PDA

View Full Version : NEWS FLASH: This just in-The Sox have been more successful than the Twins this decade


asindc
10-08-2009, 09:41 AM
Some of you might have noticed that I rarely initiate any thread, but I feel compelled to bring this up because of some ongoing discussions in other threads, a couple of which were started by the LipMan. I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team.

Why do I think it needs to be said? Well, after reading comments ad nauseum about why can't the Sox play baseball like they do, or why can't the Sox draft players like that, or why can't the Sox win with lower payroll, I think some of our fans need to step back and re-gain some perspective here.

Lip Man 1 did an excellent job of breaking down the numbers in this thread(http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=115990), so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, however, that anyone who wants the Sox to trade their record this decade for the Twins' record is not truly enjoying the moment. And keep in mind that this has all happened while the Twins have played in the equivalent of a life-sized pinball machine, giving them the biggest home advantage in the majors.



Don't get me wrong, the Twins organization does a lot of things well and have earned my respect for them. Things such as scouting, drafting, and developing home grown talent are their strong suits, Baggiedome aside. But consider this---

1) They released 26-year old David Ortiz after the 2002 season, a season in which he posted .272 BA, 20 HR, 75 RBI, .339 OBP, .839 OPS. Ortiz has not posted fewer than 89 RBI since, and has had only one season since then where he posted an OPS lower than that. Ortiz would later famously remark that the Twins "wanted me to hit like a little girl;"

2) They traded 28-year old, 2-time Cy Young Award winner Johan Santana for four players after the 2007 season, only one of whom is actually contributing to the major league team's success two years after the trade;

3) Chose not to re-sign 31-year old Torii Hunter after the 2007 season. Hunter had been the Twins' main offensive threat for years and, along with Santana, the face of the franchise for most of the decade.

Each of these All-Star players had been on the Twins' major league roster since 2000.



Meanwhile, let's look at the equivalent transactions the Sox have made during the past decade:

A) Chose not to re-sign 30-year old Magglio Ordonez after an injury-plagued 2004 season in which he was paid $14 million. Replaced Ordonez with free agent Jermaine Dye for 2 years, $9 million. Ordonez was paid $15.7 million last year by Detroit;

B) Traded 31-year old Freddy Garcia after the 2006 season, in which he earned $9 million, for 23-year old Gavin Floyd and 21-year old Gio Gonzalez. Floyd earned $400,000 in his first year with the Sox;

C) Chose not to re-sign Frank Thomas after the 2005 season in which the team won the World Series. Thomas, who had been the face of the franchise since his breakout season in 1991, helped win the title during his brief playing time in the regular season that was cut short due to injury.


Now, will someone tell me why there is any need to whine about why the Sox don't do things the way Minny does? Imagine if Minny had kept Ortiz and Santana to go along with their lineup for the past six seasons. Now imagine what the howls of protest would have been if KW had made those moves under similar circumstances. And don't tell me Minny's owners don't have the money to spend, because their fans are famous for lamenting that the Pohlads are among the richest families in America. They just choose not to spend. So again I ask: Who wants to trade records for this decade with them, and why?

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 09:57 AM
Asin:

It depends though on how you define 'success' doesn't it?

I can certainly see the point of view of folks who say, 'you can't win a World Series if don't even get to the playoffs...'

Logically the more times you can go, sooner or later the odds will roll in your favor.

If the Sox did some things better like Minnesota, there's a very good chance they would have been in the playoffs five times (2003 & 2006) and who knows what could have happened.

Lip

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:03 AM
Asin:

It depends though on how you define 'success' doesn't it?

I can certainly see the point of view of folks who say, 'you can't win a World Series if don't even get to the playoffs...'

Logically the more times you can go, sooner or later the odds will roll in your favor.

If the Sox did some things better like Minnesota, there's a very good chance they would have been in the playoffs five times (2003 & 2006) and who knows what could have happened.

Lip

Yes, but five appearances versus three is not a huge disparity, IMO. Especially when the team appearing five times is decidedly overmatched each time it makes the postseason. That's a lightening-in-a-bottle approach to pursuing championships. No thank you.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:09 AM
More to my point, the Twins obviously take a different approach to buidling a team, but it is not necessarily a better approach, which the transactions I discussed illustrate. Imagine if the Sox had traded Ortiz before he hit his prime after years of trying to make him an opposite-field line drive hitter. Imagine what this board would be like if the Sox had traded Santana in his prime for four relatively unknown players, only one of whom is contributing now. I just don't think the grass-is-greener viewpoint is justified.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:16 AM
Imagine if the Sox had traded Ortiz before he hit his prime after years of trying to make him an opposite-field line drive hitter.Better yet:

Imagine if David Ortiz hadn't cheated and taken 'roids. Maybe Minnesota knew what they were doing, and Ortiz changed his game by cheating and taking 'roids.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:19 AM
Better yet:

Imagine if David Ortiz hadn't cheated and taken 'roids. Maybe Minnesota knew what they were doing, and Ortiz changed his game by cheating and taking 'roids.

Yes, I considered that. Up to this point, however, all the talk about Ortiz's release has centered around his failure to adopt to the Twins' offensive philosophy. It is quite possible, though, that they at least had strong suspicions about him and wanted to disassociate themselves from him for that reason.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:23 AM
Yes, I considered that. Up to this point, however, all the talk about Ortiz's release has centered around his failure to adopt to the Twins' offensive philosophy. It is quite possible, though, that they at least had strong suspicions about him and wanted to disassociate themselves from him for that reason.
Look:

Every team in MLB makes their share of mistakes. But IMO, trading away a cheating cheater who sucked a horse's ass until he cheated isn't a good example of this.

Similarly, trading away Santana [whom they got in the freakin' Rule 5 draft, BTW] for 4 players when they were going to have ZERO chance to re-sign him, isn't a good example of a mistake by Minnesota, either.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 10:30 AM
Look:

Every team in MLB makes their share of mistakes. But IMO, trading away a cheating cheater who sucked a horse's ass until he cheated isn't a good example of this.

Similarly, trading away Santana [whom they got in the freakin' Rule 5 draft, BTW] for 4 players when they were going to have ZERO chance to re-sign him, isn't a good example of a mistake by Minnesota, either.

A good example of a mistake is accepting a far inferior package from the Mets, rather than one with quality players from the Yankees.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:32 AM
A good example of a mistake is accepting a far inferior package from the Mets, rather than one with quality players from the Yankees.

What he said.

LITTLE NELL
10-08-2009, 10:35 AM
Some of you might have noticed that I rarely initiate any thread, but I feel compelled to bring this up because of some ongoing discussions in other threads, a couple of which were started by the LipMan. I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team.

Why do I think it needs to be said? Well, after reading comments ad nauseum about why can't the Sox play baseball like they do, or why can't the Sox draft players like that, or why can't the Sox win with lower payroll, I think some of our fans need to step back and re-gain some perspective here.

Lip Man 1 did an excellent job of breaking down the numbers in this thread(http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=115990), so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, however, that anyone who wants the Sox to trade their record this decade for the Twins' record is not truly enjoying the moment. And keep in mind that this has all happened while the Twins have played in the equivalent of a life-sized pinball machine, giving them the biggest home advantage in the majors.



Don't get me wrong, the Twins organization does a lot of things well and have earned my respect for them. Things such as scouting, drafting, and developing home grown talent are their strong suits, Baggiedome aside. But consider this---

1) They released 26-year old David Ortiz after the 2002 season, a season in which he posted .272 BA, 20 HR, 75 RBI, .339 OBP, .839 OPS. Ortiz has not posted fewer than 89 RBI since, and has had only one season since then where he posted an OPS lower than that. Ortiz would later famously remark that the Twins "wanted me to hit like a little girl;"

2) They traded 28-year old, 2-time Cy Young Award winner Johan Santana for four players after the 2007 season, only one of whom is actually contributing to the major league team's success two years after the trade;

3) Chose not to re-sign 31-year old Torii Hunter after the 2007 season. Hunter had been the Twins' main offensive threat for years and, along with Santana, the face of the franchise for most of the decade.

Each of these All-Star players had been on the Twins' major league roster since 2000.



Meanwhile, let's look at the equivalent transactions the Sox have made during the past decade:

A) Chose not to re-sign 30-year old Magglio Ordonez after an injury-plagued 2004 season in which he was paid $14 million. Replaced Ordonez with free agent Jermaine Dye for 2 years, $9 million. Ordonez was paid $15.7 million last year by Detroit;

B) Traded 31-year old Freddy Garcia after the 2006 season, in which he earned $9 million, for 23-year old Gavin Floyd and 21-year old Gio Gonzalez. Floyd earned $400,000 in his first year with the Sox;

C) Chose not to re-sign Frank Thomas after the 2005 season in which the team won the World Series. Thomas, who had been the face of the franchise since his breakout season in 1991, helped win the title during his brief playing time in the regular season that was cut short due to injury.


