PDA

View Full Version : Worst KW moves


caulfield12
12-09-2006, 03:09 PM
In no particular order

1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie
2. Durham for Jon Adkins
3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin
4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel
5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long
6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)
7. Signing Jimenez and Lofton, because they almost ruined our clubhouse
8. Vazquez deal (so far)
9. Almost trading Garland/Singleton for Erstad...Contreras for Burnett
10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)
11. David Wells
12. Armando Rios
13. Jeff Nelson
14. Jose Paniagua
15. No 5th starter from 2001-2004

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect

BA: The Hitman
12-09-2006, 03:14 PM
In no particular order

1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie
2. Durham for Jon Adkins
3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin
4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel
5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long
6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)
7. Signing Jimenez and Lofton, because they almost ruined our clubhouse
8. Vazquez deal (so far)
9. Almost trading Garland/Singleton for Erstad...Contreras for Burnett
10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)
11. David Wells
12. Armando Rios
13. Jeff Nelson
14. Jose Paniagua
15. No 5th starter from 2001-2004

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect


Pretty good list. That todd ritchie trade is still mind-boggling. Looking back on it now, the david wells trade wasn't great, but I thought it was a pretty good move at the time. KW couldn't have predicted that boomer's back would be completely torn apart.

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 03:21 PM
I'll adding bringing Roberto Alomar here....his bat was dead already, and his defense was a shade of its former self.

Domeshot17
12-09-2006, 03:22 PM
Robbie Alomar x 2, Sandy Alomar x 13

oeo
12-09-2006, 03:26 PM
In no particular order

1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie
2. Durham for Jon Adkins
3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin
4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel
5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long
6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)
7. Signing Jimenez and Lofton, because they almost ruined our clubhouse
8. Vazquez deal (so far)
9. Almost trading Garland/Singleton for Erstad...Contreras for Burnett
10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)
11. David Wells
12. Armando Rios
13. Jeff Nelson
14. Jose Paniagua
15. No 5th starter from 2001-2004

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect

"Almost" moves constitute a bad move?

And he lost nothing by signing Jeff Nelson, really. The bullpen was in some serious trouble, and he tried catching lightning in a bottle...I'm not sure how that consitutes a bad move.

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 03:27 PM
That moves was okayed and signed off on by both GM's until Disney shot it down...

I should have simply said "Bullpen 2006"

fquaye149
12-09-2006, 03:41 PM
That moves was okayed and signed off on by both GM's until Disney shot it down...

I should have simply said "Bullpen 2006"

How was bullpen 2006 such a KW flub?

Here's what Kenny actively did:

got rid of Marte and Viz

picked up Thornton and added McCarthy to the bulpen

throughout the season picked up MacDougall, Riske, and Nelson

How is it Kenny's fault that

a.) two of our best RP's from 2005 would pitch pathetically

b.) we would lose Hermy to injury


c.) everyone else would pretty much pitch as expected (except for Thornton who was a great surprise)

churlish
12-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Is he suppose to be infallible?

Every team makes mistakes. Fortunately, Williams has done more good things than bad things. The 2007 team has a chance to win it all. That's all you can ask from your GM.

I'll counter your negativity with one fact:
2005 World Series Champions

Thanks, Kenny. :gulp:

SoxSpeed22
12-09-2006, 03:43 PM
I should have simply said "Bullpen 2006"
In all honesty, at the beginning of the year, did anyone think for a nanosecond that Politte and Cotts would have ERAs of 8.70 and 5.17 respectively? Trading for Thornton and mighty Mac (Macdougal's new moniker) and for a small part of the year, Riske saved the pen from an even worse beating. The ones I will go against, however, are misusing Brandon in the pen and having Boone Logan break camp with this team. Floyd should do a better job in that spot than McCarthy did, and there is still the matter of getting another lefty.

SoxxoS
12-09-2006, 03:56 PM
Drafting Kris Honel was looking great until his arm fell off...

How can you fault him for that, he isnt miss cleo and cant predict injuries.

fquaye149
12-09-2006, 04:02 PM
In no particular order

1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie

Agreed. This was awful

2. Durham for Jon Adkins

It was Durham's time to go...we probably should have gotten more though

3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin

definitely

4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel

if you are going to go with draft picks, then every GM sucks

5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long

but give him credit for getting Thornton for Borchard

6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)

couldn't possibly agree more

7. Signing Jimenez and Lofton, because they almost ruined our clubhouse

debatable

8. Vazquez deal (so far)

so far it's not a bad deal. So far it's a null deal---a mediocre pitcher for nothing. If Vazquez performs well this year it's a good deal. If Chris Young becomes a star it's a bad deal. How is it a bad deal right now?

9. Almost trading Garland/Singleton for Erstad...Contreras for Burnett

horseshoes and hand grenades

10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)

not a great deal, but Foulke wasn't staying no matter what. Cotts almost makes up for Koch but not quite

11. David Wells

could have been worse. Injuries also played a big part in this being a bad deal

12. Armando Rios

oh come on

13. Jeff Nelson

I've already addressed the "KW ****ed up the bullpen thing"

14. Jose Paniagua

Almost agree as much here as I did with the Clayton. This guy ruined 2003 for us, I think...almost more than Koch

15. No 5th starter from 2001-2004

sure...but that's tough to remedy especially when no one would sign here

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect

Olivo/Bradford never looked that bad unless you were Michael what's his name



see above

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 04:09 PM
How was bullpen 2006 such a KW flub?

Here's what Kenny actively did:

got rid of Marte and Viz

picked up Thornton and added McCarthy to the bulpen

throughout the season picked up MacDougall, Riske, and Nelson

How is it Kenny's fault that

a.) two of our best RP's from 2005 would pitch pathetically

b.) we would lose Hermy to injury


c.) everyone else would pretty much pitch as expected (except for Thornton who was a great surprise)


I should let Lip argue this one, it's his favorite.

Vizcaino would have been the #4 reliever on this team. We never adequately replaced Hermanson.

KW simply needed to go out and spend $2-3 million before the season on a reliable veteran reliever, and he instead took the "throw a bunch of darts against the wall and hope one sticks" approach.

Logan starting with the club backfired bigtime. It would have been better to spend Cintron's money on a reliever, but that's at least debateable. The only way KW gets a pass is if JR gave him an absolute max number and he ran out of money for payroll, but, you could still have reallocated it better (Cintron probably).

I would be surprised/elated if Floyd equalled or better McCarthy in the pen, I'm not counting on that one happening...(reply to another comment in the thread)

fquaye149
12-09-2006, 04:21 PM
I should let Lip argue this one, it's his favorite.

Vizcaino would have been the #4 reliever on this team. We never adequately replaced Hermanson.

KW simply needed to go out and spend $2-3 million before the season on a reliable veteran reliever, and he instead took the "throw a bunch of darts against the wall and hope one sticks" approach.

Logan starting with the club backfired bigtime. It would have been better to spend Cintron's money on a reliever, but that's at least debateable. The only way KW gets a pass is if JR gave him an absolute max number and he ran out of money for payroll, but, you could still have reallocated it better (Cintron probably).

I would be surprised/elated if Floyd equalled or better McCarthy in the pen, I'm not counting on that one happening...(reply to another comment in the thread)

Well if you and Lip are on the same side, then wowza

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 04:29 PM
Well if you and Lip are on the same side, then wowza


Depends if I am in Dark Cloud or Bright Cloud mode, lol.

With the way my Hawkeyes have been doing in football and basketball, I have to be optimistic about something!

Madvora
12-09-2006, 04:30 PM
There are different ways to look at this.
Paniagua lasted only one game. You can look at this and say that it's so bad that he only lasted one game, or that it's not that bad because he was only there for one game so it didn't mean that much to the season, BUT I don't know anyone in the history of sports who is so remembered and hated for playing just one game!

Borchard and Rousch on the other hand... KW would not let go of those guys. I lost almost total faith in KW after he called Joe Borchard "untouchable." I will never forget that.

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 04:32 PM
There are different ways to look at this.
Paniagua lasted only one game. You can look at this and say that it's so bad that he only lasted one game, or that it's not that bad because he was only there for one game so it didn't mean that much to the season, BUT I don't know anyone in the history of sports who is so remembered and hated for playing just one game!

Borchard and Rousch on the other hand... KW would not let go of those guys. I lost almost total faith in KW after he called Joe Borchard "untouchable." I will never forget that.


Rauch, he gets a pass due to the injuries. Borchard, it worked out in the end, but he could have gotten something REALLY good for him back in 2002 and 2003 (like a fifth starter) so we could have won at least one of those divisions from the Twins.

ondafarm
12-09-2006, 05:12 PM
Rauch, he gets a pass due to the injuries. Borchard, it worked out in the end, but he could have gotten something REALLY good for him back in 2002 and 2003 (like a fifth starter) so we could have won at least one of those divisions from the Twins.

Man,
am I glad you are on my ignore list.

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 05:15 PM
Man,
am I glad you are on my ignore list.


Likewise. These same revisionists that were hyping Borchard as a great prospect (the next McGwire but with more athleticism) want to come back and tell everyone they knew Borchard was never going to make it because of his flawed swing. You can't have it both ways.

Not to mention the fact that KW has NOW learned how to better separate the wheat from the chaff in dealing prospects: Valentine, Ring, Bajenaru, Olivo, Jeremy Reed, Morse, Guerrier, Majewski (arguable), Biddle, Rupe, Webster, Francisco, Aaron Miles, Haigwood...

The only thing that's questionable through this decade is our record with pitching prospects and evaluation, although that has also improved.

santo=dorf
12-09-2006, 06:00 PM
He excluded pitcher Todd Ritchie, who was acquired by Williams last winter from the Pirates in the controversial deal that sent Kip Wells, Josh Fogg and Sean Lowe to Pittsburgh.

"I was behind that trade,'' Schueler said, "although I didn't feel it was necessary for us to give them the kid [Fogg]. We felt we could straighten out Todd's mechanics, but it didn't happen. I still think he can be a good pitcher.''


Koch was a flop, but Foulke had to be out of here after Manuel's handling of him in 2002. At least Cotts has 2005 to hang his hat onto.

The Sox were thinking compensation picks were going to eliminated so in a panic move Durham and cash was traded for nothing.

I know in the end it worked out with the money freed up, but he could've gotten more for Lee +$1 million. Pods had a great 1st half in 2005, Vizcaino was terribly underrated by Sox fans and lost in the Vazquez deal (which at the moment looks bad, but I don't think any of the three players we gave up would've changed 2006 by much,) and Travis Hinton was a worthless prospect.
Alomar trade II wasn't very necessary, but we didn't give up anything.

wsoxfan111
12-09-2006, 06:06 PM
10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)


Kenny Williams was lucky to get a bag of balls for Koch.

He was absolutly horrible.

Also I agree on the No 5th starter dilema.

Remember that one game in 04 when Arnie Munoz started. The final score of that marathon was like 17-15 or sumthin to the Expos. Munoz gave up like 8 runs in the first inning if my memory serves me right.

caulfield12
12-09-2006, 07:09 PM
Uribe had a HUGE game (like 8 or 9 rbi's) and Willie Harris botched it up in the late innings with a botched bunt attempt or we would have won.

It was in Montreal.

likeawarlord
12-09-2006, 08:26 PM
Pretty good list. That todd ritchie trade is still mind-boggling. Looking back on it now, the david wells trade wasn't great, but I thought it was a pretty good move at the time. KW couldn't have predicted that boomer's back would be completely torn apart.

david wells trade really wasn't bad, when you think about it. we got roughly half a season of decent pitching (and a mixed bag in the clubhouse) out of wells for mike sirotka (never pitched again after the trade), brian simmons (blue jays got 107 abs and a .178 ba out of him) and kevin beirne, who delivered a 12.86 era over 7 innings pitched in his only action with the bluejays. we certainly didn't give up very much.

southwstchi4life
12-09-2006, 08:27 PM
[quote=santo=dorf;1436400]Koch was a flop, but Foulke had to be out of here after Manuel's handling of him in 2002. At least Cotts has 2005 to hang his hat onto.]

Manuel drove me nuts the way he handled foulke. Made no sense. Because of him we had to trade him. I forgot about that before this thread.

NardiWasHere
12-09-2006, 10:28 PM
Ritchie deal... I don't see how it was THAT bad.

Yeah he was horrible..... but come on, who did we give up? Two **** pitchers for one **** pitcher.

