PDA

View Full Version : "Can't miss kids"


jeremyb1
09-24-2004, 04:01 PM
I thought I'd start a new thread for this to keep the original thread about Arnie Munoz.

Gang:

First off there is a misconception about my attacks on 'can't miss kids.' I never said I dislike 'can't miss kids,' I have often used the fact that Oakland, Seattle and Houston HAVE developed 'can't miss kid pitchers' who actually CAN (and have...) and have posted the same. (look it up yourself)

My problem is with the SOX 'can't miss kids,' because their track record since the early 90's has been they CAN'T. (and HAVEN'T)

When (or if) the Sox ever start actually producing some kids who are lights out from day one in the bigs instead of embarassing themselves, my opinion will change.

Lip, if we're talking strictly about "can't miss kids" to me that's different that talking about prospects. It's more an issue of whether a team's most highly rated prospects live up to the hype than if a team has a productive farm system. To me, productivity is the bottom line and whether or not Rick Ankiel actually turns into a superstar pales in comparison in terms of importance. Very few players are capable of making a team successful on their own. Unless you develop a Bonds or a Pujolz you need a strong system that's consistently generating valuable players (or a massive payroll).

I find it unfair to only consider players with the most hype and give the team no credit for developing players that fly under the radar more such as Buehrle or Munoz. There were still important successful moves made by the clubs to acquire players regardless of draft position.

Statements about the team not developing players successful in the 90s is a bit of an overstatement in my opinion when Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Munoz, Buehrle, Harris, Garland, and Rowand have all spent considerable time in our minor league system and are now contributing at the major league level. Player development isn't just about developing superstars.

There's a contradiction in your belief that the team needs to spend more money in order to win Lip. We're admittedly not spending a ton yet the team is competitive. Garcia is the only player on the team I'd consider to be around because we paid him. Everyone wants to do better than .500 but at the same time if we were miserable at player development and we don't have a high payroll we'd be a lot worse than .500, we'd lose 100 games.

Wealz
09-24-2004, 04:26 PM
There's a contradiction in your belief that the team needs to spend more money in order to win Lip. We're admittedly not spending a ton yet the team is competitive. Garcia is the only player on the team I'd consider to be around because we paid him. Everyone wants to do better than .500 but at the same time if we were miserable at player development and we don't have a high payroll we'd be a lot worse than .500, we'd lose 100 games.
With Frank entering the final stages of his career and Ordonez gone the Sox system desperately needs to produce players that will form the core of this team into the next decade.

I'd consider this minor league year to be another disappointment in that regard. Jeremy Reed was traded, Kris Honel and Ryan Wing were injured, Brian Anderson performance at Birmingham raised some question marks, and there isn't a middle infielder or catcher anywhere on the horizon. The bright spots were McCarthy, Fields, and Sweeney, but still overall I think this year has been a disappointment from a player developmental standpoint.

Randar68
09-24-2004, 04:42 PM
Brian Anderson performance at Birmingham raised some question marks, and there isn't a middle infielder or catcher anywhere on the horizon. The bright spots were McCarthy, Fields, and Sweeney, but still overall I think this year has been a disappointment from a player developmental standpoint.WHAT!?!?

You have 3 SS's playing at Kannapolis or higher who are legit prospects(all better prospects at SS than Morse). In addition, what questions did Anderson's performance raise, Wealz? He lit up Winston-Salem in his full-season league after missing most of his rookie ball with the wrist injury, and he was hitting ~.300 in AA until he was hampered by a nagging groin injury and an undiagnosed hernia the last month of the season, which resulted in his numbers dropping...

:chickenlittle

Daver
09-24-2004, 04:47 PM
With Frank entering the final stages of his career and Ordonez gone the Sox system desperately needs to produce players that will form the core of this team into the next decade.

I'd consider this minor league year to be another disappointment in that regard. Jeremy Reed was traded, Kris Honel and Ryan Wing were injured, Brian Anderson performance at Birmingham raised some question marks, and there isn't a middle infielder or catcher anywhere on the horizon. The bright spots were McCarthy, Fields, and Sweeney, but still overall I think this year has been a disappointment from a player developmental standpoint.
You get all your minor league info from sports radio and the Sun Times don't you?

Randar68
09-24-2004, 04:49 PM
You get all your minor league info from sports radio and the Sun Times don't you?No joke. I also have left out that they have a couple of the most exciting catching prospects they've had in YEARS in Hernandez and Lucy, one of them being developed after signing as a 16-year old and just finished second in the batting race in the Appy league as an 18-year old!

