PDA

View Full Version : The WSRC (White Sox Rebuilding Club)


guillen4life13
12-04-2003, 06:20 PM
I'm starting this club because I feel like the Sox are in a hole that they will be unable to dig out of by Opening Day, 2005, because of their salary issues.

I think that the best, most realistic solution to all of the problems would be to rebuild (and do it right this time!). We know that Jerry's not going to sell any time soon, so it's useless to keep pursuing that.

Rebuilding means:

Trading Maggs for as many high-tier prospects (preferably pitching prospects).
Forgetting about getting Colon back.
Trading Jose Valentin for a CF prospect (so that RF can be Reed's, LF can be Borchard's)
Trade Lee as soon as Borchard is ready to come up for good (for relievers or a SS prospect).
Trading Koch for prospects (don't have to be high-tier... just get rid of him and his salary).
Trade Konerko for pitching prospects.

Hold on to Buehrle; he'll be the staff anchor/ace who the other pitchers can learn from. Same with Garland.
Keep Frank. He's not too expensive, and he still produces.


Stuff along these lines. That way, we'll have a strong foundation, hopefully by '06 or '07.


I understand that many of you will be very against this idea, and I fully understand why. As of now, I'm in a state of frustration because the hole that this organization is in seems too great to overcome so quickly.


The fact is, it's hard to field a very good team when your payroll is so low, and you're relying on the acquisitions of big name players who command high salaries.

bc2k
12-04-2003, 06:30 PM
I might have agreed with you yesterday, but I have a new sense of optimism after hearing about the possible Red Sox trade, and to a lesser extent, the Konerko for Perez trade.

And I'm taking the advice from other posters who suggested waiting until after the Winter Meetings to give up hope.

Gumshoe
12-04-2003, 07:04 PM
Hey guys, why don't we trade all of our best players, watch the news guys have good years, then when they have one bad year, complain a crap load about how they aren't worth anything, forget all past accomplishments, then trade all of those guys?

This is a great way to win the pennant, and I'm not even writing in TEAL

Gumshoe

HITMEN OF 77
12-04-2003, 07:11 PM
I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD REBUILD, WHEN WE HAVE THE BEST TEAM IN THE CENTRAL RIGHT NOW. OUR PITCHING IS DECENT, EL AND MB ARE ON PAR IMO WITH ANY 1-2 IN THE MAJORS. WE JUST NEED A CLOSER.

nodiggity59
12-04-2003, 07:14 PM
I hope Im not allowed to be in this club so I wont be tempted to join.

IA_soxfan
12-04-2003, 07:17 PM
This makes perfect sense. We have all been just dying to return to "the Kids Can Play" days of the late 90's.

guillen4life13
12-04-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Hey guys, why don't we trade all of our best players, watch the news guys have good years, then when they have one bad year, complain a crap load about how they aren't worth anything, forget all past accomplishments, then trade all of those guys?

This is a great way to win the pennant, and I'm not even writing in TEAL

Gumshoe

I'm not complaining about any of the players we have now. I think we had a great group of players in 2003. The problem is that, to resign all of those people will require a great amount of money. A great amount of money Unky Jer will not spend (and don't think I support him... I want him to sell just as badly as any of you guys).

The sox are not going to be able to resign Everett, Colon, or a variety of other role players who were essential to the success of this team. They're asking for money that Unky Jer won't spend.

I'm trying to be realistic, because whenever I get optimistic or enthusiastic, there's always something to pop my bubble.


IMO, the only way to success for this team under its current limitations, is to rebuild, and devote most of their energy to prospect acquisitions. You look at Oakland. They have good players at the ML level that are almost all homegrown. They always end up losing a superstar once every two years or so because they can't afford them, but they still succeed because they have a deep farm system. That is the model I think the White Sox should work towards. So that we don't have to rely on certain players, because we'll always have someone on the farm to fill that role.

