PDA

View Full Version : Article: "Baseballís Most and Least Efficient Teams for the 2010 Season"


DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 11:10 AM
"Baseballís Most and Least Efficient Teams for the 2010 Season" (http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/04/baseballs-most-and-least-efficient-teams-for-the-2010-season/)

White Sox spent $1.23 million per win in 2010.

Gavin
10-12-2010, 11:14 AM
I would think efficiency would be measured by $-in/$-out. Who cares about wins? Even teams with a lot of losses can still make a lot of money.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 11:17 AM
I would think efficiency would be measured by $-in/$-out. Who cares about wins? Even teams with a lot of losses can still make a lot of money.

Me. I want the Sox to win the last game in the MLB season. Seen that once. Want it again and again.

Gavin
10-12-2010, 11:27 AM
Me. I want the Sox to win the last game in the MLB season. Seen that once. Want it again and again.

Me too, but from an ownership perspective they are probably wanting to make money first and win second. If they get the latter without the former they go out of business.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2010, 11:29 AM
With revenue sharing, a bunch of the garbage teams are making money hand over foot, example the flak that came out of the Pirates revelations this past summer.

Lip

khan
10-12-2010, 12:56 PM
I think this is ONE reasonable metric to judge the effectiveness of a front office, but not the ONLY metric. That the SOX were the only team with an above-average cost-per win to NOT make the playoffs is telling, IMO.


The other thing that I found interesting was the part about the weak correlation between payroll and winning. I think it shows that a team [outside the yankees] can no longer merely "buy" their way out of mistakes. I think that sound business management principles have come to MLB. And I think that in many cases, the idea of having an "old baseball man" run your team is being replaced with having a top business mind run the team. [while being supported by the appropriate people in the various departments, of course...]

From the article:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/04/baseballs-most-and-least-efficient-teams-for-the-2010-season/

..."This may be a function of greater revenue sharing in baseball, or it could be that small-market clubs are simply out-thinking, out-scouting, and out-coaching their large market competitorsÖ"



Sound familiar in the ALC? I think so.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 01:25 PM
I think this is ONE reasonable metric to judge the effectiveness of a front office, but not the ONLY metric. That the SOX were the only team with an above-average cost-per win to NOT make the playoffs is telling, IMO.


The other thing that I found interesting was the part about the weak correlation between payroll and winning. I think it shows that a team [outside the yankees] can no longer merely "buy" their way out of mistakes. I think that sound business management principles have come to MLB. And I think that in many cases, the idea of having an "old baseball man" run your team is being replaced with having a top business mind run the team. [while being supported by the appropriate people in the various departments, of course...]

From the article:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/04/baseballs-most-and-least-efficient-teams-for-the-2010-season/

..."This may be a function of greater revenue sharing in baseball, or it could be that small-market clubs are simply out-thinking, out-scouting, and out-coaching their large market competitorsÖ"

Sound familiar in the ALC? I think so.

Good points. For however the Twins "out-think" the White Sox they sure haven't been able to "out-think" the Yankees.

khan
10-12-2010, 01:28 PM
Good points. For however the Twins "out-think" the White Sox they sure haven't been able to "out-think" the Yankees.

Well, $100M+ can overcome a lot of issues.

I simply think that minnesota lacks the true #1 SP that requires a boatload of cash to overcome the yankees...

PalehosePlanet
10-12-2010, 01:59 PM
Well, $100M+ can overcome a lot of issues.

I simply think that minnesota lacks the true #1 SP that requires a boatload of cash to overcome the yankees...

They had Johan Santana in his prime and still couldn't overcome The Yankees, or for that matter The Angels, or A's. So, no, it's more than that.

Also, rather than 100M+, it's more like 200M-.

DumpJerry
10-12-2010, 02:14 PM
Well, $100M+ can overcome a lot of issues.
You're right. Just ask the Cubs. Or the Mets.

khan
10-12-2010, 02:26 PM
They had Johan Santana in his prime and still couldn't overcome The Yankees, or for that matter The Angels, or A's. So, no, it's more than that.
The twins also were more flawed when they had Santana than they were this year, IMO. Their failure to land Cliff Lee might have been the difference between advancing and another 1st round exit this season. Next season, who knows?

Also, rather than 100M+, it's more like 200M-.
I'm speaking more to the difference between the twins' payroll [~$100M] and that of the yankees [~$200M+]... What would be frightening is the baseball acumen of the twins' front office, coupled with some more cash.


You're right. Just ask the Cubs. Or the Mets.
The scrubs' and the mets' front offices and coaching staffs are so stupid that their money couldn't buy their way out of all the mistakes they've made. I don't disagree that money helps in this game. But if your front office is populated with mouth-breathing morons, then your team is screwed.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 02:38 PM
You're right. Just ask the Cubs. Or the Mets.


The scrubs' and the mets' front offices and coaching staffs are so stupid that their money couldn't buy their way out of all the mistakes they've made. I don't disagree that money helps in this game. But if your front office is populated with mouth-breathing morons, then your team is screwed.

How does Jim Hendry still have a job?

doublem23
10-12-2010, 02:44 PM
How does Jim Hendry still have a job?

He did build arguably the best team in baseball in 2008.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 02:53 PM
He did build arguably the best team in baseball in 2008.