If that is his worst deal, he will go down as the greatest GM known to man.

fquaye149
12-10-2006, 12:17 AM
david wells trade really wasn't bad, when you think about it. we got roughly half a season of decent pitching (and a mixed bag in the clubhouse) out of wells for mike sirotka (never pitched again after the trade), brian simmons (blue jays got 107 abs and a .178 ba out of him) and kevin beirne, who delivered a 12.86 era over 7 innings pitched in his only action with the bluejays. we certainly didn't give up very much.

Burls credits Wells for teaching him how to pitch, too, fwiw

Save McCuddy's
12-10-2006, 09:52 AM
8. Vazquez deal (so far)

so far it's not a bad deal. So far it's a null deal---a mediocre pitcher for nothing. If Vazquez performs well this year it's a good deal. If Chris Young becomes a star it's a bad deal. How is it a bad deal right now?


Bad for the following reasons:

1) The D'Backs got Jorge Julio for El Duque which shows that we misread his value as trade bait.

2) Spot in the rotation for McCarthy was shut down for another year.

3) Vazquez had already proved that he wasn't as effective in the AL as NL -- which is the case for 90% of the SP's who cross over.

4) Vizcaino would have been an asset to our thin pen last year.

5) Chris Young's potential.

gosox41
12-10-2006, 10:22 AM
Drafting Kris Honel was looking great until his arm fell off...

How can you fault him for that, he isnt miss cleo and cant predict injuries.

No you can't but there was once a stat that said most HS power pitchers that are drafted lose velocity within 5 years. I'm guessing injuries play a major role in that.


Bob

Domeshot17
12-10-2006, 01:13 PM
The one area Kenny has seemed to ALWAYS struggle was drafting. However, I think a lot of that can be blames on our scouts and our minor league coaches. I know Razor just got promoted, but man, we haven't been able to bring very many guys up who have made a difference. Crede took a while, and I put a lot of his development on Ozzie and Greg Walker. Rowand was so so, Buehlre, Cotts had one good year. Brian looked pathetic for most of the year, so who is to know on him.

It would really put this in the spotlight if none of these OF turn into anything much. We once had a promising minor league OF system, Borchard Anderson Sweeney Owens Spidale Young and Rowand (with Fields at 3rd). Spidale is the INDY league, Young was traded, Borchard traded and busted, Rowand was so so, Anderson hasn't shown anything beyond defense, Owens looks like a clone of Willie Harris, Sweeney and Fields are unknown.

We know have gone with this draft nothing but pitching route, hopefully a few of them develop. I think we could realllllllyy benefit from a change of scouting, Especially if Broadway and Mculloch dont work out.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 01:35 PM
The one area Kenny has seemed to ALWAYS struggle was drafting. However, I think a lot of that can be blames on our scouts and our minor league coaches. I know Razor just got promoted, but man, we haven't been able to bring very many guys up who have made a difference. Crede took a while, and I put a lot of his development on Ozzie and Greg Walker. Rowand was so so, Buehlre, Cotts had one good year. Brian looked pathetic for most of the year, so who is to know on him.

It would really put this in the spotlight if none of these OF turn into anything much. We once had a promising minor league OF system, Borchard Anderson Sweeney Owens Spidale Young and Rowand (with Fields at 3rd). Spidale is the INDY league, Young was traded, Borchard traded and busted, Rowand was so so, Anderson hasn't shown anything beyond defense, Owens looks like a clone of Willie Harris, Sweeney and Fields are unknown.

We know have gone with this draft nothing but pitching route, hopefully a few of them develop. I think we could realllllllyy benefit from a change of scouting, Especially if Broadway and Mculloch dont work out.

Spidale was never a Top 10 caliber player.

You're forgetting we produced Jeremy Reed and Anthony Webster, not to mention Mike Cameron. Jeff Abbott became a bust. Then you have Rowand, Magglio and Carlos Lee. It hasn't been all bad. The catching position has been much worse IMO.

The real deals were supposed to be Young, Anderson and Sweeney. Fields might also be shifted, although that looks less likely if we keep Pods. Maybe in 2008 if Crede is still around, or earlier if Pods tanks again.

Domeshot17
12-10-2006, 02:08 PM
my point more or less was, since Kenny has taking the realm, we seem to have a ton of bust prospects. I know part is Kenny, Part the scouts, and part our minor league coaches. I threw Spidale in their because he went from Single A Mvp of our team to nothing (I know he had a hand injury). We are terrible at producing prospects.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 02:20 PM
my point more or less was, since Kenny has taking the realm, we seem to have a ton of bust prospects. I know part is Kenny, Part the scouts, and part our minor league coaches. I threw Spidale in their because he went from Single A Mvp of our team to nothing (I know he had a hand injury). We are terrible at producing prospects.


Maybe it has something to do with not having a pick in the first 10 selections of the first round since 1990.

That would tell you that our farm system couldn't have been so bad or we would have bottomed out.

We would have a Top 8-10 level of system with Chris Young, Haigwood, Fabio Castro, Anthony Webster, Frank Francisco, Josh Rupe and Lumsden still around...if not higher.

KW has used the farm system over the past 3-4 years like the Yankees...for trades to repair holes at the MLB level. Still the Yankees have managed to produce quite a few prospects and have held onto their best players, spinning off their overhyped prospects simultaneously.

veeter
12-10-2006, 05:21 PM
Man, hindsight in 20/20.

HotelWhiteSox
12-10-2006, 06:25 PM
a.) two of our best RP's from 2005 would pitch pathetically

b.) we would lose Hermy to injury


c.) everyone else would pretty much pitch as expected (except for Thornton who was a great surprise)


b) was pretty much expected, he had issues the year before, I was cringing when he was in that WS game. And you start the year with Boone Logan, you know your pen has issues then (and that was without really knowing what you'd get from Thornton). I also hated the Riske deal when it happened.

santo=dorf
12-10-2006, 06:35 PM
b) was pretty much expected, he had issues the year before, I was cringing when he was in that WS game. And you start the year with Boone Logan, you know your pen has issues then (and that was without really knowing what you'd get from Thornton). I also hated the Riske deal when it happened.
:?:
David Riske wasn't that bad last year, and all we gave up was a non roster invitee. It would've also been killer if the Sox offered the type A free agent arbitration for a couple of drafts picks, but I'll stop beating that horse at the moment.

Lopez was bad when the Red Sox used him last year too.

If some washed up veteran put up the numbers Logan put up in ST, he'd be on the team as well. Logan was young and not needed as the third lefty out of the pen. That is the problem with building your bullpen by which arm the guy throws with. I rather have a righty that gets lefties out over a lefty whose only job is to get all lefties out. By giving all these different types of arms, it gives Ozzie more of a chance to screw up the matchups.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 07:55 PM
:?:
David Riske wasn't that bad last year, and all we gave up was a non roster invitee. It would've also been killer if the Sox offered the type A free agent arbitration for a couple of drafts picks, but I'll stop beating that horse at the moment.

Lopez was bad when the Red Sox used him last year too.

If some washed up veteran put up the numbers Logan put up in ST, he'd be on the team as well. Logan was young and not needed as the third lefty out of the pen. That is the problem with building your bullpen by which arm the guy throws with. I rather have a righty that gets lefties out over a lefty whose only job is to get all lefties out. By giving all these different types of arms, it gives Ozzie more of a chance to screw up the matchups.

Ozzie looked miserable with the bullpen in 06 and like a genius in 05. Something to do with the performances of Cotts, Politte and Hermanson.

It was impossible for Ozzie to win this year with any of his decisions...pulll the starters too early (Vazquez) and you expose the 4/5/6 relievers, wait too long and you never get to Thornton, MacDougal and Jenks because the starter has put you in too much of a hole for even our offense to compensate.

MDF3530
12-10-2006, 07:59 PM
How was bullpen 2006 such a KW flub?Two words: DAVID RISKE.

Every time I saw him warming up, I started screaming.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 08:02 PM
Two words: DAVID RISKE.

Every time I saw him warming up, I started screaming.


And therein lies the problem with offering him arbitration.

Do you really want to be stuck with this guy, because two future draft picks are much less important than winning in 2007.

If we're trying to build like the Cowboys with the Herschel Walker trade, sure...but I think KW knows that Riske's best days have passed.

soxfanreggie
12-11-2006, 08:59 AM
"4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel"

Honel was actually a good pitcher before his arm injury. Imagine some prospect gets hit by a bus. Is it the GMs fault that player "didn't pan out" if he never pitches again? Sure Honel is back, but do we expect him to be the same?

I will say that I like that Kenny has taken a chance on some guys to try and find a diamond in the rough or something that has lost its luster, especially when he gives up something worth a bag of balls for the player.

fquaye149
12-11-2006, 09:18 AM
Two words: DAVID RISKE.

Every time I saw him warming up, I started screaming.

oh come on

at that point it's called "stop the bleeding"

jdm2662
12-11-2006, 09:25 AM
Two words: DAVID RISKE.

Every time I saw him warming up, I started screaming.

If that was his worst move, then it's safe to say KW has done an outstanding job overall...

1917
12-11-2006, 09:28 AM
Paniagwa lasted 1 inning of 1 game, he was a low risk gamble that didn't pay off....no biggie with him. I didn't mind Robbie Alomar part 1, but part 2 got me going....

fquaye149
12-11-2006, 11:11 AM
It's really ****ing lame that the Worst KW moves thread has almost twice as many posts as the Best KW move thread

chisoxmike
12-11-2006, 11:28 AM
There are different ways to look at this.
Paniagua lasted only one game. You can look at this and say that it's so bad that he only lasted one game, or that it's not that bad because he was only there for one game so it didn't mean that much to the season, BUT I don't know anyone in the history of sports who is so remembered and hated for playing just one game!



Why would anybody fault KW on Paniagua blowing that game. It was Manual who brought him in. Koch should have come into that game. If Koch came in, I highly doubt four runs would have been given up. But whats done is done. There are PLENTY of reasons why the Sox didn't win the division in 2003.

chisoxmike
12-11-2006, 11:29 AM
Two words: DAVID RISKE.

Every time I saw him warming up, I started screaming.

Ugh. I hated that deal when it happend, I hope he never throws another pitch in a White Sox uniform.

34 Inch Stick
12-11-2006, 11:41 AM
This thread fails to realize that KW was an entirely inexperienced GM when he was hired. I expected many bad moves early in his career and he did not disappoint. However, anyone who thinks KW has not progressed as a GM is being rediculously unfair.

I place his emergence as a true GM at the point of the Garcia deal. While the moves early in his career are on his resume, I chalk them up to Reinsdorf hiring someone unprepared for the position.

ballclub3
12-18-2006, 12:48 AM
Worst moves:

1. Carlos Lee traded for Podsednik and Vizcaino.

2. Freddy Garcia traded for Floyd and Gonzalez.

3. Wells, Fogg, and Lowe traded for Todd Ritchie.

4. Ray Durham traded for Jon Adkins.

Dolanski
12-18-2006, 01:18 AM
Worst moves:
1. Carlos Lee traded for Podsednik and Vizcaino.


How is that a bad deal? We won the WS with Pods as a key member of the team, 06 season not withstanding. Viscaino had his moments.

Also, it was a money move. We were never going to keep Lee at the salary he would eventually command. Do you really with the Sox would have kept him? He was a terrible defender and a one dimensional power hitter. Good for him that the Astros paid him a bundle, but he isn't worth 100 mill.

I don't think you can call any deal bad when the players you get become key members of your championship season.

I suppose we are just going to have to play the what if game because that deal sure didn't help us get to a World Series Championship.

RadioheadRocks
12-18-2006, 02:02 AM
How is that a bad deal? We won the WS with Pods as a key member of the team, 06 season not withstanding. Viscaino had his moments.

Also, it was a money move. We were never going to keep Lee at the salary he would eventually command. Do you really with the Sox would have kept him? He was a terrible defender and a one dimensional power hitter. Good for him that the Astros paid him a bundle, but he isn't worth 100 mill.

I don't think you can call any deal bad when the players you get become key members of your championship season.

I suppose we are just going to have to play the what if game because that deal sure didn't help us get to a World Series Championship.

My sentiments exactly!

ballclub3
12-18-2006, 02:12 AM
How is that a bad deal? We won the WS with Pods as a key member of the team, 06 season not withstanding. Viscaino had his moments.

Also, it was a money move. We were never going to keep Lee at the salary he would eventually command. Do you really with the Sox would have kept him? He was a terrible defender and a one dimensional power hitter. Good for him that the Astros paid him a bundle, but he isn't worth 100 mill.

I don't think you can call any deal bad when the players you get become key members of your championship season.

I suppose we are just going to have to play the what if game because that deal sure didn't help us get to a World Series Championship.

