PDA

View Full Version : Verducci's offseason assessment


hold2dibber
02-04-2004, 05:34 PM
Tom Verducci (who is, IMHO, a moron) says the Sox had the 2nd worst offseason (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/tom_verducci/02/03/insider_offseason/index.html) in baseball this year (excluding the Brewers, Pirates and somebody else, who he says aren't even trying so aren't considered).

carusochop
02-04-2004, 05:36 PM
The Braves have done quite well at not filling holes. The Rockies filled their rotation with Shawn Estes and Jeff Fassero. The Twins traded away Eric Milton and A.J. Piersynski. It is important to remember, that activity does not always equal productivity.

depy48
02-04-2004, 05:36 PM
I read that, i think its a joke. The sox's offseason hasnt been horrible. They loss a few big names (Colon, Everett) but overall the sox did gain a lot of names. For better or worse.

hold2dibber
02-04-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by depy48
I read that, i think its a joke. The sox's offseason hasnt been horrible. They loss a few big names (Colon, Everett) but overall the sox did gain a lot of names. For better or worse.

Come on. The Sox lost a lot more talent (from an 86 win team) than they gained.

LOST: Colon, Everett, Alomar, Graffinino, Daubach, Gordon, Sullivan, Miles

GAINED: Bernard, Mr. Zero, Politte, Uribe, Person, Grilli, ????

It's not even close.

beckett21
02-04-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Come on. The Sox lost a lot more talent (from an 86 win team) than they gained.

LOST: Colon, Everett, Alomar, Graffinino, Daubach, Gordon, Sullivan, Miles

GAINED: Bernard, Mr. Zero, Politte, Uribe, Person, Grilli, ????

It's not even close.

Dibber,

You really hit the nail on the head. I don't understand how some people refuse to see this. :?:

It's not like we were world-beaters last year, and at this point we have regressed as evidenced by your post. :(:

RichFitztightly
02-04-2004, 11:33 PM
What it really boils down to, is not who they lost, but who among the returning players are going to have a good year. I'm of the opinion that the returners are going to be better than last year, therefore making this team stronger than last year's team. The only hole in my arguement is losing Colon. He's probably the one piece that could neutralize any other improvements.

jeremyb1
02-05-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Come on. The Sox lost a lot more talent (from an 86 win team) than they gained.

LOST: Colon, Everett, Alomar, Graffinino, Daubach, Gordon, Sullivan, Miles

GAINED: Bernard, Mr. Zero, Politte, Uribe, Person, Grilli, ????

It's not even close.

I think that's a simplistic way of evaluating a teams moves though. You have to evaluate what the club did within their means. Anything else isn't an issue of personel moves its an issue of of increasing, decreasing, or maintaining payroll. In our case we had a lot of player who stood to make big raises so the only way to have a good offseason was for JR to raise payroll. I don't feel that's the basis our offseason should be evaluated on. Personally, I don't want to sit around all day and discuss owner's willingness to spend money. It makes more sense to me to rank offseason moves in terms of the GM within his imposed budget.

beckett21
02-05-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
What it really boils down to, is not who they lost, but who among the returning players are going to have a good year. I'm of the opinion that the returners are going to be better than last year, therefore making this team stronger than last year's team. The only hole in my arguement is losing Colon. He's probably the one piece that could neutralize any other improvements.

The whole pitching staff is questionable. The position players may all equal or improve their output, but is Loaiza gonna win 21 games again? What about the bullpen?

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the hitters, but more will be asked of all of the pitchers now. Loaiza will be facing tougher competition by moving up in the rotation, and save last year his career has been a roller coaster. Can't discount the lack of pitching. That is what we need to shore up. We don't have enough. Colon is a BIG hole, literally and figuratively.

poorme
02-05-2004, 11:24 AM
I don't give a squat how well we did "within our means."

RichFitztightly
02-05-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
The whole pitching staff is questionable. The position players may all equal or improve their output, but is Loaiza gonna win 21 games again? What about the bullpen?

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the hitters, but more will be asked of all of the pitchers now. Loaiza will be facing tougher competition by moving up in the rotation, and save last year his career has been a roller coaster. Can't discount the lack of pitching. That is what we need to shore up. We don't have enough. Colon is a BIG hole, literally and figuratively.

I totally agree that the whole pitching staff is questionable. Will Loazia win 21 games again? Probably not, but who knows. I'm expecting 15 wins and hoping for 18-20. Same for Beurhle. The rest of the rotation is a huge question mark. Granted I only have one manager to base the following assessment on, but Garland seems to be an environmental player, meaning: he takes on the personality of his environment. Manuel was such a softie personality-wise that I think it rubbed off on Jonny Boy. He could fill the hole left by Colon. This is what I'm hoping for.

