PDA

View Full Version : The real White Sox? (W/L)


lowesox
07-08-2004, 12:39 AM
Recently, with the barrage of debates over the Garcia trade a lot of WSIers said that they felt this is our best chance to win a WS in a long time. But I'm starting to wonder which White Sox team is the real deal - is it the guys who played great baseball for the first few months of the season. Or the guys we watched get skunked again tonight.

The fact is, the sox are an awful 13-18 since June 1. (And for those keeping track, 2-5 since the Garcia/Davis acquisitions.) So why have we been so bad? I'm positive that Maggs' absence has a lot to do with it. But surely, there has to be more to it - especially when you consider that until the last week, it's been the deficiency of pitching that has killed us.

I felt strongly that, even when we were winning, this team wasn't as talented as its record would indicate. But instead, that its success was based on chemistry. I personally believe that it was a flurry of roster moves that really took a huge toal on these players. Especially the 5th starter merry-go-round. Personally, I think, when you have a group of guys who really operate like a solid team, you have to be very careful about making changes. I don't think our management was.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

So I guess I'm just wondering, do most of you just assume the weak play of late is just an abberation. Or was our hot start that was the fluke?

I think it's an important question to consider when you're analysing the Garcia trade.

mdep524
07-08-2004, 12:46 AM
The fact is, the sox are an awful 13-18 since June 1. (And for those keeping track, 2-5 since the Garcia/Davis acquisitions.)
Off the top of my head, it has to be 3-5 since the trade, since we swept the Twinkies.

My take is several players were playing way over their head in April and May: Willie Harris, Juan Uribe and Scott Schoeneweis mainly. Now that all three of these guys have come crashing back to Earth at the same time as we've lost Maggs and Frank, we look foolish for relying on them. This team will be fine if it can just fill a few holes. We already picked up Freddie for the rotation, we're just a couple players away- Jason Kendall, a middle infielder (Tony G?), maybe a righty int he 'pen (could we get Meadows with Kendall?) Then when Maggs and Frank are back and hitting, this team will be just fine.

JB98
07-08-2004, 12:47 AM
I think the weak play of late is the fluke. Earlier this season when our lineup was intact, we had our momentum stopped by the woeful fifth starter situation. Hence, the lack of a lengthy winning streak this year. Now that Garcia is on board, our two best hitters are out of the lineup and we can't get anything going. We haven't seen all of the parts together yet, so we can only speculate on how good the team is. We'll see how we play once Maggs and Frank, and for that matter, Schoeneweis, are back and playing at full strength.

I'm not concerned with the flurry of roster moves. The subtraction of Olivo is a loss for the team, but the fact is we were not going to win the division with a rotation of Buerhle, Garland, E-Lo and a cast of thousands. Even with Garcia, we might be a second-place team. Or, we might win the division. Rest assured, though, if the Garcia trade were not made, we would *definitely* be a second-place team.

JRIG
07-08-2004, 12:53 AM
Recently, with the barrage of debates over the Garcia trade a lot of WSIers said that they felt this is our best chance to win a WS in a long time. But I'm starting to wonder which White Sox team is the real deal - is it the guys who played great baseball for the first few months of the season. Or the guys we watched get skunked again tonight.

The fact is, the sox are an awful 13-18 since June 1. (And for those keeping track, 2-5 since the Garcia/Davis acquisitions.) So why have we been so bad? I'm positive that Maggs' absence has a lot to do with it. But surely, there has to be more to it - especially when you consider that until the last week, it's been the deficiency of pitching that has killed us.

I felt strongly that, even when we were winning, this team wasn't as talented as its record would indicate. But instead, that its success was based on chemistry. I personally believe that it was a flurry of roster moves that really took a huge toal on these players. Especially the 5th starter merry-go-round. Personally, I think, when you have a group of guys who really operate like a solid team, you have to be very careful about making changes. I don't think our management was.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

So I guess I'm just wondering, do most of you just assume the weak play of late is just an abberation. Or was our hot start that was the fluke?

I think it's an important question to consider when you're analysing the Garcia trade.
Well, I just checked my prediction on the thread on this site. I had 79 wins. Maybe a few more because of the nice start, but I still don't think this is anything more than a 85 win team at most.

And you already know what I think of the Garcia trade.

bartmanisgod
07-08-2004, 12:58 AM
Well, I just checked my prediction on the thread on this site. I had 79 wins. Maybe a few more because of the nice start, but I still don't think this is anything more than a 85 win team at most.

And you already know what I think of the Garcia trade.

The Sky is falling!!!!!!!:o: :o: :o: :o:

JRIG
07-08-2004, 01:10 AM
The Sky is falling!!!!!!!:o: :o: :o: :o:
The sky can't be falling if, as I pointed out, I didn't think much of the team going into the season. I hope I'm wrong.

lowesox
07-08-2004, 01:11 AM
Off the top of my head, it has to be 3-5 since the trade, since we swept the Twinkies.
Woops. You're right. I counted from Garcia's start. 3-5 since the trade.