PDA

View Full Version : White Flag # 2


jandm859
12-24-2006, 11:19 AM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.

tick53
12-24-2006, 11:22 AM
Hang in there Dude! Kenny has something up his sleeve. He isn't through dealing yet, not by a longshot. I'm very optimistic!

southside rocks
12-24-2006, 11:22 AM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.

Yes, the key to the World Series championship in 2007 was Brandon McCarthy. Now that he's gone, why even bother to field a team next year ... what's the point?

Good heavens, get a grip. :rolleyes:

DumpJerry
12-24-2006, 11:30 AM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.
White Flag? Hardly. Not even close. As much as we love McCarthy, he is more potential and promise than current performance. He was not on the '05 post season roster, his bullpen work last year was, at times, scary.

Kenny is keeping the core of the team together while building for 2008 and beyond. We have acquired several more arms in the past few weeks than we have given up. If two of those new arms work out in grand fashion, we're looking real good. If three or four of those arms work out, we're untouchable. What did we give up? Freddy Garcia who, if it is not a "big" game, does not show up. My 9 year old can run on Garcia, BTW. I think we have forgotten some of Sweaty's shortcomings. McCarthy? He will be good, but there are no guarantees.

Let's keep in mind who may be a FA after '07. Zambrano is one. Now that Hendry has blown the wad on mediocre pitchers this year, will he have the $$$ to sign him? We will.

JandM, take a deep breath and let it out. All will be ok.

Daver
12-24-2006, 11:31 AM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.


Find a ledge and jump.

NonetheLoaiza
12-24-2006, 11:32 AM
Exactly what have we lost in our offense? You can claim that pitching has gotten weaker, but the bullpen has been shored up a bit, and the Sox still have solid 1-4 SP's that any other team in the league would dream of having. This coupled with the fact that our system has been replenished with young pitching. And they have given up? Seriously though, you put together a convincing argument...:rolleyes:

fquaye149
12-24-2006, 11:48 AM
:prozac:

go slip into hibernation for the 07 season then.

If there's no way to win, why watch. we'll let you know how it went

spiffie
12-24-2006, 11:55 AM
Exactly what have we lost in our offense? You can claim that pitching has gotten weaker, but the bullpen has been shored up a bit, and the Sox still have solid 1-4 SP's that any other team in the league would dream of having. This coupled with the fact that our system has been replenished with young pitching. And they have given up? Seriously though, you put together a convincing argument...:rolleyes:
Really, I think the idea that we have a 1-4 that blows away everyone else in baseball needs to be put to rest. I can think of a few teams in the AL that would under no circumstances trade, regardless of finances, their guys for ours:
Red Sox: Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon/Wakefield
Tigers: Rogers, Verlander, Bonderman, Robinson
A's: Harden, Haren, Blanton, Loaiza/Kennedy
Yankees: Mussina, Johnson, Pettite, Wang
You can possibly even add Texas to that list if they were to sign Zito, as I doubt that they would want to swap Zito, Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy. Minnesota is off that list this year due to Liriano's injury, but otherwise they'd likely be there as well.

We have a decent 1-4 rotation. It's no longer able to be considered anything close to dominant as it was after 2005.

ondafarm
12-24-2006, 11:56 AM
Find a ledge and jump.


That's not very nice. Funny, but not nice.

fquaye149
12-24-2006, 11:57 AM
Really, I think the idea that we have a 1-4 that blows away everyone else in baseball needs to be put to rest. I can think of a few teams in the AL that would under no circumstances trade, regardless of finances, their guys for ours:
Red Sox: Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon/Wakefield
Tigers: Rogers, Verlander, Bonderman, Robinson
A's: Harden, Haren, Blanton, Loaiza/Kennedy
Yankees: Mussina, Johnson, Pettite, Wang
You can possibly even add Texas to that list if they were to sign Zito, as I doubt that they would want to swap Zito, Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy. Minnesota is off that list this year due to Liriano's injury, but otherwise they'd likely be there as well.

We have a decent 1-4 rotation. It's no longer able to be considered anything close to dominant as it was after 2005.

Even so it's no worse than in 2006, except lacking Freddy...which hurts a little but not too much

champagne030
12-24-2006, 12:03 PM
Even so it's no worse than in 2006, except lacking Freddy...which hurts a little but not too much

We're replacing Freddy with Floyd/Haegar. That's a LOT WORSE. I suppose Haegar could surprise, but that's a major, major gamble.

Law11
12-24-2006, 12:05 PM
Yes, the key to the World Series championship in 2007 was Brandon McCarthy. Now that he's gone, why even bother to field a team next year ... what's the point?

Good heavens, get a grip. :rolleyes:

:kneeslap: Thank You for that!
Good Grief...

Martinigirl
12-24-2006, 12:06 PM
Is this a case of the Holiday Blues? Don't you think you may be overreacting just a bit?

If you truly believe the Sox would, as an organization, decide to throw in the towel, before the season starts, as they are making huge strides with their old fans, as well as gaining new ones, you need to step back and try to look at this objectively. The Sox need to be competitive, to not only keep their 'new' fans, but also to keep their older fans happy. The fans expect excellence now and will not be happy with anything else. This is not the same organization that could market "these kids can play". This is now an organization that has tasted what it was like to be champions and want it now more than ever. And the person who wants it the most is Kenny, so to think that he is having a fire sale and conceding and entire season is ridiculous. You might not understand what he is doing, but to assume he is somehow surrendering doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

Saracen
12-24-2006, 12:07 PM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.
Yeah, because McCarthy was so key to that playoff run in '05. Giving him up for a better arm means Kenny's giving up. Get real.

Jjav829
12-24-2006, 12:11 PM
Yes, the key to the World Series championship in 2007 was Brandon McCarthy. Now that he's gone, why even bother to field a team next year ... what's the point?

Good heavens, get a grip. :rolleyes:

Haha, no kidding. If Brandon McCarthy is the difference between us winning the World Series next year or not even making the playoffs, well, then Kenny Williams didn't do a good job of putting together a quality team. But I highly doubt McCarthy's lose is going to be that difference.

Some people are acting like McCarthy was a sure thing to make 30 starts, win 14 games and have a sub 4.5 ERA. It is just as likely that McCarthy would have struggled as he adjusted to his first year starting in the majors or worn down due to the increase in innings.

beckett21
12-24-2006, 12:15 PM
Haha, no kidding. If Brandon McCarthy is the difference between us winning the World Series next year or not even making the playoffs, well, then Kenny Williams didn't do a good job of putting together a quality team. But I highly doubt McCarthy's lose is going to be that difference.

Some people are acting like McCarthy was a sure thing to make 30 starts, win 14 games and have a sub 4.5 ERA. It is just as likely that McCarthy would have struggled as he adjusted to his first year starting in the majors or worn down due to the increase in innings.

As always, you are right on the money.

HomeFish
12-24-2006, 12:18 PM
How many repeat World Series winners are there?

Not very many at all. In baseball, winning the World Series usually means that you got a lot of lucky breaks; that a lot of guys on your team had career years all at the same time, that you got some good calls your way, that your opponents got some bad breaks here and there.

That kind of stuff simply doesn't happen multiple years in a row, which is why the majority of World Series championship teams never repeat again.

That's why we can't just sit around and watch the 2005 team break down into more and more pathetic shadows of its former self. If we want to win it again, we have to craft a new team. And that's what Kenny seems to be doing.

JermaineDye05
12-24-2006, 12:22 PM
I'm getting tired of all this. So many "fans" giving up already because of a couple of trades, didn't Kenny Williams once make an outrageous trade for a center fielder who hit .244? Trust what he's doing. The thing that irritates me the most is so many of these "fans" will give up on the sox this season and come October they'll be praising Kenny and calling him a genious.

Daver
12-24-2006, 12:27 PM
That's not very nice. Funny, but not nice.

Who lied to you and told you I was a nice guy?

DumpJerry
12-24-2006, 12:35 PM
How many repeat World Series winners are there?
Ummm........by my calculation, we would need to win the '07 and '08 WS before we are considered a repeat winner.

CLR01
12-24-2006, 12:37 PM
Ummm........by my calculation, we would need to win the '07 and '08 WS before we are considered a repeat winner.


HomeFish doesn't count 2006.

HomeFish
12-24-2006, 12:42 PM
Ummm........by my calculation, we would need to win the '07 and '08 WS before we are considered a repeat winner.

Hrm? I never argued that the Sox were repeat winners. I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the fact that repeat world series winners are extremely rare, and that therefore there's little point in keeping the 2005 team together and hoping that magic strikes twice.

pmck003
12-24-2006, 12:54 PM
Haha, no kidding. If Brandon McCarthy is the difference between us winning the World Series next year or not even making the playoffs, well, then Kenny Williams didn't do a good job of putting together a quality team. But I highly doubt McCarthy's lose is going to be that difference.

Some people are acting like McCarthy was a sure thing to make 30 starts, win 14 games and have a sub 4.5 ERA. It is just as likely that McCarthy would have struggled as he adjusted to his first year starting in the majors or worn down due to the increase in innings.

You gotta say McCarthy was a better gamble in the fifth spot than Floyd/Haegar, etc though. And if that fifth spot costs us two or five games that McCarthy could of won, then it could keep the Sox out of the playoffs. Course there are alot of things I don't know, but I figure the rangers can't be to dumb on how well McCarthy can do this year. based on their past history, maybe..

WhiteSox5187
12-24-2006, 01:16 PM
I am not jumping off the ledge yet, but I am saying goodbye to my friends and looking at the distance to the bottom...The Sox ARE stockpiling on young arms and young talent, which isn't bad. But they have not addressed any of the holes in their lineup (shortstop, CF, LF) and they have not resigned ANY of the remaining four guys and Crede ain't coming back in 2008, thank you Mr. Boras. By not resigning guys like Buehrle or Crede it suggests that hte Sox are saying "Damn market is too expensive. We can't afford this. Let's go young." Which of course is contrary to what Reisendorf has said in the past, fill up the ball park and we'll spend the money. Well, we filled up the ball park, where is the spending? No. This is typical Reisendorf, "I have your season tickets, **** you, i can do what I want and I want to go young."

cards press box
12-24-2006, 01:20 PM
With the McCarthy/Danks trade, Kenny Williams dealt a high profile pitching prospect for other pitching prospects, one of whom (Danks) is a highly regarded left handed starter. Another pitcher in the deal (Masset) is a hard throwing righty who may be in the Sox bullpen this year. This trade is salary neutral and, thus, no one can fairly call this a salary dump. It was a simply a baseball deal. So why are some people responding so negatively?

I think the answer is this -- Williams has critics who will complain no matter what he does. If Williams deals a prospect for immediate help, that's wrong. If he deals an established player for a prospect, that's also wrong. And if he deals a prospect for prospects, I guess that's wrong, too.

For some people (many of whom, I suspect, are Cub fans) Williams is wrong no matter what he does. Some take this position because they are habitual second guessers who never met a decision they couldn't criticize in advance without the benefit of any information. That really irks me. I have no problem with informed discussion or criticism but I doubt that few, if any, of the critics of this trade have ever seen Danks or Masset throw a single pitch.

