PDA

View Full Version : recapping Kenny's lousy trades...


White Sox Randy
12-23-2006, 04:26 PM
1. Trades Garcia, who can win 15+ games for any team next year for a prospect washout, Floyd, and a good, not great, pitching prospect that probably won't help the Sox much until 2009...and is considered fragile.

2. Trades Brandon McCarthy, who has proven as a big league starter that he is already capable of shutting down even the best major league lineups like the Red Sox and could possibly have been the Sox best starter next season for Danks, a highly rated prospect that didn't fare all that well in AAA last season and probably won't be a big contributor for the Sox until 2008 and a good looking relief prospect that hasn't pitched in the majors yet.

I say Kenny got beat on both deals. I know that time will tell but I'd rather have both deals back right now. He should have waited about a few more weeks to trade any starting pitchers and he likely could have gotten more.

Daver
12-23-2006, 04:29 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.

The Critic
12-23-2006, 04:30 PM
Ehh, KW wan't going to win in peoples' eyes unless he got Johan Santana and the magical Carl Crawford for Garcia and McCarthy.

I'll wait to see how the trades work out after some actual games are played.
The trades are eyebrow-raisers, but only time will tell if they were good trades or not.

I bet that "Worst KW Moves" thread is gonna be a'poppin' now, though.....

batmanZoSo
12-23-2006, 04:35 PM
Ehh, KW wan't going to win in peoples' eyes unless he got Johan Santana and the magical Carl Crawford for Garcia and McCarthy.

I'll wait to see how the trades work out after some actual games are played.
The trades are eyebrow-raisers, but only time will tell if they were good trades or not.

I bet that "Worst KW Moves" thread is gonna be a'poppin' now, though.....

Are you kidding? KW will never win no matter whom he acquires. Remember the Garcia trade? You know, that guy for whom we gave up future Hall of Famers (Reed and Olivo) and all we got in return were two and a half very solid seasons and a World Series title. You gotta give a little to get a little.

TDog
12-23-2006, 04:38 PM
I don't think the Sox could have gotten more for Garcia because I think Garcia is a suspect pitcher these days. I am surprised the Rangers gave up as much as they did to get McCarthy.

cbotnyse
12-23-2006, 04:40 PM
I say Kenny got beat on both deals.There is no way to determine that right now. Its not like we traded our pitchers for some bat boys. Lets give the new guys a chance eh?

palehozenychicty
12-23-2006, 04:41 PM
I don't think the Sox could have gotten more for Garcia because I think Garcia is a suspect pitcher these days. I am surprised the Rangers gave up as much as they did to get McCarthy.

That is the most striking thing for a team that always needs pitching. But they are the Rangers, so who's surprised that they always get it wrong?

White Sox Randy
12-23-2006, 04:45 PM
maybe they think this will make Danks brother sign with them.....that would be nice

White Sox Randy
12-23-2006, 04:47 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.


you are like a broken record but thanks for your brilliant input

Corlose 15
12-23-2006, 04:47 PM
Not to split hairs or anything but Masset did pitch in 8 games for the Rangers last year.

HomeFish
12-23-2006, 04:53 PM
the magical Carl Crawford

No teal needed there. Carl Crawford -IS- magical. That's why we'll never have him.

jabrch
12-23-2006, 04:53 PM
you are like a broken record but thanks for your brilliant input

And then he tangles with Daver? I don't see Randy lasting too long with that non-sense.

Ol' No. 2
12-23-2006, 04:55 PM
you are like a broken record but thanks for your brilliant inputThere's a broken record here, all right.

HomeFish
12-23-2006, 04:56 PM
Trades Brandon McCarthy, who has proven as a big league starter that he is already capable of shutting down even the best major league lineups like the Red Sox

Brandon McCarthy had ONE good game at a dilapidated green ballpark.

Felix Diaz had one good game at a dilapidated green ballpark, against a fairly good offensive team too. Does that make him a proven big league starter also?

Law11
12-23-2006, 04:58 PM
Theres no way anyone can say this is or isnt a good trade until we see results from all these trades. Its all opinions..

Get a grip. You cant stand still with the way baseball is moving financially.
KW has my vote. What makes any of us experts on these trades?

You think KW hasnt looked at these guys he's trading for? I'm thinking K has a bit more insight than some of the "experts" on WSI.

digdagdug23
12-23-2006, 05:08 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.

It's like a fine wine that only gets better with age. Except this is the opposite of that, unless we are talking getting BETTER at making STUPIDLY INSANE posts, and then in that case, it still stands.

QCIASOXFAN
12-23-2006, 05:13 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.
Can we get a recap of all those stupid posts?

BA: The Hitman
12-23-2006, 05:14 PM
When I first heard about this one, I was really mad because it looked like we had our starting rotation set for next year. This trade could look great in the future if Danks turns out to be what many expect him to be. I dont want to make final judgement on this trade now, but it makes me scratch my head a little bit as to why you would want to create a hole to be filled for the 5 spot in the rotation......

ChiSoxFan7
12-23-2006, 05:18 PM
im thinking this maybe a rebuilding year, but then again maybe not. when you have williams finding diamonds in the rough and cooper fixing em up (contreas, loiza, etc.) i will hold my opinion until the churros are heated and april is around

California Sox
12-23-2006, 05:35 PM
Theres no way anyone can say this is or isnt a good trade until we see results from all these trades. Its all opinions..

Get a grip. You cant stand still with the way baseball is moving financially.
KW has my vote. What makes any of us experts on these trades?

You think KW hasnt looked at these guys he's trading for? I'm thinking K has a bit more insight than some of the "experts" on WSI.

Why even have the boards then? None of us are experts on any aspect of the White Sox or baseball generally. Does that mean we should stop posting altogether? Part of the fun is to have an opinion. I happen to have really liked McCarthy, so my opinion is colored by that. Other people think he was a bum. You're right, time will tell, but it's more fun to take a stand, even if it turns out to be wrong.

thomas35forever
12-23-2006, 05:48 PM
For all we know, he could be trading for trade bait so he can acquire a proven starter.

Jerome
12-23-2006, 06:24 PM
Not one game has been played since these trades, not even one spring training has passed.

The pitchers KW got back are all under the age of 25

Wait at least 12 months before creating a thread like this when at least it will have credibility, somewhat anyways.

kevingrt
12-23-2006, 06:26 PM
How can you assess a trade where the best player we got has not even pitched a full season in the major leagues. And the main player we traded is 23 and hasn't been a starter for a full season in the MLB. Kinda ridiculous post.

JB98
12-23-2006, 07:12 PM
Are you kidding? KW will never win no matter whom he acquires. Remember the Garcia trade? You know, that guy for whom we gave up future Hall of Famers (Reed and Olivo) and all we got in return were two and a half very solid seasons and a World Series title. You gotta give a little to get a little.

Personally, I LOVED the acquisition of Garcia for prospects in 2004. Likewise, I HATED trading Garcia to Philadelphia for prospects.

I guess I have soft spot for proven major-league pitchers who make 30 starts and throw 200 innings every year. At least I'm consistent.

Not real excited about KW's moves so far this offseason. I have to figure something else is in the works that will make all this make sense.

Frater Perdurabo
12-23-2006, 07:17 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.

Given that I've made some pretty stupid posts over the years, I have to say that the stupid posts make the good ones stand out more in relief.

Daver
12-23-2006, 07:21 PM
Given that I've made some pretty stupid posts over the years, I have to say that the stupid posts make the good ones stand out more in relief.

In Randy's case I'm still waiting for a good one.

veeter
12-23-2006, 07:22 PM
I think the Sox scouts are the best in the biz. I have faith in every move. I a homer, but Kenny deserves the benefit of every doubt.

Frater Perdurabo
12-23-2006, 07:22 PM
In Randy's case I'm still waiting for a good one.

I guess I consider it a public service when another poster makes me look smart by comparison.

DMarte708
12-23-2006, 07:31 PM
I think the Sox scouts are the best in the biz. I have faith in every move. I a homer, but Kenny deserves the benefit of every doubt.
Well, that's certaintly going to be put to the test. Especially with McCarthy. Williams better hope Danks/Masset are impact players and that Brandon doesn't become significantly better.

Daver
12-23-2006, 07:32 PM
I think the Sox scouts are the best in the biz. I have faith in every move. I a homer, but Kenny deserves the benefit of every doubt.

No team has better scouting than the Minnesota Twins.

Brian26
12-23-2006, 07:41 PM
No team has better scouting than the Minnesota Twins.

No question about it. Not even close.

Juice16
12-23-2006, 07:43 PM
I think you guys are drinking way too much of the Kenny Kool Aid. If and only If Kenny has something on the horizon, then we can say these were good trades. Right now on paper, the straight deals he has made make the Sox worse than last year. The McCarthy trade has now made the Freddie trade even worse. Liek I said, he there is something grand on the way, then we can say these were good, but nothing has happened and we cannot assume.

Domeshot17
12-23-2006, 07:44 PM
Personally, I have said it in other posts, I think our scouting of prospects is horrible. We don't draft well, we don't develop well, we got to where we are by picking up the right major league players with a few kids mixed in (Jenks was the steal of the century).

About the trades, I would be really happy with them if I knew we were rebuilding, but the way I look at, AS OF NOW, we are going into 2007 with big question marks about the 5th starter, half of the bullpen, CF, 4th OF, and we could really use an upgrade at Short. The problem is, out of all of our trades, counting Masset Sisco Denks Floyd Gio and Aardsma, it is incredibly possible none of them will help us in 2007, and also has the possibility not one of them will amount to anything.

In the same sense, you could be looking at our 2009 rotation right there with Broadway and Mculloch(spelling?) figured in.

I guess I just really hope we don't have to wait until 2009 to get back to the playoffs. It is just FRUSTERATING in the sense that you have Buehlre Contreras each coming off down years (in Jose's sense, injuries). Vazquez coming off an incredibly inconsistent and shakey season, and Garland coming off a season where the only impressive thing he did was win (not a great ERA or WHIP etc). I would have liked to see us do something to shore our team up, which we still may. Last month we were hoping to get Vazquez OUT of the rotation, now he is more important than ever. I just don't feel like we are stronger then we were last year (although again, Kenny might not be done).

I feel like a Marlins fan, except they had to do this about 14 times last offseason.

fquaye149
12-23-2006, 08:01 PM
you are like a broken record but thanks for your brilliant input

At least his broken record is telling you how asinine your posts are...

as opposed to your broken record of making asinine posts.

Congratulations---you are the brayingest of the 5000 armchair GM's on this site.

And I thought FakeChetLemon had that title locked up with his posts today.

Your assessment was ridiculous for so many reasons, but go on---keep believing how much more than Kenny you know...in fact, maybe you should send JR a letter and tell him why he should hire you as GM... You could attach the first post in this thread as your cover letter.

I'm sure he'll put it express in the circular file.

fquaye149
12-23-2006, 08:04 PM
I think you guys are drinking way too much of the Kenny Kool Aid. If and only If Kenny has something on the horizon, then we can say these were good trades..

That's a good point. Kenny needs to answer to Juice16, and SOON.

hose
12-23-2006, 08:23 PM
It's pretty obvious another trade is going to happen.

KW is stock piling top ranked pitching prospects , something big is coming down the pike.

jabrch
12-23-2006, 08:25 PM
Personally, I have said it in other posts, I think our scouting of prospects is horrible. We don't draft well, we don't develop well, we got to where we are by picking up the right major league players with a few kids mixed in (Jenks was the steal of the century).


So list off all the teams that have done a better job since 2000. (I think this is ridiculous, but am open to being proven wrong if you can list 10 teams that have done a better job than we have.)

Knucksie
12-23-2006, 08:26 PM
I feel like a Marlins fan, except they had to do this about 14 times last offseason.

I'd like to enjoy a 2nd WS like a Marlins fan

Domeshot17
12-23-2006, 08:30 PM
So list off all the teams that have done a better job since 2000. (I think this is ridiculous, but am open to being proven wrong if you can list 10 teams that have done a better job than we have.)

I'll get the list by sometime tomorrow, I didnt want to get in a huge debate, actually leaving my dads for the 2 hour car ride home in 10 minutes and proposing tomorrow, so other things on my mind :cool: .

I guess in a sense it all depends on how you value the farm. We have kind of shotgunned it like the Yankees. Use the kids to get solid pro players. That would change having the amount of guys that get to the pro's.

Juice16
12-23-2006, 08:37 PM
So list off all the teams that have done a better job since 2000. (I think this is ridiculous, but am open to being proven wrong if you can list 10 teams that have done a better job than we have.)

I don't think anyone is complaning about Kenny since 2000. Kenny has done some wonderful things, but this year it is garbage. As of right now, the White Sox have traded away two of their 6 starters with nothing in return but question marks. In my eyes it makes the team worse than last year.

Realist
12-23-2006, 08:39 PM
No team has better scouting than the Minnesota Twins.

A buddy of mine has been a scout for the Twins for years. I wanna slap him in the face everytime I see him. I tell him he works way too hard and he needs to take a friggin' break already. :mad::smile:

Brian26
12-23-2006, 10:07 PM
im thinking this maybe a rebuilding year,

Unless KW is planning on trading a combination of Buehrle, Garland, Dye and Crede before Opening Day, I don't see 2007 as a rebuilding year. All that's happened is that the 5th starters have been shuffled around. No reason to panic...

UserNameBlank
12-23-2006, 10:54 PM
About rebuilding:

If you think about it, Freddy, Brandon, Vizcaino, El Duque, Rowand, Blum, Harris, Timo, Hermanson, Politte, Cotts, Widger, Marte, Gload and a few others that made up the WS team are already gone. Pods would be gone if Matthews, Pierre, and Roberts weren't getting paid like all-star sluggers. Dye, Buehrle, and Iguchi are one year from FA while Garland, Vazquez, and Crede are two years away. We are prehaps only two years at most away from a totally rebuilt roster as it stands right now.

If KW had stood pat and traded just one of the more questionable starters (Vazquez or McCarthy) and picked up an improvement in LF, SS, or CF, the Sox would be very good bets to go deep into the playoffs again. But now, when you look at it, things appear like this:

-Javy, instead of being a very good option as a fifth starter, is now going to be counted on as a no.4, meaning he pitches in the playoffs and can not be given the same room for error that he was allowed last year. There is no McCarthy ready to step in anymore.

-Sisco, Aardsma, Floyd, Heager, Phillips, Broadway, Danks, Massett, Logan, Tracey, etc. all combine to make a nice list of players that may potentially fill a couple holes in the bullpen and a spot in the rotation, but not one of them except Sisco has ever done anything notable in the major leagues. This group, while full of potential, is going to be counted on to be a huge part of next year's team.

-Uribe will have to turn things around in the field and at the plate despite a disturbing trend that says otherwise.

-Anderson will have to make huge leaps at the plate and keep from making those rookie mistakes he made so often last year (like throwing the ball to home plate instead of to the cutoff man for example).

-Pods will have to make a huge comeback and somehow find his confidence in running the bases.

Now if the bullpen projects can't get the job done, who can KW turn to? No one. If none of these guys can get the job done in the rotation and Vasquez continues to struggle in the 4th spot, who can KW turn to? No one. If Pods sucks again we have Ozuna, Mackowiak, or Sweeney. If Anderson still can't hit we have Terrero or maybe Sweeney. If Uribe looks like **** again we have Cintron, who outside of Toby Hall is really the only viable veteran backup plan we have on this team.

Right now I'm not confident in what we have. I say, if KW can get some more top pitching prospects for Vazquez he should do it. If KW can still get Ervin Santana for Crede he should do it. I'm not saying rip the team apart because I'd like Mark, Jon, JD, and Iguchi to be extended, but realistically right now we are just as likely to finish in 3rd or 4th place as we are to win the division given all the uncertainties. I think KW should still be smart about it and put out a good team, but he should really think about making a couple more big deals since he has already gone this far.

FedEx227
12-23-2006, 10:57 PM
It is indeed pretty lousy...

Wait they didn't play the season yet?


Silly me.

ondafarm
12-23-2006, 10:58 PM
1. Trades Garcia, who can win 15+ games for any team next year for a prospect washout, Floyd, and a good, not great, pitching prospect that probably won't help the Sox much until 2009...and is considered fragile.

2. Trades Brandon McCarthy, who has proven as a big league starter that he is already capable of shutting down even the best major league lineups like the Red Sox and could possibly have been the Sox best starter next season for Danks, a highly rated prospect that didn't fare all that well in AAA last season and probably won't be a big contributor for the Sox until 2008 and a good looking relief prospect that hasn't pitched in the majors yet.

I say Kenny got beat on both deals. I know that time will tell but I'd rather have both deals back right now. He should have waited about a few more weeks to trade any starting pitchers and he likely could have gotten more.

:violin:

ondafarm
12-23-2006, 11:00 PM
About the trades, I would be really happy with them if I knew we were rebuilding, but the way I look at, AS OF NOW, we are going into 2007 with big question marks about the 5th starter, half of the bullpen, CF, 4th OF, and we could really use an upgrade at Short. The problem is, out of all of our trades, counting Masset Sisco Denks Floyd Gio and Aardsma, it is incredibly possible none of them will help us in 2007, and also has the possibility not one of them will amount to anything. . .

You forgot, we are also without our best fielding firstbaseman.

jabrch
12-23-2006, 11:23 PM
I don't think anyone is complaning about Kenny since 2000. Kenny has done some wonderful things, but this year it is garbage. As of right now, the White Sox have traded away two of their 6 starters with nothing in return but question marks. In my eyes it makes the team worse than last year.

