PDA

View Full Version : Credit where credit is due?


pudge
12-21-2002, 02:12 AM
I know some of these are not KW deals, but for all the ripping we do on Sox management, take a look at the non-tender list and see what decent moves the Sox made in the past:

Now available: Sturtze, who I believe we traded for Graffanino - what a steal!

Saenz - not sure who we traded him for - Olivio?

Singleton - what a steal to get Harris for him, even if Harris doesn't pan out.

Add in the deal for Jiminez we made last year - hey, I guess they're not ALL bad.

kermittheefrog
12-21-2002, 02:15 AM
Saenez was actually let go for nothing and had a few decent years for the A's. So he's not exactly a bright spot in Sox history. And just because someone is on the non tender list doesn't mean they haven't been useful in the past, just that they aren't in their teams future plans.

pudge
12-21-2002, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Saenez was actually let go for nothing and had a few decent years for the A's. So he's not exactly a bright spot in Sox history. And just because someone is on the non tender list doesn't mean they haven't been useful in the past, just that they aren't in their teams future plans.

Good point, but the names I mentioned above flamed out REALLY fast (Singleton especially, no surprise there). Thanks for the background on Saenez.

RichH55
12-21-2002, 12:08 PM
Bradford was dealt for Olivo...still shaping up to be a win.....Dont forget Marte and Jimenez in two seperate deals for very little

RKMeibalane
12-21-2002, 01:20 PM
Ken Williams has made some good accquisitions for the Sox. The problem with him is that when he makes a bad trade or free-agent signing, the move blows up in his face, and one is led to believe that he didn't do his homework, so to speak. The Todd Ritchie trade is an example. I don't think anyone anticipated Ritchie flopping as badly as he did, but KW gave up too much to get him, and that is what hurts. Not only did KW not fill a hole in the starting rotation, but he also gave up players who may have had productive futures for the Sox.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-21-2002, 01:33 PM
How any Sox Fan can stand up here and suggest Kenny Williams has been anything less than a disaster as GM--on the very day the team releases Todd Ritchie--is a complete mystery to me.

Some people are losing LOTS of credibility.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, folks. Kenny Williams can win countless skirmishes, but if nuclear warheads are dropping on our heads, don't think we aren't losing this war.

Sheesh...

gosox41
12-21-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I know some of these are not KW deals, but for all the ripping we do on Sox management, take a look at the non-tender list and see what decent moves the Sox made in the past:

Now available: Sturtze, who I believe we traded for Graffanino - what a steal!


Saenz - not sure who we traded him for - Olivio?

Singleton - what a steal to get Harris for him, even if Harris doesn't pan out.

Add in the deal for Jiminez we made last year - hey, I guess they're not ALL bad.


I'll give Kenny Williams credit for taking a young, exciting, and promising 95 win team and turning it into an 81 win team within a two year time frame.

Bottom line is the W's and he certainly hasn't increased them.

:KW
I'll show the world that not everyone coming out of Stanford is intelligent.

baggio202
12-21-2002, 03:12 PM
graffy deal was made by schueler..not KW

kermittheefrog
12-21-2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'll give Kenny Williams credit for taking a young, exciting, and promising 95 win team and turning it into an 81 win team within a two year time frame.

Bottom line is the W's and he certainly hasn't increased them.



Thats just about what I give Kenny credit for also.

pudge
12-21-2002, 05:14 PM
Well there you have it - I try to post something positive in the spirit of the holiday season, and I get ONE positive reply, all the rest negative - someone even kindly pointed out that one of the listed trades was Schu's deal WHEN I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

It's okay to be bitter to a certain extent, but the Sox were a winning team all through the 90s and remain a competitive team - at least we're not KC or Milwaukee. That's all I want to say at this holiday time..... I will go back to bitching on January 2nd.

Daver
12-21-2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Well there you have it - I try to post something positive in the spirit of the holiday season, and I get ONE positive reply, all the rest negative - someone even kindly pointed out that one of the listed trades was Schu's deal WHEN I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

It's okay to be bitter to a certain extent, but the Sox were a winning team all through the 90s and remain a competitive team - at least we're not KC or Milwaukee. That's all I want to say at this holiday time..... I will go back to bitching on January 2nd.

