PDA

View Full Version : If you were KW


LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 08:50 AM
What would you do with this team right now? I would make some kind of blockbuster trade to shake these guys up, I know its easier said than done but this team is really ugly right now. This team is in such of a need of a high OBP leadoff guy and #2 hitter. What really scares me is how bad Danks amd Floyd are looking right now, if they don't pick it up we could lose close to one hundred games.

JohnTucker0814
05-17-2009, 09:05 AM
1. You aren't going to make a blockbuster trade in May... just isn't going to happen.

2. There aren't that many teams that have a great leadoff hitter... they aren't easy to come by.

3. You just have to play it out, and hope for the best. It's the off season where you make your major decisions about a team, looks like thier plan may have not been the best...

eastchicagosoxfan
05-17-2009, 09:07 AM
I'm in favor of taking some lumps and building an effective farm system. That's if the Sox continue to flounder. I'm not giving up the season in May.

DumpJerry
05-17-2009, 09:09 AM
I would tell the players to stop getting hurt.


:rolleyes:

Noneck
05-17-2009, 09:10 AM
I would sign Minnie and Big Frank in order to sell a few more tics.

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 09:10 AM
I'm in favor of taking some lumps and building an effective farm system. That's if the Sox continue to flounder. I'm not giving up the season in May.
The first part of your thread might be exactly what the front office has in mind and 2009 will be like a write off.

Dibbs
05-17-2009, 09:23 AM
2. There aren't that many teams that have a great leadoff hitter... they aren't easy to come by.


I would settle for a slightly below average leadoff hitter.

DirtySox
05-17-2009, 09:37 AM
I'm in favor of taking some lumps and building an effective farm system. That's if the Sox continue to flounder. I'm not giving up the season in May.


Same. There are too many holes on this ballclub to fill. I'd rather not trade off our highly touted prospects for a quick fix. (Which is what you would have to trade if you are expecting a "blockbuster" return) If we do will just be looking at another 2009 type season down the road. I'm fine with riding this out as is and putting our farm system in a position to help us sustain success in the future.

SoxGirl4Life
05-17-2009, 09:43 AM
Same. There are too many holes on this ballclub to fill. I'd rather not trade off our highly touted prospects for a quick fix. (Which is what you would have to trade if you are expecting a "blockbuster" return) If we do will just be looking at another 2009 type season down the road. I'm fine with riding this out as is and putting our farm system in a position to help us sustain success in the future.

Completely agree.

Rohan
05-17-2009, 09:46 AM
What would you do with this team right now? I would make some kind of blockbuster trade to shake these guys up, I know its easier said than done but this team is really ugly right now. This team is in such of a need of a high OBP leadoff guy and #2 hitter. What really scares me is how bad Danks amd Floyd are looking right now, if they don't pick it up we could lose close to one hundred games.

John danks looks fine. One bad outing doesn't mean he's a problem.

russ99
05-17-2009, 09:51 AM
Same. There are too many holes on this ballclub to fill. I'd rather not trade off our highly touted prospects for a quick fix. (Which is what you would have to trade if you are expecting a "blockbuster" return) If we do will just be looking at another 2009 type season down the road. I'm fine with riding this out as is and putting our farm system in a position to help us sustain success in the future.

While I'm not advocating a quick fix or trading any of our key building blocks of the future (Poreda, Beckham, Flowers, Allen, Shelby, Viciedo), something can be done to give the fans who spend their hard-earned cash a reason to go to the park.

A big blockbuster deal isn't necessary. A lead-off hitter and top-line starter would be nice, but that would entail us selling the future short. We really need one outfielder with enough talent to spell the big hitters when they can't go and a mid-level starter that can eat innings. We have plenty of decent prospects (and the lesser players on the big-league roster) we can deal without touching our keystone guys for the future.

I view this past offseason as a massive cop-out in the name of reducing payroll, but it would be an even bigger crime to stand pat and consider the season as lost like in 2007. I still have a bitter taste of all the tickets I bought that year to watch that train-wreck. I love going to games, but Sox fans like myself won't throw in to see a losing team like that again.

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 09:52 AM
I just hope we are not going back to the small market mentality, I like the tradition of winning baseball that the organization touted awhile back and except for 07 we have done quite well in the won-lost record in this decade.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 09:52 AM
I second the post on Danks. John will be fine.

If you're KW, you continue to ride it out. If by mid-June things look dire, try selling off a few pieces before the market comes together on the seller end, in order to maximize some value. There will be more buyers in June than July.

At this point, I don't believe this team can contend. We need more pitching in this system, and perhaps JD/Dotel/Linebrink can net some.

We're not done. Our division is terrible and we've got lots of injuries. One more month will tell the story.

DumpJerry
05-17-2009, 10:00 AM
I would sign Minnie and Big Frank in order to sell a few more tics.
Ummm....selling tickets is not the problem facing the team. The performance on the field is where the problem lies.

Noneck
05-17-2009, 10:10 AM
Ummm....selling tickets is not the problem facing the team. The performance on the field is where the problem lies.

Selling tics or other ways to increase revenue and/or decreasing expenses is the what it is all about. I don't see any other way at this point to increase revenue and too early to decrease expenses.

NLaloosh
05-17-2009, 10:30 AM
1. Bring up Andy Phillips and play him almost everyday at DH, 3B or 1B.

2. Sign Jim Edmonds.

3. Trade Dye for pitching as soon as opportunity arises.

asindc
05-17-2009, 10:39 AM
I would settle for a slightly below average leadoff hitter.

So would about 20 other teams in MLB. That store doesn't open often, and when it does you have to pay premium prices.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 10:58 AM
While I'm not advocating a quick fix or trading any of our key building blocks of the future (Poreda, Beckham, Flowers, Allen, Shelby, Viciedo), something can be done to give the fans who spend their hard-earned cash a reason to go to the park.

I view this past offseason as a massive cop-out in the name of reducing payroll, but it would be an even bigger crime to stand pat and consider the season as lost like in 2007. I still have a bitter taste of all the tickets I bought that year to watch that train-wreck. I love going to games, but Sox fans like myself won't throw in to see a losing team like that again.

Teams have years like this all the time. Do you see the Nationals or anyone else whose season will be over by the ASB making a reason for people to justify coming out to the park? I don't see it happening.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 11:01 AM
1. Bring up Andy Phillips and play him almost everyday at DH, 3B or 1B.
What purpose would that serve? What a terrible idea.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 11:02 AM
1. Bring up Andy Phillips and play him almost everyday at DH, 3B or 1B.

2. Sign Jim Edmonds.

3. Trade Dye for pitching as soon as opportunity arises.

1. Why? So Dewayne Wise can have company as another 31 year-old career minor leaguer takes ABs away from people more deserving of a look if this is a lost season?

2. See 1.

3. Agreed.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 11:04 AM
What purpose would that serve? What a terrible idea.

I completely agree. This is total "I looked at Charlotte's stats and Andy Phillips is hitting really well, so we must bring him up and give him a chance!" without thinking that some guys (like Andy Phillips) are just career 31 year-old minor leaguers.

A. Cavatica
05-17-2009, 11:08 AM
We'll be fine as soon as DeWayne is back from his injury.

russ99
05-17-2009, 11:25 AM
Teams have years like this all the time. Do you see the Nationals or anyone else whose season will be over by the ASB making a reason for people to justify coming out to the park? I don't see it happening.

The Nationals? I guess you proved my point.

Maybe since I saw too many bad White Sox teams since the early 70s, I don't want the Sox recent run of success to end. Which also means I don't want that "second-class team" mentality along with the nearly empty ballpark to come back either.

The other problem with "rebuilding" is that who's to say that the Sox prospects turn out as expected. Look at the Rays, they had all the talent in the world in their system and it took them 10 years to get to the playoffs. Granted, we have a much bigger market, but what if Jerry goes back to his pre-2000 payroll mentality?

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 11:32 AM
The Nationals? I guess you proved my point.

Maybe since I saw too many bad White Sox teams since the early 70s, I don't want the Sox recent run of success to end. Which also means I don't want that "second-class team" mentality along with the nearly empty ballpark to come back either.

The other problem with "rebuilding" is that who's to say that the Sox prospects turn out as expected. Look at the Rays, they had all the talent in the world in their system and it took them 10 years to get to the playoffs. Granted, we have a much bigger market, but what if Jerry goes back to his pre-2000 payroll mentality?
Good point, as I mentioned I don't want to go back to that small market mentality. The Red Sox last year needed an outfielder and went out and got Jason Bay, why did'nt we get him?

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 11:33 AM
Good point, as I mentioned I don't want to go back to that small market mentality. The Red Sox last year needed an outfielder and went out and got Jason Bay, why did'nt we get him?
Because we didn't need a corner outfielder. Is that a serious ****ing question?

Also, we didn't have Manny Ramirez to part with.

The ignorance in this thread is ****ing maddening.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 11:37 AM
but what if Jerry goes back to his pre-2000 payroll mentality?

Maybe he already is.

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 11:41 AM
Because we didn't need a corner outfielder. Is that a serious ****ing question?

Also, we didn't have Manny Ramirez to part with.

The ignorance in this thread is ****ing maddening.
Just making a point, the winning franchises like the BoSox fill their needs.
We have needed a leadoff guy and solid CFer now for over 2 years, who did we pick up Lillbridge, Betemit et al.

PalehosePlanet
05-17-2009, 11:42 AM
1. Why? So Dewayne Wise can have company as another 31 year-old career minor leaguer takes ABs away from people more deserving of a look if this is a lost season?

2. See 1.

3. Agreed.

While I don't like Phillips at all, I do see the general point of the original post.

Everyone here seems to shun the idea of bringing up a Kroeger, or a Restovich or a Phillips because they are career minor leaguers. And while that's true that doesn't mean that they can't come up for a week or two and possibly help the team. Look at what Hoffpauir and Scales have done for the Cubs.

There is no reason, injuries or otherwise, to run Lillibridge out there every day; especially in CF. E.G. Quentin hasn't played most of this week due to injury. I would rather have had one of the aforementioned "career minor leaguers" (although Kroeger is only 26) out there than Lillibridge.

As for what KW should do, I'm in agreement with CG and say we wait a month and see where we are at that point.

voodoochile
05-17-2009, 11:46 AM
Just making a point, the winning franchises like the BoSox fill their needs.
We have needed a leadoff guy and solid CFer now for over 2 years, who did we pick up Lillbridge, Betemit et al.

You can say it was a mistake, but to say KW hasn't tried to fill the CF/LO slot is just a flat out lie. He went out and acquired a good young talent who had a history of playing CF in a park with a huge outfield who also had a great lifetime OBP. The fact that Swisher had his worst year as a major leaguer is not KW's fault.

I hate the way people just ignore this trade as if it didn't happen as if KW has simply done nothing to try and improve these problem areas. Maybe he failed, but you can't say he didn't try.

russ99
05-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Maybe he already is.

No kidding.

I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but what if management believes they can drastically cut payroll and rebuild while still maintaining the majority of the fanbase due to the Series win?

That would fly in the face of recent history, and seem counter to having Kenny Williams as the GM, but stranger things have happened with this franchise...

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 11:47 AM
While I don't like Phillips at all, I do see the general point of the original post.

Everyone here seems to shun the idea of bringing up a Kroeger, or a Restovich or a Phillips because they are career minor leaguers. And while that's true that doesn't mean that they can't come up for a week or two and possibly help the team. Look at what Hoffpauir and Scales have done for the Cubs.

There is no reason, injuries or otherwise, to run Lillibridge out there every day; especially in CF. E.G. Quentin hasn't played most of this week due to injury. I would rather have had one of the aforementioned "career minor leaguers" (although Kroeger is only 26) out there than Lillibridge.

As for what KW should do, I'm in agreement with CG and say we wait a month and see where we are at that point.
Kroeger, Restovich, and Phillips all suck. Giving them 25-40 AB in the majors to prove again that they suck is a worthless exercise.

russ99
05-17-2009, 11:49 AM
You can say it was a mistake, but to say KW hasn't tried to fill the CF/LO slot is just a flat out lie. He went out and acquired a good young talent who had a history of playing CF in a park with a huge outfield who also had a great lifetime OBP. The fact that Swisher had his worst year as a major leaguer is not KW's fault.

I hate the way people just ignore this trade as if it didn't happen as if KW has simply done nothing to try and improve these problem areas. Maybe he failed, but you can't say he didn't try.

And he also tried to get Torii Hunter with a very large (for the Sox) contract offer.

That is a very good point, but fans memories are short, and we haven't seen the same effort from Kenny since the end of last season, which leads me to believe he's had his hands tied from above this year.

