PDA

View Full Version : Bruce Levine on ESPN radio last night


bennyw41
12-31-2003, 09:00 AM
I heard Bruce on ESPN last night. Usually he puts in a good word about the sox looking at some players, but this was not the case. He said if he was a die-hard sox fan, he'd hope for a mass trade and hope for a decent team in 1 to 2 years. He said he talked to KW and the sox are still 4 mill over their cap, and he has no immediate negotiations and he might have to do some "bottom-feeding".


Depressing.

Grobber33
12-31-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by bennyw41
I heard Bruce on ESPN last night. Usually he puts in a good word about the sox looking at some players, but this was not the case. He said if he was a die-hard sox fan, he'd hope for a mass trade and hope for a decent team in 1 to 2 years. He said he talked to KW and the sox are still 4 mill over their cap, and he has no immediate negotiations and he might have to do some "bottom-feeding".


Depressing.

I sat next to Bruce last night at the UIC-Illini game and he told me pretty much the same, and as things are now(which COULD always change)Maggs may not be dealt since the Sox cant get decent value for him. Also,watch to see if Vlad is signed by LA. If that happens, that would be one less place Ordonez could be traded to. So if you are in the majority that do NOT want Maggs dealt away, then hope Gurerrero goes to LA LA Land.

Brian26
12-31-2003, 10:57 AM
I don't think we're in that bad of shape. We basically have the same group of guys we had at this same time last year, minus Colon. I have a feeling we're going to be just fine.

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
I don't think we're in that bad of shape. We basically have the same group of guys we had at this same time last year, minus Colon. I have a feeling we're going to be just fine.

We have the same group of guys minus the horse of the pitching staff who finished second. Yeah, that's reason for optimism. Now I have this Yugo I'd like to sell you....

TheRockinMT
12-31-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
I don't think we're in that bad of shape. We basically have the same group of guys we had at this same time last year, minus Colon. I have a feeling we're going to be just fine.


I think you are right. We all would like to see improvement, but simply making a big trade to get rid of salary isn't the answer. Value for value is the bootm line and we aren't seeing any reports that we can get value for Maggs. I hope we keep our main group in place and see some development from youngsters. Harris replaces Jimenez at 2B and Rowand in CF with pretty much everyone else the same. Pitching is where we will see the most new faces and we can only hope that Koch is healthy and steps up and we have someone to replace Gordon and Colon. Big maybe there I know, but I don't see the Sox making any major signings. I know we have talked to Ponson, but I can't believe a pitcher with under a .500 winning % is worth $6M or whatever he is asking for and forget last year and 17 wins. There is no record of winning consistency there yet. Maybe his price will come down and be more reasonable and we can make a run for him.

Brian26
12-31-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
We have the same group of guys minus the horse of the pitching staff who finished second. Yeah, that's reason for optimism. Now I have this Yugo I'd like to sell you....

Yeah, the same group of guys that underachieved for more than half the season last year.

Estaban might disagree with you about who the horse of the staff was last year, but, yes, Bartolo is gone. I stated that. Obviously's it's a hole to fill, but I don't think it means we have to abandon the franchise. It's time to see if Rauch, Cotts, Schow or another E-Lo 2k3 is ready to fill the void.

The core of the team is still here, and we're going to be fine.

hold2dibber
12-31-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
I don't think we're in that bad of shape. We basically have the same group of guys we had at this same time last year, minus Colon. I have a feeling we're going to be just fine.

The Sox won 84 (83? 85?) games last year. Since that time, they have lost:

(1) Their second best starter;
(2) Their closer;
(3) Their best right handed set-up man;
(4) Their starting second baseman;
(5) Their starting centerfielder; and
(6) Their best utility player.

They have at least three guys in their line-up (Rowand, Harris, and Olivo) who have not shown they can hit major league pitching (and in my opinion, Rowand and Harris won't ever show otherwise). And two of those three (Rowand and Harris) have not shown themselves to be adequate defensively, either. They have two completely unproven guys in the rotation (two among Wright, Schoenweiss, Rauch, Cotts, Pachecho (sp?)). They don't have a lead-off hitter. Konerko was the worst hitting regular first baseman in all of baseball last year. And as they proved last year, the team collectively lacks stones. And they hired a talk first/think later manager who is sure to create all kinds of unnecessary distractions and controversies with his big mouth. Not to mention his stated preference for fast guys who can bunt and play the game "the right way" regardless of whether they're actually any good.