I understand your sentiments Gumshoe, and realistically, White Sox fans would be screaming "Off with his head!" in regards to players who have good, steady track records and happen to have one bad year (A La Paulie, though the injury talk is what scares me most about him).

MarqSox
12-04-2003, 07:32 PM
As long as the White Sox are in the AL Central, they should never rebuild. Every year, they should be competing for the division -- even in down years.

guillen4life13
12-04-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by HITMEN OF 77
I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD REBUILD, WHEN WE HAVE THE BEST TEAM IN THE CENTRAL RIGHT NOW. OUR PITCHING IS DECENT, EL AND MB ARE ON PAR IMO WITH ANY 1-2 IN THE MAJORS. WE JUST NEED A CLOSER.

First off, please turn off your caps lock. Secondly, E-Lo has had only one great season, and has had many mediocre/sub-mediocre seasons. There is a very good chance that he will not live up to the standard he set for himself last year (at least, I wouldn't bet on him doing so). That leaves us with Buehrle, who I think is a legit 15-18 game winner. What else does that leave us? For an optimist, Garland could be good for, oh, 14-15 wins at most. Four/Five starters? Gimme a break. Perez could be good, yes, but Ritchie could have been good also.


The offense next year looks like it will probably be as follows:

2B Harris/Uribe
SS Valentin
DH Thomas
RF Valentin
LF Lee
1B Konerko/Daubach/Acquisition
3B Crede
CF Rowand? Reed?
C Olivo

Looking at that lineup, here are my thoughts:
Harris/Uribe are mediocre at best, most likely.
Valentin's average has been going down steadily since 2000, as he hit .237 last year. He's a liability.
Thomas should be good for .265/35/100
Maggs should be good for .300/30/110
Lee: .290/30/100
We don't even know who will be the first baseman (unless Frank is, in which case, who DH's?)
Crede should be good for a .260/20/75
Rowand/Reed: either lightning in a bottle, or complete flop.
Olivo should get better, but I'm thinking .250/10/50

And then the 'pen (sigh):
Wunsch
Marte
Schoenweiss?
Koch (who I have signed off because such velocity drops obviously indicate that he is injured).


Gordon's gone, Sullivan's most likely gone as well. Bleak.



Unless something huge happens between now and opening day, I am going to feel like this is hopeless.

guillen4life13
12-04-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
As long as the White Sox are in the AL Central, they should never rebuild. Every year, they should be competing for the division -- even in down years.

I'd agree with you, but those damn Twins!

They lose Pierzynski, they have Mauer to replace him (Mauer who was, IIRC, the highest ranked catching prospect in '02--ahead of Olivo and Bard).

They've got a stacked pen, even without Hawkins now. They've got prospects for just about every position who have shown loads of promise.

That's the problems with the Sox now.

chisoxt
12-04-2003, 08:07 PM
I agree with you. The present structure of the club is not right, and I don't care how many players the Twins lose, their farm system is head and shoulders above ours, and besides, Cleveland is not going to be bad for long.

But having said that, in your post, you wanted to see the Sox 'do it right this time'. Actually, I thought that they did a decent job of rebuilding the last time. The problem you see, is that we have an impatient GM who couldn't wait to trade some of the better guys in our system for garbage. So yes, if you mean 'getting it right' by hiring a GM with half a brain, I'm all for it.

And please spare me the crying about our financial constraints. Oakland Montreal, and Florida seem to do OK with similiar constraints.

guillen4life13
12-04-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by chisoxt
I agree with you. The present structure of the club is not right, and I don't care how many players the Twins lose, their farm system is head and shoulders above ours, and besides, Cleveland is not going to be bad for long.

But having said that, in your post, you wanted to see the Sox 'do it right this time'. Actually, I thought that they did a decent job of rebuilding the last time. The problem you see, is that we have an impatient GM who couldn't wait to trade some of the better guys in our system for garbage. So yes, if you mean 'getting it right' by hiring a GM with half a brain, I'm all for it.

And please spare me the crying about our financial constraints. Oakland Montreal, and Florida seem to do OK with similiar constraints.

