PDA

View Full Version : Kenny says, "no rebuilding..."


Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 12:46 AM
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/rebuilding-not-in-williams-plans.html

To me this is fine as long as you are willing to get the pieces you need to move to the next level by any means necessary.

Lip

soltrain21
09-28-2010, 12:50 AM
Eh. The title is sort of misleading. The article just makes it sound like they will play young guys next year but just not use the word rebuilding because he doesn't like the word.

We will see. He is going to have to make the team better by trading talent already in the majors. The only time I remember him doing that successfully is with Carlos Lee.

DirtySox
09-28-2010, 12:53 AM
They obviously can't (and shouldn't) do a complete rebuild with what they have invested in the pitching staff currently. Sounds like Kenny is trying to justify the possibility of filling holes with youngins if financial restraints arise.

Topic/article title is misleading. It certainly didn't fill me with confidence that Kenny is going to jump into the free agent market with gobs of money.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 12:54 AM
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/rebuilding-not-in-williams-plans.html

To me this is fine as long as you are willing to get the pieces you need to move to the next level by any means necessary.

Lip

Please.
With Guillen coming back it won't matter.
The Sox won't finish any higher than 4th in 2011.
It's going to be ugly from day one.
They're not going to buy a championship.
Those sort of things are not this owner's M.O.

DirtySox
09-28-2010, 01:29 AM
The Sun-Times version reinforces my belief:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/2751980,CST-SPT-soxnt28.article

WhiteSox5187
09-28-2010, 01:35 AM
That's good cuz given the state of the farm system I'm not sure Kenny is the guy to be in charge of rebuilding.

Boondock Saint
09-28-2010, 04:45 AM
Please.
With Guillen coming back it won't matter.
The Sox won't finish any higher than 4th in 2011.
It's going to be ugly from day one.
They're not going to buy a championship.
Those sort of things are not this owner's M.O.

It's not the M.O. of just about every MLB owner not located in New York or Boston.

kufram
09-28-2010, 05:05 AM
It's not the M.O. of just about every MLB owner not located in New York or Boston.


Why do some people never get it that the White Sox are not the Yankees or the Red Sox. Yes, we're in a big market but the fan base just isn't there for that kind of maneuvering and it ain't because we don't win hardware every year. We're already 4th next year and ugly from day 1? With that kind of pessimism who needs opposing team's fans? We were in the race until September in spite of this team's problems.

white sox bill
09-28-2010, 07:16 AM
Of course KW won't use the rebuild word....that means fewer butts in the seats and fewer season tix renewals.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 08:21 AM
Isn't it bizaare a guy trades for a pitcher with a 5.00+ ERA in the NL who is owed $8.5 million next year, giving up his best pitching prospect, and spends $4 million for one month of a broken down 38 year old juicer, and he's crying about finances again?

Rdy2PlayBall
09-28-2010, 09:37 AM
Isn't it bizaare a guy trades for a pitcher with a 5.00+ ERA in the NL who is owed $8.5 million next year, giving up his best pitching prospect, and spends $4 million for one month of a broken down 38 year old juicer, and he's crying about finances again?I think he saves 10M for midseason trades. He's probably banking the Sox will be decent by midseason, then he decides to spend the money. (exactly what happened)

TheOldRoman
09-28-2010, 10:03 AM
Isn't it bizaare a guy trades for a pitcher with a 5.00+ ERA in the NL who is owed $8.5 million next year, giving up his best pitching prospect, and spends $4 million for one month of a broken down 38 year old juicer, and he's crying about finances again?Nowhere in the articles did KW cry poor. He said that that they would like to improve the team through trades and free agency, and if they aren't able to trade for a certain player or offer enough money to a FA they want (say Carl Crawford), they will look to other methods to build the team. Egads! The nerve of this man!

LoveYourSuit
09-28-2010, 10:29 AM
How much higer can the payroll go despite poor attendance numbers?

That's my concern here.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 11:04 AM
Nowhere in the articles did KW cry poor. He said that that they would like to improve the team through trades and free agency, and if they aren't able to trade for a certain player or offer enough money to a FA they want (say Carl Crawford), they will look to other methods to build the team. Egads! The nerve of this man!