They were a very good team. The best in baseball? Nah. Their record was fluffed thanks to the worst team in baseball, the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Cubbies record against them in '08 14-4.

The Cubbies had a very good record in August that season, .500 in September, exposed in October.

soltrain21
10-12-2010, 02:55 PM
They were a very good team. The best in baseball? Nah. Their record was fluffed thanks to the worst team in baseball, the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Cubbies record against them in '08 14-4.

The Cubbies had a very good record in August that season, .500 in September, exposed in October.

But...wouldn't a very good team go about 14-4 against the worst team? All good teams should "fluff up" on the bad teams.

asindc
10-12-2010, 02:58 PM
I think this is ONE reasonable metric to judge the effectiveness of a front office, but not the ONLY metric. That the SOX were the only team with an above-average cost-per win to NOT make the playoffs is telling, IMO.


The other thing that I found interesting was the part about the weak correlation between payroll and winning. I think it shows that a team [outside the yankees] can no longer merely "buy" their way out of mistakes. I think that sound business management principles have come to MLB. And I think that in many cases, the idea of having an "old baseball man" run your team is being replaced with having a top business mind run the team. [while being supported by the appropriate people in the various departments, of course...]


From the article:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/04/baseballs-most-and-least-efficient-teams-for-the-2010-season/

..."This may be a function of greater revenue sharing in baseball, or it could be that small-market clubs are simply out-thinking, out-scouting, and out-coaching their large market competitors…"



Sound familiar in the ALC? I think so.

Actually, Boston is another team with an above-average cost-per win (3rd on the list) that did not make the playoffs. I think it is also worth noting that Tampa's below-average cost-per win is due no doubt to having several exceptional players who are receiving arbitration-level salaries because of the team's favorable draft position during several years of terrible play. The same can be said to a lesser extent about San Francisco, Cincy, and Texas.

Given such, I don't think receiving high draft picks for several years in a row because of consistently terrible play constitutes "out-thinking" in any sense. Of course, you have to be willing to overpay draftees in today's baseball economic climate to potentially cash in on those high draft picks, and you still have to make the right draft choices, so those teams should be credited for that. But let's see how much "out-thinking" Tampa does after their impending fire sale this coming offseason.

doublem23
10-12-2010, 03:04 PM
They were a very good team. The best in baseball? Nah. Their record was fluffed thanks to the worst team in baseball, the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Cubbies record against them in '08 14-4.

The Cubbies had a very good record in August that season, .500 in September, exposed in October.

Any good team will fluff up against bad teams. The Sox in '05 pounded the Tigers and Royals, and the '05 Royals were way worse than the '08 Pirates, KC finished like 50 games under .500 in 2005.

Yes, the Cubs beat up on the Pirates, but they also had winning records against the NL West Champ Dodgers, NL Wild Card Brewers, and were 3-4 against the NL East Champ/eventual World Champ Phillies. They had the #1 offense and #3 pitching staff in the National League. When you look across the MLB in 2008, there's only 3-4 teams that were as elite as they were over the course of the whole season. I think that qualifies them as "arguably" the best team in baseball.

Jim Hendry put that team together at the expense of future seasons, and now the Cubs are paying for it. Yeah, you can argue that a team with the resources the Cubs have should be contending every single year, but I can't blame the guy for going for the big prize when his team is on a 100-year championship drought.

TDog
10-12-2010, 03:09 PM
I think this is ONE reasonable metric to judge the effectiveness of a front office, but not the ONLY metric. That the SOX were the only team with an above-average cost-per win to NOT make the playoffs is telling, IMO.

...

If you consider only half of Peavy's salary, how would the numbers look? The White Sox lost their highest-paid starting pitcher midway through the season. To replace Peavy, the Sox acquired Jackson after unsuccessful starts by Hudson, which wasn't financially efficient, but certainly gave the White Sox a better chance of winning.

khan
10-12-2010, 03:17 PM
Actually, Boston is another team with an above-average cost-per win (3rd on the list) that did not make the playoffs. I think it is also worth noting that Tampa's below-average cost-per win is due no doubt to having several exceptional players who are receiving arbitration-level salaries because of the team's favorable draft position during several years of terrible play. The same can be said to a lesser extent about San Francisco, Cincy, and Texas.
Fair points, but then Boston did suffer more than their fair share of injuries this season, while playing in the toughest division in baseball. Absent their losses of important players in their team, I think they competed fairly well this season.


Given such, I don't think receiving high draft picks for several years in a row because of consistently terrible play constitutes "out-thinking" in any sense. Of course, you have to be willing to overpay draftees in today's baseball economic climate to potentially cash in on those high draft picks, and you still have to make the right draft choices, so those teams should be credited for that. But let's see how much "out-thinking" Tampa does after their impending fire sale this coming offseason.
Setting aside that the "out-thinking" quote came from the article, I think it is absolutely applicable in certain cases. San Diego dumped an injured pitcher, and picked up a few more affordable parts, and went far despite a lack of financial resources. Again, the twins regularly "out-think" the SOX. And the red sawx do as well.

Also, I wouldn't assume anything about tampa this offseason, until they're eliminated. I will say, however, that I associate "firesale" moreso with expensive, aging teams that underachieve than a small market team that HAS been successful, like the rays.