Doing it right means developing a deep farm system, and not wasting it away in trades in which the prospects aren't worth it.

Hopefully, our GM can show that he has a bit of a brain now. The Miles for Uribe trade, to me, was even. Uribe's only 24, so it's hard to judge him just yet. He'll need a couple of years to blossom. Miles was an aging minor leaguer. I can see KW's logic in the trade, let's just say that.

In regards to the cyring about financial constraints, I believe you and I are in agreement. I think the Sox should model their whole system after Oakland and Minnesota.

chisoxt, where in OP are you?

StillMissOzzie
12-05-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


The offense next year looks like it will probably be as follows:

2B Harris/Uribe
SS Valentin
DH Thomas
RF Valentin
LF Lee
1B Konerko/Daubach/Acquisition
3B Crede
CF Rowand? Reed?
C Olivo

Maggs should be good for .300/30/110

Unless something huge happens between now and opening day, I am going to feel like this is hopeless.

Since Valentin is grossly overpaid at $5M, you're gonna make him play SS and RF simultaneously?

chisoxt
12-05-2003, 08:03 AM
chisoxt, where in OP are you?

Ridgeland Avenue, just south of Division. Let's hook up and go to a game next year!

BeerHandle
12-05-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
And I'm taking the advice from other posters who suggested waiting until after the Winter Meetings to give up hope.

Glad to hear someone is taking my advice! Don't forget about the Dec 7th. deadline - That's the deadline for teams to offer arbitration to their own free agents. But more realistically, it's also the date when other clubs find out if they have to give up a draft pick as compensation for signing those free agents.

This has been the second straight year that they free agent market has slowed. Does this mean baseball could have a crisis on their hands in the next few years due to the huge salaries....YES!

daveeym
12-05-2003, 10:12 AM
While a few of our "lost" prospects have had a decent year here and there and a few are young enough to still show the sox up, not one of the trades has made me feel like we lost something. The guys we've gotten may not have lived up to expectations but that's another story. Cameron is about the only one that has left and done a consistently above average job anywhere.

bobj4400
12-05-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by HITMEN OF 77
OUR PITCHING IS DECENT, EL AND MB ARE ON PAR IMO WITH ANY 1-2 IN THE MAJORS. WE JUST NEED A CLOSER.

You are kidding, right? Let's see which teams have better 1-2 combinations:

Red Sox (Martinez, Schilling)
Braves (Ortiz, Maddux/Hampton)
Yanks (Vazquez, Mussina)
Dodgers (Brown, take your pick of one of three)
Cubs (Prior, Wood)
Astros (Oswalt, Miller)
A's (Hudson, Mulder, Zito)
Marlins (Beckett, Burnett)


I am sure there are more teams, but I didnt feel like wasting anymore time with this. The White Sox 1-2 are average. They are by no means bad, but nowhere near the top either.

wilburaga
12-05-2003, 12:42 PM
Out of the 10 drafts that Ron Schueler supervised (1991-2000), only two position players were selected that held down full time major league jobs for more than a year, Cameron and Crede. Rowand and Borchard could conceivably crack the list. That's a pitiful record.

There were 4 (maybe 5, with Borchard) certified first round position player busts, in Eddie Pearson, Jeff Leifer, Jason Dellaero and Mark Johnson.

From Mike Robertson, Chris Tremie, Craig Wilson, Chris Snopek, Greg Norton, Frank Menechino, Mario Valdez (the last two Schu selected after he selected his own daughter!), Jeff Abbott, Luis Garcia and Brian Simmons deliver me O Lord.


W

Frater Perdurabo
12-05-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by wilburaga
Out of the 10 drafts that Ron Schueler supervised (1991-2000), only two position players were selected that held down full time major league jobs for more than a year, Cameron and Crede. Rowand and Borchard could conceivably crack the list. That's a pitiful record.

There were 4 (maybe 5, with Borchard) certified first round position player busts, in Eddie Pearson, Jeff Leifer, Jason Dellaero and Mark Johnson.

