PDA

View Full Version : I Didn't realize how much Ken Williams SUCKS


HootieMcBoob
01-29-2002, 04:01 PM
This is the end of this article - the part about KW. Man, I hate that guy so much more now....

http://espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2002/whitesox.html


A closer look
On October 25, 2000, Kenny Williams was promoted to general manager, after spending a number of years in the White Sox player-development system. He inherited a young team coming off a surprise division title, one with a fairly low payroll, a loaded farm system, and extremely flawed competition.

Since taking over, though, Williams has shown a debilitating preference for veterans, making one trade after another in which he dealt the fruit of Chicago's farm system -- a systen he helped build -- for expensive players with nothing much to offer beyond service time. Despite taking over an essentially set roster, Williams added Sandy Alomar and Harold Baines via free agency last winter, and traded from the organization's strength -- young pitching -- to acquire David Wells, Royce Clayton and Antonio Osuna.

The combined totals for those five players in 2001 were a .243/.294/.350 line in 737 at-bats and a 5.14 ERA in 105 innings. Four of the five spent time on the disabled list, with Wells, Osuna and Alomar missing at least half the year. The cost? $19.1 million. Accounting for the $3 million they didn't pay Sirotka (traded for Wells), that's a waste of $16 million beyond what they could have gotten if Williams had acquired none of these players.

Of course, the argument for acquiring these players isn't just their performance, but the veteran specialness they bring to a team. Did the White Sox get that for their millions? Well, Wells caused the team's biggest brouhaha by accusing Frank Thomas of jaking, Alomar couldn't quite develop the young pitchers from the disabled list, and while Clayton was a model citizen, he was also a 340 OPS hitter for the first two months. Mahatma Gandhi didn't have the intangibles to cover that kind of weak stick.

This isn't just about the Sox' performance last year. A comedown from the high of 2000 was to be expected, and when Thomas got hurt in April, it meant the entire season was going to be a struggle. Williams' approach to team building weakened the lineup, added to the payroll, and ate away at the organizational depth, leaving the White Sox ill-positioned to fix the problems that developed in April.

What's disappointing is that Williams doesn't appear to have learned anything from the experience. His big move this winter was trading three pitchers, including two top prospects, for a veteran innings-eater in Todd Ritchie. Ritchie is just a few years removed from the waiver wire himself, and quite frankly, one of the pitchers sent to the Pirates in the deal, Sean Lowe, has had a similar career path and could very well have a 2002-2004 that resembles Ritchie's last three years.

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

Sometimes, being a successful GM means knowing when to get out of the way. The Sox aren't any different today, for all of Williams' moves, than they were the day his business cards changed. Other than the three-year contract he gave Jose Valentin, he's had essentially no positive impact on the Sox since becoming a GM, and his underlying premise -- get veterans -- has had a deleterious effect on the organization's talent base.

The example of another Chicago team, driven into the ground by a general manager eager to prove "organizations win championships," should serve as a cautionary tale for Williams. Sometimes it's best to just stand aside and let the talent on hand succeed, even if it means you don't get all the credit.
Joe Sheehan (jsheehan@baseballprospectus.com) is the managing editor of Baseball Prospectus 2002, the premier baseball annual.

voodoochile
01-29-2002, 04:07 PM
I think that article is incorrect. No one could know about the rash of injuries that would befall the Sox and anyone who thinks Sean Lowe can put up Ritchie like numbers (if Ritchie lives up to his billing) doesn't understand pitching, IMO. Lowe will never be an inning eater and he will rarely break 90 MPH.

Yes, the deals that KW has made have not worked out so far, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time, they all looked like good moves (though perhaps we should have been more skeptical of the Royce move when it happened).

Kilroy
01-29-2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
...they all looked like good moves (though perhaps we should have been more skeptical of the Royce move when it happened).

Some of us were.

Most of the moves were pretty good moves on paper. But that doesn't mean that's how they will work out...

rdivaldi
01-29-2002, 04:40 PM
Oh please. This article is a bunch of trash, it sure is easy to rip someone when you have "hindsight" on your side.

This guy loses all credibility when he sings the praises of one of the dumbest GMs in baseball, Dan Evans.