DAMN THAT PLAYER DEVELOPMENT!!! :whiner:

bc2k
09-24-2004, 05:05 PM
No joke. I also have left out that they have a couple of the most exciting catching prospects they've had in YEARS in Hernandez and Lucy, one of them being developed after signing as a 16-year old and just finished second in the batting race in the Appy league as an 18-year old!

DAMN THAT PLAYER DEVELOPMENT!!! :whiner:
Interesting Randar, I'd like to know more about Hernandez and Lucy. Even basic info like what level they're at and what tools they posess would be helpful since I've never even heard of them.

shagar69
09-24-2004, 05:09 PM
Interesting Randar, I'd like to know more about Hernandez and Lucy. Even basic info like what level they're at and what tools they posess would be helpful since I've never even heard of them.
hernandez was recently ranked IIRC 2nd in the appy league in terms of prospects. hes got a good arm and hits for avg. IIRC he hit in the mid .320's. dont know too much about lucy.

Randar68
09-24-2004, 05:11 PM
Interesting Randar, I'd like to know more about Hernandez and Lucy. Even basic info like what level they're at and what tools they posess would be helpful since I've never even heard of them.This thread should probably end up in the Minor League board, sorry for hijacking it, Jeremy...

Lucy was a 2nd round pick by the Sox this year out of Stanford as a Junior. He spent his first 2 years at Stanford on the bench behind eventual first-round pick Ryan Garko, but was a HS All-American. Toolsy catcher, tape-measure power, good speed on the bases, good receiver... All-Around solid player who needs experience more than anything.

Hernandez was a break-out player. BA just named him the #2 prospect in the Appy League this year, 3 spots ahead of everyone's favorite, Gio Gonzalez. He hit .326 as an 18-year old, showed occassional power (more gap-to-gap at this point), switch-hitter, but despite the good offensive tools, might be an even better defensive catcher. Blocks the balls in the dirt, nothing gets by him, quick feet, sets up well, and has a very good arm. 2nd in the league in CS at 33% of runners caught. When I saw him, after the first game, Kingsport flat stopped running on him. Shut down the running game. At that level of baseball, that is not a common occurrance... Very exciting player. Young, aggressive, smart head for the game... switch-hitter to boot!

Wealz
09-24-2004, 05:15 PM
You get all your minor league info from sports radio and the Sun Times don't you?
No.

Wealz
09-24-2004, 05:18 PM
No joke. I also have left out that they have a couple of the most exciting catching prospects they've had in YEARS in Hernandez and Lucy, one of them being developed after signing as a 16-year old and just finished second in the batting race in the Appy league as an 18-year old!

DAMN THAT PLAYER DEVELOPMENT!!! :whiner:
Rookie League doesn't qualify as "on the horizon." What did the 22-year-old Lucy hit in rookie league, BTW?

Randar68
09-24-2004, 05:21 PM
Rookie League doesn't qualify as "on the horizon." What did the 22-year-old Lucy hit in rookie league, BTW?
Not terrinbly well (you knew that, though), but rookie league is more of an adjustment period for college players than anything worth making judgements on.

Wealz
09-24-2004, 05:32 PM
WHAT!?!?

You have 3 SS's playing at Kannapolis or higher who are legit prospects(all better prospects at SS than Morse). In addition, what questions did Anderson's performance raise, Wealz? He lit up Winston-Salem in his full-season league after missing most of his rookie ball with the wrist injury, and he was hitting ~.300 in AA until he was hampered by a nagging groin injury and an undiagnosed hernia the last month of the season, which resulted in his numbers dropping...
Not saying Anderson is a bust just that I'm not ready to label him as an everyday fixture just yet. Better SS prospects than Morse? That's not a great endorsement. When one of them starts hitting I'll say we have a middle infield prospect.

cornball
09-24-2004, 05:34 PM
I thought I'd start a new thread for this to keep the original thread about Arnie Munoz.



Lip, if we're talking strictly about "can't miss kids" to me that's different that talking about prospects. It's more an issue of whether a team's most highly rated prospects live up to the hype than if a team has a productive farm system. To me, productivity is the bottom line and whether or not Rick Ankiel actually turns into a superstar pales in comparison in terms of importance. Very few players are capable of making a team successful on their own. Unless you develop a Bonds or a Pujolz you need a strong system that's consistently generating valuable players (or a massive payroll).

I find it unfair to only consider players with the most hype and give the team no credit for developing players that fly under the radar more such as Buehrle or Munoz. There were still important successful moves made by the clubs to acquire players regardless of draft position.