Domeshot was saying we do a terrible job of scouting, drafting and development. That's a direct complaint about KW since 2000. I want to hear a list of teams that have drafted and developed better, while finishing above .500 in every one of those seasons, and "contending" each year.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-23-2006, 11:34 PM
I don't think the Sox could have gotten more for Garcia because I think Garcia is a suspect pitcher these days. I am surprised the Rangers gave up as much as they did to get McCarthy.

Outside of one start, McCarthy always seemed to kill the Rangers. Even in Spring Training for what that's worth. If any team had the potential to overpay for him, it would have been them IMO. I'm not saying they did though.

whitesoxfan1986
12-24-2006, 12:46 AM
Domeshot was saying we do a terrible job of scouting, drafting and development. That's a direct complaint about KW since 2000. I want to hear a list of teams that have drafted and developed better, while finishing above .500 in every one of those seasons, and "contending" each year.
from 2001-present the Minnesota Twins. And they just so happen to be in OUR division.

gf2020
12-24-2006, 12:53 AM
from 2001-present the Minnesota Twins. And they just so happen to be in OUR division.
Yeah, I really loved how they contended in 2004. They finished a scant 16 games back of the division lead and only 12 games away from taking the wildcard.

Domeshot17
12-24-2006, 01:10 AM
Minnesota jumps out as a team who drafts very well and replenishes well. The Cardinals do a solid job with guys like Anthony Reyes, Wainwright, Pujols among others. The Dodgers have an amazingly deep Farm and they use it to plug holes with injuries along with making trades. Detroit did well with their young pitchers, both in using them to fill holes AND to make trades. OAkland comes to mind, but Billy Beane is usually trading for younger talent because their home grown tends to leave via FA. Tampa Bay has done a great job of drafting young talent, however, that is in large part because they pick in top 6 every year. The Angels also do a good job of drafting young guys, although the jury is still out on Morales and Wood and CO.

My point was, maybe I was a little harsh on Kenny and his ability to draft, but we have been WEAK in our ability to bring guys from the farm up to contribute. Aaron was average to good, we dealt him, and as of now can't find a replacement. Brian was given a shot, pissed it away, and now has to earn a 2nd chance. He could be better in the long run, but as of now he has not earned it. Our young pitching was BAD last year! How much of a joke was it with Tracey and Logan and Moreno. Ryan Sweeney looks solid, and Owens has a chance to be something (although IMHO he is very Willie Harris).

We have used our farm to make trades, not produce Major League calibur players. It has worked, but now we are completely turning around, and adding minor league depth. This means we better start turning these kids into Pro Pitchers. We really haven't done a great job of getting them from triple A to the Pros. If this is our plan of attack, then Floyd and Danks and Massat and all the others can't turn out to be Honel and Rauch and Josh Stewert Corwin Malone Dan Wright and co.

I would like to add, I think Kenny is an awesome GM, and I would not want anyone else running our ship (and I just emailed Phil Rogers and told him the same).

flo-B-flo
12-24-2006, 01:40 AM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts. A sword chopping of a head......Mel Gibson will do the movie........

Nellie_Fox
12-24-2006, 02:50 AM
You forgot, we are also without are best fielding firstbaseman.:mad:

Grzegorz
12-24-2006, 06:37 AM
I say Kenny got beat on both deals.

How on earth can you make such a statement before you see these guys perform?

ALL of these comments declaring this and the Garcia deal making the CWS weaker on paper in 2007 make me laugh. These comments remind me of the inane posts from last year like "on paper we should win it" and "we'll turn it on after the break".

A team does not win or lose on paper; the proving ground over an entire season and is played out on the field.

Put your worries, if "worries" happens to be the correct word, where they belong: on whether Buehrle will rebound and whether Contreras can stay healthy.

jabrch
12-24-2006, 09:10 AM
Minnesota jumps out as a team who drafts very well and replenishes well.

Not so well since 2000, when they no longer had all the top 10 draft picks to develop. Since then, they have done a very mediocre job.


The Cardinals do a solid job with guys like Anthony Reyes, Wainwright, Pujols among others.

That's only slightly better than our history over that same time period. Wainright was acquired in a trade. Reyes is no more proven than McCarthy.

The Dodgers have an amazingly deep Farm and they use it to plug holes with injuries along with making trades.

Agreed - they are probably the benchmark.


Detroit did well with their young pitchers, both in using them to fill holes AND to make trades.

They were the worst team in baseball for the longest time. That's a terrible example. Their young pitchers almost all came from being terrible and drafting early or via trade.

OAkland comes to mind, but Billy Beane is usually trading for younger talent because their home grown tends to leave via FA.

Meh...not such a great history since 2000.

Tampa Bay has done a great job of drafting young talent, however, that is in large part because they pick in top 6 every year.

Give me the #1 pick in the draft every year and I'll do OK too. Since 2000, they have drafted #1, #6, #3, #2, #1, #4 and #8. If KW had picks like that, we'd have seen much more success also.

The Angels also do a good job of drafting young guys, although the jury is still out on Morales and Wood and CO.

I'd give you them for sure.

We have used our farm to make trades, not produce Major League calibur players. It has worked,

That's fine - I don't have a problem with that.

Of the teams that are over .500 every year, and clearly better than us at drafting and developing talent, I think you named 2; LAA and LAD that definitely have done better than us, and three that are about the same (STL, Minny and Oakland).

We do a solid job drafting and scouting. KW has created a farm system that has some top tier talent on the mound and in the OF. His biggest failures have been the inability of the system to develop a franchise SS. That's ok.

Look around at other teams. Drafting and developing talent is VERY hard.

jabrch
12-24-2006, 09:20 AM
from 2001-present the Minnesota Twins. And they just so happen to be in OUR division.

Yeah? Who'd they draft since then? That's after Mauer...

Span, Moses, Plouffe, Perkins, Waldrop and Garza were their #1s. Other than Garza, there's not a major leaguer in the bunch. Their best players were all either from before then, or not their own draft picks.

They have done a decent job, but not significantly better than us.

Law11
12-24-2006, 12:03 PM
Why even have the boards then? None of us are experts on any aspect of the White Sox or baseball generally. Does that mean we should stop posting altogether? Part of the fun is to have an opinion. I happen to have really liked McCarthy, so my opinion is colored by that. Other people think he was a bum. You're right, time will tell, but it's more fun to take a stand, even if it turns out to be wrong.

I have no problem with opinions. Its the opinions that come right out and blast a trade without any real foundation and are more emotional that drive me nuts.. But youre right thats why this sounding board is here.

Frankfan4life
12-24-2006, 03:07 PM
I was so depressed about Gload (especially Gload) and Garcia that I didn't think things could get any worse. Well, with the McCarthy trade, they did.

I like the idea of stockpiling pitchers but who knows what the future will bring in terms of their performance, the health of the other players, not to mention team chemistry. All I can do now is hope that KW, in his infinite wisdom, has traded up and I mean, way up!

MERRY CHRISTMAS SOX FANS!

and hopefully have a Happy New Baseball Season!

johnny_mostil
12-24-2006, 04:13 PM
I don't think the Sox could have gotten more for Garcia because I think Garcia is a suspect pitcher these days. I am surprised the Rangers gave up as much as they did to get McCarthy.

Yeah, it's possible the positive marijuana test. the loss of velocity, and the jump in ERA might have dropped his value... (no teal)

batmanZoSo
12-24-2006, 04:15 PM
:mad:

:rolling:

ondafarm
12-24-2006, 04:43 PM
:mad:

:D:

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-24-2006, 04:48 PM
I tend to agree with a lot of the criticism of KW.

He's probably only the FOURTH best GM in the division, after Terry Ryan, Shapiro, and DD. I think it's inexcusable that, after trading Garcia and McCarthy, the Sox are STILL without a decent LF. Moreover, the Sox will be entering Spring Training with their 5th starter situation up in the air. (2004 redux???).

Both Baseball America and minor league guru John Sickels (http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/12/23/061/36883) rate the White Sox minor league system as thoroughly mediocre, which is to a large extent a function of KW's poor drafting.

Daver
12-24-2006, 04:59 PM
I tend to agree with a lot of the criticism of KW.

He's probably only the FOURTH best GM in the division, after Terry Ryan, Shapiro, and DD. I think it's inexcusable that, after trading Garcia and McCarthy, the Sox are STILL without a decent LF. Moreover, the Sox will be entering Spring Training with their 5th starter situation up in the air. (2004 redux???).

Both Baseball America and minor league guru John Sickels (http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/12/23/061/36883) rate the White Sox minor league system as thoroughly mediocre, which is to a large extent a function of KW's poor drafting.

If you are going to accuse someone of drafting poorly, shouldn't you know enough about it to accuse the right person?

Duane Schaeffer handles the amateur draft for the Sox.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 05:01 PM
If you are going to accuse someone of drafting poorly, shouldn't you know enough about it to accuse the right person?

Duane Schaeffer handles the amateur draft for the Sox.

NO, KENNY WILLIAMS SHOULD BE KILLED!!!

:rolleyes:

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-24-2006, 05:09 PM
If you are going to accuse someone of drafting poorly, shouldn't you know enough about it to accuse the right person?

Duane Schaeffer [sic]handles the amateur draft for the Sox.

Um, your point is really weak. KW's official title is Sr. Vice President/General Manager. Shaffer is the Sr. Director of Player Personnel. No doubt Shaffer has huge input into drafting decisions, but the ultimate decision-maker is KW. Kris Honel is KW's fault, not Shaffer's.

Daver
12-24-2006, 05:13 PM
Um, your point is really weak. KW's official title is Sr. Vice President/General Manager. Shaffer is the Sr. Director of Player Personnel. No doubt Shaffer has huge input into drafting decisions, but the ultimate decision-maker is KW. Kris Honel is KW's fault, not Shaffer's.

Yeah, Kenny personally ripped Kris Honel's arm off.

People like you crack me up.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 05:31 PM
Yeah, Kenny personally ripped Kris Honel's arm off.

It's true. He beat all the potential out of Joe Borchard with it.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-24-2006, 05:37 PM
Yeah, Kenny personally ripped Kris Honel's arm off.

People like you crack me up.

People like you leave me confounded. I really don't understand Sox fans such as yourself who cannot confront reality. I had thought this was more typical Cubs fans. Apparently, KW can do no wrong in your eyes.

I mean, please, get real. KW has traded two hugely valuable commodities, Garcia and McCarthy, and has not received a LF upgrade in return. This is highly embarassing, and frankly inexcusable.

Also, it is without question that the Sox farm system, as presently constituted, is mediocre at best. Well, at least you apparently concede that KW, and not Shaffer, is the person ultimately responsible for the Sox's crappy draft record the past few years.

santo=dorf
12-24-2006, 05:42 PM
I tend to agree with a lot of the criticism of KW.

He's probably only the FOURTH best GM in the division, after Terry Ryan, Shapiro, and DD. I think it's inexcusable that, after trading Garcia and McCarthy, the Sox are STILL without a decent LF. Moreover, the Sox will be entering Spring Training with their 5th starter situation up in the air. (2004 redux???).

Both Baseball America and minor league guru John Sickels (http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/12/23/061/36883) rate the White Sox minor league system as thoroughly mediocre, which is to a large extent a function of KW's poor drafting.
OK I'll bite, how are Shapiro and Dumbrowski better than KW?

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 05:50 PM
People like you leave me confounded. I really don't understand Sox fans such as yourself who cannot confront reality. I had thought this was more typical Cubs fans. Apparently, KW can do no wrong in your eyes.

I mean, please, get real. KW has traded two hugely valuable commodities, Garcia and McCarthy, and has not received a LF upgrade in return. This is highly embarassing, and frankly inexcusable.

Also, it is without question that the Sox farm system, as presently constituted, is mediocre at best. Well, at least you apparently concede that KW, and not Shaffer, is the person ultimately responsible for the Sox's crappy draft record the past few years.

But LF has not been downgraded either. The position wasn't the greatest last year but it was not the biggest problem with the 2006 team. The bullpen didn't perform and KW is making moves to improve it. The team has faith in Pods and I guess I do at this time as well. If he is flopping around in June, then it is time to make something happen.

Who do you suggest the Sox get for LF and what do you think it will take to get them? Criticism is easy to offer but solutions are a lot harder.

Gavin
12-24-2006, 05:51 PM
One must not tango with the moderators, for that tango is a tango of death!

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 05:54 PM
Who do you suggest the Sox get for LF and what do you think it will take to get them? Criticism is easy to offer but solutions are a lot harder.

Therein lies the problem. People can harp and harp about Pods, but no one seems to have a REALISTIC plan to replace him. I mean, do people really think KW has not explored his options to replace Scotty? I can see it now: KW makes a trade to get a new LF, and these same people start bashing him b/c he "overpaid." It is painfully obvious a lot of folks around here have trouble understanding some of the dynamics of baseball and the trade market.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 06:01 PM
Therein lies the problem. People can harp and harp about Pods, but no one seems to have a REALISTIC plan to replace him. I mean, do people really think KW has not explored his options to replace Scotty? I can see it now: KW makes a trade to get a new LF, and these same people start bashing him b/c he "overpaid." It is painfully obvious a lot of folks around here have trouble understanding some of the dynamics of baseball and the trade market.
I think the problem is not just that he hasn't replaced Podsednik, it's that nothing was done to improve any of the three offensive sinkholes from the lineup last year. I know everyone loves to say "we don't need power/SLG/hitting from the leadoff" or "we just need fielding from SS" or "we don't need production from the #9 spot" and maybe in isolation those might be acceptable, but last year we ran out a lineup that generally consisted of 6 above average players and 3 significantly below average players. And as of now that looks to be exactly the same thing we'll be using again next year. I love the moves as they relate to our future in 2008-2013, but for next year's team it feels like they've basically decided "we're going to hope for the best from LF/CF/SS and the #4 and 5 spot in the rotation, and if we don't win next year, we're still well positioned for years to come." Now, tomorrow that might change, as I know full well there's still months of offseason to come. But right now this team looks like a slightly weaker team from the team that stumbled to a lifeless 3rd place finish.

ViPeRx007
12-24-2006, 06:08 PM
I haven't heard much about any of the guys we got for McCarthy, just little snippits here and there. I'm also not asinine enough to make an opinion of this trade based on nothing. I guarantee about 80%-85% (probably even more) of the people posting about how crappy this trade is are just as knowledgable as I am. You've got no foundation for any crap you throw out there, other than the fact that you believe our players are all top notch and anybody we trade for has to be worse. Learn some patience. You have no way to adaquately judge how well this trade will work out for either Texas or the Sox, same with the Garcia trade and the Phillies/Sox.

As Hawk says, just "sit back, relax, and strap it down". That's all we can do is wait and see what pans out.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 06:10 PM
I think the problem is not just that he hasn't replaced Podsednik, it's that nothing was done to improve any of the three offensive sinkholes from the lineup last year. I know everyone loves to say "we don't need power/SLG/hitting from the leadoff" or "we just need fielding from SS" or "we don't need production from the #9 spot" and maybe in isolation those might be acceptable, but last year we ran out a lineup that generally consisted of 6 above average players and 3 significantly below average players. And as of now that looks to be exactly the same thing we'll be using again next year. I love the moves as they relate to our future in 2008-2013, but for next year's team it feels like they've basically decided "we're going to hope for the best from LF/CF/SS and the #4 and 5 spot in the rotation, and if we don't win next year, we're still well positioned for years to come." Now, tomorrow that might change, as I know full well there's still months of offseason to come. But right now this team looks like a slightly weaker team from the team that stumbled to a lifeless 3rd place finish.

I hear what you're saying. And maybe I am just holding onto false hope, but my rational is that I do not see how those 3 spots can be worse in 2007 than they were in 2006. Further, I think there is a better chance they increase production than get worse or stay the same.

Word on Pods is that he was still recoering from injuries most of the year. He missed most of spring training, which really seems to have hurt him. I am by no means a big Pods fan, but to me, a lot of signs point to him being at least a little better next year. I am very open to a replacement, but it has to be realistic and an actual improvement.

Uribe is Uribe. He will have his hot stretches and then his ice cold months. I don't see that changing. Again, if there is an upgrade to be had, great. But I really do not see any SS out there to be had for a reasonable price that would give us quality defense and a much better stick.

To me, CF is the place where we're most likely to see a good deal of improvement. BA had a much better 2nd half last year, but beyond that, this team is not gonna stick with him for a few months of sub-.200 hitting. They will go to Sweeney or make a move mid-season if need be.

Speaking of making moves, I think this is one thing a lot of folks overlook. KW, with the stockpile of arms he now has, has the luxury of seeing how spring training and part of the season plays out. If BA improves or Sweeney takes the job, he has no need for a CF. If they do not, then he can address the need. If Pods is still hurt or continues his sucktitude, he has the arms to make a deal. Unless something reasonable comes up now, why overpay when you have guys that very well could return to career norms or do better than their rookie year?

If the choice is overpay now when there is a chance a solution lies in-house or overpay in a few months when all in-house solutions have failed, I vote for the latter.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 06:19 PM
I think the problem is not just that he hasn't replaced Podsednik, it's that nothing was done to improve any of the three offensive sinkholes from the lineup last year. I know everyone loves to say "we don't need power/SLG/hitting from the leadoff" or "we just need fielding from SS" or "we don't need production from the #9 spot" and maybe in isolation those might be acceptable, but last year we ran out a lineup that generally consisted of 6 above average players and 3 significantly below average players. And as of now that looks to be exactly the same thing we'll be using again next year. I love the moves as they relate to our future in 2008-2013, but for next year's team it feels like they've basically decided "we're going to hope for the best from LF/CF/SS and the #4 and 5 spot in the rotation, and if we don't win next year, we're still well positioned for years to come." Now, tomorrow that might change, as I know full well there's still months of offseason to come. But right now this team looks like a slightly weaker team from the team that stumbled to a lifeless 3rd place finish.