Now, will someone tell me why there is any need to whine about why the Sox don't do things the way Minny does? Imagine if Minny had kept Ortiz and Santana to go along with their lineup for the past six seasons. Now imagine what the howls of protest would have been if KW had made those moves under similar circumstances. And don't tell me Minny's owners don't have the money to spend, because their fans are famous for lamenting that the Pohlads are among the richest families in America. They just choose not to spend. So again I ask: Who wants to trade records for this decade with them, and why?
You make some valid points.
My bone of contention is not how well the Twins have done, its how much better we should be doing. We are most likely in the worst division in MLB and but in the 3rd largest market in the country and though this last decade has been a pretty good one for us it should have been better. I don't want to get into an attendance issue but we do not draw like a big market team. Of the 3 large markets and the 6 teams in those markets we are the only team never to draw 3 million fans. Maybe with a little more fan support and $$$ generated from that support we would be able to win the Central Division every year.
One other point is that when it comes to devolpment of minor league players, we don't come close to the Twins, lets hope that changes with Buddy Bell now in charge of the minor leagues.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Look:

Every team in MLB makes their share of mistakes. But IMO, trading away a cheating cheater who sucked a horse's ass until he cheated isn't a good example of this.

Similarly, trading away Santana [whom they got in the freakin' Rule 5 draft, BTW] for 4 players when they were going to have ZERO chance to re-sign him, isn't a good example of a mistake by Minnesota, either.

1) You have to assume that they knew he was a cheater. At this point, it can only be an assumption.

2) They had more than a ZERO chance to sign him. As I noted earlier, it's not like they don't have the money to spend, Minny's ownership just chooses not to spend the money.

Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves. Keep in mind that any knowledge the organization might have had about Ortiz's cheating is pure speculation.

soxinem1
10-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Yes, bit five appearances versus three is not a huge disparity, IMO. Especially when the team appearing five times is decidedly overmatched each time it makes the postseason. That's a lightening-in-a-bottle approach to pursuing championships. No thank you.

While the White Sox earned their World Series Championship, they did have some luck. A LOT of it.

In 2005, MIN had many changes at the big league level, especially on the INF. It was probably the worst defensive Twins team since Gardenhire became manager, and they still finished with a winnng record. We had huge payroll teams in 2007 and 2009 and finished closer to last place than first.

BOS did not have the miracle run in 2005 or the horses in the pitching staff to repeat. Schilling was banged up most of the year, they had serious fourth and fifth starter issues, their best starter got hurt at the wrong time, and even had to use an injured Schilling as a closer because no one else did well in the role.

Then, LAA did not have Bart for the playoffs, but they had an injured Vlad Guerrero, and did their three city/cross country in three day tour to end the ALDS series an start the ALCS didn't help.

And finally, HOU could have won each World Series game and swept us as we swept them. They were the toughest post season opponent for us that year.

Just like ATL during their 14 year run, being there every year at least puts you in position to win, unlike the White Sox who had teams like the 2003 and 2006 squads that could have been dangerous in short playoff series but just never got there.

So at least MIN has been there, and for a very small market team that is a miracle. And this is coming from a major Twins-hater here. If they open up Target Field, play well and draw (which they should pull 3 million in the first year in a new park) they will have more $$$$ available. Then it will be time to watch out.

You have to give credit where it is due. This organization works as a team, from the GM down to the last guy on the roster. If they had just $20 million more a year to spend, they would be strong enough to go deep in the playoffs.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Asin:

You'll get a lot of folks here at WSI who will argue with you that the entire playoff process is a crap shoot or lightning in a bottle if you will, from the get-go, regardless of how strong your playoff team is.

Lip

dickallen15
10-08-2009, 10:39 AM
I wonder what the Sox record would have been if they had spent the same money as Minnesota. I think the reason Minnesota is admired is because they have done things on the cheap. Their pitchers leave. They lost Santana and Hunter and still tied for a division title. Imagine the White Sox if they couldn't re-sign Konerko or Buerhle or didn't have the money to trade for Thome or Peavy. They wouldn't blow the money on guys like Rios or Linebrink (although I think Linebrink will surprise in 2010).

I'll take the WS title any day. But 5 division titles to 3 is pretty significant. They were 2 runs in 2008 from making it 6 to 2. I'm pretty sure if this was twinsinteractive.com we all would be very excited about the future.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:41 AM
You make some valid points.
My bone of contention is not how well the Twins have done, its how much better we should be doing. We are most likely in the worst division in MLB and but in the 3rd largest market in the country and though this last decade has been a pretty good one for us it should have been better. I don't want to get into an attendance issue but we do not draw like a big market team. Of the 3 large markets and the 6 teams in those markets we are the only team never to draw 3 million fans. Maybe with a little more fan support and $$$ generated from that support we would be able to win the Central Division every year.
One other point is that when it comes to devolpment of minor league players, we don't come close to the Twins, lets hope that changes with Buddy Bell now in charge of the minor leagues.

On the first bolded point: I understand that sentiment much better than the "why don't we do things like they do" sentiment. As I said, they do things differently, not necessarily better, which leads to...

The second bolded point: As I also noted, the Twins' strong suits are scouting, drafting, and player development, something they do better than the Sox, and probably better than anyone else in the Central except Detroit. However, they do not trade very well and do not find undervalued FAs nearly as well as KW does. The lack of success with the latter of these skills is especially perplexing, since it would fit into their current philosophy quite well.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:42 AM
1) You have to assume that they knew he was a cheater. At this point, it can only be an assumption.
And you assume that they DIDN'T know. There were more than one MLB team that had knowledge of PED use, as seen in memos within and between front offices.

2) They had more than a ZERO chance to sign him. As I noted earlier, it's not like they don't have the money to spend, Minny's ownership just chooses not to spend the money.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Santana wasn't their first big FA that they chose not to re-sign. And he won't be the last, either. Yet, for some odd reason, they still won the division in this and in more seasons than any of their competitors.

Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves.
Actually, wasn't your point that the SOX have been more successful than the twins? It seems like you're moving the goalposts.

Keep in mind that any knowledge the organization might have had about Ortiz's cheating is pure speculation.
And again, this statement is ALSO speculation. But then, given Minnesota's fine track record of self-scouting, I wouldn't be surprised if they DID know.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:44 AM
A good example of a mistake is accepting a far inferior package from the Mets, rather than one with quality players from the Yankees.
Link? [Not being a jerk, but I honestly have no memory of this rumor.]

And anyway, Minnesota had little-to-no leverage, since anyone with any interest in MLB knew that they had to trade Santana.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 10:48 AM
Link? [Not being a jerk, but I honestly have no memory of this rumor.]

And anyway, Minnesota had little-to-no leverage, since anyone with any interest in MLB knew that they had to trade Santana.

I don't have a direct link, but I know it was rumored rather seriously that the Yankees had offered Phil Hughes as part of a package whom is better than any of the players they got from the Mets.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass either, they had to trade Santana, everyone knew it and they over played their hand and got a worse deal.

EDIT: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/30/2007-11-30_yankees_decide_to_offer_phil_hughes_in_p-2.html
Hughes, Cabrera and a minor league pitcher.

asindc
10-08-2009, 10:49 AM
While the White Sox earned their World Series Championship, they did have some luck. A LOT of it.

In 2005, MIN had many changes at the big league level, especially on the INF. It was probably the worst defensive Twins team since Gardenhire became manager, and they still finished with a winnng record. We had huge payroll teams in 2007 and 2009 and finished closer to last place than first.

BOS did not have the miracle run in 2005 or the horses in the pitching staff to repeat. Schilling was banged up most of the year, they had serious fourth and fifth starter issues, their best starter got hurt at the wrong time, and even had to use an injured Schilling as a closer because no one else did well in the role.

Then, LAA did not have Bart for the playoffs, but they had an injured Vlad Guerrero, and did their three city/cross country in three day tour to end the ALDS series an start the ALCS didn't help.

And finally, HOU could have won each World Series game and swept us as we swept them. They were the toughest post season opponent for us that year.

Just like ATL during their 14 year run, being there every year at least puts you in position to win, unlike the White Sox who had teams like the 2003 and 2006 squads that could have been dangerous in short playoff series but just never got there.

So at least MIN has been there, and for a very small market team that is a miracle. And this is coming from a major Twins-hater here. If they open up Target Field, play well and draw (which they should pull 3 million in the first year in a new park) they will have more $$$$ available. Then it will be time to watch out.

You have to give credit where it is due. This organization works as a team, from the GM down to the last guy on the roster. If they had just $20 million more a year to spend, they would be strong enough to go deep in the playoffs.

I would imagine a lot of teams can point to similar luck along the way to their World Series championships. You do have to be good enough to captialize on that luck. Speaking of which, does this mean that Minny has been extraordinarily unlucky in the postseason this decade?

