PDA

View Full Version : Sox were gonna trade Mags/bmac to bosox!


shagar69
09-13-2004, 02:39 PM
Long time lurker, thought that i would make this my first post. IMO, this trade would have been terrible for us!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521)


Last year, when the Red Sox made their Brandon Lyon-Scott Sauerbeck deal with the Pirates, they were supposed to get left-handed reliever Mike Gonzalez, now one of the nastiest left-on-left relievers in the NL, but the Lyon injury negated his inclusion. This winter, when they agreed to send Nomar Garciaparra and Scott Williamson to the White Sox for Magglio Ordonez, the White Sox had agreed to put right-hander Brandon McCarthy -- 17-6 on three minor league levels this season -- in the trade as a throw-in.

Hangar18
09-13-2004, 03:04 PM
Long time lurker, thought that i would make this my first post. IMO, this trade would have been terrible for us!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521)

:KW

"Unlike Jim Hendry up north, I Like giving away our Good Players"

shagar69
09-13-2004, 03:06 PM
:KW

"Unlike Jim Hendry up north, I Like giving away our Good Players" *****! yeah KW has gave up some good players in the past, while hendry robbed both the bosox and the buc-os

OEO Magglio
09-13-2004, 04:08 PM
:KW

"Unlike Jim Hendry up north, I Like giving away our Good Players"The sox traded for Russ Ortiz also, according to this source.:rolleyes:

jeremyb1
09-13-2004, 04:50 PM
Yeah safe to say KW doesn't quite appreciate BB/K ratio the same way Theo Epstein does. It's a shame since we can see now that McCarthy's 125 to 15 K/BB ratio in '03 was a sign of better things to come.

Flight #24
09-13-2004, 05:27 PM
Yeah safe to say KW doesn't quite appreciate BB/K ratio the same way Theo Epstein does. It's a shame since we can see now that McCarthy's 125 to 15 K/BB ratio in '03 was a sign of better things to come.
Personally, since we still have BMac, I wouldn't call it a shame at all.

batmanZoSo
09-13-2004, 05:36 PM
Long time lurker, thought that i would make this my first post. IMO, this trade would have been terrible for us!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521)
Even without McCarthy in the picture it was a stupid trade. If we were gonna trade Maggs it should've been for..you know..something more than a one-year rental who's gonna bolt for the West Coast.

soxwon
09-13-2004, 05:43 PM
Ok Theo epstein wasnt he the

Puerto rican jew on kotter?
or
the dumb son on Cosby -malcom jamal crawford?

batmanZoSo
09-13-2004, 05:55 PM
Ok Theo epstein wasnt he the

Puerto rican jew on kotter?
or
the dumb son on Cosby -malcom jamal crawford?Ha...Malcolm Jamal Warner you mean.

...Or was it the Greek-American who lived across the street--Malcolm Jamal Stephanopoulos?

doublem23
09-13-2004, 07:19 PM
:KW

"Unlike Jim Hendry up north, I Like giving away our Good Players"
Brandon McCarthy? You guys are stretching. :rolleyes:

OEO Magglio
09-13-2004, 08:04 PM
Yeah safe to say KW doesn't quite appreciate BB/K ratio the same way Theo Epstein does. It's a shame since we can see now that McCarthy's 125 to 15 K/BB ratio in '03 was a sign of better things to come.You have no clue if this was true at all. This is from Peter Gammons, meaning most likely it's not true. Now your just taking shots at KW just to take shots at him.

Win1ForMe
09-13-2004, 08:22 PM
Long time lurker, thought that i would make this my first post. IMO, this trade would have been terrible for us!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880521)
Nice to have you back posting your endless anti-KW nonsense, habib. Couldn't stay away?

Wealz
09-13-2004, 08:36 PM
Nice to have you back posting your endless anti-KW nonsense, habib. Couldn't stay away?
Kenny Williams has done very little in his tenure as GM to earn praise.

shagar69
09-13-2004, 09:03 PM
Nice to have you back posting your endless anti-KW nonsense, habib. Couldn't stay away?how is this KW nonsense dude? i didnt make this up! and my name isnt habib.:?: dont know what youre talking about there

nodiggity59
09-13-2004, 09:19 PM
how is this KW nonsense dude? i didnt make this up! and my name isnt habib.:?: dont know what youre talking about there
A zebra always shows its stripes

MRKARNO
09-13-2004, 09:47 PM
how is this KW nonsense dude? i didnt make this up! and my name isnt habib.:?: dont know what youre talking about there
Then why is your writing style strikingly similar to habib's?

Brian26
09-13-2004, 09:53 PM
Kenny Williams has done very little in his tenure as GM to earn praise.
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself.

OEO Magglio
09-13-2004, 09:55 PM
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself.But did he read moneyball?

shagar69
09-13-2004, 10:14 PM
Then why is your writing style strikingly similar to habib's?what is my writing style like? and why is it bad that my writing "sounds" like his?

shagar69
09-13-2004, 10:16 PM
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself. true. the colon deal was a good deal even though it didnt really work out since we missed the playoffs. we gave up crap for him. and the garcia deal looks good so far, but i need to see more from olivo and see how jeremy reed turns out before deciding on that. i am however, starting to get worried about this contreras for loaiza deal. contreras has been very bad the last couple of starts after starting out with a few great starts. hopefully this most recent version of contreras isnt the real one!

balke
09-13-2004, 10:23 PM
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself.

nuh uh dude, KW is evil, look at all the amazing players he's traded away!

Names such as DL, lost velocity, proved nothing yet, definitely worth Garcia, Koch, and 4+ Era. KW has been very fair to his fans, and has gone out trying to get us what this team needs every chance he gets. IMO he gave us a Playoff bound team this year, with injuries too hard to overcome. Even if we just kept Frank, we'd be neck and neck with the twinks.

shagar69
09-13-2004, 10:25 PM
nuh uh dude, KW is evil, look at all the amazing players he's traded away!

Names such as DL, lost velocity, proved nothing yet, definitely worth Garcia, Koch, and 4+ Era. KW has been very fair to his fans, and has gone out trying to get us what this team needs every chance he gets. IMO he gave us a Playoff bound team this year, with injuries too hard to overcome. Even if we just kept Frank, we'd be neck and neck with the twinks. i dont think that you could say he gave us a playoff team this year. our bullpen is very shaky IMO. he needed to adress that. but who knows, if we were in it at the break maybe he would of. and yeah, no question, with maggs and frank we would definitely be close to the twins

StillMissOzzie
09-14-2004, 12:45 AM
how is this KW nonsense dude? i didnt make this up! and my name isnt habib.:?: dont know what youre talking about there
You're busted, habibharu!!! If anyone else feels like dredging up one of habibharu's old posts, you too can learn of some amazing coincidences:

Same DOB @ 10/24/85.
Same favorite current player @ Buehrle.
Same favorite past player @ Big Frank.
Same favorite uniform @ 1917

shagar69 = habibharu QED

SMO
:bandance:

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 02:33 PM
Personally, since we still have BMac, I wouldn't call it a shame at all.

Yeah, no one cares if our GM is competent.

You have no clue if this was true at all. This is from Peter Gammons, meaning most likely it's not true. Now your just taking shots at KW just to take shots at him.