What can I tell you Pudge,Sox fans are a tough crowd to please,they are happier bitching about everything from to much ice in the Pina Colada's to the color of the damn seats,don't even get them started on the talent on the field...........

hose
12-21-2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I know some of these are not KW deals, but for all the ripping we do on Sox management, take a look at the non-tender list and see what decent moves the Sox made in the past:

Now available: Sturtze, who I believe we traded for Graffanino - what a steal!

Saenz - not sure who we traded him for - Olivio?

Singleton - what a steal to get Harris for him, even if Harris doesn't pan out.

Add in the deal for Jiminez we made last year - hey, I guess they're not ALL bad.

A good point was brought up by one of the callers during KW's score interview the other day.
Even though David Wells was a bust for the 2001 Sox, Mark Buehrle credits Boomer with helping him become a better pitcher.

I hope in the near future that Olivo is saying the same thing about KW's acquisition of Sandy Alomar.

oldcomiskey
12-21-2002, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'll give Kenny Williams credit for taking a young, exciting, and promising 95 win team and turning it into an 81 win team within a two year time frame.

Bottom line is the W's and he certainly hasn't increased them.

:KW
I'll show the world that not everyone coming out of Stanford is intelligent.

perhaps injuries played a big part in that too

kermittheefrog
12-22-2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by pudge
Well there you have it - I try to post something positive in the spirit of the holiday season, and I get ONE positive reply, all the rest negative - someone even kindly pointed out that one of the listed trades was Schu's deal WHEN I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

It's okay to be bitter to a certain extent, but the Sox were a winning team all through the 90s and remain a competitive team - at least we're not KC or Milwaukee. That's all I want to say at this holiday time..... I will go back to bitching on January 2nd.

Get me a competent GM, he doesn't even have to be a stathead!, and I'll be positive.

soxnut
12-22-2002, 01:06 PM
:smile: Hey Pudge. I agree with you . And as for the complainers, you sound like whining brats. I'm so sick and tired of all the complaining that goes on. I think you all just like to complain. The Score(especially Boers and Bernstein talk about that quite often) You all always seem to look at the dark cloud, instead of the silver lining. And you probably wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you didn't complain. Many of you never seem happy if you don't bitch. I thank God we still have a team and appreciate that fact, instead of hearing about the Florida White Sox.I'll never forget the feeling when I thought they were gone and vowed to appreciate them every day they were mine. The way so many of you complain, you don't even deserve to have a team. Enjoy your team folks, no matter what happens, but of course, don't go overboard like the other side of town!!
Thanks Pudge for trying to spread some Holiday cheer, but it seems like a tough crowd around here. MERRY CHRISTMAS!! :D:

TornLabrum
12-22-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
:smile: Hey Pudge. I agree with you . And as for the complainers, you sound like whining brats. I'm so sick and tired of all the complaining that goes on. I think you all just like to complain. The Score(especially Boers and Bernstein talk about that quite often) You all always seem to look at the dark cloud, instead of the silver lining. And you probably wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you didn't complain. Many of you never seem happy if you don't bitch. I thank God we still have a team and appreciate that fact, instead of hearing about the Florida White Sox.I'll never forget the feeling when I thought they were gone and vowed to appreciate them every day they were mine. The way so many of you complain, you don't even deserve to have a team. Enjoy your team folks, no matter what happens, but of course, don't go overboard like the other side of town!!
Thanks Pudge for trying to spread some Holiday cheer, but it seems like a tough crowd around here. MERRY CHRISTMAS!! :D:

So you're just happy having a team at all. I guess with such low expectations, you can be happy. Unfortunately, in my lifetime we came within two games of reaching the mountaintop. We had 17 consecutive seasons of over-.500 ball, of which I remember all but the first four. We made it to game 6 of the World Series. Of course that World Series was 43 years ago when I was nine years old, so excuse me if I'm a bit negative about all those World Series expansion clubs have been to since our last appearance.

:reinsy

"I'll take you to the promised land if more of you come out to the ball park."

kermittheefrog
12-22-2002, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
:smile: Hey Pudge. I agree with you . And as for the complainers, you sound like whining brats. I'm so sick and tired of all the complaining that goes on. I think you all just like to complain. The Score(especially Boers and Bernstein talk about that quite often) You all always seem to look at the dark cloud, instead of the silver lining. And you probably wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you didn't complain. Many of you never seem happy if you don't bitch. I thank God we still have a team and appreciate that fact, instead of hearing about the Florida White Sox.I'll never forget the feeling when I thought they were gone and vowed to appreciate them every day they were mine. The way so many of you complain, you don't even deserve to have a team. Enjoy your team folks, no matter what happens, but of course, don't go overboard like the other side of town!!
Thanks Pudge for trying to spread some Holiday cheer, but it seems like a tough crowd around here. MERRY CHRISTMAS!! :D:

We don't take kindly to folks like you around here.