Credit has been given. And they do have $20 million more a year to spend, if you believe their fans and the media that cover the team. That the organization chooses not to spend the money is a decision that should reflect on its commitment to winning a World Series title. Again, ask yourself how you would feel if the teams switched records and organizational philosophies. Would you be more satisfied with the Sox having had their success versus what has actually happened this decade?

asindc
10-08-2009, 11:00 AM
And you assume that they DIDN'T know. There were more than one MLB team that had knowledge of PED use, as seen in memos within and between front offices.


Thank you for agreeing with me. Santana wasn't their first big FA that they chose not to re-sign. And he won't be the last, either. Yet, for some odd reason, they still won the division in this and in more seasons than any of their competitors.


Actually, wasn't your point that the SOX have been more successful than the twins? It seems like you're moving the goalposts.


And again, this statement is ALSO speculation. But then, given Minnesota's fine track record of self-scouting, I wouldn't be surprised if they DID know.

1) I'm not assuming anything. I am basing what I've stated on what is actually known about the decision to release Ortiz. As you might have read in one of my earlier posts, I fully acknowledge that his cheating could have been the real reason why they let him go, but none of us know that. What we do know is that they said he did not adapt to their offensive philosophy well enough to keep him.

2) Just recall the clamor to re-sign Konerko and Dye and Buehrle and (among some) Magglio and tell me that you think most Sox fans would prefer the Sox to do things the way Minny does.

3) Not moving the goalposts at all. How exactly is noting that KW does not do things the way the Twins' management does them contradicting my point?

4) That statement is not speculation. None of knows of any public report that suggests that the Twins had knowledge of Ortiz's cheating and that it was the basis for their decision to release him. To suggest that the Twins' management had such knowledge when no evidence of any kind has been made public is, in fact, speculation.

khan
10-08-2009, 11:13 AM
I don't have a direct link, but I know it was rumored rather seriously that the Yankees had offered Phil Hughes as part of a package whom is better than any of the players they got from the Mets.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass either, they had to trade Santana, everyone knew it and they over played their hand and got a worse deal.

EDIT: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/30/2007-11-30_yankees_decide_to_offer_phil_hughes_in_p-2.html
Hughes, Cabrera and a minor league pitcher.
They did get Gomez, who is contributing [somewhat] already. The pitcher in the trade, Phil Huber or Humber, was the 3rd overall pick; I'd imagine that he has some upside. Delois Guerra was in the 2007 Futures game, so at one point he was considered a prospect. Kevin Mulvey was also in the 2007 Futures game; He's since been moved for Jon Rauch.

Looking at it, the pitcher Phil Huber was the key to the trade, and he may yet be productive, IF he gets over some injury issues.


As for the Yankees' trade, Hughes hasn't been the dominating player that the mopes at espn want you to believe, and Cabrera wouldn't have a starting spot for Minnesota, IMO. I'm not 100% that it was an inferior offer from the Mets, considering Minnesota's makeup at the time.

eriqjaffe
10-08-2009, 11:14 AM
A) Chose not to re-sign 30-year old Magglio Ordonez after an injury-plagued 2004 season in which he was paid $14 million.Technically, the Sox simply opted to not offer him arbitration out of fear that he would accept it and spend a year getting paid ~$14 million to sit on the DL.

Didn't Magglio turn down a contract extension during the season (but after his injury)? Is my memory faulty on that?

soxinem1
10-08-2009, 11:20 AM
1) I'm not assuming anything. I am basing what I've stated on what is actually known about the decision to release Ortiz. As you might have read in one of my earlier posts, I fully acknowledge that his cheating could have been the real reason why they let him go, but none of us know that. What we do know is that they said he did not adapt to their offensive philosophy well enough to keep him.

2) Just recall the clamor to re-sign Konerko and Dye and Buehrle and (among some) Magglio and tell me that you think most Sox fans would prefer the Sox to do things the way Minny does.

3) Not moving the goalposts at all. How exactly is noting that KW does not do things the way the Twins' management does them contradicting my point?

4) That statement is not speculation. None of knows of any public report that suggests that the Twins had knowledge of Ortiz's cheating and that it was the basis for their decision to release him. To suggest that the Twins' management had such knowledge when no evidence of any kind has been made public is, in fact, speculation.

MIN let Ortiz go because they felt:

1. He was a platoon hitter who could not hit lefties enought more AB's than he was getting.

2. It was not worth risking going to arbitration and pay him $6-8 million just to hit 20HR, when they had Justin Morneau almost ready to play 1B. Plus, they knew he was a DH waiting to happen.

3. He just was not that good with MIN. I believe Gardenhire felt he was a loaf IIRC.

If they knew about the PEDS that was just a bonus.

asindc
10-08-2009, 11:27 AM
MIN let Ortiz go because they felt:

1. He was a platoon hitter who could not hit lefties enought more AB's than he was getting.

2. It was not worth risking going to arbitration and pay him $6-8 million just to hit 20HR, when they had Justin Morneau almost ready to play 1B. Plus, they knew he was a DH waiting to happen.

3. He just was not that good with MIN. I believe Gardenhire felt he was a loaf IIRC.

If they knew about the PEDS that was just a bonus.


I agree on all those points. I bring up this transaction to illustrate how their philosophy, while giving them a great chance to win a lot of regular season games, is less conducive to winning championships than some apparently think. Ortiz immediately became a feared power hitter with Boston the year he was traded. That of course is more circumstantial evidence of his roiding at the time and does bolster the point that it is quite possible that Minny knew about that then.

By the way, Khan's point is relevant in that if the Twins knew about Ortiz's cheating at the time, the transaction is wholly justified. Without such knowledge, however, it looks like Minny just blew it in evaluating a player on their own roster.

khan
10-08-2009, 11:28 AM
3) Not moving the goalposts at all. How exactly is noting that KW does not do things the way the Twins' management does them contradicting my point?
Here, I'll cut/paste something for you from your first post:

"... I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team."

I'll cut/paste something else, namely YOUR thread title:

"NEWS FLASH: This just in-The Sox have been more successful than the Twins this decade (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116027)"

Here's a 3rd quote from you:

"...Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves."

You were making an evaluation about the success of both teams in this decade. Whether we like it or not, this is factually untrue, as Lip has already posted.

Moreover, using a steroid cheater as an example of a bad move by Minnesota's front office is clearly a bad one at best. David Ortiz sucked when he was in Minnesota. David Ortiz sucked until he was a known cheater. Do you disagree with these statements?

Thirdly, using the Santana trade as an example of a "bad move" by Minnesota isn't necessarily true, either. Until Huber/Humber makes it or busts out, it's a bit premature to assess the full effect of the trade. Losing Santana's $13M off their budget also enabled Minnesota to add other pieces to their team.

So what is it?

Is it that you're going to argue that "the SOX have been more successful in this decade than Minnesota?"

Or is it that you don't like some of Minnesota's personnel decisions?

You seem to be moving "your main point" around...


4) That statement is not speculation. None of knows of any public report that suggests that the Twins had knowledge of Ortiz's cheating and that it was the basis for their decision to release him. To suggest that the Twins' management had such knowledge when no evidence of any kind has been made public is, in fact, speculation.
And none of us knows of any public report that suggests that the twins did not have knowledge, either. To suggest that the Twins management had no such knowledge is, in fact, speculation. Particularly when you consider that they are widely seen as one of the best Front Offices in MLB, both thorough and skilled.

PennStater98r
10-08-2009, 11:29 AM
A good example of a mistake is accepting a far inferior package from the Mets, rather than one with quality players from the Yankees.

Everyone knew though - that the Twins did not want to have to face him in a short series if they saw him in the post season. Santana was heading to the NL...

PennStater98r
10-08-2009, 11:33 AM
To me - it comes down to this:

Who has the better record in that time span?

Who has more post season appearances in that time span?

Who has more World Series titles?

The Twins take two out of three of those categories.

I cherish '05 - but I'd sure love for the Sox to be in a better position to make the post season consistantly.

That said, Sox look great with that pitching staff going into '10. I like their chances for the next four years - barring injury.

khan
10-08-2009, 11:36 AM
I agree on all those points.

By the way, Khan's point is relevant in that if the Twins knew about Ortiz's cheating at the time, the transaction is wholly justified. Without such knowledge, however, it looks like Minny just blew it in evaluating a player on their own roster.

Here's you contradicting yourself again.


I'd forgotten about where [EDIT] Morneau was when the craptacular version of Ortiz was playing in Minnesota. Ortiz sucked as a twin. Seemingly overnight, Ortiz got good. But irrespective of that, Minnesota did a good job in getting a better player than the Minnesota version of Ortiz.

You first stated:

"... I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team."

You then stated:

"...Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves."

My point is that I disagree with both of your contentions. Minnesota has been more successful than the SOX. And, your very mentioning of the Ortiz deal looks even more flawed when recalling the emergence of [EDIT]Morneau.