So if "just fine" means "less than .500" I agree with you. Otherwise, this team is a mess.

fledgedrallycap
12-31-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
The Sox won 84 (83? 85?) games last year. Since that time, they have lost:



Their Manager.... :smile:

hold2dibber
12-31-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
Their Manager.... :smile:

A good move, no doubt. But I'm far from convinced that the new manager will be any better (different for sure, but better ...?)

anewman35
12-31-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
The Sox won 84 (83? 85?) games last year. Since that time, they have lost:

(1) Their second best starter;
(2) Their closer;
(3) Their best right handed set-up man;
(4) Their starting second baseman;
(5) Their starting centerfielder; and
(6) Their best utility player.


True. But 3, 4, and 5 weren't around for the vast majority of those 84 wins, and we did pretty well without them.

[B]Konerko was the worst hitting regular first baseman in all of baseball last year.

Right. But don't you think it's likely (or at least possible) that he won't be as bad this year? It was probably the worst season of his life, I think he'll bounce back to at least be somewhat productive.

KingXerxes
12-31-2003, 11:39 AM
Okay - You lose Colon because he's asking for too much money - no problem. But with him you lose over 240 innings pitched (and something like 9 or 10 complete games). This is fine if you've got a pitching staff ready to absorb the loss of this guy - but it doesn't look like the White Sox are that kind of staff.

Loaiza pitched a career high 226 innings last year, can't reasonably expect too much more there.

Buehrle pitched his usual 230 innings, more of the same next year.

Garland threw almost 200 innings himself, so maybe - maybe - you pick up a little bit there.

Throw Wright out of rotation (and his 90 innings or so) and you are left with two holes to fill and about 325 - 350 innings which you'll reasonably need out of those two starters in order not to overheat your bullpen by late May.

To sit there and hope that a couple of unproven rookies will do it for you is not realistic - they need to go out and obtain one or two starters to plug this gap.

joecrede
12-31-2003, 11:54 AM
The way the roster is right now if the Sox are wise enough to allow Reed the opportunity to win the CF job in spring training they should be able to put together a decent offensive team. Konerko bouncing back to be a somewhat below average first baseman would help too.

Reed CF
Lee LF
Ordonez RF
Thomas 1B
Valentin SS
Crede 3B
Konerko DH
Olivo C
Harris 2B

Reed/Harris/return-to-norm-Konerko could be an upgrade over Everret/Alomar/really-bad-Konerko.

Iwritecode
12-31-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
True. But 3, 4, and 5 weren't around for the vast majority of those 84 wins, and we did pretty well without them.

Actually, #3 was Gordon who was there all season long.

On July 2nd when the Sox aquired Carl and Robbie, the team got back to .500 for the first time since May 15 when they were 20 - 20. At one point in time they were 8 games under .500. The team needed a major boost at that time and finally got it. What to we have to look forward to without those two guys AND one less starting pitcher?

Originally posted by anewman35
Right. But don't you think it's likely (or at least possible) that he won't be as bad this year? It was probably the worst season of his life, I think he'll bounce back to at least be somewhat productive.

I sure hope so. He sure can't get much worse...

anewman35
12-31-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, #3 was Gordon who was there all season long.

On July 2nd when the Sox aquired Carl and Robbie, the team got back to .500 for the first time since May 15 when they were 20 - 20. At one point in time they were 8 games under .500. The team needed a major boost at that time and finally got it. What to we have to look forward to without those two guys AND one less starting pitcher?


The list had:

(2) Their closer;
(3) Their best right handed set-up man

If 3 is Gordon, what closer are you claiming we're losing?

Anyway, the Sox were basically a .500 team without Carl and Robbie and Sullivan, right? (and they should have been a lot better, they underachived). That means afterwards, they were a slighty better than .500 team. Not a huge difference.

