PDA

View Full Version : Prospects in past trades


DaveIsHere
05-13-2004, 11:18 AM
I was wondering if anyone had any information on any "big" names that were once In our farm system and then were traded away and went on to be productive everyday Major Leaguers, I don't want to end up like th Yankees who really don't have much left down there, which lead to the same question about the yanks, how many of their prospects over fairly recent years have gone on to flourish.

CHISOXFAN13
05-13-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by DaveIsHere
I was wondering if anyone had any information on any "big" names that were once In our farm system and then were traded away and went on to be productive everyday Major Leaguers, I don't want to end up like th Yankees who really don't have much left down there, which lead to the same question about the yanks, how many of their prospects over fairly recent years have gone on to flourish.

The Ynakess have won 27 world championships. It's obviously not hurting them. I'd give anything to end up like the Yankees.

rahulsekhar
05-13-2004, 11:33 AM
The nly name that really comes to mind over the past decade or so is Kip Wells. Most of the remainder of our traded prospects dont' seem to have done a ton. Maybe Chad Bradford could be included.

Which is why IMO, the sometime bashing of KW for draining our minor league system is unwarranted.

Paulwny
05-13-2004, 11:41 AM
Most of all the other mlb teams are King George's farm system.

sas1974
05-13-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Which is why IMO, the sometime bashing of KW for draining our minor league system is unwarranted.

Bashing KW for many of the things he has done is unwarranted since he doesn't have the benefit of making decisions in hindsight, unlike many of us here.

The_Floridian
05-13-2004, 11:53 AM
Say what you will about KW, but so far he's managed to not trade away any prospects who have gone on to be bonafide stars. Kip Wells was about the best one we gave up, and even he's been a little shaky. Although I do think Royce Ring (who we sent to the Mets) could turn out to be a very good pitcher.

KW may not always make the best moves as far as big names are concerned (Wells, Ritchie) but he's also managed to dig us up some gems (Loaiza, Uribe) that he gave up next to nothing for. I'm happy with KW, and if the worst thing we've lost in his tenure is Kip Wells, I can live with that.

DaveIsHere
05-13-2004, 11:56 AM
I wasn't bashin K-Dub, I was just curious to see if any of our guys we gave up ever amounted to anything anyway, It is intersting when you are trading prospects cause the vast majority do not ever get to the ML level anyway so the numbers are on your side if you are trading for a proven player.

Brian26
05-13-2004, 11:56 AM
We got rid of Doug Drabek and he went on to have a nice career, especially in the early nineties. Bobby Bonilla doesn't really count since he saw time on the big club here. Bob Wickman hasn't had a huge career, but he's been steady. I think we had that closer for the Reds who retired a year or two ago...can't think of his name right now.

Iwritecode
05-13-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by DaveIsHere
I was wondering if anyone had any information on any "big" names that were once In our farm system and then were traded away and went on to be productive everyday Major Leaguers, I don't want to end up like th Yankees who really don't have much left down there, which lead to the same question about the yanks, how many of their prospects over fairly recent years have gone on to flourish.

:shammy

Remember me?

You might not because I only weighed 150 lbs. soaking wet with my clothes still on while I was on the south side. It wasn't until I got to the north side that I discovered my "special vitamins".

They have been berry berry good to me...

pjthesox13
05-13-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
:shammy

Remember me?

You might not because I only weighed 150 lbs. soaking wet with my clothes still on while I was on the south side. It wasn't until I got to the north side that I discovered my "special vitamins".

They have been berry berry good to me...

Wasn't he in the Rangers farm system?

Iwritecode
05-13-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by pjthesox13
Wasn't he in the Rangers farm system?

OK, if you want to get technical, yes.

He's the first one that popped into my head that the Sox traded before he became a "superstar" though...

pjthesox13
05-13-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
OK, if you want to get technical, yes.

He's the first one that popped into my head that the Sox traded before he became a "superstar" though...

You are right, though. It does suck to watch someone, especially someone who just goes a couple miles north, and wind up a superstar. Oh well, they can keep him and his nearly 2000 Ks.

owensmouth
05-13-2004, 12:13 PM
For those of us who were around the first time Veeck owned the club, the Roy Sievers trade will long be remembered. We gave up Earl Battey and Don Mincher, two guys who were part of the core of the Minnesota attack for about ten years.

That same year Veeck gave away Norm Cash to the Tigers and John Romano to Cleveland. He gutted the White Sox and got an old power hitter who was gone in a couple years.

Iwritecode
05-13-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by pjthesox13
You are right, though. It does suck to watch someone, especially someone who just goes a couple miles north, and wind up a superstar. Oh well, they can keep him and his nearly 2000 Ks.

Well, the Sox wound up with a better right fielder anyway.

Plus it's not like Shammy has exactly led his team to multiple post-season apperances...

