PDA

View Full Version : Williams Quote Of The Day 11/22


Lip Man 1
11-22-2002, 12:10 PM
Kenny Williams at his best in Phil Arvia's column in Friday's Daily Southtown...

"The young guys came in in (D'Angelo) Jiminez and (Willie) Harris and (Aaron) Rowand and (Joe) Crede and (Miguel) Olivo and impressed enough to where people feel good about what's going to happen here in the next few years."

"I'm going to allow them to grow, and I'm not going to interrupt that," Williams said. "I'm still out there looking for that guy we could bring into this situation to help but not just this year. This team has a lot of growth potential in it."

So there you go Sox fans. Another four or five years of "mediocrity" followed by another "rebuilding" phase.

Isn't our organization just dandy?????

Lip

dougs78
11-22-2002, 12:58 PM
"I'm going to allow them to grow, and I'm not going to interrupt that," Williams said. "I'm still out there looking for that guy we could bring into this situation to help but not just this year. This team has a lot of growth potential in it."

What exactly do you find wrong with this quote, especially with he part you put in purple? Are you saying you would prefer it if it went out and acquired several rent a players for next year only? I don't see that as a logical move at all, so I'm glad hes not going out and mortgaging the farm in order to trade for several one and done guys. I think that all he is saying is that he is looking for a guy or two that they can bring in and fit into the long term plan...and I for one find that completely rational.

RichH55
11-22-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
"I'm going to allow them to grow, and I'm not going to interrupt that," Williams said. "I'm still out there looking for that guy we could bring into this situation to help but not just this year. This team has a lot of growth potential in it."

What exactly do you find wrong with this quote, especially with he part you put in purple? Are you saying you would prefer it if it went out and acquired several rent a players for next year only? I don't see that as a logical move at all, so I'm glad hes not going out and mortgaging the farm in order to trade for several one and done guys. I think that all he is saying is that he is looking for a guy or two that they can bring in and fit into the long term plan...and I for one find that completely rational.


Doesnt the quote say he is looking for players to help, not just this year? Isn't that a positive? KW saying we have talent here, but we still might add(#2 starter for the love of Pete!)...thats how it reads to me...there is no question we will be young, but from what I've seen and what I've read..this is a talented group of youngsters...and the other thing is that the youngsters really can't be that much worse then who they are replacing...Crede essentially over Clayton, Olivo over MJ/Paul/Alomar, Borchard over Lofton/Rowand....the only net loss is Jimenez replacing Durham, and you get better defense there at least.....We need a quality starter, no doubt, but not a lot of teams dont

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2002, 01:35 PM
Question for anybody who cares to answer:

Given what the Sox have RIGHT NOW, when should we expect them to win a championship?

Before you answer, take into account that every year you push back the Big Season, the players we have get older and older.

Exactly WHEN should we expect the Big Payoff? Please explain.

Dadawg_77
11-22-2002, 01:44 PM
Should we, no. We don't have the studs in the rotation to. That is our weakness, we need to add a good SP. If the Sox pick up a solid number one or two, even if it was a rent a player deal, our shot at October baseball rises exponentially higher. We may even have a shot at buying tickets for a World Series game. I think Kenny would be right in letting the offensive side develop unless he could get a better lead off man and or Kent. That being said, I rather have the Sox go in with a greatly improved staff over upgrades in the field.


PS. Does anyone know why Sox is consider a spelling error?

Iwritecode
11-22-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Question for anybody who cares to answer:

Given what the Sox have RIGHT NOW, when should we expect them to win a championship?

Before you answer, take into account that every year you push back the Big Season, the players we have get older and older.

Exactly WHEN should we expect the Big Payoff? Please explain.

I'd say about 1 year past never...

Seriously though, most of this team is still fairly young. At least the position players. I think the oldest ones are Thomas and Valentin. Maybe Graffy? So the core of the team can grow together. Even the pitching staff with Burly, Garland, Wright, Rauch, etc... aren't exactly nearing retirement age.

There is a running debate on the troll board whether the Sox should try to add a starter or two and go for it all now or wait and give the younger guys another full year under there belt and pick up a solid starter next year. I'm really torn on this decision. As much as I want to see a WS on the southside as soon as possible, at what cost would it come? The few free agent pitchers that would put them over the top (Moyer, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine) would cost an arm and a leg and seem to be nearing the end of their careers. Any pitcher they could get through a trade (Colon has been mentioned numerous times) could cost a lot of key players. We all know how KW does in big trades.

So, grab a cup and pick your poison...

duke of dorwood
11-22-2002, 02:46 PM
It would have to be 2004.

Moses_Scurry
11-22-2002, 03:47 PM
I'm in the group that would be in favor of mortgaging the future for a chance at a world championship ala the Florida Marlins. Maybe if the Sox had already won a WS in my lifetime, I would feel differently and want to build a dynasty instead of a one year wonder.

Think about this. How much better are we Bear fans (or at least the ones old enough to remember) for 1985-1986. That was one Superbowl and it was 16 years ago!! Yet because of that, I still have the pride of watching arguably the greatest single season in the history of the NFL. Plus, it gives me ammo for my Minnesota relatives who have no Superbowl title. If the sox were to win it all in 2003 and then suck for ten years, I would have a much happier baseball life than I do now. I still hear crap from my cousins about the '91 and '87 Twins' championships and that was over 10 years ago!

Just my $.02 worth.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
I'm in the group that would be in favor of mortgaging the future for a chance at a world championship ala the Florida Marlins. Maybe if the Sox had already won a WS in my lifetime, I would feel differently and want to build a dynasty instead of a one year wonder.

Think about this. How much better are we Bear fans (or at least the ones old enough to remember) for 1985-1986. That was one Superbowl and it was 16 years ago!! Yet because of that, I still have the pride of watching arguably the greatest single season in the history of the NFL. Plus, it gives me ammo for my Minnesota relatives who have no Superbowl title. If the sox were to win it all in 2003 and then suck for ten years, I would have a much happier baseball life than I do now. I still hear crap from my cousins about the '91 and '87 Twins' championships and that was over 10 years ago!

Just my $.02 worth.

EXACTLY!

If you want to build for the future, do so AFTER you've won a championship sometime in the last 25 years. Or in the Sox' case, the last 86 years!

There is plenty of time to build a dynasty once you're over the hump of winning it at least once. Bears fans are still keeping themselves warm at night remembering 1985; and Twins fans too, for 1987 and 1991. They don't care that their team has pretty much sucked ever since. They've been to the top of the mountain and they have no regrets.

If I had been born in 1900, I might have not attended the 1917 World Series because I would probably think I had more opportunities later in my life. Of course I would have DIED by now regretting my earlier decision.

Anyone fool enough to think today's Sox should build for some future big dynasty are setting themselves up for the same big fall. This franchise has been rebuilding for over 80 years. GET A CLUE!

Make it once. After that, it's all gravy.

jeremyb1
11-22-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kenny Williams at his best in Phil Arvia's column in Friday's Daily Southtown...

"The young guys came in in (D'Angelo) Jiminez and (Willie) Harris and (Aaron) Rowand and (Joe) Crede and (Miguel) Olivo and impressed enough to where people feel good about what's going to happen here in the next few years."

"I'm going to allow them to grow, and I'm not going to interrupt that," Williams said. "I'm still out there looking for that guy we could bring into this situation to help but not just this year. This team has a lot of growth potential in it."

So there you go Sox fans. Another four or five years of "mediocrity" followed by another "rebuilding" phase.

Isn't our organization just dandy?????

Lip

i'm not a ken williams fan but there's nothing that i'd rather hear him say. i can't believe some people think we could add a few veterans and win the world series. no offense but that type of thinking is delusional and i just can't understand it on any level. we're talking about a team here than won 81 games last season and has only the capacity (or at least the willingness) for a payroll of about 60 million, maybe 70 if jr is really convinced we'll win.

the key to a team that can make the playoffs and potentially win the world series is starting position. we'd put ourself in a pretty good position to accomplish this if we were only patient but oops, we traded one of our best young starters for a mediocre to slightly above average pitcher who turned out to be an absolute bust. if we still had kip wells and had "looked towards the future" i'd say we'd be in a position to have a very legitimate chance to win the world series in '04 or maybe even this season with the addition of a veteran starter. we seem to have blown that chance

someone has to explain to me how we should go about dismantling the team for a huge run to try to win the world series this season. personally i don't see it on a team coming off of 81 wins and whose two best pitchers in after buerhle in the next few years in garland and rauch (and potentially wright) are still developing. injecting veterans into the team is exactly what destroyed this team the last two seasons. we blocked crede at third and rowand in center to play clayton and lofton. someone explain to me why we should continue to make moves like this because our sub five hundred record with those two players on the team and our record once they were both removed from their starting spots suggests to me they only hurt this team.

i don't see why jiminez, olivo, crede, and rowand aren't qualified to be starters. crede and rowand certainly outplayed the guys they replaced, jiminez came close to matching the production of an all-star in the time he played, and olivo is a strong young talent. you'll have to explain to me how replacing jiminez, olivo and rowand with randy velarde, marquis grissom, and john flahrety comes closer to accomplishing this team's goal of winning a world series. or you could explain me how we can afford to resign ray and to sign irod and steve finely.

this wasn't intended to single anyone out by the way since there were several of you that complained that we weren't doing what it takes to win this season.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
...this wasn't intended to single anyone out by the way since there were several of you that complained that we weren't doing what it takes to win this season.