Which three players are you referring to? My guess is Anderson, Uribe and Pods. Anderson is a rookie so I'm not going to be too upset with his performance, especially with how strong he finished the season. As far as shortstops are concerned, Uribe was in the middle of the pack for most stats (2nd in HRs) and only cost $3 million. Compare him to more accomplished SSs like Tejada and Jeter and their $10 million contracts. Not every team can have a Michael Young and I would consider Uribe to be average. Pods is harder to look at as the stats are usually not broken down for individual outfielder positions. Still, he cost less than $2 million last season. His arm sucks and he doesn't have great OBP for a leadoff guy but despite his lower SB totals when compared to 2005, he still was #5 in the AL. Pods was the weakest regular player from last year's team. Will he turn it around in 2007? Who knows but for under $3 million, the Sox are willing to take a chance.

Britt Burns
12-24-2006, 07:11 PM
In the spirit of this post, I am announcng that KW's next trade will be the worst ever by any GM in the history of trades. I am using the same clairvoyance to determine this as is used to declare a trade is terrible before any of the player's performances over time can be determined.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 07:31 PM
It's true. He beat all the potential out of Joe Borchard with it.

:rolling:

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 07:39 PM
I mean, please, get real. KW has traded two hugely valuable commodities, Garcia and McCarthy, and has not received a LF upgrade in return. This is highly embarassing, and frankly inexcusable.


The issue isn't trying to upgrade the LF position as much as it is upgrading the leadoff spot in the order. I would like a more productive LF too, but who is going to lead off? Carlos Lee was much more productive from that position, but we got much better once we got rid of him and got Pods, the first true leadoff hitter that we've had in years. I have no doubt that KW looked around for a better leadoff option, but when none was available, decided that it was best to re-sign Pods for cheap and hope that he turns around and plays more like 2005, which is fairly realistic. And since LF is the only position he can play, we're stuck with him out there.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 07:41 PM
I hear what you're saying. And maybe I am just holding onto false hope, but my rational is that I do not see how those 3 spots can be worse in 2007 than they were in 2006. Further, I think there is a better chance they increase production than get worse or stay the same.

Word on Pods is that he was still recoering from injuries most of the year. He missed most of spring training, which really seems to have hurt him. I am by no means a big Pods fan, but to me, a lot of signs point to him being at least a little better next year. I am very open to a replacement, but it has to be realistic and an actual improvement.

Uribe is Uribe. He will have his hot stretches and then his ice cold months. I don't see that changing. Again, if there is an upgrade to be had, great. But I really do not see any SS out there to be had for a reasonable price that would give us quality defense and a much better stick.

To me, CF is the place where we're most likely to see a good deal of improvement. BA had a much better 2nd half last year, but beyond that, this team is not gonna stick with him for a few months of sub-.200 hitting. They will go to Sweeney or make a move mid-season if need be.

Speaking of making moves, I think this is one thing a lot of folks overlook. KW, with the stockpile of arms he now has, has the luxury of seeing how spring training and part of the season plays out. If BA improves or Sweeney takes the job, he has no need for a CF. If they do not, then he can address the need. If Pods is still hurt or continues his sucktitude, he has the arms to make a deal. Unless something reasonable comes up now, why overpay when you have guys that very well could return to career norms or do better than their rookie year?

If the choice is overpay now when there is a chance a solution lies in-house or overpay in a few months when all in-house solutions have failed, I vote for the latter.

Dead on, ilsox.
:cheers:

chaerulez
12-24-2006, 07:52 PM
1. Trades Garcia, who can win 15+ games for any team next year for a prospect washout, Floyd, and a good, not great, pitching prospect that probably won't help the Sox much until 2009...and is considered fragile.

2. Trades Brandon McCarthy, who has proven as a big league starter that he is already capable of shutting down even the best major league lineups like the Red Sox and could possibly have been the Sox best starter next season for Danks, a highly rated prospect that didn't fare all that well in AAA last season and probably won't be a big contributor for the Sox until 2008 and a good looking relief prospect that hasn't pitched in the majors yet.

I say Kenny got beat on both deals. I know that time will tell but I'd rather have both deals back right now. He should have waited about a few more weeks to trade any starting pitchers and he likely could have gotten more.

Somehow I doubt Garcia and McCarthy are the two players that would've put the White Sox over the top for 2007. You can't judge how either trade will turn out until after 2007 season, or even later.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 08:18 PM
I hear what you're saying. And maybe I am just holding onto false hope, but my rational is that I do not see how those 3 spots can be worse in 2007 than they were in 2006. Further, I think there is a better chance they increase production than get worse or stay the same.

Word on Pods is that he was still recoering from injuries most of the year. He missed most of spring training, which really seems to have hurt him. I am by no means a big Pods fan, but to me, a lot of signs point to him being at least a little better next year. I am very open to a replacement, but it has to be realistic and an actual improvement.

Uribe is Uribe. He will have his hot stretches and then his ice cold months. I don't see that changing. Again, if there is an upgrade to be had, great. But I really do not see any SS out there to be had for a reasonable price that would give us quality defense and a much better stick.

To me, CF is the place where we're most likely to see a good deal of improvement. BA had a much better 2nd half last year, but beyond that, this team is not gonna stick with him for a few months of sub-.200 hitting. They will go to Sweeney or make a move mid-season if need be.

Speaking of making moves, I think this is one thing a lot of folks overlook. KW, with the stockpile of arms he now has, has the luxury of seeing how spring training and part of the season plays out. If BA improves or Sweeney takes the job, he has no need for a CF. If they do not, then he can address the need. If Pods is still hurt or continues his sucktitude, he has the arms to make a deal. Unless something reasonable comes up now, why overpay when you have guys that very well could return to career norms or do better than their rookie year?

If the choice is overpay now when there is a chance a solution lies in-house or overpay in a few months when all in-house solutions have failed, I vote for the latter.
I agree with a good amount of this, as honestly we're not that different in outlook.

I think one thing to worry about is what impact would be had on the team by the time it might be necessary to make one of those moves you discuss at the end. We got lucky last year to jump out to an incredibly hot start. If we don't jump out of the gate it could be very difficult to make up ground in the best division in baseball.

Also, I don't quite consider the idea of Sweeney to be fixing the CF position should Anderson slump. Sweeney for all his talent is still a totally unknown quantity at the major league level, and could easily end up being Anderson but with less glove work.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 08:28 PM
Which three players are you referring to? My guess is Anderson, Uribe and Pods. Anderson is a rookie so I'm not going to be too upset with his performance, especially with how strong he finished the season. As far as shortstops are concerned, Uribe was in the middle of the pack for most stats (2nd in HRs) and only cost $3 million. Compare him to more accomplished SSs like Tejada and Jeter and their $10 million contracts. Not every team can have a Michael Young and I would consider Uribe to be average. Pods is harder to look at as the stats are usually not broken down for individual outfielder positions. Still, he cost less than $2 million last season. His arm sucks and he doesn't have great OBP for a leadoff guy but despite his lower SB totals when compared to 2005, he still was #5 in the AL. Pods was the weakest regular player from last year's team. Will he turn it around in 2007? Who knows but for under $3 million, the Sox are willing to take a chance.
Juan Uribe was middle of pack except in OBP where he was DEAD LAST! I'm not asking for Michael Young. I'm asking for a guy who gets out less often than Paul Bako, or Angel Berroa, or Rondell White. I'm not advocating the Billy Beane worldview here, but there was no one in the AL who was more likely to get an out than Juan Uribe. And that's bad, even if you think Moneyball is on the same bookshelf with the Satanic Bible.

As for Pods...you summed him up pretty well. Can't hit for any sort of power, doesn't get on base very well, but hey, he stole some bases! Sure he also led the league in Caught Stealing and got thrown out 1 out of every 3 times he tried, but I'm sure those 40 SB's made up for it.

Anderson...there are others on the site better able to point out how Anderson's numbers improved due to his being protected from ever facing good pitching (I'm thinking ON2 might be the guy for this one) but in general I didn't like what I saw from him much last year. Hopefully he'll come in improved.

Again, the problem isn't any one of these guys. The problem is that with all three positions sitting there you basically are forfeiting 3 out of your 9 innings. If an inning starts with the #6 or #7 guy coming up, you almost have to hope for a HR from one of them to score, since then you have Uribe, Anderson, Pods getting set to make outs on a very regular basis. That's partially why we had so much inconsistency in scoring last year. If the #2-7 guys weren't killing the ball, the other third of the lineup could rarely pick up the slack.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 08:29 PM
I agree with a good amount of this, as honestly we're not that different in outlook.

I think one thing to worry about is what impact would be had on the team by the time it might be necessary to make one of those moves you discuss at the end. We got lucky last year to jump out to an incredibly hot start. If we don't jump out of the gate it could be very difficult to make up ground in the best division in baseball.

Also, I don't quite consider the idea of Sweeney to be fixing the CF position should Anderson slump. Sweeney for all his talent is still a totally unknown quantity at the major league level, and could easily end up being Anderson but with less glove work.

Agreed. When I said "Sweeney taking CF" I meant that he won the job and would produce. I really think spring training is going to mean quite a bit for this team this year. Last year we heard all about the lack of focus and Ozzie sitting the team down early on...I think the organization is going to have that attitude from the get-go. I also think it's a good thing that there will be some competition throughout the time in AZ. Centerfield, a bullpen spot, and the #5 spot in the rotation could all be up for grabs. It should be a good way to keep some sort of edge throughout their time down there.

I think one of the good things that has come public in the two trades this winter is how much the Sox and KW spend scouting and evaluating potential players. We know that the guys we have received have been under close watch by the Sox brass. This leaves me to believe KW has multiple plans in case he needs a CF, LF, SS, etc. While the cost may be high, he won't be throwing darts at a board if he needs something.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 08:51 PM
Juan Uribe was middle of pack except in OBP where he was DEAD LAST! I'm not asking for Michael Young. I'm asking for a guy who gets out less often than Paul Bako, or Angel Berroa, or Rondell White. I'm not advocating the Billy Beane worldview here, but there was no one in the AL who was more likely to get an out than Juan Uribe. And that's bad, even if you think Moneyball is on the same bookshelf with the Satanic Bible.

As for Pods...you summed him up pretty well. Can't hit for any sort of power, doesn't get on base very well, but hey, he stole some bases! Sure he also led the league in Caught Stealing and got thrown out 1 out of every 3 times he tried, but I'm sure those 40 SB's made up for it.

Anderson...there are others on the site better able to point out how Anderson's numbers improved due to his being protected from ever facing good pitching (I'm thinking ON2 might be the guy for this one) but in general I didn't like what I saw from him much last year. Hopefully he'll come in improved.

Again, the problem isn't any one of these guys. The problem is that with all three positions sitting there you basically are forfeiting 3 out of your 9 innings. If an inning starts with the #6 or #7 guy coming up, you almost have to hope for a HR from one of them to score, since then you have Uribe, Anderson, Pods getting set to make outs on a very regular basis. That's partially why we had so much inconsistency in scoring last year. If the #2-7 guys weren't killing the ball, the other third of the lineup could rarely pick up the slack.

I wasn't suggesting that these three guys were some sort of champs that I would want out there all the time but it wasn't like Kenny was throwing garbage on the field. It is very difficult to field a team with 8 everyday, solid, above-average players. The Sox weren't able to do it last season and those spots could obviously been improved but statements like "forfeiting 3 out of 9 innings" are a little over the top.

Daver
12-24-2006, 09:15 PM
People like you leave me confounded. I really don't understand Sox fans such as yourself who cannot confront reality. I had thought this was more typical Cubs fans. Apparently, KW can do no wrong in your eyes.

I mean, please, get real. KW has traded two hugely valuable commodities, Garcia and McCarthy, and has not received a LF upgrade in return. This is highly embarassing, and frankly inexcusable.

Also, it is without question that the Sox farm system, as presently constituted, is mediocre at best. Well, at least you apparently concede that KW, and not Shaffer, is the person ultimately responsible for the Sox's crappy draft record the past few years.

I'll be the first person to criticize Kenny, when he deserves the criticism.

I'll put this in simple words, so that perhaps you will understand them. The most valuable commodity in all of MLB is pitching, plain and simple, the more you have, the better off you are, you don't trade top pitching prospects or established starters for positional players, unless you are also getting pitching back in return. Was there a deal out there with any team that would bring an outfielder as well as pitching back in return for Garcia or McCarthy? I don't know, but I would trust Rick Hahn and Kenny Williams to have explored every avenue.

As far as a mediocre farm system, the last time I checked none of those players play 162 games on the major league level, and that mediocre farm system didn't stop the White Sox from winning a World Series in 2005. Maybe things are different in the world you live in.

Daver
12-24-2006, 09:31 PM
One must not tango with the moderators, for that tango is a tango of death!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 09:37 PM
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I think it is a written death threat.

:redneck

Gavin
12-24-2006, 11:26 PM
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

When you engage in an argument with a moderator, the moderator always wins.. one way or another.

Daver
12-24-2006, 11:40 PM
When you engage in an argument with a moderator, the moderator always wins.. one way or another.

No one has ever been banned for a rational argument over baseball topics here, so do you have an axe to grind, or are you just taking a random potshot at the moderating staff?

The Dude
12-24-2006, 11:47 PM
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to make astoundingly stupid posts.

Thanks for not quoting him as well! I didn't want to see what the beautiful ignore function blocked out for me.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 12:04 AM
OK I'll bite, how are Shapiro and Dumbrowski better than KW?
Well, Dombrowski made Montreal a team to deal with in the early 1990s (they had the best record in 1994). He built the Marlins from the ground up, got them a WS in 1997 and established the core of guys for 2003. But what has he done recently? Let's see...let's see...oh yea! He built the Tiger team that won the pennant while the Sox stayed home! He's one of the best GMs in baseball. And if it were not for Hawk, he could have been the Sox GM. But Hawk fired him. Yea, if the Sox had kept Dombrowski God only knows how many WS titles we would have. More than one, and we wouldn't have had to go through that god awful stretch in the late eighties.



Finally, about rebuilding. THe Sox have a rotation of four good starters, so they WILL not be rebuilding in '07, but they have a lot of question marks. And question marks are not a good thing to have. BUT after 2007, it sure as hell looks like they will be rebuilding. Buerhle hasn't been resigned and these young arms are probably being brought in to replace him. Crede is gone. Either they will trade him and get something (probably more young pitching) or lose him to FA and get nothing. THe Sox aren't rebuilding in '07, but it sure as hell looks like they will be rebuilding in '08 and '09.

Perhaps Mr. Reinsendorf and the Sox front office is more comfortable with an empty ballpark. After all, it did take a long time to get out of hte parking lots last year.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 12:18 AM
Finally, about rebuilding. THe Sox have a rotation of four good starters, so they WILL not be rebuilding in '07, but they have a lot of question marks. And question marks are not a good thing to have. BUT after 2007, it sure as hell looks like they will be rebuilding. Buerhle hasn't been resigned and these young arms are probably being brought in to replace him. Crede is gone. Either they will trade him and get something (probably more young pitching) or lose him to FA and get nothing. THe Sox aren't rebuilding in '07, but it sure as hell looks like they will be rebuilding in '08 and '09.

Perhaps Mr. Reinsendorf and the Sox front office is more comfortable with an empty ballpark. After all, it did take a long time to get out of hte parking lots last year.

1. Buehrle will not be let go for nothing.

2. Even even half these young arms pan out, the Sox will be a pitching force in 2008 and 2009.

3. Reinsdorf takes a helicopter to games so he doesn't care about parking issues.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 12:26 AM
1. Buehrle will not be let go for nothing.

2. Even even half these young arms pan out, the Sox will be a pitching force in 2008 and 2009.

3. Reinsdorf takes a helicopter to games so he doesn't care about parking issues.

Who's got a cooler helicopter, Reinsdorf or your rap group?

Bill Naharodny
12-25-2006, 12:49 AM
I'll put this in simple words, so that perhaps you will understand them.

As far as a mediocre farm system, the last time I checked none of those players play 162 games on the major league level, and that mediocre farm system didn't stop the White Sox from winning a World Series in 2005. Maybe things are different in the world you live in.

So why do we care about getting prospects now?

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 12:58 AM
So why do we care about getting prospects now?

are you serious?

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-25-2006, 04:16 AM
I'll put this in simple words, so that perhaps you will understand them.

I don't understand your sarcastic tone. We may have a disagreement over KW's prowess as a GM, but that doesn't give you a warrant to attack my intelligence. Lose the attitude, friend.

chitownhawkfan
12-25-2006, 04:36 AM
These trades at face value kind of rub, but KW has a penchant for the blockbuster. I wouldn't be surprised if he packages some of these prospects for something decent. Besides I was really worn out with "Big Game" Freddy. The one I really liked and will miss is Gload, but I am happy he will get the chance to play on a regular basis somewhere.

102605
12-25-2006, 09:38 AM
World Series

ilsox7
12-25-2006, 09:42 AM
World Series

:?:

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 12:49 PM
:?:

World Series

:redneck

jabrch
12-25-2006, 01:22 PM
As for Pods...you summed him up pretty well. Can't hit for any sort of power, doesn't get on base very well, but hey, he stole some bases! Sure he also led the league in Caught Stealing and got thrown out 1 out of every 3 times he tried, but I'm sure those 40 SB's made up for it.


He's a career .275/.342 hitter. 2005 he was .290/.351. 2003 he was .314/.379.