He said trades and free agency and if that doesn't work because of budget, well, I know where $12 million went.

The money has been there to field a playoff team. At no time should KW be dissappointed with attendance or the amount of money he has to work with. He's blown a lot of cash the last few years. A lot. So whenever he mentions budget, maybe he should say he foolishly spent money he shouldn't have spent.

khan
09-28-2010, 11:27 AM
I think he saves 10M for midseason trades. He's probably banking the Sox will be decent by midseason, then he decides to spend the money. (exactly what happened)

I honestly don't remember a WS champion [of recent vintage] that made a big splash midseason. While I could be "misremembering," aren't most champions built in the offseason, with only minor changes made midseason?

I suppose this is why I don't view the "saving" of $10M for the midseason as being a good idea...

TheOldRoman
09-28-2010, 11:34 AM
He said trades and free agency and if that doesn't work because of budget, well, I know where $12 million went.

The money has been there to field a playoff team. At no time should KW be dissappointed with attendance or the amount of money he has to work with. He's blown a lot of cash the last few years. A lot. So whenever he mentions budget, maybe he should say he foolishly spent money he shouldn't have spent.Okay, so he actually acknowledged that the team has a budget. Is that earth-shattering? Regardless of how he spent money in the past, that doesn't change the parameters he has at a given time, so what impact would him saying "I shouldn't have given Linebrink a fourth year" have on the payroll of the 2011 squad? What would it accomplish?

You need to pick a pariah. Are you still in the the "Reinsdorf is evil" camp, have you moved on to Kenny, or are you just taking shots at everyone no matter how contraditory they are? Your talking points for the longest time have been how the Sox could be spending so much more money on the team but they hoard it. So, there should have been money to spend but Evil Jerry perferred to use the $100 bills to light his cigars. Now you are saying that the payroll was plenty high but Williams squandered it? Pick a side. As for the attendance, you continue to ignore the fact that the team is 7th in payroll, one of only 8 teams with payrolls over $100 million, yet is 17th in attendance. Post-apocalyptic Detroit is the closest of the $100mil club to the Sox in attendance, and they still draw over 3,000 more fans per night to see what has been a lesser product for most of the year.

Tragg
09-28-2010, 12:10 PM
The Sox' total budget is sufficient.
It's Williams structure of the budget that is lacking.
For example, are the Sox getting $20 million in benefit from having Peavy and Jackson instead of Richard and Hudson? Can't $20 million buy more than that differential in talent?

Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 12:35 PM
Roman:

Just curious what is the Sox attendance right now after Monday?

Lip

salty99
09-28-2010, 12:40 PM
Roman:

Just curious what is the Sox attendance right now after Monday?

Lip

2,043,089 ranking 17th in the league.

doublem23
09-28-2010, 12:41 PM
Roman:

Just curious what is the Sox attendance right now after Monday?

Lip

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml

TheOldRoman
09-28-2010, 12:42 PM
Roman:

Just curious what is the Sox attendance right now after Monday?

Lip According to ESPN, the Sox are currently at 2,043,089, which averaged out to 27,241 per game, good for 17th place. I never thought I would see a Red Sox or Yankees game get under 20k, but it happened last night, due at least partly to the Bears game. Luckily for the Sox the Bears play on Sunday night, so they might do alright. Saturday should probably be a decent turnout for the fireworks, but I don't imagine the next four days will be too much better than last night. I am certainly not blaming anyone, as the people on this board are generally among the people who go to games. I'm merely pointing out the reality of where are payroll is compared to our attendance.

kufram
09-28-2010, 01:11 PM
In my opinion the pieces in place were good enough to succeed had they played consistently. The pitching was good enough ...just not consistent enough. The hitting was more than good enough some of the time and non-existent at other times. The bullpen was fantastic... then it was awful. The DH idea, hated as it was by some, did not kill this team. It contributed to PK having an MVP-like year. Inconsistency did the deed.