Some Sox fans just respond negatively to any trade. This, I believe, has its origins in the Bill Veeck trades after the Go Go Sox lost the 1959 Series. Of course, Veeck dealt most of his top prospects (Cash, Callison, Battey, Romano, Mincher, etc.). But unlike Veeck, Williams has been vigilant about not leaving the cubboard bare.

A lot of the criticism is really coming from media members who like to the stir the pot (i.e., the blogger at the Sun Times who masquerades as a columnist) and from Cub fans whose real gripe with Williams is the success that he and the White Sox had in 2005. Remember all the criticism that Williams took before the 2005 season for the moves he made. Those critics never had to eat crow because people were happy that the Sox won the World Series and forgot about the criticism. Don't forget that many of those critics want to be proven right and have been waiting for an opportunity to snipe at any Williams move that might not work out.

Williams has done a first rate job balancing the needs of the present and the future. Given his track record, Williams certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't pretend to know how well the pitching prospects the Sox have acquired will do. But I am confident that the media and non-media critics of these deals do not have any better knowledge than I have.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 01:33 PM
I am not jumping off the ledge yet, but I am saying goodbye to my friends and looking at the distance to the bottom...The Sox ARE stockpiling on young arms and young talent, which isn't bad. But they have not addressed any of the holes in their lineup (shortstop, CF, LF) and they have not resigned ANY of the remaining four guys and Crede ain't coming back in 2008, thank you Mr. Boras. By not resigning guys like Buehrle or Crede it suggests that hte Sox are saying "Damn market is too expensive. We can't afford this. Let's go young." Which of course is contrary to what Reisendorf has said in the past, fill up the ball park and we'll spend the money. Well, we filled up the ball park, where is the spending? No. This is typical Reisendorf, "I have your season tickets, **** you, i can do what I want and I want to go young."

Before you decide to jump, you may want to get some facts straight. First, Crede is not a free agent until after 2008. Second, you mention holes you'd like to see addressed. Instead of just talking about them, how would you fix the perceived problems? Third, while Mark may not be re-signing, how do you know this is a fact? Fourth, did you know the Sox are actually raising payroll this year?

oeo
12-24-2006, 01:38 PM
Really, I think the idea that we have a 1-4 that blows away everyone else in baseball needs to be put to rest. I can think of a few teams in the AL that would under no circumstances trade, regardless of finances, their guys for ours:
Red Sox: Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon/Wakefield
Tigers: Rogers, Verlander, Bonderman, Robinson
A's: Harden, Haren, Blanton, Loaiza/Kennedy
Yankees: Mussina, Johnson, Pettite, Wang
You can possibly even add Texas to that list if they were to sign Zito, as I doubt that they would want to swap Zito, Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy. Minnesota is off that list this year due to Liriano's injury, but otherwise they'd likely be there as well.

We have a decent 1-4 rotation. It's no longer able to be considered anything close to dominant as it was after 2005.

Some of those teams' 1-4 aren't very good. The Red Sox for one...Schilling is past his prime, Beckett is awful, Matsuzaka hasn't even thrown a big league pitch yet...then Papelbon who had a great year closing, hasn't shown he can do the same starting. Now, if Schilling shows he's not, Beckett has a career year, and Matsuzaka really is great, then they have a great 1-4, but you could say the same thing about any team, including the Sox.

The Tigers? Rogers is another year older, Bonderman is very inconsistent, and Robertson is terrible; I don't care what kind of year he had last year, he will be back to his awful self next year.

I'll give you the A's. The Yankees 1-4 isn't very good either, though. The only two I would take are Mussina and Wang.

My point...every team has a lot of question marks in their rotation, and I'll still take our horses over guys like Schilling, Pettitte, Johnson, etc. who are all out of their prime and/or injury prone.

Chicken Dinner
12-24-2006, 01:43 PM
The Cards win the World Series with 83 wins and our 2007 season is over because we traded Branden???? Huh??

CHISOXFAN13
12-24-2006, 01:44 PM
We're replacing Freddy with Floyd/Haegar. That's a LOT WORSE. I suppose Haegar could surprise, but that's a major, major gamble.

Someone forgot to tell em the season started tomorrow...

SoxFanPrope
12-24-2006, 01:59 PM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.
I blame fantasy sports and dynasty-franchise modes in video games for posts like this. Apparently, everybody is a scout and everybody is a general manager. I would only ask jandm (and anybody else who is close to the ledge over all of these moves) to give a scouting report on everybody KW has acquired so far this year. How do these pitchers set up hitters? Do they rely too much on one pitch or do they spread pitches around? How are their mechanics?

I know nothing of how to scout pitchers, but I do know these three things can be seen as important. Please enlighten us on the scouting reports, since it appears that you have personally seen many games of each player to give a qualified, knowledgable opinion.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 02:09 PM
I blame fantasy sports and dynasty-franchise modes in video games for posts like this. Apparently, everybody is a scout and everybody is a general manager. I would only ask jandm (and anybody else who is close to the ledge over all of these moves) to give a scouting report on everybody KW has acquired so far this year. How do these pitchers set up hitters? Do they rely too much on one pitch or do they spread pitches around? How are their mechanics?

I know nothing of how to scout pitchers, but I do know these three things can be seen as important. Please enlighten us on the scouting reports, since it appears that you have personally seen many games of each player to give a qualified, knowledgable opinion.

I blame stupidity.

julio-cruz
12-24-2006, 02:14 PM
I blame fantasy sports and dynasty-franchise modes in video games for posts like this. Apparently, everybody is a scout and everybody is a general manager. I would only ask jandm (and anybody else who is close to the ledge over all of these moves) to give a scouting report on everybody KW has acquired so far this year. How do these pitchers set up hitters? Do they rely too much on one pitch or do they spread pitches around? How are their mechanics?

I know nothing of how to scout pitchers, but I do know these three things can be seen as important. Please enlighten us on the scouting reports, since it appears that you have personally seen many games of each player to give a qualified, knowledgable opinion.


I also blame poor sports writing by the Jay Marriotti's of the world. Misinformation and disinformation can go a long way: i.e. politics.

julio-cruz
12-24-2006, 02:43 PM
Anyways, this is the way that ALL productive organizations work: you trade your best players at their peak value; also making sure that you a have a replacement in line. I am ecstatic that Kenny is building up his pitching. They will be the superstars of tomorrow. What are we rooting for anyways? To me, it is the franchise, the uniform and last the players. Very rarely do these atheletes/entertainers stay in one place.
The Konerko's and Dye's are the rare exceptions of the sporting world.

chisoxmike
12-24-2006, 02:44 PM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.


Ah, no.

Podsednik
Iguchi
Thome
Konerko
Dye
Crede
Pierzynski
Uribe
Anderson

Buehrle
Garland
Conreras
Vazquez
Floyd

Looks enough to at least contend to me...

GoSox2K3
12-24-2006, 02:46 PM
I wonder if Hangar thinks this was a good trade?

the1tab
12-24-2006, 03:02 PM
Buehrle
Garland
Conreras
Vazquez
Floyd

Looks enough to at least contend to me...

AH, no... not enough to contend. The bench is... suspect to say the least. Gload is gone for the Sisco Kid, who was so much of a head case the Cubs let him go in the Rule 5. Floyd is here because McCarthy was the future, and we don't need to pay Garcia $8 million so long as we have... GAVIN FLOYD IN THE ROTATION?!?

If you won the division last year and lost a Game 7, I would understand trashing the bullpen and getting younger. But you didn't win the division. You didn't make the playoffs. I can just hear Jim Mora, the old Indianapolis Colts' coach now... "PLAAAYOFFS?" Right now, the White Sox are looking up at Minnesota AND Detroit AND, in the opinion of many, Cleveland. The White Sox have traded away one-third of their "stable" of starters for pre-pubescents, while Detroit traded for Gary Sheffield and kept Jeremy Bonderman. The Sox are four years from anyone in their bullpen being old enough to do a commercial for shaving cream, while Cleveland has totally revamped their pen. And Minnesota has the "MVP" and Mauer and that one guy the Sox haven't hit in 5 years... Johan something... while the Sox have traded Ross Gload for a moron.

My only question for Kenny Williams is how soon are you going to start telling us that Mike Caruso is the future?

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2006, 03:24 PM
AH, no... not enough to contend. The bench is... suspect to say the least. Gload is gone for the Sisco Kid, who was so much of a head case the Cubs let him go in the Rule 5. Floyd is here because McCarthy was the future, and we don't need to pay Garcia $8 million so long as we have... GAVIN FLOYD IN THE ROTATION?!?

If you won the division last year and lost a Game 7, I would understand trashing the bullpen and getting younger. But you didn't win the division. You didn't make the playoffs. I can just hear Jim Mora, the old Indianapolis Colts' coach now... "PLAAAYOFFS?" Right now, the White Sox are looking up at Minnesota AND Detroit AND, in the opinion of many, Cleveland. The White Sox have traded away one-third of their "stable" of starters for pre-pubescents, while Detroit traded for Gary Sheffield and kept Jeremy Bonderman. The Sox are four years from anyone in their bullpen being old enough to do a commercial for shaving cream, while Cleveland has totally revamped their pen. And Minnesota has the "MVP" and Mauer and that one guy the Sox haven't hit in 5 years... Johan something... while the Sox have traded Ross Gload for a moron.

My only question for Kenny Williams is how soon are you going to start telling us that Mike Caruso is the future?
Shut up. Just shut up. That "moron" has more potential in his pinky finger than Ross Gload has in his whole body. Stop complaining about having a young bullpen, would you rather have Cleveland's?

Posts like these make me wonder if some people have followed baseball?

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 03:27 PM
Shut up. Just shut up. That "moron" has more potential in his pinky finger than Ross Gload has in his whole body. Stop complaining about having a young bullpen, would you rather have Cleveland's?

Posts like these make me wonder if some people have followed baseball?

Anyone who does not like the Gload trade has very little baseball knowledge. Such generalizations are usually not appropriate, but that trade is a rare situation where it is so blatantly obvious that the trade was good for us, that no sensible baseball observer could think differently about it. You trade a 30 year old who has less career ABs than a regular MLB player has in a season and has 2 people ahead of him on the depth chart at every position he plays for a young, power-armed, LHP and people complain? It's baffling.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 03:29 PM
AH, no... not enough to contend. The bench is... suspect to say the least. Gload is gone for the Sisco Kid, who was so much of a head case the Cubs let him go in the Rule 5.

Look, if you think getting rid of Gload makes our bench "suspect", you obviously haven't followed the Sox very closely because he was the most useless player on the team. PK plays just about every day at 1B, Mack can back him up just fine, not to mention that Thome used to be a pretty good first baseman. The Sox had to force him into another position just to give him some action once every two weeks. And we got back a young, power reliever that can help us out a lot more often than Gload ever did.

Floyd is here because McCarthy was the future, and we don't need to pay Garcia $8 million so long as we have... GAVIN FLOYD IN THE ROTATION?!?

We got rid of one "prospect" in McCarthy for another, more highly rated one in Danks, plus got another two promising arms in the deal. Don't forget that McCarthy is also a prospect, even though he's had a year in the pen in the big leagues, he's still a work in progress and probably wouldn't have been a major contributor this year.

