PDA

View Full Version : Walker speaks, says he would have been fired "in a normal situation"


JB98
10-28-2009, 04:59 PM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2009/10/walker_already_at_work_for_201.html

slavko
10-28-2009, 05:31 PM
So in plain English, after looking at the link, he thinks he should have been fired. A lot of you agree with him. I may too.

Frater Perdurabo
10-28-2009, 06:57 PM
I applaud Walker for his candid self-assessment.

Lip Man 1
10-28-2009, 07:09 PM
I'll be interested to read the reaction to his statement that the team only underachieved in two of the seven years he's been hitting coach.

Lip

Brian26
10-28-2009, 07:19 PM
I'll be interested to read the reaction to his statement that the team only underachieved in two of the seven years he's been hitting coach.

Lip

I tend to agree with Walker if he's talking about the offense only.

dickallen15
10-28-2009, 07:24 PM
So in plain English, after looking at the link, he thinks he should have been fired. A lot of you agree with him. I may too.

Not at all. He said he would have been fired, not should have been fired. He also said he's the right man for the job.

tm1119
10-28-2009, 07:50 PM
Yeah hes not really taking responsibility, he was more just commenting on how quickly hitting coaches get fired in todays MLB.

slavko
10-28-2009, 11:24 PM
Not at all. He said he would have been fired, not should have been fired. He also said he's the right man for the job.

I'm not saying what he said, I'm saying what I believe he thinks. If he said he would have been fired, he thinks he should have been fired. Just my opinion, this is the Internet, not a court of law.

Nellie_Fox
10-29-2009, 12:01 AM
I'm not saying what he said, I'm saying what I believe he thinks. If he said he would have been fired, he thinks he should have been fired. Just my opinion, this is the Internet, not a court of law.So the internet gives you the ability to read someone's mind, and the right to assign different meaning to their words?

Ranger
10-29-2009, 02:41 AM
I'm not saying what he said, I'm saying what I believe he thinks. If he said he would have been fired, he thinks he should have been fired. Just my opinion, this is the Internet, not a court of law.

I think he's saying that he's fully aware how it works historically (which, as I've stated many times, is the wrong way for teams to operate because it hardly ever fixes the problem): offense is bad, management often looks for a scapegoat. He's not saying he thinks he should have been fired. If he did think that, he wouldn't say he "was the right guy for the job." And, knowing him, he probably would have quit if he didn't think he was supposed to be there.

A. Cavatica
10-29-2009, 04:55 AM
The comment about how, even in the two (according to him) underachieving years, "we went about things the right way". What the heck does that mean? Solo homers and poor situational hitting? Making every AAAA pitcher look like Cy Young?

russ99
10-29-2009, 06:36 AM
I'll be interested to read the reaction to his statement that the team only underachieved in two of the seven years he's been hitting coach.

Lip

As far as overall results go, he's got a point. But hitting-wise that's a bit of a stretch, even taking into account the success stories the last few years.

The positives I take out of this are that it seems the writing's on the wall about our offensive performance and Walk is making extra efforts to get next season on the right track. Also that the Sox work well as a team and ard are very committed to the overall goal.

I'm more bummed over the fact that there seems to be little accountability on the current Sox field management, other than not working hard enough and/or having personality problems with Ozzie.

Not unlike the Bears current staff, they'll live and die with the club's philosophy, and won't change things up much.

Zisk77
10-29-2009, 07:00 AM
The comment about how, even in the two (according to him) underachieving years, "we went about things the right way". What the heck does that mean? Solo homers and poor situational hitting? Making every AAAA pitcher look like Cy Young?


Yeah I am sure thats what he was teaching.:scratch: Those may have been the results, but not what he and the hitters were working on.

cws05champ
10-29-2009, 09:55 AM
I don't think anyone on here ever accused Walker of not working or trying...the results just weren't there. It's a whole organizational philosophy on situational hitting, not just Walkers fault.

I know a lot of people wanted Walker gone (me included) during the season. Is there really a point to firing a hitting coach in the off-season? IMO the only reason to fire a hitting coach is to spark the team in a down period of the season....or if he clearly has a negative affect on guys he is working with.

canOcorn
10-29-2009, 10:06 AM
So in plain English, after looking at the link, he thinks he should have been fired. A lot of you agree with him. I may too.

I'm reading it as the team is loyal to a fault and that's why he's not gone. And he's still trying to live off the "goodwill" of 2005. :(:

voodoochile
10-29-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm reading it as the team is loyal to a fault and that's why he's not gone. And he's still trying to live off the "goodwill" of 2005. :(:

I disagree. He's not saying it's loyalty, but that the team is willing to look past fan reaction and judge the overall body of his work which he claims has been for the most part good. He also claims that even in this bad results season, there were some positive outcomes (and he's right).

Basically he's saying the Sox aren't willing to make a change simply to appease angry fans.

Nellie_Fox
10-29-2009, 10:49 AM
It's a whole organizational philosophy on situational hitting, not just Walkers fault. What is the organizational philosophy on situational hitting? You apparently know, or you wouldn't say this.

dickallen15
10-29-2009, 11:48 AM
I disagree. He's not saying it's loyalty, but that the team is willing to look past fan reaction and judge the overall body of his work which he claims has been for the most part good. He also claims that even in this bad results season, there were some positive outcomes (and he's right).

Basically he's saying the Sox aren't willing to make a change simply to appease angry fans.

As Bobby Knight once stated, "If you listen to the fans, you wind up sitting next to them."

Domeshot17
10-29-2009, 11:59 AM
No hitting coach does much different last year. The Sox just did not have the talent offensively to be an offensive minded team. The thing that concerns me most in the article is the thought Rios can be a middle of the order hitter. Hes a 6 hitter on a good team, preferably 7 to get his speed into the bottom 3rd. I have always been on the fence about Walker.

I know in 2007 people called for his head, but Kenny just built a completely crap team. The GM is almost entirely at fault most times, not the coaching staff. They build the teams, they set coaches up to be bigger than they are and also look more responsible than they are. Does anyone really think another hitting coach could have done something with Dye last year? By all accounts Dye just hit the wall, and by some accounts he seemed to quit on himself at the plate.

I would like to see what Walker can do with a team thats built to win. The 2 years Im sure hes speaking of are 2007 and 2009. Both of those years Kenny ran a 4th place lineup out there almost all season. Is it really his fault when hes working with the Terrero's and Wise's and Anderson's and Erstad's and Fields and Betemit's and Corky Miller's of the world?

#1swisher
10-29-2009, 12:12 PM
The comment about how, even in the two (according to him) underachieving years, "we went about things the right way". What the heck does that mean? Solo homers and poor situational hitting? Making every AAAA pitcher look like Cy Young?

I agree with you, what the heck does anything he said in this article mean. :scratch:
"built up enough good will", "JR,KW,OG, know the reasons and they know that I'm the right man"

white sox bill
10-29-2009, 03:17 PM
What is the organizational philosophy on situational hitting? You apparently know, or you wouldn't say this.
I'd like to know too. In '09 it seemed to be RISP, one out and.... well we all know the rest.:mad:

It's Dankerific
10-29-2009, 03:32 PM
I suppose Walker is the man until Wise wants to come back in a coaching capacity.

What could be worse than the job Walker is doing?

When are Robin Ventura's kids going to be grown and out of the damn house?? :angry:

NardiWasHere
10-29-2009, 04:08 PM
I don't understand why people think Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. It doesn't really make much sense.

I challenge anyone who thinks Walker must go to explain to me

1) What a hitting coach is supposed to do
2) What Greg Walker does differently
3) How this difference presents itself on the field
4) Who would be a better fit.

And please, be specific.

This whole thing is just silly.

spawn
10-29-2009, 04:11 PM
What I find strange is this: the bullpen hasn't exactly been stellar 2 of the last 3 seasons, yet I don't hear anyone asking for Don Cooper to be fired. The majority of posters here place the blame squarely where it should be: on the players themselves. I don't understand why offensively the players don't deserve most of the blame as well. :shrug:

russ99
10-29-2009, 04:41 PM
I don't understand why people think Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. It doesn't really make much sense.

I challenge anyone who thinks Walker must go to explain to me

1) What a hitting coach is supposed to do
2) What Greg Walker does differently
3) How this difference presents itself on the field
4) Who would be a better fit.

And please, be specific.

This whole thing is just silly.

I think what most fans who want to see Walker replaced are looking for is a change in the clubhouse and a fresh approach.

But if you want specifics:
1) Prepare the hitters to face opposing pitching and work with them to either keep their mechanics consistent and adjust said approaches when players are struggling.

2) This is just heresay, but there was reports that Sox hitters are not appropriately prepared. But since we're privy to what goes on in the clubhouse, who are we to say.

3) If you agree with #1, surely you've seen the results on the field that show that Walker's coaching has not led to a high level of consistent results. Obviously much of that falls on individual players, but when it happens to multiple players and over multiple seasons the coach can't be blameless. Should we lower our expectations to assume the Sox will place in the bottom 35% in hitting every season?

4) Rudy Jaramillo for one, but don't get me started...

And no one claimed that Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. We just want to see the Sox try something else, preferably someone with a track record of success as a hitting instructor. But it looks like we have to wait another 2 years for that.

tstrike2000
10-29-2009, 04:56 PM
Bottom line is it doesn't matter what we think. Walker's not going anywhere until the organization feels the need to do so or he quits.

dickallen15
10-29-2009, 05:21 PM
I think what most fans who want to see Walker replaced are looking for is a change in the clubhouse and a fresh approach.

But if you want specifics:
1) Prepare the hitters to face opposing pitching and work with them to either keep their mechanics consistent and adjust said approaches when players are struggling.

2) This is just heresay, but there was reports that Sox hitters are not appropriately prepared. But since we're privy to what goes on in the clubhouse, who are we to say.

3) If you agree with #1, surely you've seen the results on the field that show that Walker's coaching has not led to a high level of consistent results. Obviously much of that falls on individual players, but when it happens to multiple players and over multiple seasons the coach can't be blameless. Should we lower our expectations to assume the Sox will place in the bottom 35% in hitting every season?

