PDA

View Full Version : The "KW's Not All Bad/Good" thread


JasonC23
06-04-2004, 10:23 AM
Is everyone either ready to kill KW or ready to have his children? Is there no middle ground here? It's possible to criticize KW without immediately labeling him a completely awful GM, and it's possible to praise KW without immediately labeling him a top-5 GM...

...isn't it?? Sometimes around here, I wonder.

(For the record, I think KW's a middle-of-the-road GM. He's made some terrible moves and some great moves, and he seems to be getting better. There are moves he's made that I thought sucked, but have turned out great, and the opposite is true, as well. The bottom line for me is, until he is the GM of a team that's still playing when the postseason rolls around, I don't subscribe to the "KW is great!" thought process. But I also don't think he's the worst GM ever.)

poorme
06-04-2004, 10:24 AM
I concur.

chisoxjk
06-04-2004, 10:29 AM
Just like KW, this thread is not all bad...


not all good either

:smile:

pearso66
06-04-2004, 10:37 AM
Well I don't think anyone said he was in the top 5 of GM's. I support KW but I'm not ready to bear his children (which of course would be tough since I'm a guy :D: ) He is doin his job, and doin a good job at it. Until he ruins the team and it falls to 60-70 wins he is a decent GM.

MeanFish
06-04-2004, 10:49 AM
KW is great at his job. Having said that, I wish he would spend more time concentrating on his job and less time flipping tables and calling people b*tches and motherf*ckers.

Randar68
06-04-2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
...isn't it?? Sometimes around here, I wonder.

The BB-supporters are always quick to beat down KW because of the one-sided synopses of the Olivo/Bradford and Blanton/Ring events.

In addition, people, in general around here, are polarized by a few extremely opinionated individuals, and clearly there are a handful with personal vendetta's against Kenny, and the rest of the people with a differing or tempered opinion, are forced to go to the other extreme to try to make their points to the small-minded extremists.

That just leads to a highly polarized discussion with no middle-ground. Sound familiar? For the sake of argument, we'll call one group "Republicans", and the other one "Democrats"...


Seriously, though. If we ignored the people at the extremes, the discussions would be much more civil, reasonable, and intelligent.

But what fun would that be? :)

hold2dibber
06-04-2004, 10:55 AM
IMHO, there aren't many people around here who think KW is a great GM. But I do think there are people who think KW is a horrifble GM and, IMHO, those people tend to be biased or otherwise refuse to acknowledge the good KW has done. The result is that the rhetoric escalates and even those who just think he's a decent GM end up sounding like they think he's the greatest GM in history simply because they're trying to refute/argue with those who "uncritically" criticize him (i.e., those who criticize but refuse to acknowledge the positive things he's done).

CanOfCorn
06-04-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
IMHO, there aren't many people around here who think KW is a great GM. But I do think there are people who think KW is a horrifble GM and, IMHO, those people tend to be biased or otherwise refuse to acknowledge the good KW has done. The result is that the rhetoric escalates and even those who just think he's a decent GM end up sounding like they think he's the greatest GM in history simply because they're trying to refute/argue with those who "uncritically" criticize him (i.e., those who criticize but refuse to acknowledge the positive things he's done).

*concurring*

Otherwise, it'd be like Hannity and Colmes.

Risk
06-04-2004, 10:59 AM
No GM is infallible.

Good moves

1) acquiring C. Everet amd R. Alomar for prospects last year-showed a willingness to make moves to get the Sox into the playoffs

2) J. Uribe for A. Miles-if someone is 27 yrs old and hasn't made the majors for a full season stint, chances are they probably won't ever be a major league calibur player

3) M. Olivo- brought in a stud who will hopefully be a longterm solution at catcher

Bad moves

1) acquiring D. Wells--not entirely KW's fault, but fat ass had a rubber arm and underacheived when he was healthy

2) D Wright as the starter-see 2003 season and earlier this year-nuff said

3) T. Ritchie trade-not to beat a dead horse, but ***

Risk

WinningUgly!
06-04-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Risk
Bad moves

1) acquiring D. Wells--not entirely KW's fault, but fat ass had a rubber arm and underacheived when he was healthy


Maybe I'm the only one, but I still don't consider the David Wells trade a bad one. Wells didn't underachieve, when healthy in 2001. In his 16 starts with the White Sox, he posted a 4.47 era. He went 37-18 with Toronto over the 1999 & 2000 seasons, with a 4.46 era. It's not like Mike Sirotka went on to have a great season for the Jays, either.

