PDA

View Full Version : Gonzo On State Of Sox


Lip Man 1
02-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Solid look at the franchise and the past few years:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0219-white-sox-chicago--20120219,0,5012620,full.story

Lip

Harry Potter
02-18-2012, 07:52 PM
Spot on. Great read - thanks Lip!

WhiteSox5187
02-18-2012, 08:01 PM
That's a good analysis of the Sox current state, sadly it and the future looks bleak.

DirtySox
02-18-2012, 08:31 PM
That's a good analysis of the Sox current state, sadly it and the future looks bleak.

Good piece indeed, and as for the assessment of the future it's hard to argue otherwise. One hopes Kenny isn't afraid to blow up what's left if they have another terrible start.

Golden Sox
02-18-2012, 08:44 PM
What if the Good Guys on the Great Southside of Chicago get off to a good start in 2012? I keep reading on these WSI sites that KW should blow the team up. What happens if they start the season off and they're actually contending after May 2012? Will most White Sox fans still want this team blown up? I admit that alot of things will have to happen for this team to contend. But if Dunn, Rios, and Beckham actually hit, this team could have a good year. Our pitching and defense are decent. I talked to Gonzo at Soxfest and he told me that if this team hits, he thinks they're in good shape and can contend. We'll just have to wait and see.

TDog
02-18-2012, 10:03 PM
A very poor piece of journalism, really. If you're reading it, you really don't know if the reporter is making it up the "talent evaluator." If you're the reporter sincerely quoting him, you really can't rely on someone who won't attach his name or even his organization to his opinion. If everything is legitimate, you don't know if this is one of the talent evaluators who judged Adam Dunn to be an offensive star and questioned whether Hudson would ever be able to pitch effectively in the majors. But in the currently mostly oxymoronic world of sports journalism, perhaps even real journalism, a strong article isn't an example of good journalism. It is something that supports your world.

There is nothing new here. It certainly supports the views that many at WSI hold, although I don't know how it's possible to "commit to a total rebuild" considering that doing such a thing would erode what little fan support the White Sox currently get. A total rebuild won't cut the payroll appreciably because the Peavy-Rios-Dunn salaries aren't going anywhere, whether they remain on the roster or not. "Blowing the whole thing up" (something easy for people to advocate when they have no plans to go to the games anyway) would pretty much doom the White Sox to less than mediocrity for much of the rest of the decade unless they got very, very lucky. Less luck would be needed to win with the current direction of the team.

This article might support arguments that a lot of people here make, but one thing it is not is a great article, or even a good one.

Brian26
02-18-2012, 10:16 PM
A very poor piece of journalism, really. If you're reading it, you really don't know if the reporter is making it up the "talent evaluator." If you're the reporter sincerely quoting him, you really can't rely on someone who won't attach his name or even his organization to his opinion. If everything is legitimate, you don't know if this is one of the talent evaluators who judged Adam Dunn to be an offensive star and questioned whether Hudson would ever be able to pitch effectively in the majors. But in the currently mostly oxymoronic world of sports journalism, perhaps even real journalism, a strong article isn't an example of good journalism. It is something that supports your world.

There is nothing new here. It certainly supports the views that many at WSI hold, although I don't know how it's possible to "commit to a total rebuild" considering that doing such a thing would erode what little fan support the White Sox currently get. A total rebuild won't cut the payroll appreciably because the Peavy-Rios-Dunn salaries aren't going anywhere, whether they remain on the roster or not. "Blowing the whole thing up" (something easy for people to advocate when they have no plans to go to the games anyway) would pretty much doom the White Sox to less than mediocrity for much of the rest of the decade unless they got very, very lucky. Less luck would be needed to win with the current direction of the team.

This article might support arguments that a lot of people here make, but one thing it is not is a great article, or even a good one.

Excellent post.

You're correct. The article states nothing that isn't already common knowledge, at least nothing that hasn't been dissected, analyzed and debated ad nauseam here. It's a "filler" article.

Noneck
02-18-2012, 11:12 PM
If someone was not from here, I guess it was a good rundown of whats been going on but really nothing new.

WhiteSox5187
02-18-2012, 11:21 PM
What if the Good Guys on the Great Southside of Chicago get off to a good start in 2012? I keep reading on these WSI sites that KW should blow the team up. What happens if they start the season off and they're actually contending after May 2012? Will most White Sox fans still want this team blown up? I admit that alot of things will have to happen for this team to contend. But if Dunn, Rios, and Beckham actually hit, this team could have a good year. Our pitching and defense are decent. I talked to Gonzo at Soxfest and he told me that if this team hits, he thinks they're in good shape and can contend. We'll just have to wait and see.