If the 2004 team can be .500 again in the first half, which I think is quite reasonable, I don't see why Kenny wouldn't try to make some simliar moves to improve the team for the stretch run again.

And of course, the new manager. Yes, he could suck. Or, he could be the manager of the year. We won't know until we try, will we?

Foulke You
12-31-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
To sit there and hope that a couple of unproven rookies will do it for you is not realistic - they need to go out and obtain one or two starters to plug this gap.

For sure, those open #4 and #5 rotation spots are the key to at least being competitive next year. More than likely, you can pencil Scott Schoeneweis's name into the #5 spot. Below are his stats from his last three seasons he was a starter. Surprisingly, Scott actually posted quite a few innings in 2000 and 2001:

2000 7W-10L 5.45 E.R.A. 170.0 I.P. 67BB 78K
2001 10W-11L 5.08 E.R.A. 205.1 I.P. 77BB 104K
2002 9W-8L 4.88 E.R.A. 118.0 I.P. 49BB 65K

If we could coax a season like 2001 out of Schoeneweis (200+ Innings Pitched, 10 Wins) it could go along way to eating the innings gap left by Bartolo Colon's departure assuming we get a decent #4 guy as well. Considering we only got 3 wins out of the #5 spot in 2003, a decent #4 with Schoeneweis in the #5 spot should (in theory) be able to duplicate the 15 wins, 242 I.P. that we got from Bartolo. Cory Lidle would have fit nicely in the #4 spot but alas, $2.7 million for a free agent pitcher is too rich for our blood.

hold2dibber
12-31-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
For sure, those open #4 and #5 rotation spots are the key to at least being competitive next year. More than likely, you can pencil Scott Schoeneweis's name into the #5 spot. Below are his stats from his last three seasons he was a starter. Surprisingly, Scott actually posted quite a few innings in 2000 and 2001:

2000 7W-10L 5.45 E.R.A. 170.0 I.P. 67BB 78K
2001 10W-11L 5.08 E.R.A. 205.1 I.P. 77BB 104K
2002 9W-8L 4.88 E.R.A. 118.0 I.P. 49BB 65K

If we could coax a season like 2001 out of Schoeneweis (200+ Innings Pitched, 10 Wins) it could go along way to eating the innings gap left by Bartolo Colon's departure assuming we get a decent #4 guy as well. Considering we only got 3 wins out of the #5 spot in 2003, a decent #4 with Schoeneweis in the #5 spot should (in theory) be able to duplicate the 15 wins, 242 I.P. that we got from Bartolo. Cory Lidle would have fit nicely in the #4 spot but alas, $2.7 million for a free agent pitcher is too rich for our blood.

Great post. Those Schoenweiss numbers surprised me and make me feel a lot better about having him as the no. 5 starter. Obviously you'd rather have a true stud in the no. 5 hole, but that's no realistic for anyone but the Yankees. The one thing I disagree with is that I think the Sox need a no. 3 starter still (not just a no. 4). I know this is probably splitting hairs, but Garland has not yet shown me that he's a no. 3 guy. They need someone better than him if the rotation is going to be sufficient to win the division (and even with that, I'm assuming that Loaiza will be at least somewhat close to last year's form (e.g., 200 IP, ERA under 4.00) and that Buehrle does not continue to regress).

Iwritecode
12-31-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
The list had:

(2) Their closer;
(3) Their best right handed set-up man

If 3 is Gordon, what closer are you claiming we're losing?

Anyway, the Sox were basically a .500 team without Carl and Robbie and Sullivan, right? (and they should have been a lot better, they underachived). That means afterwards, they were a slighty better than .500 team. Not a huge difference.

If the 2004 team can be .500 again in the first half, which I think is quite reasonable, I don't see why Kenny wouldn't try to make some simliar moves to improve the team for the stretch run again.

And of course, the new manager. Yes, he could suck. Or, he could be the manager of the year. We won't know until we try, will we?

Oh crap, I forgot about Sully. Sorry bout that.

Anyway, the point still remains that they were a .500 team with 4 solid starters and a solid closer. What are they going to be with 3 solid starters and a closer who may or may not return to form?

