PDA

View Full Version : For the "KW is doing a great job" crowd...


Pages : [1] 2

Win1ForMe
05-13-2004, 04:45 PM
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?

Procol Harum
05-13-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?

Hey, we're only one game out of first place! :D:

bobj4400
05-13-2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?


This is the same exact team as last year except our pitching isnt as strong.

Win1ForMe
05-13-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
This is the same exact team as last year except our pitching isnt as strong.

My point exactly.

OurBitchinMinny
05-13-2004, 04:53 PM
Williams at least tries. His hands are tied by the bastard owner. Its not his fault the players he gets suck once they put on a sox uniform. Uribe has been good. Hes made bad trades, but hes made good ones. At least he doesnt sit on his hands and do nothing. He needs to do something though to fix this team.

SEALgep
05-13-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders? It's hard to get guys, manage a team, and bat for everyone too.

JRIG
05-13-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by ChisoxfaninMinny
Williams at least tries. His hands are tied by the bastard owner. Its not his fault the players he gets suck once they put on a sox uniform. Uribe has been good. Hes made bad trades, but hes made good ones. At least he doesnt sit on his hands and do nothing. He needs to do something though to fix this team.

His hands are tied by giving Konerko $8 million this season and next season after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving Lee $6 million this season and $8 million next year after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving a $6.375 million extension to Billy Koch before he even threw a pitch for the White Sox.

And I would say it's directly his fault players he acquires suck once they get here. In fact, isn't that really how we measure GMs?

JasonC23
05-13-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by ChisoxfaninMinny
Williams at least tries. His hands are tied by the bastard owner. Its not his fault the players he gets suck once they put on a sox uniform. Uribe has been good. Hes made bad trades, but hes made good ones. At least he doesnt sit on his hands and do nothing. He needs to do something though to fix this team.

Wow, you managed to fit all of the overused pro-KW excuses for Kenny's mediocre GMing performance in one small paragraph. Well done! :cool:

StockdaleForVeep
05-13-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?


God what is with you people and flopping\panicking at small bumps in the road. Hell we aint even played minnesota and people are runnin like chickens with no heads. Im happy with KW for the simple fact we dont have a dead last team and that we're above 500 and still in the hunt. If we were dead last and 20 games back, then i would start squaking.

habibharu
05-13-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
Hey, we're only one game out of first place! :D: make that 1.5. :angry: :angry:

hold2dibber
05-13-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
His hands are tied by giving Konerko $8 million this season and next season after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving Lee $6 million this season and $8 million next year after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving a $6.375 million extension to Billy Koch before he even threw a pitch for the White Sox.

Agreed; he has seriously mismanaged the payroll (although Lee was going to get that money in arbitration anyway).

And I would say it's directly his fault players he acquires suck once they get here.

Loaiza
Uribe
Colon
Everett
Marte
Cotts
Olivo
Schoenweiss
Gordon
Diaz (hopefully)
Harris
Sullivan
Adkins (surprisingly)
S. Alomar (arguably)

All players he's acquired who have not sucked. Koch has sucked. Wells sucked. White sucked. Can't really think of anyone else who has under KW's watch (although I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody).

bigdommer
05-13-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
His hands are tied by giving Konerko $8 million this season and next season after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving Lee $6 million this season and $8 million next year after signing him to a terrible contract.

His hands are tied by giving a $6.375 million extension to Billy Koch before he even threw a pitch for the White Sox.

And I would say it's directly his fault players he acquires suck once they get here. In fact, isn't that really how we measure GMs?

It's lose/lose for KW. He resigns guys early to avoid losing them in free agency, and they tank on him. Then, he waits until the offseason to sign guys like Bartolo and Gordon, but he can't afford them because Konerko, Lee, and Koch have wasted a quarter of his payroll.

When a payrolls is very limited, a GM has to do what he can to lock guys up before FA. I agreed with the Carlos extension, and I questioned the amount of the Konerko contract, but both guys were coming of continued years of success and seemed to be on the rise. KW is unlucky I guess.

habibharu
05-13-2004, 05:06 PM
i think that it is about time to create a "Fire KW" tag

The_Floridian
05-13-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
And I would say it's directly his fault players he acquires suck once they get here. In fact, isn't that really how we measure GMs?

Yeah, he REALLY blew it on grabbing Esteban Loaiza and Juan Uribe.

jabrch
05-13-2004, 05:08 PM
I still think KW is the best GM we have had in my 30 years as a Sox fan. I am not going to rehash the details, but to those of you who bash KW, I am wondering if you really know as much about baseball as it sounds like you think you do.

Williams has done a good job with this team. I have no problem with his performance as GM. You can criticize a few of his moves, but most of that criticism comes from excellent hindsight, not from baseball knowledge.

hold2dibber
05-13-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?

How do you like the fact that he got Cotts (who continues to kick ass) for, in effect, Joe Valentine, got Takatsu (who continues to kick ass) for a song, got Uribe (who continues to kick ass) for a song, hired a manager who has done an outstanding job to date, got Schoenweiss for a song, etc., etc.

I'm not saying the guy is perfect (his PK contract is absolutely killing us right now) but its a joke when people slam KW for his missteps without acknowledging all the good stuff he's done.

jabrch
05-13-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by The_Floridian
Yeah, he REALLY blew it on grabbing Esteban Loaiza and Juan Uribe.

And Schoenweiss, and Marte, and Harris, and Shingo, etc. etc. etc.

JRIG
05-13-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

Loaiza
Uribe
Colon.....

All players he's acquired who have not sucked. Koch has sucked. Wells sucked. White sucked. Can't really think of anyone else who has under KW's watch (although I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody).

No argument there. I was responding to:

Its not his fault the players he gets suck once they put on a sox uniform.

All I'm saying is the statement that you can't blame KW when players he brings in suck is as ridiculous as an argument that you can't give him credit when players he brings in are actually good.

hold2dibber
05-13-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
All I'm saying is the statement that you can't blame KW when players he brings in suck is as ridiculous as an argument that you can't give him credit when players he brings in are actually good.

Agreed.

jabrch
05-13-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

I'm not saying the guy is perfect (his PK contract is absolutely killing us right now) but its a joke when people slam KW for his missteps without acknowledging all the good stuff he's done.


DING DING DING

Lee got the same type of $ he'd have gotten in arbitration. The koch deal has been rehashed over and over again. Nobody figured Wells was gonna lay down with us. Wells/Fogg for Richie didn't look bad when we made it. blah blah blah.

KW has done a lot of good things, and some bad things. Name a GM who we JR would have hired, who would have done better?

jlh0023
05-13-2004, 05:12 PM
SHUT UP!
I hate people like you..... Just because we aren't in first doesn't change our team. One game should not change your opinion of KW.
He has done nothing that deserves such treatment.
We are one and a half games out of first.....quit your bitching

poorme
05-13-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by bigdommer
When a payrolls is very limited, a GM has to do what he can to lock guys up before FA.

You can't "beat the market" for players. Signing players a year before they hit free agency might save a few bucks but you're also more likely to get burned (Koch, Konerko, maybe Lee).

fquaye149
05-13-2004, 05:16 PM
kenny williams is human, is still learning how to do his job, and yet his success rate is still phenomenal.

we can look just at our current starting lineup to see the good job KW has done including uribe, harris, perez and olivo.


whatever. if a few bad moves(koch, konerko, ritchie) makes a bad gm then a good gm does not exist

Win1ForMe
05-13-2004, 05:26 PM
Before someone misunderstands, let me reiterate that I think Kenny has done a good job overall. My main gripe is directed at this team's offense and Kenny's failure to address that problem.

Again, this is not a "Kenny Williams sucks across the board" thread.

jabrch
05-13-2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Before someone misunderstands, let me reiterate that I think Kenny has done a good job overall. My main gripe is directed at this team's offense and Kenny's failure to address that problem.

Again, this is not a "Kenny Williams sucks across the board" thread.


What's wrong with the offense? I was at the park and didn't see anything wrong with it on Tuesday. Sometimes you just get beat - if you have been a long time baseball fan, you know this.

We are 5th in the AL in batting average. We are 2nd in HRs. We are 4th in OBP. We are 2nd in slg. We are 8th in runs.

What do you propose KW could have done in the offseason to improve the offense in the offseason more than he did in acquiring Uribe for Aaron Myles without ruining the team elsewhere?

infohawk
05-13-2004, 05:34 PM
It's May 13 and the Sox are 4 games above .500. The pitching has been a pleasant surprise. The team is better defensively then will ever be acknowledged. They still haven't had the opportunity to play too many games against some of the weaker central teams. The Twins still appear to be a formidable team, but Kansas City is in the tank.

In my opinion the team has two primary flaws. The first is the need for a reliable closer. The second is the need for a couple of contact hitters who can help to turn the line-up over and improve the overall balance of the line-up. If the Sox were to simply stay around .500 by the All-Star break, Kenny has enough flexibility to make some moves to address the flaws. Minnesota probably doesn't. Whether these moves are successful remains to be seen. I suppose my major point is that it is very premature to make any judgments about the overall success of the team. If the Sox were at .500 or a little better when we made the Everett and Alomar trades last season the Sox probably would have won the division.

Dan H
05-13-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by jlh0023
SHUT UP!
I hate people like you..... Just because we aren't in first doesn't change our team. One game should not change your opinion of KW.
He has done nothing that deserves such treatment.
We are one and a half games out of first.....quit your bitching

Isn't hate kind of a strong word? Who are people like you?

MRKARNO
05-13-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Now that we trail the Twins, and you can't use the "how about the fact we're in first place" argument, how do you like Kenny's work in improving our offense by getting more grinders?

How does the outcome of 2 games change the rating of a GM over the course of a 162 game season. God, some people will find anything to criticize Kenny

Win1ForMe
05-13-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
We are 5th in the AL in batting average. We are 2nd in HRs. We are 4th in OBP. We are 2nd in slg. We are 8th in runs.

Wow, thanks for giving me that impressive list of stats. Well, up until the last one, which coincidentally, happens to be the only that means anything. And being 9th in runs scored (which we currently are) out of 14 teams is not good.

Besides, bringing up offensive stats of a team with a propensity for inconsistent performances (i.e. 15 runs followed by 0 runs) isn't really telling you anything because the stats tend to be inflated.

Win1ForMe
05-13-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
How does the outcome of 2 games change the rating of a GM over the course of a 162 game season.

That's the whole point, it shouldn't. But I know that because we were in first place, people were using that as a crutch to support their argument. I didn't think the offense was doing a good job before we fell out of first place.

Lip Man 1
05-13-2004, 05:56 PM
BigDonner says: "KW is unlucky I guess."

"Luck is the residue of design."--Branch Rickey Hall Of Fame G.M.

Besides it's not Ken this franchise has been cursed and unlucky for decades.

Lip

voodoochile
05-13-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
We are 5th in the AL in batting average. We are 2nd in HRs. We are 4th in OBP. We are 2nd in slg. We are 8th in runs.


How the heck does a team compile those numbers and end up in the middle of the pack in terms of runs scored? I just don't understand that at all.

Tends to suggest that the Sox are lacking timely hitting and not hitting as a whole.

StockdaleForVeep
05-13-2004, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Agreed; he has seriously mismanaged the payroll (although Lee was going to get that money in arbitration anyway).



Loaiza
Uribe
Colon
Everett
Marte
Cotts
Olivo
Schoenweiss
Gordon
Diaz (hopefully)
Harris
Sullivan
Adkins (surprisingly)
S. Alomar (arguably)

All players he's acquired who have not sucked. Koch has sucked. Wells sucked. White sucked. Can't really think of anyone else who has under KW's watch (although I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody).

Todd ritchie did suck under his watch but he took a gamble on him, had it worked hed be gm of the century

A. Cavatica
05-13-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How the heck does a team compile those numbers and end up in the middle of the pack in terms of runs scored? I just don't understand that at all.

Tends to suggest that the Sox are lacking timely hitting and not hitting as a whole.

Timely hits exist; timely hitters (or teams) do not.

The problem is low OBP and lack of team speed.

EDIT: just re-read the stat about being fourth in OBP. Maybe the problem is just sample size.

voodoochile
05-13-2004, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Timely hits exist; timely hitters (or teams) do not.

The problem is low OBP and lack of team speed.

EDIT: just re-read the stat about being fourth in OBP. Maybe the problem is just sample size.

Still suggests something is going on. 4th in OBP and 2nd in slugging doesn't NORMALLY add up to 8th in runs.

MRKARNO
05-13-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Still suggests something is going on. 4th in OBP and 2nd in slugging doesn't NORMALLY add up to 8th in runs.

I think it's a combination of the two. But by the end of the year, I think those two figures will correlate more

sas1974
05-13-2004, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by habibharu
make that 1.5. :angry: :angry:

Actually, make that 1.

Randar68
05-13-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Still suggests something is going on. 4th in OBP and 2nd in slugging doesn't NORMALLY add up to 8th in runs.

baserunning blunders and a propensity to fail when asked to sacrifice themselves... same problem as under JM and one of the primary concerns of those who thought Ozzie's style wasn't a fit with this team...

We still sit around waiting for the HR...

voodoochile
05-13-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
baserunning blunders and a propensity to fail when asked to sacrifice themselves... same problem as under JM and one of the primary concerns of those who thought Ozzie's style wasn't a fit with this team...

We still sit around waiting for the HR...

Our SB% is also horrible. Too many people being given the green light.

CWSGuy406
05-13-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Still suggests something is going on. 4th in OBP and 2nd in slugging doesn't NORMALLY add up to 8th in runs.

But see, this team isn't normal. What were those amazing numbers we put up last year, yet we finished second in the division (I forgot, but when I remember what they were, dang, I was so surprised and befuddled how we didn't win the division.) Last year, we should have won the division based on the Pythagorean system, but we ended up losing it.

It's just the way the ball bounces, I guess. Then again, us scoring 15 runs one night and zero the next helps explain it a bit.

Vernam
05-13-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I still think KW is the best GM we have had in my 30 years as a Sox fan.

Took the words outta my mouth, jabrch. I said the same to my wife yesterday -- best GM since Hemond, and similar in many ways, IMO. They both worked minor miracles on a shoestring, creating contenders against fairly steep odds.

Show me a GM who never makes a mistake, and I'll show you a failed franchise. I'd far rather have someone like KW who'll roll the dice as with R. Alomar and Everett. Yes, Koch has been a disaster. The high salary to Konerko (cough, five-rbi-tonight, cough ;^) is something few criticized at the time. But his bargain-basement acquisitions of Loaiza, Schoenweis and Uribe would have him labelled a genius if he worked on the other side of town. Not to mention Olivo.

This is one (maybe the only!) case where JR's loyalty will work in our favor. Fire KW and just watch him win with some organization that has actual resources.

Schuler, now there was a bad GM. :D:

Vernam

Dadawg_77
05-13-2004, 11:48 PM
Larry Hymes, Roland Hemond?

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 12:54 AM
Okay seriously, what is the argument for KW as a GM at this point. He has been on the job 3 plus years. He started with a team that won more games than any other AL team. He has proceeded to miss the playoffs three consecutive seasons. He just hasn't gotten it done. There isn't much to argue at this point. Teams with similar or lower payrolls have made the playoffs, you can't blame it all on payroll constraints. Yes, he has made some good moves but not enough to put the Sox in the playoffs out of a weak division. He's not a good GM. What points does he have in his favor exactly? We're not exactly battling the Yankees and the Red Sox for the division.

iwannago
05-14-2004, 12:57 AM
KW sucks, period.

lowesox
05-14-2004, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
How do you like the fact that he got Cotts (who continues to kick ass) for, in effect, Joe Valentine, got Takatsu (who continues to kick ass) for a song, got Uribe (who continues to kick ass) for a song, hired a manager who has done an outstanding job to date, got Schoenweiss for a song, etc., etc.

I think the above post nails the thing I dislike about KW right on the hammer: he's very good at making small trades, but his big, fat ego causes him to always try to make the big splash. And it always backfires.

When you look at his big trades: the Wells trade, the Koch trade (even when you factor Cotts we still lost this trade because we would have made the playoffs last year with Foulke as our closer), the Ritchie trade, the Clayton trade (to a lesser degree) even the COlon, Alomar and Everett trades - all of those trades were steps backwards for this organization. And when the deals back fire many KW supporters pull out the 'Kenny Williams couldn't have known' card, or the 'Gee isn't Kenny Williams unlucky' card.

The problem is Kenny Williams could be a very good General Manager BUT HE'S IRRESPONSIBLE. Everybody loves how aggressive he is. I hate it. It's the big, aggressive trades he makes that robs our system of good players and gets this team nowhere. It's the small, thought out deals he makes that bring us good players (like Olivo, Marte, Loaiza, Uribe, Takatsu, even Harris and Shoenweiss.)

I believe the key to being a good GM is patience and caution. If Williams can develop these skills - and learn to contain his ego - he'll be one of the best GMs in baseball. Until then, I'll continue to write nasty posts about him.

fquaye149
05-14-2004, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by lowesox
I think the above post nails the thing I dislike about KW right on the hammer: he's very good at making small trades, but his big, fat ego causes him to always try to make the big splash. And it always backfires.

When you look at his big trades: the Wells trade, the Koch trade (even when you factor Cotts we still lost this trade because we would have made the playoffs last year with Foulke as our closer), the Ritchie trade, the Clayton trade (to a lesser degree) even the COlon, Alomar and Everett trades - all of those trades were steps backwards for this organization. And when the deals back fire many KW supporters pull out the 'Kenny Williams couldn't have known' card, or the 'Gee isn't Kenny Williams unlucky' card.

The problem is Kenny Williams could be a very good General Manager BUT HE'S IRRESPONSIBLE. Everybody loves how aggressive he is. I hate it. It's the big, aggressive trades he makes that robs our system of good players and gets this team nowhere. It's the small, thought out deals he makes that bring us good players (like Olivo, Marte, Loaiza, Uribe, Takatsu, even Harris and Shoenweiss.)