Soxboyrob
12-23-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
graffy deal was made by schueler..not KW

Wasn't Graffy brought in off the waiver wire at about the same time Herbie was? Coulda swore the Sox just signed them off of the open market.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-23-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Wasn't Graffy brought in off the waiver wire at about the same time Herbie was? Coulda swore the Sox just signed them off of the open market.

Schueler traded Tanyon Sturtze for Graffanino. He also claimed Herbert Perry on waivers after Tampa Bay gave up on him.

Williams had nothing to do with getting Graffanino. The only role he had regarding Perry's Sox career was benching him while still blocking Joe Crede's progress, then letting him go for nothing to Texas.

He still thinks he deserves credit for his small deals as Sox GM, and apparently some Sox Fans are buying it.

WhiteSox = Life
12-23-2002, 02:51 PM
http://www.verycrazy.com/netview/rodney3.gif
"Can't a soulless and heartless regime get any respect anymore? I mean, I know WSI fans post that they don't like their organization, but I thought it was Chicago, not 'Bitch-and-go.' Sheesh."

34 Inch Stick
12-23-2002, 04:25 PM
Pudge, take out a dictionary and look up the word Pollyanna...Actually your optimism and this Christmas season is having an effect on me. I am going to start looking at the bright side of Kenny's trades.

Trading away Wells and Fogg saved us the eventual heartache of losing them to free agency in the future.

soxnut
12-23-2002, 04:47 PM
:cool: Yeah, Just like Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez, Alex Fernandez -- they had such great careers after we lost them to free agency :D:

soxnut
12-23-2002, 04:49 PM
:o: :o: I know we didn't lose them all to free agency, but I think you get the point.... :(: :(:

Lip Man 1
12-23-2002, 06:01 PM
Pudge says: but the Sox were a winning team all through the 90s and remain a competitive team - at least we're not KC or Milwaukee

Sorry Pudge but you walked right into this.....

I think you need to check the records in 1995, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

And with respect the only reason the Sox are still a competitive team is because they are in the A.L. Central. Stick them in the A.L. East, West, on the N.L. West and they might finish thirty games out of first.

They are competitive as far as maybe winning a divisional crown, but to get to the Series, let alone win it?

Do the words slim and none mean anything to you?

Lip

kermittheefrog
12-23-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Pudge says: but the Sox were a winning team all through the 90s and remain a competitive team - at least we're not KC or Milwaukee

Sorry Pudge but you walked right into this.....

I think you need to check the records in 1995, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

And with respect the only reason the Sox are still a competitive team is because they are in the A.L. Central. Stick them in the A.L. East, West, on the N.L. West and they might finish thirty games out of first.

They are competitive as far as maybe winning a divisional crown, but to get to the Series, let alone win it?

Do the words slim and none mean anything to you?

Lip

Come on Lip, winning the division gives you a nice shot at the series automatically. Look at the Twins, it's not like they are light years ahead of us and they were a few games from the Series.

Over on baseballprimer.com's discussion boards we were looking at divisional all-star teams for fun and honestly the AL Central team doesn't look much better than the Yankees. Thats pathetic but the Twins alone still made it farther than the Yanks in the playoffs. Anything can happen in the playoffs.

Lip Man 1
12-23-2002, 08:31 PM
Andrew:

I'd agree with you when MLB took pennant winners and they went right into the Series.

Now however, you've got to get "lucky" three times, win 11 games to take it all. beat possibly a better opponent three series in a row.

That's pretty low odds.

Lip

RKMeibalane
07-16-2003, 07:20 PM
Remember this? I thought it would be a good idea to bring this thread back. It should be interesting to see what people think of KW now, after the Everett and Alomar trades.

This was the day where I made a complete fool of myself and lost what little credibility I had.

chisoxt
07-16-2003, 08:28 PM
Remember this? I thought it would be a good idea to bring this thread back. It should be interesting to see what people think of KW now, after the Everett and Alomar trades.