Having said that, without the 2 week black hole in September (and even WITH the 2 MONTH black hole at the beginning of the season) we would be in the playoffs. Minnesota playing unreasonably well when we went south was the difference. I'm not ready to give up on next year as yet.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 01:20 PM
Okay, so he actually acknowledged that the team has a budget. Is that earth-shattering? Regardless of how he spent money in the past, that doesn't change the parameters he has at a given time, so what impact would him saying "I shouldn't have given Linebrink a fourth year" have on the payroll of the 2011 squad? What would it accomplish?

You need to pick a pariah. Are you still in the the "Reinsdorf is evil" camp, have you moved on to Kenny, or are you just taking shots at everyone no matter how contraditory they are? Your talking points for the longest time have been how the Sox could be spending so much more money on the team but they hoard it. So, there should have been money to spend but Evil Jerry perferred to use the $100 bills to light his cigars. Now you are saying that the payroll was plenty high but Williams squandered it? Pick a side. As for the attendance, you continue to ignore the fact that the team is 7th in payroll, one of only 8 teams with payrolls over $100 million, yet is 17th in attendance. Post-apocalyptic Detroit is the closest of the $100mil club to the Sox in attendance, and they still draw over 3,000 more fans per night to see what has been a lesser product for most of the year.
I've never been a JR is evil. The only time I said he was cheap was the beginning of 2009 when they raised ticket prices and slashed payroll and said they had no money. I was proven correct as the "found" the money, probably in a drop ceiling for Peavy and Rios. The bottom line is KW talks budget every year, more than any other GM in baseball. Sometimes he even mentions his dissappointment with crowds. Well, drop 6 in a row during one of the biggest homestands in years and people who pay to watch will be just as dissappointed. If you would have realized what I wrote, I said the money provided has been sufficient to field a playoff team. Its KW's wild spending on no to slight upgrades that will hamstring the team. Sorry the $4 million they will give to Manny, which may be over $1 million per RBI, was beyond stupid. It may cost the Sox a decent player next year.

BTW, using Detroit over the Sox with their 3,000 + is a poor example. First off, they don't get nearly the outside revenue the Sox do, nor nearly the amount in parking. Throw in the fact White Sox tickets are top 5 in terms of cost in baseball, I'm sure the Sox revenue blows away Detroit's.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 01:30 PM
The Sox' total budget is sufficient.
It's Williams structure of the budget that is lacking.
For example, are the Sox getting $20 million in benefit from having Peavy and Jackson instead of Richard and Hudson? Can't $20 million buy more than that differential in talent? Very good point. To be fair, in the long run these acquisitions might work out, but to be honest it doesn't look like that will be the case.

Domeshot17
09-28-2010, 01:34 PM
The problem is, you basically need to add 2 hitters to the lineup, and they have to be the 2 best hitters in the lineup. Rios is okay hitting 3, but you need 100 RBI guy behind him and a 90 RBI guy hitting 5th.

Lets say going into next year we currently have this:


1b - Open
2b - Gordon
Ss- Ramirez
3b- Morel
LF- Pierre
CF-Rios
RF- Quentin/Open
DH-Quentin/Open (if an OF upgrade is available)
C- Open

Lets even say Konerko comes back at similar salary.
You now are filling a middle of the order void and another hitter who can hit anywhere. Ideally you want the hitter to be a number 2 hitter, because Gordon choked there this year and Alexei doesn’t have the patience or bat control to hit 2.
If you had money, Victor Martinez and Adam Dunn fill both holes, you only need one. You could consider letting Konerko go, and giving Dunn the 12 mil per to play first. It works but now you still need a middle of the order bat to fill it out at DH/OF or C.
We have currently over 50 mil spread out over our rotation.
If the Budget is tight, the move that makes the most sense is trading Buehrle. He makes 14.5 mil and in terms of talent is probably the 5th best SP in our rotation. He is a fan favorite and the face of this team. But if you are losing Konerko, it might be time to lose Buehrle as well, give this team a completely new identity. If you took Buehrle out, put a 5th SP making 4 mil and took the 10 mil to sign Dunn, plus whatever you get in the Burls trade (which would be pretty decent), is the team better off? On paper, in terms of talent, yes.
This is why I felt Carl Crawford doesn’t make a ton of sense for us. You can’t have him and Rios both in the middle of your order, neither produces enough RBI’s. If we had the money he is great, and you could ideally have a double table setter lineup if it went: Pierre-Gordon-Crawford-Rios-Dunn/Konerko-DH-Quentin.

