PDA

View Full Version : 2004 or Now?


cornball
11-24-2002, 10:44 AM
There was an interesting debate on another thread which i think needs to be expanded. Many believe KW should "set the table" for 2004 rather than try to "go for it" this year.

Let me say I am in the camp of the time is now, you don't now what prospects will do, and you don't know what the team will look like a year from now.

I believe a 2 starters, would do it. There are so many options to make it happen. If in contention by June and July, additional deals could be made to mold the playoff roster.

Outside of the confidence in KW, I would love to hear your thoughts.

guillen4life13
11-24-2002, 11:03 AM
2004 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15621)

I think that's the thread you referred to. In any case, I'm in the go for it in 2004 camp for a few reasons.

One- your opinion is based purely on the prospects doing well. That's not exactly guaranteed to happen. Granted, by 2004, it still won't be guaranteed to happen, but the chance of it happening should be a little bit higher.

Two- The starting pitchers need a little bit more time to develop... as do the rookie relief pitchers. Think about how many rookies we're gonna have next year. It ain't gonna happen.

Three- The Twins are a damn good team, no matter how much we dislike them. As it stands now, we are not even close to being as good as them. Let the kids develop and we'll see where we are then.


I want a WS as much as all of you do... but I'd rather have a dynasty than just one WS win. Both are great, but one's even greater. This team has dynasty potential, and I don't want it screwed up. All we need is to let the pitching develop, and the kids develop. We could find ourselves in a good situation a couple years down the road.

Paulwny
11-24-2002, 11:37 AM
It's age related.
Most younger posters have time and believe the sox will turn around and be legitimate contenders for years.
Most older posters have lived through all the promises and feel they've waited long enough, tomorrow has never materialized.

cornball
11-24-2002, 12:00 PM
Well the age thing may have something to do with it...i am sure. Experiencing the failed promises and disappointments some of the younger guys haven't seen yet. But dynasties are hard to come by these days.

After personally waiting for the last nearly 4 decades, for many prospects that doesn't pan out, or a future that is dismantles by management. It is my belief you build for today, tomorrow is uncertain.

Is the pitching not fully developed ?...yes.....and you can cure that with acquisitions now. And there is no guarantee the players you think are the building blocks will be here in the future due to injury, accidents, trades, contract expiring.......

The twins are a good team, which is based on pitching.

FanOf14
11-24-2002, 12:11 PM
I am sick of the promises of tomorrow and I am only 26. It just makes me sick to think that in my late grandfather's life time he's seen them in world series, and he saw them win one, but he couldn't have remembered it, he was only about 6 months old. My mother has seen the Sox in one World Series, but never a win. I would kill for a world series' win, not for myself, but for my mom.

RedPinStripes
11-24-2002, 12:29 PM
KW will set the table for 2004 and it will blow up in his face. 2004 and 2005 will be loaded with young players as 2000 was unless KW trades them away. Either way, when they get expensive, they're going to be traded for nothing before they're FA's.

The only chance we have of seeing this team in a ws is if JR sells or passes on. And then it would go to his son David most likly and i'm not betting that he'll be any better.

JUST SELL! Fans dont buy the bull**** anymore!

TornLabrum
11-24-2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Well the age thing may have something to do with it...i am sure. Experiencing the failed promises and disappointments some of the younger guys haven't seen yet. But dynasties are hard to come by these days.

Unless your team is the Yankees or Braves.

SI1020
11-24-2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
It's age related.
Most younger posters have time and believe the sox will turn around and be legitimate contenders for years.
Most older posters have lived through all the promises and feel they've waited long enough, tomorrow has never materialized. Boy you sure got that one right! For a brief moment I thought that 2000 would be like 1951, the beginning of a long winning era. At this point I'm getting weary of the whole deal. Giving up on baseball or rooting for another team is not an option. So like Rich Lindberg originally wrote in 1977 I remain "Stuck on the Sox."

