PDA

View Full Version : Beane on ex-Sox players


MisterB
01-03-2003, 09:01 PM
Billy Beane was just interviewed on a local sportstalk station. Had several things to say about some former White Sox players.

Chris Singleton: Was acquired to solidify the up-the-middle defense and allow T. Long to move to LF. Has had his eye on Singleton since Johnny Damon left. Quoted Brian Cashman as saying he regretted trading Singleton to the White Sox. Thought that the aborted Erstad/Sox deal would have been better for the Angels.

Ray Durham: Called him the key late-season acquisition that got them to the playoffs. Did try to re-sign him. Opined that Ray could make a decent outfielder, and that getting a multi-year deal is why Ray is open to moving to the OF now.

Foulke/Koch trade: Said that, saves notwithstanding, Foulke pitched better than Koch last year. Mark Johnson will be a good compliment to Ramon Hernandez. The A's had been watching Joe Valentine for some time. Is very pleased with the back end of the A's bullpen (Foulke, Chad Bradford and Ricky Rincon).

Just FYI

duke of dorwood
01-03-2003, 10:42 PM
He's obviously not going to say anything negative about one of his moves.

michigan84
01-03-2003, 10:46 PM
Still, you have to admit that the Foulke trade was not really a good one for the Sox. What was Kenny Williams thinking? I would never trade with Billy Beane, that man is shrewd and rips everybody he trades with off. Kenny should of got more than Koch (who is not very good despite the stats) and two horrible prospects for the package he sent to the Athletics. When will a trade that makes sense occur?

Daver
01-03-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by michigan84
Still, you have to admit that the Foulke trade was not really a good one for the Sox. What was Kenny Williams thinking? I would never trade with Billy Beane, that man is shrewd and rips everybody he trades with off. Kenny should of got more than Koch (who is not very good despite the stats) and two horrible prospects for the package he sent to the Athletics. When will a trade that makes sense occur?

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

Tragg
01-04-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
Billy Beane was just interviewed on a local sportstalk station. Had several things to say about some former White Sox players.

Chris Singleton: Was acquired to solidify the up-the-middle defense and allow T. Long to move to LF. Has had his eye on Singleton since Johnny Damon left. Quoted Brian Cashman as saying he regretted trading Singleton to the White Sox. Thought that the aborted Erstad/Sox deal would have been better for the Angels.

Ray Durham: Called him the key late-season acquisition that got them to the playoffs. Did try to re-sign him. Opined that Ray could make a decent outfielder, and that getting a multi-year deal is why Ray is open to moving to the OF now.

Foulke/Koch trade: Said that, saves notwithstanding, Foulke pitched better than Koch last year. Mark Johnson will be a good compliment to Ramon Hernandez. The A's had been watching Joe Valentine for some time. Is very pleased with the back end of the A's bullpen (Foulke, Chad Bradford and Ricky Rincon).

Just FYI

Beane is beginning to bore me. Trumpeting Singleton? Please. Yeah, maybe foulke is better than koch (i think he is), but it is hardly a steal or a catastrophic trade for the Sox. I am happy for him that they made the playoffs but the twinks did rough them up. Wake me up when he wins a WS, at which time I will stop thinking he is full of himself.

kermittheefrog
01-04-2003, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by michigan84
Still, you have to admit that the Foulke trade was not really a good one for the Sox. What was Kenny Williams thinking? I would never trade with Billy Beane, that man is shrewd and rips everybody he trades with off. Kenny should of got more than Koch (who is not very good despite the stats) and two horrible prospects for the package he sent to the Athletics. When will a trade that makes sense occur?

I like your style.

Lip Man 1
01-04-2003, 12:51 AM
Tragg says:

Wake me up when he wins a WS, at which time I will stop thinking he is full of himself.

I like your style.

Lip

hold2dibber
01-04-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by michigan84
Still, you have to admit that the Foulke trade was not really a good one for the Sox. What was Kenny Williams thinking? I would never trade with Billy Beane, that man is shrewd and rips everybody he trades with off. Kenny should of got more than Koch (who is not very good despite the stats) and two horrible prospects for the package he sent to the Athletics. When will a trade that makes sense occur?

I have taken it upon myself to question the deification of Billy Beane. I do not deny that he is one of the best GMs in the game, but he is not infallible. It was Beane who signed Long to a lucrative multi-year deal - big mistake. Beane just signed Singleton - virtually every Sox fan knows that Singleton is no better than a slightly above average defender and an absolute disaster at the plate. Also, if Beane called right now and asked to trade Bradford back for Olivo, would you do it? I sure wouldn't; I think the Sox, after all is said and done, will be the winner in that deal.

CHISOXFAN13
01-04-2003, 11:52 AM
I think it's pretty funny when Michigan84 criticizes anyone trading with Billy Beane then claims the two kids we got back are terrible prospects. One, how do you know? Ever seen them pitch??

Secondly, as the General manager, don't you think Beane had something to do with drafting both of those kids??

So what is it. Is he a genious for making great deals or a dumb ass for drafting horrible prospects??

Hangar18
01-04-2003, 12:05 PM
Im agreeing with Michigan84 on this one.
we shouldnt have given up so much (per usual with kw)
for Koch

oldcomiskey
01-04-2003, 01:12 PM
two questions

one is very simple----how do you figure the Sox gave up too much. Foulke for Koch is fairly even and Mark Johnson is no great shakes.
and two is you people are so down on KW for not aquring Colon-----who would you give up to aquire him

hold2dibber
01-04-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
two questions

one is very simple----how do you figure the Sox gave up too much. Foulke for Koch is fairly even and Mark Johnson is no great shakes.
and two is you people are so down on KW for not aquring Colon-----who would you give up to aquire him

We'll see what the Expos eventually get in return and see if the Sox could have beat the offer. But I actually would probably rather acquire Vazquez and he could cost less. But I would be willing to give up Garland or Lee, and either Olivo or the Expos choice of any two of the following: Rowand, Liefer, Harris, Stewart, Sanders, Ring, Munoz, Malone, Rogowski (sp?), or any other minor leaguers other than Honel or Borchard.

Brian26
01-04-2003, 02:33 PM
The Foulke/Koch deal isn't lopsided in favor of either team. It's pretty darn close, and it's definitely too close to call now. MJ was ridiculed on this board and really didn't produce at the plate. The minor leaguers are all unproven at this point as well. It's basically a trade of Koch for Foulke. It could be a disaster for either team. Foulke may be done, and Koch could implode like Mitch Williams. Time will tell. It's not far to rip Kenny a new one on this particular trade or to make Beane a god.

Regarding Singleton: Looking at this stats, one year completely stands out. Maybe it was just an anonoly. Why did Singleton have such an outstanding 1999 season? He batted .300 and 17 or 18 homers (going from memory here). His 2000 season wasn't terrible either. His offense started to decline in 2001 and 2002 when his playing time was cut in half due to the Ramirez experiment and Jose-centerfield experiment. I'd be interested in seeing Singleton's production in centerfield again when he's penciled in as the everyday player out there. In the clubhouse, we know he's an outstanding guy and a leader. Lots of guys on the Sox were very candid in saying they lost a great presence with his trade. Just as JB and Eldred were excellent leaders for the pitching staff in 2000, Singleton was one of the position players that played an important clubhouse role, and that's another intangible you need to look at. I'm not saying Singleton is an all-star centerfielder, but (and I have to be careful how I word this) I think he can contribute effectively on a daily basis if given the chance. Was '99 an anomoly?

Brian26
01-04-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
But I would be willing to give up Garland or Lee, and either Olivo or the Expos choice of any two of the following: Rowand, Liefer, Harris, Stewart, Sanders, Ring, Munoz, Malone, Rogowski (sp?), or any other minor leaguers other than Honel or Borchard.

I really have a feeling Garland is set to have a HUGE breakout year. He's has 3 seasons of being kicked around, and last year he started showing signs of brilliance here and there. I'm thinking of the Braves and how their big guns took about 3 years in the late 80's to develop before they all came together in that '91 season (Glavine, Smoltz and Avery). I wouldn't give Garland up this offseason. I think this is his year. I especially wouldn't trade him for another pitcher to basically replace him. The upside on Garland far outweighs Vasquez at this point. If Garland doesn't have a big year THIS year though, then I think it might be time to move him. I have a good feeling about the big three of Buehrle, Garland and Wright this year.

gosox41
01-04-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
two questions

one is very simple----how do you figure the Sox gave up too much. Foulke for Koch is fairly even and Mark Johnson is no great shakes.
and two is you people are so down on KW for not aquring Colon-----who would you give up to aquire him


Statistically, Foulke was a lot better pitcher then Koch was last season and for his career. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but compare the WHIP's and K/BB ratio of the two. I don't care how many saves Koch had as that is probably one of the most overrrated stats of all time. To me, the better pitcher is the one with the lowest WHIP and highest K/BB ratio.