I think the hitters will be fine. They all seem to be healthy this year, and fairly certain of their standing. This line-up isn't as feared as past line-ups and I think that works to their advantage. Harris certainly won't try to hit homeruns and he had a .400 average in the minors, that's pretty good. Rowand most likely will pick and choose where he tries to hit homers. Uribe s'posedly will stop trying to hit homers. Olivo... well I don't really know what his philosophy is at the plate, but as long as he handles the pitchers well, it doesn't matter. Lee is a great clutch hitter that gets RBI's when they're needed. Thomas and Mags are great hitters. My contention is that Konerko will be better, however, I'd love to see him get traded for a decent pitcher. He's a terrible curve ball hitter. Give him a fastball, he'll take it to the Dan Ryan. He should be called the South Side Cerrano (In honor of the voodoo guy from Major League)

I believe the bullpen has as many question marks as any other team. Marte is obviously solid. Wunch isn't recovering from injury like last year. We know Danny Wrong can pitch well in long relief, assuming he isn't given a starting role by default. Mr. Zero-san most assuredly will be better than Rick White. Koch can't possibly be as bad as he was last year. I'm counting that as a certain spot for improvment. Politte, who knows. Any minor leaguers brought up... I'm certain one or two will be servicable.

So in summary, are there quesion marks?... Certainly. My point is that these question marks can very easily turn out positive. I think they're more likely to be positive than negative. This conclusion is based solely on opinion.

Here's hoping I'm right :gulp: Cheers Mate!!!

SoxxoS
02-05-2004, 12:06 PM
Let's PLEASE not forget the "Jerry Manuel factor" has been taken away. That is HUGE.

Baby Fisk
02-05-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Let's PLEASE not forget the "Jerry Manuel factor" has been taken away. That is HUGE.
...too bad it's been replaced by the Simpsons' Bumble-Bee Man on speed...

hold2dibber
02-05-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think that's a simplistic way of evaluating a teams moves though. You have to evaluate what the club did within their means. Anything else isn't an issue of personel moves its an issue of of increasing, decreasing, or maintaining payroll. In our case we had a lot of player who stood to make big raises so the only way to have a good offseason was for JR to raise payroll. I don't feel that's the basis our offseason should be evaluated on. Personally, I don't want to sit around all day and discuss owner's willingness to spend money. It makes more sense to me to rank offseason moves in terms of the GM within his imposed budget.

Why do you have to evaluate what the club did within their means? It's not like the standings at the end of the year are based on wins-per-dollar spent. Perhaps when you evaluate KW's individual job performance you have to take into account the means to which he had access. But when you ask the simple question "who got better and who got worse" during the offseason, the issue of means/budget/payroll aren't part of the discussion. You cannot reasonably argue that the Sox gained more talent than they lost this off season. I'm not saying whose fault that is (although according to JR, it apparently is the fans' fault), but that's the fact. Ranking offseason moves in terms of the GM within his imposed budgets might tell you a lot about the quality of the various GMs, but it doesn't tell you much about the quality of the various teams on the field heading into '04.

jeremyb1
02-05-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
The whole pitching staff is questionable. The position players may all equal or improve their output, but is Loaiza gonna win 21 games again? What about the bullpen?

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the hitters, but more will be asked of all of the pitchers now. Loaiza will be facing tougher competition by moving up in the rotation, and save last year his career has been a roller coaster. Can't discount the lack of pitching. That is what we need to shore up. We don't have enough. Colon is a BIG hole, literally and figuratively.

I disagree. The top of our rotation is solid. Loaiza can fall a great deal off of last season's pace and still be one of the five best pitchers in the league. His peripheral numbers had great improvement so that suggests he wasn't winning with smoke and mirrors, he was striking out a ton of guys with great control. Buehrle is going to at least be above average and Garland is quite solid for a number three starter. He won't best the Kevin Brown or Derek Lowe but the number three starters in our division are Jason Johnson, Cliff Lee, Kyle Lohse, and Kevin Appier.

The pen is not in bad shape at this point. Wunsch and Marte mean that we don't have questions from the left side. Politte is a good middle reliever at worst and possibly a good setup man. Takatsu is a question mark but I'm not expecting him to fall flat on his face. Koch might not rebound but he'll improve because it'd be nearly impossible not to.

Lip Man 1
02-05-2004, 12:53 PM
Well let's compare player for player, position for position.....

Sandy Alomar Jr. --- re-signed---no change
Jose Valentin--- re-signed --- no change
Tony Graffinino --- Juan Uribe --- downgrade
Carl Everett --- Aaron Rowand --- downgrade
Scott Sullivan --- Cliff Politte --- no change (maybe)
Roberto Alomar --- Willie Harris --- downgrade
Tom Gordon --- Shingo Takane --- no change (maybe)
Bartolo Colon --- Rauch/Cotts/Moe/Larry/Curly--- downgrade

AND I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Takane and Politte. It's certainly possible that they'll beworse then Gordon and Sullivan.