MHOUSE
05-13-2004, 12:19 PM
I actually checked on all the prospects traded last year and only Royce Ring is putting up decent numbers. Kip Wells will keep on being 12-9 with teams like the Pirates. Josh Fogg has gotten shelled so far in 2004 and going back to 2001, Sirotka hasn't pitched since the 2000 season. All told I don't think we've given up too much in the way of guys who are contributing much at the AAA or MLB level.

batmanZoSo
05-13-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by pjthesox13
You are right, though. It does suck to watch someone, especially someone who just goes a couple miles north, and wind up a superstar. Oh well, they can keep him and his nearly 2000 Ks.

I never ever regretted losing Sosa in the slightest way. From 92-97 he was horrible. It was well worth the Bell trade to that point. Even since 98 he hasn't been very good in the clutch. There was only a one year period (98) where it looked like a bad move because Magglio was a year away and Sosa finally became good. But I don't regret anything. They CAN keep him.

Lip Man 1
05-13-2004, 12:33 PM
Just wondering...

Since the results show that the White Sox prospects overall haven't done well as a group even with other MLB teams, what does that say for our scouting system in the first place?

It's a valid question. Why can't the White Sox produce good major league talent. (I'm specifically referring to pitchers as opposed to position players, the Sox have come up with a few of those, namely Ordonez.)

Considering the Sox refuse to spend money or sign pitchers to long term contracts, the inability to produce young pitchers like Oakland, Houston or Seattle would seem to make it very unlikely they will ever win anything of substance don't you think?

They can't produce pitchers and they won't sign them from other teams. So how do you win without pitching???

Lip

poorme
05-13-2004, 12:41 PM
I can't recall a time when we have dealt someone considered a top 2-3 prospect in our system. Wells was, but he had already spent a couple years in the majors.

hold2dibber
05-13-2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I never ever regretted losing Sosa in the slightest way. From 92-97 he was horrible. It was well worth the Bell trade to that point. Even since 98 he hasn't been very good in the clutch. There was only a one year period (98) where it looked like a bad move because Magglio was a year away and Sosa finally became good. But I don't regret anything. They CAN keep him.

I strongly believe that Sosa is an egomaniacal, selfish, phony blowhard. But he also will be a Hall of Famer and deservedly so. There's no rational way you can say that that trade was anything other than a disaster.

Iwritecode
05-13-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just wondering...

Since the results show that the White Sox prospects overall haven't done well as a group even with other MLB teams, what does that say for our scouting system in the first place?

It's a valid question. Why can't the White Sox produce good major league talent. (I'm specifically referring to pitchers as opposed to position players, the Sox have come up with a few of those, namely Ordonez.)

Considering the Sox refuse to spend money or sign pitchers to long term contracts, the inability to produce young pitchers like Oakland, Houston or Seattle would seem to make it very unlikely they will ever win anything of substance don't you think?

They can't produce pitchers and they won't sign them from other teams. So how do you win without pitching???

Lip

To be fair, the Sox have produced a few good pitchers from the farm system like BlackJack, Hernandez and Alveraz(sp?) from the 93-94 teams. They got Foulke before he was well-known and even Baldwin and Sirotka were good at one time.

You can even count getting Loizia and Marte when nobody else wanted them.

The biggest problem is that they haven't gotten enough all at one time. They get a good one here and there but not enough to be dominant like Oakland with their big three or Atlanta of the 90's or even (and it pains me to say this) the Cubs of 03 and maybe 04...

Brian26
05-13-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
To be fair, the Sox have produced a few good pitchers from the farm system like BlackJack, Hernandez and Alveraz(sp?) from the 93-94 teams. They got Foulke before he was well-known and even Baldwin and Sirotka were good at one time.

We got Alvarez from Texas in the Baines trade, and of course Foulke came over in the White Flag Deal (tm). However, you bring up a great point. The Sox HAVE produced homegrown talent. Black Jack, Robin, Frank, and Alex were #1 draft picks from '87 to '90. Those guys were the nucleus of the early 90's White Sox teams that were so good. Not 100% sure, but I think Robo came over as a free agent. He had come off a major illness and the Sox basically picked him up out of the trash pile.

Iwritecode
05-13-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I strongly believe that Sosa is an egomaniacal, selfish, phony blowhard. But he also will be a Hall of Famer and deservedly so. There's no rational way you can say that that trade was anything other than a disaster.

Do you honestly think he would have helped the Sox at any point in time up until they got Magglio?

Besides, once he started putting up the numbers he has, JR would never have paid him so he probably would have left eventually anyway...

habibharu
05-13-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Well, the Sox wound up with a better right fielder anyway.

Plus it's not like Shammy has exactly led his team to multiple post-season apperances... he didnt? the way the scrub fans treat him i thought that he must have lead them to 3 or 4 penants by now!