And as you said, if KW had tampa's picks, he'd STILL probably go for the signable college pitcher that wouldn't amount to crap. The MLB entry draft requires more skill than any other in professional sports. [Just ask the incompetent boobs in ****tsburgh about that.]

Oblong
10-12-2010, 03:22 PM
This whole premise is misleading because it's comparing apples and oranges. Yes the Yankees had the highest cost per win but what would the figures look like if we could figure out a revenue per win? I bet they'd still be on top.

It's also using a term like efficiency and comparing a business concept (cost) with something that's not a business concept (wins).

khan
10-12-2010, 03:25 PM
If you consider only half of Peavy's salary, how would the numbers look? The White Sox lost their highest-paid starting pitcher midway through the season. To replace Peavy, the Sox acquired Jackson after unsuccessful starts by Hudson, which wasn't financially efficient, but certainly gave the White Sox a better chance of winning.

The Jackson deal was incredibly stupid from a financial efficiency view. Edwin Jackson, BY HIMSELF, was not going to:

1. Replace the injured Jake Peavy, AND
2. Fix the black hole that was the DH, AND
3. Fix the weak-fielding, and inconsistent-hitting RF, AND
4. Provide enough depth to cover for injuries in the bullpen, the rotation, AND the lineup, AND
5. Bridge the deficiencies in the coaching staff, AND
6. Fix the mental defeat that the SOX experienced when playing the twins.


Part of efficiency is to know when your team isn't good enough, and NOT throw good money after bad. The SOX clearly weren't good enough, and they stupidly made the Jackson trade.

It may have given the SOX "a better chance to win" a few more games, but the golden god Edwin Jackson was NEVER enough to get the SOX to the post season.

asindc
10-12-2010, 03:26 PM
Fair points, but then Boston did suffer more than their fair share of injuries this season, while playing in the toughest division in baseball. Absent their losses of important players in their team, I think they competed fairly well this season.



Setting aside that the "out-thinking" quote came from the article, I think it is absolutely applicable in certain cases. San Diego dumped an injured pitcher, and picked up a few more affordable parts, and went far despite a lack of financial resources. Again, the twins regularly "out-think" the SOX. And the red sawx do as well.

Also, I wouldn't assume anything about tampa this offseason, until they're eliminated. I will say, however, that I associate "firesale" moreso with expensive, aging teams that underachieve than a small market team that HAS been successful, like the rays.

And as you said, if KW had tampa's picks, he'd STILL probably go for the signable college pitcher that wouldn't amount to crap. The MLB entry draft requires more skill than any other in professional sports. [Just ask the incompetent boobs in ****tsburgh about that.]

I know it came from the article, and even before you made note of it, it stood out to me as flawed and lazy analysis.

Firesale, dismantling, whatever you call it, after Crawford and other top players on that team are not re-signed, we will see how much "out-thinking" the Tampa FO does without having those high draft picks the last three years.

I didn't say KW would probably go for signability, but given the way the Sox have operated for several years, even before KW took over, that is not an unreasonable assumption to make.

downstairs
10-12-2010, 03:31 PM
The other thing that I found interesting was the part about the weak correlation between payroll and winning. I think it shows that a team [outside the yankees] can no longer merely "buy" their way out of mistakes. I think that sound business management principles have come to MLB. And I think that in many cases, the idea of having an "old baseball man" run your team is being replaced with having a top business mind run the team. [while being supported by the appropriate people in the various departments, of course...]

I've always thought this. I also don't believe the Yankees buy wins as much as people think. The core of their team was scouted by them, and they've made smart free agent moves. Yes, money is a part of their success (the can hold on to players, for example). But they ARE a smart franchise.

khan
10-12-2010, 03:38 PM
I know it came from the article, and even before you made note of it, it stood out to me as flawed and lazy analysis.
I don't disagree with that. I DO, however, believe that this is ONE valid metric for judging a front office, although not the SOLE metric.

Firesale, dismantling, whatever you call it, after Crawford and other top players on that team are not re-signed, we will see how much "out-thinking" the Tampa FO does without having those high draft picks the last three years.
I think they're in decent position to continue to compete. NO team in MLB can re-sign ALL of their FAs, except for one. Compensatory picks can help tampa, as can selected re-signings. We'll see.

But I don't think it's "just" high picks that has led tampa to their recent success. The team still has to pick the right guy, sign him, and properly nurture his ability. I'm not convinced that KW, et. al could do what tampa's front office has done. [David Price might have been traded for edwin jackson if KW were the GM down there...]

I didn't say KW would probably go for signability, but given the way the Sox have operated for several years, even before KW took over, that is not an unreasonable assumption to make.
After seeing the fairly signable picks that were not signed due to a mild overslot request in this and other years, I think it's probable that KW would behave this way. And again, even having high draft picks is no guarantee that you'll get the best talent. Plenty of teams regularly **** their pants year after year after year in the MLB draft.

asindc
10-12-2010, 03:45 PM
I've always thought this. I also don't believe the Yankees buy wins as much as people think. The core of their team was scouted by them, and they've made smart free agent moves. Yes, money is a part of their success (the can hold on to players, for example). But they ARE a smart franchise.