PaleHoseGeorge
11-24-2002, 01:28 PM
I'm sure this comes as a surprise to nobody, but I'm in the "go for it now" category. However, I think we need to be careful how we characterize "going for it" now or later. Let me explain.

First, it is futile to expect the moon and stars to perfectly align before "going for it". There are simply too many things beyond our control (especially injuries) to screw up our plans. Who can forget Robin Ventura breaking his leg in spring training, 1997?

The REAL strategy for building a champion is always looking for ways to upgrade the talent of your team's players versus the players of the best teams in the league. What this means is simple: don't ever think you can keep a sinkhole around (like #9 Royce Clayton) just because you think Paul Konerko is so great (even though his #7 rating puts him in the middle of the pack for everyday firstbasemen). Those Diamond Mind ratings are very telling; nearly every DM postion ranks the Sox in the middle of the pack. That's precisely what you would expect for a team that won 81 games.

So how do you upgrade? It starts with a good farm system. Next comes retaining your best talent, and upgrading (through trade or free agency) the rest of the roster. I'm sure this is obvious to everyone.

The Sox DON'T do this. Nope, the Sox skimp. We needed an established ace pitcher for the rotation back in 2001 so KW trades for David Wells, but not without giving up Mike Sirotka, too. We needed a veteran presence in the rotation in 2002 so KW trades for Todd Ritchie, but not without giving up Josh Fogg, Kip Wells, and Sean Lowe, too.

We also needed a leadoff man in 2002. So KW tries getting Darren Erstad, but not without trading Jon Garland, too. When that fails, he signs washed up veteran Ken Lofton for $1 million and a pile of amusing incentive clauses based on attendance.

I ask you, does this look like a team BUILDING towards anything? It sure doesn't to me.

Based on this fact, we're all pulling our puds to think the Sox will compete in 2004 or any other year. If we win anything, it will be strictly by blind luck.

:reinsy
"And then I'll jack ticket prices again! Woo hoo!!!"

:)

oldcomiskey
11-24-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Unless your team is the Yankees or Braves.

Lets dont even go there about the Braves being a dynasty----they have won one more world series than we have

OfficerKarkovice
11-24-2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
Lets dont even go there about the Braves being a dynasty----they have won one more world series than we have
They have also won their division like 10 years in a row...slightly more than we can lay claim to.

guillen4life13
11-24-2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Unless your team is the Yankees or Braves.

It's just me, but I'd add the Toons to that list. Their dynasty just ended, but they were a really good team for a good 8 years.

And yes, I'm young... and I don't really know what championships are without the dynasty tag attached, as the only hometown champions that I've been alive to follow are the Bulls, and they were quite the dynasty.

I don't understand it though. With the Bulls, Jerry Reinsdorf has been quite a good owner, but when it comes to the Sox, ttthhhhbpp. He sucks. Any explanations?

Here's what I have to say regarding the acquisitions now: There isn't that much great starting pitching on the market right now. Glavine? Ha! Maddux? Haha! Moyer? Too big a risk, and those supporting Moyer would probably be screaming (even more) for the firing of KW if he were to flop. Colon? Ain't happening. Vazquez? Ain't happening either. Byrd? Too much of a liability a la Todd Ritchie.

Granted, over the next two years, Mark Buehrle could break his neck, Jon Garland be run over by a truck, and Dan Wright shot in his right arm. It COULD happen. Of course I'm exaggerating, but my point is that barring injuries and stupid moves by KW (no moves are good moves). I think the Sox have a pitching staff with the potential to be great, barring any of the mentioned events happening listed in this paragraph. The lineup's foundation looks really solid provided they develop and show they're as good as they were this past fall (and LTP stops striking out).

But again, I'm young, and am not quite enlightened but I'm semi disillusioned.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-24-2002, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
...I don't understand it though. With the Bulls, Jerry Reinsdorf has been quite a good owner, but when it comes to the Sox, ttthhhhbpp. He sucks. Any explanations?....

