PDA

View Full Version : Food for Thought


Lip Man 1
08-24-2011, 12:29 PM
As the debate rages at WSI over who is at fault, who should be fired, accountability and the "discussion" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink...say no more!) over wanting to see the Sox win even if it means no changes, I thought some numbers might be of interest when trying to figure out if the majority of the "blame" falls on players, Ozzie, the coaching staff or the G.M.

Or for that matter all of the above.

Keep in mind since the start of the 2007 season through the loss Tuesday night the Sox record in that time is 398-385.

According to Retrosheet.com the Sox have had a total of 103 players make an appearance in at least one game since the start of the 2007 season through Tuesday night.

They have had the same G.M., the same field manager and the same coaching staff in that same period.

The numbers say the Sox have changed players, a lot of them...yet the results remain basically the same...mediocre.

Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it looks like it may be time to change some other areas.

Lip

BigKlu59
08-24-2011, 02:45 PM
A lucky "13" games above .500 in that span... 783 games of euphoiric and ledge walking outcomes on WSI .. Gotta love these guys.. Talk about having a mercurial relationship with a team..We must love Drama. JR/KW/OG are the best screen writers in that soap series called "As The AL Central Division Turns"...

I dont know what it is that has a collar on this team that just wont let them break out from the pack. Each season it seems they have a 90 winner in their back pocket,but they always find a way to **** the bed..

If anybody's gonna head out of town of the Triumverate,its gonna be Ozzie..Hell, maybe a new skipwould be the best thing for this team..

BK59

soxfan21
08-24-2011, 02:52 PM
The stat that upsets me the most is that we have only made the playoffs one time from 2006-2011, baring a miracle this season.

shes
08-24-2011, 03:14 PM
Whether you want to blame him or not, KW has attempted over and over again to acquire superstar talent and it's virtually always blown up in his face. Dunn, Rios, and Peavy are the current crop of abysmal acquisitions.

The only stars on this team are guys he inherited. KW's got a good track record turning also-rans into above-average players, but his track record with top-tier players is frighteningly bad (with the exception of Thome).

delben91
08-24-2011, 03:40 PM
Whether you want to blame him or not, KW has attempted over and over again to acquire superstar talent and it's virtually always blown up in his face. Dunn, Rios, and Peavy are the current crop of abysmal acquisitions.

The only stars on this team are guys he inherited. KW's got a good track record turning also-rans into above-average players, but his track record with top-tier players is frighteningly bad (with the exception of Thome).

While I hate how those acquisitions turned out, I for one was thrilled when the Sox got Dunn and Peavy. Rios, not so much. Now, don't get me wrong, there were those saying Dunn and/or Peavy were bad signings when they happened, but I don't think anyone would argue those opinions were in the minority.

Now, that doesn't mean KW is the best GM ever or anything, just that I don't blame him for the Dunn or Peavy moves, because in his position, I'd've done the exact same thing.

Crestani
08-24-2011, 03:42 PM
Whether you want to blame him or not, KW has attempted over and over again to acquire superstar talent and it's virtually always blown up in his face. Dunn, Rios, and Peavy are the current crop of abysmal acquisitions.

The only stars on this team are guys he inherited. KW's got a good track record turning also-rans into above-average players, but his track record with top-tier players is frighteningly bad (with the exception of Thome).


Yes, these three, Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to hold the Sox back from going after any further FA's for the next two years!!

i don't agree with the second paragraph however. Williams has brought us Quentin, Ramirez, Danks, Flowers, (even though the jury is still out) and Floyd to name a few good acquisitions.

Having said that, it probably is time for a change of ideas in the area of talent evaluation from the top on down.

shes
08-24-2011, 04:48 PM
Yes, these three, Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to hold the Sox back from going after any further FA's for the next two years!!

i don't agree with the second paragraph however. Williams has brought us Quentin, Ramirez, Danks, Flowers, (even though the jury is still out) and Floyd to name a few good acquisitions.

Having said that, it probably is time for a change of ideas in the area of talent evaluation from the top on down.

Well, as far as stars I meant Paulie and Buehrle.

Quentin, Danks, and Floyd are definitely examples of Kenny's ability to win smaller trades. However, they represent a type of player that pretty much every team has (fringe All-Star OF, middle of the rotation starters.) It's the consistent superstars that set the contenders apart from the mediocre also-rans, guys like Dunn and Peavy used to be and the player we thought Gordon would be in year 3. We thought we had a lot of star talent this year; the pieces were put in place -- they were just the wrong pieces, just as they have been for the last 6 years. Over this same period, the only time I can think of with similar means that has tried and failed so miserably at filling a roster with star talent is the Cubs.

captain54
08-24-2011, 05:34 PM
They have had the same G.M., the same field manager and the same coaching staff in that same period.


Lip

You could also make the same argument and say that the current GM, field manager and coaches won a WS Title, so who's to say they aren't capable of doing it again?

Going into 2011, I think it's safe to say that most thought that ON PAPER the Sox had as good a team as any in the Central. The Sox have had good Paper teams every year since 06' and it just hasn't panned out.

Bottom line is, while Ozzie, Kenny and the coaches got it done in 05', that same approach has not worked now six yrs straight (bar squeaking into the playoffs in 08 for a first round exit). Its starting to feel like 05 was a long long time ago, and the Sox are light years away from a repeat.

I don't think there's any question that the current approach of the organization needs an overhaul. Attendance has gone down every year since 05 and it just doesn't seem at all possible that he could stand pat, unless he just decides that he's just too old and screw it..

Medford Bobby
08-24-2011, 06:33 PM
I think it's starting to look more and more like JR will move Kenny upstairs and move Rick Hahn in that GM chair....and Ozzie goes to open the new Marlin's ball-park.....:rolleyes:

TDog
08-24-2011, 08:13 PM
It is easy to look at success and lack thereof of people who assemble and manage a team but don't play it and say changes need to be made. I am happy there weren't any changes made before the 2005 season as many were advocating.

At this point, fans are mostly second-guessing. I still maintain that Adam Dunn's detrimental effect on the White Sox offense was predictable. There are some fans who expected this. Dunn's historically low numbers may not have been, but he should have been expected to be having the offensive season of Mark Reynolds (who provides better defense), and that wouldn't be helping the White Sox either. If you weren't upset with Williams signing Dunn before the season started, I'm not sure you have a strong idea of how to improve the team.

Seriously, if people really believe that Dunn's problems are due to bad coaching and managerial misuse, unloading his contract to a team that is confident its manager and coaches wouldn't be a problem.

JB98
08-24-2011, 08:24 PM
It is easy to look at success and lack thereof of people who assemble and manage a team but don't play it and say changes need to be made. I am happy there weren't any changes made before the 2005 season as many were advocating.

At this point, fans are mostly second-guessing. I still maintain that Adam Dunn's detrimental effect on the White Sox offense was predictable. There are some fans who expected this. Dunn's historically low numbers may not have been, but he should have been expected to be having the offensive season of Mark Reynolds (who provides better defense), and that wouldn't be helping the White Sox either. If you weren't upset with Williams signing Dunn before the season started, I'm not sure you have a strong idea of how to improve the team.

Seriously, if people really believe that Dunn's problems are due to bad coaching and managerial misuse, unloading his contract to a team that is confident its manager and coaches wouldn't be a problem.

Adam Dunn is responsible for his poor performance. Not Ozzie Guillen.

Guillen is responsible for continuing to play Dunn and batting him fourth to the detriment of the team.

blandman
08-24-2011, 08:44 PM
As the debate rages at WSI over who is at fault, who should be fired, accountability and the "discussion" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink...say no more!) over wanting to see the Sox win even if it means no changes, I thought some numbers might be of interest when trying to figure out if the majority of the "blame" falls on players, Ozzie, the coaching staff or the G.M.

Or for that matter all of the above.

Keep in mind since the start of the 2007 season through the loss Tuesday night the Sox record in that time is 398-385.

According to Retrosheet.com the Sox have had a total of 103 players make an appearance in at least one game since the start of the 2007 season through Tuesday night.

They have had the same G.M., the same field manager and the same coaching staff in that same period.

The numbers say the Sox have changed players, a lot of them...yet the results remain basically the same...mediocre.

Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it looks like it may be time to change some other areas.

Lip

Of all the loaded arguments...

Two can play at that game.

You didn't include their two best seasons, one of which involved a World Series win. And despite all that roster turnover, they're a winning team when you take away their two best years? Seems to me like they're doing something right.

It should be obvious what's wrong with this team. It isn't hitting because four guys they depended on completely failed. You might have a case with Morel, because that was obviously a case of bad scouting. And you might have a case with Beckham, as maybe our hitting coach isn't doing something to help him another would. But Rios and Dunn? You're really gonna blame Ozzie and Kenny? Dunn was a great pickup for this team. Nobody could have predicted he'd go from being the most consistent home run threat in baseball to the worst statistical player in history. And it's hard to believe if a guy as outspoken as Ozzie can't get Rios to care, that anyone could. And its hard to scout "some years this guy isn't going to want to play baseball" until it happens.

Noneck
08-24-2011, 08:48 PM
Guillen is responsible for continuing to play Dunn and batting him fourth to the detriment of the team.


Is it possible that Guillen has been told, "I paid big money for this guy so he plays", not from Williams but from the very top?

captain54
08-24-2011, 08:53 PM
It is easy to look at success and lack thereof of people who assemble and manage a team but don't play it and say changes need to be made. .

What you're forgetting is that most on the board that have been advocating change are paying customers. They spend their money to buy tickets, parking, souvenirs, food, beer, etc...Even if they are at home and watch the games, if the viewership is down, down goes the value of TV time paid by the sponsors.

So if you're suggesting that management ignore the fact that the paying customer is not satisfied with the mediocre product on the field and should just continue to present more mediocrity in 2012, 2013 and beyond.....I would seriously question that logic

JB98
08-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Is it possible that Guillen has been told, "I paid big money for this guy so he plays", not from Williams but from the very top?

Sure, but even if OG was ordered to play Dunn, he didn't have to bat him third or fourth for most of the season.

Noneck
08-24-2011, 08:58 PM
Sure, but even if OG was ordered to play Dunn, he didn't have to bat him third or fourth for most of the season.


Very true.

Brian26
08-24-2011, 09:17 PM
It is easy to look at success and lack thereof of people who assemble and manage a team but don't play it and say changes need to be made. I am happy there weren't any changes made before the 2005 season as many were advocating.

Many were advocating for changes before 2005? I don't follow you. That was after Ozzie Year One. The Sox had a mildly successful season considering Mags and Frank went down in mid-season. I don't think anyone blamed the coaching staff or GM on the outcome in 2004, especially after they went out and acquired Freddy Garcia.

Lip Man 1
08-24-2011, 10:11 PM
Blandman:

The Sox have had 103 different players play since 2007.

Different players...from different organizations...with different skill sets...with different ages...and with various degrees of experience.

The results have been the same FOR THE PAST FIVE SEASONS (almost)

What HASN'T changed is the G.M., the field manager and the coaching staff (Raines was let go before the start of 2007.)

Coincidence? Maybe but when you make that many changes to the people on the field yet the results are basically the same you start to look elsewhere and wonder if that's the problem.

Any why not include 2005 and 2006?

Ummm...maybe because they were actually winning a lot of games?

Lip

doublem23
08-24-2011, 10:24 PM
The results have been the same FOR THE PAST FIVE SEASONS (almost)


Ummmmm... No they haven't, the Sox have been all over the place the past 5 years, 90 wins here, 72 wins there, 89 and 88 wins there, 79 wins here, on pace for probably around 80 wins this year.

If anything, the only thing consistent about this team the past 5 years is its inconsistency.

captain54
08-24-2011, 10:54 PM
Ummmmm... No they haven't, the Sox have been all over the place the past 5 years, 90 wins here, 72 wins there, 89 and 88 wins there, 79 wins here, on pace for probably around 80 wins this year.

If anything, the only thing consistent about this team the past 5 years is its inconsistency.


Who gives a rats behind about how many games the Sox won over the last six years? The have one postseason appearance going on 6 yrs now and in that PS appearance they squeaked in and out in the first round. This from a major market team with the financial means

doublem23
08-24-2011, 10:55 PM
Who gives a rats behind about how many games the Sox won over the last six years? The have one postseason appearance going on 6 yrs now and in that PS appearance they squeaked in and out in the first round. This from a major market team with the financial means

they don't have locker room celebrations in October for most games won

A) You COMPLETELY missed the point of my post (I am not surprised)

B) Yes they do

blandman
08-24-2011, 11:00 PM
Ummmmm... No they haven't, the Sox have been all over the place the past 5 years, 90 wins here, 72 wins there, 89 and 88 wins there, 79 wins here, on pace for probably around 80 wins this year.

If anything, the only thing consistent about this team the past 5 years is its inconsistency.


Yep.

Look, I was about the most unabashed KW detractor on this site. But the body of evidence for both he and Guillen speak volumes. There's a reason they've both been the consistent pieces in the organization. And that reason is there are few better at their jobs.

doublem23
08-24-2011, 11:04 PM
Yep.

Look, I was about the most unabashed KW detractor on this site. But the body of evidence for both he and Guillen speak volumes. There's a reason they've both been the consistent pieces in the organization. And that reason is there are few better at their jobs.

Well, I'm not going to go that far because I am all for firing either or Williams and Ozzie this off-season precisely because the Sox have been so inconsistent the past few years. When you're winning 90 games one year, and 72 games the next, and 89 games the following year, you're unable to chart a clear path for the franchise, which is its most damning characteristic right now. Where are the Sox? Are they still in "win now" mode? Are they trying to rebuild for the future? Or are they somewhere floating in between, unable to commit to either course because every week it looks like the shoe on either side is about to fall.

I know some people here believe that Sox fans will never stand for a full rebuilding effort, and that is an opinion I respect, but really, the most fun I have had watching the Sox this year has been watching guys like De Aza and Flowers, they play with an energy and a chip on their shoulder that some veterans (*cough* Rios *cough* Dunn *cough*) don't seem to (whether that's real or not they do not demonstrate it through their play). I really just want the Sox to focus on a path, none of this trying to have your cake and eating it, too. That's the real problem with this team right now, IMO.

captain54
08-24-2011, 11:08 PM
A) You COMPLETELY missed the point of my post (I am not surprised)

B) Yes they do


The big colored letters are supposed to teach me a lesson and prove me wrong....Ok , I get it..

Lip's statement was:

The results have been the same FOR THE PAST FIVE SEASONS (almost)

And he's right... the results have been the same for past five seasons..no postseason appearances and no success in the one appearance... and if the point of MLB is to get to the WS, the record for the past five seasons would indicate failure.

You completely diluted his point by bringing up how many games the WS have won over the past few years... which when all is said an done come October, is totally irrelevant.

blandman
08-24-2011, 11:12 PM
Well, I'm not going to go that far because I am all for firing either or Williams and Ozzie this off-season precisely because the Sox have been so inconsistent the past few years. When you're winning 90 games one year, and 72 games the next, and 89 games the following year, you're unable to chart a clear path for the franchise, which is its most damning characteristic right now. Where are the Sox? Are they still in "win now" mode? Are they trying to rebuild for the future? Or are they somewhere floating in between, unable to commit to either course because every week it looks like the shoe on either side is about to fall.

2007 was the only uncompetitive year. In fact, in seven years of managing Ozzie's had 5 winning seasons. All of those seasons were very competitive. Any other managers out there that can say something like that? How many, like five? And how many of those won a world series? Just sayin'.

blandman
08-24-2011, 11:13 PM
The big colored letters are supposed to teach me a lesson and prove me wrong....Ok , I get it..

Lip's statement was:

The results have been the same FOR THE PAST FIVE SEASONS (almost)

And he's right... the results have been the same for past five seasons..no postseason appearances and no success in the one appearance... and if the point of MLB is to get to the WS, the record for the past five seasons would indicate failure.

You completely diluted his point by bringing up how many games the WS have won over the past few years... which when all is said an done come October, is totally irrelevant.

By these standards only one GM and manager would keep their job every year.

doublem23
08-24-2011, 11:24 PM
The big colored letters are supposed to teach me a lesson and prove me wrong....Ok , I get it..

Lip's statement was:

The results have been the same FOR THE PAST FIVE SEASONS (almost)

And he's right... the results have been the same for past five seasons..no postseason appearances and no success in the one appearance... and if the point of MLB is to get to the WS, the record for the past five seasons would indicate failure.

