PDA

View Full Version : Teddy Greenstein on the Score...


Kilroy
10-29-2003, 09:48 AM
Per Teddy, the Sox managerial job is Cito Gaston's job, regardless of Ozzie's interview today.

I, for one, don't like it.

I know that I said I thought Ozzie wasn't they right guy for this vet team, but the more we've heard and read, the less it seemed to matter.

Regardless, Cito Gaston doesn't generate any optimism at all.

boog_alou
10-29-2003, 09:52 AM
And, Gaston is the most expensive of the managerial candidates. Although it wouldn't be a huge contract, the more they give the manager, the less payroll room there is for the rest of the team. $60 million is going to be pretty tight.

soxtalker
10-29-2003, 10:08 AM
How many years will he sign for? If he turns out to be a disaster plus costs us a lot, are we going to have a JM-like salary (or worse) that we are stuck with?

Wanne
10-29-2003, 10:09 AM
Doesn't it bug anybody that Gaston was quoted recently that he really didn't know if he wanted to return to baseball everyday and that he was enjoying his retirement?!? Why would you want somebody running the show who's heart really wasn't in it?!? I have a gut feeling (maybe it's just a fart bubble)...that Kenny will blow this one and leave Guillen hangin'. I'm holding out faint hope that Reinsdorf will overrule and go with Ozzie.

ssang
10-29-2003, 10:17 AM
Hiring Gaston is sooooo typical White Sox. They always make the wrong call. Ozzie is the type of guy we need. He is fresh, well liked (except for big-baby Frank) and he would bring a lot of excitement to the team. Look at Twhat ony Pena did for KC. We need a guy who can light a fire under the players' ass. Ozzie is what we need.

Cito, on the other hand, is Jerry Manuel all over again. He is a bit better in that he doesn't tinker. But the way it seems to me is that Cito wants to do as little work as possible. He has stated before that he wants a veteran team ONLY. I think Cito just wants the job to be back in the bigs, but he plans on putting the managering into cruise control. THAT is the worst possible thing for our current Sox squad. I also here mostly negative things about Cito from Toronro fans and they claim he is VASTLY overrated as a manager.

This sucks and our franchise will YET AGAIN, make the wrong call. Will our suffering ever end? Probably not.

SoxxoS
10-29-2003, 10:20 AM
I am not going to worry about it until there is something to worry about. I will give Cito the benefit of the doubt. Nobody can argue with the two rings he has on hands.

A nice article on Cito. (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066601707306&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064)

After reading that, I am a little more at ease with Cito as our manager.

dpbyron
10-29-2003, 10:45 AM
Still not convinced....

This team needs ENERGY! I am tired of seeing them mope around and only show that they really care 6 times a season.

hold2dibber
10-29-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by ssang
Hiring Gaston is sooooo typical White Sox. They always make the wrong call. Ozzie is the type of guy we need. He is fresh, well liked (except for big-baby Frank) and he would bring a lot of excitement to the team. Look at Twhat ony Pena did for KC. We need a guy who can light a fire under the players' ass. Ozzie is what we need.

Cito, on the other hand, is Jerry Manuel all over again. He is a bit better in that he doesn't tinker. But the way it seems to me is that Cito wants to do as little work as possible. He has stated before that he wants a veteran team ONLY. I think Cito just wants the job to be back in the bigs, but he plans on putting the managering into cruise control. THAT is the worst possible thing for our current Sox squad. I also here mostly negative things about Cito from Toronro fans and they claim he is VASTLY overrated as a manager.

This sucks and our franchise will YET AGAIN, make the wrong call. Will our suffering ever end? Probably not.

I completely disagree. Typical White Sox is to pick the guy who has never managed a single game in his life and who is cheap (i.e., Ozzie in this case). Here, apparently, the Sox will instead be going with a proven winner, with 2 rings on his fingers, despite the fact that he likely won't be particularly cheap.

And your comparison of Gaston to JM is based on ...? The fact that neither appear to be screamers? Who gives a crap. As long as Cito is a straight shooter with his players, holds them accountable for their actions, and keeps them focused on the prize (as he apparently was able to do in leading the Blue Jays to two World Series wins), that's all you really need (putting aside for a second the in game strategy - and no one has any idea about how Ozzie would be in that department).