If you won the division last year and lost a Game 7, I would understand trashing the bullpen and getting younger.

So you think a team that makes the playoffs is better off "rebuilding" (even though that's not what I think we're doing) than a team that missed them? What logic does that make? And I think most people on this board would agree that our BP is looking much better now than at the start of the offseason.

Chisox003
12-24-2006, 03:42 PM
Is it just me or has the bandwagon gotten a LOT roomier over the last month or so...?

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 03:46 PM
Is it just me or has the bandwagon gotten a LOT roomier over the last month or so...?

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

These will be the same people right there celebrating when we do well. They're called front-runners. All they do is point out perceived problems, with no plan to fix them (when sometimes there is not even a problem at all) and then when good things happen, they champion their fandom by saying they always believed. When things go poorly, they yell and scream that they told you so. These types of people are the worst thing about sports.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 03:52 PM
Is it just me or has the bandwagon gotten a LOT roomier over the last month or so...?

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:


The only reason that could become a problem is if some of these recent "unpopular" moves hurt the box office. We've been increasing sallaries the past couple years because of increased revenues, and any drop off could hurt the chances of re-signing guys like Buehrle, Crede, and Dye.

Chisox003
12-24-2006, 03:58 PM
These will be the same people right there celebrating when we do well. They're called front-runners. All they do is point out perceived problems, with no plan to fix them (when sometimes there is not even a problem at all) and then when good things happen, they champion their fandom by saying they always believed. When things go poorly, they yell and scream that they told you so. These types of people are the worst thing about sports.
Well front-runners are certainly the worst thing that happened to WSI after the 2005 World Series. But I suppose we could deal with them if it means another ring(s) in the next few years.

chisoxmike
12-24-2006, 04:23 PM
AH, no... not enough to contend. The bench is... suspect to say the least. Gload is gone for the Sisco Kid, who was so much of a head case the Cubs let him go in the Rule 5. Floyd is here because McCarthy was the future, and we don't need to pay Garcia $8 million so long as we have... GAVIN FLOYD IN THE ROTATION?!?

If you won the division last year and lost a Game 7, I would understand trashing the bullpen and getting younger. But you didn't win the division. You didn't make the playoffs. I can just hear Jim Mora, the old Indianapolis Colts' coach now... "PLAAAYOFFS?" Right now, the White Sox are looking up at Minnesota AND Detroit AND, in the opinion of many, Cleveland. The White Sox have traded away one-third of their "stable" of starters for pre-pubescents, while Detroit traded for Gary Sheffield and kept Jeremy Bonderman. The Sox are four years from anyone in their bullpen being old enough to do a commercial for shaving cream, while Cleveland has totally revamped their pen. And Minnesota has the "MVP" and Mauer and that one guy the Sox haven't hit in 5 years... Johan something... while the Sox have traded Ross Gload for a moron.

My only question for Kenny Williams is how soon are you going to start telling us that Mike Caruso is the future?


I didn't say it was enough to WIN the division. I said it was enough to contend for the division title.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 04:28 PM
I didn't say it was enough to WIN the division. I said it was enough to contend for the division title.

Sure it's enough to win. Last year we had enough to win, too, but the players didn't perform. You've got to remember that it's the players that win the games, not the GM. All you can ask of KW is to put us in a position where we've got the talent to succeed, which we clearly do.

JohnTucker0814
12-24-2006, 04:46 PM
To realize and appreciate what Kenny has done this offseason is to remember that this is a business. If companies do not keep up with the trends to compete year after year they will become bankrupt. Kenny is building what everyone knows will win you games... pitching! He is not building pitching at the major league level like he has the past two years because you see the market right now. Since the market is past what the White Sox usually pay, he has to go out and get those arms and project they will be major league ready in the next 1 - 2 years. This will cement our pitching staff for the next 5-6 years. You can't be the Yankees and go and buy FA players every year. Teams like Atlanta, Minnesota, etc have been consistant because of moves like this. Had they not given Mauer a chance, they wouldn't have recieved Nathan and Liriano??? Think of it that way!

DSpivack
12-24-2006, 05:19 PM
AH, no... not enough to contend. The bench is... suspect to say the least. Gload is gone for the Sisco Kid, who was so much of a head case the Cubs let him go in the Rule 5. Floyd is here because McCarthy was the future, and we don't need to pay Garcia $8 million so long as we have... GAVIN FLOYD IN THE ROTATION?!?

If you won the division last year and lost a Game 7, I would understand trashing the bullpen and getting younger. But you didn't win the division. You didn't make the playoffs. I can just hear Jim Mora, the old Indianapolis Colts' coach now... "PLAAAYOFFS?" Right now, the White Sox are looking up at Minnesota AND Detroit AND, in the opinion of many, Cleveland. The White Sox have traded away one-third of their "stable" of starters for pre-pubescents, while Detroit traded for Gary Sheffield and kept Jeremy Bonderman. The Sox are four years from anyone in their bullpen being old enough to do a commercial for shaving cream, while Cleveland has totally revamped their pen. And Minnesota has the "MVP" and Mauer and that one guy the Sox haven't hit in 5 years... Johan something... while the Sox have traded Ross Gload for a moron.

My only question for Kenny Williams is how soon are you going to start telling us that Mike Caruso is the future?

The Twins are ahead of us? With Liriano out for the year? And Radke retired? After Johan, Boof is their #2, while Carlos Silva is their #3. Matt Garza and Glen Perkins round out their rotation as it appears now. Yes, I'd say Contreras-Buehrle-Garland-Vazquez-Floyd/Whomever is significantly better. It'll likely be the toughest divsion in baseball, but I won't be surprised if Cleveland and the Sox come out on top.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 05:20 PM
Some of those teams' 1-4 aren't very good. The Red Sox for one...Schilling is past his prime, Beckett is awful, Matsuzaka hasn't even thrown a big league pitch yet...then Papelbon who had a great year closing, hasn't shown he can do the same starting. Now, if Schilling shows he's not, Beckett has a career year, and Matsuzaka really is great, then they have a great 1-4, but you could say the same thing about any team, including the Sox.

The Tigers? Rogers is another year older, Bonderman is very inconsistent, and Robertson is terrible; I don't care what kind of year he had last year, he will be back to his awful self next year.

I'll give you the A's. The Yankees 1-4 isn't very good either, though. The only two I would take are Mussina and Wang.

My point...every team has a lot of question marks in their rotation, and I'll still take our horses over guys like Schilling, Pettitte, Johnson, etc. who are all out of their prime and/or injury prone.
If you would seriously take Javy Vazquez over Curt Schilling, then I really have no response to that. Considering that "over-the-hill" Schilling put up an ERA that was almost one full run better than Javy, and was better than anyone on our staff last year.

As for the rest...I'm sure the Tigers response would be "Contreras is another year older, Vazquez is very inconsistent, and Buehrle was figured out by the league."

The Yankees are definitely the weakest of those teams listed, I'll grant you that, but I can't even imagine them, or anyone watching baseball, giving them any sort of substantial disadvantage to our staff going into the season. For all our bluster right now we have:
-a 35 year old coming off of 2 injuries last year who has had 4 dominant months in his major league career
-a control pitcher who lost all his control last year
-a guy who hasn't pitched well since 2003
-a guy who has had one season above the league average in his career.

Sure, the rotation isn't bad, but the best you can say is our front four guys are usually dependable to be average or better with the potential to be very good. If anything helps us its that none of those teams, except for Detroit and the A's, can feel really good about their fifth spot either going into the season.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 05:22 PM
The Cards win the World Series with 83 wins and our 2007 season is over because we traded Branden???? Huh??
How many games the Cards won is totally meaningless for us. As a team in the American League, and in the Central division, we have to win 90+ games just to get a shot at the World Series. The Cards would have finished fourth in the AL Central last year, and prove better than anything that once you get in the playoffs anyone can win it.

spiffie
12-24-2006, 05:24 PM
I blame fantasy sports and dynasty-franchise modes in video games for posts like this. Apparently, everybody is a scout and everybody is a general manager. I would only ask jandm (and anybody else who is close to the ledge over all of these moves) to give a scouting report on everybody KW has acquired so far this year. How do these pitchers set up hitters? Do they rely too much on one pitch or do they spread pitches around? How are their mechanics?

I know nothing of how to scout pitchers, but I do know these three things can be seen as important. Please enlighten us on the scouting reports, since it appears that you have personally seen many games of each player to give a qualified, knowledgable opinion.
Until we're as infallible as the scouts who through their infinite wisdom declared that Joe Borchard and Todd Ritchie and Arnie Munoz and Felix Diaz and Danny Wright and Matt Ginter and Scott Ruffcorn were going to be stars we should all shut our mouths.

White_Sock
12-24-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Find a ledge and jump.


Seriously. How can people be so miserable. White flag number 2? These trades could just as easily turn out to be great. It's a gamble and the roulette wheel hasn't even been spun. We bet on black. Give it some time before you give up.

ViPeRx007
12-24-2006, 05:56 PM
Exactly what have we lost in our offense? You can claim that pitching has gotten weaker, but the bullpen has been shored up a bit, and the Sox still have solid 1-4 SP's that any other team in the league would dream of having. This coupled with the fact that our system has been replenished with young pitching. And they have given up? Seriously though, you put together a convincing argument...:rolleyes:

Well obviously he's talking about Ross Gload. We're pretty much screwed now that he's gone.

JUribe1989
12-24-2006, 06:33 PM
I know that if anyone says anything negative about KW they receive a huge amount of blows about "GET OFF THE LEDGE!" or "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BASEBALL. WE ARE RECEIVING HUGE PITCHING PROSPECTS." But I mean c'mon, why is it ridiculous to be critical of a trade in which we traded a 23 year old pitcher that we made trades to accomodate for 3 pitchers that have never seen an inning in the majors. We know McCarthy was going to be good, we even traded someone in our starting 5 to make room for him. I'm not quite sure I even understand why that trade was made. I've been trying to think of KW's way of thinking. McCarthy is cheap and young, which appears to be how our offseason was being handled, so what was wrong with keeping him? We only got a guy who was 2 years younger in Danks, and from what I hear Masset is not even close to a sure-thing, and might even be a project that can't contribute next year. I think anyone is at liberty to be critical of this deal.

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 06:36 PM
-a 35 year old coming off of 2 injuries last year who has had 4 dominant months in his major league career
-a control pitcher who lost all his control last year
-a guy who hasn't pitched well since 2003
-a guy who has had one season above the league average in his career.


Which one of those is Garland? Since he's not 35, and didn't lose control, and has pitched his best since 2003, I'll assume he's the "guy who has had one season above the league average in his career". Garland was an average pitcher for his first 3 or 4 years (when he was still young and rushed to the MLB), but he has been very very good the past TWO years.