Jeremy, we aren't doing what it takes to win this LIFETIME, forget about this season or 2004.

Also, this team won 95 games as recently as 2 years ago. Like most screwed up messes, the trouble begins with the clowns running the circus. I can assure you this problem won't be fixed anytime soon. Definitely not by 2004 either.

That's my point. There is no future with the Sox; just more of the same. That is UNLESS you grab for the ring--something this franchise has refused to do in 22 seasons under Reinsdorf.

cornball
11-22-2002, 06:33 PM
I think that all he is saying is that he is looking for a guy or two that they can bring in and fit into the long term plan...and I for one find that completely rational. [/B][/QUOTE]


Baseball is not long term these days.......a good percentage of most rosters is turned over every year...and you can build a champion in a hurry, if you have the will and smarts...what did it take the D-backs? 5 years

You have to attack every year, as if this is the year to do so. Look at the teams that made dramatic turn arounds in a single year....the Angels are the latest example.

Yes keeping talent is important, however if your always rebuilding it is hard to do so....when is the last time a player with a list of teams he would allow a trade to ...had the sox on the list..

It all about want to...and JR doesnt want too.

WinningUgly!
11-22-2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Question for anybody who cares to answer:

Given what the Sox have RIGHT NOW, when should we expect them to win a championship?

Before you answer, take into account that every year you push back the Big Season, the players we have get older and older.

Exactly WHEN should we expect the Big Payoff? Please explain.
With the way things work in baseball today, the Sox have as good a shot as anybody else in MLB at making a championship run this season. Look at the Angels' roster heading into
the 2002 season. Their everyday lineup is very comparable to that of the Sox. The Anaheim starting rotation wasn't exactly anything special either. Some quality guys, but no true "ace".
They had guys make big hits when they needed them all year long & continued to do so all the way through the post season. That, along with a great pen added up to a championship. What
the Angels did this past season, should make every organization shoot for the "Big Season" now. They didn't add any major pieces to their roster...Kevin Appier is the only one that
comes to mind. The Sox could easily land a better starter right now, than Appier via free agency & also have plenty of young players ready to step up and contribute the way the Halos' did last year. With Marte, Osuna, Foulke, etc. there are some high quality arms in the pen & when put into the right situations, we could have one of the better bullpens in the league. As a life-long Sox fan, I know better than to expect the big payoff, but hopefully Kenny Williams & Jerry Reinsdorf were able to see what the Angels did this past season & take a page from them...since there's no way we'll see them taking a page out of George Steinbrenner's book. There's no point in waiting on guys like Jimenez, Crede, Olivo, Rowand, Harris, Borchard, etc. They are either ready or they're not. If they're not, by the time they are, Pauly, Maggs, Frank, Lee, Foulke & Buerhle could all be long gone.

Lip Man 1
11-23-2002, 01:08 AM
The Angels also signed Aaron Sele to help their starting rotation heading into the 2002 season.

Anaheim was the only team in baseball to have five starters with ten or more wins after the 2001 season (That's right even the Yankees didn't) so I'd have to say their pitching even going into the 2002 season was far superior to the Sox, going out and adding Appier and Sele only helped matters.

Unless the Sox are willing to do that, they can score eight runs a game and probably won't win anything because the staff will give up nine.

It's not only the starters, as I and others have pointed out, the bullpen is VERY shaky because middle relief is a disaster. No proven guys just rookies.

The Sporting News this week came out with their list of guys on the trading block and they have Keith Foulke there. Just FYI.

Lip

hsc1
11-23-2002, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kenny Williams at his best in Phil Arvia's column in Friday's Daily Southtown...

"The young guys came in in (D'Angelo) Jiminez and (Willie) Harris and (Aaron) Rowand and (Joe) Crede and (Miguel) Olivo and impressed enough to where people feel good about what's going to happen here in the next few years."

"I'm going to allow them to grow, and I'm not going to interrupt that," Williams said. "I'm still out there looking for that guy we could bring into this situation to help but not just this year. This team has a lot of growth potential in it."

So there you go Sox fans. Another four or five years of "mediocrity" followed by another "rebuilding" phase.

Isn't our organization just dandy?????

Lip

what no mention of rolling the dice???? geez.... while other gm's are actually caculating what guys would fit best in their clubhouse and will actually do something for their team... we are stuck with the ramblin gamblin gm who prefers to roll the dice and hope for the best.....i would say it safe to bet we will be in a constant state of rebuilding untill we get a gm here who knows what the heck is going on ..........just mho though........

kermittheefrog
11-23-2002, 03:13 AM
Ok isn't going out and getting useless contracts like David Wells, Royce Clayton and Todd Ritchie what destroyed Williams in the first place? I think we should be happy he's not going to do anything. Thats the best news I've heard in a while.

Tragg
11-23-2002, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
I'm in the group that would be in favor of mortgaging the future for a chance at a world championship ala the Florida Marlins.

For every 1 Fla Marlins that have successfully mortgaged, and there has been exactly one, there are Mets (every year), Dodgers (every year), Tribe (5 or so years). Just because you mortgage, doesn't mean you will win the WS or even play .500 ball.

Now consider who is doing the mortgaging........

cornball
11-23-2002, 08:20 AM
To me it is simple, get pitching .....preferably through free agency to contend next year. Get two starters. Moyer, Bryd or trade for Colon after one FA is signed.

For example if Beuhrle, Colon/Bryd, Moyer, Garland and Wright is your staff. You have a deep bullpen of which you can trade to fill holes (Osuna, Ritchie, Foulke, Biddle, Glover, Marte, Wunsch, Rauch...........), while waiting for additional prospects to replace the Moyer types(Honel). A free agent signing needs to happen first. To allow you to trade for a Colon type or players to fill holes from the strength of the pen and the farm.

To continue to wait for them to develop prospects, the cycle will never end.

Sounds easy, and pie in the sky because it costs money. I don't blame this on KW rather JR.

Take a chance now!!!

Paulwny
11-23-2002, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by cornball
To me it is simple, get pitching .....preferably through free agency to contend next year. Get two starters. Moyer, Bryd or trade for Colon after one FA is signed.

To continue to wait for them to develop prospects, the cycle will never end.

Sounds easy, and pie in the sky because it costs money. I don't blame this on KW rather JR.



A FA will not sign with the sox because of JR's refusal to give long term contracts to pitchers.
You're right, the cycle is endless.

Lip Man 1
11-23-2002, 12:25 PM
Kermit says to Fozzie:

I think we should be happy he's not going to do anything. Thats the best news I've heard in a while.

We'll see if you feel the same way after another .500 (maybe)season. Better still we'll see if you feel that way after waiting ANOTHER 20 to 30 years for GOOD baseball.

Lip

oldcomiskey
11-23-2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Ok isn't going out and getting useless contracts like David Wells, Royce Clayton and Todd Ritchie what destroyed Williams in the first place? I think we should be happy he's not going to do anything. Thats the best news I've heard in a while.

agreed that Clayton was worthless.....the jury is still out on ritchie and as far as Boomer goes--dont underestimate his rub on Burly and Garland

PaleHoseGeorge
11-23-2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Ok isn't going out and getting useless contracts like David Wells, Royce Clayton and Todd Ritchie what destroyed Williams in the first place? I think we should be happy he's not going to do anything. Thats the best news I've heard in a while.

Yep. The fish rots from the head down. It has gotten so bad for Sox Fans, we actually prefer our GM sit on his hands for fear what disaster he'll lead us to next. This team has dropped 14 games in the win column since that dope Kenny Williams was promoted to GM. I'm sure most of us will agree, too, that the freefall is not over yet.

The news that Kenny Williams is planning to do nothing is definitely better news than he plans to do something. Whether this is good news for building a Sox championship team anytime in the near future is highly debatable.

OneDog
11-23-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Yep. The fish rots from the head down. It has gotten so bad for Sox Fans, we actually prefer our GM sit on his hands for fear what disaster he'll lead us to next. This team has dropped 14 games in the win column since that dope Kenny Williams was promoted to GM. I'm sure most of us will agree, too, that the freefall is not over yet.

The news that Kenny Williams is planning to do nothing is definitely better news than he plans to do something. Whether this is good news for building a Sox championship team anytime in the near future is highly debatable.

