PDA

View Full Version : Hit the bricks KW


MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 05:19 PM
I think its time for KW to go, after aquiring Robbie Alomar again today. Hes made one bad move too many(Todd Richie, Billy Koch, Royce Ring>Blanton, and trading Reed instead of mentally ill Joe Borchard.) FIRE KW

DaveIsHere
08-05-2004, 05:21 PM
:threadsucks

JRIG
08-05-2004, 05:25 PM
I think its time for KW to go, after aquiring Robbie Alomar again today. Hes made one bad move too many(Todd Richie, Billy Koch, Royce Ring>Blanton, and trading Reed instead of mentally ill Joe Borchard.) FIRE KW

Welcome to WSI!

bennyw41
08-05-2004, 05:26 PM
I think its time for KW to go, after aquiring Robbie Alomar again today. Hes made one bad move too many(Todd Richie, Billy Koch, Royce Ring>Blanton, and trading Reed instead of mentally ill Joe Borchard.) FIRE KW
None of those trades were bad. They didnt' work out, but were never bad

KingXerxes
08-05-2004, 05:28 PM
None of those trades were bad. They didnt' work out, but were never bad
Orwell was right - words will soon lose all meaning.

What is the line that separates "bad trades" from "trades that didn't work out"?

Mickster
08-05-2004, 05:29 PM
:threadblows:.

fquaye149
08-05-2004, 05:30 PM
Orwell was right - words will soon lose all meaning.

What is the line that separates "bad trades" from "trades that didn't work out"?
injuries (d. wells, koch)

manager ineffectuality leading to an irrelevancy of production when the sox don't make the playoffs (alomar, sullivan, everett)

hm. . . it's far from oceania, it's really just common sense.

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 05:31 PM
I knew it was only a matter of time after I saw a poster named "MONEYBALL21" was the newest registered member. Oh and...

:threadsucks

OEO Magglio
08-05-2004, 05:31 PM
Wow a game with the name Moneyball21 doesn't like Kenny Williams, I'm shocked.


:threadsucks

Soxzilla
08-05-2004, 05:32 PM
Would you call RJ for scott schoeneweiss a bad trade if RJ went on to get injured after 3 starts and schoeneweiss went 15-9 with a 3.5 era in arizona?

No, you'd call it a trade that didnt work out.

RKMeibalane
08-05-2004, 05:33 PM
:threadsucks
My thoughts exactly. I'm getting tired of reading the same complaints over and over again. The same people who are ripping KW for bringing Alomar back would be complaining if he hadn't done anything in the first place. It seems like there are just some people who are never satisfied.

Iguana775
08-05-2004, 05:35 PM
My thoughts exactly. I'm getting tired of reading the same complaints over and over again. The same people who are ripping KW for bringing Alomar back would be complaining if he hadn't done anything in the first place. It seems like there are just some people who are never satisfied.
Indeed...I, too, am sick of all the bitching. How bout supporting the team.

OzzieBall2004
08-05-2004, 05:35 PM
I agree that this thread sucks. Any Moneyball might be the most overrated sports book of all time. First of all, Billy Beane has zero world series championships, to go along with zero world series appearances. I read the book and wasnt impressed. If every GM that did something with limited resources wrote a book, Floridas GM would have a book out right now, and at least he would have a world series to back up his case.

For every good move, KW has made a questionable move. I dont doubt that. I thought the Ritchie deal was garbage, I liked the Koch deal at first (He was the rolaid relief man with the 100mph heater then, and Foulke frustrated the hell outta me the previous year). Will Reed be good, probably....Will Reed be an AllStar? Lets not get ahead of ourselves. The fact is we have a few top notch OF prospects in Anderson and Sweeney, and it looks like Carlos and Rowand have left and center locked up. We got Freddy Garcia and signed him, and thats worth the gamble on 2 prospects. Rauch and Majewski are both garbage IMO. Good riddance. The Alomar PTBNL will probably be crummy as well. So shut up. Kennys damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesnt with many people on here. And personally, I think he gets a free pass for losing Maggs and Frank and trying to make the most of it.

mcfish
08-05-2004, 05:36 PM
None of those trades were bad. They didnt' work out, but were never badWell, I thought the Todd Richie trade was bad. I was starting to think that Kip Wells had a very bright future in front of him for the Sox and Josh Fogg looked relatively promising. Other than that I'm with you on that one.

JRIG
08-05-2004, 05:38 PM
I agree that this thread sucks. Any Moneyball might be the most overrated sports book of all time. First of all, Billy Beane has zero world series championships, to go along with zero world series appearances.

And yet, after this season, playing in a much tougher division, he will have 4 more playoff appearances than KW over the past 4 years.

KingXerxes
08-05-2004, 05:40 PM
Would you call RJ for scott schoeneweiss a bad trade if RJ went on to get injured after 3 starts and schoeneweiss went 15-9 with a 3.5 era in arizona?

No, you'd call it a trade that didnt work out.
So then there is no such thing as a bad trade?

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 05:41 PM
I agree that this thread sucks. Any Moneyball might be the most overrated sports book of all time. First of all, Billy Beane has zero world series championships, to go along with zero world series appearances. I read the book and wasnt impressed. If every GM that did something with limited resources wrote a book, Floridas GM would have a book out right now, and at least he would have a world series to back up his case.

For every good move, KW has made a questionable move. I dont doubt that. I thought the Ritchie deal was garbage, I liked the Koch deal at first (He was the rolaid relief man with the 100mph heater then, and Foulke frustrated the hell outta me the previous year). Will Reed be good, probably....Will Reed be an AllStar? Lets not get ahead of ourselves. The fact is we have a few top notch OF prospects in Anderson and Sweeney, and it looks like Carlos and Rowand have left and center locked up. We got Freddy Garcia and signed him, and thats worth the gamble on 2 prospects. Rauch and Majewski are both garbage IMO. Good riddance. The Alomar PTBNL will probably be crummy as well. So shut up. Kennys damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesnt with many people on here. And personally, I think he gets a free pass for losing Maggs and Frank and trying to make the most of it.
Totally agree that Rauch and Mejewski are garbage and the Everett deal was great...Kenny has made some good moves but what GM hasnt made a few good moves? All I'm saying is hes made one too many bad moves and its time for him to move on or change his agressive ways.

Baby Fisk
08-05-2004, 05:42 PM
Can someone calmly, rationally explain the obsession with Moneyball here on a White Sox board?

As far as I can tell, the Moneyball approach has created the Atlanta Braves of this decade.

JRIG
08-05-2004, 05:45 PM
Can someone calmly, rationally explain the obsession with Moneyball here on a White Sox board?

As far as I can tell, the Moneyball approach has created the Atlanta Braves of this decade.You're right. It sure is horrible to make the playoffs 12 consecutive years (and be leading the division in the 13th) and win a World Series like the Braves did. I'd hate to buy into a philosophy that might endanger the Sox of having it happen to them.

greenpeach
08-05-2004, 05:48 PM
Can someone calmly, rationally explain the obsession with Moneyball here on a White Sox board?

As far as I can tell, the Moneyball approach has created the Atlanta Braves of this decade.
Hey, at least the Braves won 5 pennants & a World Championship. The "moneyball" A's haven't even been able to win one pennant.

OzzieBall2004
08-05-2004, 05:49 PM
And yet, after this season, playing in a much tougher division, he will have 4 more playoff appearances than KW over the past 4 years.

Great. Welcome to Atlanta.

Didnt see the Atlanta comparison was already brought up. My deepest apologies.

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 05:49 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I think Billy Beane made one of the worst trades that I have ever seen this off-season.

He traded Ted "All-Star" Lilly (8-7, 3.78 ERA) for Bobby Kielty (.206/.305/.362).
:roflmao:

Kenny Williams would be CRUCIFIED here if he made that trade.

KingXerxes
08-05-2004, 05:51 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I think Billy Beane made one of the worst trades that I have ever seen this off-season.

He traded Ted "All-Star" Lilly (8-7, 3.78 ERA) for Bobby Kielty (.206/.305/.362).
:roflmao:

Kenny Williams would be CRUCIFIED here if he made that trade.
Nahhhhhhh it wasn't a bad trade - it just didn't work out.

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 05:51 PM
Hey, at least the Braves won 5 pennants & a World Championship. The "moneyball" A's haven't even been able to win one pennant.

Braves only had a top 10 payroll, smart GM, and the best pitching coach in the league. Remember ppl A's have a 40 million dollar payroll and continue to make the playoffs. So what if they dont win a pennant? They can only do so much with that payroll.

JRIG
08-05-2004, 05:53 PM
Nahhhhhhh it wasn't a bad trade - it just didn't work out.
ROTFLMAO!!!

samram
08-05-2004, 05:53 PM
Can someone calmly, rationally explain the obsession with Moneyball here on a White Sox board?

As far as I can tell, the Moneyball approach has created the Atlanta Braves of this decade.
I understand that a lot of people like the results of the Moneyball approach (even though the A's haven't won a WS yet), but it seems that admiration of Billy Beane and admiration of KW are mutually exclusive. I can't wait for DePodesta to start claiming that moneyball made the Dodgers what they are this year, when it was really Dan Evans that put that team together. Ricciardi is also not exactly tearing it up in Toronto. That said, I think Beane and KW are good GMs with different approaches.

bennyw41
08-05-2004, 05:54 PM
Orwell was right - words will soon lose all meaning.

What is the line that separates "bad trades" from "trades that didn't work out"?
I think everyone(except KING) did a good job of defending my thoughts, but here goes anyways. IMO of course.

Bad Trade: One team gets a completely loped sided deal, based on bad anaylisis, overall money mismatching, player potential, or trading for the wrong reasons(player is "bad" person, player demands trade, team is cutting payroll)

Trades that don't work: The players are swapped, and are equal in most of their value, and one side of the trade either greatly underachieves(Koch), is injured(Wells), Players not living up to potential(Richie)

In the case of KW, the moves were all done on the good faith that the players would continue their progress and positive play. He hasn't had too many trades that I would consider "Bad"

Baby Fisk
08-05-2004, 05:54 PM
You're right. It sure is horrible to make the playoffs 12 consecutive years (and be leading the division in the 13th) and win a World Series like the Braves did. I'd hate to buy into a philosophy that might endanger the Sox of having it happen to them.Relax JRIG, I'm just wondering why it's gotten to the point where people are giving themselves Moneyball handles here. Every thread is starting to regress into a battle over the merits of what BB is doing in Oakland. Frankly, I'm sick of reading about it in every thread. It's getting a bit much, isn't it?

Okay, if I'm in the wrong for being tired of reading about the Mastermind of Baseball here at WSI, then by all means fly off the handle and call me a ******* moron, I must be missing something.

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 05:54 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I think Billy Beane made one of the worst trades that I have ever seen this off-season.

He traded Ted "All-Star" Lilly (8-7, 3.78 ERA) for Bobby Kielty (.206/.305/.362).
:roflmao:

Kenny Williams would be CRUCIFIED here if he made that trade.
Thats because Kenny hasn't made the playoffs 4 strait years.


BTW the trade was made because Lilly was bitching about a contract:cool:

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 05:54 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I think Billy Beane made one of the worst trades that I have ever seen this off-season.

He traded Ted "All-Star" Lilly (8-7, 3.78 ERA) for Bobby Kielty (.206/.305/.362).
:roflmao:

Kenny Williams would be CRUCIFIED here if he made that trade.Not only that but he gave up the great Mike Wood (Beane's answer to Josh Fogg) and future supertar Mark Teahan for Octavio Dotel and his 5.32 ERA and Koch-esque 3 blown saves in 11 chances.
:rolling:
Again, they'd get torches and pitchforks on this board had Kenny made that move.

lowesox
08-05-2004, 05:55 PM
:threadsucks I love this graphic because it communicates two things very quickly:

1) I (the writer) do not agree with the sentiment of this thread.
2) I (the writer) have absolutely no ability to express in an intelligent way why I disagree with this thread.

What I'd like to know is, don't people come here to challenge themselves with intelligent conversation? And, if you disagree with what somebody writes and can't express why, then have you considered the fact that you should rethink disagreeing in the first place?

Flight #24
08-05-2004, 06:06 PM
I think everyone(except KING) did a good job of defending my thoughts, but here goes anyways. IMO of course.

Bad Trade: One team gets a completely loped sided deal, based on bad anaylisis, overall money mismatching, player potential, or trading for the wrong reasons(player is "bad" person, player demands trade, team is cutting payroll)

Trades that don't work: The players are swapped, and are equal in most of their value, and one side of the trade either greatly underachieves(Koch), is injured(Wells), Players not living up to potential(Richie)

In the case of KW, the moves were all done on the good faith that the players would continue their progress and positive play. He hasn't had too many trades that I would consider "Bad"
If I may add:

Bad Trade: one that using the information available at the time could be seen to be unbalanced because of disparity in projectible player performances.

That would make Ritchie a bad trade because he simply wasn't a good player.

It would make Koch a marginally bad trade because Foulke was a better reliever (although not a ton better). It was not forseeable that Billy would lose 5 mph off of his fastball.

It would not make Wells a bad trade because he'd pitched 200IP the 4 years prior(and the 3 years after). It was not forseeable that that would be the 1 year he got hurt.

It would make the 2003 Everett & Alomar deals good (Everett) or didn't work out (Alomar) because what value we did get from them was more than the value of the guys we gave up, and because it was not forseeable that with a fairly strong team, JM would continue to run it into the ground (OK, that was forseeable, but out of KW's control).

It would make the 2004 Everett deal a good one because we're already gettign more value than we'd have ever gotten form Rauch or Majewski. Alomar is almost by default a good movebecause we give up nothing and will likely get some on-field benefits in exchange for taking some ABs away from Timo, Gload, & Willie (and that can be said to be a benefit all it's own!).

RKMeibalane
08-05-2004, 06:14 PM
Thats because Kenny hasn't made the playoffs 4 strait years.
Straight, not strait. Sheesh!

FanOf14
08-05-2004, 06:16 PM
Straight, not strait. Sheesh!
Unless you are a country singer named George! :wink: :D:

Gimm
08-05-2004, 06:18 PM
and trading Reed instead of mentally ill Joe Borchard
LMAO.


By which I mean.....shut up?

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 06:21 PM
LMAO.


By which I mean.....shut up?

Have you seen Borchard play? I haven't seen Reed play but even Lyle Mouton is better than Borchard.

thepaulbowski
08-05-2004, 06:22 PM
Have you seen Borchard play? I haven't seen Reed play but even Lyle Mouton is better than Borchard.
For those of you who may have missed it.

:threadsucks

Tmar281
08-05-2004, 06:32 PM
Have you seen Borchard play? I haven't seen Reed play but even Lyle Mouton is better than Borchard.
:dtroll:

Wealz
08-05-2004, 06:36 PM
What's Williams longterm strategy for generally managing this franchise, does anyone know? It's fine for fans to want to "this year", but part of the GM's job is to look out for the team's future. Williams almost shows disdain for 2-3 years down the road.

JRIG
08-05-2004, 06:37 PM
:dtroll:Can someone be a troll if they're telling the truth? Mouton's career with the Sox has been vastly superior than Borchard's so far. At age 26 he hit .302/.373/.475 with the team. Borchard's hasn't come close to sniffing that yet. And as KW's supporters are quick to point out, there's no such thing as a prospect anyway. Why, Borchard could be the next Scott Ruffcorn!

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 06:42 PM
What's Williams longterm strategy for generally managing this franchise, does anyone know? It's fine for fans to want to "this year", but part of the GM's job is to look out for the team's future. Williams almost shows disdain for 2-3 years down the road.
I could have sworn it was that Kenny Williams guy who signed a stud pitcher to a 3 year contract about a month or so ago, and also traded for another potentially great starting pitcher. Couldn't be him, becuase KW obviously has no plan past this year.

Wealz
08-05-2004, 06:46 PM
I could have sworn it was that Kenny Williams guy who signed a stud pitcher to a 3 year contract about a month or so ago, and also traded for another potentially great starting pitcher. Couldn't be him, becuase KW obviously has no plan past this year.
The signing of Garcia and the Contreras trade leave as many questions about the direction of this team as they answered because they ate up payroll. Where are the position players going to come from?

Soxzilla
08-05-2004, 06:51 PM
So then there is no such thing as a bad trade?
Obviously not. Because whoever would trade randy johnson for shoe is an idiot.:wink:

Also remember that sirotka got injured before he even pitched a game for toronto.

RKMeibalane
08-05-2004, 06:51 PM
If Joe Borchard is making fans long for the days of Lyle Mouton, then he must be bad.

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 06:54 PM
If Joe Borchard is making fans long for the days of Lyle Mouton, then he must be bad.

The man makes Manny Ramirez look like a gold glover and Sammy Sosa look like a contact hitter....