IMHO, it's highly debatable whether Jerry Reinsdorf is a good NBA owner. He had the smarts to buy the Bulls when their roster included what was already the best young player in the league, Michael Jordan. Reinsdorf had absolutely no hand in acquiring the lynchpin to those 6 NBA titles. No Jordan, no reflected glory for JR.

JR (along with Krause) deserves credit for building a champion dynasty around Jordan. However, to the same extent he deserves credit for assembling that champion dynasty, he also deserves the blame for disassembling that team while they were still champions! Reinsdorf's excuse was supposedly the need to avoid becoming a weak team like the Boston Celtics. Oh, brother... All he succeeded in doing was making the Bulls into the Celtics 2-3 years earlier than they otherwise would have been. Today the Bulls are no closer to competing for a seventh title than if they hadn't disassembled the team back in 1998.

As for taking a shot at a seventh championship, forget it! Reinsdorf put his gun back in his holster. There's a real sportsman for you!

If you want to give Reinsdorf credit for the Bulls' greatness with Jordan, you also have to blame him for the disaster they have become since Reinsdorf ran off Jordan, Jackson, Pippen, and others.

TornLabrum
11-24-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
Lets dont even go there about the Braves being a dynasty----they have won one more world series than we have

How many times have they made the post-season, thereby at least giving them a chance to make the World Series. How many times have we made the post-season. How many divisional championships have the Braves won? How many have we won?

guillen4life13
11-24-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
IMHO, it's highly debatable whether Jerry Reinsdorf is a good NBA owner. He had the smarts to buy the Bulls when their roster included what was already the best young player in the league, Michael Jordan. Reinsdorf had absolutely no hand in acquiring the lynchpin to those 6 NBA titles. No Jordan, no reflected glory for JR.

JR (along with Krause) deserves credit for building a champion dynasty around Jordan. However, to the same extent he deserves credit for assembling that champion dynasty, he also deserves the blame for disassembling that team while they were still champions! Reinsdorf's excuse was supposedly the need to avoid becoming a weak team like the Boston Celtics. Oh, brother... All he succeeded in doing was making the Bulls into the Celtics 2-3 years earlier than they otherwise would have been. Today the Bulls are no closer to competing for a seventh title than if they hadn't disassembled the team back in 1998.

As for taking a shot at a seventh championship, forget it! Reinsdorf put his gun back in his holster. There's a real sportsman for you!

If you want to give Reinsdorf credit for the Bulls' greatness with Jordan, you also have to blame him for the disaster they have become since Reinsdorf ran off Jordan, Jackson, Pippen, and others.

I was under the impression that the team broke up because of this.

Krause wanted Phil Jackson out. Jordan would not play without Jackson as coach in Chicago. Pippen realizes that the team wouldn't go too far without Jordan, as he was 4 years older than he was in 1994 when he essentially took them to the finals if it weren't for Hou Hollins. Pippen signs with Rockets, as they looked like a great team with Drexler, Olajuwon, and Barkley already there, along with Sam Cassell, Mario Elie, etc. Pippen and Jordan gone=team dismantled.

In a sense, yes it's JR's fault that team broke, but it was mainly Krause's fault, right? I dunno. As young as I am now, I was even younger then, so the way I saw/interpreted the newspaper articles may not have been so accurate.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-24-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I was under the impression that the team broke up because of this.

Krause wanted Phil Jackson out. Jordan would not play without Jackson as coach in Chicago. Pippen realizes that the team wouldn't go too far without Jordan, as he was 4 years older than he was in 1994 when he essentially took them to the finals if it weren't for Hou Hollins. Pippen signs with Rockets, as they looked like a great team with Drexler, Olajuwon, and Barkley already there, along with Sam Cassell, Mario Elie, etc. Pippen and Jordan gone=team dismantled.

