PDA

View Full Version : KW Observation


34 Inch Stick
01-24-2005, 04:17 PM
This year is really KW's coming out party as a GM. He is no longer a young, inexperienced executive who needs time for seasoning. He is not a caretaker, inheriting another GM's signings and drafts. He has finally been able to materialize his ideal of what a baseball team should be (salary constaints noted). He has revolutionized the existing system into a team that he wants.

Commensurate with a birth into executive adulthood I throw all my previous judgements out the window. He is a big boy now and I hope he will be judged accordingly, in black and white results. There should be no more discussion about things that would be done differently "but for". This is HIS TEAM sink or swim.

While it may not be MY ideal for White Sox baseball, I love what he has done this year. It is rare that a person gets to see his theory tested on a real world stage. However, it is also a high stakes circumstance. If this theory fails, it is KW's failure and should be treated with the harshest of results. If he succeeds he is worthy of executive of the year.

Good luck KW.

jabrch
01-24-2005, 04:20 PM
In addition to watching his transactions, I am going to be interested in seeing how some of his draft picks the past 3 years develop. The farm system apprears to be in better shape than it was in the past. It's not a top tier system yet - as it hasn't developed any top tier players, but it has top tier potential.

Mickster
01-24-2005, 04:22 PM
This year is really KW's coming out party as a GM. He is no longer a young, inexperienced executive who needs time for seasoning. He is not a caretaker, inheriting another GM's signings and drafts. He has finally been able to materialize his ideal of what a baseball team should be (salary constaints noted). He has revolutionized the existing system into a team that he wants.

Commensurate with a birth into executive adulthood I throw all my previous judgements out the window. He is a big boy now and I hope he will be judged accordingly, in black and white results. There should be no more discussion about things that would be done differently "but for". This is HIS TEAM sink or swim.

While it may not be MY ideal for White Sox baseball, I love what he has done this year. It is rare that a person gets to see his theory tested on a real world stage. However, it is also a high stakes circumstance. If this theory fails, it is KW's failure and should be treated with the harshest of results. If he succeeds he is worthy of executive of the year.

Good luck KW.

I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

Randar68
01-24-2005, 04:29 PM
I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

KW has talked about ptiched, speed, and D for years, long before he fired Jerry, IIRC. He has been frustrated by the waiting on 3-run HR's and base-clogging nature of the primary members of the club. You can't change it with a couple utility players, and I think salary-wise and contract-wose, after he signed Konerko, this was his first real opportunity to "re-make" the club. I think hiring Ozzie was as much Kenny's idea as it was Jerry's, given Kenny's inclinations and quots the past few years about his frustrations about the make-up of the club and how he'd been unable to make as many changes as he wanted to.

Fredsox
01-24-2005, 04:30 PM
I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

Not sure that this is how the Sox organization works. It appears that KW has to work with Ozzie to determine what type of team Ozzie wants. The question is "what do you need to win?". I think at this point they need to agree on what this team should look like, and then KW goes out and gets it, consulting with Guillen when it gets down to specific players. Example: KW would ask OG "will Iguchi fit your vision of 2nd base?", if the answer is "yes" KW will work to sign him.

I think from the perspective of putting the team together this is clearly KW's team. It is now up to Guillen, who got the type of team he asked for, to win titles.

I think KW is plainly the boss, but he values Ozzie's input and respects his judgment. I also think that KW extended the same courtesy to Manual when he was Field Manager, as evidenced by the type of team we had.

Just my observation, I could be way off base.

Randar68
01-24-2005, 04:35 PM
Not sure that this is how the Sox organization works. It appears that KW has to work with Ozzie to determine what type of team Ozzie wants. The question is "what do you need to win?". I think at this point they need to agree on what this team should look like, and then KW goes out and gets it, consulting with Guillen when it gets down to specific players. Example: KW would ask OG "will Iguchi fit your vision of 2nd base?", if the answer is "yes" KW will work to sign him.

I think from the perspective of putting the team together this is clearly KW's team. It is now up to Guillen, who got the type of team he asked for, to win titles.

I think KW is plainly the boss, but he values Ozzie's input and respects his judgment. I also think that KW extended the same courtesy to Manual when he was Field Manager, as evidenced by the type of team we had.

Just my observation, I could be way off base.

Actually, I don't think there was much about Jerry Manual that KW trusted or respected, at least in terms of managerial or baseball-related abilities.

Palehose13
01-24-2005, 04:42 PM
This year is really KW's coming out party as a GM.

So is he gay or a debutante? :D:

mweflen
01-24-2005, 04:52 PM
So is he gay or a debutante? :D:


no, no no... he Da MAN!!! :smile:

Palehose13
01-24-2005, 04:54 PM
no, no no... he Da MAN!!! :smile:

Ah yes...that he is. :cool:

34 Inch Stick
01-24-2005, 04:56 PM
I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

Ozzie was a KW hire. Ozzie is another piece of that overall theory.