4) Rudy Jaramillo for one, but don't get me started...

And no one claimed that Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. We just want to see the Sox try something else, preferably someone with a track record of success as a hitting instructor. But it looks like we have to wait another 2 years for that.

Can you name the multiple players Walker has ruined? I see Konerko, Dye, Thome, Quentin, Podsednik, Aaron Rowand, Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Pierzynski, Iguchi, Beckham, Crede all have big success since Walker was the hitting coach.

You blame him for Fields, Anderson, Erstad, Andy Gonzalez, Lillibridge, Wise, guys who can't and will never hit their way out of a wet paper bag?

I'm pretty sure the White Sox have come to the conclusion the shelf life on their slow, hit it out of the park or we aren't going to score offense, has reached the expiration date. That's what I think he was referring to with his quotes. Guys get old, and ineffective, unless you are willing to throw a ton of money at it, it takes time to transition. They are in the process.

Jaramillo? What happened to Salty and Blalock in Texas? I find it so funny they say he will turn around Soriano when Soriano had higher OPS the 2 seasons prior to joining Texas and 3 seasons after leaving than he did under his watch.

TDog
10-29-2009, 05:36 PM
Can you name the multiple players Walker has ruined? I see Konerko, Dye, Thome, Quentin, Podsednik, Aaron Rowand, Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Pierzynski, Iguchi, Beckham, Crede all have big success since Walker was the hitting coach.

You blame him for Fields, Anderson, Erstad, Andy Gonzalez, Lillibridge, Wise, guys who can't and will never hit their way out of a wet paper bag?

I'm pretty sure the White Sox have come to the conclusion the shelf life on their slow, hit it out of the park or we aren't going to score offense, has reached the expiration date. That's what I think he was referring to with his quotes. Guys get old, and ineffective, unless you are willing to throw a ton of money at it, it takes time to transition. They are in the process.

Jaramillo? What happened to Salty and Blalock in Texas? I find it so funny they say he will turn around Soriano when Soriano had higher OPS the 2 seasons prior to joining Texas and 3 seasons after leaving than he did under his watch.

Crede presents an interesting point. Walker worked hard with him, and he finally turned into a good major league hitter.

Anderson presents another interesting point. Walker said publicly that Anderson wouldn't listen to coaches, that Anderson needed to do things differently if he was going to hit in the big leagues, but was told by others in the organization that Anderson would be OK, having hit everywhere doing things his way.

Of course, Walker worked hard with Joe Borchard, and Borchard apparently worked hard. I didn't see any other organizations turning Borchard into a hitting machine, though.

Maybe Jaramillo could have fixed Borchard by telling him not to miss the ball so often when he swung.

I came to this thread to make the point that Voodoo made, but Voodoo having made it, I just want to note that I agree with it.

slavko
10-29-2009, 06:36 PM
So the internet gives you the ability to read someone's mind, and the right to assign different meaning to their words?

I have the right to draw inferences from what someone says. You don't have the right to tell me not to.

MetroPD
10-29-2009, 07:36 PM
Walker speaks, says he would have been fired "in a normal situation"

Well you can say this at least, he's not nearly as dumb as Ron Turner.

captain54
10-29-2009, 08:11 PM
What I find strange is this: the bullpen hasn't exactly been stellar 2 of the last 3 seasons, yet I don't hear anyone asking for Don Cooper to be fired. The majority of posters here place the blame squarely where it should be: on the players themselves. I don't understand why offensively the players don't deserve most of the blame as well. :shrug:
The Sox bullpen has been about average the last couple of years.. not great, not the worst...middle of the pack.....If you haven't looked at the numbers lately, let me refresh your memory....the Sox were dead last offensively

Any organization, whether it be business, farming, social services, baseball or whatever, that has an aspect of that organization that is coming off one of the worst years in recent memory, would take a step back and consider ALL areas of that underperforming aspect, and what steps need to possibly taken in order to improve it.

The Walker supporters on this board take another approach....They analyze and pick apart every possible reason the Sox underachieved offensively...they have an answer for why the Sox can't hit with runners in scoring position, why they can't hit against pitchers they've never seen, why they can't drive a guy in from third with less than two outs, why they can't hit behind the runners, why their most reliable hitter goes into a funk that lasts an entire half season, why they can't hit on Sundays, etc...

The bottom line is...its NEVER Walkers fault....bizarre..

TornLabrum
10-29-2009, 08:29 PM
I think what most fans who want to see Walker replaced are looking for is a change in the clubhouse and a fresh approach.

But if you want specifics:
1) Prepare the hitters to face opposing pitching and work with them to either keep their mechanics consistent and adjust said approaches when players are struggling.

2) This is just heresay, but there was reports that Sox hitters are not appropriately prepared. But since we're privy to what goes on in the clubhouse, who are we to say.

3) If you agree with #1, surely you've seen the results on the field that show that Walker's coaching has not led to a high level of consistent results. Obviously much of that falls on individual players, but when it happens to multiple players and over multiple seasons the coach can't be blameless. Should we lower our expectations to assume the Sox will place in the bottom 35% in hitting every season?

4) Rudy Jaramillo for one, but don't get me started...

And no one claimed that Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. We just want to see the Sox try something else, preferably someone with a track record of success as a hitting instructor. But it looks like we have to wait another 2 years for that.

1) And you know this how? Are you on the field or in the clubhouse?

2) Hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

3) I don't know if I agree with #1 because I don't know where you get the idea that #1 is true.

4) Why?

Rohan
10-29-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm reading it as the team is loyal to a fault and that's why he's not gone. And he's still trying to live off the "goodwill" of 2005. :(:

Read it again :facepalm:

gosox41
10-29-2009, 09:49 PM
The Walker supporters on this board take another approach....They analyze and pick apart every possible reason the Sox underachieved offensively...they have an answer for why the Sox can't hit with runners in scoring position, why they can't hit against pitchers they've never seen, why they can't drive a guy in from third with less than two outs, why they can't hit behind the runners, why their most reliable hitter goes into a funk that lasts an entire half season, why they can't hit on Sundays, etc...

The bottom line is...its NEVER Walkers fault....bizarre..


I wouldn' call myself a Walker defender but I don't necessarily see the need to fire the guy. The only reasons to fire him are: if he's completely clueless, if he's lost touch with the players (ie not communicating) or if a proven hitting coach who is better then Walker became available.

I've seen a lot more fire Walker threads here then I have "JD is awful the second half" threads. I think too much blame is placed on coaches when it should be placed on the players. Don't get me wrong, coaches serve a purpose, but outside of one of the three reasons above there is not much reason to fire any coach.

I blame the Sox offense sucking first and foremost on the hitters. Did Dye forget how to hit the second half? Did Rios lose the ability as soon as he left Toronto? Is TCQ's injuries Walker's fault? I can also find blame in the GM. I don't think Lau or Hriniak could make Lillibridge, Castro or Wise good hitters. But they did get a decent number of at bats for this team.


Bob

Brian26
10-29-2009, 10:02 PM
I think what most fans who want to see Walker replaced are looking for is a change in the clubhouse and a fresh approach.

But if you want specifics:
1) Prepare the hitters to face opposing pitching and work with them to either keep their mechanics consistent and adjust said approaches when players are struggling.

From all accounts I've heard and read, Walker has done this. Walker was interviewed by Ranger during the last week of the season; specific to Dye's second half, he said he did everything he could do to fix the situation, from breaking down his swing, watching hours of video, trying to open up his stance, keeping his hands in a higher set position...nothing would work.

captain54
10-29-2009, 10:39 PM
I don't think Lau or Hriniak could make Lillibridge, Castro or Wise good hitters.


Why not? George Brett wasn't exactly setting the world on fire before he started working with Charlie Lau


From all accounts I've heard and read, Walker has done this. Walker was interviewed by Ranger during the last week of the season; specific to Dye's second half, he said he did everything he could do to fix the situation,...nothing would work.

Nothing Greg Walker did could help JD out of his 2nd half funk. Who's to say there wasn't or isn't another coach on the planet that could of helped?

dickallen15
10-29-2009, 10:52 PM
Why not? George Brett wasn't exactly setting the world on fire before he started working with Charlie Lau




Nothing Greg Walker did could help JD out of his 2nd half funk. Who's to say there wasn't or isn't another coach on the planet that could of helped?

If Brett was all Lau, how come every player Lau worked with wasn't as good as George? You actually think guys like Lillibridge and Wise and Castro and Miller and Anderson, guys who don't hit anywhere, are capable of George Brett numbers? If so, that is probably the silliest post of all time.

JB98
10-29-2009, 10:59 PM
I better see an improved, productive offense next season.

I don't care if guys are "working hard." It's a results-driven business. No more excuses. Time to produce in 2010.

TheBigHurtST
10-29-2009, 11:27 PM
Yeah I am sure thats what he was teaching.:scratch: Those may have been the results, but not what he and the hitters were working on.


Then clearly whatever it is they were working on just DOESN'T work. Seems pretty obvious to me.

captain54
10-29-2009, 11:31 PM
If Brett was all Lau, how come every player Lau worked with wasn't as good as George? You actually think guys like Lillibridge and Wise and Castro and Miller and Anderson, guys who don't hit anywhere, are capable of George Brett numbers? If so, that is probably the silliest post of all time.

C'mon man, you are way way out of control...

I never said Lau could take guys like that and make them produce Brett-like numbers...the original post suggested that Lau couldn't take those guys and make them good or better hitters....

1) the statement that Lau couldn't have made them good hitters is pure speculation
2) it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that Lau could have made them at least better than what they are...

Nellie_Fox
10-29-2009, 11:58 PM
I have the right to draw inferences from what someone says. You don't have the right to tell me not to.So there. Nanny-nanny-booboo!

voodoochile
10-30-2009, 12:03 AM
So there. Nanny-nanny-booboo!

I think you mean neener neener neener. I have no idea what that nanny nanny thing is...:tongue:

Domeshot17
10-30-2009, 12:43 AM
Like I said, Im on the fence about Walker, I could take him or leave him.