You completely diluted his point by bringing up how many games the WS have won over the past few years... which when all is said an done come October, is totally irrelevant.

No I pointed out that his statement was erroneous, 72-win years are very different from 90-win years, if you don't think that is true, then we will just have to agree to disagree. And while yes, the ultimate goal of baseball is to get to, and win the World Series, if that is the only goal that satisfies you, I don't know why you haven't jumped ship to the Yankees yet. For the other 29 teams that is basically an unrealistic goal year in and year out.

doublem23
08-24-2011, 11:26 PM
2007 was the only uncompetitive year. In fact, in seven years of managing Ozzie's had 5 winning seasons. All of those seasons were very competitive. Any other managers out there that can say something like that? How many, like five? And how many of those won a world series? Just sayin'.

That's true, but half the reason the Sox are competitive year in and year out is because our division is generally one of the weakest in baseball. Division title in 2008 aside, the Sox really haven't been one of the better teams in baseball since about halfway through the 2006 season.

captain54
08-24-2011, 11:30 PM
By these standards only one GM and manager would keep their job every year.

Where did I say a manager or a GM deserved to be fired for not going to the WS in any given year?

And by what standards would you measure the WS success over the past 6 yrs? the colorful bunting below the grandstands? the lively video screen on the scoreboard to keep everyone occupied? the overall pleasant ballpark experience?

TDog
08-24-2011, 11:46 PM
Adam Dunn is responsible for his poor performance. Not Ozzie Guillen.

Guillen is responsible for continuing to play Dunn and batting him fourth to the detriment of the team.

Dunn doesn't hit fourth that often -- 23 times in 105 games so far. As for playing Dunn, Guillen doesn't have much of a choice.

The problem with treating your designated hitter as a position, signing a DH who is a defensive liability and carrying 12 or more pitchers is that he can't sit at the end of the bench and not play very often. (Konerko has been intentionally walked 14 times, and in addition to Dunn, Rios, Pierzynski and Quentin have been on deck -- Pierre too, but that was a pinch-hitting situation). If Dunn is in the lineup, pinch-hitting for him limits more necessary moves, especially when your best hitter often requires a pinch-runner late in close games and especially if other moves have already been made.

Adding Dunn to the roster handicapped the team offensively. That should have been obvious in February. It wouldn't matter who is managing.

The way things have worked out, if the White Sox played in a league without a DH and never signed Dunn, they would have a better offense.

doublem23
08-24-2011, 11:53 PM
Dunn doesn't hit fourth that often -- 23 times in 105 games so far. As for playing Dunn, Guillen doesn't have much of a choice.

The problem with treating your designated hitter as a position, signing a DH who is a defensive liability and carrying 12 or more pitchers is that he can't sit at the end of the bench and not play very often. (Konerko has been intentionally walked 14 times, and in addition to Dunn, Rios, Pierzynski and Quentin have been on deck -- Pierre too, but that was a pinch-hitting situation). If Dunn is in the lineup, pinch-hitting for him limits more necessary moves, especially when your best hitter often requires a pinch-runner late in close games and especially if other moves have already been made.

Adding Dunn to the roster handicapped the team offensively. That should have been obvious in February. It wouldn't matter who is managing.

The way things have worked out, if the White Sox played in a league without a DH and never signed Dunn, they would have a better offense.

Oh god will you cut this ****ing garbage? The Yankees have the best offense in the league and their regular DH is a guy who is also a complete liability at the only position he can play. The Red Sox are the 2nd best offense in the AL. Guess what? Their DH hasn't played 10 games in the field since 2007.

The Sox offense doesn't suck because they brought in a one-dimensional masher, it's because Adam Dunn has mysteriously and inexplicably degraded from a guy who consistently over a 10-year period put up an OPS at or around .900 and hit 35 HRs to a guy whose being out-slugged by Juan Pierre this year.

I don't ****ing care if you don't like big power hitters and you want to just pat yourself on the back because you didn't like the Dunn signing from Day 1, but don't give me this BS that the way this Sox team is assembled is fatally flawed because there are much better teams that have basically been put together in the exact same way that are rolling along just fine because the guy who occupies their designated hitter position (which yes, is an actual position) actually ****ing hits.

kittle42
08-25-2011, 12:31 AM
Oh god will you cut this ****ing garbage? The Yankees have the best offense in the league and their regular DH is a guy who is also a complete liability at the only position he can play. The Red Sox are the 2nd best offense in the AL. Guess what? Their DH hasn't played 10 games in the field since 2007.

The Sox offense doesn't suck because they brought in a one-dimensional masher, it's because Adam Dunn has mysteriously and inexplicably degraded from a guy who consistently over a 10-year period put up an OPS at or around .900 and hit 35 HRs to a guy whose being out-slugged by Juan Pierre this year.

I don't ****ing care if you don't like big power hitters and you want to just pat yourself on the back because you didn't like the Dunn signing from Day 1, but don't give me this BS that the way this Sox team is assembled is fatally flawed because there are much better teams that have basically been put together in the exact same way that are rolling along just fine because the guy who occupies their designated hitter position (which yes, is an actual position) actually ****ing hits.

Great response.

Dan H
08-25-2011, 06:26 AM
2005 doesn't matter anymore. Managers and GMs who guide teams to the World Series get fired. They can't claim a six-year old championship gives them job security. And that championship doesn't mean they will do it again.

This years screams out for change. I like Williams but I think another GM with another perspective needs to clean up this mess. Guillen should've been gone after last year. I can't see fans coming out next year if some significant changes aren't made. It's almost September. We were told the team would turn it around and it didn't. I won't have any expectations for next year unless the face of the organization changes both in management and on the field.

bluedemon45
08-25-2011, 08:24 AM
Since 2005...is it just Buehrle, Konerko, and AJ that remain from that team?

The roster as been flipped over the years but the results have remained the same. Underachievement.

There is a huge disconnect between manangment and the way Ozzie wants to run the team. I hope Ozzie enjoys Miami, and I hope they can find another role for Kenny in the organization or he can move on from his role in GM, especially if we have the #1 rated Assistant GM on our staff it sounds like we can replace him.

Every season were the best looking team on paper, every April and May we suck. Every June and July we get hot, every late August and early September we crash and burn. Its the same song and dance.

Lip Man 1
08-25-2011, 11:23 AM
Double does bring up a good point in the sense that in two of the soon to be five years the Sox had a winning season 89 wins, 88 wins. My comment was based on the overall won - lost record during that span.

Adding in his point about the up and down nature of the franchise (very valid) it clearly shows to me something is wrong.

When you've tried as many different players as the Sox have in those seasons and the results just don't show up on the field to me it says you have to start looking in other areas for why.

Something else bizarre that illustrates Double's point:

2007- losing season
2008- winning season
2009- losing season
2010- winning season
2011- ??? (possibility of another losing season)

You can't get more inconsistent than that. Another telling point...from 2001 (starting point for Kenny) through 2006, the Sox NEVER had a losing season. (Winning ones in 01,03,04,05,06) .500 season in 02.

Lip

TDog
08-25-2011, 02:13 PM
Oh god will you cut this ****ing garbage? The Yankees have the best offense in the league and their regular DH is a guy who is also a complete liability at the only position he can play. The Red Sox are the 2nd best offense in the AL. Guess what? Their DH hasn't played 10 games in the field since 2007.

The Sox offense doesn't suck because they brought in a one-dimensional masher, it's because Adam Dunn has mysteriously and inexplicably degraded from a guy who consistently over a 10-year period put up an OPS at or around .900 and hit 35 HRs to a guy whose being out-slugged by Juan Pierre this year.

I don't ****ing care if you don't like big power hitters and you want to just pat yourself on the back because you didn't like the Dunn signing from Day 1, but don't give me this BS that the way this Sox team is assembled is fatally flawed because there are much better teams that have basically been put together in the exact same way that are rolling along just fine because the guy who occupies their designated hitter position (which yes, is an actual position) actually ****ing hits.

It isn't just bringing in a one-dimensional player, it is devoting such a large percentage of their resources to a one-dimensional player. If you had the Yankees lineup, you don't need a designated hitter.

The Yankees don't treat DH like a position. To the Yankees the DH is a bat off the bench. That's true for the Rangers, too, with the odd-man-out defensively serving as the DH, and the Rangers' strength is their offense. The other of the big three offensive teams, the Red Sox, has a dedicated DH, but he has been with the team for awhile.

The only significant production the White Sox have out of DH this year is from position players that are rotated there, including Konerko, who is being protected from playing defense. If they had taken that approach this season, they would have had a stronger season.

The problem is the team resources that goes to maintaining a dedicated DH. The Sox could be using those resources elsewhere. If they had signed Jack Cust or Jason Giambi or Matt Stairs, even if they weren't getting better production from their dedicated DH, the allocated resources would have been small enough that more money could go to other improvements. And if they put up the sort of numbers Dunn is putting up this year, releasing them would not be an issue. For that matter, I believe Cust and Stairs have been released already by last-place teams this year.

Frank Thomas was paid well, but he grew into the DH with the White Sox. I don't think Harold Baines ever made more than $2 million a year, especially in his DH years. If you want to build a winner, it makes no sense to go out and spend huge multi-year money on a free agent who will primarily DH unless you have a Yankees budget, and even the Yankees haven't found it necessary to do that this year. If you're a team with realistic budget constraints, you certainly aren't going to spend money and consume a roster spot with someone who fans will demand be pinch-hit for when the game is on the line.

blandman
08-25-2011, 02:31 PM
Double does bring up a good point in the sense that in two of the soon to be five years the Sox had a winning season 89 wins, 88 wins. My comment was based on the overall won - lost record during that span.

Adding in his point about the up and down nature of the franchise (very valid) it clearly shows to me something is wrong.

When you've tried as many different players as the Sox have in those seasons and the results just don't show up on the field to me it says you have to start looking in other areas for why.

Something else bizarre that illustrates Double's point:

2007- losing season
2008- winning season
2009- losing season
2010- winning season
2011- ??? (possibility of another losing season)

You can't get more inconsistent than that. Another telling point...from 2001 (starting point for Kenny) through 2006, the Sox NEVER had a losing season. (Winning ones in 01,03,04,05,06) .500 season in 02.

Lip

Lip in the last five years how many teams had two or more losing seasons? I think your "analysis" is based on faulty logic. The truth is we've been competing every year other than 2007. You might want to glance over that because it suits your argument, but that still doesn't negate the fact that we've been more successful in the Kenny/Ozzie time frame than all but a handful of ballclubs, two of which run on infinite resources.

blandman
08-25-2011, 02:37 PM
It isn't just bringing in a one-dimensional player, it is devoting such a large percentage of their resources to a one-dimensional player.

Batting isn't a dimension, power is. The man they signed this offseason had the best power in all of baseball, but he also had one of the best batting eyes in all of baseball too. Adam Dunn was never a one-dimensional player like you say he is. Just because he became a zero-dimensional player overnight doesn't change what he was previous to this.

DumpJerry
08-25-2011, 02:45 PM
Oh god will you cut this ****ing garbage? The Yankees have the best offense in the league and their regular DH is a guy who is also a complete liability at the only position he can play. The Red Sox are the 2nd best offense in the AL. Guess what? Their DH hasn't played 10 games in the field since 2007.

The Sox offense doesn't suck because they brought in a one-dimensional masher, it's because Adam Dunn has mysteriously and inexplicably degraded from a guy who consistently over a 10-year period put up an OPS at or around .900 and hit 35 HRs to a guy whose being out-slugged by Juan Pierre this year.

I don't ****ing care if you don't like big power hitters and you want to just pat yourself on the back because you didn't like the Dunn signing from Day 1, but don't give me this BS that the way this Sox team is assembled is fatally flawed because there are much better teams that have basically been put together in the exact same way that are rolling along just fine because the guy who occupies their designated hitter position (which yes, is an actual position) actually ****ing hits.
That pretty much sums it up. If Dunn was performing with numbers consistent with his career numbers, Rios' .212 hitting "effort" would not be hurting us this year.

captain54
08-25-2011, 02:49 PM
That pretty much sums it up. If Dunn was performing with numbers consistent with his career numbers, Rios' .212 hitting "effort" would not be hurting us this year.

an easy, convenient answer to the Sox woes.. The same ills that have plagued this team in 2011 have plagued the Sox since mid 2006.

Where does one start?

The problems run deep..

doublem23
08-25-2011, 02:50 PM
That pretty much sums it up. If Dunn was performing with numbers consistent with his career numbers, Rios' .212 hitting "effort" would not be hurting us this year.

It's more than that, the Sox have gotten absolutely no offense all year from four positions: DH, CF, 2B, and 3B. Add that we've only gotten average, at best, offense from C, SS, and LF and it's pretty automatic. You can't have a lineup where only 2 of the 9 guys can be expected to hit and think you're going to win anything.

kobo
08-25-2011, 03:02 PM
It isn't just bringing in a one-dimensional player, it is devoting such a large percentage of their resources to a one-dimensional player. If you had the Yankees lineup, you don't need a designated hitter.

The Yankees don't treat DH like a position. To the Yankees the DH is a bat off the bench. That's true for the Rangers, too, with the odd-man-out defensively serving as the DH, and the Rangers' strength is their offense. The other of the big three offensive teams, the Red Sox, has a dedicated DH, but he has been with the team for awhile.

The only significant production the White Sox have out of DH this year is from position players that are rotated there, including Konerko, who is being protected from playing defense. If they had taken that approach this season, they would have had a stronger season.

The problem is the team resources that goes to maintaining a dedicated DH. The Sox could be using those resources elsewhere. If they had signed Jack Cust or Jason Giambi or Matt Stairs, even if they weren't getting better production from their dedicated DH, the allocated resources would have been small enough that more money could go to other improvements. And if they put up the sort of numbers Dunn is putting up this year, releasing them would not be an issue. For that matter, I believe Cust and Stairs have been released already by last-place teams this year.

Frank Thomas was paid well, but he grew into the DH with the White Sox. I don't think Harold Baines ever made more than $2 million a year, especially in his DH years. If you want to build a winner, it makes no sense to go out and spend huge multi-year money on a free agent who will primarily DH unless you have a Yankees budget, and even the Yankees haven't found it necessary to do that this year. If you're a team with realistic budget constraints, you certainly aren't going to spend money and consume a roster spot with someone who fans will demand be pinch-hit for when the game is on the line.
How many years have those teams approached the DH position in this way? The Sox tried to do that last year and had the wrong guys in that position. I'm all for treating the DH the way the Yankees and Rangers do now, as well as how the White Sox were trying to do so last year as long as they have the proper resources in place. They didn't, and they still don't, which is why KW tried to bring in someone solely for his offense. You may have known through your crystal ball that Dunn was going to end up being this bad, but the other 99% of Sox fans did not see this coming.

kobo
08-25-2011, 03:07 PM
Lip in the last five years how many teams had two or more losing seasons? I think your "analysis" is based on faulty logic. The truth is we've been competing every year other than 2007. You might want to glance over that because it suits your argument, but that still doesn't negate the fact that we've been more successful in the Kenny/Ozzie time frame than all but a handful of ballclubs, two of which run on infinite resources.
Who gives a **** about other teams? We're talking about the White Sox and their failures, and more specifically the inconsistency of this ballclub over the last 5 years. Being competitive doesn't mean **** when you don't win a division or fail to make the playoffs. The fact is that for however competitive the Sox may have been the last 5 years they've made the playoffs once and were eliminated in the first round. And this has happened in what could arguably be considered the worst division in baseball the last 5 years. If you don't make the playoffs how can you be pleased with going over .500? It means nothing.

doublem23
08-25-2011, 03:10 PM
The Yankees don't treat DH like a position. To the Yankees the DH is a bat off the bench. That's true for the Rangers, too, with the odd-man-out defensively serving as the DH, and the Rangers' strength is their offense. The other of the big three offensive teams, the Red Sox, has a dedicated DH, but he has been with the team for awhile.


That'd be a cute story... If it were true, but you should have taken the... 10 seconds? to double check the numbers to see if your perceptions were based in reality or your bizarre, skewed fantasyland where only the White Sox are so crazy to use the DH as an actual position.