I don't know. Speculation about a trade that could happen is completely different than speculation about a trade that was in place and then faltered. With a trade that was merely discussed, there can be miscommunication between the GMs, potential deals proposed that one party wasn't actually willing to sign off on, etc. When the deal has actually been agreed to, there's far less ambiguity there. Funny, I've never heard anyone argue that Maggs wasn't actually going to be dealt for Nomar or that Garland wasn't actually going to be dealt for Erstad.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 02:38 PM
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself.
. . . All the while the foundation of this team was crumbling. Unfortunately they don't award championships for "outwitting" the Red Sox and Yankees a couple of times.

shagar69
09-14-2004, 02:41 PM
. . . All the while the foundation of this team was crumbling. Unfortunately they don't award championships for "outwitting" the Red Sox and Yankees a couple of times.i wouldnt say that dude. we still got bmac, anderson, sweeney, young, gio, tracey, thats a pretty good foundation

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 02:41 PM
Disagree completely. Orchestrating the Colon and Garcia deals in back-to-back years to snatch these guys out from under New York and Boston's noses...that's monumental in and of itself.

I find comparing those deals to be completely absurd. Colon wasn't necessarily expected to be resigned whereas Garcia is now locked down to a lucrative extension. Colon was obtained for players that weren't expected to play a strong role in the future wheras Garcia was acquired for top prospects. So basically with Colon we had absolutely nothing to lose. The Garcia deal alone has the potential to destroy us for several years if he's unproductive while constituting around a seventh of our payroll on his own and we miss Reed, Morse, and/or Olivo.

People act like the Garcia deal was without risk because 1) they don't understand the importance of managing a payroll at the MLB level 2) they are of the opinion that all minor leaguers are equivalent of playing the lottery or that since the players aren't immediately in the majors, they've failed and will never be worth anything.

Flight #24
09-14-2004, 02:42 PM
Funny, I've never heard anyone argue that Maggs wasn't actually going to be dealt for Nomar or that Garland wasn't actually going to be dealt for Erstad.
Nope, all we hear about is how piss-poor Garland is, how badly we need to "change the team makeup, swapping one of our all-or-nothing, GIDP hitters for more contact, OBP, better fundamentals, and more of a leader". Or about how "We need to upgrade at SS and dump Valentin". The Maggs deal supposedly was going to be accompanied by a Valentin for Garcia deal, and that Williamson was coming back to the Sox as part of the deal. Once the latter part fell through, KW officially backed out (remember his comments that even if ARod-Manny went through the Sox were out of that mix?).

If this team started the season with Nomar, Garcia, Williamson, Juan Gonzalez instead of Maggs, Valentin, 5th-starter-du-jour & Jackson, I for one would have been quite pleased. Then even if/when Juan went down, we'd still have had the amazing Jeremy Reed to plug in and not miss a beat.:tongue:

You can't pull out individual moves and evaluate them in a vacuum. Especially ones that didn't actually happen.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 02:44 PM
i wouldnt say that dude. we still got bmac, anderson, sweeney, young, gio, tracey, thats a pretty good foundation
Major league foundation?

Flight #24
09-14-2004, 02:45 PM
People act like the Garcia deal was without risk because 1) they don't understand the importance of managing a payroll at the MLB level 2) they are of the opinion that all minor leaguers are equivalent of playing the lottery or that since the players aren't immediately in the majors, they've failed and will never be worth anything.
Or maybe they recognize the risk and reward tradeoff in dealing some very good, but still unproven prospects for a very good starting pitcher during a playoff race (which is what we were in until Frank/Maggs went down).

The corrolary to your generalization is that people act like Reed & Olivo are guaranteed to be above average to star quality major leaguers for years despite their not having accomplished much of anything at the MLB level.

shagar69
09-14-2004, 02:47 PM
I find comparing those deals to be completely absurd. Colon wasn't necessarily expected to be resigned whereas Garcia is now locked down to a lucrative extension. Colon was obtained for players that weren't expected to play a strong role in the future wheras Garcia was acquired for top prospects. So basically with Colon we had absolutely nothing to lose. The Garcia deal alone has the potential to destroy us for several years if he's unproductive while constituting around a seventh of our payroll on his own and we miss Reed, Morse, and/or Olivo.

People act like the Garcia deal was without risk because 1) they don't understand the importance of managing a payroll at the MLB level 2) they are of the opinion that all minor leaguers are equivalent of playing the lottery or that since the players aren't immediately in the majors, they've failed and will never be worth anything. olivo so far has been TERRIBLE against righties and IMO reed isnt a special player. id compare him to a mark kotsay type. probably a number two hitter, i see him having seasons like 15 hrs. 60 rbis, around .290, .300 AVG, .350 OBP, maybe 20 SB's, and a pretty decent OF. id see a MUCH higher ceiling for anderson, sweeney, and especially young. i personally love young, even though his numbers may not show his talents

shagar69
09-14-2004, 02:48 PM
Major league foundation? caballo, burly,freddy,crede,PK,rowand,wille/uribe

Wealz
09-14-2004, 02:51 PM
caballo, burly,freddy,crede,PK,rowand,wille/uribe
That is an expensive core that will play around .500 ball. Not good.

balke
09-14-2004, 02:56 PM
I think from now on Kenny should only make big trades, if he's giving nothing up in return. Then he would be a good GM. Good GM's never give up anybody to get anybody.


The first thing he should do, is trade Crede and two low prospect minor leaguers to the D-backs for Randy Johnson.

Second, KW can easily sign Valentin for about a million dollars. Then we can trade him to the Dodgers for Izturis, and a couple of top-level prospects in their farm system.

Then package Garland to Houston for Clemens and a few bullpen guys.

The fourth trade Kenny should make, Jon Adkins, and two lower level prospects for Billy Wagner, a shave off his salary, and a PTBN.

We need some big return for Konerko. To Mets for Cameron, Piazza, and Looper?

This makes so much sense and is so easy. Come on KW, what are you waiting for!? Let's go trick some teams into giving us gold. You're such a bad GM.

:wink:

Brian26
09-14-2004, 03:12 PM
I find comparing those deals to be completely absurd. Colon wasn't necessarily expected to be resigned whereas Garcia is now locked down to a lucrative extension. Colon was obtained for players that weren't expected to play a strong role in the future wheras Garcia was acquired for top prospects

Jeremy,

You missed my point.

The question that was raised was whether or not Kenny Williams is a good GM. I just gave you two examples of blockbuster trades that Kenny orchestrated that brought a front-line starting pitcher to this organization and gave us a great chance to win a championship. I never discussed the merits of either trade or whether we may look back on them in 10 years and wish we hadn't made the move. At the time, both pitchers were highly sought and coveted by many other major league teams. Kenny Williams rose above the pack and was able to sweeten the pot and manipulate the other GM's to get the deals done. These past 2 years, we were trying to win a championship. These two pitchers brought something to the table that Rocky Biddle or Jeremy Reed couldn't. Colon and Garcia gave us a greater chance to win in 2003 and 2004, respectively, than any of the guys we gave up. That's the mark of a good GM- knowing when to strike and not waiting for the pot at the end of the rainbow that may never happen. If I had to pick between Ron Schueler and Kenny Williams, KW would get my vote in a second.

thepaulbowski
09-14-2004, 03:26 PM
The Garcia deal alone has the potential to destroy us for several years if he's unproductive while constituting around a seventh of our payroll on his own and we miss Reed, Morse, and/or Olivo.
:roflmao:

Now that is funny. Destroy us for several years....watch out....

