PDA

View Full Version : KEN WILLIAMS REPORTS: The State of the Sox


Eddie Gaedel
07-15-2004, 03:30 PM
i just got this via email:

THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX
All-Star Break Report
July 15, 2004
================================================== ===============

THE STATE OF THE SOX

Dear White Sox fans, season ticket holders and sponsors,

As we begin the second half of the baseball season, this is a
great time to evaluate our season to date and pass along my
expectations for the final two months.

First off, I want to thank every White Sox fan for your
tremendous energy and enthusiasm which are pushing our team to an
even higher level of play. Everyone with the White Sox
organization - our front office, coaching staff and players -
appreciates your support. We have played exciting baseball so far
this summer - even if sometimes games are a little too exciting.

Ozzie Guillen and his coaching staff deserve much of the credit
for the character our team has shown this season. One of the
reasons I hired Ozzie as manager was his passion for the White
Sox. I wanted someone who cared - someone who took the wins and
losses to heart just as much as our fans. I think Ozzie has
delivered that intensity and more.

I could not be happier with the attitude and approach of our
players. We have become a team that does not give up, a team that
battles to the very end. We have won several ballgames this
season in dramatic fashion that we easily could have lost. I
attribute this not just to Ozzie, his coaches and our players,
but to you as well. Many times already this season, whether it
was your reception of Shingo Takatsu, your welcoming of Freddy
Garcia to Chicago or your overwhelming response when Magglio
Ordoņez returned, your energy and enthusiasm have given me chills.

Even without an injured Magglio for much of the first half, our
offense has been dominating at times - scoring 10 or more runs a
Major-League leading 15 times. Our club's on-base percentage has
hovered around .350, our best since the 2000 division-winning
team. Paul Konerko had a great first half, Frank Thomas again
ranked among the league leaders in walks and on-base percentage,
and Carlos Lee set a club record with a 28-game hitting streak.
Jose Valentín has given us left-handed punch in our lineup and
quietly has played a very solid shortstop for the last two seasons.

Juan Uribe, Willie Harris and Aaron Rowand get after it in the
traditional Chicago fashion: they work hard and grind out
victories. And where would we be without Timo Perez and Ross
Gload coming through in the clutch?

As every Sox fan is aware, we need to find a way to survive those
stretches when our offense falters. We need to win games 3-2 in
the second half as often as we win games by the score of 10-4. We
were able to post two low-scoring, one-run wins over Seattle just
before the All-Star Break, and we will need to win even more games
like that during this second half.

We still believe baseball games are won - especially in the playoffs -
with quality pitching. We need to rely on more than our offensive
outbursts to win games, which is why we traded for right-hander Freddy
Garcia at the end of June. Rather than wait until closer to the
trading deadline, I felt it was important to make the move quickly
because we believed Freddy would be the top pitcher available this
summer. Now that we have signed him to a $27 million, three-year
contract extension, we look forward to having Freddy and Mark Buehrle
together in our starting rotation potentially through 2007. With
two-time All-Star Esteban Loaiza, Jon Garland and Scott Schoeneweis,
we have five pitchers in our starting rotation who can compete with
anyone in the American League.

I think our bullpen has been underrated. The emergence of Shingo,
who quickly became a fan favorite, as our closer has helped
solidify what I think is a very good bullpen. Damaso Marte and
Cliff Politte have settled in as our set-up men, and Neal Cotts
and Jon Adkins continue to impress with live arms. Mike Jackson
will get big outs for us as we head down the stretch.

You probably will continue to read and hear about Magglio's
contract situation as we near the end of the season. We have
continued to speak with him and his representatives about a
multiyear contract extension. We want Magglio to remain with this
team, and the White Sox will not close any doors to keeping him
here beyond 2004. That said, we do believe that over the next two
months, the focus of our manager, the coaches and all of our
players needs to be on one thing - winning baseball games.

The second half of this season features 52 games within our
division with several crucial series in September. We play the
Twins nine more times, including six at home, and we end the year
by playing 20 consecutive games against the Twins, Tigers and
Royals. We continue to need your support during the "Dog Days" of
August and into September. Believe me, when the ballpark is full
and the fans are fired up, our players respond to your energy.
When our team sees U.S. Cellular Field filled with Sox colors
like it was last weekend, it raises their level of intensity.
You are our home-field advantage.

The White Sox are in this to win. Although it is my responsibility
to plan for the 2005 season and beyond, I am much more concerned
about right now, and I assure you that we will continue to be
aggressive and look for ways to improve this club over the next
two months. I am willing to consider anything we believe will make
our team better in 2004. I want to win, and I want to win now. We
know - and our fans certainly understand - that our last World
Championship in 1917 was a long, long time ago.

Our fans, season ticket holders and sponsors are the lifeblood of
this organization. I personally appreciate all the passion and
pride you have demonstrated for this team and want to thank you
on behalf of everyone in the White Sox organization. Let's enjoy
a great second half together.

Go Sox,

Ken Williams

skottyj242
07-15-2004, 03:37 PM
I just got that in my e-mail. I thought it was pretty good but a little cheesy.

Realist
07-15-2004, 03:41 PM
Great letter. This really has been a fun summer and I hope it gets even more fun and spills into a memorable autumn that will be talked about for generations.

I'll never forget Frank saying, "We're gonna surprise a lot of people" prior to the start of the season. When he's right, he's right.

There's still a lot to prove.

Go Sox!!:drunken:

WinningUgly!
07-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Juan Uribe, Willie Harris and Aaron Rowand get after it in the
traditional Chicago fashion: they work hard and grind out
victories.