However, if you let Burls and PK go, could you possibly be looking at Pierre-Gordon-Crawford-Rios-Martinez-Dunn-Quentin-Ramirez-Morel? Math says if you add 14.5 from Burls-12.5 from PK and 6 from AJ and 8 from Jenks is 41 mil. 11 for Dunn and 15 for Victor and Crawford. Sale becomes the closer and you would look to a Jake Westbrook at 3 or so mil....

It is completely pie in the sky, but there is ways to make money work.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 01:44 PM
The problem is, you basically need to add 2 hitters to the lineup, and they have to be the 2 best hitters in the lineup. Rios is okay hitting 3, but you need 100 RBI guy behind him and a 90 RBI guy hitting 5th.

Lets say going into next year we currently have this:


1b - Open
2b - Gordon
Ss- Ramirez
3b- Morel
LF- Pierre
CF-Rios
RF- Quentin/Open
DH-Quentin/Open (if an OF upgrade is available)
C- Open

Lets even say Konerko comes back at similar salary.
You now are filling a middle of the order void and another hitter who can hit anywhere. Ideally you want the hitter to be a number 2 hitter, because Gordon choked there this year and Alexei doesnít have the patience or bat control to hit 2.
If you had money, Victor Martinez and Adam Dunn fill both holes, you only need one. You could consider letting Konerko go, and giving Dunn the 12 mil per to play first. It works but now you still need a middle of the order bat to fill it out at DH/OF or C.
We have currently over 50 mil spread out over our rotation.
If the Budget is tight, the move that makes the most sense is trading Buehrle. He makes 14.5 mil and in terms of talent is probably the 5th best SP in our rotation. He is a fan favorite and the face of this team. But if you are losing Konerko, it might be time to lose Buehrle as well, give this team a completely new identity. If you took Buehrle out, put a 5th SP making 4 mil and took the 10 mil to sign Dunn, plus whatever you get in the Burls trade (which would be pretty decent), is the team better off? On paper, in terms of talent, yes.
This is why I felt Carl Crawford doesnít make a ton of sense for us. You canít have him and Rios both in the middle of your order, neither produces enough RBIís. If we had the money he is great, and you could ideally have a double table setter lineup if it went: Pierre-Gordon-Crawford-Rios-Dunn/Konerko-DH-Quentin.

However, if you let Burls and PK go, could you possibly be looking at Pierre-Gordon-Crawford-Rios-Martinez-Dunn-Quentin-Ramirez-Morel? Math says if you add 14.5 from Burls-12.5 from PK and 6 from AJ and 8 from Jenks is 41 mil. 11 for Dunn and 15 for Victor and Crawford. Sale becomes the closer and you would look to a Jake Westbrook at 3 or so mil....

It is completely pie in the sky, but there is ways to make money work.

If the Sox had someone step up in the minors, the guy I would consider trading is Rios. He's still owed a lot of money and his numbers the second half haven't exactly been stellar. He probably has some value.

I'd like the Sox to somehow acquire Ellsbury from Boston. They seem to be down on him but when he's healthy, he's outstanding.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 01:47 PM
It looks like they'll be going down in attendance then for the 4th consecutive season.

Lip

AlexRios51
09-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Just get Dunn(who won't be resigning with the Nats, as reported) and V-mart and we will be fine.