Average Homeboy
05-17-2009, 11:50 AM
If you are KW you wait until July, and if you are either 10 games under .500 or 10 games out of 1st place, you start dealing.

You deal Thome and Dotel, hope to get some decent prospects in return. Take damn near whatever you can get for Betemit, Podsednik, Colon, Gobble, and Contreras. They are all free agents to be anyways, so take what you can get and be done with them.

Dye will most certainly be sought after. But you only deal him if the return is absolutely worth it. Dealing him saves $12M on his option for next season.

Buerhle could be dealt, but only if the return is overwhelming. We know he grew up a Cardinals fan, and we know the Cardinals love pitching.

Thornton should bring a nice return, and trading Linebrink would save over $10M the next two seasons.

voodoochile
05-17-2009, 11:50 AM
In addition, given the lower budget brought on by a worsening economy, the Sox needed to cut some payroll AND had several players who were ready for their shot in Getz, Fields and the three headed monster that entered ST as the CF option this season. Sometimes you have to give people their shot. Sometimes that works. Sometimes that doesn't. Jury is still out on Getz. Fields is having a rough stretch offensively and has been poor defensively, but has made the routine plays. CF actually managed to perform adequately the first month before both Wise and BA got hurt.

No team save the Yankees never uses the players who are succeeding in the minors to fill holes and it's WAY too soon to call the players who have been given their shot this season busts.

balke
05-17-2009, 11:53 AM
I see probably the most solid bullpen in the MLB on a team that has a need at starting pitcher, CF and 3B.

I see teams like Seattle with no closer.

I look at Dotel, Linebrink, Jenks, and Thornton all as candidates that can bring something good in return.

If I were KW I'd go shopping, but I wouldn't buy just anything.


I'm in panic mode, but actually its not so bad for the Sox. At least Konerko and Dye have been hitting. The problems in total are about the same as they've ever been. This is still a potential playoff team. The only problem, is I think there's too much focus on "hitting" and not enough on "winning". The bats are terrible right now, but this is a team that should scrap and win a lot of games.

I say for now, keep it cool. let Anderson come back and see if adding depth to the outfield helps some of the hitters, and hope these guys are slumping. I think there's still time to wait this one out.

voodoochile
05-17-2009, 11:55 AM
If you are KW you wait until July, and if you are either 10 games under .500 or 10 games out of 1st place, you start dealing.

You deal Thome and Dotel, hope to get some decent prospects in return. Take damn near whatever you can get for Betemit, Podsednik, Colon, Gobble, and Contreras. They are all free agents to be anyways, so take what you can get and be done with them.

Dye will most certainly be sought after. But you only deal him if the return is absolutely worth it. Dealing him saves $12M on his option for next season.

Buerhle could be dealt, but only if the return is overwhelming. We know he grew up a Cardinals fan, and we know the Cardinals love pitching.

Thornton should bring a nice return, and trading Linebrink would save over $10M the next two seasons.


Which is a recipe for several losing years of baseball. Keep Dye. Use his extension and let him be the DH/RF next year. Don't decimate the bullpen - though trading Dotel is okay because you are just going to have to spend that money next off season to replace Thornton and Linebrink and there is no guarantee you get better players for less money. I agree Thome can be traded, but I doubt you find many takers it would be just a salary dump, you aren't going to get good return. Contreras too won't bring spit. Colon might if he pitches well the next month.

Noneck
05-17-2009, 11:55 AM
I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but what if management believes they can drastically cut payroll and rebuild while still maintaining the majority of the fanbase due to the Series win?


If it was started this year it was some what cloaked. Next year no way they will be able to hide it. I am sure they are or did their market research to see if it will pay off.

PalehosePlanet
05-17-2009, 11:58 AM
Kroeger, Restovich, and Phillips all suck. Giving them 25-40 AB in the majors to prove again that they suck is a worthless exercise.

If Kroeger came up and went, say...7-30 would that not be better than Lilllibridge's 0-30... or what ever the actual numbers are?

I'm not saying that any of these guys have a bright future --- I think you know that. My point is we are playing short-handed almost every single night now, and we have guys playing out of position.

These guys certainly could not do wany worse than Lillibridge, Pods, etc... and who is to say that they couldn't have a lucky week out of their ass ala Bobby Scales?

ode to veeck
05-17-2009, 12:02 PM
I would sign Minnie and Big Frank in order to sell a few more tics.

ding ding ding ding

cmon we already have pods wining the ptc, frank can't be far behind, but KW not likely to go that route, even if Thome were to go down

cards press box
05-17-2009, 12:52 PM
If you're KW, you continue to ride it out. If by mid-June things look dire, try selling off a few pieces before the market comes together on the seller end, in order to maximize some value. There will be more buyers in June than July.

I'm in favor of taking some lumps and building an effective farm system. That's if the Sox continue to flounder. I'm not giving up the season in May.

Yes, the Sox should continue to ride it out. As I have said before, the Sox' future is in Birmingham where the Barons are currently 24-9. If the Sox do decide to play for the future some time in June or maybe July, then they have to identify the players on the roster that will be part of that future.

I expect that the nucleus for the future on the Sox roster would include John Danks, Gavin Floyd, Carlos Quentin, Alexei Ramirez and at least in the short term would include A.J., Mark Buerhle and Paul Konerko. I think that the Sox keep the quartet from the back end of the bullpen (Dotel, Linebrink, Thornton and Jenks). Thome might be coming to the end of his career. It is difficult to imagine Konerko, Dye and Thome coming back next year. Getz, Fields and Anderson have an opportunity to make a case with their play for sticking around as part of the Sox future.

Anyway, the Sox have to figure out who will stick around and gauge what trade interest exists for those who will not.

We're not done. Our division is terrible and we've got lots of injuries. One more month will tell the story.

This is true, too. As terrible as the offense, pitching and defense have been and despite the fact that the Sox have had a somewhat difficult schedule in April and May, they are only 4 games out.

Without the good back end of the bullpen, the Sox would be further out. But they are not and it makes sense to wait and see where the Sox are in late June before deciding whether to have a "fire sale."

Average Homeboy
05-17-2009, 01:22 PM
Which is a recipe for several losing years of baseball.

The team on the field now is a recipe for several losing years of baseball.

Ranger
05-17-2009, 01:25 PM
Just making a point, the winning franchises like the BoSox fill their needs.
We have needed a leadoff guy and solid CFer now for over 2 years, who did we pick up Lillbridge, Betemit et al.


Corner outfielders are MUCH easier to find than good CFs that are also good leadoff hitters. The Red Sox already have their leadoff guy and a CF, but if their current need was a CF who also bat leadoff, they wouldn't be filling it any time soon.

WhiteSox5187
05-17-2009, 01:42 PM
I second the post on Danks. John will be fine.

If you're KW, you continue to ride it out. If by mid-June things look dire, try selling off a few pieces before the market comes together on the seller end, in order to maximize some value. There will be more buyers in June than July.

At this point, I don't believe this team can contend. We need more pitching in this system, and perhaps JD/Dotel/Linebrink can net some.

We're not done. Our division is terrible and we've got lots of injuries. One more month will tell the story.

I think he will too, but other than that good outing against Texas he's looked pretty bad. Floyd has reverted to '07 form and I think you now have to go into 2010 thinking he might be a servicable fifth starter. The rotation in 2010 is going to need to be redone and essentially we'll be back to where we need two additional starters, one middle of the rotation guy and another front line starter.

We are probably also going to need a third baseman (unless we want to move Beckham over there and that's assuming he'll be ready to play), another starting corner outfielder and somewhere we have to find a leadoff guy. I have no clue what Kenny should do actually now that I think about it. If I were him, I'd probably start clearing payroll so maybe the Sox could go out and get a few free agents next year, but you can't spend a dollar...

voodoochile
05-17-2009, 01:52 PM
The team on the field now is a recipe for several losing years of baseball.

What?

Next year, Contreras, Thome and Colon come off the books. That frees up $20M roughly. By then the team will also have answers on Getz, Fields and BA/Wise and be able to decide where to spend the money. If Colon has a solid but unspectacular year, perhaps they offer him a 2-3 year incentive laden deal and let him be the 4th starter. Maybe Richard actually develops or Broadway continues his good start and seizes a startiing role later this season or Poreda finishes putting it together and all of a sudden the Sox have at least 4 starters to rely on.

With or without a bunch of trades this team is going to see an overhaul in the off season because no way Contreras or Thome are coming back. I'd just prefer not to dump all of our aging power. Dye probably has 3-4 more productive seasons in him. Yes, that should be primarily as a DH, but if he were to split duties between DH and RF and the Sox could find someone who can play RF and 1B then they could rotate the DH spot between Paulie and Dye and the other guy and keep everyone fresh. Maybe that guy is Viciedo or even Betemit (who for all his shortcomings appears to have a solid stick). If Getz and Fields don't cut it this year, they won't be handed the job next year, but you aren't going to trade Thome, Contreras, Dotel for a stud 3B/2B anyway and if you decimate the bullpen you just have to rebuild it anyway, so trading off Linebrink and Thornton may seem like a good idea, but all you are doing is setting yourself up to fail in a different way in the future.

JB98
05-17-2009, 01:59 PM
What?

Next year, Contreras, Thome and Colon come off the books. That frees up $20M roughly. By then the team will also have answers on Getz, Fields and BA/Wise and be able to decide where to spend the money. If Colon has a solid but unspectacular year, perhaps they offer him a 2-3 year incentive laden deal and let him be the 4th starter. Maybe Richard actually develops or Broadway continues his good start and seizes a startiing role later this season or Poreda finishes putting it together and all of a sudden the Sox have at least 4 starters to rely on.

With or without a bunch of trades this team is going to see an overhaul in the off season because no way Contreras or Thome are coming back. I'd just prefer not to dump all of our aging power. Dye probably has 3-4 more productive seasons in him. Yes, that should be primarily as a DH, but if he were to split duties between DH and RF and the Sox could find someone who can play RF and 1B then they could rotate the DH spot between Paulie and Dye and the other guy and keep everyone fresh. Maybe that guy is Viciedo or even Betemit (who for all his shortcomings appears to have a solid stick). If Getz and Fields don't cut it this year, they won't be handed the job next year, but you aren't going to trade Thome, Contreras, Dotel for a stud 3B/2B anyway and if you decimate the bullpen you just have to rebuild it anyway, so trading off Linebrink and Thornton may seem like a good idea, but all you are doing is setting yourself up to fail in a different way in the future.

I hope they never trade Thornton. He's one of the best left-handed relievers in the league.

Overall, I don't think this organization is in any position to be trading pitching. I'm inclined to keep the bullpen together, even if the team implosion continues into June.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 02:03 PM
I hope they never trade Thornton. He's one of the best left-handed relievers in the league.

Overall, I don't think this organization is in any position to be trading pitching. I'm inclined to keep the bullpen together, even if the team implosion continues into June.
We should beg teams to take that Linebrink contract off our hands. Then again, he's armed with a no-trade clause. Thanks KW!

JB98
05-17-2009, 02:09 PM
We should beg teams to take that Linebrink contract off our hands. Then again, he's armed with a no-trade clause. Thanks KW!

The Linebrink contract is something that happens when your minor-league system fails to develop competent pitching. The Sox didn't have anyone to pitch the eighth inning in 2007, so they overpaid to bring in somebody for that role in 2008.

I suppose they can part with Linebrink as a salary dump if they feel like they can bring back Dotel at a lesser rate for 2010.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 02:12 PM
The Linebrink contract is something that happens when your minor-league system fails to develop competent pitching. The Sox didn't have anyone to pitch the eighth inning in 2007, so they overpaid to bring in somebody for that role in 2008.

I suppose they can part with Linebrink as a salary dump if they feel like they can bring back Dotel at a lesser rate for 2010.
Giving him a four-year deal and a NTC is inexcusable and only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

JB98
05-17-2009, 02:15 PM
Giving him a four-year deal and a NTC is inexcusable and only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

For me, going into a season banking on reclamation projects as your No. 4 and No. 5 starters is far worse.

Daver
05-17-2009, 02:16 PM
Giving him a four-year deal and a NTC is inexcusable and only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

Using that logic you could say the same thing for any contract more than one year.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Using that logic you could say the same thing for any contract more than one year.
You are mistaken. Scott Linebrink is not every player in major league baseball. Giving that kind of deal to a player of his caliber is foolish.

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 02:19 PM
For me, going into a season banking on reclamation projects as your No. 4 and No. 5 starters is far worse.
Good point, especially with our #2 and #3 starters looking like mop up guys.

pmck003
05-17-2009, 02:20 PM
Regardless of how well Walker is doing his job, it seems like it might be a good time for a different perspective.