AsInWreck
01-29-2002, 04:54 PM
This article is pretty harsh-for one i'd take ritchie over any of those pitchers, albie lopez? please, he was a loser for the champs/signing alomar wasn't that dumb, the sox needed a catcher/trade for clayton gave up 1 prospect that was probably around 10-12th on the sox' list/trade
for wells was solid, particularly considering sirotka's health, which kw surely must have been aware/why not trade for an established winner when
your giving up a pitcher who may not pitch for 2 years or ever be as good again?/writer also conveniently leaves out glover deal which was absolutely a steal -for eyre who was a washed up never was-- antonio osuna is an established reliever whose worth remains to be seen after surgery but all reports sound good-the statement he makes re: sox pool of prospect being deteriorated is ridiculous- the sox farm is still stacked w/ pitching - i say give kw a break

kermittheefrog
01-29-2002, 05:29 PM
This isn't just hindsight. He ripped the Sox moves at the time too, I know because he writes for the baseball Prospectus and actually predicted the Sox to finish last year 3rd because of how badly Kenny screwed up with Wells, alomar and Clayton. I was against all three of those moves too so it's not like no one could have thought that Kenny was wrong. I'm pretty sure the Eyre for Glover deal was made before Shue hung up his GM blazer but I'm not positive.

Kenny has clearly screwed up, some of us like Joe Sheehan (author of the hot stove heater) and myself saw it coming. And even if you want to say hindsight is 20/20 shouldn't Kenny be accountable for his screwups? Just because you think something will work out well and it doesn't, doesn't mean you're not accountable for it not working. I am pretty fed up with this "trade your good young pitching strength for veterans" crap. I want Kenny out the door NOW although considering what Dan Evans has done in LA I can't agree that he'd be a better option.

Daver
01-29-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
This isn't just hindsight. He ripped the Sox moves at the time too, I know because he writes for the baseball Prospectus and actually predicted the Sox to finish last year 3rd because of how badly Kenny screwed up with Wells, alomar and Clayton. I was against all three of those moves too so it's not like no one could have thought that Kenny was wrong. I'm pretty sure the Eyre for Glover deal was made before Shue hung up his GM blazer but I'm not positive.

Kenny has clearly screwed up, some of us like Joe Sheehan (author of the hot stove heater) and myself saw it coming. And even if you want to say hindsight is 20/20 shouldn't Kenny be accountable for his screwups? Just because you think something will work out well and it doesn't, doesn't mean you're not accountable for it not working. I am pretty fed up with this "trade your good young pitching strength for veterans" crap. I want Kenny out the door NOW although considering what Dan Evans has done in LA I can't agree that he'd be a better option.




The Glover for Erye trade was made a month after Schueler stepped down.
And yes,KW has mistakes,but every move has been made with the intention of making the team better.As far as the trading of young pitching,not every pitcher that is in the system is going to wear a Sox uniform,and you have to deal from an area of strength,in this case the Sox are overstocked in pitching prospects.


But then again what the hell do I know?

czalgosz
01-29-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
This isn't just hindsight. He ripped the Sox moves at the time too, I know because he writes for the baseball Prospectus and actually predicted the Sox to finish last year 3rd because of how badly Kenny screwed up with Wells, alomar and Clayton. I was against all three of those moves too so it's not like no one could have thought that Kenny was wrong. I'm pretty sure the Eyre for Glover deal was made before Shue hung up his GM blazer but I'm not positive.

Kenny has clearly screwed up, some of us like Joe Sheehan (author of the hot stove heater) and myself saw it coming. And even if you want to say hindsight is 20/20 shouldn't Kenny be accountable for his screwups? Just because you think something will work out well and it doesn't, doesn't mean you're not accountable for it not working. I am pretty fed up with this "trade your good young pitching strength for veterans" crap. I want Kenny out the door NOW although considering what Dan Evans has done in LA I can't agree that he'd be a better option.