Statements about the team not developing players successful in the 90s is a bit of an overstatement in my opinion when Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Munoz, Buehrle, Harris, Garland, and Rowand have all spent considerable time in our minor league system and are now contributing at the major league level. Player development isn't just about developing superstars.

There's a contradiction in your belief that the team needs to spend more money in order to win Lip. We're admittedly not spending a ton yet the team is competitive. Garcia is the only player on the team I'd consider to be around because we paid him. Everyone wants to do better than .500 but at the same time if we were miserable at player development and we don't have a high payroll we'd be a lot worse than .500, we'd lose 100 games.
I understand what Lip is saying. Basically, several other teams in the past few years have brought up players who have success right away, the Sox have not had this fate.

There is a difference between contribution and success.

Competitive to me is not a .500 record, it is making the playoffs. 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs each year now. Competitive is not a .500 record. It is not an accident the teams which consistently make the playoffs are the also on the top teir of the pay scale.

Daver
09-24-2004, 05:37 PM
Better SS prospects than Morse? .
If you considered Mike Morse a legit prospect at SS you know less than I thought.

Wealz
09-24-2004, 05:41 PM
If you considered Mike Morse a legit prospect at SS you know less than I thought.
I said being a better SS prospect than Morse isn't an endorsement.

Lip Man 1
09-24-2004, 10:32 PM
Jeremey says: "Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Munoz, Buehrle, Harris, Garland, and Rowand have all spent considerable time in our minor league system and are now contributing at the major league level."

And therein lies the problem Jeremy. Oakland's guys have put them in the playoffs, Houston's guys have put them in the playoffs, Seattle's guys have put them in the playoffs.

And our 'can't miss kids' have done what again? Maybe that says something about the 'can't miss kids,' don't you think?

And if you think that Adkins, Cotts, Munoz and Harris have contributed anything of significance, then I'd love to hear your definition of players who haven't made a contribution.

Lip

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 04:12 AM
Jeremey says: "Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Munoz, Buehrle, Harris, Garland, and Rowand have all spent considerable time in our minor league system and are now contributing at the major league level."

And therein lies the problem Jeremy. Oakland's guys have put them in the playoffs, Houston's guys have put them in the playoffs, Seattle's guys have put them in the playoffs.

And our 'can't miss kids' have done what again? Maybe that says something about the 'can't miss kids,' don't you think?

And if you think that Adkins, Cotts, Munoz and Harris have contributed anything of significance, then I'd love to hear your definition of players who haven't made a contribution.

Well the guys that haven't made a contribution are guys like Brian West, Rob Purvis, Corwin Malone, etc. that have yet to advance to the major leagues. Oakland and Houston's former minor leaguers have put them in the playoffs but we made the playoffs in '00 and it wasn't due to signing a bunch of high priced free agents. Saying that our argument is as bad as it gets as far as player development goes is a huge insult to the Tigers and Expos of the world.

cornball
09-25-2004, 07:37 AM
Well the guys that haven't made a contribution are guys like Brian West, Rob Purvis, Corwin Malone, etc. that have yet to advance to the major leagues. Oakland and Houston's former minor leaguers have put them in the playoffs but we made the playoffs in '00 and it wasn't due to signing a bunch of high priced free agents. Saying that our argument is as bad as it gets as far as player development goes is a huge insult to the Tigers and Expos of the world.
I just don't understand the reasoning. Are you saying you would be happy with several players brought up through the system, just to be .500? Seems like you just want players to contibute to the big club and be "respectable" in your terms or .500.

Personally, I don't care where the mix comes from as long as they win and have a chance to be champs. I have watched this crap for too many years with the White Sox, it is a never ending loop. The reasoning you have presented does not give the team a chance to achieve the playoffs let alone anything else.

The prospects the Sox have with a good chance to do this, are mostly at lower levels. Many things can happen and most will not be serious contributors.

idseer
09-25-2004, 10:07 AM
I understand what Lip is saying. Basically, several other teams in the past few years have brought up players who have success right away, the Sox have not had this fate.

There is a difference between contribution and success.