Stupidity in the front office has been the curse of all Chicago teams, not just the Sox. Throughout the history of Chicago sports, teams have been hurt because of greedy/stupid/no-will-to-win front offices such as:

McCaskey
Reinsdorf
Wirtz
The Trib (although I trust no one will cry for them)

kermittheefrog
11-23-2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kermit says to Fozzie:

I think we should be happy he's not going to do anything. Thats the best news I've heard in a while.

We'll see if you feel the same way after another .500 (maybe)season. Better still we'll see if you feel that way after waiting ANOTHER 20 to 30 years for GOOD baseball.

Lip

I'm so shocked, instead of making a thought out and original comment Lip just made a cynical retort. Never would have expected a post like that from him.

chisox06
11-23-2002, 03:33 PM
No doubt this is a young team, but 2000 proved what a young team with damn good inexpierenced players can do. As far as are young talent it looks even better than the 2000 team (on paper anyway.) Another veteran starter and maybe a solid leadoff guy (Kent??) and we might be looking at Deja vu all over again.

When KW threw a lot of the veteran talent away ( Durham, Alomar, Clayton, Lofton) I was as mad as anyone, and again I thought its going to be 3-4 years before we had a competitive team again. Then I watched the young guys play, and not only did they impress me I was also impressed at the rest of the clubhouse and how they responded to these young guys. They brought life back into the team, and the new fire brought wins. So I think Williams is betting on these young players to step up and he realizes that there is a lot of young talent on this team and he's willing to bet on them for next year (and not trade them away for rented 1 shot veteran players). For me, I have the same feeling as I did before the 2000 season, lets just hope the results are the same (obviously except for the playoffs :smile: ).

guillen4life13
11-23-2002, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by chisox06
No doubt this is a young team, but 2000 proved what a young team with damn good inexpierenced players can do. As far as are young talent it looks even better than the 2000 team (on paper anyway.) Another veteran starter and maybe a solid leadoff guy (Kent??) and we might be looking at Deja vu all over again.

When KW threw a lot of the veteran talent away ( Durham, Alomar, Clayton, Lofton) I was as mad as anyone, and again I thought its going to be 3-4 years before we had a competitive team again. Then I watched the young guys play, and not only did they impress me I was also impressed at the rest of the clubhouse and how they responded to these young guys. They brought life back into the team, and the new fire brought wins. So I think Williams is betting on these young players to step up and he realizes that there is a lot of young talent on this team and he's willing to bet on them for next year (and not trade them away for rented 1 shot veteran players). For me, I have the same feeling as I did before the 2000 season, lets just hope the results are the same (obviously except for the playoffs :smile: ).

the difference:

Sirotka
Eldred
Baldwin
Parque
Wells


IMO does not equal

Buehrle
Garland
Wright
Rauch
Biddle


hate to shoot you down, chisox06, but most people would (I'm guessing) agree with me on this one.
why?
Buehrle is better than Siro.
Eldred (at the time) was better than Garland.
Baldwin (at the time) was better than Wright.
Parque was proven... but Rauch could give better results... that jury is still out.
Wells (at the time) was equal to, or just a little bit worse than Biddle.

Eldred was the mentor of the staff... the veteran. He was an extremely important piece of that puzzle compared to 1999. This year we don't have the equivalent of that, unless Ritchie cracks the rotation, in which case some of us might decide to kill ourselves, or have an extremely depressing Jim Beam experience.

This rotation has the potential to be aces 1-4 and an extremely legit 5 starter. Too bad potential doesn't necessarily mean anything. Hopefully Don Cooper can mold these guys into what they need to be.

jeremyb1
11-23-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Jeremy, we aren't doing what it takes to win this LIFETIME, forget about this season or 2004.

Also, this team won 95 games as recently as 2 years ago. Like most screwed up messes, the trouble begins with the clowns running the circus. I can assure you this problem won't be fixed anytime soon. Definitely not by 2004 either.

That's my point. There is no future with the Sox; just more of the same. That is UNLESS you grab for the ring--something this franchise has refused to do in 22 seasons under Reinsdorf.

there's really no comparing this team to the team from '00. starting pitching is arguably the most important part of a team these days and if not the second most important aspect of a team and we have none of the same starters as we had in '00. eldred, sirotka, baldwin, and parque all went down with injuries and sirotka, jb, and kip wells were all dealt.

if we still had the same team as '00 we'd have much older players and then it would be time to go for a world series but that's not the case anymore. our rotation consists of a 23 year old, a 24 year old, two 25 year olds, and a 26 year old going into next season. these pitchers are the real deal, they can take us to the promised land but its difficult to do at that age. however, they're getting much better and improving rapidly.

i don't understand the fear that our window of opportunity here is small. frank is no longer the only key offensive weapon on thi team and he's already getting a little up there in age already anyways. maggs is only 29 and paully will be 27 next year. we have maggs for two more seasons and paully for three and we've shown a willingness to sign them to longer deals. buehrle is here for 4 more seasons. i feel pretty comfortable with our ability to win by '04 with these teams and a few key additions. at no point has williams indicated he's unwilling to sign free agents just that he's not make a last ditch effort to win this year with veterans which has gotten us nowhere the last two seasons.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-23-2002, 06:50 PM
there's really no comparing this team to the team from '00. starting pitching is arguably the most important part of a team these days and if not the second most important aspect of a team and we have none of the same starters as we had in '00. eldred, sirotka, baldwin, and parque all went down with injuries and sirotka, jb, and kip wells were all dealt.

This is very confusing. The pitching rotation from '00 is gone, but you think the young guys are going to deliver 2 years or more down the line? Fine. So explain why you think Reinsdorf will sign these pitchers when their arbitration and free agency starts popping up? BTW, the cost of signing the rest of the team will continue to escalate, too. JR is cutting payroll, not adding to it. You think JR is going to pay for all this? You're far more trusting than I am.

if we still had the same team as '00 we'd have much older players and then it would be time to go for a world series but that's not the case anymore. our rotation consists of a 23 year old, a 24 year old, two 25 year olds, and a 26 year old going into next season. these pitchers are the real deal, they can take us to the promised land but its difficult to do at that age. however, they're getting much better and improving rapidly.

Huh? Right now, JR has himself one of the cheapest pitching rotations in the league. With all the money he saves on all those non arbitration-eligible pitchers, he can "afford" to pay guys like Konerko, Ordonez, and Lee. Unfortunately, the arbitration clock is running on Buehrle, Garland, and the rest of them. You think JR is going to cough up the cash to hold onto them without skimping someplace else? Again, you're far more trusting than I am.

i don't understand the fear that our window of opportunity here is small. frank is no longer the only key offensive weapon on thi team and he's already getting a little up there in age already anyways. maggs is only 29 and paully will be 27 next year. we have maggs for two more seasons and paully for three and we've shown a willingness to sign them to longer deals. buehrle is here for 4 more seasons. i feel pretty comfortable with our ability to win by '04 with these teams and a few key additions. at no point has williams indicated he's unwilling to sign free agents just that he's not make a last ditch effort to win this year with veterans which has gotten us nowhere the last two seasons.

Based on what you've written above, I would LOVE to know your theory on how long the 2004 "window" is going to stay open. I don't feel any bit of it is based in reality. Please indulge us with your explanation.

awesomefan
11-23-2002, 07:59 PM
[SIZE=3][FONT=courier new][COLOR=blue]
DAWG: Who says that Sox is spelled wrong? Besides if it's a name of something or someone like the Chicago White Sox, you can spell it however you want. Like Brandy or Brandi........Sandy or Sandi, etc.

Also: The White Sox were called the Chicago White Stockings....stockings are sox/socks and the plural for sock can be spelled sox according to my Seven Language Dictionary "Webster's Third New International Dictionary"(Unabridged). One sock is spelled "sock".....maybe that is where the confusion comes in, but I think maybe most of the confusion is caused by some Cubs fans just wantin' to make fun of a SoX fan.

Let's see if I can use White Sock & White Sox in a sentence to show you......Tony Graffanino is a Chicago White Sock. Tony Graffanino is a member of the Chicago White Sox team.

WinningUgly: Excellent point about the Rookies are either ready or their not.

Lip Man: Great stats about the Angels startin' rotation....I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!!!

CORNBALL: Indeed I think most of us also blame JR for letting this disasterious wheelin' & dealin' of Kenny Williams to go on.

As HotSoxChick says: Kenny Williams seems to think of himself as a ramblin' gamblin' man that likes to roll the dice.

I think that Kenny Williams also fancys himself as a GQ(Gentlemen's Quarterly) like GM. Kenny thinks it's better to LOOK GOOD than to be GOOD. He needs to get his face outta the mirror & get serious about being General Manager of the Chicago White Sox....if he even knows how.

chisox06
11-23-2002, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
the difference:

Sirotka
Eldred
Baldwin
Parque
Wells


IMO does not equal

Buehrle
Garland
Wright
Rauch
Biddle


hate to shoot you down, chisox06, but most people would (I'm guessing) agree with me on this one.
why?
Buehrle is better than Siro.
Eldred (at the time) was better than Garland.
Baldwin (at the time) was better than Wright.
Parque was proven... but Rauch could give better results... that jury is still out.
Wells (at the time) was equal to, or just a little bit worse than Biddle.