With that said, I think I'd be okay with the Sox picking Ozzie (although I was against it at first) based upon some things he has said and some interviews by those who are close to Ozzie. But I think the Gaston/JM comparisons are not well-founded and it is way to early to tell how Gaston will do. I think it is well known in the organization that this team underachieved last year and that the players were not sufficiently focused and determined. I cannot imagine that KW would consider anyone for the job who he did not think could address those problems. He knows Gaston well from his days playing for Gaston in Toronto. Therefore, I think its fair to say that he has a better idea about how good Gaston is at creating a clubhouse atmosphere/chemistry aimed at getting the most out of his players, than any of us do. So I think it's absurd not to give KW the benefit of the doubt on this one.

valposoxfan
10-29-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I completely disagree. Typical White Sox is to pick the guy who has never managed a single game in his life and who is cheap (i.e., Ozzie in this case). Here, apparently, the Sox will instead be going with a proven winner, with 2 rings on his fingers, despite the fact that he likely won't be particularly cheap.

And your comparison of Gaston to JM is based on ...? The fact that neither appear to be screamers? Who gives a crap. As long as Cito is a straight shooter with his players, holds them accountable for their actions, and keeps them focused on the prize (as he apparently was able to do in leading the Blue Jays to two World Series wins), that's all you really need (putting aside for a second the in game strategy - and no one has any idea about how Ozzie would be in that department).

With that said, I think I'd be okay with the Sox picking Ozzie (although I was against it at first) based upon some things he has said and some interviews by those who are close to Ozzie. But I think the Gaston/JM comparisons are not well-founded and it is way to early to tell how Gaston will do. I think it is well known in the organization that this team underachieved last year and that the players were not sufficiently focused and determined. I cannot imagine that KW would consider anyone for the job who he did not think could address those problems. He knows Gaston well from his days playing for Gaston in Toronto. Therefore, I think its fair to say that he has a better idea about how good Gaston is at creating a clubhouse atmosphere/chemistry aimed at getting the most out of his players, than any of us do. So I think it's absurd not to give KW the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I'm going to have to agree with everything that has been said in this post. I don't like Cito, but I guess some of the comparisons are unfair to JM. However, I still think Ozzie is better for team. He will fit and compliment the team better. But I guess Cito deserves a shot too. Jumping to conclusions can be bad.

ssang
10-29-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I completely disagree. Typical White Sox is to pick the guy who has never managed a single game in his life and who is cheap (i.e., Ozzie in this case). Here, apparently, the Sox will instead be going with a proven winner, with 2 rings on his fingers, despite the fact that he likely won't be particularly cheap.

And your comparison of Gaston to JM is based on ...? The fact that neither appear to be screamers? Who gives a crap. As long as Cito is a straight shooter with his players, holds them accountable for their actions, and keeps them focused on the prize (as he apparently was able to do in leading the Blue Jays to two World Series wins), that's all you really need (putting aside for a second the in game strategy - and no one has any idea about how Ozzie would be in that department).

With that said, I think I'd be okay with the Sox picking Ozzie (although I was against it at first) based upon some things he has said and some interviews by those who are close to Ozzie. But I think the Gaston/JM comparisons are not well-founded and it is way to early to tell how Gaston will do. I think it is well known in the organization that this team underachieved last year and that the players were not sufficiently focused and determined. I cannot imagine that KW would consider anyone for the job who he did not think could address those problems. He knows Gaston well from his days playing for Gaston in Toronto. Therefore, I think its fair to say that he has a better idea about how good Gaston is at creating a clubhouse atmosphere/chemistry aimed at getting the most out of his players, than any of us do. So I think it's absurd not to give KW the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Your points are all valid. The thing that scares me however, is that Kenny W gives Cito much praise. That makes me nervous because he usually makes poor decisions. The mid-season moves were great but they were no-brainers. Everytime he has an idea or is making a decision between players (in this case managers).....KW has FAILED MISERABLY!!! I will never let him live down the Ritchie or the Koch deal. They were truly awful and KW still deserves to be put in his place for those Horrendous trades. The Koch trade cost us a playoff spot this season. PEACE!

hold2dibber
10-29-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Your points are all valid. The thing that scares me however, is that Kenny W gives Cito much praise. That makes me nervous because he usually makes poor decisions. The mid-season moves were great but they were no-brainers. Everytime he has an idea or is making a decision between players (in this case managers).....KW has FAILED MISERABLY!!! I will never let him live down the Ritchie or the Koch deal. They were truly awful and KW still deserves to be put in his place for those Horrendous trades. The Koch trade cost us a playoff spot this season. PEACE!