:chickenlittle

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 03:28 PM
Nope, all we hear about is how piss-poor Garland is, how badly we need to "change the team makeup, swapping one of our all-or-nothing, GIDP hitters for more contact, OBP, better fundamentals, and more of a leader". Or about how "We need to upgrade at SS and dump Valentin". The Maggs deal supposedly was going to be accompanied by a Valentin for Garcia deal, and that Williamson was coming back to the Sox as part of the deal. Once the latter part fell through, KW officially backed out (remember his comments that even if ARod-Manny went through the Sox were out of that mix?).

If this team started the season with Nomar, Garcia, Williamson, Juan Gonzalez instead of Maggs, Valentin, 5th-starter-du-jour & Jackson, I for one would have been quite pleased. Then even if/when Juan went down, we'd still have had the amazing Jeremy Reed to plug in and not miss a beat.:tongue:

You can't pull out individual moves and evaluate them in a vacuum. Especially ones that didn't actually happen.

You can't evaluate deals only in hindsight either. Garland and Valentin (in the second half) have fallen short of everyone's expectations this season and no one knew Maggs was going to go down.

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 03:31 PM
Or maybe they recognize the risk and reward tradeoff in dealing some very good, but still unproven prospects for a very good starting pitcher during a playoff race (which is what we were in until Frank/Maggs went down).

The corrolary to your generalization is that people act like Reed & Olivo are guaranteed to be above average to star quality major leaguers for years despite their not having accomplished much of anything at the MLB level.

Then people should say they think the risk is worth the reward instead of pretending the Mariners didn't receive any players in the deal. I've never acted as though Reed and Olivo are guaranteed to be great major leaguers but when you're dealing three strong players just to rent a player for several months the risk exceeds the reward in my opinion.

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 03:33 PM
olivo so far has been TERRIBLE against righties and IMO reed isnt a special player. id compare him to a mark kotsay type. probably a number two hitter, i see him having seasons like 15 hrs. 60 rbis, around .290, .300 AVG, .350 OBP, maybe 20 SB's, and a pretty decent OF. id see a MUCH higher ceiling for anderson, sweeney, and especially young. i personally love young, even though his numbers may not show his talents

Kotsay is a top 10 CF. He carries a lot of value. If Olivo is as good as Kotsay and Reed and to a lesser extent Morse aren't accounted for, we're in a lot of trouble.

jeremyb1
09-14-2004, 03:36 PM
:roflmao:

Now that is funny. Destroy us for several years....watch out....

Yeah, because 8 million dollars doesn't mean much in light of our payroll. If he was making 40 million it could hurt us right? Obviously there's a point at which if he doesn't come through his salary would be so large as to criple our chances to compete without him at top form. Personally, I think 8 million makes a lot of difference. And why doesn't trading away our top young position player and arguably the best prospect heavily affect our chances of competing in the future? If you're a fan of the deal, fine. We disagree. But I don't understand how you could argue that this wasn't a gigantic, blockbuster deal signaling a vast shift in future plans by the organization and therefore a deal that is going have a lot of impact on the future of the club.

gosox41
09-14-2004, 03:39 PM
Jeremy,

You missed my point.

The question that was raised was whether or not Kenny Williams is a good GM. I just gave you two examples of blockbuster trades that Kenny orchestrated that brought a front-line starting pitcher to this organization and gave us a great chance to win a championship. I never discussed the merits of either trade or whether we may look back on them in 10 years and wish we hadn't made the move. At the time, both pitchers were highly sought and coveted by many other major league teams. Kenny Williams rose above the pack and was able to sweeten the pot and manipulate the other GM's to get the deals done. These past 2 years, we were trying to win a championship. These two pitchers brought something to the table that Rocky Biddle or Jeremy Reed couldn't. Colon and Garcia gave us a greater chance to win in 2003 and 2004, respectively, than any of the guys we gave up. That's the mark of a good GM- knowing when to strike and not waiting for the pot at the end of the rainbow that may never happen. If I had to pick between Ron Schueler and Kenny Williams, KW would get my vote in a second.
I'll give KW credit for guts and aggressivenes. But like you said, the last 2 years we were about to win a championship. Instead we didn't even make the playoffs. Sure injuries played a role this year, but there are more glaring holes on this team that were covered up by having Frank and Magglio healthy.

He's made some decent pickups as of late, but there have been some moves that he's wanted to make that have been downright stupid. Luckily they failed. The Erstad/Garland trade is one such example. Fact is (and it's been documented numerous times) that the Angels backed out of that trade. Imagine where the Sox would be if they made that trade and then signed Erstad to the extension they wanted to.

Thankfully the trade never happened, but it shows the cluelessness of KW's thinking. How can that be considered a good trade. The Angels only backed out because they didn't want to alienate fans. It was ownership of the Angels, not the GM, that wouldn't approve that trade.

Or how about Frank. Did KW exercise the Diminishing Skills Clause with the goal of keeping Frank here? I don't think so. KW wanted him gone and tried to piss him off enough to let that happen. Thankfullly JR stepped in and worked something out. How can KW not see the value in Frank Thomas and his .420 OBP? This is the makings of a good GM? Alienate your best player so that you can let him go for nothing?

KW has had some dumb ideas in the last couple of years. He's been saved by the fact that other teams have backed out of them or that JR had to intervene. But one of these days he's going to make a trade that another GM is going to jump on and we're going to be left scratching our heads. I'm talking about Koch and Ritchie trades. Trades that are so bad on paper they should be laughed off.



Bob

OurBitchinMinny
09-14-2004, 04:15 PM
Kenny Williams has done very little in his tenure as GM to earn praise.
The only bad thing he has done is hire ozzie guillen. At least he tries to get things done. yeah its his fault frank and maggs went down for year. Get a clue. The guys hes traded away have all become great stars too havent they?

doublem23
09-14-2004, 04:21 PM
. . . All the while the foundation of this team was crumbling. Unfortunately they don't award championships for "outwitting" the Red Sox and Yankees a couple of times.
Don't you hate how KW decided to have Maggs and Frank get injured this year? :rolleyes:

Flight #24
09-14-2004, 04:21 PM
You can't evaluate deals only in hindsight either. Garland and Valentin (in the second half) have fallen short of everyone's expectations this season and no one knew Maggs was going to go down.
It's not hindsight, which is why I explicitly said I would have felt better entering the season with that team. At the time, you couldn't know that maggs would get hurt, neither could you say Nomar would be in & out so much, so that part's a wash. As for Jose's underperforming, I'd argue that even with his 2003 performance, a team with Nomar+Garcia+Williamson+Gonzalez was better than a team with Maggs+Jose+Jackson+5th-starter-roulette. Especially given the other power bats on the team but lack of a solid OBP #2 type of hitter (this is before ARow proved himself).

The point stands. Judging the move at the time, you have to look at the totality of what KW was doing and supposedly had in place, not just individual pieces. The totality of it was VERY good.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 04:36 PM
The only bad thing he has done is hire ozzie guillen. At least he tries to get things done. yeah its his fault frank and maggs went down for year. Get a clue. The guys hes traded away have all become great stars too havent they?
The Sox record during Williams tenure speaks for itself.

I'll give him another chance if he realizes what's become so painfully obvious, that it's time to rebuild this offseason. He has to start by dealing Konerko and Lee. Anything less than that is running in place, IMO.

doublem23
09-14-2004, 04:38 PM
The Sox record during Williams tenure speaks for itself.

I'll give him another chance if he realizes what's become so painfully obvious, that it's time to rebuild this offseason. He has to start by dealing Konerko and Lee. Anything less than that is running in place, IMO.
Are you ****ing kidding me? We have the cornerstones of a solid rotation, were in first place at the All-Star Break and lost our two best bats and you want to rebuild?