Eldred was the mentor of the staff... the veteran. He was an extremely important piece of that puzzle compared to 1999. This year we don't have the equivalent of that, unless Ritchie cracks the rotation, in which case some of us might decide to kill ourselves, or have an extremely depressing Jim Beam experience.

This rotation has the potential to be aces 1-4 and an extremely legit 5 starter. Too bad potential doesn't necessarily mean anything. Hopefully Don Cooper can mold these guys into what they need to be.

Yea you make a good point guillen4life, just trying to take an optimistic view on things, the best I can anyway. Generally what I was trying to say is that before 2000 there were a lot of questions, and going into next year theres plenty of questions as well, and above all of that, it was the young talent on the team that made them successful. Lets hope for the same.

Lip Man 1
11-23-2002, 11:07 PM
Chisox06 says:

Let's hope for the same...

It's unfortunate don't you think that Sox fans are left to "hope" they might be able to catch lightning in a bottle again?"

Lip

chisox06
11-23-2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Chisox06 says:

Let's hope for the same...

It's unfortunate don't you think that Sox fans are left to "hope" they might be able to catch lightning in a bottle again?"

Lip

Your right, hope is such a desperate word but......

Dan H
11-24-2002, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Jeremy, we aren't doing what it takes to win this LIFETIME, forget about this season or 2004.

Also, this team won 95 games as recently as 2 years ago. Like most screwed up messes, the trouble begins with the clowns running the circus. I can assure you this problem won't be fixed anytime soon. Definitely not by 2004 either.

That's my point. There is no future with the Sox; just more of the same. That is UNLESS you grab for the ring--something this franchise has refused to do in 22 seasons under Reinsdorf.

I agree with this sentiment completely. Talk about the future is cheap. The White Flag Trade, which symbolized a major rebuilding effort, happened over five years ago. I don't want to hear anything more about promising futures.

I went to my first Sox game in 1961. I will be 50 next year. The last thing I want to hear is more hope springs enternal nonsense. I don't know how many times I have heard that a World Series is just around the corner. Obviously, the team still hasn't turned the corner.

It is time for the Sox to just do it already. No more blaming the fans or the Chicago lap dog media for their problems. Just win something big and then they can complain about no fan support or biased sportswriters.

jeremyb1
11-24-2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Dan H
I agree with this sentiment completely. Talk about the future is cheap. The White Flag Trade, which symbolized a major rebuilding effort, happened over five years ago. I don't want to hear anything more about promising futures.

I went to my first Sox game in 1961. I will be 50 next year. The last thing I want to hear is more hope springs enternal nonsense. I don't know how many times I have heard that a World Series is just around the corner. Obviously, the team still hasn't turned the corner.

It is time for the Sox to just do it already. No more blaming the fans or the Chicago lap dog media for their problems. Just win something big and then they can complain about no fan support or biased sportswriters.

and we're still rebuilding and haven't had any success since the white flag trade? we won 95 games in '00, 85 in '01, and 81 last season. obviously we all want to win a world series, but have sypathy for the tampa bay devil rays and the kansas city royals of the world. these teams lose 100 games almost every year. we've obviously been pretty successful developing talent or we wouldn't be where we're at. obviously we'd all like more but we're still doing pretty well compared to a lot of teams and we're improving.

Lip Man 1
11-24-2002, 10:16 PM
Jeremy:

The Sox won 83 games in 2001 not 85. Also may I suggest that you look in the archives at my comprehensive look back at the White Flag Deal...5 years and counting.

The "average" White Sox record in the years following the deal in July 1997 (as of the day the story was printed) was

83 - 79!!! (and YES that's includes the 95 win abberation)

That's my point. WHY is it that Sox fans have to HOPE they can win? Why can't the club go out and at least dramatic increase the odds of them doing so?

When the Sox actually win something IT NEVER LASTS. (see 1983, 1993 and 2000) That's because this entire organization is built on "hope" instead of common baseball sense and a desire to acquire the top talent in any way possible.

Basically when the Sox win it IS a fluke. That's NO WAY to run a franchise.

Lip

hsc1
11-24-2002, 11:47 PM
lip...... thats what you get when you have a roll the dice type of guy in the front office instead of one who actually knows what the heck is going on...........too bad the fans cant own the team.. we would have winning seasons each and every year, insead of hope........

Blueprint1
11-25-2002, 11:05 AM
Sirotka
Eldred
Baldwin
Parque
Wells


IMO does not equal

Buehrle
Garland
Wright
Rauch
Biddle

Okay you say this but how about we look at the numbers entering the 2000 season. Plus everyone yells lets make a move now. I don't say that if we cant sign a player via FA don't make a foolish trade. You all would yell make a trade and as soon as KW did that if the trade didn't work out you all would call him stupid. I find if funny that no matter what our GM's do someone calls them stupid. the people wanting a trade are the same people that wanted the trade last year. Look where that got us. We traded away two pitchers that we could use this year. To pick up a quality player you have to give up one. Right now I'm not ready to give up our young talent for a player some other team is willing to trade. Now signing a FA is not a bad idea. PLEASE NO TRADES.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2002, 12:50 PM
"Luck is the residual of design..."--Branch Rickey Hall Of Fame GM of the Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Caridnals and Pittsburgh Pirates.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

The Sox won 83 games in 2001 not 85. Also may I suggest that you look in the archives at my comprehensive look back at the White Flag Deal...5 years and counting.

The "average" White Sox record in the years following the deal in July 1997 (as of the day the story was printed) was

83 - 79!!! (and YES that's includes the 95 win abberation)

That's my point. WHY is it that Sox fans have to HOPE they can win? Why can't the club go out and at least dramatic increase the odds of them doing so?

When the Sox actually win something IT NEVER LASTS. (see 1983, 1993 and 2000) That's because this entire organization is built on "hope" instead of common baseball sense and a desire to acquire the top talent in any way possible.

Basically when the Sox win it IS a fluke. That's NO WAY to run a franchise.


i wasn't making a blanket endorsement of every move this organization has made. i happen to disagree with many of them. my point was merely that averaging 83 wins a year is pretty good. there are a number of teams kc, detroit, tampa, pittsburg, etc. who haven't won 83 games ONCE since the white flag trade. only 8 teams make the playoffs every year. like i said, we'd all like more than 83 games but i think there's something to be said for the organization that despite ken williams ineptitude as a gm we've been .500 three years in a row including a 95 win season using almost entirely home grown talent. therefore the statement that rebuilding has been a total failure because we haven't won a world series strikes me as absurd.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This is very confusing. The pitching rotation from '00 is gone, but you think the young guys are going to deliver 2 years or more down the line? Fine. So explain why you think Reinsdorf will sign these pitchers when their arbitration and free agency starts popping up? BTW, the cost of signing the rest of the team will continue to escalate, too. JR is cutting payroll, not adding to it. You think JR is going to pay for all this? You're far more trusting than I am.

Huh? Right now, JR has himself one of the cheapest pitching rotations in the league. With all the money he saves on all those non arbitration-eligible pitchers, he can "afford" to pay guys like Konerko, Ordonez, and Lee. Unfortunately, the arbitration clock is running on Buehrle, Garland, and the rest of them. You think JR is going to cough up the cash to hold onto them without skimping someplace else? Again, you're far more trusting than I am.

Based on what you've written above, I would LOVE to know your theory on how long the 2004 "window" is going to stay open. I don't feel any bit of it is based in reality. Please indulge us with your explanation.

i don't think i'm excessively trusting but i feel your analysis is excessively pessimistic. give me one example of the sox trading or non tendering a player in the last few years because we were unwilling to play the salary the player would earn in arbitration. foulke went to arbitration and earned 5 million. what'd we do? we extended his deal.

are you trying to argue we're going to trade or cut buehrle and garland once they are arbitration elligible because we can't afford them? that just doesn't even seem slightly realistic to me. buehrle and garland each have a season left before they become arbitration elligible and then three more seasons after that.

i'd like you to explain your characterization of our starting rotation as "cheap". are you suggesting that buehrle an all-star, garland once one of the top ten prospects in baseball who reached the majors at 20, rauch a former minor league player of the year, and wright also a rather highly regarded prospect are not qualfied to start in the big leagues and are only pitching because they're inexpensive? that doesn't make sense to me on any level. there's no denying these players' talent.

i think that our young players will remain on our roster until they become free agents unless they are traded because the organization feels a deal will improve our team. that means until 2006 for buehrle and garland, 2007 for wright, 2004 for maggs, 2005 for paully, etc. you can explain to me how we'll lose them before then.