In a sense, yes it's JR's fault that team broke, but it was mainly Krause's fault, right? I dunno. As young as I am now, I was even younger then, so the way I saw/interpreted the newspaper articles may not have been so accurate.

It is obviously beyond a shadow of any doubt that Krause would never have run off Jackson unless he already had Reinsdorf's blessing to do so. Jordan made it ABUNDANTLY clear, both publicly and privately, that he wouldn't come back without Jackson. Reinsdorf KNEW the stakes, and went ahead and let it happen anyway.

Blaming Krause for Jordan leaving is like blaming a puppet for a lousy puppet show performance.

:reinsy
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

cornball
11-24-2002, 04:59 PM
You are right George....in fact Krause went on to say "organizations win championships not players"...and said many times he relished the idea of rebuilding the Bulls in the post-Jordan era ...i think because he didn't draft MJ.

In basketball you have 5 players on the court...1 player is a huge impact.....and has a recent salary cap as does football....causing parity. But you can see how a single tremendious player can effect a team (Shaq).

Since the salary cap of football...i don't believe a team has repeated.

Baseball, on the other hand, i just read the Dodgers let Orosco leave because they were dangerously close to the 117MM luxury tax number......in order to have a competitive team year in and year out like the Yankees, Braves and others you need to have commitment from the owner to get players. Not have a 45MM budget....a 75MM at the start of last year would rank 14 out of 30 teams.

Make a commitment to the team, to the city, to the fans....JR or sell......we aren't that far away, get a few pitchers allowing the prospects to mature....your BS has brainwashed the younger guys.


P.S. didn't mean to get on my soap box.....lol

jeremyb1
11-24-2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Well the age thing may have something to do with it...i am sure. Experiencing the failed promises and disappointments some of the younger guys haven't seen yet. But dynasties are hard to come by these days.

After personally waiting for the last nearly 4 decades, for many prospects that doesn't pan out, or a future that is dismantles by management. It is my belief you build for today, tomorrow is uncertain.

Is the pitching not fully developed ?...yes.....and you can cure that with acquisitions now. And there is no guarantee the players you think are the building blocks will be here in the future due to injury, accidents, trades, contract expiring.......

The twins are a good team, which is based on pitching.

see i fail to see how tommorow is uncertain. there are certain things that are out of control such as injuries but that makes today uncertain also. we could get two big guns to come in and then buehrle could become injured (knock on wood). free agency shouldn't be an issue.

i just don't feel like we have so much to try to win right now. a couple good hitters and a solid ace doesn't put you a couple players away from the world series. the key to winning now is that you have to have a legitimate chance to win now. there's no point in sacrificing the future for an unfulfilling present. you need some guarantee that you'll win.

look at what tampa bay did a couple years ago. they took the "win now" philosiphy and spent big bucks adding vinny castilla and greg vaughn to their team and it crippled their franchise. you can't just sign free agents and expect to win.

also absent in this conversation is the observation that playing for the future seemed to work pretty well for the a's or even the braves for that matter. both teams aquired young starting pitchers who have led them to be perenial contenders. even when the braves signed maddux he was still a young pitcher and they relied on free agency and didn't deal a player like smoltz to acquire maddux.

i have no problem with adding free agents. they will not cost us talented young players such as kip wells and josh fogg. however, trading highly talented players right now to attempt to go for it with a team where half the players are 25 just isn't responsible.

cornball
11-24-2002, 09:33 PM
Jeremy, did you say you need some guarantee that you would win by going for it now?

There are no guarantees!!!!but to concede that you want to be "competitive" , to give up the year and build for tomorrow, year after year....what is that ? a .500 team... well you have that. Then, probably complain about attendance too i bet.

No one said anything about sacrificing the future.

You used Tampa as an example, I will use the D-backs, in 4 years they were champs, they had a win now philosophy...they added Schilling via trade and Johnson as a FA.

As far as the Braves, the adding of youngsters with 3 Cy Young pitchers on the staff for the past 10 years, is not exactly risky. The A's, have the best pitching in the American League.