I'd be pleased if KW discarded an oft-injured, underproductive player in the minnesota version of Ortiz for a guy like [EDIT] Morneau.

asindc
10-08-2009, 11:41 AM
Here, I'll cut/paste something for you from your first post:

"... I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team."

I'll cut/paste something else, namely YOUR thread title:

"NEWS FLASH: This just in-The Sox have been more successful than the Twins this decade (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116027)"

Here's a 3rd quote from you:

"...Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves."

You were making an evaluation about the success of both teams in this decade. Whether we like it or not, this is factually untrue, as Lip has already posted.

Moreover, using a steroid cheater as an example of a bad move by Minnesota's front office is clearly a bad one at best. David Ortiz sucked when he was in Minnesota. David Ortiz sucked until he was a known cheater. Do you disagree with these statements?

Thirdly, using the Santana trade as an example of a "bad move" by Minnesota isn't necessarily true, either. Until Huber/Humber makes it or busts out, it's a bit premature to assess the full effect of the trade. Losing his $13M off their budget also enabled Minnesota to add other pieces to their team.

So what is it?

Is it that you're going to argue that "the SOX have been more successful in this decade than Minnesota?"

Or is it that you don't like some of Minnesota's trades?

You seem to be moving "your main point" around...



And none of us knows of any public report that suggests that the twins did not have knowledge, either. To suggest that the Twins management had no such knowledge is, in fact, speculation. Particularly when you consider that they are widely seen as one of the best Front Offices in MLB, both thorough and skilled.

1) How is it factually untrue? What particular facts make it untrue? I did ask if you would trade our record this decade for theirs. What is your answer to that question?

2) No, I do not disagree with any of those statements.

3) I never seek to "argue" with any of my fellow Sox fans, only to discuss certain issues involving the team and baseball in general. My main point remains that the Sox have had the more successful decade. In making that point I have stated my observation that Minny's philosophy of building a team is not better than the Sox philosophy (contrary to the griping some posters here do on that subject). The transactions are noted as examples of moves Minny's management has made this decade that might have prevented them from fielding a championship team.

Again, as I acknowledged in earlier posts, if in fact Minny knew of Ortiz's cheating at the time, the transaction is wholly justified and has no bearing on this issue. I have not once speculated that they did not know, I simply stated (several times now) that what is publicly known does not in any way suggest that they did know. There is nothing speculative about that.

Domeshot17
10-08-2009, 11:45 AM
Asin:

You'll get a lot of folks here at WSI who will argue with you that the entire playoff process is a crap shoot or lightning in a bottle if you will, from the get-go, regardless of how strong your playoff team is.

Lip

Which is total BS, the idea of getting to the playoffs is contending for a championship is as true as saying the pirates showing up on day 1 are contending for the playoffs. It is possible for a team to be built more for the playoffs and a series then for a long series (06 Cards) but very seldom does a complete shocker win it all.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 11:46 AM
They did get Gomez, who is contributing [somewhat] already. The pitcher in the trade, Phil Huber or Humber, was the 3rd overall pick; I'd imagine that he has some upside. Delois Guerra was in the 2007 Futures game, so at one point he was considered a prospect. Kevin Mulvey was also in the 2007 Futures game; He's since been moved for Jon Rauch.

Looking at it, the pitcher Phil Huber was the key to the trade, and he may yet be productive, IF he gets over some injury issues.


As for the Yankees' trade, Hughes hasn't been the dominating player that the mopes at espn want you to believe, and Cabrera wouldn't have a starting spot for Minnesota, IMO. I'm not 100% that it was an inferior offer from the Mets, considering Minnesota's makeup at the time.

Part of my post is based on hindsight which I suppose isn't fair. I would say however at the time that Hughes was considered a much bigger prospect than any of the pitchers the Twins received, even Humber.

Gomez was a big time prospect, but so was Melky so that's kind of a wash. In hindsight Melky has been much more productive than Gomez, but if Gomez ever learns how to hit his fielding and speed will make him a true asset.

The other two pitchers have pedigree, and certainly could figure into the Twins future plans but aren't lighting up the minors right now.

khan
10-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Part of my post is based on hindsight which I suppose isn't fair. I would say however at the time that Hughes was considered a much bigger prospect than any of the pitchers the Twins received, even Humber.

Gomez was a big time prospect, but so was Melky so that's kind of a wash. In hindsight Melky has been much more productive than Gomez, but if Gomez ever learns how to hit his fielding and speed will make him a true asset.

The other two pitchers have pedigree, and certainly could figure into the Twins future plans but aren't lighting up the minors right now.

I was more thinking about how Minnesota had already picked up Delmon Young in that offseason before the Santana trade. Delmon Young was [at the time] supposed to be a blossoming superstar. In that light, Cabrera wasn't going to be a starter in their outfield when the twins had already gotten Young.

Moreover, Hughes > Humber may be true. But Humber + the other two pitching prospects > Hughes, from the twins' perspective.

This is why I don't believe that the Yankees' package was the better deal for Minnesota. [Added into this the AL/NL issue as well...]

asindc
10-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Here's you contradicting yourself again.


I'd forgotten about where Mauer was when the craptacular version of Ortiz was playing in Minnesota. Ortiz sucked as a twin. Seemingly overnight, Ortiz got good. But irrespective of that, Minnesota did a good job in getting a better player than the Minnesota version of Ortiz.

You first stated:

"... I will state this plainly so there is no misunderstanding: The Chicago White Sox baseball team has had more success this decade (2000-2009) than the Minnesota Twins baseball team."

You then stated:

"...Geting back to my point again. Many of the posters here who criticize KW for many of the moves/non-moves he makes (sometimes fairly, sometimes not IMO) would probably call for his immediate firing if he had made these moves."

My point is that I disagree with both of your contentions. Minnesota has been more successful than the SOX. And, your very mentioning of the Ortiz deal looks even more flawed when recalling the emergence of Mauer.

I'd be pleased if KW discarded an oft-injured, underproductive player in the minnesota version of Ortiz for a guy like Mauer.

1) I can respect your opinion about my main point, which is nothing more than a strong opinion. You disagree with it. I am cool with that, really. I prefer 3 postseason appearances with a World Series victory over 5 postseason appearances with 1 series win (5 victories overall) with one postseason still pending, but that's me.

2) Once again for clarity: The Ortiz decision was good move only if they knew of his cheating. Otherwise, having Ortiz in the lineup with Mauer, Morneau, and Hunter would have been the better way to go. They would have had to see in Ortiz what Boston did, however, and allow him to develop the same way Boston did. The fact that they did not makes it a bad move, one that quite possibly cost them a great chance at winning the AL pennant in the earlier part of this decade. Again, the transaction is being evaluated based on what was publicly known about it at that time, not based on what we think Minny's management knew at the time. The point is that they probably blew a big chance to win the AL pennant because of a decision based largely on their organization's offensive philosophy. Boston won two World Series largely because they made the exact opposite decision on Ortiz.

khan
10-08-2009, 12:01 PM
1) How is it factually untrue? What particular facts make it untrue? I did ask if you would trade our record this decade for theirs. What is your answer to that question?
I will leave it to Lip to better elucidate that than I. Minnesota has won more games, more divisions, and had more opportunities to win it all than the White Sox. In totality, I'd take Minnesota's decade as being better than the White Sox's decade.

2) No, I do not disagree with any of those statements.
So if you agree that Ortiz sucked as a twin, why would you cite him as being a bad transaction for the twins? He hit "ALL OF" 20 HR, and had injured his wrists and knee before being let go. He was due for a pay raise in arbitration. There was a better player than he in Morneau that was near MLB-ready.

Irrespective of the steroid issue, why on earth would ANY team give an obese pay raise to a then-mediocre, oft-injured 1B when a better, younger, and healthier 1B was near-MLB ready?

3) I never seek to "argue" with any of my fellow Sox fans, only to discuss certain issues involving the team and baseball in general. My main point remains that the Sox have had the more successful decade. In making that point I have stated my observation that Minny's philosophy of building a team is not better than the Sox philosophy (contrary to the griping some posters here do on that subject). The transactions are noted as examples of moves Minny's management has made this decade that might have prevented them from fielding a championship team.

I don't "argue" with anyone, I merely disagree with you on these two points. Had you found better examples than Santana and Ortiz, I might agree with you. But both of these transactions were good ones for Minnesota; they were bad examples on your part. I also see Minnesota's decade as being more successful than the White Sox's.

Thatguyoverthere
10-08-2009, 12:04 PM
I will leave it to Lip to better elucidate that than I. Minnesota has won more games, more divisions, and had more opportunities to win it all than the White Sox. In totality, I'd take Minnesota's decade as being better than the White Sox's decade.


So if you agree that Ortiz sucked as a twin, why would you cite him as being a bad transaction for the twins?