Competitive to me is not a .500 record, it is making the playoffs. 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs each year now. Competitive is not a .500 record. It is not an accident the teams which consistently make the playoffs are the also on the top teir of the pay scale.
who was the last impact player that came thru the sox system? i'm thinking it was ordonez. that was 8 years ago. since then i think the biggest impact player was buehrle and HE was a surprise to everyone. he's also nothing more than a decent #2 pitcher.

i don't think there's any doubt the sox system leaves something to be desired. they may have another crop of what many call 'promising' players, but until they actually produce i will not be impressed with any of them. munoz may or may not be a major leaguer. i hope he is but let's hold the praise until he helps us ...... when we NEED it!
has sox ownership cheapness trickled down to the minors? can we not afford GOOD coaches and/or scouts? are we taking really good prospects and ruining them down there? or are our scouts just not giving us much to work with?

cornball
09-25-2004, 11:27 AM
who was the last impact player that came thru the sox system? i'm thinking it was ordonez. that was 8 years ago. since then i think the biggest impact player was buehrle and HE was a surprise to everyone. he's also nothing more than a decent #2 pitcher.

i don't think there's any doubt the sox system leaves something to be desired. they may have another crop of what many call 'promising' players, but until they actually produce i will not be impressed with any of them. munoz may or may not be a major leaguer. i hope he is but let's hold the praise until he helps us ...... when we NEED it!
has sox ownership cheapness trickled down to the minors? can we not afford GOOD coaches and/or scouts? are we taking really good prospects and ruining them down there? or are our scouts just not giving us much to work with?
I agree. However the prospects traded thus far have also not helped anyone significantly, at least at this point. None of them would have had a major impact on this years team.

With no serious help for about 2 years, now is the time to spend money on the FA market.

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 01:31 PM
I just don't understand the reasoning. Are you saying you would be happy with several players brought up through the system, just to be .500? Seems like you just want players to contibute to the big club and be "respectable" in your terms or .500.


I'm just saying that I think it's inaccurate to claim we have awful player development if it's in fact just mediocre. Furthermore, it is important to me to be .500 instead of losing 100 games. Of course the goal is to make the playoffs but once we fall short our record still matters to me. It still matters to me that we were in the hunt for part of the season this year as opposed to knowing we had virutally no chance from spring training on. As I said I think it's disrespectful to teams that really are horrendous to say our team is terrible when we're .500 because losing 90+ games six seasons in a row would be far worse.

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 01:35 PM
since then i think the biggest impact player was buehrle and HE was a surprise to everyone. he's also nothing more than a decent #2 pitcher.

No offense but I really find that to be a terrible argument. As I posted earlier in the thread, drafting Buehrle in the late rounds doesn't make the fact that he's on our club pure coincidence and luck. White Sox scouts identified his ability and made a point of drafting him higher than any club. He was then nurtured well enough in the minors to become the player he is today. It was not accident.

As far as his ability, as I've stated and even researched some before, few teams in baseball have developed a starter as good as Buehrle. Furthermore, he's been a top ten AL pitcher about every season so at worst he's an amazing #2, not a decent one.

Lip Man 1
09-25-2004, 08:01 PM
Jeremy:

Of course you realize that the only reason Buehrle was considered to start in the first place, was because the Sox had a half dozen injured pitchers in spring training 2001 and Manager Gandhi had little choice.

What does that say for the organization, coaches ect when their best pitcher only got the chance because of injuries? They had him slated to be a middle innings guy.

Lip

cornball
09-25-2004, 08:08 PM
I'm just saying that I think it's inaccurate to claim we have awful player development if it's in fact just mediocre. Furthermore, it is important to me to be .500 instead of losing 100 games. Of course the goal is to make the playoffs but once we fall short our record still matters to me. It still matters to me that we were in the hunt for part of the season this year as opposed to knowing we had virutally no chance from spring training on. As I said I think it's disrespectful to teams that really are horrendous to say our team is terrible when we're .500 because losing 90+ games six seasons in a row would be far worse.
The fact of the matter is over 25% of the teams make the playoffs every year. The failure of this club by any means not to reach the playoffs, in this division, and the failure to achieve this year in and year out is unexceptable.

3 Division tiles in 21 years. 9 divisions or pennants or WS tiltes combined in the clubs history!!!!!!!! You can say a great record for the 1990's or whatever you want, maybe your happy with that, but their should be no excuses. Statiscally it seems impossible, especially in recent years with the wild card and the division we are currently in. 9 playoff appearences in history, think about that.

Modern day baseball suggests you build for today, several clubs have gone from cellar to penthouse in a year, it just costs money. It is amazing how the recent expantion teams of Florida and Arizona have a title and we dont.

soxtalker
09-25-2004, 08:17 PM
...

Modern day baseball suggests you build for today, several clubs have gone from cellar to penthouse in a year, it just costs money. It is amazing how the recent expantion teams of Florida and Arizona have a title and we dont.