Easily, the best part of the letter. :)

Baby Fisk
07-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Many times already this season, whether it
was your reception of Shingo Takatsu, your welcoming of Freddy
Garcia to Chicago or your overwhelming response when Magglio
Ordoņez returned, your energy and enthusiasm have given me chills.
[cue sexy soul music in the background...]

:KW
"Girl...you give me chills...Yow!
GI-IRL! I'm gonna give you...
...a World Series! HUH!"

Brian26
07-15-2004, 03:50 PM
And I'll say it again....

How can you NOT like Kenny Williams? This guy has passion. That letter has me fired up.

32nd&Wallace
07-15-2004, 03:59 PM
This might sound cheesy, but Kenny's confidence, passion and drive really inspires me. He is the anti-Schuler!!!

Dadawg_77
07-15-2004, 04:04 PM
And I'll say it again....

How can you NOT like Kenny Williams? This guy has passion. That letter has me fired up.
Cause I don't care about passion or drive, or ability to write. I care about playoff appearances, titles, results.

SSN721
07-15-2004, 04:05 PM
K Dub is awesome. This is a great letter, got me fired up as well. I know it seems a little cheesy and corny but I still love to hear members of this orginization at least recognizing the difference this year. I am very excited to see what this team can accomplish in the second half.

pearso66
07-15-2004, 04:07 PM
Cause I don't care about passion or drive, or ability to write. I care about playoff appearances, titles, results.
But with 30 teams in MLB there have to be some that dont go to the playoffs. The past couple years he has had an underacheiving club thanks to an underacheiving manager. Hopefully this year will be different.

Dadawg_77
07-15-2004, 04:09 PM
But with 30 teams in MLB there have to be some that dont go to the playoffs. The past couple years he has had an underacheiving club thanks to an underacheiving manager. Hopefully this year will be different.
So? If you take over organization that had good level of success before you arrived, you should at least maintain that. I don't care about Kenny trying, the only I care about is Kenny and team doing it. This isn't grade school so no partial credit.

patbooyah
07-15-2004, 04:26 PM
frankly, i'm surprised he had time to write this letter while working out deals for mags, randy johnson, nomar, olerud, alou, sabathia, garcia, chip and kobe.

Kadafi311
07-15-2004, 04:32 PM
KW is the man. Extremely aggressive and honest. I can't think of two characteristics I'd want more in a GM. The playoff appearences will come.

Here's to you, Kenny! :gulp:

Basten
07-15-2004, 04:35 PM
I just got that in my e-mail. I thought it was pretty good but a little cheesy.
Mentioning Mike Jackson killed it for me and imagine others.

:)

Flight #24
07-15-2004, 04:38 PM
So? If you take over organization that had good level of success before you arrived, you should at least maintain that. I don't care about Kenny trying, the only I care about is Kenny and team doing it. This isn't grade school so no partial credit.
Agreed in principle, but I don't think that Kenny took over as strong a team as you imply. Remember, the pitching staff was basically decimated after that playoff run and all of Schueler's "hot prospects" haven't exactly dominated since coming up. And none of them with the possible exception of Kip Wells have done anything significant for other teams, not it's not like Kenny traded away the good ones.

Kenny took over a fraudulent "top-level org", by which I mean a team that looked a lot better positioned than it really was.

Still, results should be the determinant by which he's measured, but IMop he's taken us from a mid-level org to an upper-level org and done it on a budget. Now he's trying to take the organization to the next level in terms of the revenue/payroll base, which takes some different tactics than the standard developmental ones.

VaSoxfan
07-15-2004, 04:38 PM
So? If you take over organization that had good level of success before you arrived, you should at least maintain that. I don't care about Kenny trying, the only I care about is Kenny and team doing it. This isn't grade school so no partial credit.

Agreed! Enough talk...I want action! Mags either signed or traded for someone good...deals made to shore up our weak spots...

Poetry and passion is nice, but I want to see results. This team is better than the 46-38 record they currently sport...and can be much better down the stretch if the right pieces are added...

patbooyah
07-15-2004, 04:39 PM
Mentioning Mike Jackson killed it for me and imagine others.

:)
i laughed since it was worded in a way that essentially thanked jackson for nothing.

Basten
07-15-2004, 04:43 PM
So? If you take over organization that had good level of success before you arrived, you should at least maintain that. I don't care about Kenny trying, the only I care about is Kenny and team doing it. This isn't grade school so no partial credit.Anybody who blames 2001 on KW is a moron. Not only was 2000 flukey (what did Shueller do in 1995-1999 again?), but half the team was out for the year in 2001. Sox wouldn't have won anything with Billie Beane that year, too banged up to have a chance.

2002 and 2003 are on JR, who cut payroll and didn't let KW fire Jerry Manuel. As soon as the team quit on JM in 1st half of 2002, he should have been canned. Of course, JR should have never tried to save on Todd Ritchie in the first place, instead paying a few Mill more for a proven FA front-line starter -- you get a better pitcher AND you keep Kip Wells, which would have helped the matters greatly I imagine. 2003 is once again all JR and his low 50 Mill payroll in the All-Star Game year - get a 5th starter in the 1st half when it became obvious that Danny Wrong's arm was F'd up, and Sox make the playoffs, maybe even win it all, who knows.

KW is an average GM, with success and failures. People seem to dig his style I guess.

Rocky Soprano
07-15-2004, 04:47 PM
Wow, this is one e-mail that I will save. Thanks Kenny! :bandance:

Hokiesox
07-15-2004, 04:51 PM
At least we know exactly who the grinders are now.

jabrch
07-15-2004, 04:58 PM
Agreed in principle, but I don't think that Kenny took over as strong a team as you imply. Remember, the pitching staff was basically decimated after that playoff run and all of Schueler's "hot prospects" haven't exactly dominated since coming up. And none of them with the possible exception of Kip Wells have done anything significant for other teams, not it's not like Kenny traded away the good ones.