I don't "argue" with anyone, I merely disagree with you on these two points. Had you found better examples than Santana and Ortiz, I might agree with you. But both of these transactions were good ones for Minnesota; they were bad examples on your part. I also see Minnesota's decade as being more successful than the White Sox's.I don't know if I agree. Are two more playoff appearances really worth more than a World Series title? I just don't see how you can say they are, especially considering Minnesota has only won one playoff series this decade.

dickallen15
10-08-2009, 12:14 PM
Whoever has had the better decade really doesn't matter right now to Sox fans, but if Minn. wins the WS this year, I think the Sox would lose votes. What matters now is the future. The Sox won't have their park to use as a weak excuse anymore. They are going to have to start playing them with the expectation of winning, not expecting something bizarre to eventually happen. Who knows, they may eventually be right.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:14 PM
I will leave it to Lip to better elucidate that than I. Minnesota has won more games, more divisions, and had more opportunities to win it all than the White Sox. In totality, I'd take Minnesota's decade as being better than the White Sox's decade.


So if you agree that Ortiz sucked as a twin, why would you cite him as being a bad transaction for the twins?



I don't "argue" with anyone, I merely disagree with you on these two points. Had you found better examples than Santana and Ortiz, I might agree with you. But both of these transactions were good ones for Minnesota; they were bad examples on your part. I also see Minnesota's decade as being more successful than the White Sox's.

Konerko sucked as a Cincinnati Red. The Sox traded its starting CF for him anyway (who also sucked at the time, but became good enough to be the centerpiece of a trade for Ken Griffey, Jr.). Was that a bad move for the Sox? Cincy? Jenks sucked as a LAAAAA minor leaguer. The Sox claimed him off waivers. Was that a bad move for the Sox? LAAAAA? Gavin Floyd sucked as a Phillie. The Sox traded a veteran starter for him. Was that a bad move by the Sox? Phillies?

You know that just because a young player (Johnny Danks) sucks at the moment does not mean he will continue to suck after he is traded. Boston's management saw something Minny's management did not. If Minny's management had seen it, do you really think they would have traded him? By the way, Ortiz hit .272 20 75 with an .339 OBP in 125 games his last year for Minny.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:24 PM
Whoever has had the better decade really doesn't matter right now to Sox fans, but if Minn. wins the WS this year, I think the Sox would lose votes. What matters now is the future. The Sox won't have their park to use as a weak excuse anymore. They are going to have to start playing them with the expectation of winning, not expecting something bizarre to eventually happen. Who knows, they may eventually be right.

That would certainly change my view on the subject. The World Series trumps everything else. Two extra post-season appearances are not nearly worth giving that up.

khan
10-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Konerko sucked as a Cincinnati Red. Jenks sucked as a LAAAAA.
Gavin Floyd sucked as a Phillie.
Johnny Danks.
This is silly. David Ortiz was 28 when he was due for an obese contract, after getting injured, and hitting ONLY 20 HR. He was supposedly in his prime. He'd been a professional for 10 years, and had been with the Twins for 5 years. He was a known commodity.

Konerko? He was 23 and still a prospect when the SOX picked him up.
Floyd? He was 24 and still a prospect.
Danks? He was 21 and still a prospect.

Transactions dealing with known commodities are entirely different than deals for kids. You know that, so your statement is silly, at best.

Boston's management saw something Minny's management did not.
You seem to have lost view of the fact that Minnesota does not have limitless resources. Boston's management got Ortiz at a fraction of what it would have cost Minnesota. Boston also had the benefit of him cheating.

If Minny's management had seen it, do you really think they would have traded him? By the way, Ortiz hit .272 20 75 with an .339 OBP in 125 games his last year for Minny.
As a 1B or a DH, those numbers suck. [EDIT] Over 150 games, that's merely 24 HR, 90RBI. For a 1B/DH, that sucks ass. His injury history up to that point made it doubtful that Ortiz would ever be able to play in that many games, however.

As a 1B that was due for a hefty pay raise [which would have disallowed them from retaining or acquiring other pieces], those numbers REALLY, REALLY suck.

So choosing between an expensive, injured vet who kinda sucks and a younger, better, healthier player that enabled Minnesota to acquire/retain other, better, more important pieces, it's a no-brainer.

Twins_Morneau
10-08-2009, 12:32 PM
David Roidteez only got good when his buddy Manny shared the juice. Twins were right in letting his disgraced arse go. He's no different than Bonds or Aroid in my eyes no matter how much RoidSux fans try to tell you otherwise.

doublem23
10-08-2009, 12:34 PM
David Roidteez only got good when his buddy Manny shared the juice. Twins were right in letting his disgraced arse go. He's no different than Bonds or Aroid in my eyes no matter how much RoidSux fans try to tell you otherwise.

Exactly. Saying the Twins were foolish for letting Ortiz go is like saying the Sox were foolish for trading Sammy. Both were OK players, but neither blossomed into stars until they found their new clubhouses to be havens for cheaters.

JB98
10-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm glad someone started this thread. The Twin-envy on WSI is ridiculous. I wouldn't trade places with them. Minnesota has a strategy that keeps them competitive in a division that lacks a power team year after year. But they aren't going to get to the World Series until they find the stones to make a big acquisition to get them over the hump.

Minnesota is always picking up the Craig Monroes and Orlando Cabreras of the world midseason. That organization would NEVER be bold enough to go out and acquire a pitcher like Jake Peavy. For that reason, they're not going to beat the Bostons or New Yorks in the playoffs. I'll be shocked if Minnesota beats the Yankees this week.

I'd rather have one World Series title and no other division crowns than five division titles and no playoff success to show for it. The Sox haven't been able to develop as many players as the Twins have. We know this. But the Sox are far more willing to takes the risks you need to take to give yourself a chance to win the whole thing (see Peavy and Rios acquisitions). Could it blow up on them? Sure. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I just see the Twins as an organization that's going to average 87 wins a year forever. Some years, that will be good enough to win a division and get throttled by an AL East power in the first round. I'd rather set my sights a little higher, and I think the Sox do that.

I don't want to be the Twins. I don't want Orlando Cabrera back. I don't want Nick Punto starting somewhere in my infield every year. I don't want Matt Tolbert played third base. Carlos Gomez is NOT the next Rickey Henderson (sorry Hawk). We don't want to become like the Twins. I'm sorry, Twin-lovers, we don't.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:43 PM
This is silly. David Ortiz was 28 when he was due for an obese contract, after getting injured, and hitting ONLY 20 HR. He was supposedly in his prime. He'd been a professional for 10 years, and had been with the Twins for 5 years. He was a known commodity.

Konerko? He was 23 and still a prospect when the SOX picked him up.
Floyd? He was 24 and still a prospect.
Danks? He was 21 and still a prospect.

Transactions dealing with known commodities are entirely different than deals for kids. You know that, so your statement is silly, at best.


You seem to have lost view of the fact that Minnesota does not have limitless resources. Boston's management got Ortiz at a fraction of what it would have cost Minnesota. Boston also had the benefit of him cheating.


As a 1B or a DH, those numbers suck. [EDIT] Over 150 games, that's merely 24 HR, 90RBI. For a 1B/DH, that sucks ass. His injury history up to that point made it doubtful that Ortiz would ever be able to play in that many games, however.

As a 1B that was due for a hefty pay raise [which would have disallowed them from retaining or acquiring other pieces], those numbers REALLY, REALLY suck.

So choosing between an expensive, injured vet who kinda sucks and a younger, better, healthier player that enabled Minnesota to acquire/retain other, better, more important pieces, it's a no-brainer.

No one has limitless resources, but as many Minny fans and media have noted, that does not mean they don't have more resources than they utilize. They could have re-signed him according to Twins fans but simply chose not to. Yes, Boston did benefit from a cheater, we agree on that. What I am saying is that Boston simply saw something more there and took advantage of the situation.

If Minny thought they were going to get that kind of performance from him, I seriously doubt they would have traded him. Nothing silly about seeing that one team clearly saw talent there where the other team did not. And to emphasize once more, IF the Twinkees knew about Ortiz's roiding at the time, the transaction has no bearing on this issue.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm glad someone started this thread. The Twin-envy on WSI is ridiculous. I wouldn't trade places with them. Minnesota has a strategy that keeps them competitive in a division that lacks a power team year after year. But they aren't going to get to the World Series until they find the stones to make a big acquisition to get them over the hump.

Minnesota is always picking up the Craig Monroes and Orlando Cabreras of the world midseason. That organization would NEVER be bold enough to go out and acquire a pitcher like Jake Peavy. For that reason, they're not going to beat the Bostons or New Yorks in the playoffs. I'll be shocked if Minnesota beats the Yankees this week.

I'd rather have one World Series title and no other division crowns than five division titles and no playoff success to show for it. The Sox haven't been able to develop as many players as the Twins have. We know this. But the Sox are far more willing to takes the risks you need to take to give yourself a chance to win the whole thing (see Peavy and Rios acquisitions). Could it blow up on them? Sure. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I just see the Twins as an organization that's going to average 87 wins a year forever. Some years, that will be good enough to win a division and get throttled by an AL East power in the first round. I'd rather set my sights a little higher, and I think the Sox do that.