DirtySox
05-17-2009, 02:21 PM
Giving him a four-year deal and a NTC is inexcusable and only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

Agreed. Linebrink is easily this teams worst contract. It really can't be defended.

LITTLE NELL
05-17-2009, 02:25 PM
Regardless of how well Walker is doing his job, it seems like it might be a good time for a different perspective.
How about different players that can hit, run, field and do little things to win, not to mention some pitchers who can pitch. Other than that we are in good shape.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 02:31 PM
I'd resign.

russ99
05-17-2009, 02:36 PM
We should beg teams to take that Linebrink contract off our hands. Then again, he's armed with a no-trade clause. Thanks KW!

Jenks gave up a run today, are you going to trade him too?

kittle42
05-17-2009, 02:39 PM
Jenks gave up a run today, are you going to trade him too?

You're seriously comparing Jenks and Linebrink?

Jenks is actually one if this team's most tradeable assets. Whether he should be traded is another story.

JB98
05-17-2009, 02:40 PM
You're seriously comparing Jenks and Linebrink?

Jenks is actually one if this team's most tradeable assets. Whether he should be traded is another story.

True, but he's still a bargain even with the salary increase he received this year.

Trade Jenks and you're pretty much committing to a rebuilding because there aren't any other guys you can find in the organization who look like closer material.

russ99
05-17-2009, 02:41 PM
You're seriously comparing Jenks and Linebrink?

Jenks is actually one if this team's most tradeable assets. Whether he should be traded is another story.

No, I'm just saying that one bad outing aside, Linebrink is one of the best setup men in the league. He may be overpayed, and that NTC doesn't help, but by no means is he a bad player and one to just get rid of by any means necessary.

They'd have to get a massive return to deal Jenks, and if they did, Dotel was a former closer and we have a few guys in the minors being groomed for the role, Jon Link comes to mind.

JB98
05-17-2009, 03:02 PM
No, I'm just saying that one bad outing aside, Linebrink is one of the best setup men in the league. He may be overpayed, and that NTC doesn't help, but by no means is he a bad player and one to just get rid of by any means necessary.

They'd have to get a massive return to deal Jenks, and if they did, Dotel was a former closer and we have a few guys in the minors being groomed for the role, Jon Link comes to mind.

Jon Link doesn't look like a guy who will close on a winning MLB team. Too many walks. Dotel is a former closer for a reason.

You trade Jenks only if you're willing to commit to a rebuilding job.

jabrch
05-17-2009, 03:04 PM
I would tell the players to stop getting hurt.


:rolleyes:

Good advice. Ask them to play better also...

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Good advice. Ask them to play better also...
Or you could ask the front office to acquire good players. Novel idea.

pmck003
05-17-2009, 03:31 PM
How about different players that can hit, run, field and do little things to win, not to mention some pitchers who can pitch. Other than that we are in good shape.

I'd at least start looking at different options for a hitting coach seeing as its arguable if the offense has been more effective than San Diego. Wouldn't do anything for at least a few weeks but if the younger guys are not improving by then I'd give someone else a chance.

WhiteSox5187
05-17-2009, 04:02 PM
Or you could ask the front office to acquire good players. Novel idea.

Hey, we got the best players we could for fifty cents!

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 04:08 PM
Simple question, so here's my simple answer:

If I were KW, I would find a way to dump $10 million in payroll and plow that into signing bonuses for the best scouting and player development people from the Twins and Red Sox organizations. Those teams seem to develop lots of solid players. The Red Sox tend to keep their players, the Twins let them go as free agents when they cannot afford them anymore. If the Sox could combine the Twins' aptitude for developing fundamentally sound players with the highest payroll in the AL Central, they would dominate the division year-in and year-out.

How do I dump $10 million in payroll? Well, first I try to deal Contreras. Finding no takers, I then would try to deal Thome, Paulie or Dye.

Tragg
05-17-2009, 04:08 PM
What would you do with this team right now? I would make some kind of blockbuster trade to shake these guys up, I know its easier said than done but this team is really ugly right now. This team is in such of a need of a high OBP leadoff guy and #2 hitter. What really scares me is how bad Danks amd Floyd are looking right now, if they don't pick it up we could lose close to one hundred games.
there just are no blockbusters to be had.
If there were, I would ship out any of the veteran hitters out AND pick up salary to get some young players in here, but the picking up salary part is not the Sox M.O. (it's a sunk cost, so I think not picking up salary is cutting your own throat).
Williams took a huge chance going into the season with this thin a team, with several key hitters aging and a 3-deep rotation. He spent the offseason dumping salary and bringing in acquring yet another set of utility infielders. I know that Guillen loves slap-hitting, but the Sox really need GOOD hitters. Voila, the 2009 Sox.

Demps2
05-17-2009, 04:12 PM
clean house. period.

Ranger
05-17-2009, 04:13 PM
Giving him a four-year deal and a NTC is inexcusable and only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

Actually, it is absolutely excusable when you take into account the sorry state of the Sox bullpen in 2007. When you put together one of the worst pens in the game, you have to overpay the next season if you want to fix it. That's how the market works. Any GM would overpay to avoid that mess again. I think you would all agree that $19 mil over 4 years is actually a VERY small price to pay for something like that.

And let's be honest, it's a 4 years at $19 mil...not 4 years at $19 mil per season.

Williams "overpaid" for Linebrink and Dotel so you don't have to see Bukvich, Prinz, Wasserman, and Day try to setup games for Jenks.

palehozenychicty
05-17-2009, 04:45 PM
Simple question, so here's my simple answer:

If I were KW, I would find a way to dump $10 million in payroll and plow that into signing bonuses for the best scouting and player development people from the Twins and Red Sox organizations. Those teams seem to develop lots of solid players. The Red Sox tend to keep their players, the Twins let them go as free agents when they cannot afford them anymore. If the Sox could combine the Twins' aptitude for developing fundamentally sound players with the highest payroll in the AL Central, they would dominate the division year-in and year-out.

How do I dump $10 million in payroll? Well, first I try to deal Contreras. Finding no takers, I then would try to deal Thome, Paulie or Dye.


They definitely need to improve their scouting and player development. The hire of Buddy Bell was smart, but we'll know in a couple years if it's been successful.

Tragg
05-17-2009, 04:47 PM
And let's be honest, it's a 4 years at $19 mil...not 4 years at $19 mil per season.

Williams "overpaid" for Linebrink and Dotel so you don't have to see Bukvich, Prinz, Wasserman, and Day try to setup games for Jenks.
Whether he's worth it or not, it's still only 4million bucks.
The bullpen is the strength.
I know Ozzie has a thing for slap hitting, but it's hard to understand why Williams uses so many resources to acquire utility ballplayers. He makes a trade, and picks up more hackers that can play multiple positions. How nice.
As said above, it's time to bring in GOOD players. the kind that can score 8 runs on 10 hits and 2 walks, like the Blue Jays can.

gr8mexico
05-17-2009, 04:52 PM
it's time for a

http://www.alliantmetals.com/images/firesale.gif

kittle42
05-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Hey, we got the best players we could for fifty cents!

Exactly.

TDog
05-17-2009, 05:00 PM
it's time for a

http://www.alliantmetals.com/images/firesale.gif

Teams that have fire sales usually don't get any better for a very long time.

According to some people, the White Sox already had a fire sale when they dumped Nick Swisher as soon as they could after last season.

Craig Grebeck
05-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Actually, it is absolutely excusable when you take into account the sorry state of the Sox bullpen in 2007. When you put together one of the worst pens in the game, you have to overpay the next season if you want to fix it. That's how the market works. Any GM would overpay to avoid that mess again. I think you would all agree that $19 mil over 4 years is actually a VERY small price to pay for something like that.

And let's be honest, it's a 4 years at $19 mil...not 4 years at $19 mil per season.

Williams "overpaid" for Linebrink and Dotel so you don't have to see Bukvich, Prinz, Wasserman, and Day try to setup games for Jenks.
My issue is with the years, not the salary. Linebrink will be ineffective soon.

fuzzy_patters
05-17-2009, 05:08 PM
Scott Linebrink might be overpaid, but does he really have the worst contract on the team? He makes about 4 million dollars per year and has a career ERA of 3.23. In his first two years with the Sox, he has posted ERAs of 3.69 (2008) and 2.08 (2009). Statistically, he is our second best relief pitcher. If he has our worst contract, Kenny Williams has done one hell of a job.

doublem23
05-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Good point, as I mentioned I don't want to go back to that small market mentality. The Red Sox last year needed an outfielder and went out and got Jason Bay, why did'nt we get him?

The Red Sox downgraded at LF to get Bay.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Exactly.

If you can draft better players, and do a better job developing the players you draft, you won't have as many holes to fill. This means you don't have to spend as much on the free agent market, trying to sign players whose original teams did not want to retain at the market price, because you can spend your money on keeping your talented home-grown players. Moreover, when there is a hole, you have the "full dollar" to go out and fill that hole with the best available free agent.

Let me put it another way: With better player development, maybe Joe Borchard develops into a .275 average/.350 OBP/30 homer/30 double/20 steal CF, and we don't need to trade for Swisher. With better player development, maybe Jon Rauch becomes a legitimate setup reliever, and we don't need to overpay for Linebrink or Dotel.

kittle42
05-17-2009, 05:15 PM
If you can draft better players, and do a better job developing the players you draft, you won't have as many holes to fill. This means you don't have to spend as much on the free agent market, trying to sign players whose original teams did not want to retain at the market price, because you can spend your money on keeping your talented home-grown players. Moreover, when there is a hole, you have the "full dollar" to go out and fill that hole with the best available free agent.

Totally agreed, Frater. That's why, right now, if the organization is going to stick to the self-imposed payroll ceiling, it needs to just cut bait and completely restock, including totally revamping the development staff (and, um, maybe the GM/coaches/manager or some combo thereof, too?).

palehozenychicty
05-17-2009, 05:18 PM
Teams that have fire sales usually don't get any better for a very long time.

According to some people, the White Sox already had a fire sale when they dumped Nick Swisher as soon as they could after last season.


True indeed. The Sox could use some depth in the lineup, not a full-scale breakup. I do think that they should change some coaches if this keeps up.

Paulwny
05-17-2009, 05:33 PM
If you can draft better players, and do a better job developing the players you draft, you won't have as many holes to fill. This means you don't have to spend as much on the free agent market, trying to sign players whose original teams did not want to retain at the market price, because you can spend your money on keeping your talented home-grown players. Moreover, when there is a hole, you have the "full dollar" to go out and fill that hole with the best available free agent.

Let me put it another way: With better player development, maybe Joe Borchard develops into a .275 average/.350 OBP/30 homer/30 double/20 steal CF, and we don't need to trade for Swisher. With better player development, maybe Jon Rauch becomes a legitimate setup reliever, and we don't need to overpay for Linebrink or Dotel.

Totally agreed, Frater. That's why, right now, if the organization is going to stick to the self-imposed payroll ceiling, it needs to just cut bait and completely restock, including totally revamping the development staff (and, um, maybe the GM/coaches/manager or some combo thereof, too?).


All this will take years, a noncompetive team will cause lower attendance causing JR to further cut the amount of money on the sox and on the sox minor league system.
KW has a tough job trying to keep this team competative while trying to improve the minor league players.
If JR doesn't want to increase pay-roll then he needs to increase the amount of $$ to player development. I don't see this happening.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 05:47 PM
Totally agreed, Frater. That's why, right now, if the organization is going to stick to the self-imposed payroll ceiling, it needs to just cut bait and completely restock, including totally revamping the development staff (and, um, maybe the GM/coaches/manager or some combo thereof, too?).

Given the core of solid young talent already on the team (or in the pipeline), I think we can at least remain competitive in 2010 by hanging onto the young core (Buehrle, Jenks, Danks, Quentin, Alexei, Floyd, etc.) and useful veteran role players (Thornton, Dotel, Linebrink, etc.), and working in promising youngsters like Beckham, while revamping the minors. If things continue to go bad this year, trade Dye ($11.5M) and Konerko ($12M) to the highest bidders, and don't re-sign either Contreras ($10M) or Thome ($13M), as neither will fetch anything in trade. Removing those four from the payroll would save $46.5 million in 2010.

OTOH, if the Sox start hitting like they are capable (which is possible), and Danks and Floyd improve (which is certainly possible), and thus the team starts winning, then stick with the status quo for this year and see where it takes us. After this year, let Contreras and Thome go (thus saving $23 million), and keep Paulie and Dye.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 05:53 PM
All this will take years, a noncompetive team will cause lower attendance causing JR to further cut the amount of money on the sox and on the sox minor league system.
KW has a tough job trying to keep this team competative while trying to improve the minor league players.
If JR doesn't want to increase pay-roll then he needs to increase the amount of $$ to player development. I don't see this happening.