Ridiculous.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 04:38 PM
Don't you hate how KW decided to have Maggs and Frank get injured this year? :rolleyes:
I'll ask until I get an answer. What should Williams be held responsible for?

Wealz
09-14-2004, 04:41 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? We have the cornerstones of a solid rotation, were in first place at the All-Star Break and lost our two best bats and you want to rebuild?

Ridiculous.
What are Garcia's and Contreras' ERA's since joining the Sox? Whether they are cornerstones of a solid rotation is not without debate.

doublem23
09-14-2004, 04:42 PM
I'll ask until I get an answer. What should Williams be held responsible for?
I'd blame him for bringing in an inexperienced manager, but I think that decision came more from the guy who cuts the checks than KW. Considering the kind of payroll flexibility KW has (or lack thereof), he's done a pretty good job with this team. Of course, when you compare him to Cashman, Epstein, or Hendry with their payrolls twice our size or Beane who inherited the 3 best pitching staff this side of the 90s of course he pales in comparison.

Brian26
09-14-2004, 04:44 PM
He has to start by dealing Konerko and Lee. Anything less than that is running in place, IMO.

PK AND CLee? Good grief, we're in trouble next year.

Brian26
09-14-2004, 04:46 PM
I'll ask until I get an answer. What should Williams be held responsible for?

Wasting all of that good Bertucci's food when he flipped over the catering table.

I can't blame him for the injuries that ruined our season.

doublem23
09-14-2004, 04:48 PM
PK AND CLee? Good grief, we're in trouble next year.
It's time to rebuild! We'll put Bajenaru, Munoz, and Diaz in the rotation, start Gload at first, maybe stick Ruddy Yan at 2nd, and have an outfield of Rowand, Borchard, and Casey Rogowski... I know he's been an infielder his whole career, but I like his potential.

I can smell the 2007 World Title already.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 04:55 PM
I'd blame him for bringing in an inexperienced manager, but I think that decision came more from the guy who cuts the checks than KW. Considering the kind of payroll flexibility KW has (or lack thereof), he's done a pretty good job with this team. Of course, when you compare him to Cashman, Epstein, or Hendry with their payrolls twice our size or Beane who inherited the 3 best pitching staff this side of the 90s of course he pales in comparison.
So you aren't holding Williams responsible for any of this mess or am I reading this incorrectly?

As far as payroll constraints, Schueler faced those same issues from the late 90's on and won a division title in 2000.

doublem23
09-14-2004, 05:01 PM
As far as payroll constraints, Schueler faced those same issues from the late 90's on and won a division title in 2000.
As much as I loved the 2000 team, if you haven't figured out that was mere luck and if that same team played the same season 99 times they would wind up in 2nd 99 of those times, then I don't know what to tell you. It was a great year, but it was a lucky year, especially since the "core" that we are all so appalled at nowadays was the exact same one that brought that title home. Funny how they are good when it is convienent for your point, but they are bad when someone tries to prove you otherwise. :rolleyes:

doublem23
09-14-2004, 05:02 PM
So you aren't holding Williams responsible for any of this mess or am I reading this incorrectly?

As far as payroll constraints, Schueler faced those same issues from the late 90's on and won a division title in 2000.
Most of the mess the White Sox face is caused by Williams' boss, not Williams himself.

You want accountability in the Sox organization? It starts from the top.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 05:03 PM
PK AND CLee? Good grief, we're in trouble next year.
We're in trouble either way next year. Thomas will be 37 next year and Ordonez will either be gone, or be a serious question mark, or both. You can't win anything with Lee and Konerko as your best offensive players. They're second tier players scheduled to make the third and fourth most money on the team next year.

Wealz
09-14-2004, 05:07 PM
As much as I loved the 2000 team, if you haven't figured out that was mere luck and if that same team played the same season 99 times they would wind up in 2nd 99 of those times, then I don't know what to tell you. It was a great year, but it was a lucky year, especially since the "core" that we are all so appalled at nowadays was the exact same one that brought that title home. Funny how they are good when it is convienent for your point, but they are bad when someone tries to prove you otherwise. :rolleyes:
You know why Konerko and Lee were good back then? They were four years younger and cheap. As soon as it was time to pay them Williams should have dealt them.

batmanZoSo
09-14-2004, 05:36 PM
You know why Konerko and Lee were good back then? They were four years younger and cheap. As soon as it was time to pay them Williams should have dealt them.
I don't think they're worth the money they're making. I would trade them both if I could. Does that mean we replace them with minor leaguers in our system like Casey Rogowski and whoever? Of course not. You just use the money to improve other areas. Maybe you get an oufielder who makes less money and brings some things to the table that you need--speed, defense, etc--and you put Gload at first. But by getting rid of both, you can get virtually any starter out there and a solid bullpen guy to boot.

My attitude at this point is "why the hell not?" We don't win anything with these guys, so try something else. They're both having really solid years on paper, too. Just a year ago, Konerko was worth a bag of used baseballs in a trade. It was basically his fault we didn't make the playoffs last year. If he'd been even a shadow of a major league hitter it would've surely lead to a few extra victories for our side. No one remembers that. And he could very well go back to that. Trade him now.

maurice
09-14-2004, 07:05 PM
It's not hindsight
Ditto. I was in favor of ditching both Maggs and Valentin this past offseason. I argued that their combined $19 million salaries would be better spent elsewhere. I also advocated a trade with the Mariners for Garcia (to replace Colon) and Guillen (to replace Valentin). I don't remember too many folks agreeing with me at the time.

cornball
09-14-2004, 07:51 PM
It amazes me how the organization will be destroyed for years to come (as some say) with the loss of a few prospects in a trade.

Two points, #1 we havent won a World Title in nearly 90 years, and 45 years since the last pennant. Most of the posters on this site, are not half the age of the last time we won the pennant. Destroyed for years to come......Prospects do not win titles, root for the Devil Rays if you like prospects. If the organization is so fragile .....to the point.... where 2-3 prospects would "destroy" the major league team.....

#2 just because a player is a top prospect doesn't mean success, even if there is success in the minors. Examples: Bourchard, Crede on the team now and the list could be endless.

Many who post here do not like the jog KW has done and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just what GM has anyone liked in this town. Besides Jim Finks, I cant think of one

balke
09-14-2004, 08:01 PM
We're in trouble either way next year. Thomas will be 37 next year and Ordonez will either be gone, or be a serious question mark, or both. You can't win anything with Lee and Konerko as your best offensive players. They're second tier players scheduled to make the third and fourth most money on the team next year.
FT at 37> PK or Clee

Clee is worth 10mil if we're paying it.

His #'s go up. He's 4hr, 4 doubles, 12 RBI, 12 runs scored from being a 40/30 100 RBI .300 Avg hitter w/100 runs scored. That's not bad. Especially with 20 games left to play.

fielding pct. is still 1.000

gosox41
09-15-2004, 08:53 AM
I'd blame him for bringing in an inexperienced manager, but I think that decision came more from the guy who cuts the checks than KW. Considering the kind of payroll flexibility KW has (or lack thereof), he's done a pretty good job with this team. Of course, when you compare him to Cashman, Epstein, or Hendry with their payrolls twice our size or Beane who inherited the 3 best pitching staff this side of the 90s of course he pales in comparison.
Beane did not inherit all 3 of those guys. He drafted 2 of them. And what about Harden? Why not add his name to the list of good pitchers developed under the Billy Beane era? Or was that just luck too?