I think the loss of Colon is going to hurt more than you think...

voodoochile
12-31-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
True. But 3, 4, and 5 weren't around for the vast majority of those 84 wins, and we did pretty well without them.

You need to go back and look at the splits. How many games did the Sox win after they acquired them? I would bet it is "the vast majority of their wins" just based on when the trades went down.

anewman35
12-31-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Anyway, the point still remains that they were a .500 team with 4 solid starters and a solid closer. What are they going to be with 3 solid starters and a closer who may or may not return to form?

I think the loss of Colon is going to hurt more than you think...

Well, Gordon wasn't even the closer for a lot of that time - he didn't get his first save until June 16th, and Koch still got a few after that. Gordon didn't get his second until July 12th. So, basically, we were a .500 team when we had Koch closing .

Colon leaving is going to hurt us, we might lose a few more games because of it. I'm hopeful that between Ozzie, Paulie, Koch, and the 5th starter, we can pick a couple up, which might be enough to win it. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. Is it a disaster? No, I think it could be a lot worse.

soxtalker
12-31-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The way the roster is right now if the Sox are wise enough to allow Reed the opportunity to win the CF job in spring training they should be able to put together a decent offensive team. Konerko bouncing back to be a somewhat below average first baseman would help too.

Reed CF
Lee LF
Ordonez RF
Thomas 1B
Valentin SS
Crede 3B
Konerko DH
Olivo C
Harris 2B

Reed/Harris/return-to-norm-Konerko could be an upgrade over Everret/Alomar/really-bad-Konerko.

I'm not sure how "wise" that would be. Tempting, yes -- particularly the way Reed has moved up so quickly in the minors. But there is some learning to be done in the minors -- both on hitting (adjusting to different pitchers as they adjust to you) and defense. I still remember a SS not too many years ago who we brought up too fast. He had a good first year and then tanked.

I know that the majority of posters on this board (or at least the most vocal) say that we should just focus on winning now. But I've been following this team for a long time (over 40 years), and I intend to do so for many years to come. I want to see a winner, but I also think that it is important to teach a promising young player like Reed, so that he can help produce a winner down the road.

CubKilla
12-31-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Garland threw almost 200 innings himself, so maybe - maybe - you pick up a little bit there.

I think Garland may be the biggest benefactor of JM's firing. I'd expect JG, barring injury, to have a career high in innings pitched in '04 because I don't think Ozzie will give JG the hook as early and, at times, at so many inopportune times. The fact that JG is the number 3 with, as of right now, Schoenweiss and an unnamed #5 as his follow-up SP's will probably force Guillen to stay with JG because I have a feeling the BP will earn their pay when the Sox throw their #'s 4 and 5 at the opposition.

anewman35
12-31-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You need to go back and look at the splits. How many games did the Sox win after they acquired them? I would bet it is "the vast majority of their wins" just based on when the trades went down.

Sox record by month:

March 0 1 0.000
April 14 12 0.538
May 11 16 0.407
June 15 13 0.536
July 17 9 0.654
August 16 13 0.552
September 13 12 0.520

The Sox basically had one really good month and one really bad month. Is the fact that the one really good month was the month we got those players? That's for you to decide.

(For comparision, Minnesota had 3 pretty bad months and 3 really really good months. Whatever works, I guess).

(Check out http://www.baseball-reference.com for all these kinds of stats)

Iwritecode
12-31-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You need to go back and look at the splits. How many games did the Sox win after they acquired them? I would bet it is "the vast majority of their wins" just based on when the trades went down.

Actually they managed 41 wins without them. Had they been traded even one day later it might have been split evenly at 42...

voodoochile
12-31-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Sox record by month:

March 0 1 0.000
April 14 12 0.538
May 11 16 0.407
June 15 13 0.536
July 17 9 0.654
August 16 13 0.552
September 13 12 0.520

The Sox basically had one really good month and one really bad month. Is the fact that the one really good month was the month we got those players? That's for you to decide.

(For comparision, Minnesota had 3 pretty bad months and 3 really really good months. Whatever works, I guess).