And you said that people figured out MB, which isn't the case. He just pitched horribly the last half of the season. Whether or not he can regain his form from the previous FIVE seasons will go a long way towards determining whether or not we make the playoffs this year.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 06:37 PM
I know that if anyone says anything negative about KW they receive a huge amount of blows about "GET OFF THE LEDGE!" or "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BASEBALL. WE ARE RECEIVING HUGE PITCHING PROSPECTS." But I mean c'mon, why is it ridiculous to be critical of a trade in which we traded a 23 year old pitcher that we made trades to accomodate for 3 pitchers that have never seen an inning in the majors. We know McCarthy was going to be good, we even traded someone in our starting 5 to make room for him. I'm not quite sure I even understand why that trade was made. I've been trying to think of KW's way of thinking. McCarthy is cheap and young, which appears to be how our offseason was being handled, so what was wrong with keeping him? We only got a guy who was 2 years younger in Danks, and from what I hear Masset is not even close to a sure-thing, and might even be a project that can't contribute next year. I think anyone is at liberty to be critical of this deal.

I haven't seen anyone rip on someone for merely criticizing the trade. What I have seen is people get ripped on for putting absolutely no thought or logical reasoining into their opinion about the trade. I think most reasonable baseball fans can make arguments either way about the McCarthy trade. But there is a HUGE different between a reasonable argument that uses some logic and, "OMG, 2007 is over! We suck! We're rebuilding. We traded away the core of the team! McCarthy was favorite to win CyYoung the next 13 years in a row!"

That's the type of **** that is rightfully getting blown out of the water.

JUribe1989
12-24-2006, 06:37 PM
Shut up. Just shut up. That "moron" has more potential in his pinky finger than Ross Gload has in his whole body. Stop complaining about having a young bullpen, would you rather have Cleveland's?

Posts like these make me wonder if some people have followed baseball?

At least Cleveland has some pitchers that have proven themselves in the majors. Relief pitchers are fly-by-night anyways in most cases. We could have an extremely young bullpen that means nothing. After watching our bullpen turn to nothing last year after such a great '05, you should know anything can happen with bullpens and having a young bullpen poses no extra advantage if the talent isn't there. Hell, Politte and Cotts seemingly lost everything they had just because they were head-cases. And the part about wondering if people follow baseball is ridiculous, what is that even supposed to mean? Defending Andrew Sisco? I mean, c'mon you should know potential means nothing until you succeed. See Joe Borchard, Felix Diaz, and most of all SCOTT RUFFCORN!

ChiTownTrojan
12-24-2006, 06:47 PM
At least Cleveland has some pitchers that have proven themselves in the majors. Relief pitchers are fly-by-night anyways in most cases. We could have an extremely young bullpen that means nothing. After watching our bullpen turn to nothing last year after such a great '05, you should know anything can happen with bullpens and having a young bullpen poses no extra advantage if the talent isn't there. Hell, Politte and Cotts seemingly lost everything they had just because they were head-cases. And the part about wondering if people follow baseball is ridiculous, what is that even supposed to mean? Defending Andrew Sisco? I mean, c'mon you should know potential means nothing until you succeed. See Joe Borchard, Felix Diaz, and most of all SCOTT RUFFCORN!

Since relief pitchers are so "fly-by-night" using your words, I'd much rather have a young, cheap bullpen with loads of talent than an overpriced veteran one that has just as likely a chance to fail. Relief pitching is very hit-or-miss, so you might as well go with the kids. BTW, Sisco had one very good season and one very bad season coming out of the pen. He's talented enough to at least give a shot, especially when he came as cheap as he did.

ilsox7
12-24-2006, 06:52 PM
Since relief pitchers are so "fly-by-night" using your words, I'd much rather have a young, cheap bullpen with loads of talent than an overpriced veteran one that has just as likely a chance to fail. Relief pitching is very hit-or-miss, so you might as well go with the kids. BTW, Sisco had one very good season and one very bad season coming out of the pen. He's talented enough to at least give a shot, especially when he came as cheap as he did.

Damn straight. A talented, young, power-armed lefty who has had some MLB success for the last man on your roster? Talk about a cheap price!

RadioheadRocks
12-24-2006, 09:35 PM
I'm getting tired of all this. So many "fans" giving up already because of a couple of trades, didn't Kenny Williams once make an outrageous trade for a center fielder who hit .244? Trust what he's doing. The thing that irritates me the most is so many of these "fans" will give up on the sox this season and come October they'll be praising Kenny and calling him a genious.


Exactly, like I've said in another thread this isn't the first time people thought of KW as the "Village Idiot" and it probably won't be the last, but no doubt KW will get over it. :cool:

Slats
12-24-2006, 10:05 PM
I love the Sox have been a lifelong fan. I’ve been there (with all of you) through the good years and the bad. I cried like a little kid when they won the world series.

I’ve been trying to put these trades in a positive light. But I can’t.

Unless some other big trade happens, the bottom line is that our Sox have decided not to spend the money to address the problems of 2006. We had some glaring problems coming into 2007 and rather than improve the 2007 team through trades, we’ve decided to give away two of the most coveted pitchers in baseball for prospects and a pitcher with a mlb career era of 6.96.

With the market the way it is we should have got much much more for the two guys we traded away. Here’s a quote from rotoworld that pretty much sums up the McCarthy trade

“It's another step backwards for the 2005 World Series champs, at least for the short term. McCarthy's upside has been overblown, and Danks likely has a similar amount of potential. Still, McCarthy is the better bet for the future, as he's already proven he's capable of handling major league hitters. Also, we think he's more likely to remain healthy. Danks, 21, went 9-9 with a 4.24 ERA, 141 H and 154/56 K/BB in 140 IP between Double- and Triple-A last season. He might be ready to step into the White Sox rotation in the second half, but it's probably going to be 2008 or 2009 before he's a real asset. With McCarthy gone, Charlie Haeger and Gavin Floyd look like the favorites to act as the club's fifth starter.”

These are not the trades of a team that is committed to win in 2007. You can call the trades “good” or “great for the future” but for the 2007 season ...well, these are not trades that improve the team over the short term. We have a good team. With a couple of trades we could have had a great team.

Do I want a Steinbrenner type running the Sox - spending money on mediocre players? No. I want someone who each and every year tries to get us to the world series. We had two highly coveted pitchers. I really thought we would have gotten someone who addressed our immediate needs rather than guys who will have impact years down the line.

I think most of the anger directed at KW is the fact that we had some really really good opportunities to make improvements that would make our team a better shot in 2007 at getting back to the world series. The free agent market for pitchers is out of control. We should have been able to get better for what we had. We should have been able to make some trades that would address the problems we had last year.

I can just hope that we get someone to help us for 2007. The season hasn’t started yet.. Maybe we’ll pull off a miracle trade and get some help where we need it.

I was at the championship parade. I’d really like to see another one soon. I don’t think these trades are going to get us there in 2007.

Grzegorz
12-24-2006, 10:21 PM
Slats,

Those are strictly paper assessments; maybe Cooper looked and figured these guys are at the very least serviceable.

KW has stockpiled arms in a world that is short of arms; the Chicago White Sox will have some serious leverage if these guys pan out.

I am very interested in seeing how Cooper works with Floyd, Sisco, and Buerhle.

Steelrod
12-24-2006, 10:52 PM
All this complaining about a guy who was being given a shot at being the number 5 starter, and trading a reserve player. Use your heads people!

Beautox
12-24-2006, 10:54 PM
Shut up. Just shut up. That "moron" has more potential in his pinky finger than Ross Gload has in his whole body. Stop complaining about having a young bullpen, would you rather have Cleveland's?

Posts like these make me wonder if some people have followed baseball?

nice post. i agree yes our BP is young, but its also incredibly talented and cheap.

Jenks should be even better next year, apparently he has been working out with Thome this offseason, and i expect he will come into camp in shape and flexible.

MacDougal is always a health risk, but when hes healthy hes lock down.

Thornton has shown us what he can do under the guidance of Cooper, yes his fastball is straight as an arrow but last season he found his command.

Aardsma was a 1st round pick, and near the end of last year he really caught fire, he was a former closer at Rice and hes handles LH hitters pretty well.

Masset is a tick below Jenks in pure stuff and has a power slider and has been hitting 97-98 in the BP, and hes been destroying the Mexican league.

and lastly Sisco is 23yrs old, and is a year removed from a good season, he will most likely be in the mop up and 2nd loogy role, and unlike Cotts he has very good "stuff".

Have some faith in Cooper and KW, Don has shown a propensity for fixing and harnessing power arms and Herm has shown he can keep them healthy.

I'd go into '07 with that BP anytime, i don't think there is a better BP in baseball in terms of pure "stuff" and once again i expect the sox BP to be .the least used in all of MLB.

fquaye149
12-24-2006, 11:19 PM
I love the Sox have been a lifelong fan. I’ve been there (with all of you) through the good years and the bad. I cried like a little kid when they won the world series.

I’ve been trying to put these trades in a positive light. But I can’t.

Unless some other big trade happens, the bottom line is that our Sox have decided not to spend the money to address the problems of 2006. We had some glaring problems coming into 2007 and rather than improve the 2007 team through trades, we’ve decided to give away two of the most coveted pitchers in baseball for prospects and a pitcher with a mlb career era of 6.96.

With the market the way it is we should have got much much more for the two guys we traded away. Here’s a quote from rotoworld that pretty much sums up the McCarthy trade

“It's another step backwards for the 2005 World Series champs, at least for the short term. McCarthy's upside has been overblown, and Danks likely has a similar amount of potential. Still, McCarthy is the better bet for the future, as he's already proven he's capable of handling major league hitters. Also, we think he's more likely to remain healthy. Danks, 21, went 9-9 with a 4.24 ERA, 141 H and 154/56 K/BB in 140 IP between Double- and Triple-A last season. He might be ready to step into the White Sox rotation in the second half, but it's probably going to be 2008 or 2009 before he's a real asset. With McCarthy gone, Charlie Haeger and Gavin Floyd look like the favorites to act as the club's fifth starter.”

These are not the trades of a team that is committed to win in 2007. You can call the trades “good” or “great for the future” but for the 2007 season ...well, these are not trades that improve the team over the short term. We have a good team. With a couple of trades we could have had a great team.

Do I want a Steinbrenner type running the Sox - spending money on mediocre players? No. I want someone who each and every year tries to get us to the world series. We had two highly coveted pitchers. I really thought we would have gotten someone who addressed our immediate needs rather than guys who will have impact years down the line.

I think most of the anger directed at KW is the fact that we had some really really good opportunities to make improvements that would make our team a better shot in 2007 at getting back to the world series. The free agent market for pitchers is out of control. We should have been able to get better for what we had. We should have been able to make some trades that would address the problems we had last year.

I can just hope that we get someone to help us for 2007. The season hasn’t started yet.. Maybe we’ll pull off a miracle trade and get some help where we need it.

I was at the championship parade. I’d really like to see another one soon. I don’t think these trades are going to get us there in 2007.

look---disagree with the moves if you want, but to keep talking about how this is off season has been CHEAPING OUT is not just terribly inaccurate(and it surely is) it's trolling.

Please stop.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2006, 11:41 PM
look---disagree with the moves if you want, but to keep talking about how this is off season has been CHEAPING OUT is not just terribly inaccurate(and it surely is) it's trolling.

Please stop.

The contractual pay increases for Buehrle, Dye, Garland, Pierzynski, Thome, Vazquez and Uribe alone account for an extra $9.35 million of additional 2007 payroll, nearly the amount Garcia was due this season. This doesn't even count the increases for Iguchi and Mackowiak (the Iguchi option, like Buehrle and Dye, was a no-brainer). So even if the team "stood firm" and didn't make any trades or big signings, they already would have been spending about 8% more in 2007 (and inflation and increased ticket prices wouldn't have covered it).