I will compare KW to Beane because they operate under the same financial parameters. KW inherited Buerhle. Beane inherited Hudson. Beane went out and with some lock and a lot of skill drafted Zito, Mulder, and Harden. KW has drafted..um...

Also, Beane sees the importance of having 5 true starting pitchers. Redman has had his ups and downs this year, but have you seen the Sox 5th starters this season? Redman is better. A fair comparison is Redman to Garland.

And you mentioned KW having to hire an inexperienced manager. I must have missed all the years he managed in the major leagues before 2003.

It's just a start of the differences.


Bob

gosox41
09-15-2004, 08:56 AM
It amazes me how the organization will be destroyed for years to come (as some say) with the loss of a few prospects in a trade.

Two points, #1 we havent won a World Title in nearly 90 years, and 45 years since the last pennant. Most of the posters on this site, are not half the age of the last time we won the pennant. Destroyed for years to come......Prospects do not win titles, root for the Devil Rays if you like prospects. If the organization is so fragile .....to the point.... where 2-3 prospects would "destroy" the major league team.....

#2 just because a player is a top prospect doesn't mean success, even if there is success in the minors. Examples: Bourchard, Crede on the team now and the list could be endless.

Many who post here do not like the jog KW has done and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just what GM has anyone liked in this town. Besides Jim Finks, I cant think of one
Jerry Krause

Seriously, go ask any Cub fan how the feel about Hendry. Of course White Sox fans hate him and won't admit it, bit he's done a lot more good then bad for the Cubs.


Bob

shagar69
09-15-2004, 02:11 PM
Beane did not inherit all 3 of those guys. He drafted 2 of them. And what about Harden? Why not add his name to the list of good pitchers developed under the Billy Beane era? Or was that just luck too?

I will compare KW to Beane because they operate under the same financial parameters. KW inherited Buerhle. Beane inherited Hudson. Beane went out and with some lock and a lot of skill drafted Zito, Mulder, and Harden. KW has drafted..um...

Also, Beane sees the importance of having 5 true starting pitchers. Redman has had his ups and downs this year, but have you seen the Sox 5th starters this season? Redman is better. A fair comparison is Redman to Garland.

And you mentioned KW having to hire an inexperienced manager. I must have missed all the years he managed in the major leagues before 2003.

It's just a start of the differences.


Bob oh dont give us this bull****! OG is the PERFECT manager for this team! in fact, hiring him is about one of the best moves he has made!

shagar69
09-15-2004, 02:12 PM
Jerry Krause

Seriously, go ask any Cub fan how the feel about Hendry. Of course White Sox fans hate him and won't admit it, bit he's done a lot more good then bad for the Cubs.


Bob oh no question about it! hendry is a GREAT GM! but it doesnt hurt that he has a 90 mil payroll! but getting nomar and ramirez WERE VERY good moves by a smart move!

balke
09-15-2004, 02:32 PM
oh no question about it! hendry is a GREAT GM! but it doesnt hurt that he has a 90 mil payroll! but getting nomar and ramirez WERE VERY good moves by a smart move!
You people make me sick. I hope the cubs end up in 3rd. And the Angels catch the A's.

Nomar a good move? who would've thought that?! Oh yeah KW!

Ramirez wasn't so much a good move for the flubs, as it was the worst move in the history of the Pitt organization.

I can't wait til the A's have to actually pay thier players, and turn into a horrible franchise because they trade away thier pitching staff.

shagar69
09-15-2004, 02:48 PM
You people make me sick. I hope the cubs end up in 3rd. And the Angels catch the A's.

Nomar a good move? who would've thought that?! Oh yeah KW!

Ramirez wasn't so much a good move for the flubs, as it was the worst move in the history of the Pitt organization.

I can't wait til the A's have to actually pay thier players, and turn into a horrible franchise because they trade away thier pitching staff. well yeah, getting nomar wasnt that good of a move, but if you dont give hendry credit for STEALING ramirez from the pirates, in the words of hawk, YOU DONT KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT BASEBALL! and what did i say about the A's?:?:

gosox41
09-17-2004, 08:31 AM
You people make me sick. I hope the cubs end up in 3rd. And the Angels catch the A's.

Nomar a good move? who would've thought that?! Oh yeah KW!

Ramirez wasn't so much a good move for the flubs, as it was the worst move in the history of the Pitt organization.

I can't wait til the A's have to actually pay thier players, and turn into a horrible franchise because they trade away thier pitching staff.
Why are you so anti-Oakland? Are you sick of hearing how Billy Beane is a much better GM then KW? Does the truth hurt?


Bob

shagar69
09-17-2004, 11:42 AM
Why are you so anti-Oakland? Are you sick of hearing how Billy Beane is a much better GM then KW? Does the truth hurt?


Bob come on, beane isnt THAT much better than our guy! he hasnt even won a damn playoff series!

balke
09-17-2004, 12:35 PM
Why are you so anti-Oakland? Are you sick of hearing how Billy Beane is a much better GM then KW? Does the truth hurt?


Bob
yes. I'm sick of hearing about it. The truth does hurt. KW is not the #1 GM in all of baseball, no surprises there. He's far from the worst (a surprise to the bashers on this board).

Recently, Oakland and Mariners can be packaged in the same group as regular season phenoms, postseason busts. The sox at least had the lineup (healthy) to compete against a cy young type pitcher in the playoffs. I think I'd be bored out of my mind as an A's fan. I'd be very upset watching players like Tejada go, like it's no big thing. I like how the sox have franchise players, and at least spends moderately to compete.

Although I used to love the A's franchise when I was growing up (Hendersons Canseco Mcgwire walt weiss and such) they've now been in the playoffs for 4 straight years, and I don't give flying poop.

The only game of theirs I'll watch is the one Mulder pitches. I don't really like any of the AL teams in the playoffs right now. Boston whines about curses, the Yanks have bought themselves a title, and there's not a slugger between Minnesota and Oakland. Go Cards.

nodiggity59
09-17-2004, 12:42 PM
If I was an Oakland fan, I would be upset w/ Beane. How can you not bash Beane. His team has had 0 improvement over the past 4 years. He just keeps trotting the Big 3 out there with whatever else he can throw together. He had a playoff worthy team and they HAVEN'T IMPROVED.

This goes the same for KW. He inherited an 85-90 win team that overplayed in 2000 and he hasn't improved our record either.

Their reuslts, IMO, are almost identical.

gosox41
09-18-2004, 10:31 AM
come on, beane isnt THAT much better than our guy! he hasnt even won a damn playoff series!
SO then as Sox fans we should be happy. Because as Oakland is wasting their time winning 90 + games a season and going to the playoffs we should all go home happy with our 83 wins.

I'll take he playoffs over not making the playoffs any day.


Bob

gosox41
09-18-2004, 10:32 AM
The sox at least had the lineup (healthy) to compete against a cy young type pitcher in the playoffs. .
Kind of like 2000, right? :D:


Bob

gosox41
09-18-2004, 10:36 AM
If I was an Oakland fan, I would be upset w/ Beane. How can you not bash Beane. His team has had 0 improvement over the past 4 years. He just keeps trotting the Big 3 out there with whatever else he can throw together. He had a playoff worthy team and they HAVEN'T IMPROVED.

This goes the same for KW. He inherited an 85-90 win team that overplayed in 2000 and he hasn't improved our record either.

Their reuslts, IMO, are almost identical.
So winning 90+ games and making the playoffs in the AL West (which has been pretty tough the last 5 years) means the same as winning 83 games in the weak AL Central?

That's some strange logic.

