The White Sox - Huge Contracts to 2010 and Beyond
The White Sox have arguably been the biggest movers and shakers of this year's soft trade deadline, adding two gigantic contracts in the forms of Jake Peavy and Alex Rios. The White Sox, through these deals, have added over 110 million dollars of salary between 2010 and 2014. There's no question that Jake Peavy and Alex Rios will provide some sort of production over the course of these contracts, even if it's not the level of production that the White Sox are paying for. The question for the White Sox is whether or not they can still manage to operate from under the burden of these and other large contracts. Before adding Peavy and Rios, the White Sox were already at a $96MM payroll entering the season - 12th highest in the league, but the 13th highest was $82MM. The White Sox certainly belong to that second tier of large-market teams, behind the New York teams, the Cubs, and the Tigers, but more in line with the L.A. teams, Seattle, and Philadelphia.
It's possible that the White Sox could afford to add payroll because they subtracted over 25 million dollars in payroll over the 2008 offseason. Still, these additions have pushed them right back into that 120 million dollar range. With the economy as it is, I find it more feasible for the White Sox payroll to remain in the 100-110 million range as it did in 2006 and 2007. Let's take a look at the team that the White Sox will have under control for the 2010 season.

Now, they will need to fill a 5th rotation spot, 2 bullpen spots, a DH spot, and 5 bench spots (or 3 bullpen spots and 4 bench spots, depending on how they work their bullpen). If they do this internally, those 9 spots will cost 3.6M, taking their total guaranteed money for 2010 up to $93.675MM. Along with Wilson Betemit's contract, for 1.75MM through 2010 and Cuban defector Dayan Viciedo's $2.25M contract, this brings up the total to $97.675 Using Tom Tango's convenient payroll to expected win% formula, we can see what kind of team the White Sox should be getting out of this money.
For the purposes of this exercise, let's assume that the average payroll remains near $90MM, much like last year when it decreased by only $1MM. Then, with a $97.675MM payroll, the White Sox should expect a .505 win%, or win 82 games. With a replacement level set at a .300 win%, that means that a team with the payroll of the White Sox payroll should be roughly 33 wins above replacement. This year's White Sox team, without any major contributions from Rios or Peavy, is currently on pace to be at +37 wins above replacement. However, the White Sox will be losing a significant group of players next year (assuming Josh Fields goes to the minor leagues where he belongs, and Wilson Betemit remains in the minors where he belongs).
| PLAYER | WINS |
| Contreras | 2.1 |
| Thornton | 1.8 |
| Thome | 1.6 |
| Richard | 1.3 |
| Dye | 0.6 |
| Dotel | 0.6 |
| Poreda | 0.2 |
| Colon | 0.2 |
| Anderson | 0.1 |
| MacDougal | -0.1 |
| Podsednik | 1.1 |
| Betemit | -0.7 |
| Fields | -0.8 |
Removing these players and their 8 WAR, the White Sox would only be on pace for 26 WAR this year. Now, of course, given playing time consideration it's possible that the 16 players remaining with the team would be worth more than 26 WAR total. However, I highly doubt it would be the 7 WAR necessary to get up to the efficiency requirement.
Using 26 wins as our base, let's see what kind of performance we should expect out of the 2010 White Sox without any major free agent additions.
- The additions of Rios and Peavy (who I project at roughly 3.5 wins each) add 7 wins.
- Gordon Beckham should improve and receive more playing time. He could add anywhere from 1-3 more wins than he has produced this year (+1.1 through 61 games). If Beckham is a 3.0 win player next year (a conservative estimate), that would add an extra 1.5 wins to our base.
- Aging from Konerko, Buehrle, and Pierzynski should lead to decreased production, on the order of about 1.5 wins.
- Carlos Quentin's return to injury could add anywhere from 2-4 wins. For our purposes, Quentin adds 3 wins.
Then our rough projection for the White Sox WAR would be in the ballpark of 36 wins, with pretty large error bars, probably along the lines of 5 wins on the way down and 3 wins on the way up. This gives a win total estimate of 79-87. At the high end, this may be a playoff team, but it would be unlikely. If the Sox are willing to up their payroll to 110 million dollars, though, they may be able to add up to 5 wins, vaulting them to the 84-92 win range and putting them right in the thick of the race. Regardless, the young talent of players like Beckham, Danks, and Quentin offsets the large contracts of Peavy, Rios, Buehrle, and the other veterans on the team, and the White Sox are actually spending their money at a reasonably efficient level, especially given their status in the market.