BTW His minor league #'s weren't exactly stellar.

samram
08-05-2004, 06:58 PM
The signing of Garcia and the Contreras trade leave as many questions about the direction of this team as they answered because they ate up payroll. Where are the position players going to come from?
I don't understand this. Every player eats up payroll. The team can't only have position players, they have to spend some money on pitchers. As for the direction of the team, it probably points to having more guys that don't just hit homeruns, and who don't make as much, therefore, allowing more money to go towards pitching. If your point is that those pitchers aren't worth it, that's different, and that's a debate that we have seen plenty of on this board.:D:

illinibk
08-05-2004, 07:12 PM
Orwell was right - words will soon lose all meaning.

What is the line that separates "bad trades" from "trades that didn't work out"?
I'm sure accoring to Moneyball21 that a bad trade is any trade made by KW, and a trade that didn't worked out is one like Ted Lilly for Bobby Kielty. I mean it's just bad luck right, or better yet, the sample size is too small for a proper evaluation yet.

Wealz
08-05-2004, 07:19 PM
I don't understand this. Every player eats up payroll. The team can't only have position players, they have to spend some money on pitchers. As for the direction of the team, it probably points to having more guys that don't just hit homeruns, and who don't make as much, therefore, allowing more money to go towards pitching. If your point is that those pitchers aren't worth it, that's different, and that's a debate that we have seen plenty of on this board.:D:
I guess my point is the Garcia and Contreras trades might signal a change in to emphasise starting pitching more, but they'll still be running in place because getting them cost Reed, Olivo, and at least $15M. A GM with a plan would likely have cheap position players ready to fill the many holes this team has, but Williams doesn't.

Iguana775
08-05-2004, 07:26 PM
Maybe they are trying to build a team around pitching and defense instead of trying to out hit everyone.

batmanZoSo
08-05-2004, 07:31 PM
The signing of Garcia and the Contreras trade leave as many questions about the direction of this team as they answered because they ate up payroll. Where are the position players going to come from?
From the huge increase in attendance, not to mention the departures of Magglio (most likely) and Valentin (hopefully). I would estimate that leaves us with like 15 million bucks to fill whatever holes necessary.

Wealz
08-05-2004, 07:46 PM
From the huge increase in attendance, not to mention the departures of Magglio (most likely) and Valentin (hopefully). I would estimate that leaves us with like 15 million bucks to fill whatever holes necessary.
It's not just that they'll have holes, it's that these holes will be, a 3-4 hitter, 2B, SS, and catcher. These are going to be extremely difficult to find in free-agency or by trade. Meanwhile $15M will be tied up at 1B and LF. Questionable allocation of funds.

samram
08-05-2004, 07:49 PM
I guess my point is the Garcia and Contreras trades might signal a change in to emphasise starting pitching more, but they'll still be running in place because getting them cost Reed, Olivo, and at least $15M. A GM with a plan would likely have cheap position players ready to fill the many holes this team has, but Williams doesn't.
Ok, fair enough. I guess his plan must include an increase in payroll because he doesn't have the in-house cheap talent he would need if they weren't going to increase payroll. That is assuming there is a plan, which I don't think he is foolish enough to not have- he is a smart guy, even if one thinks his skills are less than desirable.

batmanZoSo
08-05-2004, 08:07 PM
It's not just that they'll have holes, it's that these holes will be, a 3-4 hitter, 2B, SS, and catcher. These are going to be extremely difficult to find in free-agency or by trade. Meanwhile $15M will be tied up at 1B and LF. Questionable allocation of funds.
Uribe's not going anywhere so that takes away one of your holes. He's sure sucked lately but he's got a lot of talent and is far better than Harris at everything.

The 3-4 hitter--Thomas will be back and Everett, Konerko and Lee are fine to protect him. We've done the long ball game and it doesn't work. I'm not gonna worry about not having two hall of fame sluggers in the lineup. The Twins don't even have one and they're about to three-peat. Also don't forget we'll be a more pitching-oriented team so we won't need that much firepower, just more small ball ability and consistency throughout the lineup. The ability to get our starters that one big run when we need it. Get a great middle infielder, a solid, dependable catcher and a good starter. That's not a whole lot considering the money we'll be dumping.

Cerberus-WG
08-05-2004, 09:20 PM
Sigh.


For all the Billy Beane bashers: how many of you even THOUGHT about acquiring Mark Kotsay or Scott Hatteberg?

As for Moneyball21, I have the feeling that you don't even appreciate metrics or cannot honestly show me how Billy Beane-ball is better than Ozzieball.

balboner
08-05-2004, 09:25 PM
Why is everyone so satisfied with Everett being back next year for 4 million dollars? He's not a very good player, and we would already have Frank back at the DH spot likely. KW panicked when Frank went out, and he traded our best pitching prospect in Rauch for him.

MONEYBALL21
08-05-2004, 09:29 PM
Sigh.


For all the Billy Beane bashers: how many of you even THOUGHT about acquiring Mark Kotsay or Scott Hatteberg?

As for Moneyball21, I have the feeling that you don't even appreciate metrics or cannot honestly show me how Billy Beane-ball is better than Ozzieball.
Billy Beane-ball is only on the field... Its about finding undervalued talent and getting the best players for the least ammount of $$$. Being that "moneyball players" are slow fat and average fielders at best, the best way to play with those type of players is to play "sabermetricly". Why would you want to be a team that bunts and steals with players like Hatteberg, Durazo and Chavez? You dont. Sabermetric baseball is what works best with the team the A's have put together and small ball works for teams like the Twinkies.

inta
08-05-2004, 09:48 PM
i'm over KW myself.
this guy has just annihilated our farm system. and our current team blows.
he needs to start rebuilding this team now for the future.

dont put bubble gum on a leaky boat... get a new boat.

OEO Magglio
08-05-2004, 10:44 PM
What's Williams longterm strategy for generally managing this franchise, does anyone know? It's fine for fans to want to "this year", but part of the GM's job is to look out for the team's future. Williams almost shows disdain for 2-3 years down the road.
LOL, the next 2-3 years are in better shape then they were before the season started.

Wealz
08-05-2004, 11:31 PM
LOL, the next 2-3 years are in better shape then they were before the season started.
What makes you say that?

OEO Magglio
08-05-2004, 11:34 PM
What makes you say that?
I don't know, what about Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras, would you like to go into the offseason with Jon Garland penciled in as the number 2 starter, I know I wouldn't Instead Jon is now moved back to the 4th slot where he becomes a very solid number 4 starter. The pitching staff kenny has built already makes this team much better then it would have looked without the trades he's made no matter what the offense looks like.

OEO Magglio
08-05-2004, 11:37 PM
By the way mods, can we rename wsi, Kenny Williams vs. Moneyball because it seems almost every thread ends up becoming an argument of this.

Daver
08-05-2004, 11:39 PM
By the way mods, can we rename wsi, Kenny Williams vs. Moneyball because it seems almost every thread ends up becoming an argument of this.
No.


:bandance:

Wealz
08-05-2004, 11:39 PM
I don't know, what about Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras, would you like to go into the offseason with Jon Garland penciled in as the number 2 starter, I know I wouldn't Instead Jon is now moved back to the 4th slot where he becomes a very solid number 4 starter. The pitching staff kenny has built already makes this team much better then it would have looked without the trades he's made no matter what the offense looks like.
What about the position players?

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 11:44 PM
What about the position players?
He's going to get new ones after trying one more year with the same core and a new manager. What's so hard to understand? You want him to assemble a new team for NEXT season at the trade deadline?

jordan23ventura
08-05-2004, 11:53 PM
:threadsucks

Thank you.

OurBitchinMinny
08-05-2004, 11:56 PM
At least he tries to win. This team just quits if it faces the least of adversity. I dont think manuel was problem. Its the team. Ozzie has coached them to a similar record, but I dont ever remember the team being in this big of a tailspin last year. Even in september. They lost to the twins who are a good team. Now they are just getting beat by crappy teams. Its over folks

Wealz
08-06-2004, 12:00 AM
He's going to get new ones after trying one more year with the same core and a new manager. What's so hard to understand? You want him to assemble a new team for NEXT season at the trade deadline?
I want a plan from top to bottom. Something a little better thought out than this trying to "win every year" thing. We have nothing to show for this "plan" while we see the overall talent level of the team erode.

Win1ForMe
08-06-2004, 12:02 AM
I want a plan from top to bottom. Something a little better thought out than this trying to "win every year" thing. We have nothing to show for this "plan" while we see the overall talent level of the team erode.
I don't get this either. I thought the 2003 team was more talented than either the 2002 or 2001 version. Same with 2004. I don't really see where our talent is eroding?

jabrch
08-06-2004, 12:04 AM
Hey, at least the Braves won 5 pennants & a World Championship. The "moneyball" A's haven't even been able to win one pennant.

And that team is heading downhill QUICKLY. In the next two offseasons, The big 3 will all be FAs. Let's see his moneyball work with Harden, Blanton and Redman.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 12:09 AM
The signing of Garcia and the Contreras trade leave as many questions about the direction of this team as they answered because they ate up payroll. Where are the position players going to come from?
So you propose he sign pitchers that don't eat up payroll?

Wealz
08-06-2004, 12:19 AM
I don't get this either. I thought the 2003 team was more talented than either the 2002 or 2001 version. Same with 2004. I don't really see where our talent is eroding?
This is how I'd rate the Williams era teams:

2001 < 2000
2002 < 2001
2003 > 2002
2004 < 2003

Garcia and Marte are the only Williams players that are considered part of the core. Schueler has contributed more to the current team and even Larry Himes can give Williams a run for his money when it comes to core talent. That's sad.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 12:21 AM
So you propose he sign pitchers that don't eat up payroll?
Contreras is a pretty big gamble at 2/$12-15M don't you think?

Realist
08-06-2004, 08:41 AM
I'm sorry, but I refuse to read even one post on this thread. What a load of crap. There's no way in hell that I will ever blame Kenny Williams for the injuries to Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez. No friggin' way. Until someone can provide my with a police report that states there were witnesses that say they saw Kenny run over their foot and leg, I don't wanna hear crap about the job he's done.

For Christ's sake, the full roster healthy and this team is very worthy of going deep in the playoffs. Those two guys missing and the chemistry of the whole thing goes directly into the toilet.

This should be a surprise to no one. I'm not even going to bother to look for responses to this post, so don't even quote me.

I've never used the tag with the guy in the suit and the really nice hair, and I'm not going to now. I can only hope that his stupid smirk erupts throughout this thread.

JRIG
08-06-2004, 08:45 AM
At least he tries to win. This team just quits if it faces the least of adversity. I dont think manuel was problem. Its the team. Ozzie has coached them to a similar record, but I dont ever remember the team being in this big of a tailspin last year. Even in september. They lost to the twins who are a good team. Now they are just getting beat by crappy teams. Its over folks
So the team that KW assembled has so little heart and professionalism they quit at the first sign of problems? Sounds like a problem of player evaluation by the General Manager. You know, since it's been happening for 4 years now.

gosox41
08-06-2004, 08:53 AM
None of those trades were bad. They didnt' work out, but were never bad
YOu've got to be kidding me, right?

Ask anyone here who has been reading my stuff since the Koch trade and see exactly how I felt the day the trade was made!!! It sucked. Koch was never any good and highly overrated. I even predicted his overuse in Oakland would lead to 'Bobby Thigpentiis' where you lose veloicty on your fastball and become more hittable.

As for Richie, I wasn't here at the time. But giving up 3 pitchers fora mediocre one is ludicrous.

And drafting a reliever over a starter in the first round? Are you kW himself?


Bob

gosox41
08-06-2004, 08:59 AM
Can someone be a troll if they're telling the truth? Mouton's career with the Sox has been vastly superior than Borchard's so far. At age 26 he hit .302/.373/.475 with the team. Borchard's hasn't come close to sniffing that yet. And as KW's supporters are quick to point out, there's no such thing as a prospect anyway. Why, Borchard could be the next Scott Ruffcorn!
Any time you write something negative around here you get called a troll. The fact is people have invested a lot emotionally into this team and can't always see what's going on without being biased. Sometimes the truth hurts. But the reason a lot of these threads get started is because they tend to be the truth and be based on the same repetitive behavior by the Sox GM.

Also, a lot of these people who call others 'trolls' probably are a little upset that the negative people are right. It sucks, but if people would take emotion out of the equation they would see how messed up things are.


Bob

gosox41
08-06-2004, 09:05 AM
From the huge increase in attendance, not to mention the departures of Magglio (most likely) and Valentin (hopefully). I would estimate that leaves us with like 15 million bucks to fill whatever holes necessary.
OK. Now add Garcia's salary of $9 mill+ what the Sox owe Contreras ($6 mill) + raises to Buehrle, Garland, PK, and I think Frank and you have a lot more then $15 spent.



Bob

gosox41
08-06-2004, 09:09 AM
At least he tries to win. This team just quits if it faces the least of adversity. I dont think manuel was problem. Its the team. Ozzie has coached them to a similar record, but I dont ever remember the team being in this big of a tailspin last year. Even in september. They lost to the twins who are a good team. Now they are just getting beat by crappy teams. Its over folks
Can I have Schoenweis' spot in the rotation. I will try to win. I will also suck and probably not get a single out, but at least I try.:smile:

As for this team quitting when facing adversity, who is responsible for getting most of the players on the ML roster for the 2004 season? Who brought in these quitters??


Bob

gosox41
08-06-2004, 09:11 AM
And that team is heading downhill QUICKLY. In the next two offseasons, The big 3 will all be FAs. Let's see his moneyball work with Harden, Blanton and Redman.
You mean the Big 3 where BB drafted 2 of those 3 pitchers himself?

We will see what happens with them and it will be interesting. But people here have been predicting the demise of the A's since 'Moneyball' came out. Why not give them credit? They win, the Sox don't. They have a lower payroll then the Sox and play in a tougher division.

Sure they haven't won a playoff series, but at least they've been there. Do you mean to tell me you'd rather not be in the playoffs at all 4 years in a row then be in them 4 years in a row? Looks like you might get your wish.



Bob

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 10:44 AM
What about the position players?
It's not that hard if you take, oh 5 seconds to think about it.

2005:
LF: Lee
CF: Rowand
RF: Everett
1B: Konerko
2B:???
SS:???
3B: Crede
C: Burke/Davis/???
DH: Thomas
SP: Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras-Garland-Diaz/Cotts
RP: Cotts/Diaz, Adkins, Marte, Shingo, ????, ????

MI candidates include Willie, Juan, but I'd guess they try to upgrade there. Alomar's actually a candidate assuming that he comes cheap and shows something the rest of this year. They'll also likely add a couple of veteran arms to the pen. That team's better than 2003, and a lot better than the team we have now. Sans injuries, that team is as good as any in the Central, and likely has some $$$ to pick up salary at the trade deadline (probably a position player).

For 2006, you swap in Anderson/Sweeney for Everett, and either resign or replace Koney (1B is in general the easiest place to do that). Or you might see Lee moved to 1B and an OF acquired. You might see more changes in the middle infield depending on what happens there for 05.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 10:55 AM
None of those trades were bad. They didnt' work out, but were never bad
You know, this thread does suck, but I disagree with none of the trades being bad.

The Richie trade was just HORRIBLE! (I don't know why I'm yelling).

Any child off the street that knows anything about baseball knows - you don't give up three Major League Arms - Wells is a pitcher that they hit the eject button on too quickly, and Lowe was good for us!

By the way, does it still hurt any of you guys - from last night - ow.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 10:58 AM
You mean the Big 3 where BB drafted 2 of those 3 pitchers himself?

We will see what happens with them and it will be interesting. But people here have been predicting the demise of the A's since 'Moneyball' came out. Why not give them credit? They win, the Sox don't. They have a lower payroll then the Sox and play in a tougher division.

Sure they haven't won a playoff series, but at least they've been there. Do you mean to tell me you'd rather not be in the playoffs at all 4 years in a row then be in them 4 years in a row? Looks like you might get your wish.

Bob
You have to admit - it will be nice to make those trips out West knowing that the holy trinity is no longer pitching for Oakland...

:bandance: :bandance:

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 11:24 AM
Any child off the street that knows anything about baseball knows - you don't give up three Major League Arms - Wells is a pitcher that they hit the eject button on too quickly, and Lowe was good for us!

You mean Sean "ERAs around 6 since the trade and now out of baseball" Lowe and Josh "1.54WHIP & 5.47ERA in the NL" Fogg?

I think you and I have different definitions of "major league arms". Kip Wells was given up on too early, but I haven't missed Fogg or Lowe for 1 nanosecond. And even Wells and his 1.43WHIP / 5.45ERA & whining in Pittsburgh aren't missed all that much.

I have no confidence that Kip Wells would be anything other than......Jon Garland if he was in the AL. And possibly worse than that.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 11:29 AM
You mean Sean "ERAs around 6 since the trade and now out of baseball" Lowe and Josh "1.54WHIP & 5.47ERA in the NL" Fogg?

I think you and I have different definitions of "major league arms". Kip Wells was given up on too early, but I haven't missed Fogg or Lowe for 1 nanosecond. And even Wells and his 1.43WHIP / 5.45ERA & whining in Pittsburgh aren't missed all that much.