KW is doing what he can with the budget he has. Stockpiling young arms is a-okay in my book. If he was stockpiling position players, I would be more critical.

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 12:19 AM
I love the Sox have been a lifelong fan. I’ve been there (with all of you) through the good years and the bad. I cried like a little kid when they won the world series.

I’ve been trying to put these trades in a positive light. But I can’t.

Unless some other big trade happens, the bottom line is that our Sox have decided not to spend the money to address the problems of 2006. We had some glaring problems coming into 2007 and rather than improve the 2007 team through trades, we’ve decided to give away two of the most coveted pitchers in baseball for prospects and a pitcher with a mlb career era of 6.96.

With the market the way it is we should have got much much more for the two guys we traded away. Here’s a quote from rotoworld that pretty much sums up the McCarthy trade

“It's another step backwards for the 2005 World Series champs, at least for the short term. McCarthy's upside has been overblown, and Danks likely has a similar amount of potential. Still, McCarthy is the better bet for the future, as he's already proven he's capable of handling major league hitters. Also, we think he's more likely to remain healthy. Danks, 21, went 9-9 with a 4.24 ERA, 141 H and 154/56 K/BB in 140 IP between Double- and Triple-A last season. He might be ready to step into the White Sox rotation in the second half, but it's probably going to be 2008 or 2009 before he's a real asset. With McCarthy gone, Charlie Haeger and Gavin Floyd look like the favorites to act as the club's fifth starter.”

These are not the trades of a team that is committed to win in 2007. You can call the trades “good” or “great for the future” but for the 2007 season ...well, these are not trades that improve the team over the short term. We have a good team. With a couple of trades we could have had a great team.

Do I want a Steinbrenner type running the Sox - spending money on mediocre players? No. I want someone who each and every year tries to get us to the world series. We had two highly coveted pitchers. I really thought we would have gotten someone who addressed our immediate needs rather than guys who will have impact years down the line.

I think most of the anger directed at KW is the fact that we had some really really good opportunities to make improvements that would make our team a better shot in 2007 at getting back to the world series. The free agent market for pitchers is out of control. We should have been able to get better for what we had. We should have been able to make some trades that would address the problems we had last year.

I can just hope that we get someone to help us for 2007. The season hasn’t started yet.. Maybe we’ll pull off a miracle trade and get some help where we need it.

I was at the championship parade. I’d really like to see another one soon. I don’t think these trades are going to get us there in 2007.

I would LOVE a Steinbrenner type running the SOX. The Yankees have been to the playoffs for 12 straight years and won 4 World Series in that span. In modern baseball, I'd consider that sustained success and would be more than happy to have Reinsdorf go Steinbrenner on us.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 12:25 AM
I would LOVE a Steinbrenner type running the SOX. The Yankees have been to the playoffs for 12 straight years and won 4 World Series in that span. In modern baseball, I'd consider that sustained success and would be more than happy to have Reinsdorf go Steinbrenner on us.

:rolleyes:

The confluence of talent that won 4 WS was no accident, but rampant spending had very little to do with it.

# of world series titles since Steinbrenner went spend crazy on free agents (aka the Giambi years)? ZERO

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 12:29 AM
Before you decide to jump, you may want to get some facts straight. First, Crede is not a free agent until after 2008. Second, you mention holes you'd like to see addressed. Instead of just talking about them, how would you fix the perceived problems? Third, while Mark may not be re-signing, how do you know this is a fact? Fourth, did you know the Sox are actually raising payroll this year?
Here is how I would have fixed the problems: Pitching is at a premium, if you want one of our pitchers, you have to give up AT LEAST one major league player. Rowand is not the greatest CF in the game, but he is reliable. He HAS proven himself. And he and Anderson would be a good platoon. We take Floyd and Gio (both of whom are unproven, and could very well be GREAT pitchers) and take Rowand who is proven. That way we have a guy who can help us win NOW! Now, maybe Floyd will be great in '07 in which case I look like a total idiot (wouldn't be a first) and then everything turns up rosy. But if Floyd isn't great you look back on the trade and say "Ah! Well, at least we got Rowand and he helped us in CF, so the trade wasn't a total loss." Same thing applies with McCarthy. Now, I'm not an idiot, I wasn't under the impression that McCarthy was going to be in contention for the Cy Young Award in '07. But I thought that he had a shot to win 12 games. If he was lucky fifteen. And I didn't even mind the idea of trading him, but we traded him for ANOTHER PROSPECT!!! A guy who had a 4 soemthing ERA in the minors and another guy who pitched like, eight innings in the majors. McCarthy was shaky coming from the bullpen, granted, but he showed that as a starter he could hang with major league hitters. He didn't flinch. I'm not too familar with Texas' lineup and I'm not dumb enough to think that we could have gotten Texiara or Michael Young. But god damn, you oughta get SOMEBODY! Now maybe Kenny is going to turn around and deal these guys for people like Crawford or Baldelli, in which case it's a good trade because at least you fill in some of those holes.

Kenny Williams MAY suffer from the Jerry Krause syndrom where he makes trades to show that he's smart and he's the trader and he's the one in charge.

As for Buerhle, you damn well better sign him soon. Some guys really resent waiting and view it as a lack of respect (that's why Maddux left the Cubs in '92). This could be a deal that is worked out in spring training, or it could be Mark's swan song. But I haven't heard a word about them talking to Buerhle or starting negotiations or anything. I haven't even heard Buerhle mentioned in long term plans. This a guy who has given five good years and eats up innings and is usually very effective. He was effective first half of '06 too. But the man through 236 innings in '05 (most ever) plus a couple of more in the playoffs and I think that caught up with him in the second half. I wouldn't let this guy go because of a lousy year in '06. I'd sign him because the price for pitching is high now, but it will be HIGHER in '08.

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 12:30 AM
:rolleyes:

The confluence of talent that won 4 WS was no accident, but rampant spending had very little to do with it.

# of world series titles since Steinbrenner went spend crazy on free agents (aka the Giambi years)? ZERO

Be that as it may, I'd take the White Sox going to the playoffs annually without a blinking an eye. As the Cardinals proved this past year, all you have to do is get in and anything can happen.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 12:32 AM
Here is how I would have fixed the problems: Pitching is at a premium, if you want one of our pitchers, you have to give up AT LEAST one major league player. Rowand is not the greatest CF in the game, but he is reliable. He HAS proven himself. And he and Anderson would be a good platoon. We take Floyd and Gio (both of whom are unproven, and could very well be GREAT pitchers) and take Rowand who is proven. That way we have a guy who can help us win NOW! Now, maybe Floyd will be great in '07 in which case I look like a total idiot (wouldn't be a first) and then everything turns up rosy. But if Floyd isn't great you look back on the trade and say "Ah! Well, at least we got Rowand and he helped us in CF, so the trade wasn't a total loss." Same thing applies with McCarthy. Now, I'm not an idiot, I wasn't under the impression that McCarthy was going to be in contention for the Cy Young Award in '07. But I thought that he had a shot to win 12 games. If he was lucky fifteen. And I didn't even mind the idea of trading him, but we traded him for ANOTHER PROSPECT!!! A guy who had a 4 soemthing ERA in the minors and another guy who pitched like, eight innings in the majors. McCarthy was shaky coming from the bullpen, granted, but he showed that as a starter he could hang with major league hitters. He didn't flinch. I'm not too familar with Texas' lineup and I'm not dumb enough to think that we could have gotten Texiara or Michael Young. But god damn, you oughta get SOMEBODY! Now maybe Kenny is going to turn around and deal these guys for people like Crawford or Baldelli, in which case it's a good trade because at least you fill in some of those holes.



So...ok....your stance is that a mediocre outfielder has not only equivalent but GREATER value to this team than Floyd or Gio?

wow.....

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 12:35 AM
Be that as it may, I'd take the White Sox going to the playoffs annually without a blinking an eye. As the Cardinals proved this past year, all you have to do is get in and anything can happen.

Anything can happen is a bit of an oversimplification....

Especially since the Yankees have been there every year since 2000 and not won once, and the A's have likewise been there every year but 2005 and not won once...

that's not just bad luck...

And the Yankees have been the BEST overspender at succeeding in the postseason...

the Mets, Braves (even with a great pitching coach, GM, and Manager), and Cubs have had little to no postseason success despite spending more than almost any team in baseball....

the White Sox have one more world championship than all the Yanks, Mets and Cubs combined since those teams started spending money like morons

champagne030
12-25-2006, 12:40 AM
The contractual pay increases for Buehrle, Dye, Garland, Pierzynski, Thome, Vazquez and Uribe alone account for an extra $9.35 million of additional 2007 payroll, nearly the amount Garcia was due this season. This doesn't even count the increases for Iguchi and Mackowiak (the Iguchi option, like Buehrle and Dye, was a no-brainer). So even if the team "stood firm" and didn't make any trades or big signings, they already would have been spending about 8% more in 2007 (and inflation and increased ticket prices wouldn't have covered it).

KW is doing what he can with the budget he has. Stockpiling young arms is a-okay in my book. If he was stockpiling position players, I would be more critical.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting the Sox are trying to reduce payroll, but the ticket increases would have covered the increase in payroll had we stood pat (and I'm also not suggesting we should not have traded Freddy - like Gio, not Floyd, but that's another thread). My tickets increased, on average, almost $4/game. That comes to roughly a $10M increase in revenue from ticket sales.

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 12:48 AM
Anything can happen is a bit of an oversimplification....

Especially since the Yankees have been there every year since 2000 and not won once, and the A's have likewise been there every year but 2005 and not won once...

that's not just bad luck...

And the Yankees have been the BEST overspender at succeeding in the postseason...

the Mets, Braves (even with a great pitching coach, GM, and Manager), and Cubs have had little to no postseason success despite spending more than almost any team in baseball....

the White Sox have one more world championship than all the Yanks, Mets and Cubs combined since those teams started spending money like morons

I'm not sure what sport you've been watching for the duration of your life but making the playoffs in baseball is not easy. I consider making the postseason a success. In the 32 years of my life, the White Sox have been in the playoffs 4 times. 4 ****ing times. The Yankees have tripled that in 12 years.
Sure, you can sit there and say the Yankees and the other big spenders haven't won a title since the SOX but thats a petty argument. The Yankees have led the league in payroll since their 12 season streak began in 1995. The simple fact of the matter is that gettig to the playoffs is difficult and winning in them is even more difficult and the Yankees, as much I ****ing hate them, have been successful at it.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 12:48 AM
:rolleyes:

The confluence of talent that won 4 WS was no accident, but rampant spending had very little to do with it.

# of world series titles since Steinbrenner went spend crazy on free agents (aka the Giambi years)? ZERO

What this guy said.

The 98 Yankees are considered one of the greatest teams ever. Payroll? $63 million, $7 million LESS than the league-leading Orioles (who finished under .500).