This was the day where I made a complete fool of myself and lost what little credibility I had .

No, you didn't make a fool of yourself, because I thought that, frankly, the Alomar/Everett trades sucked two weeks ago, and they still suck now...The are symbolic of the very types of deals that Kenny likes to make.....trade prospects for veteran players past their prime. Sure, many of these prospects will turn out to be duds, but you know what?...if you trade enough of them, eventually they will come back to bite you..

RKMeibalane
07-16-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by chisoxt
.

No, you didn't make a fool of yourself, because I thought that, frankly, the Alomar/Everett trades sucked two weeks ago, and they still suck now...The are symbolic of the very types of deals that Kenny likes to make.....trade prospects for veteran players past their prime. Sure, many of these prospects will turn out to be duds, but you know what?...if you trade enough of them, eventually they will come back to bite you..

Actually, when I made the above post, I was referring to PHG saying that people were losing credibility for implying that Ken Williams had done anything positive as GM.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-16-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Actually, when I made the above post, I was referring to PHG saying that people were losing credibility for implying that Ken Williams had done anything positive as GM.

Well, as of last December Williams' biggest trade had been for Todd Ritchie. The Colon trade and Alomar and Everett trades hadn't happened. Williams was whining that nobody was giving him credit for getting Damaso Marte.

I wasn't very impressed--and wouldn't be until the following month when the Yankees saw fit to cut a deal that blocked Boston from getting Colon. I remember giving Williams props for making the White Sox the team that the Yankees teamed up with to make this happen. After all, there were 27 other teams they could have worked a similar 3-way deal with. KW got the job done.

34 Inch Stick
07-17-2003, 08:52 AM
My feelings on him now are that he is still a serious work in progress, but the arrow is pointing up.

gosox41
07-17-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
My feelings on him now are that he is still a serious work in progress, but the arrow is pointing up.

When one does such a lousy job and is so low, he's got no where else to go.

Bob

SoxOnTop
07-17-2003, 09:14 AM
I'm not a huge KW fan, but I will pause before calling him the sole reason we went from an 94 win team in '00 to an 81 win team in '02. Look at the starting pitching that year:

Sirotka

WillieHarris12
07-17-2003, 09:37 AM
If a team wins 94 games. Why screw and bring in veterans. We could have a young core here.

SoxOnTop
07-17-2003, 09:41 AM
I'm not a huge KW fan, but I will pause before calling him the sole reason we went from an 94 win team in '00 to an 81 win team in '02. Look at the starting pitching that year:

Sirotka- Got hurt and hasn't pitched since
Parque- Got hurt and can only throw meatballs
Baldwin- Peak of his career which crashed fast
Cal Eldred- Always hurt and never will be the same
Wells/Garland- Showed promise, still not blossoming

Of our top 4 starters 3 couldn't even pitch by the following year and Baldwin was in MAJOR decline. He's definitely had his share of bad and/or risky deals (Ritchie, Wells) but for your top 4 starters to be complete non factors by the NEXT season is not exactly a prime position to walk into despite alll the "top prospects" we had in our system.

TornLabrum
07-17-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
Garland- Showed promise, still not blossoming

Where have you been the last couple of months?

SoxOnTop
07-17-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Where have you been the last couple of months?


I'll give you that Wells has blossomed in Pittsburg, but as excited as Garland gets me when he's on his game he's still not consistant. When he gets that ERA down around 4.00 I'll feel better.

You can't possibly tell me that Jon Garland has arrived as a major league pitcher.

TornLabrum
07-17-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
[B]I'll give you that Wells has blossomed in Pittsburg, but as excited as Garland gets me when he's on his game he's still not consistant. [B]

I repeat: where have you been the last couple of months?

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I repeat: where have you been the last couple of months?
I think he's been watching Garland pitch for the last couple of months.

June 4.30 ERA
July 4.63 ERA

He is either a good #4 starter or an ok #3. If he has "arrived", then that appears to have been his destination.

voodoochile
07-17-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
I think he's been watching Garland pitch for the last couple of months.

June 4.30 ERA
July 4.63 ERA

He is either a good #4 starter or an ok #3. If he has "arrived", then that appears to have been his destination.

Oh darn...

And he is still only 23 YO. Man it is really going to be painful to watch this guy pitch when he is 27...