I believe the key to being a good GM is patience and caution. If Williams can develop these skills - and learn to contain his ego - he'll be one of the best GMs in baseball. Until then, I'll continue to write nasty posts about him.


i guess i'm still unsure how KW is robbing our system of good players? . . .

i don't know. . .i don't buy it.

by the way, I know ritchie sucked, and there's no two ways around it that that trade blew. but I think our losses are overstated. Kip Wells is an exceptional small market pitcher, but wait till the Yankees pick him up before you bemoan the starter we might have had. I think the thinking on Wells is that he is mentally weak, so see how he does when he finally makes the big audience. He is most likely another Jeff Weaver.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by lowesox
(even when you factor Cotts we still lost this trade because we would have made the playoffs last year with Foulke as our closer)

That is an absolute myth. The fact is we had already demoted Foulke. He was done as the closer on this team. We would not have resigned him - not have kept him, and not have had him as our closer last year under any circumstance.

The problem is Kenny Williams could be a very good General Manager BUT HE'S IRRESPONSIBLE. Everybody loves how aggressive he is. I hate it. It's the big, aggressive trades he makes that robs our system of good players and gets this team nowhere. It's the small, thought out deals he makes that bring us good players (like Olivo, Marte, Loaiza, Uribe, Takatsu, even Harris and Shoenweiss.)

If he sits on his hands, people would ask where his big move is. (Remember the offseason?) And please, list all the good players he has robbed our system of. I guarantee you that I can list more good players that he brought into the system via trade than you can that we lost.

Nobody is nominating KW for the HOF - I am only saying that he has done a decent job in a very tough situation. With this budget, he has to be aggressive if he is to win anything. His aggressiveness got us the small deals we have. It got us Olivo. It got us Uribe. It got Harris. It got Schoe, Loaiza, Marte, Takatsu. If he sat on his hands, we might still be seeing John Snyder, Jim Parque and James Baldwin in the rotation.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have conservativism from our GM, but great moves. That only comes from franchises with loads of money to spend. Unless someone forks over the 350mm it would take to get JR to surrender control, I dont see it.

KW has done well in his time. Hopefully this is our year!

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
That is an absolute myth. The fact is we had already demoted Foulke. He was done as the closer on this team. We would not have resigned him - not have kept him, and not have had him as our closer last year under any circumstance.



If he sits on his hands, people would ask where his big move is. (Remember the offseason?) And please, list all the good players he has robbed our system of. I guarantee you that I can list more good players that he brought into the system via trade than you can that we lost.

Nobody is nominating KW for the HOF - I am only saying that he has done a decent job in a very tough situation. With this budget, he has to be aggressive if he is to win anything. His aggressiveness got us the small deals we have. It got us Olivo. It got us Uribe. It got Harris. It got Schoe, Loaiza, Marte, Takatsu. If he sat on his hands, we might still be seeing John Snyder, Jim Parque and James Baldwin in the rotation.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have conservativism from our GM, but great moves. That only comes from franchises with loads of money to spend. Unless someone forks over the 350mm it would take to get JR to surrender control, I dont see it.

KW has done well in his time. Hopefully this is our year!

It's not that tough of a situation. It's not like KW has the Expos budget or the A's budget or the Brewers budget. Its not like KW started with a team that was terrible. He has an average budget and started with a good team. He has won nothing. He deserves no praise. All he has done for the Sox is not lose the core that was around in 2000.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
It's not that tough of a situation. It's not like KW has the Expos budget or the A's budget or the Brewers budget. Its not like KW started with a team that was terrible. He has an average budget and started with a good team. He has won nothing. He deserves no praise. All he has done for the Sox is not lose the core that was around in 2000.


Actually, he has only 5mm more than Oakland has in the budget so far. His budget is less than half as much than the teams favored to win the AL (Anaheim, NY and Boston). He has about half as much as the four top teams in the NL (Philly, CHN, HOU, LA). No, he doesn't have the Brewers/Expos budgets - your excellent use of hyperbole proves noithing. But he has to try and compete against 120mm budges on a 65mm budget. Given that, he has done a very good job as far as I see it. Last year we were a few wins away (not at all KWs fault, he did everything he could) from making the playoffs and I felt we matched up very well against playoff teams in a shorter series.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by iwannago
KW sucks, period.

Gee, you can't argue with that kind of reasoned analysis.

poorme
05-14-2004, 09:32 AM
Let's see here....McDowell, Thomas, Ventura, Alex Fernandez, Lance Johnson, James Baldwin, Wilson Alvarez, Roberto Hernandez, Jason Bere, Greg Hibbard, Sosa,....who was that GM that obtained these "prospects?"

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
That is an absolute myth. The fact is we had already demoted Foulke. He was done as the closer on this team. We would not have resigned him - not have kept him, and not have had him as our closer last year under any circumstance.


Then the people making baseball decisions, manager to GM should be fired for incompetence. That reasoning only makes Kenny look worse.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
If he sits on his hands, people would ask where his big move is. (Remember the offseason?) And please, list all the good players he has robbed our system of. I guarantee you that I can list more good players that he brought into the system via trade than you can that we lost.

Nobody is nominating KW for the HOF - I am only saying that he has done a decent job in a very tough situation. With this budget, he has to be aggressive if he is to win anything. His aggressiveness got us the small deals we have. It got us Olivo. It got us Uribe. It got Harris. It got Schoe, Loaiza, Marte, Takatsu. If he sat on his hands, we might still be seeing John Snyder, Jim Parque and James Baldwin in the rotation.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have conservativism from our GM, but great moves. That only comes from franchises with loads of money to spend. Unless someone forks over the 350mm it would take to get JR to surrender control, I dont see it.

KW has done well in his time. Hopefully this is our year!

No one said anything about conservatism, just smart moves. Kenny has made some, but the disastrous moves he has made have killed this team. It is all good he can succeed with marginal moves, but that isn't good enough.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No one said anything about conservatism, just smart moves. Kenny has made some, but the disastrous moves he has made have killed this team. It is all good he can succeed with marginal moves, but that isn't good enough.

Actually, Lowesox said he was too aggressive. Aggressive is the opposite of conservative. If Lowesosx wanted him to be less aggressive, that would mean he would be more conservative, I think.

I still don't know what these disasterous moves were exactly. To this day, some of the Koch-trade bashers have yet to acknowledge that we would not have had Foulke anyhow - we had given up on him as a closer. Blame JM - not KW. And to say KW should have fired Jerry is a stretch. That wasn't a realistic option at the time.

The only moves he made that I felt were terrible when he made it, and still stands today as terrible is the contract he gave to Konerko and to Valentin. I had no reason to believe Koch was done after his season in Oakland. I know people here say they did, but at the time, I don't remember hearing any criticism. (Now I wasn't here @ WSI to know - but I never recall any major criticism at the time) same is true for Fogg/Wells for Richie. We wanted a veteran starter, KW went out and got one. Too bad he stunk - but it really wasn't a bad effort by KW.

All in all - Kenny has made far more good moves than bad moves. Of his bad moves, I liked most of them, or was at least ambivalent to them, when we made them. I just don't understand why there is so much anti-KW stuff given his record finding and acquiring talented players for this team and not having to give up too much to get them. I mean - some of his acquisitions stunk in the end - I'll give you that, but how often did he trade something that had value to us, that would have been contributing for us for time to come, that we wish he didn't trade where he got something bad in return?

Randar68
05-14-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No one said anything about conservatism, just smart moves. Kenny has made some, but the disastrous moves he has made have killed this team. It is all good he can succeed with marginal moves, but that isn't good enough.

Please point me to all the key players he has given up that would be helping us now.

Kip Wells and WHO? Kip would be another 3,4,or,5 starter on this team. Whoopdie F'in Doo.

:hawk

"Your what hurts?"

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Actually, Lowesox said he was too aggressive. Aggressive is the opposite of conservative.

Someone should have told Bush that!

bobj4400
05-14-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
The only moves he made that I felt were terrible when he made it, and still stands today as terrible is the contract he gave to Konerko and to Valentin.

I would go one step further, and say the contract he gave to Valentin was not a bad move. The bad move he made regarding Valentin was picking up the third year option for 5 million. That contract made sense when it was given after the 2000? season, but the market has changed since then and 5m for Valentin is now a HORRIBLY bad contract. KW should have declined the option and tried to renegotiate. If Manos had said no, then bye-bye.

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by bobj4400
I would go one step further, and say the contract he gave to Valentin was not a bad move. The bad move he made regarding Valentin was picking up the third year option for 5 million. That contract made sense when it was given after the 2000? season, but the market has changed since then and 5m for Valentin is now a HORRIBLY bad contract. KW should have declined the option and tried to renegotiate. If Manos had said no, then bye-bye.

Remember, at the time he was counting on what looked like a done deal in ARod-Maggs-Nomar all switching teams. Then Val was going to be trade bait for a team like Seattle (which is still looking for some offense). It doesn't make the contract any better, but he wasn't picking him up to have a $5m SS, he was doing it to have a tradeable asset.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by bobj4400
I would go one step further, and say the contract he gave to Valentin was not a bad move. The bad move he made regarding Valentin was picking up the third year option for 5 million. That contract made sense when it was given after the 2000? season, but the market has changed since then and 5m for Valentin is now a HORRIBLY bad contract. KW should have declined the option and tried to renegotiate. If Manos had said no, then bye-bye.


That was what I meant - not the first Valentin contract - but giving him 5mm this season. sorry for not being clearer.

fquaye149
05-14-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by jabrch


(Now I wasn't here @ WSI to know - but I never recall any major criticism at the time) same is true for Fogg/Wells for Richie. We wanted a veteran starter, KW went out and got one. Too bad he stunk - but it really wasn't a bad effort by KW.



i agree. there was a large contingency last year who wouldn't have been disappointed if we gave up prospects (hell, there were even people who wanted to give up crede!) for pitchers like ponson, suppan, and weaver.

obviously in retrospect the ritchie decision bit us in the ass. but if we had given up rauch or munoz for suppan or ponson last year or crede for weaver(!!!!!) and they would have came here and been average or worse (which seems quite likely given their performances) then all of a sudden what looked like a strong move at the time becomes an albatross.

at the same time if we never made the ritchie deal and wells hadn't put up the numbers he is putting up in pittsburgh (which many believe is because of pittsburgh's third tier status) we don't look that g'damned intelligent just because we have a pitcher (wells) with a 4.50 era sitting on our staff and a never will-be like josh fogg bloating our roster.

but that's not what happened, just as we never traded for suppan, ponson or weaver. yes, hindsight is the only way to evaluate a trade, but when you use hindsight it's hard to factor in the realistically unexpected (ritchie being as horrible as he was) or the extenuating circumstances (wells flourishing in the small market environment) that are common in almost any trade.

Just because Ponson was blah for San Fran and sucks now and weaver was a disaster in New York, doesn't mean that Kenny was right to pass them up, as they could have been great here. Same goes for Kenny's trades that end up poorly - Koch/Cotts-Foulke, Wells Trade, Ritchie Trade.

Just because they ended up poorly doesn't mean that Kenny was fleeced at the time, just as Olivo becoming an excellent young catcher doesn't mean that Beane was fleeced in the Bradford deal.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No one said anything about conservatism, just smart moves. Kenny has made some, but the disastrous moves he has made have killed this team. It is all good he can succeed with marginal moves, but that isn't good enough.

That's absurd. If he hadn't made the "marginal moves" as you dismissively call them, then this team would suck horribly. If not for Marte, Gordon, Colon, Schoenweiss, Loaiza, etc. over the last few years, this team would have been a sub-.500 team. He hasn't been perfect, but you're basically saying "If he had made all his good moves but hadn't made any of his bad moves, this team would be really good. Therefore, he sucks." That's just asinine.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Please point me to all the key players he has given up that would be helping us now.

Kip Wells and WHO? Kip would be another 3,4,or,5 starter on this team. Whoopdie F'in Doo.

:hawk

"Your what hurts?"

By putting some of the junk he put on this team, Clayton, Ritchie, Koch to name a few he destroy the team.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
i agree. there was a large contingency last year who wouldn't have been disappointed if we gave up prospects (hell, there were even people who wanted to give up crede!) for pitchers like ponson, suppan, and weaver.

obviously in retrospect the ritchie decision bit us in the ass. but if we had given up rauch or munoz for suppan or ponson last year or crede for weaver(!!!!!) and they would have came here and been average or worse (which seems quite likely given their performances) then all of a sudden what looked like a strong move at the time becomes an albatross.

at the same time if we never made the ritchie deal and wells hadn't put up the numbers he is putting up in pittsburgh (which many believe is because of pittsburgh's third tier status) we don't look that g'damned intelligent just because we have a pitcher (wells) with a 4.50 era sitting on our staff and a never will-be like josh fogg bloating our roster.

but that's not what happened, just as we never traded for suppan, ponson or weaver. yes, hindsight is the only way to evaluate a trade, but when you use hindsight it's hard to factor in the realistically unexpected (ritchie being as horrible as he was) or the extenuating circumstances (wells flourishing in the small market environment) that are common in almost any trade.

Just because Ponson was blah for San Fran and sucks now and weaver was a disaster in New York, doesn't mean that Kenny was right to pass them up, as they could have been great here. Same goes for Kenny's trades that end up poorly - Koch/Cotts-Foulke, Wells Trade, Ritchie Trade.

Just because they ended up poorly doesn't mean that Kenny was fleeced at the time, just as Olivo becoming an excellent young catcher doesn't mean that Beane was fleeced in the Bradford deal.

That is some convoluted logic there.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's absurd. If he hadn't made the "marginal moves" as you dismissively call them, then this team would suck horribly. If not for Marte, Gordon, Colon, Schoenweiss, Loaiza, etc. over the last few years, this team would have been a sub-.500 team. He hasn't been perfect, but you're basically saying "If he had made all his good moves but hadn't made any of his bad moves, this team would be really good. Therefore, he sucks." That's just asinine.

Gordon and Loaiza were castoffs, that Kenny pick up cheap. Good moves as the risk was low and but there was a chance for a high reward. Colon was a good move but I think he was greatly benefited from the Yankees not wanting Colon to go to Boston. Schoenweiss is looking good, but it is earlier. Marte was a marginal move, he traded for a guy who was about to be released.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
By putting some of the junk he put on this team, Clayton, Ritchie, Koch to name a few he destroy the team.

So, you've basically got nothing but a sour taste in your mouth?

Like I said, the good FAR outweighs and outnumbers the bad.

*** would you expect from a GM learning on the job?

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Marte was a marginal move, he traded for a guy who was about to be released.

Nothing like buying Pittsburg's spin-control, hook line and sinker, huh?

His slider looks so flat, just like the Pirates said, right?

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Nothing like buying Pittsburg's spin-control, hook line and sinker, huh?

Is said that at the time of the trade. Hard for it to be spin control before Marte plays.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
i agree. there was a large contingency last year who wouldn't have been disappointed if we gave up prospects (hell, there were even people who wanted to give up crede!) for pitchers like ponson, suppan, and weaver.

obviously in retrospect the ritchie decision bit us in the ass. but if we had given up rauch or munoz for suppan or ponson last year or crede for weaver(!!!!!) and they would have came here and been average or worse (which seems quite likely given their performances) then all of a sudden what looked like a strong move at the time becomes an albatross.

at the same time if we never made the ritchie deal and wells hadn't put up the numbers he is putting up in pittsburgh (which many believe is because of pittsburgh's third tier status) we don't look that g'damned intelligent just because we have a pitcher (wells) with a 4.50 era sitting on our staff and a never will-be like josh fogg bloating our roster.

but that's not what happened, just as we never traded for suppan, ponson or weaver. yes, hindsight is the only way to evaluate a trade, but when you use hindsight it's hard to factor in the realistically unexpected (ritchie being as horrible as he was) or the extenuating circumstances (wells flourishing in the small market environment) that are common in almost any trade.

Just because Ponson was blah for San Fran and sucks now and weaver was a disaster in New York, doesn't mean that Kenny was right to pass them up, as they could have been great here. Same goes for Kenny's trades that end up poorly - Koch/Cotts-Foulke, Wells Trade, Ritchie Trade.

Just because they ended up poorly doesn't mean that Kenny was fleeced at the time, just as Olivo becoming an excellent young catcher doesn't mean that Beane was fleeced in the Bradford deal.

All I got out of this post is that no one can ever criticize any GM ever because maybe the moves they didn't make would have been worse than the moves they did make. Or something like that. I think.

Anyway, the bottom line is, KW has been GM for 3 full seasons. His teams have won 83, 81, and 86 games and finished third, second, and second. Until he is the GM of a team that ACTUALLY WINS SOMETHING, it's ridiculous to call him a top-5 GM, one of the best in the GM, the best GM the Sox have had the last 30 years, etc, etc. People who say that KW is just terrible are not correct--he has made good moves, most of which are recounted in this thread. But people who are right now preparing his bronzed Hall of Fame plaque are nuts--he's also made bad moves that WERE HIS FAULT, and, again, his teams HAVE WON NOTHING.

Folks, there is a middle ground between absolute suck and genius. KW is in that middle ground. Let's be rationale for a minute and all acknowledge that.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
So, you've basically got nothing but a sour taste in your mouth?

Like I said, the good FAR outweighs and outnumbers the bad.

*** would you expect from a GM learning on the job?

I disagree, I think the bad out wieghs the good.

For him not to be hired in the first place if he isn't ready.

After 2000, how can any of the past seasons leave anything but a sour taste in your mouth?

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
iobviously in retrospect the ritchie decision bit us in the ass. but if we had given up rauch or munoz for suppan or ponson last year or crede for weaver(!!!!!) and they would have came here and been average or worse (which seems quite likely given their performances) then all of a sudden what looked like a strong move at the time becomes an albatross.



The big difference you're missing here is that suppan or ponson would have fit in behind Cy Young contender Loaiza, Colon, Buerhle and an improved Garland. Ritchie was supposed to be a #2 pitcher on a supposed contender who's only solid starter was Buerhle. Any sox fan w/ any sense knew we had no chance in hell w/ Ritchie even if he didn't tank so why give up a few good young arms for gaining so little? Last year, it would have been worth it. Average or worse would have been a huge improvement over what we had at #5, but doesn't cut it going into a new season as a #2.

fquaye149
05-14-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
All I got out of this post is that no one can ever criticize any GM ever because maybe the moves they didn't make would have been worse than the moves they did make. Or something like that. I think.


Folks, there is a middle ground between absolute suck and genius. KW is in that middle ground. Let's be rationale for a minute and all acknowledge that.


i'm not saying he's not a mediocre gm. the point of the post is that there are some trades that are undeniably horrible - larry anderson for bagwell, lou brock for ernie broglio that are bad no matter how you look at it.


however, the trades that kenny williams is criticized for making, esp. the ritchie deal are not cut and dry like that. i was simply highlighting the danger of looking at trades strictly from a retrospective perspective is that you eliminate any of the circumstances that resulted in the present values of the players.

you can call it convoluted logic if you want, but at the time, the ritchie trade may have been ill advised but it wasn't an absolute fleecing on the pittsburgh gm's part any more than kw fleeced beane because olivo is doing well here while bradford is pitching poorly this year.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I disagree, I think the bad out wieghs the good.