The Cubs added Clement for next to nothing ...did they mortgage the future?

We all may say Moyer or Byrd or Maddux or whoever ..are old, have this problem or that...but they are better than what we have now....and we need to look at all options to improve the team to win this year. Last I remember you play one year at a time.

I wonder if the Angels would have won this year with that attitude, we know Sele and Appier would not have been with their team.

jeremyb1
11-24-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Jeremy, did you say you need some guarantee that you would win by going for it now?

There are no guarantees!!!!but to concede that you want to be "competitive" , to give up the year and build for tomorrow, year after year....what is that ? a .500 team... well you have that. Then, probably complain about attendance too i bet.

No one said anything about sacrificing the future.

You used Tampa as an example, I will use the D-backs, in 4 years they were champs, they had a win now philosophy...they added Schilling via trade and Johnson as a FA.

As far as the Braves, the adding of youngsters with 3 Cy Young pitchers on the staff for the past 10 years, is not exactly risky. The A's, have the best pitching in the American League.

The Cubs added Clement for next to nothing ...did they mortgage the future?

We all may say Moyer or Byrd or Maddux or whoever ..are old, have this problem or that...but they are better than what we have now....and we need to look at all options to improve the team to win this year. Last I remember you play one year at a time.

I wonder if the Angels would have won this year with that attitude, we know Sele and Appier would not have been with their team.

the number one difference between our team and the cubs and diamondbacks is that those teams can afford a 100 million dollar payroll. when we're working at 60% of the capacity at the maximum, its pretty difficult for us to swoop up free agents such as randy johnson with our payroll. if we could we'd sign maddux this offseason but we're not going to.

you're making my point with the braves and the a's. the braves built their team by developing glavine, trading for smoltz while he was still young and unproven and signing maddux at a young age. the a's have developed nearly every player on their team and its going pretty well for them. if either of those teams had traded players like zito or glavine as prospects for a player like colon, they wouldn't be where they are today.

the angels were able to trade a veteran in mo vaughn for appier. we don't have any players like that other than frank who's unmovable. sele was signed as a free agent. i have no problem with these moves, i just don't want to trade the young talent it would take to acquire a strong veteran pitcher that would leave shortly through free agency.

i'd argue that players like washburn contributed to the angel's series title a lot more than guys like appier.

HITMEN OF 77
11-25-2002, 12:33 AM
If the young players continue to develop like they did during the end of the season last year, the veterans play well, the pitching is good and stay healthy, we will be in the mix with the Twins. One more good pitcher and we will be close, real close. We can do it now and in 04 05 06..............

hsc1
11-25-2002, 12:54 AM
i fall in the do it now camp.... im sick of waiting on something to happen, or being just close enough and then not being able to reach the brass ring hanging on the post.......most of us older fans have been waiting around for what seems like forever( since 64 in my case).... id sell my soul for just one while im still alive to see it happen and be a part of it..............save the rebuilding periods for you younger fans.. you all have more time than we do........lol.......

VeeckAsInWreck
11-25-2002, 01:07 AM
In the summer of 2000, The Sox were on their way to winning 95 games (remember?) Back then the team didn't pull of a big deal at the trading deadline because it felt it wanted to compete for 2002. Well, 2002 has come and gone, and what to we have to show for it?............ NOTHING!
I am only 25, yet I am tired of waiting for the tomorrow that never comes. I don't want a dynasty, I just want a winner. The great Bill Veeck said it best: "Five year plans only lead to more five year plans". That is why many remember the summer of '77. Veeck wanted to give fans a winner now, and so what that they didn't win much after that. But for one year, it looked like they were trying.
All we need is dependable starters and we can make a serious run in 2003.