I don't think it's fair to say KW blew the Sox postseason chances by making the Koch trade. If KW hadn't traded for Colon and signed Loaiza, the Sox wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR a playoff spot. No GM gets it right 100% of the time. Essentially saying "if he had made all his good moves, but hadn't made his bad moves, we'd have been great" is unfair and not reasonable. The fact is, KW assembled a team with more talent than any other in the AL Central last year. His failure was in not addressing the managerial situation, if you ask me. Hopefully he'll address that this time.

Gumshoe
10-29-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Your points are all valid. The thing that scares me however, is that Kenny W gives Cito much praise. That makes me nervous because he usually makes poor decisions. The mid-season moves were great but they were no-brainers. Everytime he has an idea or is making a decision between players (in this case managers).....KW has FAILED MISERABLY!!! I will never let him live down the Ritchie or the Koch deal. They were truly awful and KW still deserves to be put in his place for those Horrendous trades. The Koch trade cost us a playoff spot this season. PEACE!

I'm not sure about Cito ... I think Ozzie could be good too. ssang, you shouldn't let KW live down .... he is AS BAD AS YOU SAY. Those moves were terrible, and this MB often defends him. The fact is, he goes by what he thinks of when he was a player, and his judgment isn't good for whatever reason. It's not an easy job, but the ultimate stuff falls on JR. He hired KW and he hired JM ... and they both cost us a LOT of games.

Gumshoe

Wanne
10-29-2003, 12:41 PM
My question is....is KW basing his praise and decisions on the Cito of 10 years ago....or the current one, who by his own words, "doesn't know if he wants to be in the dugout again and enjoys retirement". Alot changes in 10 years. It's almost a shame the Marlins won with McKeon...because now it will open the door for all the old retreads just because the Marlins did it.

The only thing I blame KW for is not canning Ghandi in midseason...but that probably wasn't his call. The Koch trade....looked great at the time.

hold2dibber
10-29-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Those moves were terrible, and this MB often defends him.

What is an "MB"?

batmanZoSo
10-29-2003, 12:50 PM
hold2dibber, good call

This is great news for once. I've had my fill of project managers or prospect managers. "Oh, I have a good feeling about this guy...he may evolve in time to be a good manager." Cito Gaston won back-to-back World Series Championships and we have people complaining that he is all but signed.

I won't be crushed if we still end up signing Guillen, he is my second choice, but we're making the right move. You know how delicate the Thomas situation always is and the last thing we need right now is to bring in someone he himself referred to as a flake in the past.

Let Ozzie continue to simulate games in his mind in Miami, under the tutelage of Jack McKeon. You know we're the only team considering the dude for manager right now...in 3 years (?), he'll be waiting in the wings, probably will have earned a bench job by then and be ready.

As for "Cito Manuel," it doesn't matter that we're bringing a guy with a similar demeanor. A good manager does two things--commands respect while maintaing order and peace, and makes good bullpen moves. Manuel did neither, Gaston they say does both.

Hangar18
10-29-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Wanne

The only thing I blame KW for is not canning Ghandi in midseason...but that probably wasn't his call. The Koch trade....looked great at the time.

When the KOCH trade happened, I remember thinking why are we Trading one Closer for another Closer. Couldnt think of the reasoning behind it. But then a lot of people were excited about it, and I fell for the Media Hype too about him.

thepaulbowski
10-29-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
When the KOCH trade happened, I remember thinking why are we Trading one Closer for another Closer. Couldnt think of the reasoning behind it. But then a lot of people were excited about it, and I fell for the Media Hype too about him.