Yes, it will take a few years for new player development people to teach and coach Sox prospects and thus cause those players to have a significant positive effect at the MLB level.

What the Sox have going for them, though, is that Minnesota, Cleveland and Kansas City have significantly more payroll constraints. In the Central, only Detroit and the Sox can spend like big-market teams. Therefore, the Sox can remain competitive in this division. History also demonstrates this: The only year of KW's tenure in which the Sox have not been competitive was 2007, when both the bullpen and the offense had an atrociously bad year. Other than that the Sox have usually been in the hunt.

Paulwny
05-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Yes, it will take a few years for new player development people to teach and coach Sox prospects and thus cause those players to have a significant positive effect at the MLB level.

What the Sox have going for them, though, is that Minnesota, Cleveland and Kansas City have significantly more payroll constraints. In the Central, only Detroit and the Sox can spend like big-market teams. Therefore, the Sox can remain competitive in this division. History also demonstrates this: The only year of KW's tenure in which the Sox have not been competitive was 2007, when both the bullpen and the offense had an atrociously bad year. Other than that the Sox have usually been in the hunt.


That's part of the problem, I don't think most sox fans will be happy being only competative in the central div. If this type of competative thinking continues, attendance will suffer.

Daver
05-17-2009, 06:15 PM
If you can draft better players, and do a better job developing the players you draft, you won't have as many holes to fill. This means you don't have to spend as much on the free agent market, trying to sign players whose original teams did not want to retain at the market price, because you can spend your money on keeping your talented home-grown players. Moreover, when there is a hole, you have the "full dollar" to go out and fill that hole with the best available free agent.

Let me put it another way: With better player development, maybe Joe Borchard develops into a .275 average/.350 OBP/30 homer/30 double/20 steal CF, and we don't need to trade for Swisher. With better player development, maybe Jon Rauch becomes a legitimate setup reliever, and we don't need to overpay for Linebrink or Dotel.

Sox fans do not have the patience to wait the five or so years this process will take, and you don't know if you are developing players well till they make the MLB level, if you aren't that is going to add a couple years to that scenario for adjustments to be made.

The Sox have had a poor philosophy towards developing talent since Ron Schueler took over as GM, that is not going to be changed overnight, the Royals are a prime example of that.

balke
05-17-2009, 06:30 PM
Sox fans do not have the patience to wait the five or so years this process will take, and you don't know if you are developing players well till they make the MLB level, if you aren't that is going to add a couple years to that scenario for adjustments to be made.

The Sox have had a poor philosophy towards developing talent since Ron Schueler took over as GM, that is not going to be changed overnight, the Royals are a prime example of that.

When I hear 5 years of rebuilding, I think of Cleveland and I puke.

I think the Sox can keep going. They spend enough money to fill in holes, and KW makes the kinds of trades that bring in more talent than he's losing.

The Sox are basically waiting for Thome's contract to expire. That's going to free up a ton of money. Jose is up as well I believe. They have some overpriced relievers they can rid themselves of as well.

If they get a good SP in the offseason or this year, and Jordan Danks and Beckham develop, and they possibly find a Catcher who can leadoff and throw out runners. They should be fine.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Sox fans do not have the patience to wait the five or so years this process will take, and you don't know if you are developing players well till they make the MLB level, if you aren't that is going to add a couple years to that scenario for adjustments to be made.

The Sox have had a poor philosophy towards developing talent since Ron Schueler took over as GM, that is not going to be changed overnight, the Royals are a prime example of that.

If it's going to take 5-8 years, then let's get started right away.

Meanwhile, the Sox relative advantage due to being in a large market should allow them to remain competitive in the AL Central, as KC, Minnesota and Cleveland cannot afford to keep all their home-grown talent from being cherry-picked by the Yankees and Red Sox.

This is all academic anyway, since this is a purely hypothetical thread, since none of us is actually KW.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2009, 06:49 PM
When I hear 5 years of rebuilding, I think of Cleveland and I puke.

I think the Sox can keep going. They spend enough money to fill in holes, and KW makes the kinds of trades that bring in more talent than he's losing.

The Sox are basically waiting for Thome's contract to expire. That's going to free up a ton of money. Jose is up as well I believe. They have some overpriced relievers they can rid themselves of as well.

If they get a good SP in the offseason or this year, and Jordan Danks and Beckham develop, and they possibly find a Catcher who can leadoff and throw out runners. They should be fine.

What I'm saying is that you can do this - making shrewd trades and free agent signings and thus competing - while simultaneously bringing in the best scouts and player development people to overhaul the minor league system.

Don't limit yourself to doing one or the other. Do BOTH.

Viva Medias B's
05-17-2009, 07:41 PM
If we have no shot within 2-3 weeks shy of the trading deadline, I say dump the expendable veterans and get what we can for them to bolster the farm system.
If we are in contention during that time, pursue what we can for a reasonable price (in other words, not mortgaging the farm) to enhance our chances.
During the offseason, pursue key free agents to supplement the roster (like with did picking up Pierzynski and Dye before 2005).

Ranger
05-17-2009, 09:28 PM
That's part of the "overpaid" idea. If they don't give him 4 years, they probably don't get him at all. Sometimes, teams give contracts beyond a time frame they expect that player to still be highly effective or productive, because they understand they're competing with other teams that would be willing to do it if they don't. And that price goes up even more when your need is desperate...like it was for the Sox before last season.

This was their forecast for the Konerko contract, for example. Their assumption was that he would be productive years 1 through 3 of that contract, while understanding there would probably be a dropoff in performance in years 4 and 5. But they were willing -- like a lot of teams would be -- in taking that on in order to reap the benefits of the first 3 years of the deal. Oddly, what has transpired so far is that he was great in 2006, underperformed in 2007 and most of 2008, but has been very good since August of 2008 up until now.

So think back to 2007 and answer this question: if somebody came to you in November of that year and said, "Here's the deal...you can take on Scott Linebrink for 4 years with the assumption he'll be effective through at least the first 2 years of a deal and he will be part of a drastically improved bullpen for 2008 and 2009. OR, you can try to piece another pen together for each of those next two years and risk having another 2007 pen." All this while keeping in mind there was no minor league help on the way anytime soon. You telling me you STILL would not do it?

JB98
05-17-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm squarely in the camp that likes having Linebrink here.

I spent the summer of 2007 booing MacDougal, Day, Logan and Bukvich off the mound. Those guys sucked.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Sox farm system hasn't produced any credible relief pitching in quite some time. Given that, you have to overpay to get other guys from other teams in here if you hope to compete.

The Sox overpaid for Linebrink and Dotel, but it beats the alternative.

Brian26
05-17-2009, 09:40 PM
That's part of the "overpaid" idea. If they don't give him 4 years, they probably don't get him at all. Sometimes, teams give contracts beyond a time frame they expect that player to still be highly effective or productive, because they understand they're competing with other teams that would be willing to do it if they don't. And that price goes up even more when your need is desperate...like it was for the Sox before last season.

This was their forecast for the Konerko contract, for example. Their assumption was that he would be productive years 1 through 3 of that contract, while understanding there would probably be a dropoff in performance in years 4 and 5. But they were willing -- like a lot of teams would be -- in taking that on in order to reap the benefits of the first 3 years of the deal. Oddly, what has transpired so far is that he was great in 2006, underperformed in 2007 and most of 2008, but has been very good since August of 2008 up until now.

So think back to 2007 and answer this question: if somebody came to you in November of that year and said, "Here's the deal...you can take on Scott Linebrink for 4 years with the assumption he'll be effective through at least the first 2 years of a deal and he will be part of a drastically improved bullpen for 2008 and 2009. OR, you can try to piece another pen together for each of those next two years and risk having another 2007 pen." All this while keeping in mind there was no minor league help on the way anytime soon. You telling me you STILL would not do it?

Great post. You have to remember what we were coming off of after the 07 season too: Ryan Bukvich, Bret Prinz, Dewon Day, Mike Myers, Sisco, and Aardsma. It's a no-brainer.

JB98
05-17-2009, 09:42 PM
Great post. You have to remember what we were coming off of after the 07 season too: Ryan Bukvich, Bret Prinz, Dewon Day, Mike Myers, Sisco, and Aardsma. It's a no-brainer.

Sisco and Myers were two others that I booed in 2007.

I just got damn sick of relievers who couldn't, or wouldn't, throw strikes.

Rdy2PlayBall
05-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Do something with Pods and Dye (or Thome or PK, I don't care which) to get Figgens and some prospect pitcher.

Sign Sheets to help the last half of the season and maybe a few more.

Slap Floyd across the face and tell him to get a grip...

The list goes on. KW didn't go any good over this off-season. The only thing I have to look forward to is Viciedo in 1 or 2 years and hope our Yankees prospect can be average.

California Sox
05-17-2009, 10:26 PM
If I were KW, I'd be tearing my hair out.

But I wouldn't panic. It's still only May. And I wouldn't trade the any pieces of the bullpen.

If the slide snowballs into a lost year, I'd look at moving Colon and maybe Dye. (The Sox are thin at corner OF.) Trouble is these days it is hard to get significant talent back in deadline deal swaps. Particularly if you are unwilling to eat contract.

I'd hold onto AJ and Konerko as veterans to school the young position players the Sox are going to be bringing up in the next couple of years.

The unfortunate thing is the Sox have a ton of trial and error ahead of them to evaluate who are the players they can win with. Decisions loom on Getz, Nix, Fields, Alexei, BA and then on the prospects from Birmingham especially Danks, Allen, Viciedo, and Flowers. (Maybe even Retherford, Shelby and Gartrell.) I'm pretty confident in Beckham.

If they are confident in their evaluations, they will have players available to trade. And with the payroll they are shaving, they will be poised to make one or two significant acquisitions like a middle of the order bat or a frontline starting pitcher.

LoveYourSuit
05-17-2009, 10:33 PM
For me, going into a season banking on reclamation projects as your No. 4 and No. 5 starters is far worse.


Bingo.

This has been the biggest mistake from this past offseason. Not because of the posibilities of 4 and 5 blowing up in your face but also putting way too much stock and confidence on 2 young arms that had good seasons last year (Gavin and Danks).

We new the offense would continue to be flawed (which still should not be an excuse but it is what it is), but you almost had to be damn sure that the pitching staff was going to be 100% untouchable. You leave yourself no room for error.

Dan H
05-18-2009, 08:26 AM
If I were Kenny Williams:

I'd pray. Pray that Danks, Floyd, Quentin, and Ramierez get out of their funks. No matter he did or didn't do in the off season, these four were the foundation he was building on. If these four don't continue to develop, this team is in trouble for a long time.

I wouldn't panic. This is a rebuilding year any way. The margin of error was so thin this year, everything would have had to exactly fit in place for the Sox to have a truly successful season.

I wouldn't tell fans that money is tight. Jerry Reinsdorf is thinking about buying a hockey team.

kittle42
05-18-2009, 09:50 AM
I wouldn't panic. This is a rebuilding year any way. The margin of error was so thin this year, everything would have had to exactly fit in place for the Sox to have a truly successful season.

Not according to KW it wasn't.

jabrch
05-18-2009, 11:32 AM
I wouldn't tell fans that money is tight. Jerry Reinsdorf is thinking about buying a hockey team.

I hope most fans are smart enough to not intertwine Jerry Reinsdorf's personal finances with the finances of the Chicago White Sox. JR is the managing partner of the Sox, but he is not the Chicago White Sox.

I own stock in General Electric. I don't expect to hear Jeff Immelt call me tomorrow and tell me that I need to send in more money for them to operate the business. I don't expect Jeff himself to pull money out of his pocket to fund the business either. Same way the partnership isn't expected to reach into their pockets, nor is the Managing Partner.

What JR does with his money has little to do with the Sox financial state and if money is tight or not.

Also, the (rumored) terms of the potential deal to by the Coyotes are rather unique. Sounds like he is being offered a limited amount of risk and significant upside to do this. It also sounds like he is assembling a partnership to go after this also - which may or may not have some overlap with the Sox, but it surely will not be the same people as it will have a large Arizona flavor to it.

Some fans may not understand that - but that's a different story.

Tragg
05-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Great post. You have to remember what we were coming off of after the 07 season too: Ryan Bukvich, Bret Prinz, Dewon Day, Mike Myers, Sisco, and Aardsma. It's a no-brainer.
And he fixed the pen in one off-season and with 2 FA signings. It worked.