For him not to be hired in the first place if he isn't ready.

After 2000, how can any of the past seasons leave anything but a sour taste in your mouth?

You've cited basically 3 deals as the primary cause for your dislike of Kenny, yet outside of Kip "The pants crapper", you don't have the name of a single player KW gave up that would be helping us now.

This is unreal. He's made probably 30-40 moves in those 4 years, and a majority have turned out well. Yet, like a classic sky-is-falling Sox fan, you decide to stew on a handful or fewer, that, in hindsight, didn't work out.

Ritchie is about all I'll give you in terms of trades. The Konerko and Koch contracts were definitely bad moves, hard to dispute. However, as others have posted, with a limited payroll, it's often worse to wait and end up paying much more in tyhe future... you have to be proactive.

Really, I don't know why I keep arguing this point to you. You're hanging your hat on 1% of his history thus far, and have very little to support your position. You're unwilling to use logic or reason or for the most part, even discuss the other 99% of his performance.

The horse is dead, your mind is closed, and there is no point continuing this discussion. I'm already soaking wet from pissing into this wind...

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
The big difference you're missing here is that suppan or ponson would have fit in behind Cy Young contender Loaiza, Colon, Buerhle and an improved Garland. Ritchie was supposed to be a #2 pitcher on a supposed contender who's only solid starter was Buerhle. Any sox fan w/ any sense knew we had no chance in hell w/ Ritchie even if he didn't tank so why give up a few good young arms for gaining so little? Last year, it would have been worth it. Average or worse would have been a huge improvement over what we had at #5, but doesn't cut it going into a new season as a #2.

Since we're so fond of hindsight...

Kip Wells would be what, the #4 or #5 starter on this team? They took a chance at a veteran pitcher that was expected to perform no worse than a #3 or #4 pitcher, but hopefully as a #2 pitcher.

It CERTAINLY didn't work out, and if anyone noticed, Ritchie went on to have bad shoulder problems diagnosed shortly after leaving Chicago.

However, The fabulous Kip Wells is nothing better than what was expected out of Ritchie, TO THIS DAY!

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You've cited basically 3 deals as the primary cause for your dislike of Kenny, yet outside of Kip "The pants crapper", you don't have the name of a single player KW gave up that would be helping us now.

This is unreal. He's made probably 30-40 moves in those 4 years, and a majority have turned out well. Yet, like a classic sky-is-falling Sox fan, you decide to stew on a handful or fewer, that, in hindsight, didn't work out.

Ritchie is about all I'll give you in terms of trades. The Konerko and Koch contracts were definitely bad moves, hard to dispute. However, as others have posted, with a limited payroll, it's often worse to wait and end up paying much more in tyhe future... you have to be proactive.

Really, I don't know why I keep arguing this point to you. You're hanging your hat on 1% of his history thus far, and have very little to support your position. You're unwilling to use logic or reason or for the most part, even discuss the other 99% of his performance.

The horse is dead, your mind is closed, and there is no point continuing this discussion. I'm already soaking wet from pissing into this wind...

I think you are useing a bad method of evaluating trades, it isn't about just who you gave up, but more importantly how much did the guy you brought in help out. You are limiting yourself to looking at one time of cost, players given up, and forgetting about opportunity cost. Could have Kenny used the players traded to obtain better players? If the player you acquire does not help your team out, then no matter the talenent level of the players given up, you made a bad trade. Since you traded the players they must of had some vaule, and thus a GM could have traded for a different player(s) then the bum the the GM got.

poorme
05-14-2004, 12:43 PM
The most important thing a team of limited means can do is draft well. KW has looked to be an improvement over Schueler for sure. We shall know more information in the next year or two.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think you are useing a bad method of evaluating trades, it isn't about just who you gave up, but more importantly how much did the guy you brought in help out. You are limiting yourself to looking at one time of cost, players given up, and forgetting about opportunity cost. Could have Kenny used the players traded to obtain better players?

So, Kenny was supposed to be aware that, in the future, Ritchie would have a shoulder injury that caused him to lose effectiveness? Maybe you forget that he performed very well through the first couple months of that season. Who know Wells would turn into Jabba the Hut a year after winning 20 games?

Not everything is under the control of the GM, and very little of what is known today about the players and moves, was known at the time.

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If the player you acquire does not help your team out, then no matter the talenent level of the players given up, you made a bad trade. Since you traded the players they must of had some vaule, and thus a GM could have traded for a different player(s) then the bum the the GM got.

If you gave up nothing of consequence, and the guy you brought in was an upgrade in even the smallest way, it was a beneficial deal. You're way out on this limb, now. We have given up marginal prospects to fill holes on the MLB team over and over. How much value did Aaron Myette have in your fantasy world? Our system was bereft of IF players and help was nowhere in sight. That is something that KW changed over time, but unless you have unlimited resources, it can't be fixed overnight. Harris, Uribe, Andy Gonzalez, Robert Valido...


Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Could have Kenny used the players traded to obtain better players?

This is probably a favorite of yours because all it is BLIND hypothetical, and the only way to support or deny it, is through absolute fantasy.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Is said that at the time of the trade. Hard for it to be spin control before Marte plays.

Spin giving up a player for a marginal AAA player. Pittsburg was moving into a new park, they were trying to justify giving up somebody who was expected to contribute for a AAA player...

Sheeesh. Even your hindsight is cloudy.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Since we're so fond of hindsight...

Kip Wells would be what, the #4 or #5 starter on this team? They took a chance at a veteran pitcher that was expected to perform no worse than a #3 or #4 pitcher, but hopefully as a #2 pitcher.

It CERTAINLY didn't work out, and if anyone noticed, Ritchie went on to have bad shoulder problems diagnosed shortly after leaving Chicago.

However, The fabulous Kip Wells is nothing better than what was expected out of Ritchie, TO THIS DAY!

Rander, this is ridiculous. Ritchie's best year was in 1999, in which he started 26 games, threw 172 2/3 innings, and had an ERA of 3.49. This apparently is what Kenny saw when he traded for Ritchie...which ignores 2000 and 2001, in which he started 31 and 33 games, threw 187 and 207 1/3 innings (which is good), but with ERAs of 4.81 and 4.47 (which is not so good, especially in the NL).

Meanwhile, in his 2 seasons since going to Pittsburgh, Kip has started 33 and 31 games, thrown 198 1/3 and 197 1/3 innings, and posted ERAs of 3.58 and 3.28. He's FAR better than Ritchie EVER was.

If Kenny traded for Ritchie because he really thought he'd lower his ERA by a full run while pitching the same number of innings, he's an idiot. But you're claiming that's what Ritchie was supposed to do, because that's what Kip Wells is doing right now, and according to you, that's what was expected out of Ritchie.

The Ritchie/Wells et al trade looked bad at the time, and it looks even worse now. How many Sox pitchers in last 2 years have pitched almost 200 innings with ERAs in the low to mid 3's? Or, heck, bump it up a half run to reflect DHs batting in the AL. How many Sox pitchers have thrown almost 200 innnings with ERAs in the mid to upper 3's? Buehrle did it once, Loaiza did it once, Colon did it once. Kip Wells did it TWICE all by himself.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
The Ritchie/Wells et al trade looked bad at the time, and it looks even worse now. How many Sox pitchers in last 2 years have pitched almost 200 innings with ERAs in the low to mid 3's? Or, heck, bump it up a half run to reflect DHs batting in the AL. How many Sox pitchers have thrown almost 200 innnings with ERAs in the mid to upper 3's? Buehrle did it once, Loaiza did it once, Colon did it once. Kip Wells did it TWICE all by himself.

Pittsburg hasn't been within 5 games of first place in June or later since Wells arrived. Please, for a guy who crapped his shorts in every clutch or high pressure situation while here, and who has been in about ZERO of those situations in Pittsburg, you're comparison is utterly useless, IMO.

I agree that thinking Ritchie was going to be a #2 pitcher was foolish. However, they had a pile of kids and needed a veteran in the middle of the staff who could go 200 innings. That's basically what they thought Ritchie was giving them AT THE MINIMUM!

Oh, and you're comparing Ritchie's NL ERA when complaining about a shift to the AL, but fail to account for it in your effusive praise of "Kipper"???

Way to be consistent.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think you are useing a bad method of evaluating trades, it isn't about just who you gave up, but more importantly how much did the guy you brought in help out. You are limiting yourself to looking at one time of cost, players given up, and forgetting about opportunity cost. Could have Kenny used the players traded to obtain better players? If the player you acquire does not help your team out, then no matter the talenent level of the players given up, you made a bad trade. Since you traded the players they must of had some vaule, and thus a GM could have traded for a different player(s) then the bum the the GM got.

That's nonsense. Your hindsight is so good that is it getting in the way of logical analysis. What great trades did KW pass up? Where are the great failures where he gave propsects who had impact on anyone up for bums? I just dont understand how you can possibly argue that based on hidnsight, KW is a bad GM for 2 or 3 bad moves during a tenure where he made so many good ones.

At the same time, you are, I think, one of the people putting Billy Beane in the top tier of GMs for adding Scott Hatteberg, Mark Ellis and Terrance Long. Williams has done a superior job than Beane when it comes to adding talent to the team via trades and FA. (Marte, Uribe, Harris, Loaiza, Schoe, etc) The only significant difference between Beane and KWs actions (not results - actions) are that Beane let a lot of veteran FAs walk or traded them while KW kept more of them (Magglio, Frank, Carlos, Valentin).

Now is when you tell me about Beane's record the past 4 years - ok - thanks

Now I tell you that Beane has not had a team since 2001 that had the talent to win a playoff series against a top tier team with top tier pitching

Now you tell me that this isn't true - and that the playoffs are all about who is hot - and that it isn't a factor of the star power you have.

Now I tell you that teams can be built to win 95 games, but not be well configured to win in the playoffs

And you tell me this is hogwash - that Billy Beane says eventually his teams will be hot at the right time and win.

So i tell you that Scott Hatteberg will never be the 1B of a World Championship team, and that the Sox are better equipped to beat the Yankees or the Red Sox than Oakland is...

I think I have been here before...I am getting off this merry-go-round and going to have a burrito.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Gordon and Loaiza were castoffs, that Kenny pick up cheap. Good moves as the risk was low and but there was a chance for a high reward. Colon was a good move but I think he was greatly benefited from the Yankees not wanting Colon to go to Boston. Schoenweiss is looking good, but it is earlier. Marte was a marginal move, he traded for a guy who was about to be released.

So? You may speculate that KW wasn't the force behind the Colon deal, but that's just speculation and, in the end, who cares - he got Colon for nothing. And who cares if Pittsburgh undervalued Marte - KW got him for a guy that has not and probably never will amount to much of anything. Gordon and Loaiza were castoffs? Again, all that proves is that KW is more astute than the GMs that cast them off.

So, what's your point?

Your attempts to dismiss KW's good moves as mere luck or someone else's ideas, etc., seem to suggest a bias against KW, not a reasoned analysis. I don't see you attributing his bad moves to bad luck (although others here - wrongly, IMHO - have done so).

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 01:30 PM
I think Hawk said it best:

"When you have 3 20 game winners on your team, you can play however the hell you want."

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Since we're so fond of hindsight...

Kip Wells would be what, the #4 or #5 starter on this team? They took a chance at a veteran pitcher that was expected to perform no worse than a #3 or #4 pitcher, but hopefully as a #2 pitcher.

It CERTAINLY didn't work out, and if anyone noticed, Ritchie went on to have bad shoulder problems diagnosed shortly after leaving Chicago.

However, The fabulous Kip Wells is nothing better than what was expected out of Ritchie, TO THIS DAY!


My point is the move was insufficient to make the team competetive in '02, even if he had pitched as he had in pitt. Hindsight has nothing to do with it. We needed a good pitcher, KW made a trade for a mediocre pitcher, whom everyone knew at the time was mediocre, and presented it as the solution to the woes of the starting staff, gave up some good young arms, and even if Ritchie had performed up to his 4.50 or so era standard, would not have amounted to a hill of beans as far as a successful team is concerned. I don't lament the loss of wells and fogg and whoever else, it was just a lame move. We needed a 9, KW got us a 5, and he turned out to be a 1.

I agree Kip Wells is nothing more than what Ritchie was in Pittsburgh, but the Sox needed more in the way of SP to compete.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
I agree Kip Wells is nothing more than what Ritchie was in Pittsburgh, but the Sox needed more in the way of SP to compete.

And I'd propose to you that there was really nothing else out there available given what he had to trade. So he took a calculated gamble that while it didn't pay off, it wasn't a bloodbath of the Brock/Broglio proportion.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Oh, and you're comparing Ritchie's NL ERA when complaining about a shift to the AL, but fail to account for it in your effusive praise of "Kipper"???

Way to be consistent.

Actually, he compared the "Kipper's" NL ERA w/ Ritchie's NL ERA, so where's the inconsistency?

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
That's nonsense. Your hindsight is so good that is it getting in the way of logical analysis. What great trades did KW pass up? Where are the great failures where he gave propsects who had impact on anyone up for bums? I just dont understand how you can possibly argue that based on hidnsight, KW is a bad GM for 2 or 3 bad moves during a tenure where he made so many good ones.

At the same time, you are, I think, one of the people putting Billy Beane in the top tier of GMs for adding Scott Hatteberg, Mark Ellis and Terrance Long. Williams has done a superior job than Beane when it comes to adding talent to the team via trades and FA. (Marte, Uribe, Harris, Loaiza, Schoe, etc) The only significant difference between Beane and KWs actions (not results - actions) are that Beane let a lot of veteran FAs walk or traded them while KW kept more of them (Magglio, Frank, Carlos, Valentin).

Now is when you tell me about Beane's record the past 4 years - ok - thanks

Now I tell you that Beane has not had a team since 2001 that had the talent to win a playoff series against a top tier team with top tier pitching

Now you tell me that this isn't true - and that the playoffs are all about who is hot - and that it isn't a factor of the star power you have.

Now I tell you that teams can be built to win 95 games, but not be well configured to win in the playoffs

And you tell me this is hogwash - that Billy Beane says eventually his teams will be hot at the right time and win.

So i tell you that Scott Hatteberg will never be the 1B of a World Championship team, and that the Sox are better equipped to beat the Yankees or the Red Sox than Oakland is...

I think I have been here before...I am getting off this merry-go-round and going to have a burrito.


Kenny better then Beane that is ****ing recockulous. Thanks for the laugh.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I think Hawk said it best:

"When you have 3 20 game winners on your team, you can play however the hell you want."

Hawk really knows how to be a successful a GM.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Actually, he compared the "Kipper's" NL ERA w/ Ritchie's NL ERA, so where's the inconsistency?

ACTUALLY... he compared Kipper's NL ERA to that of Buehrle, Colon, and Loaiza in the AL.

reading is a skill.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Kenny better then Beane that is ****ing recockulous. Thanks for the laugh.

Not nearly as baseless as the majority of your posts on the matter.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 01:52 PM
For what it's worth (simply to add to the discussion not to take sides.)

I remember reading at least twice in The Sporting News before the start of the 2003 season that Williams and the Dodgers were talking deal. L.A. supposedly offered Gagne and Isturiz (sorry about the spelling) I remember reading this material in both the Sox and Dodger sections and e-mailed Bob Vanderberg to get his thoughts on it.

For whatever reason a deal was never struck.

Lip

poorme
05-14-2004, 01:54 PM
I seem to recall KW was offering Howry??

jabrch
05-14-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Kenny better then Beane that is ****ing recockulous. Thanks for the laugh.


I didn't say he is a better GM - I said, "Williams has done a superior job than Beane when it comes to adding talent to the team via trades and FA" PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST - TWICE IF YOU MUST.

Can you tell me who Beane has added via Trades and FA that helped that club? If the best you can tell me is Chad Bradford, then I thank you for the laughs.

Hatteberg? Dye? (talk about contrat problems) who else? Redman? None of these guys are any good. Beane has done a much better job drafting than KW - but hasn't done nearly close to him in terms of BRINGING IN FA, and unless I am forgetting something, his trades haven't been spectacular either.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
And I'd propose to you that there was really nothing else out there available given what he had to trade. So he took a calculated gamble that while it didn't pay off, it wasn't a bloodbath of the Brock/Broglio proportion.

So why give up a few promising yet unproven arms for a proven mediocre arm when its not going to help your team win a division?
If he had acquired 4 mediocre veterans to back up buerhle in the rotation, then maybe the Sox would have had a slim chance of winning that year. If the sox already had 3 solid starters, maybe it would have helped the team. If you thought Garland, Glover, and Wright were going to suddenly develop into good dependable starters and you just needed someone to eat up innings at the back of the rotation, then maybe it was a good trade. But if you were realistic and realised the sox either needed to go out and get a couple of GOOD starters, or sit back and wait for their young pitchers to develop if you hoped to WIN THE DIVISION, then it was a bad trade whether Ritchie pitched at his previous MEDIOCRE level or whether he pitched at the horrible level he ended up at.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
So, Kenny was supposed to be aware that, in the future, Ritchie would have a shoulder injury that caused him to lose effectiveness? Maybe you forget that he performed very well through the first couple months of that season. Who know Wells would turn into Jabba the Hut a year after winning 20 games?

Not everything is under the control of the GM, and very little of what is known today about the players and moves, was known at the time.



If you gave up nothing of consequence, and the guy you brought in was an upgrade in even the smallest way, it was a beneficial deal. You're way out on this limb, now. We have given up marginal prospects to fill holes on the MLB team over and over. How much value did Aaron Myette have in your fantasy world? Our system was bereft of IF players and help was nowhere in sight. That is something that KW changed over time, but unless you have unlimited resources, it can't be fixed overnight. Harris, Uribe, Andy Gonzalez, Robert Valido...




This is probably a favorite of yours because all it is BLIND hypothetical, and the only way to support or deny it, is through absolute fantasy.

Wow for a guy who champions about player development, is harping on Wells who was struggling while still developing when playing for the Sox. Kind arguing out of both sides of your mouth there.