SoxxoS
05-13-2004, 12:58 PM
One thing the Sox are good at is hyping their prospects up. They are very good at that.

jercha
05-13-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Brian26


We got Alvarez from Texas in the Baines trade, and of course Foulke came over in the White Flag Deal (tm). However, you bring up a great point. The Sox HAVE produced homegrown talent. Black Jack, Robin, Frank, and Alex were #1 draft picks from '87 to '90. Those guys were the nucleus of the early 90's White Sox teams that were so good. Not 100% sure, but I think Robo came over as a free agent. He had come off a major illness and the Sox basically picked him up out of the trash pile.

We also received Sammy Sosa and Scott Fletcher from Baines trade with Texas. Roberto Hernandez was a castaway from Angels with arm troubles. Don't forget Alex Fernandez.

jercha
05-13-2004, 01:08 PM
Interesting aticle about Baines trade to Texas
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-030405sosa500soxdebut,0,5722592.story?coll=cs-cubs-navigation

Brian26
05-13-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by jercha
We also received Sammy Sosa and Scott Fletcher from Baines trade with Texas. Roberto Hernandez was a castaway from Angels with arm troubles. Don't forget Alex Fernandez.

Alex was our #1 pick in 1990. We had Fletcher earlier in the 80's. Can't remember who we traded him for. May have been one of Hawk's deals. Did he come over in the Wayne Tolleson/Dave Schmidt trade with Texas?

mcfish
05-13-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I strongly believe that Sosa is an egomaniacal, selfish, phony blowhard. But he also will be a Hall of Famer and deservedly so. There's no rational way you can say that that trade was anything other than a disaster.

I know it's hard to replace 2000 K's, but I think the Sox strike out enough as it is.

MisterB
05-13-2004, 01:20 PM
Regarding the Yankees portion of the original question, the only prospect that they've given up over the last 10 or so years that have done exceptionally well is Mike Lowell. Other than that there have been a few that are solid major leaguers (Eric Milton, Cristian Guzman and our very own Damaso Marte), and a bunch of marginal guys (Chris Singleton, D'Angelo Jimenez, Mike DeJean)

GoSox2K3
05-13-2004, 01:40 PM
I read the orginal question to mean prospects from the last few years - not Sosa or Bonilla.

Regarding the juiced RF that now plays in the urine-scented tourist attraction up north, we definitely ended up with a better RF in Magglio. But, the trade was a disaster for the Sox in that Corky has turned out to be a pied-piper for the Cubs helping them expand their fan base in Chicago (at the expense of the Sox) and nationwide. The Cubs are so lucky to have Reinsdorf's regime as their local competition. We gave them Harry Caray and Sammy Sosa!

jabrch
05-13-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just wondering...

Since the results show that the White Sox prospects overall haven't done well as a group even with other MLB teams, what does that say for our scouting system in the first place?

It's a valid question. Why can't the White Sox produce good major league talent. (I'm specifically referring to pitchers as opposed to position players, the Sox have come up with a few of those, namely Ordonez.)

Considering the Sox refuse to spend money or sign pitchers to long term contracts, the inability to produce young pitchers like Oakland, Houston or Seattle would seem to make it very unlikely they will ever win anything of substance don't you think?

They can't produce pitchers and they won't sign them from other teams. So how do you win without pitching???

Lip

Lip - despite how miserable we are at obtaining pitching, we still somehow manage to have the 4th best era in the AL and are 1/2 game back of first place in the division. How does something like that happen? The answer is that we developed 2 very good SPs that we have starting now (Buehrle and Garland). We acquired (via trade and FA) two others (Loaiza and Scho). So considering "they can't produce pitchers and they won't sign them from other teams," it seems they are doing a good job, huh?

I know your thing is to always be negative and try and pull the few dark clouds out of the shiny day, but doesn't it ever get old? Would you rather we went out and spent money on signing FA SPs and end up getting older/injured guys that don't help us? I mean, if we would have signed Colon, and spent the money there, that would have been a bad move for us in hindsight. Sure we wouldn't know it, but signing Colon might have been the end to Magglio or Frank - I really don't think things are as bad as you constantly try and paint it out to be.

I know you are a huge Sox fan, and want the best. Sometimes the truth is that we are actually getting the best possible. We don't have an owner who will spend 125mm (or 100 for that matter) but we have manaaged to build a team that many people think is as good this season as anyone out there right now. Sit back and enjoy that for a while!

basilesox
05-13-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
We got Alvarez from Texas in the Baines trade, and of course Foulke came over in the White Flag Deal (tm). However, you bring up a great point. The Sox HAVE produced homegrown talent. Black Jack, Robin, Frank, and Alex were #1 draft picks from '87 to '90. Those guys were the nucleus of the early 90's White Sox teams that were so good. Not 100% sure, but I think Robo came over as a free agent. He had come off a major illness and the Sox basically picked him up out of the trash pile.

Sorry....Who is Robo?

Wanne
05-13-2004, 02:09 PM
The Sox actually drafted Jeff Weaver in the 2nd round of the (I think) 97 draft...for what it's worth.

poorme
05-13-2004, 02:14 PM
I think that was 1st or 1st supplemental. We had a bunch of picks and didn't try to sign him.