To be fair, the Yankees did have the highest payroll in 1996, 1999 and 2000 but they weren't grossly larger. In 1996, the Yankee payroll was only 7% higher than the second place Orioles, in 1999 it was 8& higher than the second place Rangers and in 2000, they were only 3% higher than the second place Dodgers. In 2001 they lost in the WS but while their salary was still the highest in the majors, it was only 2% higher than the second place team (Red Sox).

Compare that to the following seasons (year and percentage higher than second place team (team)):

2002 - 16% (Red Sox)
2003 - 30% (Mets)
2004 - 45% (Red Sox)
2005 - 67% (Red Sox)
2006 - 62% (Red Sox)More money does not a championship team make...

santo=dorf
12-25-2006, 12:52 AM
I know that if anyone says anything negative about KW they receive a huge amount of blows about "GET OFF THE LEDGE!" or "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BASEBALL. WE ARE RECEIVING HUGE PITCHING PROSPECTS." But I mean c'mon, why is it ridiculous to be critical of a trade in which we traded a 23 year old pitcher that we made trades to accomodate for 3 pitchers that have never seen an inning in the majors. We know McCarthy was going to be good, we even traded someone in our starting 5 to make room for him. I'm not quite sure I even understand why that trade was made. I've been trying to think of KW's way of thinking. McCarthy is cheap and young, which appears to be how our offseason was being handled, so what was wrong with keeping him? We only got a guy who was 2 years younger in Danks, and from what I hear Masset is not even close to a sure-thing, and might even be a project that can't contribute next year. I think anyone is at liberty to be critical of this deal.
I see you're quoting Mariotti. Perhaps all your posts should be sent to the roadhouse?

Masset pitched 8.2 innings last year in the majors.

:moron
"At least Juanuribe1989 is buying my ****."

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 12:59 AM
What this guy said.

The 98 Yankees are considered one of the greatest teams ever. Payroll? $63 million, $7 million LESS than the league-leading Orioles (who finished under .500).

To be fair, the Yankees did have the highest payroll in 1996, 1999 and 2000 but they weren't grossly larger. In 1996, the Yankee payroll was only 7% higher than the second place Orioles, in 1999 it was 8& higher than the second place Rangers and in 2000, they were only 3% higher than the second place Dodgers. In 2001 they lost in the WS but while their salary was still the highest in the majors, it was only 2% higher than the second place team (Red Sox).

Compare that to the following seasons (year and percentage higher than second place team (team)):
2002 - 16% (Red Sox)
2003 - 30% (Mets)
2004 - 45% (Red Sox)
2005 - 67% (Red Sox)
2006 - 62% (Red Sox)More money does not a championship team make...

I never said spending more money won championships. I've been arguing that it will get you to the playoffs and anything can happen from there. Maybe everyone else wouldnt be but I'd be damn happy with 12 years straight in the playoffs.. We don't even know what it feels like to be in the plaoyffs in TWO consecutive years. I'm not very satisifed with that.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:00 AM
I'm not sure what sport you've been watching for the duration of your life but making the playoffs in baseball is not easy. I consider making the postseason a success. In the 32 years of my life, the White Sox have been in the playoffs 4 times. 4 ****ing times. The Yankees have tripled that in 12 years.
Sure, you can sit there and say the Yankees and the other big spenders haven't won a title since the SOX but thats a petty argument. The Yankees have led the league in payroll since their 12 season streak began in 1995. The simple fact of the matter is that gettig to the playoffs is difficult and winning in them is even more difficult and the Yankees, as much I ****ing hate them, have been successful at it.

Where did I say making the playoffs is easy?

All I said is

a.) that Steinbrenners's (and the Yankees') world championships came BEFORE he started breaking the bank on FA's

b.) that talking about what kind of team it takes to make the playoffs and talking about what kind of team it takes to win world championships is often a completely different conversation.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:04 AM
What this guy said.

The 98 Yankees are considered one of the greatest teams ever. Payroll? $63 million, $7 million LESS than the league-leading Orioles (who finished under .500).

To be fair, the Yankees did have the highest payroll in 1996, 1999 and 2000 but they weren't grossly larger. In 1996, the Yankee payroll was only 7% higher than the second place Orioles, in 1999 it was 8& higher than the second place Rangers and in 2000, they were only 3% higher than the second place Dodgers. In 2001 they lost in the WS but while their salary was still the highest in the majors, it was only 2% higher than the second place team (Red Sox).

Compare that to the following seasons (year and percentage higher than second place team (team)):
2002 - 16% (Red Sox)
2003 - 30% (Mets)
2004 - 45% (Red Sox)
2005 - 67% (Red Sox)
2006 - 62% (Red Sox)More money does not a championship team make...

It's not even about payroll---it's about WHO you're paying.

The Yankees had a relatively high payroll in the late 90's when they were wildly successful, but the fact is, they were just paying their guys---guys like Williams, Jeter, O'Neill and Brosius.

Yeah they overpaid those guys but they weren't trying to BUY a championship at that point---they were trying to retain a solid core (and it was a very solid core)

We do not have a Jeter, we do not have a Bernie Williams. We have a Garland a Buerhle a Freddy and a Contreras who were a core of our championship team.

However, 2006 showed that, unlike they Yankees' late 90's team, it is not going to work out to rely on that core to take us to the promised land every year.

I suggest that the answer is not to go out and ridiculously overspend, like the Yankees did in the 2000's (where they were unsuccessful) but to build a core of players, like the Yankees did PRIOR to their wildly successful late 90's run.

But I don't know...maybe I'm watching a different sport than Beer Can Chicken...who knows

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 01:04 AM
I never said spending more money won championships. I've been arguing that it will get you to the playoffs and anything can happen from there. Maybe everyone else wouldnt be but I'd be damn happy with 12 years straight in the playoffs.. We don't even know what it feels like to be in the plaoyffs in TWO consecutive years. I'm not very satisifed with that.

Point taken that you can't win the whole thing if you don't even go to the playoffs but there is no need to spend the money that the Yankees have in recent years. The Braves went to they postseason 14 years in a row at a fraction of the price.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:05 AM
I never said spending more money won championships. I've been arguing that it will get you to the playoffs and anything can happen from there. Maybe everyone else wouldnt be but I'd be damn happy with 12 years straight in the playoffs.. We don't even know what it feels like to be in the plaoyffs in TWO consecutive years. I'm not very satisifed with that.

If winning in the playoffs is such a crapshoot, then how come the Braves, who made it...what, 12 straight years?....only won it once: the year when they had, arguably, their best team

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 01:09 AM
It's not even about payroll---it's about WHO you're paying.

The Yankees had a relatively high payroll in the late 90's when they were wildly successful, but the fact is, they were just paying their guys---guys like Williams, Jeter, O'Neill and Brosius.

Yeah they overpaid those guys but they weren't trying to BUY a championship at that point---they were trying to retain a solid core (and it was a very solid core)

We do not have a Jeter, we do not have a Bernie Williams. We have a Garland a Buerhle a Freddy and a Contreras who were a core of our championship team.

However, 2006 showed that, unlike they Yankees' late 90's team, it is not going to work out to rely on that core to take us to the promised land every year.

I suggest that the answer is not to go out and ridiculously overspend, like the Yankees did in the 2000's (where they were unsuccessful) but to build a core of players, like the Yankees did PRIOR to their wildly successful late 90's run.

But I don't know...maybe I'm watching a different sport than Beer Can Chicken...who knows

I agree that it is typically cheaper to keep your own players together than to try and buy a championship but even that is becoming tougher these days. How much would Buehrle get in the FA market in 2008? What about Crede? It is very difficult to keep a core of great players together, homegrown or otherwise. KW took a step in that direction with the Garland and Konerko extensions but a thin FA market can throw all that out the window.

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 01:15 AM
If winning in the playoffs is such a crapshoot, then how come the Braves, who made it...what, 12 straight years?....only won it once: the year when they had, arguably, their best team

Their best team? That team had 90 wins. They won 95+ nine times in that stretch.
Regardless, my only point from the beginning (even if I didn't make it crystal clear) is that I consider making the playoffs in baseball a success. Sure it isn't the ultimate success, but I would love to see my team make the playoffs annually like the Yankees do or the Braves did. And as I was inferring in my first post, if Reinsdorf went Steinbrenner and started spending all sorts of cash that ended up with us in the playoffs with the consistency of the Yankees, I would be one happy individual. Maybe you wouldn't be satisfied with that. Fine, to each his or her own.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:18 AM
Their best team? That team had 90 wins. They won 95+ nine times in that stretch.
Regardless, my only point from the beginning (even if I didn't make it crystal clear) is that I consider making the playoffs in baseball a success. Sure it isn't the ultimate success, but I would love to see my team make the playoffs annually like the Yankees do or the Braves did. And as I was inferring in my first post, if Reinsdorf went Steinbrenner and started spending all sorts of cash that ended up with us in the playoffs with the consistency of the Yankees, I would be one happy individual. Maybe you wouldn't be satisfied with that. Fine, to each his or her own.

You're right. I wouldn't be happy if Kenny went out tomorrow and started signing Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano and Randy Johnson to almost twice what Buerhle or Garland are making.

I wouldn't be happy if Kenny went and signed Sheffield to a 4 year contract, or Jason Giambi or blah blah blah blah blah.

Call me crazy

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 01:24 AM
Their best team? That team had 90 wins. They won 95+ nine times in that stretch.
Regardless, my only point from the beginning (even if I didn't make it crystal clear) is that I consider making the playoffs in baseball a success. Sure it isn't the ultimate success, but I would love to see my team make the playoffs annually like the Yankees do or the Braves did. And as I was inferring in my first post, if Reinsdorf went Steinbrenner and started spending all sorts of cash that ended up with us in the playoffs with the consistency of the Yankees, I would be one happy individual. Maybe you wouldn't be satisfied with that. Fine, to each his or her own.

But where the heck would all this money come from? The Cell has less than 3/4 the amount of seats as Yankee Stadium. Reinsdorf isn't connected to a cable outfit like YES. The Sox don't play in the #1 market in the country. Would you be happy if your ticket prices went up 50% so Reinsdorf could go on a Big Stein-esque spending spree? If the postseason was GUARANTEED year in and year out, then I might not mind but when was the last time there was a guarantee in baseball? What happens if gazillions of dollars are spent and the team goes nowhere (ala late 90s Orioles)?

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:26 AM
But where the heck would all this money come from? The Cell has less than 3/4 the amount of seats as Yankee Stadium. Reinsdorf isn't connected to a cable outfit like YES. The Sox don't play in the #1 market in the country. Would you be happy if your ticket prices went up 50% so Reinsdorf could go on a Big Stein-esque spending spree? If the postseason was GUARANTEED year in and year out, then I might not mind but when was the last time there was a guarantee in baseball? What happens if gazillions of dollars are spent and the team goes nowhere (ala late 90s Orioles)?

Or the Mets or the Red Sox or the Cubs.

We sure as **** don't have the core of the late 90's Yankees to build around to "assure" us a playoff appearance.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 01:30 AM
Or the Mets or the Red Sox or the Cubs.

We sure as **** don't have the core of the late 90's Yankees to build around to "assure" us a playoff appearance.

At leat the Red Sox did something. They went o the postseason three times and even scored a WS title since the decided to throw money around like a drunken sailor. Mets and Cubs? Not so much...