The Yankees have DH'd Jorge Posada 75 times this season. He has appeared at 1B (his only on-field position) in 11 games. The Sox meanwhile, have used Dunn as a DH only 69 games this year, while he has appeared at 1B 31 times. Guillen has spread his DH'ing around a lot more, Konerko and Quentin have been DH's 31 and 14 times thus year respectively, while Joe Girardi has only had 1 player, Andruw Jones, appear as DH in double digit games this year, and he's done it only 10 times.

kittle42
08-25-2011, 03:10 PM
Elf needs food...badly.

asindc
08-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Batting isn't a dimension, power is. The man they signed this offseason had the best power in all of baseball, but he also had one of the best batting eyes in all of baseball too. Adam Dunn was never a one-dimensional player like you say he is. Just because he became a zero-dimensional player overnight doesn't change what he was previous to this.

I disagree that he had one of the best batting eyes in all of baseball. If he did, he wouldn't have struck out as much as he did, especially in his best seasons.

blandman
08-25-2011, 03:46 PM
I disagree that he had one of the best batting eyes in all of baseball. If he did, he wouldn't have struck out as much as he did, especially in his best seasons.

Striking out has very little to do with batting eye, walks do. Contact is a completely separate tool.

As an example, Ozzie Guillen rarely struck out. But he also didn't have a good batting eye. He simply was always able to make contact.

blandman
08-25-2011, 03:58 PM
Who gives a **** about other teams? We're talking about the White Sox and their failures, and more specifically the inconsistency of this ballclub over the last 5 years. Being competitive doesn't mean **** when you don't win a division or fail to make the playoffs. The fact is that for however competitive the Sox may have been the last 5 years they've made the playoffs once and were eliminated in the first round. And this has happened in what could arguably be considered the worst division in baseball the last 5 years. If you don't make the playoffs how can you be pleased with going over .500? It means nothing.

Spin spin spin.

This team has been consistently in competition for the playoffs all but one year of Kenny and Ozzie's tenure. Add to that a WS title, and there isn't much debate to be had about whether or not they're a successful combination. Everyone's angry things haven't worked out this year, but Ozzie and Kenny have about as little to do with that as you or I. This one's completely on the players, and a reactionary move to rid us of the most successful manager/gm tandem in club history, as well as one of the best tandems in the game, would be without merit.

DumpJerry
08-25-2011, 04:05 PM
Striking out has very little to do with batting eye, walks do. Contact is a completely separate tool.

As an example, Ozzie Guillen rarely struck out. But he also didn't have a good batting eye. He simply was always able to make contact.
Frank Thomas had one of the best batter's eyes in all of baseball. They once did a study where they looked at every called strike he questioned with the Ump and found that he was wrong .5% of the time (that is once for every 200 protests). Except for 2002 (7th), he was always in the top five for walks in the AL, 10th in the entire history of MLB. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/BB_career.shtml)

kittle42
08-25-2011, 04:07 PM
and a reactionary move to rid us of the most successful manager/gm tandem in club history

If Ditka can leave, anyone can.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:08 PM
If Ditka can leave, anyone can.

It ain't broke.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Frank Thomas had one of the best batter's eyes in all of baseball. They once did a study where they looked at every called strike he questioned with the Ump and found that he was wrong .5% of the time (that is once for every 200 protests). Except for 2002 (7th), he was always in the top five for walks in the AL, 10th in the entire history of MLB. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/BB_career.shtml)

Frank was just on a whole other planet.

Adam Dunn broke the top 100 all time. If he returns to form he could finish his career pretty high up there.

kobo
08-25-2011, 04:17 PM
Spin spin spin.

This team has been consistently in competition for the playoffs all but one year of Kenny and Ozzie's tenure. Add to that a WS title, and there isn't much debate to be had about whether or not they're a successful combination. Everyone's angry things haven't worked out this year, but Ozzie and Kenny have about as little to do with that as you or I. This one's completely on the players, and a reactionary move to rid us of the most successful manager/gm tandem in club history, as well as one of the best tandems in the game, would be without merit.

I'm not spinning anything, just providing facts. Look, if 2 playoff appearances and 1 WS title in going on 8 seasons now is good enough for you then fine. It's not enough for me. I don't care how competitive the team is, I want them to make the playoffs. Every year they don't is a failure in my book.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:18 PM
I'm not spinning anything, just providing facts. Look, if 2 playoff appearances and 1 WS title in going on 8 seasons now is good enough for you then fine. It's not enough for me. I don't care how competitive the team is, I want them to make the playoffs. Every year they don't is a failure in my book.

That's a pretty unreasonable outlook from a league where 6 teams out of thirty win a division each year.

asindc
08-25-2011, 04:18 PM
Striking out has very little to do with batting eye, walks do. Contact is a completely separate tool.

As an example, Ozzie Guillen rarely struck out. But he also didn't have a good batting eye. He simply was always able to make contact.

We simply disagree. A batting eye suggests that you recognize the pitch and are therefore able to hit it. Dunn has only demonstrated that he can hit mistakes, even in his best years.

kobo
08-25-2011, 04:20 PM
That's a pretty unreasonable outlook from a league where 6 teams out of thirty win a division each year.

It is? Then tell that to the organization who tries to sell me the team every year. As long as they keep trying to sell themselves as a winner and playoff contender then I will keep expecting them to make the playoffs every year.

Lip Man 1
08-25-2011, 04:21 PM
This and That:

The most successful field manager / G.M. combo in history was when Al Lopez was here and he ripped off nine straight winning seasons, six seasons with 90+ wins and a World Series appearance.

The G.M. for five of those nine seasons was Ed Short.

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

For "discussion" :rolleyes: purposes:

"Winning" seasons last four complete years (07-10)

Four winning seasons:

Phillies
Red Sox
Yankees

Three winning seasons:

Braves
Cubs
Cardinals
Rockies
Dodgers
Blue Jays
Rays
Twins
Angels

Two winning seasons:

White Sox
Mets
Marlins
Brewers
Diamondbacks
Padres
Giants
Tigers
Mariners
Rangers

One winning season:

Astros
Reds
Indians

No winning seasons:

Nationals
Pirates
Orioles
Royals
Athletics

Lip

asindc
08-25-2011, 04:21 PM
Frank Thomas had one of the best batter's eyes in all of baseball. They once did a study where they looked at every called strike he questioned with the Ump and found that he was wrong .5% of the time (that is once for every 200 protests). Except for 2002 (7th), he was always in the top five for walks in the AL, 10th in the entire history of MLB. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/BB_career.shtml)

This is an example of a great batting eye. Waiting out for a walk (a la Swisher or Dunn),... not so much.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:22 PM
We simply disagree. A batting eye suggests that you recognize the pitch and are therefore able to hit it. Dunn has only demonstrated that he can hit mistakes, even in his best years.

No, you're making the assumption (and quite a large one) that a swinging strike out means the player didn't know what the pitch was (as opposed to simply not being able to hit it). What you're saying really isn't quantifiable.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:24 PM
It is? Then tell that to the organization who tries to sell me the team every year. As long as they keep trying to sell themselves as a winner and playoff contender then I will keep expecting them to make the playoffs every year.

Them and 29 other teams. Too bad 24 of them are blatantly lying to their fans then.

asindc
08-25-2011, 04:26 PM
No, you're making the assumption (and quite a large one) that a swinging strike out means the player didn't know what the pitch was (as opposed to simply not being able to hit it). What you're saying really isn't quantifiable.

We simply disagree. A batting eye suggests that you recognize the pitch and are therefore able to hit it. Dunn has only demonstrated that he can hit mistakes, even in his best years.

You are correct in that sense. Amended statement: A batting eye suggests that you recognize the pitch and are able to hit it when so recognized.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:28 PM
This and That:

The most successful field manager / G.M. combo in history was when Al Lopez was here and he ripped off nine straight winning seasons, six seasons with 90+ wins and a World Series appearance.

The G.M. for five of those nine seasons was Ed Short.

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

For "discussion" :rolleyes: purposes:

"Winning" seasons last four complete years (07-10)

Four winning seasons:

Phillies
Red Sox
Yankees

Three winning seasons:

Braves
Cubs
Cardinals
Rockies
Dodgers
Blue Jays
Rays
Twins
Angels

Two winning seasons:

White Sox
Mets
Marlins
Brewers
Diamondbacks
Padres
Giants
Tigers
Mariners
Rangers

One winning season:

Astros
Reds
Indians

No winning seasons:

Nationals
Pirates
Orioles
Royals
Athletics

Lip

Now go back three more years and see what happens.

blandman
08-25-2011, 04:29 PM
You are correct in that sense. Amended statement: A batting eye suggests that you recognize the pitch and are able to hit it when so recognized.

Your eye has nothing to do with your ability to make contact, scouts quantify contact as a completely separate tool. It could help you, sure, but it's not the same thing.

Lip Man 1
08-25-2011, 04:58 PM
Just to be clear folks on two points:

1. I'm not saying Ed Short was the best G.M. in Sox history. He wasn't...just that you could make a case based simply on the won-lost record on the field that there was a combo at least as good. And I haven't even looked into the first part of the 20th century because the Sox technically didn't have a G.M. in those days, Comiskey did everything but manage on the field.

2. I'm also not saying the players don't have some responsibility for what has gone on since the start of the 2007 season (or as some point out July 2006 when it started to go south...) the players certainly do.

However with so many players from so many different organizations passing through the Sox-doors during that time period with overall mediocre results (Sox are I think 13 games over .500 in that time span) you have to start digging deeper and wondering if another dynamic is going on that's causing issues.

The misunderstandings and friction between Ozzie and Kenny are well know and well reported. That may be a good place to start looking more closely.

Lip

blandman
08-25-2011, 05:05 PM
Just to be clear folks on two points:

1. I'm not saying Ed Short was the best G.M. in Sox history. He wasn't...just that you could make a case based simply on the won-lost record on the field that there was a combo at least as good. And I haven't even looked into the first part of the 20th century because the Sox technically didn't have a G.M. in those days, Comiskey did everything but manage on the field.

2. I'm also not saying the players don't have some responsibility for what has gone on since the start of the 2007 season (or as some point out July 2006 when it started to go south...) the players certainly do.

However with so many players from so many different organizations passing through the Sox-doors during that time period with overall mediocre results (Sox are I think 13 games over .500 in that time span) you have to start digging deeper and wondering if another dynamic is going on that's causing issues.

The misunderstandings and friction between Ozzie and Kenny are well know and well reported. That may be a good place to start looking more closely.

Lip

Lip this is the part I have a real problem with, because it's not only opinion but it's also an incredible misrepresentation of the facts. Competing for the division all but one year in seven; if you call that mediocre...that's really just an extreme take on things. And a lot of that "only 13 games over" has to do with a single down year, and the fact that you aren't counting their first three years.

The White Sox had a winning record 5 of 7 years with Kenny and Ozzie. They were in the playoff argument 6 of 7. They won a championship. Where are all these other GM/Manager combos that can come close to saying the same? Boston and New York, with the infinite funds...and then who else? Even teams that have been successful in that stretch, like Tampa, haven't been as consistently competitive as our guys. Sure, some of that is luck of the division. But it's not like we weren't competing in 2005 and 2006 with some of the better teams in baseball, one of those clubs winning it all and the other 90 games.

Jollyroger2
08-25-2011, 07:12 PM
Lip this is the part I have a real problem with, because it's not only opinion but it's also an incredible misrepresentation of the facts. Competing for the division all but one year in seven; if you call that mediocre...that's really just an extreme take on things. And a lot of that "only 13 games over" has to do with a single down year, and the fact that you aren't counting their first three years.

The White Sox had a winning record 5 of 7 years with Kenny and Ozzie. They were in the playoff argument 6 of 7. They won a championship. Where are all these other GM/Manager combos that can come close to saying the same? Boston and New York, with the infinite funds...and then who else? Even teams that have been successful in that stretch, like Tampa, haven't been as consistently competitive as our guys. Sure, some of that is luck of the division. But it's not like we weren't competing in 2005 and 2006 with some of the better teams in baseball, one of those clubs winning it all and the other 90 games.

I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. The facts are the facts. The team has been barely .500 in all that time. The fact that they've been "competitive" is a bit of a stretch. They've been barely .500 in a generally lousy division, while arguably having better talent on paper. In several cases they should have won the division handily, but they haven't.

The championship was six years ago, it's been time to move past that for a long time. It's a very fair point to say they've underachieved for most of the seasons since the title.

Being mediocre is not acceptable. Underachieving is not acceptable. But the Sox have done both, consistently, for several seasons, while they've still been talented enough to legitimately contend for a title. Maybe some fans here are satisfied with the Sox being just good enough to be barely over .500 over a six year span, or to "contend" for a weak division's crown here or there. Not me. Some things need to change.

blandman
08-25-2011, 07:28 PM
I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. The facts are the facts. The team has been barely .500 in all that time. The fact that they've been "competitive" is a bit of a stretch. They've been barely .500 in a generally lousy division, while arguably having better talent on paper. In several cases they should have won the division handily, but they haven't.

The championship was six years ago, it's been time to move past that for a long time. It's a very fair point to say they've underachieved for most of the seasons since the title.

Being mediocre is not acceptable. Underachieving is not acceptable. But the Sox have done both, consistently, for several seasons, while they've still been talented enough to legitimately contend for a title. Maybe some fans here are satisfied with the Sox being just good enough to be barely over .500 over a six year span, or to "contend" for a weak division's crown here or there. Not me. Some things need to change.

It's not a misrepresentation to knock off 2005 and 2006? Can I knock off 2007 then? Numbers look a lot better than mediocre now...I mean, they had 88 or more wins two of the last three years. Pathetic.

It's an incomplete argument, and thus a total misrepresentation. The team has competed for the division every year but 2007. The only reason they're not a real contender most years is the Yanks and Saux, and that's more a function of baseballs lack of a cap. No other team was really leaps and bounds better in the AL over that time frame, we were right there with the rest of the good teams.

Brian26
08-25-2011, 07:57 PM
It's an incomplete argument, and thus a total misrepresentation. The team has competed for the division every year but 2007. The only reason they're not a real contender most years is the Yanks and Saux, and that's more a function of baseballs lack of a cap. No other team was really leaps and bounds better in the AL over that time frame, we were right there with the rest of the good teams.

Wow, I just totally disagree. You think the Sox competed for the division in 2004, 2009, and 2010 by climbing into first place for a handful of days before choking the last two months of the season away? This year they couldn't even make it back within 2.5 games.

A. Cavatica
08-25-2011, 08:26 PM
Wow, I just totally disagree. You think the Sox competed for the division in 2004, 2009, and 2010 by climbing into first place for a handful of days before choking the last two months of the season away? This year they couldn't even make it back within 2.5 games.

Not to mention that the division is only a milestone on the way to a pennant. None of those teams had what it took to go further, even if they had somehow taken the division.

This team has competed for the division titles because the Sox have had a great starting rotation, which is a credit to some astute trades, Reinsdorf's wallet, and Coop. It has not been a legitimate WS contender since mid-2006 because of Ozzie, Walker, and KW's insistence on going all in with a pair of jacks.

blandman
08-25-2011, 09:01 PM
Wow, I just totally disagree. You think the Sox competed for the division in 2004, 2009, and 2010 by climbing into first place for a handful of days before choking the last two months of the season away? This year they couldn't even make it back within 2.5 games.

They entered September in the race all those years, so yes. That's competing. Maybe you personally don't see it that way. But I bet the players do, as well as fans of all those other teams that weren't.

Daver
08-25-2011, 09:05 PM
Your eye has nothing to do with your ability to make contact, scouts quantify contact as a completely separate tool. It could help you, sure, but it's not the same thing.

LOL!

Thanks Munch, you're always good for a laugh.

Brian26
08-25-2011, 10:32 PM
They entered September in the race all those years, so yes. That's competing. Maybe you personally don't see it that way. But I bet the players do, as well as fans of all those other teams that weren't.

The Sox were 8.5 games out of first place and in third place in the Central on 9-1-2004.

The Sox were 64-69, in third place and 7.0 games out on 9-1-2009

I'll give you 2010...they were 13 over and only 4.0 out on 9-1-2010. Of course, they lost 12 out of 14 games beginning on September 7th. So, your theory gets blown out of the water pretty quickly.

bluedemon45
08-25-2011, 10:35 PM
They entered September in the race all those years, so yes. That's competing. Maybe you personally don't see it that way. But I bet the players do, as well as fans of all those other teams that weren't.

Well thats great that other fans feel that way from other teams. WE DON'T!

Is Toronto competing for the AL East currently? They are 14 back in 4th place 2 over .500 ...but come September 1st they are still "competing" for the AL East?
They are still in the "race"

Lip Man 1
08-25-2011, 10:45 PM
Isn't it great that some feel because the Sox aren't the Orioles, the Royals, the Pirates etc that everything's fine and dandy like cotton candy!