Lip Man 1
05-13-2004, 05:13 PM
Jabrch:

Just wondering...

How many championships have the Sox won, oh in the last 44 years?

List me their World Series appearances in the last 44 years?

I wasn't specifically referring to this season but in general. (please try to follow along, I have faith in you!)

As was mentioned the Sox produce one or two every so often but that not near enough to win is it? The Sox refuse to complement those one or two that they get and it always leaves the team dreadfully short. Being short in that department costs them dearly. It did in 1996 and it did in 2003. (I'd be happy to show you the numbers from the Sox 5th starters from those seasons but I'm sure you already know they were miserable...) This year Sox 5th starters are off to an 0-4 start.

So the question remains and you still haven't answered it, only criticized that the question was asked in the first place.

If the Sox are unable or unwilling to put together a solid complete staff from top to bottom how are they expected to win anything of substance? (Oh...I know...LUCK!)

And the folks who brought up McDowell, Fernandez, Hernandez (who was acquired from K.C.) are correct but that was a long time ago wasn't it?

So again the question of what is the problem with our scouting staff, that while teams like Houston, Seattle and Oakland have been able to come up with pitchers, the Sox haven't remains valid as well.. The overwhelming majority of Sox pitching prospects turn out like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton and Aarom Myette.

There has to be a logical reason for this.

See Jabrch I knew you could follow along if you tried! :smile:

Lip

MRKARNO
05-13-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

Just wondering...

How many championships have the Sox won, oh in the last 44 years?

List me their World Series appearances in the last 44 years?

I wasn't specifically referring to this season but in general. (please try to follow along, I have faith in you!)

As was mentioned the Sox produce one or two every so often but that not near enough to win is it? The Sox refuse to complement those one or two that they get and it always leaves the team dreadfully short. Being short in that department costs them dearly. It did in 1996 and it did in 2003. (I'd be happy to show you the numbers from the Sox 5th starters from those seasons but I'm sure you already know they were miserable...) This year Sox 5th starters are off to an 0-4 start.

So the question remains and you still haven't answered it, only criticized that the question was asked in the first place.

If the Sox are unable or unwilling to put together a solid complete staff from top to bottom how are they expected to win anything of substance? (Oh...I know...LUCK!)

And the folks who brought up McDowell, Fernandez, Hernandez (who was acquired from K.C.) are correct but that was a long time ago wasn't it?

So again the question of what is the problem with our scouting staff, that while teams like Houston, Seattle and Oakland have been able to come up with pitchers, the Sox haven't remains valid as well.. The overwhelming majority of Sox pitching prospects turn out like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton and Aarom Myette.

There has to be a logical reason for this.

See Jabrch I knew you could follow along if you tried! :smile:

Lip

Got 400 million to buy the team?

bigdommer
05-13-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Wanne
The Sox actually drafted Jeff Weaver in the 2nd round of the (I think) 97 draft...for what it's worth.

We should draft Weaver's little brother, dude is a STUD! He's a junior at Long Beach State, 13-0 1.29 ERA and 153 K's in 104 innings. He has as many walks (13) as wins.

hold2dibber
05-13-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by bigdommer
We should draft Weaver's little brother, dude is a STUD! He's a junior at Long Beach State, 13-0 1.29 ERA and 153 K's in 104 innings. He has as many walks (13) as wins.

He's the consensus no. 1 pick - no way he'll still be available when the Sox pick.

iwannago
05-14-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
He's the consensus no. 1 pick - no way he'll still be available when the Sox pick.

Are you sure?

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by iwannago
Are you sure?

Yep. I'll back up dibber. He's concensus number 1.

The Cheat
05-14-2004, 12:41 AM
Jered Weaver's not exactly a concensus #1 -- He's not the pitcher that Mark Prior is, almost an exact Clone of his brother -- Plus he's likely to be tied to Scott Boras as an agent -- We aren't the only team who doesn't deal with Boras -- He is likely to force the hand of where he will be picked, ala Prior (Eli Manning), which could mean he doesn't end up being the #1 -- He won't fall past #3 though, and will likely command the largest signing bonus of anyone drafted

-----------------------------

Here's a link that gets into a cursory evealuation of where a teams roster comes from -- Scroll down to see a section on "where talent came from" i.e. what farm system produced how many major leaguers.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/reading-into-rosters/

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 12:43 AM
But he is the top talent in the draft...

The Cheat
05-14-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
But he is the top talent in the draft...

He's probably the closest to a "sure thing" there is in the draft --

Relating it to the recent football draft again, Robert Gallery was taken second, and while he may not be the Best LT in football, he was the "safest" pick in the draft. He will be a starting LT in the NFL for 10+ seasons, barring injury.

Weaver is the same, He may not be the Best SP in baseball, but he is the "safest" pick in the draft. He will be a Major League SP for years. He may not be an All-Star, but he'd be an assett to any teams staff.