TheOldRoman
09-28-2010, 01:57 PM
I've never been a JR is evil. The only time I said he was cheap was the beginning of 2009 when they raised ticket prices and slashed payroll and said they had no money. I was proven correct as the "found" the money, probably in a drop ceiling for Peavy and Rios. The bottom line is KW talks budget every year, more than any other GM in baseball. Sometimes he even mentions his dissappointment with crowds. Well, drop 6 in a row during one of the biggest homestands in years and people who pay to watch will be just as dissappointed. If you would have realized what I wrote, I said the money provided has been sufficient to field a playoff team. Its KW's wild spending on no to slight upgrades that will hamstring the team. Sorry the $4 million they will give to Manny, which may be over $1 million per RBI, was beyond stupid. It may cost the Sox a decent player next year.

BTW, using Detroit over the Sox with their 3,000 + is a poor example. First off, they don't get nearly the outside revenue the Sox do, nor nearly the amount in parking. Throw in the fact White Sox tickets are top 5 in terms of cost in baseball, I'm sure the Sox revenue blows away Detroit's.I was hoping you would throw out your 2009 fallacy again. You started with that during the 2008 season, warning everyone how payroll would be slashed. Then after the offseason you posted ad nauseum "The Sox slashed payroll more than any team other than the Padres." That wasn't true. You were counting things like Thome's entire 2008 salary, much of which was paid by the Phillies, towards 2008. The payroll wasn't slashed. You warned us again payroll would be slashed again for 2010, that it would be well under $90 mil, and here we are, over $100 mil. I know what you wrote; I thought it was interesting that you are harping on Kenny now when it is normally JR you go after.

As for Kenny talking budget, he does seem to do it a lot. It is disingenuous to say he does it more than any other GM since you don't follow the other GMs and read what they say to local press. One of Kenny's faults is how he feels the need to be candid about things. Don't you think the Twins had budget constraints this last decade? Obviously, but I don't know if they regularly talked about it to the press. It was just accepted.

TheOldRoman
09-28-2010, 02:00 PM
It looks like they'll be going down in attendance then for the 4th consecutive season.

LipThat isn't surprising. No "big splash" in the offseason, horrible weather to start the season, really bad play for the first month plus of the season followed by the team playing back into contention and some fans believing it isn't legit, followed by the team falling out of contention with a good number of games to be played. Not a good recipe.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 02:12 PM
I was hoping you would throw out your 2009 fallacy again. You started with that during the 2008 season, warning everyone how payroll would be slashed. Then after the offseason you posted ad nauseum "The Sox slashed payroll more than any team other than the Padres." That wasn't true. You were counting things like Thome's entire 2008 salary, much of which was paid by the Phillies, towards 2008. The payroll wasn't slashed. You warned us again payroll would be slashed again for 2010, that it would be well under $90 mil, and here we are, over $100 mil. I know what you wrote; I thought it was interesting that you are harping on Kenny now when it is normally JR you go after.

As for Kenny talking budget, he does seem to do it a lot. It is disingenuous to say he does it more than any other GM since you don't follow the other GMs and read what they say to local press. One of Kenny's faults is how he feels the need to be candid about things. Don't you think the Twins had budget constraints this last decade? Obviously, but I don't know if they regularly talked about it to the press. It was just accepted.

Last year, by opening day,the Sox slashed payroll more than any team other than the Padres and had the nerve to stick seasonticketholders, guys like me who couldn't get a refund with a higher bill for their tickets. They added payroll during the season, but did cry poor until said payroll was added. . I don't go after JR often only when he lowered payroll and increased ticket prices. As a matter of fact, when it was fashionable to go after JR before 2005, I always stuck up for him.

The Twins budget is accepted even though it always could have been and should have been higher, and if you would ever read, I said the White Sox current budget is sufficient, but apparently it doesn't enhance your argument so you skip it. However, if you going to hover around $100 million with a veteran team, you better spend the money correctly. I know the White Sox and some of their fans would like you to believe they have invented winning, but in the last 90+ years, there has only been 1 where they won a postseason series. This is a team with really no help in the minor leagues realistically ready. The White Sox have had a huge advantage in the AL Central, before the Twins built their new stadium, mainly because Carl Pohlad was perhaps the richest and cheapest man in sports. They took advantage of that advantage once.