Why is it no one is calling for Kenny's head. It isn't like the Sox had a great offense that performed poorly. They had an offense that was built to be bad. Kenny basically set them up to fail in 2007, 2008 they had a bunch of guys who never fit together, and 2009 they had just a poor, slopped together lineup. Is that walkers fault? he doesn't pick who he works with. He can't make guys who suck not suck.

I am not in favor of firing Kenny, that said, I feel he is far more responsible for inability to do nothing but win a piss poor division in 08 since 2005 than Walker. I think he has made bold moves, and nothing has paid off. I think 2010 is a make a break year for Kenny and Ozzie. That would hold true to most if not all the staff.

I think people who single out walker live in some fantasy world that a new hitting coach is going to make a difference. You can't teach old dogs new tricks very often. Maybe if Kenny put together a lineup capable of scoring runs consistently Walker would be able to do his job. Not saying yes or no, but its something I consider. Walker being fired would just be a scapegoat.

It's Dankerific
10-30-2009, 01:47 AM
If a hitting coach does nothing, it wont matter if we fire him. why do we hire a hitting coach if he doesnt do anything?

If a hitting coach is supposed to do something, walker's not doing it and should be fired.

Ranger
10-30-2009, 02:48 AM
I think what most fans who want to see Walker replaced are looking for is a change in the clubhouse and a fresh approach.

But if you want specifics:
1) Prepare the hitters to face opposing pitching and work with them to either keep their mechanics consistent and adjust said approaches when players are struggling.

2) This is just heresay, but there was reports that Sox hitters are not appropriately prepared. But since we're privy to what goes on in the clubhouse, who are we to say.

3) If you agree with #1, surely you've seen the results on the field that show that Walker's coaching has not led to a high level of consistent results. Obviously much of that falls on individual players, but when it happens to multiple players and over multiple seasons the coach can't be blameless. Should we lower our expectations to assume the Sox will place in the bottom 35% in hitting every season?

4) Rudy Jaramillo for one, but don't get me started...

And no one claimed that Walker is the reason why the offense isn't good. We just want to see the Sox try something else, preferably someone with a track record of success as a hitting instructor. But it looks like we have to wait another 2 years for that.

1) He does that. They (the players) have to do the rest.

2) I never heard this. Where did you hear this "report"? Maybe I missed something.

3) It can happen to multiple players when most of your lineup is the same type of hitter. You can't have a punch of natural pull-hitters and then complain that the hitting coach is teaching them to hit the other way.

4) Jaramillo has great hitters. And a great hitter's park. In some ways, better than US Cellular.


Well you can say this at least, he's not nearly as dumb as Ron Turner.

I don't know that I classify Turner as "dumb" but it's a huge mistake to compare the two. A hitting coach in baseball will NEVER have as much control of an offense as an offensive coordinator in football will have of his. And even OCs need to have the talent or they're useless...I still don't think Turner has a whole lot to work with, to be honest.

Jim Shorts
10-30-2009, 10:04 AM
I think 2010 is a make a break year for Kenny and Ozzie. That would hold true to most if not all the staff.



If you really believe this, then I've got a few things for sale that you might really like.

Craig Grebeck
10-30-2009, 10:06 AM
If you really believe this, then I've got a few things for sale that you might really like.
This is sad but true. I shudder to think what it would take before they were put on notice.

Jim Shorts
10-30-2009, 10:12 AM
This is sad but true. I shudder to think what it would take before they were put on notice.

This is what I don't get....

We are experiencing one of the best stretches of successful baseball, certainly in my lifetime, arguably in the CWS history yet someones always gotta get fired.

SI1020
10-30-2009, 10:41 AM
This is what I don't get....

We are experiencing one of the best stretches of successful baseball, certainly in my lifetime, arguably in the CWS history yet someones always gotta get fired. Not the last three and a half seasons.

spawn
10-30-2009, 10:46 AM
Not the last three and a half seasons.
Who won the Central in 2008?

SI1020
10-30-2009, 11:04 AM
Who won the Central in 2008? Yes I knew I left myself open for that reply. I loved the way the team hung in there, and the blackout game is one of my all time great personal highlights. Nevertheless they narrowly won a lousy division and did not provide much opposition to the Rays in the ALDS. The team is below .500 since mid 06, and has a lot of weaknesses and shortcomings. This has become even more evident to me as I've watched the playoffs this year. My biggest hopes are that the pitching will come around in a big way next year and the defense will continue to improve.

palehozenychicty
10-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Yes I knew I left myself open for that reply. I loved the way the team hung in there, and the blackout game is one of my all time great personal highlights. Nevertheless they narrowly won a lousy division and did not provide much opposition to the Rays in the ALDS. The team is below .500 since mid 06, and has a lot of weaknesses and shortcomings. This has become even more evident to me as I've watched the playoffs this year. My biggest hopes are that the pitching will come around in a big way next year and the defense will continue to improve.


Nice post.

spawn
10-30-2009, 11:21 AM
Yes I knew I left myself open for that reply. I loved the way the team hung in there, and the blackout game is one of my all time great personal highlights. Nevertheless they narrowly won a lousy division and did not provide much opposition to the Rays in the ALDS. The team is below .500 since mid 06, and has a lot of weaknesses and shortcomings. This has become even more evident to me as I've watched the playoffs this year. My biggest hopes are that the pitching will come around in a big way next year and the defense will continue to improve.
Since 2000, the White Sox have won 90 games 3 times, have won 3 AL Central titles, and a World Series. And say what you want about them winning a "lousy" division. The fact of the matter is 4 teams in the division didn't win it. You want to say they are below .500 since mid '06. Since '06, they are above .500. And btw, they won 90 games in '06. IMO, that translates to, as Jim Shorts stated, a pretty succesful run of baseball on the south side. I don't think anyone here is saying this team is perfect. Far from it. I just share the opinion that the hitting coach is the least of this teams worries. I'm more concerned with the defense this team threw out there last year, along with the relief pitching.

captain54
10-30-2009, 11:58 AM
I just share the opinion that the hitting coach is the least of this teams worries. I'm more concerned with the defense this team threw out there last year, along with the relief pitching.

I don't know about you, but if I have to watch another year of the Sox offense stranding countless runners in scoring position, leaving way too many guys on third with less than two outs, not being able to move runners along, not being able to hit against opposing pitchers fresh out of AAA, scoring 8+ runs one game and zero or 1 run the next two or three games, not being able to come back after the 7th inning, completely falling asleep offensively after the 5th or 6th innings in a majority of games, and relying on the two or three run homer or nothing........I just may well lose it.

spawn
10-30-2009, 12:00 PM
I don't know about you, but if I have to watch another year of the Sox offense stranding countless runners in scoring position, leaving way too many guys on third with less than two outs, not being able to move runners along, not being able to hit against opposing pitchers fresh out of AAA, scoring 8+ runs one game and zero or 1 run the next two or three games, not being able to come back after the 7th inning, completely falling asleep offensively after the 5th or 6th innings in a majority of games,
Show me one team that this doesn't happen to.

and relying on the two or three run homer or nothing.
This is all Greg Walker's fault, right?

Jim Shorts
10-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Yes I knew I left myself open for that reply. I loved the way the team hung in there, and the blackout game is one of my all time great personal highlights. Nevertheless they narrowly won a lousy division and did not provide much opposition to the Rays in the ALDS. The team is below .500 since mid 06, and has a lot of weaknesses and shortcomings. This has become even more evident to me as I've watched the playoffs this year. My biggest hopes are that the pitching will come around in a big way next year and the defense will continue to improve.

So, they suck because they did not win the division by enough games to satisfy you?

Something tells me you found disappointment in 2005.

spawn
10-30-2009, 12:43 PM
So, they suck because they did not win the division by enough games to satisfy you?

Something tells me you found disappointment in 2005.
Well, in July and August of '05, that team played .500 baseball...so yeah, they sucked.

captain54
10-30-2009, 01:13 PM
Show me one team that this doesn't happen to.


Are we watching the same games? All of those issues happened far, far too consistently for the Sox in 09'

This is all Greg Walker's fault, right?

A common occurence in 09' was for the Sox to hit a solo homerun, and maybe another 2-run homer somewhere before the 6th inning and then false asleep offensively the rest of the way.

I would think there would have to be an adjustment of some type made somewhere, at some point in the season, instead of just writing it off as "the players suck"... if the argument "the players suck and its not Walkers fault" is going to be adhered to by the Walker supporters, then Walker might as well just take the 2nd half off of every season and call it a day.

spawn
10-30-2009, 01:28 PM
Are we watching the same games? All of those issues happened far, far too consistently for the Sox in 09'
Everything you listed happens to every team in the Majors. Funny how to aren't factoring in the leads the bullpen blew, or the shoddy defense that was run out there. You seem to pin all of the failures of the '09 Sox on the offense.



A common occurence in 09' was for the Sox to hit a solo homerun, and maybe another 2-run homer somewhere before the 6th inning and then false asleep offensively the rest of the way.
Another common occurence is with the base cloggers we had in the middle of the lineup, it would take more than 3 hits in an inning to score a run. And yet another common occurence was the bottom of the lineup getting on base, and the top of the lineup driving the runners in. The 3-4-5 hitters, the sluggers, the veteran hitters in the lineup, struggled to drive runners in, or get the big hit.

I would think there would have to be an adjustment of some type made somewhere, at some point in the season, instead of just writing it off as "the players suck"... if the argument "the players suck and its not Walkers fault" is going to be adhered to by the Walker supporters, then Walker might as well just take the 2nd half off of every season and call it a day.
Well, I would think it's the players responsibility to make the adjustment. After all, they are the ones with the bats in their hands. Walker can tell them the approach to take. The players have to actually apply what they've been told. Have you any proof that they are applying what Walker is showing them, and that approach is the reason the offense faltered?