No, it isn't just money. It also takes some luck and (I'd guess a lot) of smart management.

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 08:48 PM
Jeremy:

Of course you realize that the only reason Buehrle was considered to start in the first place, was because the Sox had a half dozen injured pitchers in spring training 2001 and Manager Gandhi had little choice.

What does that say for the organization, coaches ect when their best pitcher only got the chance because of injuries? They had him slated to be a middle innings guy.

I've heard that a million times and yet as far as I can tell it hasn't ever been substantiated anywhere. Because Baseball America or the Trib beat writer says Buehrle projects as a middle reliever doesn't mean the organization was ever of the opinion that he should never be given a chance to start.

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 09:15 PM
The fact of the matter is over 25% of the teams make the playoffs every year. The failure of this club by any means not to reach the playoffs, in this division, and the failure to achieve this year in and year out is unexceptable.

3 Division tiles in 21 years. 9 divisions or pennants or WS tiltes combined in the clubs history!!!!!!!! You can say a great record for the 1990's or whatever you want, maybe your happy with that, but their should be no excuses. Statiscally it seems impossible, especially in recent years with the wild card and the division we are currently in. 9 playoff appearences in history, think about that.

Modern day baseball suggests you build for today, several clubs have gone from cellar to penthouse in a year, it just costs money. It is amazing how the recent expantion teams of Florida and Arizona have a title and we dont.

And we made the playoffs in '00 and '93 and would've in '94 though. We've made the playoffs more recently than most teams. To make the playoffs consistently you typically need to have a ton of money and more importantly a smart organization. We have neither. That doesn't make us the Devil Rays though. You're complaining about not making the playoffs in four seasons and I'm telling you, it's disrespectful to fans of other teams not to consider what it would be like to go four seasons without finishing .500. Calling our team terrible and awful when we're just frustratingly mediocre is the equivalent of Yankees fans moaning that they lost in the World Series last year.

We have a 70 million dollar payroll right now. 100 million dollars is considered to be a huge payroll. Personally, looking at this team right now, I think finishing around .500 next year is about the most optimisitic prediction I can come up with. Which players are we going to acquire with 30 million that improves this team 12 games? I don't really see it as possible. We need to become smart and spend money well before how much money we can spend is the most critical issue.

Lip Man 1
09-25-2004, 09:32 PM
Jeremy:

The Tribune from that spring (2001) quoted Manager Gandhi as saying the exact phrase that I used. Buehrle got a chance because every one else was hurt. That's from the field manager Jeremy.

The organization had NO plans (at least at that time) to make him a starter under 'normal' circumstances.

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-25-2004, 09:38 PM
Jeremy:

The Sox haven't won a championship in 87 years...the Sox haven't even BEEN to a World Series in 45 years. You don't think that's shameful?

You are amazing.

I don't give a damn what the Tampa Bay Devil Rays have or haven't done, I want to know what the Chicago White Sox are going to DO.

Care to see the list of clubs the Sox are lumped in with for not having won a title in the last 45 years? How about the list of clubs that haven't been to a World Series in 45 years?

Yet you feel what the Sox did in 1993 and 1994 is relavant to today?

Amazing.

Oh how about that sterling record of 83-79 since the White Flag Trade. Jeremy... that was six full seasons ago...about to be seven. And that includes the fluke 95 win season of 2000.

Yes the organization's doing a great job. I'm sure Baseball Prospectus thinks so! LOL

Lip

santo=dorf
09-25-2004, 09:51 PM
We have a 70 million dollar payroll right now. 100 million dollars is considered to be a huge payroll.
Do you have a source for that $70 million payroll figure?

Personally, looking at this team right now, I think finishing around .500 next year is about the most optimisitic prediction I can come up with. Which players are we going to acquire with 30 million that improves this team 12 games? I don't really see it as possible. We need to become smart and spend money well before how much money we can spend is the most critical issue.
I'll spend 30 million on Pedro, Varitek and Garciaparra like your boy Theo. How much better would OUR Sox be?

idseer
09-25-2004, 11:37 PM
No offense but I really find that to be a terrible argument. As I posted earlier in the thread, drafting Buehrle in the late rounds doesn't make the fact that he's on our club pure coincidence and luck. White Sox scouts identified his ability and made a point of drafting him higher than any club. He was then nurtured well enough in the minors to become the player he is today. It was not accident.

