PDA

View Full Version : Would any of you go the Marlins route


Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 12:10 PM
With the Sox getting alot of talent for the future and the free- agents prices are sky high..

Would any of you trade all of the following players for alot of the top prospects so we could be awesome for many years to come. It seem to work for the Marlins last year or would you like to hold on to our star players for a few more years before they leave.

Dye
Buehrle
Garland
Thome
Konerko
Contreras
Crede

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 12:12 PM
I'm not saying I would do this but its just a debate of what some Sox fans were talking about at the bears game last weekend

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 12:31 PM
With the Sox getting alot of talent for the future and the free- agents prices are sky high..

Would any of you trade all of the following players for alot of the top prospects so we could be awesome for many years to come. It seem to work for the Marlins last year or would you like to hold on to our star players for a few more years before they leave.

Dye
Buehrle
Garland
Thome
Konerko
Contreras
Crede

The Sox have a $100 million payroll. The Marlins have a $15 million payroll. I see no point in the Sox going the Marlins route. The Marlins go the Marlins route becuase that is all they can do.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 12:38 PM
The Sox have a $100 million payroll. The Marlins have a $15 million payroll. I see no point in the Sox going the Marlins route. The Marlins go the Marlins route becuase that is all they can do.


With the talent the Marlins have now.. It wouldn't suprised me if they win another world series in the next few years..

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 12:42 PM
With the talent the Marlins have now.. It wouldn't suprised me if they win another world series in the next few years..

So what? The Marlins could also lose 90 games in 2007. What would the Sox do with the sudden $80 million in freed up payroll anyway? Give it back to the fans? Slash ticket prices 50%? Free churros on weekdays?

The Sox have a contending team now so again, I don't see the point in blowing up the entire team for prospects (though some here will argue that KW has done that this year already.:rolleyes:)

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-06-2007, 12:58 PM
I hate threads like these, because I feel the person who started the thread only does so to stir up ****.

The White Sox are an intelligent team. They are a baseball team with a strong fan base, excellent potential, and great exposure in a city where they've been an integral part for 100 years.

The Marlins won/bought two World Series in less than 10 years but none of the people/players responsible are still there. They draw less than 5,000 a game. Contract the Marlins, and retract your thread.

veeter
01-06-2007, 01:14 PM
Yea, we'll stick with the White Sox route, thank you.

chisoxfanatic
01-06-2007, 01:18 PM
With the Sox getting alot of talent for the future and the free- agents prices are sky high..

Would any of you trade all of the following players for alot of the top prospects so we could be awesome for many years to come. It seem to work for the Marlins last year or would you like to hold on to our star players for a few more years before they leave.

Dye
Buehrle
Garland
Thome
Konerko
Contreras
Crede

Never, considering the way the Marlins have done business is a royal crapshoot.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 01:20 PM
I hate threads like these, because I feel the person who started the thread only does so to stir up ****.

The White Sox are an intelligent team. They are a baseball team with a strong fan base, excellent potential, and great exposure in a city where they've been an integral part for 100 years.

The Marlins won/bought two World Series in less than 10 years but none of the people/players responsible are still there. They draw less than 5,000 a game. Contract the Marlins, and retract your thread.

Suggesting ideas like this can lead to some interesting discussion but just seems sort of pointless as it would never happen. It would be like starting a thread asking what would happen if the Sox went the Yankees route. It is sort of dumb as there is no way the Sox add $80 million to the payroll just like the Sox will not remove $80 million from the payroll.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 01:35 PM
It's like, what if Warren Buffett (even though he's not a sports fanatic) or Mark Cuban bought the Royals from Glass and against all prior financial acumen, spent $200 million on the payroll to try to win a World Series.

Frank the Tank
01-06-2007, 02:12 PM
With the Sox getting alot of talent for the future and the free- agents prices are sky high..

Would any of you trade all of the following players for alot of the top prospects so we could be awesome for many years to come. It seem to work for the Marlins last year or would you like to hold on to our star players for a few more years before they leave.

Dye
Buehrle
Garland
Thome
Konerko
Contreras
Crede

You forgot to include AJ in your list.... LOL

ewokpelts
01-06-2007, 02:19 PM
I hate threads like these, because I feel the person who started the thread only does so to stir up ****.