My perspective on these moves comes from the time they were made, not afterward with the benefit of hindsight. I didn't like that deal at the time it was made because it was a deal that heavily favored the Brewers. That wasn't just my opinion, it was the general consensus around baseball. I didn't necessarily mind trading Lee but I couldn't believe that KW couldn't get Milwaukee to include any of their top prospects in that deal to make it a more even trade on the surface. Lee still had two years left on his contract after 2004 when you included the club option for 2006. So he was paid $8 mil in 2005 and $8.5 mil in 2006. That's nothing like the deal he just signed with Houston for over $16 mil per year. The Sox only saved $6 mil in 2005 on that deal because Podsednik and Vizcaino made about $2mil combined in 2005. And I know people always say the money saved enabled the Sox to sign some quality free agents but I don't think that holds much water. It gave them only $6 mil to work with, big deal! And making deals to dump salary doesn't mean you just give a player away and take far less than equal trade value in return, especially when Lee was only set to make $8 mil and $8.5 mil the next two years.

I never thought much of Podsednik even when people were raving about him in the first half of 2005 and Vizcaino is just a servicable reliever. And Podsednik is a guy that everyone wants replaced in left field nowadays. What could the Sox get for Podsednik in a trade today? Almost nothing. Certainly those two guys didn't have the trade value of Carlos Lee, a star player that hits 30 homers and drives in 100 runs on a yearly basis. So the Sox gave up a legitimate star outfielder for two fairly mediocre players.

chaerulez
12-18-2006, 09:06 AM
I would say the Billy Koch trade should be in the top 5.

ondafarm
12-18-2006, 09:08 AM
My perspective on these moves comes from the time they were made, not afterward with the benefit of hindsight. I didn't like that deal at the time it was made because it was a deal that heavily favored the Brewers. That wasn't just my opinion, it was the general consensus around baseball. I didn't necessarily mind trading Lee but I couldn't believe that KW couldn't get Milwaukee to include any of their top prospects in that deal to make it a more even trade on the surface. Lee still had two years left on his contract after 2004 when you included the club option for 2006. So he was paid $8 mil in 2005 and $8.5 mil in 2006. That's nothing like the deal he just signed with Houston for over $16 mil per year. The Sox only saved $6 mil in 2005 on that deal because Podsednik and Vizcaino made about $2mil combined in 2005. And I know people always say the money saved enabled the Sox to sign some quality free agents but I don't think that holds much water. It gave them only $6 mil to work with, big deal! And making deals to dump salary doesn't mean you just give a player away and take far less than equal trade value in return, especially when Lee was only set to make $8 mil and $8.5 mil the next two years.

I never thought much of Podsednik even when people were raving about him in the first half of 2005 and Vizcaino is just a servicable reliever. And Podsednik is a guy that everyone wants replaced in left field nowadays. What could the Sox get for Podsednik in a trade today? Almost nothing. Certainly those two guys didn't have the trade value of Carlos Lee, a star player that hits 30 homers and drives in 100 runs on a yearly basis. So the Sox gave up a legitimate star outfielder for two fairly mediocre players.

I don't know about this consensus. The trade raised a few eyebrows, but it definately showed the White Sox commitment to a different type of game, one where smart ball won games. And toward improving their outfield defense.

Carlos Lee may be an exciting player to watch with the bat, but with the glove he is a definate liability.

Why would the Sox want to trade Pods today? The Sox need a lead-off man and he is their only real candidate.

I'd make this trade again in a heartbeat. I think KW would as well.

jenn2080
12-18-2006, 10:08 AM
Trading Ross Gload was the worst.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 10:21 AM
Trading Ross Gload was the worst.

We get the schtick. You adopted Gload as your favorite player. You think he's cute. Wonderful....:rolleyes:

batmanZoSo
12-18-2006, 10:30 AM
We get the schtick. You adopted Gload as your favorite player. You think he's cute. Wonderful....:rolleyes:

What's the deal with people taking it personally and getting genuinely outraged when one of their "favorite" players is traded? I'll never get that. My loyalty is to the logo. I'll certainly never get the fascinations some people have with remarkably mediocre players like Ross Gload.

jenn2080
12-18-2006, 10:45 AM
We get the schtick. You adopted Gload as your favorite player. You think he's cute. Wonderful....:rolleyes:



Yes he is soooo dreamy. I mean I am so glad you got this all figured out. This is the only reason why I like him. Have you seen his butt? My god does he have the nicest butt ever. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

skottyj242
12-18-2006, 10:59 AM
We get the schtick. You adopted Gload as your favorite player. You think he's cute. Wonderful....:rolleyes:

I think it's a terrible trade too. He was my favorite player on the team. I loved Billy Koch too.

chisoxmike
12-18-2006, 11:04 AM
We get the schtick. You adopted Gload as your favorite player. You think he's cute. Wonderful....:rolleyes:

Gload is a excellent bench player for the Sox. We got another question mark for the bullpen/rotation.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the "C" is for Cooper, not Christ.

Not every "project pitcher" Don Cooper gets and has to work with is going to become lights out and shut down. Yes, Sisco has an upside, but will we see it? I hope.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Yes he is soooo dreamy. I mean I am so glad you got this all figured out. This is the only reason why I like him. Have you seen his butt? My god does he have the nicest butt ever. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You've never said he's cute?

I didn't say you only like him because he's cute.

Grow up.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:17 AM
Gload is a excellent bench player for the Sox. We got another question mark for the bullpen/rotation.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the "C" is for Cooper, not Christ.

Not every "project pitcher" Don Cooper gets and has to work with is going to become lights out and shut down. Yes, Sisco has an upside, but will we see it? I hope.

It's not a perfect trade, but Gload was an excellent BENCH player for the Sox.


I remember 2 weeks ago everyone was :whiner: about not enough bullpen arms and rightly so.

There's nothing wrong with liking bench players, and (rightly) respecting what they did. But let's not overrate what a guy with 50 hits and 18 rbi in 2006 meant to the team.

Christ....the guy's only got 133 hits with the Sox in his entire career. He was a very solid stick off the bench but that's about it.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:17 AM
What's the deal with people taking it personally and getting genuinely outraged when one of their "favorite" players is traded? I'll never get that. My loyalty is to the logo. I'll certainly never get the fascinations some people have with remarkably mediocre players like Ross Gload.

OMG WILLIE HARRIS GAVE ME A HUG

jenn2080
12-18-2006, 11:20 AM
You've never said he's cute?

I didn't say you only like him because he's cute.

Grow up.



Acutally never. You grow the **** up.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:23 AM
Acutally never. You grow the **** up.

But that's really not that important. What's important is how ridiculous this Gload love is.

You sound like the Rowand-lovers, which is probably the most ironic thing I can think of.

If anything, Rowand was more important to the White Sox's success than Gload, and I really really hate to say that.

itsnotrequired
12-18-2006, 11:24 AM
What's the deal with people taking it personally and getting genuinely outraged when one of their "favorite" players is traded? I'll never get that. My loyalty is to the logo. I'll certainly never get the fascinations some people have with remarkably mediocre players like Ross Gload.

Agreed. In the world of no reserve clause and free agency, I just can't get very attached to a particular player. The guy you like the most this year could be pounding out runs against your team next year.

itsnotrequired
12-18-2006, 11:26 AM
If anything, Rowand was more important to the White Sox's success than Gload, and I really really hate to say that.

There is nothing even remotely ridiculous with that statement. In terms of 2005, Rowand >>>>>>>>>> Gload.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:27 AM
Agreed. In the world of no reserve clause and free agency, I just can't get very attached to a particular player. The guy you like the most this year could be pounding out runs against your team next year.

Well...it's one thing to get attached to a starting player who's been around a while, came up with the team or whatever (Burly, Garland, Walnuts) but to get obsessively attached to a player who, if you thought about it for half a second, you'd know what getting traded or shipped down the the minors, is really really mind boggling

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 11:27 AM
There is nothing even remotely ridiculous with that statement. In terms of 2005, Rowand >>>>>>>>>> Gload.

I know that to be true...but I just hate to say it:redneck

PushnThaEscalade
12-18-2006, 11:37 AM
OMG WILLIE HARRIS GAVE ME A HUG

Don't tell that to Bafia. :redneck

itsnotrequired
12-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Well...it's one thing to get attached to a starting player who's been around a while, came up with the team or whatever (Burly, Garland, Walnuts) but to get obsessively attached to a player who, if you thought about it for half a second, you'd know what getting traded or shipped down the the minors, is really really mind boggling

When Frank Thomas came up to bat at The Cell for the first time in a non-Sox uniform, I cheered. Heck, I even cheered after his home run (second home run, not so much). I wished him success in Oakland and will wish him success in Toronto but just not against the Sox.

Compare that with a player like Ordonez. I applauded when he first came to bat at the Cell but that's it. Now, I could care less what he does.

stl_sox_fan
12-18-2006, 12:00 PM
1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie

My therapist almost had the memory of this trade suppressed. I'm forwarding my bill to you! IMO, Marte was a bright spot of that trade.

Dolanski
12-18-2006, 12:52 PM
My perspective on these moves comes from the time they were made, not afterward with the benefit of hindsight. I didn't like that deal at the time it was made because it was a deal that heavily favored the Brewers. That wasn't just my opinion, it was the general consensus around baseball. I didn't necessarily mind trading Lee but I couldn't believe that KW couldn't get Milwaukee to include any of their top prospects in that deal to make it a more even trade on the surface. Lee still had two years left on his contract after 2004 when you included the club option for 2006. So he was paid $8 mil in 2005 and $8.5 mil in 2006. That's nothing like the deal he just signed with Houston for over $16 mil per year. The Sox only saved $6 mil in 2005 on that deal because Podsednik and Vizcaino made about $2mil combined in 2005. And I know people always say the money saved enabled the Sox to sign some quality free agents but I don't think that holds much water. It gave them only $6 mil to work with, big deal! And making deals to dump salary doesn't mean you just give a player away and take far less than equal trade value in return, especially when Lee was only set to make $8 mil and $8.5 mil the next two years.

I never thought much of Podsednik even when people were raving about him in the first half of 2005 and Vizcaino is just a servicable reliever. And Podsednik is a guy that everyone wants replaced in left field nowadays. What could the Sox get for Podsednik in a trade today? Almost nothing. Certainly those two guys didn't have the trade value of Carlos Lee, a star player that hits 30 homers and drives in 100 runs on a yearly basis. So the Sox gave up a legitimate star outfielder for two fairly mediocre players.

The worst trade he has ever made, though? I admit when it happened I thought it wasn't a great deal for us BUT I cannot say it is the worst deal he has done when the players you got in return played key roles in winning the World Series.

What I don't understand is how you are evaluating the trades. You say it was based on your reaction at the time, yet how does that evaluate a trade? For that matter, you start complaining about Pods value today. Again, are you looking at the results of the deal or you "reaction at the time."

Oh and the 6 million they saved got us Jermaine Dye.

If you are talking gut reaction, sure, this wasn't a good deal, but who cares what the opinion was at the time when I can hoist a trophy over my head. Isn't that the point of it all? I could care less if they traded away the future greatest baseball player in the universe if they won a World Series. Sox fans waited 80 some odd years, so again, how is this the worst deal of KWs tenure?

Lorenzo Barcelo
12-18-2006, 01:06 PM
Well...it's one thing to get attached to a starting player who's been around a while, came up with the team or whatever (Burly, Garland, Walnuts) but to get obsessively attached to a player who, if you thought about it for half a second, you'd know what getting traded or shipped down the the minors, is really really mind boggling

Gload wasn't even on the 2005 playoff roster so I don't see the obsession with him. He was a solid bench player, but still a bench player.

batmanZoSo
12-18-2006, 01:57 PM
Agreed. In the world of no reserve clause and free agency, I just can't get very attached to a particular player. The guy you like the most this year could be pounding out runs against your team next year.

Bob Dylan inadvertently said it best when he complained that "the game today has so many players moving to different teams that it's like you're rooting for a jersey."

That's what it's all about, Bobby. I mean you can have favorite players, but ultimately if you're a true fan, the only thing that truly matters in the end is the uniform because that's the one thing that's permanent.

rdivaldi
12-18-2006, 03:11 PM
1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie

My therapist almost had the memory of this trade suppressed. I'm forwarding my bill to you! IMO, Marte was a bright spot of that trade.

Sorry to ruin a little more of your psychological restructuring, but Marte was not part of that trade. He was acquired for Matt Guerrier.

stl_sox_fan
12-18-2006, 03:35 PM
I'll have to reup my prescription. Thanks for the info. Now I can wholeheartedly say that no good at all came from the Todd Ritchie trade.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 03:41 PM
I'll have to reup my prescription. Thanks for the info. Now I can wholeheartedly say that no good at all came from the Todd Ritchie trade.