Kenny took over a fraudulent "top-level org", by which I mean a team that looked a lot better positioned than it really was.


We've been through this before. Some people still think you can evaluate this team based on the record of the 2001 team, regardless of the talent that got injured, the payroll since, and the shape of the farm system at that time. It is kinda funny in a lot of ways.

Blob
07-15-2004, 04:59 PM
Agreed in principle, but I don't think that Kenny took over as strong a team as you imply. Remember, the pitching staff was basically decimated after that playoff run and all of Schueler's "hot prospects" haven't exactly dominated since coming up. And none of them with the possible exception of Kip Wells have done anything significant for other teams, not it's not like Kenny traded away the good ones.

Kenny took over a fraudulent "top-level org", by which I mean a team that looked a lot better positioned than it really was.

Still, results should be the determinant by which he's measured, but IMop he's taken us from a mid-level org to an upper-level org and done it on a budget. Now he's trying to take the organization to the next level in terms of the revenue/payroll base, which takes some different tactics than the standard developmental ones.
Well said!

Hey the people who go this letter are you full time season ticekt holders? I'm a patrial season ticket holder (27 games) and I got a letter in the mail from Brooks yesterday, that was it.

jabrch
07-15-2004, 05:00 PM
Anybody who blames 2001 on KW is a moron. Not only was 2000 flukey (what did Shueller do in 1995-1999 again?), but half the team was out for the year in 2001. Sox wouldn't have won anything with Billie Beane that year, too banged up to have a chance.

2002 and 2003 are on JR, who cut payroll and didn't let KW fire Jerry Manuel. As soon as the team quit on JM in 1st half of 2002, he should have been canned. Of course, JR should have never tried to save on Todd Ritchie, instead paying a few Mill more on a proven FA front-line starter -- you get a better pitcher AND you keep Kip Wells, which would have helped the matters greatly I imagine. 2003 is once again all JR and his low 50 Mill payroll in the All-Star Game year - get 5th starter in the 1st half and Sox make the playoffs, maybe even win it all who knows.

KW is an average GM, with success and failures. People seem to dig his style I guess.

Basten - there are some here who blame everything on KW. Get used to it.

ewokpelts
07-15-2004, 05:14 PM
Well said!

Hey the people who go this letter are you full time season ticekt holders? I'm a patrial season ticket holder (27 games) and I got a letter in the mail from Brooks yesterday, that was it.
u got a letter? i didnt....
Gene

Mickster
07-15-2004, 05:15 PM
u got a letter? i didnt....
Gene
Neither did I.

Sox Mobile
07-15-2004, 05:28 PM
the email came from the MLB.com White Sox site. if you have never registered on that site, you wouldnt get a letter.

Brian26
07-15-2004, 05:28 PM
Cause I don't care about passion or drive, or ability to write. I care about playoff appearances, titles, results.

Seems like we've had this argument a thousand times. I care about all of those things too, and KW is doing everything he can to make it happen. He did last year, and he is again this year. So, once again, why don't you like him? If the players ultimately fail, I can't blame KW. He had the pieces in place last year (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Sullivan, Scho) and it just didn't happen. What the hell can the guy do?

jabrch
07-15-2004, 05:34 PM
Seems like we've had this argument a thousand times. I care about all of those things too, and KW is doing everything he can to make it happen. He did last year, and he is again this year. So, once again, why don't you like him? If the players ultimately fail, I can't blame KW. He had the pieces in place last year (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Sullivan, Scho) and it just didn't happen. What the hell can the guy do?
He could get Randy Johnson and Scott Hatteberg.

I just get the feeling like nothing short of a World Series would get Dawg off of KWs back - and that would only be out of obligation. If we make the playoffs, and lose in a playoff series, it will be KWs fault for not getting the best players out there - even if they wouldn't have come here - or been affordable.

Palehose13
07-15-2004, 05:35 PM
Seems like we've had this argument a thousand times. I care about all of those things too, and KW is doing everything he can to make it happen. He did last year, and he is again this year. So, once again, why don't you like him? If the players ultimately fail, I can't blame KW. He had the pieces in place last year (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Sullivan, Scho) and it just didn't happen. What the hell can the guy do?

Best. Post. Ever.

Dadawg_77
07-15-2004, 05:36 PM
Seems like we've had this argument a thousand times. I care about all of those things too, and KW is doing everything he can to make it happen. He did last year, and he is again this year. So, once again, why don't you like him? If the players ultimately fail, I can't blame KW. He had the pieces in place last year (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Sullivan, Scho) and it just didn't happen. What the hell can the guy do?
If the players failed, then he didn't get the right players. Produce or get the **** out is my philosophy. 83-79, 81-81, 86-76 isn't producing. Currently the Sox are on track to win 88-74.

Dadawg_77
07-15-2004, 05:38 PM
He could get Randy Johnson and Scott Hatteberg.

I just get the feeling like nothing short of a World Series would get Dawg off of KWs back - and that would only be out of obligation. If we make the playoffs, and lose in a playoff series, it will be KWs fault for not getting the best players out there - even if they wouldn't have come here - or been affordable.
No if we won the Central on regularly, I wouldn't bash Kenny since he was producing good teams. A World Series would work too.

Blob
07-15-2004, 05:39 PM
the email came from the MLB.com White Sox site. if you have never registered on that site, you wouldnt get a letter.
Thank you.