OEO Magglio
06-04-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Maybe I'm the only one, but I still don't consider the David Wells trade a bad one. Wells didn't underachieve, when healthy in 2001. In his 16 starts with the White Sox, he posted a 4.47 era. He went 37-18 with Toronto over the 1999 & 2000 seasons, with a 4.46 era. It's not like Mike Sirotka went on to have a great season for the Jays, either.
I didn't like that trade the day it was made but it wasn't a bad trade because sirotka hasn't pitch since, so how could that be bad?

Dadawg_77
06-04-2004, 11:31 AM
I think the Kenny has made some good move, just the bad ones out weigh the good ones. I find the pro kenny forces to be way too homerish in thier view points, refusing to think critically of anything that Kenny has done. My biggest complaint of Kenny is the Sox went from a 95 win team before he tookd over, to 514 club. The ulatiment test to see if a GM is doing a good job is the teams win and loss record. Kenny's teams have been 250-236, .514.

soxtalker
06-04-2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Maybe I'm the only one, but I still don't consider the David Wells trade a bad one. Wells didn't underachieve, when healthy in 2001. In his 16 starts with the White Sox, he posted a 4.47 era. He went 37-18 with Toronto over the 1999 & 2000 seasons, with a 4.46 era. It's not like Mike Sirotka went on to have a great season for the Jays, either.

I also don't think it was a bad trade, because I think that he had a good influence on the young pitchers -- particularly Buerhle.

soxtalker
06-04-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
IMHO, there aren't many people around here who think KW is a great GM. But I do think there are people who think KW is a horrifble GM and, IMHO, those people tend to be biased or otherwise refuse to acknowledge the good KW has done. The result is that the rhetoric escalates and even those who just think he's a decent GM end up sounding like they think he's the greatest GM in history simply because they're trying to refute/argue with those who "uncritically" criticize him (i.e., those who criticize but refuse to acknowledge the positive things he's done).

I've moved from disliking KW to somewhat closer to the middle. He's made some bad moves and some good ones. His aggressive and secretive style drive me crazy at times. But I see signs that he's learned from early mistakes. My biggest worry is that we don't have a very good farm system (including scouting for the draft), but that's hard to judge until we get to the future.

From my perspective there are people on both extremes who tend to overlook the good and bad of KW's tenure.

jeremyb1
06-04-2004, 11:40 AM
I'm in. I'm on the record as praising and ripping a number of his moves so it makes sense.

Randar68
06-04-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think the Kenny has made some good move, just the bad ones out weigh the good ones. I find the pro kenny forces to be way too homerish in thier view points, refusing to think critically of anything that Kenny has done. My biggest complaint of Kenny is the Sox went from a 95 win team before he tookd over, to 514 club. The ulatiment test to see if a GM is doing a good job is the teams win and loss record. Kenny's teams have been 250-236, .514.

Yes, a 95-win team that just had it's entire rotation blow-up with no suitable replacements ready outside of Mark Buehrle.

Yeah, what a terrific hand he was dealt.

Nothing quite like glossing over the details...

Dadawg_77
06-04-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yes, a 95-win team that just had it's entire rotation blow-up with no suitable replacements ready outside of Mark Buehrle.

Yeah, what a terrific hand he was dealt.

Nothing quite like glossing over the details...

The 2000 rotation wasn't anything special. I give him credit for trying to get Wells to fill in the number one spot. But it isn't like he lost a rotation of Cy Young winners. The 2000 team won because of the bats, which Kenny ****ed up with the additions of Clayton and Ramirez.

Randar68
06-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The 2000 rotation wasn't anything special. I give him credit for trying to get Wells to fill in the number one spot. But it isn't like he lost a rotation of Cy Young winners. The 2000 team won because of the bats, which Kenny ****ed up with the additions of Clayton and Ramirez.

That 95-win team was full of guys who pitched out of their ass. Balwin, Parque, Sirotka, Eldred, etc.

Those guys ALL had career years. Seriously, how can anyone use the 95 win-team inherited argument with a straight face?

Take away 4/5ths of ANYONE's rotation and see how many wins it costs them. They didn't trade those guys (outside of Wells for Sirotka), they lost them to injury and got NOTHING in return. Barcelo looked great that fall and he goes on to be out of baseball due to injuries. Garland hasn't been anything special until the last 12 months or so, Kip was NEVER going to amount to squat in Chicago, etc.

Tell me AGAIN, how great a team he inherited???