34 Inch Stick
01-24-2005, 04:57 PM
So is he gay or a debutante? :D:


You gays and your one track minds.

Palehose13
01-24-2005, 05:22 PM
You gays and your one track minds.

Awe...c'mon! I did mention debutantes! :wink:

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 05:42 PM
Not sure that this is how the Sox organization works. It appears that KW has to work with Ozzie to determine what type of team Ozzie wants. The question is "what do you need to win?". I think at this point they need to agree on what this team should look like, and then KW goes out and gets it, consulting with Guillen when it gets down to specific players. Example: KW would ask OG "will Iguchi fit your vision of 2nd base?", if the answer is "yes" KW will work to sign him.

I think from the perspective of putting the team together this is clearly KW's team. It is now up to Guillen, who got the type of team he asked for, to win titles.

I think KW is plainly the boss, but he values Ozzie's input and respects his judgment. I also think that KW extended the same courtesy to Manual when he was Field Manager, as evidenced by the type of team we had.

Just my observation, I could be way off base.Kenny had several years to put together the team, and for better or for worse, the 2003 and 2004 teams were the ones Kenny put together. I'm sure he had input from Manuel, but he's the one who signed Maggs and Pauly and CLee to their contracts. He's the one who put the emphasis on sluggers. He's the one who brought in Todd Ritchie and Rick White and Mike Jackson and started every season with a pitching staff with more holes than swiss cheese. And IIRC, Kenny wanted Cito Gaston for manager, and he brought in Ozzie only at Reinsdorf's insistance. This team seems to me to have Ozzie's mark on it. For better or for worse. Let's cinch it up and strap it down see where it takes us.

infohawk
01-24-2005, 06:23 PM
I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

I wouldn't necessarily blame Ozzie if the new team does not perform. This really is KW's team. They either will or won't have the talent to execute the kind of baseball that Ozzie wants to play. That said, I am very excited about the 2005 season. With the team being reconstructed, it's almost like we get to open a new toy!

Randar68
01-24-2005, 08:43 PM
Kenny wanted Cito Gaston for manager, and he brought in Ozzie only at Reinsdorf's insistance.

what proof of that do you have asiide from hyperbole and conjecture? Cito was my preference given the make-up of the team at that time, but Nowhere do i ever remember seeing cito as a favorite. In fact, it seemed from the search that he was ruled-out very early in the process...

Also, to those I've read saying this team isn't Ozzie's team, it's KW's?

You either agree or you don't that KW has assembled a talented team in the likeness of what Ozzie's been clamoring for. iIf you agree with that, then the results of the games rest squarely on ozzie, IMO. You don't say you like all KW did and then set it up to blame him if it fails. You like it or you don't, and if youo do, then you're as or more wrong then KW, thus how can youo poinit a finger when you believed in it? OK, that was classic internet rambling!

TheBull19
01-24-2005, 09:47 PM
I tend to disagree. This is clearly the team that Ozzie wants. Ozzie has been given the players that fit his philosophy. If the team doesn't succeed (sans major injuries), Ozzie has to shoulder a majority of the blame, IMHO.

Did it occur to you that KW hired Ozzie because he was a guy who had a similar vision as to what type of team he wanted to field?

Randar68
01-24-2005, 10:47 PM
Did it occur to you that KW hired Ozzie because he was a guy who had a similar vision as to what type of team he wanted to field?

Of course not. Everyone knows JR is pulling the strings behind the blue curtain.

I think we should just rename US Cellular to "Area 51"

batmanZoSo
01-24-2005, 11:18 PM
This isn't "Ozzie's team," managers don't sign and trade players. Ozzie merely echoed ours and KW's sentiments on wanting a more versatile team. Last year was also the breaking point in that we'd failed for the fourth time in a row with a lazy, popup, strikeout, inconsistent offense and everyone was sick of it. This coinciding with Maggs's imminent departure kind of opened the gate for all these moves to go down.

Randar68
01-24-2005, 11:20 PM
This isn't "Ozzie's team," managers don't sign and trade players. Ozzie merely echoed ours and KW's sentiments on wanting a more versatile team. Last year was also the breaking point in that we'd failed for the fourth time in a row with a lazy, popup, strikeout, inconsistent offense and everyone was sick of it. This coinciding with Maggs's imminent departure kind of opened the gate for all these moves to go down.

Well, this is the team Ozzie wanted and Ozzie was the guy Kenny wanted/hired. You can take it all the way up the chain to JR, but either Ozzie got the team he wanted or he didn't. If you believe he did, then now it rests on his shoulders...

kaufsox
01-24-2005, 11:34 PM
I don't know if this is Ozzie's team or KW's, but I do think that it is a pivotal year for both of them. Unless my scanning of the news has failed me (and it often does) Ozzie is on the last year of his two year contract and Kenny has been at the job for a reasonable amount of time now that the expectation of results is not unfair. If they produce, they probably will remain for awhile, but if they fail change may come as soon as October 2005.