Daver's right...it's usually good for a laugh.

:D::D::D:

Considering the market size, the business and marketing potential, the value of the TV and radio deals, the Sox should be dominating the mediocre Central Division the way the Yankees and Red Sox do the East and the Angels have the past ten years in the West. Cleveland did it in the 90's, Minnesota, for God's sake did it in the 00's...yet the Sox can't figure out how to do it.

Hell the Sox can't even go to the postseason in back to back years.

But we should remember that the Royals would kill for the past five years the Sox have had!

Lip

Noneck
08-25-2011, 11:09 PM
If the problem is with the GM or manager, then the one at fault is the one that hires them. The GM and manager are not born into these jobs, they are hired and can be fired.

blandman
08-25-2011, 11:33 PM
The Sox were 8.5 games out of first place and in third place in the Central on 9-1-2004.

The Sox were 64-69, in third place and 7.0 games out on 9-1-2009

I'll give you 2010...they were 13 over and only 4.0 out on 9-1-2010. Of course, they lost 12 out of 14 games beginning on September 7th. So, your theory gets blown out of the water pretty quickly.

That's not out of it; and there was almost a full season of being in it, even in 2010. I think people here need some perspective. Most teams are further out of the race much earlier. And when I say most teams, I mean most teams. Not just the bottom feeders.

The grass is always greener, I guess.

captain54
08-26-2011, 12:09 AM
That's not out of it; and there was almost a full season of being in it, even in 2010. I think people here need some perspective. Most teams are further out of the race much earlier. And when I say most teams, I mean most teams. Not just the bottom feeders.

The grass is always greener, I guess.

on the other hand, there are teams like the Yankees, Boston. Angels, Philly, Braves who are big or bigger market franchises, have a loyal, solid fan base and are perennial play off appearers...

Instead of expecting the Sox to be included in the above list, you chastise people for not being content with the status quo, as a team that kind of hangs around but no one really takes all that seriously when all is said and done to win the division and advance in the playoffs.

blandman
08-26-2011, 12:21 AM
on the other hand, there are teams like the Yankees, Boston. Angels, Philly, Braves who are big or bigger market franchises, have a loyal, solid fan base and are perennial play off appearers...

Instead of expecting the Sox to be included in the above list, you chastise people for not being content with the status quo, as a team that kind of hangs around but no one really takes all that seriously when all is said and done to win the division and advance in the playoffs.

It's all perception. For instance, the Braves have NOT been better in the Kenny/Ozzie era, nor the last five years. They suffered a 72 win season of their own in that span, and have only made the playoffs once. It's really just the Yanks and Saux, who don't count, and the Phillies and Angels. Well jeez, we're comparing ourselves with two freakin' teams instead of the other 26? Well then yeah. By all means. We suck.

captain54
08-26-2011, 01:24 AM
You conveniently left out 14 straight (minus 94') division titles from the 91' to 05' and then a division winner in 10' for the Braves.

If you're trying to convince yourself that the Sox aren't in that bad of shape and you're ok with this mess, go for it...I don't know what else to say to you, man.

tsoxman
08-26-2011, 05:12 AM
You conveniently left out 14 straight (minus 94') division titles from the 91' to 05' and then a division winner in 10' for the Braves.

If you're trying to convince yourself that the Sox aren't in that bad of shape and you're ok with this mess, go for it...I don't know what else to say to you, man.
Exactly. The WC was great but this organization has done squat since then.

This isn't or shouldn't be about whose fault it is. Rather, it should be about how things can be improved going forward because as it stands now, the future of this organization looks very bleak. I just do not see that improvement coming from the team of Williams and Guillen.

Dan H
08-26-2011, 07:34 AM
Exactly. The WC was great but this organization has done squat since then.

This isn't or shouldn't be about whose fault it is. Rather, it should be about how things can be improved going forward because as it stands now, the future of this organization looks very bleak. I just do not see that improvement coming from the team of Williams and Guillen.

I agree. It is time to make changes, real changes. We know that Rios, Dunn, and Peavy are disasters but now it is time to fix this team. No more denial routine. Any other time would have taken decisive action a long time ago. At the very least Guillen and Williams have to be split up. To maintain the status quo is the ultimate of act of denial, and we fans shouldn't put up with it.

blandman
08-26-2011, 08:59 AM
You conveniently left out 14 straight (minus 94') division titles from the 91' to 05' and then a division winner in 10' for the Braves.

If you're trying to convince yourself that the Sox aren't in that bad of shape and you're ok with this mess, go for it...I don't know what else to say to you, man.

Different era entirely. Why not compare us to the 27 Yankees?

I don't see how it's unfair to look at the timeframe our manager/gm have been here, they're in their 8th season.

Golden Sox
08-26-2011, 10:19 AM
I've become somewhat excited with DeAza and Flowers. Is there anyone who would rather see Rios playing instead of DeAza? What has completely baffled me is not bringing up Vicedo. With all this recent talk of bringing back Thome and getting Kubel, where does Vicedo fit in? Are the White Sox going to trade Vicedo this off Season? Do the White Sox think so little of the Cuban Tank that he doesn't fit in their future plans? With some of the holes the White Sox have, most people assume that Chris Sale will be in the starting rotation next year and Gavin Floyd will be traded. After watching Sale save the game last night against the Mariners, wouldn't it make more sense to trade Sergio Santos and put Sale in the closer role? Isn't it time we give Ken Williams credit for trading Vazquez to the Braves for Flowers and Lillibridge?

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 10:41 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0826-haugh-white-sox-chicago--20110826,0,2757828.column

Lip

#1swisher
08-26-2011, 11:24 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0826-haugh-white-sox-chicago--20110826,0,2757828.column

Lip


After I stopped laughing, of the photo of Dunn, blowing a bubble. :redface:

My read on, David Haughs' article...There is a big communication problem in this organization. :angry:

EDIT: Cowley was on Fox this morning, stating that KW and OG really don't get along.

BigKlu59
08-26-2011, 12:38 PM
Isn't it great that some feel because the Sox aren't the Orioles, the Royals, the Pirates etc that everything's fine and dandy like cotton candy!

Daver's right...it's usually good for a laugh.

:D::D::D:

Considering the market size, the business and marketing potential, the value of the TV and radio deals, the Sox should be dominating the mediocre Central Division the way the Yankees and Red Sox do the East and the Angels have the past ten years in the West. Cleveland did it in the 90's, Minnesota, for God's sake did it in the 00's...yet the Sox can't figure out how to do it.

Hell the Sox can't even go to the postseason in back to back years.

But we should remember that the Royals would kill for the past five years the Sox have had!

Lip

Lip:

This is the conundrum in a nutshell.. Granted, as this thread states we've been sold a newer better version of the Soxmobile each season and drool over the body style and specs in the dealership,only to take the thing out on the road to open it up and each and every time we're calling AAA when bits and pieces fall off on each seasons journey. Yup, watching the Yahoo's chug by in that 62 Valiant, The Tiggers in their 73 Hornet and the Twinks in their backfiring 48 Packard is maddening as hell.

Domination would be nice. Damn, I dont know if I could handle a Braves run.., But it sure would be fun to bitch slap our Div cousins for at least more than a season at a time. This **** of being a Paper Tiger with no bite grates the nerves and in the end will lead to apathy..

Are they breeding a culture of winning in the organization?, or truly one of satisfied mediocrity?


BK59

JB98
08-26-2011, 12:40 PM
After I stopped laughing, of the photo of Dunn, blowing a bubble. :redface:

My read on, David Haughs' article...There is a big communication problem in this organization. :angry:

EDIT: Cowley was on Fox this morning, stating that KW and OG really don't get along.

Of course they don't. They don't even agree on what type of team they want to build. KW wants a slugging, OPS kind of team. OG wants speed and defense.

It would be one thing if they just didn't get along personally. That we could live with. But they don't agree on the direction of the team either and haven't for some time. That's why I believe a change is necessary.

Jollyroger2
08-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Exactly. The WC was great but this organization has done squat since then.

This isn't or shouldn't be about whose fault it is. Rather, it should be about how things can be improved going forward because as it stands now, the future of this organization looks very bleak. I just do not see that improvement coming from the team of Williams and Guillen.

Well said. Considering that for the bulk of their tenure, Williams and Guillen have failed to produce a consistent winner, it's time for them both to move on.

Of course there are the occasional fans that are satisfied with mediocrity, underachievement, and failure.

blandman
08-26-2011, 12:57 PM
The hypocrisy in this thread is what gets me the most. The same people complaining the most about not having an extended elite run are the same that vehemently argue our fan base would never allow a rebuild.

Guess what? You can't have it both ways. Teams don't go from where we are to 10 straight division champs. They get built from the ground first, with a young core you develop and allow to go through years of growing pains. Years. You can't take an old core, slap it together with pieces from trades to keep it competitive, and then expect perfection. All you get that way is a shot. The other way is riskier, but if your expectation is sustained dominance, you have to take the "blow it up completely" risk.

kittle42
08-26-2011, 12:58 PM
The hypocrisy in this thread is what gets me the most. The same people complaining the most about not having an extended elite run are the same that vehemently argue our fan base would never allow a rebuild.

Guess what? You can't have it both ways. Teams don't go from where we are to 10 straight division champs. They get built from the ground first, with a young core you develop and allow to go through years of growing pains. Years. You can't take an old core, slap it together with pieces from trades to keep it competitive, and then expect perfection. All you get that way is a shot. The other way is riskier, but if you expectation is sustained dominance, you have to take the blow it up completely risk.

I would like a rebuild.

blandman
08-26-2011, 01:00 PM
I would like a rebuild.

I wanted one years ago. But I can't argue with the results. What Kenny and Ozzie have been able to do on the fly without a total rebuild is remarkable.

SoxSpeed22
08-26-2011, 01:00 PM
I would also like a rebuild, I'm not sure how many people in power would agree with it though.

BigKlu59
08-26-2011, 01:00 PM
Of course they don't. They don't even agree on what type of team they want to build. KW wants a slugging, OPS kind of team. OG wants speed and defense.

It would be one thing if they just didn't get along personally. That we could live with. But they don't agree on the direction of the team either and haven't for some time. That's why I believe a change is necessary.

Point well taken... It seems the Sox never have the other team on edge and have them guessing on what **** they may pull off in game situations. Seems like the pitcher knows when we have runners on we arent gonna work the count, sacrifice, slap the ball into play and put the onus on their defence,go to right to get the runner to 3rd... Nah, All he has to do is chuck it up there cause we'll swing at worm killers, swing for the big fly with our best baseball card pose..

Make up the mind...scrappy and slappy...or, Fence swinging fire work producers. I do know that scrappy and slappy will increase the gopher ball count just do the effect of the little mind games taking the edge off of concentration of the hurler.

Pick one.. Go Go Sox...Or, Go Long Sox.. but for the love of Pete figgure it out already.

BK59

kittle42
08-26-2011, 01:12 PM
I wanted one years ago. But I can't argue with the results. What Kenny and Ozzie have been able to do on the fly without a total rebuild is remarkable.

Yes, these past few years have just been outstanding. I would like at least a few more seasons of kinda .500 baseball and the possibility that some games in August and September might mean something because every other team in the division is also not very great. After all, 82 wins is a success.

bluedemon45
08-26-2011, 01:18 PM
Yes, these past few years have just been outstanding. I would like at least a few more seasons of kinda .500 baseball and the possibility that some games in August and September might mean something because every other team in the division is also not very great. After all, 82 wins is a success.

Kittle- We've been a solid contender every year accept for 1 under OG and KW. Do you know how many other teams would want to be in contention come September 1st?

blandman
08-26-2011, 01:19 PM
Yes, these past few years have just been outstanding. I would like at least a few more seasons of kinda .500 baseball and the possibility that some games in August and September might mean something because every other team in the division is also not very great. After all, 82 wins is a success.

If you argue they aren't allowed to rebuild - and many people here would argue that, including the creator of the thread, then yes. They've done an outstanding job of keeping us competitive all but one year in the last eight.

Now, obviously, I think rebuilding is the better move. But if you're one to argue we can't (I know you're not), then certainly you have to take this as a success. Otherwise you are being completely unreasonable. They have done as good a job as anyone could have under those circumstances.

kufram
08-26-2011, 01:26 PM
I think the actual story here is somewhere between the extremes. Good attempts by blandman to make the "things are good argument" which are pleasant to read, at least for me, for a change if nothing else. I reckon things could be better... but then things can always be better.

If a serious rebuild is what is want surely you don't start with the mlb team. You must start at the entry level of the minor leagues in my opinion. Improve scouting, drafting, signing, coaching, and anything else that finds and develops young players. Some teams are very good at this but then the difficulty is keeping them in the organization so you end up trading them.

I don't know how all of this works because I've spent 0 years in baseball professionally. My opinion is worth something because I'm not a stupid person but I wouldn't pretend to know more than the people who are in baseball professionally. I think putting a permanently winning team together year after year is extremely difficult.

As far a Ozzie and Kenny not getting along, it seems to be accepted as fact here? Is it a fact? They've had some ups and downs but don't most people in relationships?

What we need right NOW though is to beat Seattle... oh, and hope the Twins can win, love the irony.

russ99
08-26-2011, 01:35 PM
Just because Jerry goes over 100m in salary twice in his ownership of the Sox doesn't mean we should expect a title contender every year. To expect so is not only ridiculous but undermined the progress this club had made since before 2000.


Besides, there are other reasons at the top besides budget that we can't join the ranks of the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Phils. Like Jerry's "job for life" mentality in the baseball department, a sobering lack of draft and player development funds and a philosophy for growth that the other contenders have.

As for the Ozzie vs Kenny argument, Ozzie is being proven right. The steroid era is over, they're testing for uppers and HGH, homers are down league wide. Kenny's inflexibility and gambling nature are a big reason behind this season.

hawkjt
08-26-2011, 01:51 PM
After I stopped laughing, of the photo of Dunn, blowing a bubble. :redface:

My read on, David Haughs' article...There is a big communication problem in this organization. :angry:

EDIT: Cowley was on Fox this morning, stating that KW and OG really don't get along.


I heard Cowley this morning. Just more pot-stirring crap on his part.
If Joe is honestly the mouthpiece for the Guillen family at this point and what he is saying about how much they hate Kenny, I guess it is time to cut the cord with Ozzie. Because their is no reason for Ozzie to hate kenny...if what cowley is spewing is true,then Ozzie is simply too immature for his position and should be let go. I do not really believe anything that Cowley spews,however,so I am disregarding his nonsense.

Of course,Cowley stands to look like nostradamous unless kenny and ozzie are back, and Joe will make Kenny look like the bad guy no matter what happens. Cowley is as obsessed with Kenny as Mariotti was with Reinsdorf...what is it with Suntimes columnists and Sox executives?

As far as style of ball, it does not matter really,if players do not hit. Small ball still requires guys to get on base,and the sox do not. I was fine with the Dunn addition, and do not blame Kenny for it. He just has not gotten it done.
The small ball stuff does not sell for me...the Yanks,Red Sox,Rangers and even Tigers mash the ball. They all have good hitters,power hitters, and their pitching is spotty. Kenny tried to add a good power hitter in Dunn,and he failed miserably. Small ball still does not work in the AL

kittle42
08-26-2011, 01:58 PM
Kittle- We've been a solid contender every year accept for 1 under OG and KW. Do you know how many other teams would want to be in contention come September 1st?

The point I have been trying to make for years though is that you shouldn't build a team to simply "contend" in a division that is there for the taking. That's what the Sox do, and we see the results.

But if the race to the middle is enough to excite some people, OK for them.

kittle42
08-26-2011, 02:01 PM
As for the Ozzie vs Kenny argument, Ozzie is being proven right. The steroid era is over, they're testing for uppers and HGH, homers are down league wide. Kenny's inflexibility and gambling nature are a big reason behind this season.

How true. It's not like the top slugging and OPS teams are generally the squads that win more.

Oh, wait.

All kidding aside, neither of them is right. You don't simply hit homers to win and you don't simply bunt and steal bases to win (especially if the personnel can't do it).

kittle42
08-26-2011, 02:03 PM
If you argue they aren't allowed to rebuild - and many people here would argue that, including the creator of the thread, then yes. They've done an outstanding job of keeping us competitive all but one year in the last eight.