That's an interesting question, if the White Sox got off to the great start that they had in '05 and '06 I would think that Kenny is going to go for it and I would want him to. I think a more realistic question is what happens if the team is just sort of muddling along and not really out of it but just barely contending. My fear is that Kenny would wind up trading some of the young guys he got this year for a guy like Aramis Ramirez.

MARTINMVP
02-18-2012, 11:46 PM
What if the Good Guys on the Great Southside of Chicago get off to a good start in 2012? I keep reading on these WSI sites that KW should blow the team up. What happens if they start the season off and they're actually contending after May 2012? Will most White Sox fans still want this team blown up? I admit that alot of things will have to happen for this team to contend. But if Dunn, Rios, and Beckham actually hit, this team could have a good year. Our pitching and defense are decent. I talked to Gonzo at Soxfest and he told me that if this team hits, he thinks they're in good shape and can contend. We'll just have to wait and see.

That is the problem with our team going into 2012. There are way too many "ifs."

What if Adam Dunn, Alex Rios and Gordon Beckham all bounce back? What if Lillibridge really gets hot. Maybe Fukodome surprises everyone and plays the way the Cubs hoped he would...

You can't bank on ifs. We all have solid reasoning to not have great expectations for 2012. I don't need a long argument trying to make smoke out of fluff. All this, we already know. Anyone who pays attention should as well.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2012, 12:47 AM
Brian:

With respect, I seriously doubt that Gonzo would "make up" comments and attribute them to a third party who doesn't exist. Some in the media would I guess, (I can certainly think of some) but not him.

Also regarding the anonymous nature of the quotes, that's the way the business works, like it or not. Bernstein and Woodward did it for example from a political standpoint.

If you want people to talk about sensitive things or if they are concerned that individuals could hold something against them they are simply not going to go "on the record." Baseball is a small world and scouts aren't supposed to talk about other teams and what they think of what they are doing.

You have to trust your source, that what they are saying has a ring or truth to it and that they don't have some type of ax to grind. Gonzo knows what he's doing, he's not a pot stirrer, I fully trust him that this scout was on the level and was making statements about what he honestly thought, not trying to make the Sox look bad.

I personally have had to use sources quoted off the record many times, it's led to some good stories broken by me over the years. Again, like it or not, those are the rules of the game the way it's played today and in fact pretty much the way its always been in the business.

I think it was a solid story because it encapsulated in one place a lot of different things that have happened over the past few years, it was an easy read and accurate.

Just my opinion.

Lip

TDog
02-19-2012, 01:54 AM
Brian:

With respect, I seriously doubt that Gonzo would "make up" comments and attribute them to a third party who doesn't exist. Some in the media would I guess, (I can certainly think of some) but not him.

Also regarding the anonymous nature of the quotes, that's the way the business works, like it or not. Bernstein and Woodward did it for example from a political standpoint.

If you want people to talk about sensitive things or if they are concerned that individuals could hold something against them they are simply not going to go "on the record." Baseball is a small world and scouts aren't supposed to talk about other teams and what they think of what they are doing.

You have to trust your source, that what they are saying has a ring or truth to it and that they don't have some type of ax to grind. Gonzo knows what he's doing, he's not a pot stirrer, I fully trust him that this scout was on the level and was making statements about what he honestly thought, not trying to make the Sox look bad.

I personally have had to use sources quoted off the record many times, it's led to some good stories broken by me over the years. Again, like it or not, those are the rules of the game the way it's played today and in fact pretty much the way its always been in the business.

I think it was a solid story because it encapsulated in one place a lot of different things that have happened over the past few years, it was an easy read and accurate.

Just my opinion.

Lip

It wasn't a solid story. It was a filler story, offering nothing new. It also would have received a failing grade in any university reporting class that I am familiar with, not that everything a reporter writes would be worthy of being graded in a university journalism class. Reporting is a grind.

Of course, it's doubtful that Mr. Gonzalez was making up a source, but it is less doubtful, as I noted, that the source source didn't have the credibility to be seriously mentioned in the story or wasn't being forthright, knowing he wasn't quoted. I have no doubt that if you specifically disagreed with what the anonymous source said, you wouldn't give it any credibility. My point is that I don't give it any credibility whether I agree with it or not. Mr. Gonzalez gave me no reason to.