Is the above example simplistic enough for you?????

Lip

SoxxoS
02-05-2004, 12:56 PM
Playing with passion and having fun can more than make up for the talent lost. I am not saying we don't need some players to really step up (Garland, Crede, Harris, Rowand/Reed/Borchard) but watching last years corpseball was painful.

The way I look at it, we had all this "talent" last year, and we didn't win anything. So this may be a welcome change even if we replaced some of those highly talented players with "grinders."

voodoochile
02-05-2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Playing with passion and having fun can more than make up for the talent lost. I am not saying we don't need some players to really step up (Garland, Crede, Harris, Rowand/Reed/Borchard) but watching last years corpseball was painful.

The way I look at it, we had all this "talent" last year, and we didn't win anything. So this may be a welcome change even if we replaced some of those highly talented players with "grinders."

Then why didn't the Royals beat out the Sox last year for second? They clearly were playing with more passion and having more fun for most of the season. The talent level discrepancy wasn't THAT great betweent the two teams...

That's the first time I've heard "we lost talent, but that may be a good thing" at anytime in my life...

jeremyb1
02-05-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Why do you have to evaluate what the club did within their means? It's not like the standings at the end of the year are based on wins-per-dollar spent. Perhaps when you evaluate KW's individual job performance you have to take into account the means to which he had access. But when you ask the simple question "who got better and who got worse" during the offseason, the issue of means/budget/payroll aren't part of the discussion. You cannot reasonably argue that the Sox gained more talent than they lost this off season. I'm not saying whose fault that is (although according to JR, it apparently is the fans' fault), but that's the fact. Ranking offseason moves in terms of the GM within his imposed budgets might tell you a lot about the quality of the various GMs, but it doesn't tell you much about the quality of the various teams on the field heading into '04.

I guess if your entire goal is too look at which teams improved the most then that's the most effective way to do it. I just find that somewhat boring. Its obvious to me that since the Angels spent over 30 million dollars signing Colon, Escobar, Guillen, and Vlad they improved more than most any other club. To me its more interesting to see who made the most intelligent moves not just who commited the most resources to adding talent.

hold2dibber
02-05-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Playing with passion and having fun can more than make up for the talent lost. I am not saying we don't need some players to really step up (Garland, Crede, Harris, Rowand/Reed/Borchard) but watching last years corpseball was painful.

The way I look at it, we had all this "talent" last year, and we didn't win anything. So this may be a welcome change even if we replaced some of those highly talented players with "grinders."

Setting aside for a moment the suggestion that losing talent could somehow be a good thing, I'd point out that the guys we lost were not the perpetrators of the corpseball - Gordon, Everett, Graffinino, Colon and Sullivan all seemed to me to play with some passion and desire to win. Frankly, I suspect that one reason some of those guys were so quick to high tail it out of town was because they felt like the guys they left behind don't have the fire or the comraderie necessary to win big. If you ask me, the Sox lost guys who were both talented and were, as much as I hate the term, grinders, too.

voodoochile
02-05-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I guess if your entire goal is too look at which teams improved the most then that's the most effective way to do it. I just find that somewhat boring. Its obvious to me that since the Angels spent over 30 million dollars signing Colon, Escobar, Guillen, and Vlad they improved more than most any other club. To me its more interesting to see who made the most intelligent moves not just who commited the most resources to adding talent.

Which is great from a philosophical perspective, but fails miserably when it comes to generating results on the field...

hold2dibber
02-05-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I guess if your entire goal is too look at which teams improved the most then that's the most effective way to do it. I just find that somewhat boring. Its obvious to me that since the Angels spent over 30 million dollars signing Colon, Escobar, Guillen, and Vlad they improved more than most any other club. To me its more interesting to see who made the most intelligent moves not just who commited the most resources to adding talent.

Certainly a worthwhile exercise and interesting to do, but what really matters to me, at the end of the day, is what happens out on the field. And if Poliitte and Takatsu stink next year while Gordon and Sullivan are lights out, I won't be consoled one bit by the possibility that KW still did a good job considering the cards he was dealt.

jeremyb1
02-05-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Well let's compare player for player, position for position.....

Sandy Alomar Jr. --- re-signed---no change
Jose Valentin--- re-signed --- no change
Tony Graffinino --- Juan Uribe --- downgrade
Carl Everett --- Aaron Rowand --- downgrade
Scott Sullivan --- Cliff Politte --- no change (maybe)
Roberto Alomar --- Willie Harris --- downgrade
Tom Gordon --- Shingo Takane --- no change (maybe)
Bartolo Colon --- Rauch/Cotts/Moe/Larry/Curly--- downgrade

AND I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Takane and Politte. It's certainly possible that they'll beworse then Gordon and Sullivan.