All signed up now! I'm going to sign off and wait for my letter now...:rolleyes:

Flight #24
07-15-2004, 05:42 PM
If the players failed, then he didn't get the right players. Produce or get the **** out is my philosophy. 83-79, 81-81, 86-76 isn't producing. Currently the Sox are on track to win 88-74.
What's the definition of success? Playoffs? ALCS? WS?

Saying "Acquire the right players" is a bit simplistic. It's not all up to the GM. It's also dependent on payroll, scouting budget, signing bonus budget, and the ability of the manager to actually get the performance out of the available talent.

The Yanks didn't win it all last year (or the year before). Does that mean that Cashman somehow "failed" to acquire the right players? If they don't win this year, would he be a failure? The Red Sox haven't been to the WS in a while, have they been "failures" in your book?

All the GM can do is work within the resources providede and provide talent and some chemistry to the manager. The rest is up to the players & the manager.

On a related note: DD: Do you think Kenny "failed" in his David Wells acquisition? IMO he did an excellent job in acquiring a top of the rotation starter. Not his fault Wells got hurt. But by your definition, Kenny didn't go get the "right" players.

hawkjt
07-15-2004, 05:48 PM
KW is one of the brightest young executives in pro sports and was an inspired choice. This letter is typical of his no-nonsense, honest approach to his fan base. If he had 95 mil like the guy up north it would be a slam dunk. I hope he is a long time GM for the Sox as I think he as well as John Paxson represent a player mentality and demand for performance that is a refreshing departure from the old guard that were out of touch with the players and could not really earn the respect of the players. This is a money game and even with significant injuries the Sox under KW have produced way above average in victories/payroll. Winning the title is the thing and if the injuries stay away the sox will be there.

Dadawg_77
07-15-2004, 05:57 PM
What's the definition of success? Playoffs? ALCS? WS?

Saying "Acquire the right players" is a bit simplistic. It's not all up to the GM. It's also dependent on payroll, scouting budget, signing bonus budget, and the ability of the manager to actually get the performance out of the available talent.

The Yanks didn't win it all last year (or the year before). Does that mean that Cashman somehow "failed" to acquire the right players? If they don't win this year, would he be a failure? The Red Sox haven't been to the WS in a while, have they been "failures" in your book?

All the GM can do is work within the resources providede and provide talent and some chemistry to the manager. The rest is up to the players & the manager.

On a related note: DD: Do you think Kenny "failed" in his David Wells acquisition? IMO he did an excellent job in acquiring a top of the rotation starter. Not his fault Wells got hurt. But by your definition, Kenny didn't go get the "right" players.
The Wells deal was a gambled that didn't pay off, so a failure in that sense but if that was the only one, I wouldn't have the opinion I do. Clayton, also acquired that year was horrible move for the Sox. Him and FA accusation Sandy Alomar didn't live up to their hype and hurt the team. There were also several cheap veteran pitcher on the FA market which if one or two were picked up, instead of paying Alomar and Clayton six million, the team would have had a better chance at doing something that year.

Mickster
07-15-2004, 06:02 PM
The Wells deal was a gambled that didn't pay off, so a failure in that sense but if that was the only one, I wouldn't have the opinion I do. Clayton, also acquired that year was horrible move for the Sox. Him and FA accusation Sandy Alomar didn't live up to their hype and hurt the team. There were also several cheap veteran pitcher on the FA market which if one or two were picked up, instead of paying Alomar and Clayton six million, the team would have had a better chance at doing something that year.:wills
Drillrod!

scottyl
07-15-2004, 07:19 PM
Management and ownership get blamed way too much around here.

This letter from KW is further proof that the Sox understand and are reaching out to their fans. I thought the letter was great. Talking about wanting to re-sign Mags shows that the team understands where we (fans) are coming from.

The Sox Pride campaign and this letter demonstrate that the Sox understand that the fans are an important part of the equation in building a winning team and I salute their efforts.

Let's keep the ballpark full and take care of business in the second half! Sox pride!

fquaye149
07-15-2004, 07:57 PM
The Wells deal was a gambled that didn't pay off, it's only a gamble after the fact, honestly

excluding his rookie year, only once before that season had wells pitched less than 30 games. He was coming off six consecutive 200 + innings seasons and after the 2001 season he had 2 more 200 innings seasons with new york the three seasons before he came to the sox and the 2 seasons after he averaged a sub 4.00 era.

How in the mf'ing world can you say that was anything but bad luck. a gamble! it's one thing to have hindsight, but to pretend that deal was a gamble any more than any other deal in baseball is a travesty to all decency of logic.

I'm trying to keep this as impersonal as possible so i will withhold all remarks about you and logic and let others do that job for me if they want.

cut KW a break. . .don't you get sick of being 5 people against the world and being wrong on top of it?

owensmouth
07-15-2004, 08:10 PM
it's only a gamble after the fact, honestly

excluding his rookie year, only once before that season had wells pitched less than 30 games. He was coming off six consecutive 200 + innings seasons and after the 2001 season he had 2 more 200 innings seasons with new york the three seasons before he came to the sox and the 2 seasons after he averaged a sub 4.00 era.

How in the mf'ing world can you say that was anything but bad luck. a gamble! it's one thing to have hindsight, but to pretend that deal was a gamble any more than any other deal in baseball is a travesty to all decency of logic.

I'm trying to keep this as impersonal as possible so i will withhold all remarks about you and logic and let others do that job for me if they want.

cut KW a break. . .don't you get sick of being 5 people against the world and being wrong on top of it?One question: should Wells have been released? We had to give him (as I remember) 2 million dollars to take a hike. Well, he went to Steinbottom and won 30 more games.

idseer
07-15-2004, 08:32 PM
with no proof whatsoever i would bet that kw did NOT write that letter.
i'm sure he approved it, but .......

it just didn't sound like kw. what can i say? :smokin:

Brian26
07-15-2004, 09:04 PM
No if we won the Central on regularly, I wouldn't bash Kenny since he was producing good teams. A World Series would work too.
Do you have any idea how flawed this statement is?