The mistake that I saw Williams making was taking a team that had most of the parts already there, that just needed some fine-tuning, and doing a complete overhaul. As Sheehan pointed out, KW added a lot of payroll that didn't do much for the Sox last season. (That should be pointed out to those who want to spend a lot of money)

I don't mind trading pitching talent for veterans, as long as the veterans are solid ballplayers. I'm not as down on Todd Ritchie as you are, Kermit, mainly because although he might put up the same numbers as Lowe, he'll do it for twice as many innings, which I like a lot. And, really, Fogg and Bradford are the only prospects that Williams has traded.

pearso66
01-30-2002, 01:40 PM
in response to that, the trades i disagreed with were osuna for bradford, and royce for myette, although in KW's behalf, according to him, he picked up royce in hope to trade him elsewhere for some other talent, but when no one wanted him, he was stuck. i fully supported the david wells trade, i was so happy when we got him, i was always a wells fan, but no one can say that he will or wont get injured. I thought the sox should have signed him this year for 1 or 2 million, with some incentives, maybe get some worth of him, and have stability in the lineup, if he stays healthy. as for Ritchy, i dont know too much about him, i didnt like them trading lowe, but what are you gonna do, the deal is done, hopefully he lives up to what KW thought he was getting. as for tradeing away our minor league talent, did you ever notice how stock full our farm system is of raw pitching talent. they always draft pitchers, and im sure knowing that a lot of them wont make the team, because, there are a lot of them, they probabyl draft some with hope that they can trade them for some worthwhile veteran talent. , but thats my opinion

czalgosz
01-30-2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by pearso66
the trades i disagreed with were osuna for bradford

Bradford was traded for Miguel Olivo.

Osuna was picked up for a couple prospects, among them Gary Majewski, who we got back in the Baldwin deal. In essence, we got Osuna and Masaoka for Baldwin.

pearso66
01-30-2002, 02:48 PM
my mistake, you're right, bradford went to oakland, osuna came from the dodgers, thanks for the correction

bringbackrobin
01-30-2002, 06:57 PM
Good Moves:

Baldwin for Osuna and Masaoka (yes, and Barry) - Eyre for Glover- Corey Lee for Perry - Singleton for Harris - Brian Simmons off waivers - Releasing Cal Eldred

Bad Moves

Wells, Lowe, and Fogg for Ritchie and Evans - Signing Alomar - Clayton for Myette - Signing Osuna to a long term contract - Wells and Dewitt for Sirotka et. al. (the Sox knew Wells was hurting but they thought Sirotka was healthy, a healthy Sirotka for an old gimpy Wells is a bad trade anyday) - Keeping Harold Baines - Bradford for Olivo

Nothing Gained, nothing lost:
Kohlmeier off waivers - Embree for Hasselhoff
I'm sure everybody disagrees with at least one of these categorizations, but even so, I think its pretty clear that the bad outweighs the good.

kermittheefrog
01-30-2002, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin

Bad Moves

Wells, Lowe, and Fogg for Ritchie and Evans - Signing Alomar - Clayton for Myette - Signing Osuna to a long term contract - Wells and Dewitt for Sirotka et. al. (the Sox knew Wells was hurting but they thought Sirotka was healthy, a healthy Sirotka for an old gimpy Wells is a bad trade anyday) - Keeping Harold Baines - Bradford for Olivo


why exactly do you think Bradford for Olivo was a bad deal?

hold2dibber
01-30-2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin
Good Moves:

Baldwin for Osuna and Masaoka (yes, and Barry) - Eyre for Glover- Corey Lee for Perry - Singleton for Harris - Brian Simmons off waivers - Releasing Cal Eldred

Bad Moves

Wells, Lowe, and Fogg for Ritchie and Evans - Signing Alomar - Clayton for Myette - Signing Osuna to a long term contract - Wells and Dewitt for Sirotka et. al. (the Sox knew Wells was hurting but they thought Sirotka was healthy, a healthy Sirotka for an old gimpy Wells is a bad trade anyday) - Keeping Harold Baines - Bradford for Olivo

Nothing Gained, nothing lost:
Kohlmeier off waivers - Embree for Hasselhoff
I'm sure everybody disagrees with at least one of these categorizations, but even so, I think its pretty clear that the bad outweighs the good.

