PDA

View Full Version : ChiSox worst problem in the last ten years


Foulke29
08-06-2004, 12:34 PM
Is much as I hate to say it - and as much a paradox it is - we been too good, but not quite good enough.

I can't remember the last time we had a top ten draft pick. Granted, there's not always a sure thing in a draft pick, but if you take Prior out of the equation with the Cubs - they go from crummy to complete bottom feeders.

They never would have signed Maddux. Dusty may not have been as interested - even though he is a HORRIBLE manager. I just think we have not had an opportunity to draft an impact player in over ten years.

balke
08-06-2004, 12:39 PM
At least with Dusty, teams have a flux of players asking to play under Dusty Baker. I don't think the sox will ever have a flood of players saying "man I wish I could play a few games under the great Ozzie Guillen, his reputations precedes him". Doesnt' mean I don't like the guy, but he's just not that kind of coach. I doubt he ever will be.

Foulke29
08-06-2004, 12:42 PM
At least with Dusty, teams have a flux of players asking to play under Dusty Baker. I don't think the sox will ever have a flood of players saying "man I wish I could play a few games under the great Ozzie Guillen, his reputations precedes him". Doesnt' mean I don't like the guy, but he's just not that kind of coach. I doubt he ever will be.
Agreed, but quite honestly, I don't think they said that about Dusty when he was managing his first year either. And, I think Ozzie wouldn't have allowed his team to give up 8 runs and the lead in the 8th inning in game six of the NLCS.

Anyway, my point is damage can be done when we continuously finish second place in our division as opposed to either last or taking the darn thing.

kitekrazy
08-06-2004, 01:03 PM
I think we can be too critical of Ozzie in his 1st year as a manager.

You're quite wrong about the Cubs. Pryor and Wood have been out and someone else steps in. Their lineup is too much like the Sox-too many HR hitters. While many people think Dusty is so great, he will always get outmanaged the further his team goes into the playoffs.



The problem with the Sox is there are too many guys that can't perform under pressure. I think I'd rather have the Birmingham Barons in their place right now. At least we could come up with better excuses for losing.

RKMeibalane
08-06-2004, 01:14 PM
Agreed, but quite honestly, I don't think they said that about Dusty when he was managing his first year either. And, I think Ozzie wouldn't have allowed his team to give up 8 runs and the lead in the 8th inning in game six of the NLCS.

Anyway, my point is damage can be done when we continuously finish second place in our division as opposed to either last or taking the darn thing.
Addressing both of your points, I think Frank Thomas may have been the last top-ten pick the Sox had. I believe he went seventh overall in 1989 draft.

As far as Dusty Baker is concerned, his first year didn't include all of the problems that Ozzie has had to deal with. Baker's first year with SF was 1993. That year, the Giants were one of baseball's best teams. Behind a heart of the order that featured Will Clark, Matt Williams, and Barry Bonds, the Giants won 103 games. In any other season, they would have ran away with the NL West Division Title. Instead, they finished one game behind Atlanta.

JDP
08-06-2004, 01:16 PM
You're quite wrong about the Cubs. Pryor and Wood have been out and someone else steps in.
Richard Pryor or Mark Prior?

Deadguy
08-06-2004, 02:07 PM
Richard Pryor or Mark Prior?
*Sigh* I grow tired of all the Richard Pryor bashing that goes on here. I mean, he and Gene Wilder made some solid movies back in the day, and he never made anything as bad as Ghost Dad.

FightingBillini
08-06-2004, 02:48 PM
Actually, there ARE players who want to come to Chicago to play for Ozzie. Contreras said he wouldnt have approved the trade, but he wanted to play for Ozzie. He is one of many in the future. I wouldnt be surprised if we saw some of those stud middle infielders from the Marlins end up here in the next few years.

Lip Man 1
08-06-2004, 11:17 PM
Foulke:

You bring up a valid point. As Dave Wills said it's hard to find quality pitchers in later rounds.

All the more reason to go the free agent route to acquire talent. You don't need to worry about draft position and you don't need to hope that enough 'can't miss kids,' actually come through (especially with the track record of this organization.

You also don't have to give up talent creating more potential holes, if you decide to go the 'trade' route as your basic rebuilding philosophy.

But signing quality free agents to fill holes and create depth costs money and the Sox say they don't have it.

Honestly I don't know what the answer is. The patchwork philosophy right now only results in one thing...mediocrity.

83-79 AVERAGE record the past six seasons.

Trying to mix and match does NOT work. Go to a plan and stay with it, either kids or quality veterans.

Lip

MisterB
08-06-2004, 11:30 PM
Addressing both of your points, I think Frank Thomas may have been the last top-ten pick the Sox had. I believe he went seventh overall in 1989 draft.
Alex Fernandez, 4th overall pick in 1990.

before that:

Thomas 7th overall '89
Ventura 10th overall '88
McDowell 5th overall '87

The Sox success of the early '90's was built on their failures of the late '80's.