StillMissOzzie
05-14-2004, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I strongly believe that Sosa is an egomaniacal, selfish, phony blowhard. But he also will be a Hall of Famer and deservedly so. There's no rational way you can say that that trade was anything other than a disaster.

I for one was happy when the Sosa for Bell trade was announced. While the benefit of hindsight makes it appear to be a disaster, Sosa would never have become the HR slugger he now is had he remained with the Sox. He had repeatedly blamed Hriniak for his lack of sucess with the south side.

:shammy
"That and my special 'Flintstone' vitamins!"


SMO
:gulp:

jabrch
05-14-2004, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

Just wondering...

How many championships have the Sox won, oh in the last 44 years?

List me their World Series appearances in the last 44 years?

I wasn't specifically referring to this season but in general. (please try to follow along, I have faith in you!)

As was mentioned the Sox produce one or two every so often but that not near enough to win is it? The Sox refuse to complement those one or two that they get and it always leaves the team dreadfully short. Being short in that department costs them dearly. It did in 1996 and it did in 2003. (I'd be happy to show you the numbers from the Sox 5th starters from those seasons but I'm sure you already know they were miserable...) This year Sox 5th starters are off to an 0-4 start.

So the question remains and you still haven't answered it, only criticized that the question was asked in the first place.

If the Sox are unable or unwilling to put together a solid complete staff from top to bottom how are they expected to win anything of substance? (Oh...I know...LUCK!)

And the folks who brought up McDowell, Fernandez, Hernandez (who was acquired from K.C.) are correct but that was a long time ago wasn't it?

So again the question of what is the problem with our scouting staff, that while teams like Houston, Seattle and Oakland have been able to come up with pitchers, the Sox haven't remains valid as well.. The overwhelming majority of Sox pitching prospects turn out like Scott Ruffcorn, Rod Bolton and Aarom Myette.

There has to be a logical reason for this.

See Jabrch I knew you could follow along if you tried! :smile:

Lip

Thanks for the lesson in what's wrong with the Sox Lip - but I just don't agree with you. Houston has a 100mm payroll. How do they have pitchers? THEY BUY THEM. Oakland is one season away from not having pitchers - once the big 3 hit FA, that staff isn't too good. Seattle has good pitching, but a good pitchers park too. I really don't think their staff is better than ours. Their 5th starter might be, but 2-4 we have them beat for sure.

My point is that we do a good job acquiring and developing pitching talent. Just look at our staff!

Loaiza
Buehrle
Garland
Schoenweiss
XXXXXX

That's not the top of the league Lip, but it isn't the bottom either. It is a staff that can win games both in the regular season and in the playoffs. JR's unwillingness to lock 60mm into a 4 year deal for a pitcher ended up being a good move so far - Colon has not been worth what the impacts of spending that money on him would have been (trading Magglio).

Why does everything have to be so damn negative Lip? We have a good club, are a game out of first, and you are bitching about JR? Come on pal - lets focus on the team on the field and not worry about the owner, the media, attendance, etc. Let's enjoy WINNING baseball a bit without letting the junk get in the way!

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do you honestly think he would have helped the Sox at any point in time up until they got Magglio?

Besides, once he started putting up the numbers he has, JR would never have paid him so he probably would have left eventually anyway...

Sosa became an everyday player for the Cub in '94. Maggs became an everyday player for the Sox in '98. From '94 through '97, Sosa averaged:

34 HRs, 102 RBIs and an OPS of .847

During the same time period, the Sox starting RFs averaged:

15 HRs, 65 RBIs and an OPS of .768 OPS

Then, starting in '99, Sosa put together a string of several history-breaking seasons. The Sox obviously could have made room for both Sosa and Ordonez on the team. The trade was a disaster, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you let your dislike for him personally and your dislike of the team he plays for dictate your opinion.

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
The trade was a disaster, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you let your dislike for him personally and your dislike of the team he plays for dictate your opinion.

I beg to differ. That trade was a quite standard "win-now for winning later" deal. George Bell had a pretty good year in '93 and was a big part of getting us to the division title (ok, he chomped the ol' churro in the playoffs, but at least we made it there).

As you yourself note, Sosa had 4 good but not great years with the Chubs before exploding (coinciding with the advent of HGH usage in athletics, I'm sure those are unrelated).

Not to mention that if a guy busts out 5 years after being dealt (and he'd already been up with the team for 1-2 years before that), I don't really think you can consider that a forseeable event by the Sox.

Bottom line, both teams got what they wanted from the trade. The Cubs got long term value and the Sox got a playoff run.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar

Not to mention that if a guy busts out 5 years after being dealt (and he'd already been up with the team for 1-2 years before that), I don't really think you can consider that a forseeable event by the Sox.