Daver
11-25-2002, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1


are you trying to argue we're going to trade or cut buehrle and garland once they are arbitration elligible because we can't afford them? that just doesn't even seem slightly realistic to me. buehrle and garland each have a season left before they become arbitration elligible and then three more seasons after that.



Keep in mind the fact that Jack MacDowell was never offered a contract by the White Sox,he went to arbitration every year and walked as soon as he was a FA.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-25-2002, 07:17 PM
i don't think i'm excessively trusting but i feel your analysis is excessively pessimistic. give me one example of the sox trading or non tendering a player in the last few years because we were unwilling to play the salary the player would earn in arbitration. foulke went to arbitration and earned 5 million. what'd we do? we extended his deal.

Baldwin is the latest example. The Sox don't have any other pitchers that fit your criteria since they are aren't arbitration eligible. They work cheap! Unlike you, I don't for a moment believe JR will cough up what it takes to sign Buehrle, Garland, and Rauch. Unlike you, I'm not ignoring how he let McDowell, Fernandez, and Alvarez go the last time this situation arised.

are you trying to argue we're going to trade or cut buehrle and garland once they are arbitration elligible because we can't afford them? that just doesn't even seem slightly realistic to me. buehrle and garland each have a season left before they become arbitration elligible and then three more seasons after that.

McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez. Three young talents, all chased off, and it happened less than ten years ago. Now who is being unrealistic in their viewpoint, hmmm?

I'd like you to explain your characterization of our starting rotation as "cheap". are you suggesting that buehrle an all-star, garland once one of the top ten prospects in baseball who reached the majors at 20, rauch a former minor league player of the year, and wright also a rather highly regarded prospect are not qualfied to start in the big leagues and are only pitching because they're inexpensive? that doesn't make sense to me on any level. there's no denying these players' talent.

The Sox spend less payroll on their starting rotation than virtually every team in the major leagues. That's cheap. Furthermore, it won't last because the arbitration clock is running on all of them, another fact you conveniently keep overlooking.

i think that our young players will remain on our roster until they become free agents unless they are traded because the organization feels a deal will improve our team. that means until 2006 for buehrle and garland, 2007 for wright, 2004 for maggs, 2005 for paully, etc. you can explain to me how we'll lose them before then.

Nice try. The cost of these pitchers will rise exponentially long before these guys become free agents because their arbitration eligibility arrives three years earlier. Let me guess! You'll be the one in 3 years saying the Sox ought to trade the best of these pitchers "'cause we can't afford to re-sign them, so let's get something of value now. We'll compete again in 2009."

And thus begins another rebuilding program that leads us nowhere.

Sorry. I've been there, done that.

OneDog
11-25-2002, 08:12 PM
The only way for the white sox to compete again is for someone to take the team from Reinsdorf. As long as he and his backward views on starting pithcing (i.e. not signing starting pitchers) are in power. This team will never compete. In an age of offense, arms that can shut down opposing bats become much more important.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2002, 10:20 PM
Jeremy says:

"My point was merely that averaging 83 wins a year is pretty good."

Jeremy that's only TWO GAMES over .500!!! (81-81) That's pretty good?????

I'm not trying to just pick on you, so don't take this personally but that's the kind of attitude I'd expect from a Cub fan.

Can you possibly imagine that attitude flying in New York? Those fans (of both the Yankees and Mets) expect and DEMAND more.

Why should Sox fans be satisfied with being two games over .500?

This franchise hasn't won a World Series in 86 seasons, they haven't even BEEN to a series since 1959 (I was four). They have only won three divisional titles since 1969 when the divisional format began. Three titles in 34 years! (four if you count the strike shortened year of 94) They have lost nine straight home post season games (The MLB record is ten straight), they have NEVER made the playoffs as a Wild Card team (which means you have the 4th playoff position).

The Giants have been to the playoffs three time since 1997!

I'm sorry being satisfied at averaging a record onlytwo games over .500 doesn't cut it for me in any way, shape or form.

Lip

Iwritecode
11-26-2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

"My point was merely that averaging 83 wins a year is pretty good."

Jeremy that's only TWO GAMES over .500!!! (81-81) That's pretty good?????

I'm not trying to just pick on you, so don't take this personally but that's the kind of attitude I'd expect from a Cub fan.

Can you possibly imagine that attitude flying in New York? Those fans (of both the Yankees and Mets) expect and DEMAND more.

Why should Sox fans be satisfied with being two games over .500?

This franchise hasn't won a World Series in 86 seasons, they haven't even BEEN to a series since 1959 (I was four). They have only won three divisional titles since 1969 when the divisional format began. Three titles in 34 years! (four if you count the strike shortened year of 94) They have lost nine straight home post season games (The MLB record is ten straight), they have NEVER made the playoffs as a Wild Card team (which means you have the 4th playoff position).

The Giants have been to the playoffs three time since 1997!

I'm sorry being satisfied at averaging a record onlytwo games over .500 doesn't cut it for me in any way, shape or form.

Lip

Wow, for once I completely agree with Lip. :o:

My only question is, and I've brought this up before, how exactly do we as fans DEMAND more from this organization? This "start winning or we won't show up to watch the games" attitude hasn't been working the past few years...

Lip Man 1
11-26-2002, 12:34 PM
Simple SHOW UP EVEN LESS! Simply don't go at all, listen to the Sox on the radio, watch them on TV, read about the in the newspapers but don't go to the park.

Eventually if Reinsdorf hasn't been lying all along, he'll lose so much money, he'll have to sell or go broke in the process. Think his attitude and the attitude of the Illinois Sports Stadium Authority might change a bit if the Sox draw, say 900,000 for the season?

And if he threatens to move the team...fine, let' em' go.

It may take five to ten years but eventually the South Side will get another team. The A.L. is not going to fork over the 3rd largest city in the country to the N.L. just like they did in Arizona.

Lip

hold2dibber
11-26-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i wasn't making a blanket endorsement of every move this organization has made. i happen to disagree with many of them. my point was merely that averaging 83 wins a year is pretty good. there are a number of teams kc, detroit, tampa, pittsburg, etc. who haven't won 83 games ONCE since the white flag trade. only 8 teams make the playoffs every year. like i said, we'd all like more than 83 games but i think there's something to be said for the organization that despite ken williams ineptitude as a gm we've been .500 three years in a row including a 95 win season using almost entirely home grown talent. therefore the statement that rebuilding has been a total failure because we haven't won a world series strikes me as absurd.

(1) KC, Detroit, and Pittsburgh have all won World Series crowns in my lifetime (born in '67). The White Sox haven't won a World Series crown in my lifetime, my father's lifetime (born in '45) or in my grandfather's lifetime (born in '19). Thus, I don't consider the Sox to be more successful than any of those teams, despite the last 5-10 years.

(2) I agree that the post-White Flag rebuilding hasn't been a total failure, because the Sox haven't been horrible and because I'm not sure that the Sox would have been any better (and suspect they may have been worse) if not for the White Flag trade.

hold2dibber
11-26-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez. Three young talents, all chased off, and it happened less than ten years ago. Now who is being unrealistic in their viewpoint, hmmm?

My guess is that JR views the post-White Sox fortunes of these three as examples A through C of why his approach to handling pitching talent is the right approach. None of the three ever duplicated their success with the Sox and all three suffered arm problems shortly after their departures which would have bit the Sox in the ass if they had been signed to long term contracts.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
My guess is that JR views the post-White Sox fortunes of these three as examples A through C of why his approach to handling pitching talent is the right approach. None of the three ever duplicated their success with the Sox and all three suffered arm problems shortly after their departures which would have bit the Sox in the ass if they had been signed to long term contracts.

*****!

Okay, here are examples A through C of the starting pitchers who Reinsdorf DID USE after McDowell, Fernandez, and Alvarez were all chased off.

Brian Keyser, 10 GS, 5-6, 4.97 ERA
Joe Magrane, 6 GS, 1-5, 6.88 ERA
Jaime Navarro, 33 GS, 9-14, 5.79 ERA
Mike Bertotti, 4 GS, 1-1, 12.56 ERA
(I'm sorry--I couldn't resist adding "Rocketshot" to the list. He is a personal favorite of mine. :cool: )

Oh yeah, Reinsdorf REALLY made a point about how worthless those other pitchers were! It's a good thing some Sox Fans agree with him, too! Mediocrity Forever!!!

Here's a fact: the Sox NEVER replaced any of the three, unless you want to count Navarro. Of course it took three years for them to admit the Navarro signing was a mistake, running his worthless ass out there every fifth day, 1997-99. I thought the idea here was to IMPROVE the ballclub. Your response has NOTHING to do with that, does it?

Some of us are trying to win championships. The rest of us are trying to make excuses. Which category do you fall into, dibber?

Lip Man 1
11-26-2002, 04:02 PM
As I stated before on another thread:

Jack McDowell, 1995 season, 15 game winner for the Yanks

Jack McDowell, 1996 season, 13 game winner for the Indians while the Sox were blowing a 4 1/2 game September Wild Card lead because they didn't have ANY 5th starters worth a damn.