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Oh darn...

And he is still only 23 YO. Man it is really going to be painful to watch this guy pitch when he is 27...
Sure, he's still young, but all he has shown so far in his major league career is inconsistent mediocrity. And, he isn't even improving (if statistics mean anything...and they do).

2001 - 3.69 ERA, .785 opponents OPS
2002 - 4.58 ERA, .752 opponents OPS
2003 - 4.64 ERA, .772 opponents OPS

If he hasn't improved from age 21 to age 23, why is it that I am supposed to be excited about how he'll be doing at age 27?

voodoochile
07-17-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Sure, he's still young, but all he has shown so far in his major league career is inconsistent mediocrity. And, he isn't even improving (if statistics mean anything...and they do).

2001 - 3.69 ERA, .785 opponents OPS
2002 - 4.58 ERA, .752 opponents OPS
2003 - 4.64 ERA, .772 opponents OPS

If he hasn't improved from age 21 to age 23, why is it that I am supposed to be excited about how he'll be doing at age 27?

I guess it has to do with watching his mental approach to the game, which has changed dramatically since the beginning of the year.

In April he looked like the same old pitcher, but in May he came on very strong (3.60 ERA, .243 BAA). In June he continued his solid string of starts, compiling a 4.30 ERA thought the BAA jumped to .271. Your stats on July are based on 2 starts and you ignored the whole month of May. Yes, his stats for the year are unspectacular, but that is mostly due to a bad April. Since then he has been a very solid 4 or even borderline 3 (by your own admission).

See, unlike you. I have actually watched the kid pitch almost every game this year. He has definitely looked better and if you weren't so intent on being an "anti-fan" you would admit it, but you just want to be right and try and twist the stats to fit your needs (ignoring May stats in previous post in favor of July stats which are based on two starts (one good, one bad)). Oh well, that's your business, but it just makes you look silly...

TornLabrum
07-17-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
I think he's been watching Garland pitch for the last couple of months.

June 4.30 ERA
July 4.63 ERA

He is either a good #4 starter or an ok #3. If he has "arrived", then that appears to have been his destination.

This is the AL with the DH. Those are pretty decent, and I believe he has been slotted as the 3 or 4 starter all year behind Colon and Buehrle. So he's performing exactly as expected. At age 23, he is quite likely to improve even more.

gosox41
07-17-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
This is the AL with the DH. Those are pretty decent, and I believe he has been slotted as the 3 or 4 starter all year behind Colon and Buehrle. So he's performing exactly as expected. At age 23, he is quite likely to improve even more.

I'm sure Garland will improve. I see the potential he has to be a great starter. That's why I'm so hard on the guy when he goes through his inconsistent streaks.

The only problem is when he's 27, he's probably going to be pitcing great ball for another team as the Sox will let him go as soon as he's a free agent.


Bob

Gumshoe
07-17-2003, 02:35 PM
Baseball Boy, you make some of the most insanely idiotic assertions in your above two posts. You are asking me for consistency. I'll give you my thorough analysis of KW:

The ultimate issue with a GM and a manager is the simplest in the world. All you lovers of KW and JM listen to me! If you win, you did a good job. You made the right moves. If you don't, you didn't do a good job. It's as simple as that. Who CARES about "it wasn't a bad move at the time" or "i would have done the same thing". That is all horsecrap. Yes, it is that simple. The main flaw behind KW is that he has tried to do too much instead of being patient. If he makes a good deal, he can't stop (witness Alomar leading to Everett deal). He clutters the lineup with guys who are not that versatile, which gives JM a harder time figuring things out. And if KW didn't think he could with a situation where Reinsdorf controls (even partially) his decisions, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN the job. Since he did, he is fair game to criticism, because he chose the job with a purpose to WIN. I don't wanna hear this "he tries really hard crap." Who doesn't???????????????? Come on.

Now on to the moves:

Royce Clayton for Myette + others
Sox pay a 4 MIL salary for a guy with good D but little range, a cancer in the clubhouse, and a .220. Hm, what a great move to make. Oh yeah, let's let JM shuffle Jose to 3rd, CF, 2nd. Crap, let's let him play all 9. Good job, KW. Highlight? I was at the game where Royce got a hit off Cris Carpenter in the ninth after his average dipped BELOW .200. We cheered, MVP, MVP, MVP! I bet KW was proud.