Media Hype?!?! Of course there will be media hype when you trade for the Rolaids Relief Man of the Year. We also got Cotts in the trade, who has a chance to be a good pitcher in the future.

LauraJ14
10-29-2003, 01:03 PM
Well Oakland has nothing to show for the trade, Foulke's filed for free agency, they cut Mark Johnson and traded Joe Valentine away for Jose Guillen, who probably won't sign with them. There could be drafts picks but since I can't make heads or tails of freeeagents and when you get draft picks.
We have another year of Koch and Neal Cotts in the minors.

Dadawg_77
10-29-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by LauraJ14
Well Oakland has nothing to show for the trade, Foulke's filed for free agency, they cut Mark Johnson and traded Joe Valentine away for Jose Guillen, who probably won't sign with them. There could be drafts picks but since I can't make heads or tails of freeeagents and when you get draft picks.
We have another year of Koch and Neal Cotts in the minors.

Each year Oakland tries to patch together a team to get to the playoffs. They did 2003 unlike the White Sox, so they have some thing a little bit more to show for it.

AsInWreck
10-29-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't think it's fair to say KW blew the Sox postseason chances by making the Koch trade. If KW hadn't traded for Colon and signed Loaiza, the Sox wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR a playoff spot. No GM gets it right 100% of the time.

And didn't he trade for Marte, too? That guy could be the best left-hand reliever in the game at this point, and he got him for next to nothing. Of course, a pen w/ Marte, Gordon and Foulke would've been nice, but adding Loaiza, Gordon, Colon and Marte the year before definitely makes up for the bad Foulke trade.

AsInWreck
10-29-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by LauraJ14
Well Oakland has nothing to show for the trade, Foulke's filed for free agency, they cut Mark Johnson and traded Joe Valentine away for Jose Guillen, who probably won't sign with them. There could be drafts picks but since I can't make heads or tails of freeeagents and when you get draft picks.
We have another year of Koch and Neal Cotts in the minors.

They did get another divisional title last year.

Hangar18
10-29-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by LauraJ14

We have another year of Koch and Neal Cotts in the minors.

Good Point.....Cotts could pan out sometime soon hopefully

soxtalker
10-29-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Hiring Gaston is sooooo typical White Sox. They always make the wrong call....

I would agree with the first statement that it is so typical of the Sox. (I'm not quite as negative about them always making the wrong call.) However, my read of the situation is a bit different. There has been a vigorous debate on the board about the relative merits of Ozzie vs. Cito. I've come around to the Ozzie preference, though I do acknowledge that there are issues and risks with either candidate.

What strikes me as typical is that a Sox GM is again making a decision that seems to be the least risky for his position. For all the talk about JR calling the shots, it seems that he has consistently backed up his GM in managerial moves. This reminds me a lot of the situation back in the late 90's when they almost brought Tony LaRussa back here. Schueler wanted nothing of that -- TLR would, of course, be able to go directly to JR if/when there was a major disagreement.

Gumshoe
10-29-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
What is an "MB"?

Sorry, hold2, but even though to some it might mean "mother biotches"

Here it means Message Board

sorry,

Gumshoe

ps- KW still a moron

Brian26
10-29-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by ssang
The mid-season moves were great but they were no-brainers. Everytime he has an idea or is making a decision between players (in this case managers).....KW has FAILED MISERABLY!!!

What a dumb comment. The Everett and Alomar deals were no-brainers? There were 28 other teams that couldn't pull those trades off when they happened, so give KW some credit.

gosox41
10-29-2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Wanne
Doesn't it bug anybody that Gaston was quoted recently that he really didn't know if he wanted to return to baseball everyday and that he was enjoying his retirement?!? Why would you want somebody running the show who's heart really wasn't in it?!? I have a gut feeling (maybe it's just a fart bubble)...that Kenny will blow this one and leave Guillen hangin'. I'm holding out faint hope that Reinsdorf will overrule and go with Ozzie.

This whole managerial search bugs me. Gaston is just like Manuel personality wise. Let's hope he tinkers less.