I have no confidence that Kip Wells would be anything other than......Jon Garland if he was in the AL. And possibly worse than that.Kip Wells would be worse then Jon Garland in the al.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 11:29 AM
You mean Sean "ERAs around 6 since the trade and now out of baseball" Lowe and Josh "1.54WHIP & 5.47ERA in the NL" Fogg?

I think you and I have different definitions of "major league arms". Kip Wells was given up on too early, but I haven't missed Fogg or Lowe for 1 nanosecond. And even Wells and his 1.43WHIP / 5.45ERA & whining in Pittsburgh aren't missed all that much.

I have no confidence that Kip Wells would be anything other than......Jon Garland if he was in the AL. And possibly worse than that.
Who's to say that Lowe and Fogg wouldn't have been better or something different if they had stayed in our system. Maybe something worked for them here that didn't work there. Furthermore, what did Richie get us? Where's he right now? I'll give you that Marte is good, but... man... all I am saying is that we had three guys that were pitching at the Major League level when we dumped them.

Now, I'll give you that there were no Clemens or Pedros in the bunch, and maybe the fact that we got Todd Richie says something about their talent, but I'll say this, I'd rather have Wells and Fogg right now than what we got for them. At the very least - if we were eyeing Marte, we should have just sent one pitcher or maybe two over for him.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 11:31 AM
[QUOTE=Foulke29]Who's to say that Lowe and Fogg wouldn't have been better or something different if they had stayed in our system.QUOTE]
Who's to say Kip Wells would have done anything if he stayed here?

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 11:35 AM
You mean Sean "ERAs around 6 since the trade and now out of baseball" Lowe and Josh "1.54WHIP & 5.47ERA in the NL" Fogg?

I think you and I have different definitions of "major league arms". Kip Wells was given up on too early, but I haven't missed Fogg or Lowe for 1 nanosecond. And even Wells and his 1.43WHIP / 5.45ERA & whining in Pittsburgh aren't missed all that much.

I have no confidence that Kip Wells would be anything other than......Jon Garland if he was in the AL. And possibly worse than that.
I'll say this:

By mid-May of his first Pittsburgh season, Josh Fogg was 5-1 with 2.35 ERA. By Memorial Day, Kip Wells was 8-2 with a 3.00 ERA

Wouldn't this have been enough to put us in the playoffs in 2002? That in itself would have been worth holding on to Fogg and Wells.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 11:38 AM
Who's to say that Lowe and Fogg wouldn't have been better or something different if they had stayed in our system. Maybe something worked for them here that didn't work there. Furthermore, what did Richie get us? Where's he right now? I'll give you that Marte is good, but... man... all I am saying is that we had three guys that were pitching at the Major League level when we dumped them.

Now, I'll give you that there were no Clemens or Pedros in the bunch, and maybe the fact that we got Todd Richie says something about their talent, but I'll say this, I'd rather have Wells and Fogg right now than what we got for them. At the very least - if we were eyeing Marte, we should have just sent one pitcher or maybe two over for him.
Wells & Fogg didn't do anything here with the Sox, why would that have suddenyl changed such that they'd do BETTER than they did with the Pirates? Todd Ritchie sucked, there's no getting around that. but we didn't exactly give up Buehrle & Garcia for him.

And I 100% don't get your point on Marte....are you arguing that we should have given up MORE for him?

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 11:40 AM
I'll say this:

By mid-May of his first Pittsburgh season, Josh Fogg was 5-1 with 2.35 ERA. By Memorial Day, Kip Wells was 8-2 with a 3.00 ERA

Wouldn't this have been enough to put us in the playoffs in 2002? That in itself would have been worth holding on to Fogg and Wells.
Well, since the likelest explanation for that is changing leagues and never having been seen before, I don't think it could have happened here, where they weren't new, and opposing offenses area lot better.

Would Wells have been better than Ritchie n the first half of 2002? Sure. I'm not aruing it as a good trade. but it's nowhere near the "strip minig of our system" that it's argued to be.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 11:44 AM
And I 100% don't get your point on Marte....are you arguing that we should have given up MORE for him?
My point on Marte - is that with hindsight I think it's obvious that Marte is who the Sox really wanted. Ritchie was the smoke screen to get him bundled into the deal.

I'm saying why did we play the smoke and mirror games and acquire both Ritchie and Marte - is the prize was always Marte.

Maybe we should have just given up a couple of guys to get Marte and left Ritchie in Pennsylvania?

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 11:47 AM
Well, since the likelest explanation for that is changing leagues and never having been seen before, I don't think it could have happened here, where they weren't new, and opposing offenses area lot better.

Would Wells have been better than Ritchie n the first half of 2002? Sure. I'm not aruing it as a good trade. but it's nowhere near the "strip minig of our system" that it's argued to be.
I don't think that's totally fair to say. Fogg spent limited tiem with the Sox coming out of the bullpen. Not a lot of hitters in the AL had faced him either. Wells, bounced back and forth between the majors and minors. I honestly feel that both those guys had high ceilings - whereas Ritchie was going to either plateau or decline. He was an average pitcher at best in his prime - and by the time the Sox acquired him, he was out of his prime.

My signature signifies the only trade I hated more in White Sox history.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 11:47 AM
My point on Marte - is that with hindsight I think it's obvious that Marte is who the Sox really wanted. Ritchie was the smoke screen to get him bundled into the deal.

I'm saying why did we play the smoke and mirror games and acquire both Ritchie and Marte - is the prize was always Marte.

Maybe we should have just given up a couple of guys to get Marte and left Ritchie in Pennsylvania?
They wre 2 separate, independent deals. Ritchie for Wells, Fogg, Lowe. Marte for Matt Guerrier. No linkage.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 11:48 AM
It's not that hard if you take, oh 5 seconds to think about it.

2005:
LF: Lee
CF: Rowand
RF: Everett
1B: Konerko
2B:???
SS:???
3B: Crede
C: Burke/Davis/???
DH: Thomas
SP: Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras-Garland-Diaz/Cotts
RP: Cotts/Diaz, Adkins, Marte, Shingo, ????, ????

MI candidates include Willie, Juan, but I'd guess they try to upgrade there. Alomar's actually a candidate assuming that he comes cheap and shows something the rest of this year. They'll also likely add a couple of veteran arms to the pen. That team's better than 2003, and a lot better than the team we have now. Sans injuries, that team is as good as any in the Central, and likely has some $$$ to pick up salary at the trade deadline (probably a position player).
Better than 2003? I disagree.

1.) Contreras is far from a sure thing.
2.) Uribe and Valentin are going to combine for 40+ home runs in the middle infield, how is that going to be replaced?
3.) Thomas is a year older and should not be counted on for a full season due to his recent health history.
4.) I have yet to see anything from Everett this year that makes me comfortable with him in RF in 2005.
5.) If everything works out for the positive with Rowand, Thomas, Everett, Lee, and Konerko, big if I think, that lineup still has 4 easy outs in it.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 11:48 AM
They wre 2 separate, independent deals. Ritchie for Wells, Fogg, Lowe. Marte for Matt Guerrier. No linkage.
My bad. I thought Marte came over with the deal - could have sworn he did.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 11:51 AM
My bad. I thought Marte came over with the deal - could have sworn he did.No he didn't. It was Lowe, Fogg, and Kip for Ritchie. In another deal Guerrier for Damaso.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 11:53 AM
Wells & Fogg didn't do anything here with the Sox, why would that have suddenyl changed such that they'd do BETTER than they did with the Pirates?
Same thing with Contreras though, right? At least Wells and Fogg would not have cost $12-15M.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 12:00 PM
Same thing with Contreras though, right? At least Wells and Fogg would not have cost $12-15M.
I dont' think it's ever been said that the problems with Wells or Fogg are mechanical or that they had troble dealing with the pressures of playing....in Pittsburgh (which I hear is second only to NY in pressure!).

Plus, Contreras has shown a lot more in his1.5 years in the bigs than either Wells or Fogg ahd before being dealt (or since).

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 12:01 PM
Well, since the likelest explanation for that is changing leagues and never having been seen before, I don't think it could have happened here, where they weren't new, and opposing offenses area lot better.

Would Wells have been better than Ritchie n the first half of 2002? Sure. I'm not aruing it as a good trade. but it's nowhere near the "strip minig of our system" that it's argued to be.
It's not totally getting rid of those three pitchers that rubbed me the wrong way - it's what we got in return.

Joe Sheehan's (managing editor of Baseball Prospectus) comments on the Sox and Ritchie shortly after the trade:

That's without discussing the two prospects the Sox traded -- Kip Wells and Josh Fogg -- or the financial costs of the deal. It also ignores the long list of pitchers who project to have similar performances to Ritchie in 2002, but who wouldn't have cost Williams anything in terms of talent and not much in the way of money: James Baldwin, Ismael Valdes, Albie Lopez, Terry Adams, Pedro Astacio and Rick Helling, just to name a bunch.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 12:04 PM
It's not totally getting rid of those three pitchers that rubbed me the wrong way - it's what we got in return.

Joe Sheehan's (managing editor of Baseball Prospectus) comments on the Sox and Ritchie shortly after the trade:

That's without discussing the two prospects the Sox traded -- Kip Wells and Josh Fogg -- or the financial costs of the deal. It also ignores the long list of pitchers who project to have similar performances to Ritchie in 2002, but who wouldn't have cost Williams anything in terms of talent and not much in the way of money: James Baldwin, Ismael Valdes, Albie Lopez, Terry Adams, Pedro Astacio and Rick Helling, just to name a bunch.
In general I don't have a high opinion of Joe Sheehan. He's done some good stuff, but too often he editorializes without much of a fact base and passes it off as statistical analysis.

But regardless, IMO - we didn't get much of value, and we gave up something of low value. That's not a good trade, but it's nowhere near being a horrible trade. Had Wells gone on to be a solid #3 starter, then I'd say it was horrible. Had Fogg gone on to be a solid #4 - ditto. Didn't happen.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 12:13 PM
In general I don't have a high opinion of Joe Sheehan. He's done some good stuff, but too often he editorializes without much of a fact base and passes it off as statistical analysis.

But regardless, IMO - we didn't get much of value, and we gave up something of low value. That's not a good trade, but it's nowhere near being a horrible trade. Had Wells gone on to be a solid #3 starter, then I'd say it was horrible. Had Fogg gone on to be a solid #4 - ditto. Didn't happen.Okay: Wells last two years:





2002 Pirates (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/statmaster.php?d=P&l=NL&t=PIT&y=2002&a=set)12-14 .462 3.58 34 GP 198.1 IP



2003 Pirates (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/statmaster.php?d=P&l=NL&t=PIT&y=2003&a=set)10-9 .526 3.28 31 GP 197.1 IP



I would have loved to have those numbers being produced by a White Sox player - AND the kid put those two seasons up at the age of 24/25 and 25/26.

I think we did give up talent for nothing.

I won't argue that Fogg is phenominal, but Fogg was a bullpen guy for us that is starting in Pittsburgh - perhaps he would have pitched better out of the bullpen than he has starting...

Regardless, we hit the eject button far too soon on Kip.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 12:17 PM
I dont' think it's ever been said that the problems with Wells or Fogg are mechanical or that they had troble dealing with the pressures of playing....in Pittsburgh (which I hear is second only to NY in pressure!).

Plus, Contreras has shown a lot more in his1.5 years in the bigs than either Wells or Fogg ahd before being dealt (or since).
Kip Wells pitched 198 and 197 innings with ERA's of 3.59 and 3.28 in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Williams would be ecstatic if Contreras put similar numbers up.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 12:19 PM
:tomatoaward


Todd Ritchie and Kip Wells are worth 100 replies.

:bandance:

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 12:59 PM
Kip Wells pitched 198 and 197 innings with ERA's of 3.59 and 3.28 in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Williams would be ecstatic if Contreras put similar numbers up.
1) I'm not saying it was a good deal. It was a BAD deal. But we gave up one good #3 or 4 starter (his ERA would be higher in the AL), who to that point had struggled with us and seemed like he was going to continue being inconsistent, which was unacceptable for a team trying to make the playoffs. A BAD deal, but not exactly Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson.

2) One of the big complaints is that we "strip mined" the farm system. This deal did not do that. Kip Wells was a loss, but Fogg & Lowe were not. There are many many prospects that don't amount to much in the bigs. Trading them is no big deal.

Dadawg_77
08-06-2004, 01:56 PM
Kenny Williams has not improved this team since he took over the reigns. The Sox have been running in place since 2000, yes there were injuries and other setbacks, but good GM can work around those. That is key when evaluating Kenny's performance as GM, he hasn't been able to get around bumps in the road. Thus he should be replace for someone who can.

Jerome
08-06-2004, 03:19 PM
Welcome to the WSI FOBB's.

I don't really think that Seattle would have accepted Joe Borchard, and I'd much rather have Garcia than Reed.

However, just like all FOBBs, I wish the Sox had a much better OBP and OPS.

Being a FOBB on this site is tough. Hawk hates BB and there are a lot of old stubborn baseball guys here who don't really like him either.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 04:07 PM
Welcome to the WSI FOBB's.

I don't really think that Seattle would have accepted Joe Borchard, and I'd much rather have Garcia than Reed.

However, just like all FOBBs, I wish the Sox had a much better OBP and OPS.

Being a FOBB on this site is tough. Hawk hates BB and there are a lot of old stubborn baseball guys here who don't really like him either.Wait, people are stubborn because they don't worship billy beane?:rolleyes:

jeremyb1
08-06-2004, 05:28 PM
I agree that these threads have just become ridiculous. Personally, it's just becoming hard for me to read.

I think Bob hit the nail on his head when he said that people are just too invested in the team not to be optimisitic. That's the way I always viewed myself but I guess I just became too disillusioned - I reached my breaking point - or I underestimated how many people were out there that are as bad or worse than I am.

At some point there's just no other rationalization for some of the nonsense spewed out in this thread. Kip wells would be worse than Jon Garland in the AL?!?! Where are these translations of stats from the NL to the AL that make guys ERAs jump from 3.3 and 3.5 to 4.6?!?!?! As far as this season I doubt he'd have pitched well in many leagues with a finger injury.

These posts always seem to end up exactly the same: people defend KW's moves as being bad luck and at the same time find one or two trades Beane made that didn't work out proving...I'm not sure what people think they're proving!! No one is arguing that Billy Beane is infallible, just that he's a good GM. He's susceptible to moves that work just like every other GM because as people are so damn fond of saying when critisizing BP and other outlets using stats, you can't predict what's going to happen. That's why we play the games!!

That said, as I believe Flight pointed out some (although I disagree with how he labeled most of the deals), there are deals that can conceivably projected to work out poorly and some that aren't. Obviously there are different degrees of this. Todd Ritchie sucking is on one end of the spectrum and giving up next to nothing for Hank Blalock and then watching his career end due to a car accident is on the other. Most of KW's bad deals were predictably bad. How do I know this? People made these points WHEN the deals were consumated.

Billy Koch - He was far from a sure thing because if you look at the numbers 1) Foulke's numbers were better 2) Koch had struggled in one of his four seasons 3) his peripheral numbers suggested his low ERA was a bit of a mirage 4) there were rumblings all over the place that one reason Beane wanted to trade him was that he was overworked in Oakland. Hmm, could that have anything to do with losing velocity on his fastball?!?! All of these points were made when the deal was made by people who don't have magical powers to see into the future.

Ritchie - He was a dime a dozen, inconsistent pitcher and KW paid a ton for him. Again if you doubt that this could've been forseen check out Sheehan's analysis that was posted.

Garcia - I guess the jury's still out on this but I promise to dig up some of this threads in a year or two to evaluate the deal. I'll have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. It's funny to look back at the Ritchie deal because people said the same things about Wells, that he'd never add up to anything, that they said about Reed. He's just a prospect, right?

There are more deals and I won't go over all of them but lets let the record show that KW has made some trades that worked out very poorly and if they were just the result of bad luck, some analysts apparently had some ridiculously good luck guessing what would happen.

Any objective analysis would unequivically say that Beane is doing a tremendous job in Oakland and we'd be blessed with a similar GM. He's made the playoffs what should soon be five seasons in a row. He routinely acquires players at bargain basement prices. He was lambasted just a few months ago for acquiring Miller and Kotsay but I haven't heard so much trash talking there anymore.

To go around insisting Beane is just lucky is just atrocious especially when comparing him to KW? Is it just good and bad luck? It's funny because if you talk to people about good or bad luck in the playoffs they'll tell you you're insane yet Beane just had good luck with the big three and KW has just had bad luck with injuries? The contradictions are just so incredibly glaring.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 05:53 PM
I agree that these threads have just become ridiculous. Personally, it's just becoming hard for me to read.

I think Bob hit the nail on his head when he said that people are just too invested in the team not to be optimisitic. That's the way I always viewed myself but I guess I just became too disillusioned - I reached my breaking point - or I underestimated how many people were out there that are as bad or worse than I am.

