KW "We're a lot closer than the record indicates"

[hi8is]

Wait a minute...does anybody think Tank will be starting for the CWS next year? I thought him gone was a given. KW says they plan to compete so why would Tank be on the roster? I guess raise your hands if you don't think tank wil be gone.

It's possible in my eyes for him to be on the roster.

[Rowand44]

It's possible in my eyes for him to be on the roster.

I definitely think it's possible but I certainly hope it doesn't happen.

[GreenSox]

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2014093...orts/140939832/

 

Interesting read to see some specific spots he talks about adding to.

I don't see how we're close.

On a macro level, the team lacks power and is still terrible defensively.

On a micro level, the Sox need

1 #2 starter

2 top end bullpen pitchers.

3B

LF

DH

 

We could fill all of that and still be lousy defensively and lack power.

 

That isn't close

[caulfield12]

I think he returns as depth/back-up option at rf lf dh first base.

[caulfield12]

I don't see how we're close.

On a macro level, the team lacks power and is still terrible defensively.

On a micro level, the Sox need

1 #2 starter

2 top end bullpen pitchers.

3B

LF

DH

 

We could fill all of that and still be lousy defensively and lack power.

 

That isn't close

 

I'm going to guess with Gillaspie semien davidson they don't make a move at third.

Catcher is highly unlikely as well except via trade.

Edited October 2, 2014 by caulfield12

[Vance Law]

Tied for 7th in baseball in home runs this year.

[Jerksticks]

I just don't see how contending and Viciedo starting in LF mix. That's like mailing some Tylenol to Liberia.

[GreenSox]

Tied for 7th in baseball in home runs this year.

16th without Dunn playing in one of the top 2 home run parks in baseball.

 

10th in OPS

20th in OBP

 

This was not a good offensive team. It was average.

Edited October 2, 2014 by GreenSox

[2nd_city_saint787]

I don't see how we're close.

On a macro level, the team lacks power and is still terrible defensively.

On a micro level, the Sox need

1 #2 starter

2 top end bullpen pitchers.

3B

LF

DH

 

We could fill all of that and still be lousy defensively and lack power.

 

That isn't close

 

Way I see it, with an average bullpen we're probably looking at a .500 ballclub this year give or take a game. Sox bullpen lost 32 games, worst in the league. The team in 16th, what I'm calling average, lost 23. That 9 loss differential is the difference between 73 wins and 1 game above .500.

 

I for 1 am a big Avi Garcia fan, and think having him for more than 46 games is already gonna be more beneficial to the offense. If he can tap into that potential we're talking about another 2-3 wins.

 

So right there, IMO with a whole year of Avi and an improved bullpen, this team, before adding to the rotation and lineup is capable of winning ~ 84-85 games.

 

Of course there will indeed be additions to the lineup, and at the very least a fella by the name of Carlos Rodon will more than likely see a lot of time in the rotation.

 

Assuming they hit on most/all their additions, it's very possible this team can compete.

Edited October 2, 2014 by scs787

[Vance Law]

16th without Dunn playing in one of the top 2 home run parks in baseball.

 

10th in OPS

20th in OBP

 

This was not a good offensive team. It was average.

 

But Dunn was playing.

 

And they'll have player(s) replacing him next year.

[caulfield12]

Hahn has been successful with one of four free agents.

He's going to have to go 4/5 to be successful in 2015....see 2013 Red Sox offseason.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Hahn has been successful with one of four free agents.

He's going to have to go 4/5 to be successful in 2015....see 2013 Red Sox offseason.

 

The difference here would be he's probably not going after "Rebuilding type players". Paulino, Downs, and Bellisario are probably not the type of players they go after if they plan on competing.

[Vance Law]

Hahn has been successful with one of four free agents.

He's going to have to go 4/5 to be successful in 2015....see 2013 Red Sox offseason.

 

I'm sorry, but this distinction is beyond bizarre. There is no rationale for choosing to distinguish between trades and free agent signings among Hahn's moves other than a predetermined desire to complain about stuff. Anybody (including you) can clearly see the difference between the signings of cheap bullpen arms or scrap heapers like Paulino, Downs, and Belisario vs. Abreu- the largest free agent contract ever offered by the White Sox.

 

There is a difference between a deal where the GM is legitimately giving up important, valuable things like $68 million or a starter in your rotation (Santiago) or your closer (Reed) or a starter in your rotation (Peavy) and ones where you are rolling the dice because the stakes are so low (the aforementioned s***ty pitchers). So complain about Abreu and Eaton and Avisail if you choose to, but lumping in Abreu with those pitchers is pretty silly.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

16th without Dunn playing in one of the top 2 home run parks in baseball.

 

10th in OPS

20th in OBP

 

This was not a good offensive team. It was average.

 

What kind of nonsense is that? I'd be willing to guess that if you took the 2nd leading home run hitter off any team their ranking would drop substantially also.

Edited October 2, 2014 by lasttriptotulsa

[SCCWS]

Way I see it, with an average bullpen we're probably looking at a .500 ballclub this year give or take a game. Sox bullpen lost 32 games, worst in the league. The team in 16th, what I'm calling average, lost 23. That 9 loss differential is the difference between 73 wins and 1 game above .500.

 

I for 1 am a big Avi Garcia fan, and think having him for more than 46 games is already gonna be more beneficial to the offense. If he can tap into that potential we're talking about another 2-3 wins.

 

So right there, IMO with a whole year of Avi and an improved bullpen, this team, before adding to the rotation and lineup is capable of winning ~ 84-85 games.