Clayton filled what hole? Jose was/is the better SS, and still with the team. What holes did Clayton fill in the system? I guess in your fantasy world Clayton helped fill the lack of young developing shortstops. Please that is a weak ass argument there. Are you just trying to throw stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks? Maybe Aaron could have brought in AA SS to help in bring the system up and not some brokeass castway.

Yes opportunity is a hypothetical question but it is a real cost of doing business. By making one choice you eliminate any other choices you could have made with those resources. To ignore that is bad process exercise of making decisions.

poorme
05-14-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Redman? None of these guys are any good.

I'm not a Beaneophile, but Redman was a great pickup.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
So why give up a few promising yet unproven arms for a proven mediocre arm when its not going to help your team win a division?


If Kip and Ritchie had put up similar ERA's, it was assumed that Ritchie would be 200+ innings.

Kip showed no signs of ever being able to get through the 6th innings of games. He made Garland's problems look like child's play.

They had a very young staff and needed someone to eat innings. COnstrained by payroll and unable to find a deal to get a true top of the rotation pitcher, what other options were there? In addition, he hadn't been on the job but a year and that deal was really pushed from behind the scenes by Ron Schueler, and, IIRC, Roland (not 100% on Roland, but certain on Ron)

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I didn't say he is a better GM - I said, "Williams has done a superior job than Beane when it comes to adding talent to the team via trades and FA" PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST - TWICE IF YOU MUST.

Can you tell me who Beane has added via Trades and FA that helped that club? If the best you can tell me is Chad Bradford, then I thank you for the laughs.

Hatteberg? Dye? (talk about contrat problems) who else? Redman? None of these guys are any good. Beane has done a much better job drafting than KW - but hasn't done nearly close to him in terms of BRINGING IN FA, and unless I am forgetting something, his trades haven't been spectacular either.

Who has Kenny brought in as an FA? Harold Baines?

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
So why give up a few promising yet unproven arms for a proven mediocre arm when its not going to help your team win a division?

There was reason to hope Richie would have helped us win a division - unless we took out our hindsight glasses, in which case it is an entirely different story.


Ya know, in 2002 we had a bunch of other problems also. Thomas was just off an injury and was terrible. Carlos hadn't developed yet. Clayton, Valentin, Durham and Konerko weren't a great IF. The pen was mediocre. I am not sure I blame 2002 all on KW for the Richie deal. That was one piece of the puzzle -- one move he made trying to better the team.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
There was reason to hope Richie would have helped us win a division - unless we took out our hindsight glasses, in which case it is an entirely different story.


For a blind man, this isn't hindsight. You could have look at Ritchie and realize there was a high probability he was going to fail

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Who has Kenny brought in as an FA? Harold Baines?

Sorry E Lo totaly escaped my mind there, also Gordon. But that is it.

Also Kenny Lofton, help for a month then thats it. Sandy, no real help. Could have got the same production out of Mark Johnson and Josh Paul. Canseco help out for 1/2 a year.

Beane makes his living and his teams by trades, since he needs to give up payroll to add some, so it eliminates FA moves. Thus he really lacks any. But I think Beane has done a much better job in trading then Kenny has.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
you're comparing Ritchie's NL ERA when complaining about a shift to the AL, but fail to account for it in your effusive praise of "Kipper"???



Why would you write this sentence if you're complaining about his comparison between "kipper" and loaiza, colon,etc?

Writing is a skill.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Wow for a guy who champions about player development, is harping on Wells who was struggling while still developing when playing for the Sox. Kind arguing out of both sides of your mouth there.

Care to elaborate? Mental toughness is not tought.

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Clayton filled what hole? Jose was/is the better SS, and still with the team. What holes did Clayton fill in the system? I guess in your fantasy world Clayton helped fill the lack of young developing shortstops. Please that is a weak ass argument there. Are you just trying to throw stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks? Maybe Aaron could have brought in AA SS to help in bring the system up and not some brokeass castway.

Jose made 36 errors at SS the year before and that was universally considered one of the team's biggest weaknesses. Clayton was a .260 career hitter, not much different than Jose, but minus the power. But then again, for someone who's hindsight isn't anywhere near 20/20, what did I expect?


Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yes opportunity is a hypothetical question but it is a real cost of doing business. By making one choice you eliminate any other choices you could have made with those resources. To ignore that is bad process exercise of making decisions.

Well, "opportunity cost" is a real concept. However, as you've suggested above, Aaron Myette or the like isn't going to get you any AA short-stop worth shaking a stick at. How many legit middle-infield prospects are out there? You think any team is going to just trade them away for AAAA players who can't get MLB hitters out and have already proven that?

Reality is a far cry from this fantasy world you argue from...

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Sorry E Lo totaly escaped my mind there, also Gordon. But that is it.

Mike Jackson
Shingo Takatsu
Brian Daubach
Rick White
Kenny Lofton (who he turned into 2 good pitching prospects)

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randar68
If Kip and Ritchie had put up similar ERA's, it was assumed that Ritchie would be 200+ innings.

Kip showed no signs of ever being able to get through the 6th innings of games. He made Garland's problems look like child's play.

They had a very young staff and needed someone to eat innings. COnstrained by payroll and unable to find a deal to get a true top of the rotation pitcher, what other options were there? [/


The other option is to realize since you aren't going to have enough pitching by adding 1 mediocre starter to set back and let your young pitchers develop, and then fill in your staff later when either your staff solidifies or you can find a deal for someone who can actually help you win. There's no point in giving up young pitchers for a stopgap.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
The other option is to realize since you aren't going to have enough pitching by adding 1 mediocre starter to set back and let your young pitchers develop, and then fill in your staff later when either your staff solidifies or you can find a deal for someone who can actually help you win. There's no point in giving up young pitchers for a stopgap.

Coming off a playoff season, they were supposed to go into "The Kids can Play 8?"

Come on...

poorme
05-14-2004, 02:15 PM
Just for completeness, Myette was a first rounder who had pitched 15 innings in the majors when he was traded. He was a "b-level" prospect at the time. Texas had just gotten A-rod and would have given Clayton away to anyone who would eat his salary. As it turns out it was a lose-lose for both sides. That doesn't mean I agreed with the logic then or now.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Who has Kenny brought in as an FA? Harold Baines?

Loaiza, Gordon, Takatsu, Jackson, Sandy

+ trades for Uribe, Harris, Adkins, Cotts, schoenweiss, Marte and Olivo.

Q: Where would this team be with Bradford, Hatteberg, Redman, Miller, Rhodes, McLemore and Kotsay?

A: Probably not even close to .500 and a bunch of games out - already talking about next year.

For all the Koch bashing that goes on here, he hasn't been significantly less effective than Arthur Rhodes.

You want McLemore over Uribe? How about Kotsay and Byrnes over Rowand and Timo? You want Miller over Olivo? You want Scutaro and Ellis over Harris? You want Hatteberg over anything? You want Hammond, Bradford, Rincon and Mecir over Marte, Takatsu, Adkins and Cotts? I didn't think so.

Beane is a good drafter - very good. But until someone tells me about his great record improving teams with trades and FA pickups, I will just go by what I see.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by poorme
He was a "b-level" prospect at the time.

That's a generous assessment.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Mike Jackson
Shingo Takatsu
Brian Daubach
Rick White
Kenny Lofton (who he turned into 2 good pitching prospects)

Daubach never really did anything here.
White, that was a great move

Jackson and Takatsu still remain to be judged.

Prospects mean nothing if they don't make it.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
There was reason to hope Richie would have helped us win a division - unless we took out our hindsight glasses, in which case it is an entirely different story.


Ya know, in 2002 we had a bunch of other problems also. Thomas was just off an injury and was terrible. Carlos hadn't developed yet. Clayton, Valentin, Durham and Konerko weren't a great IF. The pen was mediocre. I am not sure I blame 2002 all on KW for the Richie deal. That was one piece of the puzzle -- one move he made trying to better the team.

That's my point - the sox were not going to win in '02 because there pitching was too weak - so why give up young pitchers for someone who is not good enough to turn around the staff. They would have had to either bring in a couple of good starters or someone like Randy Johnson to have a legitimate shot w/ that pitching staff

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Overall, though, KW's personell moves I would count as a positive except for one huge error: He waited about 2 years too long to fire Manuel.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Mike Jackson
Shingo Takatsu
Brian Daubach
Rick White
Kenny Lofton (who he turned into 2 good pitching prospects)

+ Loaiza and Gordon

Give me the history of Billy Beane FAs? I don't think there are many of significant value.

poorme
05-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That's a generous assessment.

Well, it's not my assessment. I'm basically taking BA's word for it.

I would say it's pretty hard for a first round pick to become a "non-prospect" in a couple years. His minor league numbers were ok.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
That's my point - the sox were not going to win in '02 because there pitching was too weak - so why give up young pitchers for someone who is not good enough to turn around the staff. They would have had to either bring in a couple of good starters or someone like Randy Johnson to have a legitimate shot w/ that pitching staff

Because they actually could have won in 2002. What are you proposing, that they just gave up 2002 and not even played it? If they went into 2002 as a rebuilding year, saying that they had not chance to win, we'd have gone crazy.

What they did was give two prospects that they felt were fairly mediocre for a veteran pitcher who would help the staff, eat innings, and probably (so they hoped) win 15 games. It didn't work that way, but damn - I never remember hearing complaints when they made the move.

hindsight is 20/20. GMs only have the benefit of hindsight after they are fired.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Well, it's not my assessment. I'm basically taking BA's word for it.

I would say it's pretty hard for a first round pick to become a "non-prospect" in a couple years. His minor league numbers were ok.

First round picks bust quickly and often. Myette was already 24 years old, IIRC.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Overall, though, KW's personell moves I would count as a positive except for one huge error: He waited about 2 years too long to fire Manuel.

I do agree with that, although, I'm not convinced he could have even if he wanted to.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Care to elaborate? Mental toughness is not tought.



Jose made 36 errors at SS the year before and that was universally considered one of the team's biggest weaknesses. Clayton was a .260 career hitter, not much different than Jose, but minus the power. But then again, for someone who's hindsight isn't anywhere near 20/20, what did I expect?




Well, "opportunity cost" is a real concept. However, as you've suggested above, Aaron Myette or the like isn't going to get you any AA short-stop worth shaking a stick at. How many legit middle-infield prospects are out there? You think any team is going to just trade them away for AAAA players who can't get MLB hitters out and have already proven that?

Reality is a far cry from this fantasy world you argue from...

And you call other people closed minded. I forgot you are a god when it comes to baseball matters and no one should ever challenge you knowledge.

A good GM would realize the bigger hole was CF, and get someone to play that spot. Not pickup a SS to trade later, Kenny's stated reason for the Clayton trade, and move your current SS to Centerfield and Third base. This trade required the Sox keep down the hot prospect, Crede, and bench a capable veteran,Perry, at third. While I believe in upgrading, Clayton wasn't an upgrade over any of the other options. If one looked at range instead of FP% you saw Jose got to a greater number of balls then Clayton. Jose errors were made mostly in the first half and scaled down later in the season. His offense production helped propel the team to surprising win of the Central.

The GM's job is to see throw the crap the media was putting out there and find the truth. Jose was a better defensive SS then Clayton with a better bat. Clayton wasn't better then Perry at third.

poorme
05-14-2004, 02:28 PM
in case anyone is curious, here are his minor league stats

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=664

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Coming off a playoff season, they were supposed to go into "The Kids can Play 8?"

Come on...

The Sox went to the playoffs in 2001? I must have been in a coma that year.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Loaiza, Gordon, Takatsu, Jackson, Sandy

+ trades for Uribe, Harris, Adkins, Cotts, schoenweiss, Marte and Olivo.

Q: Where would this team be with Bradford, Hatteberg, Redman, Miller, Rhodes, McLemore and Kotsay?

A: Probably not even close to .500 and a bunch of games out - already talking about next year.

For all the Koch bashing that goes on here, he hasn't been significantly less effective than Arthur Rhodes.

You want McLemore over Uribe? How about Kotsay and Byrnes over Rowand and Timo? You want Miller over Olivo? You want Scutaro and Ellis over Harris? You want Hatteberg over anything? You want Hammond, Bradford, Rincon and Mecir over Marte, Takatsu, Adkins and Cotts? I didn't think so.

Beane is a good drafter - very good. But until someone tells me about his great record improving teams with trades and FA pickups, I will just go by what I see.

Give me Kotsay and Byrnes over what we currently have in CF. I would take Ellis over Harris. Hatteberg over Konerko, save millions for same level. I would take the A's pen over the Sox. Still not sold on 11 inning of Takatsu. Cotts might become a starter, but as young starter prospects go, give me Harden.
I would take Uribe over McLemore.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
And you call other people closed minded. I forgot you are a god when it comes to baseball matters and no one should ever challenge you knowledge.

Here we go again. Well, that just validated your POV...

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
A good GM would realize the bigger hole was CF, and get someone to play that spot. Not pickup a SS to trade later, Kenny's stated reason for the Clayton trade, and move your current SS to Centerfield and Third base. This trade required the Sox keep down the hot prospect, Crede, and bench a capable veteran,Perry, at third. While I believe in upgrading, Clayton wasn't an upgrade over any of the other options. If one looked at range instead of FP% you saw Jose got to a greater number of balls then Clayton. Jose errors were made mostly in the first half and scaled down later in the season. His offense production helped propel the team to surprising win of the Central.

The GM's job is to see throw the crap the media was putting out there and find the truth. Jose was a better defensive SS then Clayton with a better bat. Clayton wasn't better then Perry at third.

It was not a great trade, but Jose was damn near universally criticized for his terrible defensive concentration here on WSI and everywhere else. It was a bad deal in retrospect, but it was a GAPING hole. Singleton hit .298 and played Gold Glove quality defense! Yeah, CF was a much bigger problem...

Crede did nothing but benefit from the extra year in AAA. In 2001, Jose hit .249 and Royce hit .251. In the end, although Royce committed far fewer errors, their defense was about comparable all things considered, and yes, Jose's power was the key difference.

Again, your hindisght isn't even accurate, but you're able to criticize KW using that same, flawed, uninformed hindsight????

Yeah. Round and round we go....

Have fun dancing with yourself.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
The Sox went to the playoffs in 2001? I must have been in a coma that year.

when looking back, yes, I was off by a year. I was thinking Clayton in 2001, my bad.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Because they actually could have won in 2002. What are you proposing, that they just gave up 2002 and not even played it? If they went into 2002 as a rebuilding year, saying that they had not chance to win, we'd have gone crazy.

What they did was give two prospects that they felt were fairly mediocre for a veteran pitcher who would help the staff, eat innings, and probably (so they hoped) win 15 games. It didn't work that way, but damn - I never remember hearing complaints when they made the move.

hindsight is 20/20. GMs only have the benefit of hindsight after they are fired.

Are you trying to say that when the Sox traded for Ritchie you thought that would make them contenders? You yourself just said there were many other issues that kept the sox from winning that year, including a mediocre bullpen and Thomas coming off the injury. It should be obvious that there starting pitching after Buerhle could only aspire to mediocrity. I know I wasn't making any WS plans that spring.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I do agree with that, although, I'm not convinced he could have even if he wanted to.

I agree with both points. I think KW was told to keep Jerry. No other logic explains why he'd have kept him at the break last year, or not fired him before. That, IMHO was KW's worst move, followed closely by Konerko's contract.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Are you trying to say that when the Sox traded for Ritchie you thought that would make them contenders? You yourself just said there were many other issues that kept the sox from winning that year, including a mediocre bullpen and Thomas coming off the injury. It should be obvious that there starting pitching after Buerhle could only aspire to mediocrity. I know I wasn't making any WS plans that spring.

GOING INTO THAT SEASON - YES

Who knew Thomas would hit .250? Who knew some other things would happen? Who knew the Twins would win 95 games on the back of that terrible pitching staff.

Going into the season, yes, I thought we had a chance to win the division. We weren't better than Oakland or NY, but we surely weren't GOING INTO THE SEASON, going to concede that we were worse than that Twins team.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here we go again. Well, that just validated your POV...



It was not a great trade, but Jose was damn near universally criticized for his terrible defensive concentration here on WSI and everywhere else. It was a bad deal in retrospect, but it was a GAPING hole. Singleton hit .298 and played Gold Glove quality defense! Yeah, CF was a much bigger problem...

Crede did nothing but benefit from the extra year in AAA. In 2001, Jose hit .249 and Royce hit .251. In the end, although Royce committed far fewer errors, their defense was about comparable all things considered, and yes, Jose's power was the key difference.

Again, your hindisght isn't even accurate, but you're able to criticize KW using that same, flawed, uninformed hindsight????

Yeah. Round and round we go....

Have fun dancing with yourself.

But Royce got his hits when the Sox were out of it, after hitting .099 while Sox still had a chance. We can criticize Kip for preforming when the pressure is off, but won't bring it up when defending Clayton.

It doesn't matter media or fans say when a GM, your job to get at the core of the manner. We have established that media doesn't know what it is talking about all the time so who care what is "universally criticized. Kenny's job is produce the best team, and replacing a player,who you still have, with an inferior player isn't a smart method for building a good team.

In 2000, Jose OBP .343, SLG .491. Clayton OBP .301 SLG .384. So in my inferior hindsight, I think it would be obvious that Clayton was a lesser player the Jose. Clayton had a OBP of .315, slg of .393, Jose .336 and slg of .509 in 2001.

For some reason I had Kenny trading Chris in 2001 not 2002. But that makes picking up Clayton for a bag of water logged balls still a bad move.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
GOING INTO THAT SEASON - YES

Who knew Thomas would hit .250? Who knew some other things would happen? Who knew the Twins would win 95 games on the back of that terrible pitching staff.

Going into the season, yes, I thought we had a chance to win the division. We weren't better than Oakland or NY, but we surely weren't GOING INTO THE SEASON, going to concede that we were worse than that Twins team.

I'm sorry, but the sox were in tatters, half their pitchers were coming off injuries, most of them weren't that good anyway or had not developed yet, thomas was coming off an injury, everyone knew the sox defense stunk. The sox had already lost their best SPs to injuries the previous 2 seasons. If you thought the White Sox could turn it around by adding Ritchie to the staff you must have been delusional. He would have had to put up CY numbers for the sox to have a staff as good as the Twins - their staff was considered far superior to the sox. There was nothing to indicate he would do that.