(Check out http://www.baseball-reference.com for all these kinds of stats)

Thanks for proving my point. Before the trades, the Sox were 2 games under .500. After they finished above .500 every month and were 12 games over cumulatively. Not only that, before they won a total of 40 games and after they won 46.

voodoochile
12-31-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually they managed 41 wins without them. Had they been traded even one day later it might have been split evenly at 42...

Well the Sox won 86 games last year and were over .500 each of the last 3 months.

joecrede
12-31-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
I'm not sure how "wise" that would be. Tempting, yes -- particularly the way Reed has moved up so quickly in the minors. But there is some learning to be done in the minors -- both on hitting (adjusting to different pitchers as they adjust to you) and defense. I still remember a SS not too many years ago who we brought up too fast. He had a good first year and then tanked.

I know that the majority of posters on this board (or at least the most vocal) say that we should just focus on winning now. But I've been following this team for a long time (over 40 years), and I intend to do so for many years to come. I want to see a winner, but I also think that it is important to teach a promising young player like Reed, so that he can help produce a winner down the road.

When to bring up a player from the minors is more an art than a science and your point about Caruso is well taken. Reed though is a college player and I submit that when you hit .400+ in over 200 AA AB's there isn't much he has left to learn in the minors.

The Sox decision to leave Frank Thomas in the minors until August of 1990 because he wasn't ready defensively might have cost them a division title.

Iwritecode
12-31-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well the Sox won 86 games last year and were over .500 each of the last 3 months.

Why was I thinking they only won 84 last year? :?:

So 41 wins without them and 45 with. A small improvement but an improvement nonetheless.

So next year we should expect about 82 wins or so unless KW manages to make a major move or two at some point in time...

Lip Man 1
12-31-2003, 01:04 PM
Soxtalker brings up an interesting point when he says:

But I also think that it is important to teach a promising young player like Reed, so that he can help produce a winner down the road .

He's right.....the only problem is that as soon as Reed wants to be paid accordingly if he becomes a very good player he'll be "helping to produce a winner" in New York, on the North Side of Chicago, Boston, Anaheim or someplace else that doesn't have a payroll that averages 12 million dollars less then the ML average (at least by 2002 figures)

When you come right down to the nitty gritty that's the main issue isn't it?

Lip

joecrede
12-31-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxtalker brings up an interesting point when he says:

But I also think that it is important to teach a promising young player like Reed, so that he can help produce a winner down the road .

He's right.....the only problem is that as soon as Reed wants to be paid accordingly if he becomes a very good player he'll be "helping to produce a winner" in New York, on the North Side of Chicago, Boston, Anaheim or someplace else that doesn't have a payroll that averages 12 million dollars less then the ML average (at least by 2002 figures)

When you come right down to the nitty gritty that's the main issue isn't it?

Lip

By my research the list of "homegrown" players that the Sox have lost because they didn't pay them is as follows:

McDowell
Fernandez
Alvarez
Ventura
Foulke

Excellent track record (Foulke TBD) on the Sox part in this area.

Foulke You
12-31-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
By my research the list of "homegrown" players that the Sox have lost because they didn't pay them is as follows:

McDowell
Fernandez
Alvarez
Ventura
Foulke

Excellent track record (Foulke TBD) on the Sox part in this area.

You are forgetting the very good Ray Durham (sure would look good at 2B instead of Willie Harris) and you might also be adding either Magglio Ordonez or Carlos Lee to that homegrown list as well. I think we all know Foulke is still a stud closer so you can take the "TBD" off his name and Robin Ventura was in his prime when we let him go. The Sox penny pinching has proven to be a 50/50 gamble when it comes to losing the homegrown guys.

Although, I do agree the Sox have had good luck when it comes to identifying homegrown starting pitchers in their organization that are ready for a downslide. Jason Bere, Wilson Alvarez, Mike Sirotka, and Jim Parque come to mind. Whether this is good scouting by the Sox or just luck is unknown. I think it is a little of both.

DrCrawdad
12-31-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
You are forgetting the very good Ray Durham (sure would look good at 2B instead of Willie Harris) and you might also be adding either Magglio Ordonez or Carlos Lee to that homegrown list as well. I think we all know Foulke is still a stud closer so you can take the "TBD" off his name and Robin Ventura was in his prime when we let him go. The Sox penny pinching has proven to be a 50/50 gamble when it comes to losing the homegrown guys.