Alex Fernandez won what four post season games for the 1997 World Champion Florida Marlins and I think he won 16 in the regular season.

Yea they sure fell apart fast didn't they? In today's game with pitching so scarce, you have to take your chances and keep guys who have proven they can do the job, if they blow apart two years later (perhaps a "lifetime" in today's baseball?) that's to damn bad.

Lip

jeremyb1
11-27-2002, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Baldwin is the latest example. The Sox don't have any other pitchers that fit your criteria since they are aren't arbitration eligible. They work cheap! Unlike you, I don't for a moment believe JR will cough up what it takes to sign Buehrle, Garland, and Rauch. Unlike you, I'm not ignoring how he let McDowell, Fernandez, and Alvarez go the last time this situation arised.

McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez. Three young talents, all chased off, and it happened less than ten years ago. Now who is being unrealistic in their viewpoint, hmmm?

The Sox spend less payroll on their starting rotation than virtually every team in the major leagues. That's cheap. Furthermore, it won't last because the arbitration clock is running on all of them, another fact you conveniently keep overlooking.

Nice try. The cost of these pitchers will rise exponentially long before these guys become free agents because their arbitration eligibility arrives three years earlier. Let me guess! You'll be the one in 3 years saying the Sox ought to trade the best of these pitchers "'cause we can't afford to re-sign them, so let's get something of value now. We'll compete again in 2009."

And thus begins another rebuilding program that leads us nowhere.

Sorry. I've been there, done that.

at no point do i refuse to allow for the possibility that our young players will walk once they become free agents but that's not what you're arguing. you're arguing that we will be unwilling to pay them once they reach arbitration.

jb is not an example of trading a player once he became arbitration elligible because we traded him after paying for 2 and a half years of arbitration. ditto for ray. we might trade buehrle or garland if we can't resign them at the trade deadline the year right before they hit free agency but that's still 3 and a half years from now!

alvarez, hernandez, and fernandez were also paid by the sox for 2 and a half years of arbitration. this is hardly the same as non tendering them or trading them after three years of the minimum salary because we wouldn't pay them.

you have to explain to me how i'm overlooking the arbitration factor. i've now written two long posts demonstrating how the white sox have never discarded players once they became arbitration elligible in the past and they are unlikely to do so now. you've given me examples of players traded after 5.5 years to avoid losing them to free agency and no examples of trading players after 3 or 4 years because we didn't want to pay them after arbitration.

jeremyb1
11-27-2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by daver
Keep in mind the fact that Jack MacDowell was never offered a contract by the White Sox,he went to arbitration every year and walked as soon as he was a FA.

that's true. we may alienate some players and become unable to sign them when they're free agents but we'll still pay them what they earn in arbitration until they're free agents as long as they're producing.

jeremyb1
11-27-2002, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

"My point was merely that averaging 83 wins a year is pretty good."

Jeremy that's only TWO GAMES over .500!!! (81-81) That's pretty good?????

I'm not trying to just pick on you, so don't take this personally but that's the kind of attitude I'd expect from a Cub fan.

Can you possibly imagine that attitude flying in New York? Those fans (of both the Yankees and Mets) expect and DEMAND more.

Why should Sox fans be satisfied with being two games over .500?

This franchise hasn't won a World Series in 86 seasons, they haven't even BEEN to a series since 1959 (I was four). They have only won three divisional titles since 1969 when the divisional format began. Three titles in 34 years! (four if you count the strike shortened year of 94) They have lost nine straight home post season games (The MLB record is ten straight), they have NEVER made the playoffs as a Wild Card team (which means you have the 4th playoff position).

The Giants have been to the playoffs three time since 1997!

I'm sorry being satisfied at averaging a record onlytwo games over .500 doesn't cut it for me in any way, shape or form.

Lip

the yankees the mets also have 100 million dollar payrolls and owners willing to win at all costs. we haven't been blessed with either of those. an average of above .500 over three years is pretty good. most baseball teams do not make the playoffs every season.

just off the top of my head i'm going to say that over the last three years our record is better than the blue jays, the twins, the royals, the devil rays, the tigers, the o's, the rangers, and probably the angels and indians also in the al. that makes us above average. of course i want to win every year and i want to demand excellence but i also want to be realistic. watching a team struggle like the drays or the cubs would make me quite happy if i could count on my team to make the playoffs once every several years and never finish below .500.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-27-2002, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
at no point do i refuse to allow for the possibility that our young players will walk once they become free agents but that's not what you're arguing. you're arguing that we will be unwilling to pay them once they reach arbitration....

Get your facts straight.

We TRADED McDowell. As I recall, we we're in first-place and fighting Cleveland for the division crown. We TRADED him, because the Sox under JR had no hope of signing him. Yeah, there was that little matter of the strike to settle, but the Sox NEVER replaced McDowell--except with bargain garbage. No championship.

Also...

We TRADED Alvarez. As I recall, we we're in second-place and fighting Cleveland for the division crown. We TRADED him (along with Hernandez and a few other quality players) because the Sox under JR had no hope of signing him. Yeah, there was that little matter of we fans being "crazy" to think the Sox could actually do something that year (and we've paid back JR with apathy ever since), but the Sox NEVER replaced Alvarez--except with bargain garbage. No championship.

Finally...

We KEPT Fernandez. After we lost him to free agency, we drafted Parque with the sandwich pick. Did that make the Sox happy? Apparently not. Just this summer, we traded Ray Durham (and forfeited the sandwich pick) for a AAA pitcher. The Sox even PAID the Athletics to get rid of Durham. The Sox NEVER replaced Fernandez (unless you count Navarro), and they have no plans for replacing Durham either, unless you're counting the indentured servants Harris and Jimenez. No championship, again.

I ask you Jeremy, precisely when can we line up a full roster of young players so that all of them remain ineligible for free agency? When do the moon and stars reach perfect alignment for the Sox to take their perfect shot at a championship? Isn't this what your trying in vain to sell the rest of us on? That's bull**** on its face. How dumb do you take us for?

Go ahead and tell us 2004. Next we'll ask your predictions on Aaron Rowand's and Mark Johnson's expected numbers for this glory season you anticipate.

Lip Man 1
11-27-2002, 01:03 PM
Jeremy says:

"I'm going to say that over the last three years our record is better than the Blue Jays, the Twins, the Royals, the Devil Rays, the Tigers, the O's, the Rangers, and probably the Angels and Indians "

OH BOY!!!!! HEY EVERYONE THE SOX ARE BETTER THEN THE DEVIL RAYS!

Let's pump out our chests and show how PROUD we are that the Sox (in the nation's 3rd largest market) are ACTUALLY BETTER THEN THE ROYALS AND THE TIGERS!!!!!

WOO HOO!

I don't know if I can actually stand the glee that's enveloping my entire body with the knowledge that the CHICAGO White Sox are actually better then the Blue Jays!!!

You know I may go out and have to have a few beers to celebrate the fact that the Chisox are worth more (with an average record of 83-79) then the Rangers!

OH MY!!!! I can just see the World Championship banners hanging from the flagpoles in new Comiskey Park, I can actually see all those top notch, free agent caliber All Stars lining up to play for the Pale Hose, can you see it Jeremy? It's so close you can actually reach out and TOUCH it!

WOW Makes me want to just keep on living doesn't it?????

Jeremy come back to me when the White Sox have a better record then the YANKEES, RED SOX, MARINERS, A'S, BRAVES, D'BACKS, and CARDINALS for a three or four year period.

Talk to me when the Sox have been to the playoffs as many times as those clubs.

Look me up when the Sox have even BEEN to a World Series (they don't even have to win it!) and then maybe I'll be more willing to accept your postulations.

Here's a quote for you, it's from Jack McDowell whom I spoke with last week (he's the December Q & A at WSI...) "It doesn't matter whether you're big market or small market, what wins is GOOD ORGANIZATIONS and good players..."

Lip

hold2dibber
11-27-2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
*****!

Okay, here are examples A through C of the starting pitchers who Reinsdorf DID USE after McDowell, Fernandez, and Alvarez were all chased off.

Brian Keyser, 10 GS, 5-6, 4.97 ERA
Joe Magrane, 6 GS, 1-5, 6.88 ERA
Jaime Navarro, 33 GS, 9-14, 5.79 ERA
Mike Bertotti, 4 GS, 1-1, 12.56 ERA
(I'm sorry--I couldn't resist adding "Rocketshot" to the list. He is a personal favorite of mine. :cool: )

Oh yeah, Reinsdorf REALLY made a point about how worthless those other pitchers were! It's a good thing some Sox Fans agree with him, too! Mediocrity Forever!!!