 

Of course there will indeed be additions to the lineup, and at the very least a fella by the name of Carlos Rodon will more than likely see a lot of time in the rotation.

 

Assuming they hit on most/all their additions, it's very possible this team can compete.

 

There may be another way to look at the bullpen. If we can improve the 3-5 starters, there may be less reliance on the bullpen to deliver 3 innings of relief every game. But in all honesty, Hahn spent $7 Mil on Lindstrom and Beli so he spent some money on the pen and combined with trading Reed and the Jones injury, the results were terrible.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I don't see how we're close.

On a macro level, the team lacks power and is still terrible defensively.

On a micro level, the Sox need

1 #2 starter

2 top end bullpen pitchers.

3B

LF

DH

 

We could fill all of that and still be lousy defensively and lack power.

 

That isn't close

 

I think we're fine with Quintana there and Rodon knocking on the door. Better to spend money elsewhere.

[witesoxfan]

I don't quite understand that last sentence....compensates for?

 

 

I think he's saying that signing two free agents with gualifying offers is worth the Sox losing their 2nd and 3rd round picks.

 

 

Right. This is essentially what Baltimore did last year. The opportunity cost for bringing in one guy with a qualifying offer is giving up the second round pick, so you have to weigh the risk/reward of that one free agent against that one pick. If you bring in two players who receive qualifying offers, you give up a third round pick, which is valued less and is worse than a second round pick, while (for the most part) the rest of the teams in the majors are weighing giving up a first or second round pick for that player, so you are immediately gving up less than those teams. Thus, by signing two free agents who have been made qualifying offers, you are diversifying your risks while giving up a lesser valued asset to do so.

 

Preferably you just don't give up anything and you can sign good players without giving up draft picks, but if the most talented players are receiving QO's, I feel you are at an advantage comparatively speaking by bringing in two of them as opposed to just the one.

 

It also depends on the possible upside of these guys as well. If Player A is viewed as a 1.5 WAR reliever with no draft pick compensation and Player B is a 2 WAR player tied to draft pick compensation, you would try to sign Player A, even at a slightly higher AAV, compared to player B to retain the draft pick. Just that, if you do sign Player B in this instance, you are only giving up a 3rd round pick as opposed to a 2nd.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Right. This is essentially what Baltimore did last year. The opportunity cost for bringing in one guy with a qualifying offer is giving up the second round pick, so you have to weigh the risk/reward of that one free agent against that one pick. If you bring in two players who receive qualifying offers, you give up a third round pick, which is valued less and is worse than a second round pick, while (for the most part) the rest of the teams in the majors are weighing giving up a first or second round pick for that player, so you are immediately gving up less than those teams. Thus, by signing two free agents who have been made qualifying offers, you are diversifying your risks while giving up a lesser valued asset to do so.

 

Preferably you just don't give up anything and you can sign good players without giving up draft picks, but if the most talented players are receiving QO's, I feel you are at an advantage comparatively speaking by bringing in two of them as opposed to just the one.

 

It also depends on the possible upside of these guys as well. If Player A is viewed as a 1.5 WAR reliever with no draft pick compensation and Player B is a 2 WAR player tied to draft pick compensation, you would try to sign Player A, even at a slightly higher AAV, compared to player B to retain the draft pick. Just that, if you do sign Player B in this instance, you are only giving up a 3rd round pick as opposed to a 2nd.

 

 

You don't just give up the pick though. You give up the right to use that slotted bonus amount as well. It's a big deal.

[Dick Allen]

I have the feeling a few posters would actually be very dissappointed if KW is correct and the Sox actually have a good team next season.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I have the feeling a few posters would actually be very dissappointed if KW is correct and the Sox actually have a good team next season.

 

 

Why would anyone be disappointed with that?

[southsider2k5]

Why would anyone be disappointed with that?

 

Higher draft pick, less money for the draft, less money for the international pool, etc.

[southsider2k5]

I think we're fine with Quintana there and Rodon knocking on the door. Better to spend money elsewhere.

 

Except the BMOC specifically mentioned a RHSP, first on his list.

[Dick Allen]

Why would anyone be disappointed with that?

Because White Sox fans are the most self loathing (team-wise,not personal) fans in Chicago. I am guilty of it, but say something positive about anyone other than Abreu or Sale, and someone is usually posting how wrong you are. Take Q, the guy ranks the last couple of years basically as an ace, but while many here acknowledge that and give him his props, others still say he is a #3 starter. A couple of posts above said the Sox have no power. They were 4th in the AL in homers, then went on to say they are even worse power-wise without Dunn and could upgrade LF, 3B and DH and still have no power? Really?Also, he mentioned defense. Upgrade in 2 spots, probably have a GG SS, a plus CF, but the defense cannot be any good. He actually thinks the Sox can get 2 top end bullpen guys, a #2 starter, an upgrade in LF, 3B and DH and still won't be any good.

[Dick Allen]

Except the BMOC specifically mentioned a RHSP, first on his list.

Which is exactly what JR mentioned about a month ago. A back end right handed starter. I think it is safe to assume one will be added.

[Chicago White Sox]

I think some people on this board are really over-valuing draft picks. 1st rounders are obviously important, but losing 2nd & 3rd round picks should never sway you from adding an impact player, at least if you think you're team is close to being competitive.

 

And I get you also lose their bonus allotment, but when you're trying to add outside talent and the trade-off is losing a pick/bonus or trading away partially developed prospects, I'm going to sacrifice the unknown commodity first every single time.