The White Sox had the second best record in baseball during the decade of the 90's. Yet, by your logic, because they only made the post season once during that span, the team wasn't a success.

By your logic, you'd label the team a success if they won the Central every year with 90 wins and got bounced each time in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, a team like Boston or St. Louis could, conceivably, win 99 games in a more competitive division and not make the playoffs, and that team wouldn't be a success.

A good team can finish in second place. It happens quite often. What about 1990 when the Sox had the 2nd best record in baseball but didn't make the playoffs because Oakland happened to be in their division? What about 1983 when the Sox had the best record in all of the majors but didn't make the World Series? In 2000 we had the best record in the AL, but we couldn't get past the wild card team in the first round.

Your logic is flawed from every angle.

Brian26
07-15-2004, 09:07 PM
Management and ownership get blamed way too much around here.

This letter from KW is further proof that the Sox understand and are reaching out to their fans. I thought the letter was great. Talking about wanting to re-sign Mags shows that the team understands where we (fans) are coming from.

The Sox Pride campaign and this letter demonstrate that the Sox understand that the fans are an important part of the equation in building a winning team and I salute their efforts.

Let's keep the ballpark full and take care of business in the second half! Sox pride!
Exactly. That's the whole point. And for those of us who remember the Hemond and Schueler years, isn't it a refreshing change to have a GM who is making a serious attempt at winning?

Schueler was afraid to trade Ruffin or Ruffcorn in '92 and '93, while KW has gone out and picked up David Wells, Colon, and Garcia. That's just awesome.

scottyl
07-15-2004, 09:20 PM
Exactly. That's the whole point. And for those of us who remember the Hemond and Schueler years, isn't it a refreshing change to have a GM who is making a serious attempt at winning?

Schueler was afraid to trade Ruffin or Ruffcorn in '92 and '93, while KW has gone out and picked up David Wells, Colon, and Garcia. That's just awesome.

I agree. How can you not get a good feeling about the way this team (management on down) is committed to winning and looking for ways to improve? It is a winning attitude and that is a prerequisite to winning itself.

jabrch
07-15-2004, 09:26 PM
I agree. How can you not get a good feeling about the way this team (management on down) is committed to winning and looking for ways to improve? It is a winning attitude and that is a prerequisite to winning itself.
I don't get it either. You should love KW for his moves - not hate him cuz he didn't make better ones. There are always better moves out there - no GM ever makes all the best moves. But KW has, more often than not, by a good margin, made smart moves.

italiancee
07-15-2004, 09:35 PM
brain26.do u ever put money on pools with people from bridgeport? i always see "BRIAN26" on squares around football season.hahasorry for the offtopic thing. anyway.KW DOES love this team.haters need to move on with there life.

Lip Man 1
07-15-2004, 09:57 PM
Brian:

The Sox wound up with the 4th best record in the 90's because they didn't play well in 95,97,98 or 99.

Lip

Brian26
07-15-2004, 10:25 PM
brain26.do u ever put money on pools with people from bridgeport? i always see "BRIAN26" on squares around football season.hahasorry for the offtopic thing. anyway.KW DOES love this team.haters need to move on with there life.
LOL. Nah- there are better ways to spend my money :D:

Brian26
07-15-2004, 10:27 PM
Brian:

The Sox wound up with the 4th best record in the 90's because they didn't play well in 95,97,98 or 99.

Lip
They had a nice first half in '97. They had a decent second half in '98, and the best record in the AL in the second half of '99. I'll have to check the books on this. Who was ahead of them? I know the Braves had the best.

Aidan
07-16-2004, 12:46 AM
If the players failed, then he didn't get the right players. Produce or get the **** out is my philosophy. 83-79, 81-81, 86-76 isn't producing. Currently the Sox are on track to win 88-74.What a moronic statement. Last year KW traded for...

Bartolo Colon: an ace pitcher
Roberto Alomar: a gold-glover
Carl Everett: a switch-hitting bat who did great for us last season
Scott Sullivan: one of the better relievers in the MLB
Scott Schoeneweis: a lefty long reliever

So because the players failed it's KW's fault? What is Kenny supposed to do; grab a bat and hit for Roberto Alomar?

Dadawg_77, you are the master of what I like to call "hindsight criticism"".

Lip Man 1
07-16-2004, 01:31 AM
I believe it was New York Yankees, Atlanta and Toronto.

And they had losing seasons in every year that you mentioned. Three months does not a season make.

Lip

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 10:08 AM
Do you have any idea how flawed this statement is?

The White Sox had the second best record in baseball during the decade of the 90's. Yet, by your logic, because they only made the post season once during that span, the team wasn't a success.

By your logic, you'd label the team a success if they won the Central every year with 90 wins and got bounced each time in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, a team like Boston or St. Louis could, conceivably, win 99 games in a more competitive division and not make the playoffs, and that team wouldn't be a success.

A good team can finish in second place. It happens quite often. What about 1990 when the Sox had the 2nd best record in baseball but didn't make the playoffs because Oakland happened to be in their division? What about 1983 when the Sox had the best record in all of the majors but didn't make the World Series? In 2000 we had the best record in the AL, but we couldn't get past the wild card team in the first round.