Bob

gosox41
10-29-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Your points are all valid. The thing that scares me however, is that Kenny W gives Cito much praise. That makes me nervous because he usually makes poor decisions. The mid-season moves were great but they were no-brainers. Everytime he has an idea or is making a decision between players (in this case managers).....KW has FAILED MISERABLY!!! I will never let him live down the Ritchie or the Koch deal. They were truly awful and KW still deserves to be put in his place for those Horrendous trades. The Koch trade cost us a playoff spot this season. PEACE!

I thought it was my role to compalain about these two trades. :)

Bob

gosox41
10-29-2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't think it's fair to say KW blew the Sox postseason chances by making the Koch trade. If KW hadn't traded for Colon and signed Loaiza, the Sox wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR a playoff spot. No GM gets it right 100% of the time. Essentially saying "if he had made all his good moves, but hadn't made his bad moves, we'd have been great" is unfair and not reasonable. The fact is, KW assembled a team with more talent than any other in the AL Central last year. His failure was in not addressing the managerial situation, if you ask me. Hopefully he'll address that this time.

KW did assemble a talented, if not one dimensional team. However, he will never live down that Koch trade because it was beyond stupid. It wasn't like a so-so trade you hope works out in your favor. It was dumb to think about it more then a second let alone act on it.

Bob

Bob

Gumshoe
10-29-2003, 09:42 PM
To say a few things in retrospect:

So many people were saying "Well, Gumshoe, what are you going to say when KW's moves turn out to be big time for the Sox?"

My simple response was as it always is. Let's deal in results. I said I'd give credit where it was due if the Sox did in fact win the division, then KW deserved credit. This is the ONLY criteria. He didn't do it right, or he didn't do enough if we did NOT make it. Don't you guys get it? Moves don't mean ANYTHING unless you are in the playoffs! Nothing!

Now that we DIDN'T (even though despite KW and JM I thought we would), what can we say? Well, for sure we can say that the Sox have been a BIG disappointment for 3 years STRAIGHT. KW has a lot to do with it. Look at results. He DID NOT GET IT DONE. Period. There's no way around it.

Gumshoe

Brian26
10-29-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
KW will never live down that Koch trade because it was beyond stupid. It wasn't like a so-so trade you hope works out in your favor. It was dumb to think about it more then a second let alone act on it.

Bob

Are you joking? That trade was heralded by MANY (and I'll say most) people on this message board when it happened. Some people viewed it as a straight-up trade for talent, with us having the advantage since Foulke was becoming a free agent after 2003 while Koch was at least signed. You paint this picture as if the trade was so far-fetched and completely 100% lopsided that it was insane. Give me a break. In hindsight it's easy to say Foulke had a better year. Get in your time machine and go back to this past January and tell me that same story. I don't know if you're trying to employ revisionist history or you just plain forgot, but you're way off-base. Koch was the Fireman of the Year and Foulke was coming off another shakey year.

JRIG
10-29-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Are you joking? That trade was heralded by MANY (and I'll say most) people on this message board when it happened. Some people viewed it as a straight-up trade for talent, with us having the advantage since Foulke was becoming a free agent after 2003 while Koch was at least signed. You paint this picture as if the trade was so far-fetched and completely 100% lopsided that it was insane. Give me a break. In hindsight it's easy to say Foulke had a better year. Get in your time machine and go back to this past January and tell me that same story. I don't know if you're trying to employ revisionist history or you just plain forgot, but you're way off-base. Koch was the Fireman of the Year and Foulke was coming off another shakey year.

Foulke month-by-month ERA for 2002 were 3.55, 8.10, 2.35. 4.05, 0.79 and 0.00. Does that seem like a "shakey year", or one bad month? And how would you qualify it as "another" bad year. His ERAs the three years previous were 2.23, 2.97, and 2.33. Christ, his ERA in his last year with the Sox was 2.90!

There were posters here who thought that trade was a disaster from the day it happened. I was one of them. My opinion hasn't changed.

Gumshoe
10-30-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Are you joking? That trade was heralded by MANY (and I'll say most) people on this message board when it happened. Some people viewed it as a straight-up trade for talent, with us having the advantage since Foulke was becoming a free agent after 2003 while Koch was at least signed. You paint this picture as if the trade was so far-fetched and completely 100% lopsided that it was insane. Give me a break. In hindsight it's easy to say Foulke had a better year. Get in your time machine and go back to this past January and tell me that same story. I don't know if you're trying to employ revisionist history or you just plain forgot, but you're way off-base. Koch was the Fireman of the Year and Foulke was coming off another shakey year.