As for Mark Johnson, being no great shakes, I agree to an extent. He did have a good OBP for an AL catcher and was solid defensively. I would definitely take MJ over Paul and Alomar. As far as I'm concerned, if MJ weren't traded then Alomar wouldn't have been resigned. The Sox would probably carry 2 catchers (MJ and Olivo.) Instead, they're going to carry three. That third catcher (Alomar or Paul) is taking up a valuable roster spot for a productive hitter.

When it comes down to the Foulke trade, it was designed to save money. But how much was really saved. Foulke is going to make $6 mill. in 2003. Koch can get around $4 mill in arbitration. Of course, KW had to send the A's some money in that deal because he's useless. My guess is he sent over $1 mill. to make the two salaries equal. So that means he saved $1 mill. Now subtract the resiging of Alomar (which would not have been necessary if MJ were still here) and the Sox saved a whopping $250K. At least in the process, the team was made worse.

Bob

Randar68
01-04-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I have a good feeling about the big three of Buehrle, Garland and Wright this year.

Despite his lack of big league experience, I expect Rauch to have a better year than either Garland or Wright. However, I think Garland and Wright will both improve.

Hey, call me an optimist.

doublem23
01-04-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by gosox41

As for Mark Johnson, being no great shakes, I agree to an extent. He did have a good OBP for an AL catcher and was solid defensively. I would definitely take MJ over Paul and Alomar. As far as I'm concerned, if MJ weren't traded then Alomar wouldn't have been resigned. The Sox would probably carry 2 catchers (MJ and Olivo.) Instead, they're going to carry three. That third catcher (Alomar or Paul) is taking up a valuable roster spot for a productive hitter.


I doubt they'll carry three.

Huisj
01-04-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Statistically, Foulke was a lot better pitcher then Koch was last season and for his career. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but compare the WHIP's and K/BB ratio of the two. I don't care how many saves Koch had as that is probably one of the most overrrated stats of all time. To me, the better pitcher is the one with the lowest WHIP and highest K/BB ratio.


Bob

Yeah, I agree that saves can be overrated because of how they depend of circumstances. However, I also think there's more to good closer than whether or not he has a low WHIP in a season of mostly meaningless games. Yes, Foulke pitched real well last year--once he was pitching with no pressure. Tons of his innings in the second half last year were not in big high pressure situations. The sox were well out of the race, and he wasn't pitching in close & late situations hardly at all. He pitched real well, but would he have done the same under big pressure? I guess that's one of those unanswerable questions. Yes, he has been an effective closer before, but it still seemed that fairly often he had trouble closing out the real big game--seattle in the playoffs comes to mind especially.

Most people disagree with me on this, but I'd rather see Koch closing games than Foulke. Maybe foulke had better stats, but he didn't put up those stats as a closer.

kermittheefrog
01-04-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
I think it's pretty funny when Michigan84 criticizes anyone trading with Billy Beane then claims the two kids we got back are terrible prospects. One, how do you know? Ever seen them pitch??

Secondly, as the General manager, don't you think Beane had something to do with drafting both of those kids??

So what is it. Is he a genious for making great deals or a dumb ass for drafting horrible prospects??

Worst argument... ever.

kermittheefrog
01-04-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Despite his lack of big league experience, I expect Rauch to have a better year than either Garland or Wright. However, I think Garland and Wright will both improve.

Hey, call me an optimist.

I could see that but I could also see him struggling before he puts it all together. Pitchers are unpredictable like that. But as a whole the four of Buehrle, Garland, Wright and Rauch has the potential to dominate.

TornLabrum
01-04-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
As for Mark Johnson, being no great shakes, I agree to an extent. He did have a good OBP for an AL catcher and was solid defensively. I would definitely take MJ over Paul and Alomar. As far as I'm concerned, if MJ weren't traded then Alomar wouldn't have been resigned. The Sox would probably carry 2 catchers (MJ and Olivo.) Instead, they're going to carry three. That third catcher (Alomar or Paul) is taking up a valuable roster spot for a productive hitter.

I think you're on the same page I am. In the column I wrote for the week of Dec. 22, I wrote about our signing of Alomar:

This presents an interesting situation for those who like to follow the chaos that is known as Sox personnel management. The Sox have three catchers. Josh Paul can hit and run but canít play defense. Olivo is a huge question mark. No one really knows if he is ready. And frankly, Alomar is over the hill. So will the Sox carry all three? Paul is out of options. Olivo is not, but he appears to be the heir apparent behind the plate. If he fails, this time around, he has options, but if he is sent down, that leaves the Sox with Paul and Alomar. That is a truly scary thought

:KW

"Scared? Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"

:andy

"I taught Kenny everything I know."

jeremyb1
01-04-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
We'll see what the Expos eventually get in return and see if the Sox could have beat the offer. But I actually would probably rather acquire Vazquez and he could cost less. But I would be willing to give up Garland or Lee, and either Olivo or the Expos choice of any two of the following: Rowand, Liefer, Harris, Stewart, Sanders, Ring, Munoz, Malone, Rogowski (sp?), or any other minor leaguers other than Honel or Borchard.

i'm personally very high on garland but i'll try not to let that cloud the argument. the biggest problem i see with trading garland for vazquez is the reason we'd be making the deal is to shore up our rotation right? how much does trading our number three starter for a number two starter whose era was only marginally better improve our rotation all that much? we've solved the number two starter problem but now we don't have a number three starter. if we were to trade carlos that'd be better in that at least we'd be trading from our strength (hitting) to improve our weakness (the rotation). however, a player like carlos wouldn't get the deal done because he makes too much money. we'd have to deal someone like crede. as far as prospects go if you'd give the expos any two sox prospects other than honel or borchard they'd go for anthony webster and and maybe malone. i think that losing those players (webster at least) could hurt us in the long run and wouldn't equate to that much value in the long run. i think any deal for colon or vazquez would have to include at least one player (at maybe two) out of the group of garland, rauch, crede, and borchard. i'd probably be the most willing to give up crede or borchard. i don't see it happening though.

Tragg
01-05-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Worst argument... ever.

Actually, I think it's a pretty good argument to display the "heads I win; tales you lose" philosophy when it comes these days to discussing Jesus II, Billy Beane.

If he's such a great evaluator, why did he draft the prospects he dealt us that he now says suck in the first place?

Does he really consider himself a genius for relieving us of the critical playoff ingredient Durham - the very Durham he chose not to re-sign? Which is he - critical piece or not? And it was't his brilliance that landed Durham for nothing - it was KW's impatience and incompetence.

michigan84
01-05-2003, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Actually, I think it's a pretty good argument to display the "heads I win; tales you lose" philosophy when it comes these days to discussing Jesus II, Billy Beane.

If he's such a great evaluator, why did he draft the prospects he dealt us that he now says suck in the first place?

Does he really consider himself a genius for relieving us of the critical playoff ingredient Durham - the very Durham he chose not to re-sign? Which is he - critical piece or not? And it was't his brilliance that landed Durham for nothing - it was KW's impatience and incompetence.

He drafted these prospects not for his own team, but because he knew idiots like Kenny Williams would go for them in trades. And he did not draft Koch, he traded for him.

To the person who said how do I know the prospects aren't good, no, I haven't seen them, but I have seen the scouting reports and stats. They are nothing to get excited about. One of the prospects the White Sox received was Neal Cotts. At 23 years old, he was way too old to be pitching in high class A with the Modesto Athletics. This is a league mainly for 21 year olds. With the development this guy had in college he should be doing much better than he did against younger, less experienced competition. Looking at the stats, this guy had a 4.12 era and 178 strike outs in 140 innings pitched. Considering his age and experience, that is not impressive at all. Even looking at members on his same team, they look better for example, Jeremy Bonderman, a 19 year old pitcher (the youngest in California League) who the Tigers picked up in the Weaver trade, had a 3.61 era with almost the same number of strike outs in the same number of innings pitched. That's a lot more impressive than Cotts, that this kid straight out of high school can put up better numbers than Cotts did against older, more experienced competition. The total opposite of Cotts. The point I am trying to make is that there are plenty of pitchers like Cotts in the minor leagues, he is nothing special. Given his age, he should be much higher in the system than high class A, and given that he was there he should have been dominating the league which he wasn't. I'm not saying he couldn't turn it around. Maybe Williams saw something in him (LOL)? At the same age as Cotts, Buherle is the ace of the Sox staff and dominating the major leagues. Several other pitchers the same age as Cotts are already in the major leagues. I wouldn't count on him for much at all. The other prospect, I don't know so I can't comment on (But indications are it is a C level prospect).

