White Sox Payroll To Increase

I recently got word from my White Sox source, so I have some info to pass along. 

He confirmed that while the Sox would indeed love to bring Abreu aboard (as would plenty of teams), there's really nothing in the works.  Kenny Williams wants pitching in return for his extra starter, but is in no hurry to trade Jose Contreras.  The Sox are still in contact with Houston about him, but it's likely that Contreras stays put at least until after the World Baseball Classic.  It makes sense to play it safe given that the Sox hold all the cards.  Look for Houston's interest to escalate if Clemens ends up elsewhere or retires.

It is a fact that the payroll can and will increase as necessary.  The Sox are actively pushing for a repeat and will spend more money to do it.  The Sox should have at least $10MM in the coffers for any major need that may arise.

Comments

[Braves "fan"]

The WhiteSox have an interesting team out there for 2006. The Tribe has gotten weaker and I think the Twins are just about the same, so I see them winning the Central. Once they're in the playoffs, we've seen what their dominant pitching can do.

[joe]

The white sox team is set, if they want to shed some money by trading contreas for, lets say a top reliever and a second base prospect and a pitching prospect, that would be great. The trade for abreu would suck. die had better numbers that abrue last year and gavin floyd is a bust.

[st.PETE ROSE]

"Horrible trade if the sox do it, Dye had better numbers than Abreu in most categories, and Gavin Floyd is a bust"

Posted by: joe | February 05, 2006 at 11:10 AM

Your feelings are crystal clear.

[Joel]

The white sox have to stay with there 6 starters u never know when u need one look wat they went threw when el duque got injure, if they wanna trade contreras get good pitching back and some pitching prospects....

[steven]

how has the tribe gotten worse?

[Parker]

I think on paper, the Tribe has gotten worse, at least for 2006. They've lost Millwood, Crisp, Elarton who were all good contributors last season. The replacements they got are all adequate, but likely to be a step below. Marte projects to be solid, but he shouldn't be a huge factor until 2007.

But I don't know if I'd agree that they'll BE worse next year. They're young, so a lot of the guys they have will simply be maturing and getting better with experience and age. I think those two factors balance each other out for next year, and I'd expect them to post another 90 or so wins. The biggest hole I see for them is that the bullpen has been weakened, and I strongly doubt Wickman can repeat 2005.

But anyways, as a White Sox fan, I respect the Indians style of baseball a lot, and they do make me worry going into 2006. (As you can tell, I, like my fellow Sox fans, have mellowed out a little and lost that chip on our collective shoulder). I don't think they'll overtake the White Sox just yet though. Either way, it should make for an interesting season.

[Diego]

Funny how no one mentions the Tigers in AL Central prognostications.

If Mags and Pudge can stay healthy, and if Verlander can start 30 games, they could run away with this.

[RumorMonger]

Agreed that they're a dark horse, but Verlander has yet to throw 130 innings in a pro season, let alone make 30 starts.

[Raze Detroit]

How are they a dark horse? Do you honestly think the Tigers can compete with the starting pitching in their division? They play 19 games each against three of the top five staffs in the AL. Maggs and Pudge healthy isn't gonna make that much of a difference against the arms in the Central. The Tigs still need pitching if they want to compete.

[RumorMonger]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5301350

[Parker]

I'd say the fact Dayn Perry considers the Tigers dark horses works against them. I don't think he's ever actually watched a game in his life. He just reads box scores and thinks he knows the whole story.

[RumorMonger]

You're saying this based on what...his tone? The fact that he writes with a good vocabulary for well-known publications? Typical anti-stathead comment.

[Parker]

I write that keeping in mind instances in which he's used his "stathead" frame of thinking, and has ended up looking like a doofus. And perhaps it's a typical anti-stathead comment because it holds some truth? Statheads, as you call them, offer a number of useful ways to evaluate individual players, but I've always found that when it comes to evaluating teams, they come up short. Dayn Perry is a guy I feel embodies that.
For example, his persistent downplaying of the White Sox starting from before last season, up until basically they won the World Series. He refused to acknowledge that maybe their was a method to their winning that went beyond OPS. Also, his constant bashing of Podsednik was, and is, annoying. First off, he ignored that his increase in CS was a result of injury and that typically his success rate is much much higher. Second, he doesn't seem to grasp the ways in which a respected basestealer changes the tone of the game, makes the pitcher shorten up, throw more mistakes, makes the middle infield shifty, makes the first baseman hold you unquestionably. Things like that bother me as a reader. I'm not "anti-stathead" as you claimed in you defensively jumped to claim. I "anti-I only believe in stats, and if there isn't statistical proof of something, it must not be true"

If I was anti-stathead, what would I even be doing visiting this site, rotoauthority, and others of the same baseball-ideology for, when I'm not particularily interested in fantasy baseball?