He hit 33 hrs, stole 36 bases and had 93 rbis a year after the sox traded him. That was back when it still meant something to hit 33 hrs, too At the time he also had one of the best outfield arms in the game. Sure, no one thought he'd hit 66 homers, but he clearly had the best all around tools of any one the Sox had called up in years. Like hold2dibber implied, the only thing that keeps sox fans from going on and on about what a horrible trade that was, is the fact that Sosa is so hate-able and a cub.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I beg to differ. That trade was a quite standard "win-now for winning later" deal. George Bell had a pretty good year in '93 and was a big part of getting us to the division title (ok, he chomped the ol' churro in the playoffs, but at least we made it there).

That's just not accurate. Bell was pretty good in '92, but he was horrible in '93 (when the Sox made the playoffs) and had virtually nothing to do with the Sox making the playoffs in '93. He hit .217 with 13 hrs and 64 RBIs and an OPS of .606(!). The Sox would have made the playoffs with Sosa in RF instead of Bell (by comparison, Sosa hit .260 with 33 HRs, 93 RBIs and an OPS of .794 in '93 for the Cubs).

As you yourself note, Sosa had 4 good but not great years with the Chubs before exploding (coinciding with the advent of HGH usage in athletics, I'm sure those are unrelated).

Sosa had 4 good but not great years before he went gaga. And although I agree he probably cheated after that, the fact is, since the trade, George Bell had one decent year and 1 horrible year for the Sox and never had anything to do with the Sox making the playoffs. Sosa has gone onto a hall of fame career.

Not to mention that if a guy busts out 5 years after being dealt (and he'd already been up with the team for 1-2 years before that), I don't really think you can consider that a forseeable event by the Sox.

Just because it wasn't foreseeable at the time of the trade doesn't change the fact that, in hindsight, the trade was a disaster.

Bottom line, both teams got what they wanted from the trade. The Cubs got long term value and the Sox got a playoff run.

As noted above, that's not true - Bell had nothing to do with the Sox making the playoffs in '93; he sucked during the year and was a distraction in the playoffs with his sulking and complaining about not playing. This is just classic twisting of facts to justify what was a horrible, horrible trade (and I've only touched upon the on-the-field facts and not even mentioned how Sosa mania has adversely affected the Sox off the field).

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 10:24 AM
And then if you combine that w/ the cameron trade, you could theoretically have been looking at an OF of sosa,cameron, and ordonez, at least for a few years. Oh well.

poorme
05-14-2004, 10:25 AM
The Sosa deal was harmful to the Sox for no other reason than he went to the CUBS and made them even more popular.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
. And although I agree he probably cheated after that, the fact is, since the trade,

Whaddya mean probably? It's on tape! But you won't see a special section in the trib's website for a year on that!

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

As noted above, that's not true - Bell had nothing to do with the Sox making the playoffs in '93; he sucked during the year and was a distraction in the playoffs with his sulking and complaining about not playing. This is just classic twisting of facts to justify what was a horrible, horrible trade (and I've only touched upon the on-the-field facts and not even mentioned how Sosa mania has adversely affected the Sox off the field).

I stand corrected, I guess I mixzed up Bell's 92 & 93 seasons. On a related note, there is NO way that Sosa mania would have gripped Chicago or the country ahd he stayed in a Sox uni. The Trib marketing engine would not have been employed to make him what he is. Even had he hit all those HRs, he wouldn't have been made out as the media darling he has become.

Unfortunately for Sox fans, the Sosa-Flubs-Trib-Wrigley combination was one that could not be replicated anywhere else.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I stand corrected, I guess I mixzed up Bell's 92 & 93 seasons. On a related note, there is NO way that Sosa mania would have gripped Chicago or the country ahd he stayed in a Sox uni. The Trib marketing engine would not have been employed to make him what he is. Even had he hit all those HRs, he wouldn't have been made out as the media darling he has become.

Unfortunately for Sox fans, the Sosa-Flubs-Trib-Wrigley combination was one that could not be replicated anywhere else.

I completely agree with that. If Sosa was on the Sox and was locked in a dual with McGwire to top Maris' single season record, the coverage would have been much, much, much, much different; he would have been a footnote. But at least he wouldn't have been furthering the reach and appeal of the real Evil Empire.

MisterB
05-14-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's just not accurate. Bell was pretty good in '92, but he was horrible in '93 (when the Sox made the playoffs) and had virtually nothing to do with the Sox making the playoffs in '93. He hit .217 with 13 hrs and 64 RBIs and an OPS of .606(!). The Sox would have made the playoffs with Sosa in RF instead of Bell (by comparison, Sosa hit .260 with 33 HRs, 93 RBIs and an OPS of .794 in '93 for the Cubs).

Keep in mind the whole reason Sosa was considered expendable by the Sox. He was a headcase who was barely hitting .200 and had completely tuned out anything the coaches had to say, especially Hriniak. He was not going to put up those numbers in a Sox uniform. It took him being traded a second time before he corrected his recto-cranial insertion and finally decided he'd better learn how to hit.

poorme
05-14-2004, 12:07 PM
The Cubs turned him into a good player. The Sox didn't.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by poorme
The Cubs turned him into a good player. The Sox didn't.