Basically, KW traded Foulke, Johnson, and Valentine for Koch. Foulke and Koch are comparable, so there is no need to give up the others. Johnson may not be an all-star catcher, but he and Valentine are a whole lot better and more valuable than the prospects the Sox received. This trade probably won't come back to haunt the Sox, like the Ritchie deal, but KW must use better thinking and judgement when making further trades. He gave up too much again, and got the short end of the stick. Sometimes I feel like this guy has no clue. I have no idea why he has a job as he is a horrible GM, maybe the worst in the majors. He gets taken in almost every trade and is bad at relating to players. He has demolished the farm system and turned a 95 win team into a .500 team singlehandedly with his bad trades. If this continues, the Sox may be a team well under .500 in a year or two. I hope not, but KW still having a job is not reassuring. KW must perform better before he destroys this team.

kermittheefrog
01-05-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Actually, I think it's a pretty good argument to display the "heads I win; tales you lose" philosophy when it comes these days to discussing Jesus II, Billy Beane.

If he's such a great evaluator, why did he draft the prospects he dealt us that he now says suck in the first place?

Does he really consider himself a genius for relieving us of the critical playoff ingredient Durham - the very Durham he chose not to re-sign? Which is he - critical piece or not? And it was't his brilliance that landed Durham for nothing - it was KW's impatience and incompetence.

How much do you know about the baseball draft?

It's not like the NBA draft or NFL draft. You can't just take a look at a guy and decide what he can do in the majors. You have to take a look at a guy and guess what he'll do in the majors in 2-4 years.

The baseball draft goes 50 rounds rather than a couple or a handfull. Many early round picks, even early round picks by good organizations don't make the majors for a variety of reasons. You can't say that if he's a good/great GM he wouldn't draft players that don't make the majors because that's just not how baseball works. Beyond that, Beane has a GREAT track record with the draft because he drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

Also unlike other sports the draft isn't the only primary source of talent. There are foreign signings not covered by the draft in baseball. Beane grabbed another two of his cornerstone players out of South America. Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada.

This is why questioning the prospects Beane sent us is the worst argument ever made against him being a good GM. It's an argument that has no understand of baseball talent development system!

gosox41
01-05-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by michigan84
Basically, KW traded Foulke, Johnson, and Valentine for Koch. Foulke and Koch are comparable, so there is no need to give up the others. Johnson may not be an all-star catcher, but he and Valentine are a whole lot better and more valuable than the prospects the Sox received. This trade probably won't come back to haunt the Sox, like the Ritchie deal, but KW must use better thinking and judgement when making further trades. He gave up too much again, and got the short end of the stick. Sometimes I feel like this guy has no clue. I have no idea why he has a job as he is a horrible GM, maybe the worst in the majors. He gets taken in almost every trade and is bad at relating to players. He has demolished the farm system and turned a 95 win team into a .500 team singlehandedly with his bad trades. If this continues, the Sox may be a team well under .500 in a year or two. I hope not, but KW still having a job is not reassuring. KW must perform better before he destroys this team. [/B]

Thank you for summing up so perfectly the problem with Williams. Of course we all know why he has this job and it has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with his skin color. As for destroying this team, I've said by the 2005 season this team will be in thrid or fourth place. If KC ever wises uyp and hires any sort of management then the Sox will be a last place team.

Bob

hold2dibber
01-05-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Thank you for summing up so perfectly the problem with Williams. Of course we all know why he has this job and it has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with his skin color.

Bob

Don't start in with that crap - what do you have to back that up? Just the fact that he's black? I think it's much more likely that there are white GMs who have their jobs because of their skin color. Williams was a devoted and frankly pretty successful guy in player development/scouting with the Sox. He clearly is confident, educated and hard working. Perfect JR candidate, regardless of skin color. He is, as it turns out, a lousy GM. But there are a ton of lousy GMs who are white out there (and who keep getting re-hired, liked Syd Thrift!!!!) and I don't hear anybody saying they got their jobs because of skin color. Just because he happens to be black doesn't mean he got the job because he was black. That's a load of sh*t, Bob.

hold2dibber
01-05-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i'm personally very high on garland but i'll try not to let that cloud the argument. the biggest problem i see with trading garland for vazquez is the reason we'd be making the deal is to shore up our rotation right? how much does trading our number three starter for a number two starter whose era was only marginally better improve our rotation all that much? we've solved the number two starter problem but now we don't have a number three starter. if we were to trade carlos that'd be better in that at least we'd be trading from our strength (hitting) to improve our weakness (the rotation). however, a player like carlos wouldn't get the deal done because he makes too much money. we'd have to deal someone like crede. as far as prospects go if you'd give the expos any two sox prospects other than honel or borchard they'd go for anthony webster and and maybe malone. i think that losing those players (webster at least) could hurt us in the long run and wouldn't equate to that much value in the long run. i think any deal for colon or vazquez would have to include at least one player (at maybe two) out of the group of garland, rauch, crede, and borchard. i'd probably be the most willing to give up crede or borchard. i don't see it happening though.

My post wasn't clear - the guys I said I'd be willing to trade are guys I'd trade for Colon. I wouldn't trade Garland for Vazquez because I think it is very possible that Garland will be every bit as good as Vazquez next year. I wouldn't trade Crede for either of the Expos pitchers, because the Sox have no one else who can replace Crede. I might consider dealing Borchard for Colon, but only if I had some reasonable expectation of being to sign Colon to a long term deal.

progers0826
01-05-2003, 02:14 PM
It's possible that Koch is best appreciated at a distance, but to me it looks like the Sox will have a very strong bullpen if Koch, Osuna and Marte are on the roster and healthy next July and August. Factor in contributions from Glover, Wunsch (maybe) and either David Sanders or Arnaldo Munoz -- the numbers from the Dominican Republic remain almost unbelievable -- and you might have one of the best bullpens in the majors.
I've been surprised by the strong pro-Foulke reaction since that trade. He was a great pitcher in the days when he was a bargain and a local secret but he headed into '03 as a $6-million set-up man. Yes, he pitched well down the stretch in '02, but put those performances into context. Few qualified as tough situations.
I wish him well but I'll certainly take Koch-Osuna-Marte over Osuna-Marte-Foulke, which was the likely configuration before the trade. Put Munoz in the mix and you might have four relievers with more than one strikeout per inning. That could be very interesting. Am I crazy?

idseer
01-05-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by progers0826
It's possible that Koch is best appreciated at a distance, but to me it looks like the Sox will have a very strong bullpen if Koch, Osuna and Marte are on the roster and healthy next July and August. Factor in contributions from Glover, Wunsch (maybe) and either David Sanders or Arnaldo Munoz -- the numbers from the Dominican Republic remain almost unbelievable -- and you might have one of the best bullpens in the majors.
I've been surprised by the strong pro-Foulke reaction since that trade. He was a great pitcher in the days when he was a bargain and a local secret but he headed into '03 as a $6-million set-up man. Yes, he pitched well down the stretch in '02, but put those performances into context. Few qualified as tough situations.
I wish him well but I'll certainly take Koch-Osuna-Marte over Osuna-Marte-Foulke, which was the likely configuration before the trade. Put Munoz in the mix and you might have four relievers with more than one strikeout per inning. That could be very interesting. Am I crazy?

are you crazy? that's between you and your psychiatrist!

but i agree with your reasoning completely. i had no confidence in keith every time he came in in a tight spot, and i believe i'm not alone in that. whether the same will be true with koch remains to be seen but i still say we got younger, cheaper, and longer lasting in that trade and by the end of this next season i believe we'll all be much happier because of it.

Daver
01-05-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by progers0826

I've been surprised by the strong pro-Foulke reaction since that trade. He was a great pitcher in the days when he was a bargain and a local secret but he headed into '03 as a $6-million set-up man. Yes, he pitched well down the stretch in '02, but put those performances into context. Few qualified as tough situations.
I wish him well but I'll certainly take Koch-Osuna-Marte over Osuna-Marte-Foulke, which was the likely configuration before the trade. Put Munoz in the mix and you might have four relievers with more than one strikeout per inning. That could be very interesting. Am I crazy?

You're dead right on that one,I wanted Keith Foulke traded after the 2000 season,when his value was at the highest it would ever be,instead the Sox chose to let him prove to all of Baseball that he did it with smoke and mirrors for a couple of seasons,and after that the rest of the league caught up with him.

I am much happier with Koch coming into the game in the ninth than Foulke.