Realistically, if the Sox were in the AL East, what do you think their record would be? They are lucky to be where they are, and need to take advantage of the advantage they have over Detroit and KC and Cleveland. Its sickening they are well below .500 in their division this year. It signals a problem somewhere.

Hitmen77
09-28-2010, 02:14 PM
The Sox' total budget is sufficient.
It's Williams structure of the budget that is lacking.
For example, are the Sox getting $20 million in benefit from having Peavy and Jackson instead of Richard and Hudson? Can't $20 million buy more than that differential in talent?

I think the biggest complaint I have about KW is the failure of the Sox farm system to produce much in the way of talent under his watch. Without much in the way of low-cost options to fill our roster, that ~$100 million seems to fall short of filling all of our holes.

As far as acquisitions of high-priced players, it's not so much that any of these individual moves are bad. But when there is a payroll limit that the Sox seem to bump up against (and isn't going to change significantly from year to year), the overall pattern toward building our roster within that budget isn't very consistent. He'll get high-priced players for some holes and then for other holes he's digging through the scrap heap for band-aid solutions. He likes to "go for broke" like he did with Manny and Jackson this year, but when that doesn't work out, what's the fall back? Is it to say that there's not much money left to spend for next year?

Teahen doesn't seem to be good enough to be a starter and is a disaster defensively at 3B, but KW last winter said he's our starting 3B and gave him a nice contract extension.

We'll see what transpires over the winter, but the Sox have about $50 million locked up in their 5-man rotation and several players getting raises. There might not be much left over to greatly improve this team....and that's not the fault of "only" having a $100 million payroll. It's poor budgeting and poor internal player development that's the biggest problem.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 02:19 PM
White Sox tickets are very expensive. They had the 4th highest family cost index in baseball this year. Only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs was higher. In a bad economy with a team that was horrid to start, its going to lead to a drop.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 03:13 PM
Roman:

Good points and next year they have another April "loaded" with home games. I know the Sox through Bob Grim and Howard Pizer talk to MLB about the schedule issues but it just seems they are being ignored by them.

Lip

doublem23
09-28-2010, 03:18 PM
Roman:

Good points and next year they have another April "loaded" with home games. I know the Sox through Bob Grim and Howard Pizer talk to MLB about the schedule issues but it just seems they are being ignored by them.

Lip

Jesus H. Christ, the Sox play 28 games in April, 12 of them are at home (that's less than half, I know, you'd need to degree in quantum mechanical physics to figure out that percentage, AMIRIGHT???). It literally took me 10 seconds to look that up.

The Sox get a bunch of games in April? People bitch. The Sox have a bunch of road games in April? People bitch. It is what it is, there's no way around it when there are 29 other teams in the league.

BTW, I went to a game the first weekend of the season and it was sunny and in the mid-60s. I wore short sleeves. WEATHER IN CHICAGO IN APRIL IS UNPREDICTABLE.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 06:17 PM
Double:

I think you're overreacting a tad. My point was if you have a lot (and a dozen is a lot) of April home games that is probably going to put your season attendance totals off to a poor start.

1. Because of the generally poor weather
2. School is still in session.

I know for a fact the Sox have contacted MLB because they don't want to play as many home games in April as they have been getting for the reasons stated above. If you insist I'll tell you who exactly in a private message.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Lip

SCCWS
09-28-2010, 07:44 PM
If the Sox had someone step up in the minors, the guy I would consider trading is Rios. He's still owed a lot of money and his numbers the second half haven't exactly been stellar. He probably has some value.

I'd like the Sox to somehow acquire Ellsbury from Boston. They seem to be down on him but when he's healthy, he's outstanding.

I agree with you. Lets send them Buehrle and ask for Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bowden..................................oops Kenny wants more for Buehrle.

WhiffleBall
09-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Double:

I think you're overreacting a tad. My point was if you have a lot (and a dozen is a lot) of April home games that is probably going to put your season attendance totals off to a poor start.