Quite a shame he didn't find steroids when he was with us, huh?

poorme
05-14-2004, 12:14 PM
No doubt. But he was probably an all-star before the steroids.

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by poorme
The Cubs turned him into a good player. The Sox didn't.

I think the needle turned him into a good player.

poorme
05-14-2004, 12:32 PM
There's no credible evidence for that. You think Sosa needed steroids to hit 35 homers? I don't.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 12:41 PM
I believe that Sosa was the only player in MLB in 1990 to have double figures in doubles, triples, home runs, RBI's, stolen bases and outfield assists.

That showed the man had talent. Sosa though had a bad relationship with Sox hitting coach Walt Hriniak and it was only a matter of time before the club traded him. (Ironically Sosa wasn't the only player not to get along with him and eventually the team fired Hriniak...)

If you want to play 'what if,' then consider this.

Sosa was traded because the Sox needed another bat to protect Thomas and Ventura. If the Sox had gone ahead and signed Mark McGwire who according to Jack McDowell in his WSI Interview called him three times asking about the team, then the Sox probably don't trade Sosa (at least not in spring training 1992).

This means the Sox have Thomas, Ventura, McGwire and Sosa in the middle of their lineup at least for part of the 1992 season. For those of you who don't know, the McGwire situation fell through when Thomas refused to go to DH to make room for him.

Lip

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by poorme
There's no credible evidence for that. You think Sosa needed steroids to hit 35 homers? I don't.

He wasn't going to hit 35 homers if he stayed the same size he was with the Sox.

No credible evidence my foot. Look at him!

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 12:45 PM
Jabrch:

I was going to ask you again , if you could answer the question of how if the Sox can't seem to develop their own pitchers in quantity and won't sign free agent pitchers, they ever expect to win anything (besides being 'lucky...'). But forget it.

With you asking valid questions shows 'negativity.'

Keep living in your dream world. Remember I didn't begin this thread and early in it another poster asked a question along the lines of why can't the Sox develop pitching. I took it a step further and outlined the issue.

It's still a legitimate question and still hasn't been answered... only avoided.

Fair enough. The results on the field since 1994 are answer enough I guess.

"Well, he made less mistakes than (the demoted) Danny Wright did." --Ozzie Guillen on Felix Diaz' MLB debut.

That says it all!

Lip

poorme
05-14-2004, 12:45 PM
When he started hitting 60+ bombs a year, THAT'S when he was on steroids.

He was always a legit 5 tool guy. Do you remember him? He put a couple into the upper deck in old Comiskey.

the_valenstache
05-14-2004, 01:49 PM
C'mon guys. Everyone knows Sammy only uses steroids for batting practice. Geez.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

I was going to ask you again , if you could answer the question of how if the Sox can't seem to develop their own pitchers in quantity and won't sign free agent pitchers, they ever expect to win anything (besides being 'lucky...'). But forget it.

With you asking valid questions shows 'negativity.'

Keep living in your dream world. Remember I didn't begin this thread and early in it another poster asked a question along the lines of why can't the Sox develop pitching. I took it a step further and outlined the issue.

It's still a legitimate question and still hasn't been answered... only avoided.

Fair enough. The results on the field since 1994 are answer enough I guess.

"Well, he made less mistakes than (the demoted) Danny Wright did." --Ozzie Guillen on Felix Diaz' MLB debut.

That says it all!

Lip

Lip, I believe I answered you already - but I can do it again.

We have done a fair job developing pitchers. We have done a an above average job signing FA pitchers. We have done an above average job trading for pitchers. What we haven't done is tie the team down to 5 year deals with older pitchers who are likely to get injured. Will we easily beat the Yankees this way? No - we wont. Will we easily beat Boston, no we wont. But we don't have the money to outspend them, so winning a championship won't be easy. We can't afford, given this team's financial constraints, to go out and buy pitchers at full price on the open market, and still field a team. I am surprised you keep making such a big deal about a FACT like that. What would you propose we do? Offer more to Colon than we did? Lip, if anything we had already offered him too much.

With you asking valid questions shows 'negativity.'

As far as that goes Lip,
A) I doubt it is only me who finds every post from you negative
B) Asking valid questions isn't negative - constantly slamming the team without ever even a slight hint of balance is negative.
C) There is nothing wrong with negativity - I just wonder if you ever are anything other than negative - since we hardly see it in this forum. (now your articles tend to be less negative sometimes - and I do enjoy them, FWIW.)
D) There is nothing valid about repeatedly calling the owner cheap and hurling other assorted insults at him. I find him a disgusting appalling piece of dogcrap also, but I don't find the need to say it in every third post. I am pissed that we haven't won a WS also, but it isn't my signle point of focus.
E) I don't live in a "dream world" - I just try to avoid making White Sox Baseball into a negative thing. To me, it should be a positive force, not something else in life to drag me down. When we lose, I shrug it off and move on.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Keep in mind the whole reason Sosa was considered expendable by the Sox. He was a headcase who was barely hitting .200 and had completely tuned out anything the coaches had to say, especially Hriniak. He was not going to put up those numbers in a Sox uniform. It took him being traded a second time before he corrected his recto-cranial insertion and finally decided he'd better learn how to hit.