Your logic is flawed from every angle.
Do you realize how flawed your logic is? You are completely ignoring the context of where the team was. From 1990 to 2000, the West and Central were had one of the best team in the majors on top each year whether it was Oakland, us or the Tribe. There was stiff competion for the top spot. After 2000 the Division became a very weak one and when taken in consideration with unbalanced schedule any team in the Central would have a tough time finishing .500 in any other division in baseball. Thus the standard of winning is much lower now. Also your statement that good teams can finish in second place is true but I think that more applies to the 93 Giants then 97-99 Sox.

Brian26
07-16-2004, 10:08 AM
I believe it was New York Yankees, Atlanta and Toronto.

And they had losing seasons in every year that you mentioned. Three months does not a season make.

Lip

Toronto was absolutely horrible for the entire 2nd half of the decade. That surprises me.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 10:09 AM
I don't get it either. You should love KW for his moves - not hate him cuz he didn't make better ones. There are always better moves out there - no GM ever makes all the best moves. But KW has, more often than not, by a good margin, made smart moves.
I complete disagree with your last statement. I would say most of his big moves have been bad to horrible moves.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 10:15 AM
What a moronic statement. Last year KW traded for...

Bartolo Colon: an ace pitcher
Roberto Alomar: a gold-glover
Carl Everett: a switch-hitting bat who did great for us last season
Scott Sullivan: one of the better relievers in the MLB
Scott Schoeneweis: a lefty long reliever

So because the players failed it's KW's fault? What is Kenny supposed to do; grab a bat and hit for Roberto Alomar?

Dadawg_77, you are the master of what I like to call "hindsight criticism"".
Colon was good deal,
Alomar is a HOFer, but the Sox traded for him when he was a has been.
Everett did help but playing him in Center did hurt the team. Instead of forcing JM to bench struggling Konerko and play Thomas at first to open the DH for Everett, he allowed horrible defense team to take the field when there was a better option.

What should have Kenny done, not traded for Alomar thus he wouldn't need to grab a bat for him. This isn't hindsight criticism, like Garcia deal, said Kenny's moves were bad when they happen.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 10:16 AM
They had a nice first half in '97. They had a decent second half in '98, and the best record in the AL in the second half of '99. I'll have to check the books on this. Who was ahead of them? I know the Braves had the best.
They still finished under .500 each of those years.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 10:43 AM
They still finished under .500 each of those years.
OK, even with a number of sub-.500 years, the Sox ended up with the 4th best record in all of baseball in the decade. That seems, to me to be pretty successful. The problem is that instead of being a high variability team (i.e. terrible but with some huge peaks when they were great), they were consistently good, but not great (1994 excepted, when I think they would have been great).

The point still stands that KW took over a deeply flawed team, with little to no pitching, a bad manager with a long contract, and an unbalanced offense. He's made some mistakes (Koch, Ritchie, Konerko's extension), and some pretty good ones (Colon, Loaiza, Shingo, Marte, Uribe, Olivo). He's also provided some solid reinforcements for teams when they had a chance to do something.

The problem is that what many here see as issues with the manager, you lump on KW. The team last year, esp after the Alomar & Everett deals, should have won. They didn't because JM's zombie-like management style allowed the teaam to go into deep funks at bad times. That's not on KW, unless you think he had the ability to fire JM earlier, which I don't think was the case.

This year, again - he's provided a team that should win the division and depending on the health of Frank (or other pending deals), has a chance to advance in the playoffs. That's what a GM can do. He can't force it to happen. Even Cashman doens't win EVERY year, and he's go tunlimited resources.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 11:21 AM
OK, even with a number of sub-.500 years, the Sox ended up with the 4th best record in all of baseball in the decade. That seems, to me to be pretty successful. The problem is that instead of being a high variability team (i.e. terrible but with some huge peaks when they were great), they were consistently good, but not great (1994 excepted, when I think they would have been great).

The point still stands that KW took over a deeply flawed team, with little to no pitching, a bad manager with a long contract, and an unbalanced offense. He's made some mistakes (Koch, Ritchie, Konerko's extension), and some pretty good ones (Colon, Loaiza, Shingo, Marte, Uribe, Olivo). He's also provided some solid reinforcements for teams when they had a chance to do something.

The problem is that what many here see as issues with the manager, you lump on KW. The team last year, esp after the Alomar & Everett deals, should have won. They didn't because JM's zombie-like management style allowed the teaam to go into deep funks at bad times. That's not on KW, unless you think he had the ability to fire JM earlier, which I don't think was the case.

This year, again - he's provided a team that should win the division and depending on the health of Frank (or other pending deals), has a chance to advance in the playoffs. That's what a GM can do. He can't force it to happen. Even Cashman doens't win EVERY year, and he's go tunlimited resources.
The main reason the Sox slipped after 2000 was the offense not the pitching. Actually the pitching in 2001 was better then 2000 as seen by the team's ERA dropping from 4.66 to 4.55. The team's run scored also dropped from 978 to 798. Since the teams ERA didn't drop by more then 1.1 runs a game, there was no way for the team to counter that lack of production at the plate.
The main reason for this slip is Royce Clayton taking at bats from Jose and the Milk Man. While Frank's absence did hurt, by itself isn't worth 1.1 runs a game and Canseco's production (.843 OPS) helped. If the Sox left Jose at SS and Perry at 3rd, with platoon in center, the Sox would have had a much better chance to defend their AL Central crown in 2001. Is that the manager ot the general managers fault, is up for debate, but I am saying Kenny acquired Royce for a reason so I blame him.

jabrch
07-16-2004, 11:27 AM
Does it hurt yet Flight?

Aidan
07-16-2004, 11:44 AM
Everett did help but playing him in Center did hurt the team. Instead of forcing JM to bench struggling Konerko and play Thomas at first to open the DH for Everett, he allowed horrible defense team to take the field when there was a better option.Horrible defense? Carl Everett had just 2 errors in 75 games playing the outfield for the White Sox last season. Those 2 errors came in the 66 games he played in CF.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/fielding?statsId=5073

2 errors in almost half a season of baseball is horrible defense? Are you just making this stuff up as you go???