Vsahajpal
01-06-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
How much do you know about the baseball draft?

It's not like the NBA draft or NFL draft. You can't just take a look at a guy and decide what he can do in the majors. You have to take a look at a guy and guess what he'll do in the majors in 2-4 years.

The baseball draft goes 50 rounds rather than a couple or a handfull. Many early round picks, even early round picks by good organizations don't make the majors for a variety of reasons. You can't say that if he's a good/great GM he wouldn't draft players that don't make the majors because that's just not how baseball works. Beyond that, Beane has a GREAT track record with the draft because he drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

Also unlike other sports the draft isn't the only primary source of talent. There are foreign signings not covered by the draft in baseball. Beane grabbed another two of his cornerstone players out of South America. Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada.

This is why questioning the prospects Beane sent us is the worst argument ever made against him being a good GM. It's an argument that has no understand of baseball talent development system!

I thought Grady Fuson drafted those guys, was it Beane?

Eric Chavez is from Los Angeles, California, and was selected with the 10th pick in the 1996 Rule 4 draft.

He's a great GM, but guys like Neyer should take off the kneepads.

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by idseer
i had no confidence in keith every time he came in in a tight spot, and i believe i'm not alone in that. whether the same will be true with koch remains to be seen but i still say we got younger, cheaper, and longer lasting in that trade and by the end of this next season i believe we'll all be much happier because of it.

When Foulke is at the top of his game, he is much better than Koch. But I do think that Koch has a better mentality for a closer, which will allow him to tough out the rocky times better than Foulke. But if you got nervous watching Foulke in tight games, wait 'til you get a load of Koch - he is going to give up a lot of baserunners and make you crap your pants even on nights when he gets the job done.

Tragg
01-06-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
How much do you know about the baseball draft?

It's not like the NBA draft or NFL draft. You can't just take a look at a guy and decide what he can do in the majors. You have to take a look at a guy and guess what he'll do in the majors in 2-4 years.

The baseball draft goes 50 rounds rather than a couple or a handfull. Many early round picks, even early round picks by good organizations don't make the majors for a variety of reasons. You can't say that if he's a good/great GM he wouldn't draft players that don't make the majors because that's just not how baseball works. Beyond that, Beane has a GREAT track record with the draft because he drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

Also unlike other sports the draft isn't the only primary source of talent. There are foreign signings not covered by the draft in baseball. Beane grabbed another two of his cornerstone players out of South America. Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada.

This is why questioning the prospects Beane sent us is the worst argument ever made against him being a good GM. It's an argument that has no understand of baseball talent development system!

The point is that just becaue Beane trades a prospect doesn't mean he sucks. KW drafted MB; he drafted Raucsh and Wright whom you say could be the core of a dominant staff. He plucked Maggs from Latin America. Now, is KW a genius?
FWIW, I'm not sure your littany of drafting and latin american signings by Beane with the As is exactly correct. He's an excellent GM, but he isn't el perfecto. After all, he's telling us the greatness of Singleton today - you aren't suddenly on that bandwagon, are you?

progers0826
01-06-2003, 10:34 AM
Regarding prospects like Mark Buehrle, let's not give the general managers credit. That should go to Duane Shaffer, Doug Laumann and area scouts like Nathan Durst. They are a real strength for the organization. But also give Ron Schueler an assist in Buehrle's emergence. He recognized the potential based on what he saw when Buehrle pitched in the Midwest League playoffs in 1999. He gave him the last spot in big-league camp in 2000. Buehrle never flinched. He was the goods from the first day he pulled on a Sox uniform. It's a great story, and it started w/Durst, John Kazanas and any other scout who sat out in crappy weather to watch him pitch for Jefferson Junior College.

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
The point is that just becaue Beane trades a prospect doesn't mean he sucks. KW drafted MB; he drafted Raucsh and Wright whom you say could be the core of a dominant staff. He plucked Maggs from Latin America. Now, is KW a genius?
FWIW, I'm not sure your littany of drafting and latin american signings by Beane with the As is exactly correct. He's an excellent GM, but he isn't el perfecto. After all, he's telling us the greatness of Singleton today - you aren't suddenly on that bandwagon, are you?

Hold on there. What do you mean KW "drafted" Buehrle, Rauch and Wright, and that he plucked Maggs from Latin America? Obviously, he wasn't GM at that time. What role exactly did he play in the Sox acquiring each of those particular guys?

And I've said it before and I'll say it again; although KW has proven himself to be a lousy GM, I think he was pretty good in his player development/scouting role.

gosox41
01-06-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Don't start in with that crap - what do you have to back that up? Just the fact that he's black? I think it's much more likely that there are white GMs who have their jobs because of their skin color. Williams was a devoted and frankly pretty successful guy in player development/scouting with the Sox. He clearly is confident, educated and hard working. Perfect JR candidate, regardless of skin color. He is, as it turns out, a lousy GM. But there are a ton of lousy GMs who are white out there (and who keep getting re-hired, liked Syd Thrift!!!!) and I don't hear anybody saying they got their jobs because of skin color. Just because he happens to be black doesn't mean he got the job because he was black. That's a load of sh*t, Bob.

Is it? So let's look at a few facts.

1. Jerry Reinsdorf heads the committee on minority hiring. It looks bad if he doesn't hire a minority.

2. KW had zero experience at the GM level.

3. Danny Evans was with the team for 20+ years and his official title was 'Assistant GM'. Why keep him around that long and keep promoting him to that level. The next logical step when Shu retired would be to promote your 'Assistant GM'

4. Jerry Reinsdorf is a hands on owner and likes people he can control.

5. He's cheap, and we all know how cheap JR is.

I'm not saying that Evans was the right choice to be GM. But it seems a little too obvious to me. Here was a team coming off a 95 win team. Remember JR's Point A,B, and C speech? Is hiring a person with zero experience in negoitations, planning etc. a really good idea to get this team to a championship. Why not hire someone experienced? Or at least someone who has worked his way through the ranks. KW hasn't accomplished that much in terms of player development other then develop an overhyped pitching staff.

To take this to another level. This is all about JR's ego. He's going to show us Sox fans and the whole world how he is going to win and how it's going be done his way. Maybe he's overcompensating for a small johnson, I don't know. But why is Jerry Krause still around with the Bulls? Why not fire his butt with those results the last 5 years? Is it because JR is loyal to his often mocked friend and wants to show everyone how right he is or because he likes to lose.

Why is Rob Gallas still with the team. He's a PR guy who has managed to alienate the fans and the media.

I know this is a White Sox newsgroup and not a Bulls one, but here's a little glimpse into the future for you. The next GM of the Bulls (when Krause is ready to admit he was a complete failure and retire on his own terms) is BJ Armstrong. At least the Bulls are grooming him for the job because he holds that 'Assistant GM' title.

Bob

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Is it? So let's look at a few facts.

1. Jerry Reinsdorf heads the committee on minority hiring. It looks bad if he doesn't hire a minority.

2. KW had zero experience at the GM level.

3. Danny Evans was with the team for 20+ years and his official title was 'Assistant GM'. Why keep him around that long and keep promoting him to that level. The next logical step when Shu retired would be to promote your 'Assistant GM'

4. Jerry Reinsdorf is a hands on owner and likes people he can control.

5. He's cheap, and we all know how cheap JR is.

I'm not saying that Evans was the right choice to be GM. But it seems a little too obvious to me. Here was a team coming off a 95 win team. Remember JR's Point A,B, and C speech? Is hiring a person with zero experience in negoitations, planning etc. a really good idea to get this team to a championship. Why not hire someone experienced? Or at least someone who has worked his way through the ranks. KW hasn't accomplished that much in terms of player development other then develop an overhyped pitching staff.

To take this to another level. This is all about JR's ego. He's going to show us Sox fans and the whole world how he is going to win and how it's going be done his way. Maybe he's overcompensating for a small johnson, I don't know. But why is Jerry Krause still around with the Bulls? Why not fire his butt with those results the last 5 years? Is it because JR is loyal to his often mocked friend and wants to show everyone how right he is or because he likes to lose.

Why is Rob Gallas still with the team. He's a PR guy who has managed to alienate the fans and the media.


Well, other than numbered paragraph 1, absolutely NOTHING in your post in anyway suggests that KW was hired because he was black.

He happens to be black, but that doesn't mean he was hired for that reason. In fact, other points in your post suggest equally compelling reasons for JR to hire KW - in particular, that KW is loyal, that JR wants to show everyone how clever he is in finding an "under the radar screen" guy, KW is cheap, and JR can control KW. None of those factors have anything to do with KW's race. Plus, KW was pretty successful in terms of player development/scouting.