It's obvious you have no idea what Walker is doing. you're only assuming. I have no idea what he's doing either, which is why I can't just automatically lay the blame the Sox offensive failure 100% at his feet, as you seem to want to do, so I'm done arguing this with you.

ewokpelts
10-30-2009, 01:49 PM
fire walker.

Nellie_Fox
10-30-2009, 01:55 PM
fire walker.Not gonna happen.

captain54
10-30-2009, 03:29 PM
It's obvious you have no idea what Walker is doing. you're only assuming. I have no idea what he's doing either, which is why I can't just automatically lay the blame the Sox offensive failure 100% at his feet, as you seem to want to do, so I'm done arguing this with you.

The reason this is a pointless discussion with you, and others like you, is your basic premise that since Walker has tried to fix things, and they can't be fixed, there is no other human on the planet that can help straighten this out.

Daver
10-30-2009, 03:34 PM
The reason this is a pointless discussion with you, and others like you, is your basic premise that since Walker has tried to fix things, and they can't be fixed, there is no other human on the planet that can help straighten this out.

And the reason it is a pointless discussion with you is the fact that you are blaming the hitting coach for poor performances from the advanced scouting dept. and the player development people at the minor league levels, something he has no control over.

munchman33
10-30-2009, 03:39 PM
So, they suck because they did not win the division by enough games to satisfy you?

Something tells me you found disappointment in 2005.

Winning a terrible division doesn't make you a good team. It would be hard to argue our 2008 squad was in the top half of teams around the league. The only argument against that is the division title, which really doesn't tell you anything.

We've fielded a bad team the last three seasons.

ewokpelts
10-30-2009, 03:44 PM
Not gonna happen.yeah, but it cant be said enough....

ewokpelts
10-30-2009, 03:50 PM
Winning a terrible division doesn't make you a good team. It would be hard to argue our 2008 squad was in the top half of teams around the league. The only argument against that is the division title, which really doesn't tell you anything.

We've fielded a bad team the last three seasons.08 sox had the 5th best record in the AL. And the 9th best record in the entire league.

Looks like the sox were in the upper third of both the Junior Circuit and all of MLB.

spawn
10-30-2009, 03:55 PM
08 sox had the 5th best record in the AL. And the 9th best record in the entire league.

Looks like the sox were in the upper third of both the Junior Circuit and all of MLB.
Facts mean nothing. It was still a bad team.

captain54
10-30-2009, 04:00 PM
And the reason it is a pointless discussion with you is the fact that you are blaming the hitting coach for poor performances from the advanced scouting dept. and the player development people at the minor league levels, something he has no control over.

You might as well add Kenny Williams to that for scheming and plotting against Walker and deliberately putting a crappy offensive team on the field of no talent bums.....

Daver
10-30-2009, 04:05 PM
You might as well add Kenny Williams to that for scheming and plotting against Walker and deliberately putting a crappy offensive team on the field of no talent bums.....

Kenny Williams will also be the first one to admit it is his fault when the team is not successful, so I really have no idea what your point with that statement was, other than to draw attention away from the fact that you are blaming the hitting coach because it is easy to blame him whether you know why or not.

captain54
10-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Kenny Williams will also be the first one to admit it is his fault when the team is not successful, so I really have no idea what your point with that statement was

The point is, we're really beginning to rack up reasons why Walker shouldn't be held accountable....so far, in this thread alone, we've got...advanced scouting, player development, Kenny williams inability to supply Walker with the talent he needs, too many base cloggers, too many pull hitters, and JD just quitting on himself in the second half and giving up....

why don't we add, guys are younger now and don't relate to Walker cause he's older, younger players like to party after games and blow off Walker cause they're hungover, and, the players are depressed and don't feel like listening to Walker because the rumor was confirmed that Nancy Faust will soon be gone and they like organ music.

other than to draw attention away from the fact that you are blaming the hitting coach because it is easy to blame him whether you know why or not.

Just as it is easy for you to say that it's everyone else's fault and there is not even a remote chance in hell that someone else could offer a fresh perspective and offer some input in turning things around from being dead last in the AL in offense.

Daver
10-30-2009, 04:30 PM
The point is, we're really beginning to rack up reasons why Walker shouldn't be held accountable....so far, in this thread alone, we've got...advanced scouting, player development, Kenny williams inability to supply Walker with the talent he needs, too many base cloggers, too many pull hitters, and JD just quitting on himself in the second half and giving up....

why don't we add, guys are younger now and don't relate to Walker cause he's older, younger players like to party after games and blow off Walker cause they're hungover, and, the players are depressed and don't feel like listening to Walker because the rumor was confirmed that Nancy Faust will soon be gone and they like organ music.



Just as it is easy for you to say that it's everyone else's fault and there is not even a remote chance in hell that someone else could offer a fresh perspective and offer some input in turning things around from being dead last in the AL in offense.

I really don't give a rat's ass if Greg Walker gets fired or not, I'm merely pointing out the errors in your reasons for wanting him fired, because you are blaming him for a lot of things that he does not control.

captain54
10-30-2009, 04:58 PM
I really don't give a rat's ass if Greg Walker gets fired or not,

Finally, something we can agree on....neither do I

I'm merely pointing out the errors in your reasons for wanting him fired, because you are blaming him for a lot of things that he does not control.

thank you for pointing that out and allowing me to see the error of my ways...you are truly a kind soul

so maybe you can explain this reasoning to me: Walker himself in the interview realizes this team underachieved. Why do you steadfastly and stubbornly hold your view that since Walker can't get it done, no one else can? that there couldn't possibly be anyone else out there that just might be better than Walker at what he does?

munchman33
10-30-2009, 05:01 PM
08 sox had the 5th best record in the AL. And the 9th best record in the entire league.

Looks like the sox were in the upper third of both the Junior Circuit and all of MLB.

By Junior Circuit, you are refering to the National League? Or the AL Central?

I find it hard to believe our '08 squad would even finish in second place in any other division. I'm not complaining of the division title, or how Kenny made us just "good" enough to win with our competition. But the overall talent has been lacking. And given the way things played out in the years around it as well, it's pretty obvious that's the case.

Domeshot17
10-30-2009, 05:05 PM
This is what I don't get....

We are experiencing one of the best stretches of successful baseball, certainly in my lifetime, arguably in the CWS history yet someones always gotta get fired.

I wish I could see things like you and spawn, I just don't. I don't find happiness in missing the playoffs in 2006 even though we won 90 games. I don't consider it a success. While the blackout game itself was one of the funnest I have ever been too, after it was over, realizing we were out classed and getting our asses kicked by TB wasn't all that fun to me. However I admit I have always been this way in life. Its good and bad. It made me very successful in school and my job, but I handle defeat poorly. If we don't make the ALCS, I don't consider it a good year. I hate years like 2007 and 2009, years we were set up to fail. I also hate years like 2008, where we slop together a team that isn't built well and then hope for the best.

In my opinion, Ozzie and Kenny have done a poor job since 2005. We have not been, in a way shape or form, a championship contender since. To me that is not a good stretch run, that is a regression to the status quo.

Domeshot17
10-30-2009, 05:06 PM
Also captain 54, it wasn't the kids who had a poor 2009. It was the veterans who let us down. So doesn't that make the logic look like swiss cheese.

Daver
10-30-2009, 06:03 PM
so maybe you can explain this reasoning to me: Walker himself in the interview realizes this team underachieved. Why do you steadfastly and stubbornly hold your view that since Walker can't get it done, no one else can? that there couldn't possibly be anyone else out there that just might be better than Walker at what he does?

Please point out where I said anything that even resembles that, when you start making things up to elaborate your non existent point it makes you look even more foolish.

russ99
10-30-2009, 06:14 PM
Are we watching the same games? All of those issues happened far, far too consistently for the Sox in 09'


And '08, '07 and the second half of '06.

Again, I don't consider Walker the grand scapegoat for ineffective play from out hitters last season, but to have it happen multiple years to multiple groups of hitters tends to point me in the general direction of the hitting instructor, and think that a change could make some kind of difference.

But no point beating a dead horse. Walk's here to stay for a while.

MisterB
10-30-2009, 07:03 PM
By Junior Circuit, you are refering to the National League? Or the AL Central?

I find it hard to believe our '08 squad would even finish in second place in any other division. I'm not complaining of the division title, or how Kenny made us just "good" enough to win with our competition. But the overall talent has been lacking. And given the way things played out in the years around it as well, it's pretty obvious that's the case.

Junior Circuit = American League

The '08 Sox would have been 2nd in the AL West (the 100-win Angels were the only team in that division to finish above .500) and could have won the NL West by 4 games.

captain54
10-30-2009, 07:16 PM
Please point out where I said anything that even resembles that, when you start making things up to elaborate your non existent point it makes you look even more foolish.

Let me get this straight....you don't think the Sox making a change in hitting coach would be the right thing to do, because what is wrong with the Sox is not Walkers fault....so according to that logic, why change the hitting coach?

If you take Walker off the hook for the Sox offensive malaise, you effectively negate the need to find a replacement...because, whether it be Walker or someone else, there are still inherent problems...and neither Walker or his replacement would have an impact.

Not so hard to understand....and if I have a non existent point, for some reason you make it a point to debate it.....so, whatever.

munchman33
10-30-2009, 08:15 PM
Junior Circuit = American League

The '08 Sox would have been 2nd in the AL West (the 100-win Angels were the only team in that division to finish above .500) and could have won the NL West by 4 games.

You know you play a lot more games against your division rivals than everyone else, right? Though you're probably right about the AL West, no way we compete with last year's NL West. Every team in that division would give us fits. The records were poor because everyone was good. Records are relative to competition.

voodoochile
10-30-2009, 10:22 PM
You know you play a lot more games against your division rivals than everyone else, right? Though you're probably right about the AL West, no way we compete with last year's NL West. Every team in that division would give us fits. The records were poor because everyone was good. Records are relative to competition.

That's odd because this year the NL West appeared to be much stronger than last year's NL West. After all every single team in the division save SD spent time chasing the pennant or WC at some point this summer. In addition it produced the WC this year (unlike last year). Yet somehow this year when all the teams were stronger the records were also cumulatively much better...