From Mike Robertson, Chris Tremie, Craig Wilson, Chris Snopek, Greg Norton, Frank Menechino, Mario Valdez (the last two Schu selected after he selected his own daughter!), Jeff Abbott, Luis Garcia and Brian Simmons deliver me O Lord.


W

And that, my friends, is why the Sox find themselves in the mess they are in now. They are paying too much for a one-dimensional three-toed sloth to play an average 1B in Paul Konerko when their own farm-raised future HOF, who hits much better at 1st, plays DH. And to think, they traded Cameron for him! You NEVER trade a legitimate MLB CF for a 1B unless that 1B puts up McGwire-like numbers.

If they had Cameron instead of Konerko the Sox would be in much, much better shape right now.

guillen4life13
12-05-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
And that, my friends, is why the Sox find themselves in the mess they are in now. They are paying too much for a one-dimensional three-toed sloth to play an average 1B in Paul Konerko when their own farm-raised future HOF, who hits much better at 1st, plays DH. And to think, they traded Cameron for him! You NEVER trade a legitimate MLB CF for a 1B unless that 1B puts up McGwire-like numbers.

If they had Cameron instead of Konerko the Sox would be in much, much better shape right now.

Cammy's good but he K's out too much. The sox don't need another swing for the fences guy anyways.


Chisoxt- you going to OPRF or are you older?

nasox
12-05-2003, 10:26 PM
all i can say is, god help me

the crap that comes with being a white sox fan. I should get a tax break for all this.

jordan23ventura
12-05-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


Cammy's good but he K's out too much. The sox don't need another swing for the fences guy anyways.


Chisoxt- you going to OPRF or are you older?


What about an injury prone double-play magnet who has never lived up to his true potential? Yeah he plays D, but hes a smaller fish in a larger pond at 1B. Cameron K's but is one of the best defensive CF you're going to find around. Much bigger fish in a much smaller pond. And Konerko makes more money.

JC456
12-05-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I'm not complaining about any of the players we have now. I think we had a great group of players in 2003. The problem is that, to resign all of those people will require a great amount of money. A great amount of money Unky Jer will not spend (and don't think I support him... I want him to sell just as badly as any of you guys).

The sox are not going to be able to resign Everett, Colon, or a variety of other role players who were essential to the success of this team. They're asking for money that Unky Jer won't spend.

I'm trying to be realistic, because whenever I get optimistic or enthusiastic, there's always something to pop my bubble.


IMO, the only way to success for this team under its current limitations, is to rebuild, and devote most of their energy to prospect acquisitions. You look at Oakland. They have good players at the ML level that are almost all homegrown. They always end up losing a superstar once every two years or so because they can't afford them, but they still succeed because they have a deep farm system. That is the model I think the White Sox should work towards. So that we don't have to rely on certain players, because we'll always have someone on the farm to fill that role.

I understand your sentiments Gumshoe, and realistically, White Sox fans would be screaming "Off with his head!" in regards to players who have good, steady track records and happen to have one bad year (A La Paulie, though the injury talk is what scares me most about him).

I have a novel idea, why not have the fans show up at the park and then there would be money to keep the good valuable players!!! that isn't a hard thing to do.

RedPinStripes
12-05-2003, 11:57 PM
Rob Gallas?

guillen4life13
12-06-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by JC456
I have a novel idea, why not have the fans show up at the park and then there would be money to keep the good valuable players!!! that isn't a hard thing to do.

You're obviously someone who's bought into that whole theory. I'll tell you what. Sox fans came out this past season. We aren't getting any rewards, are we? Doesn't seem like it.

I'm gonna try not to turn this into just another "bash JR" thread, since we have enough of those. Let's just say, that we came through on our side of the deal, and Sox management has not.


The good valuable players aren't staying as long as Reinsdorf is the owner of this ballclub.