Look, it's good to give up young players to pick up veterans in certain instances, like last year I have no problem w/ any of the moves for colon,everett, alomar, etc. But sometimes, if you can't make a move that's going to really benefit the team you've got sit and give your young players a shot. Its up to the GM to make that call and KW made the wrong decision.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
ACTUALLY... he compared Kipper's NL ERA to that of Buehrle, Colon, and Loaiza in the AL.

reading is a skill.

Actually, I accounted for that by saying, go ahead, add half a run to Wells's NL ERA when comparing them to the Sox AL pitchers.

I'd add some sort of snappy, smart-ass comment, but I'm trying to argue a point, not insult the people who are arguing.

fquaye149
05-14-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Give me Kotsay and Byrnes over what we currently have in CF. I would take Ellis over Harris. Hatteberg over Konerko, save millions for same level. I would take the A's pen over the Sox. Still not sold on 11 inning of Takatsu. Cotts might become a starter, but as young starter prospects go, give me Harden.
I would take Uribe over McLemore.

wow. you might want to get off the oakland crack.

and i'm not sure, but i don't think harden is at issue since if i remember correctly he is a draft pick.


hatteberg=konerko?

maybe when you factor in the money. maybe. even in paulie's worst year his power numbers eclipsed hatteberg and his ops was very close. and this was LAST YEAR - the worst year paul ever had and will likely ever have again. In any other year hatteberg's numbers don't come CLOSE.

and you'd rather have mark ellis than harris? come on. no speed, can't hit for average much better than willie (if at all anymore if willie is getting the hang of hitting) and he's a right handed hitter.

i know our centerfield is weak but kotsay and byrnes certainly wouldn't be the answer.

come off it man

fquaye149
05-14-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
I'm sorry, but the sox were in tatters, half their pitchers were coming off injuries, most of them weren't that good anyway or had not developed yet, thomas was coming off an injury, everyone knew the sox defense stunk. The sox had already lost their best SPs to injuries the previous 2 seasons. If you thought the White Sox could turn it around by adding Ritchie to the staff you must have been delusional. He would have had to put up CY numbers for the sox to have a staff as good as the Twins - their staff was considered far superior to the sox. There was nothing to indicate he would do that.

Look, it's good to give up young players to pick up veterans in certain instances, like last year I have no problem w/ any of the moves for colon,everett, alomar, etc. But sometimes, if you can't make a move that's going to really benefit the team you've got sit and give your young players a shot. Its up to the GM to make that call and KW made the wrong decision.


a. the sox had a weak team in 2001

b. they were still among the favorites to win the division ( i seem to remember it being a big story when the twins won the central)


sound familiar? should we have packed it in at the beginning of this season too? If we could have given up danny wright to get the likes of cory lidle or ted lilly this offseason would you have said that was a bad move?

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:13 PM
OK, I have 2 serious questions for those who are defending KW to the death in this thread. And I ask that only those who feel that KW is a great, top-5, best-in-the-past-30-years GM answer.

1. What has KW done wrong during his tenure as Sox GM?

2. What qualifies a GM as "good" or "poor"?

Thanks for your help.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
wow. you might want to get off the oakland crack.

and i'm not sure, but i don't think harden is at issue since if i remember correctly he is a draft pick.


hatteberg=konerko?

maybe when you factor in the money. maybe. even in paulie's worst year his power numbers eclipsed hatteberg and his ops was very close. and this was LAST YEAR - the worst year paul ever had and will likely ever have again. In any other year hatteberg's numbers don't come CLOSE.

and you'd rather have mark ellis than harris? come on. no speed, can't hit for average much better than willie (if at all anymore if willie is getting the hang of hitting) and he's a right handed hitter.

i know our centerfield is weak but kotsay and byrnes certainly wouldn't be the answer.

come off it man

But Billy Beane never makes mistakes. His computer even says so. Nobody has yet named all the great FAs Beane has acquired, or the amazing trades he made that have helped the ballclub. Is is safe to assume his best FA was Hatteberg and his best trade was Chad Bradford?

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
a. the sox had a weak team in 2001

b. they were still among the favorites to win the division ( i seem to remember it being a big story when the twins won the central)


sound familiar? should we have packed it in at the beginning of this season too? If we could have given up danny wright to get the likes of cory lidle or ted lilly this offseason would you have said that was a bad move?

Amen

JRIG
05-14-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149


i know our centerfield is weak but kotsay and byrnes certainly wouldn't be the answer.

come off it man

You (and others) are really underestimating Mark Kotsay. He'd be a very good fit on this team as a LH stick and lead off man. This year's slow start aside, he been a very consistent .350 OBP over the last four years with some pretty good pop. His power was down a bit last year, but that was almost all due to a drop in home run totals. The doubles were still there.

Kotsay would be a monumental upgrade on Rowand Harris.

minastirith67
05-14-2004, 03:20 PM
This post has already gone on FAR too long... :threadsucks



Maybe this is a worthy debatable topic after the Minnesota series.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
OK, I have 2 serious questions for those who are defending KW to the death in this thread. And I ask that only those who feel that KW is a great, top-5, best-in-the-past-30-years GM answer.

1. What has KW done wrong during his tenure as Sox GM?

2. What qualifies a GM as "good" or "poor"?

Thanks for your help.


When you ask what he did wrong, I assume you mean things that I felt were wrong when he did them, and they still are wrong, not things that I felt were ok or decent ideas when he did them, but just didn't work out...

What he did wrong PK's contract, renewing Valentin this year, Koch's extended deal

What qualifies a GM as good or poor - if they put sufficient talent in place, relative to the resources they are given, to win a World Series.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
When you ask what he did wrong, I assume you mean things that I felt were wrong when he did them, and they still are wrong, not things that I felt were ok or decent ideas when he did them, but just didn't work out...

What he did wrong PK's contract, renewing Valentin this year, Koch's extended deal

What qualifies a GM as good or poor - if they put sufficient talent in place, relative to the resources they are given, to win a World Series.

When you say "put sufficient talent in place...to win a World Series," how do you judge if the talent is sufficient?

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
You (and others) are really underestimating Mark Kotsay. He'd be a very good fit on this team as a LH stick and lead off man. This year's slow start aside, he been a very consistent .350 OBP over the last four years with some pretty good pop. His power was down a bit last year, but that was almost all due to a drop in home run totals. The doubles were still there.

Kotsay would be a monumental upgrade on Rowand Harris.

Kotsay is .281/.338 on his career. Rowand is .273, .325. Rowand is younger, and may still have been developing going into this season (or so argue the FOC). He is 26 and has never had a full season in he bigs. Kotsay is older, and has been a starter for 6 seasons. It would be hard to argue that he has any legitimate upside from his career averages. He had a particularly poor season last year, and it could easily be argued that he was seeing the downside of his career.

In any case, show me how moves like this will help Oakland to win a World Series. The point isn't to debate the merit of Mark Kotsay, rather that KW gets ripped for being a bad GM, while Beane gets put on a pedestal. The fact remains that Beane has made few acquistions on either the trade market, or the FA market that have been major impact players on the team. His best trade might have been Bradford for Olivo - and if I were the Sox I'd do that deal again and again and again!

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
When you say "put sufficient talent in place...to win a World Series," how do you judge if the talent is sufficient?

how do you evaluate baseball talent? Assuming you don't want to use hindsight and just count win totals, you look at a bunch of things, including statistics, tools, chemistry, talent, team construct, etc. Judging if sufficient talent is there is hard - it is often subjective. Since it has to be compared to available resources anyhow, the whole thing is subjective. Where are you going with this?

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 03:31 PM
I've read through this thread and I don't understand how the argument is still going on. The fact remains that Kenny Williams took over a 95 win team and proceeded to miss the playoffs three consecutive years. Did Kenny Williams have payroll limitations? Yes, but no more than other teams in the AL Central who are the Sox closest competitors. The Sox don't need a better record than the 100+ million Yankees, only a better record than the Twins.

Has Kenny Williams made some good moves? Yes, but making more good moves than Chuck LaMarr doesn't make you a good GM. There are many ways to judge a GM: methodology, wins, playoffs appearances and world sereies titles all come to mind. There is no way that Kenny Williams has been successful in wins, playoff appearances or world series titles. I don't think this is very arguable. We haven't made the playoffs in his tenure and we haven't won more than 86 games. So all we have to debate is methodology. But shouldn't it flow that if Kenny's methodology was good he would have something to show for after taking over a good team in 2000?

One argument is that the team in 2000 wasn't as good as it's record. My argument against deflating the quality of the team Kenny took over starts with the fact that the offensive core from that 2000 team is still around and productive for the White Sox. Kenny hasn't added any big bats to the lineup that weren't around in 2000, unless Olivo manages to keep up his current pace. The one exception was having Everett for a few months in 2003.

Now on to the pitching. Obviously none of the key starting pitchers from the 2000 team are still productive major leaguers. Baldwin, Parque and Sirotka all suffered serious arm injuries. Eldred was being strapped together with duct tape from the beginning of his time with the Sox. However, there was a strong group of starting pitching prospects in the Sox system. Buehlre, Garland and Wells have become solid major league starters. However Wells was foolishly traded away. Keith Foulke, the key to the Sox pen was foolishly traded away prior to last season. If we have Keith Foulke and Kip Wells we at least make the playoffs in 2003.

The bottom line is, there was a lot of talent on the team Kenny inheirited and he has done nothing with it. What do you, the KW suppoers, have to say in response to this? To have a solid argument you must somehow explain how Williams is a good GM despite of his failure if you look at the situation exclusively pragmatically. Saying Williams was learning on the job, regardless of whether or not this is true, is not satisfactory because if he was learning on the job he wasn't qualified for the job and therefore is not a good GM. What makes Williams a good GM? Certainly not results.

maurice
05-14-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
wow. you might want to get off the oakland crack. . . .

No kidding. Beane's main challenge has been to replace the top positon players he lost in free agency. That's no easy task, but the results are not there.

Jermaine Dye at $12 mil /year? Mark Kotsay at $6.5 mil / year? Terrence Long? They're still waiting for 29-year-old Erubiel Durazo to reach his power "potential."

Konerko is vastly overpayed, but Hatteberg is a dog. Hatteberg has never hit more than 15 HR, never drove in more than 61 runs, and has no speed. His vaunted OBP was slightly above average last year. All that amounts to a very bad 1B.

Oakland's success is 100% due to excellent player development. It will take time to see the returns on KW's work in that regard, but the early results are encouraging. KW's ability to find productive players at very little cost, OTOH, is outstanding.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
wow. you might want to get off the oakland crack.

and i'm not sure, but i don't think harden is at issue since if i remember correctly he is a draft pick.


hatteberg=konerko?

maybe when you factor in the money. maybe. even in paulie's worst year his power numbers eclipsed hatteberg and his ops was very close. and this was LAST YEAR - the worst year paul ever had and will likely ever have again. In any other year hatteberg's numbers don't come CLOSE.

and you'd rather have mark ellis than harris? come on. no speed, can't hit for average much better than willie (if at all anymore if willie is getting the hang of hitting) and he's a right handed hitter.

i know our centerfield is weak but kotsay and byrnes certainly wouldn't be the answer.

come off it man

You need to lay off the Sox kool aid. I don't think last year was Paulie's worst, I think will end settling at little bit better but no where near 2001. I think they are the same type of player, with Konerko having more power and Hattenberg higher OPB, I would take the OPB. VORP in 2002, 03; Hattenberg 27.3, 6.9, Paul 34.1, -5.7. This year, Hattenberg .413 OPB, .473 SLG, 2.3 million, Konerko .333 OPB, .407 SLG, 8 Million.

I took the question coming into this year. Speed really doesn't matter to heavily to me. Ellis was established and averages 4 pitches per at bat. I would think he would have a better chance at a higher OBP then Harris with the same amount of D and power.

Kotsay and Byrnes may not be the end all be all, but they are better then Rowand and Perez.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
how do you evaluate baseball talent? Assuming you don't want to use hindsight and just count win totals, you look at a bunch of things, including statistics, tools, chemistry, talent, team construct, etc. Judging if sufficient talent is there is hard - it is often subjective. Since it has to be compared to available resources anyhow, the whole thing is subjective. Where are you going with this?

Just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from when you argue in favor of KW. I figured that a common platform (ie, this is what makes a GM good/bad, so you can see why I think KW is good/bad) would help, and I was hoping you'd set the "ground rules," so to speak. There has to be SOMETHING we can use to judge a GM, doesn't there? I mean, at the end of the day, GMs are somehow judged, otherwise they would never get fired.

But you say it's all subjective. Well, if it's all subjective, then why are we arguing? You think he's good using your subjective reasoning, and I think he's not so good using mine. Without something objective and impartial to base the "good" and "bad" on, there's no point in dragging this out. We're not going to agree on this, and maybe I'm the last person to see this, but I see it. :(:

(OK, one last subjective question...you REALLY don't think the Ritchie/Wells trade was wrong? :D: )

Randar68
05-14-2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Now on to the pitching. Obviously none of the key starting pitchers from the 2000 team are still productive major leaguers. Baldwin, Parque and Sirotka all suffered serious arm injuries. Eldred was being strapped together with duct tape from the beginning of his time with the Sox.


Wait. So, the team lost 4 of the 5 starters off that 95 win team and they were still supposed to compete? Granted, Sirotka was moved for Wells, but take 3 of the top 4 starters off ANY playoff team and tell me how they are supposed to compete the following year, especially under budgetary constraints...

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
I've read through this thread and I don't understand how the argument is still going on. The fact remains that Kenny Williams took over a 95 win team and proceeded to miss the playoffs three consecutive years. Did Kenny Williams have payroll limitations? Yes, but no more than other teams in the AL Central who are the Sox closest competitors. The Sox don't need a better record than the 100+ million Yankees, only a better record than the Twins.

Has Kenny Williams made some good moves? Yes, but making more good moves than Chuck LaMarr doesn't make you a good GM. There are many ways to judge a GM: methodology, wins, playoffs appearances and world sereies titles all come to mind. There is no way that Kenny Williams has been successful in wins, playoff appearances or world series titles. I don't think this is very arguable. We haven't made the playoffs in his tenure and we haven't won more than 86 games. So all we have to debate is methodology. But shouldn't it flow that if Kenny's methodology was good he would have something to show for after taking over a good team in 2000?

One argument is that the team in 2000 wasn't as good as it's record. My argument against deflating the quality of the team Kenny took over starts with the fact that the offensive core from that 2000 team is still around and productive for the White Sox. Kenny hasn't added any big bats to the lineup that weren't around in 2000, unless Olivo manages to keep up his current pace. The one exception was having Everett for a few months in 2003.

Now on to the pitching. Obviously none of the key starting pitchers from the 2000 team are still productive major leaguers. Baldwin, Parque and Sirotka all suffered serious arm injuries. Eldred was being strapped together with duct tape from the beginning of his time with the Sox. However, there was a strong group of starting pitching prospects in the Sox system. Buehlre, Garland and Wells have become solid major league starters. However Wells was foolishly traded away. Keith Foulke, the key to the Sox pen was foolishly traded away prior to last season. If we have Keith Foulke and Kip Wells we at least make the playoffs in 2003.

The bottom line is, there was a lot of talent on the team Kenny inheirited and he has done nothing with it. What do you, the KW suppoers, have to say in response to this? To have a solid argument you must somehow explain how Williams is a good GM despite of his failure if you look at the situation exclusively pragmatically. Saying Williams was learning on the job, regardless of whether or not this is true, is not satisfactory because if he was learning on the job he wasn't qualified for the job and therefore is not a good GM. What makes Williams a good GM? Certainly not results.

This is what I've been trying to get at, and not nearly as well as you, so thanks. :smile: When people say that KW is a "good" GM, what are they using as the barometer of "good" and "bad"? That's all I'm asking at this point, because I see the futility in trying to argue my point to those that won't have it.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23

(OK, one last subjective question...you REALLY don't think the Ritchie/Wells trade was wrong? :D: )

In hindsight - sure it was. But when we made the deal, I didn't mind it. We traded two pitching prospects for a guy who we felt would be a decent #2 or #3 starter. I didn't mind that. I was tired of watching the Ruffcorns of the world that we had in our system develop into nothing - and I didn't mind trading a few prospects for a real live MLB pitcher.

Only a few teams can evaluate their team on non-subjecitve manners - using hindsight. The Yankees, since Cashman has unlimited resources, are an example. you can evaluate cashman on Rings, or on WS appearances. That's fair, since he has the ressources to make anything happen. It isn't fair for 7/8 of the GMs in the league to be evaluated that way. Coming into this season, I felt we had a team that was as good as anyone in the division, that had a decent rotation (at least the front 3) a chance at a good pen (I was less confident about the pen than anything) and was going to be able to score runs. The team looked like it could win 90 games - enough to make the playoffs, and looked like it had enough firepower to be competitive - possibly to win a 5 or 7 game series against a top team. You can't quantify any of that, but that's how I evaluate teams before the season.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wait. So, the team lost 4 of the 5 starters off that 95 win team and they were still supposed to compete? Granted, Sirotka was moved for Wells, but take 3 of the top 4 starters off ANY playoff team and tell me how they are supposed to compete the following year, especially under budgetary constraints...

But isn't part of a GM's job to prepare for the possibility of having key players miss time? Granted, that was an extreme case, but what was KW's plan if something along those lines happened? I don't think throwing up your hands and saying, "Damn, that sucks, and we're broke. Oh, well," counts as a plan. Not every team can be the Yankees and buy a backload of pitchers, but there's got to be some contingency planning, even on a smaller budget. What was his plan?

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by maurice
No kidding. Beane's main challenge has been to replace the top positon players he lost in free agency. That's no easy task, but the results are not there.

Jermaine Dye at $12 mil /year? Mark Kotsay at $6.5 mil / year? Terrence Long? They're still waiting for 29-year-old Erubiel Durazo to reach his power "potential."

Konerko is vastly overpayed, but Hatteberg is a dog. Hatteberg has never hit more than 15 HR, never drove in more than 61 runs, and has no speed. His vaunted OBP was slightly above average last year. All that amounts to a very bad 1B.

Oakland's success is 100% due to excellent player development. It will take time to see the returns on KW's work in that regard, but the early results are encouraging. KW's ability to find productive players at very little cost, OTOH, is outstanding.

Dye fell off the face of the planet after singing that deal. Under that labor market a player who produced the numbers he did then did merit that amount. So Beane did read Dye wrong, but the money wasn't a major mistake because that is what the market would have paid. The 2001-02 was the year baseball labor market changed for the owner advantage.