HomeFish
08-06-2004, 11:45 PM
Richard Pryor or Mark Prior?

Senator Mark Pryor, D-AR

The Cubs have friends in high places, you know....

billnahorodny
08-07-2004, 12:30 AM
Richard Pryor or Mark Prior? Greg Pryor, Chicago White Sox utility infielder 1978-1981

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 12:42 AM
83-79 AVERAGE record the past six seasons.

Lip: you always use that stat like it's a bad thing.
Context is always nice with stats, alone they generally don't mean a whole lot.

the last six seasons average record for a smattering of teams:

Minnesota: 79-83
Oakland: 92-70
Boston: 90-72
Anaheim: 81-81
Seattle: 91-71
Baltimore: 72-90
Spankees: 100-62
Toronto: 83-79

The rest I'll assume are a lot worse (Detroit, KC, Tampa, Texas, etc.)

Looks to me like the Sox are doing pretty well relatively speaking. Outside of the large-payroll teams (Boston, NYY), they're better than anyone but Seattle. And I'd almost guarantee that if you expand the timeframe by as little as 1-2 years, the M's will fall off a lot. Regardless, being the 4th best team in the AL over that time is not something I'd be ashamed of. Would I like more though - sure.

The Sox problem is: they haven't been bad enough to ge really good in any year, they're kind of in what Jerry Krause called the "Boston Celtics" trap where they're good enough to not get any good draft picks, but not good enough to win it all. I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the back of KW's mind thinking that he might as well take a big shot in the next 1-2 years and then if the team sucks at least there'll be a proper rebuilding.

Lip Man 1
08-07-2004, 01:25 AM
Flight:

I use that term because the White Flag Trade in the words of Uncle Jerry himself was done because fans wanted a 'hustling, team that cared.' It was also done to restock the farm system and point the way towards a better tomorrow. The Sox pissed away a possible shot in the post season for the 'future.'

If you feel that 83-79 for six years is a 'better tomorrow' then I question your sense of being 'better.'

With respect, I give a damn what Minnesota did (two playoff appearances, soon to be three by the way...) or San Diego or any of those other garbage small markets, this is Chicago. 83-79 DOES NOT CUT IT.

I don't accept this mediocre garbage, apparently you do which is your right.

Lip

StockdaleForVeep
08-07-2004, 03:22 AM
Is much as I hate to say it - and as much a paradox it is - we been too good, but not quite good enough.

I can't remember the last time we had a top ten draft pick. Granted, there's not always a sure thing in a draft pick, but if you take Prior out of the equation with the Cubs - they go from crummy to complete bottom feeders.

They never would have signed Maddux. Dusty may not have been as interested - even though he is a HORRIBLE manager. I just think we have not had an opportunity to draft an impact player in over ten years.
Because we havent lost 90 pluss games in over 10 years, despite getting a "hopeful" "PROSPECT" i do not want to lose 90-100 games to hope to get a savior who could be nothing. Cubs got prior cuz minnesota couldnt afford him and went to mauer. But both teams had 90 plus losses

Thats what the draft is designed to do, to give the bottom feeders a chance to comeback, hence why tampa is showing signs of baseball skill

Or hell look at hockey, good drafts due to lousey seasons and trades made tampa bay a stanley cup champion

jabrch
08-07-2004, 03:30 AM
Addressing both of your points, I think Frank Thomas may have been the last top-ten pick the Sox had. I believe he went seventh overall in 1989 draft.

As far as Dusty Baker is concerned, his first year didn't include all of the problems that Ozzie has had to deal with. Baker's first year with SF was 1993. That year, the Giants were one of baseball's best teams. Behind a heart of the order that featured Will Clark, Matt Williams, and Barry Bonds, the Giants won 103 games. In any other season, they would have ran away with the NL West Division Title. Instead, they finished one game behind Atlanta.
Wasn't Alex Fernandez taken in the first 10 picks the year after Frank? Like #4 overall?

Flight #24
08-07-2004, 07:10 AM
With respect, I give a damn what Minnesota did (two playoff appearances, soon to be three by the way...) or San Diego or any of those other garbage small markets, this is Chicago. 83-79 DOES NOT CUT IT.


You give a damn or you DON'T give a damn?

And that's fine, you don't have to accept 83-79, even if it was the best overall record in baseball. My point is that that number is fairly arbitrary and doesn't define mediocrity since mediocrity is relative and that's a good record relative to the competition. As I said, theyve been consistently good, never bad which is hard to do.

The Sox had IIRC, the best record (or one of them) in the 90s. No playoff series wins tho. Was that "mediocre garbage" as well?

gosox41
08-07-2004, 08:58 AM
Foulke:

You bring up a valid point. As Dave Wills said it's hard to find quality pitchers in later rounds.

All the more reason to go the free agent route to acquire talent. You don't need to worry about draft position and you don't need to hope that enough 'can't miss kids,' actually come through (especially with the track record of this organization.

You also don't have to give up talent creating more potential holes, if you decide to go the 'trade' route as your basic rebuilding philosophy.