It is not just that they go out and commit $425 million over eight years (including a 7-year (!) contract to a pitcher) to only three players just because they suffered the indignity of missing the playoffs in 2008 for the first time since the 3-division format was adopted, it is also that they would sign a 1B for $180 million over eight years to make up for having paid their former 1B $23.4 million a year when he was 36 and 37 years old. A GM does not have to be exceptionally smart to demonstrate that kind of ability.

khan
10-12-2010, 03:47 PM
It is not just that they go out and commit $425 million over eight years (including a 7-year (!) contract to a pitcher) to only three players just because they suffered the indignity of missing the playoffs in 2008 for the first time since the 3-division format was adopted, it is also that they would sign a 1B for $180 million over eight years to make up for having paid their former 1B $23.4 million a year when he was 36 and 37 years old.

In other words, a blind, drunk monkey could GM a team, if that monkey had the core players of the yankees, a sprinkling of steroid cheaters, and more money than anyone else.

DirtySox
10-12-2010, 04:05 PM
After seeing the fairly signable picks that were not signed due to a mild overslot request in this and other years, I think it's probable that KW would behave this way. And again, even having high draft picks is no guarantee that you'll get the best talent. Plenty of teams regularly **** their pants year after year after year in the MLB draft.

I'll applaud the 2009/2010 1st round picks. (2008 was a gimme) Mitchell was atypical in that he has tons of tools but little polish. Not exactly the organization's M.O. Sale was a no-brainer as he fell and the system was/is LHP starved, but the Sox deserve credit for the deal they gave him. It benefited both sides for a player that was thought to be seeking a significant bonus.

I have qualms with routinely being near the absolute bottom in draft spending. Not signing your 3rd round pick in 2009 was dumb. Not signing your 4th and 8th round pick in 2010 was dumb. Especially considering the reports that most of these picks weren't seeking exorbitant bonuses. We are talking not forking over 10's of thousands, not millions. For a GM that loves wheeling and dealing, one would imagine having more quality prospects available for trade would be desirable. I'm somewhat dreading the possibility that the Sox receive the 5 compensatory picks this offseason, and then go on to draft 1 decent player and 4 college pitchers with bullpen upside because they didn't cost much.

khan
10-12-2010, 04:23 PM
I'll applaud the 2009/2010 1st round picks. (2008 was a gimme) Mitchell was atypical in that he has tons of tools but little polish. Not exactly the organization's M.O. Sale was a no-brainer as he fell and the system was/is LHP starved, but the Sox deserve credit for the deal they gave him. It benefited both sides for a player that was thought to be seeking a significant bonus.
Actually, wasn't Mitchell a football player? And wasn't Josh Fields supposedly "toolsy," too? Color me dubious about Mitchell's chances to be a successful MLB player. [And color me sick of seeing craptacular ex-football players that can't play dead being drafted by this team.]

I fear that the Mitchell draft as KW [once again] trying to vicariously live his failed MLB dreams through other ex-football players. We'll see.

I have qualms with routinely being near the absolute bottom in draft spending. Not signing your 3rd round pick in 2009 was dumb. Not signing your 4th and 8th round pick in 2010 was dumb. Especially considering the reports that most of these picks weren't seeking exorbitant bonuses. We are talking not forking over 10's of thousands, not millions. For a GM that loves wheeling and dealing, one would imagine having more quality prospects available for trade would be desirable. I'm somewhat dreading the possibility that the Sox receive the 5 compensatory picks this offseason, and then go on to draft 1 decent player and 4 college pitchers with bullpen upside because they didn't cost much.

Agreed. I just wish that they'd SELECTIVELY go overslot in strategic spots, so as to get better value with certain draft picks. I fully understand that JR/KW are averse to being a top spender in the draft. But a relatively small investment into draft bonuses can go a long way in terms of players on the SOX, and ammo for trades.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 05:05 PM
But...wouldn't a very good team go about 14-4 against the worst team? All good teams should "fluff up" on the bad teams.

I said they were a very good team. They were not a great team and they were exposed in the post-season. Great teams usually don't get their (butts) kicked as the '08 Cubbies did in the post-season.

A great team? The 2005 Chicago White Sox.

* First place from game one to game 162
* 98 wins to the Cubbies 97 wins
* 11-1 in the post-season
* Four straight post-season complete games
* World Series sweep

That's a great team!

TDog
10-12-2010, 05:07 PM
The Jackson deal was incredibly stupid from a financial efficiency view. ...

Replacing Hudson with Jackson only made sense if the objective was winning the division. If the objective was making money, the White Sox could have left Hudson in their to get pounded, which American League hitters showed they were capable of doing.

That doesn't change my point. The numbers that point to what some consider to be front office failings are skewed by the fact that Peavy sustained a season-ending injury when Peavy was pitching his best and the team was playing its best.

DrCrawdad
10-12-2010, 05:15 PM
Any good team will fluff up against bad teams. The Sox in '05 pounded the Tigers and Royals, and the '05 Royals were way worse than the '08 Pirates, KC finished like 50 games under .500 in 2005.


The Pirates play in the weakling NL, in a lousy division. The AL Central in '05 was tough with the Sox, Indians & Twins. Plus the AL was much better than the NL that year too (as the AL has been for most of the past 10 yrs or so).