At some point there's just no other rationalization for some of the nonsense spewed out in this thread. Kip wells would be worse than Jon Garland in the AL?!?! Where are these translations of stats from the NL to the AL that make guys ERAs jump from 3.3 and 3.5 to 4.6?!?!?! As far as this season I doubt he'd have pitched well in many leagues with a finger injury.

These posts always seem to end up exactly the same: people defend KW's moves as being bad luck and at the same time find one or two trades Beane made that didn't work out proving...I'm not sure what people think they're proving!! No one is arguing that Billy Beane is infallible, just that he's a good GM. He's susceptible to moves that work just like every other GM because as people are so damn fond of saying when critisizing BP and other outlets using stats, you can't predict what's going to happen. That's why we play the games!!

That said, as I believe Flight pointed out some (although I disagree with how he labeled most of the deals), there are deals that can conceivably projected to work out poorly and some that aren't. Obviously there are different degrees of this. Todd Ritchie sucking is on one end of the spectrum and giving up next to nothing for Hank Blalock and then watching his career end due to a car accident is on the other. Most of KW's bad deals were predictably bad. How do I know this? People made these points WHEN the deals were consumated.

Billy Koch - He was far from a sure thing because if you look at the numbers 1) Foulke's numbers were better 2) Koch had struggled in one of his four seasons 3) his peripheral numbers suggested his low ERA was a bit of a mirage 4) there were rumblings all over the place that one reason Beane wanted to trade him was that he was overworked in Oakland. Hmm, could that have anything to do with losing velocity on his fastball?!?! All of these points were made when the deal was made by people who don't have magical powers to see into the future.

Ritchie - He was a dime a dozen, inconsistent pitcher and KW paid a ton for him. Again if you doubt that this could've been forseen check out Sheehan's analysis that was posted.

Garcia - I guess the jury's still out on this but I promise to dig up some of this threads in a year or two to evaluate the deal. I'll have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. It's funny to look back at the Ritchie deal because people said the same things about Wells, that he'd never add up to anything, that they said about Reed. He's just a prospect, right?

There are more deals and I won't go over all of them but lets let the record show that KW has made some trades that worked out very poorly and if they were just the result of bad luck, some analysts apparently had some ridiculously good luck guessing what would happen.

Any objective analysis would unequivically say that Beane is doing a tremendous job in Oakland and we'd be blessed with a similar GM. He's made the playoffs what should soon be five seasons in a row. He routinely acquires players at bargain basement prices. He was lambasted just a few months ago for acquiring Miller and Kotsay but I haven't heard so much trash talking there anymore.

To go around insisting Beane is just lucky is just atrocious especially when comparing him to KW? Is it just good and bad luck? It's funny because if you talk to people about good or bad luck in the playoffs they'll tell you you're insane yet Beane just had good luck with the big three and KW has just had bad luck with injuries? The contradictions are just so incredibly glaring.There are pitchers who just can't pitch in the american league. Kip was awful when he was here and then he goes to the nl and righ away becomes very good, granted he was still young so that isn't to far of a stretch, I just don't think he's that good of a pitcher. The first name that comes to mind when I think of Kip is Jeff Suppan, Suppan had a 3.57 era in the nl last year before getting traded to the red sox and then his era went up to 5.57 while he was on the bosox. He comes back to the national league and now his era is 4.08. Kip wells would get hammered if he was still in the al, imo.

jeremyb1
08-06-2004, 05:56 PM
There are pitchers who just can't pitch in the american league. Kip was awful when he was here and then he goes to the nl and righ away becomes very good, granted he was still young so that isn't to far of a stretch, I just don't think he's that good of a pitcher. The first name that comes to mind when I think of Kip is Jeff Suppan, Suppan had a 3.57 era in the nl last year before getting traded to the red sox and then his era went up to 5.57 while he was on the bosox. He comes back to the national league and now his era is 4.08. Kip wells would get hammered if he was still in the al, imo.

I just can't think of any logical reason why that would be true and tiny sample sizes aren't doing a ton to convince me here. Wells was young when we dealt him, it makes sense he's going to improve. He had a sub 4 ERA at the break the season before we traded him so he obviously wasn't too far away.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 06:01 PM
I just can't think of any logical reason why that would be true and tiny sample sizes aren't doing a ton to convince me here. Wells was young when we dealt him, it makes sense he's going to improve. He had a sub 4 ERA at the break the season before we traded him so he obviously wasn't too far away.I'm not trying to convince you of anything because no matter what your not going to agree with me and that's fine. I'm just putting my feelings for kip out there and why I think he'd be worse then garland in the al. There is no doubt in my mind he'd be our 5th starter if he was still here right now behind garland but that's jmo.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 06:10 PM
The Billy Beane comments are much more related to the fact that he's touted as the uber-GM who can do no wrong and who regularly swindles others than anything else. When you start seeing things like "We need a moneyball GM", it's way beyond ludicrous - as if that style is the only way to win and as if anyone who uses that philosophy will win.

As far as KW, I also dont' think there's been any contention that he's a great GM. He's average or slightly above average so far with some bad deals (RRitchie, Koch) and some good deals (Marte, Olivo, IMO Garcia). He's also been pretty good at FA pickups in ELo, Shingo. The claims that he's "strip mined" the system are a bunch of BS. None of the guys he's traded have amounted to much and outside of Wells, Reed and Olivo and maybe Francisco, none are anywhere close to making an impact. With a team needing rebuilding by the time those guys are ready, the decision was whether to go for it now, or to have a significantly reduced chance now but be mediocre in 2 years rather than bad when you have those guys but likely lose your veterans - Maggs, Frank, Koney, Valentin, Lee, etc.

The Kip Wells-Todd Ritchie deal was a bad one. But it's made out to be us giving up 3 good pitchers for one bad one. It was an inconsistent pitcher for a bad one. Decent concept, had you gotten a better veteran since the team wasn't positioned to live through Wells' inconsistency. Ritchie was not the right guy - bad deal.

As for Koch - I think it was known that we were probably getting a worse reliever, but to expect Kenny to forsee Billy falling off the table and becoming the bullpen Jaime Navarro is unrealistic. The trade was made because even if Billy declined in performance, he'd be a decent reliever, he'd be around for 2 eyars v. Foulke's 1, and at the time, the manager didn't see Foulke as a closer. KW couldn't force JM to put Keith back in that role.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 06:30 PM
There are pitchers who just can't pitch in the american league. Kip was awful when he was here and then he goes to the nl and righ away becomes very good, granted he was still young so that isn't to far of a stretch, I just don't think he's that good of a pitcher. The first name that comes to mind when I think of Kip is Jeff Suppan, Suppan had a 3.57 era in the nl last year before getting traded to the red sox and then his era went up to 5.57 while he was on the bosox. He comes back to the national league and now his era is 4.08. Kip wells would get hammered if he was still in the al, imo.
I can't see how you can say this with as much certainty as you have. By virtually every measure Wells has been better than Garland.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 06:39 PM
The Billy Beane comments are much more related to the fact that he's touted as the uber-GM who can do no wrong and who regularly swindles others than anything else. When you start seeing things like "We need a moneyball GM", it's way beyond ludicrous - as if that style is the only way to win and as if anyone who uses that philosophy will win.

As far as KW, I also dont' think there's been any contention that he's a great GM. He's average or slightly above average so far with some bad deals (RRitchie, Koch) and some good deals (Marte, Olivo, IMO Garcia). He's also been pretty good at FA pickups in ELo, Shingo. The claims that he's "strip mined" the system are a bunch of BS.
This Beane talk is a red herring, I'd settle for Williams being a better G.M. than the Twins Terry Ryan, which he isnt.

As far as stripping the minors, I agree with you that he hasn't. My problem with him is he hasn't built up the system. Too much garbage, too few prospects.

jeremyb1
08-06-2004, 06:42 PM
The Billy Beane comments are much more related to the fact that he's touted as the uber-GM who can do no wrong and who regularly swindles others than anything else. When you start seeing things like "We need a moneyball GM", it's way beyond ludicrous - as if that style is the only way to win and as if anyone who uses that philosophy will win.

Well I certainly don't believe that Beane is invincible or that a team can't win unless a moneyball strategy is employed. I also feel pretty comfortable speaking for DaDawg and JRIG that they do not feel that way either. Since as far as I can tell the three of us log the most sincere, rational posts in these debates I'm not sure why this impression that all statheads think Beane is incapable of ever making a bad deal or losing a game exists.

As far as KW, I also dont' think there's been any contention that he's a great GM. He's average or slightly above average so far with some bad deals (RRitchie, Koch) and some good deals (Marte, Olivo, IMO Garcia). He's also been pretty good at FA pickups in ELo, Shingo. The claims that he's "strip mined" the system are a bunch of BS. None of the guys he's traded have amounted to much and outside of Wells, Reed and Olivo and maybe Francisco, none are anywhere close to making an impact. With a team needing rebuilding by the time those guys are ready, the decision was whether to go for it now, or to have a significantly reduced chance now but be mediocre in 2 years rather than bad when you have those guys but likely lose your veterans - Maggs, Frank, Koney, Valentin, Lee, etc.

Well if you insist on evaluating those trades with hindsight based on how much the players we've dealt accomplish I think it's only fair to give it a couple years. The players were pretty much all young minor leaguers and a number of them were in the low minors so I don't think it's right to say that we traded no one of consequence. We need to wait and see with Ring, Rauch, Majewski, Reed, Morse, Webster, Francisco, Rupe, and the PTBNL in the most recent Alomar deal.

The Kip Wells-Todd Ritchie deal was a bad one. But it's made out to be us giving up 3 good pitchers for one bad one. It was an inconsistent pitcher for a bad one. Decent concept, had you gotten a better veteran since the team wasn't positioned to live through Wells' inconsistency. Ritchie was not the right guy - bad deal.

I certainly agree with you that Fogg and Lowe aren't much I just think it was a terrible deal if it was just Wells for Ritchie so to throw two other pitchers in was not the best idea.

As for Koch - I think it was known that we were probably getting a worse reliever, but to expect Kenny to forsee Billy falling off the table and becoming the bullpen Jaime Navarro is unrealistic. The trade was made because even if Billy declined in performance, he'd be a decent reliever, he'd be around for 2 eyars v. Foulke's 1, and at the time, the manager didn't see Foulke as a closer. KW couldn't force JM to put Keith back in that role.

Well as I said there was a known risk of injury with Koch due to his workload. Kenny even commented on it in the press conference immediately after we made the deal so he was certainly aware of the risk. Clearly it ended up being a bad gamble. As was pointed out by places such as BP when the deal was made the reasoning that Koch would be around longer was terrible because he was expensive. You don't need to trade a player of Koch's calliber for the priveledge of overpaying Koch 6 million a season which would've been too much even if he kept up his past performance IMO. There are dozens of closers on the market every offseason, it's not as though we were going to find ourselves in a situation where we couldn't find anyone to pitch the 9th inning all of a sudden. Look at how we picked up Shingo. Look at Kolb on Milwaukee. You don't need to pay six million dollars for Koch, that's not a priveledge.

cornball
08-06-2004, 06:45 PM
I have noticed several newer members to the board continue taking their shots at KW. As far as I am concerned, he is the right man for the job at this time. Your opinions are appreciated, but your not speaking for all of us.

With a limited self imposed budget, restricting his ability to acquire FA each off season, he has done a good job. KW has perspective and realizes pitching is the key. He has tried to solidify the staff for a while now.

He has the guts to pull the trigger on trades. He also speaks when the players are not playing good fundamental baseball, as he did yesterday.

I give him credit because he is trying everything possible within his limits to bring a winner here and a winner now.

Some of his trades, we can look back on (with the benefit of time) and say that was a bad deal. I must note, most of the trades have been for the present.

All he can do is put the pieces on the table, the players have to perform and stay healthy. So far that is the case this season. I agree there is no excuse for many of the selfish and dumb baseball over the past few weeks.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 06:46 PM
I have noticed several newer members to the board continue taking their shots at KW. As far as I am concerned, he is the right man for the job at this time. Your opinions are appreciated, but your not speaking for all of us.

With a limited self imposed budget, restricting his ability to acquire FA each off season, he has done a good job. KW has perspective and realizes pitching is the key. He has tried to solidify the staff for a while now.

He has the guts to pull the trigger on trades. He also speaks when the players are not playing good fundamental baseball, as he did yesterday.

I give him credit because he is trying everything possible within his limits to bring a winner here and a winner now.

Some of his trades, we can look back on (with the benefit of time) and say that was a bad deal. I must note, most of the trades have been for the present.

All he can do is put the pieces on the table, the players have to perform and stay healthy. So far that is the case this season. I agree there is no excuse for many of the selfish and dumb baseball over the past few weeks.I completely agree, however these threads have to stop both ways because this is just going to start into another Kenny vs. Moneyball thread.

JRIG
08-06-2004, 06:47 PM
I completely agree, however these threads have to stop both ways because this is just going to start into another Kenny vs. Moneyball thread.
Indeed. Don't be offended, but I'm going to merge this into the larger KW thread happening right now.

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 06:49 PM
Indeed. Don't be offended, but I'm going to merge this into the larger KW thread happening right now.Something we can all agree on.:bandance:

Wealz
08-06-2004, 06:56 PM
I have noticed several newer members to the board continue taking their shots at KW. As far as I am concerned, he is the right man for the job at this time. Your opinions are appreciated, but your not speaking for all of us.

With a limited self imposed budget, restricting his ability to acquire FA each off season, he has done a good job. KW has perspective and realizes pitching is the key. He has tried to solidify the staff for a while now.

He has the guts to pull the trigger on trades. He also speaks when the players are not playing good fundamental baseball, as he did yesterday.

I give him credit because he is trying everything possible within his limits to bring a winner here and a winner now.

Some of his trades, we can look back on (with the benefit of time) and say that was a bad deal. I must note, most of the trades have been for the present.

All he can do is put the pieces on the table, the players have to perform and stay healthy. So far that is the case this season. I agree there is no excuse for many of the selfish and dumb baseball over the past few weeks.
Schueler and Himes wanted to win too.

Daver
08-06-2004, 06:59 PM
Schueler and Himes wanted to win too.
I have yet to see any evidence that Schue was interested in doing anything aside from living off of Himes' draft picks and settling for also ran.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 07:06 PM
I have yet to see any evidence that Schue was interested in doing anything aside from living off of Himes' draft picks and settling for also ran.
I'm not a huge Schu fan, but 2 division titles v. 0 for Williams . . .

Daver
08-06-2004, 07:15 PM
I'm not a huge Schu fan, but 2 division titles v. 0 for Williams . . .
1-1/2, he was halfway out the door in 2000.

But he did provide the Sox with first round draft picks like Jason Dellearo and Mark Johnson.

And to cover all the bases he drafted his daughter to boot.

Jurr
08-06-2004, 07:23 PM
Williams is trying to put a winner out there. Period.



:threadblows: :threadblows:

Wealz
08-06-2004, 07:26 PM
Williams is trying to put a winner out there. Period.
And the list of GM's who aren't trying to win?

samram
08-06-2004, 08:02 PM
1-1/2, he was halfway out the door in 2000.

But he did provide the Sox with first round draft picks like Jason Dellearo and Mark Johnson.

And to cover all the bases he drafted his daughter to boot.

Don't forget Eddie Pearson, Scott Christman, Chris Clemons, Jeff Liefer, Bobby Seay, Matt Ginter, and Jason Stumm. Where would the Sox be without them? Thanks Schu!

TornLabrum
08-06-2004, 08:03 PM
I have yet to see any evidence that Schue was interested in doing anything aside from living off of Himes' draft picks and settling for also ran.
Also ran: It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 08:14 PM
Welcome to the WSI FOBB's.

I don't really think that Seattle would have accepted Joe Borchard, and I'd much rather have Garcia than Reed.

However, just like all FOBBs, I wish the Sox had a much better OBP and OPS.

Being a FOBB on this site is tough. Hawk hates BB and there are a lot of old stubborn baseball guys here who don't really like him either.
I don't think many people dislike Beane. I think a lot of people dislike the fanaticism that people show for a system that has shown very little since being put into place in 2001 and a disgust for those who keep on bashing the Sox players and management for taking a different approach. I do say that Billy Beane better start coming up with a lot of talent - cuz when Hudson, Mulder and Zito all have the opportunity to leave, he is going to have very little success in retaining them. All the fat catchers with titties in the world won't replace Zito, Mulder and Hudson.

MONEYBALL21
08-06-2004, 08:20 PM
I don't think many people dislike Beane. I think a lot of people dislike the fanaticism that people show for a system that has shown very little since being put into place in 2001 and a disgust for those who keep on bashing the Sox players and management for taking a different approach. I do say that Billy Beane better start coming up with a lot of talent - cuz when Hudson, Mulder and Zito all have the opportunity to leave, he is going to have very little success in retaining them. All the fat catchers with titties in the world won't replace Zito, Mulder and Hudson.
Beane has allready done that...part of his system is to draft players that have the best odds of making it to the majors. They have Rich Harden and Joe Blanton topping their rotation soon and.........they've won w/ Hudson so far in the second half and Zito has been their 4th best pitcher.