Glover for Scott Eyre
I thought this was a steal at the time. Eyre sucked for us, Glover came in and pitched well. As is usual for KW, he brings in more guys later on so Glover can never pitch again. Even Sanders gets more innings now. Eyre was effective in the NLCS and World Series, much to my amazement, with SF.

David Wells for shouldergate incident
This is a great example of what KW backers are all about. "That was a great deal at the time," they'll say. What they don't recognize is the X-factors involved. Wells, a cancer who never wanted to be in our clubhouse (KW should have known), claims Frank is a ***** who won't play because he fakes injuries. There goes the Clubhouse. There goes the season. Good job, KW. Good intentions get us NOWHERE.

Kip Wells, Josh Fogg for Ritchie
At least Ritchie took it like a man. He sucked and made NO excuses. Another example of bringing over NL pitchers to the American league to get bombed. Wells I didn't think was that much risk giving up but Fogg has been solid for the Pirates, unspectacular. Still, way better than Ritchie.

Damaso Marte for minor leaguer(s)
GREAT move. One of his best. Too bad he doesn't have enough sense to make him the closer or pitch him MORE than guys like Tom Gordon.

D'Angelo Jimenez for 2 minor leaguers
Great move. Doesn't keep him around even as a utility player though, gone in less than a year. Willie Harris is better?????? This one will bite the Sox in the butt. Once DJ gets a good manager, he'll hit with power, average, good speed.

Willie Harris from Baltimore for Singleton
Ok, trade a CF for a 2B who is Ray Durham clone except 10 times WORSE. Then complain about not having a good CF. Oh and by the way, Singleton is at .280 this year (200 AB), and he hit around .298 for the Sox in 2001 (full season). Harris hits .198 in sporadic use.

Miguel Olivo for Chad Bradford
Gave up quality to get a player with a big upside at a needed position. Slight edge to the White Sox, becuase catchers are hard to find. Good move.

Loaiza, White, Gordon
Loaiza is the best pitcher in the AL. MADD credit to KW for what he deserves. White, another NL crossover, gets pounded. He looks a bit better now. Gordon blew just as many games as White. KW did a good job to invite a pitcher and then sign two guys to blow his wins.

Which brings us to the worst trade of them all, not only because it didn't work out, but because BEFOREHAND it was simply and insanely IDIOTIC, like baseball boys previous arguments (not all, some of them ... don't wanna get you too pissed).

The anti-Foulke argument consists of the folllowing:
a) Foulke didn't want to be a closer
b) He had a bad attitude
c) He blew big games
d) I don't like him, either

The pro-Foulke argument is this:
a) his K/BB ratio from 1999-2002 is enormous
1999: 6:1 with a 2.22 ERA
2000: 4:1 with a 2.97 ERA
2001: 3.5:1 with a 2.33 ERA
2002: 4.8:1 with a 2.90 ERA

I don't have to post Koch's stats. Over that time period, Foulke has a better K/BB ratio than Mariano Rivera. His ERA is slightly higher.

Not only do you give up a pitcher who is better in EVERY facet to Koch, but you trade away a catcher (there is no way they could have known that Olivo would be even close to ready for MLB) ,and another young closer (AND 2 draft picks because of FA). That's not all, folks. The worst part of the deal is that KW doesn't realize the enormous amount of pitches Koch threw in his TONS of innings the last 3 years.

You say, well IF Koch was throwing 97, I wouldn't be pissed? That's exactly the point! He's not, and it's for a reason. But even if he WERE, he's still not even close to Keith Foulke as a pitcher (remember last year against the Twins, game 5 ALDS???)

I'll end with this quote from Benny:
Quote:
Foulke did good as long as he wasnt the closer for us. He did terrible while he was. Once he was taken out of that situation he returned to form. Once he was given an opportunity again while going good he sucked it up again. He couldnt handle that job with us. Plus he didnt want it. Are you saying you cant remember his complaining about being a starter? Give me a break.



He was arguably the best closer in baseball from 1999-2002. WHO CARES what his sentiment is???!!! He's not going to take the field and NOT try. With Foulke, we'd be 6 games up instead of 6 games under, my friends. That's all. Now we want to deal Koch. Good job, KW. Hahahaha, the guy is a LOSER, just like JM.