It's not like the Pirates really came out much better....

but Ritchie was still an embarrassment

bafiarocks03
12-18-2006, 05:08 PM
Letting Wilie Harris go.

SABRSox
12-18-2006, 05:09 PM
Letting Wilie Harris go.

LOL. I didn't even have to read the post, when I saw your name next to the thread.

Tragg
12-18-2006, 05:11 PM
Worst moves:

1. Carlos Lee traded for Podsednik and Vizcaino.


Certainly value for value that was not a good deal. But throw the money factor in (given the 70Millish budget limit we operated under), and it was a brilliant deal that arguably won a World Championship. It took a net $5 mill off the budget which allowed us to sign at least 2 of AJ, El D, and Iguchi. Also, it brought us a lead-off hitter, which we desparately needed.

In retrospect, I'd probably put it as Kenny's Best.

Tragg
12-18-2006, 05:18 PM
In no particular order

2. Durham for Jon Adkins
3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin
5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long
6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect

Kenny didn't do a good job dumping Baldwin and Durham. It's easy to criticize him for holding onto Borchard et al for too long, but every GM does that to some extent and at least he got something for a couple of them...he does a pretty good job, in general, using his farm system. Trading for Clayton was assinine.

Let's see - we traded a situational middle reliever (Bradford) for a top catching prospect (Olivo). All things being equal, I'd do that any day of the week. Olivo afor Bradford was a good trade.

On my worst list, I would group some of those bad relievers he acquired: Mike Jackson, Ric White and the absolute worst ......Alan Embree. I don't think Embree recored a single out when he was here.

ballclub3
12-18-2006, 06:14 PM
I don't know about this consensus. The trade raised a few eyebrows, but it definately showed the White Sox commitment to a different type of game, one where smart ball won games. And toward improving their outfield defense.

Carlos Lee may be an exciting player to watch with the bat, but with the glove he is a definate liability.

Why would the Sox want to trade Pods today? The Sox need a lead-off man and he is their only real candidate.

I'd make this trade again in a heartbeat. I think KW would as well.

Believe me, the consensus when that trade was made was that it was a great deal for the Brewers. As far as defense, I agree that Lee is a liability in the outfield but I think the same can be said for Pods. Pods also has one of the weakest outfield arms in the game. Pods has to play left field but he isn't the the prototypical left fielder that hits for power and drives in runs. Normally a player of his speed (and lack of run production) would be playing center field but his defense isn't good enough to justify putting him in center.

Why would the Sox want to trade Pods today? Because they were looking for an upgrade but it appears that they will be stuck with him as their leadoff hitter and left fielder for next year. I actually think that the guy the Sox just traded, Ross Gload, could do as good or better a job as an everyday player and leadoff hitter than Podsednik. He wouldn't steal quite as many bases but could perhaps steal 25 for the year. Also he would probably hit for a higher average and provide a little more power.

ballclub3
12-18-2006, 06:42 PM
The worst trade he has ever made, though? I admit when it happened I thought it wasn't a great deal for us BUT I cannot say it is the worst deal he has done when the players you got in return played key roles in winning the World Series.

What I don't understand is how you are evaluating the trades. You say it was based on your reaction at the time, yet how does that evaluate a trade? For that matter, you start complaining about Pods value today. Again, are you looking at the results of the deal or you "reaction at the time."

Oh and the 6 million they saved got us Jermaine Dye.

If you are talking gut reaction, sure, this wasn't a good deal, but who cares what the opinion was at the time when I can hoist a trophy over my head. Isn't that the point of it all? I could care less if they traded away the future greatest baseball player in the universe if they won a World Series. Sox fans waited 80 some odd years, so again, how is this the worst deal of KWs tenure?

I think it is more appropriate when evaluating a GM's moves to assess the deal at the time it was made rather than later on because of the information available at the time. When a deal is made, it is made without the benefit of hindsight, so why should we use hindsight to evaluate the deal? What if KW traded Jim Thome for some obscure middle reliever you've never heard of and the Sox won the WS next year? If that middle reliever was a key contributor to the team's success, does that mean it was a good trade at the time it was made? No it doesn't, and no sane GM would have dealt Jim Thome for an average middle reliever except to perhaps dump salary. Sure we can all look back after deals are made to see how they worked out, but I don't think that is the best way to evaluate trades.

As far as Pods' trade value today, I think it is very little. And I think it is only marginally less than it was at its peak. I also think Vizcaino doesn't have much trade value (he is a servicable reliever and was the 3rd piece of the deal to acquire Vazquez). I mention these things to support what I was saying about the discrepancy in trade value between Lee and those two guys. Let me ask you, don't you think KW should have been able to come up with a couple of Milwaukee's top prospects in that deal?

RadioheadRocks
12-18-2006, 06:55 PM
Sure we can all look back after deals are made to see how they worked out, but I don't think that is the best way to evaluate trades.

But shouldn't how the trade worked out be the ultimate deciding factor in whether a trade was good or bad? And who ultimately got the better of the deal, the Sox or the Brewers?

Maybe the topic should have been clarified ("Worst KW moves at the outset" or "Worst KW moves as they ultimately turned out")

caulfield12
12-18-2006, 07:34 PM
I think it is more appropriate when evaluating a GM's moves to assess the deal at the time it was made rather than later on because of the information available at the time. When a deal is made, it is made without the benefit of hindsight, so why should we use hindsight to evaluate the deal? What if KW traded Jim Thome for some obscure middle reliever you've never heard of and the Sox won the WS next year? If that middle reliever was a key contributor to the team's success, does that mean it was a good trade at the time it was made? No it doesn't, and no sane GM would have dealt Jim Thome for an average middle reliever except to perhaps dump salary. Sure we can all look back after deals are made to see how they worked out, but I don't think that is the best way to evaluate trades.

As far as Pods' trade value today, I think it is very little. And I think it is only marginally less than it was at its peak. I also think Vizcaino doesn't have much trade value (he is a servicable reliever and was the 3rd piece of the deal to acquire Vazquez). I mention these things to support what I was saying about the discrepancy in trade value between Lee and those two guys. Let me ask you, don't you think KW should have been able to come up with a couple of Milwaukee's top prospects in that deal?

It's just like criticizing KW for letting Magglio go without making a real effort to re-sign him.

KW knew

1) what he had in mind for the $23 million he was saving
2) that he wanted to change the mindset of the club, and letting Valentin, Lee and Ordonez go was a big part of that...
3) that it would be better to allocate all of that money over twice as many "quality" players in Hermanson, AJ, Dye, Everett, El Duque, Iguchi, Pods and Vizcaino
4) bringing Pods onto the team at leadoff might change the mentality of the ballclub, away from bashing 100% of the time and more towards manufacturing runs in 1-3 run ballgames

Logic. The return on the trade was only 25% of it, it's what he did with the money he saved from these two players that made the 2005 team and was the biggest factor in teh championship coming to Chicago, along with the Jenks waiver acquisition.

rdivaldi
12-18-2006, 08:01 PM
Let me ask you, don't you think KW should have been able to come up with a couple of Milwaukee's top prospects in that deal?

No. GMs put a much higher value on proven MLB players, thus since we were getting 2 in the deal the Brewers were not going to toss in a top prospect. Pods was just a year removed from hitting .314 and he stole 70 bases in his down year of 2004. Viz was coming off a very good 2004 season in which he appeared in 73 games. Perhaps we could have gotten a low level guy with some upside, but a top prospect? Not a chance.

This is the problem I have with the Garcia trade. I still believe we should have gotten another decent prospect even though I love Gio and think that Floyd has a big upside.

ilsox7
12-18-2006, 08:51 PM
But shouldn't how the trade worked out be the ultimate deciding factor in whether a trade was good or bad? And who ultimately got the better of the deal, the Sox or the Brewers?



Yes. That is the most sensible way to truly evaluate a trade. To evaluate a trade made today that involves prospects is fairly pointless. GM's trade and trade for prospects for a reason: future value. You can't just say a guy got lucky b/c a number of the prospects he traded for turned out good. It has something to do with the scouting and ability to predict succes. It's not all luck.

As for the Carlos Lee/Pods deal, there was many of us around here, at least, who recognized the immense value of saving that money. IIRC, there was a decent-sized contingent here who felt there were several moves coming b/c of the increased payroll flexibility and applauded the deal.

ondafarm
12-18-2006, 09:14 PM
Believe me, the consensus when that trade was made was that it was a great deal for the Brewers. As far as defense, I agree that Lee is a liability in the outfield but I think the same can be said for Pods. Pods also has one of the weakest outfield arms in the game. Pods has to play left field but he isn't the the prototypical left fielder that hits for power and drives in runs. Normally a player of his speed (and lack of run production) would be playing center field but his defense isn't good enough to justify putting him in center. . .

Well, the whole point of my post was I don't believe you. Perhaps among fans with no real baseball knowledge, the consensus was that, but I know of no one in professional baseball who thought the Brewers got a steal. Most people I know seemed to think it was a good deal for both clubs.

As for their comparative defense, Pods' range factor is typically in the mid 2.20s, CLee's barely is above 2.00. That means Carlos Lee watches a lot more balls drop in front of him than Pods does and even with his better throwing arm, he's not even close to closing the gap.

As to your mention of a lack of run production from Pods, this is indicative of your lack of comprehension of why smart ball wins games. A good lead-off man scores a lot of his runs when runs are scarce. That wins games. Power hitters are valuable but, as the Sox ably demonstrated for years, power hitters will only take you so far. To win championships you need to be able to score runs in all kinds of games.

As to your suggestion that Gload would be a better lead-off man than Pods, that just reiterates your level of misscomprehension of the complexities of baseball.

fquaye149
12-18-2006, 10:55 PM
No. GMs put a much higher value on proven MLB players, thus since we were getting 2 in the deal the Brewers were not going to toss in a top prospect. Pods was just a year removed from hitting .314 and he stole 70 bases in his down year of 2004. Viz was coming off a very good 2004 season in which he appeared in 73 games. Perhaps we could have gotten a low level guy with some upside, but a top prospect? Not a chance.

This is the problem I have with the Garcia trade. I still believe we should have gotten another decent prospect even though I love Gio and think that Floyd has a big upside.

Two different teams we're talking about.

The only way the Brewers will ever get a hitter of Lee's caliber is through a trade like that. Therefore they were willing to give up a lot more. Furthermore Lee had two years left on contract.

The Phillies are capable of signing free agents, which means they don't have to be as aggressive in trades. Meanwhile Freddy has one year left and will, even if he duplicates last year's ho-hum #'s (besides his wins, which are kind of a worthless stat) will be due for a HUGE payday.

Two different situations. Two different teams. I feel like Kenny got as much as he could in both situations.

ballclub3
12-18-2006, 11:58 PM
But shouldn't how the trade worked out be the ultimate deciding factor in whether a trade was good or bad? And who ultimately got the better of the deal, the Sox or the Brewers?

Maybe the topic should have been clarified ("Worst KW moves at the outset" or "Worst KW moves as they ultimately turned out")

Yeah, maybe the topic should have been clarified to one of those two choices. But I think it is a good thing to get different perspectives on this issue. Plus you see with my viewpoint, I don't agree with most of the people here. I could have posted the same trades as everyone else, but that would be boring. I would have just refrained from posting in that case.

ballclub3
12-19-2006, 12:08 AM
It's just like criticizing KW for letting Magglio go without making a real effort to re-sign him.

KW knew

1) what he had in mind for the $23 million he was saving
2) that he wanted to change the mindset of the club, and letting Valentin, Lee and Ordonez go was a big part of that...
3) that it would be better to allocate all of that money over twice as many "quality" players in Hermanson, AJ, Dye, Everett, El Duque, Iguchi, Pods and Vizcaino
4) bringing Pods onto the team at leadoff might change the mentality of the ballclub, away from bashing 100% of the time and more towards manufacturing runs in 1-3 run ballgames

Logic. The return on the trade was only 25% of it, it's what he did with the money he saved from these two players that made the 2005 team and was the biggest factor in teh championship coming to Chicago, along with the Jenks waiver acquisition.

Whenever a team dumps salary, you can say that it enabled them to invest that money into other areas, right? If the money was equal, who would you rather have? Lee, or Podsednik and Vizcaino?

ballclub3
12-19-2006, 12:27 AM
No. GMs put a much higher value on proven MLB players, thus since we were getting 2 in the deal the Brewers were not going to toss in a top prospect. Pods was just a year removed from hitting .314 and he stole 70 bases in his down year of 2004. Viz was coming off a very good 2004 season in which he appeared in 73 games. Perhaps we could have gotten a low level guy with some upside, but a top prospect? Not a chance.