Just looked at my tickets for opening day and I am ready... :D:

akingamongstmen
01-24-2005, 11:38 PM
Kenny's moves this off-season have generated a very different type of excitement here. There's a lot less guarded enthusiasm, and a lot more confidence. I don't feel that I have to hope for success this season...I really believe that we've got the tools to make one helluva run. To Kenny Williams...

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

mdep524
01-25-2005, 12:30 AM
This year is really KW's coming out party as a GM. He is no longer a young, inexperienced executive who needs time for seasoning. He is not a caretaker, inheriting another GM's signings and drafts. He has finally been able to materialize his ideal of what a baseball team should be (salary constaints noted). He has revolutionized the existing system into a team that he wants.

Commensurate with a birth into executive adulthood I throw all my previous judgements out the window. He is a big boy now and I hope he will be judged accordingly, in black and white results. There should be no more discussion about things that would be done differently "but for". This is HIS TEAM sink or swim.

While it may not be MY ideal for White Sox baseball, I love what he has done this year. It is rare that a person gets to see his theory tested on a real world stage. However, it is also a high stakes circumstance. If this theory fails, it is KW's failure and should be treated with the harshest of results. If he succeeds he is worthy of executive of the year.

Good luck KW.

I agree with you 100% in your general idea. I was going to post something similar today- KW has really grown into the role as GM. His first few years on the job it seemed like he was in over his head. He had little experience, no real game plan, no patience.... he had to learn a lot about what he was supposed to do. I give him a lot of credit for learning, both from his mistakes and from general experience, and becoming a better GM.

Though I still don't think he is among the game's elite GMs, he has shown significant improvement and hopefully he'll keep learning and growing.

bc2k
01-25-2005, 03:09 AM
You either agree or you don't that KW has assembled a talented team in the likeness of what Ozzie's been clamoring for. iIf you agree with that, then the results of the games rest squarely on ozzie, IMO. You don't say you like all KW did and then set it up to blame him if it fails. You like it or you don't, and if youo do, then you're as or more wrong then KW, thus how can youo poinit a finger when you believed in it? OK, that was classic internet rambling!

Right, this is all on Ozzie now. A General Manager should be judged on the talent he assembles within the limits he is put under. A Field Manager should be judged on how he maximizes the talent of the 25 men that form his team. I believe a GMs job cannot be criticized in hindsight--especially when it concerns major league talent. As long as the GM makes good moves on paper and has done his research on players, or has the right men in place to make those evaluations, he cannot be held responsible for how his players perform after he's acquired them; he cannot be held accountable for the unforseen performances not already known in the research process.

Basically, if it looks good on paper at the time of the trade, I believe a GM has sucessfully done his job. KW has, IMO, done this. It is not KW's job to coach the men he acquired; it's Ozzie's. Since the 2005 roster is already filled with talent that can succeed, it is now the responsibility of Ozzie, the Field Manager, to maximize this talent. If this team fails to succeed, Ozzie failed to do his job.

[stepping down from soapbox]

owensmouth
01-25-2005, 04:40 AM
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in my opinion KW has been consistant in one respect, each year he has made the team weaker.

This year is no different. I expect that the White Sox will not be above .500 at the end of the year. I also expect that KW has about 3 years left as GM, simply because Reinsdorf is so loyal to his subordinates.

Chrisaway
01-25-2005, 05:58 AM
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in my opinion KW has been consistant in one respect, each year he has made the team weaker.

This year is no different. I expect that the White Sox will not be above .500 at the end of the year. I also expect that KW has about 3 years left as GM, simply because Reinsdorf is so loyal to his subordinates.

Someone had to throw a wrench in this lovefest. I think KW did a great job numbing us from the loss of Maggs and building the kinda team that he and Ozzie were shooting for. IMO this one's more on Ozzie's shoulders now. I kinda have a "wait and see" attitude towards this season. On one hand, there's alot of "ifs" going into this season (if El Duque stays healthy, If Iguchi is as good as advertised, If Crede learns how to hit, etc...). On the other hand, this is a whole new team now and I cant wait to see what these guys can do. One thing is for sure....NO MORE CORPSEBALL!!!

GO GO SOX!!!

34 Inch Stick
01-25-2005, 07:57 AM
Right, this is all on Ozzie now. A General Manager should be judged on the talent he assembles within the limits he is put under. A Field Manager should be judged on how he maximizes the talent of the 25 men that form his team. I believe a GMs job cannot be criticized in hindsight--especially when it concerns major league talent. As long as the GM makes good moves on paper and has done his research on players, or has the right men in place to make those evaluations, he cannot be held responsible for how his players perform after he's acquired them; he cannot be held accountable for the unforseen performances not already known in the research process.

Basically, if it looks good on paper at the time of the trade, I believe a GM has sucessfully done his job. KW has, IMO, done this. It is not KW's job to coach the men he acquired; it's Ozzie's. Since the 2005 roster is already filled with talent that can succeed, it is now the responsibility of Ozzie, the Field Manager, to maximize this talent. If this team fails to succeed, Ozzie failed to do his job.