Konerko on the other hand contract was extended while in a buyers market, they were several firstbaseman on the market David Ortiz, Brad Fullmer among others, who could have provided the same amount of production for a lot cheaper. $1 million for Fullmer, 1.25 for Ortiz instead of six million for Konerko.

maurice
05-14-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
If we have Keith Foulke and Kip Wells we at least make the playoffs in 2003.

In your analysis, you forgot to replace the four best pitchers on the 2003 team (Colon, Loaiza, Marte, and Gordon) with Guerrier, Liefer, Osuna, and Biddle. Harsh criticism of KW requires one to irrationally play up two or three bad moves while completely ignoring every good move.

I submit that, without JM, we at least make the playoffs in 2003. Therefore, if KW had the authority to fire JM before the end of last season, I agree with your analysis. OTOH, I really doubt he had that authority.

As for the 95-win team, your discussion of the starting staff says it all. It's kinda difficult to rebuild the most important aspect of your team from scratch without the benefit of the yanks' payroll.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by maurice
In your analysis, you forgot to replace the four best pitchers on the 2003 team (Colon, Loaiza, Marte, and Gordon) with Guerrier, Liefer, Osuna, and Biddle. Harsh criticism of KW requires one to irrationally play up two or three bad moves while completely ignoring every good move.

The problem here seems to be that the pro-KW crowd has become a crowd of people touting every good move he makes and coming up with excuses for every bad moves he makes. You don't feel that the not-so-pro-KW crowd is arguing fairly, but you're falling into the same trap at the other extreme.

Plus, why wouldn't KW have traded for Colon and Marte, anyway? Why wouldn't he have signed Gordon and Loaiza, anyway?


As for the 95-win team, your discussion of the starting staff says it all. It's kinda difficult to rebuild the most important aspect of your team from scratch without the benefit of the yanks' payroll.

I already commented on this, but part of a GM's job to prepare as best as possible for the worst case scenario. KW doesn't have the money the Yankees do, but a team should never have to use a pitcher because, in the immortal words of Jerry Manuel, "we don't have anybody else."

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77

I took the question coming into this year. Speed really doesn't matter to heavily to me. Ellis was established and averages 4 pitches per at bat. I would think he would have a better chance at a higher OBP then Harris with the same amount of D and power.

Kotsay and Byrnes may not be the end all be all, but they are better then Rowand and Perez.

Speed doesn't matter to you?

Pitches per AB?

Come on now...

Is it just slightly possible that you read Moneyball one time too many? Do you really think that Mark Ellis is a better 2B or a more functional player in a batting order than Willie Harris? I don't get it. I don't really care about pitches per AB - I'd rather track hits or total bases per AB. And frankly, i don't even care much about that. Instead of constantly relying on stats, Beane needs to acknowledge the realities of baseball -

1) A calculator isn't always the best indicator. Tools make the difference between a good player and a bad player.

2) leadoff hitters who get on base are always better when they are fast - Matt Stairs was a crappy leadoff hitter - and so was Jeremy Giambi.

3) Scott Hatteberg sucks as a 1B

jabrch
05-14-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
I already commented on this, but part of a GM's job to prepare as best as possible for the worst case scenario. KW doesn't have the money the Yankees do, but a team should never have to use a pitcher because, in the immortal words of Jerry Manuel, "we don't have anybody else."

Hadn't he just taken the GM job? It wasn't like he had years to prepare for this situation.

maurice
05-14-2004, 03:55 PM
IIRC, Konerko was extended during the season. I was against the move at the time, but the market fell during the offseason. If Konerko's contract is a mistake (which we apparently agree), then $12 mil / year for Dye was an absurdly huge mistake. $6.5 mil for Kotsay and multi-millions for Long and Hatteberg don't look to bright either.

The notion that Beane stays ahead of the market by targeting under-valued skills is a myth. Please don't point out the speck in the eye of our GM while ignoring the plank in the eye of another.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Hadn't he just taken the GM job? It wasn't like he had years to prepare for this situation.

No joke. But hey, despite that, everyone should have a backup plan should 4/5ths of their rotation suddenly have arm amputations, right?

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
a. the sox had a weak team in 2001

b. they were still among the favorites to win the division ( i seem to remember it being a big story when the twins won the central)


sound familiar? should we have packed it in at the beginning of this season too? If we could have given up danny wright to get the likes of cory lidle or ted lilly this offseason would you have said that was a bad move?

Danny Wright does not equal Kip Wells, Josh Fogg and Sean Lowe. Lowe was a solid reliever/spot starter for the sox, and wells and fogg were like 22 or 23 at the time of the trade. Kip Wells was always touted as one of the sox best prospects. What little we had seen from Fogg was promising. Dan Wright is 26 or 27, and even with all of Wells' struggles w/ the sox, has managed to stink it up as badly or worse than wells, and I don't think any of us ever had much hope for him. Also Lidle or Lilly would be sliding into the back of a fairly solid rotation., whereas in the Ritchie scenerio, we got the equivalant of a Lidle, but he was supposed to shore up a staff w/ one good starter. Big difference. So yes I would have gladly made that trade.

And I don't remember the Sox being favored in 2002 by anyone outside of chicago. As I recall the sox were generally picked to finish behind cleveland and the twins.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by maurice
IIRC, Konerko was extended during the season. I was against the move at the time, but the market fell during the offseason. If Konerko's contract is a mistake (which we apparently agree), then $12 mil / year for Dye was an absurdly huge mistake. $6.5 mil for Kotsay and multi-millions for Long and Hatteberg don't look to bright either.

The notion that Beane stays ahead of the market by targeting under-valued skills is a myth. Please don't point out the speck in the eye of our GM while ignoring the plank in the eye of another.

Well Said. Dye's Contract is a worse long-term deal for that club than Konerko's, but Beane somehow get's a pass?

Kotsay's contract is worse than Koch's.

SoxxoS
05-14-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by maurice
IIRC, Konerko was extended during the season. I was against the move at the time, but the market fell during the offseason. If Konerko's contract is a mistake (which we apparently agree), then $12 mil / year for Dye was an absurdly huge mistake. $6.5 mil for Kotsay and multi-millions for Long and Hatteberg don't look to bright either.

The notion that Beane stays ahead of the market by targeting under-valued skills is a myth. Please don't point out the speck in the eye of our GM while ignoring the plank in the eye of another.

I distinctly remember the Sox-O-Gram going across the top of the page when Konerko got extended...it went something like...

"Finally, the Sox do something right in locking up Konerko."

Take it for what it's worth. A lot of people were in favor of the Konerko signing at the time.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Danny Wright does not equal Kip Wells, Josh Fogg and Sean Lowe. Lowe was a solid reliever/spot starter for the sox, and wells and fogg were like 22 or 23 at the time of the trade. Kip Wells was always touted as one of the sox best prospects. What little we had seen from Fogg was promising. Dan Wright is 26 or 27, and even with all of Wells' struggles w/ the sox, has managed to stink it up as badly or worse than wells, and I don't think any of us ever had much hope for him. Also Lidle or Lilly would be sliding into the back of a fairly solid rotation., whereas in the Ritchie scenerio, we got the equivalant of a Lidle, but he was supposed to shore up a staff w/ one good starter. Big difference. So yes I would have gladly made that trade.


Kips Wells turned 25 at the start of his first season with Pittsburg. Fogg was a MARGINAL-AT-BEST prospect that had no future with the Sox other than a John Adkins-type role.

99% of Sox fans would have packed Kip's bag for him. We'd had enough of the Pamper's treatment at that point.

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 04:04 PM
I'll give you that its difficult to rebuild a starting staff on the fly. It's completely understandable why the Sox weren't in the playoffs in 2001. We lost our rotation from the previous year. But lets move on to 2002 and 2003.

In 2002 Buehrle, Wells and Garland all had solid seasons in the majors. Unfortunately that was the year we traded Wells for Ritchie. Ritchie, who was one of the least productive pitchers in baseball that season. If we still had Wells we would have 3/5 of a good pitching staff. We don't have to run Dan Wright out there every five days. And as some people have said, Ritchie did not have good seasons with the Pirates in 2001 or 2002. I was not a fan of the Ritchie deal when it was made and I know many others who would agree with me. I agree that trades can't be evaluated entirely in hindsight but the Ritchie deal didn't make sense.

Trading Wells for a #2 or #3 guy would not have upset me. But there was little reason to believe Ritchie would be a #2 or #3 guy. Just look at the pile of junk we got Colon for and you know Kenny was fleeced acquiring Ritchie. Not that you can always get All-stars for a bucket of balls but Ritchie was the kind of mediocre pitcher with a multi-million dollar contract that you should be able to get for a bucket of balls. We got Ritchie for a guy who will probably get dealt to a contender at the deadline for some nice prospects in the next couple years.

As I see it, even given the fact that Kenny lost the 2000 starting rotation. A young core was there for 2002 and 2003 if he only made the right moves to compliment it. Instead of complimenting the players he had, he traded away some good players (Wells, Foulke). He plugged holes that didn't exist (bringing in Clayton to play SS). And he allowed unimpressive veterans to fester in the lineup (Alomar). Also Kenny has never recognized that this lineup desparately needs a lefthanded bat for some balance.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Kips Wells turned 25 at the start of his first season with Pittsburg. Fogg was a MARGINAL-AT-BEST prospect that had no future with the Sox other than a John Adkins-type role.

99% of Sox fans would have packed Kip's bag for him. We'd had enough of the Pamper's treatment at that point.

Yeah, but would you compare the worth of a package of Wells/Fogg/Lowe in 2002 to be equivalant to trading Dan Wright in 2004?

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Danny Wright does not equal Kip Wells, Josh Fogg and Sean Lowe. Lowe was a solid reliever/spot starter for the sox, and wells and fogg were like 22 or 23 at the time of the trade. Kip Wells was always touted as one of the sox best prospects. What little we had seen from Fogg was promising. Dan Wright is 26 or 27, and even with all of Wells' struggles w/ the sox, has managed to stink it up as badly or worse than wells, and I don't think any of us ever had much hope for him. Also Lidle or Lilly would be sliding into the back of a fairly solid rotation., whereas in the Ritchie scenerio, we got the equivalant of a Lidle, but he was supposed to shore up a staff w/ one good starter. Big difference. So yes I would have gladly made that trade.

And I don't remember the Sox being favored in 2002 by anyone outside of chicago. As I recall the sox were generally picked to finish behind cleveland and the twins.

Sean Lowe was such a good reliever that 1-2 years later he was out of baseball. Josh Fogg?? About the only time he looked like anything more than filler was in his first time around the NL.

Ritchie was no stud, but he was supposed to be solid, a #3 type of guy, and a low-risk one that could eat innings. For that we traded a much higher risk/reward guy who'd to that point struggled in Wells, and included 2 guys who were lucky to have seen an ML roster.

Argue Wells>Ritchie, that's fine. But IMO the continued perception that we dealt 3 good pitchers for 1 bad one is pretty uinfounded.

maurice
05-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Plus, why wouldn't KW have traded for Colon and Marte, anyway? Why wouldn't he have signed Gordon and Loaiza, anyway?

Because a fair hypothetical cannot conveniently eliminate all the bad moves but leave all the good moves . . . especially insightful ones like Loaiza and Marte.

part of a GM's job to prepare as best as possible for the worst case scenario.

This is absurdly unfair. Good but inexpensive MLB SPs don't grow on trees. You can't fairly expect a GM on a budget to lose virtually his entire staff and then just pull Javier Vazquez out of his ass for the MLB minimum.

I guess you'd blame Bill Walsh if the old 49ers team missed the playoffs because both Montana and Young suffered career-ending injuries in the same season.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Speed doesn't matter to you?

Pitches per AB?

Come on now...

Is it just slightly possible that you read Moneyball one time too many? Do you really think that Mark Ellis is a better 2B or a more functional player in a batting order than Willie Harris? I don't get it. I don't really care about pitches per AB - I'd rather track hits or total bases per AB. And frankly, i don't even care much about that. Instead of constantly relying on stats, Beane needs to acknowledge the realities of baseball -

1) A calculator isn't always the best indicator. Tools make the difference between a good player and a bad player.

2) leadoff hitters who get on base are always better when they are fast - Matt Stairs was a crappy leadoff hitter - and so was Jeremy Giambi.

3) Scott Hatteberg sucks as a 1B

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say the pro-KW (and anti-Beane) crowd are doing exactly what they run down others for doing.

1) Let's be honest...Willie Harris sucked completely and absolutely in the major leagues before this year. Mark Ellis had one good and one below-average year before this year--and his below-average year (last year) was still miles ahead of anything Willie ever did. Stats are a record of what has happened, and before this year, they are a record of Mark Ellis being a major league-calibur 2B, and Willie Harris not being one. I agree with you that I'd rather have Willie from here on out, but that's mainly because Ellis got hurt and lost his job. :smile:

2) And this is proved by...?

3) Scott Hatteberg as A's 1B: 2002: .280/.374/.433; 2003: .253/.342/.383
Paul Konerko: 2002, .304/.359/.498; 2003: .234/.305/.399

Konerko made approximately $7 million more than Hatteberg last year, and was demonstrably worse. I don't know how much more he made than Hatteberg in 2002, but Hatteberg got on base at a better rate, so whatever the large difference was, it probably wasn't worth it.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Just look at the pile of junk we got Colon for and you know Kenny was fleeced acquiring Ritchie. Not that you can always get All-stars for a bucket of balls but Ritchie was the kind of mediocre pitcher with a multi-million dollar contract that you should be able to get for a bucket of balls.

I wasted a lot of words when that was all that needed to be said.

JRIG
05-14-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Kips Wells turned 25 at the start of his first season with Pittsburg. Fogg was a MARGINAL-AT-BEST prospect that had no future with the Sox other than a John Adkins-type role.

99% of Sox fans would have packed Kip's bag for him. We'd had enough of the Pamper's treatment at that point.

So a good GM ignores talent and some decent production in a player and kowtows to the wishes of the fans. Interesting...

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well Said. Dye's Contract is a worse long-term deal for that club than Konerko's, but Beane somehow get's a pass?

Kotsay's contract is worse than Koch's.

Dye's contract is definitely one that only looks bad in hindsight. Before Dye fouled a ball off of his knee in the 2001 playoffs he was pretty much the same player Magglio is. Look at Dye now, healthy and productive again. Dye got a contract extension for being a great right fielder and a fluke injury turned his contract into an albatross. Konerko was healthy and bad.

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
I'll give you that its difficult to rebuild a starting staff on the fly. It's completely understandable why the Sox weren't in the playoffs in 2001. We lost our rotation from the previous year. But lets move on to 2002 and 2003.

In 2002 Buehrle, Wells and Garland all had solid seasons in the majors. Unfortunately that was the year we traded Wells for Ritchie. Ritchie, who was one of the least productive pitchers in baseball that season. If we still had Wells we would have 3/5 of a good pitching staff. We don't have to run Dan Wright out there every five days. And as some people have said, Ritchie did not have good seasons with the Pirates in 2001 or 2002. I was not a fan of the Ritchie deal when it was made and I know many others who would agree with me. I agree that trades can't be evaluated entirely in hindsight but the Ritchie deal didn't make sense.



Given Well's struggles to that point, I don't think you can assume that in the AL he'd have developed as he did in the NL. IMO, a big part of Wells' success is due to the natural advantage he had in going to the NL and facing the terrible #8/9 hitters there. That success helped get his confidence up and has gotten him to better use his talent. That was highly unlikely to happen witht he Sox.

Yes, Ritchie collapsed, but Wells was very unlikely to be a solid #3. IMO we would have seen the same inconsistency and "nibbling" attitude that we had to that point.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Speed doesn't matter to you?

Pitches per AB?

Come on now...

Is it just slightly possible that you read Moneyball one time too many? Do you really think that Mark Ellis is a better 2B or a more functional player in a batting order than Willie Harris? I don't get it. I don't really care about pitches per AB - I'd rather track hits or total bases per AB. And frankly, i don't even care much about that. Instead of constantly relying on stats, Beane needs to acknowledge the realities of baseball -

1) A calculator isn't always the best indicator. Tools make the difference between a good player and a bad player.

2) leadoff hitters who get on base are always better when they are fast - Matt Stairs was a crappy leadoff hitter - and so was Jeremy Giambi.

3) Scott Hatteberg sucks as a 1B

Speed isn't as important as the ability to get on base. Never was and never will be. I rather have a slow guy who gets on base 40% of the time then a fast guy who gets on 33%. Pitches per PA are one to track how well a player works the count. The better a player works the count the better his OBP is.

Your realities are your fantasies. Tools are overrated, a guy with speed isn't valuable if he never gets on base. Production is more valuable that potential based on tools.

Hatteberg has been better then Konerko recently, if he sucks, what does the mean for Konerko.

If Harris can't get on base at clip level over .350 this year, he sucks as a leadoff man.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
So a good GM ignores talent and some decent production in a player and kowtows to the wishes of the fans. Interesting...

Wow, talk about a misinterpretation of my post. I simply corrected someone who said Kip was 22 or 23 when traded, and pointed out that EVERYONE was tired of a weak-minded pants-crapping routine Kip pulled every time he was in a tight situation.

Interesting.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I distinctly remember the Sox-O-Gram going across the top of the page when Konerko got extended...it went something like...

"Finally, the Sox do something right in locking up Konerko."

Take it for what it's worth. A lot of people were in favor of the Konerko signing at the time.

A lot of people were wrong. Oh Konerko was reuped on Nov 14 not mid season.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Dye's contract is definitely one that only looks bad in hindsight. Before Dye fouled a ball off of his knee in the 2001 playoffs he was pretty much the same player Magglio is. Look at Dye now, healthy and productive again. Dye got a contract extension for being a great right fielder and a fluke injury turned his contract into an albatross. Konerko was healthy and bad.

Konerko's deal is up in a year and a half. When does Dye's end?

12 million for a team like Oakland? 18+ million sunk into Kotsay and Dye? Yikes.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Konerko's deal is up in a year and a half. When does Dye's end?

12 million for a team like Oakland? 18+ million sunk into Kotsay and Dye? Tikes.

This is the last year of Dye's contract.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
1) Let's be honest...Willie Harris sucked completely and absolutely in the major leagues before this year. Mark Ellis had one good and one below-average year before this year--and his below-average year (last year) was still miles ahead of anything Willie ever did. Stats are a record of what has happened, and before this year, they are a record of Mark Ellis being a major league-calibur 2B, and Willie Harris not being one. I agree with you that I'd rather have Willie from here on out, but that's mainly because Ellis got hurt and lost his job. :smile:


Did you actually read what you wrote and avoid laughing at yourself?