Now, obviously, I think rebuilding is the better move. But if you're one to argue we can't (I know you're not), then certainly you have to take this as a success. Otherwise you are being completely unreasonable. They have done as good a job as anyone could have under those circumstances.

I agree with you, there. I'd just rather have championship seasons followed by crap than neither of the above.

Paulwny
08-26-2011, 02:22 PM
Big deal, being competitve in the worst div. in the AL.
If Toronto or Tampa Bay didn't have to play NY and Boston so often, the'd be fighting for the top of the AL Cent. Div.

kittle42
08-26-2011, 02:25 PM
Big deal, being competitve in the worst div. in the AL.

Amen to that.

And settling for kinda mediocrity with the justification that other teams would love to be mediocre? Take that crap reasoning to KC or Pittsburgh where it belongs.

Frater Perdurabo
08-26-2011, 02:54 PM
Rebuilding the minor league system does not require trading away very good major league players like PK, AJ and Danks; it requires a change in organizational philosophy. First, instead of trading away young, inexpensive players who likely will be mediocre, but have a slight chance of improving with good coaching, for expensive mediocre players, we should promote those young, inexpensive, mediocre players into bench roles on the major league team.

Second, I wouldn't mind a $15 million decrease in major league payroll if that money was plowed into hiring more and better minor league coaches and amateur and pro scouts, and drafting and paying better bonuses to more talented amateur draftees and international free agents.

In the meantime, we have to accept that the Sox are stuck with the Dunn, Peavy and Rios contracts, so we might as well hope those players have a better 2012. I also think we need to find a way to re-sign Buehrle and sign Danks to a long-term deal, and I think it is possible for KW to make those things happen.

That may mean Quentin gets dealt, Pena gets non-tendered, Castro, Vizquel and Pierre are allowed to leave, and we go with Viciedo in LF, Lillibridge in RF and a bench of Flowers, Escobar, Kuhn and DeAza, plus Addison Reed in the pen. The position player group is not ideal, but the rotation, bullpen and infield defense should remain strong, with a decrease in LF defense but improvement in RF defense. I also think Ozzie and Walker are wrong for that many young position players.

Tragg
08-26-2011, 02:58 PM
Of course they don't. They don't even agree on what type of team they want to build. KW wants a slugging, OPS kind of team. OG wants speed and defense.

It would be one thing if they just didn't get along personally. That we could live with. But they don't agree on the direction of the team either and haven't for some time. That's why I believe a change is necessary.
OG wants speed, but I'm not so sure about the defense. And I agree, the two wanting different things has assisted in creating several years of blase performance.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 03:30 PM
There is one 'good' thing about a total rebuild... (and I'm not being facetious) a total rebuild means neither Kenny nor Ozzie will be around for it.

Do you seriously want Kenny, who has been in charge of the minor league system for over a decade already, being the one to rebuild it?

And given the way Ozzie feels about inexperienced players (i.e. 'the major leagues are for winning, the minor leagues for teching') it's a slam dunk he won't be around to manage a team comprised of double and triple A players.

Some might say that's a win/win situation.

Lip

Daver
08-26-2011, 03:42 PM
There is one 'good' thing about a total rebuild...

The bad thing is that given the current state of the minor league system it could be easily be a decade before the team is even close to competitive again.

Noneck
08-26-2011, 03:51 PM
Do you seriously want Kenny, who has been in charge of the minor league system for over a decade already, being the one to rebuild it?



Lip,
Without money allocated to the minor league system and draft choices, it really doesnt matter who the GM is.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 04:00 PM
Daver:

Very true. My comment was directed more towards those who advocate a total complete rebuild. I don't agree with it personally but I can see some merit to it.

However you have to have the right people in place for it to work. From the minor league level up through the G.M. of the parent club.

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

And remember folks, the issues with the Sox don't automatically fall into the "total rebuild" or "fire Kenny and Ozzie" camp.

The circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that making some changes on either the big league field staff or in the G.M. chair could make a large difference.

A house divided against itself can not succeed and that seems to be the case with Kenny and Ozzie...they are like oil and water, they don't mix.

Someone has to go for the good of the franchise. That's also another option.

Lip

kittle42
08-26-2011, 04:07 PM
Someone has to go for the good of the franchise. That's also another option.

I suggest Southpaw!

Frater Perdurabo
08-26-2011, 04:08 PM
And remember folks, the issues with the Sox don't automatically fall into the "total rebuild" or "fire Kenny and Ozzie" camp.

The circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that making some changes on either the big league field staff or in the G.M. chair could make a large difference.

Bingo!

Ozzie and Walker must go, and KW must stop trading away young mediocre role players to acquire veteran mediocre role players, and instead must invest the savings into improving the minor league system.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 04:32 PM
This doesn't totally fall into the discussion topic but it's worth noting that this week's print edition of S.I. has the results of a players poll of which manager would you most like to play for. 291 players responded. Joe Madden won with 14%.

The manager players would least like to play for? (again on this limited survey...)

Ozzie.

Lip

BigKlu59
08-26-2011, 04:39 PM
This doesn't totally fall into the discussion topic but it's worth noting that this week's print edition of S.I. has the results of a players poll of which manager would you most like to play for. 291 players responded. Joe Madden won with 14%.

The manager players would least like to play for? (again on this limited survey...)

Ozzie.

Lip


Why do I hear "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" in my head... One good thing for Oz is Fla Real Estate can be scooped up for a decent price these days..

BK59

captain54
08-26-2011, 05:29 PM
Just because Jerry goes over 100m in salary twice in his ownership of the Sox doesn't mean we should expect a title contender every year.

.

So he gets a pat on the back for going over 100m in salary? Major market, big TV market, loyal fan base, baseball town, loves a winner, good Lord.... And your statment "doesn't mean we should expect a title contender every year" just literally made my jaw drop




To expect so is not only ridiculous but undermined the progress this club had made since before 2000.

.

What progress is that?

Dan H
08-26-2011, 06:29 PM
Kittle- We've been a solid contender every year accept for 1 under OG and KW. Do you know how many other teams would want to be in contention come September 1st?

The record outside the 2005 on Sept. 1 under OG and KW is mixed.

2004 - 8.5 GB
2006 - 5.5 GB
2007 - 21.5 GB
2008 - Tied for first
2009 - 7.0 GB
2010 - 4.0 GB

I wouldn't call 8.5 or 7 games behind on Sept. 1 a solid contender. Even in 06 and 2010, the team was on the decline by the time September rolled around. And this year is a disaster. The case for keeping either Willliams and or Guillen is weak.

bluedemon45
08-26-2011, 07:32 PM
The record outside the 2005 on Sept. 1 under OG and KW is mixed.

2004 - 8.5 GB
2006 - 5.5 GB
2007 - 21.5 GB
2008 - Tied for first
2009 - 7.0 GB
2010 - 4.0 GB

I wouldn't call 8.5 or 7 games behind on Sept. 1 a solid contender. Even in 06 and 2010, the team was on the decline by the time September rolled around. And this year is a disaster. The case for keeping either Willliams and or Guillen is weak.

Dan,

I'm sorry you had to go through the work to grab those stats. I was being sarcastic. I should have tealed it.

Brian26
08-26-2011, 09:16 PM
This doesn't totally fall into the discussion topic but it's worth noting that this week's print edition of S.I. has the results of a players poll of which manager would you most like to play for. 291 players responded. Joe Madden won with 14%.

The manager players would least like to play for? (again on this limited survey...)

Ozzie.

Lip

Is this true? I knew Maddon won (he even tweeted about it humbly), but the report on the Score this morning said that Ozzie came in 6th.

doublem23
08-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Is this true? I knew Maddon won (he even tweeted about it humbly), but the report on the Score this morning said that Ozzie came in 6th.

He did

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20097844-10391697.html

Brian26
08-26-2011, 09:42 PM
He did

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20097844-10391697.html

Ok, glad I'm not losing my mind. Big diff between 6th and 30th.

Red Barchetta
08-26-2011, 09:43 PM
The record outside the 2005 on Sept. 1 under OG and KW is mixed.

2004 - 8.5 GB
2006 - 5.5 GB
2007 - 21.5 GB
2008 - Tied for first
2009 - 7.0 GB
2010 - 4.0 GB

I wouldn't call 8.5 or 7 games behind on Sept. 1 a solid contender. Even in 06 and 2010, the team was on the decline by the time September rolled around. And this year is a disaster. The case for keeping either Willliams and or Guillen is weak.

What I also find interesting is that since 1994 (Strike Year) when the 3-division format was introduced, over these 16 years, the Indians have won the division 7 times, the Twins have won in 6 times and the SOX have won it 3 times. The SOX, however represent the only World Series winner out of the American League Central since the re-alignment of divisions. What's even more interesting is that if Detroit holds onto their lead, this will be their first division title and KC is well, KC.

I guess I would rather win the World Series once out of three attempts vs zero out of 7 attempts. Something the SOX brass likes to remind us about.

doublem23
08-26-2011, 10:02 PM
What I also find interesting is that since 1994 (Strike Year) when the 3-division format was introduced, over these 16 years, the Indians have won the division 7 times, the Twins have won in 6 times and the SOX have won it 3 times. The SOX, however represent the only World Series winner out of the American League Central since the re-alignment of divisions. What's even more interesting is that if Detroit holds onto their lead, this will be their first division title and KC is well, KC.

I guess I would rather win the World Series once out of three attempts vs zero out of 7 attempts. Something the SOX brass likes to remind us about.

I would, too, and I don't think most people are so vane to believe that the Sox should be in the World Series every year or one of the 3-4 best teams in baseball every single year. That's the kind of rare air saved only for the Yankees/Red Sox Dynamic Duo of Evil conglomerate. It's just kind of frustrating that the Sox seemingly can only field a competitive team when they either A) play in a really, really weak division or B) go on 1 insane midseason run that is obviously not replicable every single season but basically masks the fact that for 80% of the year, they were just mediocre.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 10:39 PM
Brian:

Here is the quote...page 17 (Brewers on the cover)

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

MLB Players Poll

"Which manager would you most like to play for?"

Joe Madden-14%
Terry Francona-12%
Jim Leyland-10%
Mike Scioscia-9%
Dusty Baker-8%

The five managers listed average 14 years' experience and have combined for 10 Manager of the Year awards and seven pennants; only Francona, the lone two time World Series winner, is without a Manager of the Year award...Scioscia, Madden and Francona finished third, fourth and fifth in the same S.I. poll in 2009...in another S.I. poll Ozzie Guillen of the White Sox was voted the skipper players least want to play for."

Based on 291 MLB players who responded to S.I.'s survey.

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

That's what it says.

Lip

doublem23
08-26-2011, 10:46 PM
in another S.I. poll Ozzie Guillen of the White Sox was voted the skipper players least want to play for."

It was a different poll, in the one published in this SI, Ozzie's name would have appeared next after Dusty if they went beyond the Top 5, seems that players have a love him or hate him attitude toward Ozzie, which I can understand.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 10:58 PM
If that's true then S.I. to me is doing Ozzie a disservice.

They should have mentioned where he came in, in the poll regarding the manager you most want to play for since they included the comment about players voting him the manager they least want to play for.

Also in my opinion, they should have listed the % of players who said he was the manager they least want to play for.

Lip

doublem23
08-26-2011, 11:01 PM
If that's true then S.I. to me is doing Ozzie a disservice.

They should have mentioned where he came in, in the poll regarding the manager you most want to play for since they included the comment about players voting him the manager they least want to play for.

Also in my opinion, they should have listed the % of players who said he was the manager they least want to play for.

Lip

I suppose. I don't read SI very often but I vaguely remembered that poll (if this is the one they are referring to). It was from 2009 and actually, Ozzie finished 2nd then, but he'd be #1 now since the original winner, Lou Piniella, had his zest for baseball destroyed by the Baby Bears.

http://www.aolnews.com/2009/06/30/lou-piniella-voted-manager-players-would-least-like-to-play-for/

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 11:10 PM
Not sure about that... I think they do these players polls, i.e. manager you most want to play for, manager you least want to play for, best visiting city to play in etc. every year.

Lip

tsoxman
08-26-2011, 11:10 PM
The hypocrisy in this thread is what gets me the most. The same people complaining the most about not having an extended elite run are the same that vehemently argue our fan base would never allow a rebuild.

Guess what? You can't have it both ways. Teams don't go from where we are to 10 straight division champs. They get built from the ground first, with a young core you develop and allow to go through years of growing pains. Years. You can't take an old core, slap it together with pieces from trades to keep it competitive, and then expect perfection. All you get that way is a shot. The other way is riskier, but if your expectation is sustained dominance, you have to take the "blow it up completely" risk.
I realize what you may be saying... I always get a kick from the meatheads who foolishly say.."i want no part of a rebuilding plan" but keep in mind, many of these same fans won't show up when the team is in the terrible state that it is now. I think that wjat these fans are really saying is that they want to see a winning team.

A good general manager should know this. Had Kenny been more patient with some of the talent that we had IN HAND (Gonzalez, de Los Santos, Branden Allen, Richard, Hudson, Chris Young), we may have had that elite run of which you speak. Instead, the GM read the backs of too many baseball cards and ends up sqaundering all of that talent to acquire what amounted to 'replacement level' guys. The level of production that we have gotten from Peavy, Swisher, etc could have been had from the off season free agent market.

Edit-Replacement Level is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but suffice it to say, the return has been nowhere near the price in talent and money paid.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 11:43 PM
Found this at S.I.com but I can't find the poll result itself and the date it came out. Based on the comment I assume it was earlier this season:

"In another SI poll this year, Ozzie Guillen of the White Sox was voted the skipper players least want to play for."

I found this connected with the story on Madden being named the manager players' would most want to play for.

FYI.

Lip

#1swisher
08-27-2011, 07:50 PM
In this article by Merkin, Pierre explains, how it's not on Ozzie.

Danks, says that he hasn't seen a change in Ozzie. He's the same loud guy, joking and laughing. It's all I know.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110825&content_id=23740138&vkey=news_cws&c_id=cws

Frater Perdurabo
08-27-2011, 08:19 PM
In this article by Merkin, Pierre explains, how it's not on Ozzie.

Danks, says that he hasn't seen a change in Ozzie. He's the same loud guy, joking and laughing. It's all I know.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110825&content_id=23740138&vkey=news_cws&c_id=cws

Would anyone here really expect the White Sox official web site to publish an article in which players criticize the manager?

Would anyone here really expect the official White Sox web site writer to include within his story, player quotes that are critical of the manager?

Would anyone here really expect any players currently on the roster to provide a quote critical of the manager, especially on the record?

Finally, Ozzie is a "player's manager." He prides himself on keeping his clubhouse copacetic. Veterans are naturally going to like a manager who doesn't push them and instead just lets them not spend time practicing fundamentals, and makes sure the veterans get plenty of playing time regardless of performance.

Golden Sox
08-28-2011, 06:01 PM
A few months ago, the White Sox were not doing well. Brent Morel hit a big home run to win the game. Guillen showed his appreciation by benching him the next game. Last night DeAza had a big game against the Mariners, and sure enough he got benched today. The Cuban Tank got two big hits today including a big 3 run homer. I can't help but wonder. Will the Tank be in tomorrows lineup?

blandman
08-28-2011, 06:12 PM
A few months ago, the White Sox were not doing well. Brent Morel hit a big home run to win the game. Guillen showed his appreciation by benching him the next game. Last night DeAza had a big game against the Mariners, and sure enough he got benched today. The Cuban Tank got two big hits today including a big 3 run homer. I can't help but wonder. Will the Tank be in tomorrows lineup?

Morel, De Aza, Lillibridge....those guys are all bench players. They produce better when they are used sparingly in matchups that give them the best chance to succeed.

I would not look forward to a team built around Morel, De Aza, Liilibridge, Flowers, and Viciedo. Unless we're rebuilding, and they're all just place holders.

Lip Man 1
08-28-2011, 06:19 PM
With the good possibility of Q getting traded this off season and with A.J. in the final year of his contract, I think it very, very likely you are going to be seeing a ton of Dayan and Flowers next year, like it or not.

Lip

blandman
08-28-2011, 06:33 PM
With the good possibility of Q getting traded this off season and with A.J. in the final year of his contract, I think it very, very likely you are going to be seeing a ton of Dayan and Flowers next year, like it or not.

Lip

Well, if I had my pic those would be the only two of that group to see playing time. But both are essentially DH's, and we're already paying one of those $12 million per year.