[stepping down from soapbox]

I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you and Randar here. I am not sure if KW did a great job this season in a vacum. The reason that I say has don well is that he stated his vision and then did a great job of building a team to match that vision. However, the validity of that vision is up for debate. It will either be proven or disproven on the field. The ultimate judgement of KW is on his vision or ideal not on the path he took to achieve that ideal.

Ol' No. 2
01-25-2005, 10:01 AM
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in my opinion KW has been consistant in one respect, each year he has made the team weaker.

This year is no different. I expect that the White Sox will not be above .500 at the end of the year. I also expect that KW has about 3 years left as GM, simply because Reinsdorf is so loyal to his subordinates.Thank heaven!!! All this Kool-Aide was giving me a sugar headache.:cool:

gosox41
01-25-2005, 12:05 PM
This year is really KW's coming out party as a GM. He is no longer a young, inexperienced executive who needs time for seasoning. He is not a caretaker, inheriting another GM's signings and drafts. He has finally been able to materialize his ideal of what a baseball team should be (salary constaints noted). He has revolutionized the existing system into a team that he wants.

Commensurate with a birth into executive adulthood I throw all my previous judgements out the window. He is a big boy now and I hope he will be judged accordingly, in black and white results. There should be no more discussion about things that would be done differently "but for". This is HIS TEAM sink or swim.

While it may not be MY ideal for White Sox baseball, I love what he has done this year. It is rare that a person gets to see his theory tested on a real world stage. However, it is also a high stakes circumstance. If this theory fails, it is KW's failure and should be treated with the harshest of results. If he succeeds he is worthy of executive of the year.

Good luck KW.

Remember a lot of the constraints the Sox were operating under the last 4 years were due to his inability to budget properly.

He's made some good moves this year. Hopefully it's enough to put the Sox over the top finally.


Bob

Randar68
01-25-2005, 02:33 PM
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in my opinion KW has been consistant in one respect, each year he has made the team weaker.

This year is no different. I expect that the White Sox will not be above .500 at the end of the year. I also expect that KW has about 3 years left as GM, simply because Reinsdorf is so loyal to his subordinates.

:chickenlittle

Randar68
01-25-2005, 02:36 PM
I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you and Randar here. I am not sure if KW did a great job this season in a vacum. The reason that I say has don well is that he stated his vision and then did a great job of building a team to match that vision. However, the validity of that vision is up for debate. It will either be proven or disproven on the field. The ultimate judgement of KW is on his vision or ideal not on the path he took to achieve that ideal.

I think that's a fair take on it. On the other hand, as I stated, in any level of performance, you can point either up or down to your heart's content in the managerial chain. Heck, if it fails, well, JR hired KW so he's responsible, right?

KW put a team together to match the philosophy of his manager. Heck, if Ozzie fails as a manager, then KW also failed as a GM, not finding a competent manager. It all comes back to KW and JR in some respects, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

If the players perform, AND the team fails, then sure, KW's "vision" was invalid. But if the players perform (again, Ozzie's job), then based on the team they have put together, I don't see how it won't succeed...

voodoochile
01-25-2005, 02:39 PM
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in my opinion KW has been consistant in one respect, each year he has made the team weaker.

This year is no different. I expect that the White Sox will not be above .500 at the end of the year. I also expect that KW has about 3 years left as GM, simply because Reinsdorf is so loyal to his subordinates.

how is this team weaker than last year's team?

Pitching is way better, no?
Defense looks to be a step improved.
Hitting may have taken a step backward, but not dramatically and Maggs wasn't going to be playing either way, so there weren't many ways to replace his bat.

I ask that you not generalize, but give specific examples of things KW did this off-season to weaken the team and what areas you think were stronger last year.

Put your money where your mouth is...

Dadawg_77
01-25-2005, 02:59 PM
If the players perform, AND the team fails, then sure, KW's "vision" was invalid. But if the players perform (again, Ozzie's job), then based on the team they have put together, I don't see how it won't succeed...

If you believe in the last statement then you believe in the vision, since the only thing preventing success is player performance. If the vision is wrong, then no matter how good the players play, success is hard to achieve.

OEO Magglio
01-25-2005, 03:01 PM
how is this team weaker than last year's team?

Pitching is way better, no?
Defense looks to be a step improved.
Hitting may have taken a step backward, but not dramatically and Maggs wasn't going to be playing either way, so there weren't many ways to replace his bat.

I ask that you not generalize, but give specific examples of things KW did this off-season to weaken the team and what areas you think were stronger last year.

Put your money where your mouth is...
Voodoo, I'm going to disagree with you on the hitting taking a step backwards. This team might not score as many runs as it did in past years, however I think you'll see a much more consistant offense and an offense that can score some runs in big games against good pitching, I honestly would take this offense as currently constructed over last years offense.