Daver
08-06-2004, 08:23 PM
Beane has allready done that...part of his system is to draft players that have the best odds of making it to the majors. They have Rich Harden and Joe Blanton topping their rotation soon and.........they've won w/ Hudson so far in the second half and Zito has been their 4th best pitcher.
Get back to me when he wins an ALCS, till then he is just another GM toiling along with the rest of them.

MONEYBALL21
08-06-2004, 08:28 PM
Get back to me when he wins an ALCS, till then he is just another GM toiling along with the rest of them.
The A's have had nothing but bad luck in the playoffs...2001=Jeremy Giambi not sliding 2002=Koch melting down vs the Twins and 2003 no Mulder...you can't win the World Series unless you make the playoffs and Beane has done that 4 strait years going on 5. Only the Braves and Yankees make it as regularly as them(and they happen to have HUGE payrolls).

jabrch
08-06-2004, 08:47 PM
The A's have had nothing but bad luck in the playoffs...2001=Jeremy Giambi not sliding 2002=Koch melting down vs the Twins and 2003 no Mulder...you can't win the World Series unless you make the playoffs and Beane has done that 4 strait years going on 5. Only the Braves and Yankees make it as regularly as them(and they happen to have HUGE payrolls).
None of that is "bad luck". That's bad baseball. When you build a team around mediocre players, you get mediocre results. Florida last year and Anaheim the year before had much better RP and much better offensive talent than these recent Oakland teams have had - the past two or three years. You can't build an offense around Chavez, Dye and a bunch of mediocre players and expect to win a World Series. Oaklands few hitters of value are easy to pitch around. Many of the other hitters are not the type that are difference makers that can win it.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 08:54 PM
Get back to me when he wins an ALCS, till then he is just another GM toiling along with the rest of them.
At the very least, hasn't Beane proved to be a better GM than Williams?

jabrch
08-06-2004, 08:54 PM
part of his system is to draft players that have the best odds of making it to the majors.
Oooohhhhh well that's a revolutionary concept

They have Rich Harden and Joe Blanton topping their rotation soon
Joe Blanton has a 4.64 ERA in Sacramento. Tell me why I should believe he is anywhere close to being a "top of the rotation" guy? Diaz and Stewart both have far better numbers and Grilli and Meaux are very similar. I haven't seen Blanton throw ever, and only have seen Grilli and Diaz of that group, but to paraphrase Pedro Martinez, "Who the hell is Joe Blanton?"


and.........they've won w/ Hudson so far in the second half and Zito has been their 4th best pitcher

and a crappy pen, and the 9th worst offense in MLB in terms of runs scored... If it weren't for Mulder, Hudson and Zito, all drafted and developed before 2001, and all very fortunately to have been extremely healthy all at the same time up until last year, they have achieved the top of what one could reasonably expect.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 08:56 PM
None of that is "bad luck". That's bad baseball. When you build a team around mediocre players, you get mediocre results. Florida last year and Anaheim the year before had much better RP and much better offensive talent than these recent Oakland teams have had - the past two or three years. You can't build an offense around Chavez, Dye and a bunch of mediocre players and expect to win a World Series. Oaklands few hitters of value are easy to pitch around. Many of the other hitters are not the type that are difference makers that can win it.
I wish the Sox had such mediocre results, ya' know?

MONEYBALL21
08-06-2004, 09:02 PM
Oooohhhhh well that's a revolutionary concept


Joe Blanton has a 4.64 ERA in Sacramento. Tell me why I should believe he is anywhere close to being a "top of the rotation" guy? Diaz and Stewart both have far better numbers and Grilli and Meaux are very similar. I haven't seen Blanton throw ever, and only have seen Grilli and Diaz of that group, but to paraphrase Pedro Martinez, "Who the hell is Joe Blanton?"


and a crappy pen, and the 9th worst offense in MLB in terms of runs scored... If it weren't for Mulder, Hudson and Zito, all drafted and developed before 2001, and all very fortunately to have been extremely healthy all at the same time up until last year, they have achieved the top of what one could reasonably expect.
1. Sacramento is the Coors Field of AAA(Adam fn Piatt hit 43 hrs there).
2. Blanton Started the futures game.
3. Harden has been better than Zito this season.
4. Beane took over in 97.
5. A's are ranked 11th in the league in runs scored(don't make up stats kinda makes ya look bad.
6. Pedro's quote was "who Karim Garcia?"

I love how people hate Beane because he's found a new way to win.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:03 PM
At the very least, hasn't Beane proved to be a better GM than Williams?
He has had better results - but he has had a lot more to work with.

Remember, Beane had lots of high picks before the Moneyball draft. Zito was 9th overall. Mulder was #2 overall. Chavez - 11th overall. Prieto 5th, Grieve #2. The last time the Sox picked better than #15 was Alex Fernandez in 1990.

Since realignment, the Sox have finished 2nd 6 times, 1st 2 times and 3rd 3 times. Before that, they only had 2 finishes below 5th place going back to 1976. Meanwhile, Oakland was a terrible franchise from 1995 - 1998, finishing 4th 3 of 4 and 3rd the other and finsihing 6th or 7th in the AL West 4 times pre-realignment.

KW had a lot less to work with than BB.

MONEYBALL21
08-06-2004, 09:06 PM
None of that is "bad luck". That's bad baseball. When you build a team around mediocre players, you get mediocre results. Florida last year and Anaheim the year before had much better RP and much better offensive talent than these recent Oakland teams have had - the past two or three years. You can't build an offense around Chavez, Dye and a bunch of mediocre players and expect to win a World Series. Oaklands few hitters of value are easy to pitch around. Many of the other hitters are not the type that are difference makers that can win it.
Chavez is mediocre? His #s for a 26 yr old are comparable to Bonds at the same age. And Scott Hatteberg is the most underrated player in the MLB(a line up of 9 Scott Hattebergs would score 950 runs wooooo!)

poorme
08-06-2004, 09:07 PM
At the very least, hasn't Beane proved to be a better GM than Williams?
well, yeah....

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:09 PM
1. Sacramento is the Coors Field of AAA(Adam fn Piatt hit 43 hrs there).
2. Blanton Started the futures game.
3. Harden has been better than Zito this season.
4. Beane took over in 97.
5. A's are ranked 11th in the league in runs scored(don't make up stats kinda makes ya look bad.
6. Pedro's quote was "who Karim Garcia?"

I love how people hate Beane because he's found a new way to win.
1) Still his numbers are unimpressive on the road either.
2) So what?
3) So what?
4) But didn't implement his system until firing his scouts in 2001.
5) No - they are ranked 8th now. They were 9th yesterday. Don't accuse people of making up statistics. It is juvinille and it weakens your arguement.
6) So? What's your point?

Gimm
08-06-2004, 09:11 PM
You can't build an offense around Chavez, Dye and a bunch of mediocre players and expect to win a World Series.


Byrnes this year is anything but mediocre. Ditto Kotsay and Durazo. Bobby Crosby is not bad either. Damien Miller, too. I wish Carl Everett was as mediocre as Hattenberg this year.

Along with a healthy Chavez and Dye, that makes for a good, consistent offense - they're not going to have as many pad-a-stat blow-outs as the Sox, but they won't lose quite as many 3-2 games, either.

But Oakland's strenght is and has always been starting pitching. Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Harden and Blanton are gonna keep Oakland rockin' for a few years yet. Their offense this year is good enough to win the World Series as long as the rotation and Dotel hold up.

Wealz
08-06-2004, 09:13 PM
He has had better results - but he has had a lot more to work with.

Remember, Beane had lots of high picks before the Moneyball draft. Zito was 9th overall. Mulder was #2 overall. Chavez - 11th overall. Prieto 5th, Grieve #2. The last time the Sox picked better than #15 was Alex Fernandez in 1990.

Since realignment, the Sox have finished 2nd 6 times, 1st 2 times and 3rd 3 times. Before that, they only had 2 finishes below 5th place going back to 1976. Meanwhile, Oakland was a terrible franchise from 1995 - 1998, finishing 4th 3 of 4 and 3rd the other and finsihing 6th or 7th in the AL West 4 times pre-realignment.

KW had a lot less to work with than BB.
The White Sox passed on Crosby, Harden, and Hudson. How many bad contracts has Beane had? Koch, Konerko, and Lee are three for Williams.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:14 PM
Chavez is mediocre? His #s for a 26 yr old are comparable to Bonds at the same age. And Scott Hatteberg is the most underrated player in the MLB(a line up of 9 Scott Hattebergs would score 950 runs wooooo!)
Do you read? I said around Dye, Chavez AND a bunch of mediocre players.

And Hatteberg is only said to be underrated by those of you who overrate him. I don't believe he is underrated at all. He is not a difference maker. He is a mediocre hitter.

And the crappyass statistical manipulations that are used to conclude that a team of 9 Hattebergs would score 950 runs is assinine. Because the input used to do it is one Scott Hatteberg with Dye and Chavez hitting around him. You can not mathematically isolate that out to create a calculation of how many runs he'd score himself.

JRIG
08-06-2004, 09:14 PM
1) Still his numbers are unimpressive on the road either.
2) So what?
3) So what?

So let's dance!

(Sorry, adding a bit of levity to the discussion)

MRKARNO
08-06-2004, 09:15 PM
I love how people hate Beane because he's found a new way to win.
People don't hate Beane. They hate the crazed Billy Beane supporters who will defend him to the death because the level at which they toot Billy Beane's horn is extremely annoying. You are no exception. You come to a White Sox board and your screename is named after a book about the Oakland General Manager. If someone made a screename with the title of the Cleveland General Manager included, they'd probably get just as harsh a response as you.

Daver
08-06-2004, 09:20 PM
I love how people hate Beane because he's found a new way to win.
In case you have a reading comprehension problem, I will repeat, get back to me when he manages to build a team that wins the ALCS, till then he has acheived nothing.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:32 PM
The White Sox passed on Crosby, Harden, and Hudson. How many bad contracts has Beane had? Koch, Konerko, and Lee are three for Williams.
Didn't everonye in the league pass on those guys also? Are we at the point where BB is the only good GM in the game? Come on...

First off, Lee's contract is not bad. 6mm is reasonable for Carlos - no? For Petes sake - he's hitting .294/.358/.505. Second, Dye's contract is as bad, if not worse than Konerkos. Art Rhodes contract is fairly lousy. It is hard to compare them - since Beane has never gone out and signed a player to a longer term deal. How many GOOD contracts does Billy Beane have? I've asked this many times - tell me about the impact FAs that he has signed? If the answer includes scrubs like Hatteberg, Keitley and Miller, well there isn't much arguement there, huh?

Why is this so black and white to you? There are some things Beane does well - he finds nice role players. He has had a decent hand with drafting pitching. But when the Big 3 are gone in the next two years, do you believe that Harden/Blanton are anywhere close to Z/M/H?

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:33 PM
People don't hate Beane. They hate the crazed Billy Beane supporters who will defend him to the death because the level at which they toot Billy Beane's horn is extremely annoying. You are no exception. You come to a White Sox board and your screename is named after a book about the Oakland General Manager. If someone made a screename with the title of the Cleveland General Manager included, they'd probably get just as harsh a response as you.

DING DING DING

jabrch
08-06-2004, 09:34 PM
In case you have a reading comprehension problem, I will repeat, get back to me when he manages to build a team that wins the ALCS, till then he has acheived nothing.
Oh...but but...that's sample size - and luck in the playoffs - and the ratio of ass:armpits...

MONEYBALL21
08-07-2004, 02:49 AM
In case you have a reading comprehension problem, I will repeat, get back to me when he manages to build a team that wins the ALCS, till then he has acheived nothing.
hahahahhaha wow an administator is a complete mongoloid. Who woulda thunk it???? PLAYOFFS ARE ALL LUCK.

jabrch
08-07-2004, 02:54 AM
hahahahhaha wow an administator is a complete mongoloid. Who woulda thunk it???? PLAYOFFS ARE ALL LUCK.
Where's that BAN button Daver?

Aidan
08-07-2004, 02:57 AM
hahahahhaha wow an administator is a complete mongoloid. Who woulda thunk it???? PLAYOFFS ARE ALL LUCK.Uhhh, nope. PLAYOFFS ARE ALL PITCHING. And the A's obviously can't get it done, even with the "Big 3".

OEO Magglio
08-07-2004, 02:57 AM
2. Blanton Started the futures game.
So did Neal Cotts and your lover traded him, so what's your point?

OEO Magglio
08-07-2004, 03:05 AM
hahahahhaha wow an administator is a complete mongoloid. Who woulda thunk it???? PLAYOFFS ARE ALL LUCK.Wow, I'm sorry but your an idiot.

CWSGuy406
08-07-2004, 04:03 AM
Do you read? I said around Dye, Chavez AND a bunch of mediocre players.

And Hatteberg is only said to be underrated by those of you who overrate him. I don't believe he is underrated at all. He is not a difference maker. He is a mediocre hitter.

And the crappyass statistical manipulations that are used to conclude that a team of 9 Hattebergs would score 950 runs is assinine. Because the input used to do it is one Scott Hatteberg with Dye and Chavez hitting around him. You can not mathematically isolate that out to create a calculation of how many runs he'd score himself.
I'm not on either side of the argument really, but I'd take nine of those 'mediocre' Scott Hattebergs over anyone in our lineup right now...

gosox41
08-07-2004, 09:07 AM
The Billy Beane comments are much more related to the fact that he's touted as the uber-GM who can do no wrong and who regularly swindles others than anything else. When you start seeing things like "We need a moneyball GM", it's way beyond ludicrous - as if that style is the only way to win and as if anyone who uses that philosophy will win.

As far as KW, I also dont' think there's been any contention that he's a great GM. He's average or slightly above average so far with some bad deals (RRitchie, Koch) and some good deals (Marte, Olivo, IMO Garcia). He's also been pretty good at FA pickups in ELo, Shingo. The claims that he's "strip mined" the system are a bunch of BS. None of the guys he's traded have amounted to much and outside of Wells, Reed and Olivo and maybe Francisco, none are anywhere close to making an impact. With a team needing rebuilding by the time those guys are ready, the decision was whether to go for it now, or to have a significantly reduced chance now but be mediocre in 2 years rather than bad when you have those guys but likely lose your veterans - Maggs, Frank, Koney, Valentin, Lee, etc.

The Kip Wells-Todd Ritchie deal was a bad one. But it's made out to be us giving up 3 good pitchers for one bad one. It was an inconsistent pitcher for a bad one. Decent concept, had you gotten a better veteran since the team wasn't positioned to live through Wells' inconsistency. Ritchie was not the right guy - bad deal.

As for Koch - I think it was known that we were probably getting a worse reliever, but to expect Kenny to forsee Billy falling off the table and becoming the bullpen Jaime Navarro is unrealistic. The trade was made because even if Billy declined in performance, he'd be a decent reliever, he'd be around for 2 eyars v. Foulke's 1, and at the time, the manager didn't see Foulke as a closer. KW couldn't force JM to put Keith back in that role.
Billy Beane comments are made not because he does no wrong. But because he is able to take a team with a lower payroll in a tougher division and still go to the playoffs 4 years (and possible 5) in a row. He's made his bad trades and Billy Beane supporters have pointed that out. But he is still better then KW. Maybe the KW supporters here should stop being so defensive about KW everytime Beane's name is mentioned. Please show a post where it says Beane is perfect and has done no wrong.

As for the Koch trade, even I predicted he had a chance to suffer from 'Bobby Thigpenitis' when the trade was made!!!! Me. Look it up. And what do I know? Looking at those dreaded stats would tell you that outside of the overrated save category, Koch was significantly worse then Foulke in 2002. And the logic of trading a great pitcher for worse pitcher and keeping the worse pitcher around an extra year is perverse. How can you not see that?


Bob

gosox41
08-07-2004, 09:09 AM
In case you have a reading comprehension problem, I will repeat, get back to me when he manages to build a team that wins the ALCS, till then he has acheived nothing.
Does that mean KW has acheived less then nothing. Cause last I checked Beane has done more then KW, unless of course Sox fans enjoy having their Octobers pretty much 100% free of baseball. If that's the goal, then KW is way better.


Bob

gosox41
08-07-2004, 09:13 AM
I have yet to see any evidence that Schue was interested in doing anything aside from living off of Himes' draft picks and settling for also ran.

Schu wasn't good, but I didn't think he was that bad. This teams current successful players (PK, Ordonez, Buehrle, Lee, you favorite CFer Rowand) all came under the Schue era.

And while Schu gave us the likes of Mark Johnson and other busts, how are KW's first round picks doing? Remember KW is the guy who decided it was a good idea to draft a reliever if the first round. At the time you even questioned the move.



Bob

gosox41
08-07-2004, 09:20 AM
At the very least, hasn't Beane proved to be a better GM than Williams?

No, just because he has gone to the playoffs 4 years in a row while having the lowest payroll in the toughest division in baseball means absolutely nothing.