Golden Sox
09-04-2011, 10:23 AM
I realize that 2011 has been a troubling season. Believe me I have not enjoyed it. But unless I'm misreading the situation, things are starting to look up. Viciedo, Sale,DeAza, Santos, Flowers have all contributed in a positive way in 2011. With Reed, Santiago and Escobar ready to come aboard soon perhaps 2012 will turn out alot better than 2011.

kittle42
09-04-2011, 11:26 AM
But unless I'm misreading the situation, things are starting to look up.

You're misreading the situation.

doublem23
09-04-2011, 11:30 AM
You're misreading the situation.

Everyone said the same thing in 2007, too, that the Sox were doomed to mediocrity for a few years barring a complete organizational overhaul. So we'll have to see what happens, but I have to agree that even if De Aza, Viciedo, and Flowers aren't actually any better talent-wise, they're at least a lot more entertaining to watch.

Also lucky that the AL Central will be wide open again. Very easy to see a few roster moves that could catapult the Sox to 90+ wins and the top of the division.

kittle42
09-04-2011, 11:39 AM
Everyone said the same thing in 2007, too, that the Sox were doomed to mediocrity for a few years barring a complete organizational overhaul. So we'll have to see what happens, but I have to agree that even if De Aza, Viciedo, and Flowers aren't actually any better talent-wise, they're at least a lot more entertaining to watch.

Also lucky that the AL Central will be wide open again. Very easy to see a few roster moves that could catapult the Sox to 90+ wins and the top of the division.

Good points. Tough to be all that positive right now. But 24 days from now might bring cause for celebration.

SoxSpeed22
09-04-2011, 11:47 AM
Everyone said the same thing in 2007, too, that the Sox were doomed to mediocrity for a few years barring a complete organizational overhaul. So we'll have to see what happens, but I have to agree that even if De Aza, Viciedo, and Flowers aren't actually any better talent-wise, they're at least a lot more entertaining to watch.

Also lucky that the AL Central will be wide open again. Very easy to see a few roster moves that could catapult the Sox to 90+ wins and the top of the division.Not so sure about this one. The Royals offense is on the way up, the Indians are also growing with a young team, the Tigers will certainly spend on free agent starting pitchers, and the Twins won't be playing their AAA team (even though I think Morneau's finished).
Roster wise, I don't think we are very far away, we just need Dunn not to fall off a cliff again, Morel and Beckham to improve. With the coaching staff the way it is, I don't see those things happening. I said at the trade deadline that our biggest problems are at the coaching staff and I stand by it.

captain54
09-04-2011, 12:42 PM
Also lucky that the AL Central will be wide open again. Very easy to see a few roster moves that could catapult the Sox to 90+ wins and the top of the division.

If it's wide open it's wide open for every team. However, if Detroit can add some starting pitching it's not gonna be so wide open.

DirtySox
09-04-2011, 01:54 PM
Not so sure about this one. The Royals offense is on the way up, the Indians are also growing with a young team, the Tigers will certainly spend on free agent starting pitchers, and the Twins won't be playing their AAA team (even though I think Morneau's finished).

I'm with you. Detroit and Cleveland seem to be on the way up. The Tigers will undoubtedly attempt to plug some holes and add some pitching. Cleveland has a very nice young core, and if Ubaldo returns to form they have a formidable top of the rotation. KC still is a ways off though, especially with Lamb's injury and Montgomery's regression. They need pitching desperately. Thing's don't look all that great for Minnesota, but it's hard to count out the Twins.

russ99
09-04-2011, 09:27 PM
Moving forward, the Sox biggest problem isn't Dunn and Rios (although that's quite a pickle) it's our starting rotation.

Assuming Jerry is cutting payroll under $100M next year, we have little money to re-sign Buehrle, unless he takes a big hometown discount. He's also going to be 33, giving him 3-5 years left as a reliable starter. The guy's going to want one last payday, and I doubt he settles for less than a decent raise of his $14M salary this year.

Peavy is a crapshoot health and performance wise for next season and, of course, he gets a $1M raise to $17M.

Floyd and Danks are supposedly our top of rotation future, yet they're still up and down starters and the letdown in the pennant race starts vs. The Tigers is worrisome. Gavin gets a $2M raise to $7M and Danks enters his last year before FA sure to get a nice raise above the $6M he's getting this year.

Humber is still under team control for a few years, but should get a nice bump from his $.5M this year. I'm guessing $3M.

After that, we have the iffy Stewart and little else to replace Buehrle, and next offseason Peavy and maybe Danks.

In 2013 we're looking at a good shot of our rotation consisting of Danks, Floyd, Humber and nobody else currently in the system after that. And Danks could be gone too if the Sox can't lock him up at an even higher number...

Not good.

Noneck
09-04-2011, 09:47 PM
Moving forward, the Sox biggest problem isn't Dunn and Rios (although that's quite a pickle) it's our starting rotation.




Sale will be given a shot, will he be able to handle it with his mechanics? I dont thing so but he will be given a chance.

Golden Sox
09-05-2011, 09:55 PM
If Ozzie would of made out a starting lineup this past July1st that Had Pierre in LF, DeAza in CF, Quentin in RF, and Viciedo as the DH, would it be fair to say that the 2011 season would have been more successful? Why not have these four players in those positions in 2012? I realize your're going to have to eat most of the money for Rios and Dunn but so be it.

doublem23
09-05-2011, 11:24 PM
Assuming Jerry is cutting payroll under $100M next year, we have little money to re-sign Buehrle, unless he takes a big hometown discount. He's also going to be 33, giving him 3-5 years left as a reliable starter. The guy's going to want one last payday, and I doubt he settles for less than a decent raise of his $14M salary this year.

You think someone is going to give Mark more than $14 M/year?

asindc
09-06-2011, 08:22 AM
Not so sure about this one. The Royals offense is on the way up, the Indians are also growing with a young team, the Tigers will certainly spend on free agent starting pitchers, and the Twins won't be playing their AAA team (even though I think Morneau's finished).
Roster wise, I don't think we are very far away, we just need Dunn not to fall off a cliff again, Morel and Beckham to improve. With the coaching staff the way it is, I don't see those things happening. I said at the trade deadline that our biggest problems are at the coaching staff and I stand by it.

"Royals offense is on the way up."

And their pitching is headed in the same direction as always, sideways or down.



"Indians are also growing with a young team."

I think this is the team we can expect a dramatic improvement from, but only IF Sizemore and Hafner can stay healthy for at least 140 games each.




"Tigers will certainly spend on free agent starting pitchers."

From what my Tigers fans friends tell me, that is far from certain.




"Twins won't be playing their AAA team (even though I think Morneau's finished."

Unless they replace their pitching staff and Nishioka with better players, it won't matter much.




"Roster wise, I don't think we are very far away, we just need Dunn not to fall off a cliff again, Morel and Beckham to improve. With the coaching staff the way it is, I don't see those things happening."

I think Dunn's problems are attributable to Dunn alone, he of the famous "no-workout" offseason plan and the rumored "only in it for money" (paraphrased) quote. Everything about his approach to baseball suggest a loser's attitude.

Morel has already shown improvement over the second half of the season from the first half, about what you would expect from a rookie.

Beckham is probably the worst victim of Walker's tinkering, if the rumors are true. Classic example of trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

asindc
09-06-2011, 08:27 AM
Assuming Jerry is cutting payroll under $100M next year, we have little money to re-sign Buehrle, unless he takes a big hometown discount. He's also going to be 33, giving him 3-5 years left as a reliable starter. The guy's going to want one last payday, and I doubt he settles for less than a decent raise of his $14M salary this year.

You think someone is going to give Mark more than $14 M/year?

I'm with you, Doub, I seriously doubt anyone will give a 33-year-old pitcher, who has only pitched well under his current contract in his contract year, a multi-year deal for $14 million a year. Not going to happen, not even in St. Louis.

russ99
09-07-2011, 05:59 PM
I'm with you, Doub, I seriously doubt anyone will give a 33-year-old pitcher, who has only pitched well under his current contract in his contract year, a multi-year deal for $14 million a year. Not going to happen, not even in St. Louis.

I don't doubt it. There's always going to be a need for a veteran left handed starter.

Also, since he's not a power pitcher, he could conceivably have a longer career as a mid-rotation starter, and a lower-risk signing than other players his age.

If Ted Lilly can get 3 years at $11M after a 10-12 year last offseason, then Buehrle can get $14M.

Plus there's that whole MLBPA thing about not taking a pay cut, and that Mark is one of the top SP FA's this year.

Brian26
09-07-2011, 07:57 PM
You think someone is going to give Mark more than $14 M/year?

I think someone will.

doublem23
09-07-2011, 09:29 PM
I think someone will.

Depends on the length of the deal, I guess. Maybe for 1-2 years it's possible, but if he's looking for a few more seasons I doubt it.

Daver
09-07-2011, 09:37 PM
Depends on the length of the deal, I guess. Maybe for 1-2 years it's possible, but if he's looking for a few more seasons I doubt it.

We are talking about a pitcher that is never on the DL, throws left handed, and could realistically pitch for another fifteen years if he wanted too. A 220 inning season guarantee carries a lot of bargaining power.

doublem23
09-07-2011, 10:24 PM
We are talking about a pitcher that is never on the DL, throws left handed, and could realistically pitch for another fifteen years if he wanted too. A 220 inning season guarantee carries a lot of bargaining power.

Meh

He's also a guy who gives up a lot of hits and doesn't strike a lot of people out. Also, this year notwithstanding, had been on a pretty consistent 4-year-decline from 2007-2010.

palehozenychicty
09-07-2011, 10:36 PM
I think Burls would be a fool to not test the market. Sabathia will opt out, but he's not leaving the Yankees. He'll get another deal from them.

Next up is CJ Wilson of the Rangers. He has a nice arm and put together two solid seasons after being a closer. Burls has a much longer track record and leaguewide respect. He can get $15 million for 3-4 years if he wants it.

Golden Sox
09-08-2011, 10:22 AM
Both Rios and Dunn have been horrible in 2011. Either one of two things has happened. 1) They both had a bad year. 2) They can't compete on the major league level anymore. Both of these guys are going to be back in 2012, unfortunately. What happens if both of them stink up the team at the beginning of next year? If that is the case, when do the White Sox say, enough of this? Also I keep reading everywhere that Juan Pierre won't be back in 2012. Pierre certainly has his faults as a player, but I would rather have him on the team next year rather than either Rios and Dunn.

asindc
09-08-2011, 10:28 AM
Both Rios and Dunn have been horrible in 2011. Either one of two things has happened. 1) They both had a bad year. 2) They can't compete on the major league level anymore. Both of these guys are going to be back in 2012, unfortunately. What happens if both of them stink up the team at the beginning of next year? If that is the case, when do the White Sox say, enough of this? Also I keep reading everywhere that Juan Pierre won't be back in 2012. Pierre certainly has his faults as a player, but I would rather have him on the team next year rather than either Rios and Dunn.

I don't think it's a matter of not wanting to keep him, but being able to afford him, especially since Rios and Dunn are receiving but not earning money that could be used to pay Pierre.

Noneck
09-08-2011, 11:02 AM
Meh

He's also a guy who gives up a lot of hits and doesn't strike a lot of people out. Also, this year notwithstanding, had been on a pretty consistent 4-year-decline from 2007-2010.

When I think of Buehrle, Kenny Rogers comes to mind, granted Rogers didnt log the # of innings Buehrle did but he had a 20 year career. I dont know if 15 more years is realistic but he should be able to pitch till he is 40.

Golden Sox
09-12-2011, 09:52 AM
With Addison Reed being in our future for 2012, are the White Sox going to make a major trade that involves Sergio Santos?

doublem23
09-12-2011, 09:59 AM
With Addison Reed being in our future for 2012, are the White Sox going to make a major trade that involves Sergio Santos?

I would doubt it, considering Thornton is a more likely candidate to be moved and Sale possibly being stretched out as a starter for 2012.

Sergio still essentially makes the league minimum. He's not even arbitration eligible until after next season.

SoxSpeed22
09-12-2011, 11:32 AM
With Reed on the rise, a 7-8-9 of Reed, Crain and Santos could cause trouble for other teams. I would prefer to keep Crain for next year, since Reed is just a rookie, Crain can help him out. He will be expendable in the 2012 offseason though. Finding another lefty could be trouble if Sale goes to the rotation and Thornton is dealt.

JB98
09-12-2011, 12:19 PM
With Addison Reed being in our future for 2012, are the White Sox going to make a major trade that involves Sergio Santos?

I'd be stunned. Higher-salaried players (Thornton, Danks, Quentin) are candidates to be moved this offseason. Santos is one of the guys who provides good production for the amount of money he's making. They'll more than likely keep him.

gosox41
09-12-2011, 09:23 PM
Yes, these three, Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to hold the Sox back from going after any further FA's for the next two years!!

i don't agree with the second paragraph however. Williams has brought us Quentin, Ramirez, Danks, Flowers, (even though the jury is still out) and Floyd to name a few good acquisitions.

Having said that, it probably is time for a change of ideas in the area of talent evaluation from the top on down.


KW has a thing for going for big name players. It's almost like an ego boost--'Look at me, I traded for Ken Griffey' or 'I traded for Mannywood.' Instead of focusing on a players effectiveness it seems to be he is looking for star power get the attention.

If he would get back to his what he does best--finding other teams disappointments instead of going after someone who has a big name this team would be better.

His last few moves have been for big name players and they have all essentially blwon up.

Fire KW or give him less money to work with. It seems like he actually does better he's not salivating over the big names.


Bob

Noneck
09-12-2011, 10:03 PM
With Addison Reed being in our future for 2012, are the White Sox going to make a major trade that involves Sergio Santos?

In order to get out of the mess the Sox are in, thinking out of the box may have to be done. The players of most worth on the Sox are Santos, Sale and maybe Viciedo. The Sox may consider packaging a couple of these with either a Dunn or Rios. No other way of getting rid of one of these guys unless you take another lost soul in return.

Lip Man 1
09-12-2011, 10:08 PM
Noneck:

That was Roland's philosophy when he took over in this sense. He packaged the best players the Sox had, guys like Aparicio and Berry and basically demanded two decent players for one of them.

He and Tanner explained that while say a Mike Andrews or a Tom Egan might not be as good as those guys were individually by getting more than one you were improving the team overall.

Kenny or whomever could look at it in those terms, 'you take on one of our bad contracts, we'll throw in a good young players BUT we want two decent players in return since you are getting a good young players that you are going to be able to control for at least a few years.

Lip

Noneck
09-12-2011, 10:32 PM
Yes Lip even though times have changed, a little creativity may still be able to get the Sox out of the mess they are in.

Golden Sox
09-13-2011, 09:45 AM
Ken Williams has certainly made some good deals. Lillabridge, Flowers, Danks' and Floyd have certainly been good moves on his part. I'm also convinced that trading Hudson for Jackson might be the worse trade in White Sox history since the Sox traded Johnny Callison for Gene Freese. His acqusitions of Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to be a tremendous burden on the Sox for years to come. Perhaps its time for a new GM running the White Sox.

blandman
09-13-2011, 10:03 AM
Ken Williams has certainly made some good deals. Lillabridge, Flowers, Danks' and Floyd have certainly been good moves on his part. I'm also convinced that trading Hudson for Jackson might be the worse trade in White Sox history since the Sox traded Johnny Callison for Gene Freese. His acqusitions of Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to be a tremendous burden on the Sox for years to come. Perhaps its time for a new GM running the White Sox.

One year of Jackson is worth more than a career of Hudson. Hudson's a fifth starter at best.

SI1020
09-13-2011, 10:24 AM
Ken Williams has certainly made some good deals. Lillabridge, Flowers, Danks' and Floyd have certainly been good moves on his part. I'm also convinced that trading Hudson for Jackson might be the worse trade in White Sox history since the Sox traded Johnny Callison for Gene Freese. His acqusitions of Dunn, Rios and Peavy are going to be a tremendous burden on the Sox for years to come. Perhaps its time for a new GM running the White Sox. He did so much better when he was on a budget. Some luck was involved of course, but the way he put together the 05 team was impressive to say the least. Since then he continually tries the big impact move, almost always without success.

JB98
09-13-2011, 12:51 PM
He did so much better when he was on a budget. Some luck was involved of course, but the way he put together the 05 team was impressive to say the least. Since then he continually tries the big impact move, almost always without success.

I was thinking about just that this morning while I was out riding my bike. KW was a better GM when he was forced to be creative. Ever since he was given the resources to be a Hendry-style checkbook GM, he has swung for the fences and missed every time.