To me, he can get on base pretty well. Last year he had a rough year. But he's not nearly as bad as some people are making him out to be.

Bill Naharodny
12-25-2006, 02:00 PM
are you serious?

Just trying to clarify the logic.

Bill Naharodny
12-25-2006, 02:01 PM
I don't understand your sarcastic tone. We may have a disagreement over KW's prowess as a GM, but that doesn't give you a warrant to attack my intelligence. Lose the attitude, friend.

Couldn't agree more.

spiffie
12-25-2006, 02:52 PM
He's a career .275/.342 hitter. 2005 he was .290/.351. 2003 he was .314/.379.

To me, he can get on base pretty well. Last year he had a rough year. But he's not nearly as bad as some people are making him out to be.
And in 2004 he was 244/313. And in 2006 he was 261/330. And he has absolutely no power to make those numbers at all palatable. So if you're lucky 50% of the time he'll be an average to slightly above average lead off guy. And he's coming off a major injury that impacts his speed.

Even at his best he's middling. And that's okay, we can live with middling. But when there's middling followed by middling followed by middling in the lineup, at some point improvement of one of them might be needed. Podsednik wouldn't bother me so much if every time the lineup turned over he wasn't preceded by two guys even less able to do anything at the plate than him. I just know the Podsednik I saw last year looked terrible. And that had nothing to do with stats. I saw a guy who was slow for someone supposed to be fast. Maybe he'll make a massive recovery this off season. I sure as hell hope so, because otherwise his time here will be measured in months from now, not years.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 02:57 PM
Podsednik wouldn't bother me so much if every time the lineup turned over he wasn't preceded by two guys even less able to do anything at the plate than him.

Where would you like to place less capabale hitters other than in the bottom of the lineup?

spiffie
12-25-2006, 03:04 PM
Where would like to place less capabale hitters other than in the bottom of the lineup?Generally I'm a fan of trying to find capable hitters. But then I don't really like the maxims that:
"you don't need production from rookies."
"Your SS doesn't need to hit."
"Your leadoff man just needs to steal bases"
"As long as the CF can field who cares if he hits?"

When 3 guys are deficient, that puts a LOT of pressure on the other six guys to produce. We saw what happened last year when a few of those six got cold...suddenly we were meat for Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard. I don't like conceding any spot in the order, but if you must give up one spot, okay. But to give up 3 spots basically saying "well, they do other things well" seems to be a recipe for failure. This isn't 1980 when you could win with 3 or 4 guys who were there solely to catch the ball or steal bases. And right now that's pretty much what we have. If Podsednik recovers and plays the way he has when he's had his very best months, then okay, we can probably live with Uribe/Anderson. But to have that much of a drain on the lineup was too much even for a group as good as our middle of the lineup to handle.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 03:17 PM
Generally I'm a fan of trying to find capable hitters. But then I don't really like the maxims that:
"you don't need production from rookies."
"Your SS doesn't need to hit."
"Your leadoff man just needs to steal bases"
"As long as the CF can field who cares if he hits?"

When 3 guys are deficient, that puts a LOT of pressure on the other six guys to produce. We saw what happened last year when a few of those six got cold...suddenly we were meat for Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard. I don't like conceding any spot in the order, but if you must give up one spot, okay. But to give up 3 spots basically saying "well, they do other things well" seems to be a recipe for failure. This isn't 1980 when you could win with 3 or 4 guys who were there solely to catch the ball or steal bases. And right now that's pretty much what we have. If Podsednik recovers and plays the way he has when he's had his very best months, then okay, we can probably live with Uribe/Anderson. But to have that much of a drain on the lineup was too much even for a group as good as our middle of the lineup to handle.

I'm not excusing their play but I can certainly swallow a ROOKIE hitting .225 from the number 8 spot with solid defense. Should the rookie have been out there in the first place? That's up for debate but I'm willing to bet that Kenny didn't just say "Oh well" and moved on. I'm sure he looked for a way to upgrade CF but there just wasn't anything out there. Rowand-lovers will say "I told you so" but they are living in a fantasy land if they think Rowand would have saved the team in 2006.

Again, Pods and Uribe were average or maybe slightly below average but it isn't like they were garbage. I would say the Sox got what they paid for out of them.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Generally I'm a fan of trying to find capable hitters. But then I don't really like the maxims that:
"you don't need production from rookies."
"Your SS doesn't need to hit."
"Your leadoff man just needs to steal bases"
"As long as the CF can field who cares if he hits?"

When 3 guys are deficient, that puts a LOT of pressure on the other six guys to produce. We saw what happened last year when a few of those six got cold...suddenly we were meat for Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard. I don't like conceding any spot in the order, but if you must give up one spot, okay. But to give up 3 spots basically saying "well, they do other things well" seems to be a recipe for failure. This isn't 1980 when you could win with 3 or 4 guys who were there solely to catch the ball or steal bases. And right now that's pretty much what we have. If Podsednik recovers and plays the way he has when he's had his very best months, then okay, we can probably live with Uribe/Anderson. But to have that much of a drain on the lineup was too much even for a group as good as our middle of the lineup to handle.

True that last year hurt us by having three guys underperforming like that. But all three have good chances to be better in 2007, and I think that's what KW is hoping for.

- Pods: hopefully fully healthy to start spring training, had the offseason to "clear his head"
- BA: showed better stuff in second half than first half, and no reason to think he won't keep improving
- Uribe: had a bad year, even by his standards

If these guys all struggle out of the gate again, at least we've got the arms to make a deadline deal if need be.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 04:52 PM
True that last year hurt us by having three guys underperforming like that. But all three have good chances to be better in 2007, and I think that's what KW is hoping for.

- Pods: hopefully fully healthy to start spring training, had the offseason to "clear his head"
- BA: showed better stuff in second half than first half, and no reason to think he won't keep improving
- Uribe: had a bad year, even by his standards

If these guys all struggle out of the gate again, at least we've got the arms to make a deadline deal if need be.

We struggled to 90 wins last year. Our bullpen has gotten much better. 80% of our SP is the same. Of the 5th spot, it may be better or worse depending on how players go. It has as good a chance of getting better as it does of getting worse. Minny has gotten worse in the offseason. I see no reason to believe this team, as is, won't be a contender.


It's not like we traded away Johan Santana or Carlos Zambrano. Freddy had a 4.50 ERA Brandon was a nightmare last year; and would have been a ? in the rotation as well.

Lprof
12-25-2006, 06:08 PM
Ehh, KW wan't going to win in peoples' eyes unless he got Johan Santana and the magical Carl Crawford for Garcia and McCarthy.

I'll wait to see how the trades work out after some actual games are played.
The trades are eyebrow-raisers, but only time will tell if they were good trades or not.

I bet that "Worst KW Moves" thread is gonna be a'poppin' now, though.....You will "wait to see how the trades work out"? Does that mean we can't talk about the trades when they happen, only months later? That certainly wouldn't be much fun, would it? Any way, there certainly is a big drop off between Santana and Crawford on the one hand and the suspects/projects we got back in these deals.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 06:31 PM
suspects

?

Right - 2 of the top 10 SPs in all of the minors. both LHP, and both still at ages where they get better. Suspects? That's dumb.

Lprof
12-25-2006, 07:26 PM
How on earth can you make such a statement before you see these guys perform?

ALL of these comments declaring this and the Garcia deal making the CWS weaker on paper in 2007 make me laugh. These comments remind me of the inane posts from last year like "on paper we should win it" and "we'll turn it on after the break".

A team does not win or lose on paper; the proving ground over an entire season and is played out on the field.

Put your worries, if "worries" happens to be the correct word, where they belong: on whether Buehrle will rebound and whether Contreras can stay healthy.Let's review the bidding here: (1) we fully expect to be--and should be--a contending team; (2) we had a number of holes to fill on the team; (3) we had a couple of key, precious bargaining chits: established starting pitching, something that was in very short supply on the free agent market; (4) and we traded them for........? Not even on a best-case scenario are most of the players we got ready to help next year, and the two that might be (I don't know about Massett) seem to have some real flaws that need work, or in Floyd's case, may not be fixable. I thought it was only Cub fans who just take everything their team's administation does uncritically (and now, not even Cub fans are doing that). Aren't we allowed to ask questions, raise doubts, point out the remaining, unfilled holes? I don't get all this criticism of those who are raising doubts about getting back suspects/projects for two very sought after bargaining chits, starting pitchers.

Bill Naharodny
12-25-2006, 07:39 PM
You will "wait to see how the trades work out"? Does that mean we can't talk about the trades when they happen, only months later? That certainly wouldn't be much fun, would it? Any way, there certainly is a big drop off between Santana and Crawford on the one hand and the suspects/projects we got back in these deals.

I think what he means is that he'll be happy to second-guess these trades, once the results play out over a 2 to 3 year period. So you should just keep quiet until hindsight is fully in focus. Now go be a good boy.

Daver
12-25-2006, 07:45 PM
I think what he means is that he'll be happy to second-guess these trades, once the results play out over a 2 to 3 year period. So you should just keep quiet until hindsight is fully in focus. Now go be a good boy.

No, he is saying that only an idiot can try and judge a trade before a single inning is played by any of the players involved.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 07:47 PM
Let's review the bidding here: (1) we fully expect to be--and should be--a contending team; (2) we had a number of holes to fill on the team; (3) we had a couple of key, precious bargaining chits: established starting pitching, something that was in very short supply on the free agent market; (4) and we traded them for........? Not even on a best-case scenario are most of the players we got ready to help next year, and the two that might be (I don't know about Massett) seem to have some real flaws that need work, or in Floyd's case, may not be fixable. I thought it was only Cub fans who just take everything their team's administation does uncritically (and now, not even Cub fans are doing that). Aren't we allowed to ask questions, raise doubts, point out the remaining, unfilled holes? I don't get all this criticism of those who are raising doubts about getting back suspects/projects for two very sought after bargaining chits, starting pitchers.

Garcia was not a very sought after bargaining chip at all. He's a one-year rental for Philly or whoever else was willing to trade for him. We got back to very good prospects for him, both of whom are pretty good "bargaining chips" as well.

I, for one, don't think this team has many holes on it. Our two biggest holes were bullpen and backup catcher, which have both been greatly improved. The biggest one left in my opinion is the backup OF role, because we can't expect Pods and BA to play every day, with Pods's injury history and BA's youth. Sure there are some question marks:

Will Pods be healthy?
Will BA continue to improve?
Will someone step up as a 5th starter?
Will Uribe stay out of prison?

But every contending team has question marks. That's why they play the games. No World Series has been won without certain guys stepping up during the season.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 07:53 PM
I think that what you consider question marks, I consider holes. And I don't mind gambling on Pods or even Uribe or Anderson, but I want someone in reserve. In fact, I would prefer it if these guys are the ones in reserve. Uribe has more baggage than just prison, he was awful at the plate and shakey in the field. I think we need to address these "question marks" and gathering young arms (unless they are there to be traded) is not the way to address these question marks.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 08:18 PM
I think that what you consider question marks, I consider holes. And I don't mind gambling on Pods or even Uribe or Anderson, but I want someone in reserve. In fact, I would prefer it if these guys are the ones in reserve. Uribe has more baggage than just prison, he was awful at the plate and shakey in the field. I think we need to address these "question marks" and gathering young arms (unless they are there to be traded) is not the way to address these question marks.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we win a world series with those "question marks"? All except Anderson, who granted didn't hit well last year, but he's better than Rowand defensively and will probably put up Rowand-like numbers in 2007. Pods and Uribe are far from over-the-hill, they just both had bad years.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 08:20 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we win a world series with those "question marks"? All except Anderson, who granted didn't hit well last year, but he's better than Rowand defensively and will probably put up Rowand-like numbers in 2007. Pods and Uribe are far from over-the-hill, they just both had bad years.
That's true.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 08:37 PM
No, he is saying that only an idiot can try and judge a trade before a single inning is played by any of the players involved.

Oh Daver, don't you understand

a.) Kenny's a moron because we all KNOW that Garcia had a higher trade value than two prospects

b.) Kenny's a moron because a great bench player like Gload only comes along once in a lifetime and Sisco has proven in his 2006 season that he will never, ever be any good

c.) Kenny's a moron because McCarthy was a proven pitcher---proven in like, six starts in 2005 and a mediocre bullpen year in 2006---and the pitchers he got from the Rangers, since they don't have great MLB stats already, like McCarthy, are lousy


So, if, and only if, a GM is clearly a rube like Kenny is, it's ok to judge a trade in advance. After all, Kenny's never made a trade that was judged to be stupid, but turned out well in the end.

spiffie
12-25-2006, 08:39 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we win a world series with those "question marks"? All except Anderson, who granted didn't hit well last year, but he's better than Rowand defensively and will probably put up Rowand-like numbers in 2007. Pods and Uribe are far from over-the-hill, they just both had bad years.
Uribe has had a bad career, with a single good year in 2004. Otherwise his career has basically been pretty bad. Over six seaons the guy has an OBP under .300. Yes, last year was somehow, amazingly, even worse than usual for him. But even if Juan makes it back to his career norm, he is still a liability. He has shown no real willingness to change things in his game to improve, his eye at the plate has against all odds gotten worse as the years go on, and his glove work was shoddy last season to boot. To me Anderson gets another shot due to an awesome glove and being a rook. We seem to be stuck with Podsednik, so all we can do is hope last year was the injuries slowing him down. But seriously, I will take damn near anyone in baseball at SS over Uribe.

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 08:49 PM
Uribe has had a bad career, with a single good year in 2004. Otherwise his career has basically been pretty bad. Over six seaons the guy has an OBP under .300. Yes, last year was somehow, amazingly, even worse than usual for him. But even if Juan makes it back to his career norm, he is still a liability. He has shown no real willingness to change things in his game to improve, his eye at the plate has against all odds gotten worse as the years go on, and his glove work was shoddy last season to boot. To me Anderson gets another shot due to an awesome glove and being a rook. We seem to be stuck with Podsednik, so all we can do is hope last year was the injuries slowing him down. But seriously, I will take damn near anyone in baseball at SS over Uribe.

I'll give you that Uribe is less than ideal out there. But I don't know of any other available options out there, do you? Sure, I'd love to have someone like A-Rod or Young, but their asking price is WAY too high, if they're even available. SS is a position that, once you find a good guy, you want to hold on to him.

Daver
12-25-2006, 08:56 PM
I'll give you that Uribe is less than ideal out there. But I don't know of any other available options out there, do you? Sure, I'd love to have someone like A-Rod or Young, but their asking price is WAY too high, if they're even available. SS is a position that, once you find a good guy, you want to hold on to him.

Somebody go find Mike Caruso.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 09:01 PM
I'll give you that Uribe is less than ideal out there. But I don't know of any other available options out there, do you? Sure, I'd love to have someone like A-Rod or Young, but their asking price is WAY too high, if they're even available. SS is a position that, once you find a good guy, you want to hold on to him.

The Sox could obviously upgrade at SS but Uribe is far from the worst SS in the league.

Lprof
12-25-2006, 09:25 PM
?

Right - 2 of the top 10 SPs in all of the minors. both LHP, and both still at ages where they get better. Suspects? That's dumb.I am not sure what you think it adds to your argument to call me "dumb"; you may be right, or I may be right, but name calling certainly doesn't help your cause. Any way, wherever they are ranked, they are unproven and, at least for providing meaningful help this year, suspects. I stand by my assertion. Each seems to have some flaw--wildness, whatever--that turns them into a project for Coop. Yet I heard Coop on the SCORE after the Sox got Floyd, and KW had never consulted him about Floyd before making the trade. It just seems to me we are a worse team going into a pennant race than we were before the trades. I also know that no holes in the lineup were filled. If that is "dumb," so be it.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 09:40 PM
Yet I heard Coop on the SCORE after the Sox got Floyd, and KW had never consulted him about Floyd before making the trade.

I was very concerned when I heard that as well but I wonder know if it was just grandstanding. Nothing has been said about the recent trades by Coop (at least, none I have seen) so take that for what its worth. Of course, KW could have told Coop to keep his mouth shut about future trades but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 09:40 PM
I am not sure what you think it adds to your argument to call me "dumb"; you may be right, or I may be right, but name calling certainly doesn't help your cause. Any way, wherever they are ranked, they are unproven and, at least for providing meaningful help this year, suspects. I stand by my assertion. Each seems to have some flaw--wildness, whatever--that turns them into a project for Coop. Yet I heard Coop on the SCORE after the Sox got Floyd, and KW had never consulted him about Floyd before making the trade. It just seems to me we are a worse team going into a pennant race than we were before the trades. I also know that no holes in the lineup were filled. If that is "dumb," so be it.

You're not dumb. Calling legitimate prospects "suspects" is dumb.

Big difference.

Bill Naharodny
12-25-2006, 11:00 PM
Oh Daver, don't you understand

a.) Kenny's a moron because we all KNOW that Garcia had a higher trade value than two prospects

b.) Kenny's a moron because a great bench player like Gload only comes along once in a lifetime and Sisco has proven in his 2006 season that he will never, ever be any good

c.) Kenny's a moron because McCarthy was a proven pitcher---proven in like, six starts in 2005 and a mediocre bullpen year in 2006---and the pitchers he got from the Rangers, since they don't have great MLB stats already, like McCarthy, are lousy


So, if, and only if, a GM is clearly a rube like Kenny is, it's ok to judge a trade in advance. After all, Kenny's never made a trade that was judged to be stupid, but turned out well in the end.

Not the point. Rather, your judgment du jour actually seems to be that if Kenny did it, it is therefore unassailable, unquestionable and -- truth be told -- cosmically ordained. Fun!

thegooch
12-25-2006, 11:09 PM
Not the point. Rather, your judgment du jour actually seems to be that if Kenny did it, it is therefore unassailable, unquestionable and -- truth be told -- cosmically ordained. Fun!