Of course, off the record with a source means you won't quote the source, even anonymously. Doing so would be a betrayal of "off the record." Reporters go off the record to gain a fuller understanding of what they are reporting on. Often they cajole sources to go on the record so that they can quote them. I have gone off the record to lead me to sources I could quote. Every newspaper I worked for as a reporter or editor had a rule forbidding the use of unnamed sources, and it was relaxed only in the most extraordinary of circumstances.

Comparing the Woodward-Bernstein use of unnamed sources in reporting on the Watergate scandal isn't really fair because in that instance, the editor and publisher had to grant special dispensation to allow the unnamed source to be used. (Many newspapers refused to pick up the story because of the use of the unnamed source.) That was years before a reporter from the same newspaper had a Pulitzer Prize rescinded when her anonymous source was discovered to be bogus. That scandal tightened the reins on anonymous-source quoting if they had been eased by the Watergate reporting.

In this case, the unnamed source really adds nothing to the story. Someone, somewhere who watches baseball says something. Whatever. It is a sloppy way to begin a story that offers nothing new. But in general, if sports journalists believe they are held to a lower standard, it only leaves me less likely to consider a sports story to be great, or even good.

BainesHOF
02-19-2012, 04:12 AM
I'm not sure how a piece like this doesn't mention the significant role that Guillen played in our disappointing seasons.

Brian26
02-19-2012, 10:30 AM
Brian:

With respect, I seriously doubt that Gonzo would "make up" comments and attribute them to a third party who doesn't exist. Some in the media would I guess, (I can certainly think of some) but not him.

I don't think he would either, and I didn't mean to imply that by agreeing with TDog.

I felt bad after posting that last night.

Although I still think the article is filler, clearly it is filler for a reason. The Trib wanted a full-page Sox roundup to compliment the full-page Cubs roundup in the paper this morning as part of their Spring Training kick-off coverage. The print edition shows why the article was written. It hit me when I saw it this morning.

All that said, Gonzo over the years has been my favorite Sox writer, and he's been a class act as far as I can tell. A guy has to make a living, and he's probably working for relative peanuts with the added bonus of getting ripped to shreds occasionally here. I wouldn't trade places with him.

WhiffleBall
02-19-2012, 11:35 AM
A very poor piece of journalism, really. If you're reading it, you really don't know if the reporter is making it up the "talent evaluator." If you're the reporter sincerely quoting him, you really can't rely on someone who won't attach his name or even his organization to his opinion. If everything is legitimate, you don't know if this is one of the talent evaluators who judged Adam Dunn to be an offensive star and questioned whether Hudson would ever be able to pitch effectively in the majors. But in the currently mostly oxymoronic world of sports journalism, perhaps even real journalism, a strong article isn't an example of good journalism. It is something that supports your world.

There is nothing new here. It certainly supports the views that many at WSI hold, although I don't know how it's possible to "commit to a total rebuild" considering that doing such a thing would erode what little fan support the White Sox currently get. A total rebuild won't cut the payroll appreciably because the Peavy-Rios-Dunn salaries aren't going anywhere, whether they remain on the roster or not. "Blowing the whole thing up" (something easy for people to advocate when they have no plans to go to the games anyway) would pretty much doom the White Sox to less than mediocrity for much of the rest of the decade unless they got very, very lucky. Less luck would be needed to win with the current direction of the team.

This article might support arguments that a lot of people here make, but one thing it is not is a great article, or even a good one.

I agree. The scout quotes threw the whole article off. It's just one scouts opinion. He probably could have found another scout to say the exact opposite. I also did not see any reason for throwing that "turn cubs fans into sox fans" stuff. While the sox will take any fan they can get they are not actively trying to turn current cubs fans into sox fans. That just seemed to be added to work off his statement of how the sox should rebuild because the cubs are rebuilding. Neither theory was worth a mention in this article. We are two different types of teams with difference financial assets and different types of fans.

The fact of the matter, as TDog said and most posters at WSI know, is that the sox do not have the luxury of a complete rebuild. The stadium would be a ghost town, TV/Radio ratings would be pitiful, and ad revenue would plummet putting the payroll back to early 2000 levels. It's a lose lose situation. Plus we are stuck with the Dunn/Rios/Peavy contracts this year.