HITMEN OF 77
11-25-2002, 01:59 AM
Veeck was very smart and I do remember the quote about the "5 year plan." I totally agree 100%. We are good now, we need one or two pieces to our puzzle to put us on top!

cornball
11-25-2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
the number one difference between our team and the cubs and diamondbacks is that those teams can afford a 100 million dollar payroll. when we're working at 60% of the capacity at the maximum, its pretty difficult for us to swoop up free agents such as randy johnson with our payroll. if we could we'd sign maddux this offseason but we're not going to.

you're making my point with the braves and the a's. the braves built their team by developing glavine, trading for smoltz while he was still young and unproven and signing maddux at a young age. the a's have developed nearly every player on their team and its going pretty well for them. if either of those teams had traded players like zito or glavine as prospects for a player like colon, they wouldn't be where they are today.

the angels were able to trade a veteran in mo vaughn for appier. we don't have any players like that other than frank who's unmovable. sele was signed as a free agent. i have no problem with these moves, i just don't want to trade the young talent it would take to acquire a strong veteran pitcher that would leave shortly through free agency.

i'd argue that players like washburn contributed to the angel's series title a lot more than guys like appier.


The difference between our team and the Dbacks and Cubs is not affordability but want too......The D-backs are broke more in the red than any other team. The Cubs payroll at the start of the year was 75MM, by the way.

The attendance isssue is a moot point, due to a public financed stadium with the best lease agreement on earth, assuring JR not to lose if no one shows up.

The point is we are only a few pitchers away from having a chance, and we do not have to trade top prospects to do so. The argument i have heard are the cop outs of management

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
In the summer of 2000, The Sox were on their way to winning 95 games (remember?) Back then the team didn't pull of a big deal at the trading deadline because it felt it wanted to compete for 2002. Well, 2002 has come and gone, and what to we have to show for it?............ NOTHING!
I am only 25, yet I am tired of waiting for the tomorrow that never comes. I don't want a dynasty, I just want a winner. The great Bill Veeck said it best: "Five year plans only lead to more five year plans". That is why many remember the summer of '77. Veeck wanted to give fans a winner now, and so what that they didn't win much after that. But for one year, it looked like they were trying.
All we need is dependable starters and we can make a serious run in 2003.

i would maintain that not trading for a big player was the right idea. we were swept in three games, what would another player have cost us? garland? i value a player like garland more than losing 1-3 in the alcs instead of 0-3.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by cornball
The difference between our team and the Dbacks and Cubs is not affordability but want too......The D-backs are broke more in the red than any other team. The Cubs payroll at the start of the year was 75MM, by the way.

The attendance isssue is a moot point, due to a public financed stadium with the best lease agreement on earth, assuring JR not to lose if no one shows up.

The point is we are only a few pitchers away from having a chance, and we do not have to trade top prospects to do so. The argument i have heard are the cop outs of management

i agree the difference is a willingness to spend, however, its unlikely that will change and as fans we have next to no control over it so as far as i'm concerned, an unwillingness to pay is more or less the same as an inability to pay. the bottom line is still the same.

the cubs are at around 70 right now i believe and they're supposedly authorized to add 20 million in payroll this offseason.

i have no problem adding free agent pitchers as long as we're not tied up salary wise for years to come. no one wants another jamie navarro. we need to choose who we're going to target reasonably and then stick to 2-3 year deals especially with older pitchers. also if we're going to sign two players, the second one had better be damn good in his own right if he's going to block rauch and biddle from even having a legitimate opportunity to compete for a spot in the rotation. nothing would hurt our ability to win now more than paying several million for a starter who stunts the development of rauch/biddle while failing to pitch as well as one of those two could've pitched in the same rotation spot.

Dan H
11-25-2002, 01:54 PM
To me, the answer is simple. The Sox need to go for it now. Many Sox fans have no use for the Cubbie Hope Springs Eternal stuff. How long can anyone push that worn out thinking when the team never goes to the World Series?

In addition, if Jerry Reinsdorf ever wants to win back credibility in this town, he will ban anyone in the organization from saying "next year." We are already into the next century.