So you wouldn't be happy to at least make the playoffs 5 years in a row. Not satisfied (the only satisfaction is winning it all) but not even the slightest bit happy or excited. Would you rather just end the season after 162 games? Has the last 4 years been fun for you as a Sox fan? Wouldn't you rather be buying playoff tickets right now then avoid hearing how wrethched this team is?

I'm not saying Beane is the best GM in baseball, but he is far better then KW. And to compare these 2 teams as being similar the last 4 years is odd when one team performs at or above expectations and the other constantly falls flat on their face.



Bob

jabrch
09-18-2004, 10:37 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah
http://www.brownfido.com/DogPoopPOO1.jpg

OEO Magglio
09-18-2004, 12:29 PM
Why are you so anti-Oakland? Are you sick of hearing how Billy Beane is a much better GM then KW? Does the truth hurt?


BobI don't think there was to many people who were anti oakland until all this billy beane love came to wsi. YES, we're sick of hearing how great of a gm you guys think billy beane is, you make him out to be the best gm the world has ever seen, enough is enough. It's like talking to a cub fan the more you talk to 'em the more you hate the team or gm(in this case) that everyone is talking about. Billy Beane isn't the greatest gm in the history of this world, Kenny Williams isn't the best gm either but he's far from the worst.

jabrch
09-18-2004, 12:48 PM
I don't think there was to many people who were anti oakland until all this billy beane love came to wsi. YES, we're sick of hearing how great of a gm you guys think billy beane is, you make him out to be the best gm the world has ever seen, enough is enough. It's like talking to a cub fan the more you talk to 'em the more you hate the team or gm(in this case) that everyone is talking about. Billy Beane isn't the greatest gm in the history of this world, Kenny Williams isn't the best gm either but he's far from the worst.
Very well said OEO.

gosox41
09-18-2004, 05:35 PM
I don't think there was to many people who were anti oakland until all this billy beane love came to wsi. YES, we're sick of hearing how great of a gm you guys think billy beane is, you make him out to be the best gm the world has ever seen, enough is enough. It's like talking to a cub fan the more you talk to 'em the more you hate the team or gm(in this case) that everyone is talking about. Billy Beane isn't the greatest gm in the history of this world, Kenny Williams isn't the best gm either but he's far from the worst.
It's how you interpret it. Show me a post where anyone (specifically me) said that Billy Beane is the greatest GM in the history of the world? He is better then KW. The record speaks for itself. I'm not making him out to be anything other then what he is a very good GM. While people here complain about money and make excuses (even KW does it) Beane gets his team to the playoffs. I nfact Beane could have gone to a big market team a couple of years ago and decided not to.

Just admit that Beane is much better then KW. The reason comparisons are made to him is he simply operates under the same parameters as KW. He even has less money. The book publicized his style and made it mre mainstream. Do you want to discuss why Terry Ryan is a much better GM then KW even though he works for a cheaper bastard then KW? I'm up for it.


Bob

HaroMaster87
09-18-2004, 05:40 PM
It's how you interpret it. Show me a post where anyone (specifically me) said that Billy Beane is the greatest GM in the history of the world? He is better then KW. The record speaks for itself. I'm not making him out to be anything other then what he is a very good GM. While people here complain about money and make excuses (even KW does it) Beane gets his team to the playoffs. I nfact Beane could have gone to a big market team a couple of years ago and decided not to.

Just admit that Beane is much better then KW. The reason comparisons are made to him is he simply operates under the same parameters as KW. He even has less money. The book publicized his style and made it mre mainstream. Do you want to discuss why Terry Ryan is a much better GM then KW even though he works for a cheaper bastard then KW? I'm up for it.


Bob
Amen. The Sox get more money to spend than Oakland, Minnesota and Florida and still they all have been better than us...Money is not the problem here, though, I'm not sure if it's KW either....

OEO Magglio
09-18-2004, 06:01 PM
It's how you interpret it. Show me a post where anyone (specifically me) said that Billy Beane is the greatest GM in the history of the world? He is better then KW. The record speaks for itself. I'm not making him out to be anything other then what he is a very good GM. While people here complain about money and make excuses (even KW does it) Beane gets his team to the playoffs. I nfact Beane could have gone to a big market team a couple of years ago and decided not to.

Just admit that Beane is much better then KW. The reason comparisons are made to him is he simply operates under the same parameters as KW. He even has less money. The book publicized his style and made it mre mainstream. Do you want to discuss why Terry Ryan is a much better GM then KW even though he works for a cheaper bastard then KW? I'm up for it.


BobI don't care about Billy Beane at all. I never understood why he gets brought up here when people want to bash kw, why is that? cause he has a stupid book that came out, good for him. Billy Beane has nothing to do with the White Sox. Some of you people make it seem like Beane is the best gm in baseball which he isn't, I don't care about moneyball, I hate that philosiphy but that's jmo. Terry Ryan has done a great job as a gm there is no question about that. Kenny has done his job a little different then these guys, so far he's traded for talent and hasn't had many of his own guys come up through the system and I don't think that's fully his fault how some of these guys have turned out. The twins as an organization just develop players great, period. The a's have banked on their 3 aces for all of these playoff teams but haven't had enough behind those guys to win a world series. There has been a lot of talk about one of the big 3 getting traded after this season is over, if that happens I really then want to see how oakland fare's next year.

MRKARNO
09-18-2004, 06:09 PM
My message to all of the Billy Beane-a-philes:

This is not your message board. This is a White Sox message board. If you want to discuss Beane, go somewhere else. Comparing KW to Beane at every single perceived misstep is tantamount to discussing Beane. If you want to talk Beane, go to the talking baseball board, but this is the WHITE SOX clubhouse, not the A's clubhouse.

jabrch
09-18-2004, 06:41 PM
My message to all of the Billy Beane-a-philes:

This is not your message board. This is a White Sox message board. If you want to discuss Beane, go somewhere else. Comparing KW to Beane at every single perceived misstep is tantamount to discussing Beane. If you want to talk Beane, go to the talking baseball board, but this is the WHITE SOX clubhouse, not the A's clubhouse.It seems like every chance to bash KW and JR is taken around here. It is kinda funny.

Tragg
09-18-2004, 09:07 PM
well yeah, getting nomar wasnt that good of a move, but if you dont give hendry credit for STEALING ramirez from the pirates, in the words of hawk, YOU DONT KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT BASEBALL! and what did i say about the A's?:?:
Compare what the Cubs gave up for Nomar----NOTHING----to what we were willing to trade for Nomar and it's pretty telling. KW tries- I'll give him that (and it's more than his predecessor did) but value isn't exactly his strong suit.

jabrch
09-19-2004, 01:59 AM
Compare what the Cubs gave up for Nomar----NOTHING----to what we were willing to trade for Nomar and it's pretty telling. KW tries- I'll give him that (and it's more than his predecessor did) but value isn't exactly his strong suit.Are you joking? Do you think there was a difference between a (at the time) healthy Nomar who'd be there the full season, to the one that was broken down and miserable, sitting himself down in games at the trade deadline?

Geez - this is getting crazy. The KW haters can't even take off the anti-KW glasses long enough to proofread their own posts for lucidity.

Here it comes gang....

http://www.brownfido.com/DogPoopPOO1.jpg


BTW - they didn't give up NOTHING for Garciaparra - they gave up Justin Jones - a sharp lefty AA prospect, Beltran, a future closer and a CI who's name is escaping me right now. Hardly nothing. In fact, given that Ordonez and Garciaparra were a wash contractwise, I think they gave up as much if not more - since they only got Nomar for 2 months and had to pay the price of 3 of their organizations well liked prospects. The fact that they have more prospects who are better than our top prospects doesnt mean that they didn't give up much.

