prospects such as Flowers, Danks, Viciedo, as well as the prospects acquired via the trades of veterans, and then look to add through free agency again next offseason. But from what I understand, many of you guys are advocating moving Mark, Jake, Rios, Quentin, Alexei, Danks, and Gavin and reloading the entire organization with prospects and using our sustained period of failure to build through the drafts with higher picks. I simply can't advocate that at this point in time. What every team seeks to do is establish a strong core from which to build around for a sustained period of time. I like our core. I guess that is where we disagree.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) As I said before, you can't fill all of those holes with Peavy, Rios, and whatever third player you're speaking of (Beckham)? Mind you, I'm not advocating moving those players, but rather building around them. Nice straw man argument. I can play too: What examples of successful, sustainable, fourth-place $100M rosters can you give who don't regularly draw 35,000+ per game? Selling/letting go of veterans, enduring a couple of bad seasons, and rebuilding from scratch has worked well for numerous teams (the late '80s and late '90s Sox, for example). It doesn't guarantee anything, but its track record is much better than Kenny perpetually trying to "retool on the fly" without the Yankees-like coffers to make it work. Let me let you in on a little secret which I keep repeating but you continue to miss: EVERY TEAM HAS HOLES with the possible exception of the Yankees/Red Sox! Stop establishing some nonsensical baseline that the White Sox should measure up to that only the two wealthiest teams in the league can. The teams that win are the ones that guess the best in the offseason and at the trade deadline and end up having those holes filled. But nearly every one of them is gambling in some respect that someone will step up. It happens every year, and you can point to these players who come out of nowhere with a career year, or a huge second half, or a huge postseason, etc. WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN ALL-STAR CALIBER PLAYER TO FILL EVERY POSITION/ROLE ON THIS ROSTER. Accept that. It's not a straw man argument. You and others are advocating a theory or model which is impliedly better than the one we are utilizing currently. I am simply looking for some past history of success that this model has. Show it to me. With the ferocity with which many are arguing for a rebuild, one would think the examples are everywhere, just waiting to be plucked out of the annals of history for all to see. As for your question about our current model, look at 2005. Kenny did something very similar to what he did this year as well as in 2008. He retooled the roster using smart acquisitions in sectors of the market which were undervalued. Jake Peavy, Alex Rios, Tadahito Iguchi, Alexei Ramirez, Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Jose Contreras, etc., these are all examples of this. It doesn't work every year obviously, but it has worked.

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) I've been following the Sox longer than you've been alive, so I don't know where you get off telling me that I should follow a different team because I have a problem with spending $100M/year to finish in third or fourth place. Ok, well I guess you weren't paying attention to the overhaul that has occurred over the course of the last 2-3 years, with THREE big pieces being added last year. Give them a chance to compete for more that 40 games together, shall we? KW recognized the need for some roster turnover, because 07' was awful, and 09' was underwhelming. Thus the recent additions. Now can we just give them some time before we blow the entire roster up? What examples of rebuilding being predictably successful that I am missing?

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) That's far from an "outstanding core." It's a nice start, but I still don't see how the Sox have enough in-house position-player talent to compete over the next few years. Well, we're going to have to disagree then. I happen to think a core of Rios/Beckham/Quentin/Peavy/Danksy/Floyd/Mark is about as good a core as you can ever expect to have unless you're the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs and can spend $150 million. If you compare those 7 players to the rest of the league, I think it compares favorably to just about any other roster in baseball. As for the Tigers, I'm talking about their willingness to draft players who demand overslot money. Taking guys at 23rd who are legitimate top-10 talents goes a long way towards developing from within. How do you think a team like the Red Sox is able to win every year AND build strong farm systems?

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) You're kidding, right? Try *three* underwhelming seasons since 2007. I'm also talking about a core that includes Beckham, Rios, and Peavy. They've been together for roughly 70 games...

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) You're kidding, right? Try *three* underwhelming seasons since 2007. Uhh...ok. If you want to make the playoffs every year, you should become a Yankees fan, because there is no other manner in which to sustain that kind of success other than $$$$$$$

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 19, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) A good farm system is a necessary thing at this point because (1) the Sox lack young hitting talent and (2) don't have the money to acquire a significant number of veterans this winter via free agency. I'll go a step beyond that and say that all teams need decent farm systems to be competitive over the long run. The method that we currently have been employing is completely unsustainable. We can't continue to rely on dealing good-to-mediocre prospects for big-contract veterans. This is especially the case when these veterans don't translate into a winning team. Sox fans are notorious for staying at home when a bad/mediocre product is on the field. Therefore, a $100M roster that wins 70-80 games isn't going to cut it. That may work with the Cubs, but not with this franchise. The bottom line is that it's been a nice run, but that run is coming to an end. They either compete this year, or the dismantling will begin. Beginning this winter, there won't be enough productive veterans to hide these holes, there aren't enough young players ready to step up yet to fill them, and there isn't enough disposable cash on hand to fill them with more veterans. It's likely going to be 1999 again soon. I couldn't disagree more. If they would just draft as they should, as the Tigers do, their method is completely sustainable. What's killing us is Jerry's insistence on following his pal Bud Selig's silly slot system.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ May 19, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) i'm not against unloading, particularly because i do think that there are seasons where at least privately you acknowledge that you are not going to contend. i'd imagine that there are many, many gms who go into a season clearly understanding that they do not have a playoff team and don't intend to pursue one. so if you unload with the thought of stepping back so you can step forward, that's ok in my estimation. and has been previously noted, now might be the time since it's clear that a significant roster overhaul is imminent any way. i wouldn't do it today because it is still early, but give it another week or two and then see where you were at. at the same time, i'm not sure the white sox are positioned to go into a major rebuilding mode. the team needs the casual fans and those folks only come out to the park when there is at least the glimmer of a winner. as long as the team budget is tied closely to attendance, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where you embark on an extended rebuilding plan. i'm not sure how smart that would be. Ok, so let me ask you this. Does one underwhelming season justify destroying a potentially outstanding core for the sake of rebuilding?

We have 1 good bullpen arm? Ok, whatever. As for your teams that have sustained a lot of success because of their farm system, I really fail to see how one could argue that the method preferred by the Twins and Angels has created any more success than the model we have employed. Name for me all the Angels' farmhands that have contributed to their major league success. The Twins apparently cannot build dominant rotations, which is why they never win playoff series'. The Phillies are definitely a team that has achieved success, however, I would argue that we are in the "golden age" of Phillies baseball right now, which has come about due to a combination of luck, skill, a new stadium, etc, rather than anyone being able to point to them and say "that is an example of a team that has been built from within." Let me ask you this, Milkman, who have been the two biggest culprits in our offense underperforming thus far, in your eyes?