I've got to disagree in several instances. First, releasing Cal Eldred was a no brainer; he's retiring anyway so I don't think you can give KW much credit for that. As for Wells, Lowe and Fogg for Ritchie, I think we probably gave up one too many guys in that deal, but nonetheless think it is too early to call. I would classify Clayton for Myette as a "nothing gained, nothing lost" proposition -- Myette had an ERA over 7.00 (!) for the Rangers last year; I don't think he'll ever do much in the majors. I also don't think keeping Harold was KW's doing - I think that was a directive from above, so I don't really hold that against him. And I think Bradford for Olivo was a great deal. Overall, I'd say slighly more negative than positive, but I don't think its "clear" by any stretch (certainly not until we see what becomes of the Ritchie trade).

bringbackrobin
01-30-2002, 07:13 PM
Chad Bradford has spent his whole career consistently getting righthanded batters out. He could have really helped us out of the bullpen. In exchange for him, we got a guy who, after taking the cork out of his bat, might grow up to be Mark Johnson.

Remember, at the time KW was trading for bullpen help left and right, but then he lets Chad Bradford go without a second thought.

bringbackrobin
01-30-2002, 07:16 PM
Remember, the Sox took on a lot of additional salary by trading for Royce. So I am esentially considering the Royce for Myette deal to be a bad free agent signing.

I still feel that Ritchie for Wells straight up was a bad deal. Including two other guys just makes it ridiculous.

czalgosz
01-30-2002, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin
Chad Bradford has spent his whole career consistently getting righthanded batters out. He could have really helped us out of the bullpen. In exchange for him, we got a guy who, after taking the cork out of his bat, might grow up to be Mark Johnson.

Remember, at the time KW was trading for bullpen help left and right, but then he lets Chad Bradford go without a second thought.

Well, it happened the other way around - KW traded Bradford, and then when he realized that Simas wouldn't be available, traded for Osuna. Osuna was the only guy that KW picked up for the bullpen last offseason.

Bradford is very good in certain situations, and has outstanding control. But he was an extreme situational pitcher - the kind of guy who's helpful in a playoff situation, but if he was on the Sox last year, he would have spent a lot of time sitting on the bench. That trade was best for everyone involved.

bringbackrobin
01-30-2002, 07:26 PM
Okay, I will admit a personal bias. Chad Bradford was my favorite Sox pitcher, and I was disappointed in it. I will admit that it ultimately turned out okay, but I still think that it was not a good move at the time. Nevertheless, I would entertain a motion to move it into the "nothing gained, nothing loss" category. Call it a fair trade.

cornball
01-30-2002, 07:39 PM
KW like you all have said made good and bad deals....but i still think he has guts......the Wells trade took balls....unfortunately he should be making moves this year like that showing the fans we are going for it ....


and by the way baseball is an expensive game...and i quote KW
"it's no secret we have a strain on our payroll, so I cant say it is not a factor" of getting rid od a 1.4 million dollar contract." This coming from a large market team with a state financed stadium and a payroll in the bottom third of the leauge.

kermittheefrog
01-30-2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by cornball
KW like you all have said made good and bad deals....but i still think he has guts......the Wells trade took balls....unfortunately he should be making moves this year like that showing the fans we are going for it ....


and by the way baseball is an expensive game...and i quote KW
"it's no secret we have a strain on our payroll, so I cant say it is not a factor" of getting rid od a 1.4 million dollar contract." This coming from a large market team with a state financed stadium and a payroll in the bottom third of the leauge.

Yeah but the bad deals are stupider and most costly than the good ones. It also doesn't matter if you have balls if you are dumb as a brick. It might even be worse that way because then you set yourself up to do stupid stuff.

AsInWreck
01-30-2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin
Good Moves:

Baldwin for Osuna and Masaoka (yes, and Barry) -

Bad Moves

- Wells and Dewitt for Sirotka et. al. (the Sox knew Wells was hurting but they thought Sirotka was healthy, a healthy Sirotka for an old gimpy Wells is a bad trade anyday)

1. Osuna was not involved in baldwin trade/the sox
got majewski and masaoka for JB

2. You're nuts if you think the Sox management didn't know that Sirotka had health problems

kermittheefrog
01-30-2002, 07:55 PM
I think the Sox knew Siro was hurt but didn't know how hurt. They still didn't want to give him up in that deal, they initially offered Parque.

alohafri
01-30-2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Oh please. This article is a bunch of trash, it sure is easy to rip someone when you have "hindsight" on your side.