Looking longer term, the White Sox only have 3 contracts coming off the books after the 2010 season: Paul Konerko ($12MM), AJ Pierzynski ($6.25MM), Wilson Betemit ($1.75MM), along with the buyouts for Dye and Thornton ($1.25MM), for a combined $21.25MM. With increases in the backloaded contracts of Peavy and Rios along with talented players entering their second and third years of arbitration (Danks, Jenks, Wise, Quentin), the relief will not be much. With their core getting older quickly, the White Sox will have to replenish the ML club with a depleted farm system, which has dealt two top arms in Poreda and Richard, and their 2nd best hitting prospect in Brandon Allen, all in a year in which two of their top 5 prospects graduated to the majors in Chris Getz and Beckham. If Kenny Williams is caught in a situation where he is inclined to buy in the near future, due to the large contracts for veterans and increasing contracts for young players already in place, the White Sox in 2012 may be due for a long rebuilding period. Still, Williams has the team in a condition to compete in 2010 and 2011 at least, and with good drafting the franchise could be set up for success.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Comments
FWIW, the Sox won't be losing Matt Thornton next year -- they have player options on him for the next two years at a bargain price (less than $4 million total, IIRC)
by CWSKeith on Aug 14, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Right - I was assuming they would take the least expensive option and buy him out.
His option is for 2.25M next year, which is decent.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 14, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to belabor the point, but...
Thornton was a two-WAR pitcher last year and is on pace for the same this year. As such his option is ridiculously cheap, so I’m not sure why you went in with the assumption that he’d be bought out…
by CWSKeith on Aug 14, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because we are the white sox
and every year we’re supposed to crap out
" Do you guys know people like you are the reason I wouldn’t come on for exstended periods of time. You rui the baseball blogging expieriance."
by trademaker on May 30, 2009 10:31 PM PDT
by U-God on Aug 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, except I think this team will be competitive for at least the next two years.
But I suppose you would have to actually read the article to find that out.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 14, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i read your article
it just wasn’t that great. i get that you went with the cheapest option, but they won’t buy-out thornton. i just don’t really see the point in saying that any team could be in trouble by 2012 farm system-wise. KW has done an above-average job at turning our “crap” farm system into major league players and keeping the team in contention each season.
" Do you guys know people like you are the reason I wouldn’t come on for exstended periods of time. You rui the baseball blogging expieriance."
by trademaker on May 30, 2009 10:31 PM PDT
by U-God on Aug 14, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dont fret it
u-god is a troll
"you should go back to your cowardly practice of offering no opinion of your own."
-picktoclick
by Where Triples Go to Die on Aug 22, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was choosing the cheapest option for the sake of the exercise
If you add Thornton back in, the expected wins (based on money) are closer to 82.5 and adds about 1.5 wins to their 2010 total. ZiPS RoS projects thornton at a 3.20 FIP, which is closer to a 1 win season than a 2 win season. I think it’s more realistic to project Thornton as a 1.25 or 1.5 win pitcher going forward.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 14, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there is room for improving valuation of relievers
The best reliever’s WPA’s are generally as high as the best starters’, suggesting that we are undervaluing them with WAR.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Aug 15, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought so as well...
But the more I think about it, the more it seems fair to judge relievers in this fashion. WPA is so context driven that it seems difficult to use that as the benchmark for relievers. I figured WPA/LI wouldn’t be bad, but we still have the issue of entanglement with defense.
We may be undervaluing them, as there are such large gaps between the performance of a 1 WAR reliever and a 1 WAR starter, but I suspect WPA isn’t telling us why. It’s got something to do with leverage, but it’s hard to figure our just how much that should factor into it.
by SFiercex4 on Aug 15, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Innings are valuable.
If you took the performance of an average reliever and scaled his innings up to that of the average starter, it would probably look much much closer.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 15, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
I just think we’re not all the way there with evaluating relievers. Something tells me we’re not giving enough credit for their leverage situations.
by SFiercex4 on Aug 15, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Aug 15, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what WAR is trying to measure, though.
It’s the manager’s job to leverage his relievers – their value (value in the terms of WPA or similar stats) is mostly based on the situations they’re used in. That’s not very useful when projecting future value.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 15, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying we should use WPA
I’m saying that WPA is a “real” stat, meaning it has no measurement error. If WAR is supposed to be a context neutral WPA, than the two should have a lot of overlap. However, when I plotted WAR vs. WPA for all relievers this year, using FanGraphs stats, I got an R Squared of .359. When I did the same for starters, I got an R Squared of .533, with a smaller sample size than for relievers.