I don't want to be the Twins. I don't want Orlando Cabrera back. I don't want Nick Punto starting somewhere in my infield every year. I don't want Matt Tolbert played third base. Carlos Gomez is NOT the next Rickey Henderson (sorry Hawk). We don't want to become like the Twins. I'm sorry, Twin-lovers, we don't.

Thank you, sir, for your succinct summary. QFT.

ewokpelts
10-08-2009, 12:50 PM
I hate to rile up the drinking team, but the sox have the twinkies beat in one category that matters in baseball: WS wins. All time(since they moved) as well as in this decade.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Exactly. Saying the Twins were foolish for letting Ortiz go is like saying the Sox were foolish for trading Sammy. Both were OK players, but neither blossomed into stars until they found their new clubhouses to be havens for cheaters.

In hindsight, of course not. But I evaluated the transaction based on what was known at the time, not on what is known now. By the way, for the record, I thought trading Shammy for George Bell was a terrible move at the time. Of course, knowing what we know now, I'm quite pleased with the move.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 12:52 PM
JB:

Just wondering. Who do you want the Sox to be like? I'd love them to be the Yankees - Red Sox or Angels of the Central but that's never going to happen with current ownership so who do they emulate?

Lip

1989
10-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Responding to the topic at hand, of course the Sox have been more successful than the Twins this decade. As of now the Twins are 1-5 in playoff series this decade (probably soon to be 1-6), have 7 straight playoff losses, and 7 straight losses at the dome.

Simply put, the Twins are not competitors for the World Series. Sure, they may be good enough to win the AL central, but that's about as far as they get as the Twins constantly embarrass themselves on the national stage in the playoffs. I hear a lot of Twinkie fans whine about not getting respect amongst the national media, but what have they done to earn it? Nothing.

We've won the World Series this decade, and that alone is worth more than the equivalent of 8 division championships. At least.

The Twins can get there, but they just can't finish. On the big stage, compare them to a recent version of Oklahoma and Ohio State football, except nowhere as good.

pmck003
10-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Who here would like to trade the Sox's decade for the Twins?

Only way I could think of saying yes was if the Twins earned extra money and I had been personally collecting that money, but even then I figure I would have enough money that I would still rather have the WS win. Sure there is much to learn from the Twins organization, but I wouldn't of rather been the Germans in WWII because they fought more efficiently than the Russians.

ewokpelts
10-08-2009, 01:14 PM
Lip: White Sox should just themselves. The results have been good since KW took over. Only thing I would change is they need to be more aggressive in the FA market.

asindc
10-08-2009, 01:15 PM
A) Five postseason appearances, eight winning seasons, one playoff series win (five overall playoff victories), with a pending postseason; or

B) One World Series victory, three postseason appearances, seven winning seasons, three playoff series victories (12 overall playoff victories).

Madvora
10-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Boy, you're really advocating your point.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 01:25 PM
I was more thinking about how Minnesota had already picked up Delmon Young in that offseason before the Santana trade. Delmon Young was [at the time] supposed to be a blossoming superstar. In that light, Cabrera wasn't going to be a starter in their outfield when the twins had already gotten Young.

Moreover, Hughes > Humber may be true. But Humber + the other two pitching prospects > Hughes, from the twins' perspective.

This is why I don't believe that the Yankees' package was the better deal for Minnesota. [Added into this the AL/NL issue as well...]

Again, hindsight is 20/20 and I can't remember back that far to make a sure bet as to which package was better, but I certainly understand and respect your opinion.

The AL/NL is something to take into consideration. For our sake, it's great they chose to ship him to the NL. :redneck

I hate to rile up the drinking team, but the sox have the twinkies beat in one category that matters in baseball: WS wins. All time(since they moved) as well as in this decade.

If people want to get riled up, that's fine. It's the truth. 1 WS > 0 WS. (EDIT: Truth this decade)

JB did a nice job of summarizing as well, I agree with almost all his points. I like the fact that the Sox take the risks to try and win even though they don't always work out.

asindc
10-08-2009, 01:25 PM
I wanted to add this poll to my original thread, but it cannot be done. I started this so that a moderator could merge it with the other thread.


EDIT: I will add that I am shocked that anyone would choose the first option.



MODS, please merge with the other thread on this topic.

khan
10-08-2009, 01:27 PM
I hate to rile up the drinking team, but the sox have the twinkies beat in one category that matters in baseball: WS wins. All time(since they moved) as well as in this decade.

Are you sure about that?

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Are you sure about that?

Yeah, that's definitely wrong. The main point of we have one title this decade vs. their zero titles is still relevant though.

voodoochile
10-08-2009, 01:34 PM
Any decade with a WS win is a successful one, IMO. If your team made a few other playoff appearances and for the most part played winning baseball, it's definitely successful.

One WS win a decade would give any team the second most behind the Yankees in the 20th century.

I'll take one WS win and 9 .500 seasons a decade for the rest of my life and consider myself blessed. 1 WS win Vs. 5 three and outs a decade seems like a no brainer to me. Don't believe me? Ask the flubbie fans... Heck ask the Twinkie fans since they actually hang out here.

ewokpelts
10-08-2009, 01:34 PM
Are you sure about that?twins have 2 ws wins. sox have three.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 01:41 PM
twins have 2 ws wins. sox have three.

You said since they moved. That's comparing a what, 50 year time period to a 100 year period, that's not particularly relevant.

jdm2662
10-08-2009, 02:37 PM
I will say this once, and only once. If the Sox and Twins were reversed in terms of team success, etc, you all would be whinning that the Sox don't have that killer instinct, don't go for the big one, etc. This is exactly what the Twins are. They use their dome to their advantage in the regular season, but that **** doesn't work in the playoffs. The dome will no longer will be a factor next year. there is a reason why they whinned and moaned about having to come to Chicago in game 163. They simply couldn't win without their wonderful dome.

The Twins own players have gotten on the team for never making the big move to go for it all. So, I'm not just saying this for the hell of it. The fact they made this amount of trades before the deadline tells me Mauer has more say then ever in the organization. As of now, the Twins do have plenty of quality major league ball players, but the bottom of the lineup are still full of scrubs that relay on choopers and bloops. Good luck getting that in a real stadium boys.

So, to answer your question, I will take the Sox decade over the Twins. I'm also pretty sure we asked about the 90s, we would've taken the Twins because of 91.

Thatguyoverthere
10-08-2009, 03:36 PM
Hell, if you asked me if I'd rather have the Florida Marlins' decade or the Twins' decade, I'd probably take the Marlins.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 05:03 PM
Not getting into the argument since as stated I can see both sides in the matter. Simply as a point of clarification to Ewoks post:

Since the Washington Senators moved to Minnesota (1961-2009)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Minnesota has:

23 winning seasons (through 09)
13 season 90 or more wins (through 09)
10 postseason appearances (65,69,70,87,91,02,03,04,06,09)
3 World Series appearances (65,87,91)
2 World Series titles (87,91)
Postseason overall record of: 25-33 (*does NOT count anything in 09)

White Sox has:

26 winning seasons
10 seasons 90 or more wins
5 postseason appearances (83,93,00,05,08)
1 World Series appearance (05)
1 World Series title (05)
Postseason overall record: 15-15

Lip

doublem23
10-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Any decade with a WS win is a successful one, IMO. If your team made a few other playoff appearances and for the most part played winning baseball, it's definitely successful.

I have to agree. At best, only 1/3 of all teams win a World Series in any given decade. Its an accomplishment to be savored, not analytically broken down and compared to other lesser feats.

ma-gaga
10-08-2009, 05:35 PM
I'll take one WS win

Yeah, that really is the key to this poll. The WS makes everything worthwhile.

The Twins are setup and operate completely differently than 29 other teams in baseball, and they are more successful than ~80% of the other franchises (and I'd argue more based on their self-imposed financial constraints). But WS championship flags fly forever. Advantage White Sox.

:gulp:

PKalltheway
10-08-2009, 06:40 PM
I'll take the three division titles with one championship. I don't even see how this is a debate. If you want to make it one, call me back when, and if, the Twins even make the Fall Classic this year. Then we'll talk.

JB98
10-08-2009, 09:09 PM
JB:

Just wondering. Who do you want the Sox to be like? I'd love them to be the Yankees - Red Sox or Angels of the Central but that's never going to happen with current ownership so who do they emulate?

Lip

I don't see why the Sox can't emulate Boston. The Red Sox aren't built entirely on high-priced free agents. There are homegrown players in key roles (Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youklis, Papelbon, Lester), as well as guys who were acquired in astute trades (Bay, Beckett, Martinez, Lowell).

guillensdisciple
10-08-2009, 09:22 PM
Won't this poll be a little biased?

asindc
10-08-2009, 09:31 PM
Won't this poll be a little biased?