The White Sox are an intelligent team. They are a baseball team with a strong fan base, excellent potential, and great exposure in a city where they've been an integral part for 100 years.

The Marlins won/bought two World Series in less than 10 years but none of the people/players responsible are still there. They draw less than 5,000 a game. Contract the Marlins, and retract your thread.2003 was a bunch of kids...like cabrera and willis...both still on the team

thomas35forever
01-06-2007, 02:24 PM
:threadsucks

WhiteSox5187
01-06-2007, 02:24 PM
NO.

Unless Mr. Reisendorf would like us to NEVER forgive him and go back to the days of the empty park.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 02:29 PM
Who?:(:

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 02:36 PM
Just because you start a team with prospects or young players does not mean the team i s going to be bad.. I can come up with a team that will make less than 20M that would be a real solid ball club

Also this topic wasn't meant to stir things up its just a discussion on a slow day that sox fans were talking about at the bears game..

My under 20M ball club

C- Kenji Johima
1b- Adam Laroche
2B - Freddy Sanchez
SS- Jose Reyes
3B- Josh Fields
DH- Prince Fielder
RF- Delmon Young
CF- Lastings Milledge
LF- Nick Markakis


Bench
Sweeney OF, Anderson OF, Kendrick Utily, B Wood Utily , B MC cann C

Starters
Papelbon RP
Verlander RP
Liriano LP
Hamels LP
Weaver RP

Bullpen
Danks LR, Pelfrey RR, Wainwright RR, G Gonzalez LR, J Zumaya RR B Jenks

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 02:40 PM
:threadsucks


So don't read it than

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 02:44 PM
Please stop.

It would cost half our active roster to acquire players like Reyes and Verlander. Might as well throw David Wright in there too.

The fact is, every aging team needs to add in veterans (like Anderson, Fields, Sweeney, our pitchers) to keep costs from skyrocketing. And there are simply no similarities between the markets, fan bases, stadium issues, etc.

The Marlins have always been great with talent evaluation, although the 1997 team was probably more a result of spending on FA talent. By the way, Johjima makes $5.5 million a season, I think you would be better off with Joe Mauer.

ilsox7
01-06-2007, 02:45 PM
Just because you start a team with prospects or young players does not mean the team i s going to be bad.. I can come up with a team that will make less than 20M that would be a real solid ball club

Also this topic wasn't meant to stir things up its just a discussion on a slow day that sox fans were talking about at the bears game..

My under 20M ball club

C- Kenji Johima
1b- Adam Laroche
2B - Freddy Sanchez
SS- Jose Reyes
3B- Josh Fields
DH- Prince Fielder
RF- Delmon Young
CF- Lastings Milledge
LF- Nick Markakis


Bench
Sweeney OF, Anderson OF, Kendrick Utily, B Wood Utily , B MC cann C

Starters
Papelbon RP
Verlander RP
Liriano LP
Hamels LP
Weaver RP

Bullpen
Danks LR, Pelfrey RR, Wainwright RR, G Gonzalez LR, J Zumaya RR B Jenks

This makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. This is not a video game. You cannot magically put players on your team.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 02:49 PM
Please stop.

It would cost half our active roster to acquire players like Reyes and Verlander. Might as well throw David Wright in there too.

The fact is, every aging team needs to add in veterans (like Anderson, Fields, Sweeney, our pitchers) to keep costs from skyrocketing. And there are simply no similarities between the markets, fan bases, stadium issues, etc.

The Marlins have always been great with talent evaluation, although the 1997 team was probably more a result of spending on FA talent. By the way, Johjima makes $5.5 million a season, I think you would be better off with Joe Mauer.

Dude all you people said a payroll of 20 M couldn't win a world series.. So I just put together a team that would have a solid chance.. It has nothing to do with the Sox roster or trades..

I did forgot about Mauer..

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 02:52 PM
This makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. This is not a video game. You cannot magically put players on your team.

Its just a team under a 20m dollar payroll that alot of you people said that a low payroll team has no chance of winning the world series or you wouldn't come to the ball park to see..

ilsox7
01-06-2007, 03:07 PM
Its just a team under a 20m dollar payroll that alot of you people said that a low payroll team has no chance of winning the world series or you wouldn't come to the ball park to see..