1. Because of the generally poor weather
2. School is still in session.

I know for a fact the Sox have contacted MLB because they don't want to play as many home games in April as they have been getting for the reasons stated above. If you insist I'll tell you who exactly in a private message.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Lip

There are only 3 weekday home games other then the home opener in April. The rest are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday games. While those three weekday games will have sparse crowds (unless the weather is great) the rest of the weekend games should do ok.

soltrain21
09-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Double:

I think you're overreacting a tad. My point was if you have a lot (and a dozen is a lot) of April home games that is probably going to put your season attendance totals off to a poor start.

1. Because of the generally poor weather
2. School is still in session.

I know for a fact the Sox have contacted MLB because they don't want to play as many home games in April as they have been getting for the reasons stated above. If you insist I'll tell you who exactly in a private message.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Lip

It's less than half. That's about the best they are going to get. I can't see the MLB giving the Sox or ANY team like...5 home games in April.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 08:30 PM
It's less than half. That's about the best they are going to get. I can't see the MLB giving the Sox or ANY team like...5 home games in April.

Especially with the season starting on 4/1 and there being 28 games. Minnesota has 11 home games in April. That's probably the fewest.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2010, 08:45 PM
Whiffle:

I hope you are correct. The more fans the greater the chance for better talent on the roster.

Lip

BringHomeDaBacon
09-29-2010, 09:14 PM
The Sox' total budget is sufficient.
It's Williams structure of the budget that is lacking.
For example, are the Sox getting $20 million in benefit from having Peavy and Jackson instead of Richard and Hudson? Can't $20 million buy more than that differential in talent?

People are too busy beating their chests over Peavy to think about the opportunity cost. There isn't a GM in baseball that wouldn't love to have a rotation of Richard, Hudson and Gonzalez to build around.

A. Cavatica
09-29-2010, 10:08 PM
There isn't a GM in baseball that wouldn't love to have a rotation of Richard, Hudson and Gonzalez to build around.

There is one.

:KW

Tragg
09-29-2010, 11:18 PM
People are too busy beating their chests over Peavy to think about the opportunity cost. There isn't a GM in baseball that wouldn't love to have a rotation of Richard, Hudson and Gonzalez to build around. And yet, it's been barely a year that we shipped away 2 of those 3 for high-priced veterans.
I wonder who gave up on these 3 so quickly. I know Guillen has no patience for young players, but where's Cooper in this? Doesn't he have a better eye for talent than that?
Any way you look at it , those 3 are $20 million cheaper than who we got - Jackson and Peavy.

Lip Man 1
09-30-2010, 12:21 AM
Folks:

Not taking one side or the other but let's be fair here...Richard was nothing short of mediocre with the Sox... usually not even getting past the 5th inning with a high ERA. Let's not revise history in this case.

He's playing in the best pitchers park in baseball, that doesn't hurt.

Perhaps a better question in these three cases is, "are those respective coaching staffs doing a better job fixing issues and getting them to perform?"

Lip

Rockabilly
09-30-2010, 02:07 AM
I didn't see anyone on this board unhappy on the days we got Swisher or Peavy.

tsoxman
09-30-2010, 05:40 AM
I didn't see anyone on this board unhappy on the days we got Swisher or Peavy.
On Soxtalk, I remember seeing a poll where 70% of the respondents said that they approved of the Swisher deal. For the Peavy deal, because of the money and Jake's injury history, the results were more mixed.

As far as I was concerned, I hated both deals at the time and said it at the time the trades were made. I have always felt that Kenny should stick to keeping his better prospects and making smallers deals like Danks, Floyd, signing guys off the scrap heap, etc. In fact, the 2005 team was built more in this fashion as opposed to that which involves getting big named veteran players in trades.

dickallen15
09-30-2010, 08:22 AM
Folks:

Not taking one side or the other but let's be fair here...Richard was nothing short of mediocre with the Sox... usually not even getting past the 5th inning with a high ERA. Let's not revise history in this case.

He's playing in the best pitchers park in baseball, that doesn't hurt.

Perhaps a better question in these three cases is, "are those respective coaching staffs doing a better job fixing issues and getting them to perform?"