In yesterday's Carol Slezak column, Kenny Williams said the Sox are more interested in winning than PR. Let's see if he proves that at the winter meetings. Or will it be more of the Sox talking about getting a big name, but not doing it?

I don't care about 2004, 2005 or beyond. The White Flag Trade was over five years ago. How much more rebuidling is needed? No more rebuilding, no more promises, just do it already.

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Dan H
To me, the answer is simple. The Sox need to go for it now. Many Sox fans have no use for the Cubbie Hope Springs Eternal stuff. How long can anyone push that worn out thinking when the team never goes to the World Series?

I don't care about 2004, 2005 or beyond. The White Flag Trade was over five years ago. How much more rebuidling is needed? No more rebuilding, no more promises, just do it already.

my question for everyone that is so adamant that we attempt to "win now" is: is there ever a situation in which a team should not attempt to win now? i ask this because most all of the arguments being made aren't at all specific to this team or what pieces it needs to benefit from a "win now" attitude by winning a series or going deep into the playoffs.

should the devil rays trade joe kennedy, rocco baldelli, and carl crawford for colon if the expos offer? to me the obvious answer is that young talent is the only thing that the d-rays have going for them right now and that winning 67 games instead of 62 next year and then losing colon to free agency does nothing for that franchise. clearly we're much more capable of winning than the drays but how much more? 81 wins doesn't suggest to me that adding two veterans will win us a world series next season.

cornball
11-25-2002, 07:20 PM
You know what? We have a cornerstones. We have Mags, PK, Buehrle, Richie...lol only kidding ....and others who have proven themselves or with good potential ie Crede, Jimenez, Garland,.....the problem is starting pitching #1.

The Angles won 75 games in 2001 Jeremy....

The Flubs have a decent base of players thru pitching and went from last to first a few years ago....these are examples of why
you have to go for it now.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-25-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
my question for everyone that is so adamant that we attempt to "win now" is: is there ever a situation in which a team should not attempt to win now? i ask this because most all of the arguments being made aren't at all specific to this team or what pieces it needs to benefit from a "win now" attitude by winning a series or going deep into the playoffs.

Of course there is a time not to "win now". Most of these situations revolve around inventing excuses for fielding lousy teams (like the Cubs most of the last 90 years) or threats to move the ballclub (like the Sox most of the last 80 years).

I can understand as an owner why "win later" has allure. However, why a fan would buy into this pipedream is beyond me.

Especially a Chicago baseball fan!

guillen4life13
11-25-2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by hsc1
i fall in the do it now camp.... im sick of waiting on something to happen, or being just close enough and then not being able to reach the brass ring hanging on the post.......most of us older fans have been waiting around for what seems like forever( since 64 in my case).... id sell my soul for just one while im still alive to see it happen and be a part of it..............save the rebuilding periods for you younger fans.. you all have more time than we do........lol.......

I don't think we're in a rebuilding process right now. I think that we could have a legitimate chance at the playoffs this coming year. I just think that the number 2 starter will not push us over the edge. If Dan Wright, Jon Rauch, and Jon Garland start showing some consistent dominance, we could be set for a long long time as long as JR locks them up with some long term contracts once we see some good things from them. I'm really high on Rauch right now, and Garland has shown signs of some heavy-duty dominance on occasion. If he can show that with a little more consistency, and Dan Wright can overcome that big inning problem he has, this rotation could be really good. I just think that spending money that might stunt these guys' growth could do more harm than good, even if the signee performs. Face it, this team is too far away from a World Series to overcome it in one offseason. Barring any huge surprises (our version of David Eckstein), we aren't gonna be doing much in '03. '04's the year for us to seriously compete.

I want a world series to come to the southside just as much as you guys-- but I'm just trying to be realistic.

cornball
11-26-2002, 08:11 PM
The building for tomorrow is a terrific plan but when you do that ....tomorrow never comes. The time is now.....only if you can convince the people that have the power to do it now....lol