But signing quality free agents to fill holes and create depth costs money and the Sox say they don't have it.

Honestly I don't know what the answer is. The patchwork philosophy right now only results in one thing...mediocrity.

83-79 AVERAGE record the past six seasons.

Trying to mix and match does NOT work. Go to a plan and stay with it, either kids or quality veterans.

Lip
I agree it helps to have early draft picks. But teams can win without them. Minnesota has had 2-3 players on their roster as first round picks. That means anybody else that came up through the Minnesota organization was someone the Sox cold have had. And it's not like the other 22 guys on the roster were all second round picks. I can't remember all the details, but there were some guys picked in rounds 20 and higher.

No, the problem is the White Sox are unable to draft and develop talent successully. Especially when it comes to pitching. There have been years (1999, 2004) where the Sox have had 6 of the first 60-65 picks in the whole draft. It's still early to tell about 2004, but we can all see the results of the 1999 draft...or I mean lack of results.

This team has some major issues to examine. They need to figure out why a lot of their young pitching keeps getting hurt. I know pitchers are always getting hurt, but I've never seen so many minor leaguers lost to injury. If the odds are that good of them getting injured, then either don't develop them or don't spend several hundred thousand to a million and a half bucks on drafting them early just so us fans can read about this great potential star having elbow reconstruction or another torn labrum or whatever.

The Sox should figure out what Minnesota or Oakland are doing and do that. And not because these teams have low payroll. It's because they have one of the most successful farm systems in baseball.

We don't. Plain and simple. Look at the roster make up. THe guy everyone says did nothing (Schueler) has been a huge reason this team was able to be a second place team the last 3 years and also win the division in 2000. I look forward to the day that I can see a White Sox player make a positive impact on the White Sox who was drafted and developed by Kenny Williams.




Bob

samram
08-07-2004, 10:11 AM
I agree it helps to have early draft picks. But teams can win without them. Minnesota has had 2-3 players on their roster as first round picks. That means anybody else that came up through the Minnesota organization was someone the Sox cold have had. And it's not like the other 22 guys on the roster were all second round picks. I can't remember all the details, but there were some guys picked in rounds 20 and higher.

No, the problem is the White Sox are unable to draft and develop talent successully. Especially when it comes to pitching. There have been years (1999, 2004) where the Sox have had 6 of the first 60-65 picks in the whole draft. It's still early to tell about 2004, but we can all see the results of the 1999 draft...or I mean lack of results.

This team has some major issues to examine. They need to figure out why a lot of their young pitching keeps getting hurt. I know pitchers are always getting hurt, but I've never seen so many minor leaguers lost to injury. If the odds are that good of them getting injured, then either don't develop them or don't spend several hundred thousand to a million and a half bucks on drafting them early just so us fans can read about this great potential star having elbow reconstruction or another torn labrum or whatever.

The Sox should figure out what Minnesota or Oakland are doing and do that. And not because these teams have low payroll. It's because they have one of the most successful farm systems in baseball.

We don't. Plain and simple. Look at the roster make up. THe guy everyone says did nothing (Schueler) has been a huge reason this team was able to be a second place team the last 3 years and also win the division in 2000. I look forward to the day that I can see a White Sox player make a positive impact on the White Sox who was drafted and developed by Kenny Williams.




Bob
I agree with most of what you say, especially about reevaluating what is happening in the farm system. However, since they play in Chicago, it would be nice if their approach was to use the FA market to have holes filled at the beginning of the year, and then use the farm system to fill holes that arise during the year, and if that guy does better than who he replaced, trade the guy he replaced to improve another area.

CubKilla
08-07-2004, 12:35 PM
The ChiSox worst problem in the last TWENTY years has been JERRY REINSDORF

Lip Man 1
08-07-2004, 02:13 PM
Flight states: "My point is that that number is fairly arbitrary and doesn't define mediocrity."

Incorrect. MLB plays 162 games a season (for the most part.) 81-81 is dead mediocre... nothing arbitrary about it.

The Sox record the past six years has been 83-79.

Sounds mediocre to me.

Now if the average record was 90-72 even with zero playoff appearances which was pretty close to what happen from 1990 - 1996, with that type of record you feel the talent is there and you have some hope for the future.

There is no hope with the current type of mediocrity...none...there are far to many better teams in the league.

Lip

idseer
08-07-2004, 02:21 PM
Flight states: "My point is that that number is fairly arbitrary and doesn't define mediocrity."
Incorrect. MLB plays 162 games a season (for the most part.) 81-81 is dead mediocre... nothing arbitrary about it.

The Sox record the past six years has been 83-79.

Sounds mediocre to me.

Now if the average record was 90-72 even with zero playoff appearances which was pretty close to what happen from 1990 - 1996, with that type of record you feel the talent is there and you have some hope for the future.

There is no hope with the current type of mediocrity...none...there are far to many better teams in the league.

Lip
it's worse than that. remove the 52 - 29 freak first half of '00 and you've got a losing ballclub.