Lip

If they were hitters, it would be a fire Greg Walker thread. Gonzalez needed time to develop, Richard and Hudson both said they did things differently at their current locations than Chicago. I don't know if you really can pin it on coaching or just a little more experience, perhaps a chip on their shoulder, in Richard's case a huge ballpark to change his mindset, and Hudson not being required to win big games had a lot of pressure off him.

Gonzalez sucked with Oakland last year, but he's developing. Richard has had his moments of struggle, but overall a very nice season, and Hudson has been terrific. Hudson was terrific in his one start with the Sox he actually could throw strikes.

asindc
09-30-2010, 09:01 AM
I didn't see anyone on this board unhappy on the days we got Swisher or Peavy.

I was never thrilled about the Swisher deal, mainly because I did not think he fit what the Sox needed, which was a true CF whose skills were suited to bat at the top of the order, 1st or 2nd.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 12:16 PM
It's less than half. That's about the best they are going to get. I can't see the MLB giving the Sox or ANY team like...5 home games in April.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be great for attendance in July when the Sox are trying to dig themselves out of a 12-game deficit in the standings because they spent all of April flying all over the country.

12 home games out of 28 in the first month of the season is RIDICULOUSLY REASONABLE. Maybe the Sox could boost their attendance if they stopped wasting time complaining about the schedule and spent more time, I don't know, playing good baseball?

doublem23
09-30-2010, 12:17 PM
On Soxtalk, I remember seeing a poll where 70% of the respondents said that they approved of the Swisher deal. For the Peavy deal, because of the money and Jake's injury history, the results were more mixed.

As far as I was concerned, I hated both deals at the time and said it at the time the trades were made. I have always felt that Kenny should stick to keeping his better prospects and making smallers deals like Danks, Floyd, signing guys off the scrap heap, etc. In fact, the 2005 team was built more in this fashion as opposed to that which involves getting big named veteran players in trades.


I can see your disapproval of the Swisher deal, but we didn't give up any good prospects for Peavy.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 12:19 PM
People are too busy beating their chests over Peavy to think about the opportunity cost. There isn't a GM in baseball that wouldn't love to have a rotation of Richard, Hudson and Gonzalez to build around.

:rolling:

Is that a joke? Build around Richard, Hudson, and Gonzalez? They're nice peices to your puzzle. None of them are cornerstones.

Any team "building" around these three guys should be prepared to lose 90 games next year.

Tragg
09-30-2010, 12:21 PM
I didn't see anyone on this board unhappy on the days we got Swisher or Peavy.
Then you didn't read the board.
Peavy was generally approved (although not by all)..one reason I was okay with it is because we held back our best pitching prospect. That quickly changed.
Many thought that we ridiculously overpaid by sending 3 of our top 5 prospects for Swisher who was never more than an above average hitter. Of course, we got zero legitimate prospects from NY.

Regardless, we aren't the GM. Williams is paid for results. Recent results on trades have been net negatives.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 12:27 PM
Then you didn't read the board.
Peavy was generally approved (although not by all)..one reason I was okay with it is because we held back our best pitching prospect. That quickly changed.
Many thought that we ridiculously overpaid by sending 3 of our top 5 prospects for Swisher who was never more than an above average hitter. Of course, we got zero legitimate prospects from NY.

Regardless, we aren't the GM. Williams is paid for results. Recent results on trades have been net negatives.

At the time of the deal, it was not a consensus that Hudson was the better prospect than Poreda.

Tragg
09-30-2010, 01:00 PM
At the time of the deal, it was not a consensus that Hudson was the better prospect than Poreda.

By that time, it pretty much was the majority opinion.



Is that a joke? Build around Richard, Hudson, and Gonzalez? They're nice peices to your puzzle. None of them are cornerstones.

Any team "building" around these three guys should be prepared to lose 90 games next year.
The nice thing about having those 3 is that it saves you $25 million so you can go find that real "number 1" which we still lack. Throwing hard does not equal "great stuff".
If we had those 3 with 2 Danks and Floyd or MB, we'd be much, much better off.