As far as his ability, as I've stated and even researched some before, few teams in baseball have developed a starter as good as Buehrle. Furthermore, he's been a top ten AL pitcher about every season so at worst he's an amazing #2, not a decent one.
i think it's a very good argument. the position of a draft choice is directly related to a team's value of a given player. what you say about the sox drafting him higher than any other team is meaningless. the last guy chosen in the draft was drafted higher by that team than he was by any other team.
big deal!
buehrle was a surprise success no matter what you say.

and he has NOT been a top ten al pitcher every year and he is not a top ten pitcher THIS year even tho he's having a better season than he had last year.

cornball
09-26-2004, 08:07 AM
And we made the playoffs in '00 and '93 and would've in '94 though. We've made the playoffs more recently than most teams. To make the playoffs consistently you typically need to have a ton of money and more importantly a smart organization. We have neither. That doesn't make us the Devil Rays though. You're complaining about not making the playoffs in four seasons and I'm telling you, it's disrespectful to fans of other teams not to consider what it would be like to go four seasons without finishing .500. Calling our team terrible and awful when we're just frustratingly mediocre is the equivalent of Yankees fans moaning that they lost in the World Series last year.

We have a 70 million dollar payroll right now. 100 million dollars is considered to be a huge payroll. Personally, looking at this team right now, I think finishing around .500 next year is about the most optimisitic prediction I can come up with. Which players are we going to acquire with 30 million that improves this team 12 games? I don't really see it as possible. We need to become smart and spend money well before how much money we can spend is the most critical issue.
Very simply. In the teams history they reached the playoffs in the following years 1900, 1901, 1906, 1917, 1919, 1959, 1983, 1993 and 2000. Look at the bigger picture 4 times in 45 years or 5 times in 85 years!!!!!

Secondly, I have never called the team terrible, not sure if I saw anyone else do this either. I am saying there are no excuses. No excuses for not spending money, no excuses for not having players develop into MLB players more regularly and no excuses for not making the playoffs on a consistent basises.

To predict next year right now is ridiculous. To be satisified with a .500 record as opposed to a .435 record is a joke. You either make the playoffs or go home regardless of record.

The unconfirmed 70MM payroll you talk about, is in the middle of the pack of teams. Can we spend more wisely.....Yes we can, as can most teams. If you win all troubles are moot.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 06:22 PM
Jeremy:

The Tribune from that spring (2001) quoted Manager Gandhi as saying the exact phrase that I used. Buehrle got a chance because every one else was hurt. That's from the field manager Jeremy.

The organization had NO plans (at least at that time) to make him a starter under 'normal' circumstances.

Yes, the only reason he was given a strong look in spring training '01. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gotten a look a month into the season or in '02. What you're trying to argue is that the team's long term plans were never to give Buehrle any serious consideration as a starter and Manuel's quote in no way suggests that.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 06:35 PM
Jeremy:

The Sox haven't won a championship in 87 years...the Sox haven't even BEEN to a World Series in 45 years. You don't think that's shameful?

You are amazing.

No Lip. Despite the massive amounts of time I spend following the team and posting on this board I have no desire to see them win a World Series.

I don't give a damn what the Tampa Bay Devil Rays have or haven't done, I want to know what the Chicago White Sox are going to DO.

Care to see the list of clubs the Sox are lumped in with for not having won a title in the last 45 years? How about the list of clubs that haven't been to a World Series in 45 years?[/COLOR]

But have the team's playoff appearances been significantly lower than virtually every other team in baseball over that time span? I don't think so. So what you're arguing is that the team has failed by taking the correct moves to win the series once they advanced to those playoffs. If you have captured what moves a team must make to win the series once they make the playoffs, quite a few front office personel would love to talk to you. Did you predict the Marlins and Angel's victories the past two seasons? The Marlins have won the series both times they made the playoffs, how? If you can explain it you're uncovered something.

[QUOTE=Lip Man 1]Yet you feel what the Sox did in 1993 and 1994 is relavant to today?

Amazing.[/COLOR]

The alternative would seem to be arguing that it would make no difference to you if the White Sox made the playoffs zero times in the last eleven seasons instead of (virtually) three times. Is that what you're saying? I for one, while dissapointed with the ultimate outcome, treasured watching my team top every other club in the division and then play on a national stage in the playoffs. I don't see how anyone who considers themselves a fan could argue otherwise.

[/COLOR]Oh how about that sterling record of 83-79 since the White Flag Trade. Jeremy... that was six full seasons ago...about to be seven. And that includes the fluke 95 win season of 2000.