This guy loses all credibility when he sings the praises of one of the dumbest GMs in baseball, Dan Evans.

Wait a second! Who was the guy who didn't know who he was getting in a trade with the Dodgers. Then when he realized he wasn't getting the guy he thought he was said, "We'll honor the trade?"

:gulp:

bc2k
01-30-2002, 09:29 PM
Bradford is very good in certain situations, and has outstanding control. But he was an extreme situational pitcher - the kind of guy who's helpful in a playoff situation.

czal, how helpful was bradford when he got lit up in the 2000 alds against the mariners.

Huisj
01-30-2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


1. Osuna was not involved in baldwin trade/the sox
got majewski and masaoka for JB



The reference to osuna in the baldwin trade comes from earlier in this thread when it was mentioned that osuna was traded for majewski (among others) and then that the sox got majewski back in the baldwin deal. So indirectly he was involved in the baldwin trade.

czalgosz
01-30-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


czal, how helpful was bradford when he got lit up in the 2000 alds against the mariners.

He gave up 2 singles. Admittedly, they were big singles, but to say he got "lit up" is kind of an exaggeration. All the pitchers did well in the ALDS in 2000. Pretty much all the hitters sucked, though. I still hold Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez totally responsible for that fiasco. Neither one of them got a big hit at all. If either one of them had done what they are paid to do, noone would remember what Wunsch or Bradford did in that series.

RichH55
01-30-2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin
Chad Bradford has spent his whole career consistently getting righthanded batters out. He could have really helped us out of the bullpen. In exchange for him, we got a guy who, after taking the cork out of his bat, might grow up to be Mark Johnson.

Remember, at the time KW was trading for bullpen help left and right, but then he lets Chad Bradford go without a second thought.


Yeah and how many innings did Bradford pitch last year? 35+? The Eck he aint....plus a situational reliever(not a closer or setup man) no matter how good wont equal the value of a starting catcher which is the way 2003 is looking for Olivio and the Sox

RichH55
01-31-2002, 12:01 AM
Other Moves/Non-Moves:
Signed Jose as FA(good)

Wade Parrish for Christensen(well since Christensen can be a part of a major league ballclub and cheaply and Parrish isnt I think this was a poor deal, though relatively small)

Drafts(consensus is that they have been pretty good so far)

Foulke Deal(below marrket value...good)

Lee to 2 years(good)

Mags Long Term(very good, not a ridiculous contract either)

Valentine(3 year deal, good)

Borchard signing(cost a bunch, but the LTP nickname is worth it alone)

Passed on CJ at catcher(poor move, expecially when the alternative is Sandy)

Ramirez for Abbott(good move...Abbott is nothing at this point and Ramirez has upside...the type of deal you want to make...low risk, high potential reward and Abbott didnt really have any market value)

RichH55
01-31-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin
Good Moves:

Baldwin for Osuna and Masaoka (yes, and Barry) - Eyre for Glover- Corey Lee for Perry - Singleton for Harris - Brian Simmons off waivers - Releasing Cal Eldred

Bad Moves

Wells, Lowe, and Fogg for Ritchie and Evans - Signing Alomar - Clayton for Myette - Signing Osuna to a long term contract - Wells and Dewitt for Sirotka et. al. (the Sox knew Wells was hurting but they thought Sirotka was healthy, a healthy Sirotka for an old gimpy Wells is a bad trade anyday) - Keeping Harold Baines - Bradford for Olivo

Nothing Gained, nothing lost:
Kohlmeier off waivers - Embree for Hasselhoff
I'm sure everybody disagrees with at least one of these categorizations, but even so, I think its pretty clear that the bad outweighs the good.
'



How can you classify signing Osuna to a long term deal as bad? I think it would be safe to say the jury is still out on that one. I guess we will agree to disagree on the Wells deal(I was for it)....and we did get Simmons back for nothing nevertheless....The Clayton deal was just a f**k up plain and simple

czalgosz
01-31-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Other Moves/Non-Moves:

Wade Parrish for Christensen(well since Christensen can be a part of a major league ballclub and cheaply and Parrish isnt I think this was a poor deal, though relatively small)


Ramirez for Abbott(good move...Abbott is nothing at this point and Ramirez has upside...the type of deal you want to make...low risk, high potential reward and Abbott didnt really have any market value)

I don't think that McKay Christensen will ever be a major-league ballplayer. He's an outstanding defensive outfielder and a great baserunner, but he has zero bat and doesn't know how to take a walk.

