White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-08-2020, 02:07 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Exactly. I'd be more inclined to give the off-season a strong A- because they addressed all the major needs the team has and signed Robert to the extension that addresses several issues and is very reasonable. Missing on a true TOR starter is the only glitch and they only missed on Wheeler due to family issues. So not really their fault.

I feel like a kid in the on Xmas eve waiting for the season to begin so I can unwrap my presents...

I wasn't even thinking of the Robert extension among the successful offseason moves. They definitely get an "A" for that as well as the Grandal signing.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-08-2020, 02:42 PM
Flight #24 Flight #24 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
After a few "winning offseasons" totally blew up in our face (hello 2015) I prefer to just wait and give it a grade of TBD.

As a whole, I like what they did.

I do find it worrysome that we still aren't able to land the big fish despite all of this money available. Does that mean anything, who knows as of now.

My only real concern outside of that issue is just the memories of the 2nd and 3rd tier victories not working out for us in the past. Does not mean anything now.

I like the team on Paper, I think its an 84-86 win team as constructed. Maybe that is enough, but should atleast keep baseball fun.
This is a serious question - do you mean that the grade on the offseason is dependent on how the subsequent season turns out? Seems odd given that there's so many variables that the GM can't control that impact actual performance.
__________________
"You don't quit. You don't go home before it's time. You don't come out of a game, even if you are in pain and feel as if you can't go one more step"
"Never give up, Never, never, never give up."
- Luther Head after Elite 8 win v. Arizona
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-08-2020, 02:52 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I've been thinking about that a lot too. I do think there are a few differences though. There's a bit more depth on the farm this time around, most of their big acquisitions thus far have been free agents rather than through trades, so if a guy like Encarncion struggles you still have pieces you could trade during the season to bolster the roster. In 2015, they hardly had anyone they could trade to help supplement the roster and once they traded for Frazier at the start of 2016, there was no way they could fill one hole without creating another. This time they do have some secondary pieces they could trade for major league talent.

Some of the things that give me pause: The problems in 2011 and 2015 appeared to be from poor major league scouting, so the front office either didn't see any potential red flags in their aquisitions of Dunn, LaRoche and Smardzija or chose to ignore them. As far I know, that has not necessarily been addressed. The people calling the shots in the front office have not changed at all since 2015 and not much since 2011. The other issue is that it was quite clear in 2015 that Ventura was in over his head, but they left Ventura in as manager going into 2016 and he essentially had to fire himself at the end of the year. Now Renteria does not appear to be as awful as Ventura, but he has shown some shortcomings as a manager, if those shortcomings appear to be hindering the team's performance, will the Sox make a change or is it ride or die with Renteria?
If Encarnacion falters, I'd rather they use a rotation of Abreu, McCann, Grandal, and Collins at DH (when they aren't playing 1B or C) than trade anyone of value for another DH since they have Andrew Vaughn waiting in the wings to be a 1B/DH duo with Abreu as soon as 2021.

I think the 2020 lineup looks vastly different than what we fielded after "winning" the 2015 offseason:
C: Grandal/McCann >>>> Flowers/Soto
1B: Abreu = Abreu
2B: Madrigal (potential) >>>> Micah Johnson/Sanchez
SS: Anderson >>> 2015 version Alexei
3B: Moncada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(x100) Gillaspie/Saladino
LF: Jimenez >>> Melky
CF: Robert (potential) >>>>> Eaton (and that's not a knock on Eaton)
RF: Maraza vs. Avi Garcia(.675 OPS in 2015) ????
DH: EE vs. LaRoche ????

I know Robert and Madrigal are unproven, but wow! That looks like a significant improvement over 2015 to me.

Starting rotation 2015 was Sale, Q, Rodon, Samardzija, and Danks. Sale is pretty much incomparable. But, I still like our chances going forward with Giolito, Cease, and Kopech forming the core of our future rotation. 2020 will be an important year for all 3 without a doubt. Will Keuchel be any better than Shark was in 2015? I don't know, but at least we didn't trade a future MVP candidate to get him.

I agree about the concern about poor major league scouting. This FO has a poor track record when it comes to bringing in veteran talent via trade or free agency. But I don't see any of this offseason's moves as comparable to Dunn or LaRoche. If EE turns out to be just like them (which is very possible), he's a low-cost, one-year commitment and the Sox have a ton of depth at 1B/DH moving forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
One thing that's been addressed is the Sox haven't handed out any contracts that hamstring longterm payroll flexibility and had/have a lot more room to work with in terms of payroll than they had back then when one or two pieces filled up the budget due to so many veterans being on the roster. This time they are building smart in terms of financial flexibility.
That's how I see it. In 2015, it was more of a win-now season. 2020 is just the beginning of this core's competitive window. I like that the Sox aren't hamstringing themselves with long term contracts to aging vets. This gives them another year to see how their young talent performs and gives them payroll flexibility if they need to land a big FA next offseason.