This is the problem I have with the Garcia trade. I still believe we should have gotten another decent prospect even though I love Gio and think that Floyd has a big upside.

Well, the Sox were giving up a bona fide star outfielder (he now gets paid $16mm/year). If I can send Podsednik and a reliever of Vizcaino's caliber and get a star outfielder in return, then let's do it! I'll even throw in a mid-level prospect with upside to make up for any decrease in Pod's trade value. I'd love to see the Sox with another left fielder who can produce like Lee.

I agree with you on the Garcia trade. It would have been nice to see them net another decent prospect from that deal. KW should have waited to pull the trigger on a deal for Garcia.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 12:36 AM
Whenever a team dumps salary, you can say that it enabled them to invest that money into other areas, right? If the money was equal, who would you rather have? Lee, or Podsednik and Vizcaino?

So if a Cashman traded A-Rod straight up for, say, David Wright, since A-Rod is better than Wright it wouldn't matter that Cashman just netted his team, like, 15 million dollars?

And now imagine that Cashman is GM for a team that actually needs to net 15 million dollars

:rolleyes:

I realize you're like, playing devil's advocate or something...but generally when you do that you want to make passable arguments

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 12:37 AM
Well, the Sox were giving up a bona fide star outfielder (he now gets paid $16mm/year). If I can send Podsednik and a reliever of Vizcaino's caliber and get a star outfielder in return, then let's do it! I'll even throw in a mid-level prospect with upside to make up for any decrease in Pod's trade value. I'd love to see the Sox with another left fielder who can produce like Lee.

I agree with you on the Garcia trade. It would have been nice to see them net another decent prospect from that deal. KW should have waited to pull the trigger on a deal for Garcia.


lol if only you were managing the team.

So what were the other offers he had.

Or why don't you just TELL us what other offers he WOULD have gotten later:rolleyes:

ballclub3
12-19-2006, 01:12 AM
Well, the whole point of my post was I don't believe you. Perhaps among fans with no real baseball knowledge, the consensus was that, but I know of no one in professional baseball who thought the Brewers got a steal. Most people I know seemed to think it was a good deal for both clubs.

As for their comparative defense, Pods' range factor is typically in the mid 2.20s, CLee's barely is above 2.00. That means Carlos Lee watches a lot more balls drop in front of him than Pods does and even with his better throwing arm, he's not even close to closing the gap.

As to your mention of a lack of run production from Pods, this is indicative of your lack of comprehension of why smart ball wins games. A good lead-off man scores a lot of his runs when runs are scarce. That wins games. Power hitters are valuable but, as the Sox ably demonstrated for years, power hitters will only take you so far. To win championships you need to be able to score runs in all kinds of games.

As to your suggestion that Gload would be a better lead-off man than Pods, that just reiterates your level of misscomprehension of the complexities of baseball.

Wow! You sure seem to have a high esteem of your own personal baseball knowledge. Well, it is a pleasure to be tutored by someone as well-versed at the nuances and complexities of the game of baseball as you. Thanks for taking the time to give instruction.

Most people I heard opining on that trade at the time it was made thought it was a great deal for the Brewers and a bad one for the Sox. And I'm not just talking about local opinion. But I guess in your opinion anyone who held that view doesn't know very much about baseball.

Defensively, I think neither one of them are very good as I stated earlier. I didn't say that Lee was a good fielder. But any advantage that Pods has doesn't offset the difference in offensive production between the two.

As for Gload, please go into detail as to why he would have been such a bad option to leadoff in comparison to Pods. I would really like to learn something worthwhile. Is there anyone else on the Sox roster that can leadoff or is Pods far and away the best man for the job? Is it just because Pods will steal a few more bases than the others (and also get thrown out a lot)?

I do think it is good to be able to score runs in different ways but I think you give Pods a little too much credit. Let's not forget that the pitching was the main reason the Sox won the WS in '05. It was outstanding pitching in the regular season and in the playoffs that was the main reason for that team's success.

Let me ask you this: If leadoff hitters of the Podsednik ilk are so valuable, why does it tend to be the sluggers who get paid the big bucks? When Podsednik becomes eligible for free agency should we be expecting him to sign a contract worth $16mm/year? And why is his trade value so low? Why aren't major league GM's offering attractive deals to the White Sox to pry away Podsednik?

ilsox7
12-19-2006, 01:23 AM
Let me ask you this: If leadoff hitters of the Podsednik ilk are so valuable, why does it tend to be the sluggers who get paid the big bucks? When Podsednik becomes eligible for free agency should we be expecting him to sign a contract worth $16mm/year? And why is his trade value so low? Why aren't major league GM's offering attractive deals to the White Sox to pry away Podsednik?

Um, they are. Did you see the deals Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews, Jr. got? They got HUGE deals for no good reason.

Also, onda played professionally and knows his ****. I'm not trying to be an ass here, but you seem in a bit over your head. You claim lead-off guys don't get big deals, but two just signed huge deals in the last month. You're trying to claim money plays no role in a trade, but it does to just about every team in MLB. You're saying KW should have waited longer to trade Freddy b/c he would have gotten a better package, but have absolutely nothing to back that claim up. These are the reasons people on here are ripping you.

ballclub3
12-19-2006, 01:39 AM
Um, they are. Did you see the deals Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews, Jr. got? They got HUGE deals for no good reason.

Also, onda played professionally and knows his ****. I'm not trying to be an ass here, but you seem in a bit over your head. You claim lead-off guys don't get big deals, but two just signed huge deals in the last month. You're trying to claim money plays no role in a trade, but it does to just about every team in MLB. You're saying KW should have waited longer to trade Freddy b/c he would have gotten a better package, but have absolutely nothing to back that claim up. These are the reasons people on here are ripping you.

I'm aware of the deals that Pierre and Matthews got. Dave Roberts also got a decent contract. But those guys didn't get deals as lucrative as Lee, Soriano, and Vernon Wells received. I was speaking in comparative terms. However, I don't think we should be putting Pods in the same class as those others. I honestly don't think there will be teams offering him a ton of money when he becomes a FA. We'll see what happens.

I didn't say money didn't play a role in trades. It obviously does as KW confirms. But what you get back in a trade matters too. I just don't believe the Sox got enough in return in the Lee deal even though they shedded a bit of salary. I think that's a legitimate opinion.

On Garcia, I don't know for certain that KW could have gotten more for him. I just thought he could have waited on it. I certainly don't think he would have gotten less in return if he waited a while on it. The demand for quality starting pitching is high and I don't think that a package of Floyd and Gonzalez is attractive enough to make one jump at the chance to make that deal.

areilly
12-19-2006, 01:47 AM
Let me ask you this: If leadoff hitters of the Podsednik ilk are so valuable, why does it tend to be the sluggers who get paid the big bucks? When Podsednik becomes eligible for free agency should we be expecting him to sign a contract worth $16mm/year? And why is his trade value so low? Why aren't major league GM's offering attractive deals to the White Sox to pry away Podsednik?

Because chicks dig the long ball.

And to equate salary with value is just plain foolish - and that doesn't apply only in baseball.

ballclub3
12-19-2006, 01:51 AM
Because chicks dig the long ball.

And to equate salary with value is just plain foolish - and that doesn't apply only in baseball.

Don't chicks also dig winning? Isn't a winning team the most important thing to fans, be they male or female?

areilly
12-19-2006, 01:57 AM
Don't chicks also dig winning? Isn't a winning team the most important thing to fans, be they male or female?

Not really. Look at Boston. Look at the Cubs. Look at half the NFL. Look at any soccer team outside the U.S. Plenty of fans who'd die for their team, and plenty of losing teams to go around.

RadioheadRocks
12-19-2006, 02:01 AM
Don't chicks also dig winning? Isn't a winning team the most important thing to fans, be they male or female?

Hence what I've said all along... White Sox: 2005 World Champions, Brewers: hmmmmmmmm.


And you're right about dominant pitching being a key reason for our championship, but don't forget good defense, rock solid fundamentals and TOTAL TEAM EFFORT figured in as well. Bottom line, EVERYTHING CAME TOGETHER to give us that championship, and that trade was a vital part of "everything coming together".

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 09:18 AM
lol if only you were managing the team.

So what were the other offers he had.

Or why don't you just TELL us what other offers he WOULD have gotten later:rolleyes:

The Astros seemed perfectly willing to give up three players for Jason Jennings. Some of us are of the opinion that KW might have been able to get more if he had held out for a longer period of time, you can't really argue against that without your own speculation.
:dunno:

ondafarm
12-19-2006, 09:27 AM
Because chicks dig the long ball.

And to equate salary with value is just plain foolish - and that doesn't apply only in baseball.


This is actually quite true.

To be a pennant winning team you need to be able to beat even very good pitchers on their good days. Because that is what you get in the playoffs. Power guys put fans in the stands and win games when pitchers make mistakes. When pitchers are throwing a great game, a good lead-off guy helps a lot with your team's ability to manufacture runs.

Not many teams need solid lead-off men becuase most teams don't have a realistic shot of winning the pennant. Look at the Flubs, they have zero chance, so they went out and signed (and resigned) some bashers, but their lead-off man walked. The Flubs will be a more exciting team this coming year, but won't play the Sox in the World Series. The Sox are built to win it all if Pods has a good year. Anderson and Uribe improving would also do wonders. Because only a few teams have a real shot at the pennant, lead-off guys don't make as much as bashers, who everybody needs.

caulfield12
12-19-2006, 09:45 AM
I'm aware of the deals that Pierre and Matthews got. Dave Roberts also got a decent contract. But those guys didn't get deals as lucrative as Lee, Soriano, and Vernon Wells received. I was speaking in comparative terms. However, I don't think we should be putting Pods in the same class as those others. I honestly don't think there will be teams offering him a ton of money when he becomes a FA. We'll see what happens.

I didn't say money didn't play a role in trades. It obviously does as KW confirms. But what you get back in a trade matters too. I just don't believe the Sox got enough in return in the Lee deal even though they shedded a bit of salary. I think that's a legitimate opinion.

On Garcia, I don't know for certain that KW could have gotten more for him. I just thought he could have waited on it. I certainly don't think he would have gotten less in return if he waited a while on it. The demand for quality starting pitching is high and I don't think that a package of Floyd and Gonzalez is attractive enough to make one jump at the chance to make that deal.

There have been a few players who really took off in their late 20's and early 30's (like Luis Gonzalez), but they had more than one seasons accumulated statistics behind them.

For instance, if I said that Pablo Ozuna should have been given the full-time leadoff job at mid-season, what would your response have been? Well, he's hitting .350 and has a high OBP and can steal more bases than Gload, right?

Gload accumulated those stats because of favorable match-ups that led directly to those stats. If he was overexposed and played against LHP'ers and in every game, he would be a .270 hitter with 15 homers and 70 RBI's. It would be Aaron Rowand playing 1B, or Mark Grace Lite.

Then you have to take into consideration the fact that Gload is a horrible defensive outfielder, much worse than Pods even.

Finally, you have to take into consideration the disruptive impact that Pods had on the psyche of opposing pitchers and the way the mentality of the White Sox changed in April of 2005 due to his aggressiveness. Ross Gload might strike fear into Freddy Garcia and Victor Martinez as a battery, but that's about the extent of it.

Thanks for your grand salami against Baltimore and thanks for Sisco.

Adios.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 09:48 AM
The Astros seemed perfectly willing to give up three players for Jason Jennings. Some of us are of the opinion that KW might have been able to get more if he had held out for a longer period of time, you can't really argue against that without your own speculation.
:dunno:

i agree that he definitely could have got a higher number of players

(yes 3 definitely is ONE MORE than 2)

the question is is that something he wanted? According to the thread in Talking Baseball Fenway started KW didn't WANT the players the Astros sent Colorado...

but thanks for playing. Try again next time.

(oh and oh by the way, Jennings isn't a one year rental....)

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 10:07 AM
i agree that he definitely could have got a higher number of players

(yes 3 definitely is ONE MORE than 2)

the question is is that something he wanted? According to the thread in Talking Baseball Fenway started KW didn't WANT the players the Astros sent Colorado...

but thanks for playing. Try again next time.

(oh and oh by the way, Jennings isn't a one year rental....)

But of course that's all random speculation. Unless you have a portal into KWs brain (a la Being John Malkovich) I don't think any of us can say whether or not KW wanted the players that Houston sent Colorado.

If you're going to try to be smug, perhaps have something to be smug about next time...

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 10:10 AM
But of course that's all random speculation. Unless you have a portal into KWs brain (a la Being John Malkovich) I don't think any of us can say whether or not KW wanted the players that Houston sent Colorado.