That implies, to me, that relievers are being undervalued by WAR. We shouldn’t use WPA because of the impact a mangers decision has on it; but I don’t think we should be using WAR, at least without modifications.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Aug 15, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if I'd say WPA has no measurement error
Beyond the mingling of defense and pitching that SFiercex4 mentions, WPA is based on average outcomes.
So the WPA earned by a reliever in a high leverage situation is the same regardless of whether he gets out Albert Pujols or Tony Pena Jr, despite the fact that Pujols at the plate is whole lot more likely to end badly.
That said, WAR definitely gives a lot of value to playing time. WAA might be more “fair” to relievers.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Aug 16, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the last time, I'm not endorsing WPA!!!
All of the things you mentioned are perfectly valid, and because of those we shouldn’t use it to value relievers.
However, WPA is what it is. It measures how much a players adds to his wins. WAR or measures similarily to that, should strive to be a context neutral WPA. That doesn’t appear to be the case.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Aug 16, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't think you were endorsing WPA, just taking issue with the idea of no measurement error
Did you try your correlation with WAR vs WPA/LI?
That dampens the effect of leverage on relievers so it might be closer to WAR. Whether that’s right or wrong, I don’t know.
I also don’t know what Fangraph’s uses for leverage and chaining with relievers. That might influence things some, but maybe in the opposite direction than you’re looking.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Aug 16, 2009 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One, if you look at the highest WPAs for relievers.
It will include a lot of luck in the sense that they saw a lot of high-leverage situations.
Two, replacement level for relievers is about 0 WPA while it’s more like -2 WPA for starters.
Three, you shouldn’t give relievers full credit for their leverage. If they get replaced, it’s not a shmuck who takes their place, but the second best reliever. Everyone else gets bumped up a spot in the chain and the replacement comes in on the end. Bullpen chaining.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Aug 17, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that it matters much in this case
My current version is (P+L)/(P+L*3)
by tangotiger on Aug 14, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that this team has more talent than most others
There’s a good chance someone like Peavy, Rios, Quentin, Beckham or Floyd could have a dynamic year while the base of the team is at least average. A high-risk, high-reward team, if you will. I think it’s a little sketchy to assume a .5 drop in WAR for Konerko and Buehrle where they have had rebound seasons past the normal age peak and predicting Buehrle is impossible as it is. I think there are a lot of wild-cards here either way.
by Daniel Berlyn on Aug 14, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm very biased, so pardon me if this is too optimistic
but the Sox farm system does have some players. It’s not deep by any means, but it has its bright spots. Assuming all of those bright spots work out (a very poor assumption), I think the 2012 lineup could be, in no order: Alex Rios, Gordon Beckham, Carlos Quentin, Chris Getz, Alexei Ramirez, Tyler Flowers, Dayan Viciedo, Jared Mitchell or Jordan Danks and someone at DH, which isn’t that hard to find. And the rotation would still have John Danks, Gavin Floyd, and Jake Peavy. And you can hope Daniel Hudson is a factor in the rotation by then. I think I like that team. There are a lot of if’s, but when you’re talking about 2012, that’s hard to avoid.
So I guess if you’re point is ‘if the Sox resign none of their veterans and develop no major leaguers from their farm system, they are going to have trouble in 2012’ then we technically agree. But I think there is the chance of extending Buehrle and whoever else, and I do think there’s a couple of guys in the system who will be contributors by then (after all, the system was not thought of well going into this year, and it produced Beckham and enough players to trade for Peavy). I understand the point of the exercise, to just look at the contacts and see what the team can hope to get out of them, and I understand that projecting out who the team might sign and who in the minors is going to work out falls outside the exercise. And all that’s fine. I just think it goes too far to forecast a rebuilding in 2012. I doubt that any exercise that looks at only the players currently on the major league roster is going to be able to make trustworthy predictions about three years from now.
by TCaptain on Aug 15, 2009 1:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree, and this article wasn't meant to look pessimistic.
The thing to worry about for the White Sox is an overreaction to a down year, I think. They’re in good shape now, but there’s a lot of risk involved in the next two years and a big buying period could have a very big (and bad) impact on future teams.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 15, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
you never know how Kenny will try and improve the team… we could have a completely different looking team by next ST.
"you should go back to your cowardly practice of offering no opinion of your own."
-picktoclick
by Where Triples Go to Die on Aug 22, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 











BtB on Facebook

