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 11:53 AM
Horrible defense? Carl Everett had just 2 errors in 75 games playing the outfield for the White Sox last season. Those 2 errors came in the 66 games he played in CF.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/fielding?statsId=5073

2 errors in almost half a season of baseball is horrible defense? Are you just making this stuff up as you go???Well I don't take errors into much consideration, since there are subjective and if you can't get to a ball you can't committ an error on it. Looking at his range factor and zone rating, there are average, but I do recall tons of balls I thought most CF would get to, that he didn't. Rowand were better also.

mrzerofan
07-16-2004, 12:43 PM
I didn't really believe the part about Mike Jackson getting big outs. I think his role is mop up work.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 01:42 PM
The main reason the Sox slipped after 2000 was the offense not the pitching. Actually the pitching in 2001 was better then 2000 as seen by the team's ERA dropping from 4.66 to 4.55. The team's run scored also dropped from 978 to 798. Since the teams ERA didn't drop by more then 1.1 runs a game, there was no way for the team to counter that lack of production at the plate.
The main reason for this slip is Royce Clayton taking at bats from Jose and the Milk Man. While Frank's absence did hurt, by itself isn't worth 1.1 runs a game and Canseco's production (.843 OPS) helped. If the Sox left Jose at SS and Perry at 3rd, with platoon in center, the Sox would have had a much better chance to defend their AL Central crown in 2001. Is that the manager ot the general managers fault, is up for debate, but I am saying Kenny acquired Royce for a reason so I blame him.
2000 stats are a bit skewed because the team didn't actually play as well as their record would indicate. But the pitching from 2000 was replaced almost completely with rookies in 2001 (Buehrle, Wells, Garland, Biddle, Wright, etc). All except Buehrle went on to struggle over the next few years and were a significant part of why the team struggled during that time. That's what I mean by the team not being as good as it may have seemed, and KW actually having to build up from a relatively low base.

As for the offense, the loss of Frank is the primary reason it slipped. To say that the dropoff from Valentin/Perry to Clayton/Valentin was somehow more significant is ludicrous. Canseco helped, but was nowhere near Thomas (and his OPS was in only 256AB).

steff
07-16-2004, 01:45 PM
The staffer who wrote this deserves a raise... :D:

Deadguy
07-16-2004, 01:46 PM
I wonder how long it took for KW's secretary to write that letter. :rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 02:23 PM
As for the offense, the loss of Frank is the primary reason it slipped. To say that the dropoff from Valentin/Perry to Clayton/Valentin was somehow more significant is ludicrous. Canseco helped, but was nowhere near Thomas (and his OPS was in only 256AB).
As good as Frank is his OPS say 1.0 to Jose .840 isn't worth 1.1 runs a game. Frank in the lineup probally would have provide .3-.5 runs a game. There is still a nice delta that can really only be explained by Kenny's tinkering with the O.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 02:42 PM
As good as Frank is his OPS say 1.0 to Jose .840 isn't worth 1.1 runs a game. Frank in the lineup probally would have provide .3-.5 runs a game. There is still a nice delta that can really only be explained by Kenny's tinkering with the O.
The drop from 500ABs of Frank to 250 ABs of jose can explain a lot more than .3 runs. It's a lot more like .7-.9 or so.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 02:46 PM
The drop from 500ABs of Frank to 250 ABs of jose can explain a lot more than .3 runs. It's a lot more like .7-.9 or so.
per game? That is 145.8 runs Frank adds to a team over what Jose Canesco and the other DH (Frank's time included here) added to the team. I think the world of Frank as a hitter but that is damn near impossible.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 02:52 PM
per game? That is 145.8 runs Frank adds to a team over what Jose Canesco and the other DH (Frank's time included here) added to the team. I think the world of Frank as a hitter but that is damn near impossible.
.7 RPG equates to just over 100runs/season, which is about where I'd guess the loss of Frank lies. The acquisition of Ryoce is a chunk of the rest, but not all of it. So KW's "responsible" for Royce providing maybe -.25RPG.

The point here is not that Royce was a good move, but that there was some assumed offensive subtratction that we were taking on for the defensive addition that Royce provided(or was supposed to). The offensive reduction was assumed to be OK because we had guys like Frank to pick up the rest. When Frank went down, the impact of Royce was greater - but that's not KW's fault.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 03:31 PM
.7 RPG equates to just over 100runs/season, which is about where I'd guess the loss of Frank lies. The acquisition of Ryoce is a chunk of the rest, but not all of it. So KW's "responsible" for Royce providing maybe -.25RPG.

The point here is not that Royce was a good move, but that there was some assumed offensive subtratction that we were taking on for the defensive addition that Royce provided(or was supposed to). The offensive reduction was assumed to be OK because we had guys like Frank to pick up the rest. When Frank went down, the impact of Royce was greater - but that's not KW's fault.
Wow, I never thought I would say this, but I think you are overstating the vaule of Thomas. In 2000 Thomas VORP was 94.2, VORP for JC was 19.1, Baines -11.8 and Thomas 1.9. But ignoring the 50 games where another player played DH, the Sox got VORP of 9.2. So a gap of 85, which would be around .5 runs a game. Now if factor in the time Lee (17 games), Konerko(11), Liefer(10), and Perry(10), field (7) played DH, they should add some runs. So missing Thomas cost the Sox .4 -.5 runs a game.