And the fact that he is a good writer (which I do agree with) has nothing to do with what I think of his content, so I have no idea where that comment came from. The fact that it's for well-known publications doesn't mean anything to me particularily. Status is probably the most overrated measure of a person's ideas and intellect.

[RumorMonger]

Alright, I apologize for generalizing and assuming things about you.

A pet peeve of mine is when people claim statistically minded people "must not even watch the games" because their conclusions differ from those of the casual observer.

I must have heard that 50 times this year when an author makes a point against conventional wisdom using stats. All of those guys watch more baseball than we do, have access to more information, and basically know more.

[Parker]

Fair enough, that would bother me too. I think both perspectives offer valuable things, but I've always got the impression Perry always ignores the old conventional baseball thought, and sticks only to statistical knowledge. I suppose I should have made that clear in the first post to actually justify my not liking him.

[RumorMonger]

He does seem to have it out for the White Sox...

[Vince]

The thing that kind of bugs me about Dayn Perry is that he seems to care about spitting more articles out than necessary, so he doesn't take the necessary time to take everything into account. Now he is the lead writer for a major sports website, so I know that he gets told to get as many new articles out as possible. But many to me, tend to be half-assed. Like his 100 top prospect articles. I have serious doubts he had time to fully evaluate 100 prospects and rank them accordingly. It seems to me like he simply used some stats and some articles he has read, and threw a list together. But I do like him all-in-all. He does seem to be on the Anti-Sox side of things, but in my opinion he is dead on with regards to Scott "4th Outfielder in Starters clothes" Posednik.

I would assume he is Anti-Sox because the Sox and Ozzy are pretty much Anti-SABR. They actually think they would score more if they steal and sacrifice more, when in fact, they wouldn't. So that is my guess why he comes off as Anti-Sox

[RumorMonger]

Well, in his defense on the prospect thing, that's always been his specialty on Baseball Prospectus. So he probably already had them mapped out from that.

But yeah, that's exactly why he comes off as Anti-Sox. Joe Sheehan of BP at least admits where he missed on the Sox, but I haven't seen Dayn do that.

[Jim]

Dayn Perry is an idiot.

His "prospect lists" over at FOXSPORTS.com are an absolute joke--given that he has actually never even SEEN any of these prospects play. He's a stat geek, merely.

According to the SABR-nerds, Kenny Williams was out of his mind to trade Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia. Miguel Olivo, KW recognized, was a fringe catcher; Jeremy Reed no more than a 4th outfielder. Yet all the SABR-nerds, who never even saw Reed play in the minor leagues, projected him to be the second coming of Ted Williams based on his minor league stats. Well, looks like the scouts won that debate--and not the Joe Sheehans, Dayn Perrys, and Aaron Gleemans of the world. Last time I checked, Garcia won the last game of the 2005 WS, and pitched a complete game victory in Game 4 of the 2005 ALCS. Miguel Olivo was released by the Padres. Jeremy Reed is still what he is--a fringe starer, better cast as a 4th outfielder on a good team. Heh.

When it comes to evaluating and projecting prospects, it's much better to leave it to the true baseball journalists over at Baseball America. At least those guys actually WATCH minor league games.

[RumorMonger]

Jim, you really have an axe to grind against stat guys.

[Jim]

Monger,

Well, nobody ever challenges the stat guys. They write all these books re: how traditional ways of looking at the game (bunting, hit-and-run, reliance on scouting and a player's "make-up") are all supposedly misguided, and should be subject to "performance analysis."

Yet, the irony is , they never subject their own fantasy projections and predictions to a "performance analysis."

And the stat guys would be more tolerable if they were a little more humble, and stop acting like they invented the game.

The book "Mind Game" is a case in point. What a piece of garbage. They act like only a SABR-head could figure out that Boston needed a front-line starter (schilling_ and a closer (Foulke) to compete with New York. Well, sheesh, you did not need a Yale education to figure that one out!

And they act like Billy Beane is some kind og genius, but never concede the fact that the bulk of Oakland's success prior to 2005 was due to their Big-3 (Mulder, Hudson, Zito)--not because of their OBP-approach to offense.

And the way the Moneyball-types denigrate Kenny Williams was ridiculous, and racist to boot. Last time I checked, the Foulke-for-Koch trade is now the Foulke-for-Cotts trade. Looks like KW is smiling about THAT.

And Saint Billy's trade of Hudson to Atlanta will go down as one of the most lopsided deals in baseball history.

And all this OBP-worship is nonsense. The SABR-head act like they invented it. Well. Earl Weaver was placing great reliance on this tool before that tool Dayn Perry was even conceived.

So, yeah, I have a beef with the stat geeks. They talk a lot, but they simply cannot walk the walk.

And before you poblish some "fantasy projectio" on a player, ou ought to disclose what your projectons in previous years were on tha player. That way, your readers can see if what you have to say has any relevance. Walk the walk.

[RumorMonger]

Jim, I respect all of this but let me counter:

"Yet, the irony is , they never subject their own fantasy projections and predictions to a "performance analysis."