The '05 Royals were 9-9 in interleague games. The '08 Pirates were 6-9 in interleague games.

In the end, I don't agree with your assessment of those two teams '05 Royals vs. '08 Pirates.

khan
10-12-2010, 05:19 PM
Replacing Hudson with Jackson only made sense if the objective was winning the division. If the objective was making money, the White Sox could have left Hudson in their to get pounded, which American League hitters showed they were capable of doing.
1. How did that work out? Did the golden god Edwin Jackson solve ALL of the SOX's offensive and defensive and pitching and baserunning and coaching problems, while leading the SOX to the 2010 AL Central division championship? [If this didn't happen, then it was a flawed tactic by KW.]

2. The 2010 SOX had way more holes than they had solutions. Thus, it was incredibly dumb to send good money after bad.

3. Your sample size for Hudson with the SOX is incredibly tiny. So tiny as to be insignificant. His sample size since being traded to AZ is much more significant.

4. KW's STATED objective every year is to win the next winnable world series. Since this team CLEARLY was not good enough to win the 2010 World Series, KW made a stupid waste of resources in this trade.

Since he's a former player and scout, he should have been able to recognize the many flaws in this team, and that it would be futile to try to fix them, given the limitation on resources.


That doesn't change my point. The numbers that point to what some consider to be front office failings are skewed by the fact that Peavy sustained a season-ending injury when Peavy was pitching his best and the team was playing its best.
Actually, it reaffirms that your point is poorly-advanced:

1. The SOX still have Peavy on the payroll, whether he's active or not.
2. Jackson BY HIMSELF was not going to lead the team to the WS, nor the pennant, nor the division championship.
3. Thus, it was an exercise in futility.
4. Because it was an exercise in futility, Jackson's wages were a poor use of limited resources.
5. Other teams have had top players injured as well, which would alter their cost-per-win numbers as well, so trying to cherry-pick information to artificially inflate KW's performance is a bit silly, IMO.


Note that smarter, better GMs [like Theo Epstein] were wise enough to recognize that their teams were not going to win the WS, and avoided adding payroll during the latter part of this season.

TaylorStSox
10-12-2010, 05:23 PM
Actually, wasn't Mitchell a football player? And wasn't Josh Fields supposedly "toolsy," too? Color me dubious about Mitchell's chances to be a successful MLB player. [And color me sick of seeing craptacular ex-football players that can't play dead being drafted by this team.]

I fear that the Mitchell draft as KW [once again] trying to vicariously live his failed MLB dreams through other ex-football players. We'll see.



Agreed. I just wish that they'd SELECTIVELY go overslot in strategic spots, so as to get better value with certain draft picks. I fully understand that JR/KW are averse to being a top spender in the draft. But a relatively small investment into draft bonuses can go a long way in terms of players on the SOX, and ammo for trades.

I'd leave the Mitchell commentary alone if I were you. If he fails it wont have a damn thing to do with his multisport background. Maybe its that he suffered a horrific injury. A football background has no bearing on mlb success. Hell the best player to ever done a Sox uniform played college football. #35 is just one of hundreds of multisport stars to succeed in baseball.

asindc
10-12-2010, 05:30 PM
1. Epstein can afford to raise payroll to $168M [in part] because he has scouted/drafted/signed youngsters wisely, but ALSO his team also has the added luxury of additional revenue year after year from post season baseball, and two WS.

2. Let's not forget that of the top 11 salaries for the SOX, only Buehrle came from the farm system. At the same time, the lower-paid players from the sawx are more talented than the lower-paid players on our SOX, thus enabling more spending on the top end of their payroll.



Lowrie's been injured for much of his career, and in either case, he's more promising than Fields.
Kris Johnson may or may not amount to anything, but he again is more promising than Broadway, or the SOX's 2006 pick, Kyle Mcculloch.
Aaron Bates is a 3rd round pick who is actually still with the team that drafted him, unlike fields or mcculloch. I'd hardly point to a 3rd round pick as being a failure on the part of the GM that signed him.



I don't disagree that Epstein has made mistakes. But Epstein's successes in other areas has made up for much of this.

At the same time, if you're going to even suggest that you'd rather have KW than Theo Epstein, then I don't know what to tell you.

1. ... not to mention last (but absolutely not least) the NESN network and the related 5.8 state (they basically share the Conn. suburbs with the NY teams) fan base.

2. See 1.

I'm glad Brent Morel has shown more promise than Bates, despite being drafted in the 3rd round two years after him. As for Epstein, I think you must have missed my overall assessment of him, which I state at the beginning of one of my recent posts. I still think it's a good thing for Epstein that he has NESN money to fall back on.

TDog
10-12-2010, 07:41 PM
1. How did that work out? Did the golden god Edwin Jackson solve ALL of the SOX's offensive and defensive and pitching and baserunning and coaching problems, while leading the SOX to the 2010 AL Central division championship? [If this didn't happen, then it was a flawed tactic by KW.] ...

The fact that you believe the White Sox had numerous offensive, defensive, pitching, baserunning and coaching problems makes the discussion futile. The White Sox with Peavy were equipped to win the division. Their starting rotation was superior to the Twins'. They had very good infield defense and a very good defense in centerfield. The bullpen started to develop problems shortly after Peavy went down. In August, a losing month, the White Sox scored more runs than any other team in the league. The problem was the bullpen -- Santos, Putz and Thorton every bit as much as Jenks -- and the bullpen a team strength before Peavy went down.