NL West 2009 combined win total: 420 Combined run differential +111

NL West 2008 combined win total: 375 Combined run differential -255

How does that fit into your theory exactly?

Zisk77
10-30-2009, 11:34 PM
For those of you suggesting the 2008 Sox weren't very good. Consider that they lost the MVP to be in Quentin with a month to go and probably won the division fairly easy with him. the also would have won over 90 games and been at least a threat in the playoffs. In fact the could have won the first 2 games in TB but couldn't get that big hit and left countless men on base. I gotta think TCQ could have changed that.

Don't forget Wise hit a 3 run hr in game one to give us a 3 run lead but javy was javy...

soltrain21
10-30-2009, 11:37 PM
That's odd because this year the NL West appeared to be much stronger than last year's NL West. After all every single team in the division save SD spent time chasing the pennant or WC at some point this summer. In addition it produced the WC this year (unlike last year). Yet somehow this year when all the teams were stronger the records were also cumulatively much better...

NL West 2009 combined win total: 420 Combined run differential +111

NL West 2008 combined win total: 375 Combined run differential -255

How does that fit into your theory exactly?

They all had better records outside of their division than they did the year before...?

voodoochile
10-30-2009, 11:42 PM
They all had better records outside of their division than they did the year before...?

But that doesn't make any sense. The NLW was strong in 2008 which is what led to them having similar and crappy records according to the post I replied to. Now it stands to reason that the following year when the teams were even stronger they would have still had crappy records because they were beating the crap out of each other.

Heck the run differential alone seems to imply that the NLW was NOT all that in 2008...

Edit: And wouldn't a strong division have a good record outside their own division thus leading to better over all records? I thought it was obvious that the NLW was the worst or second worst division in baseball in 2008 and thus wanted an explanation of what seemed an odd claim.

munchman33
10-31-2009, 12:22 AM
But that doesn't make any sense. The NLW was strong in 2008 which is what led to them having similar and crappy records according to the post I replied to. Now it stands to reason that the following year when the teams were even stronger they would have still had crappy records because they were beating the crap out of each other.

Heck the run differential alone seems to imply that the NLW was NOT all that in 2008...

Edit: And wouldn't a strong division have a good record outside their own division thus leading to better over all records? I thought it was obvious that the NLW was the worst or second worst division in baseball in 2008 and thus wanted an explanation of what seemed an odd claim.

I just remembered wrong. Run differential is a dangerous stat though. Blowout wins count for a lot more than close games, and some teams are just adept at completely destroying mediocre opposition.

TheBigHurtST
10-31-2009, 03:27 AM
Who won the Central in 2008?

Um, the least crappiest team in a REALLY bad division? PLEASE tell me you are not actually trying to use that as some kind of legitimate argument? The 2008 team was not that good at all, period. SOMEONE has to win a terrible division, correct?

Ranger
10-31-2009, 03:57 AM
Sometimes the lack of perspective around here is mind-boggling.

dickallen15
10-31-2009, 08:15 AM
Um, the least crappiest team in a REALLY bad division? PLEASE tell me you are not actually trying to use that as some kind of legitimate argument? The 2008 team was not that good at all, period. SOMEONE has to win a terrible division, correct?

Just because you win a terrible division doesn't make you a bad team. 2005, the AL Central wasn't very strong, and the White Sox were exactly .500 against the AL except for the Central. Would you say they were an average team?

ewokpelts
10-31-2009, 08:50 AM
By Junior Circuit, you are refering to the National League? Or the AL Central?

I find it hard to believe our '08 squad would even finish in second place in any other division. I'm not complaining of the division title, or how Kenny made us just "good" enough to win with our competition. But the overall talent has been lacking. And given the way things played out in the years around it as well, it's pretty obvious that's the case.The Junior Circuit is the American League. As the Senoir Circuit refers to the NL

ewokpelts
10-31-2009, 08:51 AM
Sometimes the lack of perspective around here is mind-boggling.The same can be said for the lack of a hitting coach that knows how to do his job.

ewokpelts
10-31-2009, 08:52 AM
Um, the least crappiest team in a REALLY bad division? PLEASE tell me you are not actually trying to use that as some kind of legitimate argument? The 2008 team was not that good at all, period. SOMEONE has to win a terrible division, correct?89 wins is nothing to sneeze at.

voodoochile
10-31-2009, 08:52 AM
I just remembered wrong. Run differential is a dangerous stat though. Blowout wins count for a lot more than close games, and some teams are just adept at completely destroying mediocre opposition.

Okay, I do that too.. It struck me as an odd comment even for you, Munch...:tongue:

TheBigHurtST
10-31-2009, 11:24 AM
Just because you win a terrible division doesn't make you a bad team. 2005, the AL Central wasn't very strong, and the White Sox were exactly .500 against the AL except for the Central. Would you say they were an average team?

2005 and 2008 were different years, sir.

Domeshot17
10-31-2009, 12:10 PM
2005 and 2008 were different years, sir.

If you look at the teams that won it all around the time we did, some of them have sustained success, and us and the Cardinals have just faded into the background since. The Red Sox contend every year, The Phillies are obvious, but the cards and us, we won it once, we made the playoffs exactly 1 time since and were bounced about as fast as we got in since. The way people act around here, you would think the Sox were of the calibur of the Red Sox or Phils, always in a title hunt. The last couple years just winning the division has been our world series. Its why the Blackout game meant so much, it was the biggest game we would play all year. It was our world series.

TDog
10-31-2009, 12:10 PM
Just because you win a terrible division doesn't make you a bad team. 2005, the AL Central wasn't very strong, and the White Sox were exactly .500 against the AL except for the Central. Would you say they were an average team?

In 2005 and 2006 and going into 2007, the consensus around baseball was that the AL Central was the strongest, most competitive division in baseball. If you want to go back into baseball reporting archives and confirm what general managers were saying, you will find this. Thoughout the 2005 season, the baseball columnist for the Dallas Morning News had the White Sox on top of his power rankings, and frequently made the point that the AL Central was the strongest in baseball. It was the consensus on this board that continued through 2007 (when I believed it was in accurate) and into 2008.

The fact that the White Sox had a better record against the Central than they did against the rest of the league is irrelevant. You can't say that the AL Central this year was stronger than the AL East because the Rays had a much better record in their own division than they did against Central teams. Baseball isn't college football.

Revising history won't support your point.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-31-2009, 12:22 PM
I don't like this thread...

captain54
10-31-2009, 12:24 PM
Would you say they were an average team?

I will say that the trademark of the Sox over the last decade seems to be an inability to put two consistent halves of the season together. Case in point being 06, where they began a slide almost to the day from the All Star break to October. I'd be interested to see if anyone could dig up a stat on the Sox first half record vs second half record or vice versa over the the last decade..

So if you look at it from that perspective, a 90 win season is deceiving, since the team was wildly inconsistent

TornLabrum
10-31-2009, 01:32 PM
I will say that the trademark of the Sox over the last decade seems to be an inability to put two consistent halves of the season together. Case in point being 06, where they began a slide almost to the day from the All Star break to October. I'd be interested to see if anyone could dig up a stat on the Sox first half record vs second half record or vice versa over the the last decade..

So if you look at it from that perspective, a 90 win season is deceiving, since the team was wildly inconsistent

So the obvious question coming from this statement based on the theme of this thread is, "How does the Sox being unable to put together two consistent half seasons becpme the sole responsibility of the hitting coach?"

gobears1987
10-31-2009, 01:36 PM
So the obvious question coming from this statement based on the theme of this thread is, "How does the Sox being unable to put together two consistent half seasons becpme the sole responsibility of the hitting coach?"

You're never going to get a good answer to that question because it doesn't exist.

captain54
10-31-2009, 02:39 PM
So the obvious question coming from this statement based on the theme of this thread is, "How does the Sox being unable to put together two consistent half seasons becpme the sole responsibility of the hitting coach?"

That question suggests a serious lack of perspective...please be forewarned...you will soon be reprimanded by Ranger

dickallen15
10-31-2009, 02:43 PM
I will say that the trademark of the Sox over the last decade seems to be an inability to put two consistent halves of the season together. Case in point being 06, where they began a slide almost to the day from the All Star break to October. I'd be interested to see if anyone could dig up a stat on the Sox first half record vs second half record or vice versa over the the last decade..

So if you look at it from that perspective, a 90 win season is deceiving, since the team was wildly inconsistent

Since you said "over the last decade" and Walker hasn't been the hitting coach for a decade, in fact the Sox went through several right before him, then in a roundabout way you are agreeing its not Walker's fault. Of course, for all your arguing, you have admitted to not knowing what Walker's responsibilties really are. All teams go through slumps. No team is going to consistently go through an entire season. Put together a group of slow home run hitting guys, and the inconsistency will last even longer.

captain54
10-31-2009, 02:44 PM
So the obvious question coming from this statement based on the theme of this thread is, "How does the Sox being unable to put together two consistent half seasons becpme the sole responsibility of the hitting coach?"

No one has ever suggested that Walker and Walker alone is solely responsible for whether the Sox, as a team, succeed for fail.

Domeshot17
10-31-2009, 02:55 PM
Since you said "over the last decade" and Walker hasn't been the hitting coach for a decade, in fact the Sox went through several right before him, then in a roundabout way you are agreeing its not Walker's fault. Of course, for all your arguing, you have admitted to not knowing what Walker's responsibilties really are. All teams go through slumps. No team is going to consistently go through an entire season. Put together a group of slow home run hitting guys, and the inconsistency will last even longer.

Biggest myth in baseball. The White Sox had more speed last year than in any of the previous 5, and they were one of the worst offensive teams in baseball. YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED SPEED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ORDER, EVER, EVER. I can really only think of 1 successful team that has good speed in the middle and that is the Phillies, and only because Utley runs well. You need those home run hitters to hit doubles, hit for a high average, and do more than just hit home runs. That is the main problem, not speed.

Daver
10-31-2009, 02:56 PM
No one has ever suggested that Walker and Walker alone is solely responsible for whether the Sox, as a team, succeed for fail.