Last edited by Hitmen77; 01-08-2020 at 03:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-08-2020, 03:14 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I think the big question is how much do they want to spend moving forward. By my count they had a payroll of about $112M in 2015, of which about $75M was committed to 2016 (and LaRoche's retirement freed up some more cash), so it's not like they were bumping up against the luxury tax threshold. They just choose not to spend any money on free agents going into 2016.
Well moving forward this team is about to get very expensive starting in 2022 with the increasing contracts and arbitration years of Anderson, Eloy, Robert, Moncada, Giolito, Lopez and Kopech. There's a very good chance they will be making around $50mil more combined then.

Of the contracts coming off the books before then, Colome, Herrera, Cishek, McCann, Encarnacion, Mazara; their positions will need to be replaced with similar money. Rodon and Gonzalez are the only players I can see being replaced completely in house, though a lot can happen in the next 2 seasons with the staff. Needing another $18-30mil pitcher in a crucial WS window year is definite possibility.

The payroll realistically will be at or higher than $170mil and likely to be higher in '23. They have planned for this and really have no choice but to go this high to keep it's core, maintain a quality bullpen, and keep the other holes plugged in the team.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-08-2020, 03:39 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,521
Default

It is 2:39 p.m. in Chicago and Hahn has not signed anyone yet today.

He's getting lazy.
__________________


2020....2020.....2020....2020....2020.....
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-08-2020, 04:14 PM
DonnieDarko DonnieDarko is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North side, 60618
Posts: 2,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
It is 2:39 p.m. in Chicago and Hahn has not signed anyone yet today.

He's getting lazy.
Looks like Jerry stole his pocketbook back.
__________________

2014 PtC Score: 1
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:44 PM
Jollyroger2 Jollyroger2 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight #24 View Post
This is a serious question - do you mean that the grade on the offseason is dependent on how the subsequent season turns out? Seems odd given that there's so many variables that the GM can't control that impact actual performance.
I'd say it's dependent on it. Just signing people shouldn't make an automatic grade A right? This team had made the playoffs five times since 1959. Their best year the last seven years was finishing 16 1/2 out. The last three years they finished 35, 29, and 28 1/2 out. I'd say they need to show some significant improvement for all this to matter, it's not like this is a long term strategy, with the ages and health of some of the guys they signed.

I mean why spend all that money if you're not looking to improve a great deal? I'm also hoping for 80-85 wins but need to see how all this works before really being gung-ho. Seen too many great offseasons bear no fruit.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-08-2020, 08:32 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jollyroger2 View Post
I'd say it's dependent on it. Just signing people shouldn't make an automatic grade A right?
Would you say the same if they broke the bank and signed Mike Trout or Mookie Betts?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-09-2020, 10:17 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight #24 View Post
This is a serious question - do you mean that the grade on the offseason is dependent on how the subsequent season turns out? Seems odd given that there's so many variables that the GM can't control that impact actual performance.
I don't want to say the total results, but the impact of those players yes.

I have this bad feeling that by going with all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier guys we will see similar results. Obviously, wounds a little fresh with this team being so so bad for so long. I mean from 100,000 feet, there has never been a worse team in terms of making the playoffs than us.

I will say, I waffle on some thoughts too. Part of me says I get it, if the signings all kick ass but the kids regress, it should not be part of the evaluation. But in a way, choosing to supplement the team with lower talent and putting the onus on the kids to be our BEST players, that is a choice the Front Office must live with. It may work, there is a lot of potential, but these guys have to live with every choice they make.

So what I am saying is, I want to see how it plays out before I make some sweeping, final judgement. I think as a Sox fan its easy to either force yourself to live in "nothing ever works out" of a dark cloud or a pollyanna "everything is awesome all the time" view. I am trying to just show some patience before I judge the offseason.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-09-2020, 10:39 AM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 9,338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I don't want to say the total results, but the impact of those players yes.

I have this bad feeling that by going with all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier guys we will see similar results. Obviously, wounds a little fresh with this team being so so bad for so long. I mean from 100,000 feet, there has never been a worse team in terms of making the playoffs than us.

I will say, I waffle on some thoughts too. Part of me says I get it, if the signings all kick ass but the kids regress, it should not be part of the evaluation. But in a way, choosing to supplement the team with lower talent and putting the onus on the kids to be our BEST players, that is a choice the Front Office must live with. It may work, there is a lot of potential, but these guys have to live with every choice they make.

So what I am saying is, I want to see how it plays out before I make some sweeping, final judgement. I think as a Sox fan its easy to either force yourself to live in "nothing ever works out" of a dark cloud or a pollyanna "everything is awesome all the time" view. I am trying to just show some patience before I judge the offseason.
The one thing I understand about waiting until the games are played is that the Sox FO, for whatever reason, have consistently missed the mark when bringing in veteran FAs. To do so consistently suggests that major league scouting should be scrutinized more closely. So I get that aspect of it. What I can't ignore, however, is that the players themselves are the people most responsible for how they perform. If I put a percentage on it, I would say at least 90%.