If you're going to try to be smug, perhaps have something to be smug about next time...

welllllll

according to the article Fenway posted in Talking Baseball (LIKE I SAID IN MY POST)

KW turned down the Garland for Bucholz Hirsch and Taveras deal....and please, listen carefully:

BECAUSE BUCHOLZ HAD LABRUM SURGERY

Got it? I think that's as close to a portal into Kenny's head as anyone gets...I THINK:rolleyes:


edit: By the way, here's the link in case you STILL DON'T GET IT:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82421

spiffie
12-19-2006, 10:15 AM
A good lead-off man scores a lot of his runs when runs are scarce. That wins games. Power hitters are valuable but, as the Sox ably demonstrated for years, power hitters will only take you so far. To win championships you need to be able to score runs in all kinds of games.
Okay, this quote intrigues me. I don't know if I believe this or not, so let's look at 2005, a year in which Pods was our prototypical leadoff guy. Let's also look that year at Konerko and Crede, and see who scores their runs in close games:

Podsednik: 129 games total in 2005. He scored runs in 58 of those games, so he scored overall in 38.8% of the games he played in.

The Sox run total breakdown in the games he scored in:
1 run: 2 games
2 runs: 5 games
3 runs: 3 games
4 runs: 4 games
5 runs: 10 games
6 runs: 8 games
7 runs: 5 games
8 runs: 10 games
9 runs: 4 games
10+ runs: 7 games

So out of 129 games, Pods scored runs in games where runs were scarce (3 or less runs) 10 times (7.75%) Of games he scored in that is 10 out of 58 games (17.2%). His total runs scored in such games is 10 out of 80 (12.5%). Of games he scored in, 21 out of 58 were games with 8 or more runs (36.2%). His total runs in such games was 32 out of 80 (40%)

Let's see what Konerko's breakdown is:
158 games total. Konerko scored in 76 of these (48.1%)

1 run: 3 games
2 runs: 7 games
3 runs: 7 games
4 runs: 9 games
5 runs: 13 games
6 runs: 12 games
7 runs: 6 games
8 runs: 8 games
9 runs: 4 games
10+ runs: 7 games

Konerko scored in scarce games 17 out of 158 times (10.7%). Of games Konerko scored in that's 17 out of 76 (22.4%). His total runs scored in such games is 19 out of 98 (19.4%). Of games he scored in, 19 out of 76 were 8+ run games (25%). His total runs in those games were 29 out of 98 (29.6%).

Lastly, Juan Uribe, circa 2005:
Juan played in 146 games that year. He scored in 49 of those games (33.6%).

1 run: 2 games
2 runs: 6 games
3 runs: 1 game
4 runs: 3 games
5 runs: 8 games
6 runs: 11 games
7 runs: 4 games
8 runs: 3 games
9 runs: 5 games
10+ runs: 6 games

Uribe scored in scarce games 9 out of 146 times (6.2%). Of games Uribe scored in it is 9 out of 49 times (18.4%). Of his total runs 9 out of 58 came in scarce games (15.5%). Of games he scored in 14 out of 49 were 8+ run games (28.6%). He scored 20 of his 58 runs in such games (34.5%)


So, what does all this tell us? Not much really. Out of the three guys in 2005, Konerko actually did more of his damage in close games, and less of his damage in blowouts than either Podsednik or Uribe. It does make me wuish someone could run numbers like this over a large group. 3 players makes for interesting anecdotal evidence, but doesn't prove anything. It does make me wonder though whether a good leadoff hitter scores any more of his runs in close tight games than an average player, or if that's simply what our mind's eye tells us should happen. It is interesting though that of the three Pods seemingly did the least amount of work in close games of them.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 10:18 AM
#'s

those stats are good, and kudos on the research...

but that's not exactly what ODF meant...you kind of missed the point.

The final score of the game is often irrelevant, b/c the leadoff hitter usually scores the FIRST run of the game.

he's also instrumental in scoring runs in close games.

You also might consider searching for how many runs Pods scored when the score was a 2 run differential or less

that's really what ODF is talking about

Jerko
12-19-2006, 10:24 AM
Well, since fquaye knows everything about everything, I put the entire roster of WSI on ignore except him. All I need to know about baseball, music, and life in general, I can get from his posts alone. The rest of you stupid people matter not..........

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 10:29 AM
Well, since fquaye knows everything about everything, I put the entire roster of WSI on ignore except him. All I need to know about baseball, music, and life in general, I can get from his posts alone. The rest of you stupid people matter not..........


put me on ignore if you like... but i've never once said i know everything.

i do know a lot of things about music and in re: baseball I know the following things:

a.) what has already been posted on this message board

b.) the relative value of a bench player

c.) that KW is not a moron


I think those are relatively simple things to know, and if people can't get them straight, I might try to correct them.

spiffie
12-19-2006, 10:42 AM
those stats are good, and kudos on the research...

but that's not exactly what ODF meant...you kind of missed the point.

The final score of the game is often irrelevant, b/c the leadoff hitter usually scores the FIRST run of the game.

he's also instrumental in scoring runs in close games.

You also might consider searching for how many runs Pods scored when the score was a 2 run differential or less

that's really what ODF is talking about
He said "when runs are scarce". If there's any other way to define that I don't really see it. After all, that seemed to be the whole gist, was that great leadoff hitters give you the edge by being able to play small ball and score lots of runs by scratching across 1 or 2 runs to win low-scoring playoff games.

But okay, I'll bite, and see what we get looking for your criterion. Runs scored for our 3 test subjects in games decided by 1 or 2 runs. I could go through the game logs and find out exactly that, but honestly, I do have to do some work here at work during the day :wink:

Podsednik: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 23 out of 80 (28.8%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 13 out of 80 (16.3%). Total close game runs: 39 out of 80 (48.8%)

Konerko: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 38 out of 98 (38.8%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 16 out of 98 (16.3%). Total close game runs: 54 out of 98 (55.1%)

Uribe: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 18 out of 58 (31%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 10 out of 58 (17.2%). Total close game runs: 28 out of 58 (48.3%).

SouthSide_HitMen
12-19-2006, 10:46 AM
I know that a 100 + post thread on Kenny Williams' worst moves is utterly ridiculous, especially after winning the World Series in 2005 and after a 90 win season is considered a failure.

Kenny Williams built the first White Sox team to have a legitimate shot (2000 was not a legitimate contender) to win the World Series since Bud, Jerry and the union pulled the plug on 1994 and only the second team during my life to have a shot to win it all (1983 being the other season). Kenny deserves some respect after what he has done during his run as GM, IMO.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 10:51 AM
He said "when runs are scarce". If there's any other way to define that I don't really see it. After all, that seemed to be the whole gist, was that great leadoff hitters give you the edge by being able to play small ball and score lots of runs by scratching across 1 or 2 runs to win low-scoring playoff games.

But okay, I'll bite, and see what we get looking for your criterion. Runs scored for our 3 test subjects in games decided by 1 or 2 runs. I could go through the game logs and find out exactly that, but honestly, I do have to do some work here at work during the day :wink:

Podsednik: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 23 out of 80 (28.8%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 13 out of 80 (16.3%). Total close game runs: 39 out of 80 (48.8%)

Konerko: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 38 out of 98 (38.8%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 16 out of 98 (16.3%). Total close game runs: 54 out of 98 (55.1%)

Uribe: Wins by 1 or 2 runs: 18 out of 58 (31%). Losses by 1 or 2 runs: 10 out of 58 (17.2%). Total close game runs: 28 out of 58 (48.3%).

cool. I'll buy into that.

I've always thought having more good hitters is better than having less good hitters but more role players.... this seems to sort of back that up.

I still wouldn't bat Gload leadoff though

maurice
12-19-2006, 11:07 AM
LMAO at a poster complaining that a former professional baseball player seems to have "high esteem" of his "personal baseball knowledge."
:D:

soxtalker
12-19-2006, 11:26 AM
I know that a 100 + post thread on Kenny Williams' worst moves is utterly ridiculous, especially after winning the World Series in 2005 and after a 90 win season is considered a failure.

Kenny Williams built the first White Sox team to have a legitimate shot (2000 was not a legitimate contender) to win the World Series since Bud, Jerry and the union pulled the plug on 1994 and only the second team during my life to have a shot to win it all (1983 being the other season). Kenny deserves some respect after what he has done during his run as GM, IMO.

I have to disagree -- it is not ridiculous to discuss Kenny's worst moves. And it doesn't indicate lack of respect. He's made some bad moves in his time here. That's to be expected -- he's been here several years, and he's one of the most active GM's around. It looks to me like he's learned a lot from some of his earlier mistakes.

The fact that this thread has gone on for so long is probably due mostly to this being a relatively quiet period in the off season. We just had a few weeks with some moves, which kept us interested, but it is still pretty quiet.

Also, except for one or two of the moves (Richie being the one that comes to mind), there's a lot of disagreement in this thread. That's not a bad comment on the GM.

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 02:32 PM
welllllll

according to the article Fenway posted in Talking Baseball (LIKE I SAID IN MY POST)

KW turned down the Garland for Bucholz Hirsch and Taveras deal....and please, listen carefully:

BECAUSE BUCHOLZ HAD LABRUM SURGERY

Got it? I think that's as close to a portal into Kenny's head as anyone gets...I THINK:rolleyes:


edit: By the way, here's the link in case you STILL DON'T GET IT:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82421

Really I only have one point to make which is eluding you for some reason. There's absolutely ZERO way of ANYONE knowing what KW was thinking of doing in regards to the Astros trade.

Let's move on, this is has gotten old...

maurice
12-19-2006, 03:03 PM
There's absolutely ZERO way of ANYONE knowing what KW was thinking of doing in regards to the Astros trade.

As far as I can tell, they're all mimicking a single "source" within the media who claimed that the Astros deal was considered and rejected after the Garcia trade was completed. We here at WSI know that the Houston rumors (including the specific package of players eventually traded to Colorado) were in place long before the Garcia deal, so the chances are excellent that the media "source" got it wrong and that KW simply chose to trade Garcia to the Phils rather than trading Garland to the 'Stros.

Coincidentally, the claim that KW intended to trade both Garcia and Garland plays right into the otherwise baseless Cubune / Marriott theory that JR / KW are conspiring to cut payroll and white flag the '07 season, while the Cubs are free spending their way from 90+ losses to 90+ wins.
:rolleyes:

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:30 PM
Really I only have one point to make which is eluding you for some reason. There's absolutely ZERO way of ANYONE knowing what KW was thinking of doing in regards to the Astros trade.

Let's move on, this is has gotten old...

Of course you can't know anything for SURE, but what we do know is

a.) Garland is signed longer and is younger than Garcia

b.) There were very matter-of-fact reports that KW and Hou had reached a deal

c.) There is a report that the reason that trade didn't go down because of labrum surgery on Buchholz, which makes perfect sense given the Sox prospects' history

Of course we can never KNOW anything 100%, but to completely ignore information seems silly. And what seems sillier is to assume the KW didn't know exactly what he could and could not get for Garcia. And what seems sillier still is for KW to be after Hirsh and Buchholz and not even ASK Houston if he could get them for Garcia.

soxinem1
12-19-2006, 03:34 PM
Of course you can't know anything for SURE, but what we do know is

a.) Garland is signed longer and is younger than Garcia

b.) There were very matter-of-fact reports that KW and Hou had reached a deal

c.) There is a report that the reason that trade didn't go down because of labrum surgery on Buchholz, which makes perfect sense given the Sox prospects' history

Of course we can never KNOW anything 100%, but to completely ignore information seems silly. And what seems sillier is to assume the KW didn't know exactly what he could and could not get for Garcia. And what seems sillier still is for KW to be after Hirsh and Buchholz and not even ASK Houston if he could get them for Garcia.

Hmmm, how come the trade that never happened with HOU is being discussed so much in the KW's Worst Moves' thread?

areilly
12-19-2006, 03:35 PM
Because only a few teams have a real shot at the pennant, lead-off guys don't make as much as bashers, who everybody needs.

I was being serious when I said that. Most people forget that for the bulk of the teams, baseball is more of an entertainment product than anything else, and 40 solo homers will get more cheers than 40 sac flys that turn into runs.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Hmmm, how come the trade that never happened with HOU is being discussed so much in the KW's Worst Moves' thread?

Well someone said that KW was stupid to trade Garcia for Floyd and Gio b/c Colo-Hou trade proved that KW could have gotten three prospects.

I feel like that's a silly claim for a variety of reasons.