Would you expect a different result if all fans of teams other than the Sox and Twinkees were polled?

Frater Perdurabo
10-08-2009, 09:37 PM
Why can't the Sox be as smart as the Twins in drafting, developing and coaching players to be fundamentally sound, yet also utilize their superior resources?

Twins fans lament that they never make a big move to acquire a player to put them over the top, and/or that they let their stars leave. But KW has made big moves (Peavy, Rios, etc.) and kept their own stars (Buehrle, Paulie, etc.), because the Sox are more willing to spend large sums of money than the Twins.

The Sox are in a privileged position compared to the rest of the division. They should win the division at least five times within any given decade. They don't simply because they have been poor at developing fundamentally sound players.

JB98
10-08-2009, 09:55 PM
Why can't the Sox be as smart as the Twins in drafting, developing and coaching players to be fundamentally sound, yet also utilize their superior resources?

Twins fans lament that they never make a big move to acquire a player to put them over the top, and/or that they let their stars leave. But KW has made big moves (Peavy, Rios, etc.) and kept their own stars (Buehrle, Paulie, etc.), because the Sox are more willing to spend large sums of money than the Twins.

The Sox are in a privileged position compared to the rest of the division. They should win the division at least five times within any given decade. They don't simply because they have been poor at developing fundamentally sound players.

The Twins have been able to restock their bullpen from within their system. That's an advantage for them. As far as poor player development goes, it's really cost the Sox pitching-wise. They've had to overpay guys like Linebrink and Dotel in free agency because they can't find anybody competent to pitch the damn seventh inning from within their own system.

voodoochile
10-08-2009, 11:00 PM
I don't see why the Sox can't emulate Boston. The Red Sox aren't built entirely on high-priced free agents. There are homegrown players in key roles (Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youklis, Papelbon, Lester), as well as guys who were acquired in astute trades (Bay, Beckett, Martinez, Lowell).

LOL... are you serious? When they won the first WS they had two starters who were products of their farm system every single other player was acquired via FA or trade...

They've also got a payroll 50% higher than the Sox last year.

JB98
10-08-2009, 11:04 PM
LOL... are you serious? When they won the first WS they had two starters who were products of their farm system every single other player was acquired via FA or trade...

They've also got a payroll 50% higher than the Sox last year.

Deadly serious. I'm talking about where they are now, not 2004.

Twins_Morneau
10-08-2009, 11:04 PM
LOL... are you serious? When they won the first WS they had two starters who were products of their farm system every single other player was acquired via FA or trade...

They've also got a payroll 50% higher than the Sox last year.

No Doubt, RoidSux are just the bastard little brother of the Yankees, just as ugly and evil.

JB98
10-08-2009, 11:08 PM
No Doubt, RoidSux are just the bastard little brother of the Yankees, just as ugly and evil.

Payroll figures from ESPN.com:

Yankees: $208 million
Red Sox: $122 million
White Sox: $100 million

There isn't that big of a gap between Boston and the White Sox.

voodoochile
10-08-2009, 11:10 PM
Payroll figures from ESPN.com:

Yankees: $208 million
Red Sox: $122 million
White Sox: $100 million

There isn't that big of a gap between Boston and the White Sox.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=3

Just wait until they sign Bay, they'll be back to $140M+ in a heartbeat.

Edit: Take that link, click the button for total payroll and then scroll through the years from 2004-2007. The Red Sox during that time had the second highest payroll in the majors with an average total payroll 20% higher than the third ranked team.

JB98
10-08-2009, 11:17 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=3

Just wait until they sign Bay, they'll be back to $140M+ in a heartbeat.

The Sox payroll was $121 million last year, which is about the same as Boston this year. If the Sox were in the playoffs as frequently as Boston is, I have no doubt they could generate enough revenue to have a payroll in the $140 million range.

The Sox can't do business the way the Yankees do. But I still don't see why they couldn't follow Boston's model. We're not a small-market team by any means.

voodoochile
10-08-2009, 11:32 PM
The Sox payroll was $121 million last year, which is about the same as Boston this year. If the Sox were in the playoffs as frequently as Boston is, I have no doubt they could generate enough revenue to have a payroll in the $140 million range.

The Sox can't do business the way the Yankees do. But I still don't see why they couldn't follow Boston's model. We're not a small-market team by any means.

The Sox have had 3 years in their history with opening day payrolls over $100M - 2006 (102), 2007 (108) & 2008 (122).

The Red Sox have had an average opening day payroll of $120M since 2001 and have were 2nd in payroll often by a wide margin for most of those years (2003, 08 and 09) being the exceptions.

Go up and read my edit and check out the stats. The Red Sox have bought their championships as surely as the Yankees did.

Ramirez, Ortiz, Schilling, Dice K, Beckett, Lowell, Bay, etc. The list goes on and on.

I'd love for the Sox to have those players too, but let's not get all misty eyed about Boston building a team the right way.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 11:38 PM
JB:

Not totally disagreeing with what you wrote however I found it ironic that the four players you mentioned were all acquired from 'have not' franchises that couldn't afford to keep them. The Red Sox had cash on the barrel head ready and willing and able to take them off the hands of garbage franchises like the Pirates and Marlins. Not exactly my definition of "astute" trades.

I'm not downgrading what Boston has done but having the money and the willingness to spend such money enables them to have a better farm system, pay their minor league coaches more, sign international talent AND still be able to 'correct' any mistakes at the big league level. You can say the same thing for the Yankees.

Give Kenny Williams a 140 million dollar payroll just once and see what he can do with it.

Boston started their roll in the late 90's for one reason and one reason only, they were sick of Yankee domination and were going to match them dollar for dollar (or a reasonable facsimile of such) until they got results or went bankrupt. Well the old saying is true, to make money you spend money. They did and they have and they are consistently fielding playoff worthy teams because of it.

Honestly it amazes me in the wake of success stories like this and the incredibly one sided results of playoff teams winning based on payroll that other teams don't follow the same model. It's been shown statistically since 1994 the advantage having a big payroll gives teams, it's almost a guaranteed money maker in the long run with additional home postseason games, parking, concessions, team merchandise sales and so on.

Guess some organizations don't have the guts to take a hit for a few years for long term success.

Lip

DSpivack
10-08-2009, 11:49 PM
JB:

Not totally disagreeing with what you wrote however I found it ironic that the four players you mentioned were all acquired from 'have not' franchises that couldn't afford to keep them. The Red Sox had cash on the barrel head ready and willing and able to take them off the hands of garbage franchises like the Pirates and Marlins. Not exactly my definition of "astute" trades.

Lip

Marlins got Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez in the Beckett/Lowell deal. I'd say it was a good trade for both sides.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 11:53 PM
Spivak:

The Red Sox went on to win a World series with the deal. The Marlins are still waiting to get to the playoffs and by the time they do Ramirez and Sanchez will be free agents.

Florida won't be able to keep them and more likely than not at least one of them...will wind up with the Red Sox! LOL That's how 'big market' teams play the game (with tremendous success...)

And now you know the rest of the story.

Lip

DSpivack
10-08-2009, 11:57 PM
Spivak:

The Red Sox went on to win a World series with the deal. The Marlins are still waiting to get to the playoffs and by the time they do Ramirez and Sanchez will be free agents.

Florida won't be able to keep them and more likely than not at least one of them...will wind up with the Red Sox! LOL That's how 'big market' teams play the game (with tremendous success...)

And now you know the rest of the story.

Lip

Teams like the Marlins in small markets can't compete in payroll with the Red Sox, Mets, et al. The fish do an excellent job at staying competitive with limited resources. Sure, they've been cheap over the years, but they do have Hanley inked to a big contract through 2014. He's among the best players in baseball, and he's not going anywhere.

doublem23
10-09-2009, 12:00 AM
Spivak:

The Red Sox went on to win a World series with the deal. The Marlins are still waiting to get to the playoffs and by the time they do Ramirez and Sanchez will be free agents.

Florida won't be able to keep them and more likely than not at least one of them...will wind up with the Red Sox! LOL That's how 'big market' teams play the game (with tremendous success...)

And now you know the rest of the story.

Lip

You're going to have to remind us all again whether the Marlins or Red Sox have more World Series titles over the course of an average human life span. :scratch:

Lip Man 1
10-09-2009, 10:12 AM
Double:

Neither they both have two in the past fifteen years or so. Of course the Red Sox have been to the World Series more often because they've been around longer.

But last I looked the Marlins haven't had a stretch of 12 consecutive winning seasons nor have the made the postseason six times in 10 years.

Like I said in my winning seasons / postseason appearances thread, 'money talks don't it?'

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-09-2009, 10:15 AM
Spivak:

Again not doubting what you said. It's all true...now let me know the next time, hell the first time, the Marlins make the playoffs with Ramirez... let alone win a World Series.