Gumshoe

Gumshoe
07-17-2003, 02:48 PM
I'll go on the record and state what I think about the recent moves.

Alomar deal
+'s and -'s

Sure, it's an upgrade. You already know I like Jimenez. I think he could have been a fine player, AT LEAST a utility guy with us. Alomar clearly isn't going to be here next year. But you can't tell me W. Harris is better than Jimenez, or at least not worth sending down just to KEEP Jimenez. That's the worst of it. Jimenez turns out to be a really good IF for another team (Reds he's already playing well). Alomar is only here for the year. If we don't win, we gave up Ring. A potentially BIG minus - for us

The Everett Deal
Sure we "probably" didn't give up much. I hope we didn't, at least. Great example of KW OVERacquiring again. What has Everett hit for the last 2 months? zip. How was Rowand hitting? Great. Is Everett a CF? NO. Is Rowand a better CF? Yes.
Ok, put more tinkering aspects into Manuel's head ...

BAD BAD move. KW doesn't know when to quit. Sheesh, he doensn't know much of anything. Surely he has no clue what it takes to win.

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
See, unlike you. I have actually watched the kid pitch almost every game this year. He has definitely looked better and if you weren't so intent on being an "anti-fan" you would admit it, but you just want to be right and try and twist the stats to fit your needs (ignoring May stats in previous post in favor of July stats which are based on two starts (one good, one bad)). Oh well, that's your business, but it just makes you look silly...
Actually, I have MLB Extra Innings, which shows the vast majority of White Sox games. And, of course I can watch some on WGN. So, I've seen about 75% of Garland's starts. So, you can spare me the "I can see him with my own two eyes and he pitches better than his stats, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen him pitch" BS.

I don't think one has to be "intent on being an anti-fan" to recognize that Garland is mediocre and consistently inconsistent. I picked July and June stats because someone was harping on how well he's done for the last two months. So, I showed the stats for the current and prior month.

But, don't let my recitation of the facts about Garland get in the way of you being a fan of him.

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
At age 23, he is quite likely to improve even more.
Does the fact that he hasn't improved over the last three years say anything about whether he's likely to improve over the next three years? I think that says a lot about him. I think that says he's destined for mediocrity.

Or, are you like Voodochile in that you think he has improved in ways that aren't reflected in statistics?

voodoochile
07-17-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Actually, I have MLB Extra Innings, which shows the vast majority of White Sox games. And, of course I can watch some on WGN. So, I've seen about 75% of Garland's starts. So, you can spare me the "I can see him with my own two eyes and he pitches better than his stats, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen him pitch" BS.

I don't think one has to be "intent on being an anti-fan" to recognize that Garland is mediocre and consistently inconsistent. I picked July and June stats because someone was harping on how well he's done for the last two months. So, I showed the stats for the current and prior month.

But, don't let my recitation of the facts about Garland get in the way of you being a fan of him.

*****!

I never said he pitches better than his stats, I said that since a bad April he has been much better and the stats bear that out.

Time will tell, Boog who is right and who is wrong, but since both of us are biased (me hoping that what I think I see is correct and you hoping the stats are correct and that he never becomes a great starter) we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you have honestly seen 75% of Garland's starts this year, how can you say he hasn't shown improvement (which the stats bear out)? How can you also claim that at 23 he has hit his ceiling? If he is indeed improving (as the stats and anecdotal evidence seem to suggest), then assuming he has hit his peak at 23 is just silly...

Of course you are rooting for him to fail so that silliness is to be expected...

TornLabrum
07-17-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Does the fact that he hasn't improved over the last three years say anything about whether he's likely to improve over the next three years? I think that says a lot about him. I think that says he's destined for mediocrity.

Or, are you like Voodochile in that you think he has improved in ways that aren't reflected in statistics?

He has improved, though. He is far more consistent than he used to be. He is throwing strikes on the first pitch. He is attacking the batters instead of nibbling. Numbers don't tell everything.

voodoochile
07-17-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
He has improved, though. He is far more consistent than he used to be. He is throwing strikes on the first pitch. He is attacking the batters instead of nibbling. Numbers don't tell everything.