Here here. Any dissenting opinion is met with the company line.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 11:10 PM
I am not sure what you think it adds to your argument to call me "dumb"; you may be right, or I may be right, but name calling certainly doesn't help your cause.

I didn't call you dumb. I said that calling two of the top 10 pitching prospects in all of baseball "suspects" as if to devalue them is a dumb statement. I'm not sure if you are dumb or not. So I wouldn't say it. But trying to denegrate top tier pitching prospects with verbal gymnastics is unimpressive.

Any way, wherever they are ranked, they are unproven and, at least for providing meaningful help this year, suspects. I stand by my assertion.

Which was dumb.

We improved our bullpen, we improved our backup C. The only place we got worse is in the one starter spot. And since the season is still over 3 months away, leaping to conclusions now is particularly silly.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 12:03 AM
Not the point. Rather, your judgment du jour actually seems to be that if Kenny did it, it is therefore unassailable, unquestionable and -- truth be told -- cosmically ordained. Fun!

Have I said that?

What my post, my judgment du jour if you will, suggests, is that anyone saying the following things is getting way ahead of their position as "spectator":

a.) McCarthy was a surefire 4.50 or better at the #5 spot

b.) Kenny should have could have would have gotten more for Freddy or McCarthy (or Gload for that matter)

c.) These prospects won't (or will) pan out

explain how that's "not the point". Please.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 12:07 AM
Here here. Any dissenting opinion is met with the company line.

Believe that if you will.

I've seen a lot of opinions I don't agree with presented intelligently...but when people start suggesting Kenny doesn't know what he's doing that's a little overboard.

Kenny knew what he could get for Garcia. He also knew what he could not get for Garcia.

Kenny knows what kind of pitcher McCarthy is and he knows what his ceiling is likely to be and when he's likely to hit that ceiling and how likely he is to hit it. Hell, Kenny's probably even seen the kid pitch a couple times, believe it or not.

I'm not in favor of these trades. How could I be? I have no idea where they fit in the offseason picture, nor do I have any idea how good these prospects will be nor what GM's are talking about as far as relative value of the commodities Kenny unloaded.

There are about 800,000 ways to look at these trades, and few of them are wrong, but the hubris to say that the trades are a result of Kenny's ignorance or pigheadedness or whatever and the Cubune-shill braying of saying that the trades are a "salary dump" a "cheap-out" a "white flag" or a whatever annoy me, and that's what I take issue with

:rolleyes:

Lprof
12-26-2006, 12:44 AM
I didn't call you dumb. I said that calling two of the top 10 pitching prospects in all of baseball "suspects" as if to devalue them is a dumb statement. I'm not sure if you are dumb or not. So I wouldn't say it. But trying to denegrate top tier pitching prospects with verbal gymnastics is unimpressive.



Which was dumb.

We improved our bullpen, we improved our backup C. The only place we got worse is in the one starter spot. And since the season is still over 3 months away, leaping to conclusions now is particularly silly.Dumb, silly, unimpressive--I really don't understand why you have to go there. Those aren't arguments; they are pejoratives. What you still haven't told me is whether any of the minor league pitchers we received is likely to help us this coming year, when we should be in contention. You seem to avoid facing that question, choosing to throw insults around instead. We gave up two highly valued commodities, and I still don't see what we got back that is likely to help us this year. We still haven't filled many of our needs--yes, we got a backup catcher, and that seems ok, but hardly what is going to win us a division, much less a pennant. Perhaps our middle relief is better, though the jury surely is out on that one. We haven't helped our outfield or ss, and in the process hurt our bench by giving up Gload. And you mislead when you refer to losing the fifth spot in the rotation. A 17 game winner was hardly the fifth man in our rotation. The question I would like answered is, are these the moves of a team attempting to take the next step in contending?

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 12:53 AM
Dumb, silly, unimpressive--I really don't understand why you have to go there. Those aren't arguments; they are pejoratives. What you still haven't told me is whether any of the minor league pitchers we received is likely to help us this coming year, when we should be in contention. You seem to avoid facing that question, choosing to throw insults around instead. We gave up two highly valued commodities, and I still don't see what we got back that is likely to help us this year. We still haven't filled many of our needs--yes, we got a backup catcher, and that seems ok, but hardly what is going to win us a division, much less a pennant. Perhaps our middle relief is better, though the jury surely is out on that one. We haven't helped our outfield or ss, and in the process hurt our bench by giving up Gload. And you mislead when you refer to losing the fifth spot in the rotation. A 17 game winner was hardly the fifth man in our rotation. The question I would like answered is, are these the moves of a team attempting to take the next step in contending?

So why do you use the word "suspects" for two of the top 10 pitching prospects in baseball if you are against the rhetorical techniques you mentioned above?

Lprof
12-26-2006, 01:02 AM
So why do you use the word "suspects" for two of the top 10 pitching prospects in baseball if you are against the rhetorical techniques you mentioned above? "Suspects" was not used as an ad hominem against someone with whom I disagreed. it is a term used to describe someone who was once a highly regarded prospect but, over a period of years in the minors/majors, has been unable to prove it; Joe Borchard, last year, was a suspect. At some point, Scott Ruffcorn became a suspect, before he became an ex-ballplayer. I didn't call the players bad names, or question their heart, their intelligence, or anything else except the likelihood they will make the majors. It is important, however, to distinguish between Danks and Floyd: Floyd is a pure suspect; Danks is just suspect as to helping us next year. I sincerely hope I prove to be a complete idiot on this one, and that at some point next year I will say, "KW sure knew what he was doing, even though I doubted him." I just don't see how we are a better team next year with Danks and Floyd than with Garcia and McCarthy. As I said, I may be wrong; that doesn't justify personal attacks against someone you don't even know.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 01:09 AM
"Suspects" was not used as an ad hominem against someone with whom I disagreed. it is a term used to describe someone who was once a highly regarded prospect but, over a period of years in the minors/majors, has been unable to prove it; Joe Borchard, last year, was a suspect. At some point, Scott Ruffcorn became a suspect, before he became an ex-ballplayer. I didn't call the players bad names, or question their heart, their intelligence, or anything else except the likelihood they will make the majors. It is important, however, to distinguish between Danks and Floyd: Floyd is a pure suspect; Danks is just suspect as to helping us next year. I sincerely hope I prove to be a complete idiot on this one, and that at some point next year I will say, "KW sure knew what he was doing, even though I doubted him." I just don't see how we are a better team next year with Danks and Floyd than with Garcia and McCarthy. As I said, I may be wrong; that doesn't justify personal attacks against someone you don't even know.

I've never once heard suspects used in such a fashion, but if that's what you meant, you're probably right.

There's really only two "suspects" by your definition Kenny acquired: Sisco and Floyd. But whatever.

Does this make us better? No. Does it make us worse? Well...our rotation suffers, but you seem to be vastly overrating Freddy's contributions. Or maybe you're not. The point is, our bullpen will almost certainly be better, and IF(and only if) Kenny doesn't make another move that will mean he'll be banking on improvements from Buehrle and Vazquez, which seem more than slightly likely.

Meanwhile it's not unreasonable to expect improvement from Pods and Anderson.

It's not unreasonable to expect decline from Dye, Crede, and AJ.

Where does that leave us? Who knows...but we don't SEEM to be too much worse off than in 2006 even IF Kenny makes NO MORE MOVES and NONE of these prospects make contributions next year.

Both big If's

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:09 AM
Dumb, silly, unimpressive--I really don't understand why you have to go there. Those aren't arguments; they are pejoratives.

And well earned. You just called two of the top 10 pitching prospects in baseball "suspects". That's a dumb, silly and unimpressive arguement. Don't take it personally - your arguement is lame. (and dumb, silly and unimpressive).

The question I would like answered is, are these the moves of a team attempting to take the next step in contending?

This team is still a contender. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There is no "next step" in contending. We contended last year, and we will contend again this year.

Do you think that this team is not a contender?

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:11 AM
"Suspects" was not used as an ad hominem against someone with whom I disagreed. it is a term used to describe someone who was once a highly regarded prospect but, over a period of years in the minors/majors, has been unable to prove it; Joe Borchard, last year, was a suspect. At some point, Scott Ruffcorn became a suspect, before he became an ex-ballplayer. I didn't call the players bad names, or question their heart, their intelligence, or anything else except the likelihood they will make the majors. It is important, however, to distinguish between Danks and Floyd: Floyd is a pure suspect; Danks is just suspect as to helping us next year. I sincerely hope I prove to be a complete idiot on this one, and that at some point next year I will say, "KW sure knew what he was doing, even though I doubted him." I just don't see how we are a better team next year with Danks and Floyd than with Garcia and McCarthy. As I said, I may be wrong; that doesn't justify personal attacks against someone you don't even know.

Nobody has made a personal attack against you. NOBODY. But your use of the word suspects is completely ridiculous. Danks and Gonzalez are top 10 PROSPECTS. They are not SUSPECTS at all. Stop playing word games.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 01:17 AM
And well earned. You just called two of the top 10 pitching prospects in baseball "suspects". That's a dumb, silly and unimpressive arguement. Don't take it personally - your arguement is lame. (and dumb, silly and unimpressive).


This team is still a contender. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There is no "next step" in contending. We contended last year, and we will contend again this year.
OF COURSE there is such a thing as "next step" in contending; Boston did it this winter; Detroit did it by getting Sheffield.

Do you think that this team is not a contender?
It depends on how one defines the term; As is, I would be surprised if they won the division.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 01:20 AM
It depends on how one defines the term; As is, I would be surprised if they won the division.

I would tend to agree, that as is the team winning the central would surprise me.

On the other hand, the team in 2006 not winning surprised me too

which just goes to show: it all depends how our ****ing pitching performs and there's no way to guarantee that except to stock up on as much pitching as you can.

who knows. I do know that Freddy or McCarthy or whoever being on the staff is probably not going to be the difference between us making the playoffs this year.

Probably. Key word to use in December.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:25 AM
It depends on how one defines the term; As is, I would be surprised if they won the division.

You are playing with words AGAIN.

CONTENDER refers to a team that is in contention for a playoff spot. Stop trying to redefine conventional baseball terminology for the sake of your arguement.

Minor leaguers with talent are PROSPECTS, not suspects.
Teams that are in contention for a post season berth are CONTENDERS.

Now the question still stands - do you think this team is a contender, as is?

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 01:35 AM
I'm with Lprof, we are trading known commodities for a couple of maybe pitchers. I don't necessarily blame KW or JR for what they did, the market is out of control. However I don't see how we are better or even as good as last year with the current moves. As for too many people toeing the company line around here, I would agree. Disagree with the wrong posters and you get treated like a red headed step child. All any of us can do is speculate, that is why we post on WSI and aren't working in the front office.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:47 AM
I'm with Lprof, we are trading known commodities for a couple of maybe pitchers.

We traded two guys with fastballs in the low 90s, one about ready to walk and the other a middle of the rotation guy at best who our front office decided was overrated compared to what we could get for him. In return, we got two of the top 3 LH SP in all of minor league baseball, plus two other legitimate prospects. Sure - all sorts of stuff could happen, but people make it like we traded away top tier players, and sure things, for a hill of magic beans.

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 01:51 AM
We traded two guys with fastballs in the low 90s, one about ready to walk and the other a middle of the rotation guy at best who our front office decided was overrated compared to what we could get for him. In return, we got two of the top 3 LH SP in all of minor league baseball, plus two other legitimate prospects. Sure - all sorts of stuff could happen, but people make it like we traded away top tier players, and sure things, for a hill of magic beans.


I'm not saying we were robbed, or it was an awful trade. From an economic standpoint it makes sense however, I fail to see how it makes us a stronger contender to win the World Series this year.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 01:57 AM
You are playing with words AGAIN.

CONTENDER refers to a team that is in contention for a playoff spot. Stop trying to redefine conventional baseball terminology for the sake of your arguement.

Minor leaguers with talent are PROSPECTS, not suspects.
Teams that are in contention for a post season berth are CONTENDERS.

Now the question still stands - do you think this team is a contender, as is?I mean that it would not be a miracle for the team to win the division, as it might be, say, for KC. I think it is unlikely that they will win, because they had a bunch of holes, underscored by a really lousy second half, that not only haven't been filled, but have now been expanded due to KW's trades. If Danks or Floyd turns in a 15 game winning performance next year, that's great. It is unlikely, I think, and even if they did, it merely replaces what Garcia did. I don't see how the team is better, and at the end of the season it wasn't likely to win. It is as simple as that.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:59 AM
I'm not saying we were robbed, or it was an awful trade. From an economic standpoint it makes sense however, I fail to see how it makes us a stronger contender to win the World Series this year.

We are still a contender, and we built a stronger future. That's good if you look at the team from a mid-long range perspective as well as just a short term perspective.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:03 AM
I mean that it would not be a miracle for the team to win the division, as it might be, say, for KC. I think it is unlikely that they will win, because they had a bunch of holes, underscored by a really lousy second half, that not only haven't been filled, but have now been expanded due to KW's trades. If Danks or Floyd turns in a 15 game winning performance next year, that's great. It is unlikely, I think, and even if they did, it merely replaces what Garcia did. I don't see how the team is better, and at the end of the season it wasn't likely to win. It is as simple as that.

I answered your question - you are not answering mine. Are we a contender?

And if Danks or Floyd, a the major league minimum, turn in a 15 win performance (which by the way is a bad way to measure a pitcher) the team becomes WORLDS better because we are getting that performance for about 500K instead of $10mm which means that about 9.5mm will be spent on other productive resources.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:04 AM
We traded two guys with fastballs in the low 90s, one about ready to walk and the other a middle of the rotation guy at best who our front office decided was overrated compared to what we could get for him. In return, we got two of the top 3 LH SP in all of minor league baseball, plus two other legitimate prospects. Sure - all sorts of stuff could happen, but people make it like we traded away top tier players, and sure things, for a hill of magic beans.I'll bet you Ruffcorn was a top 10 rated pitching prospect. How'd that work out for you? I am not saying these guys won't help us--just not likely next year. Detroit adds Shefield; Boston makes moves to compete for this year by adding free agents. Both teams "took the next step" in contending. We trade for pitchers who are likely to help us--if ever--in two to three years. That isn't what contending teams, more serious about winning than about their pocket book, do.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:06 AM
I answered your question - you are not answering mine. Are we a contender?

And if Danks or Floyd, a the major league minimum, turn in a 15 win performance (which by the way is a bad way to measure a pitcher) the team becomes WORLDS better because we are getting that performance for about 500K instead of $10mm which means that about 9.5mm will be spent on other productive resources.I really don't know what your problem is, but I think I have, in fact, answered, it--more than once. Yes, the team is a contender; that is the reason I am disappointed it has traded current major league talent for players not likely to help us this year. That is what NON-contending teams do.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:08 AM
I really don't know what your problem is, but I think I have, in fact, answered, it--more than once. Yes, the team is a contender; that is the reason I am disappointed it has traded current major league talent for players not likely to help us this year. That is what NON-contending teams do.And if I see that 9.5 mill spent other places for players, I will agree with you. I haven't seen it to this point; if KW comes up with a trade where he uses Garcia's excess money to fill holes for this year, I will applaud it. To this point, however, he has not done so.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:14 AM
I'll bet you Ruffcorn was a top 10 rated pitching prospect. How'd that work out for you? I am not saying these guys won't help us--just not likely next year. Detroit adds Shefield; Boston makes moves to compete for this year by adding free agents. Both teams "took the next step" in contending. We trade for pitchers who are likely to help us--if ever--in two to three years. That isn't what contending teams, more serious about winning than about their pocket book, do.

You are still not answering the question. Are we a contender?

And your pocket book comment opens up another box...I have no interest in getting back to the JR is Cheap arguement. I'll just say this - you want to see this franchise spend like Boston? Well, that would require a significant raise in the cost of tickets. I like being able to have season tickets. If my tickets doubled, so our revenue approached Boston's, I wouldn't likely be able to afford my season tickets. I'd rather have a team that wins 90-92 games every year, is a CONTENDER, and misses a bit, but that I get to go to see 50 times per season rather than spend 50mm more, not be able to afford my own seats, and only get to go to a few games.

As far as Sheff goes, I wouldn't give up what Detroit did for him.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:15 AM
And if I see that 9.5 mill spent other places for players, I will agree with you. I haven't seen it to this point; if KW comes up with a trade where he uses Garcia's excess money to fill holes for this year, I will applaud it. To this point, however, he has not done so.

So you believe we are cutting payroll this year? Ok - that's part of the problem. Check the numbers, our payroll will not go down.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:17 AM
I really don't know what your problem is, but I think I have, in fact, answered, it--more than once. Yes, the team is a contender; that is the reason I am disappointed it has traded current major league talent for players not likely to help us this year. That is what NON-contending teams do.

Well - that's the first time you answered it - but you AGAIN are manipulating words. They are not doing what a NON-contending team does. They are a contending team that is still contending, but that got better for the long term.

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 02:20 AM
I posted this in a different thread, but I think it is relevant here. We are doing the economically sensible thing, but so is KC and Tampa Bay. It is entirely not possible to say we are better right now, for this season, after these trades than before them.




I don't think it is insanity to question the moves made by KW. The fact of the matter is half of first round draft picks never make an impact at the big league level and 2/3 of overall number one or two picks never make an all star game. So I would take a mediocre major leaguer over draft picks any day. In the NFL draft picks are fairly consistent. In baseball it is a crap shoot

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 02:26 AM
I'm posting this here also, because I want to be sure you see this jabrch because I agree with you for the most part.