Here's a fact: the Sox NEVER replaced any of the three, unless you want to count Navarro. Of course it took three years for them to admit the Navarro signing was a mistake, running his worthless ass out there every fifth day, 1997-99. I thought the idea here was to IMPROVE the ballclub. Your response has NOTHING to do with that, does it?

Some of us are trying to win championships. The rest of us are trying to make excuses. Which category do you fall into, dibber?

Please, PHG, take a look at my post. I didn't say that I viewed the post-White Sox fortunes of Alvarez, Fernandez and McDowell as examples of why I thought JR handles young pitchers properly, I said that JR probably does so. So you're right, my response has NOTHING to do with improving the ballclub, my response was regarding what JR probably thinks (and, again, not what I think).

So, with that in mind, here's what I do think. I think JR is a miserly moron who is more concerned with doing business in what he considers "the right way" than with winning. That he is more concerned with loyalty to those in the organization that he is with winning. That he is more concerned with financial considerations than he is with winning. That he is more concerned (although misguidedly so) with baseball as a whole than he is with the White Sox winning. And I think that an owner with a true, passionate, unwavering commitment to winning and the ability or willingness to (1) consistently have a payroll that is in the upper 1/3 of MLB; and (2) hire and maintain the best baseball people available, period, could turn this slumbering giant of a franchise into a model and a consistent contender to actually win it all (imagine that!).

But I also think that in some ways JR's handling of the three pitchers in question was, ultimately, justified. Retaining all three of those guys would have cost much more than they were, based upon their post-White Sox performance, worth. At best, the Sox could have tied them up to contracts a little earlier and kept them each for one or two more years. But I feel pretty damn confident that the Marlins don't think that Fernandez earned all the money they paid him or that the Devil Rays think that Alvarez earned all the money they paid him. The problem of course, and as you nailed on the head, PHG, is that the Sox never did a damn thing to replace them with pitchers who were at least as good or better. Instead, they went into yet another "rebuilding" mode which yielded exactly one division title and ZERO playoff victories. So my contention is not that they necessarily mishandled Fernandez, Alvarez and McDowell (well, they did mishandle McDowell), but that they screwed up by not (again) having the commitment and talent to replace them with guys who could/would get the Sox over the hump.

hold2dibber
11-27-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As I stated before on another thread:

Jack McDowell, 1995 season, 15 game winner for the Yanks

Jack McDowell, 1996 season, 13 game winner for the Indians while the Sox were blowing a 4 1/2 game September Wild Card lead because they didn't have ANY 5th starters worth a damn.

Alex Fernandez won what four post season games for the 1997 World Champion Florida Marlins and I think he won 16 in the regular season.

Yea they sure fell apart fast didn't they? In today's game with pitching so scarce, you have to take your chances and keep guys who have proven they can do the job, if they blow apart two years later (perhaps a "lifetime" in today's baseball?) that's to damn bad.

Lip

Valid points, but you're not telling the whole story. Here are some stats to ponder:

McDowell:

'95: 15-10, 3.93 ERA, $5.4 million
'96: 13-9, 5.11 ERA, $4.8 million
'97: 3-3, 5.09 ERA (40 IP) $4.8 million

Fernandez:

'97: 17-12, 3.59, $7 million
'98: 0 IP, $7 million
'99: 7-8, 3.38 ERA (141 IP), $7 million
'00: 4-4, 4.13 (52 IP), $7 million
'01: 0 IP, $7 million

Alvarez:

'98: 6-14, 4.73 ERA, $4.5 million
'99: 9-9, 4.22 ERA, $4.5 million
'00: 0 IP, $9 million
'01: 0 IP, $9 million
'02: 2-3, 5.28 ERA (75 IP), $8 million

So each had, at most, one or two decent years after leaving the Sox, but each also was grossly overpaid thereafter. In hindsight, the Sox would have been better off signing each to a contract that took them one or two seasons after they became FA eligible (i.e., instead of fighting it out with McDowell each year, after the '93 season you give him a three year deal; that would have given us McDowell through '96). But as I noted in my response to PHG, the problem I have with the mid to late '90s Sox is not that they didn't hold onto these guys longer, but that they didn't replace these guys with quality pitchers. The teams that did give these guys long term contracts are sorry that they did.

jeremyb1
11-27-2002, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Get your facts straight.

We TRADED McDowell. As I recall, we we're in first-place and fighting Cleveland for the division crown. We TRADED him, because the Sox under JR had no hope of signing him. Yeah, there was that little matter of the strike to settle, but the Sox NEVER replaced McDowell--except with bargain garbage. No championship.

Also...

We TRADED Alvarez. As I recall, we we're in second-place and fighting Cleveland for the division crown. We TRADED him (along with Hernandez and a few other quality players) because the Sox under JR had no hope of signing him. Yeah, there was that little matter of we fans being "crazy" to think the Sox could actually do something that year (and we've paid back JR with apathy ever since), but the Sox NEVER replaced Alvarez--except with bargain garbage. No championship.

Finally...

We KEPT Fernandez. After we lost him to free agency, we drafted Parque with the sandwich pick. Did that make the Sox happy? Apparently not. Just this summer, we traded Ray Durham (and forfeited the sandwich pick) for a AAA pitcher. The Sox even PAID the Athletics to get rid of Durham. The Sox NEVER replaced Fernandez (unless you count Navarro), and they have no plans for replacing Durham either, unless you're counting the indentured servants Harris and Jimenez. No championship, again.

I ask you Jeremy, precisely when can we line up a full roster of young players so that all of them remain ineligible for free agency? When do the moon and stars reach perfect alignment for the Sox to take their perfect shot at a championship? Isn't this what your trying in vain to sell the rest of us on? That's bull**** on its face. How dumb do you take us for?

Go ahead and tell us 2004. Next we'll ask your predictions on Aaron Rowand's and Mark Johnson's expected numbers for this glory season you anticipate.

you took my quote out of context. i acknowledged that we traded alvarez and mcdowell. the only statement i've been making over and over and over and over again is that we traded them because of pending free agency not because of an unwillingness to pay their salaries after arbitration. we traded them at the deadline of their 6th contract year. WE DID NOT TRADE THEM BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY WERE EARNING THROUGH ARBITRATION. that's all i've been trying to say here because it was alleged that we will trade or non-tender players such as jon garland and mark buehrle one year from now because they will make more money in arbitration and we won't way to pay them.

i agree williams botched the durham deal but not because of the draft picks. it was speculated by every major new source that compensation picks were going to be eliminated in the new labor agreement. the picks were eliminated in the new labor agreement. then, there was some miscommunication and after the elimination of the compensation picks had already been agreed to, the two sides had trouble solving the issue so they were reinstated for this season. i dislike kw as much as the next guy but i don't know how he was supposed to see this coming.

i find your inability to make sense and your ability to complete mischaracterize all of my arguments at the end of your post rather frustrating. i've said very little other than that i don't think this is the best season considering the budget presented by reinsdorf to sacrifice youth to try to win it all.

as far as veteran building blocks ready to compete for a world series we have maybe 3 or 5 in foulke, thomas, konerko, maggs, and buehrle. personally i don't feel that puts us in a good position to win a world series this season. at no point have i endorsed reinsdorfs ownership of the team. it wasn't like i was asked "would you like to sign jeff kent, glavine, and maddux this offseason?" and MY response was no. i'm speaking within the constraints this team has been placed under by its revenue and ownership. if you don't like that its not my fault. i do happen to think that jiminez who got on base at a .380 clip for us towards the end of last season is a better value at the league minimum than jeff kent for 8 million ensuring that we can't add any other players to this club.

the reality of the situation is that our payroll is around 45 or 50 million i believe and with our current ownership it can't and won't ever surpass 60 million in the near future. again, this is not my doing. so here you are. you're the gm. you have 6-9 million to spend and that's being generous. which moves do you make which allow this team to win the world series this season? personally i don't see what moves they are and if i'm going to sacrifice our chance of improving the team with homegrown talent in any over the next 2-3 years by trading borchard, honel, rauch, and garland i don't want to make these moves unless we're the clear favorites in all of baseball to win the world series.

jeremyb1
11-27-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

"I'm going to say that over the last three years our record is better than the Blue Jays, the Twins, the Royals, the Devil Rays, the Tigers, the O's, the Rangers, and probably the Angels and Indians "

OH BOY!!!!! HEY EVERYONE THE SOX ARE BETTER THEN THE DEVIL RAYS!

Let's pump out our chests and show how PROUD we are that the Sox (in the nation's 3rd largest market) are ACTUALLY BETTER THEN THE ROYALS AND THE TIGERS!!!!!

WOO HOO!

I don't know if I can actually stand the glee that's enveloping my entire body with the knowledge that the CHICAGO White Sox are actually better then the Blue Jays!!!

You know I may go out and have to have a few beers to celebrate the fact that the Chisox are worth more (with an average record of 83-79) then the Rangers!