Harry Chappas
05-18-2009, 01:11 PM
Simple question, so here's my simple answer:

If I were KW, I would find a way to dump $10 million in payroll and plow that into signing bonuses for the best scouting and player development people from the Twins and Red Sox organizations. Those teams seem to develop lots of solid players. The Red Sox tend to keep their players, the Twins let them go as free agents when they cannot afford them anymore. If the Sox could combine the Twins' aptitude for developing fundamentally sound players with the highest payroll in the AL Central, they would dominate the division year-in and year-out.

How do I dump $10 million in payroll? Well, first I try to deal Contreras. Finding no takers, I then would try to deal Thome, Paulie or Dye.

I realize this is impossible to answer, but what would you expect a Thome, PK, and/or Dye to fetch in a trade? Would we be looking for top prospects, middle-of-the-road albeit younger veterans, 4-5 starters?

GAsoxfan
05-18-2009, 03:31 PM
I realize this is impossible to answer, but what would you expect a Thome, PK, and/or Dye to fetch in a trade? Would we be looking for top prospects, middle-of-the-road albeit younger veterans, 4-5 starters?

I don't know about Konerko and Dye, but I don't think you could get much of anything for Thome. I think the market for him would be pretty small. He's only a DH and he'll be a free agent, so that narrows the list of suitors to serious contenders in the AL. From that list, several have DHs better than Thome. So you have a limited market for a declining player who isn't a great run producer at this point (the OBP is nice, but the BA is horrible). I don't see teams giving up anything of real value for three months of Thome.

russ99
05-18-2009, 09:19 PM
I don't know about Konerko and Dye, but I don't think you could get much of anything for Thome. I think the market for him would be pretty small. He's only a DH and he'll be a free agent, so that narrows the list of suitors to serious contenders in the AL. From that list, several have DHs better than Thome. So you have a limited market for a declining player who isn't a great run producer at this point (the OBP is nice, but the BA is horrible). I don't see teams giving up anything of real value for three months of Thome.

Dye's value on the trade market is strictly a rental, since anyone who wants to get him can just wait until the season is over and go after him in FA. I doubt we'd get nearly as much for him as we could have if we dealt him this offseason. I still think the Sox should hold onto him to DH next season. He's the best pure hitter out of the "big three".

Konerko's interesting, and could have value for a younger team looking for a veteran presence, and a power bat at 1B. I think the D-Backs would be the best place for him, especially since he would have to waive his NTC. And no, we wouldn't be getting Upton or Haren.

We'd have to eat 85% of Thome's salary and then only get a mid-level AA prospect at best. He's worth more here.

oeo
05-18-2009, 09:21 PM
I don't know about Konerko and Dye, but I don't think you could get much of anything for Thome. I think the market for him would be pretty small. He's only a DH and he'll be a free agent, so that narrows the list of suitors to serious contenders in the AL. From that list, several have DHs better than Thome. So you have a limited market for a declining player who isn't a great run producer at this point (the OBP is nice, but the BA is horrible). I don't see teams giving up anything of real value for three months of Thome.

I think the Red Sox would be a perfect fit. Only problem is you have to get Epstein to pull his finger out of his ass and actually bite the bullet.

balke
05-18-2009, 10:00 PM
I don't know about Konerko and Dye, but I don't think you could get much of anything for Thome. I think the market for him would be pretty small. He's only a DH and he'll be a free agent, so that narrows the list of suitors to serious contenders in the AL. From that list, several have DHs better than Thome. So you have a limited market for a declining player who isn't a great run producer at this point (the OBP is nice, but the BA is horrible). I don't see teams giving up anything of real value for three months of Thome.


I think you touch on a serious issue here. There is NOTHING to gain by Thome going somewhere. You might get a junk prospect throw in or two. The only thing coming back would be the money the Red Sox give the White Sox for taking on a DH making 13 mil on the Sox end.

This is why I laugh when people say the KW deal with Swisher was so bad. The guy hit .200 almost all season, and isn't a defensive stud. 21 million dollars owed to him, you aren't going to get a great prospect for him. You will free up salary room though.

If you want prospects that are good, you sell Floyd or Danks or Jenks or Thornton. Alexei If he gets going again, or Fields if he shows power like he did his very first call up.

Brandon Mccarthy after he throws a no-hitter in training camp. This is the type of player that gets you talent in return. A good young player proven with no huge salary.

When it comes to guys that make money... You sell Mark Buehrle and lose half your fan base for 3 unproven but talented youngsters. Jermaine Dye might get you a good player at the deadline. Konerko won't go anywhere, and if he did he alone probably wouldn't land you more than 2 talented minor leaguers, or if you are super lucky Chone Figgins who is Scott Podsednik in 2-3 years if he gets a leg injury.

I understand the "dump" attitude but you gotta be realistic. Dumping 3 old overpriced guys doesn't help your team stop losing. It helps the team stockpile some cash to rebuild through free agency though you would hope.

soxfanreggie
05-18-2009, 11:26 PM
If it's a lost season and we aren't re-signing Thome because he becomes a FA, why wouldn't we take a minor-leaguer?

WhiteSox5187
05-18-2009, 11:31 PM
If it's a lost season and we aren't re-signing Thome because he becomes a FA, why wouldn't we take a minor-leaguer?

He's a type A free agent, right? The draft picks might be better. Dye might make more sense trading if it is a lost season and we don't intend to re-sign him.

DirtySox
05-18-2009, 11:54 PM
He's a type A free agent, right? The draft picks might be better. Dye might make more sense trading if it is a lost season and we don't intend to re-sign him.

What? We don't get draft picks unless we offer him arbitration and he declines it. We won't be offering it to him in fear of him accepting it. I also have no idea what type he would be.

oeo
05-19-2009, 01:29 AM
If it's a lost season and we aren't re-signing Thome because he becomes a FA, why wouldn't we take a minor-leaguer?

Who knows?

Again, the Red Sox are a perfect fit. Thome would accept a trade for the chance to win a World Series. The Red Sox are having a huge problem with their left-handed DH, and Thome can fill in and at the very least give them what Ortiz did last year. We get something out of him, and don't have to pay the rest of his contract.

It's Dankerific
05-19-2009, 01:46 AM
Right now, we'd have to get something back to make peace with the perception of giving up. closer to the trade deadline, we could take less and less with the idea we were giving Thome a chance to win a championship. Save a few dollars...

MrRoboto83
05-19-2009, 02:26 AM
If I were KW I would resign this team is a flop. 2009=2007 that is enough for dismissal.

voodoochile
05-19-2009, 08:50 AM
If I were KW I would resign this team is a flop. 2009=2007 that is enough for dismissal.

Just glossing over and dismissing that whole Danks/Floyd/TCQ/TCM and 2008 thing aren't you?

Hey Kenny, it's May 19, the Sox are banged up and struggling. You haven't done **** for me in the last few weeks/months, you're fired...

Yep, sounds even more stupid when I put it that way...:rolleyes:

jabrch
05-19-2009, 09:19 AM
Just glossing over and dismissing that whole Danks/Floyd/TCQ/TCM and 2008 thing aren't you?

Hey Kenny, it's May 19, the Sox are banged up and struggling. You haven't done **** for me in the last few weeks/months, you're fired...

Yep, sounds even more stupid when I put it that way...:rolleyes:

Nope - sounded pretty stupid before also. But we have come to expect that out of the irrational masses.

Perspective is completely lost.

soxfanreggie
05-19-2009, 10:50 AM
If he is a type Free Agent, the risk of him accepting arbitration is too much, unless his compensation goes down a lot. I don't want to risk being on the hook for $10+ million to him. I'd rather take the minor leaguer and clear off some payroll. Then I would take the funds and use them towards a lead-off hitter and another pitcher. It may not be enough to buy both, but it can sure help.

longtimesoxguy
05-19-2009, 11:22 AM
I would work on the chicken sandwich at his new restaurant. It was a little tough!!!

Dan H
05-19-2009, 05:47 PM
I hope most fans are smart enough to not intertwine Jerry Reinsdorf's personal finances with the finances of the Chicago White Sox. JR is the managing partner of the Sox, but he is not the Chicago White Sox.

I own stock in General Electric. I don't expect to hear Jeff Immelt call me tomorrow and tell me that I need to send in more money for them to operate the business. I don't expect Jeff himself to pull money out of his pocket to fund the business either. Same way the partnership isn't expected to reach into their pockets, nor is the Managing Partner.

What JR does with his money has little to do with the Sox financial state and if money is tight or not.

Also, the (rumored) terms of the potential deal to by the Coyotes are rather unique. Sounds like he is being offered a limited amount of risk and significant upside to do this. It also sounds like he is assembling a partnership to go after this also - which may or may not have some overlap with the Sox, but it surely will not be the same people as it will have a large Arizona flavor to it.

Some fans may not understand that - but that's a different story.

I understand that personal and corporate finances are different and all business deals are not the same. I am just tired of hearing the White Sox are a small market team. Reinsdorf was the guy who signed Albert Belle to a deal that was considered huge at the time and since then he has played poor.

The past four years have been the best in White Sox history attedance-wise. We fans can't do any more in that regard. I don't expect Yankee-type spending and I don't even mind some rebuilding like the team is going through now. I just don't want the team stripped to its bones like was done with the Sox and the Bulls in the late 90's.

Noneck
05-19-2009, 06:04 PM
Reinsdorf was the guy who signed Albert Belle to a deal that was considered huge at the time and since then he has played poor.


I believe that had something to do with his role in the strike not in his change of philosophy.

BigP50
05-19-2009, 06:14 PM
I would just trade a bunch of the high priced players and rebuild.

kravdog
05-19-2009, 06:25 PM
I don't think that JR plays poor... I just think that the organization works very hard to be as fiscally responsible and get as much for the money as it can... It may appear cheap to some, but I think JR/KW do a damn good job of getting as much as they can for each $1.

DSpivack
05-19-2009, 06:49 PM
I understand that personal and corporate finances are different and all business deals are not the same. I am just tired of hearing the White Sox are a small market team. Reinsdorf was the guy who signed Albert Belle to a deal that was considered huge at the time and since then he has played poor.

The past four years have been the best in White Sox history attedance-wise. We fans can't do any more in that regard. I don't expect Yankee-type spending and I don't even mind some rebuilding like the team is going through now. I just don't want the team stripped to its bones like was done with the Sox and the Bulls in the late 90's.

Where in the heck do you get that idea? Payroll has gone steadily up each year this decade, save this season [which came after one of the worst economic crises in decades], peaking at nearly $120 million last year. I don't see how anyone could call this ownership group cheap anymore.

Nellie_Fox
05-20-2009, 01:30 AM
I would just trade a bunch of the high priced players and rebuild.How many times does it have to be pointed out that our "high-priced" players aren't going to bring much in return, especially in May?

jabrch
05-20-2009, 06:47 AM
I just don't want the team stripped to its bones like was done with the Sox and the Bulls in the late 90's.


It has not been "stripped to its bones". Our payroll is 96mm this year. It was 121mm last year, 108 and 102mm the 2 years prior. It has doubled since 2003 and gone up a whopping 20 times since 1988. Now I know the market has done the same - but to say that management has stripped this team to the bone is silly.

As far as "the late 90s", the Sox payroll was almost always in the middle of the pack those years - somewhat aligned with attendance. The Bulls payroll was cut in an attempt to rebuild, not merely to save $. The plan, if you believed it, was solid. And let's not forget this is the same JR who had just provided us with 6 NBA titles and always paid up for top tier talent around Jordan.

I know it is easy to blame ownership - they "can" always just spend more to solve problems. In this case, I don't think spending is the answer. This same squad, as is, would be winning this division if TCQ, TCM, Gavin and (to a lesser extent) Jose (who we had lower expectations for) played as expected.

kittle42
05-20-2009, 09:15 AM
How many times does it have to be pointed out that our "high-priced" players aren't going to bring much in return, especially in May?

People just don't care. They're going to go on believing what they believe and piss and moan when it doesn't happen.

kitekrazy
05-20-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't think Kenny should do anything. Let it play out. This team is far from a WS contender.

Blowing the whole thing up=bad idea. You still need some players to build around. I can't understand suggestions of trading reliable pitching like Buehrle and Jenks. If holes like that were easy to fill in baseball you wouldn't see the outrageous salaries that are paid for above average pitchers.

Right now I don't have a lot of faith in the Sox minors to even consider getting rid of everybody. That's the Bill Wirtz model.

kaufsox
05-20-2009, 11:21 AM
I would be a much better looking man.

Ranger
05-20-2009, 01:47 PM
I understand that personal and corporate finances are different and all business deals are not the same. I am just tired of hearing the White Sox are a small market team. Reinsdorf was the guy who signed Albert Belle to a deal that was considered huge at the time and since then he has played poor.