However numbers do tell us that since the begining of 2002, Garland has posted monthly ERA's of

Apr 2002 - 6.33
May 2002 3.75
June 2002 3.89
July 2002 8.00
August 2002 3.23
September 3.38

Apr 2003 6.4
May 3.60
June 4.30
July 4.69 (2 starts)

So it looks like the kid is certainly capable of being a stud pitcher if he can ever find consistency. He has shown a lot more of that this year, which is why there is hope for him to become a solid #2 or #3 pitcher.

kempsted
07-17-2003, 04:04 PM
If you look game by game as opposed to looking as summary stats you see he has had brilliant games and awful games. If he can tone down to lows so they aren't so low he will be doing very well. He is our number 4 starter this year and there is probably not a better number 4 out there is there? Is the Flubs staff really better? I think Wright is better than Estes and they sent Wright to the minors.

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
*****!

I never said he pitches better than his stats, I said that since a bad April he has been much better and the stats bear that out.

Time will tell, Boog who is right and who is wrong, but since both of us are biased (me hoping that what I think I see is correct and you hoping the stats are correct and that he never becomes a great starter) we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you have honestly seen 75% of Garland's starts this year, how can you say he hasn't shown improvement (which the stats bear out)? How can you also claim that at 23 he has hit his ceiling? If he is indeed improving (as the stats and anecdotal evidence seem to suggest), then assuming he has hit his peak at 23 is just silly...

Of course you are rooting for him to fail so that silliness is to be expected...
For the record, Garland has had a good 1 1/2 months. He started pitching well in mid May and did pretty well until late June. Since then, he has had mixed results, with alternating good and bad starts (An ERA of about 4.50 in his last 4 starts). I don't exactly see that as steady improvement. What I see is what we've seen from Garland throughout his major league career. Something like this: Bad month, good month, two bad months, two good months.

When that kind of inconsistency is his track record, I find it hard to be convinced after 1 1/2 months of good pitching that he's suddenly turned the corner. He always has some good stretches like that and Sox fans say he's becoming the great pitcher they knew he would be. Those great stretches are always followed by bad stretches, and his overall numbers end up being quite mediocre. I'll believe he's become something more than inconsistenly mediocre when I see it.

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
However numbers do tell us that since the begining of 2002, Garland has posted monthly ERA's of

Apr 2002 - 6.33
May 2002 3.75
June 2002 3.89
July 2002 8.00
August 2002 3.23
September 3.38

Apr 2003 6.4
May 3.60
June 4.30
July 4.69 (2 starts)

So it looks like the kid is certainly capable of being a stud pitcher if he can ever find consistency. He has shown a lot more of that this year, which is why there is hope for him to become a solid #2 or #3 pitcher.
That is quite a roller coaster ride for Jonny. But, I don't see how this shows that he is "certainly capable of being a stud pitcher". Are you saying this because he has had a number of months with a sub-4.00 ERA? The problem is that mediocre pitchers often have some months with low ERA's. What differentiates them from good pitchers is the relative frequency of their mediocre and bad months. Garland clearly has some talent. But lots of pitchers have talent and can't consistently bring the stuff, command and control that is the hallmark of a good starting pitcher.

boog_alou
07-17-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
If you look game by game as opposed to looking as summary stats you see he has had brilliant games and awful games. If he can tone down to lows so they aren't so low he will be doing very well. He is our number 4 starter this year and there is probably not a better number 4 out there is there? Is the Flubs staff really better? I think Wright is better than Estes and they sent Wright to the minors.
One problem is that next year, Garland will be the Sox #3 (barring a big trade or FA acquisition). And, if the Sox want to get to the playoffs, I think they'll need a playoff caliber #3. Garland hasn't come particularly close to showing that so far in his career (for more than one or two-month stints). If the Sox want to contend next year, he'll definitely have to come into his own...finally.

oldcomiskey
07-28-2003, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gumshoe
[B]

David Wells for shouldergate incident
This is a great example of what KW backers are all about. "That was a great deal at the time," they'll say. What they don't recognize is the X-factors involved. Wells, a cancer who never wanted to be in our clubhouse (KW should have known), claims Frank is a ***** who won't play because he fakes injuries. There goes the Clubhouse. There goes the season. Good job, KW. Good intentions get us NOWHERE.

first of all where does it say that Bommer is a cancer and second thats not what his book says

Gumshoe
07-28-2003, 04:10 PM
We won't get into a subjective opinion debate. Oldcomiskey, I'm just sticking to this:

Wells did NOT help the Chicago White Sox win. Case closed.

Gumshoe