Randar68
01-25-2005, 03:02 PM
If you believe in the last statement then you believe in the vision, since the only thing preventing success is player performance. If the vision is wrong, then no matter how good the players play, success is hard to achieve.
That's what I'm going on the record as, meaning it's on Ozzie, IMO from here on out. I am just trying to encourage everyone to make an informed choice about the matter and then decide, IN ADVANCE, not HINDSIGHT, where the blame lies for failure should it occur this season.

Clearly I believe it now lies with Ozzie and his staff.

Mammoo
01-25-2005, 03:09 PM
http://wcr.blogspot.com/2005/01/sun-rises-on-white-sox.html:D:

Dadawg_77
01-25-2005, 03:31 PM
That's what I'm going on the record as, meaning it's on Ozzie, IMO from here on out. I am just trying to encourage everyone to make an informed choice about the matter and then decide, IN ADVANCE, not HINDSIGHT, where the blame lies for failure should it occur this season.

Clearly I believe it now lies with Ozzie and his staff.

Ok, I'll say if this team doesn't make the playoffs, Kenny should resign or be fired. In his five years of managing the team, the team has regressed, no matter what moves he has made. Secondly, his replacement should come from a small market team that has made the playoffs consistently since they have succeeded in similar constraints the White Sox have. Then the new general manager should have complete freedom within those constaints to put together a team.

SoxFanTillDeath
01-25-2005, 04:13 PM
Ok, I'll say if this team doesn't make the playoffs, Kenny should resign or be fired. In his five years of managing the team, the team has regressed, no matter what moves he has made. Secondly, his replacement should come from a small market team that has made the playoffs consistently since they have succeeded in similar constraints the White Sox have. Then the new general manager should have complete freedom within those constaints to put together a team.

Nice thoughts, but just because someone is successful in one place doesn't guarantee success somewhere else. A GM from a small market team wouldn't necessarily put together a better team with more money, because they would have to work with someone else's farm system, and the only way a small market team remains successful is with a very successful farm system, which the sox do not have (yet).

For your suggestion to work the new GM would have to blow up this team completely and trade away everyone to completely retool the farm system, and then go from there. I don't care how much anyone dislike's KW, they won't want 3-4 years of last place before success when they are so close already.

Randar68
01-25-2005, 04:35 PM
Ok, I'll say if this team doesn't make the playoffs, Kenny should resign or be fired. In his five years of managing the team, the team has regressed, no matter what moves he has made. Secondly, his replacement should come from a small market team that has made the playoffs consistently since they have succeeded in similar constraints the White Sox have. Then the new general manager should have complete freedom within those constaints to put together a team.

Billy Beane or bust? That's about the only candidate and what the hell did he do this year? Is that team better? No chance.

The team has gotten progressively worse? The man inherited a bunch of long-term contracts and NO pitching rotations. And here we are 5 years later with legit 1-5 starters, a deep (but unspectacular Bullpen), and an order that features Dye, Thomas, Konerko, Pods, Iguchi, Pierzynski, Uribe, Rowand????

Yes, the team he inherited won the division THE YEAR BEFORE, and also lost their entire rotation. THE WHOLE DAMNED THING. I can't believe you're going to continue to use that absolute bullspit red herring to attempt to claim having made any kind of point with validity...

Here's the short of your opinion: If they win, it's everone but KW, if they lose, it's KW.

Just stick it in your sig and get it over with because you are so close-minded on this issue it's not funny.

santo=dorf
01-25-2005, 04:49 PM
If the players perform, AND the team fails, then sure, KW's "vision" was invalid. But if the players perform (again, Ozzie's job), then based on the team they have put together, I don't see how it won't succeed...

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/Baseball%20pics/KWv.JPG

I like KW's vision.

DaleJRFan
01-25-2005, 05:07 PM
Voodoo, I'm going to disagree with you on the hitting taking a step backwards. This team might not score as many runs as it did in past years, however I think you'll see a much more consistant offense and an offense that can score some runs in big games against good pitching, I honestly would take this offense as currently constructed over last years offense.

I completely agree. How did the RedSox beat the evil Empire last year (before the game7 blowout)?? Loaiza pitched 3 perfect innings, then in his 4th inning he walked 2 and Ortiz hit a blooper to knock in the winning run... this all happened while the Yankees went batter after batter trying to hit a dramatic series-ending home run.

The 2005 WS offense may not eclipse the 2004 WS offense in total runs, but its the important runs that count, the runs that win games.

Dadawg_77
01-25-2005, 07:46 PM
Billy Beane or bust? That's about the only candidate and what the hell did he do this year? Is that team better? No chance.

The team has gotten progressively worse? The man inherited a bunch of long-term contracts and NO pitching rotations. And here we are 5 years later with legit 1-5 starters, a deep (but unspectacular Bullpen), and an order that features Dye, Thomas, Konerko, Pods, Iguchi, Pierzynski, Uribe, Rowand????

Yes, the team he inherited won the division THE YEAR BEFORE, and also lost their entire rotation. THE WHOLE DAMNED THING. I can't believe you're going to continue to use that absolute bullspit red herring to attempt to claim having made any kind of point with validity...