But you are still right, the Sox just don't have some rock-star core to build a dynasty around...not in 2007 anyway. 2008? 2009? If these arms work out and Fields and Sweeney live up to the hype, then maybe.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:31 AM
At leat the Red Sox did something. They went o the postseason three times and even scored a WS title since the decided to throw money around like a drunken sailor. Mets and Cubs? Not so much...

But you are still right, the Sox just don't have some rock-star core to build a dynasty around...not in 2007 anyway. 2008? 2009? If these arms work out and Fields and Sweeney live up to the hype, then maybe.

I should have specified---the 2006 Red Sox---their highest payroll yet

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 01:35 AM
But where the heck would all this money come from? The Cell has less than 3/4 the amount of seats as Yankee Stadium. Reinsdorf isn't connected to a cable outfit like YES. The Sox don't play in the #1 market in the country. Would you be happy if your ticket prices went up 50% so Reinsdorf could go on a Big Stein-esque spending spree? If the postseason was GUARANTEED year in and year out, then I might not mind but when was the last time there was a guarantee in baseball? What happens if gazillions of dollars are spent and the team goes nowhere (ala late 90s Orioles)?

The team doesn't have the money and probably never will. I'm also by no means am advocating that the SOX should do this. I was just saying that if Reinsdorf decided to spend all sorts of cash like Steinbrenner, I would be happy.
I also personally feel that spending money does put you closer to guaranteeing a postseason spot year in and year out. Sure the Orioles and Mets of the 90's spent loads of cash and went nowhere but they also spent them on the wrong people and most people at the time questioned what the hell they were doing. If Kenny was spending that cash I'd like their chances.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 01:36 AM
I should have specified---the 2006 Red Sox---their highest payroll yet

But they'll always have the memories...

:redneck

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:38 AM
But they'll always have the memories...

:redneck

One of my friends down in Ark is from Boston and is a Red Sox fan (puke) and he described this year as a "Shakespearean Tragedy"...which is kind of true---heart palpitations for Ortiz, cancer for Leister, injuries agogo...

but even so, they spent a lot more than we did and had the exact same result.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 01:41 AM
The team doesn't have the money and probably never will. I'm also by no means am advocating that the SOX should do this. I was just saying that if Reinsdorf decided to spend all sorts of cash like Steinbrenner, I would be happy.
I also personally feel that spending money does put you closer to guaranteeing a postseason spot year in and year out. Sure the Orioles and Mets of the 90's spent loads of cash and went nowhere but they also spent them on the wrong people and most people at the time questioned what the hell they were doing. If Kenny was spending that cash I'd like their chances.

Well...then what are you advocating?

You would like him to spend more money LIKE Steinbrenner? That means signing ridiculous amounts of money on overhyped non-talent---a practice that generally spells doom in the playoffs. Wonder why the Yankees crapped out so much in the playoffs this decade? Maybe it had somthing to do with trotting out aging used-ta-bes like Johnson and Kevin Brown---people Steinbrenner essentially strongarmed Cashman into signing.

Steinbrenner has a very respectable franchise under him...but that ismostly owing to the likes of Posada, Jeter, Mussina, and Rivera (and farmhands like Soriano, Cano, Cabrera, Wang, and Small's success in the MLB).

How on earth can Kenny emulate that? Just go out and get another Jeter? Another Rivera?

Show me a big-spending move Steinbrenner's Avatar has made in the last 6 years that you would be excited about for the Sox.

Beer Can Chicken
12-25-2006, 01:51 AM
Well...then what are you advocating?

You would like him to spend more money LIKE Steinbrenner? That means signing ridiculous amounts of money on overhyped non-talent---a practice that generally spells doom in the playoffs. Wonder why the Yankees crapped out so much in the playoffs this decade? Maybe it had somthing to do with trotting out aging used-ta-bes like Johnson and Kevin Brown---people Steinbrenner essentially strongarmed Cashman into signing.

Steinbrenner has a very respectable franchise under him...but that ismostly owing to the likes of Posada, Jeter, Mussina, and Rivera (and farmhands like Soriano, Cano, Cabrera, Wang, and Small's success in the MLB).

How on earth can Kenny emulate that? Just go out and get another Jeter? Another Rivera?

Show me a big-spending move Steinbrenner's Avatar has made in the last 6 years that you would be excited about for the Sox.

I was never advocating anything, it was just a statement that you obviously and venomously disagree with. Here is my original statement and I still stand by it. Goodnight.


"I would LOVE a Steinbrenner type running the SOX. The Yankees have been to the playoffs for 12 straight years and won 4 World Series in that span. In modern baseball, I'd consider that sustained success and would be more than happy to have Reinsdorf go Steinbrenner on us."

TDog
12-25-2006, 01:53 AM
It's now official. Just what i've suspected all along. They have given up on 2007 and are looking at 2008, 2009 if ever!! They should be ashamed of themselves. Take a world series winner and give up on them after 1 off year. To not make the deals to keep them in contention this year is pathetic.


If Williams had traded Garcia and McCarthy before the 2006 season, the Sox may have finished better than third place.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 01:55 AM
Another newly minted Sox fan, fresh from 2005, who is jumping off the bandwaggon over Freddy and Brandon?

You guys make me laugh.

Steelrod
12-25-2006, 05:23 AM
I would LOVE a Steinbrenner type running the SOX. The Yankees have been to the playoffs for 12 straight years and won 4 World Series in that span. In modern baseball, I'd consider that sustained success and would be more than happy to have Reinsdorf go Steinbrenner on us.
...and the 50-100% higher ticket prices that go with him?

ilsox7
12-25-2006, 06:06 AM
Here is how I would have fixed the problems: Pitching is at a premium, if you want one of our pitchers, you have to give up AT LEAST one major league player. Rowand is not the greatest CF in the game, but he is reliable. He HAS proven himself. And he and Anderson would be a good platoon. We take Floyd and Gio (both of whom are unproven, and could very well be GREAT pitchers) and take Rowand who is proven. That way we have a guy who can help us win NOW! Now, maybe Floyd will be great in '07 in which case I look like a total idiot (wouldn't be a first) and then everything turns up rosy. But if Floyd isn't great you look back on the trade and say "Ah! Well, at least we got Rowand and he helped us in CF, so the trade wasn't a total loss." Same thing applies with McCarthy. Now, I'm not an idiot, I wasn't under the impression that McCarthy was going to be in contention for the Cy Young Award in '07. But I thought that he had a shot to win 12 games. If he was lucky fifteen. And I didn't even mind the idea of trading him, but we traded him for ANOTHER PROSPECT!!! A guy who had a 4 soemthing ERA in the minors and another guy who pitched like, eight innings in the majors. McCarthy was shaky coming from the bullpen, granted, but he showed that as a starter he could hang with major league hitters. He didn't flinch. I'm not too familar with Texas' lineup and I'm not dumb enough to think that we could have gotten Texiara or Michael Young. But god damn, you oughta get SOMEBODY! Now maybe Kenny is going to turn around and deal these guys for people like Crawford or Baldelli, in which case it's a good trade because at least you fill in some of those holes.

Kenny Williams MAY suffer from the Jerry Krause syndrom where he makes trades to show that he's smart and he's the trader and he's the one in charge.

As for Buerhle, you damn well better sign him soon. Some guys really resent waiting and view it as a lack of respect (that's why Maddux left the Cubs in '92). This could be a deal that is worked out in spring training, or it could be Mark's swan song. But I haven't heard a word about them talking to Buerhle or starting negotiations or anything. I haven't even heard Buerhle mentioned in long term plans. This a guy who has given five good years and eats up innings and is usually very effective. He was effective first half of '06 too. But the man through 236 innings in '05 (most ever) plus a couple of more in the playoffs and I think that caught up with him in the second half. I wouldn't let this guy go because of a lousy year in '06. I'd sign him because the price for pitching is high now, but it will be HIGHER in '08.

OK, good to see some ideas flowing here! I do not agree with them, but this sure as hell beats the reactionary **** coming from a lot of people.

My problems with your suggestion about the Garcia deal:

1. Philly would not give up Rowand plus Gio and Floyd.

2. Rowand really is not that good. His numbers last year, in the NL, were better than BA's, but not so much that it would hae made the Sox significantly better as a team. And then you factor in the fact that BA plays a better CF, and I do not see having/not having Rowand as much of a difference on this team. It's a fact that KW tried to get him back, but I would not have been a fan of that. I am glad it did not happen.

As for McCarthy, I liked the guy. I wasn't a HUGE fan of him, but I thought he would post an ERA around 4.50 - 4.75, much like Garcia did last year. I don't know how that would transfer into wins, as those are more of a circumstantial statistic. But last year also showed to me that McCarthy is not a stud and I don't think he'll be one any time soon. I think he'll be a solid middle of the rotation guy. I also think a guy like Haeger could produce similar results in 2007. Therefore, I do not see a huge downgrade in 2007 from this trade. Could there be? Sure. Does the trade create more of a question mark? Yes. But I am not as concerned about that as most.

As for Mark, I am not sure what to do. On the one hand, he has been mostly good for 5 years. On the other hand, he has had a couple of horrible halves the last few years. Including the last half of 2006. According to the media, the Sox were negotiating with Mark in 2006 but cut-off negotiations when he started really sucking. I think the problem with re-signing Mark is two-fold:

1. Guys with Mark's type of stuff often have difficulty finding it once they've lost it. Mark has had a very good five years. But I think there is serious doubt in the Sox organization as to whether his next five years will be nearly as bright. I sure as hell hope they are, but to sign him up for 4-5 years at $15MM per year would not be the best move, IMO.

2. It will take 4-5 years at $15MM per to get him signed right now. That's a big, big committment. To a guy who, IMO, has some serious question marks about him. From his lousy 2nd half last year to his reportedly being out of shape last year, I think the Sox, for better or worse, are taking the same wait and see approach they took with PK. In the end, it cost the Sox some cash b/c PK ended up being worth more, but I think it's a smart move.

Good discussion though!

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 01:20 PM
OK, good to see some ideas flowing here! I do not agree with them, but this sure as hell beats the reactionary **** coming from a lot of people.

My problems with your suggestion about the Garcia deal:

1. Philly would not give up Rowand plus Gio and Floyd.

2. Rowand really is not that good. His numbers last year, in the NL, were better than BA's, but not so much that it would hae made the Sox significantly better as a team. And then you factor in the fact that BA plays a better CF, and I do not see having/not having Rowand as much of a difference on this team. It's a fact that KW tried to get him back, but I would not have been a fan of that. I am glad it did not happen.

As for McCarthy, I liked the guy. I wasn't a HUGE fan of him, but I thought he would post an ERA around 4.50 - 4.75, much like Garcia did last year. I don't know how that would transfer into wins, as those are more of a circumstantial statistic. But last year also showed to me that McCarthy is not a stud and I don't think he'll be one any time soon. I think he'll be a solid middle of the rotation guy. I also think a guy like Haeger could produce similar results in 2007. Therefore, I do not see a huge downgrade in 2007 from this trade. Could there be? Sure. Does the trade create more of a question mark? Yes. But I am not as concerned about that as most.