Well, I'm not saying the trade didn't make sense at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that Sosa went onto a HOF career and helped turned the Cubs into a national darling while Bell did more bad than good for the Sox. And suggesting that he wouldn't have improved if he had stayed with the Sox is rank speculation and, IMHO, is very unlikely. The guy was always extremely talented - it's not at all surprising that he developed and improved. I hear this argument (the "he wouldn't have been as good if he stayed here") and to me it just sounds like twisted hind-sight rationalization to make Sox fans feel better about a lousy trade.

Originally posted by poorme
The Cubs turned him into a good player. The Sox didn't.


Originally posted by jabrch


Quite a shame he didn't find steroids when he was with us, huh?


Originally posted by SoxxoS


I think the needle turned him into a good player.

I am convinced that Sosa used/uses steriods, but I don't think he did so until '98 or so. And even before that, from '93 through '97, he was pretty good - a hell of a lot better than George Bell those years.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 11:04 PM
Jabrch:

The White Sox have not done a fair job developing starting pitchers in the last ten years.

Mark Buehrle....and I'd say James Baldwin who had two or three years where he won in double figures and pitched in the bigs for maybe seven seasons.

Sirotka, Parque... two years tops.

There is something wrong at the minor league level where the guys the Sox get either get hurt or turn out to be mediocre.

Since you feel this club can't spend money on acquiring top starting pitching then they have to do a better job developing pitchers in quantity and quality at the same time and they are not. (Granted this is very hard to do....which makes my point about a course change and start signing top pitchers even more valid...) You can't win without pitching. (and the Sox haven't...)

Such is the conundrum isn't it?

Lip

gosox41
05-14-2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by DaveIsHere
I was wondering if anyone had any information on any "big" names that were once In our farm system and then were traded away and went on to be productive everyday Major Leaguers, I don't want to end up like th Yankees who really don't have much left down there, which lead to the same question about the yanks, how many of their prospects over fairly recent years have gone on to flourish.


I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. But doesn't the fact that the Sox have given up so few good prospects speak poorly of the farm system? I mean every GM is going to get burned more then once when trading prospects.


Bob

gosox41
05-14-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

The White Sox have not done a fair job developing starting pitchers in the last ten years.

Mark Buehrle....and I'd say James Baldwin who had two or three years where he won in double figures and pitched in the bigs for maybe seven seasons.

Sirotka, Parque... two years tops.

There is something wrong at the minor league level where the guys the Sox get either get hurt or turn out to be mediocre.

Since you feel this club can't spend money on acquiring top starting pitching then they have to do a better job developing pitchers in quantity and quality at the same time and they are not. (Granted this is very hard to do....which makes my point about a course change and start signing top pitchers even more valid...) You can't win without pitching. (and the Sox haven't...)

Such is the conundrum isn't it?

Lip

Lip,

Just curious, but was it you who said Beane lucked into Hudson, Mulder, and Zito? Whoever it was, how come Beane lucks into these guys (he still was GM when these guys were in the minors) but KW can't develop them?

Maybe because Beane is good and KW is bad.


Bob

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 11:28 PM
Bob:

Not me.

Lip

gosox41
05-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Not me.

Lip

I wasn't sure. I wouldn't think it would be because I know how you hate Sox management. It's late, and I'm getting tired and should have thought things through more. You're not a KW defender, nor should you (or anyone else) be.

Whoever it was, it's not a good argument. Beane is no more/less luckier then KW. There is skill involved in everything from drafting to player develoipment, to build a team with good chemistry.



Bob

Daver
05-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Lip,

Just curious, but was it you who said Beane lucked into Hudson, Mulder, and Zito? Whoever it was, how come Beane lucks into these guys (he still was GM when these guys were in the minors) but KW can't develop them?

Maybe because Beane is good and KW is bad.


Bob

Beane didn't draft them,he inherited them.

hold2dibber
05-15-2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Beane didn't draft them,he inherited them.

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that I've seen several Neyer articles stating otherwise (not that Neyer is any more credible than you are - just not sure who's right on that issue).

Man Soo Lee
05-15-2004, 12:43 AM
Neyer (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2004/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1767210):

Beane was the A's assistant general manager in 1997, when Hudson was drafted, and he was general manager in 1998 and 1999 when Mulder and Zito were drafted.

gosox41
05-15-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
Neyer (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2004/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1767210):



Well that throws that argument out the window and clears up yet another myth.

Before being assistant GM (whom I'm sure had some input in the draft) didn't Beane serve as head of the minor league operations? I think he did. And my guess is whatever system was in place then is probably very similar to what's in place now since Beane is going to hire people who think like him.


Bob