Yeah, Brian, I even said that "we'll check out how Koch does" when the arguing came down to the end. Turns out, I was right, it was the worst trade in modern history. Let's not bring this back up. If you didn't see that Foulke was statistically in the upper eschelon of closers in the game (meaning top 3, and arguably the best over a 3 year period), I just think you don't pay attention. All that guy did was give results, and he got shipped out because guys like KW didn't like him. JM totally misused him, and he eventually righted everything. I'm so sick of this argument, I wanna puke. It really pains me that white sox fans can't see a) this trade was bad from the getgo, and b) STILL think it wasn't that bad a TRADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As said, I challenge anyone to come up with a worse trade in modern history. Keep in mind the effect it had on our club (Gordon and Koch both sucked for the first 3 months). With Rick White as another "great idea" by KW, we really had some great right handed relievers to start the season ... oh wait, try ZERO RH relievers.

Gumshoe

ps- paying Gordon more than 2 MIL a year is really really stupid. Just look at it objectively. I'm sure guys on this board like Gordon a lot. If Foulke started the way Gordon did last year, and finished the way he [Gordon] did, they would be tarring and feathering him. The hanging on to Koch deal is ridiculous. Yes, do mention Neal Cotts again. Big deal. We need to win NOW. Not loser another game because KW wants to make his Foulke deal look better (by starting Cotts in NY). Sheesh, I actually am puking thinking about this season.

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by JRIG
Foulke month-by-month ERA for 2002 were 3.55, 8.10, 2.35. 4.05, 0.79 and 0.00. Does that seem like a "shakey year", or one bad month? And how would you qualify it as "another" bad year. His ERAs the three years previous were 2.23, 2.97, and 2.33. Christ, his ERA in his last year with the Sox was 2.90!

There were posters here who thought that trade was a disaster from the day it happened. I was one of them. My opinion hasn't changed.

Okay, let's take this a step further...

I was one of those posters who defended the trade. I admit I was overhyped on the "closer mentality", but still cannot believe that anyone thought Koch would be as bad as he was.

Like I said, one step further... Is ANY closer worth that kind of money for what they bring to the table? Would Foulke have been worth $6M this last year? What if he blew a couple of games in April and May and JM benched him again? The only reason Koch got so long to mess things up is because JM still trusted him. (grass is always greener, right?)

I mean relievers by definition are second class pitchers. A great closer will pitch 60 innings a year 1 inning at a time and earn 40+ saves. How much is that type of pitcher worth?

Foulke was overpaid, so would he have been worth it? If he had the exact same season he had with the A's then the Sox would be forced to offer him even more money or watch him walk for draft picks. It wasn't a great trade, but it was hardly the disaster it is being made out to be. Closers are a dime a dozen and Tom Gordon proved that this season...

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
As said, I challenge anyone to come up with a worse trade in modern history. Keep in mind the effect it had on our club (Gordon and Koch both sucked for the first 3 months). With Rick White as another "great idea" by KW, we really had some great right handed relievers to start the season ... oh wait, try ZERO RH relievers.

Brock for Brogglio?

Ruth for cash?

Sham-ME* for Bell?

Come on. The worst trade in modern history... puh-leeze...*****!

You want to know why people take it to the other extreme? Because of ludicrous posts like yours...

Gumshoe
10-30-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Brock for Brogglio?

Ruth for cash?

Sham-ME* for Bell?

Come on. The worst trade in modern history... puh-leeze...*****!

You want to know why people take it to the other extreme? Because of ludicrous posts like yours...

Voodoo, since when is 1918 modern history? Come on, pay attention at least.

I don't think the Sosa for Bell trade was bad at all, actually. George Bell was productive for us, we made it to the ALCS, and could have easily played in the World Series. Sosa was a young buck who didn't want to listen to Hriniak (although I did like him), and who eventually juiced it up more than anyone in the game to get where he is.