Is the above example simplistic enough for you?????

1. I don't know where you would've gotten the impression that anyone is arguing in this thread we have as much talent as last season or that our chances of winning are as good or better than last season.

2. Its misleading to compare Sullivan, Alomar, and Everett to their "replacements" when they played less than half a season for us.

3. I'm not sure Willie Harris will have a great season for us but no one seems to realize that Alomar was pretty atrocious for us last season. A .660 OPS is really poor and while his defense isn't bad he's certainly lost a step since his glory days. Its not unfeasible to me that Harris could match Alomar's production. Personally I'm much more dissapointed with losing Jimenez than Alomar.

4. As last season demonstrated, a team's talent is often not reflected in its win total. Sometimes good players have diasterous seasons (Koch and Konerko) players have great seasons out of nowhere (Loaiza). Also, sometimes teams that play well for the most part catch bad breaks and lose a lot of close games (last season, '02) while sometimes teams get lucky and win more games than they deserve to ('00). The point is, if a team has a reasonable chance of contending which we certainly do in our division, the playoffs are not out of the question.

jeremyb1
02-05-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Certainly a worthwhile exercise and interesting to do, but what really matters to me, at the end of the day, is what happens out on the field. And if Poliitte and Takatsu stink next year while Gordon and Sullivan are lights out, I won't be consoled one bit by the possibility that KW still did a good job considering the cards he was dealt.

That's certainly true. I'm not saying the players we lost or that other teams gained are unimportant, they're incredibly important. I'm just saying that personally, its pretty clear to me what teams improved and what teams lost key players and I don't need Verducci or anyone else to explain to me that losing Gordon, Colon, and company will hurt.

Hullett_Fan
02-05-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Then why didn't the Royals beat out the Sox last year for second? They clearly were playing with more passion and having more fun for most of the season. The talent level discrepancy wasn't THAT great betweent the two teams...


Hit the nail on the head. Sox have had the most talent of any team in the division in the last 3 seasons but lost because they didn't give a #%@& and played like zombies.

I'm going to hold off on saying the 2004 team has a shot to win this division based on passion...considering we lost talent...and the team that remains is made up of the same passionless guys we've had in the lineup the past 3 seasons.

hold2dibber
02-05-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
That's certainly true. I'm not saying the players we lost or that other teams gained are unimportant, they're incredibly important. I'm just saying that personally, its pretty clear to me what teams improved and what teams lost key players and I don't need Verducci or anyone else to explain to me that losing Gordon, Colon, and company will hurt.

Well said.

SoxxoS
02-05-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Then why didn't the Royals beat out the Sox last year for second? They clearly were playing with more passion and having more fun for most of the season. The talent level discrepancy wasn't THAT great betweent the two teams...

That's the first time I've heard "we lost talent, but that may be a good thing" at anytime in my life...

I disagree wholeheartedly on your first point. Just look at the two pitching staffs, and you can't possibly say that the Sox didn't have an HUGE advantage there. The Royals pitcher with the highest win total...Darrell May...won 10 games. 10!
The Royals whole season was a success (based on preseason and Royal expectations) b/c they played with passion and they we're having fun. Pena had them playing hard every game.

No, it wasn't the first time that you've heard "we lost talent, but that may be a good thing" because I never posted that. I said that passion and fun can possibly "make up for the talent lost." It is possible Ozzie Guillen can provide a spark and have the team playing with passion and having fun. More like the 2000 Sox, and less like the last 3 years. The team playing corpseball last year, a direct correlation with Manuel, cost us too many games last year. I am saying that Ozzie could possibly "win" us those lost games.

RichFitztightly
02-05-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1


4. As last season demonstrated, a team's talent is often not reflected in its win total. Sometimes good players have diasterous seasons (Koch and Konerko) players have great seasons out of nowhere (Loaiza). Also, sometimes teams that play well for the most part catch bad breaks and lose a lot of close games (last season, '02) while sometimes teams get lucky and win more games than they deserve to ('00). The point is, if a team has a reasonable chance of contending which we certainly do in our division, the playoffs are not out of the question.

There's a distinct difference between being an intimidating team and actually winning . One concept is a philosophical debate and one concept is a bottom-line done deal. Needless to say I agree with you.

Originally posted by Hullett_Fan


I'm going to hold off on saying the 2004 team has a shot to win this division based on passion...considering we lost talent...and the team that remains is made up of the same passionless guys we've had in the lineup the past 3 seasons.

You say passionless... I say easily coachable. And considering the coach the past few years...