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
This is the last year of Dye's contract.

OK, thanks. It was a sincere question.

JRIG
05-14-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wow, talk about a misinterpretation of my post. I simply corrected someone who said Kip was 22 or 23 when traded, and pointed out that EVERYONE was tired of a weak-minded pants-crapping routine Kip pulled every time he was in a tight situation.

Interesting.

Not EVERYONE was tired of a 25-year-old pitching prospect with great success in the minors and great stuff that hadn't put it together yet in just over 200 innings of big league work. But apparently KW was. And he turned him into Todd Ritchie.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by maurice
IIRC, Konerko was extended during the season. I was against the move at the time, but the market fell during the offseason. If Konerko's contract is a mistake (which we apparently agree), then $12 mil / year for Dye was an absurdly huge mistake. $6.5 mil for Kotsay and multi-millions for Long and Hatteberg don't look to bright either.

The notion that Beane stays ahead of the market by targeting under-valued skills is a myth. Please don't point out the speck in the eye of our GM while ignoring the plank in the eye of another.

Dye injury problem had an effect, I guess this is where someone brings up Konerko's hip.

But Dye was signed in a different market then Konerko was. Kenny wasn't able to read the market right, Konerko's contract would have been justifiable if done a year before. Kenny was just a dollar to many a day short.

Hatteberg isn't a bad player, not an elite player but good to average player. Which is what Konerko is.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Sean Lowe was such a good reliever that 1-2 years later he was out of baseball.

But the main argument of the trade defenders is that you can't use hindsight to judge the trade! Prior to the trade Lowe was a solid versatile reliever for the white sox. Prior to the trade we didn't get much of a look at Fogg, but he had good minor league numbers, and came up and pitched 13.1 innings/17k and 2.02 era for the sox. I'd say that's somewhat intriguing. Again, we were frustrated w/ wells, but he was young and still considered a good prospect.
Ritchie, prior to the trade was a very mediocre 32 year old, and could only be considered a solid #3 if you consider a sub .500 pitcher w/ NL ERAs in the high fours a solid #3.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Did you actually read what you wrote and avoid laughing at yourself?

Somehow, yes. :smile:

But seriously, what do you mean? Mark Ellis was a very good 2B in 2002, and a below-average hitter but above-average fielder last year. Willie Harris has blown chunks in the majors before this year. I was responding to someone who thought it was laughable that anyone would want Ellis instead of Harris, and I decided to use the actual record of their major league performances before this year in my response. What's wrong with that? Did I not throw in enough talk about tools and stuff? :D:

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Did you actually read what you wrote and avoid laughing at yourself?

Talk about bad hindsight.

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?Name=ICJ

One good year in the minors doesn't establish a track record.

maurice
05-14-2004, 04:20 PM
To follow up on my comment that KW is more blame-worthy if he had the authority to fire JM, there is no way Keith Foulke and Kip Wells would have even been permitted to excel under JM's staff. KW hated Foulke, and Contrares' negative tactics probably were the main reason Wells never developed here.

Also, don't refuse to credit KW for Colon but criticize him for Ritchie. Be consistent. For those who think KW was handed the Colon deal, keep in mind that he was handed the Ritchie deal as well. He didn't put that together, but he's still blameworthy because the buck stops at the GMs office. To be fair, the credit needs to stop there as well. Besides, even if Cashman made the Colon deal, KW did something right to be the beneficiary. With the marginal talent the Sox gave up, any team could have matched the Sox offer (especially a NL team that doesn't play the yanks).

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Somehow, yes. :smile:

But seriously, what do you mean? Mark Ellis was a very good 2B in 2002, and a below-average hitter but above-average fielder last year. Willie Harris has blown chunks in the majors before this year. I was responding to someone who thought it was laughable that anyone would want Ellis instead of Harris, and I decided to use the actual record of their major league performances before this year in my response. What's wrong with that? Did I not throw in enough talk about tools and stuff? :D:

What I've heard about Ellis is that the defense evaluation system Oakland uses and some of you may have read about in Moneyball, says that Ellis is one of the best defensive secondbasemen in baseball. Oakland has him around for defense more than offense.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by maurice
To follow up on my comment that KW is more blame-worthy if he had the authority to fire JM, there is no way Keith Foulke and Kip Wells would have even been permitted to excel under JM's staff. KW hated Foulke, and Contrares' negative tactics probably were the main reason Wells never developed here.


That isn't a good argument to get rid of the players but to get rid of the management. Talent is talent, if you can't work with talent then you should leave.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Speed isn't as important as the ability to get on base. Never was and never will be. I rather have a slow guy who gets on base 40% of the time then a fast guy who gets on 33%. Pitches per PA are one to track how well a player works the count. The better a player works the count the better his OBP is.


If Harris can't get on base at clip level over .350 this year, he sucks as a leadoff man.

You're telling me a guy like Juan Pierre, who is generally in the sub 350 obp doesn't have value when he can get on 1st,steal 2nd, move over to 3rd on a bouncer up the middle and score w/o the aid of a basehit, compared to someone who has to get 2-3 hits behind him to score from 1st?

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by maurice
To follow up on my comment that KW is more blame-worthy if he had the authority to fire JM, there is no way Keith Foulke and Kip Wells would have even been permitted to excel under JM's staff. KW hated Foulke, and Contrares' negative tactics probably were the main reason Wells never developed here.

Also, don't refuse to credit KW for Colon but criticize him for Ritchie. Be consistent. For those who think KW was handed the Colon deal, keep in mind that he was handed the Ritchie deal as well. He didn't put that together, but he's still blameworthy because the buck stops at the GMs office. To be fair, the credit needs to stop there as well. Besides, even if Cashman made the Colon deal, KW did something right to be the beneficiary. With the marginal talent the Sox gave up, any team could have matched the Sox offer (especially a NL team that doesn't play the yanks).

KW is to be applauded for the Colon deal. I know people don't give him full credit because of the perception (true or not, I don't know) that Cashman handed it to him on a silver platter, but he still pulled the trigger, and it was a great trade, probably his best since taking over as GM.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Talk about bad hindsight.

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?Name=ICJ

One good year in the minors doesn't establish a track record.

Yeah, a .290 minor league hitter with excellent stolen base numbers and decent BB and K numbers, who improved as he moved up the ranks...

Yeah, 1 good year alright...

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
You're telling me a guy like Juan Pierre, who is generally in the sub 350 obp doesn't have value when he can get on 1st,steal 2nd, move over to 3rd on a bouncer up the middle and score w/o the aid of a basehit, compared to someone who has to get 2-3 hits behind him to score from 1st?

Juan Pierre, during his Marlins career, has been a very valuable leadoff hitter.

Juan Pierre, during his Rockies career, was not valuable, no matter how many bases he stole, because he didn't get on base enough.

"You can't steal first base." I don't know who said it first, but it's something to remember. It's nice to be able to use your gifts once on base...but you have to actually have to get on base to use them. :smile:

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yeah, a .290 minor league hitter with excellent stolen base numbers and decent BB and K numbers, who improved as he moved up the ranks...

Yeah, 1 good year alright...

Randar...I agree with you. :o:

Willie Harris has a good minor-league track record, which is why I'm all for him playing as much as possible for at least half of this year. Right now, I'm encouraged, but until this year, his major-league track record was not just bad, it was abysmal, so you'll understand my hesitation to suddenly proclaim him good. :cool:

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
You're telling me a guy like Juan Pierre, who is generally in the sub 350 obp doesn't have value when he can get on 1st,steal 2nd, move over to 3rd on a bouncer up the middle and score w/o the aid of a basehit, compared to someone who has to get 2-3 hits behind him to score from 1st?

He only had one year out of three (over 300 AB) where his OBP was under .350. He is over 400 this year so far.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Somehow, yes. :smile:

But seriously, what do you mean? Mark Ellis was a very good 2B in 2002, and a below-average hitter but above-average fielder last year. Willie Harris has blown chunks in the majors before this year. I was responding to someone who thought it was laughable that anyone would want Ellis instead of Harris, and I decided to use the actual record of their major league performances before this year in my response. What's wrong with that? Did I not throw in enough talk about tools and stuff? :D:

Well, realistically, Willie had a pretty good track record in the upper levels of the minors. In addition, their Minor league numbers are damn-near identical. Harris had only had sporadic AB's at the MLB level. Harris has better speed, and I really like Harris' defense, though I have never really paid it close attention or dissected it.

Tools-wise, I do think Willlie is and has been the better player. I have a hard time using MLB numbers to compare a full-time player to a bench/role player. When in that position, I feel it's more accurate to look at the body of their experience in the minors. Ellis definitely had some good numbers, but his AAA numbers weren;t that spectacular, and if you're not going to have any power at the MLB level, you definitely have to bring something else to the table offensively to be a full-time player.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Juan Pierre, during his Marlins career, has been a very valuable leadoff hitter.

Juan Pierre, during his Rockies career, was not valuable, no matter how many bases he stole, because he didn't get on base enough.

"You can't steal first base." I don't know who said it first, but it's something to remember. It's nice to be able to use your gifts once on base...but you have to actually have to get on base to use them. :smile:

Well, I just checked, and Pierre actually had his highest OBP while a member of the Rockies, so this isn't completely accurrate. I should always look up stuff before I post...

But my general point is the same. Yes, being a great basestealer/general disruption is great, but you have to be on base to do it.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Randar...I agree with you. :o:

Willie Harris has a good minor-league track record, which is why I'm all for him playing as much as possible for at least half of this year. Right now, I'm encouraged, but until this year, his major-league track record was not just bad, it was abysmal, so you'll understand my hesitation to suddenly proclaim him good. :cool:

Agreed, I'm cautiously optimistic, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not ready to make Willie an All-Star by any means...

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
But the main argument of the trade defenders is that you can't use hindsight to judge the trade! Prior to the trade Lowe was a solid versatile reliever for the white sox. Prior to the trade we didn't get much of a look at Fogg, but he had good minor league numbers, and came up and pitched 13.1 innings/17k and 2.02 era for the sox. I'd say that's somewhat intriguing. Again, we were frustrated w/ wells, but he was young and still considered a good prospect.
Ritchie, prior to the trade was a very mediocre 32 year old, and could only be considered a solid #3 if you consider a sub .500 pitcher w/ NL ERAs in the high fours a solid #3.

That's where the GM evaluation of prospects comes in. Not many had Fogg pegged as anything great, and if KW rightly assessed him as a AAAA player, then if including him was what it took to make a deal happen, I'm all for it. Like I said - you can argue the Wells v. Ritchie part of the deal, but IMO you weren't going to get anything out of Fogg either in trade or by keeping him so there was nothing lost there. Same with Lowe, who was a below average starter AND a below average long reliever when given the chance. Being unable to excel at 2 different things but not sucking 100% either doesn't make versatility valuable IMO.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Juan Pierre, during his Marlins career, has been a very valuable leadoff hitter.

Juan Pierre, during his Rockies career, was not valuable, no matter how many bases he stole, because he didn't get on base enough.

"You can't steal first base." I don't know who said it first, but it's something to remember. It's nice to be able to use your gifts once on base...but you have to actually have to get on base to use them. :smile:

Yeah, but you said you'd rather have a .400 obp guy w/ no speed compared to a .350 obp guy w/ speed. Obviously you're no good if you don't get on at all. Say willie harris has a .340 obp - do you seriously think someone like Jeremy Giambi w/ a .400 obp would score more runs batting lead-off, all things being equal?

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well, realistically, Willie had a pretty good track record in the upper levels of the minors. In addition, their Minor league numbers are damn-near identical. Harris had only had sporadic AB's at the MLB level. Harris has better speed, and I really like Harris' defense, though I have never really paid it close attention or dissected it.

Tools-wise, I do think Willlie is and has been the better player. I have a hard time using MLB numbers to compare a full-time player to a bench/role player. When in that position, I feel it's more accurate to look at the body of their experience in the minors. Ellis definitely had some good numbers, but his AAA numbers weren;t that spectacular, and if you're not going to have any power at the MLB level, you definitely have to bring something else to the table offensively to be a full-time player.

Fair enough. And, hey, we made it through an entire debate without calling each other names! Will wonders never cease. :smile:

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


Your realities are your fantasies. Tools are overrated, a guy with speed isn't valuable if he never gets on base. Production is more valuable that potential based on tools.



Again with the hyperbole...

WHO SAID THEY WANT A GUY WITH SPEED WHO NEVER GETS ON BASE? That's nonsense.

But look at the last 6 world series winners - they all had speed at the top of the order. Maybe speed isn't as important as the abillity to get on base, but I was responding to a comment that speed doesn't mean too much. That is taking a Beanism out of context and misusing it to the detriment of solid baseball logic. Since the beginning of time, when Harold Baines invented baseball in the 1800s, the top of the order requires speed. Beane can stroke himeself all he wants and say that the obp makes Giambi or Stairs good leadoff hitters, but the reality is that there are almost no baseball people who agree with him - as evidenced by the leadoff hitters on almost every major league team. Do they have to be basestealers? No - but they are almost all fast.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Yeah, but you said you'd rather have a .400 obp guy w/ no speed compared to a .350 obp guy w/ speed. Obviously you're no good if you don't get on at all. Say willie harris has a .340 obp - do you seriously think someone like Jeremy Giambi w/ a .400 obp would score more runs batting lead-off, all things being equal?

Yep. Look at Frank...he leads the Sox in OBP AND runs scored, and it's not a coincidence. So, since he'd be on more, I'd say, yeah, I'd rather have Slow .400 OBP guy than Fast .340 OBP guy.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
3) Scott Hatteberg as A's 1B: 2002: .280/.374/.433; 2003: .253/.342/.383
Paul Konerko: 2002, .304/.359/.498; 2003: .234/.305/.399


but the Hatteberg comparison shouldn't be to Konerko - Hatteberg was an example of the great FA signings and trades by Beane. I am still waiting for that list. I haven't seen it yet. But if Hatteberg and Bradford are atop of it, I will cry laughing.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Yeah, but you said you'd rather have a .400 obp guy w/ no speed compared to a .350 obp guy w/ speed. Obviously you're no good if you don't get on at all. Say willie harris has a .340 obp - do you seriously think someone like Jeremy Giambi w/ a .400 obp would score more runs batting lead-off, all things being equal?

Yes. Say a player has about 600 PA a year. At a .340 clip that is 204 times on base, .400 clip is 240 times on base. So .400 clip player has 36 more chances to score. Too score a 100 runs .340 will have to score 49% of the time on base, while .340 guy would need a level 41.7%. The question is does speed equate to that 7%, maybe if its Konerko vs Pierre.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
You're telling me a guy like Juan Pierre, who is generally in the sub 350 obp doesn't have value when he can get on 1st,steal 2nd, move over to 3rd on a bouncer up the middle and score w/o the aid of a basehit, compared to someone who has to get 2-3 hits behind him to score from 1st?

Well - BillyBeane says the expected value of a SB is very low - so some peopele will say they give players almost no extra credit for speed - since it isn't expected to get you much. I say those people should get away from the calculators and watch a bit more baseball.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
but the Hatteberg comparison shouldn't be to Konerko - Hatteberg was an example of the great FA signings and trades by Beane. I am still waiting for that list. I haven't seen it yet. But if Hatteberg and Bradford are atop of it, I will cry laughing.

Well, just off the top of my head, Beane traded for Johnny Damon and Jermaine Dye. He also traded for Keith Foulke. But that's just off the top of my head--I don't have time to give you a complete list of all of his moves, unfortunately.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yeah, a .290 minor league hitter with excellent stolen base numbers and decent BB and K numbers, who improved as he moved up the ranks...

Yeah, 1 good year alright...

His OBP was only over .350 once. For a player who is a prospective leadoff hitter that isn't good.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Juan Pierre, during his Marlins career, has been a very valuable leadoff hitter.

Juan Pierre, during his Rockies career, was not valuable, no matter how many bases he stole, because he didn't get on base enough.

"You can't steal first base." I don't know who said it first, but it's something to remember. It's nice to be able to use your gifts once on base...but you have to actually have to get on base to use them. :smile:

That's not even resembling the truth. Pierre was very valuable with the rockies. He hit .310, .327, and .287 in his 3 years there with 40+ SBs in his last two years.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Well - BillyBeane says the expected value of a SB is very low - so some peopele will say they give players almost no extra credit for speed - since it isn't expected to get you much. I say those people should get away from the calculators and watch a bit more baseball.

We do, and we realize that with the CS the Sox have, it is killing them. Sox are proving small ball sucks right now.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Again with the hyperbole...

WHO SAID THEY WANT A GUY WITH SPEED WHO NEVER GETS ON BASE? That's nonsense.

But look at the last 6 world series winners - they all had speed at the top of the order. Maybe speed isn't as important as the abillity to get on base, but I was responding to a comment that speed doesn't mean too much. That is taking a Beanism out of context and misusing it to the detriment of solid baseball logic. Since the beginning of time, when Harold Baines invented baseball in the 1800s, the top of the order requires speed. Beane can stroke himeself all he wants and say that the obp makes Giambi or Stairs good leadoff hitters, but the reality is that there are almost no baseball people who agree with him - as evidenced by the leadoff hitters on almost every major league team. Do they have to be basestealers? No - but they are almost all fast.

They had OBP at the top of the order. And you did.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
We do, and we realize that with the CS the Sox have, it is killing them. Sox are proving small ball sucks right now.

It sucks when applied to a team full of slow-asses. Konerko, Crede, Maggs and Thomas (and to some extend, Sandy, Rowand, Gload and CLee) are not built for this.

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yes. Say a player has about 600 PA a year. At a .340 clip that is 204 times on base, .400 clip is 240 times on base. So .400 clip player has 36 more chances to score. Too score a 100 runs .340 will have to score 49% of the time on base, while .340 guy would need a level 41.7%. The question is does speed equate to that 7%, maybe if its Konerko vs Pierre.

Ellis OBP was .359 in 2002, and .313 in 2003 (per ESPN). not sure what that equates to in extra times on base, but I'm guessing that I'd much rather have Willie's speed than the extra 2-5 OBs (taking his OBP @ .350 as noted above).

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Too score a 100 runs .340 will have to score 49% of the time on base, while .400 guy would need a level 41.7%. The question is does speed equate to that 7%, maybe if its Konerko vs Pierre.