The past four years have been the best in White Sox history attedance-wise. We fans can't do any more in that regard. I don't expect Yankee-type spending and I don't even mind some rebuilding like the team is going through now. I just don't want the team stripped to its bones like was done with the Sox and the Bulls in the late 90's.

And the payroll has been the highest it's ever been. We hear a lot of fans say, "I'm tired of operating like a small market team." That, I understand.

HOWEVER, the Sox do not draw like a major market team. Just because the Sox reside in Chicago does not mean they get "Chicago attendance." Here are the facts:

In 2005, the Sox were 17th in baseball in attendance. In some ways, that's to be understood because a World Champion will typically not reap the benefits of that hysteria until the following year. (Although, the Sox were playing great baseball from the very beginning and were in first place ALL year. They should have done better). So what happened in 2006? The best attendance they've ever had, and they were still only 9th in MLB. That's AFTER a World Series. The Houston Astros (who lost the WS, by the way) finished ahead of them...not by much, but still ahead. 2007? Back to 15th. 2008? 16th in baseball. In all of these years, the Giants have drawn better, and they've had HORRIBLE teams. And for the Sox, their attendance has steadily declined since 2006.

A major market team only behaves like a major market team when they get major market attendance.

Domeshot17
05-20-2009, 02:05 PM
And the payroll has been the highest it's ever been. We hear a lot of fans say, "I'm tired of operating like a small market team." That, I understand.

HOWEVER, the Sox do not draw like a major market team. Just because the Sox reside in Chicago does not mean they get "Chicago attendance." Here are the facts:

In 2005, the Sox were 17th in baseball in attendance. In some ways, that's to be understood because a World Champion will typically not reap the benefits of that hysteria until the following year. (Although, the Sox were playing great baseball from the very beginning and were in first place ALL year. They should have done better). So what happened in 2006? The best attendance they've ever had, and they were still only 9th in MLB. That's AFTER a World Series. The Houston Astros (who lost the WS, by the way) finished ahead of them...not by much, but still ahead. 2007? Back to 15th. 2008? 16th in baseball. In all of these years, the Giants have drawn better, and they've had HORRIBLE teams. And for the Sox, their attendance has steadily declined since 2006.

A major market team only behaves like a major market team when they get major market attendance.

Isn't it fair to say some of that comes from the fact we did not captialize on the World Series like we should have. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS packed the streets for our parade. We had a chance to grab a HUGE share of the chicago fan base, the chicago media, advertising, and honestly, we fumbled it in a lot of ways. Look at how the Blackhawks rallied with their revivial and how popular they have become. The Sox had a chance to get there, they did, and they did not sustain it. I don't know if that falls on Brooks for his marketing or Kenny for not keeping us near the top, but we essentially have proven everyone that said they were a 1 year wonder right.

Since then we had a good but not good enough 2006 and missed the playoffs, a terrible 2007 (which is what I believe sent us back to the little guy in the big neighborhood), an average 2008 that a down division got us into the playoffs but we lost in 4, and a 2009 looking a lot like 2007.

Kenny said it would take 2 world titles for us to be relevant in Chicago, maybe he was right, but having 2 THIS SPACED OUT isn't going to work like he hopes.

EndemicSox
05-20-2009, 02:05 PM
Konerko and Jenks would probably still fetch a pretty penny. I believe that closers are significantly over-rated, and if Kenny can get some young blood for Bobby, it might be time to deal him before he signs a contract that is almost guarenteed to look bad three years from now.

TDog
05-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Konerko and Jenks would probably still fetch a pretty penny. I believe that closers are significantly over-rated, and if Kenny can get some young blood for Bobby, it might be time to deal him before he signs a contract that is almost guarenteed to look bad three years from now.

If you think closers are overrated, I hope you don't get the chance to see how overrated young blood is.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 02:16 PM
And the payroll has been the highest it's ever been. We hear a lot of fans say, "I'm tired of operating like a small market team." That, I understand.

HOWEVER, the Sox do not draw like a major market team. Just because the Sox reside in Chicago does not mean they get "Chicago attendance." Here are the facts:

In 2005, the Sox were 17th in baseball in attendance. In some ways, that's to be understood because a World Champion will typically not reap the benefits of that hysteria until the following year. (Although, the Sox were playing great baseball from the very beginning and were in first place ALL year. They should have done better). So what happened in 2006? The best attendance they've ever had, and they were still only 9th in MLB. That's AFTER a World Series. The Houston Astros (who lost the WS, by the way) finished ahead of them...not by much, but still ahead. 2007? Back to 15th. 2008? 16th in baseball. In all of these years, the Giants have drawn better, and they've had HORRIBLE teams. And for the Sox, their attendance has steadily declined since 2006.

A major market team only behaves like a major market team when they get major market attendance.


2 things Ranger:

-It's very difficult to be any higher in Attendance when your stadium now has one of the lowest seating capacaties in the game. The Sox are bottom 5 in seating capacity last I checked, even the Cubs can squeeze in about 41K top tiny Wrigley.

-Also, the Sox have higher "other" revenue streams outside of attendance than most other small market teams. This is where the hole "big market" phrase gets thrown out. They practically own 1/4 of their TV network. That's huge $$$ compared to the Twins and Indians who play on FSN.

jabrch
05-20-2009, 02:17 PM
I believe that closers are significantly over-rated

Tell that to a team that doesn't have a good one...

jabrch
05-20-2009, 02:21 PM
HOWEVER, the Sox do not draw like a major market team. Just because the Sox reside in Chicago does not mean they get "Chicago attendance." Here are the facts:


The Sox also don't PRICE like Boston, NYY, NYM, Cubs, etc.

I couldn't afford my Season Tickets in the same section at those parks.

People with Lower Box seats - your tickets would go up by at least 5X. Even more for Prem. Lowers. People in the UD - 4X...

If you think we should spend like the top 5ish teams, I hope you are willing to buy ST at those prices, and make up for those of us who can't/won't do the same.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Isn't it fair to say some of that comes from the fact we did not captialize on the World Series like we should have. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS packed the streets for our parade. We had a chance to grab a HUGE share of the chicago fan base, the chicago media, advertising, and honestly, we fumbled it in a lot of ways. Look at how the Blackhawks rallied with their revivial and how popular they have become. The Sox had a chance to get there, they did, and they did not sustain it. I don't know if that falls on Brooks for his marketing or Kenny for not keeping us near the top, but we essentially have proven everyone that said they were a 1 year wonder right.

Since then we had a good but not good enough 2006 and missed the playoffs, a terrible 2007 (which is what I believe sent us back to the little guy in the big neighborhood), an average 2008 that a down division got us into the playoffs but we lost in 4, and a 2009 looking a lot like 2007.

Kenny said it would take 2 world titles for us to be relevant in Chicago, maybe he was right, but having 2 THIS SPACED OUT isn't going to work like he hopes.


POTY to me right there!

Coudn't have been said any better. I know you will take **** for this from the Pom Pom squad, but you hit the nail right on the head.


The popularity of this team peaked in 2006 and we couldn't sustain it.
The model franchise of how to sustain success and keep yourself relevant would be the Anaheim Angels. Before winning the World Series, people did not give to nickels for that team. LA had no space for them. They won the World Series and since then have sustained themselves amongst the top 5 in Attendance every season. This in a market which speaks Lakers and Dodgers only.

We could have been the Anaheim Angels.

TomBradley72
05-20-2009, 02:27 PM
A major market team only behaves like a major market team when they get major market attendance.

Or....a major market team only gets major market attendance when they behave like a major market team.

The White Sox have done a good job in the last 5 years or so of having a competitive payroll, etc. But they had alot of rebuilding to do have NOT behaving like a major market team for most of the 1980's and 90's. (excludin '81-'85, '91-'94).

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 02:31 PM
Or....a major market team only gets major market attendance when they behave like a major market team.

The White Sox have done a good job in the last 5 years or so of having a competitive payroll, etc. But they had alot of rebuilding to do have NOT behaving like a major market team for most of the 1980's and 90's. (excludin '81-'85, '91-'94).


Like making a HUGE splash in Free Agency?
Other than the Albert Belle flop, when was the last time we picked up FA or traded for a Premier (top 5-10) player in his prime?

AZChiSoxFan
05-20-2009, 02:34 PM
It has not been "stripped to its bones". Our payroll is 96mm this year. It was 121mm last year, 108 and 102mm the 2 years prior. It has doubled since 2003 and gone up a whopping 20 times since 1988. Now I know the market has done the same - but to say that management has stripped this team to the bone is silly.

As far as "the late 90s", the Sox payroll was almost always in the middle of the pack those years - somewhat aligned with attendance. The Bulls payroll was cut in an attempt to rebuild, not merely to save $. The plan, if you believed it, was solid. And let's not forget this is the same JR who had just provided us with 6 NBA titles and always paid up for top tier talent around Jordan.

I know it is easy to blame ownership - they "can" always just spend more to solve problems. In this case, I don't think spending is the answer. This same squad, as is, would be winning this division if TCQ, TCM, Gavin and (to a lesser extent) Jose (who we had lower expectations for) played as expected.

So you're totally fine defending ownership with the payroll dropping by $25M this year? I know we're in a recession but it's not that bad.

Lip is one of those people on this site who I trust when he references his inside sources. Last fall, he stated that he was told the Sox were going to target Orlando Hudson and Chone Figgins. Nothing at all happened there. The only two moves the Sox made in the offseason were salary dumps.

I stand by what I wrote in another thread: JR/KW chose to enter the season with question marks at 2b, 3b, CF, leadoff and 2/5 of the rotation. Despite what you wrote in your last paragraph, that's not a recipe for a winning season.

To be fair, it's not my place to tell others how to spend their own money. However, let's call a spade a spade and not pretend the JR/KW were committed to winning in 2009, coming out of ST.

Noneck
05-20-2009, 02:35 PM
Isn't it fair to say some of that comes from the fact we did not captialize on the World Series like we should have. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS packed the streets for our parade. We had a chance to grab a HUGE share of the chicago fan base, the chicago media, advertising, and honestly, we fumbled it in a lot of ways. Look at how the Blackhawks rallied with their revivial and how popular they have become. The Sox had a chance to get there, they did, and they did not sustain it. I don't know if that falls on Brooks for his marketing or Kenny for not keeping us near the top, but we essentially have proven everyone that said they were a 1 year wonder right.

Since then we had a good but not good enough 2006 and missed the playoffs, a terrible 2007 (which is what I believe sent us back to the little guy in the big neighborhood), an average 2008 that a down division got us into the playoffs but we lost in 4, and a 2009 looking a lot like 2007.

Kenny said it would take 2 world titles for us to be relevant in Chicago, maybe he was right, but having 2 THIS SPACED OUT isn't going to work like he hopes.

I understand what you are saying but in my opinion the problem runs a lot deeper. Many people here didn't live through what went on in the past . The On Tv snafu, The threatened move to Florida, the Harry and Jimmy situation, the strike situation, the white flag year and maybe others that I may be missing created a deep disdain for ownership, that is deep seeded. Are they all justified? I really don't know.

My point is unless this club wins consistently (I mean championships or close to, not a winning record ) or ownership changes, it will never draw like a big market team that it is.

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 02:38 PM
POTY to me right there!

Coudn't have been said any better. I know you will take **** for this from the Pom Pom squad, but you hit the nail right on the head.


The popularity of this team peaked in 2006 and we couldn't sustain it.
The model franchise of how to sustain success and keep yourself relevant would be the Anaheim Angels. Before winning the World Series, people did not give to nickels for that team. LA had no space for them. They won the World Series and since then have sustained themselves amongst the top 5 in Attendance every season. This in a market which speaks Lakers and Dodgers only.

We could have been the Anaheim Angels.

You do realize that the LA metropolitan area has over 17M people compared to the 7M in the Chicago metro area, right?

LITTLE NELL
05-20-2009, 02:39 PM
So you're totally fine defending ownership with the payroll dropping by $25M this year? I know we're in a recession but it's not that bad.

Lip is one of those people on this site who I trust when he references his inside sources. Last fall, he stated that he was told the Sox were going to target Orlando Hudson and Chone Figgins. Nothing at all happened there. The only two moves the Sox made in the offseason were salary dumps.

I stand by what I wrote in another thread: KW chose to enter the season with question marks at 2b, 3b, CF, leadoff and 2/5 of the rotation. Despite what you wrote in your last paragraph, that's not a recipe for a winning season.