Nevertheless: if we want to talk about bad KW moves involving trades that never happened, look no further than Garland for Erstad!

:o::o::o:

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Of course you can't know anything for SURE, but what we do know is

a.) Garland is signed longer and is younger than Garcia

b.) There were very matter-of-fact reports that KW and Hou had reached a deal

c.) There is a report that the reason that trade didn't go down because of labrum surgery on Buchholz, which makes perfect sense given the Sox prospects' history

Of course we can never KNOW anything 100%, but to completely ignore information seems silly. And what seems sillier is to assume the KW didn't know exactly what he could and could not get for Garcia. And what seems sillier still is for KW to be after Hirsh and Buchholz and not even ASK Houston if he could get them for Garcia.Which is why it's fair to assume he did. Given that, we're left with two possibilities:

1. The Astros said no.
2. Kenny decided he wanted Floyd and Gonzalez instead.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Furthermore, there's NOTHING to indicate that he ever contemplated doing BOTH those deals. It's not as if this would be the first time a newpaper put 2 and 2 together and got 6 and ran with a story. In fact, Kenny's history has been to do everything possible to avoid having holes in the rotation, so to assume he'd have done both deals, putting both McCarthy and Floyd into the rotation, makes no sense.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:38 PM
Which is why it's fair to assume he did. Given that, we're left with two possibilities:

1. The Astros said no.
2. Kenny decided he wanted Floyd and Gonzalez instead.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Furthermore, there's NOTHING to indicate that he ever contemplated doing BOTH those deals. It's not as if this would be the first time a newpaper put 2 and 2 together and got 6 and ran with a story. In fact, Kenny's history has been to do everything possible to avoid having holes in the rotation, so to assume he'd have done both deals, putting both McCarthy and Floyd into the rotation, makes no sense.

BINGO.

But Phil Rogers says....:redneck

And besides the talent issues, what might be a major reason Kenny wanted Floyd and Gonzalez?

Well, maybe Labrum surgery? Maybe not.

maurice
12-19-2006, 03:42 PM
There were very matter-of-fact reports that KW and Hou had reached a deal

This happens all the time. It doesn't necessarily mean that the deal fell through. It usually means that the initial report was exaggerated.

c.) There is a report that the reason that trade didn't go down because of labrum surgery on Buchholz, which makes perfect sense given the Sox prospects' history

That would be a great reason for any team to de-value Buchholz. Labrum surgery often is fatal to a pitching career. But that doesn't mean that the Sox had a deal with Houston after the Garcia trade was complete and that it fell through for this reason.

Of course we can never KNOW anything 100%, but to completely ignore information seems silly.

Nobody is "ignoring" the information. We're acknowledging it and then discrediting it.

And what seems sillier is to assume the KW didn't know exactly what he could and could not get for Garcia. And what seems sillier still is for KW to be after Hirsh and Buchholz and not even ASK Houston if he could get them for Garcia.

Yes, that would be completely ridiculous. That's why I don't believe it for one second. I am not prepared to assume that KW is an idiot at this stage of his career. KW either (1) thought that the Phils offer for Garcia was better, or (2) asked to substitute Garcia for Garland and got turned down by Purpura.

This was discussed extensively days ago. You're beating a dead horse.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 03:43 PM
BINGO.

But Phil Rogers says....:redneck

And besides the talent issues, what might be a major reason Kenny wanted Floyd and Gonzalez?

Well, maybe Labrum surgery? Maybe not.It may be as simple as the fact that he got TWO top pitching prospects instead of one.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:53 PM
It may be as simple as the fact that he got TWO top pitching prospects instead of one.

Could be. But Buchholz and Hirsh aren't exactly chopped liver

from sportsline:

Buchholz, whose medical reports might have caused the White Sox to back off a prior trade, was 6-10 with a 5.89 in 19 starts and three relief appearances. He was demoted to Triple-A Round Rock for a spell and made seven starts there.

speculation, yes, but labrum problems and White Sox farm systems are probably two phrases KW is loathe to hear together

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:55 PM
This happens all the time. It doesn't necessarily mean that the deal fell through. It usually means that the initial report was exaggerated.



That would be a great reason for any team to de-value Buchholz. Labrum surgery often is fatal to a pitching career. But that doesn't mean that the Sox had a deal with Houston after the Garcia trade was complete and that it fell through for this reason.



Nobody is "ignoring" the information. We're acknowledging it and then discrediting it.



Yes, that would be completely ridiculous. That's why I don't believe it for one second. I am not prepared to assume that KW is an idiot at this stage of his career. KW either (1) thought that the Phils offer for Garcia was better, or (2) asked to substitute Garcia for Garland and got turned down by Purpura.

This was discussed extensively days ago. You're beating a dead horse.

My reply was not in response to your post...it was in response to a post made today, one I quoted in my original post.

The post was by rdivaldi and it was in regards to KW not getting enough for Garcia and it said:

The Astros seemed perfectly willing to give up three players for Jason Jennings. Some of us are of the opinion that KW might have been able to get more if he had held out for a longer period of time, you can't really argue against that without your own speculation.
:dunno:
I found that to be a silly comparison for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it seemed like KW didn't even want the players (or rather specifically Buchholz) Houston gave up in the first place

santo=dorf
12-19-2006, 03:56 PM
Power hitters are valuable but, as the Sox ably demonstrated for years, power hitters will only take you so far. To win championships you need to be able to score runs in all kinds of games.
Here's the problem with comparing these Sox sluggers and guys people wanted (A-Rod, Manny) to the previous teams. The early 2000 team players didn't get on base as much.
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
Carlos Lee: .345, .321, .359, .331, .366
Valentin: .343, .336, .311, .313, .287 (!)
Konerko: .363, .349, .359, .305, .359
Thomas: .436, .316 (68 AB,) .361, .390, .434 (105 AB)
Crede: .333 (14 AB,) .273 (50 AB,) .311, .308, .299
Maggs: .371, .382, .381, .380, .351 (202 AB)

Last Year: Thome .416, Dye .385, Konerko .381, Iguchi .352. Holes; Pods .330 (especially hurts with so many PA's,) Crede .323, Anderson .290, Uribe .257 !!!!!!

I know that a 100 + post thread on Kenny Williams' worst moves is utterly ridiculous, especially after winning the World Series in 2005 and after a 90 win season is considered a failure.

Kenny Williams built the first White Sox team to have a legitimate shot (2000 was not a legitimate contender) to win the World Series since Bud, Jerry and the union pulled the plug on 1994 and only the second team during my life to have a shot to win it all (1983 being the other season). Kenny deserves some respect after what he has done during his run as GM, IMO.
It's not that there's 100 posts slamming him, it's one person bashing a trade and getting 10 responses why he/she is wrong. You're going to get more posts in a thread if people are disagreeing

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 04:04 PM
My reply was not in response to your post...it was in response to a post made today, one I quoted in my original post.

The post was by rdivaldi and it was in regards to KW not getting enough for Garcia and it said:


I found that to be a silly comparison for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it seemed like KW didn't even want the players (or rather specifically Buchholz) Houston gave up in the first place

Those 3 words sum it up for me.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 04:07 PM
Those 3 words sum it up for me.

fair enough. my bad for getting worked up.
:redface:

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 04:14 PM
fair enough. my bad for getting worked up.
:redface:

If we're not putting hours into over-analyzing the trade of Ross Gload or the psyche of KW, what kind of Sox fans would we be? It's the offseason, we're all bored and ready for Spring Training to begin...

:drunken:

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 04:17 PM
If we're not putting hours into over-analyzing the trade of Ross Gload or the psyche of KW, what kind of Sox fans would we be? It's the offseason, we're all bored and ready for Spring Training to begin...

:drunken:


ugh. can't we just trade away our entire pitching staff like the Cubune says we're going to so that we can REALLY have a thread!

rdivaldi
12-19-2006, 04:27 PM
ugh. can't we just trade away our entire pitching staff like the Cubune says we're going to so that we can REALLY have a thread!

That would crash the servers and probably send quite a few people with torches and pitchforks towards the Cell...

ondafarm
12-19-2006, 04:58 PM
Okay, this quote intrigues me. I don't know if I believe this or not, so let's look at 2005, a year in which Pods was our prototypical leadoff guy. Let's also look that year at Konerko and Crede, and see who scores their runs in close games:

Podsednik: 129 games total in 2005. He scored runs in 58 of those games, so he scored overall in 38.8% of the games he played in.

The Sox run total breakdown in the games he scored in:
1 run: 2 games
2 runs: 5 games
3 runs: 3 games
4 runs: 4 games
5 runs: 10 games
6 runs: 8 games
7 runs: 5 games
8 runs: 10 games
9 runs: 4 games
10+ runs: 7 games

So out of 129 games, Pods scored runs in games where runs were scarce (3 or less runs) 10 times (7.75%) Of games he scored in that is 10 out of 58 games (17.2%). His total runs scored in such games is 10 out of 80 (12.5%). Of games he scored in, 21 out of 58 were games with 8 or more runs (36.2%). His total runs in such games was 32 out of 80 (40%)

Let's see what Konerko's breakdown is:
158 games total. Konerko scored in 76 of these (48.1%)

1 run: 3 games
2 runs: 7 games
3 runs: 7 games
4 runs: 9 games
5 runs: 13 games
6 runs: 12 games
7 runs: 6 games
8 runs: 8 games
9 runs: 4 games
10+ runs: 7 games

Konerko scored in scarce games 17 out of 158 times (10.7%). Of games Konerko scored in that's 17 out of 76 (22.4%). His total runs scored in such games is 19 out of 98 (19.4%). Of games he scored in, 19 out of 76 were 8+ run games (25%). His total runs in those games were 29 out of 98 (29.6%).

Lastly, Juan Uribe, circa 2005:
Juan played in 146 games that year. He scored in 49 of those games (33.6%).

1 run: 2 games
2 runs: 6 games
3 runs: 1 game
4 runs: 3 games
5 runs: 8 games
6 runs: 11 games
7 runs: 4 games
8 runs: 3 games
9 runs: 5 games
10+ runs: 6 games

Uribe scored in scarce games 9 out of 146 times (6.2%). Of games Uribe scored in it is 9 out of 49 times (18.4%). Of his total runs 9 out of 58 came in scarce games (15.5%). Of games he scored in 14 out of 49 were 8+ run games (28.6%). He scored 20 of his 58 runs in such games (34.5%)


So, what does all this tell us? Not much really. Out of the three guys in 2005, Konerko actually did more of his damage in close games, and less of his damage in blowouts than either Podsednik or Uribe. It does make me wuish someone could run numbers like this over a large group. 3 players makes for interesting anecdotal evidence, but doesn't prove anything. It does make me wonder though whether a good leadoff hitter scores any more of his runs in close tight games than an average player, or if that's simply what our mind's eye tells us should happen. It is interesting though that of the three Pods seemingly did the least amount of work in close games of them.

Great numbers. I'm not sure I concur with your statement that Konerko does less of his damage during blowout games. I'd also like to see the record in games where each of these players scored and the lefty-righty and pre-All-Star post-All-Star breakdown. ((I realize, stats are easy to ask for when someone else is calculating them.)) I also agree, I'd like to see this on more guys.

Pods does have the factor of being disruptive on the basepaths, something that Gload just isn't. A pitcher with divided concentration is much more likely to hang a curve or not throw his best slider.

I'm not in love with Pods, but unless the Sox have a better option, I'm all for keeping him if he's decent and relatively inexpensive. Owens might be able to take over the lead-off role eventually or with significant training BA.

ondafarm
12-19-2006, 05:17 PM
I was being serious when I said that. Most people forget that for the bulk of the teams, baseball is more of an entertainment product than anything else, and 40 solo homers will get more cheers than 40 sac flys that turn into runs.

How true it is. I actually still hold the single season record for sacrifice flies in the Industrial League in Japan, and yet, whenever I've been written up, my .242 career batting average and lack of power always mean the phrase "lack of offensive threat" seem to get attached to my name.

soxinem1
12-19-2006, 05:46 PM
Well someone said that KW was stupid to trade Garcia for Floyd and Gio b/c Colo-Hou trade proved that KW could have gotten three prospects.

I feel like that's a silly claim for a variety of reasons.

Nevertheless: if we want to talk about bad KW moves involving trades that never happened, look no further than Garland for Erstad!

:o::o::o:

Fair enough, but I could add the Josh Beckett for Contreras one if we add the ''Glad KW Didn't Make This Trade' thread!!

caulfield12
12-19-2006, 09:22 PM
Fair enough, but I could add the Josh Beckett for Contreras one if we add the ''Glad KW Didn't Make This Trade' thread!!