As a Sox fan I'm perfectly content to love KW who has led the Sox to 3 second place finishes while operating under a similar payroll to Oakland. Never midn that payroll was always among the highest in the AL Central and teams play an unbalanced schedule. Never mind that the AL Central has been the weakest division in baseball the last 3 years. KW is great for putting together a consistent second place team while spending the most money in his division.

Talk to me when KW can get to the playoffs. I love hearing how the Sox have a team built to go deep in the playoffs. If the could only get there. Of course a team built to go deep in the playoffs probably would need to beat out playoff teams in a short series, like the 2003 series against the Twins at the metrodome or the 3 games played here the other week against the Twins. We really showed them.



Bob

gosox41
08-07-2004, 09:21 AM
1. Sacramento is the Coors Field of AAA(Adam fn Piatt hit 43 hrs there).
2. Blanton Started the futures game.
3. Harden has been better than Zito this season.
4. Beane took over in 97.
5. A's are ranked 11th in the league in runs scored(don't make up stats kinda makes ya look bad.
6. Pedro's quote was "who Karim Garcia?"

I love how people hate Beane because he's found a new way to win.

Other then those corrections, everything else said was 100% correct.:)


Bob

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 12:45 PM
Does that mean KW has acheived less then nothing. Cause last I checked Beane has done more then KW, unless of course Sox fans enjoy having their Octobers pretty much 100% free of baseball. If that's the goal, then KW is way better.


Bob
It's not exactly fair to compare a guy in his 7th or 8th year with one in his 4th.

Beane's 1st 3 years: 225-261, No playoff berths. Year 4 was 91-70 & the playoffs. It was also the year when Hudson, Mulder, Zito came up.

KW's first 3 years: 250-236, No playoff berths. Year 4 is this year. And I'd argue that this team was well-structured to make the playoffs and win 90 games. And this is the year that he's got his rotation together in Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras.

Now I'm sure it'll be argued that KW started from a better starting point than Beane, but he started without any pitching, and had to build a staff from scratch without the aid of high draft picks. He also had to remain competitive and couldn't afford to have the "tank" years.

So next year would be the real fair comparison to Beane's first playoff year. It would have been this year, but I'd say losing your top 2 players should be enough to push it to next year.

Wealz
08-07-2004, 12:53 PM
It's not exactly fair to compare a guy in his 7th or 8th year with one in his 4th.

Beane's 1st 3 years: 225-261, No playoff berths. Year 4 was 91-70 & the playoffs. It was also the year when Hudson, Mulder, Zito came up.

KW's first 3 years: 250-236, No playoff berths. Year 4 is this year. And I'd argue that this team was well-structured to make the playoffs and win 90 games. And this is the year that he's got his rotation together in Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras.

Now I'm sure it'll be argued that KW started from a better starting point than Beane, but he started without any pitching, and had to build a staff from scratch without the aid of high draft picks. He also had to remain competitive and couldn't afford to have the "tank" years.

So next year would be the real fair comparison to Beane's first playoff year. It would have been this year, but I'd say losing your top 2 players should be enough to push it to next year.
Left with no pitching? Williams was left with Buehrle, Garland, Foulke, and K. Wells.

gosox41
08-07-2004, 03:06 PM
It's not exactly fair to compare a guy in his 7th or 8th year with one in his 4th.

Beane's 1st 3 years: 225-261, No playoff berths. Year 4 was 91-70 & the playoffs. It was also the year when Hudson, Mulder, Zito came up.

KW's first 3 years: 250-236, No playoff berths. Year 4 is this year. And I'd argue that this team was well-structured to make the playoffs and win 90 games. And this is the year that he's got his rotation together in Garcia-Buehrle-Contreras.

Now I'm sure it'll be argued that KW started from a better starting point than Beane, but he started without any pitching, and had to build a staff from scratch without the aid of high draft picks. He also had to remain competitive and couldn't afford to have the "tank" years.

So next year would be the real fair comparison to Beane's first playoff year. It would have been this year, but I'd say losing your top 2 players should be enough to push it to next year.
I agree that losing the 2 top players makes it hard for this team to go to the playoffs. But did you really expect the dropoff we've seen in this team. There is no talent, just gaping holes around the starting line up. Most of the good teams have maybe 1-2 weakness in their starting line up but make up for it with enough solid players. The Sox have one superstar and 3 solid players when Frank and Magglio are healthy. It's hard to win when the left side of your infield can't even post a .300 OBP or when you carry 3 catchers none of whom very well. And none of that has anything to do with Thomas and Ordonez being out. That would lead me to my Timo Perez and his .640 OPS in RF rant.


Bob

gosox41
08-07-2004, 03:10 PM
Left with no pitching? Williams was left with Buehrle, Garland, Foulke, and K. Wells.
ANd there's no law against making trades. KW could have traded PK before resigning him to an extension or packaged Crede in a deal or traded Lee to get some pitching.


KW has seen 3 years of the same 4 right handed hitters going through their streaks and slumps and never bothered to try to break it up. Why not?




Bob

jabrch
08-07-2004, 03:14 PM
Left with no pitching? Williams was left with Buehrle, Garland, Foulke, and K. Wells.
LOL

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 07:51 PM
Left with no pitching? Williams was left with Buehrle, Garland, Foulke, and K. Wells.
I can't believe that anyone's comparing Mulder-Hudson-Zito to Garland, & Wells. Even Buehrle isn't on par with those guys. Aren't you one of the ones complaining because KW hasn't yet replaced Jon & upgraded that pitchng slot? Yet he's a cornerstone pitcher that was bequeathed to KW? Sheesh.

Even Buehrle was in his first year (2000 he got 3 starts & pitched mostly out of the 'pen). Kip Wells and his sterling 2000 ERA & WHIP of 6 & 2 and 2001 #s of 5ERA & 1.55WHIP compared to any of those 3? Yikes.

And for the record: Beane took over with Giambi, Tejada, McGwire in place and Chavez close (he came up in 98). Not exactly a bare cupboard from a position player standpoint.

Again - the fair comparison is not between the guy who's implemented his system 7 years ago and is now seeing it bear fruit (and started to in his 4th year), and the guy who's just now approaching that point and short of having 2 of the best players in baseeball lost for the year would be in a similar situation. It's what happens next year. Everyone crows about how Beane loses bigtime hitters and keeps it running, well KW's likely to lose Maggs - let's see how the team is reconfigured around pitching & Ozzieball.

jabrch
08-07-2004, 09:03 PM
I can't believe that anyone's comparing Mulder-Hudson-Zito to Garland, & Wells. Even Buehrle isn't on par with those guys. Aren't you one of the ones complaining because KW hasn't yet replaced Jon & upgraded that pitchng slot? Yet he's a cornerstone pitcher that was bequeathed to KW? Sheesh.

Even Buehrle was in his first year (2000 he got 3 starts & pitched mostly out of the 'pen). Kip Wells and his sterling 2000 ERA & WHIP of 6 & 2 and 2001 #s of 5ERA & 1.55WHIP compared to any of those 3? Yikes.

And for the record: Beane took over with Giambi, Tejada, McGwire in place and Chavez close (he came up in 98). Not exactly a bare cupboard from a position player standpoint.

Again - the fair comparison is not between the guy who's implemented his system 7 years ago and is now seeing it bear fruit (and started to in his 4th year), and the guy who's just now approaching that point and short of having 2 of the best players in baseeball lost for the year would be in a similar situation. It's what happens next year. Everyone crows about how Beane loses bigtime hitters and keeps it running, well KW's likely to lose Maggs - let's see how the team is reconfigured around pitching & Ozzieball.
Good point Flight - IF KW got here and there was half the talent that existed, as well as the tolerance for 2 consecutive last place finishes in their division (Winning % of .401 and .456 respectively), who knows what may happen. The fact is KW won't tolerate last place seasons. Maybe that's his problem - if he could build a real loser for 4 years like Oakland had from 1996 - 1999, then he'd have had a different base to build from? Hard to say.

There are no sure things in baseball. No systems are sure things, no players are sure things, etc. As much as I dislike our play the past two weeks, the future of the franchise looks to be heading in the right direction - build around some good solid young arms. If we can make a few good moves with the money that it looks like we will have to spend in the offseason, then things could look good.

Wealz
08-07-2004, 10:04 PM
I can't believe that anyone's comparing Mulder-Hudson-Zito to Garland, & Wells. Even Buehrle isn't on par with those guys. Aren't you one of the ones complaining because KW hasn't yet replaced Jon & upgraded that pitchng slot? Yet he's a cornerstone pitcher that was bequeathed to KW? Sheesh.
Hudson was a 6th round pick in '97, did not exactly fall in Beane's lap. BTW, the same guy who ran our draft this year passed on him 5 times. As far as Zito goes, have you seen how he's pitched this year? Quite Estaban Loaiza-ish and the A's still lead their division. They've been without Chavez and Hudson for portions of this year too.

I don't understand why people on here are choosing to compare Williams with Beane. Beane wins hands down. I would settle for Williams being better than Terry Ryan for goodness sake.

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 10:13 PM
Hudson was a 6th round pick in '97, did not exactly fall in Beane's lap. BTW, the same guy who ran our draft this year passed on him 5 times. As far as Zito goes, have you seen how he's pitched this year? Quite Estaban Loaiza-ish and the A's still lead their division. They've been without Chavez and Hudson for portions of this year too.

I don't understand why people on here are choosing to compare Williams with Beane. Beane wins hands down. I would settle for Williams being better than Terry Ryan for goodness sake.
OK, so 4 years of excellent Zito, followed by less than a year of "average Zito" makes him Loaiza? :?:

Again - what part didn't you understand about Beane building up the minor league system and changing over the team during his first 3-4 years, the point where KW is at now?

And if you for 1 second think losing Chavez is anywhere close to losing Maggs AND Frank? I have another :?: for you. This team would win a lot more if we had lost Buehrle but kept Frank & Maggs.

Wealz
08-07-2004, 10:18 PM
As much as I dislike our play the past two weeks, the future of the franchise looks to be heading in the right direction - build around some good solid young arms.
At best I think this team is at the crossroads. It's going to take a lot smart decisions, regardless of money spent, to keep it from going in the wrong direction, if it isn't heading that way already that is.

Wealz
08-07-2004, 10:25 PM
OK, so 4 years of excellent Zito, followed by less than a year of "average Zito" makes him Loaiza? :?:

Again - what part didn't you understand about Beane building up the minor league system and changing over the team during his first 3-4 years, the point where KW is at now?

And if you for 1 second think losing Chavez is anywhere close to losing Maggs AND Frank? I have another :?: for you. This team would win a lot more if we had lost Buehrle but kept Frank & Maggs.
If Zito is as critical to Beane's success as you implied how in the world are the A's winning when he's pitching like Loaiza this year? As far as Frank being critical to this team's success I agree, but it beggs the question ... why has this GM allowed a 36-year-old DH with recent health issues to be such an intricate part of its success?

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 10:43 PM
As far as Frank being critical to this team's success I agree, but it beggs the question ... why has this GM allowed a 36-year-old DH with recent health issues to be such an intricate part of its success?
1) Frank doesn't exactly have "recent health issues". A torn triceps and bone spurs what - 5 years ago don't exactly make him injury prone. This last injury - sure, it seems like it may be chronic, but he hasn't had any similar issues for a while.

2) Frank's a hall of famer and is still a huge force. Not easy to replace that. By just being Frank, he's an intricate part of your success.

3) Did you miss the part about Maggs also being out? Remember - this team without Maggs was still near the top in runs scored and leading the division. That seems to me to be a team that CAN take a pretty big hit and still succeed. But Frank AND Maggs - there's no team that can take that type of hit outside of NY.

dickallen15
08-07-2004, 10:44 PM
I agree that losing the 2 top players makes it hard for this team to go to the playoffs. But did you really expect the dropoff we've seen in this team. There is no talent, just gaping holes around the starting line up. Most of the good teams have maybe 1-2 weakness in their starting line up but make up for it with enough solid players. The Sox have one superstar and 3 solid players when Frank and Magglio are healthy. It's hard to win when the left side of your infield can't even post a .300 OBP or when you carry 3 catchers none of whom very well. And none of that has anything to do with Thomas and Ordonez being out. That would lead me to my Timo Perez and his .640 OPS in RF rant.


BobThere is no excuse for the way they are playing, even without the two sluggers. They got spanked by Detroit, while I Rod was nursing back spasms, same with Kansas City and Mike Sweeney. Cleveland hasn't been starting their top hitter, Victor Martinez the first 2 debacles of this series. KW took over a team that was coming off a 94 win season. A team that had the best record in the AL. In the following 4 seasons, his teams haven't come close. You can blame injuries or unexpected poor performances, but KW's job is to anticipate these types of things. He really struck out this season. While Garcia was a good deal, if he had waited until the offseason, he probably could have signed him for a draft pick. Contreras has a huge upside, but is far from a sure thing. The Sox may wish they had the $12 million they will be paying him the next 2 season, for someone more consistent. Everett and Alomar are winding down, and don't have much left in the tank. Ozzie's enthusiasm has finally been overshadowed by a lack of managerial knowledge. He seems to have his switch hitters mostly swinging from their weaker sides. His in-game decisions haven't been good. His batting orders defy any logic. I also think his reaction or non reaction, whichever you want to call it, over the Hunter/Burke play, totally put this team in a tailspin. He may have lost the team . The bottom line is its been 4 years, are the Sox better off now than they were 4 years ago? Not by a longshot. KW must go, and he should take Ozzie with him.

Man Soo Lee
08-08-2004, 01:58 AM
He seems to have his switch hitters mostly swinging from their weaker sides.
What options does he have? If Everett sits vs. lefties, who's the DH? Alomar? Besides Borchard, there aren't any right-handed hitting right field options either.

Lip Man 1
08-08-2004, 02:20 AM
Dick Allen says: "but KW's job is to anticipate these types of things. He really struck out this season."
He also struck out in 2001 when injuries blew apart his pitching staff after the second half debacle in 2000. That's two injury gutted seasons in the last four.

But Dick how can he anticipate injuries with the size of the payroll he is working with?

Even if he wants to anticipate do you think he can get a Todd Walker say or a John Olerud or a Mark McLemore (or any other quality sub you care to name) to sit on the Sox bench for 500,000 bucks?

It's a fact...you can't get 95 million dollars worth of talent on a 60 million dollar payroll. The Cubs and Angels survived their injuries because they had whopping payrolls that allowed their G.M.'s to go out and acquire depth AHEAD of the start of the season.

What did the Sox do this off season????? ZZZZZ.....

You can't blame Williams for that....blame the individual who runs this team like Scrooge at Christmas.

Lip

gosox41
08-08-2004, 09:13 AM
I can't believe that anyone's comparing Mulder-Hudson-Zito to Garland, & Wells. Even Buehrle isn't on par with those guys. Aren't you one of the ones complaining because KW hasn't yet replaced Jon & upgraded that pitchng slot? Yet he's a cornerstone pitcher that was bequeathed to KW? Sheesh.

Even Buehrle was in his first year (2000 he got 3 starts & pitched mostly out of the 'pen). Kip Wells and his sterling 2000 ERA & WHIP of 6 & 2 and 2001 #s of 5ERA & 1.55WHIP compared to any of those 3? Yikes.

And for the record: Beane took over with Giambi, Tejada, McGwire in place and Chavez close (he came up in 98). Not exactly a bare cupboard from a position player standpoint.

Again - the fair comparison is not between the guy who's implemented his system 7 years ago and is now seeing it bear fruit (and started to in his 4th year), and the guy who's just now approaching that point and short of having 2 of the best players in baseeball lost for the year would be in a similar situation. It's what happens next year. Everyone crows about how Beane loses bigtime hitters and keeps it running, well KW's likely to lose Maggs - let's see how the team is reconfigured around pitching & Ozzieball.
Beane inherited an organization with some good prospects. Didn't the Sox have the number 1 farm system in 2000. Also, KW inherited something better. A 95 win team at the major league level. Beanre came in when the major league team was losing. KW came in when they were winning.

Also, keep this in mind. In Beane's first 4 years as GM he had drafted some pretty good players that were making an impact (some in less then 4 years) How close are any of KW's draft picks to making an impact for the White Sox?


Bob

gosox41
08-08-2004, 09:26 AM
Dick Allen says: "but KW's job is to anticipate these types of things. He really struck out this season."
He also struck out in 2001 when injuries blew apart his pitching staff after the second half debacle in 2000. That's two injury gutted seasons in the last four.

But Dick how can he anticipate injuries with the size of the payroll he is working with?

Even if he wants to anticipate do you think he can get a Todd Walker say or a John Olerud or a Mark McLemore (or any other quality sub you care to name) to sit on the Sox bench for 500,000 bucks?

It's a fact...you can't get 95 million dollars worth of talent on a 60 million dollar payroll. The Cubs and Angels survived their injuries because they had whopping payrolls that allowed their G.M.'s to go out and acquire depth AHEAD of the start of the season.

What did the Sox do this off season????? ZZZZZ.....