To be fair, it's not my place to tell others how to spend their own money. However, let's call a spade a spade and not pretend the JR/KW were committed to winning in 2009, coming out of ST.
You are 100% right, team came out of ST with way too many question marks, instead of Figgins and Hudson we got a bunch of minor league guys.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 02:40 PM
The popularity of this team peaked in 2006 and we couldn't sustain it.
The model franchise of how to sustain success and keep yourself relevant would be the Anaheim Angels. Before winning the World Series, people did not give to nickels for that team. LA had no space for them. They won the World Series and since then have sustained themselves amongst the top 5 in Attendance every season. This in a market which speaks Lakers and Dodgers only.

We could have been the Anaheim Angels.

Los Angeles is the flightiest major market in all of sports, they speak Dodgers and Lakers because they're front-runners. Second, the Angels don't play in Los Angeles, the play in Anaheim, and while I know that's "Los Angeles Metro" the LA area is very, very different than the Chicago... LA is basically 1 gigantic suburb that sprawls out in every which way. Anaheim is 25 miles away from Los Angeles, the Sox would have to be somewhere along I-355 to have the same kind of seperation from the Cubs. Finally, the Angels have also had the fortune of playing in the AL West, where the division winner needed to win 90 games just once since 2004.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Like making a HUGE splash in Free Agency?
Other than the Albert Belle flop, when was the last time we picked up FA or traded for a Premier (top 5-10) player in his prime?

Does Freddy Garcia count? He was easily the most coveted pitcher in 2004, and the Sox landed him.

If you look at the trends of this organization over the past 10 years, they're definitely on the right track. I know, we're Americans and we have trouble grasping the concept that sometimes things take time, but the Sox are definitely on the right track. I won't guess how much further they can go, but you're crazy if you think the Sox have been stuck in some kind of rut for the past 10 years.

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Oh and one other thing...

Here's the links to the ticket prices charged by the Angels and the Sox. You will notice the Angel's are WAY more expensive than the Sox for all games and box seats (season ticket packages):

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/ballpark/seating.jsp

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/ballpark/cws_ballpark_seating.jsp

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 02:46 PM
Does Freddy Garcia count? He was easily the most coveted pitcher in 2004, and the Sox landed him.

If you look at the trends of this organization over the past 10 years, they're definitely on the right track. I know, we're Americans and we have trouble grasping the concept that sometimes things take time, but the Sox are definitely on the right track. I won't guess how much further they can go, but you're crazy if you think the Sox have been stuck in some kind of rut for the past 10 years.

But the Sox are 6 games under and 6 out in the loss column on May 20th... Someone needs to pay!!!

Noneck
05-20-2009, 02:46 PM
You are 100% right, team came out of ST with way too many question marks, instead of Figgins and Hudson we got a bunch of minor league guys.
And something happened in the off season to prevent this. (revenue projections?)

The reason I say this is because I remember Lip saying that that according to his reliable as always sources, the Sox were going to do what it takes to get them. That was never done. Why? I guess we will never know.

The Immigrant
05-20-2009, 02:52 PM
And something happened in the off season to prevent this. (revenue projections?)

The reason I say this is because I remember Lip saying that that according to his reliable as always sources, the Sox were going to do what it takes to get them. That was never done. Why? I guess we will never know.

I've seen at least a couple of reports that Figgins was not available. Not much you can do about that. Hudson is a different issue altogether because he signed a very reasonable deal, but this was a judgment call based on KW's assessment that Chris Getz has the potential to be a decent MLB player. I wouldn't be surprised if that assessment was influenced by an inability to add payroll.

I'm very interested to see how personnel issues are handled in the next offseason. The Sox have some $30MM coming off the books for Thome, Contreras, Dotel and MacDougal, plus another $12MM or so if Dye is traded. Hopefully that money will be invested in some FAs.

jabrch
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
So you're totally fine defending ownership with the payroll dropping by $25M this year? I know we're in a recession but it's not that bad.


You really don't think it is that bad? I'm not seeing the same economy as you.

I'm not happy we didn't come into this season with more answers. But by no means does this constitute, in my eyes, management "stripping to the bones" Also keep in mind they don't have Philly paying for Thome anymore.

Would I rather we spend $150mm - sure - most definitely. $175? OF COURSE! $250,000,000? Go for it. But as a ST Holder, I'm not personally willing to pay the price. I'm not willing to see my box seats go from about $36 a ticket to about $200 a ticket like the big boys. I don't care about winning a World Series that much that I would watch the price of my 4 season tickets go from about $12,000 to about $65,000. So since I am not, that means someone else needs to be willing to make up the gap for me. Find me the ST Holders who are willingto pay the price they pay in Boston and NY, even the Cubs ST prices, just for more payroll to be spent...

Seriously AZ - find me Sox fans willing to not only pay today's ticket prices, but to pay the prices to match for those like me who are barely hanging on at $35 a ticket. Get the guys in the scout seats to pay $1500 a game. Get prem box holders to go to 300. Get box to 250. No ticket in the park with good sight lines will sell for under $40.

When we are willing to do that - then I'll criticize spending. Right now, I see a team with a 100mm payroll - more than enough to compete. And I see a team that continuously refuses to enter themselves into bad, expensive, long term deals that will handicap them for a long time. I see no problem with that either.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
But the Sox are 6 games under and 6 out in the loss column on May 20th... Someone needs to pay!!!

I just don't understand the point of this thread. The Sox's 2009 payroll is an eyelash under $100 million, they're not playing well right now because they're trotting out a bunch of minor league scrubs, a la the mid-90s, they're not playing well because several key guys (Floyd, Quentin, Ramirez) aren't performing.

Paulwny
05-20-2009, 02:56 PM
Since I've been here, Lip and I always believed that the sox (JR) never spent enough money on players. I've finally found what I was looking for, I've changed my mind, I don't know Lip's feelings.

http://blogs.chron.com/unofficialscorer/2009/01/another_way_to_look_at_mlb_pay_1.html

jabrch
05-20-2009, 03:00 PM
Oh and one other thing...

Here's the links to the ticket prices charged by the Angels and the Sox. You will notice the Angel's are WAY more expensive than the Sox for all games and box seats (season ticket packages):

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/ballpark/seating.jsp

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/ballpark/cws_ballpark_seating.jsp

My seats would go up by about 50%. From ~12K to ~18K. I'd probably drop at least 2 of my 4 seats, if not all of them. So in addition to everyone else being willing to eat that nut, someone would have to eat the part I am not willing to spend.

I love all the poeple who want the Sox to spend like teams who gouge their fans for tickets. I wonder how many of these people are season ticket holders willing to spend more - a lot more. 50% - 500% more.

Noneck
05-20-2009, 03:01 PM
I'm very interested to see how personnel issues are handled in the next offseason. The Sox have some $30MM coming off the books for Thome, Contreras, Dotel and MacDougal, plus another $12MM or so if Dye is traded. Hopefully that money will be invested in some FAs.

My biggest fear is that we will be told that the savings will be put aside for when and if the time comes for contracts for the Sox future. (Quentin, Danks, Beckham, Jenks etc.)

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:02 PM
I'm very interested to see how personnel issues are handled in the next offseason. The Sox have some $30MM coming off the books for Thome, Contreras, Dotel and MacDougal, plus another $12MM or so if Dye is traded. Hopefully that money will be invested in some FAs.

Dye doesn't even need to be traded, his option for 2010 is mutual with a $1 million buyout.

The Sox are dropping a lot of payroll after this year (they've got something like $46 million already committed in 2010 plus 7 arbitration eligible players), so this upcoming offseason will be a real test of whether or not the Sox want to play like big boys or if they're content to perpetually finish 2nd in the division again.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 03:10 PM
You do realize that the LA metropolitan area has over 17M people compared to the 7M in the Chicago metro area, right?

I think with 7 million and having the team located dead smack in the middle right south of the loop, the Sox are in very good shape when it comes to location compared to the Suburban Angels.

LITTLE NELL
05-20-2009, 03:11 PM
I think with 7 million and having the team located dead smack in the middle right south of the loop, the Sox are in very good shape when it comes to location compared to the Suburban Angels.
Chicago metro area has almost 10 million. 9,569,624 as of 2008.

kittle42
05-20-2009, 03:15 PM
Isn't it fair to say some of that comes from the fact we did not captialize on the World Series like we should have. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS packed the streets for our parade. We had a chance to grab a HUGE share of the chicago fan base, the chicago media, advertising, and honestly, we fumbled it in a lot of ways. Look at how the Blackhawks rallied with their revivial and how popular they have become. The Sox had a chance to get there, they did, and they did not sustain it. I don't know if that falls on Brooks for his marketing or Kenny for not keeping us near the top, but we essentially have proven everyone that said they were a 1 year wonder right.

The Blackhawks have no competition (minor league Rosemont teams notwithstanding). The Sox' competition in their own market is one of the most - if not the most - popular baseball team in the US. That's rough.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 03:15 PM
Chicago metro area has almost 10 million. 9,569,624 as of 2008.


Thanks.

So it's even more at 10 million that what Voodoo said at 7 million.

10 million is more than enough to support 2 ML baseball teams.

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 03:16 PM
I think with 7 million and having the team located dead smack in the middle right south of the loop, the Sox are in very good shape when it comes to location compared to the Suburban Angels.

Kind of depends...

Being smack dap in the middle of the city means the suburbs have to travel pretty far to get to a game - often through rush hour traffic on school nights for the first 2+ months of the season. Often people in the Suburbs have as much or more disposable income than the people living south of the Cell for quite some distance. So right away, you are cutting back on the number of people who can come to a game on a regular basis. The Sox have never drawn well in April and May. After Memorial Day they do better, but it would be tough to consistently sell out the park in those months of the year. Given those constraints the Sox actually draw quite well and have been over 75% full for the past sevral seasons.

Noneck
05-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Thanks.

10 million is more than enough to support 2 ML baseball teams.

Considering the summer leisure activities here compared to S. California. More than enough.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:18 PM
10 million is more than enough to support 2 ML baseball teams.

And the Sox had the 13th best attendance in baseball (by capacity) and they have the 11th highest payroll in baseball in 2009.

I don't understand what the problem is.

FWIW, in 2008, the Sox attendance was 2,501,103 (76% of capacity). In 2002, it was 1,676,804 (46.7%)

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 03:19 PM
My seats would go up by about 50%. From ~12K to ~18K. I'd probably drop at least 2 of my 4 seats, if not all of them. So in addition to everyone else being willing to eat that nut, someone would have to eat the part I am not willing to spend.

I love all the poeple who want the Sox to spend like teams who gouge their fans for tickets. I wonder how many of these people are season ticket holders willing to spend more - a lot more. 50% - 500% more.


If you win every year like the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees do, then yes you have the right to "gouge" your fans.

I'm sure if the Sox were winning pennants every season, those LD box seats would be selling for $75 per game right now. And people would buy them because people like to pay to watch a very good product.

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Chicago metro area has almost 10 million. 9,569,624 as of 2008.

By including Gary and Lake County/Wisconsin. How many of those people are actually driving to Sox games on week nights?

I'm sorry, I admit I as going off of guess work, but realistically there are around 7M people who can regularly make a Sox game on any given week night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area

jabrch
05-20-2009, 03:23 PM
so this upcoming offseason will be a real test of whether or not the Sox want to play like big boys or if they're content to perpetually finish 2nd in the division again.

That's a Sucker's Choice (http://sourcesofinsight.com/2007/12/28/refuse-the-suckers-choice-4/). The Sox options are not "play like the big boys" or "perpetually finish 2nd". To quote you, if you don't see that, then we will have to agree to disagree.

An option you are leaving out from your A or B arguement is to make smart investments where they are available, and to try and win it when they can, without hamstringing themselves to $200mm contracts, exposing themselves to too much economic risk, or putting themselves in a position where they have to eat a ton of salary to move a player later.

If I have to choose between your A or B - I refuse to. I will not limit my options to two bad ones when there are a host of better options available to me.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 03:24 PM
Kind of depends...

Being smack dap in the middle of the city means the suburbs have to travel pretty far to get to a game - often through rush hour traffic on school nights for the first 2+ months of the season. Often people in the Suburbs have as much or more disposable income than the people living south of the Cell for quite some distance. So right away, you are cutting back on the number of people who can come to a game on a regular basis. The Sox have never drawn well in April and May. After Memorial Day they do better, but it would be tough to consistently sell out the park in those months of the year. Given those constraints the Sox actually draw quite well and have been over 75% full for the past sevral seasons.


You know how you draw well in April and May?

Look at 2006. You win the World Series and all the attendance issues in April and May are gone. Put a good product and people will show up. April and May 2007 despite a pitiful offseason even had a solid showing in attendace because 2006 was not that bad of a team.

April and May of this year will suffer because 1) people did not buy into the quality of the '08 team 2) an awful offseason 3) economy 4) a bad start by the team.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:25 PM
If you win every year like the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees do, then yes you have the right to "gouge" your fans.