There are a lot of other reasons for JR to hire him (none of them very good ones, unfortunately) besides race. I mean, many of the same things you've said about KW could have been said about Phil Jackson when the Bulls hired him as head coach (he was cheap, he didn't have experience at that level, etc.). To take these factors and conclude emphatically that it was all about the color of his skin is nonsense, pure and simple. Maybe JR hated Evans' guts. Maybe JR viewed Evans as somehow disloyal. Maybe Evans wouldn't allow him to be pushed around by JR. Who knows. Not me and not you. To simply state, carte blanche, that KW got his job because he is black is simply unsupportable.

Hangar18
01-06-2003, 03:25 PM
Ive always felt that Kenny Williams was hired because
he was black, and personally, I wanted him to do well
in that position. However, he is proving that he is
not a very good GM (though probably good in other areas)
but just probably being used "out of position", (kind of like
letting CLee run in the late innings, when a pinch runner
off the bench would be better)
He took over the steering wheel from Schuelers 95win
team, and promptly lost the keys. they have not been
the same team since. Thats the only way I look at it now.
Reinsdorf blew it. as usual.

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Ive always felt that Kenny Williams was hired because
he was black, and personally, I wanted him to do well
in that position. However, he is proving that he is
not a very good GM (though probably good in other areas)
but just probably being used "out of position", (kind of like
letting CLee run in the late innings, when a pinch runner
off the bench would be better)
He took over the steering wheel from Schuelers 95win
team, and promptly lost the keys. they have not been
the same team since. Thats the only way I look at it now.
Reinsdorf blew it. as usual.

I don't know if he was hired because he was black; frankly, I strongly doubt it. In any event, I agree with your assessment that he has done a lousy job thus far. I do not, however, rule out the possibility that he will improve. Of course, without the commitment of ownership to put a contender out there, it's going to be awfully tough for any GM to make the Sox a powerhouse.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2003, 06:43 PM
Submitted for your edification (as Rod Serling used to say...)

Jerry Manuel, African - American, never managed at the MLB level before he was hired.

Kenny Williams, African - American, never was a GM at the MLB level before he was hired.

If Uncle Jerry wanted to get an extrememly qualified African - American or Hispanic as field or general manager why didn't he contact:

Felipe Alou, Bob Watson, "Dusty" Baker and so on. They were in baseball six years ago, and are regarded as some of the most outstanding people in their specialties.

If compensation was agreed upon Uncle Jerry might have been able to get them (or at least it wouldn't have hurt speaking to them...)

Instead he did NOTHING of the sort and stuck us with two bumbling, rubes. Why? Simple... because they owed their jobs to Reinsdorf, wouldn't demand top dollar and wouldn't care that they basically are puppets. (It's the same old song and dance with our ownership.) That's why qualified people like Alou, Piniella, Jocketty, Beane, Gillick etc will NEVER even consider working here.

Lip

gosox41
01-06-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Well, other than numbered paragraph 1, absolutely NOTHING in your post in anyway suggests that KW was hired because he was black.

He happens to be black, but that doesn't mean he was hired for that reason. In fact, other points in your post suggest equally compelling reasons for JR to hire KW - in particular, that KW is loyal, that JR wants to show everyone how clever he is in finding an "under the radar screen" guy, KW is cheap, and JR can control KW. None of those factors have anything to do with KW's race. Plus, KW was pretty successful in terms of player development/scouting.

There are a lot of other reasons for JR to hire him (none of them very good ones, unfortunately) besides race. I mean, many of the same things you've said about KW could have been said about Phil Jackson when the Bulls hired him as head coach (he was cheap, he didn't have experience at that level, etc.). To take these factors and conclude emphatically that it was all about the color of his skin is nonsense, pure and simple. Maybe JR hated Evans' guts. Maybe JR viewed Evans as somehow disloyal. Maybe Evans wouldn't allow him to be pushed around by JR. Who knows. Not me and not you. To simply state, carte blanche, that KW got his job because he is black is simply unsupportable.

While I have no proof of him being hired for being black, a lot of the facts point to it. Also keep in mind that I am in favor of minority hirings. It's just to convenient that KW gets hired, a few years after Manuel, and that JR just happens to head the committee on minority hiring. That alone is enough of a reason to do it. If he doesn't he looks worse then he already has.

The longer KW keeps his job the more it's going to convinve me that he was only hired for that reason. JR's going to give him every opportunity to succeed to show the rest of the world.

As for JR hating Evans guts, then why did he keep him around for 22 years? Being Schu's right hand man, I'm sure Evans had some idea that Schu was going to be retiring before the rest of us knew. I find it hard to believe he just pissed JR off somehow. But you're right we'll never know. But until we do I am going to stick with the fact that KW is only here becuase of his skin color and knowing JR he probably figured the press would ease off him because of that fact.

Also, one last question. You said KW was successful in terms of player development. How's that? Do you mean all those over hyped young arms that the Sox have (outside of Buehrle.) Is that why KW has been unsuccessfully looking for a #2 starter the last 3 seasons? I don't see much pitching development going on here and that's half the game. So even if KW is great at devloping positional talent (another debate) he's only done his job half right.

Bob

Tragg
01-06-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Submitted for your edification (as Rod Serling used to say...)

Jerry Manuel, African - American, never managed at the MLB level before he was hired.

Kenny Williams, African - American, never was a GM at the MLB level before he was hired.

If Uncle Jerry wanted to get an extrememly qualified African - American or Hispanic as field or general manager why didn't he contact:

Felipe Alou, Bob Watson, "Dusty" Baker and so on. They were in baseball six years ago, and are regarded as some of the most outstanding people in their specialties.

If compensation was agreed upon Uncle Jerry might have been able to get them (or at least it wouldn't have hurt speaking to them...)

Instead he did NOTHING of the sort and stuck us with two bumbling, rubes. Why? Simple... because they owed their jobs to Reinsdorf, wouldn't demand top dollar and wouldn't care that they basically are puppets. (It's the same old song and dance with our ownership.) That's why qualified people like Alou, Piniella, Jocketty, Beane, Gillick etc will NEVER even consider working here.

Lip

If the Sox hired their GM because he was black then the Dodgers hired theirs because he was white. Neither is the case. For that matter, had Scheuler been a big league GM when the Sox hired him?
There are plenty of managers who, well, never managed in the majors before until they managed - actually every one. LaRussa, Harrelson, Bevington and LaMont (5 of Reinsdorf's 7 managers) had never managed in the big leagues - were they hired because he was white?

jeremyb1
01-06-2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
While I have no proof of him being hired for being black, a lot of the facts point to it. Also keep in mind that I am in favor of minority hirings. It's just to convenient that KW gets hired, a few years after Manuel, and that JR just happens to head the committee on minority hiring. That alone is enough of a reason to do it. If he doesn't he looks worse then he already has.

Also, one last question. You said KW was successful in terms of player development. How's that? Do you mean all those over hyped young arms that the Sox have (outside of Buehrle.) Is that why KW has been unsuccessfully looking for a #2 starter the last 3 seasons? I don't see much pitching development going on here and that's half the game. So even if KW is great at devloping positional talent (another debate) he's only done his job half right.


think about this realistically. think about everything reindsdorf has invested in this franchise at least from a financial standpoint. even if you don't buy his desire to win games you have to believe he wants the increased revenue that would come from a winning team. there's no way that he would tank the franchise just to hire a black gm. that's absolutely ridiculous. it was documented for several years before kw was hired that reinsdorf really liked him and that he was his right hand man. why does this have to have anything to do with race?

as for kw's performance as head of player developement, there's absolutely no way you can call our minor league system a failure. this team has been at least .500 the last three seasons without one major free agent in the mix. crede, maggs, carlos, garland, buehrle, wright, rauch were all home grown players developed under williams. in addition to developing these players as head of player developement kw almost definately also had significant influence in drafting this players. you can't just look at it as we haven't developed an entire starting rotation full of superstars in a few years so our player developement is a failure. that's completely ridiculous and unfair. no one does that. we definately have at least two above average starters in our rotation right now that we developed recently. that's better than 90% of baseball. we would have a third if kw the gm didn't trade wells. when you consider how many top picks simply fail to make it to the majors we've been highly successful. awards like organization of the year and best minor league system in baseball aren't a reflection of incompetence.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2003, 09:25 PM
Just for the record, I don't care if the Sox GM or field manager is green and from Mars if they can do the job.

Obviously Manuel and Williams can't. (same as the other dunces hired by Uncle Jerry)

and yes that was my point, NO GM ever held that position with another team before being hired by Uncle Jerry. (Hemond was here when he bought the club, Himes didn't, Harrelson didn't, Schueler didn't and Williams didn't) and the last field manager who had MLB experience before the Sox hired him was Jeff Torborg back in 1989. (Lamont didn't, Bevington didn't, Manuel didn't)

The results of all of those folks speak for themselves don't they?