Gonzo is 100% correct about VMart. 2011 would have been completely different if we would have signed him instead of Dunn but that is also something most sox fans already knew.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2012, 12:54 PM
Whiffle:

Over the past few years if you recall Gonzo has spoken with other scouts who have said the same things along the lines of what was said in the story. The sense I get is that its not just 'one scout'... that a number of people in baseball at different levels are all wondering the same thing, i.e. 'what is going on with this organization the past five years...'

Lip

kittle42
02-19-2012, 01:27 PM
What if the Good Guys on the Great Southside of Chicago get off to a good start in 2012? I keep reading on these WSI sites that KW should blow the team up. What happens if they start the season off and they're actually contending after May 2012? Will most White Sox fans still want this team blown up? I admit that alot of things will have to happen for this team to contend. But if Dunn, Rios, and Beckham actually hit, this team could have a good year. Our pitching and defense are decent. I talked to Gonzo at Soxfest and he told me that if this team hits, he thinks they're in good shape and can contend. We'll just have to wait and see.

A good start means nothing. Ask the 2011 Pirates.

SCCWS
02-19-2012, 01:56 PM
The article states that "Home attendance has declined steadily each year since 2007"

That in itself is concerning. But the author did not put it into context. The Cubs attendance has declined steadily as well since 2007. Must be a Chicago trend. Wait a minute, MLB attendance has steadily declined since 2007. Must be a national trend!!! How has the economy been since 2007????

balke
02-19-2012, 02:07 PM
The article states that "Home attendance has declined steadily each year since 2007"

That in itself is concerning. But the author did not put it into context. The Cubs attendance has declined steadily as well since 2007. Must be a Chicago trend. Wait a minute, MLB attendance has steadily declined since 2007. Must be a national trend!!! How has the economy been since 2007????

Good point. Not fun to spend money at the park when you're concerned you'll be laid off the next day.

TaylorStSox
02-19-2012, 02:31 PM
That's easy. State of the Sox? Illinois. What do I win? :dtroll:

Lip Man 1
02-19-2012, 02:36 PM
I have a strong sense that bad economy or not, if the Sox say had four winning seasons in the past five years and made the playoffs twice instead of three losing seasons in five years with one playoff appearance, attendance wouldn't have dropped as badly as it has.

Sox fans will do what they need to do to support a winner, the opposite is also true.

And Baines, Gonzo talked about the rotating DH issue that caused a lot of other issues, I don't think he needed to mention by name who had that idea do you?

Lip

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-19-2012, 05:17 PM
I have a strong sense that bad economy or not, if the Sox say had four winning seasons in the past five years and made the playoffs twice instead of three losing seasons in five years with one playoff appearance, attendance wouldn't have dropped as badly as it has.

Sox fans will do what they need to do to support a winner, the opposite is also true.

And Baines, Gonzo talked about the rotating DH issue that caused a lot of other issues, I don't think he needed to mention by name who had that idea do you?

Lip

This is true. Here is the thing, why is the entire thread talking about how the article was written? It's like a teacher grading a paper.

BainesHOF
02-21-2012, 03:55 AM
And Baines, Gonzo talked about the rotating DH issue that caused a lot of other issues, I don't think he needed to mention by name who had that idea do you?

Lip

Yes, that's why I posted. Guillen created many problems. To not acknowledge them is silly.

russ99
02-21-2012, 09:37 AM
I'm not sure how a piece like this doesn't mention the significant role that Guillen played in our disappointing seasons.

Blame Guillen if you must, but it's obvious that we didn't have enough talent, and talent is what comes out on the field instead of what's on paper.
Take Guillen out of the equasion, and this still wasn't a playoff team.

BTW: Rotating DH was at least 50% caused by Kenny having "50 cents". Which was (depending on your viewpoint) because either Jerry limited payroll before 2011 or Kenny overextending himself with his reach deals.

raven1
02-21-2012, 10:31 AM
The irony of the extreme pessimism of most of these writers this year versus the optimism they showed last year is that they are writing about the same team with almost entirely the same players. That really shows how inaccurate most of these overviews and predictions are. Given the number of variables, no one honestly knows what is going to happen so the easy approach is to simply project last year's results (which may or may not have been a complete abberation) onto this year and over-react to a few high-profile off-season moves (free-agent signings & departure)that may or may not have a significant impact.

By June we should know what we really have. It is entirely possible that come mid-summer the White Sox will be trade deadline buyers and the teams such as the Angels & Tigers who overpaid for the big names will be having a fire sale.