Yes the organization's doing a great job. I'm sure Baseball Prospectus thinks so! LOL

Lip
No Lip. Despite the massive amounts of time I spend following the team and posting on this board I have no desire to see them win a World Series.

So then it makes no difference to you if we win 83 games or 50? It makes a difference to me. I thought that's what following a sports team is, rooting for them to win.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 06:45 PM
Do you have a source for that $70 million payroll figure?

http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_dugoutdollars_archive.html

The figure there is 64.18 but that looks to be prior to insurance because Maggs salary is listed at just over 9 million instead of 14 million.

I'll spend 30 million on Pedro, Varitek and Garciaparra like your boy Theo. How much better would OUR Sox be?

I'd say at best about 12 games. That assumes that to make the playoffs everyone else plays as well as reasonably conceivable and the Twins only win 92 games.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 06:57 PM
i think it's a very good argument. the position of a draft choice is directly related to a team's value of a given player. what you say about the sox drafting him higher than any other team is meaningless. the last guy chosen in the draft was drafted higher by that team than he was by any other team.
big deal!
buehrle was a surprise success no matter what you say.

and he has NOT been a top ten al pitcher every year and he is not a top ten pitcher THIS year even tho he's having a better season than he had last year.

The White Sox were closer to realizing Buehrle's value than any other club in baseball, that's why they drafted him higher than any other club. It's confirmed through information from those in the organization that he was on our radar and we valued drafting him to an extent other clubs didn't. I don't see why doing a better job of determining a players value in the 1st round is different than doing so in the fiftieth round. There's often more at stake but the skills are identical.

I said Buehrle's been a top ten AL pitcher about every season with the only possible exception being last year.

7th in the AL in Support Neutral Value 2004
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snva_pitcher2004.html
9th in the AL in VORP 2004
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_pitcher2004.html

30 in the AL in VORP 2003
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_pitcher2003.html
23rd in the AL in Support Neutral Value 2003
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snva_pitcher2003.html

8th in the AL in VORP 2002
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_pitcher2002.html
8th in the AL in Support Neutral Value 2002
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snva_pitcher2002.html

5th in the AL in VORP 2001
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_pitcher2001.html
5th in Support Neutral Value 2001
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snva_pitcher2001.html

Pretty conclusive in my opinion.

misty60481
09-26-2004, 07:02 PM
Think of this MB has won more games than K. Wood & M. Prior combined and has as many victories as Maddox. If someone would have told you that at spring traing you would have said he was crazy....

santo=dorf
09-26-2004, 07:19 PM
I'd say at best about 12 games. That assumes that to make the playoffs everyone else plays as well as reasonably conceivable and the Twins only win 92 games.Come on Jeremy!

You think Pedro would win, at most, 12 more games than our fifth starter? Varitek has a great OBP and is better than any combo of Sandy/Olivo/Burke/Davis.

As for your salary figure, that includes a bunch of guys whom didn't even see time in the big leagues. From ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=chw

$68,262,500. But that figures includes Contreras, Escobar's, Roberto's, and Garcia's ENTIRE 2004 salaries, Donnie Sadler and Jerry Hariston's (:?: :?: ,) and doesn't account for the fact that we're only paying the league minimum for Davis and Everett.

Taking off for Sadler's, Escobar's, Hairston's, Davis', and Everett's salaries, 3 million for Contreras but neglecting the difference between Contreras and Loaiza's salaries (from April-July), and the fact that Garcia was paid by the Mariners for the first 2.5 months of the season, insurance money for Maggs, I'm left with a figure of $61,412,500.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 08:45 PM
Come on Jeremy!

You think Pedro would win, at most, 12 more games than our fifth starter? Varitek has a great OBP and is better than any combo of Sandy/Olivo/Burke/Davis.

Not unless we're talking vintage Pedro. He's 8 wins above a replacement player this season so 8 games is the absolute most improvement he should make on the club. 6 for Varitek and 3 for Nomar this season. That's 17 wins which is more than 12 but that assumes if we don't sign those players we'll have replacement level substitutes which is quite unlikely and more importantly, again ignores the fact that I'm operating on the assumption that .500 is the best case scenario not the most likely scenario.

As for your salary figure, that includes a bunch of guys whom didn't even see time in the big leagues. From ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=chw

$68,262,500. But that figures includes Contreras, Escobar's, Roberto's, and Garcia's ENTIRE 2004 salaries, Donnie Sadler and Jerry Hariston's (:?: :?: ,) and doesn't account for the fact that we're only paying the league minimum for Davis and Everett.