Now in 2000, Jose VORP at SS was 50.1, and in 2001 at 3rd 31.1. Sine VORP is dependent on postion and thrid baseman provide more production then SS and Jose production was very simular in both years (00 .258/.331/.509 01 .273/.336/.491) and Miquel Tejada who posted .267/.325/.476 line in 01, VORP was 45.3, we could assume Jose VORP at SS would be around 50 in 2001. Royce Clayton line was .263/.309/.393 for VORP of 12.4. This includes Clayton comeback after the Sox were out of it from his .098 avg. So about Clayton produce about 40 less then Jose could have as SS.

What VORP is: Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 03:49 PM
Wow, I never thought I would say this, but I think you are overstating the vaule of Thomas. In 2000 Thomas VORP was 94.2, VORP for JC was 19.1, Baines -11.8 and Thomas 1.9. But ignoring the 50 games where another player played DH, the Sox got VORP of 9.2. So a gap of 85, which would be around .5 runs a game. Now if factor in the time Lee (17 games), Konerko(11), Liefer(10), and Perry(10), field (7) played DH, they should add some runs. So missing Thomas cost the Sox .4 -.5 runs a game.

Now in 2000, Jose VORP at SS was 50.1, and in 2001 at 3rd 31.1. Sine VORP is dependent on postion and thrid baseman provide more production then SS and Jose production was very simular in both years (00 .258/.331/.509 01 .273/.336/.491) and Miquel Tejada who posted .267/.325/.476 line in 01, VORP was 45.3, we could assume Jose VORP at SS would be around 50 in 2001. Royce Clayton line was .263/.309/.393 for VORP of 12.4. This includes Clayton comeback after the Sox were out of it from his .098 avg. So about Clayton produce about 40 less then Jose could have as SS.

What VORP is: Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances.
OK, I stand corrected on the value of Thomas v. Canseco, et al.

But if I read this correctly, the loss of Thomas was worth about 85runs over the season, or .5/game whereas the inclusion of Clayton was worth -40runs, or about .25RPG.

I may have overstated Thomas, but I think the final conclusion - that Clayton did about what was expected is accurate. We knew we were downgrading the O some, but upgrading on D. At the time, that was a decent tradeoff since our O was very good. But the loss of Thomas (and others since there's about .4-.5RPG unaccounted for in this analysis) is more to blame for the offensive decline than the addition of Royce.

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 04:08 PM
OK, I stand corrected on the value of Thomas v. Canseco, et al.

But if I read this correctly, the loss of Thomas was worth about 85runs over the season, or .5/game whereas the inclusion of Clayton was worth -40runs, or about .25RPG.

I may have overstated Thomas, but I think the final conclusion - that Clayton did about what was expected is accurate. We knew we were downgrading the O some, but upgrading on D. At the time, that was a decent tradeoff since our O was very good. But the loss of Thomas (and others since there's about .4-.5RPG unaccounted for in this analysis) is more to blame for the offensive decline than the addition of Royce.
The Jeff Liefer should be included when factoring replacing Thomas, but he is listed as a LF with 12.2 VORP. He played 35 games in LF, 15 at first and third, 10 at DH and 4 in bathroom. If Thomas doesn't get hurt his playing time is much more limited, I would think.

If you looked at it, Mags, Lee, Durham and third base stayed pretty much the same while Konerko, Singleton had much higher VORP. So our drop came from DH (.5), SS, C forgot about that one. One of those postions was affected by injury and the other two were acquisitions by Kenny. Now replacing CJ production (55 combined 21 on the Sox VORP) wasn't going to be done but Alomar VORP in 2001 was -.4.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 04:13 PM
The Jeff Liefer should be included when factoring replacing Thomas, but he is listed as a LF with 12.2 VORP. He played 35 games in LF, 15 at first and third, 10 at DH and 4 in bathroom. If Thomas doesn't get hurt his playing time is much more limited, I would think.

If you looked at it, Mags, Lee, Durham and third base stayed pretty much the same while Konerko, Singleton had much higher VORP. So our drop came from DH (.5), SS, C forgot about that one. One of those postions was affected by injury and the other two were acquisitions by Kenny. Now replacing CJ production (55 combined 21 on the Sox VORP) wasn't going to be done but Alomar VORP in 2001 was -.4.
The problem is that some of the other replacements were necessitated by the budget. For example, CJ was priced out of the team. So the real question is, what was Alomar's VORPASP (Value Over Replacement Player At Similar Price).

Dadawg_77
07-16-2004, 04:55 PM
The problem is that some of the other replacements were necessitated by the budget. For example, CJ was priced out of the team. So the real question is, what was Alomar's VORPASP (Value Over Replacement Player At Similar Price).
CJ is listed at costing Fla five million in 2001 and Sandy cost the Sox 2.9 million. So the Sox saved three million on Sandy over CJ but Clayton cost Sox 4.5 million. In fairness 2000 was a career year for CJ so keeping him even without getting Alomar might not have been the best idea. CJ's VORP was 28.6 in 2001.

Flight #24
07-16-2004, 05:10 PM
CJ is listed at costing Fla five million in 2001 and Sandy cost the Sox 2.9 million. So the Sox saved three million on Sandy over CJ but Clayton cost Sox 4.5 million. In fairness 2000 was a career year for CJ so keeping him even without getting Alomar might not have been the best idea. CJ's VORP was 28.6 in 2001.
But IIRC, CJ signed a long term deal, no? So you have to look at not only what his value was fopr that year, but what it was projected to be over the life of the deal, especially when you factor in yr-yr raises.

Clayton was brought in under the assumption that we had a bit of offense that we could sacrifice to improve our defense. Alomar was signed because we needed a decent catcher and didn't want to lock into a long term, expensive deal on one.