I'm sure if the Sox were winning pennants every season, those LD box seats would be selling for $75 per game right now. And people would buy them because people like to pay to watch a very good product.

Sox prices in 2002 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2053):

Club Level: $26
Lower Box: $26
Lower Reserved: $20
Bleachers $18
Upper Box: $18
Upper Reserved: $12

Sox prices in 2009*:

Club Level: $53/$49
Lower Box: $53/$38
Lower Reserved: $34
Bleachers: $33
Upper Box: $26/$23
Upper Reserved: $19

*Regular Prices, Prime & Premium more expensive

Looks like they're well on their way.

jabrch
05-20-2009, 03:25 PM
And the Sox had the 13th best attendance in baseball (by capacity) and they have the 11th highest payroll in baseball in 2009.

I don't understand what the problem is.

FWIW, in 2008, the Sox attendance was 2,501,103 (76% of capacity). In 2002, it was 1,676,804 (46.7%)

And again, let's not just look at capacity - let's look at gate revenues... Of the teams with higher % of seats sold, how many have ticket prices significantly greater than ours? I'm guessing most of the big markets that people want us to emulate.

LoveYourSuit
05-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Sox prices in 2002 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2053):

Club Level: $26
Lower Box: $26
Lower Reserved: $20
Bleachers $18
Upper Box: $18
Upper Reserved: $12

Sox prices in 2009*:

Club Level: $53/$49
Lower Box: $53/$38
Lower Reserved: $34
Bleachers: $33
Upper Box: $26/$23
Upper Reserved: $19

*Regular Prices, Prime & Premium more expensive

Looks like they're well on their way.


I think Sox tickets are very moderate right now compared to the rest of the league.

But if it was up to me, I don't want to pay moderate prices to see average baseball. I am more than willing to pay higher prices if it meant we had a solid ball club on the field.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:29 PM
That's a Sucker's Choice (http://sourcesofinsight.com/2007/12/28/refuse-the-suckers-choice-4/). The Sox options are not "play like the big boys" or "perpetually finish 2nd". To quote you, if you don't see that, then we will have to agree to disagree.

An option you are leaving out from your A or B arguement is to make smart investments where they are available, and to try and win it when they can, without hamstringing themselves to $200mm contracts, exposing themselves to too much economic risk, or putting themselves in a position where they have to eat a ton of salary to move a player later.

If I have to choose between your A or B - I refuse to. I will not limit my options to two bad ones when there are a host of better options available to me.

No, they are. Teams that win plug holes. You want to let Thome, Dye, Konerko, Contreras, and Pierzynski leave this year and next year and not replace them, OK, but you can set your tee times for early October.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:33 PM
I think Sox tickets are very moderate right now compared to the rest of the league.

But if it was up to me, I don't want to pay moderate prices to see average baseball. I am more than willing to pay higher prices if it meant we had a solid ball club on the field.

Uh, in the past 5 years, the Sox have won a World Series, 2 division titles, and 90 games twice. Even your precious Angels can't match those credentials.

I'm sorry the Sox don't win 162 games every year. :violin:

And the Sox average ticket price is 5th highest in baseball (http://teammarketing.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/Fan%20Cost%20Index/MLB/MLB%20FCI%2009.pdf). (LINK IS TO A PDF FILE)

kittle42
05-20-2009, 03:36 PM
Uh, in the past 5 years, the Sox have won a World Series, 2 division titles, and 90 games twice. Even your precious Angels can't match those credentials.

I'm sorry the Sox don't win 162 games every year.

Yes, but if the team is to capture a higher share of this particular market, it has to do better than that. I know that's hard for us to fathom as lifelong Sox fans (or even Chicagoans, for that matter), but it's true.

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Yes, but if the team is to capture a higher share of this particular market, it has to do better than that. I know that's hard for us to fathom as lifelong Sox fans (or even Chicagoans, for that matter), but it's true.

Fair enough, and I'll concede the point about them being more consistent year in and year out, but I think if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see this franchise is as healthy as its been since the days of Shoeless Joe. I mean, in less than a decade, they've increased their attendance by almost 50%, payroll is up, and national exposure is up.

I know its frustrating consisently being the "little brother" in town, but I still think the Sox have made serious, positive strides in the past 10 years. Who knows where they'll be in 2019?

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 03:52 PM
Yes, but if the team is to capture a higher share of this particular market, it has to do better than that. I know that's hard for us to fathom as lifelong Sox fans (or even Chicagoans, for that matter), but it's true.

And it's coming, but it takes time. If the Sox continue to spend well and make good decisions and win division titles their attendance will continue to climb on average year in and year out. Right now they are nearing the end of a salary cycle and so far it's not been going well, but not because of the high salary people - it's because of injuries and falloffs by young players who were counted on. If Danks, Floyd, TCM were all living up to their expectations from last year and TCQ were healthy, this team would probably be in first place right now.

Now sure, you can expect that stuff and plan for it, but it's not really common in fact I can't think of any team that has that kind of depth.

You can fault KW for Fields and Getz (though I'm personally willing to give them more time). You can definitely say he was over ambitious on Contreras (Colon has been about what I expected and has been fine as a fifth starter). However, the fact remains - players that most Sox fans expected to perform well haven't and injuries have played a major role in the struggles the Sox have had so far.

So what else do you think KW should be doing? If the only answer is spend spend spend, then please tell us where the revenue is supposed to come from...

doublem23
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
So what else do you think KW should be doing?

I think honestly, if there's one area the Sox have consistently failed at the past decade under KW's watch has been development in the minor leagues. The Sox suck at this for a number of reasons, most notably (IMO) they don't draft well and the few players they find with some talent are poorly taught from Kannapolis to Charlotte. Who was the last consistent, productive player the Sox minor league system developed? Buehrle? Crede? Rowand. That's terrible.

Hopefully their new "more aggressive" approach to the MLB Draft will take care of the former, and Buddy Bell's watchful eye will take care of the latter.

But I'm not holding my breath.

jabrch
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes, but if the team is to capture a higher share of this particular market, it has to do better than that. I know that's hard for us to fathom as lifelong Sox fans (or even Chicagoans, for that matter), but it's true.

Fair enough, and I'll concede the point about them being more consistent year in and year out, but I think if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see this franchise is as healthy as its been since the days of Shoeless Joe. I mean, in less than a decade, they've increased their attendance by almost 50%, payroll is up, and national exposure is up.

I know its frustrating consisently being the "little brother" in town, but I still think the Sox have made serious, positive strides in the past 10 years. Who knows where they'll be in 2019?


I'm not sure, no matter what happens, that we will capture the market in the short term. It will take a VERY long time with generations of fans coming. I don't think it will be a short term issue. Had we not had 07, and 09, I don't think anything will have changed much with the 18-49 demographic.

voodoochile
05-20-2009, 04:09 PM
I think honestly, if there's one area the Sox have consistently failed at the past decade under KW's watch has been development in the minor leagues. The Sox suck at this for a number of reasons, most notably (IMO) they don't draft well and the few players they find with some talent are poorly taught from Kannapolis to Charlotte. Who was the last consistent, productive player the Sox minor league system developed? Buehrle? Crede? Rowand. That's terrible.

Hopefully their new "more aggressive" approach to the MLB Draft will take care of the former, and Buddy Bell's watchful eye will take care of the latter.

But I'm not holding my breath.

I'm encouraged by some of the reports I'm seeing from the minors. There was a link to some info about Poreda posted the other day and it clearly said that there was no desire to rush the kid. "Pennywise and Pound Foolish" was the term used. The fact that none of the big names have been pushed to AAA or even brought up to the big league club despite posting great offensive numbers is another reason to be optimistic about the direction things are going. I am sure others have a lot more info than I do, but so far it looks like things are headed in the right direction...

DirtySox
05-20-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm encouraged by some of the reports I'm seeing from the minors. There was a link to some info about Poreda posted the other day and it clearly said that there was no desire to rush the kid. "Pennywise and Pound Foolish" was the term used. The fact that none of the big names have been pushed to AAA or even brought up to the big league club despite posting great offensive numbers is another reason to be optimistic about the direction things are going. I am sure others have a lot more info than I do, but so far it looks like things are headed in the right direction...

Yea I posted that in the B-ham thread. I think it warrants it's own thread so people will get an idea of how things are being handled. (Maybe it will lead to less "Call up the Kids" posts)

russ99
05-20-2009, 07:22 PM
I think honestly, if there's one area the Sox have consistently failed at the past decade under KW's watch has been development in the minor leagues. The Sox suck at this for a number of reasons, most notably (IMO) they don't draft well and the few players they find with some talent are poorly taught from Kannapolis to Charlotte. Who was the last consistent, productive player the Sox minor league system developed? Buehrle? Crede? Rowand. That's terrible.

Hopefully their new "more aggressive" approach to the MLB Draft will take care of the former, and Buddy Bell's watchful eye will take care of the latter.

But I'm not holding my breath.

My issue is the same scouts who evaluated talent then that have caused the lack of big-league ready players are still evaluating talent, both before and after a player is drafted. Removing the scouting director only cuts off the head.

We have a nice group on Birmingham, but I shudder to think of them all trying to acclimate to the big league roster around the same time at the expense of solid major league hitters. IMO, cutting payroll to the bone and going all young is not a wise option unless you're OK with losing 90-100 games for 2-4 seasons. I for one am not OK with that.

Daver
05-20-2009, 07:42 PM
My issue is the same scouts who evaluated talent then that have caused the lack of big-league ready players are still evaluating talent, both before and after a player is drafted.

Scouting is only a very small part of the issue, because no single scout's opinion is used, but rather a consensus of all the scouting reports. The real issue is player development, Gavin Floyd was a high first round pick that struggled because of poor player development, Joe Borchard failed completely because of poor player development. Advancing players that are not ready to advance is a recipe for failure, because it tends to erode confidence, and a player that has no confidence in his abilities is worthless, especially if it is a pitcher.

palehozenychicty
05-20-2009, 08:27 PM
The Blackhawks have no competition (minor league Rosemont teams notwithstanding). The Sox' competition in their own market is one of the most - if not the most - popular baseball team in the US. That's rough.

Indeed, beside the Eastern powers.

doublem23
05-21-2009, 07:25 AM
If I were KW, I'd acquire Jake Peavy.

:o:

LITTLE NELL
05-21-2009, 05:14 PM
I'd like him to bring back Uribe. Fields and Betemit stink.

CWSpalehoseCWS
05-21-2009, 06:12 PM
After today's game, Broadway and Gobble back to Charlotte. Start bringing up guys like Torres, Whisler, and Cassel and see what we have in the minors. And make a trade for a decent starter. This Peavy crap sucks, but just move on to the next available guy.

russ99
05-21-2009, 07:07 PM
After today's game, Broadway and Gobble back to Charlotte. Start bringing up guys like Torres, Whisler, and Cassel and see what we have in the minors. And make a trade for a decent starter. This Peavy crap sucks, but just move on to the next available guy.

Exactly. Let's see what else we can get for Richard, Broadway and a few more mid-level prospects.

And if Poreda's good enough to be a centerpiece in a deal for a frontline starter, why isn't he good enough to be starting with the Sox? Can't be worse than what Floyd, Colon and Contreras have given us of late...

DSpivack
05-21-2009, 08:34 PM
Exactly. Let's see what else we can get for Richard, Broadway and a few more mid-level prospects.

And if Poreda's good enough to be a centerpiece in a deal for a frontline starter, why isn't he good enough to be starting with the Sox? Can't be worse than what Floyd, Colon and Contreras have given us of late...

Huh? Because he's not major league ready and needs to work on secondary pitches. Prospects are prospects for a reason.

Tragg
05-22-2009, 11:16 AM
And if Poreda's good enough to be a centerpiece in a deal for a frontline starter, why isn't he good enough to be starting with the Sox? Can't be worse than what Floyd, Colon and Contreras have given us of late...
Because he's not ready yet. It's a good sign that we're giving him time to develop the 2nd pitch, instead of giving him the Danny Wright treatment.


When we traded Vasquez, we got one legitimate prospect for him plus the requisite utility infielder for Ozzie.

If the Sox insist on trading the few young pitchers they have, it better be for a top notch player (like Peavy) not a faux-ace.
On this team, where there aren't gaping holes, there is age.

doublem23
05-22-2009, 11:25 AM
And if Poreda's good enough to be a centerpiece in a deal for a frontline starter, why isn't he good enough to be starting with the Sox? Can't be worse than what Floyd, Colon and Contreras have given us of late...

Yes it can.

UChicagoHP
05-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Tank for the #1 pick...