Here's the short of your opinion: If they win, it's everone but KW, if they lose, it's KW.

Just stick it in your sig and get it over with because you are so close-minded on this issue it's not funny.

inherited Long term contracts? Can you name one bad contract or even one long one? Why don't you get your fact straight their jerky before calling someone closed minded. He signed the long term contracts you are complaining about, so I would think that is his problem.

As for the rotation, yeah it got hurt but it wasn't entirely gone. Baldwin was there and was a average pitcher. From Buehlre 2000's performance, one would think you had good young pitcher there. He traded Sirotka for David Wells so assume he takes his place so that is 3/5. Not completely gone. Kip Wells, Garland, Wright and Biddle were also there. So one could have put together a league average pitching staff out of that over the years.

Kenny's additions of Clayton and Ritchie were horrible move that are just completely indefensible. Other additions such as Alomar brother while one could defend them were bad choices. Overall Kenny has hurt this team more then he has helped it so far.

bc2k
01-26-2005, 12:23 AM
I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you and Randar here. I am not sure if KW did a great job this season in a vacum. The reason that I say has don well is that he stated his vision and then did a great job of building a team to match that vision. However, the validity of that vision is up for debate. It will either be proven or disproven on the field. The ultimate judgement of KW is on his vision or ideal not on the path he took to achieve that ideal.

Fair enough, 34, I think I actually agree with this. I agree that a GM must be held responsible for his vision (the type/style of team he assembles) but at the same time, this vision plays to Ozzie's managerial strengths. So as long as a GM 1) gives his manager a team of players that can succeed in his vision (whichever vision that may be) and, 2) is the vision that the manager wants, the responsibility to succeed is the manager's.

Randar68
01-26-2005, 12:27 AM
inherited Long term contracts? Can you name one bad contract or even one long one? Why don't you get your fact straight their jerky before calling someone closed minded. He signed the long term contracts you are complaining about, so I would think that is his problem.

As for the rotation, yeah it got hurt but it wasn't entirely gone. Baldwin was there and was a average pitcher. From Buehlre 2000's performance, one would think you had good young pitcher there. He traded Sirotka for David Wells so assume he takes his place so that is 3/5. Not completely gone. Kip Wells, Garland, Wright and Biddle were also there. So one could have put together a league average pitching staff out of that over the years.

Kenny's additions of Clayton and Ritchie were horrible move that are just completely indefensible. Other additions such as Alomar brother while one could defend them were bad choices. Overall Kenny has hurt this team more then he has helped it so far.

When you finish rewriting history, let me know so I can read it and stop wasting my time paying attention, Dadawg.

34 Inch Stick
01-26-2005, 09:29 AM
It would be a cool trick if you two could start a fight in every thread on this board.

Dadawg_77
01-26-2005, 09:54 AM
When you finish rewriting history, let me know so I can read it and stop wasting my time paying attention, Dadawg.

I guess that is the reply when one can refute the facts, complain the other is rewriting history without supporting it. Still waiting for those long term contracts Kenny inherited.

Randar68
01-26-2005, 11:03 AM
I guess that is the reply when one can refute the facts, complain the other is rewriting history without supporting it. Still waiting for those long term contracts Kenny inherited.

In the first 12 months on the job, IIRC(might be 18 months), he had to resign several key regulars that were parts of the playoff team while rebuilding the rotation from near scratch. He inherited Thomas. He inherited a crippled and destroyed pitching staff that included a NOT healthy Baldwin, a not healthy Parque, a retiring Cal Eldred, and Mike Sirotka who he traded in the nick of time for David Wells who himself barely contributed despite winning 20 games the previous year. List who he inherited in his bullpen, please.

And the #1 farm system he inherited produced how many major leaguers? Crede and Buehrle?

In addition to all that the man was hired from a position within the organization where he'd never had experience in some of the key areas for a GM (contract or trade negotiations for example) and learning on the job was inevitable. Anyone who expected anything other than that was ridiculously ignorant.

So, in short, have his moves and ealings improved over his tenure? Has he learned from his mistakes? Has he tried to improve the team each year? I'm not sure how you can say "no" if you've been a Sox fan long enough to remember the Schueler years.

Tell me WHO is baseball fits your description of the GM you described above OTHER THAN Billy Beane? There isn't anyone, so take your infatuation and get a restraining order and settle the **** down.

Hangar18
01-26-2005, 11:12 AM
In the first 12 months on the job, IIRC(might be 18 months), he had to resign several key regulars that were parts of the playoff team while rebuilding the rotation from near scratch. He inherited Thomas. He inherited a crippled and destroyed pitching staff that included a NOT healthy Baldwin, a not healthy Parque, a retiring Cal Eldred, and Mike Sirotka who he traded in the nick of time for David Wells who himself barely contributed despite winning 20 games the previous year. List who he inherited in his bullpen, please.