Brock didn't immediately take his team to the playoffs, nor did Brogglio bring his team down. LYFAO now --- I addressed all those points. I sincerely think they are very weak; I'm not ttrying to be sarcastic, funny, or disrespectful.

Gumshoe

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Voodoo, since when is 1918 modern history? Come on, pay attention at least.

I don't think the Sosa for Bell trade was bad at all, actually. George Bell was productive for us, we made it to the ALCS, and could have easily played in the World Series. Sosa was a young buck who didn't want to listen to Hriniak (although I did like him), and who eventually juiced it up more than anyone in the game to get where he is.

Brock didn't immediately take his team to the playoffs, nor did Brogglio bring his team down. LYFAO now --- I addressed all those points. I sincerely think they are very weak; I'm not ttrying to be sarcastic, funny, or disrespectful.

Gumshoe

I have no problem with your attitude, so don't apologize to me...

When you say modern history, I assumed you meant the modern era. Ruth's trade qualifies under that label.

Still, you have to prove that your trade was worse than ones that traded has-beens, never-was or money for future HOF players two of whom led their team to WS championships and one of whom is considered not only the greatest baseball player ever, but (at least by some) the greatest professional athlete ever.

Any evidence that JM would have allowed Foulke to close? Any evidence that he wouldn't have blown a couple of games early (like in 2002) and been benched? Any evidence that he would be back next year? Any evidence that KW would offer him the $8M it would have taken to keep him?

The Sox mistake was signing Koch to a big money deal before seeing what he had. The trade was because JM had lost confidence in Foulke and wouldn't let him close anymore. Why pay a middle reliever that much money and then let him walk for draft picks?

You are a long way from home with this extreme hyperbole...

JRIG
10-30-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe


I don't think the Sosa for Bell trade was bad at all, actually. George Bell was productive for us, we made it to the ALCS, and could have easily played in the World Series.

Bell was close to decent in '92, but did next to nothing to help us to the ALCS in '93. He hit .217/.243/.363 in '93 and played in only 104 games. Shortly afterward a new gas station was christened.

jortafan
10-30-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Voodoo, since when is 1918 modern history? Come on, pay attention at least.

I don't think the Sosa for Bell trade was bad at all, actually. George Bell was productive for us, we made it to the ALCS, and could have easily played in the World Series. Sosa was a young buck who didn't want to listen to Hriniak (although I did like him), and who eventually juiced it up more than anyone in the game to get where he is.

Brock didn't immediately take his team to the playoffs, nor did Brogglio bring his team down. LYFAO now --- I addressed all those points. I sincerely think they are very weak; I'm not ttrying to be sarcastic, funny, or disrespectful.

Gumshoe

Sorry, but I have to nitpick.

What constitutes modern history to you. I hope you're not one of those who can't comprehend anything that occurred more than five years ago. Anything 20th century is modern, as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as Brock, the Cardinals won the World Series his first season with the team, in part because his newfound speed helped give the Cardinals a boost.

I will, however, agree with you about the Sosa trade. It made sense, Bell was a big-name veteran worth acquiring (too bad we couldn't have had him three years earlier) and I'm also convinced Sammy never would have amounted to anything with the White Sox while playing in the building now known as U.S. Cellular Field. Only the Cubs of the '90s were pathetic enough to put up with him for so many seasons before he finally got his act together and became the beisbol freak show we all so despise.

Gumshoe
10-30-2003, 08:22 AM
I'll more or less stop arguing it now, because this has already been argued. I think this trade has had more impact on the potential success of any white sox team I've seen. I mean, just by getting us to the playoffs (which is speculation being that JM was stupid) that could have meant a world series, esp. the way we played against the Yanks and Boston.

But I digress. The whole thing is that Foulke was one of the best closers in the game, arguably the best over a 3 year period. It pisses me off that KW just didn't like him and wanted him out --- and then made a really bad move. I think that's something that KW doesn't catch enough flak for -- he really influenced the puppet that was known as JM and really messed things up. That's my opinion.

I hope we turn out ok next year, but as long as KW and JR run this team, I have my serious doubts.

Gumshoe

ps- modern history to me is about 20-30 years. Yes, I am aware the Modern era of baseball is post 1900. And, George Bell was a GREAT situational hitter.