OEO Magglio
09-19-2004, 02:50 AM
Are you joking? Do you think there was a difference between a (at the time) healthy Nomar who'd be there the full season, to the one that was broken down and miserable, sitting himself down in games at the trade deadline?

Geez - this is getting crazy. The KW haters can't even take off the anti-KW glasses long enough to proofread their own posts for lucidity.

Here it comes gang....

http://www.brownfido.com/DogPoopPOO1.jpg


BTW - they didn't give up NOTHING for Garciaparra - they gave up Justin Jones - a sharp lefty AA prospect, Beltran, a future closer and a CI who's name is escaping me right now. Hardly nothing. In fact, given that Ordonez and Garciaparra were a wash contractwise, I think they gave up as much if not more - since they only got Nomar for 2 months and had to pay the price of 3 of their organizations well liked prospects. The fact that they have more prospects who are better than our top prospects doesnt mean that they didn't give up much.
Brendan Harris is the other 'spect your thinking of and thank you jab for mentioning that. KW would have been absolutely grilled if he gave up that prospect package for nomar. Let me say I think that was a good trade for the cubs because they're going for it this year, however Nomar is overrated and they gave up something, they didn't give up nothing.

jabrch
09-19-2004, 03:11 AM
Brendan Harris is the other 'spect your thinking of and thank you jab for mentioning that. KW would have been absolutely grilled if he gave up that prospect package for nomar. Let me say I think that was a good trade for the cubs because they're going for it this year, however Nomar is overrated and they gave up something, they didn't give up nothing.
Exactly....Harris is nearly as highly rated as Crede was a few years ago. Beltran is considered a future closer. And Justin Jones is a young lefty with a high cieling. That's not to say it wasn't a good trade - but people got on KW for trading a pile of crap for Everett and Alomar, twice. Imagine if he ever gave up legit prospects?

balke
09-19-2004, 04:34 AM
Exactly....Harris is nearly as highly rated as Crede was a few years ago. Beltran is considered a future closer. And Justin Jones is a young lefty with a high cieling. That's not to say it wasn't a good trade - but people got on KW for trading a pile of crap for Everett and Alomar, twice. Imagine if he ever gave up legit prospects?
nuh uh, you're stupid, billy beane and Hendry, that's where it's at. Look how they did this and that. Kenny gave up someone to get someone, he's so stupid, blah blah blah. When I play Playstation 2, I'm such a better GM than him.

gosox41
09-19-2004, 09:11 AM
I don't care about Billy Beane at all. I never understood why he gets brought up here when people want to bash kw, why is that? cause he has a stupid book that came out, good for him. Billy Beane has nothing to do with the White Sox. Some of you people make it seem like Beane is the best gm in baseball which he isn't, I don't care about moneyball, I hate that philosiphy but that's jmo. Terry Ryan has done a great job as a gm there is no question about that. Kenny has done his job a little different then these guys, so far he's traded for talent and hasn't had many of his own guys come up through the system and I don't think that's fully his fault how some of these guys have turned out. The twins as an organization just develop players great, period. The a's have banked on their 3 aces for all of these playoff teams but haven't had enough behind those guys to win a world series. There has been a lot of talk about one of the big 3 getting traded after this season is over, if that happens I really then want to see how oakland fare's next year.
A couple of points:

1. Beane gets brought up here a lot because he is opertaing under very similar payroll restrictions as the Sox are. There's more similarities there then you wish to admit. Same with Ryan. If I'm going to bash KW for not winning, I'm going to compare him to guys in similar circumstances, nto guys like Brian Cashman who have a $190 mill. pay roll or whatever it is. Comapre apples to apples.

2. You admitted that Terry Ryan and the Twins are great at developing players. KW does his job differently. Why can't the Sox be better, if not as good, as developing players as the Twins? I don't want to hear about Top 10 draft picks or stuff like that as the Twins roster doesn't have many that are in the majors. Why can't the Sox have an organization that drafts and develops talent better? They don't even need to be as good as the Twins, though it would be nice. It all starts at the top. Some of the blame needs to be put on KW. He (or the people he hires) put together the scouts, minor league coaching staffs, the programs to develop talent, etc.

And I like that KW has gone for proven talent now. But unless you're the Yankees you will need to have some homegrown talent on your team to build around. It's a fact. Look at other teams around baseball that go to the playoffs. It all starts at the top. Terry Ryan hires the right people to work under him to make Minnesota a great organization. He has the right philosophies (which are different then Beane's) and he gets the job done. Here we get excuses.

The fact is out side of Rauch and Reed, the Sox haven't given up much in quality the last couple of years. It says a lot about our farm system that htere is nothing close to helping this team next year and we still haven't given up much in talent in trades.

3. I love the talk about the A's. You don't care about them yet you want to see them lose. Well you sound like a knowledgable baseball person. So I'm sure you know that in most cases (ie not teams with unlimited payrolls) teams generally have a 6 year window of opportunity to win. You can argue the sox and A's window both opened in 2000. So yes, I'm confident there will be a point in the A's near future where they don't make the playoffs. And you may gloat, but just acknowledge this fact first. 6 year window of opportunity opens at the same time for both teams. Both teams are in year 5. One team makes the playoffs once, and struggles to be .500 the next 4 years. The other wins 95+ games per season and goes to the playoffs 5 times in a row. That alone is a decent accomplishment, IMHO. Just like it is for the Twins to go 3 years in a row. Not as good as the Braves 13 years in a row or the Yankees and their multiple titles, but all are much better then what we have here right now. Agreed?

Also, being a knowledgable baseball person, I'm sure you are aware that 2 of the Big 3 as you refer to them were drafted by Billy Beane. Was it luck? Not if you believe you create your own luck through hard work and preparation. If it was luck, why not just fire all scouts, put all the draft eligible players name into a hat and pick names of who you want to draft. That's luck. Beane (and Ryan) are not lucky.

But back to the A's. This year, Hudson missed a month with a muscle strain. Zito is having a bad year. And yet the A's are still in first place. Is it because another A's pitcher stepped it up in RIck Harden? Maybe he'll be part of the next Big 3. Time will tell. But Zito has hardly done his part in carrying the A's to first place this season.

4. There's talk in today's Trib about the Sox going after as many as 5 new position players, 1 starter, and 1 reliever this offseason. Wouldn't it be nice if some of this was homegrown? Realitically the Sox aren't getting 5 current All Stars. But because they're probably going to be in the FA market on some level, they will either wind up overpaying for a guy, or getting yet another guy on the downside of his career because he's cheaper. It would be nice to have a semi-prodcutive farm system.



Bob

OEO Magglio
09-19-2004, 11:15 AM
A couple of points:

1. Beane gets brought up here a lot because he is opertaing under very similar payroll restrictions as the Sox are. There's more similarities there then you wish to admit. Same with Ryan. If I'm going to bash KW for not winning, I'm going to compare him to guys in similar circumstances, nto guys like Brian Cashman who have a $190 mill. pay roll or whatever it is. Comapre apples to apples.

2. You admitted that Terry Ryan and the Twins are great at developing players. KW does his job differently. Why can't the Sox be better, if not as good, as developing players as the Twins? I don't want to hear about Top 10 draft picks or stuff like that as the Twins roster doesn't have many that are in the majors. Why can't the Sox have an organization that drafts and develops talent better? They don't even need to be as good as the Twins, though it would be nice. It all starts at the top. Some of the blame needs to be put on KW. He (or the people he hires) put together the scouts, minor league coaching staffs, the programs to develop talent, etc.