Don't you mean AJ Burnett?

soxinem1
12-20-2006, 06:15 AM
Don't you mean AJ Burnett?

Yes, yes, and yes. Wrong former Marlin. :smile:

wilburaga
12-20-2006, 11:33 AM
Kenny's worst move?

To 3rd base, in 1988. 14 errors in 32 games. .860 fielding percentage.

They killed Kenny.

W

soxguy
12-20-2006, 02:24 PM
Kenny Williams is the BEST GM the white sox have ever had AND I would put him up there in the top 3 GMs in all of baseball right now. ALL GMs make bad moves, so what! His positives far outweigh his negatives and some of his good moves brought a world series championship to Chicago. He is maintaining a championship caliber team while keeping an eye to the future. I am not sure what more you could want as a fan?

I guess some fans are just life long complainers.

soxinem1
12-20-2006, 02:38 PM
Kenny's worst move?

To 3rd base, in 1988. 14 errors in 32 games. .860 fielding percentage.

They killed Kenny.

W

Don't forget his .159 BA.

In all due 'defense', he told the team his foot hurt and they didn't believe him. Turns out he had a broken bone down there.

He never recovered as a player after hitting a 3 R HR Opening Day that year. That was about it for him.

ballclub3
12-22-2006, 02:09 AM
There have been a few players who really took off in their late 20's and early 30's (like Luis Gonzalez), but they had more than one seasons accumulated statistics behind them.

For instance, if I said that Pablo Ozuna should have been given the full-time leadoff job at mid-season, what would your response have been? Well, he's hitting .350 and has a high OBP and can steal more bases than Gload, right?

Gload accumulated those stats because of favorable match-ups that led directly to those stats. If he was overexposed and played against LHP'ers and in every game, he would be a .270 hitter with 15 homers and 70 RBI's. It would be Aaron Rowand playing 1B, or Mark Grace Lite.

Then you have to take into consideration the fact that Gload is a horrible defensive outfielder, much worse than Pods even.

Finally, you have to take into consideration the disruptive impact that Pods had on the psyche of opposing pitchers and the way the mentality of the White Sox changed in April of 2005 due to his aggressiveness. Ross Gload might strike fear into Freddy Garcia and Victor Martinez as a battery, but that's about the extent of it.

Thanks for your grand salami against Baltimore and thanks for Sisco.

Adios.

I don't want to give the impression that I think that Gload is anything special. I think the numbers you indicated aren't much different than I would expect from him if he played every day. I would expect Gload to hit .270-.285, 12-16 HR, 60-70 RBI's.

I think people are overating Pods' basestealing prowess here. In 2005, he stole 59 bases at a success rate of only 72%. In 2006, he stole 40 bases at a success rate of only 68%. Those are hardly great numbers.

I think it is also important to point out that it is possible to be a playoff team, and even a World Series team, without having an outstanding basestealer as your leadoff man. The 2006 Cardinals' leadoff man was David Eckstein. In the '06 regular season, he stole 7 bases in 13 attempts.

When I say that Gload could give Pods a run for his money as a leadoff man and everyday player, it is not that I think that Gload is anything to write home about. I know that he has been a career bench player and probably won't be an everyday starter in the Royals' lineup. So it's not that I think so highly of Gload. It's that I think so little of Podsednik!

ballclub3
12-22-2006, 02:14 AM
LMAO at a poster complaining that a former professional baseball player seems to have "high esteem" of his "personal baseball knowledge."
:D:

That was actually supposed to read, "high estimation" of "personal baseball knowledge." I didn't proofread that post carefully enough. I hope you'll forgive me.

ballclub3
12-22-2006, 02:26 AM
lol if only you were managing the team.

So what were the other offers he had.

Or why don't you just TELL us what other offers he WOULD have gotten later:rolleyes:

I can't say for certain what offers he would have gotten later. But why did a trade involving Garcia have to be made in early December? Was there a big risk of getting LESS trade value in return if KW held out longer?

I don't think that deal with Philly was so attractive for the White Sox that it had to be made right then and there for fear that an equal or better deal wouldn't be available to the Sox if they had waited. That seems like a timid way for the White Sox to utilize an important bargaining chip like Garcia.

tomgordon1
12-24-2006, 02:36 PM
I would say the Vazquez deal isn't working out right now. He's getting paid the most on the staff and he may fail again in '07. KW did make bad moves in the past but all of those up until 2005, you can forget about 'em. What he's done after '05 isn't that great. I think the B-mac trade, if Kenny is trying to pull something off, is to acquire Zito or Mulder. Otherwise, it can bite us hard having the 5th spot open AGAIN!!! :o: But KW needs to stop improving the bullpen, we really did not need to make more than one move in that area. We lost out on Rowand, Baldelli, and Crawford. Other than that, I still have all the confidence that Detroit and Minnesota will fall short.

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2006, 02:45 PM
I would say the Vazquez deal isn't working out right now. He's getting paid the most on the staff and he may fail again in '07. KW did make bad moves in the past but all of those up until 2005, you can forget about 'em. What he's done after '05 isn't that great. I think the Fingernails on a blackboard trade, if Kenny is trying to pull something off, is to acquire Zito or Mulder. Otherwise, it can bite us hard having the 5th spot open AGAIN!!! :o: But KW needs to stop improving the bullpen, we really did not need to make more than one move in that area. We lost out on Rowand, Baldelli, and Crawford. Other than that, I still have all the confidence that Detroit and Minnesota will fall short.
Two of these are two of the best young hitters in the game. One of them is a 4th OF living off of a garbage reputation. Which is which?

ondafarm
12-24-2006, 03:50 PM
That was actually supposed to read, "high estimation" of "personal baseball knowledge." I didn't proofread that post carefully enough. I hope you'll forgive me.

And as the object of that insult (either I am or my vanity permits me to think I am) I admit I didn't read it carefully enough either. Ever since the stupid comments about first baseman catching the ball as he comes into the dugout at the end of the inning, I've found ignoring certain comments keeps my blood pressure down.

tomgordon1
12-24-2006, 05:21 PM
Two of these are two of the best young hitters in the game. One of them is a 4th OF living off of a garbage reputation. Which is which?


If you're talking about Rowand, than I hope you're joking. Age isn't a problem to any of those three but he's nowhere close to having a garbage reputation. I think the majority fans would want him back here if they could've gotten him but KW made the wrong choice, that's the bottom line.:angry:

santo=dorf
12-24-2006, 05:22 PM
If you're talking about Rowand, than I hope you're joking. Age isn't a problem to any of those three but he's nowhere close to having a garbage reputation. I think the majority fans would want him back here if they could've gotten him but KW made the wrong choice, that's the bottom line.:angry:
Rowand sucks. How about that?

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2006, 07:00 PM
If you're talking about Rowand, than I hope you're joking. Age isn't a problem to any of those three but he's nowhere close to having a garbage reputation. I think the majority fans would want him back here if they could've gotten him but KW made the wrong choice, that's the bottom line.:angry:
By garbage reputation I mean a false reputation as a good hitter/fielder. He sucks. He had a .256 eqa last season and an OPS+ of 87! In the NL East!

He is a completely miserable baseball player, especially compared to Carl and Rocco.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 07:28 PM
I think people are overating Pods' basestealing prowess here. In 2005, he stole 59 bases at a success rate of only 72%. In 2006, he stole 40 bases at a success rate of only 68%. Those are hardly great numbers.


Actually, those numbers are pretty darn good. There aren't many players who can say they've stollen 99 bases the past two seasons. Granted, we expected more from him last year, but a lot of that can be attributed to his injuries which seemed to slow him down all year long. Actually, the injuries started back in the second half of '05 (coinciding with our August slump) If (and it is a big if) he can stay healthy all year, he is capable of stealing 70 bases (see 2004).

Craig Grebeck
12-25-2006, 08:07 AM
He got caught way too much.

miker
12-26-2006, 02:38 PM
I know this kind of pointless discussion over GM moves is the fodder for sports radio and websites like WSI. If it were up to fans (and owners!), you could get a future hall of famer in his prime for two packs of baseball cards, still foil wrapped with the gum inside...but the real world is much more complicated.

Every GM is going to have bad deals. The GMs that stick around are either kissing the owner's behind, or have made more good deals than bad.

Is McCarthy to the Rangers a bad move? Only time can tell.

Is stockpiling young arms a better strategy than signing the Jeff Suppans of the world for over $10 mil/year? I'm starting to believe it is.

tomgordon1
12-26-2006, 11:24 PM
By garbage reputation I mean a false reputation as a good hitter/fielder. He sucks. He had a .256 eqa last season and an OPS+ of 87! In the NL East!

He is a completely miserable baseball player, especially compared to Carl and Rocco.


Yea, he was bad last year cuz he wasn't with us. Come on now, it's not easy switching from the AL to the NL and you can't expect him to have a career year. About Carl and Rocco, see, Carl's great, yea maybe better than A-row but Rocco still needs more playing time to prove himself. He had some injuries. But in the end, Rowand will be hitting near .300, eventually

ilsox7
12-26-2006, 11:25 PM
Yea, he was bad last year cuz he wasn't with us. Come on now, it's not easy switching from the AL to the NL and you can't expect him to have a career year. About Carl and Rocco, see, Carl's great, yea maybe better than A-row but Rocco still needs more playing time to prove himself. He had some injuries. But in the end, Rowand will be hitting near .300, eventually

:rolling:

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 11:30 PM
:rolling:

Seriously. Rowand isn't on the team anymore and is not the greatest player ever to grace center field.

fquaye149
12-27-2006, 02:37 AM
Yea, he was bad last year cuz he wasn't with us. Come on now, it's not easy switching from the AL to the NL and you can't expect him to have a career year. About Carl and Rocco, see, Carl's great, yea maybe better than A-row but Rocco still needs more playing time to prove himself. He had some injuries. But in the end, Rowand will be hitting near .300, eventually


Carl Crawford is perhaps maybe possibly who knows better than Rowand

Madscout
12-27-2006, 01:56 PM
In no particular order

1. Wells/Fogg/Lowe for Ritchie
2. Durham for Jon Adkins
3. Barry/Berry and Matsuoka for Baldwin
4. Drafting Royce Ring and Kris Honel
5. Holding onto Borchard, Ginter, Malone and Rauch too long
6. Trading Myette for Clayton (who caused all kinds of problems)
7. Signing Jimenez and Lofton, because they almost ruined our clubhouse
8. Vazquez deal (so far)
9. Almost trading Garland/Singleton for Erstad...Contreras for Burnett
10. Foulke for Koch/Cotts (turned out not a complete disaster)
11. David Wells
12. Armando Rios
13. Jeff Nelson
14. Jose Paniagua
15. No 5th starter from 2001-2004

Olivo/Bradford doesn't look so bad now, in retrospect

Hindsight is 20/20

tomgordon1
12-27-2006, 03:42 PM
Seriously. Rowand isn't on the team anymore and is not the greatest player ever to grace center field.


I never said Rowand was the best center fielder. I was comparing the other two to him. Most fans would want him back, especially those who were at Ring Day like I was and the biggest ovation was for him. I'd take him over Anderson, that's for sure.

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 04:11 PM
I never said Rowand was the best center fielder. I was comparing the other two to him. Most fans would want him back, especially those who were at Ring Day like I was and the biggest ovation was for him. I'd take him over Anderson, that's for sure.

Show me the proof that "most" fans want Rowand back. Be sure to let those fans that want him back know that the Sox will not get him back for free.

I was at the Ring Day game and cheered very loudly for Rowand when he got his ring. Then I put his memory in the back of my mind and focused on the 2006 Sox.

PhillipsBubba
12-27-2006, 10:00 PM
Kenny Williams built a World Series Champion...

Thanks KW...I can live with your "so-called" bad moves.:smile:

tomgordon1
12-28-2006, 01:03 AM
i agree that he definitely could have got a higher number of players

(yes 3 definitely is ONE MORE than 2)

the question is is that something he wanted? According to the thread in Talking Baseball Fenway started KW didn't WANT the players the Astros sent Colorado...

but thanks for playing. Try again next time.

(oh and oh by the way, Jennings isn't a one year rental....)


listen to yourself, you're an airhead. Do you think you're the smartest one on this post? Get real. :gulp:

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 01:48 AM
listen to yourself, you're an airhead. Do you think you're the smartest one on this post? Get real. :gulp:

Touche.

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 01:20 PM
listen to yourself, you're an airhead. Do you think you're the smartest one on this post? Get real. :gulp:

If you're offering to buy me a drink, this airhead readily accepts your offer

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 01:22 PM
If you're offering to buy me a drink, this airhead readily accepts your offer

Go top shelf or go home...