Dan H
02-21-2012, 11:05 AM
That is the problem with our team going into 2012. There are way too many "ifs."

What if Adam Dunn, Alex Rios and Gordon Beckham all bounce back? What if Lillibridge really gets hot. Maybe Fukodome surprises everyone and plays the way the Cubs hoped he would...

You can't bank on ifs. We all have solid reasoning to not have great expectations for 2012. I don't need a long argument trying to make smoke out of fluff. All this, we already know. Anyone who pays attention should as well.


I agree. There are too many ifs to hold real optimism for this season. If they actually contend, I will be pleasantly surprised but you are right. You can't bank on ifs.

For me, the keys to the future are not any comebacks of Rios, Dunn or Peavy. It will depend on the development of the younger players. If players like Sales do not show promise, that will be real cause for concern. The White Sox do not need to blow anything up. They need their younger players to show they can play at the major league level.

hi im skot
02-21-2012, 11:20 AM
That is the problem with our team going into 2012. There are way too many "ifs."


This accurately describes pretty much every sports team ever.

kittle42
02-21-2012, 11:45 AM
This accurately describes pretty much every sports team ever.

Not the 2010-2011 Miami Heat!

Oh, wait.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-21-2012, 08:32 PM
A good start means nothing. Ask the 2011 Pirates.

It's not how you start but how you finish.

But getting off to a good/great start will keep the fans calm and optimistic.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-21-2012, 08:33 PM
This accurately describes pretty much every sports team ever.

Not really. I mean anything can happen but most teams are not saying well if this or that happens will be win.

Lip Man 1
02-21-2012, 09:15 PM
You can't win a pennant in April but you sure as hell can lose it with a bad start which is something the Sox have done for at least the last three years.

You fall behind and the pressure is increased a lot as well as the reality that you don't have as much margin for error, injuries etc.

Lip

TDog
02-22-2012, 01:50 AM
You can't win a pennant in April but you sure as hell can lose it with a bad start which is something the Sox have done for at least the last three years.

You fall behind and the pressure is increased a lot as well as the reality that you don't have as much margin for error, injuries etc.

Lip

Getting off to a 2-10 start certainly cost the Red Six a postseason appearance in 2011.

kufram
02-22-2012, 06:58 AM
I know what you're saying, but you could pick out any 2 losses in a row for the 2011 Red Sox and say that is what cost them the post season. It's not when you win them.... it's how many you win.

A bad start can be hard to overcome as we all know too well, but a loss is a loss and a win is a win.

TDog
02-22-2012, 12:29 PM
I know what you're saying, but you could pick out any 2 losses in a row for the 2011 Red Sox and say that is what cost them the post season. It's not when you win them.... it's how many you win.

A bad start can be hard to overcome as we all know too well, but a loss is a loss and a win is a win.

At the end of April, the White Sox were 10 games out of first and fans were giving up on the season. They were only 2.5 games behind the Tigers while being 10 games behind the Inidans. The White Sox actually passed up the Indans in late August, although they finished a game behind them. They pulled to within 5 games of the Tigers in late August.

It wasn't April that doomed the Sox, any more than it was a sub-.500 April that kept the Tigers from running away with the Central. It was losing 6 September games to the Tigers, including games where the Tigers beat up Santos in the ninth, as well as losing 9 of 11 at one point around a sweep at the hands of the Tigers. The White Sox were 2.5 games beind the Tigers on May 1 and in third place 16 games out when the season ended.

Just as in 1977, when the Sox finished 13 out in third place, the division was lost at the end of the season. The difference was that the 1977 White Sox were in first place at the end of July.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-22-2012, 07:19 PM
It's not hard...EVERY GAME COUNTS. However, if a team that people expectt o play like **** does well in April, it will bring some confidence. Also, while it maybe a small sample size, if the teams get off to a slow start, that good record can be used as opposed to speculating how good or bad the next 5 months will be.

hi im skot
02-22-2012, 07:29 PM
It's not hard...EVERY GAME COUNTS. However, if a team that people expectt o play like **** does well in April, it will bring some confidence. Also, while it maybe a small sample size, if the teams get off to a slow start, that good record can be used as opposed to speculating how good or bad the next 5 months will be.

I've read through this five times and still have no idea what you're trying to say.

guillensdisciple
02-22-2012, 07:57 PM
This one is easy- Illinois.