Well, aside from you anyway.

dickallen15
10-31-2009, 03:00 PM
Biggest myth in baseball. The White Sox had more speed last year than in any of the previous 5, and they were one of the worst offensive teams in baseball. YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED SPEED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ORDER, EVER, EVER. I can really only think of 1 successful team that has good speed in the middle and that is the Phillies, and only because Utley runs well. You need those home run hitters to hit doubles, hit for a high average, and do more than just hit home runs. That is the main problem, not speed.
Quentin, Thome, Dye, Konerko, AJP all couldn't run at all. Previously, add Crede to that list, and they rest of the line up aren't exactly high on base guys. The line up is the problem not the hitting coach.

TDog
10-31-2009, 03:08 PM
Quentin, Thome, Dye, Konerko, AJP all couldn't run at all. Previously, add Crede to that list, and they rest of the line up aren't exactly high on base guys. The line up is the problem not the hitting coach.

On the subject of speed, Podsednik and Rios in the outfield weren't slow. Beckham, Ramirez and Getz on the infield weren't slow. Maybe Sox are one of the rare teams that have a slow catcher and slow firstbaseman with at least one slow outfielder.

captain54
10-31-2009, 03:15 PM
Since you said "over the last decade" and Walker hasn't been the hitting coach for a decade, in fact the Sox went through several right before him, then in a roundabout way you are agreeing its not Walker's fault.

I'm not saying that at all....not even close....the Sox offensive numbers in the pre Walker era (with the exception of 03) were better overall than the 04' - 09', Walker era.

Of course, for all your arguing, you have admitted to not knowing what Walker's responsibilties really are. All teams go through slumps. No team is going to consistently go through an entire season. Put together a group of slow home run hitting guys, and the inconsistency will last even longer.

For the 5 millionth time.....I don't care what Walker's responsibilities are...I'll even go further and say that he's probably doing his job, carrying out his duties to the best of his abilities.....it's just not working, and the easy solution is to blame it on the personnel...let's let someone else take a crack at it, for the love of God..

captain54
10-31-2009, 03:23 PM
The White Sox had more speed last year than in any of the previous 5, and they were one of the worst offensive teams in baseball.

The White Sox of 09 were supposed to be "Ozzie's Team", and I can still remember Hawk at the beginning of the season, commenting on how excited Ozzie was to finally have all that speed and flexibility to work with.

Daver
10-31-2009, 03:28 PM
For the 5 millionth time.....I don't care what Walker's responsibilities are...I'll even go further and say that he's probably doing his job, carrying out his duties to the best of his abilities.....it's just not working, and the easy solution is to blame it on the personnel...let's let someone else take a crack at it, for the love of God..

So basically your scenario is that though he is doing his job, he should be fired as a scapegoat, instead of fixing the actual problems within the organization?

The last scapegoat firing done by the White Sox was Von Joshua during Jerry Manuel's tenure.

captain54
10-31-2009, 03:57 PM
So basically your scenario is that though he is doing his job, he should be fired as a scapegoat, instead of fixing the actual problems within the organization?



supposedly the speed issue was addressed before the 09 season, and the offense still sucked....

its difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that the team and the organization have to be just perfectly so, and in pristine condition, before we can begin to hold Mr Walker accountable and to any sort of standard

Daver
10-31-2009, 04:04 PM
supposedly the speed issue was addressed before the 09 season, and the offense still sucked....

its difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that the team and the organization have to be just perfectly so, and in pristine condition, before we can begin to hold Mr Walker accountable and to any sort of standard

Since when is the hitting coach supposed to be responsible for speed?

captain54
10-31-2009, 04:17 PM
Since when is the hitting coach supposed to be responsible for speed?

the Sox were looking for a more flexible and speedy roster to implement more hit and run, moving runners along, hitting behind runners, etc....didn't exactly happen

Daver
10-31-2009, 04:20 PM
the Sox were looking for a more flexible and speedy roster to implement more hit and run, moving runners along, hitting behind runners, etc....didn't exactly happen

Since when does the hitting coach signal for bunts, hit and runs, and any other game situational play?

southside rocks
10-31-2009, 04:31 PM
For the 5 millionth time.....I don't care what Walker's responsibilities are...I'll even go further and say that he's probably doing his job, carrying out his duties to the best of his abilities.....it's just not working, and the easy solution is to blame it on the personnel...let's let someone else take a crack at it, for the love of God..


its difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that the team and the organization have to be just perfectly so, and in pristine condition, before we can begin to hold Mr Walker accountable and to any sort of standard

This confuses me. You say that you believe that Greg Walker is doing his job; then you say he's not being held to any standard.

Makes no sense.

If Walker's doing his job, he shouldn't be fired. If he's not doing his job, then he should be held accountable. I'll go out on a limb here and say that those evaluations are made by people who have more knowledge of the situation than you do. WS management has found that indeed, Walker is doing his job. He's staying.

Why isn't that the end of this stupid subject? :rolleyes:

TDog
10-31-2009, 04:36 PM
Since when does the hitting coach signal for bunts, hit and runs, and any other game situational play?

As the hitting coach, he doesn't even coach bunting. Most hitting coaches don't. On the White Sox, the bunting coach is probably Jeff Cox, or perhaps Joey Cora.

captain54
10-31-2009, 04:42 PM
If Walker's doing his job, he shouldn't be fired. If he's not doing his job, then he should be held accountable.

Well, he's not being held accountable...the Sox came off the worst offensive performance in a long time and the hitting coach was given a two year extension.

On the other hand, everyday in the business world, Joe Blow Salesman is busting his ass trying to make his quota and for whatever reason he can't get it done. The Boss calls him in and says, "sorry Joe, we're pulling you out of the territory, the regional manager wants to see better results"...That's whats called "accountability"...

Why isn't that the end of this stupid subject? :rolleyes:

Because people like you always have to take the last shot, get in the last word and show the people that think Walker should go how uninformed they are.

voodoochile
10-31-2009, 04:42 PM
This confuses me. You say that you believe that Greg Walker is doing his job; then you say he's not being held to any standard.

Makes no sense.

If Walker's doing his job, he shouldn't be fired. If he's not doing his job, then he should be held accountable. I'll go out on a limb here and say that those evaluations are made by people who have more knowledge of the situation than you do. WS management has found that indeed, Walker is doing his job. He's staying.

Why isn't that the end of this stupid subject? :rolleyes:

That's the part that gets to me. 54 seems to be saying, "throw something at the wall and see what sticks." He doesn't know whether Walker is doing his job well or not, but is willing to fire him in case he isn't. In fact he not only is arguing for this random move but seems to be demanding it.

I don't get it either...

voodoochile
10-31-2009, 04:46 PM
Well, he's not being held accountable...the Sox came off the worst offensive performance in a long time and the hitting coach was given a two year extension.

On the other hand, everyday in the business world, Joe Blow Salesman is busting his ass trying to make his quota and for whatever reason he can't get it done. The Boss calls him in and says, "sorry Joe, we're pulling you out of the territory, the regional manager wants to see better results"...That's whats called "accountability"...



Because people like you always have to take the last shot, get in the last word and show the people that think Walker should go how uninformed they are.


If the factory keeps sending Joe substandard crap to sell, should Joe still be fired? That's the missing ingredient in your analogy. What if the factory can't meet the demand that Joe is selling? Should Joe be still held accountable? What if all of the businesses Joe is selling too are also struggling and are simply lowering their orders because they simply need less product? Should Joe still be held accountable?

Replacing Joe in any of the above situations would be a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem. You seem to be okay with that idea, but it's a crappy way to run a business or a baseball team...

captain54
10-31-2009, 04:47 PM
Since when does the hitting coach signal for bunts, hit and runs, and any other game situational play?

If a hitting coach can't be held accountable to help players hit and run, and make adjustments to be better situational hitters, then I don't have anything more to say.

voodoochile
10-31-2009, 04:51 PM
If a hitting coach can't be held accountable to help players hit and run, and make adjustments to be better situational hitters, then I don't have anything more to say.

What if last year's team actually overperformed offensively? You have no way of saying it didn't. Maybe it was just a poorly built offensive team. Maybe what might have been an average offensive team struggled with some bad injuries that turned it into a poor offensive team and then some of the best players went into prolonged slumps late in the season

Certainly arguments can be made to support those explanations. If that's the case, should Walker still pay the ultimate price for the team's overall offensive woes?

captain54
10-31-2009, 04:56 PM
If the factory keeps sending Joe substandard crap to sell, should Joe still be fired? ..

I don't know if you've ever sold anything before (I have sold cars, equipment, services, etc.), unfortunately that's how things work. The manufacturer doesn't adjust the product so the salesman's life is easier, the salesman is supposed to figure out a way to highlight the positive and under emphasize the negative.

I remember one year I worked for a dealership that sold Suzuki, and at the time, we were supposed to push these horrible little tin can small SUV's, that never started when it was cold, and had knobs that would literally fall off during test drives in the customer's hand when they went to grab them. In no sales meeting ever do I remember a sales manager telling us not to worry too much about hitting the numbers on the Suzuki, because he understands they're a piece of crap.

Daver
10-31-2009, 04:59 PM
If a hitting coach can't be held accountable to help players hit and run, and make adjustments to be better situational hitters, then I don't have anything more to say.

And if the players are prepared, and there is no hit and run called for by the manager, are you still firing the hitting coach?

Your whole case against Walker makes no sense, but I will give you credit for ferociously defending it's lack of sense.

captain54
10-31-2009, 05:03 PM
Your whole case against Walker makes no sense, but I will give you credit for ferociously defending it's lack of sense.

If you want to talk lack of sense, I would probably go with the notion of giving the hitting coach a two year extension after coming off one of the worst offensive performances in a long time.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-31-2009, 05:18 PM
If you want to talk lack of sense, I would probably go with the notion of giving the hitting coach a two year extension after coming off one of the worst offensive performances in a long time.Maybe we are setting him up for a trade for Pujols.