Again Uncle Jerry takes the cheap approach with folks who couldn't find a job elsewhere. It all starts at the top. If Uncle jerry wanted to he could have grabbed Felipe Alou six years ago, made his minority statement AND improved the club.

But he didn't.

Lip

hose
01-06-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by progers0826
It's possible that Koch is best appreciated at a distance, but to me it looks like the Sox will have a very strong bullpen if Koch, Osuna and Marte are on the roster and healthy next July and August. Factor in contributions from Glover, Wunsch (maybe) and either David Sanders or Arnaldo Munoz -- the numbers from the Dominican Republic remain almost unbelievable -- and you might have one of the best bullpens in the majors.
I've been surprised by the strong pro-Foulke reaction since that trade. He was a great pitcher in the days when he was a bargain and a local secret but he headed into '03 as a $6-million set-up man. Yes, he pitched well down the stretch in '02, but put those performances into context. Few qualified as tough situations.
I wish him well but I'll certainly take Koch-Osuna-Marte over Osuna-Marte-Foulke, which was the likely configuration before the trade. Put Munoz in the mix and you might have four relievers with more than one strikeout per inning. That could be very interesting. Am I crazy?

I like Glover back in the long relief role, I think he can also spot start when he is called upon.

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
If the Sox hired their GM because he was black then the Dodgers hired theirs because he was white. Neither is the case. For that matter, had Scheuler been a big league GM when the Sox hired him?
There are plenty of managers who, well, never managed in the majors before until they managed - actually every one. LaRussa, Harrelson, Bevington and LaMont (5 of Reinsdorf's 7 managers) had never managed in the big leagues - were they hired because he was white?

Precisely.

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just for the record, I don't care if the Sox GM or field manager is green and from Mars if they can do the job.

Obviously Manuel and Williams can't. (same as the other dunces hired by Uncle Jerry)

and yes that was my point, NO GM ever held that position with another team before being hired by Uncle Jerry. (Hemond was here when he bought the club, Himes didn't, Harrelson didn't, Schueler didn't and Williams didn't) and the last field manager who had MLB experience before the Sox hired him was Jeff Torborg back in 1989. (Lamont didn't, Bevington didn't, Manuel didn't)

The results of all of those folks speak for themselves don't they?

Again Uncle Jerry takes the cheap approach with folks who couldn't find a job elsewhere. It all starts at the top. If Uncle jerry wanted to he could have grabbed Felipe Alou six years ago, made his minority statement AND improved the club.

But he didn't.

Lip

I couldn't agree more. I don't know what role, if any, KW's and JM's race had in their hiring. Might have been none, might have been a big factor. We don't know. I just have a problem with people who simply conclude "they were hired because of their race only, period." I, for one, find that highly unlikely and unsupportable. In either event, though, I think we can all agree that KW has done a lousy job thus far. I am in the minority, but I don't think Manual has been horrible. He hasn't been great, but he's been okay. They could have done better.

jeremyb1
01-07-2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by hose
I like Glover back in the long relief role, I think he can also spot start when he is called upon.

i think long relief and spot starting is a terrible role for glover. he's a very very good pitcher if he works only an inning or two tops. in such a role his fastball hits 95 and he's quite dominant. he showed as a starter that he really struggles with hitters the second time around. this is why it was so idiotic to make him a starter and leave him there as long as we did. personally i'd make glover the setup man because i think as a one or two inning pitcher he's better than osuna. if not though, he should bridge the gap to the setup man or work as a mop up man of sorts. he shouldn't be in long relief or spot starting where he'd pitch more than an inning or two at a time.

michigan84
01-07-2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Thank you for summing up so perfectly the problem with Williams. Of course we all know why he has this job and it has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with his skin color. As for destroying this team, I've said by the 2005 season this team will be in thrid or fourth place. If KC ever wises uyp and hires any sort of management then the Sox will be a last place team.

Bob

I agree about Williams still having this job due to his race. There would probably be a big fiasco if he were to get fired, with people calling the Sox racist. Personally, I don't care. He is destroying this team! It's not just his horrible trades, but his actions as well. Players are obdviously not happy having him as the GM. I have seen many articles in the newspapers where players have voiced their opinion and disgust with the Sox organization (ex. Thomas, Leifer etc.). Also, Bueherle saying he wants to go to St. Louis is not encouraging. This man is creating an awful environment where players don't want to play and are unhapy. I don't care if we have to pay this guy's salary, he must be fired. Mr. Reinsdorf better wake up and realise that he will lose lots of money by keeping this incompetent as GM. Fans simply won't pay to see this ball club he is destroying at a record pace!

Hangar18
01-07-2003, 09:23 AM
What I want to know is......Larry Himes had such an excellent
track record in drafting the brief time he was here (mcdowell,ventura, fernandez etc etc)

WHY Coulndt we have kept him here in some kind of capacity?

T Dog
01-07-2003, 10:01 AM
When Larry Himes was the Sox GM, I thought he was doing a great job. When the Sox let him go, I thought he would go on to have success with a team like San Diego, which was looking for a GM at the time. Instead, he was hired by some other team as a scout and ended up being GM for the Cubs, where his legacy is that he traded for Sammy Sosa. By the time Sosa stopped being a bum, Larry Himes was gone. He hasn't been a GM since he left the Cubs.

Players generally don't like GMs. But ex-Sox I've talked to have expressed a special kind of hate for Larry Himes. Granted, I've never talked to Sammy Sosa.

gosox41
01-07-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
think about this realistically. think about everything reindsdorf has invested in this franchise at least from a financial standpoint. even if you don't buy his desire to win games you have to believe he wants the increased revenue that would come from a winning team. there's no way that he would tank the franchise just to hire a black gm. that's absolutely ridiculous. it was documented for several years before kw was hired that reinsdorf really liked him and that he was his right hand man. why does this have to have anything to do with race?

as for kw's performance as head of player developement, there's absolutely no way you can call our minor league system a failure. this team has been at least .500 the last three seasons without one major free agent in the mix. crede, maggs, carlos, garland, buehrle, wright, rauch were all home grown players developed under williams. in addition to developing these players as head of player developement kw almost definately also had significant influence in drafting this players. you can't just look at it as we haven't developed an entire starting rotation full of superstars in a few years so our player developement is a failure. that's completely ridiculous and unfair. no one does that. we definately have at least two above average starters in our rotation right now that we developed recently. that's better than 90% of baseball. we would have a third if kw the gm didn't trade wells. when you consider how many top picks simply fail to make it to the majors we've been highly successful. awards like organization of the year and best minor league system in baseball aren't a reflection of incompetence.


First, I give Schueler a lot of credit for drafting talent. Second, ourside of Buehrle, who else in the Sox starting rotation is "above average". I see a lot of crap there. I have heard a lot of hype about all these young talented arms. I certainly hope they develop into something before they're free agents.

Remeber the Sox ranked third in the league in runs scored last season. Yet had the seventh best record. Why? The game is made up of 2 components: scoring runs and preventing runs. Gues where the Sox are bad at.

Bob

jeremyb1
01-07-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
First, I give Schueler a lot of credit for drafting talent. Second, ourside of Buehrle, who else in the Sox starting rotation is "above average". I see a lot of crap there. I have heard a lot of hype about all these young talented arms. I certainly hope they develop into something before they're free agents.

Remeber the Sox ranked third in the league in runs scored last season. Yet had the seventh best record. Why? The game is made up of 2 components: scoring runs and preventing runs. Gues where the Sox are bad at.


garland had an above average era for a starter. both garland and wright won ten games. both garland and wright were amongst only about 30 starters in the al (probably less) that started 30 games last year. i guess it depends on your definition of crap but having even moderate success at the major league level when you're 22 or 24 years old is not my idea of crap. if you have to have an era below 4 to be above average, then there's only about 10 or 15 above average starters in the al which seems illogical to me.

34 Inch Stick
01-07-2003, 12:49 PM
Himes was hated by the Cub players as well. I thought he was doing a great job for the Sox but it looks like his personality damages his professional life.

If you said that race played a role in the hiring of KW, I would agree with you. Pud had just come out with a minority hiring mandate and I believe Jerry has an interest in being thought of as a progressive.

However, Kenny had displayed some skills with the organization. I also read an article where JR had promised KW's mom that he would take care of her son. JR has real affection for KW. So when you say he was hired solely or even mainly because of the color of his skin, you are wrong.