And Jordan23Ventura: If we're going to get an established CFer, I'd much rather find a way to acquire Johnny Damon instead of Cammy. Then at least Damon will be a suitable leadoff hitter.

guillen4life13
12-09-2003, 05:37 PM
So, now that 'Tolo, Sullivan, Flash, Alomar (the important one), Everett, and Graffy are either gone, or all but gone, who else may agree that yes, it's time to rebuild from the farm up? It'll take a few years, but it will be worth it if things aren't royally botched (the farm isn't traded away/worked to injury).

MRKARNO
12-09-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
So, now that 'Tolo, Sullivan, Flash, Alomar (the important one), Everett, and Graffy are either gone, or all but gone, who else may agree that yes, it's time to rebuild from the farm up? It'll take a few years, but it will be worth it if things aren't royally botched (the farm isn't traded away/worked to injury).

Well I think we have have a lot of prospects. What if Rauch comes in and leaps over Garland? You can't tell.

guillen4life13
12-09-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Well I think we have have a lot of prospects. What if Rauch comes in and leaps over Garland? You can't tell.

Rauch came off of Tommy John surgery two years ago. Shouldn't he have recovered by now? Yes, it's a possibility he can do well, but the likelyhood is that he won't.

Stoky44
12-09-2003, 10:23 PM
I am starting to agree with this idea of rebuilding. LEts face it the team we have been putting out for the last few years has just not been getting the job done. We just try to fill the little gaps we have but can't because then other flaws with the team are exposed. I hate the idea of losing but at this point whats the difference if we win 85 games and miss the playoffs with losing 100 games but rebuilding so we have a chance the next year. It kills me to say this, but I really don't think the white Sox can win with this core of players and the budget by jr. Try to concentrate on keeping a few guys to build around starting with trying to Keep Mark B. here.

guillen4life13
12-10-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Stoky44
I am starting to agree with this idea of rebuilding. LEts face it the team we have been putting out for the last few years has just not been getting the job done. We just try to fill the little gaps we have but can't because then other flaws with the team are exposed. I hate the idea of losing but at this point whats the difference if we win 85 games and miss the playoffs with losing 100 games but rebuilding so we have a chance the next year. It kills me to say this, but I really don't think the white Sox can win with this core of players and the budget by jr. Try to concentrate on keeping a few guys to build around starting with trying to Keep Mark B. here.

Exactly. This core of players hasn't done it, and now's the time to move on. They've had expectations up the wall, all of which should have been realized, and never have they lived up to them.

red faber
12-13-2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by JC456
I have a novel idea, why not have the fans show up at the park and then there would be money to keep the good valuable players!!! that isn't a hard thing to do.

here is another novel idea,why don't they show us that they want to win,so we will want to show up.

as long as they aren't showing us a commitment towards winning,they DON'T deserve more of our money!!!!!!

Lip Man 1
12-13-2003, 02:27 PM
The taxpayers of the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois have already shown their committment to the Sox when they built them their new stadium in 1991.

Nothing more needs to be done. The shoe is on the other foot and the Sox need to do something with it besides sticking it in their mouth (and up their ass)

Lip

guillen4life13
12-13-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The taxpayers of the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois have already shown their committment to the Sox when they built them their new stadium in 1991.

Nothing more needs to be done. The shoe is on the other foot and the Sox need to do something with it besides sticking it in their mouth (and up their ass)

Lip

I agree with you Lip, but it's become evident that the organization has no intentions of doing something with that proverbial foot. Until Jerry sells, we will not see a strong, genuine commitment to winning from the organization. We all know that, but many are in denial of that fact.

Unregistered
12-13-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by red faber
here is another novel idea,why don't they show us that they want to win,so we will want to show up.

as long as they aren't showing us a commitment towards winning,they DON'T deserve more of our money!!!!!! As much as I HATE speaking from the side of Reinsdorf and Co. (yuck), I'm just playing devil's advocate:

the Sox had the best record in AL 3 years ago and didn't even draw 2 million fans. Recent history seems to dictate that winning does not necessarily equal people showing up. I seem to remember during that year people were complaining that even though the team was doing well, they weren't showing up for all sorts of new reasons - the stadium was ugly/sterile, etc., etc...