Ramirez for Abbott was a wash... I don't think either one of them will be helping a major league team anytime soon.

RichH55
01-31-2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I don't think that McKay Christensen will ever be a major-league ballplayer. He's an outstanding defensive outfielder and a great baserunner, but he has zero bat and doesn't know how to take a walk.

Ramirez for Abbott was a wash... I don't think either one of them will be helping a major league team anytime soon.


But at the very least Mckay could have been a good bench guy....excellent D and baserunning and young enough so that the hitting could turn around....I think he will surprise some with the Dodgers this year...certainly he was worth more than Wade Parrish who may or may not be a viable Double A guy

czalgosz
01-31-2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by RichH55



But at the very least Mckay could have been a good bench guy....excellent D and baserunning and young enough so that the hitting could turn around....I think he will surprise some with the Dodgers this year...certainly he was worth more than Wade Parrish who may or may not be a viable Double A guy

I don't know anything about Wade Parrish, but at 26, I really doubt that Christensen will suddenly learn to be a good hitter.

I liked Christensen, too, but he would have been gone as a minor-league free agent anyway. The Sox just didn't have room for him. This new guy Harris is probably a better ballplayer.

kermittheefrog
01-31-2002, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I don't know anything about Wade Parrish, but at 26, I really doubt that Christensen will suddenly learn to be a good hitter.

I liked Christensen, too, but he would have been gone as a minor-league free agent anyway. The Sox just didn't have room for him. This new guy Harris is probably a better ballplayer.

:gun
"At least I took somebody out on my way down"

bringbackrobin
01-31-2002, 01:49 AM
There was also Amaury Garcia for Mark Roberts. Neither played very well last year, so we'll call this a draw.

To give credit where credit is due, getting T. Vazquez off of waivers, which was probably a good move.

While both Ramirez and Abbott were longshots to be productive everyday players, Ramirez could at least play center field, so this was a good trade.

I wasn't paying much attention to contract extensions except when they buy out free agency time. I believe Ordonez's and Valentine's (it was a two year deal) did, but not Foulke's or Lee's. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

I also forgot the trade of Greg Norton. Norton was nothing if not fun to watch, but it was probably a trade that needed to happen.

I'm a believer in Osuna, and I liked the trade for him. The trouble is, signing him to a long term contract so quickly was needlessly hasty. The Sox should have taken a little time to evaluate him, make sure he is healthy, make sure he can pitch outside of Chavez Ravine, and so on.

longshot7
01-31-2002, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin

I also forgot the trade of Greg Norton. Norton was nothing if not fun to watch, but it was probably a trade that needed to happen.

I'm a believer in Osuna, and I liked the trade for him. The trouble is, signing him to a long term contract so quickly was needlessly hasty. The Sox should have taken a little time to evaluate him, make sure he is healthy, make sure he can pitch outside of Chavez Ravine, and so on.

outside? He couldn't pitch inside chavez ravine!!!

and they released norton, not traded him.

and anyone that doesn't call the Baldwin deal a good one is an idiot. If all we got back was a smelly pair of socks it would be a good deal. Baldwin sucks.

bjmarte
01-31-2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by bringbackrobin

I wasn't paying much attention to contract extensions except when they buy out free agency time. I believe Ordonez's and Valentine's (it was a two year deal) did, but not Foulke's or Lee's. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken, Valentin got a 4 year deal before the beginning of last season.

bringbackrobin
01-31-2002, 02:31 PM
Antonio Osuna has a career 3.50 ERA with a 143/352 Walk to Strikeout Ratio. That's not too shabby.

I never said I didn't like the Baldwin deal.

Forgive me, some website I saw called it a trade and I couldn't remember whether Norton had been released or designated for assignment and traded for some nobody. It didn't make much of a difference either way, so I didn't follow up on it.