Jabrch I hope you are right, and I know I owe Kenny the benefit of the doubt since he has yet to really fail, but I still dont like the trades. However, in the wake of the recent idiocy by other clubs and their inflation of the pitching market I dont know what else he could do.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:31 AM
Well - that's the first time you answered it - but you AGAIN are manipulating words. They are not doing what a NON-contending team does. They are a contending team that is still contending, but that got better for the long term.
Talk about playing with words! That is EXACTLY what a non-contending team does: (1) worry about the budget more than the top teams do; and (2) trading established players for cheaper minor leaguers who hopefully will help us in the future. That is why I am upset.

oeo
12-26-2006, 02:33 AM
Well - that's the first time you answered it - but you AGAIN are manipulating words. They are not doing what a NON-contending team does. They are a contending team that is still contending, but that got better for the long term.

Not only is their talent better for the longterm, but it's also going to be better than a lot of teams. While teams like the Flubs are going out and spending money on aging, overpriced, mediocre pitchers, Kenny is getting young, inexpensive, talented pitchers.

I have a good feeling that our 2009 rotation will be even more dominant than our 2005. And hey, if all I have to wait is until 2009 for another championship, then so be it. Of course I want them to win every year, but that's definately not going to happen, and I'd like to see multiple championships in my lifetime...getting young talent will do that. I don't know if we'd win again if we re-signed our whole 2005 rotation...we'd probably end up in the same spot we were in the mid-to-late 90's in four or five years.

Talk about playing with words! That is EXACTLY what a non-contending team does: (1) worry about the budget more than the top teams do; and (2) trading established players for cheaper minor leaguers who hopefully will help us in the future. That is why I am upset.

Go look at our ****ing payroll, they're not cheap. Would you rather they re-sign their 2005 rotation, maybe win another championship and be screwed financially in a few years; or go after young talent, and win multiple championships while the majority of the league is screwed over financially? I'll take the latter.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:34 AM
So you believe we are cutting payroll this year? Ok - that's part of the problem. Check the numbers, our payroll will not go down.
Playing with numbers won't help you. You are completely missing the point. The issue isn't whether, because certain players now qualify for arbitration, the amount the team is paying out is more. That is the kind of argument the Cubs always make to justify their lack of moves (until, perhaps, this year). The point is that, because of budgetary concerns, the team going into next year--at least to this point--looks weaker than the team that ended last year--and that wasn't a very good team. What about what I just said do you disagree with?

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:36 AM
Not only is their talent better for the longterm, but it's also going to be better than a lot of teams. While teams like the Flubs are going out and spending money on aging, overpriced, mediocre pitchers, Kenny is getting young, inexpensive, talented pitchers.

I have a good feeling that our 2009 rotation will be even more dominant than our 2005. And hey, if all I have to wait is until 2009 for another championship, then so be it. Of course I want them to win every year, but that's definately not going to happen, and I'd like to see multiple championships in my lifetime...getting young talent will do that. I don't know if we'd win again if we re-signed our whole 2005 rotation...we'd probably end up in the same spot we were in the late 90's in four or five years.



Go look at our ****ing payroll, they're not cheap. Get over yourself."Better than a lot of teams"???? Is THAT the goal????

oeo
12-26-2006, 02:38 AM
"Better than a lot of teams"???? Is THAT the goal????

Well, usually when you're better than everyone else in the league, you get to that goal of winning a championship. Maybe I'm just stupid, though...

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:38 AM
Not only is their talent better for the longterm, but it's also going to be better than a lot of teams. While teams like the Flubs are going out and spending money on aging, overpriced, mediocre pitchers, Kenny is getting young, inexpensive, talented pitchers.

I have a good feeling that our 2009 rotation will be even more dominant than our 2005. And hey, if all I have to wait is until 2009 for another championship, then so be it. Of course I want them to win every year, but that's definately not going to happen, and I'd like to see multiple championships in my lifetime...getting young talent will do that. I don't know if we'd win again if we re-signed our whole 2005 rotation...we'd probably end up in the same spot we were in the mid-to-late 90's in four or five years.



Go look at our ****ing payroll, they're not cheap. Would you rather they re-sign their 2005 rotation, maybe win another championship and be screwed financially in a few years; or go after young talent, and win multiple championships while the majority of the league is screwed over financially? I'll take the latter."Good feeling about our 2009 rotation"???? Case closed. Where do you suppose Dye, Crede and Thome will be in 2009? It is really disheartening to hear this kind of talk, so soon after winning a world series.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:38 AM
Talk about playing with words! That is EXACTLY what a non-contending team does: (1) worry about the budget more than the top teams do; and (2) trading established players for cheaper minor leaguers who hopefully will help us in the future. That is why I am upset.

That's absolutely wrong on both counts.

1) They are spending MORE in payroll this year than last year.

2) They had a chance to get elite talent for above average talent. Great organizations are able to be good now and to be good in the future.

You get the last word in...I'm completely done with your manipulation.

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 02:39 AM
Go look at our ****ing payroll, they're not cheap. Get over yourself.

Just because you don't like what LProf is spitting dont mean you have to get nasty. I agree with him, we are acting like the white flag sox rather than the world champs. It might be a good move for the future, but it doesnt make us better this year. I'm not for spending outrageous amounts of money for pitchers like J Marquis, but I dont think we should be content to contend every fouth or fifth year.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 02:41 AM
Well, usually when you're better than everyone else in the league, you get to that goal of winning a championship. Maybe I'm just stupid, though...In the 50s and 90s, the Sox were "better than a lot of teams." Maybe that does it for you; it doesn't for me. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what our expectations are. With some positive tweaking, the team that ended the 2006 season, as problematic as it was, could be turned into a team capable of winning it all. I think the team went the other way.

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 02:44 AM
Why cant we be an elite team who competes for a championship every year? We play in Chicago and have the fan base to pay for it.

oeo
12-26-2006, 02:45 AM
"Good feeling about our 2009 rotation"???? Case closed. Where do you suppose Dye, Crede and Thome will be in 2009? It is really disheartening to hear this kind of talk, so soon after winning a world series.

How did Dye and Thome get here in the first place? Kenny acquired them...he can't do the same with other talent? *****...

And what "kind of talk" is this? There was no guarantee that our 2005 rotation would ever win another championship. So you would rather they get into financial trouble a few years down the road, when (IMO) they can win multiple championships with the younger guys they're trying to acquire.

The Sox are still a top team in the league. They can still win a championship next year, and I hope they do. But I don't just want next year, I want the following years as well. Maybe I feel this way because I'm younger, but I worry about the future of the franchise if they re-sign their rotation to huge contracts. IMO, it's not "do or die" for a championship anymore, like it was pre-2005. I would now like them to be an elite team for years and years, not just for a few more years and then go to the ****ter for awhile. It's not as if the whole team is gone, we lost Freddy Garcia and Ross Gload for God's sake...this team is still excellent.

chitownhawkfan
12-26-2006, 02:48 AM
I just see it as you have to strike when the iron is hot. While we have the team to win right now, minus a few pieces, we should mortgage the future to win today. That doesnt make you any less of a fan if you disagree that is just one Sox fan's opinion.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 03:17 AM
I just see it as you have to strike when the iron is hot. While we have the team to win right now, minus a few pieces, we should mortgage the future to win today. That doesnt make you any less of a fan if you disagree that is just one Sox fan's opinion.I couldn't have said it better. Right on.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 03:19 AM
How did Dye and Thome get here in the first place? Kenny acquired them...he can't do the same with other talent? *****...

And what "kind of talk" is this? There was no guarantee that our 2005 rotation would ever win another championship. So you would rather they get into financial trouble a few years down the road, when (IMO) they can win multiple championships with the younger guys they're trying to acquire.

The Sox are still a top team in the league. They can still win a championship next year, and I hope they do. But I don't just want next year, I want the following years as well. Maybe I feel this way because I'm younger, but I worry about the future of the franchise if they re-sign their rotation to huge contracts. IMO, it's not "do or die" for a championship anymore, like it was pre-2005. I would now like them to be an elite team for years and years, not just for a few more years and then go to the ****ter for awhile. It's not as if the whole team is gone, we lost Freddy Garcia and Ross Gload for God's sake...this team is still excellent.Do you think the team was "excellent" for the second half of the season? If so, you and I must have been watching very different teams. And I fail to see how KW is going to bring in more Dyes or Thomes, when he isn't willing to pay what other deep pocketed teams are paying.

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 10:39 AM
I just see it as you have to strike when the iron is hot. While we have the team to win right now, minus a few pieces, we should mortgage the future to win today. That doesnt make you any less of a fan if you disagree that is just one Sox fan's opinion.

But how do you figure we have the team to win right now?

Either Buerhle, Jose, and Vaz are going to pitch well or not.

IF they don't pitch well we're ****ed no matter how much Kenny tries to WIN NOW.

If they do pitch well, none of these offseason moves are going to prevent us from making the playoffs (if last year is any indication)

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 10:57 AM
Do you think the team was "excellent" for the second half of the season? If so, you and I must have been watching very different teams. And I fail to see how KW is going to bring in more Dyes or Thomes, when he isn't willing to pay what other deep pocketed teams are paying.

No, he isn't willing to overpay for talent and handcuff the team for years to come. Lilly at 4 yr/$40 million? Matsuzaka at 6 yr/$52 million (plus $51 million just to talk to him)? I would have loved to see Soriano replace Pods in LF but is he worth an 8 yr/$136 million contract? KW is taking a chance on '07 but he will be in the catbird's seat in a couple years when other teams around the league are desperate to unload inflated contracts.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 12:17 PM
Why cant we be an elite team who competes for a championship every year? We play in Chicago and have the fan base to pay for it.

That's what Kenny is doing. We are a contender this year, right? And we just got significantly better for the future, right?

champagne030
12-26-2006, 01:05 PM
That's what Kenny is doing. We are a contender this year, right? And we just got significantly better for the future, right?

As long as you consider Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, NY, Oakland, Anaheim and Texas contenders, sure we're a contender. Tampa, KC and Seattle are probably the only teams that aren't considered "contenders".

fquaye149
12-26-2006, 01:56 PM
As long as you consider Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, NY, Oakland, Anaheim and Texas contenders, sure we're a contender. Tampa, KC and Seattle are probably the only teams that aren't considered "contenders".

Baltimore as well.

I don't see why what you said (even as acerbically as you intended it) is all that crazy.

All those teams ARE contenders. Are they equal contenders? Maybe not...I'd put us in the top half though...

But how are we supposed to match the pitching of Detroit, Minnesota and Boston?

What possible moves could Kenny have made so our pitching would be as good as Detroit, Minnesota or Boston?

Actually---the moves he made were the only realistic step he could have taken to attempt to equal their pitching over the next 3 years

jabrch
12-26-2006, 02:16 PM
But how are we supposed to match the pitching of Detroit, Minnesota and Boston?


I think our pitching is better than Minny. Past Santana, they have a lot of ?. I'm not sure about Boston - depends on the health of their creeky rotation, and the performance of Matsuzaka. Detroit is better than us - but not by a ton.

I don't see any team out there that is so clearly better than us that we are not a contender.

Lprof
12-26-2006, 07:48 PM
No, he isn't willing to overpay for talent and handcuff the team for years to come. Lilly at 4 yr/$40 million? Matsuzaka at 6 yr/$52 million (plus $51 million just to talk to him)? I would have loved to see Soriano replace Pods in LF but is he worth an 8 yr/$136 million contract? KW is taking a chance on '07 but he will be in the catbird's seat in a couple years when other teams around the league are desperate to unload inflated contracts.That's just great: "in the catbird's seat in a couple years...." I think I have seen this movie many times before. By the way, what does "high priest" mean? Are you self-annointed, or was there an election?

Lprof
12-26-2006, 07:51 PM
No, he isn't willing to overpay for talent and handcuff the team for years to come. Lilly at 4 yr/$40 million? Matsuzaka at 6 yr/$52 million (plus $51 million just to talk to him)? I would have loved to see Soriano replace Pods in LF but is he worth an 8 yr/$136 million contract? KW is taking a chance on '07 but he will be in the catbird's seat in a couple years when other teams around the league are desperate to unload inflated contracts.And that is the reason I say he should go for it THIS YEAR. I think you just made my point for me.

ondafarm
12-26-2006, 08:03 PM
As long as you consider Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, NY, Oakland, Anaheim and Texas contenders, sure we're a contender. Tampa, KC and Seattle are probably the only teams that aren't considered "contenders".

Man,
you are clueless.

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2006, 08:35 PM
By the way, what does "high priest" mean? Are you self-annointed, or was there an election?

"High Priest" is a status attained by those members who have made more than 5,000 posts. If you are interested, you probably can search for a thread somewhere that explains all of the various levels of WSI "membership."

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 09:11 PM
"High Priest" is a status attained by those members who have made more than 5,000 posts. If you are interested, you probably can search for a thread somewhere that explains all of the various levels of WSI "membership."

...or check out the User guide.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com//MainPages/BoardUserGuide.htm (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/..//MainPages/BoardUserGuide.htm)

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 09:23 PM
And that is the reason I say he should go for it THIS YEAR. I think you just made my point for me.

I did? If KW wanted to go for it all in 2007, I wouldn't have had a problem with overpaying for a one or two year rental but these type of rentals were simply not available this offseason. None of the "decent" free agents signed for anything less than 4 years.

Soriano for 2 yr/$35 million = yeah

Soriano for 8 yr/$136 million = nay

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 09:24 PM
That's just great: "in the catbird's seat in a couple years...." I think I have seen this movie many times before. By the way, what does "high priest" mean? Are you self-annointed, or was there an election?

Being in the catbird's seat in a couple years doesn't mean "the kids can play" this year.

I am also a High Priest due to my general awesomeness.

:rolleyes:

jabrch
12-26-2006, 09:31 PM
Soriano for 2 yr/$35 million = yeah

Soriano for 8 yr/$136 million = nay

And that wasn't close to the worst deal of the offseason. At least Soriano does all thing things that baseball teams need you to do to win. He's an above average defensive LF. He hits for power. He's got both SB-speed, as well as baseball functional speed. He slugs the ball. His obp is trending up. And he did all of this in a terrible lineup in a pitchers park.

Now Gil Meche, Jason Marquis, etc. - those are ridiculous deals and KW is smart to stockpile top tier arms ahead of that, when giving away guys in their walk years, or guys projected to be mid-rotation guys at best.

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 09:35 PM
And that wasn't close to the worst deal of the offseason. At least Soriano does all thing things that baseball teams need you to do to win. He's an above average defensive LF. He hits for power. He's got both SB-speed, as well as baseball functional speed. He slugs the ball. His obp is trending up. And he did all of this in a terrible lineup in a pitchers park.

Now Gil Meche, Jason Marquis, etc. - those are ridiculous deals and KW is smart to stockpile top tier arms ahead of that, when giving away guys in their walk years, or guys projected to be mid-rotation guys at best.

Agreed on Soriano's play. Solid all the way around. But an 8 year deal? Yikes. He'll be what, 38 at the end of the contract?

MeanFish
12-26-2006, 09:35 PM
Being in the catbird's seat in a couple years doesn't mean "the kids can play" this year.

I am also a High Priest due to my general awesomeness.

:rolleyes:

Are you trying to say the kids can't play this year??

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 09:37 PM
Are you trying to say the kids can't play this year??

Maybe.

:redneck

digdagdug23
12-26-2006, 09:50 PM
what does "high priest" mean? Are you self-annointed, or was there an election?

It means we fall down at the altar and worship him so he doesn't gut us for pleasure. He is kind of mean that way.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 10:11 PM
Agreed on Soriano's play. Solid all the way around. But an 8 year deal? Yikes. He'll be what, 38 at the end of the contract?

38 really isn't that old anymore... And 20mm by the time we get to 8 years from now will be much less relative to market than it is today.

I'm not saying it is a great deal. It's just not nearly close to the worst deal this year.

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 10:13 PM
38 really isn't that old anymore... And 20mm by the time we get to 8 years from now will be much less relative to market than it is today.

I'm not saying it is a great deal. It's just not nearly close to the worst deal this year.

In terms of "big" deals, I agree with you, this one is one of the most reasonable. I still think he got more than he should but hey, that is the benefit of a weak free agent class. Good for him.

champagne030
12-26-2006, 10:14 PM
Man,
you are clueless.

:rolleyes:

So, I guess you'll be filling our current void at 5th starter?

tomgordon1
12-27-2006, 12:12 AM
Alright, the Garcia trade def. was, in my opinion, the worst trade of the offseason. We could've gotten Rowand instead of Floyd or Gonzalez, that was terrible. I bet the Phillies would've taken Vazquez, a waste of $12.5 mil, for Rowand. That was by far the worst. About the McCarthy trade, I think a lot of fans are taking this the wrong way. We got three pitchers in return, two, who may end up being worth it. McCarthy was kinda overrated if you think about it. He only throws two major pitches, a curve and a change (that doesn't work too often) I doubt he's going to be the "ace" of someone's staff. He may win 15 games but I doubt he's going to be the name of the future free agency. Those three pitchers are even younger than McCarthy so let's give it some time. Maybe Danks will be in the bullpen. My only concern right now is Vazquez in the rotation and the 5th starter spot. That can kill us big time!!! :o: :o: :o:

tomgordon1
12-27-2006, 12:16 AM
:rolleyes:

So, I guess you'll be filling our current void at 5th starter?