Reasons like these make me understand why JR isn't convinced that upping the payroll to $90 mil and showing a "commitment to winning" is going to translate into a 40,000 a game turnout.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2003, 06:54 PM
The 2000 Sox were a fluke who came out of nowhere and had a great first half.

There was no off season buzz prior to 2000 because the Sox were a bunch of no names who had mediocre 1998 and 1999 seasons.

As I recall in the second half for a stretch they drew pretty well but given the fact that basically the average fan had no idea who the hell most of these kids were and a bad ballpark, I can understand the 'lack' of attendence. (Although I would argue drawing almost two million fans is a 'bad' year. That's why I have long asked why haven't the Sox ever publicly and specifically given us a number that they feel constitutes 'good support.' What are we taking about here, a realistic number like 2.3 million or an outrageous figure like say, four million fans?)

Sox attendence for the two playoff games was sold out and despite numerous injuries they drew pretty well in 2001 before the Sox deciced to go to sleep for most of the year.

Ultimately if you want attendence to spike, in my opinion, you have to have a run of success, a run of teams and years in contention, better PR, an increased payroll and a better marketing department.

You can't have a winning season in 1996, three losing years before 2000 and then three years of underachieving afterwards.

That just won't get it done.

Lip

RichH55
12-13-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The 2000 Sox were a fluke who came out of nowhere and had a great first half.

There was no off season buzz prior to 2000 because the Sox were a bunch of no names who had mediocre 1998 and 1999 seasons.

As I recall in the second half for a stretch they drew pretty well but given the fact that basically the average fan had no idea who the hell most of these kids were and a bad ballpark, I can understand the 'lack' of attendence. (Although I would argue drawing almost two million fans is a 'bad' year. That's why I have long asked why haven't the Sox ever publicly and specifically given us a number that they feel constitutes 'good support.' What are we taking about here, a realistic number like 2.3 million or an outrageous figure like say, four million fans?)

Sox attendence for the two playoff games was sold out and despite numerous injuries they drew pretty well in 2001 before the Sox deciced to go to sleep for most of the year.

Ultimately if you want attendence to spike, in my opinion, you have to have a run of success, a run of teams and years in contention, better PR, an increased payroll and a better marketing department.

You can't have a winning season in 1996, three losing years before 2000 and then three years of underachieving afterwards.

That just won't get it done.

Lip

Out of the last say 12 years how many Sox teams were contenders or at least supposed to legitimately via for the division crown?

guillen4life13
12-13-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Out of the last say 12 years how many Sox teams were contenders or at least supposed to legitimately via for the division crown?

I haven't been a follower so long, but as far as I know, the years would be:

'91
'93
'94
'95
'2001
'2002
'2003


six or seven. I don't know if there were high expectations in '91.

red faber
12-14-2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Unregistered
As much as I HATE speaking from the side of Reinsdorf and Co. (yuck), I'm just playing devil's advocate:

the Sox had the best record in AL 3 years ago and didn't even draw 2 million fans. Recent history seems to dictate that winning does not necessarily equal people showing up. I seem to remember during that year people were complaining that even though the team was doing well, they weren't showing up for all sorts of new reasons - the stadium was ugly/sterile, etc., etc...

Reasons like these make me understand why JR isn't convinced that upping the payroll to $90 mil and showing a "commitment to winning" is going to translate into a 40,000 a game turnout.

i understand what you're saying.

but it is all about track record.people will not just show up because of one year of winning,they will however show up if you have multiple years of winning.you have to have a consistent commitment to winning season,after season,after season.not just once in a while.prime example,THE YANKEES!!!!do you think that they would draw 3,000,000 plus every year if they weren't in contention to win a championship every year???????..THE CARDINALS..do you think that they would draw 3,000,000 plus every year if they weren't in contention to get to the playoffs every year????


i hate to beat a dead horse but i will say this one more time.

if you show that a consistent commitment to winning,the fans will show up......eventually!!!!!!

peace!!!!!!!

guillen4life13
02-06-2004, 04:59 PM
The last reply to this thread was on Dec 14th, and since then, I think that I am even more strongly in favor of the idea i had in mind. I'd like to see if any other people's opinions have changed.