Does that absolve management? Not in my book. But it does give me a certain perspective when passing out blame. In other words, it is difficult for me to blame management when a player in his prime who has averaged 3 WAR per year in his career suddenly produces only 0.5 WAR per year with the Sox, especially if he is deployed in the same manner he has been throughout his career. The only thing that mitigates against blaming the player in this case is that it has happened far too many times with the Sox, as I alluded to above, to put the blame solely on the player. With that said, I'm of the opinion that if I like the move on January 1, my opinion of the move won't change on October 1, no matter how badly the player plays. That just seems like Monday morning quarterbacking to me. Just one man's opinion, not offered as fact.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-09-2020, 11:17 AM
HomeFish HomeFish is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,408
Default

Ultimately, the GM's performance will be judged by the results on the field. There's no denying that.

But I believe that we can also judge an offseason as it happens based on "do these moves make sense given what we know today". Otherwise, we'd have nothing to talk about on WSI in January except the Blackhawks and the promotions schedule.
__________________
"Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only when they are ruined."
-- Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-09-2020, 12:11 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 13,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeFish View Post
Ultimately, the GM's performance will be judged by the results on the field. There's no denying that.

But I believe that we can also judge an offseason as it happens based on "do these moves make sense given what we know today". Otherwise, we'd have nothing to talk about on WSI in January except the Blackhawks and the promotions schedule.
This is the key. What were the players worth at the time they were acquired?

The problem is not with the amount of money that anyone got paid. The only signing this offseason that was ridiculously above cost was Abreu, and that was Reinsdorf's doing. However, if you’re going to make signings like that based primarily on feel-goods and warm fuzzies, you need to ear-mark that money specifically for that purpose and not let that take away from making other moves.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-10-2020, 11:05 AM
Flight #24 Flight #24 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jollyroger2 View Post
I'd say it's dependent on it. Just signing people shouldn't make an automatic grade A right? This team had made the playoffs five times since 1959. Their best year the last seven years was finishing 16 1/2 out. The last three years they finished 35, 29, and 28 1/2 out. I'd say they need to show some significant improvement for all this to matter, it's not like this is a long term strategy, with the ages and health of some of the guys they signed.

I mean why spend all that money if you're not looking to improve a great deal? I'm also hoping for 80-85 wins but need to see how all this works before really being gung-ho. Seen too many great offseasons bear no fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I don't want to say the total results, but the impact of those players yes.

I have this bad feeling that by going with all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier guys we will see similar results. Obviously, wounds a little fresh with this team being so so bad for so long. I mean from 100,000 feet, there has never been a worse team in terms of making the playoffs than us.

I will say, I waffle on some thoughts too. Part of me says I get it, if the signings all kick ass but the kids regress, it should not be part of the evaluation. But in a way, choosing to supplement the team with lower talent and putting the onus on the kids to be our BEST players, that is a choice the Front Office must live with. It may work, there is a lot of potential, but these guys have to live with every choice they make.

So what I am saying is, I want to see how it plays out before I make some sweeping, final judgement. I think as a Sox fan its easy to either force yourself to live in "nothing ever works out" of a dark cloud or a pollyanna "everything is awesome all the time" view. I am trying to just show some patience before I judge the offseason.
I guess my take is that all a GM can do is make the best decision based on the information available at the time, but tons of things change and factors outside the control of the GM impact the outcome. If Grandal and Keuchel collide in ST and both out for the year and the team, does that make it a bad move? If Grandal has his worst year at the plate, does that? I think in general you have to evaluate the moves based on what's known, whether they work out adds another layer but doesn't inherently make the move good or bad at the time it was made.

If the team doesn't gel, if Mazara hits .220, if Robert, Eloy, Moncada, Anderson are mediocre, Lopez/Cease fail to progress, if Keuchel pitches more like a #5, etc those are things I think you can pin on the GM. But the context matters IMO - was it reasonably forseeable or a reasonable likelihood versus something out of the ordinary. At least that's my opinion.

(On the flipside, if Mazara ends up hitting .350 with 40HR, and GioG wins the Cy Young, Hahn may get kudos but he'll just have been lucky)
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-10-2020, 11:41 AM
Jollyroger2 Jollyroger2 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Would you say the same if they broke the bank and signed Mike Trout or Mookie Betts?
Trout is a proven superstar that would make an immediate impact, barring a major injury. If they brought him in and for whatever reason he stunk, I wouldn't blame the GM for that.

But signing so many second or mid tier guys, guys who have health issues, or on on the wrong side of 30 or clearly on a steep slope downward like Encarnacion, then yes, I'd say they should be held responsible if there isn't marked improvement.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-10-2020, 01:42 PM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jollyroger2 View Post
or clearly on a steep slope downward like Encarnacion, then yes, I'd say they should be held responsible if there isn't marked improvement.

Steep slope?


30 years of age: .904 OPS
31: .901
32: .929
33: .886
34: .881
35: .801
36: .875


Other than a sub-par 35, that slope is pretty gradual. If Encarnacion has say, a .800 OPS this season that is a improvement over every single DH combo the White Sox has trotted out for the past 10 seasons.


2019: .641
2018: .725
2017: .680
2016: .711
2015: .684
2014: .791
2013: .674
2012: .781
2011: .767
2010: .728
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.