Although, I do agree the Sox have had good luck when it comes to identifying homegrown starting pitchers in their organization that are ready for a downslide. Jason Bere, Wilson Alvarez, Mike Sirotka, and Jim Parque come to mind. Whether this is good scouting by the Sox or just luck is unknown. I think it is a little of both.

Proper planning can never replace dumb luck.

The Sox philosophy on not giving pitchers more than 3-year contracts has proved, at least to me, to be a fairly sound philosophy. I've heard critics of the Sox admit that too.

DrCrawdad
12-31-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
I heard Bruce on ESPN last night. Usually he puts in a good word about the sox looking at some players, but this was not the case. He said if he was a die-hard sox fan, he'd hope for a mass trade and hope for a decent team in 1 to 2 years. He said he talked to KW and the sox are still 4 mill over their cap, and he has no immediate negotiations and he might have to do some "bottom-feeding".


Depressing.

http://images.radcity.net/5176/72242.jpg
"I don't have time for the White Sox. I'm busy with my stellar contributions to Cubbie fan mag, VineLine."

hold2dibber
12-31-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Why was I thinking they only won 84 last year? :?:

So 41 wins without them and 45 with. A small improvement but an improvement nonetheless.

So next year we should expect about 82 wins or so unless KW manages to make a major move or two at some point in time...

I'll probably get lambasted for this, but keep in mind that the Sox have Jimenez starting at 2nd last year and he was great for the first month or two. This year they'll have Willie Harris, who won't be nearly as good. The Sox have no lead off hitter.

DrCrawdad
12-31-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I'll probably get lambasted for this, but keep in mind that the Sox have Jimenez starting at 2nd last year and he was great for the first month or two. This year they'll have Willie Harris, who won't be nearly as good. The Sox have no lead off hitter.

I think Wee Willie Harris will be ok to good. Of course I thought the Sox 1970 1st round (6th pick) Lee Edward Richard (Bee Bee) would be good too.
:)

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
By my research the list of "homegrown" players that the Sox have lost because they didn't pay them is as follows:

McDowell
Fernandez
Alvarez
Ventura
Foulke

Excellent track record (Foulke TBD) on the Sox part in this area.

Foulke came from the Giants organization as part of the White Flag Trade (tm). I hardly consider him to be "home grown."

joecrede
12-31-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
You are forgetting the very good Ray Durham (sure would look good at 2B instead of Willie Harris) and you might also be adding either Magglio Ordonez or Carlos Lee to that homegrown list as well. I think we all know Foulke is still a stud closer so you can take the "TBD" off his name and Robin Ventura was in his prime when we let him go. The Sox penny pinching has proven to be a 50/50 gamble when it comes to losing the homegrown guys.

I forgot about Durham, thanks.

Ventura was at the peak of his career not in the prime. Aside from Foulke which is still TBD, the Sox got the best years out of the careers of the players they've let go.

I totally agree with the "let another team pay for a player's declining years" philosophy that the Sox have successfully employed.

cornball
12-31-2003, 03:08 PM
If your not trying to win the WS, then your rebuilding. Face it, we are rebuilding.

The Sox are not even making an effort to win a weak division. they might back into a division title, but I doubt it at this point.

This team will be much worse than last years team, unless drastic moves are made. IMHO

kempsted
12-31-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I'll probably get lambasted for this, but keep in mind that the Sox have Jimenez starting at 2nd last year and he was great for the first month or two. This year they'll have Willie Harris, who won't be nearly as good. The Sox have no lead off hitter.

You know it is funny on the O's fan sites they still lament giving up Willie Harris and wish they hadn't traded him.

The grass is always greener ...

voodoochile
12-31-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I forgot about Durham, thanks.

Ventura was at the peak of his career not in the prime. Aside from Foulke which is still TBD, the Sox got the best years out of the careers of the players they've let go.

I totally agree with the "let another team pay for a player's declining years" philosophy that the Sox have successfully employed.