If it takes one guy 1 or even 0 hits to score and another 2 hits to score, that is definitely enough to make up that 7%. Ideally though you have a mixture of those kind of guys in the lineup - luckily this year the sox do to an extent - which is why I like this team more than any the sox have fielded since the early '90s - so far anyway.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Yep. Look at Frank...he leads the Sox in OBP AND runs scored, and it's not a coincidence. So, since he'd be on more, I'd say, yeah, I'd rather have Slow .400 OBP guy than Fast .340 OBP guy.

Well, Frank's OBP% is about 100 points higher than the next closest full-time player, no?

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Well - BillyBeane says the expected value of a SB is very low - so some peopele will say they give players almost no extra credit for speed - since it isn't expected to get you much. I say those people should get away from the calculators and watch a bit more baseball.

Can I just say that I HATE it when people say this. I watch a ton of baseball and love every minute of it. And I would much rather watch Willie Harris fly around the bases than Paul Konerko "run." But that doesn't mean I'd rather have entertainment than a winning team. If the fast, exciting to watch guy can't hit his way out of a paper bag, he shouldn't be playing, he should be pinch-running.

And it's not that the value of a SB is low, it's that the COST of a caught stealing is very HIGH. If you can't steal at a 70% to 75% success rate, you shouldn't be doing it, because you're costing your team runs.

JRIG
05-14-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Well - BillyBeane says the expected value of a SB is very low - so some peopele will say they give players almost no extra credit for speed - since it isn't expected to get you much. I say those people should get away from the calculators and watch a bit more baseball.

The value of a stolen base is low if you get caught too often -- like the Sox are this year. If you can steal at a 75-80% clip as a team then it might be an effective tool. The Sox are at about 67% this year. That's too low to make it worth the risk on the whole.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well, Frank's OBP% is about 100 points higher than the next closest full-time player, no?

Yep. Which means getting on base a lot correlates well to scoring a lot. Not sure what your point is.

(Why did my second sentence sound like something somebody told me in junior high?) :smile:

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by jabrch

2) leadoff hitters who get on base are always better when they are fast - Matt Stairs was a crappy leadoff hitter - and so was Jeremy Giambi.


Right there, by calling Giambi a crappy leadoff hitter, while he had OPB around 400 and scored roughly 14.5% of his plate appearance, a crappy leadoff means you are only looking at speed as your litmus test for a leadoff man.

JasonC23
05-14-2004, 04:54 PM
Well, I'm leaving work (can anyone tell I've been bored and not had much to do this afternoon?), so I won't be posting in this thread for a while. I just wanted to say that despite anything I've said, I really enjoy this debate with you all. It's fun to get down and dirty and talk about this stuff, wouldn't you agree?

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
We do, and we realize that with the CS the Sox have, it is killing them. Sox are proving small ball sucks right now.

and you don't see the value of the SBs? The fact that it is a threat that changes how pitchers pitch, fielders position themselves, and that, when left in the hands of professional baserunners, not lumbering meatheads, is a great tool for World Champions like the Marlins, the Angels and the Yankees?

Take away the stupid steal attempts by Konerko, Crede, Thomas and we are 19 for 26. 75% of the times we run we get an extra base - thus can score from second on a single, rather than on two base hits. I guess we can stay on the bases and wait for a HR - but that is proven to not be a way to win games in today's baseball.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Well, I'm leaving work (can anyone tell I've been bored and not had much to do this afternoon?), so I won't be posting in this thread for a while. I just wanted to say that despite anything I've said, I really enjoy this debate with you all. It's fun to get down and dirty and talk about this stuff, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely Yes!

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
and you don't see the value of the SBs? The fact that it is a threat that changes how pitchers pitch, fielders position themselves, and that, when left in the hands of professional baserunners, not lumbering meatheads, is a great tool for World Champions like the Marlins, the Angels and the Yankees?

Take away the stupid steal attempts by Konerko, Crede, Thomas and we are 19 for 26. 75% of the times we run we get an extra base - thus can score from second on a single, rather than on two base hits. I guess we can stay on the bases and wait for a HR - but that is proven to not be a way to win games in today's baseball.

If you can't steal at a 80% clip it isn't worth it as it will cost more then you will gain.

Yes I like debating baseball ideas.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
The value of a stolen base is low if you get caught too often -- like the Sox are this year. If you can steal at a 75-80% clip as a team then it might be an effective tool. The Sox are at about 67% this year. That's too low to make it worth the risk on the whole.

Now I agree that Thomas, Crede, komerko, etc. shouldn't be stealing bases. we are at 75% if you take out the SBs and CSs by those goofs. They have no business running.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 04:58 PM
Stealing bases is not the only value of speed, offensively. You're not going to see Konerko or Thomas score too many times from first on a gapper. Not that every player has to have speed, you definitely want your 1-2 guys to have it, if you got a guy like maggs for the 3rd hole that's a bonus and a guy or two lower in the order preferably.
And then of course there's is the defensive value of speed. How may runs do you suppose the outfield of Ichiro, Cameron, and McLemore saved with their speed, compared to say the sox from last year w/ lee, everett and maggs?

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:58 PM
:tomatoaward

:tomatoaward


So fun that we forgot to do this.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Stealing bases is not the only value of speed, offensively. You're not going to see Konerko or Thomas score too many times from first on a gapper. Not that every player has to have speed, you definitely want your 1-2 guys to have it, if you got a guy like maggs for the 3rd hole that's a bonus and a guy or two lower in the order preferably.
And then of course there's is the defensive value of speed. How may runs do you suppose the outfield of Ichiro, Cameron, and McLemore saved with their speed, compared to say the sox from last year w/ lee, everett and maggs?

Everett was bad in center, I'll give you that.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If you can't steal at a 80% clip it isn't worth it as it will cost more then you will gain.



So says Moneyball - I disagree. The value of teams that run is so high in that it gets in to the minds and the style of play of opponents. I don't know where Beane came up with the 80% rule - but it is interesting that this is a team with no basestealers - who publicly overhypes that basestealing is stupid. Sounds like the butchers wife telling the vegetarians that they should eat more meat....(does that make sensse?)

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Right there, by calling Giambi a crappy leadoff hitter, while he had OPB around 400 and scored roughly 14.5% of his plate appearance, a crappy leadoff means you are only looking at speed as your litmus test for a leadoff man.

First off, giambi only had a .375 career OBP. Second, even Oakland realized he was a crappy leadoff hitter. He only lasted there for 2 seasons, only one in the leadoff, before getting shipped out - and quickly ending his short, crappy career. Notice when Beane got rid of Giambi who became his leadoff hitter? a speedy guy who steals some bases - Ray Durham.

Giambi was a crappy leadoff hitter. It has nothing to do with speed as a litmus test. It has everything to do with the fact that after his season leading off, he was traded, then cut twice before his career ended. Are you kidding? I sure hope you aren't telling me that some team out there today should have Jeremy Giambi as its leadoff hitter.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
So says Moneyball - I disagree. The value of teams that run is so high in that it gets in to the minds and the style of play of opponents. I don't know where Beane came up with the 80% rule - but it is interesting that this is a team with no basestealers - who publicly overhypes that basestealing is stupid. Sounds like the butchers wife telling the vegetarians that they should eat more meat....(does that make sensse?)

He didn't come up with the rule. It is based off a mathematical formula which gives probable runs per situation. Thus figure what you can gain in probable runs versus what your risk an out. So is the difference between runner on first no out, runner on second no out, worth risking no runners one out. A stolen base has two outcomes, if you want go to your local library and find find Baseball Prospectus 2004. It explains this in much greater detail. Your local Barnes and Nobel or Borders would work too, buy a cup of coffee and read that chapter.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
First off, giambi only had a .375 career OBP. Second, even Oakland realized he was a crappy leadoff hitter. He only lasted there for 2 seasons, only one in the leadoff, before getting shipped out - and quickly ending his short, crappy career. Notice when Beane got rid of Giambi who became his leadoff hitter? a speedy guy who steals some bases - Ray Durham.

Giambi was a crappy leadoff hitter. It has nothing to do with speed as a litmus test. It has everything to do with the fact that after his season leading off, he was traded, then cut twice before his career ended. Are you kidding? I sure hope you aren't telling me that some team out there today should have Jeremy Giambi as its leadoff hitter.

I was using his OBP while he was on Oakland, not career.

TheBull19
05-14-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Everett was bad in center, I'll give you that.

Yeah he was. And I'm not saying Maggs and Lee are bad, Maggs is very solid, but you know he doesn't cover the type of ground any of those mariners guys covered. That's just the ideal OF from a purely defensive standpoint. Probably one the main reasons a guy like Moyer suddenly turns into Maddux at age 38 if you ask me.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
First off, giambi only had a .375 career OBP. Second, even Oakland realized he was a crappy leadoff hitter. He only lasted there for 2 seasons, only one in the leadoff, before getting shipped out - and quickly ending his short, crappy career. Notice when Beane got rid of Giambi who became his leadoff hitter? a speedy guy who steals some bases - Ray Durham.

Giambi was a crappy leadoff hitter. It has nothing to do with speed as a litmus test. It has everything to do with the fact that after his season leading off, he was traded, then cut twice before his career ended. Are you kidding? I sure hope you aren't telling me that some team out there today should have Jeremy Giambi as its leadoff hitter.

If you read moneyball, Beane says he traded Giambi to shake up the team and regreted it. Not because he didn't vaule his production as a leadoff hitter.

rahulsekhar
05-14-2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If you read moneyball, Beane says he traded Giambi to shake up the team and regreted it. Not because he didn't vaule his production as a leadoff hitter.

Which doesn't explain why he's bounced around since then. Even pseudo-stathead Theo Epstein didn't hold onto him.

FarWestChicago
05-14-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
By putting some of the junk he put on this team, Clayton, Ritchie, Koch to name a few he destroy the team. We all know you think the Sun shines out Billy Beane's ass. Does that necessitate an irrational hatred of KW? Hey, KW's current team has a better record than your Messiah's does. :o:

I know, "Sample size!! Sample size!!" :gulp:

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Which doesn't explain why he's bounced around since then. Even pseudo-stathead Theo Epstein didn't hold onto him.

No room on Boston for him for the cost. He is in LA now, not sure where though, I think he started the year on the DL.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
We all know you think the Sun shines out Billy Beane's ass. Does that necessitate an irrational hatred of KW? Hey, KW's current team has a better record than your Messiah's does. :o:

I know, "Sample size!! Sample size!!" :gulp:

I never said Beane was perfect, just he is the benchmark on how other GM are judged now.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If you read moneyball, Beane says he traded Giambi to shake up the team and regreted it. Not because he didn't vaule his production as a leadoff hitter.

then he should have gotten him back for free from either of the teams that have subsequently waived him. The guy is OUT OF BASEBALL. I read the book - I just think Beane is a lier. If KW would have signed him, I could see Moneyball 2 talk about where he bamboozled Kenny into taking a crappy hitter like Giambi.

FarWestChicago
05-14-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I never said Beane was perfect, just he is the benchmark on how other GM are judged now. According to who? His disciples? Ironically, he's not as worshipped locally as he is from afar. Indeed, I just heard a guy on the radio the other day say something I've seen here. "He caught lightning in a bottle with those 3 pitchers. Was that all genius or was there some luck?" Now we know anything that doesn't work out for him is "bad luck" as the statheads have pointed out numerous times. Is he somehow immune to "good luck", though? :smile:

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I never said Beane was perfect, just he is the benchmark on how other GM are judged now.

by some people. don't elevate him to universal benchmark.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
According to who? His disciples? Ironically, he's not as worshipped locally as he is from afar. Indeed, I just heard a guy on the radio the other day say something I've seen here. "He caught lightning in a bottle with those 3 pitchers. Was that all genius or was there some luck?" Now we know anything that doesn't work out for him is "bad luck" as the statheads have pointed out numerous times. Is he somehow immune to "good luck", though? :smile:

Yeah - what West said

maurice
05-14-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
That isn't a good argument to get rid of the players but to get rid of the management. Talent is talent, if you can't work with talent then you should leave.

Sure, but this only is a strike against KW if he had the power to change the management.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
According to who? His disciples? Ironically, he's not as worshipped locally as he is from afar. Indeed, I just heard a guy on the radio the other day say something I've seen here. "He caught lightning in a bottle with those 3 pitchers. Was that all genius or was there some luck?" Now we know anything that doesn't work out for him is "bad luck" as the statheads have pointed out numerous times. Is he somehow immune to "good luck", though? :smile:

They say the prophets are never truly valued by their neighbors.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
He didn't come up with the rule. It is based off a mathematical formula which gives probable runs per situation. Thus figure what you can gain in probable runs versus what your risk an out. So is the difference between runner on first no out, runner on second no out, worth risking no runners one out. A stolen base has two outcomes, if you want go to your local library and find find Baseball Prospectus 2004. It explains this in much greater detail. Your local Barnes and Nobel or Borders would work too, buy a cup of coffee and read that chapter.

I have it - and I have read it a few times. That doesn't mean I believe it. There is a lot to the value of speed in your leadoff hitter that is not included in that.

longshot7
05-14-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Can you tell me who Beane has added via Trades and FA that helped that club? If the best you can tell me is Chad Bradford, then I thank you for the laughs.


Durham, Durazo, Lidle, Foulke, Kotsay, Dye, Damon, Rincon...

just off the top of my head. not to mention Bradford. If you're still laughing, you're an idiot.

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 05:35 PM
A list of recent trade and FA acquisitions of Beane's:

Johnny Damon
Jermaine Dye
Ray Durham
Keith Foulke
David Justice
Mark Kotsay
Bobby Kielty
Billy Koch (and managed to get a good year out of him too)
Cory Lidle
Ted Lilly
Erubiel Durazo
Jose Guillen
Chad Bradford
Ricardo Rincon
John Mabry (wasn't that hilarious?)
Scott Hatteberg
Randy Velarde
Olmedo Seanez (got a few good years out of this guy)
Kevin Appier
Carlos Beltran (ooops, that one hasn't happened yet...)

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No room on Boston for him for the cost. He is in LA now, not sure where though, I think he started the year on the DL.


http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=136605

Per mlb - there is no use for him ANYWHERE - as nobody has signed him. Are you still trying to tell me that this guy is a good leadoff hitter? In the AL, if he lead off for the DaDawgs, where would you rank him compared to the 14 other leadoff hitters?

In my book - he'd be down around the bottom - sitting right next to Mark Kotsay in all likelihood. :-)

maurice
05-14-2004, 05:38 PM
So, we've established that Beane is good at identifying productive relief pitchers. So is KW. How about starting pitchers or position players who were good for the A's over a length of time?

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
then he should have gotten him back for free from either of the teams that have subsequently waived him. The guy is OUT OF BASEBALL. I read the book - I just think Beane is a lier. If KW would have signed him, I could see Moneyball 2 talk about where he bamboozled Kenny into taking a crappy hitter like Giambi.

He blew his back out with LA in spring training that is why he isn't on a major league roster.

Dadawg_77
05-14-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
According to who? His disciples? Ironically, he's not as worshipped locally as he is from afar. Indeed, I just heard a guy on the radio the other day say something I've seen here. "He caught lightning in a bottle with those 3 pitchers. Was that all genius or was there some luck?" Now we know anything that doesn't work out for him is "bad luck" as the statheads have pointed out numerous times. Is he somehow immune to "good luck", though? :smile:

He has spent the lowest per marginal win over the past few years while racking up 92+ wins. In any business if you are successful for lower cost then anyone else, you are the benchmark.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
A list of recent trade and FA acquisitions of Beane's:

Johnny Damon
Jermaine Dye
Ray Durham
Keith Foulke
David Justice
Mark Kotsay
Bobby Kielty
Billy Koch (and managed to get a good year out of him too)
Cory Lidle
Ted Lilly
Erubiel Durazo
Jose Guillen
Chad Bradford
Ricardo Rincon
John Mabry (wasn't that hilarious?)
Scott Hatteberg
Randy Velarde
Olmedo Seanez (got a few good years out of this guy)
Kevin Appier
Carlos Beltran (ooops, that one hasn't happened yet...)

Off that list...
Foulke was a good move
Damon was there for one year - and wasn't very good
Dye has been bad
Durham did very little in his short time there
Justice was old and bad - out of the game after that
Lilly and lidle- blah
Durazo - nothin yet
Guillen - nothing while there
Bradford - ha ha ha
Rincon - ok - nice lefty in the pen, but not as good as Marte
Mabry/Hatte/Velarde/Seanez/Appier - bleah

I'll take the list of KW signees/tradees over that list any day when you look at what we actually got out of those players compared to what Oakland got from them. The best thing Oak got from most of these guys is draftpicks when they left Oakland.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
He has spent the lowest per marginal win over the past few years while racking up 92+ wins. In any business if you are successful for lower cost then anyone else, you are the benchmark.

Congrats to Billy - he can have the cheapest cost per win trophy. Lovely. But that doesn't buy you a single championship or a single world series appearance. Lets see how much he is the benchmark next year, when Hudson leaves, or the following when Mulder and Zito can leave.

I'll give Beane credit - his book is the benchmark by which GMs books are measured.

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
He blew his back out with LA in spring training that is why he isn't on a major league roster.

If he was on a team today, and was the leadoff hitter, he'd be either the worst or the second worst leadoff hitter in the AL - ahead of only Mark Kotsay.

FarWestChicago
05-14-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
He has spent the lowest per marginal win over the past few years while racking up 92+ wins. In any business if you are successful for lower cost then anyone else, you are the benchmark. Yawn, according to who? You know, things aren't just a "fact" because you say so. No matter how hard you try. :D:

jabrch
05-14-2004, 05:49 PM
This was fun - but I gotta fly....Later gang.

Randar68
05-14-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Yawn, according to who? You know, things aren't just a "fact" because you say so. No matter how hard you try. :D:

Don't bother, FWC. Whatever Beane is or does, it can somehow be distorted into being THE benchmark.

You just have to play with the sample size, right?

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Congrats to Billy - he can have the cheapest cost per win trophy. Lovely. But that doesn't buy you a single championship or a single world series appearance. Lets see how much he is the benchmark next year, when Hudson leaves, or the following when Mulder and Zito can leave.

I'll give Beane credit - his book is the benchmark by which GMs books are measured.

And what has Kenny done? Jack****. Zero world series. Zero playoff appearances. Zero 100 win teams. Zero 90 win teams.