FarWestChicago
06-04-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yes, a 95-win team that just had it's entire rotation blow-up with no suitable replacements ready outside of Mark Buehrle.What was the 2000 team's record in the second half? IIRC, it wasn't anything to write home about. That's the team Kenny inherited, post rotation blow-up.

hold2dibber
06-04-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That 95-win team was full of guys who pitched out of their ass. Balwin, Parque, Sirotka, Eldred, etc.

Those guys ALL had career years. Seriously, how can anyone use the 95 win-team inherited argument with a straight face?

Take away 4/5ths of ANYONE's rotation and see how many wins it costs them. They didn't trade those guys (outside of Wells for Sirotka), they lost them to injury and got NOTHING in return. Barcelo looked great that fall and he goes on to be out of baseball due to injuries. Garland hasn't been anything special until the last 12 months or so, Kip was NEVER going to amount to squat in Chicago, etc.

Tell me AGAIN, how great a team he inherited???

Exactly right on the money perfect and correct in every respect.

Randar68
06-04-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
What was the 2000 team's record in the second half? IIRC, it wasn't anything to write home about. That's the team Kenny inherited, post rotation blow-up.

Yep, most of the above-.500 ground they finished with was made during that post Tigers-brawl 1.5 month tear they went on. That sustained them the rest of the way and the completely BACKED into he playoffs on offense alone. It was simply ironic the offense slept through the playoffs and the starters produced some gutty performances, even as their arms were nearing amputation...

jabrch
06-04-2004, 12:56 PM
I agree with the entire premise of this thread. KW has made a bunch of great moves - where at very little cost he got guys who have already made a large impact on the team - and will likely continue to do so. He has made a few mistakes - but GMs who are agressive do that. Some deals work out well - others dont. I'd take KW over anyone else we have ever had in the past. Right now - I like the direction he is heading and wouldn't give him up in trade. I only wonder if he had 10mm more in the budget, what could he do?

mdep524
06-04-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Is everyone either ready to kill KW or ready to have his children? Is there no middle ground here? It's possible to criticize KW without immediately labeling him a completely awful GM, and it's possible to praise KW without immediately labeling him a top-5 GM...

...isn't it?? Sometimes around here, I wonder.

(For the record, I think KW's a middle-of-the-road GM. He's made some terrible moves and some great moves, and he seems to be getting better. There are moves he's made that I thought sucked, but have turned out great, and the opposite is true, as well. The bottom line for me is, until he is the GM of a team that's still playing when the postseason rolls around, I don't subscribe to the "KW is great!" thought process. But I also don't think he's the worst GM ever.)

Hey Jason, thanks for a good, rational, level-headed thread. Are you sure you're not supposed to be on some other message board? I agree KW is a good but not great GM.

Besides all the hashed, rehashed and re-rehanshed acquisitions/trades, the points in his favor are that he has his eye on the big picture, isn't afraid to make mistakes, and although he is young he learns from his mistakes and improves himself every year. For example, do you think he would sign a Koch or a Konerko to big contracts today based off of isolated good stretches? Or would he trade the farm for a middle of the road NL pitcher? Everyone is entitled to a few mistakes, so long as he learns from them and becomes better for it.

The points against KW are that he is a bit stubborn, rash, quick tempered and a little egotistical, which all can sometimes (not always, but sometimes) cloud judgment. Also, as good as his minor league/unheralded player pick ups have been (Uribe, Sho, etc.) he still has to prove, to some extent, his major league player evaluation skills- a track record of Koch, Wells, Ritchie is not great for off season moves (excepting Colon.) I think these next few months, and then this offseason when he will have some wiggle room, will go a long way in determining how shrewd he is.

Dadawg_77
06-04-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That 95-win team was full of guys who pitched out of their ass. Balwin, Parque, Sirotka, Eldred, etc.

Those guys ALL had career years. Seriously, how can anyone use the 95 win-team inherited argument with a straight face?

Take away 4/5ths of ANYONE's rotation and see how many wins it costs them. They didn't trade those guys (outside of Wells for Sirotka), they lost them to injury and got NOTHING in return. Barcelo looked great that fall and he goes on to be out of baseball due to injuries. Garland hasn't been anything special until the last 12 months or so, Kip was NEVER going to amount to squat in Chicago, etc.

Tell me AGAIN, how great a team he inherited???


Kip Wells and Garland were brought up to fast. They could have used some seasoning. Also the Kenny could have made some cheap singings that off season like Burkett, Trachsel, Paul Byrd. Not world beaters but would have provided decent starting pitching and allowed the kids more time to mature instead of being thrown into the fire at the MLB level.