You can't blame Williams for that....blame the individual who runs this team like Scrooge at Christmas.

Lip
You could balme Williams. One of the points of 'Moneyball' was how to price your assets. Seeing what certain guys were worth when comapred to other players at their position. Going out and extending PK was a huge mistake. He is finally having his best year, but at the time he signed that extension he was statistically an average offensive 1B when compared around the Major League. Beane would have probably decided he wasn't worth the money and traded him to a sucker team. Kind of like he saw how lousy Koch was and traded him for a much better player to win now and then knew he was going to get 2 first round picks if he couldn't bring him back, further building up the farm system and solving depth issues.

Money helps, but so does some intelligence on the GM's part. Lip, you know I'm negative. And I came out when we signed PK to that extension and said it wasn't a good move. I also said the same thing about the Koch trade at the time it was made. That's $14 mill in 2003 that was wasted and could have easily been avoided. And the Sox still managed to throw another $2.5-3mill into Koch this year before they found a sucker willing to take him.

I'm not going to argue with you about money making it wasier it does, though it's no guarantee. But intelligence is key from the people running the show.

Think of it this way. Let's say you had a 16 year old daughter who just got her drivers license. In your garage sat a 1991 Toyota Corolla and a 2004 fully loaded over priced Mercedes. The first day out your daughter goes and recklessly crashes the Corolla. It was her fault and she could have easily avoided it. She comes back to you the next day and wants to drive again. Are you going to hand over the keys to the Mercedes knowing what just happened? Now imagine you're the owner of a team. Would you trust someone like KW with a huge payroll when he's proven he can't even handle a middle of the road one?


Bob

dickallen15
08-08-2004, 09:43 AM
What options does he have? If Everett sits vs. lefties, who's the DH? Alomar? Besides Borchard, there aren't any right-handed hitting right field options either.Seems to be a problem with how the roster is constructed. Who's job is that? Are right handed hitting outfielders hard to find? Ben Davis over his career is a far better right handed hitter. He bats almost exclusively left handed for the Sox. Earlier this season, the Sox had Ross Gload play CF to get left handed bats in the line up. Why can't Burke DH. His hitting pretty well. He has no power, but Everett doesn't have much power from the right side. Look, KW got what he was looking for when he replaced Thomas with Everett. He wanted it to happen last offseason. He wanted Nomar at SS and Juan Gonzalez in RF. Not to mention, he wanted to financially hamstring the organization for years, and give Bartolo Colon a bundle of money. He has given a great effort. Effort is great when your a kid. In the real world, results are what counts. KW's results have not been good. Lip talks about payroll. Well, KW has had the highest payroll in the division the last few years. He is still looking for his first divisional championship as GM.

Lip Man 1
08-08-2004, 02:13 PM
Bob:

If I have two cars and one of them is a Mercedes that means I can afford the risk of having her drive it. She gets the keys and I go out and get another car.

That's like having a Corvette and bitching about the insurance costs. If you can afford a 'vette you can afford the insurance or you wouldn't have the car in the first place.

Money covers a multitude of problems and issues...depth is one of them. Kenny could be smarter no question about it, but with a Cubs sized payroll (mind you I'm not saying Yankees) he increases his odds of 'guessing' right and covering up his mistakes.

Oh and by the way the Sox are going to draw about 2.2. million this year. They had another 32,000 last night. So let's not even go into the issues of 'attendence.' They are being supported, they have the money.

Just like Dave Wills said in his interview, the Sox first set the city attendence mark and the Sox were drawing huge numbers in the early 90's. The Sox drew almost two million last season and will go over that this year. Again like Dave said, their attendence figures are not that far behind the Cubs.

Go back and reread his interview again for his exact quote.

Lip

OEO Magglio
08-08-2004, 02:25 PM
Didn't the Sox have the number 1 farm system in 2000.
BobAnd how many of those guys did anything at the major league level?

windycityson
08-08-2004, 04:40 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but aquiring Alomar and Everett didn't work last year either did it??!!

Then why in the blue hell are we giving prospects away for these two, two years in a row.

Gimm
08-08-2004, 05:06 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but aquiring Alomar and Everett didn't work last year either did it??!!

Then why in the blue hell are we giving prospects away for these two, two years in a row.
So, if by some chance Wood, Sosa and Prior get re-injured and Cubs miss the playoffs, does that mean giving up 3 solid prospect for Nomar was a mistake?

doublem23
08-08-2004, 05:14 PM
Has anyone yet realized that the bozo that started this thread was a racist troll just looking for a fight? :?:

Flight #24
08-08-2004, 05:21 PM
Beane inherited an organization with some good prospects. Didn't the Sox have the number 1 farm system in 2000. Also, KW inherited something better. A 95 win team at the major league level. Beanre came in when the major league team was losing. KW came in when they were winning.

Also, keep this in mind. In Beane's first 4 years as GM he had drafted some pretty good players that were making an impact (some in less then 4 years) How close are any of KW's draft picks to making an impact for the White Sox?


Bob
OK, let's talk about that "#1 rated farm system". Here's the list from 2000:
Kip Wells
Jon Garland
Aaron Myette
Jason Stumm
Joe Crede
Aaron Rowand
Lorenzo Barcelo
Matt Ginter
Josh Foogg
Mark Buehrle

2001:
Jon Rauch
Crede
Joe Borchard
Ginter
Dan Wright
ARow
Fogg
Rocky Biddle
Brian West
Gary Majewski
Jason Stumm
Jeff Liefer

So, we kept the best ones in ARow, Buehrle. Kept decent to poor major leaguers in Crede & Garland.

Traded a decent to poor major leaguer in Wells, traded poor to nothing in Myette, Ginter, Fogg, Majewski, Liefer, and traded question mark in Rauch.

Who again from that "#1 farm system" were the equivalent to Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, etc? As for that "95 win team", the 2d hald they were at best .500, and pretty much the entire pitching staff got hurt. So KW wasn't exactly starting with a bounty there.

Infact, I could argue that Beane startedwith as good a core in Giambi, Tejada, & Chavez very close. And his first few years were still terrible.

jabrch
08-08-2004, 06:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but aquiring Alomar and Everett didn't work last year either did it??!!

Then why in the blue hell are we giving prospects away for these two, two years in a row.
We didn't give up anyone that we are likely to ever miss.

jabrch
08-08-2004, 06:09 PM
Infact, I could argue that Beane startedwith as good a core in Giambi, Tejada, & Chavez very close. And his first few years were still terrible.
Started with a better core, and had two 4th place, sub .500 finishes.

If KW had even 1 sub .500 year, people would be screaming for his head.

Wealz
08-08-2004, 06:53 PM
Started with a better core, and had two 4th place, sub .500 finishes.

If KW had even 1 sub .500 year, people would be screaming for his head.
Are there any GM's better than Williams? If so, who are they?

dickallen15
08-08-2004, 06:55 PM
So, if by some chance Wood, Sosa and Prior get re-injured and Cubs miss the playoffs, does that mean giving up 3 solid prospect for Nomar was a mistake?They all were injured. The rest of the Cubs didn't feel sorry for themselves, and let their playoff chances go by the boards.

habibharu
08-08-2004, 06:59 PM
Are there any GM's better than Williams? If so, who are they? hendry, ryan,schuerholtz,BEANE,etc, etc,

habibharu
08-08-2004, 07:01 PM
Started with a better core, and had two 4th place, sub .500 finishes.

If KW had even 1 sub .500 year, people would be screaming for his head. yeah, well look at the division we played in! tigers, indians, and royals, have all been terrible for the past few years! the M's have been unbelievable for the past few yrs(except for this one, of course) They had like 120 wins a couple yrs ago! and have we already forgotten that the Angels won the WS just 2 yrs ago?

dickallen15
08-08-2004, 07:03 PM
OK, let's talk about that "#1 rated farm system". Here's the list from 2000:
Kip Wells
Jon Garland
Aaron Myette
Jason Stumm
Joe Crede
Aaron Rowand
Lorenzo Barcelo
Matt Ginter
Josh Foogg
Mark Buehrle

2001:
Jon Rauch
Crede
Joe Borchard
Ginter
Dan Wright
ARow
Fogg
Rocky Biddle
Brian West
Gary Majewski
Jason Stumm
Jeff Liefer

So, we kept the best ones in ARow, Buehrle. Kept decent to poor major leaguers in Crede & Garland.

Traded a decent to poor major leaguer in Wells, traded poor to nothing in Myette, Ginter, Fogg, Majewski, Liefer, and traded question mark in Rauch.

Who again from that "#1 farm system" were the equivalent to Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, etc? As for that "95 win team", the 2d hald they were at best .500, and pretty much the entire pitching staff got hurt. So KW wasn't exactly starting with a bounty there.

Infact, I could argue that Beane startedwith as good a core in Giambi, Tejada, & Chavez very close. And his first few years were still terrible.
You make a good argument here. The only problem is that Williams was the farm director before he became GM, and that #1 ranking, which the White Sox organization took as gospel got him the GM position. Basically, he has done the same thing as GM that he did as the farm director. He has assembled pieces that on paper look great, but when it comes time to pay the piper, falls drastically short.

Gimm
08-08-2004, 07:37 PM
They all were injured. The rest of the Cubs didn't feel sorry for themselves, and let their playoff chances go by the boards.That's not the point.

Garciaparra trade was excellent (his production + line-up protection for Patterson + enourmous publicity and attention for the Cubs), even if the Cubs miss out on the playoffs.

Everett and Robbie trades last year were very solid and boy did the team respond in the 2nd half before running out of gas in mid-September. The problem was, Sox put themselves in such a big hole in the 1st half and were facing such a tough schedule in the 2nd, that Robbie and Everett were simply not enough. Sox needed a legitimate lead-off hitter to make Robbie more effective in the 2nd spot where he so clearly belongs. They also had to make sure Wright, Porzio, Cotts don't come close to starting in the 5-spot. Finally White and Koch had to be ditched a month before they were. All in all, 5-7 extra Mill spent on a lead-off hitter and a 5th starter around May-June (payroll was 52) would have made the Robbie and Everett trades a stroke of genius and the team would have easily won the division and possibly the World Series......but I digress. :redneck

I would gladly give up Rogowski, Nanita and Spidale for Lofton and Cruz, Jr right now. And I wouldn't second-guess myself even if the team comes up short in the race, either. Forest for the trees.

batmanZoSo
08-08-2004, 07:53 PM
I agree that losing the 2 top players makes it hard for this team to go to the playoffs. But did you really expect the dropoff we've seen in this team. There is no talent, just gaping holes around the starting line up. Most of the good teams have maybe 1-2 weakness in their starting line up but make up for it with enough solid players. The Sox have one superstar and 3 solid players when Frank and Magglio are healthy. It's hard to win when the left side of your infield can't even post a .300 OBP or when you carry (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=502,28180399,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,1) 3 catchers none of whom very well. And none of that has anything to do with Thomas and Ordonez being out. That would lead me to my Timo Perez and his .640 OPS in RF rant.


Bob
This team just isn't that good whatsoever without you know whos in the lineup. The 5th spot is still nothing, the bullpen blows literally and figuratively, we have Crede, Valentin, Borchard, and the Catcher spot all of whom completely kill this team with their long, extended periods of doing nothing. And none are spectacular at anything else, so they're basically killing us by not contributing whatsoever. I'm sure Ozzie Smith would make you rip your hair out with his lack of hitting, but he was so good in the field and on the bases that he was always helping the team in some way. None of our supporting guys are able to do that. We need a few players that can. If this season isn't an alarm that this team needs to be broken up a bit, then KW will never see it.

flo-B-flo
08-08-2004, 09:37 PM
I really don't give a crap about Billy Beane. I care about our team. This Beane obsession is unhealthy. Get some help. Now!:wink:

fquaye149
08-09-2004, 03:39 AM
I really don't give a crap about Billy Beane. I care about our team. This Beane obsession is unhealthy. Get some help. Now!:wink:
OMG! Post Of The Something! Maybe month.

thepaulbowski
08-09-2004, 09:31 AM
So, if by some chance Wood, Sosa and Prior get re-injured and Cubs miss the playoffs, does that mean giving up 3 solid prospect for Nomar was a mistake?
Only if Billy Beane says so. I have a call into him to check on the situation.

JRIG
08-09-2004, 09:42 AM
Only if Billy Beane says so. I have a call into him to check on the situation.
If you want people to stop defending Billy Beane, perhaps the best thing to do is to stop bringing him up.

gosox41
08-09-2004, 11:42 AM
Bob:

If I have two cars and one of them is a Mercedes that means I can afford the risk of having her drive it. She gets the keys and I go out and get another car.

That's like having a Corvette and bitching about the insurance costs. If you can afford a 'vette you can afford the insurance or you wouldn't have the car in the first place.

Money covers a multitude of problems and issues...depth is one of them. Kenny could be smarter no question about it, but with a Cubs sized payroll (mind you I'm not saying Yankees) he increases his odds of 'guessing' right and covering up his mistakes.

Oh and by the way the Sox are going to draw about 2.2. million this year. They had another 32,000 last night. So let's not even go into the issues of 'attendence.' They are being supported, they have the money.

Just like Dave Wills said in his interview, the Sox first set the city attendence mark and the Sox were drawing huge numbers in the early 90's. The Sox drew almost two million last season and will go over that this year. Again like Dave said, their attendence figures are not that far behind the Cubs.

Go back and reread his interview again for his exact quote.

Lip
Lip,

The point of the cars isn't that you should do something just because you could afford it. It's about some sort of responsibility and value given to your daughter. 'Sure honey you crashed the 13 yeare old Corolla, ehere's the keys to the $90,000 to joy ride with your friends...have fun.'Not everything needs to be done because you can afford it. Is it worth for the father to pay sky high insurance on a Mercedes because he can afford it. We have different ways ofviewing money, that's for sure. I'm far from rich, but my parents got a new car when I was 16. It wasn't a Mercedes or anything luxurious like it. But the car they bought in they price range they were able to afford. And it was a nice car. But they also had a 5 year old car. Guess which car I drove. But my parents could afford to buy the car, so they could afford to let a 16 year old kid drive it, right? My parents made me show I was a good driver before I took that car out with my friends. THey'd let me drive it when they were in it occasionally but that's it for the first year or 2. And I was even paying my own car insurance then.

As for KW, he hasn't proven the slightest bit competent with the payroll as it is now. A higher payroll just may help cover up his mistakes,which are still plentiful.

As for attendance at 2.2 million, I've posted stuff on this before. So I'll ask you these questions with out gicing hte answers, kind of as a pop quiz. What was the 2003 Sox payroll on opening day? What was the 2004 Sox payroll on opening day? How much extra did the Sox add on in payroll by trading for Garcia and Everett during the 2004 season.

If you know those answers then you can stop saying JR doesn't spend. Also, one more question: What is the Sox 2005 opening day payroll going to be? Oh wait, you don't know because it hasn't been announced or probably finalized yet. Yet you're already complaining that JR isn't spending. If JR came out and had a $100 mill. payroll and this team was still floundering, I'd bet you'd come out and say: What's a few million more? He's rich.

You don't know all the facts to jump to these conclusions. But it won't stop you from passing judgment. Whatever JR spends won't be good enough for you. You'll always think he's hiding something or that he owes you more. My guess is this isn't the only rich person you think this of.


Bob

gosox41
08-09-2004, 11:46 AM
OK, let's talk about that "#1 rated farm system". Here's the list from 2000:
Kip Wells
Jon Garland
Aaron Myette
Jason Stumm
Joe Crede
Aaron Rowand
Lorenzo Barcelo
Matt Ginter
Josh Foogg
Mark Buehrle

2001:
Jon Rauch
Crede
Joe Borchard
Ginter
Dan Wright
ARow
Fogg
Rocky Biddle
Brian West
Gary Majewski
Jason Stumm
Jeff Liefer

So, we kept the best ones in ARow, Buehrle. Kept decent to poor major leaguers in Crede & Garland.

Traded a decent to poor major leaguer in Wells, traded poor to nothing in Myette, Ginter, Fogg, Majewski, Liefer, and traded question mark in Rauch.

Who again from that "#1 farm system" were the equivalent to Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, etc? As for that "95 win team", the 2d hald they were at best .500, and pretty much the entire pitching staff got hurt. So KW wasn't exactly starting with a bounty there.

Infact, I could argue that Beane startedwith as good a core in Giambi, Tejada, & Chavez very close. And his first few years were still terrible.
You could argue that. I can also argue that KW has yet to draft and develop a player under his regime that is close to making a positive impact on the White Sox. After 4 years Beane had guys that he drafted that were doing well. Who's close here.

You're helping me support my belief that Beane is a better talent evaluator then KW.


Bob

Dadawg_77
08-09-2004, 12:02 PM
If you want people to stop defending Billy Beane, perhaps the best thing to do is to stop bringing him up.
Funny thing is the only one who needs defending is Kenny. I thnk Beane's record speaks for itself.