If KW is allowed to continue as GM -- a big if at this point -- it might be a blessing in disguise that he'll be forced to work on a limited budget moving forward.

peelwonder
09-13-2011, 12:54 PM
One year of Jackson is worth more than a career of Hudson. Hudson's a fifth starter at best.

Have you even looked at the stats this year?????

blandman
09-13-2011, 12:58 PM
Have you even looked at the stats this year?????

Yes, and in a previous thread we broke down his starts. 2/3 of them were, amazingly, against the bottom ten offenses in baseball. The other 1/3 of starts include only one quality start. When his opposition evens out, his fans will be in for a rude awakening.

doublem23
09-13-2011, 12:59 PM
I was thinking about just that this morning while I was out riding my bike. KW was a better GM when he was forced to be creative. Ever since he was given the resources to be a Hendry-style checkbook GM, he has swung for the fences and missed every time.

If KW is allowed to continue as GM -- a big if at this point -- it might be a blessing in disguise that he'll be forced to work on a limited budget moving forward.

This is my only reason for wanting to keep KW around. Sure, he's saddled the Sox with some enormous and bad contracts, but I'm less interested in assigning blame for this whole mess and more in having the guys around who give the Sox the best chance to win in the future. KW's been pretty good at finding quality players in odd places, even recently, moving Santos to the bullpen, Philip Humber, in his limited time here, Alejandro de Aza has looked very good. The Sox are painted deep into a corner money-wise, we're going to need a GM who is creative, flexible, and has an eye for talent. Maybe there are better GM's out there who fit that bill, but KW has been good at that for most of his time as GM of the Sox. Just keep him away from blockbuster deals and contracts, please.

kufram
09-13-2011, 01:00 PM
I was thinking about just that this morning while I was out riding my bike. KW was a better GM when he was forced to be creative. Ever since he was given the resources to be a Hendry-style checkbook GM, he has swung for the fences and missed every time.

If KW is allowed to continue as GM -- a big if at this point -- it might be a blessing in disguise that he'll be forced to work on a limited budget moving forward.

I think you could be right about that. Throwing money at a problem sometimes just makes the problem more expensive. If anything is really embarrassing about this year's team it is how much it cost.

russ99
09-13-2011, 01:00 PM
He did so much better when he was on a budget. Some luck was involved of course, but the way he put together the 05 team was impressive to say the least. Since then he continually tries the big impact move, almost always without success.

Kenny still went after big fish and dealt away prospects even when with a budget.

Also, the two years the Sox started the season with kids due to lower budgets in the KW regime have been his worst: 2007 and the first half of 2010. Few of the prospects promoted to start those seasons have turned into regular big league players.

But most of all, I really don't think the guy can swallow his ego and get back to the way he was in his earlier years as GM. Too much has been about perception and not what's really best for the club.

Golden Sox
09-18-2011, 07:39 AM
The overwhelming negativity that I read on this website depresses me. The only thing that has depressed me more has been the 2011 White Sox season. Reinsdorf is not a stupid man. I find it difficult to believe he won't make changes in the offseason. Knowing what I know of him, he can't be happy with what has happened this past season. I'm hoping he finds some way of getting rid of Rios, Dunn and Beckham.

Lip Man 1
09-18-2011, 11:39 AM
Good luck with that thought.

Lip

dickallen15
09-18-2011, 11:41 AM
Kenny still went after big fish and dealt away prospects even when with a budget.

Also, the two years the Sox started the season with kids due to lower budgets in the KW regime have been his worst: 2007 and the first half of 2010. Few of the prospects promoted to start those seasons have turned into regular big league players.

But most of all, I really don't think the guy can swallow his ego and get back to the way he was in his earlier years as GM. Too much has been about perception and not what's really best for the club.

Rip KW all you want, he deserves it, but when the season started, you thought he put together a hell of a team. Now Cowley said he lost his focus and became Hollywood after 2006, so you say KW has been a problem since 2006. Why didn't you air your complaints earlier? Don't listen to Cowley. If you start believing everything he says and agreeing with everything he says, you're going wind up looking like you don't know what you're talking about. Cowley has a vested interest in writing and saying the crap that he does. If Ozzie leaves, Joe becomes more irrelevant than he says the Sox would become without Ozzie. Ozzie and Oney are his meal ticket. He's panicked. He can see the writing on the wall. The only way he saves Ozzie and his own Chicago career is by somehow orchestrating KW's demise, and its not working. Even his colleagues realize the joke Cowley has become.

LITTLE NELL
09-18-2011, 11:42 AM
The overwhelming negativity that I read on this website depresses me. The only thing that has depressed me more has been the 2011 White Sox season. Reinsdorf is not a stupid man. I find it difficult to believe he won't make changes in the offseason. Knowing what I know of him, he can't be happy with what has happened this past season. I'm hoping he finds some way of getting rid of Rios, Dunn and Beckham.

Beckham would be easy to move, we could always send him back to the minors. Dunn and Rios; we are stuck with those two mopes.

captain54
09-18-2011, 12:22 PM
. Reinsdorf is not a stupid man. I find it difficult to believe he won't make changes in the offseason. Knowing what I know of him, he can't be happy with what has happened this past season. I'm hoping he finds some way of getting rid of Rios, Dunn and Beckham.

Reinsdorf will make changes on his own terms. Don't forget that JR is advancing in years and probably not all that interested in overhauling the organization. Keeping the franchise running at the break even point is probably all he can hope for until the Sox can rid themselves of those three huge albatross contracts.

The big questions are: What changes will be made to stem the tide of an almost certain drop in season ticket sales? How will Reiney deal with crowds of less that 20,000/avg if the Sox again stumble and fall out of the gate in 12'

michned
09-18-2011, 12:46 PM
...If you start believing everything he says and agreeing with everything he says, you're going wind up looking like you don't know what you're talking about. Cowley has a vested interest in writing and saying the crap that he does. If Ozzie leaves, Joe becomes more irrelevant than he says the Sox would become without Ozzie. Ozzie and Oney are his meal ticket. He's panicked. He can see the writing on the wall. The only way he saves Ozzie and his own Chicago career is by somehow orchestrating KW's demise, and its not working. Even his colleagues realize the joke Cowley has become.

Well put. As much as I enjoy Joe's writing, and the entertainment aspect of his tweets, people have to remember how much less material he'll have to work with if Oz and his family are gone.

MeteorsSox4367
09-18-2011, 12:47 PM
I'm hoping he finds some way of getting rid of Rios, Dunn and Beckham.

Yeah, get rid of Beckham. He's a terrible defensive second baseman who is just hanging on. Once you get on the other side of 30, your skills really start to erode.

SI1020
09-18-2011, 03:10 PM
Yeah, get rid of Beckham. He's a terrible defensive second baseman who is just hanging on. Once you get on the other side of 30, your skills really start to erode. Outside of his family and friends I doubt there are many people who want him to succeed more than I do. That being said, he doesn't seem to be able to hit MLB pitching and is close to washing out. He reminds me of Warren Morris another promising SEC standout who started fast and faded just as fast.

SoxSpeed22
09-18-2011, 03:24 PM
We all know that Beckham needs a life preserver, the question is who can throw it to him? Everything needs to be reworked, his swing, his approach, what he wants to do with the ball, all of it.

thechico
09-19-2011, 06:53 AM
This thread title is misleading. I thought it would be about churros, or at least, nacho helmets. :scratch:

SCCWS
09-19-2011, 07:30 AM
Yeah, get rid of Beckham. He's a terrible defensive second baseman who is just hanging on. Once you get on the other side of 30, your skills really start to erode.

Offensively he is just hangin on. He has gotten worse offensively each season he has been here. On a bad offensive team, you cannot have 2nd and 3rd be punch and judy hitters. But I think the Sox need to see if a new hitting coach can turn him around before you throw in the towel.

wassagstdu
09-19-2011, 11:44 AM
We all know that Beckham needs a life preserver, the question is who can throw it to him? Everything needs to be reworked, his swing, his approach, what he wants to do with the ball, all of it.

Sounds like he should have spent more time in the minors...

Daver
09-19-2011, 12:15 PM
Sounds like he should have spent more time in the minors...

Blasphemy.

The White Sox never rush their prospects.

MeteorsSox4367
09-19-2011, 01:05 PM
I just want to see Beckham drilling shots into the right-center gap. Unless I'm nuts, I thought he used to be a pretty damn good opposite field hitter.

Now, well...

Nellie_Fox
09-19-2011, 01:32 PM
Blasphemy.

The White Sox never rush their prospects.Viciedo should have been up in June!!!!!!!!!!!

Brian26
09-19-2011, 06:28 PM
Yeah, get rid of Beckham. He's a terrible defensive second baseman who is just hanging on. Once you get on the other side of 30, your skills really start to erode.

The Sox have had their fair share of good-defense, .220 hitting second baseman. Julio Cruz and Scott Fletcher wore out their welcome pretty quickly once their offensive skills eroded, and that was in an era when those kinds of offensive numbers were acceptable at second base.

tstrike2000
09-19-2011, 07:51 PM
The Sox have had their fair share of good-defense, .220 hitting second baseman. Julio Cruz and Scott Fletcher wore out their welcome pretty quickly once their offensive skills eroded, and that was in an era when those kinds of offensive numbers were acceptable at second base.

Mentioning those names makes me miss the days of Ray Durham.

gosox41
09-19-2011, 09:35 PM
Rip KW all you want, he deserves it, but when the season started, you thought he put together a hell of a team. Now Cowley said he lost his focus and became Hollywood after 2006, so you say KW has been a problem since 2006. Why didn't you air your complaints earlier? Don't listen to Cowley. If you start believing everything he says and agreeing with everything he says, you're going wind up looking like you don't know what you're talking about. Cowley has a vested interest in writing and saying the crap that he does. If Ozzie leaves, Joe becomes more irrelevant than he says the Sox would become without Ozzie. Ozzie and Oney are his meal ticket. He's panicked. He can see the writing on the wall. The only way he saves Ozzie and his own Chicago career is by somehow orchestrating KW's demise, and its not working. Even his colleagues realize the joke Cowley has become.

Not sure if KW went Hollywood or not. He already had a big ego to begin with. But since 2007, it seems like KW is infatuated with trading for or signing former superstars who carry big contracts and are past their prime.


Bob

JB98
09-19-2011, 09:37 PM
Viciedo should have been up in June!!!!!!!!!!!


Why is this in teal?

The White Sox GM said Viciedo was ready in this article (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110613&content_id=20428398&vkey=news_cws&c_id=cws) dated June 13. It's a direct quote. "He's ready."

I don't see why it's ridiculous to argue Viciedo should have been called up in June. If all of us who believe that are mindless fools, then I guess the general manager of this ballclub is a mindless fool also.

Daver
09-19-2011, 09:45 PM
Why is this in teal?

The White Sox GM said Viciedo was ready in this article (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110613&content_id=20428398&vkey=news_cws&c_id=cws) dated June 13. It's a direct quote. "He's ready."

I don't see why it's ridiculous to argue Viciedo should have been called up in June. If all of us who believe that are mindless fools, then I guess the general manager of this ballclub is a mindless fool also.

Define "ready".

JB98
09-19-2011, 10:01 PM
Define "ready".

I already know your opinion on the matter, so I see no point in rehashing it.

Daver
09-19-2011, 10:06 PM
I already know your opinion on the matter, so I see no point in rehashing it.

Okey Dokey.


How many all offense,little to no defense players do you think you can put on the field at any given time?

JB98
09-19-2011, 10:10 PM
Okey Dokey.


How many all offense,little to no defense players do you think you can put on the field at any given time?

In American League baseball, you need a DH. The Sox haven't had one in two years.

blandman
09-19-2011, 10:34 PM
Okey Dokey.


How many all offense,little to no defense players do you think you can put on the field at any given time?

You can put 9 of them out there, technically. Truth is unless you're the Yankees, and you can't have guys that play only one side and be successful without luck. And that goes for all defense guys as much as all offense guys.

blandman
09-19-2011, 10:35 PM
In American League baseball, you need a DH. The Sox haven't had one in two years.

We already have a DH on the roster. His name is Adam Dunn.

kufram
09-20-2011, 06:37 AM
Defense is in serious decline. It might not be noticeable to some but I know it because I didn't see mlb for a few years until the internet made it accessible to me again. I thought I was watching high school defense and a bunch of oversize superhumans breaking Maris's record seemingly at will.

That era has an awful lot to answer for in my opinion.

Beckham is an excellent 2nd baseman but his defensive skills seem to have no value unless he can hit .300

I'd be happy if he could be a consistent .250 hitter and I think he can get there.

asindc
09-20-2011, 08:01 AM
Not sure if KW went Hollywood or not. He already had a big ego to begin with. But since 2007, it seems like KW is infatuated with trading for or signing former superstars who carry big contracts and are past their prime.


Bob

Do you really think Rios, Peavy, and Dunn were past their prime when acquired, or are even past their prime now? If Peavy is past his prime, the Carl Crawford and Jason Werth are past their primes.

A. Cavatica
09-20-2011, 08:29 AM
Do you really think Rios, Peavy, and Dunn were past their prime when acquired, or are even past their prime now? If Peavy is past his prime, the Carl Crawford and Jason Werth are past their primes.

A ballplayer hits his prime at age 27, on average.

SI1020
09-20-2011, 08:58 AM
A ballplayer hits his prime at age 27, on average. He does?

asindc
09-20-2011, 09:04 AM
A ballplayer hits his prime at age 27, on average.

So I take it you would not have liked it if the Sox had signed Sabathia or Halladay or Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez, or traded for Adrian Gonzalez if the opportunities had presented themselves?

kittle42
09-20-2011, 09:41 AM
A ballplayer hits his prime at age 27, on average.

If so, a ballplayer must stay in his prime for 5-7 years...

Daver
09-20-2011, 10:02 AM
A ballplayer hits his prime at age 27, on average.

Maybe 25 years ago.

soxinem1
09-20-2011, 10:13 AM
Going into 2011, I think it's safe to say that most thought that ON PAPER the Sox had as good a team as any in the Central. The Sox have had good Paper teams every year since 06' and it just hasn't panned out.

I agree with most of this except for the 2007 team.

The only paper that team was good on was toilet paper, from day one.

We already have a DH on the roster. His name is Adam Dunn.

Daniel Hudson is out-hitting Dunn in 2011, and Juan Pierre has more RBI on the season.

If Konerko was not re-signed, we might be looking at 100 losses.

kufram
09-20-2011, 12:50 PM
Now that hitting is coming back to Earth there may be a recalibration of values. It is hard right now for some to remember that we had good pitching and good defense for quite a while this year. Those are not things to be brushed aside as if unimportant because the hitting didn't get us to the playoffs. It really should have and no one expected it could be as bad as it was.

blandman
09-20-2011, 01:30 PM
I agree with most of this except for the 2007 team.

The only paper that team was good on was toilet paper, from day one.



Daniel Hudson is out-hitting Dunn in 2011, and Juan Pierre has more RBI on the season.

If Konerko was not re-signed, we might be looking at 100 losses.

That's completely besides the point. You can't carry two+ people on the roster who have no function on the field. Especially in the AL, where you carry more pitchers. Viciedo, at least now, has no function on a this baseball team other than at DH. Unless he's spending next year at Charlotte, the only real option is to trade him.

doublem23
09-20-2011, 01:50 PM
That's completely besides the point. You can't carry two+ people on the roster who have no function on the field. Especially in the AL, where you carry more pitchers. Viciedo, at least now, has no function on a this baseball team other than at DH. Unless he's spending next year at Charlotte, the only real option is to trade him.

He'll be just fine in LF next year

blandman
09-20-2011, 02:03 PM
He'll be just fine in LF next year

Doubtful. People have enough trouble with Pierre. Viciedo has less range than Carlos Lee did.

kittle42
09-20-2011, 02:20 PM
He'll be just fine in LF next year

I might go to some games just to see the three-ring circus in LF in that case.

dickallen15
09-20-2011, 02:27 PM
Its a very small sample size, but Viciedo's Uzr has been outstanding so far in RF.

dickallen15
09-20-2011, 02:28 PM
Doubtful. People have enough trouble with Pierre. Viciedo has less range than Carlos Lee did.
Please tell us Viciedo is a bust of epic proportions. Then the Sox can start work on his statue.

doublem23
09-20-2011, 02:52 PM
Doubtful. People have enough trouble with Pierre. Viciedo has less range than Carlos Lee did.