Daver
10-31-2009, 05:20 PM
If you want to talk lack of sense, I would probably go with the notion of giving the hitting coach a two year extension after coming off one of the worst offensive performances in a long time.

Well let's see, The Sox field manager thinks it makes sense, the Sox general manager thinks it makes sense, and the Sox owner thinks it makes sense, and you, who can't even identify where Greg has failed in doing his job and wants him fired on general principles questions it.

I think I have to agree with the people that actually issue the paychecks on this one.

dickallen15
10-31-2009, 05:22 PM
I don't know if you've ever sold anything before (I have sold cars, equipment, services, etc.), unfortunately that's how things work. The manufacturer doesn't adjust the product so the salesman's life is easier, the salesman is supposed to figure out a way to highlight the positive and under emphasize the negative.

I remember one year I worked for a dealership that sold Suzuki, and at the time, we were supposed to push these horrible little tin can small SUV's, that never started when it was cold, and had knobs that would literally fall off during test drives in the customer's hand when they went to grab them. In no sales meeting ever do I remember a sales manager telling us not to worry too much about hitting the numbers on the Suzuki, because he understands they're a piece of crap.

You can be a shady salesman and sell a crap product to a sucker, but you can't make a guy not capable of doing something with a bat actually do it. A con man hitting coach won't last. The fact that the White Sox could have dumped Walker and probably saved money speaks volumes. They seem to know whats going on.

captain54
10-31-2009, 06:08 PM
Well let's see, The Sox field manager thinks it makes sense, the Sox general manager thinks it makes sense, and the Sox owner thinks it makes sense, and you, who can't even identify where Greg has failed in doing his job and wants him fired on general principles questions it.

I think I have to agree with the people that actually issue the paychecks on this one.

I'll give you that I wouldn't be able step in and be an owner, a GM or a field manager, but those people that do hold those positions have issued paychecks to guys that have turned out to be busts.. they aren't infallible...but that's a whole different topic

TornLabrum
10-31-2009, 06:22 PM
What if last year's team actually overperformed offensively? You have no way of saying it didn't. Maybe it was just a poorly built offensive team. Maybe what might have been an average offensive team struggled with some bad injuries that turned it into a poor offensive team and then some of the best players went into prolonged slumps late in the season

Certainly arguments can be made to support those explanations. If that's the case, should Walker still pay the ultimate price for the team's overall offensive woes?

Let me add one more possibility: Dye and Thome were getting old. Konerko may be approaching the downside of his career and if that's not the case has been known to go into 162 game slumps. And Quentin was injured. Should Walker pay the ultimate price for at least two old guys, a chronic slumper and an injured player?

captain54
10-31-2009, 06:26 PM
You can be a shady salesman and sell a crap product to a sucker, but you can't make a guy not capable of doing something with a bat actually do it. A con man hitting coach won't last. The fact that the White Sox could have dumped Walker and probably saved money speaks volumes. They seem to know whats going on.

The average salesman lives in a world where he's given a product and is required to go out and make it attractive enough to a customer for him to buy it, thus helping Mr Salesman pay his mortgage and feed his kids...A con man is a lowlife that finds a senior couple and tells them they need thousands to repair a leaky basement that is probably a minor repair...big difference.

The point is, a professional salesperson doesn't complain or make excuses about the product he's given to sell. He learns how to make the most of it, make lemonade out of lemons, if you will. And in turn, is rewarded for his performance or taken to task for his lack of said performance.

But then again, who ever said the world of baseball, a world of cry baby millionaires, every resembled the world of average Joe's, who are just trying to go and and bust their butt to make enough to get by.

captain54
10-31-2009, 06:42 PM
Dye and Thome were getting old. Konerko may be approaching the downside of his career and if that's not the case has been known to go into 162 game slumps. And Quentin was injured. Should Walker pay the ultimate price for at least two old guys, a chronic slumper and an injured player?

Well, let's see...the popular argument for those that are in the Walker corner is that we have no right to question the "power's that be", that apparently think Walker is qualified and responsible enough and is doing well enough to keep his gig, so don't question them.

That being said, the "powers that be" felt that Dye, Thome and Konerko have enough ability and enough "juice' left in them, offered them a deal, cut them a regular paycheck with the understanding that they are qualified to do their job..

So now "infallible" management, management that shouldn't be questioned in it's decision to retain Walker, has now suddenly turned "fallible" and had old broken down players on the payroll, and are paying them big, big money to boot?

So they are smart in retaining Walker, but not so smart in keeping Dye, Konerko and Thome on the payroll in 09'? which one is it?

Domeshot17
10-31-2009, 06:48 PM
Well, let's see...the popular argument for those that are in the Walker corner is that we have no right to question the "power's that be", that apparently think Walker is qualified and responsible enough and is doing well enough to keep his gig, so don't question them.

That being said, the "powers that be" felt that Dye, Thome and Konerko have enough ability and enough "juice' left in them, offered them a deal, cut them a regular paycheck with the understanding that they are qualified to do their job..

So now "infallible" management, management that shouldn't be questioned in it's decision to retain Walker, has now suddenly turned "fallible" and had old broken down players on the payroll, and are paying them big, big money to boot?

So they are smart in retaining Walker, but not so smart in keeping Dye, Konerko and Thome on the payroll in 09'? which one is it?

This is just a goofy point. I mean hell, I am not in Walker's corner, I just am not in Kenny's right now either. That said, should we deal Buehrle Peavy Danks and Floyd since the "powers to be" back them too?

TDog
10-31-2009, 07:04 PM
If a hitting coach can't be held accountable to help players hit and run, and make adjustments to be better situational hitters, then I don't have anything more to say.

You seem a big Rudy Jaramillo fan. Click on this (http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/news/story?id=4558743) and pay close attention to the ninth and 11th paragraph comments by Nolan Ryan and Ron Washington. Of course, that Jaramillo was not fired. He rejected the Rangers' contract offer despite these concerns.

dickallen15
10-31-2009, 07:07 PM
The average salesman lives in a world where he's given a product and is required to go out and make it attractive enough to a customer for him to buy it, thus helping Mr Salesman pay his mortgage and feed his kids...A con man is a lowlife that finds a senior couple and tells them they need thousands to repair a leaky basement that is probably a minor repair...big difference.

The point is, a professional salesperson doesn't complain or make excuses about the product he's given to sell. He learns how to make the most of it, make lemonade out of lemons, if you will. And in turn, is rewarded for his performance or taken to task for his lack of said performance.

But then again, who ever said the world of baseball, a world of cry baby millionaires, every resembled the world of average Joe's, who are just trying to go and and bust their butt to make enough to get by.

I'm trying to blame the millionaires for the lack of production. You don't want to blame them, just some hard working coach who has superiors that think he does a great job.

Daver
10-31-2009, 07:08 PM
I'll give you that I wouldn't be able step in and be an owner, a GM or a field manager, but those people that do hold those positions have issued paychecks to guys that have turned out to be busts.. they aren't infallible...but that's a whole different topic


But in this post you also declare yourself unfit to judge their actions, so I base any further post on this subject on that admission.

TornLabrum
10-31-2009, 09:47 PM
Well, let's see...the popular argument for those that are in the Walker corner is that we have no right to question the "power's that be", that apparently think Walker is qualified and responsible enough and is doing well enough to keep his gig, so don't question them.

That being said, the "powers that be" felt that Dye, Thome and Konerko have enough ability and enough "juice' left in them, offered them a deal, cut them a regular paycheck with the understanding that they are qualified to do their job..

So now "infallible" management, management that shouldn't be questioned in it's decision to retain Walker, has now suddenly turned "fallible" and had old broken down players on the payroll, and are paying them big, big money to boot?

So they are smart in retaining Walker, but not so smart in keeping Dye, Konerko and Thome on the payroll in 09'? which one is it?

So what you're saying is that management is either right on everything or right on nothing and that it's not possible to be right on some things but not on others?

I've always thought there were degrees between infallibility and stupidity.

captain54
10-31-2009, 11:25 PM
This is just a goofy point. I mean hell, I am not in Walker's corner, I just am not in Kenny's right now either. That said, should we deal Buehrle Peavy Danks and Floyd since the "powers to be" back them too?

I don't know where you get dealing Beuhrle Peavy Danks and Floyd from my post....I was trying to make the point that baseball decision makers are sometimes wrong....not always, but sometimes....

captain54
10-31-2009, 11:36 PM
But in this post you also declare yourself unfit to judge their actions, so I base any further post on this subject on that admission.

I'm offering an opinion as a fan, just like you and everyone else...If every fan needs professional MLB credentials to form and express an opinion, that would negate your opinion, and would pretty much shut down the WSI board.

captain54
10-31-2009, 11:44 PM
So what you're saying is that management is either right on everything or right on nothing and that it's not possible to be right on some things but not on others?

I've always thought there were degrees between infallibility and stupidity.

Yes, I agree.....Baseball is not an exact science....

Management had the choice between hiring a new hitting coach and giving the old coach a vote of confidence and a two year extension. They chose the latter, and baseball not being an exact science, they could possibly be wrong is all I'm saying.

captain54
11-01-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm trying to blame the millionaires for the lack of production. You don't want to blame them, just some hard working coach who has superiors that think he does a great job.

I just hope his superiors have some answers if and when the Sox have another miserable offensive year and the fans start staying away from the ballpark.

voodoochile
11-01-2009, 12:36 AM
I just hope his superiors have some answers if and when the Sox have another miserable offensive year and the fans start staying away from the ballpark.

Bet you're a riot at parties...

captain54
11-01-2009, 12:51 AM
Bet you're a riot at parties...

Translated, I guess that means you think I'm some gloom and doom sort .....couldn't be further from the truth......and I did say "if" the Sox offense tanks...

I'm a die hard and I want the Sox to succeed no matter what....I would love to see an offensive jugernaut next year....

Nellie_Fox
11-01-2009, 01:33 AM
Seriously, is there anything that can be said about the Walker situation that hasn't already been said, and repeatedly?