I don't. What you define as "declining years" include the years just after a player becomes UFA eligible - or when a team has to commit money to keep the player.

Until Crede were you happy with the ragtag group of 3B who manned the position after Ventura was dumped? Now the Sox are in the same boat at 2B after letting Durham go. Alomar was just last years Herbert Perry. A solid if unspectacular and inexpensive stopgap who quickly was let go.

The pitchers they have not retained from their own system haven't come back to hurt them, but they damned well regretted not going after Boomer these past few years and I would bet good money that Bartolo is going to have a few more productive years in front of him.

Yes, I know you want it all to make sense from a dollars and cents standpoint while I don't care. I don't care if the Sox overpay for a need position instead of sending in a rookie or rent-a-rehab. If Loaiza has a solid season do you think the Sox are going to re-sign him? I say, no chance. Other "stopgaps" whom the Sox employed for a single year and who have continued to excel elsewhere include Ellis Burks and Julio Franco. Oh yeah, then there is the whole Haaarold Baines situation. While it worked out okay for the Sox (sort of) it isn't like Haaarold closed up shop and quit producing after he left.

It is ALWAYS about the money with players. NEVER about their stats and what they have done/can do for the team. Maybe the Sox have had some luck in terms of salary that way but it sure hasn't won them any titles.

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by cornball
If your not trying to win the WS, then your rebuilding. Face it, we are rebuilding.

The Sox are not even making an effort to win a weak division. they might back into a division title, but I doubt it at this point.

This team will be much worse than last years team, unless drastic moves are made. IMHO

I wouldn't call what we're doing rebuilding. Kenny Williams is already something like $5 million over Uncle Jer's self-imposed salary cap. That means dismantling, not rebuilding.

soxtalker
12-31-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
When to bring up a player from the minors is more an art than a science and your point about Caruso is well taken. Reed though is a college player and I submit that when you hit .400+ in over 200 AA AB's there isn't much he has left to learn in the minors.

The Sox decision to leave Frank Thomas in the minors until August of 1990 because he wasn't ready defensively might have cost them a division title.

Well, you may be right. I didn't realize that Reed had college experience, while Caruso did not. And that may be a big factor. I don't know what else the high minors provide, though I suspect that he will get exposure to more advanced pitchers.

I suspect that the Sox will do as they've indicated -- open with him in the minors. If he continues to hit well in the high minors, though, I can't see him staying there for long.

Lip Man 1
12-31-2003, 05:50 PM
Voodoo:

Thank you for articulating very well my point.

With Uncle Jerry and this organization it's all about dollars and sense, about 'winning' the battles off the field with agents and in making sure the organization gets what it wants, from a new tax payer funded ballmall to trying to destroy the players union.

Nothing wrong with that if the Chicago White Sox were simply another business like Joe's hardware store or Crede's construction company (say that five times in a row!) but it isn't...this is a public trust for the city, it's people and the fans.

If Uncle Jerry would throw the fans a bone once every twenty years (i.e. a championship) he'd be amazed by how much slack fans would be willing to cut him but he won't so we don't.

It's always short term 'bottom line' thinking instead of trying to develop a plan for the long term success of the franchise both on and off the field.

I don't know maybe in fact Uncle Jerry is that desperate financially if so I don't understand why he doesn't sell and invest his tremendous profit from the sale.

Lip

Iwritecode
01-02-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I don't know maybe in fact Uncle Jerry is that desperate financially if so I don't understand why he doesn't sell and invest his tremendous profit from the sale.

I've always said that if JR is losing any money at all, he wouldn't have owned the team as long as he has...

Just wanted to put this quote out here also. I was made by fellow WSI member boog_alou on the troll board so I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing it here. It explains how I feel quite well:

I despise owners whose primary motivation is making money off of the team. Most professional sports franchises are not big money makers. Even the profitable ones, for the most part, don't bring in huge profits (with some notable huge market exceptions). I can understand these owners not wanting to lose money, and even wanting to clear a profit. But, personally, I think sports are about something more than money. Correction, sports SHOULD BE about something more than money. I think an owner has a duty to the organization and the fans to try to build a winning team...even a championship team, not just rake in profit.