And I like that KW has gone for proven talent now. But unless you're the Yankees you will need to have some homegrown talent on your team to build around. It's a fact. Look at other teams around baseball that go to the playoffs. It all starts at the top. Terry Ryan hires the right people to work under him to make Minnesota a great organization. He has the right philosophies (which are different then Beane's) and he gets the job done. Here we get excuses.

The fact is out side of Rauch and Reed, the Sox haven't given up much in quality the last couple of years. It says a lot about our farm system that htere is nothing close to helping this team next year and we still haven't given up much in talent in trades.

3. I love the talk about the A's. You don't care about them yet you want to see them lose. Well you sound like a knowledgable baseball person. So I'm sure you know that in most cases (ie not teams with unlimited payrolls) teams generally have a 6 year window of opportunity to win. You can argue the sox and A's window both opened in 2000. So yes, I'm confident there will be a point in the A's near future where they don't make the playoffs. And you may gloat, but just acknowledge this fact first. 6 year window of opportunity opens at the same time for both teams. Both teams are in year 5. One team makes the playoffs once, and struggles to be .500 the next 4 years. The other wins 95+ games per season and goes to the playoffs 5 times in a row. That alone is a decent accomplishment, IMHO. Just like it is for the Twins to go 3 years in a row. Not as good as the Braves 13 years in a row or the Yankees and their multiple titles, but all are much better then what we have here right now. Agreed?

Also, being a knowledgable baseball person, I'm sure you are aware that 2 of the Big 3 as you refer to them were drafted by Billy Beane. Was it luck? Not if you believe you create your own luck through hard work and preparation. If it was luck, why not just fire all scouts, put all the draft eligible players name into a hat and pick names of who you want to draft. That's luck. Beane (and Ryan) are not lucky.

But back to the A's. This year, Hudson missed a month with a muscle strain. Zito is having a bad year. And yet the A's are still in first place. Is it because another A's pitcher stepped it up in RIck Harden? Maybe he'll be part of the next Big 3. Time will tell. But Zito has hardly done his part in carrying the A's to first place this season.

4. There's talk in today's Trib about the Sox going after as many as 5 new position players, 1 starter, and 1 reliever this offseason. Wouldn't it be nice if some of this was homegrown? Realitically the Sox aren't getting 5 current All Stars. But because they're probably going to be in the FA market on some level, they will either wind up overpaying for a guy, or getting yet another guy on the downside of his career because he's cheaper. It would be nice to have a semi-prodcutive farm system.



Bob

I've never once said I want the A's to lose, in all honestly I don't care about the A's. If the A's fall on there face in the next few years I definitely won't gloat, trust me on that, I have no interest in the A's. As far as Beane, yes I know he drafted 2 of the 3 "big 3," and once again I never said that was luck either, your putting words in my mouth. However howcome when KW picks up cheap players such as Loaiza, Shingo, or gets Ben Davis as a "throw in" then that's luck? I saw that article your referring to, first let me say I'd be the happiest person in the world if the sox trade for Castillo or Pierre. :smile: Meanwhile, yes it would be nice to have more home grown players but so far there have been a lot of injuries to pitchers that could have made an impact this year or next year such as Honel and Wing. Bob, I'm sure you'd agree that Kenny's last two drafts have been pretty darn good as far as the players he's drafted, maybe in a year or two we'll have impact players waiting in the wings. Either way can we just get off the Billy Beane topic, he's a good gm I know that, everyone here knows that but he's not the best in baseball and Kenny Williams isn't the worst gm in baseball. We know how you feel, we know how I feel, we know how everyone else feels on this exact topic, can we just move on now?

batmanZoSo
09-19-2004, 12:31 PM
A couple of points:



Also, being a knowledgable baseball person, I'm sure you are aware that 2 of the Big 3 as you refer to them were drafted by Billy Beane. Was it luck? Not if you believe you create your own luck through hard work and preparation. If it was luck, why not just fire all scouts, put all the draft eligible players name into a hat and pick names of who you want to draft. That's luck. Beane (and Ryan) are not lucky.
Bob

Yes they are lucky. It takes luck to develop three outstanding Cy Young caliber starters at the same time (while Zito stinks this year, he's normally pretty awesome and at one point was clearly the best of the three). It doesn't mean Beane and his guys don't deserve a lot of credit, they certainly do. But you can be the best scout in the world and you still don't know what the future holds for a college or high school pitcher. The A's scouting department is fantastic, there's no doubt about it. They have more brains than most AND more luck than most.

Every pitcher we've developed since 1990 has either been a bust or had some success and then blew his arm out young. All three A's pitchers have funky deliveries and throw hard breaking stuff yet they remain immune to serious injuries. That's luck. To build a dynasty of any kind--not just in baseball, and not just in sports--you need to be smart and lucky. No one ever got rich or won anything without a few breaks along the way. Us? We can't draft and we have no luck. So we're screwed.

Tragg
09-19-2004, 12:33 PM
Are you joking? Do you think there was a difference between a (at the time) healthy Nomar who'd be there the full season, to the one that was broken down and miserable, sitting himself down in games at the trade deadline?

Geez - this is getting crazy. The KW haters can't even take off the anti-KW glasses long enough to proofread their own posts for lucidity.
I'm glad to know that Williams is above critique and that the least analysis of his trades makes one a "hater," which I assuredly am not, but whatever you people say. I am willing to point out a bonehead potential deal----trading Maggs for Nomar----when I see one.
I am glad to see all of these Cub prospects are sure things. I could ask if a broken and beaten nomar brings all that talent, where the hell have we been in such trades when dumping veterans??????? Since those prospects didn't go to Boston, I should have said that Boston got a couple of grizzled veterans for Nomar. We wanted to give them maggs (Maggs is the far superior ballplayer, didn't have a history of injuries, and both were in contract years so that offset). And make no mistake, Nomar WAS broken and beaten BEFORE the season---Boston wanted that self-centered whiner out and he had struggled with injuries for a long time.
I could point out that our payroll challenged club is now stuck with Everett for $4 million, Contreras for $6 million (but let's beat on Garland), no catcher, no shortstop, a dubious third-sacker, nothing close to a lead-off hitter (we had one--we didn't get 3 sure prospects, we got one still unproven pitching prospect), and perhaps no right fielder, no bench (a player with a .290 obp and 5 homers is the shining star) and a bullpen that contains 2 pitchers of any discernable quality, but that would make me a hater.

Again, Williams gives it an effort, he's had some bum breaks, and probably the most difficult situation he has is that does more building at mid-season instead of offseason (which presumably is a JR directive, not his preference). We've also gotten NO help from our farm system, which is really unfortunate (I guess you could say it helped us get Garcia). He might have enough payroll flexibility to get it done, and it's pretty obvious to do anything with this club he'll have to trade PK or maybe CL, but that might simply offset the payrolls of contreras and everett

balke
09-19-2004, 12:44 PM
Trading Maggs was the smartest thing this franchise could've done. We couldn't afford him. We needed help elsewhere, plain and simple. I don't necessarily agree that Nomar was the best thing we could've gotten for Maggs, but then again, we didn't know the full extent of the deal. I'm sure we were getting players from Boston in addition, and players from the Yanks perhaps. The Beloved "Prospects" we hear so much about.