As for Mark, I am not sure what to do. On the one hand, he has been mostly good for 5 years. On the other hand, he has had a couple of horrible halves the last few years. Including the last half of 2006. According to the media, the Sox were negotiating with Mark in 2006 but cut-off negotiations when he started really sucking. I think the problem with re-signing Mark is two-fold:

1. Guys with Mark's type of stuff often have difficulty finding it once they've lost it. Mark has had a very good five years. But I think there is serious doubt in the Sox organization as to whether his next five years will be nearly as bright. I sure as hell hope they are, but to sign him up for 4-5 years at $15MM per year would not be the best move, IMO.

2. It will take 4-5 years at $15MM per to get him signed right now. That's a big, big committment. To a guy who, IMO, has some serious question marks about him. From his lousy 2nd half last year to his reportedly being out of shape last year, I think the Sox, for better or worse, are taking the same wait and see approach they took with PK. In the end, it cost the Sox some cash b/c PK ended up being worth more, but I think it's a smart move.

Good discussion though!

Rowand would have been a good 4th outfielder. Can play all 3 positions (I believe), plays hard, and is good with the guys in the clubhouse.

As for Buehrle, you're right that there's no way the sox could risk signing him now after he put up that god-awful second half last year. His performance, more than anything, cost us the playoffs last year because he was so reliable and nobody expected it. I'm hoping that it was all due to fatigue from 2005, but there's no way to know until we see him pitch.

You're right to compare his situation to PK's. The two of them make up the "core" of the Sox team the last 5 or so years. I don't think the Sox would mind overpaying for him next offseason (compared to what they'd pay now), provided that he returns to form.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 07:28 PM
So...ok....your stance is that a mediocre outfielder has not only equivalent but GREATER value to this team than Floyd or Gio?

wow.....
No, I'm saying that Garcia's value is GREATER than Floyd and Gio. That that trade should have brought us a piece that will help us win in 2007 and not pieces that may or may not help us win in 2009 or 2010. I dont' want to wait to win again, I want to win NOW and these trades are aimed at us winning again later.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 08:30 PM
No, I'm saying that Garcia's value is GREATER than Floyd and Gio. That that trade should have brought us a piece that will help us win in 2007 and not pieces that may or may not help us win in 2009 or 2010. I dont' want to wait to win again, I want to win NOW and these trades are aimed at us winning again later.

Except that's who Kenny got, and Kenny talked to, I ASSUME, most of the GM's at winter meanings so either

a.) Garcia's value is NOT greater than Floyd and Gio

or

b.) Kenny's a foolish GM

not sure which one is the correct situation....you tell me

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 08:43 PM
I don't think either one is correct, I don't think Kenny is foolish GM - but a smart GM is subject to make foolish moves - nor do I think that Garcia's value is not as great as Floyd and Gio. Garcia won 17 games in the AL (a much better league than the NL) and I think in a market that is paying guys like Ted Lilly 40 mil (Garcia is better than Lilly) I think Kenny could have and should have gotten more.

Daver
12-25-2006, 08:50 PM
I don't think either one is correct, I don't think Kenny is foolish GM - but a smart GM is subject to make foolish moves - nor do I think that Garcia's value is not as great as Floyd and Gio. Garcia won 17 games in the AL (a much better league than the NL) and I think in a market that is paying guys like Ted Lilly 40 mil (Garcia is better than Lilly) I think Kenny could have and should have gotten more.

It takes two teams to make a trade, perhaps Freddies market is less than you thought?

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 08:59 PM
No, I'm saying that Garcia's value is GREATER than Floyd and Gio. That that trade should have brought us a piece that will help us win in 2007 and not pieces that may or may not help us win in 2009 or 2010. I dont' want to wait to win again, I want to win NOW and these trades are aimed at us winning again later.
I for one would have liked us to throw in a little something more to get Rowand back with Floyd/Gio. He's no all-star, but he would have been perfect for the BACKUP outfielder role. But it didn't happen, I'll get over it.

fquaye149
12-25-2006, 09:02 PM
I for one would have liked us to throw in a little something more to get Rowand back with Floyd/Gio. He's no all-star, but he would have been perfect for the BACKUP outfielder role. But it didn't happen, I'll get over it.

Why would we throw in something to get a player who doesn't fit anywhere on this team?

Rowand wouldn't be a 4th outfielder---he's paid way too much for that. If Anderson isn't the answer, we need to get a legitimate CFer, not Rowand. If he is the answer, then Rowand will only cause controversy if on this team and delay Anderson's development.

itsnotrequired
12-25-2006, 09:07 PM
Why would we throw in something to get a player who doesn't fit anywhere on this team?

Rowand wouldn't be a 4th outfielder---he's paid way too much for that. If Anderson isn't the answer, we need to get a legitimate CFer, not Rowand. If he is the answer, then Rowand will only cause controversy if on this team and delay Anderson's development.

Agreed. Anderson on the bench is a waste of time and Rowand on the bench is financial goofiness. Besides, what else would the Sox have given up to get Rowand back? Pods? Sweeny?

ChiTownTrojan
12-25-2006, 09:28 PM
Why would we throw in something to get a player who doesn't fit anywhere on this team?

Rowand wouldn't be a 4th outfielder---he's paid way too much for that. If Anderson isn't the answer, we need to get a legitimate CFer, not Rowand. If he is the answer, then Rowand will only cause controversy if on this team and delay Anderson's development.

OK, point taken on causing controversy and putting pressure on BA. I was thinking more along the lines of contributions on the field and his intangibles, but on second thought you're probably right.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 10:29 PM
It takes two teams to make a trade, perhaps Freddies market is less than you thought?
That could certainly be the case, but I figured you could a lot from a guy who won seventeen games.

WhiteSox5187
12-25-2006, 10:36 PM
OK, good to see some ideas flowing here! I do not agree with them, but this sure as hell beats the reactionary **** coming from a lot of people.

My problems with your suggestion about the Garcia deal:

1. Philly would not give up Rowand plus Gio and Floyd.

2. Rowand really is not that good. His numbers last year, in the NL, were better than BA's, but not so much that it would hae made the Sox significantly better as a team. And then you factor in the fact that BA plays a better CF, and I do not see having/not having Rowand as much of a difference on this team. It's a fact that KW tried to get him back, but I would not have been a fan of that. I am glad it did not happen.

As for McCarthy, I liked the guy. I wasn't a HUGE fan of him, but I thought he would post an ERA around 4.50 - 4.75, much like Garcia did last year. I don't know how that would transfer into wins, as those are more of a circumstantial statistic. But last year also showed to me that McCarthy is not a stud and I don't think he'll be one any time soon. I think he'll be a solid middle of the rotation guy. I also think a guy like Haeger could produce similar results in 2007. Therefore, I do not see a huge downgrade in 2007 from this trade. Could there be? Sure. Does the trade create more of a question mark? Yes. But I am not as concerned about that as most.

As for Mark, I am not sure what to do. On the one hand, he has been mostly good for 5 years. On the other hand, he has had a couple of horrible halves the last few years. Including the last half of 2006. According to the media, the Sox were negotiating with Mark in 2006 but cut-off negotiations when he started really sucking. I think the problem with re-signing Mark is two-fold:

1. Guys with Mark's type of stuff often have difficulty finding it once they've lost it. Mark has had a very good five years. But I think there is serious doubt in the Sox organization as to whether his next five years will be nearly as bright. I sure as hell hope they are, but to sign him up for 4-5 years at $15MM per year would not be the best move, IMO.

2. It will take 4-5 years at $15MM per to get him signed right now. That's a big, big committment. To a guy who, IMO, has some serious question marks about him. From his lousy 2nd half last year to his reportedly being out of shape last year, I think the Sox, for better or worse, are taking the same wait and see approach they took with PK. In the end, it cost the Sox some cash b/c PK ended up being worth more, but I think it's a smart move.

Good discussion though!
I, personally, attribute his second half struggles to fatigue. I woudln't be surprised if he didn't show up in great shape, because, this is silly, but I imagined that there were a lot of banquets and stuff that Buerlhe went to in the '05 off season. I heard Ozzie talking about on the radio awhile ago and he said "I know he will be in shape." How? "I called his wife." But all kidding aside, Buerhle looked like Buerhle in the first half, and with the exception of the second half of 2003 (after throwing a lot of innings in 2002) he has been consistently good. I can understand the logic of the White Sox saying "Well, let's wait and see how he does in '07" as long as they understand that that will cost them extra money and as long as they ARE WILLING to resign him, I don't mind that. I think it's a bit silly, I understand it though. But they may have to pay him more money. I predict another great year for Mark and I hope it leads us back to the playoffs and I hope we resign him. But of course, who DOESN'T hope that??

jabrch
12-25-2006, 11:33 PM
That could certainly be the case, but I figured you could a lot from a guy who won seventeen games.

A guy in his walk year with a 4.5 ERA and a opp avg of .265...

No - that's about what you can get for him - the #3 ranked LH SP prospect in the minors, and a project.

santo=dorf
12-26-2006, 12:38 AM
A guy in his walk year with a 4.5 ERA and a opp avg of .265...

No - that's about what you can get for him - the #3 ranked LH SP prospect in the minors, and a project.
......and yet people around here thought giving up a guy with a 4.5 ERA and a opp avg of .294 for A-Rod or Tejada would be overpaying. :rolleyes:

I'm not convinced this is the best package we could've received for Garcia, especially with the way Philly viewed Floyd.

jabrch
12-26-2006, 01:57 AM
......and yet people around here thought giving up a guy with a 4.5 ERA and a opp avg of .294 for A-Rod or Tejada would be overpaying. :rolleyes:

And I argued then about how completely ridiculous that was. And I am a big fan of Freddy.

I'm not convinced this is the best package we could've received for Garcia, especially with the way Philly viewed Floyd.

I just have to trust that with all KW shopped him around, this was the best package. The Stros wanted Garland from us. He is worth more - obviously - due to the one more year he is signed for at that price. Even still - there is debate as to which package is better - mostly depending on what you think of Taveras. (I don't see why we'd need him - he's not worlds better than Pods or Terrero and doesn't have BA/Sweeney's upside)

soxinem1
12-26-2006, 05:25 AM
As much as I like McCarthy, and as silly as it may seem to get rid of the best pitching prospect your farm system has developed in years, I think getting one of the top LHP prospect in all of MLB is a better move in the long run. No team was able to give TEX the package they were seeking for John Denks.

I look at it as TEX being in a 'win-now' mode, while the White Sox are stock-piling for beyond 2009, when the current staff will likely be commanding $15-25 million yearly salaries by then.

Have you forgotten recent teams like SEA, ARI, NYY, and others, who's rotations grew old overnight and had nothing to fall back on? Remember what KW said, he wants to win for the long haul and learned from mistakes other teams have made. I for one have no desire to return back to the good old recent days of 1995, 1997-1999, so if making a painful trade now is part of a successful formula of keeping the organization competitive, so be it.

And another reality break. You are not going to fleece teams in trades and get a guy like Denks in return for Montero and Logan, or get Michael Young for Uribe and Mackowiak, you have to give up something to get something. Unless you are dealing with PIT, those trades only happen in Fantasy Land.