Whatever. IIRC, the payroll was widely reported as 67 million prior to the season. Whether it's 63 million or 68 million or 70 million is splitting hairs in my opinion. The point is, we wouldn't be quadrupling our payroll if we were a team with a large payroll, our payroll is already substantial even if it should be higher considering the market.

Taking off for Sadler's, Escobar's, Hairston's, Davis', and Everett's salaries, 3 million for Contreras but neglecting the difference between Contreras and Loaiza's salaries (from April-July), and the fact that Garcia was paid by the Mariners for the first 2.5 months of the season, insurance money for Maggs, I'm left with a figure of $61,412,500.

Whatever. IIRC, the payroll was widely reported as 67 million prior to the season. Whether it's 63 million or 68 million or 70 million is splitting hairs in my opinion. The point is, we wouldn't be quadrupling our payroll if we were a team with a large payroll, our payroll is already substantial even if it should be higher considering the market.

Subtracting Maggs insurance money is illogical in my opinion because the team planned on paying Maggs that amount of money not on him getting injured and collecting insurance. We're not trying to figure out how much JR is actually paying we're trying to figure out how much the team is capable of spending and is spending now to assemble the current team.

Lip Man 1
09-26-2004, 09:15 PM
Jeremy:

For one who accuses me of not reading your posts, perhaps you need to reread the last line of mine.

"The organization had NO plans (at least at that time) to make him a starter under 'normal' circumstances."

That was the point of discussion...not three years from 2001 wasn't it?

and it does make a difference to me if the Sox win 83 as opposed to 50 games. How often have I been posting that at a minimum they should have a winning record every season. The problem is they are not willing to acquire the talent both on the field and in the front office to win 93 games every year.

Lip

cornball
09-26-2004, 09:20 PM
Jeremy, with all due respect, I believe you are alone with your reasoning. That is ok, and a great reason for the board.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 10:31 PM
Jeremy:

For one who accuses me of not reading your posts, perhaps you need to reread the last line of mine."The organization had NO plans (at least at that time) to make him a starter under 'normal' circumstances."

That was the point of discussion...not three years from 2001 wasn't it?

Well I apolgoize for misreading then but the source of my confusion is that your argument doesn't seem to gel with that statement. You're arguing that the Sox developement of Buehrle isn't all that impressive because the club didn't even realize how good a player they had. That would only seem to be the case if the team doubted his long term success. If you're conceeding that the Sox merely didn't realize how far along Buehrle was at the start of the '01 season, I don't think that's much of an idictment of our farm system. Players are routinely left in the minors too long for seasoning or because a team doesn't have an opening. Even more often, players are called up too soon and aren't quite ready to contribute yet. Gauging the precise stage a player is at is largely guesswork in front offices.

and it does make a difference to me if the Sox win 83 as opposed to 50 games. How often have I been posting that at a minimum they should have a winning record every season. The problem is they are not willing to acquire the talent both on the field and in the front office to win 93 games every year.

Well we agree on something then. I mean you could say you think the Sox should win the Series every year because they're a great team and you love them. I feel the same way. I just think it's important to be realistic also and realize that there are a lot of teams that would kill for the success that has brought us so much heartache the past few seasons. Furthermore every team has some awful seasons. The Yankees were awful in the early 90s despite being the most storied franchise in the largest market in baseball. Right now we don't have a top 5 revenue, a Mark Cuban/Ober Moreno type owner, or an intelligent front office so it's not really reasonable to expect us to play well.

Randar68
09-27-2004, 10:16 AM
"The organization had NO plans (at least at that time) to make him a starter under 'normal' circumstances."


LipThe Manager, and the organization are 2 entirely different sources, Lip. Frankly, your assertion that Buehrle was not going to be made into a starter is both silly and wrong. Buehrle was brought into the penant race after spending that season as one of the most dominant minor league starters in baseball in AA. Buehrle was a lefty swing-man because at that time, that is what the club needed.

Following injuries and a general lack of returning starter depth, while he wasn't expected to be a starter near the end of 2000, it became necessary when the veterans expected to be there were not.

What insinuation are you trying to make, Lip? Gandhi was far from a reliable source considering he changed his mind by the minute and he and the new GM weren't exactly on common ground...

The organization had Buehrle fall in their lap? You're quick to fault KW et al for failures that are often due to things out of their control, but when the organ-i-zation develops a front-end starter, it's a fluke?

Do you read your own posts and realize what a bitter old man you come off as? Frankly, you're like the senile old man screaming from the mountain-top without constructing a reasoned thought, just more of some repeated worn-out topic...