In fact, there wasn't a problem with the offense until the White Sox put Manny Ramirez into the lineup at DH. At the time I thought acquiring Ramirez wouldn't hurt, but it certainly didn't help.

The White Sox weren't as bad as you believed them to be. If Peavy doesn't go down, the White Sox spend less money on payroll. They probably don't panic and go after Ramirez. They also probably win the Central.

TommyJohn
10-12-2010, 09:49 PM
I said they were a very good team. They were not a great team and they were exposed in the post-season. Great teams usually don't get their (butts) kicked as the '08 Cubbies did in the post-season.

A great team? The 2005 Chicago White Sox.

* First place from game one to game 162
* 98 wins to the Cubbies 97 wins
* 11-1 in the post-season
* Four straight post-season complete games
* World Series sweep

That's a great team!

Actually, it was 99.:redneck

DirtySox
10-12-2010, 11:35 PM
Actually, wasn't Mitchell a football player? And wasn't Josh Fields supposedly "toolsy," too? Color me dubious about Mitchell's chances to be a successful MLB player. [And color me sick of seeing craptacular ex-football players that can't play dead being drafted by this team.]

I fear that the Mitchell draft as KW [once again] trying to vicariously live his failed MLB dreams through other ex-football players. We'll see.

The fact that both played football is about where the similarities end. The skill sets and tools are entirely different.

DrCrawdad
10-13-2010, 12:24 AM
Actually, it was 99.:redneck

Even greater!

Thanks!

Mohoney
10-13-2010, 03:58 AM
2. The 2010 SOX had way more holes than they had solutions. Thus, it was incredibly dumb to send good money after bad.

Since he's a former player and scout, he should have been able to recognize the many flaws in this team, and that it would be futile to try to fix them, given the limitation on resources.

At the time the trade was made, the Sox were 57-44 and in 1st place. How is a GM supposed to give up on a team that had a legitimate chance at postseason play? Was Kenny Williams supposed to just mail it in and cower in fear at the prospect of competing against the juggernaut Twins?

The line of thinking that trying to fortify a 1st place team is throwing good money after bad is fundamentally flawed. I doubt ANY GM in baseball, if they found themselves in 1st place on July 30th, would just give up on the season and not try to make any moves.

fox23
10-13-2010, 07:15 AM
At the time the trade was made, the Sox were 57-44 and in 1st place. How is a GM supposed to give up on a team that had a legitimate chance at postseason play? Was Kenny Williams supposed to just mail it in and cower in fear at the prospect of competing against the juggernaut Twins?

The line of thinking that trying to fortify a 1st place team is throwing good money after bad is fundamentally flawed. I doubt ANY GM in baseball, if they found themselves in 1st place on July 30th, would just give up on the season and not try to make any moves.

Hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good rant.

GoSox2K3
10-13-2010, 10:50 AM
You're right. Just ask the Cubs. Or the Mets.

As Khan explained, it's not $100 million in payroll.....it's not even $100 million more than Pittsburgh. It's $100 million more than other high-payroll teams. In 2009, the Yankees payroll is something like $80 million more than the Red Sox.:o: An average MLB team's salary worth more in payroll than the Red Sox...you know, that other team out east that people complain about having high spending ways.

In 2010, the gap between NYY and Bos is only $44 million. But NYY's payroll is $60 million more than the Cubs and over $70 million more than the Mets. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams
If you think the Cubs and Mets are even in the same ballpark (no pun intended) as the Yankees, then the numbers suggest you are wrong.

It is not just that they go out and commit $425 million over eight years (including a 7-year (!) contract to a pitcher) to only three players just because they suffered the indignity of missing the playoffs in 2008 for the first time since the 3-division format was adopted, it is also that they would sign a 1B for $180 million over eight years to make up for having paid their former 1B $23.4 million a year when he was 36 and 37 years old. A GM does not have to be exceptionally smart to demonstrate that kind of ability.

I think you nailed it right there. Wow, the Yanks missed the playoffs once in 15 years? See! Money doesn't buy success! What they did in response that was just go out and extend their payroll even more to buy a Cy Young Award-caliber pitcher and an MVP-caliber slugger...and presto! World Champions again! How do they do it?

The problem I have with the Yankees is that they're turning MLB's post season excitement into essentially a farce. They're going to be there year after year simply because they're richer than everyone else. No matter what holes they have, they'll just buy up the best players to make sure they win more and more pennants. If they fall short this year, I have no doubt that Cliff Lee will be there next year to keep the Yankees mystique going. Sorry, that's not exciting to me. That's just a rich team putting together a Harlem Globetrotters-type team year after year.

MLB needs to do something about it, but there's no simple answer. If they come up with a simple revenue sharing formula, then teams like Pittsburgh and Florida will cut payroll and reap the profits. They need to get creative. Maybe that a steeper luxury tax should go to only other teams that are at least .500 or better or meet a minimum payroll floor :dunno: I don't know, but the current system is just turning at least the AL into a joke.

GoSox2K3
10-13-2010, 10:56 AM
How does Jim Hendry still have a job?