The Sox need to start over, and I think it's useless to keep thinking Jerry will sell--it's obvious he won't. So... time to fully rebuild.

Baby Fisk
02-06-2004, 05:41 PM
"Rebuild" - I HATE THAT WORD!!! This team is in a perpetual vicious circle of rebuilding with the occasional playoff bomb.

Don't rebuild, JUST BUILD! :angry:

lowesox
02-06-2004, 05:44 PM
I'd consider rebuilding if we had a GM. As it stands right now, I'm hoping for as few major trades as possible.

Hopefully KW's time is almost up here. Then when a real GM steps in, we'll see where we're at. But yes, I agree that this team looks atrocious and looks like it's not going to go anywhere.

Lip Man 1
02-06-2004, 06:03 PM
Guillen says:

'91
'93
'94
'95
'2001
'2002
'2003

Guillen the Sox were NOT in contention in 1995, nor 2001 and 2002.

and the Sox have already rebuilt three times since the labor impasse of 1994, the blew the team up before the start of the 95 season, they had the White Flag deal in 97 and they had a fire sale in 2002. Pretty hard to grow your fan base "rebuilding" so often.

Lip

ode to veeck
02-07-2004, 08:00 AM
As Lip says, nearly 2M in 2000 is not bad, especially considering that team came out of nowhere to some extent. More significantly, the 2000 team really gave a boost to fan hopes the last three years (totally unfullfilled, unfortunately). Can you imagine what attendance would have been like 2001-03 without the 2000 season in front of it?

dougs78
02-07-2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Guillen the Sox were NOT in contention in 1995, nor 2001 and 2002.

Lip


He was referring to the years in which they were supposed to be in contention. In response to the question of which years there had a been an off-season buzz about the team. Surely you would agree that definitely 2001 and for the most part 2002 had that kind of buzz.

guillen4life13
02-07-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
He was referring to the years in which they were supposed to be in contention. In response to the question of which years there had a been an off-season buzz about the team. Surely you would agree that definitely 2001 and for the most part 2002 had that kind of buzz.

Dougs is right about what I meant.

'01, we were supposed to have been put over the top by the David Wells trade. 02, Todd Ritchie was supposed to have been the last piece of the puzzle, considering their strong finish. '03, Colon came to the Sox, and that was supposed to put us over.

I assume '95 had high expectations considering the Sox would have arguably gone to, and won the world series in '94.

guillen4life13
02-07-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
"Rebuild" - I HATE THAT WORD!!! This team is in a perpetual vicious circle of rebuilding with the occasional playoff bomb.

Don't rebuild, JUST BUILD! :angry:

For Baby Fisk's sake, how about they just trade away many of the players on this team (high salaried players) and get as much as possible in return for them (preferably prospects/young players with high ceilings. Once they make those moves, develop the players they get. Call up Borchard and Reed, so that hopefully the lineup could be something like this:

2B Harris
CF Rowand
DH Thomas (I think we should keep him for now)
RF Reed
LF Borchard
3B Crede
1B ?
C Olivo
SS Uribe


Hopefully with some development, and the eventual retirement of Frank, we can get someone to fill 1B, and DH, and then we could hopefully be set. Key Word: Hopefully.

Try and get as many prospects as possible in case some don't pan out, and also for use as trade bait to get even younger prospects.

The ideal situation (other than the obvious one the Yank's and BoSox are in, with high payrolls) would be to have an organization with a deep, deep farm system (like Oakland) so that we can solve player departure problems without giving up much.

I really see no other alternative, since we all know JR and EE aren't selling any time soon.