I give you props for that one :D:

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 12:27 AM
Alright, the Garcia trade def. was, in my opinion, the worst trade of the offseason. We could've gotten Rowand instead of Floyd or Gonzalez, that was terrible. I bet the Phillies would've taken Vazquez, a waste of $12.5 mil, for Rowand. That was by far the worst. About the McCarthy trade, I think a lot of fans are taking this the wrong way. We got three pitchers in return, two, who may end up being worth it. McCarthy was kinda overrated if you think about it. He only throws two major pitches, a curve and a change (that doesn't work too often) I doubt he's going to be the "ace" of someone's staff. He may win 15 games but I doubt he's going to be the name of the future free agency. Those three pitchers are even younger than McCarthy so let's give it some time. Maybe Danks will be in the bullpen. My only concern right now is Vazquez in the rotation and the 5th starter spot. That can kill us big time!!! :o: :o: :o:

:?:

So you hated the Garcia trade when it was first announced (and still seem to hate it) yet believe McCarthy was "kinda overrated". So even if the Sox got Rowand instead of Floyd and Gonzales, they still would need a 5th starter. Who did you envision that being if not McCarthy? Rowand can't pitch either.

And how the heck do you figure that the Phillies would have taken Vazquez for Rowand? Vazquez is owed $12.5 million this year while Garcia is owed $10 million. Why would they want to take on the extra salary, especially if you consider him "a waste"?

:?:

ondafarm
12-27-2006, 12:45 AM
. . . At least Soriano does all thing things that baseball teams need you to do to win. He's an above average defensive LF. He hits for power. He's got both SB-speed, as well as baseball functional speed. He slugs the ball. His obp is trending up. And he did all of this in a terrible lineup in a pitchers park. . .

If you are serious you really should get a day job away from baseball.

If you are joking then this is not funny at all.

ondafarm
12-27-2006, 12:47 AM
:rolleyes:

So, I guess you'll be filling our current void at 5th starter?

There are plenty of candidates and the competition is probably the best thing that can be done for any of them. If no one else, Haeger. Nothing like a knuckleballer to save your bullpen.

Lprof
12-27-2006, 01:04 AM
I did? If KW wanted to go for it all in 2007, I wouldn't have had a problem with overpaying for a one or two year rental but these type of rentals were simply not available this offseason. None of the "decent" free agents signed for anything less than 4 years.

Soriano for 2 yr/$35 million = yeah

Soriano for 8 yr/$136 million = nayI didn't mean he should sign free agents; I meant he should shape his trades with next year in mind--like use his precious pitching bargaining chits to get back a centerfielder and/or lead off man, or get a shortstop, or whatever. It is clear, however, that his trades have not done this.

Lprof
12-27-2006, 01:06 AM
Being in the catbird's seat in a couple years doesn't mean "the kids can play" this year.

I am also a High Priest due to my general awesomeness.

:rolleyes:No,it won't be "the kids can play," because for the most part the team is a veteran team. That is why it makes little sense to swim half way across a river by bringing in young pitchers who, at best, are likely to help you in 2009, when most of your team is veteran.

Lprof
12-27-2006, 01:08 AM
It means we fall down at the altar and worship him so he doesn't gut us for pleasure. He is kind of mean that way.NOW you tell me!

tomgordon1
12-27-2006, 04:49 PM
:?:

So you hated the Garcia trade when it was first announced (and still seem to hate it) yet believe McCarthy was "kinda overrated". So even if the Sox got Rowand instead of Floyd and Gonzales, they still would need a 5th starter. Who did you envision that being if not McCarthy? Rowand can't pitch either.

And how the heck do you figure that the Phillies would have taken Vazquez for Rowand? Vazquez is owed $12.5 million this year while Garcia is owed $10 million. Why would they want to take on the extra salary, especially if you consider him "a waste"?

:?:


Alright, yea, I hated the Garcia trade. Let's say the Phillies would take Vazquez for Rowand, then McCarthy would take the 5th spot for the time being. I would have some confidence of him being the 5th starter over someone else, such as Floyd. But I'm sure we'd pay for some of Vazquez's salary so then they would give us Rowand. Originally, we were supposed to have McCarthy be in the 5th spot and I was fine. But since someone as great as Garcia left, then we can't rely on him to bring us to the top. And I know Vazquez won't do the same either. KW should seriously try and pursue Mulder or Zito (I don't care about Boras) or trade Vazquez and a minor for another starting pitcher who can give us some wins. He basically screwed up our rotation, enough said.:angry:

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 05:07 PM
Alright, yea, I hated the Garcia trade. Let's say the Phillies would take Vazquez for Rowand, then McCarthy would take the 5th spot for the time being. I would have some confidence of him being the 5th starter over someone else, such as Floyd. But I'm sure we'd pay for some of Vazquez's salary so then they would give us Rowand. Originally, we were supposed to have McCarthy be in the 5th spot and I was fine. But since someone as great as Garcia left, then we can't rely on him to bring us to the top. And I know Vazquez won't do the same either. KW should seriously try and pursue Mulder or Zito (I don't care about Boras) or trade Vazquez and a minor for another starting pitcher who can give us some wins. He basically screwed up our rotation, enough said.:angry:

I guess I missed the press release where McCarthy was guaranteed the 5th starter spot but that still doesn't change the fact that Garcia was the one who was traded and Rowand didn't come back. I'm guessing KW explored a deal with Vazquez but either the price wasn't right or the Phillies had no interest. Or maybe Vazquez was never even on the table. None of us know.

And why are you so ready to throw Vazquez under the bus? He finished last season pretty strong, at least strong enough for a 5th starter. True, he didn't get any wins but he isn't swinging a bat. His ERA fell by nearly a run from the end of July through September and his strikeout totals increased dramatically (he struck out 10 or more on 4 of his 5 September starts).

Do you have any idea what kind of deal Zito is going to get? It is going to be massive, especially since he is the last "big name" pitcher still without a contract. Even Mulder and his injured body will get a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Zito on the South Side but not at 5 yr/$100 million.

tomgordon1
12-28-2006, 01:57 AM
I guess I missed the press release where McCarthy was guaranteed the 5th starter spot but that still doesn't change the fact that Garcia was the one who was traded and Rowand didn't come back. I'm guessing KW explored a deal with Vazquez but either the price wasn't right or the Phillies had no interest. Or maybe Vazquez was never even on the table. None of us know.

And why are you so ready to throw Vazquez under the bus? He finished last season pretty strong, at least strong enough for a 5th starter. True, he didn't get any wins but he isn't swinging a bat. His ERA fell by nearly a run from the end of July through September and his strikeout totals increased dramatically (he struck out 10 or more on 4 of his 5 September starts).

Do you have any idea what kind of deal Zito is going to get? It is going to be massive, especially since he is the last "big name" pitcher still without a contract. Even Mulder and his injured body will get a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Zito on the South Side but not at 5 yr/$100 million.


Well, we need to fill up that 5th spot somehow. KW should not rely on our new set of young'uns to do the job. They may do good in Spring Training but it may not be good enough for the season. I'll throw a name out. Ervin Santana. We should try and pick up someone like him, who has a couple years under their belt and could fill up the spot.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 02:14 AM
Well, we need to fill up that 5th spot somehow. KW should not rely on our new set of young'uns to do the job. They may do good in Spring Training but it may not be good enough for the season. I'll throw a name out. Ervin Santana. We should try and pick up someone like him, who has a couple years under their belt and could fill up the spot.
Hey I love Ervin Santana. The problem with your suggestion is the cost. He won't come cheap.

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 01:51 PM
Well, we need to fill up that 5th spot somehow. KW should not rely on our new set of young'uns to do the job. They may do good in Spring Training but it may not be good enough for the season. I'll throw a name out. Ervin Santana. We should try and pick up someone like him, who has a couple years under their belt and could fill up the spot.

Did you see how high McCarthy's trade value was?

Santana's trade value will be similar to McCarthy's but higher.

And that's assuming the Angels would even want to move him at all...it is very unlikely we will be able to put together a package to get Ervin Santana

soxfan13
12-28-2006, 02:04 PM
Well, we need to fill up that 5th spot somehow. KW should not rely on our new set of young'uns to do the job. They may do good in Spring Training but it may not be good enough for the season. I'll throw a name out. Ervin Santana. We should try and pick up someone like him, who has a couple years under their belt and could fill up the spot.

Thats exactly what Mac was.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 02:09 PM
Thats exactly what Mac was.No!!!! He was a proven major league starter!!! Kenny might have had a chance to "pick up" Ervin Santana, but he already traded away Ross Gload. Stupid Kenny.

Lprof
12-28-2006, 02:43 PM
Did you see how high McCarthy's trade value was?

Santana's trade value will be similar to McCarthy's but higher.

And that's assuming the Angels would even want to move him at all...it is very unlikely we will be able to put together a package to get Ervin Santana
Hey, maybe the Angels would trade Santana for some good young prospects who might help them in 2009--oh, that's right, they wouldn't do that; the Angels are actually trying to win in 2007.

FarWestChicago
12-28-2006, 02:45 PM
Hey, maybe the Angels would trade Santana for some good young prospects who might help them in 2009--oh, that's right, they wouldn't do that; the Angels are actually trying to win in 2007.Lay off the trolling now. Final warning.

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 03:19 PM
Hey, maybe the Angels would trade Santana for some good young prospects who might help them in 2009--oh, that's right, they wouldn't do that; the Angels are actually trying to win in 2007.
How many games has McCarthy started?

How many games has Santana?

How can you even make that comparison.

Take issue with the Garcia trade if you like (although Garcia is in his walk year and had significant attitude problems last year) but to act like McCarthy is even comparable to Santana at this point in their repsective careers shows a serious lack of understanding of baseball.

digdagdug23
12-28-2006, 04:28 PM
How many games has McCarthy started?

How many games has Santana?

How can you even make that comparison.

Take issue with the Garcia trade if you like (although Garcia is in his walk year and had significant attitude problems last year) but to act like McCarthy is even comparable to Santana at this point in their repsective careers shows a serious lack of understanding of baseball.

That was always my problem with Freddy, especially last year. The "I am a big game pitcher' mentality was too much for my tastes. I know pitchers are a different breed, but my God. I was not sad to see him go in the least little bit.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 05:37 PM
That was always my problem with Freddy, especially last year. The "I am a big game pitcher' mentality was too much for my tastes. I know pitchers are a different breed, but my God. I was not sad to see him go in the least little bit.

The guy won some games for and even won some really BIG games. I tip my hat to him, but I most thank him for the value he brought us when he left.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 05:38 PM
No!!!! He was a proven major league starter!!! Kenny might have had a chance to "pick up" Ervin Santana, but he already traded away Ross Gload. Stupid Kenny.


You forgot your teal.

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 05:53 PM
The guy won some games for and even won some really BIG games. I tip my hat to him, but I most thank him for the value he brought us when he left.
We couldn't have won in 2005 without him

But he's one of the many main reasons we faltered in 2006

soxinem1
12-28-2006, 09:54 PM
I don't think the Sox could have gotten more for Garcia because I think Garcia is a suspect pitcher these days. I am surprised the Rangers gave up as much as they did to get McCarthy.

I couldn't agree more. If Garcia has a decent 2007 he will get at least $15 million per next year on the open market, and it won't be from Philly.

I'd rather trade a guy a year early than a year too late.

I remember a few years ago when the Twins traded one of the better hitting catchers in MLB for a failed starter who became a set up man and two minor league pitchers. SFG fleeced the Twins, right?

And I really wish some of these posters would stop these 'Uribe and Logan for Michael Young' type fantasy trades like cub fans do and get real.

Over the past three years practically every team that talked trade with TEX brought up Denks name and could not get him, so obviosly most MLB scouting departments think he has some appeal.

Plus, since when is a trade already branded lousy when the new season hasn't even started yet? Are these the same detractors who were around when BAL 'ripped-off' HOU by trading Steve Finley, Curt Schilling, and Pete Harnish for Glenn Davis? Turned out to be one of the best trades in Astros history.

The off-season must be really boring for some people to have the time to start this ****!

Geez, give it some time before trashing it.

WhiteSox5187
12-28-2006, 10:06 PM
I give people the right to bash any trade they want anytime they want...but whether this trade is a success or not won't be proven until the end of the season obviously, and to be fairly honest, we might even have to look to 2009 before we say this trade is a success. Look how long it took for guys like Garland and Crede to pan out. I, for one, don't see the logic in this trade.

Lprof
12-29-2006, 09:54 AM
How many games has McCarthy started?

How many games has Santana?

How can you even make that comparison.

Take issue with the Garcia trade if you like (although Garcia is in his walk year and had significant attitude problems last year) but to act like McCarthy is even comparable to Santana at this point in their repsective careers shows a serious lack of understanding of baseball.
I was referring as much to Garcia as to McCarthy; it is true, of course, that one cannot compare McCarthy to Santana. But the fact remains, McCarthy looked very impressive as a starter the last half of 2005, and it was generally assumed that Garcia was traded to open up a spot for him. As for Garcia, attitude problems or not, he won 17 games and is an established big game pitcher. I don't think a contending team should give him up (walk year or not) without getting back something of comparable value that will likely help you by filling needs in the coming year.
My main point (and this will be the last time I say it, because apparently it is "trolling," though I honestly don't know what that means, and I have been "warned"; I do it here only because it has been suggested I know nothing about baseball, and I am attempting to respond) is, simply, that whatever one thinks of McCarthy (and the view of him seems to have dropped sharply--mysteriously--since he was traded), I don't think we are counting on anyone we got back for either pitcher to help us in 2007.
I thought it was pretty well established that when you have a veteran team that has a decent shot in the coming year but has some holes to fill, in the off season that team attempts to fill those holes, rather than trading people who have a chance to help you the coming year for folks who will help you, if at all, in two years. (I know we have done some things for the bull pen, but how much is debatable and in any case there were certainly holes in the lineup that have not been touched). I am surprised that thinking seems so controversial here. The Yankees picked up Pettite, without worrying too much about 2009; same for the Tigers and Red Sox as to their pickups. It upsets me that our team seems to be worrying a lot about budget and the future, rather than adding for the coming battle. It sounds ominously like a return to days of old, that weren't a lot of fun (though I sincerely hope I am wrong about that).I am sorry that bothers so many of you. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and hopefully move on to different topics.

itsnotrequired
12-29-2006, 11:00 AM
The Yankees picked up Pettite, without worrying too much about 2009; same for the Tigers and Red Sox as to their pickups. It upsets me that our team seems to be worrying a lot about budget and the future, rather than adding for the coming battle.

The Yankees picked up Pettite for a one year, $16 million deal. The Tigers are paying Sheffield $13 million this year (and $28 million over the next two years). The Red Sox signed Masuzaka to a 6 year, $52 million deal (plus escalators). Let's not forget the $51 million they sent to Lions just to talk to the guy.

Where would the Sox have come up with this money? Many posters think the Sox can go out and sign whoever they want and give little thought to the financial implications.

Say the Sox picked up Pettite for the $16 million. Who would they get rid of to free up salary for him? Say the Garcia deal went down. The Sox would still have to pony up $6 million for next season and then be in the same boat in the 2007 offseason when Pettite walks. Is Sheffield worth $13 million? And where would that salary come from? It is assumed Pods would be gone so the Sox would need $10 million there. And Masuzaka? Would anyone here honestly be happy that the Sox spent $50 million just to talk to a guy? Talk about financial recklessness.

The Garcia trade is my least favorite trade of the offseason. Still, the Sox are getting what they paid for. People are quick to point out that the Sox got "little in return" but seem to gloss over the fact that letting Garcia go gives the Sox over $9 million more to play with.

champagne030
12-29-2006, 11:38 AM
Where would the Sox have come up with this money?

Ticket price increases.

People are quick to point out that the Sox got "little in return" but seem to gloss over the fact that letting Garcia go gives the Sox over $9 million more to play with.

Added with the ticket price increase and the Sox have/had $20-25M additional revenue coming in this season. Yes, the raises for our current players will eat up most of the Garcia savings, but that still leaves $10-15M from increased ticket revenue alone.

itsnotrequired
12-29-2006, 12:20 PM
Added with the ticket price increase and the Sox have/had $20-25M additional revenue coming in this season. Yes, the raises for our current players will eat up most of the Garcia savings, but that still leaves $10-15M from increased ticket revenue alone.

To get $25 million extra from ticket revenue alone and assuming a very aggressive average attendance of 36,000/game, the Sox would need to raise ticket prices over $8.50 per ticket. Based on season ticket pricing, the projected increase for 2007 is not close to that amount. Plus, this assumes the Sox will be on pace for another record year in attendance. Will they draw like last year? I'm thinking not, something like 34.5k a game. This will mean ticket prices will have to increase by nearly $9 a ticket.

Thome, Vazquez, Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, Dye, Pierzynski, Uribe, Iguchi, Podsednik, Mackowiak, Cintron, Hall, MacDougal and Ozuna represent an INCREASE of $18.77 million in salary. This doesn't even count the pay bump Crede will receive. Just for fun, let's say his salary brings the gang up to an even $20 million. So with Garcia gone, the Sox are still dishing out an extra $10 million this season. So even if the Sox bring in an extra $15 million in ticket revenue, that's only $5 million to play with. Yeah, Hermanson isn't on the team so if we throw that in there, the Sox might have $8 million.

Of course, the situation is more complex than this due to concessions, merchandise, minimum salary increases, etc. but it gives a rough idea of the magnitude of dollars available. The Sox don't have as many dollars to play with as some people think. $8 million is probably a best-case scenario but realistically, I'm thinking it is closer to $5 million.