He did build arguably the best team in baseball in 2008.

What skill did he employ to build that good 2008 team? Does he get credit for getting blank checks from the Tribune Company to get Soriano, Lilly, and Fukudome?

The best trades Hendry made were for Lee and Ramirez, but even there he was essentially robbing fire sale teams and then using his team's wealth to lock up those guys to extensions. Other than that, I haven't seen much that he's done that is all that impressive.

khan
10-13-2010, 12:23 PM
The fact that you believe the White Sox had numerous offensive, defensive, pitching, baserunning and coaching problems makes the discussion futile.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

The White Sox with Peavy were equipped to win the division. Their starting rotation was superior to the Twins'.
1. Stop believing the hype, and look at the numbers. The Twins' rotation performed at least as well as the SOX's rotation did in 2010.

2. Even accepting that the SOX WITH Peavy were in position to win the division [which I don't, but for this discussion, I'll use your assumption], unless you can replace Peavy with a player AS-GOOD, or better than he, adding Jackson was stupid.


They had very good infield defense and a very good defense in centerfield. The bullpen started to develop problems shortly after Peavy went down.

In August, a losing month, the White Sox scored more runs than any other team in the league. The problem was the bullpen -- Santos, Putz and Thorton every bit as much as Jenks -- and the bullpen a team strength before Peavy went down.

So adding an overpaid SP [who is only ONE MAN, BTW] with a ridiculous contract and an ******* of an agent will fix this issue? :scratch: What about the offense? What about the lack of competitive spirit vs. the twins? What about an abject lack of depth to recover from injuries? What about some of the other issues with the 2010 SOX?

I jokingly call Edwin Jackson a "golden god," but you're really suggesting that this ONE MAN is a messaianic(sp?) figure, able to fix ALL that ails the SOX. Who knew?

In fact, there wasn't a problem with the offense until the White Sox put Manny Ramirez into the lineup at DH. At the time I thought acquiring Ramirez wouldn't hurt, but it certainly didn't help.
Really? You like the number of games with 3 or fewer runs scored? You like the inability to come from behind late in games? I suggest you raise your expectations.

The White Sox weren't as bad as you believed them to be. If Peavy doesn't go down, the White Sox spend less money on payroll. They probably don't panic and go after Ramirez. They also probably win the Central.
Disagreed. The SOX got their asses handed to them by the twins. The twins won because they were the better team, with fewer holes. You can cherry-pick the season with the "Peavy-was-missing-argument," but then twins fans can point to Morneau only playing 81 games, and STILL they beat the SOX. [Not to mention the other injuries they suffered throughout the season.]

Sorry, but your latest cherry-picked argument has no validity. EVERY team has injuries, not just the SOX. [Maybe if KW didn't stupidly trade away all the depth in the system, "injuries" wouldn't be an issue, would it?]

khan
10-13-2010, 12:29 PM
At the time the trade was made, the Sox were 57-44 and in 1st place. How is a GM supposed to give up on a team that had a legitimate chance at postseason play? Was Kenny Williams supposed to just mail it in and cower in fear at the prospect of competing against the juggernaut Twins?

The line of thinking that trying to fortify a 1st place team is throwing good money after bad is fundamentally flawed. I doubt ANY GM in baseball, if they found themselves in 1st place on July 30th, would just give up on the season and not try to make any moves.
The SOX were also sub .500 v. the AL and v. the ALC at the time. The record was a fraud that was inflated by them getting healthy vs. inferior competition.

Hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good rant.
Indeed.

Inasmuch as the fact that Daniel Hudson, based on the larger sample size of his post-trade performance, could have been effective as a 4th/5th SP as Jackson. I'll grant that he wasn't likely to have as many Ks as Jackson, but there is nothing in his performance that would indicate that he wouldn't be acceptable as a 4th/5th SP in the AL.

cws05champ
10-13-2010, 02:16 PM
I know it came from the article, and even before you made note of it, it stood out to me as flawed and lazy analysis.

Firesale, dismantling, whatever you call it, after Crawford and other top players on that team are not re-signed, we will see how much "out-thinking" the Tampa FO does without having those high draft picks the last three years.

I didn't say KW would probably go for signability, but given the way the Sox have operated for several years, even before KW took over, that is not an unreasonable assumption to make.

There's no doubt that Tampa has built it's core from high draft picks...but they have hit on most of those pick in the recent years...which is not always a given in baseball (again, ask the Pirates). But Tampa has also done it's homework and landed top prospects and contributors up and down their system and ML team. Just look at the list below the top picks they had which have been contributors that were not 1st rounders.

I just don't see a great fall for the Rays...will they be as good next year, probably not. But they will be a top contender and a division winner if they were in any other division. Jennings will step in for Crawford, they probably trade Shields or another SP for BP or 1B and slide Hellickson into the rotation. I don't think Pena will see a huge market out there for a 33 year old .200 hitter (in a strong 1B market) and may return at a discount. Bartlett may go and Brignac and Rodriguez will take over the middle infield.

Point is, I think they are still out thinking/out scouting a lot of teams still...whether it's enough to overcome a $150M payroll difference between them and the Yanks, I don't know about that.