Jeremy I agree 100% with your opinion on the use of Glover. He has been GREAT as the 8th inning bridge in the past.

34 Inch Stick
01-07-2003, 12:51 PM
By the way I think race played no role in the hiring of Manuel. Jerry thought he was going to get an Alou at a Bevington price. I think Manuel is an adequate manager.

Iwritecode
01-07-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Remeber the Sox ranked third in the league in runs scored last season. Yet had the seventh best record. Why? The game is made up of 2 components: scoring runs and preventing runs. Gues where the Sox are bad at.

Bob

That stat is extremely deceiving.

If the Sox score 12 runs one game and then come back and only score 2 the next two games that gives them an average of 5.3 RPG. That's great but that also means they are losing too many games 2 - 1 or 3 - 2. Remember they had a horrible record in 1-run games and at one point where 0 for 30ish(?) when down after the 7th inning.

The offense was good but inconsistent from game to game. The pitching staff wasn't all that bad but could never seem to get in sync with the offense.

Dadawg_77
01-07-2003, 01:27 PM
First off 67 pitchers started 30 or more games last year. And with a five man rotation all this talk about needing a number two is horse#$% since slotting means nothing. The Sox need pitcher who can get guys out better then who they have currently.

Jerry Manuel had baseball pedigree coming into the Sox job. Alou was his mentor, was the bench coach for the World Series Champions Marlins under Jim Leland (sp?). That is why he was given his first chance here. Lamont was also a Leland guy. I think JR would have loved landed Leland but since he was managing else where or did not want to come out of retirement the Sox couldn't. So the Sox went with Jerry like 34 incher said trying to get the student of some of the best masters of the game.

When the Sox hired Ron Schueler, he was a highly thought of talent evaluator in the A's system which has develop some great baseball management talent. His biggest fault seem to easily fall in love with prospects, which is fits his scout background. If he learns to know when to fold and when to hold them better, he will become one hell of a GM.

The question is people want us to bring in more experience management for the team. There is one key problem with that idea, if the person with the experience is available it means they have failed somewhere for some reason. So use retread tires may not be the best solution, when you can get a young promising gun. Dusty Baker is the first manager that I have seen that left team for another without being fired.

34 Inch Stick
01-07-2003, 01:54 PM
For every supermodel out there, there is at least one guy who is tired of her. It doesn't mean she is not a supermodel.

Jerry acknowleged KW was not ready for some of the crucial elements of his job when he hired Hemond and someone else as his wet nurse. Take the money spent on the several hires needed to fill the single position and you might have gotten an experienced GM.

Of course with the hiring of the new GM you would have lost Evans and Kenny. I think losing both of them would have been a mistake. So maybe, in retrospect, I agree with Jerry on hiring a non experienced GM. Like Vinnie Barbarino, I am soooooo confused.

Daver
01-07-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
First, I give Schueler a lot of credit for drafting talent. Second, ourside of Buehrle, who else in the Sox starting rotation is "above average". I see a lot of crap there. I have heard a lot of hype about all these young talented arms. I certainly hope they develop into something before they're free agents.



The same Ron Schueler that saw fit to waste first round draft picks on Mark Johnson,Jeff Leifer,and Jason Dallero? The same Ron Schueler that had the draft taken away from him in 1999 due to incompetence? That Ron Schueler?

Your kidding right?

gosox41
01-07-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
That stat is extremely deceiving.

If the Sox score 12 runs one game and then come back and only score 2 the next two games that gives them an average of 5.3 RPG. That's great but that also means they are losing too many games 2 - 1 or 3 - 2. Remember they had a horrible record in 1-run games and at one point where 0 for 30ish(?) when down after the 7th inning.

The offense was good but inconsistent from game to game. The pitching staff wasn't all that bad but could never seem to get in sync with the offense.

As inconsistent as the offense was at times, it was still better then the pitching. Specifically the starting pitching. I'd love to know where the Sox starters rank with their WHIP, K/BB, and K/9IP compared to the rest of the AL. I bet it's in the bottom half. Sure the Sox have an above average bullpen. All that means is Manuel can burn them out that much earlier in a game as the starters struggle.

I never understood the Sox theory of building with a strong bull pen. If I'm going to invest (both financially and in terms of filling holes on the team) I'd be focsuing on the starting pitching since that is who is responsible for a majority of the innings. Instead the Sox choose to invest in an are that in a perfect world should not be used more then 2-3 innings a game.

The Sox can win with their offense. It's their pitching that's keeping them down.


Bob

gosox41
01-07-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by daver
The same Ron Schueler that saw fit to waste first round draft picks on Mark Johnson,Jeff Leifer,and Jason Dallero? The same Ron Schueler that had the draft taken away from him in 1999 due to incompetence? That Ron Schueler?

Your kidding right?

Schu's also the guy that drafted Ray Durham, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, Joe Borchard, Mark Buehrle, Joe Crede too name a few on the current team.

Schu's also the guy who made good trades in Tim Belcher, Tim Raines and filled holes as needed to be fit. Who can forget the Jamie Navarro for Cal Eldred and Jose Valentin trade? Before you mention Sosa, no one knew he was going to put up the numbers he has and I still think he's a cancer in the clubhouse. Even though the Steve Sax trade didn't pan out it's not like the Sox lost all that much in trying to fill a hole. The best player the Sox gave up was Wickman and we'll see how much of a career he has left after his latest surgery. Every GM is going to be losers on some trades. The problem is that KW has somehow looked stupid on every major trade he has done, and it's not just the baseball talent he is giving up.

In the early '90's I hated Schu for ruining the Sox farm system. It seemed like after the Sox came out flat in 1995, the Sox made a conscious effort to reinvest a lot of money in the farm system and things started to turn after then.


Bob

Daver
01-07-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Schu's also the guy that drafted Ray Durham, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, Joe Borchard, Mark Buehrle, Joe Crede too name a few on the current team.



Bob

Kenny Williams drafted Joe Borchard and Mark Buerhle,Schu lost control of the draft in 1999.

Daver
01-07-2003, 06:51 PM
Schueler was also the Genius that left Magglio Ordonez unprotected in the Rule 5 draft,and got damn lucky when he wasn't taken.

I won't even go into him wasting a draft pick by drafting his own daughter again,it has been discussed ad nauseum.

Schueler was a bum that did nothing but ride the glory of Larry Himes draft picks.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-07-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by daver
Schueler was also the Genius that left Magglio Ordonez unprotected in the Rule 5 draft,and got damn lucky when he wasn't taken....


*shudder*

I had forgotten about that one. Wasn't that back in 1998? Can you imagine the abuse we would be taking around here if Magglio was an all-star outfielder on somebody else's team?

:shammy
"Hey, what about me?"

Daver
01-07-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
*shudder*

I had forgotten about that one. Wasn't that back in 1998?

Close, it was for the 1997 season,he was called up that year and never went back to the minors.

progers0826
01-07-2003, 08:22 PM
Good call on Ordonez and the Rule 5 draft. He was coming off a good year in Double-A and wasn't invited to the big-league camp (after surviving the Rule 5). That annoyed Ozzie Guillen, who said, and I quote, "Magglio is a hell of a player. He is a great hitter, and a very good outfielder. He is better than our other (minor-league) outfielders. He just does not get a chance. He is not a first-round draft choice, and he has an ugly-ass Latino name. He has to do twice as much as someone else to get an opportunity.'' I was lucky enough to watch Magglio for a series in Nashville when he was leading the American Association in hitting. You could tell who had the stats just watching him take BP. The ball jumped off his bat. It reminded me of watching Julio Franco. Pretty impressive.

Lip Man 1
01-07-2003, 08:40 PM
Dadawg 77 says:

The question is people want us to bring in more experience management for the team. There is one key problem with that idea, if the person with the experience is available it means they have failed somewhere for some reason.

That's not automatically true today. Contracts for general and field managers are meaningless (see Piniella, Lou). If you are willing to pay the price in salary and compensation, you can pretty much get whoever you want.

That doesn't mean if the Sox say asked the Cards for permission to talk with Tony LaRussa that he'd come back here, but if the Sox and LaRussa reached a deal, the Sox could give the Cards some minor league prospects or cash and be off with him... ditto for Billy Beane with the A's or just about whoever you want to name.

The best organizations use whatever means available to increase their talent base both on and off the field, our White Sox obviously aren't willing to do this. (and the results speak for themselves both on and off the field don't they?)


Lip

Dadawg_77
01-07-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg 77 says:

The question is people want us to bring in more experience management for the team. There is one key problem with that idea, if the person with the experience is available it means they have failed somewhere for some reason.