TheBigHurtST
11-01-2009, 01:01 AM
So the obvious question coming from this statement based on the theme of this thread is, "How does the Sox being unable to put together two consistent half seasons becpme the sole responsibility of the hitting coach?"

I find it funny you didn't mention ANYTHING about the offense in that statement, which makes it laughable. One of the biggest reasons they can't do so if the lacking and fundamentally retarded offense. Good pitching can only win you so many games.

Many people use the 2005 team's lack of offensive punch as a counterpoint, which is irrelevant because there's a HUGE difference between the 2005's offense and the offense of 2007 and further: The 2005 offense was better fundamentally. Sure, Walker was here then as well, but I think we can all agree that the offense has gotten worse and worse since, and to say Walker has no part is just silly. And IMO, to be against trying something new after 3+ seasons of offensive retardation seems silly to me as well.

Mod Edit: Use of the word retarded except in the clinical definition of the word is not allowed.

Ranger
11-01-2009, 08:49 PM
Well, let's see...the popular argument for those that are in the Walker corner is that we have no right to question the "power's that be", that apparently think Walker is qualified and responsible enough and is doing well enough to keep his gig, so don't question them.

That being said, the "powers that be" felt that Dye, Thome and Konerko have enough ability and enough "juice' left in them, offered them a deal, cut them a regular paycheck with the understanding that they are qualified to do their job..

So now "infallible" management, management that shouldn't be questioned in it's decision to retain Walker, has now suddenly turned "fallible" and had old broken down players on the payroll, and are paying them big, big money to boot?

So they are smart in retaining Walker, but not so smart in keeping Dye, Konerko and Thome on the payroll in 09'? which one is it?

You are aware that when the Sox traded for Thome 3 years ago, he had a 6 year deal with an automatic option for 2009, correct? And that the Sox had no control over picking up that option? I'm also assuming you understand Dye was given a 2 year deal two years ago? And he responded by having one of his strongest offensive seasons? I figure that you also know the KOnerko was given a 5 year deal before 2006? And that, at the time, he was paid LESS than what he would've gotten in the open market? I'm assuming that you know these things because it would be nearly impossible to not know them.

I don't know how it works in your world, but in this, the real world, players get to be paid the money guaranteed on their contracts. You don't get to not pay them because you are unhappy with performance. See, every team sometimes will give an extra year (or two) to a player with total awareness and understanding that the player will likely regress by the end of that deal. The reason they do that is because, in the free market, if Team A doesn't give that extra year to the player, Team B, C, or D probably will. That's the nature of free agency.

Those three players you mentioned have, despite glitches along the way, earned the money on those contracts. You are aware of all of this, aren;t you? Or do you think MLB operates the same way you operate your fantasy team? I'm being completely serious when I ask you this.

soxfanreggie
11-02-2009, 07:24 AM
You are aware that when the Sox traded for Thome 3 years ago, he had a 6 year deal with an automatic option for 2009, correct? And that the Sox had no control over picking up that option?

You are aware that wasn't the option based on plate appearances and thus, under our control?

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-dodgers.html

While we needed him batting in 2008 to help us get to the playoffs, it wasn't an "automatic" option because we could have prevented the 1,100 PAs in 2007 and 2008.

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 09:36 AM
Ranger;
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated the interview that you did with Greg Walker that you aired on White Sox Weekly on Saturday. Walker seems like a down to earth sort of guy and I agree that letting him go would amount to scapegoating. I believe that he deserves a chance to work with a team of different type hitters to see what he can do in that situation. Guys like Quentin and others that he is working with in the offseason seem to appreciate Mr. Walkers efforts.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 10:40 AM
You are aware that wasn't the option based on plate appearances and thus, under our control?

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-dodgers.html

While we needed him batting in 2008 to help us get to the playoffs, it wasn't an "automatic" option because we could have prevented the 1,100 PAs in 2007 and 2008.

Uh, you're kidding, right? So you're suggesting that the Sox should've purposely NOT played a $14 million player so that his option doesn't vest? I truly hope you don't think that.

You find me a team that would've done that with Jim Thome, or any player for that matter (see Tigers and Magglio), and I'll find you a team that you could buy for $5.

"Technically" they had control over it, but realistically and logically they did not.

captain54
11-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Or do you think MLB operates the same way you operate your fantasy team? I'm being completely serious when I ask you this.

I don't have a fantasy team, and by the way, thanks for making a mountain out of molehill with your post, and further beating this tired topic into the ground.

If you think that organizations have the contract thing down to an exact science, and know EXACTLY how much and how long to pay a player and get the maximum return for their investment based upon their performance, then you my friend are the one living in a fantasy world. I'll even give you that their success rate is pretty high, but on occasion they are going to overpay a player and get burned.

They are human beings and make mistakes. They could be wrong about Walker. And of course, I can already predict your response..."Well, I'll take their expertise over yours, captain54".....okay, fine...whatever.

voodoochile
11-02-2009, 02:09 PM
I don't have a fantasy team, and by the way, thanks for making a mountain out of molehill with your post, and further beating this tired topic into the ground.

If you think that organizations have the contract thing down to an exact science, and know EXACTLY how much and how long to pay a player and get the maximum return for their investment based upon their performance, then you my friend are the one living in a fantasy world. I'll even give you that their success rate is pretty high, but on occasion they are going to overpay a player and get burned.

They are human beings and make mistakes. They could be wrong about Walker. And of course, I can already predict your response..."Well, I'll take their expertise over yours, captain54".....okay, fine...whatever.

You know he's not the only one who can walk away, feel free to take your own advice here, unless having the final word is that important to you...

soxfanreggie
11-02-2009, 10:07 PM
Uh, you're kidding, right? So you're suggesting that the Sox should've purposely NOT played a $14 million player so that his option doesn't vest? I truly hope you don't think that.

...

"Technically" they had control over it, but realistically and logically they did not.

I don't think I said anywhere that they should have purposely not played him. If I did, please point it out to me. I was simply pointing out where your words didn't match with what the situation was. If you wanted to phrase it as "it wasn't likely" or something in the lines of that, it would work. To phrase it as we had "no control" simply doesn't match the actual situation regardless of what the Sox were likely to do versus me pointing out what they could have done.

I agree with you that he was a valuable player, but the "control" was at the Sox disposal to not let him get the 1,100 PAs. The Sox having "no control" would be that his contract gave him a player option for 2009.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 10:54 PM
I don't think I said anywhere that they should have purposely not played him. If I did, please point it out to me. I was simply pointing out where your words didn't match with what the situation was. If you wanted to phrase it as "it wasn't likely" or something in the lines of that, it would work. To phrase it as we had "no control" simply doesn't match the actual situation regardless of what the Sox were likely to do versus me pointing out what they could have done.

I agree with you that he was a valuable player, but the "control" was at the Sox disposal to not let him get the 1,100 PAs. The Sox having "no control" would be that his contract gave him a player option for 2009.

Not really, because the MLPBA would have most definitely had a legitimate grievance if the Sox started screwing around with his starts and PAs. Aside from an injury, they couldn't just start sitting him late in the year because he was getting close to the mark. The union would not have allow it. All they'd have to do is determine an abnormal pattern in his playing time toward the end of the season and the Sox would owe the guy his money anyway.

So, no, they really didn't have a choice.

voodoochile
11-02-2009, 11:09 PM
Not really, because the MLPBA would have most definitely had a legitimate grievance if the Sox started screwing around with his starts and PAs. Aside from an injury, they couldn't just start sitting him late in the year because he was getting close to the mark. The union would not have allow it. All they'd have to do is determine an abnormal pattern in his playing time toward the end of the season and the Sox would owe the guy his money anyway.

So, no, they really didn't have a choice.

I have suggested that, but can they really do that? Is there actually a clause in the CBA that forbids teams from making playing time decisions based on monetary reasons?

Edit: Detroit was pretty open about the fact they were doing this to Magglio earlier in the year before they found themselves in a pennant chase and he started to actually hit a bit.

JNS
11-02-2009, 11:35 PM
I have suggested that, but can they really do that? Is there actually a clause in the CBA that forbids teams from making playing time decisions based on monetary reasons?

Edit: Detroit was pretty open about the fact they were doing this to Magglio earlier in the year before they found themselves in a pennant chase and he started to actually hit a bit.

In the case of the Sox, it doesn't seem to be in Ozzie's constitution to do something like that, or allow KW or anyone to order him to do that.

However, it happens all the time, especially when the under-performing vet on the verge of having his option kick in (or not), is riding the pines "so we can play the kids."

Out of contention teams with vets who helped put them out of contention.

That said, I think a stats geek could find patterns of this sort by looking at week-to-week PAs by under-performing vets in their pre-option years. Or something like that. Probably somebody already has. My guess is that "playing the kids" would allow a team to wiggle out of a grievance of that sort.

Ranger
11-03-2009, 01:31 AM
I have suggested that, but can they really do that? Is there actually a clause in the CBA that forbids teams from making playing time decisions based on monetary reasons?

Edit: Detroit was pretty open about the fact they were doing this to Magglio earlier in the year before they found themselves in a pennant chase and he started to actually hit a bit.

Oh, absolutely they could do that, and they would (and the agent would make sure it happened). The only way they would have not done that is if the Sox benched Thome with an "injury" and he confirmed to the union that he was unable to play. It's not so much for Thome's sake as it is to prevent the setting of a precedent where teams start to think they can get away with that stuff.

Plus, if you're a team, do you really want to pull a stunt like that (especially with a respected player like Jim Thome) when you know you're going to have to sign future free agents? How many guys you know that would want to sign with a team that likes to avoid paying its players? Not good PR.


With Magglio, the Tigers weren't really publicly saying they would try to prevent his option from vesting. No team would say that as they would certainly lose a grievance case. And had they actually gone through with his "benching" over the long haul, the union may have had a case and the Tigers may have lost it.

So back to the original point, the Sox really had no choice. Well, I guess the had a choice as much as a student has a choice to never do his homework or take tests. I mean, he doesn't have to do any of that, but he actually kinda does...