How do you know this? You're saying BP never discusses players and teams they missed, or analyzes the effectiveness of PECOTA? As a daily reader I know for a fact that they do both. I have a hunch that you're not a BP subscriber (I could be wrong) so how do you back up this claim?

Many stat guys are not humble. The arrogance can be grating at times, no doubt. But not every stat guy is created equal.

I would have to say that Mind Game features a lot of SABR-minded things that the Sox did to gain advantages. The Ortiz signing was influenced by stats; scouts were not exactly touting him.

Moneyball isn't about an OBP minded-approach, but rather finding market inefficiences and exploiting them. There is no doubt that Beane has done a good job of this. Drafting Hudson may actually be an example of it - he doesn't blow hitters away the way scouts like.

You're going to have to back of the racism claim...a negative connotion towards a GM that happens to be black is a far cry from racism.

Even in hindsight, the A's did very well swapping Foulke for Cotts. Foulke had an incredible 2003 for the A's, the team needed him to make the playoffs. They also got draft picks upon his departure.

Koch was awful for the 2003 White Sox, a club that missed the playoffs by four games. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk that up as a clear win for the Sox. No doubt Cotts is a great pickup, but that trade is not black and white.

Hudson to Atlanta won't be decided until Dan Meyer's future is more clear. If I ran the A's, I wouldn't want Hudson at four years, $47MM. Regardless, it's nowhere near the worst deal in baseball history. Far more lopsided would be Mulder for Barton and Haren. Haren was already better and cheaper than Mulder at the time of the trade and Barton is a terrific prospect. Why'd ya leave that one out?

I think Dayn Perry would be the first to credit Earl Weaver for great strategies like OBP and reliance on the 3 run HR. No matter who invented it, most teams did not utilize it when Beane became GM. It was smart to start doing things that way and you can't deny it.

I've found stat geeks to hold themselves far more accountable than scouts. Maybe scouts go back over players they completely missed and publish articles on it, I don't know. But I know for a fact that BP does that.

This is my first year projecting every player. I'll be happy to point out the guys I miss as well as the ones I hit.

Projections are nothing more than educated guesses; I'd love to see published projections that don't employ performance analysis and compare results.

[Jim]

OK, Monger, you make good points in response.

(1) But, seriously, a WHOLE BOOK on the supposed "genius" of Theo??? Do you actually buy this b.s. about how only a SABR-metrically inclined person could have known Boston needed a frontline starter (Schilling) and a closer (Foulke) to finally take out New York???

(2) Do you actually think Dayn Perry has personally observed EACH of the Top 100 prospects he writes about in his FOXSPORTS columns? I know the guys at Baseball America have, but it looks like Perry essentially plagaiarizes their lists, then dresses it up with some stat-head analysis.

(3) The racism charge about Moneyball is valid. 99% of the statheads are white males. Kenny Williams has a stonger educational background (Stanford) than Beane, but don't tell me there wasn't an undertone of it in Lewis's book when it came to the unfounded denigration of KW. Also, how about the quotes attributed to Beane about Tejada--i.e., "Mr. Swing-at-everything."

The lack of Latin position players in the Oakland organization of late is also very revealing. No dount some of this stems from the view that Latin players like to take there hacks rather than wait for a walk.

[Vince]

1) I don't see where a whole book is necessary either. But I also don't see where a whole book on Kenny Williams being a genious is necessary, but I know we will see one of those soon. It didn't take a genious to see after 4 years of failure he had to try something new.

2) I agree. If Dayn Perry has in fact done in-dept analysis of each prospect, he sure didn't show (at least to me) that he had done it.

3)Your claim about racism of "stat-heads" is in fact NOT valid. Because a group is made up of 99% (which I would like to see a study that shows that) of an ethnic group, etc..it doesn't make that group a racist group. There is too much real racism still left in this world for people like you to make claims like that. I have never heard of any local SABR groups not allowing blacks in.

Beane merely talks about the trade he made with KW. He also talks about other topics that included white GM's.

If memory serves correctly, Beane talks about how great Tejada is. His problem is that he is "Mr. Swing-at-Everything". Because, in fact he used to and still does.

It is not a "view" that Latin players like to take hacks rather than wait for walks. The culture of Latin players was talked about in the book, and just about everyone is in agreement that Latin players need to hit to get noticed, not take walks. Mostly because over the last 10-20 years that is what MLB teams were looking for. Teams didn't care how many walks you took and long as you could mash the ball.

It is not Beane's fault, or the Latin players' fault that Beane (and many other GM's now) follow a certain philosophy that tends not to agree with the Latin style of play. That does not make him a racist, or any other "stat-head" racist

I don't know Beane personally, but if I had to guess, if there was a Latino player that fit what he was looking for, Beane would be more than happy to have him on his team. I have a hard time believing Billy Beane set out to develop a new way to evaluate players and the market that would purposely exclude Latin players