Frater Perdurabo
12-29-2006, 12:37 PM
To get $25 million extra from ticket revenue alone and assuming a very aggressive average attendance of 36,000/game, the Sox would need to raise ticket prices over $8.50 per ticket. Based on season ticket pricing, the projected increase for 2007 is not close to that amount. Plus, this assumes the Sox will be on pace for another record year in attendance. Will they draw like last year? I'm thinking not, something like 34.5k a game. This will mean ticket prices will have to increase by nearly $9 a ticket.

Thome, Vazquez, Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, Dye, Pierzynski, Uribe, Iguchi, Podsednik, Mackowiak, Cintron, Hall, MacDougal and Ozuna represent an INCREASE of $18.77 million in salary. This doesn't even count the pay bump Crede will receive. Just for fun, let's say his salary brings the gang up to an even $20 million. So with Garcia gone, the Sox are still dishing out an extra $10 million this season. So even if the Sox bring in an extra $15 million in ticket revenue, that's only $5 million to play with. Yeah, Hermanson isn't on the team so if we throw that in there, the Sox might have $8 million.

Of course, the situation is more complex than this due to concessions, merchandise, minimum salary increases, etc. but it gives a rough idea of the magnitude of dollars available. The Sox don't have as many dollars to play with as some people think. $8 million is probably a best-case scenario but realistically, I'm thinking it is closer to $5 million.

This just underscores the importance of accumulating as many young, cheap, high-reward (albeit high-risk) pitchers (and position players) NOW who can round out a rotation over the next five years so that the Sox don't have to suffer through a rebuilding project (Indians) or continue to pay higher salaries for diminishing returns (Yankees).

The Sox need to be as smart and disciplined as the Twins. If they can do that, their better financial position (relative to the Twins) should allow them to compete from a position of strength within the division.

champagne030
12-29-2006, 12:46 PM
To get $25 million extra from ticket revenue alone and assuming a very aggressive average attendance of 36,000/game, the Sox would need to raise ticket prices over $8.50 per ticket. Based on season ticket pricing, the projected increase for 2007 is not close to that amount. Plus, this assumes the Sox will be on pace for another record year in attendance. Will they draw like last year? I'm thinking not, something like 34.5k a game. This will mean ticket prices will have to increase by nearly $9 a ticket.

Thome, Vazquez, Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, Dye, Pierzynski, Uribe, Iguchi, Podsednik, Mackowiak, Cintron, Hall, MacDougal and Ozuna represent an INCREASE of $18.77 million in salary. This doesn't even count the pay bump Crede will receive. Just for fun, let's say his salary brings the gang up to an even $20 million. So with Garcia gone, the Sox are still dishing out an extra $10 million this season. So even if the Sox bring in an extra $15 million in ticket revenue, that's only $5 million to play with. Yeah, Hermanson isn't on the team so if we throw that in there, the Sox might have $8 million.

Of course, the situation is more complex than this due to concessions, merchandise, minimum salary increases, etc. but it gives a rough idea of the magnitude of dollars available. The Sox don't have as many dollars to play with as some people think. $8 million is probably a best-case scenario but realistically, I'm thinking it is closer to $5 million.

I said along with the Garcia trade we would have $20-25M. I estimated an increase of $10-15M from ticket revenue alone. My bleacher seats increased over $4/game. I just used an estimate of 2.9M in attendance and an average ticket price increase of $5/game. That puts the Sox, conservatively, at a $14.5M increase in ticket revenue.

According to this thread, your salary increase figures are way too high.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82418&highlight=2007+PAYROLL

itsnotrequired
12-29-2006, 01:05 PM
I said along with the Garcia trade we would have $20-25M. I estimated an increase of $10-15M from ticket revenue alone. My bleacher seats increased over $4/game. I just used an estimate of 2.9M in attendance and an average ticket price increase of $5/game. That puts the Sox, conservatively, at a $14.5M increase in ticket revenue.

According to this thread, your salary increase figures are way too high.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82418&highlight=2007+PAYROLL

Even if ticket revenue increases $14.5 million (I feel that is a tad high but that's me), that still leaves less than $5 million of additional revenue based on salary increases.

My salary numbers aren't high at all. Below are the increases in millions between 2006 and 2007.

Thome - 1.5
Vazquez - 1
Garland - 3
Buehrle - 1.75
Contreras - 1
Dye - 1
Pierzynski - 1.5
Uribe - 1
Iguchi - 0.85
Podsednik - 1
Mackowiak - 0.5
Cintron - 0.3
Hall (Widger) - 1.1
MacDougal - 1.07
Ozuna - 0.3

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

Add those increases up and you get $18.77 million in additional salary. True, the Phillies/Diamondbacks sent money to the Sox in the Thome/Vazquez trades but if we assume the dollars sent are split evenly between the remaining years of the contracts, it has no impact on the DIFFERENCE in salary between seasons.

So $18.77 - $10 (Garcia) - $2.5 (Hermanson) = $6.27 million extra the Sox need to pay out. Throw in the Crede increase as well as minimum salary increases for the scrubs and we could be talking about $10 million in additional payout in 2007. Assuming the $14.5 million increase in ticket sales, this leaves less than $5 million in extra revenue to play with. Again, I feel the $14.5 million ticket increase is a little high. I'm guessing it will be closer to $12 million. If this is true, the Sox have less than $3 million to play with (based on tickets alone).

champagne030
12-29-2006, 01:32 PM
Even if ticket revenue increases $14.5 million (I feel that is a tad high but that's me), that still leaves less than $5 million of additional revenue based on salary increases.

My salary numbers aren't high at all. Below are the increases in millions between 2006 and 2007.

Thome - 1.5
Vazquez - 1
Garland - 3
Buehrle - 1.75
Contreras - 1
Dye - 1
Pierzynski - 1.5
Uribe - 1
Iguchi - 0.85
Podsednik - 1
Mackowiak - 0.5
Cintron - 0.3
Hall (Widger) - 1.1
MacDougal - 1.07
Ozuna - 0.3

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

Add those increases up and you get $18.77 million in additional salary. True, the Phillies/Diamondbacks sent money to the Sox in the Thome/Vazquez trades but if we assume the dollars sent are split evenly between the remaining years of the contracts, it has no impact on the DIFFERENCE in salary between seasons.

So $18.77 - $10 (Garcia) - $2.5 (Hermanson) = $6.27 million extra the Sox need to pay out. Throw in the Crede increase as well as minimum salary increases for the scrubs and we could be talking about $10 million in additional payout in 2007. Assuming the $14.5 million increase in ticket sales, this leaves less than $5 million in extra revenue to play with. Again, I feel the $14.5 million ticket increase is a little high. I'm guessing it will be closer to $12 million. If this is true, the Sox have less than $3 million to play with (based on tickets alone).

I think a $5 average increase per ticket is conservative, but that's me. Anyway, you're leaving out the salaries of Frank, Dino, Politte and Widger. That's another $6M in payroll reduction for '07.

itsnotrequired
12-29-2006, 01:44 PM
I think a $5 average increase per ticket is conservative, but that's me. Anyway, you're leaving out the salaries of Frank, Dino, Politte and Widger. That's another $6M in payroll reduction for '07.

Below are the average ticket prices and price difference from the previous year for 2000-2006 (from Team Marketing Report (http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm)):

$14.40
$18.73 $4.33
$18.73 $0.00
$22.51 $3.78
$22.71 $0.20
$25.89 $3.18
$26.19 $0.30

I just don't see average ticket prices increasing by $5. That would be a huge jump.

Good call on Frank, Everett and Politte. That's an extra $5.2 in savings. The savings in Widger are considered in Hall's numbers.

champagne030
12-30-2006, 09:48 AM
Even if ticket revenue increases $14.5 million (I feel that is a tad high but that's me), that still leaves less than $5 million of additional revenue based on salary increases.

My salary numbers aren't high at all. Below are the increases in millions between 2006 and 2007.

Thome - 1.5
Vazquez - 1
Garland - 3
Buehrle - 1.75
Contreras - 1
Dye - 1
Pierzynski - 1.5
Uribe - 1
Iguchi - 0.85'
Podsednik - 1
Mackowiak - 0.5
Cintron - 0.3
Hall (Widger) - 1.1
MacDougal - 1.07
Ozuna - 0.3

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

Add those increases up and you get $18.77 million in additional salary. True, the Phillies/Diamondbacks sent money to the Sox in the Thome/Vazquez trades but if we assume the dollars sent are split evenly between the remaining years of the contracts, it has no impact on the DIFFERENCE in salary between seasons.



Not to pick this issue to death, but the dollars are not split evenly for Vazquez and Thome made more in '06 than he will in '07.

Thome received $15M in '06. A $12.5M salary and $2.5M portion of his original $10M signing bonus. He's due a $14M salary in '07. The Phillies to kick us $5.5M in '06-'09. So, the Sox actually are out of pocket $1M less in '07 than '06.

Vazquez made $11.5M in '06 and will make $12.5M in '07. The Diamondbacks kicked us $1M last season and will give us $3M this season. Again, were out of pocket $1M less this season than last season with Vazquez.

That's another $4.5M to knock off your $18.77. Adding the $5.2 for Frank, Carl, ect. The Freddy trade covers all of the salary increases and then some. Yes, that's not counting what Crede will get, but it appears that almost all of the increased ticket revenue is pure profit. Hopefully that will be reinvested into the team in the form of locking up one of our core players to a long term contract.

http://www.mlb4u.com/teamcontract.php?team=Chicago%20White%20Sox

itsnotrequired
12-30-2006, 10:34 AM
Not to pick this issue to death, but the dollars are not split evenly for Vazquez and Thome made more in '06 than he will in '07.

Thome received $15M in '06. A $12.5M salary and $2.5M portion of his original $10M signing bonus. He's due a $14M salary in '07. The Phillies to kick us $5.5M in '06-'09. So, the Sox actually are out of pocket $1M less in '07 than '06.

Vazquez made $11.5M in '06 and will make $12.5M in '07. The Diamondbacks kicked us $1M last season and will give us $3M this season. Again, were out of pocket $1M less this season than last season with Vazquez.

That's another $4.5M to knock off your $18.77. Adding the $5.2 for Frank, Carl, ect. The Freddy trade covers all of the salary increases and then some. Yes, that's not counting what Crede will get, but it appears that almost all of the increased ticket revenue is pure profit. Hopefully that will be reinvested into the team in the form of locking up one of our core players to a long term contract.

http://www.mlb4u.com/teamcontract.php?team=Chicago%20White%20Sox

Thanks for the details on the cash breakdown for the Thome and Vazquez deals. I hadn't been able to find it before.

It appears as if the Sox paid Thome's $2.5 million bonus in 2006. Bonus or salary, it is still money out of the Sox pocket (if I am reading this right). So even with the Vazquez deal the Sox are still out $17.77 million minus the Thomas/Everett/Hermanson buyouts for a total of $10.57. So Freddy just barley covers it.:cool:

champagne030
12-30-2006, 11:52 AM
Thanks for the details on the cash breakdown for the Thome and Vazquez deals. I hadn't been able to find it before.

It appears as if the Sox paid Thome's $2.5 million bonus in 2006. Bonus or salary, it is still money out of the Sox pocket (if I am reading this right). So even with the Vazquez deal the Sox are still out $17.77 million minus the Thomas/Everett/Hermanson buyouts for a total of $10.57. So Freddy just barley covers it.:cool:

The Sox receive $5.5M each season. Thome was paid $15M in '06 with the Sox net cash outlay being $9.5M. He'll be paid $14M in '07 with the Sox net cash outlay being $8.5M.

itsnotrequired
12-30-2006, 12:01 PM
The Sox receive $5.5M each season. Thome was paid $15M in '06 with the Sox net cash outlay being $9.5M. He'll be paid $14M in '07 with the Sox net cash outlay being $8.5M.

Does the $12.5 million listed for 2006 include the $2.5 million bonus? mlb4u seems to indicate it isn't but Hardball Dollars and Cott's Baseball Contracts seem to indicate it is.

Why won't Thome produce some pay stubs for us so we can get to the bottom of this.:redneck

White Sox Randy
12-30-2006, 08:46 PM
I'm warming up to the McCarthy trade but Gavin Floyd is nothing.

Slats
12-30-2006, 09:18 PM
Does the $12.5 million listed for 2006 include the $2.5 million bonus? mlb4u seems to indicate it isn't but Hardball Dollars and Cott's Baseball Contracts seem to indicate it is.

Why won't Thome produce some pay stubs for us so we can get to the bottom of this.:redneck

Well, all you have to do is dumpster dive at his agents office and you'll get all the info you need (or so I hear)

PaulDrake
12-30-2006, 10:22 PM
The guy won some games for and even won some really BIG games. I tip my hat to him, but I most thank him for the value he brought us when he left. I'm underwhelmed by the value he, or should I say Kenny brought us. May Gavin Floyd prove me wrong so I will have to eat this post, which I would gladly do. It will be a pleasant surprise.

ondafarm
12-30-2006, 11:15 PM
I'm underwhelmed by the value he, or should I say Kenny brought us. May Gavin Floyd prove me wrong so I will have to eat this post, which I would gladly do. It will be a pleasant surprise.

Floyd's a classic "change of scenery guy" happens all the time in baseball. I expect him to win the #5 spot and pitch exceptionally well for a #5 starter, perhaps 10-6.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 04:18 AM
Say the Sox picked up Pettite for the $16 million.

Actually, don't say that. Because Andy was either going to go to NYY or to HOU. There was no other option, including the White Sox.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 04:19 AM
Floyd's a classic "change of scenery guy" happens all the time in baseball. I expect him to win the #5 spot and pitch exceptionally well for a #5 starter, perhaps 10-6.

Floyd was also not the main piece to that deal. Floyd was a throw in. The big piece of that deal was Gio Gonzalez, one of the highest ranked LHP in the minors.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-31-2006, 04:28 AM
Floyd was also not the main piece to that deal. Floyd was a throw in. The big piece of that deal was Gio Gonzalez, one of the highest ranked LHP in the minors.

I agree that Gonzalez was the centerpiece, which makes the trade so indefensible. KW should have gotten much more in return for Garcia.

jabrch
12-31-2006, 04:53 AM
I agree that Gonzalez was the centerpiece, which makes the trade so indefensible. KW should have gotten much more in return for Garcia.

That's silly. He got the #3 ranked LHP in all of minor league baseball for a 4.50 ERA pitcher in his walk year.

I'm not sure what part of this deal you still don't get.
1) Freddy was going to leave at the end of the year - KW had decided he wasn't going to resign him.
2) Freddy is a 4.50 ERA type guy. That's not like he gave up a top tier arm.
3) He replaced him with the #3 LHP in the minors, and a throw in who has a lot of upside, and costs nothing.
4) The 10mm he would have earned will be used for other purposes; either resigning our own FAs or acquiring other players.
5) KW shopped Freddy around as much as possible. If there was more value, Kenny would have gotten it.

Freddy was a key part of 2005 - but he had no place in 2008, and his value in 2007 was not nearly as high as the value of what we replaced him with.

caulfield12
12-31-2006, 07:25 AM
Not so well since 2000, when they no longer had all the top 10 draft picks to develop. Since then, they have done a very mediocre job.




That's only slightly better than our history over that same time period. Wainright was acquired in a trade. Reyes is no more proven than McCarthy.



Agreed - they are probably the benchmark.




They were the worst team in baseball for the longest time. That's a terrible example. Their young pitchers almost all came from being terrible and drafting early or via trade.



Meh...not such a great history since 2000.



Give me the #1 pick in the draft every year and I'll do OK too. Since 2000, they have drafted #1, #6, #3, #2, #1, #4 and #8. If KW had picks like that, we'd have seen much more success also.



I'd give you them for sure.



That's fine - I don't have a problem with that.

Of the teams that are over .500 every year, and clearly better than us at drafting and developing talent, I think you named 2; LAA and LAD that definitely have done better than us, and three that are about the same (STL, Minny and Oakland).

We do a solid job drafting and scouting. KW has created a farm system that has some top tier talent on the mound and in the OF. His biggest failures have been the inability of the system to develop a franchise SS. That's ok.

Look around at other teams. Drafting and developing talent is VERY hard.


Minnesota has been smart with their acquisitions of pitching (Silva, until last year, Rogers in 2003, Santana, Liriano, Bonser, Nathan) but they've struggled drafting pitchers. Baker and Garza are their two best hopes, both have very good stuff but they could just as easily be the next Kyle Lohse.

They have done a very good job at building their pen with players like Neshek, Reyes (waiver wire), Perkins, Crain, Balfour (when healthy), Rincon...dating back to Romero, Hawkins and Guardado.

Mauer was just a product of where they drafted, the Cubs and the hometown boy. Morneau has been a revelation, and Cuddyer to a lesser extent, and Punto/Bartlett (both acquired from other teams) have been very serviceable.

Dodgers drafting is wiped out by stupid decisions by DiPodesta/Evans such as JD Drew or Shawn Green and pitchers like Dreifort who failed miserably and soaked up payroll.

The Angels simply refuse to trade position prospects like McPherson, Kotchmann, Morales, Kendrick, etc., until they've neared Borchard/Corwin Malone status. They've needed a big bat for 2 years now (Erstad, Salmon, Anderson declining) and haven't made a move, standing pat.

The Tigers got Bonderman via trade, Robertson and Maroth (and Cornejo) they were very patient with (like the late 80's Braves with Avery, Glavine and Smoltz)...Verlander was a high first rounder, and looks like a future Cy Younger. Still, Kenny Rogers was the key to that team, IMO. Miner and Colon came for Farnsworth.

Like the Twins, Zumaya, Rodney and their bullpen is what separates the Tigers from other teams, although they did give up Sanchez in the Sheffield deal. I don't think they will be as good when Zumaya is the closer, because they won't have an "early stopper" whenever needed in the 6th, 7th or 8th.