Longoria 3rd overall
David Price 1st overall
BJ Upton 2nd overall
Jeff Niemann 4th overall
Delmon Young 1st overall (Used to acquire Garza and Bartlett)

Carl Crawford 2nd Round
James Shields 16th Round
Wade Davis 3rd Round
Jeremy Hellickson 4th Round
Reid Brignac 2nd Round
John Jaso 12th Round

Minors:
Desmond Jennings 10th Round (One of the top MiL OF in baseball)
Matt Moore SP 8th Round - Led the MiL in K's
Many others....

asindc
10-13-2010, 02:35 PM
I'm not doubting their scouting and developing acumen, but I do think they are entering unchartered waters for them. They certainly know what they are doing, but with all else being equal, talent does trump everything else. I'm just saying that I can't put them in Minny's class yet in terms of maximizing middle-tier talent, which is what they have been drafting (in theory) for the past couple of years and probably will continue to draft for another couple of years. In short, the view at the top (of the draft order) is different than it is at the bottom. Not saying that are not capable, just saying we don't know yet. That's the point not found in the article.

DirtySox
10-13-2010, 02:40 PM
There's no doubt that Tampa has built it's core from high draft picks...but they have hit on most of those pick in the recent years...which is not always a given in baseball (again, ask the Pirates). But Tampa has also done it's homework and landed top prospects and contributors up and down their system and ML team. Just look at the list below the top picks they had which have been contributors that were not 1st rounders.

I just don't see a great fall for the Rays...will they be as good next year, probably not. But they will be a top contender and a division winner if they were in any other division. Jennings will step in for Crawford, they probably trade Shields or another SP for BP or 1B and slide Hellickson into the rotation. I don't think Pena will see a huge market out there for a 33 year old .200 hitter (in a strong 1B market) and may return at a discount. Bartlett may go and Brignac and Rodriguez will take over the middle infield.

Point is, I think they are still out thinking/out scouting a lot of teams still...whether it's enough to overcome a $150M payroll difference between them and the Yanks, I don't know about that.


Longoria 3rd overall
David Price 1st overall
BJ Upton 2nd overall
Jeff Niemann 4th overall
Delmon Young 1st overall (Used to acquire Garza and Bartlett)

Carl Crawford 2nd Round
James Shields 16th Round
Wade Davis 3rd Round
Jeremy Hellickson 4th Round
Reid Brignac 2nd Round
John Jaso 12th Round

Minors:
Desmond Jennings 10th Round (One of the top MiL OF in baseball)
Matt Moore SP 8th Round - Led the MiL in K's
Many others....


I was going to make this post but haven't had the time. The Rays have definitely had help from some early first round picks, but they are also acquiring and developing talent from throughout the entire draft. They are willing to spend money on these players as well. I think their 2010 class is going to be fantastic, and the first pick they had was at 17. The way that organization develops its pitchers is uncanny. I don't think a "rebuilding" phase will be necessary at all in the immediate future.

TommyJohn
10-13-2010, 09:02 PM
The SOX were also sub .500 v. the AL and v. the ALC at the time. The record was a fraud that was inflated by them getting healthy vs. inferior competition.






This is a bull**** statement. The White Sox were clearly better than the "inferior" competition, so they beat them. Isn't that what good teams do, thump the bad teams? What would you be ranting about if they didn't beat those "inferior" teams? And someone pointed out that the Sox record in the AL minus the Twins is actually a solid, winning record.

You could make the same argument that the 2005 White Sox were a fraud-their record against the inferior ALC was quite good. In fact, I will take your angry rant to its logical conclusion-every White Sox winning record that they ever had was and is forever a fraud-after all, the records were achieved by beating below .500, inferior competition.

SBSoxFan
10-14-2010, 12:01 AM
I believe the Indians were the most "efficient" team in 2005. What did that get them? A seat on their couch in October.

khan
10-14-2010, 11:23 AM
This is a bull**** statement. The White Sox were clearly better than the "inferior" competition, so they beat them. Isn't that what good teams do, thump the bad teams? What would you be ranting about if they didn't beat those "inferior" teams? And someone pointed out that the Sox record in the AL minus the Twins is actually a solid, winning record.
And at the time of the stupid Jackson trade, the SOX's record in the AL was sub-.500. The SOX's record in the ALC finished sub-.500, even AFTER adding the golden god Edwin Jackson. There was scant evidence that the SOX would be superior to their competitiors in the AL.

That the SOX eventually ended up above .500 v AL competition as other teams played out the string is immaterial. They were proven to be a lesser team than minnesota [and other teams], with or without the $12M boat anchor.


You could make the same argument that the 2005 White Sox were a fraud-their record against the inferior ALC was quite good.
Actually, the 2005 SOX were above .500 in the AL, in the ALC, and led the division for the entire season. They WERE the best team in the game. They competed well against the good teams, too. Cleveland were a worthy adversary that year, but the SOX were simply better than they were.

BTW, did they add huge amounts of salary in 2005? No, because that team was very complete from the start of the season, unlike this year's team.

In fact, I will take your angry rant to its logical conclusion-every White Sox winning record that they ever had was and is forever a fraud-after all, the records were achieved by beating below .500, inferior competition.
There's no "anger" in recognizing reality in our favorite team. Like it or not, the SOX were inferior this season, and were foolish to add salary. The results speak for themselves.