OH MY!!!! I can just see the World Championship banners hanging from the flagpoles in new Comiskey Park, I can actually see all those top notch, free agent caliber All Stars lining up to play for the Pale Hose, can you see it Jeremy? It's so close you can actually reach out and TOUCH it!

WOW Makes me want to just keep on living doesn't it?????

Jeremy come back to me when the White Sox have a better record then the YANKEES, RED SOX, MARINERS, A'S, BRAVES, D'BACKS, and CARDINALS for a three or four year period.

Talk to me when the Sox have been to the playoffs as many times as those clubs.

Look me up when the Sox have even BEEN to a World Series (they don't even have to win it!) and then maybe I'll be more willing to accept your postulations.

Here's a quote for you, it's from Jack McDowell whom I spoke with last week (he's the December Q & A at WSI...) "It doesn't matter whether you're big market or small market, what wins is GOOD ORGANIZATIONS and good players..."

Lip

i responded to our performance since the white flag trade not the history of this team. i'm not sure how its fair to base the amount of success we're having now based on the success we weren't having in 1930 when everyone who ran the team then is probably dead. in the last three years we're in the upper half of the teams in baseball. we could've been a lot worse. i'm glad you're not a royals or tigers fan, it sounds like you might be jumping out of a high rise window right about now. according to your analysis, until we're the best team in the al we're underacheiving and our preformance is unacceptable. well what if the fans of those other teams held themselves to the same standard? only one team can win the world series every season.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-27-2002, 05:21 PM
you took my quote out of context. i acknowledged that we traded alvarez and mcdowell.

Oh for chrissakes Jeremy, IT WAS THE FIRST THING OUT OF YOUR ****ING MOUTH! How on Earth could I take it out of context?

the only statement i've been making over and over and over and over again is that we traded them because of pending free agency not because of an unwillingness to pay their salaries after arbitration. we traded them at the deadline of their 6th contract year. WE DID NOT TRADE THEM BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY WERE EARNING THROUGH ARBITRATION. that's all i've been trying to say here because it was alleged that we will trade or non-tender players such as jon garland and mark buehrle one year from now because they will make more money in arbitration and we won't way to pay them.

Exactly, Jeremy. And did we not trade them BEFORE they reached free agency? How does this square with your crazy theory that we would get 5 years out of them? Reinsdorf trades them before this happens--even if we're in first or second-place! Have you been paying attention at all these past 8 years?

i find your inability to make sense and your ability to complete mischaracterize all of my arguments at the end of your post rather frustrating. i've said very little other than that i don't think this is the best season considering the budget presented by reinsdorf to sacrifice youth to try to win it all.

Pot...kettle... black. Here's a novel concept. Instead of whining about being "taken out of context", back up the words you write. You're the one who wrote, "at no point do i refuse to allow for the possibility that our young players will walk once they become free agents but that's not what you're arguing." (Whatever the hell that means).


as far as veteran building blocks ready to compete for a world series we have maybe 3 or 5 in foulke, thomas, konerko, maggs, and buehrle. personally i don't feel that puts us in a good position to win a world series this season. at no point have i endorsed reinsdorfs ownership of the team. it wasn't like i was asked "would you like to sign jeff kent, glavine, and maddux this offseason?" and MY response was no. i'm speaking within the constraints this team has been placed under by its revenue and ownership. if you don't like that its not my fault. i do happen to think that jiminez who got on base at a .380 clip for us towards the end of last season is a better value at the league minimum than jeff kent for 8 million ensuring that we can't add any other players to this club.

the reality of the situation is that our payroll is around 45 or 50 million i believe and with our current ownership it can't and won't ever surpass 60 million in the near future. again, this is not my doing. so here you are. you're the gm. you have 6-9 million to spend and that's being generous. which moves do you make which allow this team to win the world series this season? personally i don't see what moves they are and if i'm going to sacrifice our chance of improving the team with homegrown talent in any over the next 2-3 years by trading borchard, honel, rauch, and garland i don't want to make these moves unless we're the clear favorites in all of baseball to win the world series.


I would say this is a perfect summation why Jerry Reinsdorf won't field a winner in 2003. With a bit of nipping and tucking, it will also be the perfect summation why JR won't field a winner in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, too. I'm basing this not on conjecture, but Reinsdorf's REAL ACTIONS in similar situations the past ten years. Nothing changes but the names of the players and details too small to be relevant.

Why you argue there is some magic window of opportunity in the future is a mystery to me. Regardless, I'm not going to try interpreting what you write if you won't even back up the foggy ideas you attempt to express for the rest of us.

You can demonstrate real improvement simply by showing enough personal initiative to use the shift key on your keyboard.

guillen4life13
11-27-2002, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
Sirotka
Eldred
Baldwin
Parque
Wells


IMO does not equal

Buehrle
Garland
Wright
Rauch
Biddle

Okay you say this but how about we look at the numbers entering the 2000 season. Plus everyone yells lets make a move now. I don't say that if we cant sign a player via FA don't make a foolish trade. You all would yell make a trade and as soon as KW did that if the trade didn't work out you all would call him stupid. I find if funny that no matter what our GM's do someone calls them stupid. the people wanting a trade are the same people that wanted the trade last year. Look where that got us. We traded away two pitchers that we could use this year. To pick up a quality player you have to give up one. Right now I'm not ready to give up our young talent for a player some other team is willing to trade. Now signing a FA is not a bad idea. PLEASE NO TRADES.

Read some of my other posts. I never implied that I wanted a trade urgently. In fact, I'm one of the only people who are in the 2004 camp (they say it's my youth... they're probably right). I've said it before that I think the rotation we have now in a couple of years could be a top of the line rotation. I don't want any trades... I think we should ride these guys in 2003, then if they don't develop to the level that a winning PLAYOFF team (winning in the playoffs) should have by 2004, then we make a radical trade/signing.


Please don't get pissed at me...

jeremyb1
11-28-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Oh for chrissakes Jeremy, IT WAS THE FIRST THING OUT OF YOUR ****ING MOUTH! How on Earth could I take it out of context?

Exactly, Jeremy. And did we not trade them BEFORE they reached free agency? How does this square with your crazy theory that we would get 5 years out of them? Reinsdorf trades them before this happens--even if we're in first or second-place! Have you been paying attention at all these past 8 years?

Pot...kettle... black. Here's a novel concept. Instead of whining about being "taken out of context", back up the words you write. You're the one who wrote, "at no point do i refuse to allow for the possibility that our young players will walk once they become free agents but that's not what you're arguing." (Whatever the hell that means).

I would say this is a perfect summation why Jerry Reinsdorf won't field a winner in 2003. With a bit of nipping and tucking, it will also be the perfect summation why JR won't field a winner in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, too. I'm basing this not on conjecture, but Reinsdorf's REAL ACTIONS in similar situations the past ten years. Nothing changes but the names of the players and details too small to be relevant.

Why you argue there is some magic window of opportunity in the future is a mystery to me. Regardless, I'm not going to try interpreting what you write if you won't even back up the foggy ideas you attempt to express for the rest of us.

You can demonstrate real improvement simply by showing enough personal initiative to use the shift key on your keyboard.

because i said something first it couldn't be taken out of context? or because i said it, it couldn't be taken out of context? how does that make any sense? you took my quote out of context because you acted as though i denied the fact that we traded mcdowell and alvarez and that that proved your point. that's incorrect. your argument was that we'd trade players once they became arbitration elligible because they'd make too much money. this is not the reason we traded mcdowel and alvarez. we traded them because they were going to become free agents and we would be unwilling to resign them because we thought it would cost too much money.

i agree that the timing of those deals were unfortunate and they quite possbily shouldn't have been made but that doesn't change the reason which they were made which was because of the players' impending free agency not the amount of money they were making due to arbitration. those trades in perfectly with my theory because we did have those players for 5 and a half years. we paid them the amount of money they earned in arbitration for 2 and a half years so obviously we didn't have a problem with it as you stated or we would've dealt them 2 and a half years earlier.

"back up the words you write. You're the one who wrote, "at no point do i refuse to allow for the possibility that our young players will walk once they become free agents but that's not what you're arguing." (Whatever the hell that means)." that means that at no point did i argue we wouldn't trade players because they were about to become free agents or that we would resign players once they do become free agents only that we don't cut or trade players because they earn more than the league minimum in arbitration. if you want support for that you can read through all of my posts and you'll find it.

what i think is that the key to winning playoff games is above average starting pitching. we have excellent young pitchers in buehrle, rauch, garland, and wright. buehrle is already an all-star and the others are more than capable of that. however, they need a minimal amount of time to put it together. look at oakland. zito struggled badly in the first half of his first full season, mulder was terrible when he was first called up and needed a little more time, and hudson hit a wall in the second half of his second season. garland appears ready to put it all together and rauch may be close but i think its unreasonable to demand that both perform at an all-star level this season. by next season that may be pretty realistic and i think if we have three all-star starters we'll be a lot better than if we have one.