Flight #24
08-09-2004, 12:06 PM
You could argue that. I can also argue that KW has yet to draft and develop a player under his regime that is close to making a positive impact on the White Sox. After 4 years Beane had guys that he drafted that were doing well. Who's close here.

You're helping me support my belief that Beane is a better talent evaluator then KW.


Bob
I'd call drafting Reed a positive impact via getting Garcia in here. I'd call trading for Olivo and developing him a positive impact. I'd call picking up ELo & getting a great year and a good trade out of him a positive impact. I'd call picking up Shingo a positive impact. I'd call drafting & trading Francisco a positive impact. I'd call trading for & developing Diaz a positive impact. Same for signing (and trading) ELo. I also think Anderson & Sweeney will have a positive impact in the next 2 or so years, and if Honel can get over his injury, I'd say the same for him. All of those show a pretty good eye for talent.

You don't need to have guys come up with your team to be a good drafter. And you dont' have to only have guys you draft come up to your team to be a good GM. Personally, I don't care if players come via draft, trade, or signing, I care that we have anough quality players to fill out a good team. And we had that before the injuries. It's also a lot easier to get impact players when you draft with 3 or 4 top 10 picks than when you draft with picks in the 20s, so I'd expect Beane to have higher impact draftees from his first 3 years. (Anyone from Beane's 2000 draft making any impact on the team? 2001 has Crosby & that's it. 2002 -2004 has no one yet. So that's a 1-0 advantage to Beane over the same time frame.)


On a related note: does anyone else notice the inconsistency in complaining about the quality of the prospects that Kenny's traded and then turning around and saying that he hasn't drafted anyone worthwhile?

Lip Man 1
08-09-2004, 01:50 PM
Bob:

From Phil Arvia's column today in the Daily Southtown:

"With a healthy Thomas, with Everett replacing Ordonez in right, with, say, Uribe or some other budget-friendly acquisition sliding to short, Alomar playing second and whomever taking up most of the departed Miguel Olivo's slack behind the plate, the White Sox's projected everyday lineup for next season doesn't look as good as the one they began with this year."

That's all that matters Bob, wins and losses and ultimately championships. As Dave Wills said in his interview that's what owners are judged by.

Lip

gosox41
08-09-2004, 01:58 PM
I'd call drafting Reed a positive impact via getting Garcia in here. I'd call trading for Olivo and developing him a positive impact. I'd call picking up ELo & getting a great year and a good trade out of him a positive impact. I'd call picking up Shingo a positive impact. I'd call drafting & trading Francisco a positive impact. I'd call trading for & developing Diaz a positive impact. Same for signing (and trading) ELo. I also think Anderson & Sweeney will have a positive impact in the next 2 or so years, and if Honel can get over his injury, I'd say the same for him. All of those show a pretty good eye for talent.

You don't need to have guys come up with your team to be a good drafter. And you dont' have to only have guys you draft come up to your team to be a good GM. Personally, I don't care if players come via draft, trade, or signing, I care that we have anough quality players to fill out a good team. And we had that before the injuries. It's also a lot easier to get impact players when you draft with 3 or 4 top 10 picks than when you draft with picks in the 20s, so I'd expect Beane to have higher impact draftees from his first 3 years. (Anyone from Beane's 2000 draft making any impact on the team? 2001 has Crosby & that's it. 2002 -2004 has no one yet. So that's a 1-0 advantage to Beane over the same time frame.)


On a related note: does anyone else notice the inconsistency in complaining about the quality of the prospects that Kenny's traded and then turning around and saying that he hasn't drafted anyone worthwhile?
First, that inconsistency isn't me. I don't mind trading the prospects because most weren't that good to begin with. I liked Reed and Rauch the best. I think Rauch would have been a serviceable starter and Reed could be a good one.

Olivo was never that good, but he has potential. Morse also has potential, but the best of those guys was Reed. I hate to lose him, but at least we did sign Garcia for 3 years.

The Evertt for Rauch trade was useless.
Diaz has done nothing except win one start because the team doesn't give him a chance.

Second, drafting is a great way to develop players instead of chasing veterans that cost more money. It's nice for the farm system to produce an imapct player once in awhile.

The fact is that KW hasn't found many good players to fill our holes. 3B, SS, 5ht starter, bullpen. He eventually created a hole at 2B when he traded an All Star for nothing. He hasn't addressed the issues through the draft...yet. To go out and sign guys takes money. I'm all for bringing in free agents, but it again having a young impact player that comes cheap for the first few years gives any team added flexibility to get talent elsewhere.

Lastly in regards to having top 10 draft picks. Look at the Twins. How many guys on their roster were taken with a top 10 pick in the nation?

THen go look at how many guys were taken in the 20th round or on.


Bob

gosox41
08-09-2004, 01:58 PM
Bob:

From Phil Arvia's column today in the Daily Southtown:

"With a healthy Thomas, with Everett replacing Ordonez in right, with, say, Uribe or some other budget-friendly acquisition sliding to short, Alomar playing second and whomever taking up most of the departed Miguel Olivo's slack behind the plate, the White Sox's projected everyday lineup for next season doesn't look as good as the one they began with this year."

That's all that matters Bob, wins and losses and ultimately championships. As Dave Wills said in his interview that's what owners are judged by.

Lip
I odn't know what Phil Arvia knows in terms of the Sox plans, but if this team stays the same it's all the more reason to see KW fired.


Bob

habibharu
08-09-2004, 02:02 PM
First, that inconsistency isn't me. I don't mind trading the prospects because most weren't that good to begin with. I liked Reed and Rauch the best. I think Rauch would have been a serviceable starter and Reed could be a good one.

Olivo was never that good, but he has potential. Morse also has potential, but the best of those guys was Reed. I hate to lose him, but at least we did sign Garcia for 3 years.

The Evertt for Rauch trade was useless.
Diaz has done nothing except win one start because the team doesn't give him a chance.

Second, drafting is a great way to develop players instead of chasing veterans that cost more money. It's nice for the farm system to produce an imapct player once in awhile.

The fact is that KW hasn't found many good players to fill our holes. 3B, SS, 5ht starter, bullpen. He eventually created a hole at 2B when he traded an All Star for nothing. He hasn't addressed the issues through the draft...yet. To go out and sign guys takes money. I'm all for bringing in free agents, but it again having a young impact player that comes cheap for the first few years gives any team added flexibility to get talent elsewhere.

Lastly in regards to having top 10 draft picks. Look at the Twins. How many guys on their roster were taken with a top 10 pick in the nation?

THen go look at how many guys were taken in the 20th round or on.


Bob exactly. drafting is THE key to a good team, especially for one that doesnt spend money. that is why KW is NOT a good GM for this team. we need a guy like beane and ryan who finds sleepers in the draft.

habibharu
08-09-2004, 02:03 PM
On a related note: does anyone else notice the inconsistency in complaining about the quality of the prospects that Kenny's traded and then turning around and saying that he hasn't drafted anyone worthwhile? well if he drafted better, he could afford to give up the prospects that he is giving up.

Randar68
08-09-2004, 02:38 PM
Braves only had a top 10 payroll, smart GM, and the best pitching coach in the league. Remember ppl A's have a 40 million dollar payroll and continue to make the playoffs. So what if they dont win a pennant? They can only do so much with that payroll.
And it's built entirely around a couple of top 10 draft picks, something the Sox haven't had in 15 years.


:whoflungpoo


NEXT!

habibharu
08-09-2004, 02:39 PM
And it's built entirely around a couple of top 10 draft picks, something the Sox haven't had in 15 years.


:whoflungpoo


NEXT! well not necesarrily. some of their stud players were drafted deep into the draft

Randar68
08-09-2004, 02:40 PM
exactly. drafting is THE key to a good team, especially for one that doesnt spend money. that is why KW is NOT a good GM for this team. we need a guy like beane and ryan who finds sleepers in the draft.
Sleepers? Beane does it by loading up in compensation picks and then drafting college players that have been good performers, and so far, woth those players, he's primarily used them to trade for MLB players, something Kenny was crucified for when he drafted Ring and then traded him last year.

where's that "cluepon.gif" image when you need it. How has KW been such a bad drafter again? *****.

Randar68
08-09-2004, 02:42 PM
well not necesarrily. some of their stud players were drafted deep into the draft
Like Mark Buehrle?

The only way you win this arguement is by repeating your same tired BS line until you think you've won the arguement and everyone else gets tired of beating their heads against the wall.

I've got MUCH better things to do than waste my time on that.

habibharu
08-09-2004, 02:45 PM
Sleepers? Beane does it by loading up in compensation picks and then drafting college players that have been good performers, and so far, woth those players, he's primarily used them to trade for MLB players, something Kenny was crucified for when he drafted Ring and then traded him last year.

where's that "cluepon.gif" image when you need it. How has KW been such a bad drafter again? *****. not only a bad drafter, but a bad developer of talent. just look at our 2000 FS ranking

habibharu
08-09-2004, 02:45 PM
Like Mark Buehrle?

The only way you win this arguement is by repeating your same tired BS line until you think you've won the arguement and everyone else gets tired of beating their heads against the wall.

I've got MUCH better things to do than waste my time on that. fine, you think whatever the hell you want. But whether you agree or not, this team is not gonna win **** while KW is GM.

Mickster
08-09-2004, 02:50 PM
fine, you think whatever the hell you want. But whether you agree or not, this team is not gonna win **** while KW is GM.
I like your sig. Are you this optimistic with all of your teams? With fans like you, who needs enemas.... :D:

Flight #24
08-09-2004, 03:15 PM
not only a bad drafter, but a bad developer of talent. just look at our 2000 FS ranking

Right, because it couldn't be that BA or whoever ranked them #1 was wrong, it MUST be that the Sox can't develop guys. Forget that apparently no one else has been able to develop the guys they let go......

Flight #24
08-09-2004, 03:27 PM
Second, drafting is a great way to develop players instead of chasing veterans that cost more money. It's nice for the farm system to produce an imapct player once in awhile.
I'd argue you get the same benefit from trading for prospects, something KW's done pretty well with Olivo, Diaz, Cotts. Ditto for cheap FA signings like Shingo, ELo.

The fact is that KW hasn't found many good players to fill our holes. 3B, SS, 5ht starter, bullpen. He eventually created a hole at 2B when he traded an All Star for nothing. He hasn't addressed the issues through the draft...yet. To go out and sign guys takes money. I'm all for bringing in free agents, but it again having a young impact player that comes cheap for the first few years gives any team added flexibility to get talent elsewhere.
Well, when he took over there were 5 holes in the starting rotation. He did have Buehrle, Wells, Garland around to try and fill them. Under his watch, we've acquired Garcia & Contreras (not to mention Colon, ELo last year). CF was also a need area, and ARow's done a pretty good job there and looks like a solid keeper. Catcher was also a need area, and he got Olivo, and now Davis/Burke. It's early, but the returns are positive. Those are all holes that existed that KW filled.

As for the ones you listed:
3B: Crede looked pretty good in his first full year in the bigs, no? Pretty solid overall #s and a great 2d half. Until this year that didn't look like a hole

Bullpen: By getting Marte & Shingo, I think he filled some pretty big holes. He's still got a hole in the middle relief, but IIRC our bullpen was one of the tops in ERA & stranded inherited runners up through a week or 2 ago.


Lastly in regards to having top 10 draft picks. Look at the Twins. How many guys on their roster were taken with a top 10 pick in the nation?

THen go look at how many guys were taken in the 20th round or on.

Bob
Hey - Terry Ryan is the best drafting GM in the business, and the Twins development system seems to be also. No argument here. KW isn't the best, but he's certainly not the worst despite what you might hear on these boards.

Again - he put together a very good team that had it not suffered freak injuries to the toughest 2 to replace, would at the very least be in contention, and based on what they were doing when they had at least one fo them around, would be leading the division. He's got a pretty good core locked up for next year. He's also got some $$$ to tweak things on the edges, and even the possibility of moving some fairly tradeable assets in Koney & Lee is he so desires. That doesn't sound to me like the guy I keep hearing about here who has assembled the worst team in the bigs and given away our future.

gosox41
08-09-2004, 03:39 PM
And it's built entirely around a couple of top 10 draft picks, something the Sox haven't had in 15 years.


:whoflungpoo


NEXT!
Do you do research?

First, the Braves have been in the playoffs 12 straight years so they haven't had top 10, let along a top 20 pick since then.

Second, here are some facts for you:

Chipper Jones-top 10 pick
Greg Maddux-signed as FA
Smoltz-Trade with Tigers
Glavine-Second round pick
Andru Jones- Not drafted
Pendleton-came form the Cardinals
Avery-top 10 pick

That's just off the top of my head. Share wiht me, who else the Braves drafted and developed as a top 10 pick that played a role in their 12 division titles.


NEXT!!!!


Bob

gosox41
08-09-2004, 03:48 PM
Sleepers? Beane does it by loading up in compensation picks and then drafting college players that have been good performers, and so far, woth those players, he's primarily used them to trade for MLB players, something Kenny was crucified for when he drafted Ring and then traded him last year.

where's that "cluepon.gif" image when you need it. How has KW been such a bad drafter again? *****.
Not a bad strategy Beane has. So basically what you're saying is he'll trade an arbitration eligible closer for a much better close who is one year away from free agency. He'llthen use that much better closer to help him get to the playoffs. When that's done he takes that good closer and gets 2 draft picks for him.

Interesting theory.

Also, in 2002 KW showed some interest in drafting Blanton. Itsounds to me like his strategy was to work out a predraft deal with a player and KW didn't thin Blanton was going to be there so he went with his next option.


Bob

Wealz
08-09-2004, 03:52 PM
Hey - Terry Ryan is the best drafting GM in the business, and the Twins development system seems to be also. No argument here. KW isn't the best, but he's certainly not the worst despite what you might hear on these boards.
KW may not be the worst, but unfortunately the evidence is mounting that he might not be good enough and that's what matters. Nearing the completion of his 4th year, the clock is ticking big time on him.

jabrch
08-09-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by MONEYBALL21
Braves only had a top 10 payroll, smart GM, and the best pitching coach in the league. Remember ppl A's have a 40 million dollar payroll and continue to make the playoffs. So what if they dont win a pennant? They can only do so much with that payroll.


Don't let the truth get in the way of your "facts". Oakland has a 59mm payroll. Not a 40 mm payroll.

NEXT

Flight #24
08-09-2004, 05:58 PM
Don't let the truth get in the way of your "facts". Oakland has a 59mm payroll. Not a 40 mm payroll.

NEXT
Interesting that the big difference in payroll amounts to 4mil at the start of the 04 season. That's basically a wash.

JRIG
08-09-2004, 06:09 PM
Don't let the truth get in the way of your "facts". Oakland has a 59mm payroll. Not a 40 mm payroll.

NEXT
I know you fervently believe in your position, but...

don't you think it's time to stop arguing points with a troll that's been banned? :)

jabrch
08-09-2004, 06:12 PM
I know you fervently believe in your position, but...

don't you think it's time to stop arguing points with a troll that's been banned? :)
Didn't know he was banned. Sorry if correcting misstated "facts" (by 50%) is so detrimental to the health of the board though. I'll try and leave bull**** uncorrected, if that's what makes you happy.

JRIG
08-09-2004, 06:18 PM
Didn't know he was banned. Sorry if correcting misstated "facts" (by 50%) is so detrimental to the health of the board though. I'll try and leave bull**** uncorrected, if that's what makes you happy.
No one (God I hope not) takes anything he said as fact. If they do they should have their head examined. People who create multiple aliases solely to support their points don't have a lot of credibility.

He was a troll only here to create trouble, not dazzle us with his Moneyball knowledge or convince us Billy Beane is a beter GM than KW.

That's why he's gone.

FarWestChicago
08-09-2004, 06:44 PM
Has anyone yet realized that the bozo that started this thread was a racist troll just looking for a fight? :?: http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/fobbgod.jpg

My FOBB's always have my back!

Mohoney
08-09-2004, 07:09 PM
Interesting that the big difference in payroll amounts to 4mil at the start of the 04 season. That's basically a wash.

It's basically a Valentin. How much does Bobby Crosby make?

I'm willing to bet that there is where the $4 million difference is.

gosox41
08-09-2004, 11:37 PM
Don't let the truth get in the way of your "facts". Oakland has a 59mm payroll. Not a 40 mm payroll.

NEXT
OK, how's this. Oakland is in a much tougher division then the Sox. Seattle and Anaheim both spent significantly more money then Oakland. Even Texas has a 50+ mil. payroll so they're not exactly lagging behind.

NEXT


Bob

dickallen15
08-09-2004, 11:56 PM
KW has been the GM for 4 years. He has been looking for a 5th starter for at least the last 2. His best shot in August for a key game is Felix Diaz, a man who now has allowed 11 homers in less than 25 innings. KW said earlier this season that Billy Koch was the least of the team's problems. He wants to play smallball, but loads the roster with guys that don't hit the other way, and couldn't get a bunt down to save their lives. He's aggressive. He gives total effort, but his plan stinks,which means he stinks. JR needs to look for a new GM.