And the #1 farm system he inherited produced how many major leaguers? Crede and Buehrle?

In addition to all that the man was hired from a position within the organization where he'd never had experience in some of the key areas for a GM (contract or trade negotiations for example) and learning on the job was inevitable. Anyone who expected anything other than that was ridiculously ignorant.

So, in short, have his moves and ealings improved over his tenure? Has he learned from his mistakes? Has he tried to improve the team each year? I'm not sure how you can say "no" if you've been a Sox fan long enough to remember the Schueler years.

Tell me WHO is baseball fits your description of the GM you described above OTHER THAN Billy Beane? There isn't anyone, so take your infatuation and get a restraining order and settle the **** down.

Excellent post. Too bad you were being a jerk in the middle of it
heh heh, but very good points. I do think KW has learned immensely,
esp in terms of dealing with his fanbase.

Flight #24
01-26-2005, 11:19 AM
inherited Long term contracts? Can you name one bad contract or even one long one? Why don't you get your fact straight their jerky before calling someone closed minded. He signed the long term contracts you are complaining about, so I would think that is his problem.

As for the rotation, yeah it got hurt but it wasn't entirely gone. Baldwin was there and was a average pitcher. From Buehlre 2000's performance, one would think you had good young pitcher there. He traded Sirotka for David Wells so assume he takes his place so that is 3/5. Not completely gone. Kip Wells, Garland, Wright and Biddle were also there. So one could have put together a league average pitching staff out of that over the years.

Kenny's additions of Clayton and Ritchie were horrible move that are just completely indefensible. Other additions such as Alomar brother while one could defend them were bad choices. Overall Kenny has hurt this team more then he has helped it so far.

Wow. That's pretty good use of hindsight. About the only long-term contract that was a bad move was Konerko, who was coming off of a solid year, and while he may have paid him 2-3mil more than a viable replacement would cost, I don't think this team has lived or died over the loss of that $3mil (max).

Check the stats of games started and stats from the pitchers from 2000. Buehrle was there, but Baldwin was hurt and has been in & out of baseball over the past 4-5 years. Siro hasn't pitched since, Parque's only pitched BP. Eldred has been a solid reliever, but was hurt for IIRC a year or so. Wright's been inconsistent, hurt, & up & down. Garland's been here and OK, but not great. So what you're really missing is Kip Wells, who has been OK, but underwhelming. At most, a #3 or 4 starter in the AL. So KW pretty much did have to rebuild most of the rotation.

And yes, he did make mistakes with Ritchie & Clayton - but you conveniently neglect his no contest great moves like Marte, Loaiza, Uribe, Colon, Gordon, Shingo, along with some solid moves like Olivo-Bradford, the Garcia trade & resigning, and the FA pickups this offseason (which are all excellent value).

Dadawg_77
01-26-2005, 04:56 PM
In the first 12 months on the job, IIRC(might be 18 months), he had to resign several key regulars that were parts of the playoff team while rebuilding the rotation from near scratch. He inherited Thomas. He inherited a crippled and destroyed pitching staff that included a NOT healthy Baldwin, a not healthy Parque, a retiring Cal Eldred, and Mike Sirotka who he traded in the nick of time for David Wells who himself barely contributed despite winning 20 games the previous year. List who he inherited in his bullpen, please.

And the #1 farm system he inherited produced how many major leaguers? Crede and Buehrle?

In addition to all that the man was hired from a position within the organization where he'd never had experience in some of the key areas for a GM (contract or trade negotiations for example) and learning on the job was inevitable. Anyone who expected anything other than that was ridiculously ignorant.

So, in short, have his moves and ealings improved over his tenure? Has he learned from his mistakes? Has he tried to improve the team each year? I'm not sure how you can say "no" if you've been a Sox fan long enough to remember the Schueler years.

Tell me WHO is baseball fits your description of the GM you described above OTHER THAN Billy Beane? There isn't anyone, so take your infatuation and get a restraining order and settle the **** down.

How about the Twins or Marlins?

I haven't said he hasn't tried, what I have said he has failed. Two different things there. He was the director of Minor League Operation form 1995 - 1996 and then becoming vice president of player development till he became the GM. So that minor league operation was run under his watch and he should have had a good idea what players could and couldn't do. So this excuse he was learning on the job is garbage since Kenny wasn't pulled form the street and even the successful people are always learning on the job and he had several assistants with him.

I guess you admit he didn't inherit any long term contracts.

I maintain the pitching wasn't bleak in 2001 as you put it. It was young but that was because it had to be due to budget constraits. The fact is Baldwin started 28 games in 2001 and was average in his production, hurt or not. As for the pen, Garland, Biddle, Howry and Lowe were there. Kenny acquired Osuna who promptly got hurt but that happen in the season. Glover and Embree were also acquired in the off season. Now if you said the pitching staff was injured in 2001, I would agree with everyone going down in 2001.