That's not automatically true today. Contracts for general and field managers are meaningless (see Piniella, Lou). If you are willing to pay the price in salary and compensation, you can pretty much get whoever you want.

That doesn't mean if the Sox say asked the Cards for permission to talk with Tony LaRussa that he'd come back here, but if the Sox and LaRussa reached a deal, the Sox could give the Cards some minor league prospects or cash and be off with him... ditto for Billy Beane with the A's or just about whoever you want to name.

The best organizations use whatever means available to increase their talent base both on and off the field, our White Sox obviously aren't willing to do this. (and the results speak for themselves both on and off the field don't they?)


Lip

That is true today and this is a relativly new thing. I think Bill Parcels started this all when he left NE for NJ Jets. Not that I am saying the Sox shouldn't do this now, but not sure if you can blame them for not being visonary enough to get someone elses manager to manage the Sox. It was always you could grab a another team's guy for a promotion, not a horzontal move.

soxguy
01-08-2003, 10:45 AM
who really cares what billy beane thinks or says, and do u honestly think he would go on the radio and tell everyone how much his recent acquisitions suck...come on, common sense man, he better talk up those guys. Besides I don't know about other sox fans but( as a keen observer of white sox baseball) I was really sick of seeing foulke come in ,load the bases up, then try to get out of a jam with his all powerful changeup.......give me a break. Mark johnson is a good backup catcher, thats all he will ever be, and ray ray was the classic southside under-acheiver, even if he plays better in oakland, he wouldnt of played better here. Now that is a man who NEVER lived up to his potential. Not to mention he doesnt have any more range in the field, he started to suck defensively. Revisionist history seems to be a common ailment with soxfans who just don't like or trust kw or reinsdorf.

hold2dibber
01-08-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by soxguy
who really cares what billy beane thinks or says, and do u honestly think he would go on the radio and tell everyone how much his recent acquisitions suck...come on, common sense man, he better talk up those guys. Besides I don't know about other sox fans but( as a keen observer of white sox baseball) I was really sick of seeing foulke come in ,load the bases up, then try to get out of a jam with his all powerful changeup.......give me a break.

If you think Foulke loaded 'em up a lot and gave you heart palpitations, wait 'til you get a load of Koch.


Originally posted by soxguy
Mark johnson is a good backup catcher, thats all he will ever be, and ray ray was the classic southside under-acheiver, even if he plays better in oakland, he wouldnt of played better here. Now that is a man who NEVER lived up to his potential. Not to mention he doesnt have any more range in the field, he started to suck defensively. Revisionist history seems to be a common ailment with soxfans who just don't like or trust kw or reinsdorf.

I think the numbers show that Ray was one of the better offensive second basemen around. He was lousy defensively, however, and I agree that he would have been even better offensively if he had not tried to be Dave Kingman all the time. Also, talk about the epitome of the streaky hitter; he was either lights out awesome or simply horrible for weeks on end. I don't mind shedding his salary, particularly since I think Jimenez is an adequate replacement, but I thought in shedding his salary (and the others) they were making room to add some starting pitching help. Looks like, instead, they were shedding salary to help pad the bottom line.

MarkEdward
01-08-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by daver
Close, it was for the 1997 season,he was called up that year and never went back to the minors.

For what it's worth, he wasn't that much of a hitter prior to 1997. Was Ordonez a highly rated prospect before 1997?

Daver
01-08-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
For what it's worth, he wasn't that much of a hitter prior to 1997. Was Ordonez a highly rated prospect before 1997?

Heres a quick overveiw,I don't have time to research it further right now.

1997...
His contract was purchased from Class AAA Nashville on 8/28...made his major-league debut on 8/29 vs. Houston, going 2-3 with a sacrifice bunt...singled off Ramon Garcia in his first career at-bat...hit his first career home run off Jose Lima on 8/30 vs. Houston...had four hits in his first seven at-bats...started 17 games in right field, handling 44 fielding chances without an error...had seven multihit and four multiRBI games...10 of his 22 hits went for extra-bases...hit .326 (15-49) at Comiskey Park...drove in two runs in three straight games from 9/25-27...doubled and homered on 9/5 at Cleveland...connected on a game-winning home run in the ninth inning off Tony Fossas on 9/1 at St. Louis...homered in consecutive at-bats on 8/30 and 9/1...Was named the American Association Most Valuable Player and Rookie of the Year at Nashville after winning the batting title with a .329 average...edged teammate Jeff Abbott (.327) to become the White Sox first Class AAA batting champion since Denver's Lamar Johnson hit .336 in 1975...also led the league in hits (172) and ranked second in RBI (90)...ranked third in the organization in average, hits and RBI...was the recipient of Nashville's Charles W. Lubin Award ...was named to the AA post-season All-Star Team...hit .309 or better and drove in at east 16 runs in all five months...was named the organization's Player of the Month for April when he hit .330 with 10 doubles, three home runs, 16 RBI and 14 runs scored...also batted .380 with four homers and 19 RBI in May...struck out just once every 8.6 at-bats (61 SO/523 AB)...posted 50 multihit games, including three four-hit and 13 three-hit efforts.

gosox41
01-08-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by daver
Schueler was also the Genius that left Magglio Ordonez unprotected in the Rule 5 draft,and got damn lucky when he wasn't taken.

I won't even go into him wasting a draft pick by drafting his own daughter again,it has been discussed ad nauseum.

Schueler was a bum that did nothing but ride the glory of Larry Himes draft picks.

Meanwhile it just goes to show you how hard identigying and developing talent is. Schu was dumb for leaving him unprotected, yet 29 other teams still didn't want to take a chance on him.

Bob

Daver
01-08-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Meanwhile it just goes to show you how hard identigying and developing talent is. Schu was dumb for leaving him unprotected, yet 29 other teams still didn't want to take a chance on him.

Bob

Kenny Williams identified and developed a number one farm system in 5 years,used his farm system to replenish his major league roster,and it still ranks in the upper half of the league,something Schueler was incapable of doing,which is why he lost control of the draft in 1999.

Defend him all you want,the fact remains he was a lousy GM that got a lot of credit for the work that was done by Larry Himes.

I think the fact that even a dumbass like Peter Angelos chose a tandem GM team that has 0 MLB experience over Schu tells the truer tale though.

gosox41
01-09-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by daver
Kenny Williams identified and developed a number one farm system in 5 years,used his farm system to replenish his major league roster,and it still ranks in the upper half of the league,something Schueler was incapable of doing,which is why he lost control of the draft in 1999.

Defend him all you want,the fact remains he was a lousy GM that got a lot of credit for the work that was done by Larry Himes.

I think the fact that even a dumbass like Peter Angelos chose a tandem GM team that has 0 MLB experience over Schu tells the truer tale though.


I find it funny that you think so highly of Williams but even with all that he's supposedly done for the Sox, he still is an awful GM. All that young talent you think he has drafted and developed, and he seems so anxious to overpay for washed up veterans. I think Williams previous accomplishments were overhyped. He is a lousy GM who has turned a 95 win to 81 wins in a span of 2 seasons. Every big trade he makes is a flop. He gets names of palyers wrong, causes controversey with injured players, and gives up way too much talent with some perverse logic. The players can't stand him and his 'spies' in the clubhouse. At least that's according to players like Liefer and Durham and a few others. He undermines Manuel's authority and is nothing but a cancer. But at least he talks tough.

The bottom line to me is no matter how bad you think Schu was at the GM role, I'd take him over Williams any day of the week to be my GM.

Bob

Daver
01-09-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by gosox41


The bottom line to me is no matter how bad you think Schu was at the GM role, I'd take him over Williams any day of the week to be my GM.

Bob

I'm happy for you,

My choice would be none of the above.

34 Inch Stick
01-09-2003, 03:31 PM
Kenny was an accomplished vice president in charge of minor league development. He is not a good GM. The positions are different and you can admire abilities in one area and not the other.

Jordan is a great player. He is a horrible executive.

gosox41
01-09-2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Kenny was an accomplished vice president in charge of minor league development. He is not a good GM. The positions are different and you can admire abilities in one area and not the other.

Jordan is a great player. He is a horrible executive.

I guess one would think that there would be a correlation between being a successful vice president in charge of minor league development and a good GM. Obiously the GM job is different in that it deals with negotiating and agents. But if one can identify good talent then he should have no problem determining when he's overpaying for a player in either a contract or a trade. And if one could develop good talent the Sox would be in a much better position to win.

Bob

gosox41
01-09-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by daver
I'm happy for you,

My choice would be none of the above.

I'm glad that you're so happy for me. If I had my choice of any GM in the world it wouldn't be Schu or Williams. If I had my choice between the two (which is what I was talking about) I would definitely choose Schu.

Bob