Meh. He'll be fine. The Sox won the World Series with Scott Podsednik in LF, so, you know, it can be done.

asindc
09-20-2011, 03:12 PM
... and Detroit won the division this year with a hobbled Maggs in RF.

Nellie_Fox
09-20-2011, 03:38 PM
He'll be just fine in LF next yearDefine "fine." He will be less than adequate; the question is will his offensive production make up for his defensive ineptitude.

But what do I know, I'm an old coot living in the past, when defense mattered.

doublem23
09-20-2011, 03:39 PM
Define "fine." He will be less than adequate; the question is will his offensive production make up for his defensive ineptitude.

But what do I know, I'm an old coot living in the past, when defense mattered.

It's LEFT ****ING FIELD. There's plenty of holes on this team, we don't need to start inventing new ones.

Nellie_Fox
09-20-2011, 03:41 PM
It's LEFT ****ING FIELD. You're right, but even still, it's always a question of whether the defensive liability you put out there is enough of an offensive plus to overcome his defensive liability.

SI1020
09-20-2011, 04:05 PM
Meh. He'll be fine. The Sox won the World Series with Scott Podsednik in LF, so, you know, it can be done. Podsednik's dWAR is much better than either Pierre or Lee. No, I'm not claiming he was great, or even really good. Just better than people gave him credit for.

captain54
09-20-2011, 04:06 PM
. It is hard right now for some to remember that we had good pitching and good defense for quite a while this year. Those are not things to be brushed aside as if unimportant because the hitting didn't get us to the playoffs. It really should have and no one expected it could be as bad as it was.

No one really expected it could be as bad as it was, but the fact of the matter remains, it was. The organization put all it's chips into plugging Dunn's NL numbers into 11' and keeping it's finger's crossed that a mediocre WalkerBall (with the exception of Konerko) could perform around it's career numbers or better.

With the franchise on the verge of total insignificance in this town, I sincerely hope they are not banking on the fact that 11' was a fluke and let's just re-boot and everything will be fine in 12'. Or the fact that they were in contention until late August as a spin on trying to keep the team relevant.

If you follow Reinsdorf and his comments in the media over the years, he has repeatedly stated that the organization will never go in the red. He will keep the bottom line at minimum, at the break even point. Ticket prices will go up, attendance and salary will decline. There just doesn't seem to be any other way around that dilemna.

Reinsdorf's big big problem right now is, he knows that eventually he's gonna have to produce a winner. There's no way the franchise can survive with this continued trend of mediocrity, and what's worse it, it doesn't look like its gonna change anytime soon.

voodoochile
09-20-2011, 04:21 PM
Podsednik's dWAR is much better than either Pierre or Lee. No, I'm not claiming he was great, or even really good. Just better than people gave him credit for.
Every player who has every played defense is only as good as their worst year/moments donchaknow. It is by this standard that Dye for example has been called a bad defender even though he was considered one of the best in the game for most of his career including the first few years with the Sox.

blandman
09-20-2011, 04:37 PM
Can we wait until the off-season before we start plugging in deficiencies in next year's defense? I want to hold out hope we might get complete players for once. Thanks.

Marqhead
09-20-2011, 04:58 PM
Can we wait until the off-season before we start plugging in deficiencies in next year's defense? I want to hold out hope we might get complete players for once. Thanks.

I think it's pretty naive (in general, not just you) to think that next year Dayan Viciedo wont be starting full time and playing in the outfield for this team.

DirtySox
09-20-2011, 05:06 PM
Its a very small sample size, but Viciedo's Uzr has been outstanding so far in RF.

UZR is meaningless at this point. More so than other metrics with small sample sizes.

blandman
09-20-2011, 05:44 PM
I think it's pretty naive (in general, not just you) to think that next year Dayan Viciedo wont be starting full time and playing in the outfield for this team.

Is KW GM? There's a better chance he'll trade him for Robby Alomar.

ChiSoxGal85
09-20-2011, 07:20 PM
You're right, but even still, it's always a question of whether the defensive liability you put out there is enough of an offensive plus to overcome his defensive liability.
I agree. I haven't been particularly impressed with Viciedo up to now. Small sample size, but he has looked pretty awkward in RF. And so far his bat has not made up for the lack of defense.

Daver
09-20-2011, 07:27 PM
I agree. I haven't been particularly impressed with Viciedo up to now. Small sample size, but he has looked pretty awkward in RF. And so far his bat has not made up for the lack of defense.

He's got a good arm, and that's all you need to play RF, according to the experts on WSI.

A. Cavatica
09-20-2011, 08:43 PM
So I take it you would not have liked it if the Sox had signed Sabathia or Halladay or Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez, or traded for Adrian Gonzalez if the opportunities had presented themselves?

Don't put words in my mouth, all I said was a player peaks at 27.

Daver made a good point, though; the Bill James study that came up with 27 was done in the early 80s. More recent studies suggest it's at 29 or 30, due to "advances in conditioning" (which I take to mean steroids) and other factors.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

asindc
09-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Don't put words in my mouth, all I said was a player peaks at 27.

Daver made a good point, though; the Bill James study that came up with 27 was done in the early 80s. More recent studies suggest it's at 29 or 30, due to "advances in conditioning" (which I take to mean steroids) and other factors.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

Then what was the point of noting that a player peaks at 27?

Brian26
09-20-2011, 08:55 PM
More recent studies suggest it's at 29 or 30, due to "advances in conditioning" (which I take to mean steroids)

I don't think that means steroids at all. The knowledge about proper nutrition, weight-training, plyometrics, muscle-recovery, etc is light-years ahead of where it was in the early 80s. Many of the guys who were lifting weights back then (which wasn't everyone) didn't even know what they were doing.

A. Cavatica
09-20-2011, 09:19 PM
Then what was the point of noting that a player peaks at 27?

I was agreeing with gosox41 when he said "it seems like KW is infatuated with trading for or signing former superstars who carry big contracts and are past their prime."

Alex Rios is 30
Jake Peavy is 30
Mark Teahen is 30
Adam Dunn is 31
Juan Pierre is 34
Omar Vizquel is 44

So yes, I think these players are past their primes now. Except for Rios and Peavy, I would have considered them all past their primes when they were acquired.

Carl Crawford is 30
Jayson Werth is 32

Them too.

But here's where you jumped to a wrong conclusion. I actually think it's coincidental that most of these players had terrible seasons. Good players' primes last a few years, and there was no reason to think (based on age) that Rios/Peavy/Dunn/Teahen/Crawford would have had terrible years. I still think Rios and Peavy were good gambles by KW, because you need a couple of stars in their primes to win a championship, and stars in their primes are expensive if you don't grow them yourself.

Sabathia is 31. Given his salary, weight, and the fact that we've usually handled him pretty well, I would not have wanted the Sox to sign him.

Halladay and Lee are 34 and 33. They're definitely past their primes, but a #1 starter is the one position I would want the Sox to break the bank for. That's one reason I was excited about Peavy; I thought there was a decent chance that a healthy Peavy would be in that class, and he didn't cost nearly as much.

Martinez is 32 and has limitations. I wouldn't have wanted the Sox to go "all in" on him.

Gonzalez is only 29, and is a slick-fielding first basemen with a multi-dimensional offensive game. I would've been doing handsprings if the Sox had gotten him instead of Dunn.

I think Kenny has Yankee/Red Sox/Phillie envy. He knows he can't match those teams when bidding for the top players. He feels a compulsion to go sign some expensive "name" players anyway, and usually isn't very smart about who he spends his money on.

asindc
09-20-2011, 09:31 PM
I was agreeing with gosox41 when he said "it seems like KW is infatuated with trading for or signing former superstars who carry big contracts and are past their prime."

Alex Rios is 30
Jake Peavy is 30
Mark Teahen is 30
Adam Dunn is 31
Juan Pierre is 34
Omar Vizquel is 44

So yes, I think these players are past their primes now. Except for Rios and Peavy, I would have considered them all past their primes when they were acquired.

Carl Crawford is 30
Jayson Werth is 32

Them too.

But here's where you jumped to a wrong conclusion. I actually think it's coincidental that most of these players had terrible seasons. Good players' primes last a few years, and there was no reason to think (based on age) that Rios/Peavy/Dunn/Teahen/Crawford would have had terrible years. I still think Rios and Peavy were good gambles by KW, because you need a couple of stars in their primes to win a championship, and stars in their primes are expensive if you don't grow them yourself.

Sabathia is 31. Given his salary, weight, and the fact that we've usually handled him pretty well, I would not have wanted the Sox to sign him.

Halladay and Lee are 34 and 33. They're definitely past their primes, but a #1 starter is the one position I would want the Sox to break the bank for. That's one reason I was excited about Peavy; I thought there was a decent chance that a healthy Peavy would be in that class, and he didn't cost nearly as much.

Martinez is 32 and has limitations. I wouldn't have wanted the Sox to go "all in" on him.

Gonzalez is only 29, and is a slick-fielding first basemen with a multi-dimensional offensive game. I would've been doing handsprings if the Sox had gotten him instead of Dunn.

I think Kenny has Yankee/Red Sox/Phillie envy. He knows he can't match those teams when bidding for the top players. He feels a compulsion to go sign some expensive "name" players anyway, and usually isn't very smart about who he spends his money on.

I only jumped to that conclusion because I took it that you were agreeing with gosox41. I took his comment to mean that he does not think Rios and Peavy were worth the gamble. For the record, that is the only thing I'm disagreeing with. Philly, NYY, and Boston all are levering future expected revenues to give pitchers in their early 30s several years at big money mainly because they don't want to have to compete against those guys. I don't want the Sox to do that, but I thought (and still think despite their disappointing play) Rios, Peavy, and even Dunn were worth the gamble (which free agency is for any GM) because the market has been wrecked as a consequence of all the YES and NESN money flooding it in recent years. Teams wanting to compete at the top of the market really have no choice in the matter.

jdm2662
09-20-2011, 09:32 PM
CC is 18-4 with a 3.63 ERA lifetime against the Sox.

SI1020
09-20-2011, 09:33 PM
Don't put words in my mouth, all I said was a player peaks at 27.

Daver made a good point, though; the Bill James study that came up with 27 was done in the early 80s. More recent studies suggest it's at 29 or 30, due to "advances in conditioning" (which I take to mean steroids) and other factors.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933 This article says it ain't necessarily so.

http://wagesofwins.net/2007/04/21/it-aint-necessarily-so/

I'm too tired to look up some of the many players from the dead ball era to now who have had great years after ages 30, 35, and 40. Even so the word "peak" is very misleading. Many players remain formidable for a good number of years after they peak.

Lip Man 1
09-20-2011, 09:57 PM
And I remember many people here on the boards saying that the Yankees were very foolish to give him (C.C.) the type of deal that they did because he was going to break down.

Well he hasn't yet.

I envy the Yankees and Red Sox to be sure because in a lot of cases they can simply buy their way out of mistakes but in fairness those two teams (particularly the Yankees) seem to be damn smart who they give big money deals to. I don't see those guys missing a lot of games over the years.

Lip

Brian26
09-20-2011, 10:01 PM
Is KW GM? There's a better chance he'll trade him for Robby Alomar.

Right, that's pertinent. That happened over seven years ago.

blandman
09-20-2011, 11:36 PM
And I remember many people here on the boards saying that the Yankees were very foolish to give him (C.C.) the type of deal that they did because he was going to break down.

Well he hasn't yet.

I envy the Yankees and Red Sox to be sure because in a lot of cases they can simply buy their way out of mistakes but in fairness those two teams (particularly the Yankees) seem to be damn smart who they give big money deals to. I don't see those guys missing a lot of games over theyears.

Lip

What?

The Yanks gave Pavano and Burnett HUGE deals. And the Saux have missed a ton with Epstein. An absolute ton.
Matt Clement 4 years, $40M.
J.D. Drew 5 years, $70M
Julio Lugo 4 years, $36M.
Edgar Renteria 4 years, $40M
Daisuke Matsuzaka, 6 years, $52M plus $51.11M posting fee

Any one of those moves would DEVASTATE other franchises. These teams can not only spend over on the major league club, but spend over mistakes at the minor league level as well.

asindc
09-21-2011, 08:32 AM
What?

The Yanks gave Pavano and Burnett HUGE deals. And the Saux have missed a ton with Epstein. An absolute ton.
Matt Clement 4 years, $40M.
J.D. Drew 5 years, $70M
Julio Lugo 4 years, $36M.
Edgar Renteria 4 years, $40M
Daisuke Matsuzaka, 6 years, $52M plus $51.11M posting fee

Any one of those moves would DEVASTATE other franchises. These teams can not only spend over on the major league club, but spend over mistakes at the minor league level as well.

You beat me to it, Munch. Boston has a worse record this month than the Sox (despite leading the AL this month in runs scored) and is on the verge of one of the biggest collaspes in the division era in part because they did the following:

*Gave John Lackey 5 years, $80 million at age 31, instead of signing Phil Humber.
*Gave Bobby Jenks 2 years, $12 million at age 30, instead of signing Jesse Crain for 3 years at $13 million at age 29.
*Did not re-sign Adrian Beltre, but instead put poor defender and injury-prone Kevin Youkilis at 3B.

Over the years, there are similar deals that have gone bust for them. But don't take my word for it. Bill Simmons wrote about it earlier this season: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6808403/red-sox-report-card. Of particular note are the sections on Mike Cameron, Youkilis, the "Whipping Boys," and footnote 10. It's not about "smart," it's about money.

asindc
09-21-2011, 03:26 PM
Apparently Epstein is starting to feel the heat: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Red-Sox-Theo-Epstein-blame-GM-for-reeling-bosox-bare-staff-091911

delben91
09-21-2011, 04:09 PM
I only jumped to that conclusion because I took it that you were agreeing with gosox41. I took his comment to mean that he does not think Rios and Peavy were worth the gamble. For the record, that is the only thing I'm disagreeing with. Philly, NYY, and Boston all are levering future expected revenues to give pitchers in their early 30s several years at big money mainly because they don't want to have to compete against those guys. I don't want the Sox to do that, but I thought (and still think despite their disappointing play) Rios, Peavy, and even Dunn were worth the gamble (which free agency is for any GM) because the market has been wrecked as a consequence of all the YES and NESN money flooding it in recent years. Teams wanting to compete at the top of the market really have no choice in the matter.

I still have hope that Peavy will be much better next year, with a full off-season to train as opposed to the rehab he was doing last off-season.

Also, Dunn can't be worse next year. Even if he doesn't return to career norms, any improvement in production will be a good thing in my mind.

Golden Sox
09-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Am I misreading the situation? Because of the big contracts we are stuck with, Rios, Dunn and Peavy. The White Sox don't have the money to resign Mark Buehrle. Also with 3 games to go, Adam Dunn is closing out one of the worse seasons in modern baseball history. Nobody is talking about this, but I can't help but wonder. Is Dunns lack of success this season due to the extensive steroid testing? Were his previous offensive numbers put up while he was on the juice? If you notice, when he actually hits the ball in fair territory he doesn't hit the ball hard. He hits weak ground balls and pop ups that wouldn't be home runs in a phone booth.

Lip Man 1
09-26-2011, 11:07 AM
Golden:

With Dunn's physique it doesn't appear that he ever took steroids. Ever.

Lip

voodoochile
09-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Am I misreading the situation? Because of the big contracts we are stuck with, Rios, Dunn and Peavy. The White Sox don't have the money to resign Mark Buehrle. Also with 3 games to go, Adam Dunn is closing out one of the worse seasons in modern baseball history. Nobody is talking about this, but I can't help but wonder. Is Dunns lack of success this season due to the extensive steroid testing? Were his previous offensive numbers put up while he was on the juice? If you notice, when he actually hits the ball in fair territory he doesn't hit the ball hard. He hits weak ground balls and pop ups that wouldn't be home runs in a phone booth.

Wouldn't his drop off have come several years ago? It's easy for people to reach for the steroid excuse these days, but it doesn't fit here. No reason to go starting rumors.

Nellie_Fox
09-26-2011, 11:16 AM
The steroid testing has been going on for several years now. Home run numbers have been down across baseball since that time. Dunn's sudden decline does not coincide with the rest of the decline across baseball.

doublem23
09-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Golden:

With Dunn's physique it doesn't appear that he ever took steroids. Ever.

Lip

:rolling:, what is that even supposed to mean?

Nellie_Fox
09-26-2011, 11:20 AM
:rolling:, what is that even supposed to mean?That he's big and doughy?