That deal was completely one sided for Boston because they had the money and the will to make the deal and they won a championship in part because of it.

That's reality...not saying it's right or proper but that's baseball today.

Lip

dickallen15
10-09-2009, 10:50 AM
The Sox have had 3 years in their history with opening day payrolls over $100M - 2006 (102), 2007 (108) & 2008 (122).

The Red Sox have had an average opening day payroll of $120M since 2001 and have were 2nd in payroll often by a wide margin for most of those years (2003, 08 and 09) being the exceptions.

Go up and read my edit and check out the stats. The Red Sox have bought their championships as surely as the Yankees did.

Ramirez, Ortiz, Schilling, Dice K, Beckett, Lowell, Bay, etc. The list goes on and on.

I'd love for the Sox to have those players too, but let's not get all misty eyed about Boston building a team the right way.

Boston has drafted well and has never used the excuse the White Sox used about draft position. If the Sox were able to come up with guys like Ellsbury and Pedroia and Bard.........guys that were available when the Sox drafted garbage, they would probably be a perrennial playoff team especially considering the weaker division. If the White Sox were in the AL East I wonder if they would have any playoff appearances this decade. 2005 the had the best record in the league but that was made by beating up the rest of the AL Central. They were .500 against the rest of the league.

voodoochile
10-09-2009, 10:54 AM
Boston has drafted well and has never used the excuse the White Sox used about draft position. If the Sox were able to come up with guys like Ellsbury and Pedroia and Bard.........guys that were available when the Sox drafted garbage, they would probably be a perrennial playoff team especially considering the weaker division. If the White Sox were in the AL East I wonder if they would have any playoff appearances this decade. 2005 the had the best record in the league but that was made by beating up the rest of the AL Central. They were .500 against the rest of the league.

I cannot disagree about the past state of the Sox minor league system. I only can hope it's headed in a a new and better direction (which initial indications seem to imply). I was strictly commenting on the concept that the Red Sox are some altruistic baseball model to follow. They've spent as much as anyone save the Yankees the past decade and as a result have two championships to show for their efforts. I'd love for the Sox to follow that model and be able to afford guys like Manny and Bay. Heck, buy the fans 10 straight championships, I won't whine at all...

Mohoney
10-11-2009, 08:31 AM
JB:

Not totally disagreeing with what you wrote however I found it ironic that the four players you mentioned were all acquired from 'have not' franchises that couldn't afford to keep them. The Red Sox had cash on the barrel head ready and willing and able to take them off the hands of garbage franchises like the Pirates and Marlins. Not exactly my definition of "astute" trades.

I'm not downgrading what Boston has done but having the money and the willingness to spend such money enables them to have a better farm system, pay their minor league coaches more, sign international talent AND still be able to 'correct' any mistakes at the big league level. You can say the same thing for the Yankees.

Give Kenny Williams a 140 million dollar payroll just once and see what he can do with it.

Boston started their roll in the late 90's for one reason and one reason only, they were sick of Yankee domination and were going to match them dollar for dollar (or a reasonable facsimile of such) until they got results or went bankrupt. Well the old saying is true, to make money you spend money. They did and they have and they are consistently fielding playoff worthy teams because of it.

Honestly it amazes me in the wake of success stories like this and the incredibly one sided results of playoff teams winning based on payroll that other teams don't follow the same model. It's been shown statistically since 1994 the advantage having a big payroll gives teams, it's almost a guaranteed money maker in the long run with additional home postseason games, parking, concessions, team merchandise sales and so on.

Guess some organizations don't have the guts to take a hit for a few years for long term success.

Lip

The Red Sox also got a 5 year dispensation to actually run the team at a "loss" for tax purposes when they were sold. Only teams that are sold get this 5 year window. This is the convenient fact left out when everybody strokes the Boston boner and gets all teary-eyed.

Mohoney
10-11-2009, 08:43 AM
Give Kenny Williams a 140 million dollar payroll just once and see what he can do with it.

He can't get a 140 million dollar payroll if the White Sox don't make enough to where they can have a 140 million dollar payroll and still break even.

MLB teams are not allowed to operate at a loss. This fact essentially kills all the "Reinsdorf is cheap" arguments being thrown around here.

I used to think the same way you did. We're a large market, we should spend what it takes to win, yadda yadda yadda. Then I learned that MLB prohibits teams from operating in the red. I learned that from fellow WSI poster Nellie Fox.

Lip Man 1
10-11-2009, 12:00 PM
Mohoney:

Actually MLB teams can operate at a loss. I think you're confusing the debt ratio rule that Proud To Be Your Bud has been enforcing. I think it's something like 60-40, which by my understanding means you can have some loss but not over a certain limit.

Also I wouldn't trust any MLB owner as far as I could throw them. As shown in the 1994 labor impasse MLB teams have a very interesting way of writing their books and it's very, very, very easy to show a "loss."

I have personally spoken to two individuals with connections to the Sox Board of Directors. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in years..." Not 'broken even' mind you but 'lost money.' Take it for what it may be worth to you.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
10-11-2009, 07:33 PM
Mohoney:

Actually MLB teams can operate at a loss. I think you're confusing the debt ratio rule that Proud To Be Your Bud has been enforcing. I think it's something like 60-40, which by my understanding means you can have some loss but not over a certain limit.

Also I wouldn't trust any MLB owner as far as I could throw them. As shown in the 1994 labor impasse MLB teams have a very interesting way of writing their books and it's very, very, very easy to show a "loss."

I have personally spoken to two individuals with connections to the Sox Board of Directors. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in years..." Not 'broken even' mind you but 'lost money.' Take it for what it may be worth to you.

Lip

Wasn't there also a thread that pointed to a study that showed that the Sox put a higher percentage of their revenues directly into player salaries than any other MLB team?

voodoochile
10-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Some Stats from the recently completed ALDS...

Series totals:

Hits:

MIN: 29
NYY: 23

HR:

MIN: 0 (zero?)
NYY: 5

Runs scored due to HR:

MIN: 0 (zero!)
NYY: 9

GW HR:

MIN: 0 (yep, still zero)
NYY: 1

Final composite score:
MIN: 6
NYY: 15

Score differential:
NYY +9 (see: runs scored due to HR)

So let me get this straight, the great dink and scramble built for the playoffs Minnesota offense managed a grand whopping total of 6 runs while the swing hard in case you hit it NYY mashers scored 15 - 9 from the not built for playoff baseball long ball...

I'm confused. I thought dinking, scrambling and biting like piranhas was the answer to winning. This can't be. You mean all those championships the Yankees have won weren't from bunting and stealing and slap hitting the other way or butcher chopping one off the plate? I thought Babe Ruth was known for that stuff...:scratch:

I'm all confused... I'll need some time to think about all of this. I was so sure the ankle biting, slap hitting, dink and scramblers were sure to blow the Yankees off the field.

What happened?

(did that really need to be in teal?) :tongue: :rolleyes:

LoveYourSuit
10-13-2009, 01:36 AM
Yes, but five appearances versus three is not a huge disparity, IMO. Especially when the team appearing five times is decidedly overmatched each time it makes the postseason. That's a lightening-in-a-bottle approach to pursuing championships. No thank you.

Many will argue that what we did in 2005 was catching lightning in a bottle.

That said:
I would not change our 2005 season for what the Twins have done up there with building the farm system and a competitive team every season. Winning a World Series is worth 100X more IMO.

We just need to figure out a way to get back in there.

CentralXpert
10-13-2009, 07:16 AM
It's a no brainer. Anyone would take 3 division titles and a ring over 5 division titles and consistent seasons. Being consistent is great, but RINGS are what matters. On the other hand, in my LIFETIME the Twins have faired better. 2 rings and 9 division banners > 1 ring and 5 division banners


I think comparing decades and such is lame anyway. "What have you done for me lately?" Now that's my kind of saying.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-13-2009, 03:35 PM
I wish I voted for the Twins so everyone could be like. "look at the one retard that voted for that one!" I could have been a hero. :(:

That WS is actually a REALLY big accomplishment... even though the Cubs fans say "stop living in the past"... the fact is, the Sox WS is still talked about and known by most MLB fans.

asindc
10-28-2009, 03:27 PM
Well, with the first game of the World Series just a few hours away, I think reviving this thread might be useful. The polling closed just a short while ago after being open for 20 days. I purposely chose this date to close the poll because if the Twinkees had made it to the World Series, we would have obviously known that by now. It might have influenced some votes.

Maybe one of the mods can give a definitive answer on this, but I don't recall any previous poll being 100% for one side. I am a bit surprised that no one voted for the 'no World Series' option, considering that there was some discussion on the issue.

asindc
07-30-2012, 09:47 AM
With the Liriano trade on the record now, I want to revisit this thread as a reminder that the grass is definitely not greener in Minny, even with them now playing on actual real grass. I still can't believe anyone would trade a World Series Championship for two one-and-out playoff appearances.