The biggest problem I have with Williams is he is always flying by the seat of his pants without any longterm outlook. Or at least it seems that way. There hasn't been a consistent plan the Sox have followed from year to year. It has always been the flavor of the month type of deals, which don't work out in the long term.

Dadawg_77
01-26-2005, 05:03 PM
Wow. That's pretty good use of hindsight. About the only long-term contract that was a bad move was Konerko, who was coming off of a solid year, and while he may have paid him 2-3mil more than a viable replacement would cost, I don't think this team has lived or died over the loss of that $3mil (max).

Check the stats of games started and stats from the pitchers from 2000. Buehrle was there, but Baldwin was hurt and has been in & out of baseball over the past 4-5 years. Siro hasn't pitched since, Parque's only pitched BP. Eldred has been a solid reliever, but was hurt for IIRC a year or so. Wright's been inconsistent, hurt, & up & down. Garland's been here and OK, but not great. So what you're really missing is Kip Wells, who has been OK, but underwhelming. At most, a #3 or 4 starter in the AL. So KW pretty much did have to rebuild most of the rotation.

And yes, he did make mistakes with Ritchie & Clayton - but you conveniently neglect his no contest great moves like Marte, Loaiza, Uribe, Colon, Gordon, Shingo, along with some solid moves like Olivo-Bradford, the Garcia trade & resigning, and the FA pickups this offseason (which are all excellent value).

It isn't hindsight when you thought that when it happen.

Baldwin might have been hurt in 2001 but his production was average in 28 starts that year for Chicago and LA.

I think the jury is still out on Uribe. And I still think the Garcia move was horrible and Sox will pay for it this season with the lack of offense in the outfield. The Garcia trade forced the Lee trade to happen imo. Marte, Gordon, and Colon were excellent moves. Loaiza was good low risk, high reward move. If Loaiza switches his years around, would we be saying the same thing? I want to see one more season from Shingo before making either a good or excellent move.

santo=dorf
01-26-2005, 05:21 PM
And I still think the Garcia move was horrible and Sox will pay for it this season with the lack of offense in the outfield. The Garcia trade forced the Lee trade to happen imo.
oh good grief.

Cost of an outfield of Lee, Rowand, Reed for 2005; $10.3 million
Cost of an outfield of Dye, Rowand, and Podsednik. for 2005; $6.5 million.

Now add in Luis Vizcaino (who you hate,) and the fact that Garcia (who you think is overrated) is only making $8 million for 2005.

Total cost for Garcia, Vizcaino, Rowand, Podsednik and Dye in 2005: $15.8 million.

Now you tell me how you would spend $5.5 million on a reliever AND yet another starting pitcher that will be productive as Luis and Freddy for 2005.

Go ahead, I dare you.

Dadawg_77
01-26-2005, 07:54 PM
oh good grief.

Cost of an outfield of Lee, Rowand, Reed for 2005; $10.3 million
Cost of an outfield of Dye, Rowand, and Podsednik. for 2005; $6.5 million.

Now add in Luis Vizcaino (who you hate,) and the fact that Garcia (who you think is overrated) is only making $8 million for 2005.

Total cost for Garcia, Vizcaino, Rowand, Podsednik and Dye in 2005: $15.8 million.

Now you tell me how you would spend $5.5 million on a reliever AND yet another starting pitcher that will be productive as Luis and Freddy for 2005.

Go ahead, I dare you.

The Sox and everyone else had a pretty good idea Mags was gone after the year. So you had to plan to replace him. Reed and Lee will greatly outpreform Dye and Pods this year. Plus you forgot Olivio at catcher, so not doing the trade saves us 6.5 million. Enough to get Iguchi and El Duqe plus with the money paid Garcia the Sox could have signed Clement, Perez, and even Garcia himself. This way the Sox file the holes on the team and still have a great offense.

I don't hate Vizcaino, I just don't love him. I said he will be between great and awful, his swings are that wide.

santo=dorf
01-26-2005, 08:15 PM
The Sox and everyone else had a pretty good idea Mags was gone after the year. So you had to plan to replace him. Reed and Lee will greatly outpreform Dye and Pods this year. Plus you forgot Olivio at catcher, so not doing the trade saves us 6.5 million. Enough to get Iguchi and El Duqe plus with the money paid Garcia the Sox could have signed Clement, Perez, and even Garcia himself. This way the Sox file the holes on the team and still have a great offense.

I don't hate Vizcaino, I just don't love him. I said he will be between great and awful, his swings are that wide.

How much further must I break this down for you to understand?

Cost of Garcia, Iguchi, El Duque, Vizcaino, Pods, AJ, Dye, and Rowand for 2005: $23.9 million.
Cost of Reed ($313,000,) Lee, Rowand, Olivio ($340,000,) Iguchi, and El Duque for 2005: $16.453 million

You have $7.447 million to get another starting pitcher and a reliever. You also have to remember that this year was a great market for pitchers to cash in on. I would like to see how you would outbid either the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Angels for the services of either of the 3 pitchers you mentioned with less than $7.5 million to spend.