Many of us also try to deal in reality. That team and your thoughts about it do not do so.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:08 PM
Dude all you people said a payroll of 20 M couldn't win a world series.. So I just put together a team that would have a solid chance.. It has nothing to do with the Sox roster or trades..

I did forgot about Mauer..

Its just a team under a 20m dollar payroll that alot of you people said that a low payroll team has no chance of winning the world series or you wouldn't come to the ball park to see..

When did anyone say a team with a payroll of under $20 million couldn't win a World Series? Of course it is possible. Just look at the team you have "assembled", they would have a great chance. Now what are the chances that a GM puts together a team composed of the absolute best bang-for-your-buck players in the game? You think scouting would put together a team like this? Like others have said, a team would need to trade away their entire franchise including their farm system and stadiums to put together a team like this.

Sure, the Sox could trade away a player like Konerko in hope that some 18 year old kid in Venezuela becomes the next Ryan Howard but why would anyone do that? We have Konerko now, he is signed to an reasonable contract for a player of his caliber and the Sox have the money to pay him.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:14 PM
I rather see the Sox as a young and hungry team for many years than a team with players that might leave in a year like Dye and Buehrle will be doing next season.

to go along with Garland leaving in the 08 season...

Besides the 05 team my fav sox squad was the 1990 team who won 94 games with mostly young players

ilsox7
01-06-2007, 03:21 PM
I rather see the Sox as a young and hungry team for many years than a team with players that might leave in a year like Dye and Buehrle will be doing next season.

to go along with Garland leaving in the 08 season...

Besides the 05 team my fav sox squad was the 1990 team who won 94 games with mostly young players

This is exactly why the Sox are stocking their system with young, quality players. They will be a contended in 2007 and if Dye and MB leave after 2007, they have Sweeney and any one of the young arms to replace them. That's pretty much been the purpose of this winter for KW.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:23 PM
I rather see the Sox as a young and hungry team for many years than a team with players that might leave in a year like Dye and Buehrle will be doing next season.

to go along with Garland leaving in the 08 season...

Besides the 05 team my fav sox squad was the 1990 team who won 94 games with mostly young players

So what do you propose the Sox do? Trade a player away as soon as they reach, say, age 30, regardless of performance? This is a can't miss approach to running a baseball team.

:rolleyes:

TDog
01-06-2007, 03:24 PM
2003 was a bunch of kids...like cabrera and willis...both still on the team

That is a good point. The Marlins (who have never finished first in first place) bought the first World Series title and sold off the players. They signed Ivan Rodriguez (for $10 million) for their second championship season, but the team consisted mostly of quality young talent that got hot.

The Yankees and Mets can't win the World Series every year by spending big money. Aside from the Marlins, who had a little big money help to close the deal, I can't think of any team that in the free-agent era that won by taking a contending team, selling off the talent for prospects.

The Sox had a bigger payroll as a third-place team than as a World Series champion. There isn't a direct relationship between wins and money spent that some people believe there is. But I don't question that if the Sox traded all of their veteran talent for prospects (the media would call it a fire sale -- the Sox wouldn't be able to get the players that some people here believe), the Sox wouldn't be a contending team in the near future. And if the team came together and made the postseason, some of the better players would probably be in their free-agent years.

The "Marlins route" is a losing proposition.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:26 PM
This is exactly why the Sox are stocking their system with young, quality players. They will be a contended in 2007 and if Dye and MB leave after 2007, they have Sweeney and any one of the young arms to replace them. That's pretty much been the purpose of this winter for KW.

I agree with you on some points but instead of Dye and MB leaving after this season and the Sox getting nothing in return. I rather see the Sox trade them and get more of the top young players in the game today like a Alex Rios, Adam Wainwright, or Stephen Drew..

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:29 PM
I agree with you on some points but instead of Dye and MB leaving after this season and the Sox getting nothing in return. I rather see the Sox trade them and get more of the top young players in the game today like a Alex Rios, Adam Wainwright, or Stephen Drew..

Why would other teams trade away their absolute best young (and cheap) talent for high-paid veterans that don't help their team?

ilsox7
01-06-2007, 03:31 PM
I agree with you on some points but instead of Dye and MB leaving after this season and the Sox getting nothing in return. I rather see the Sox trade them and get more of the top young players in the game today like a Alex Rios, Adam Wainwright, or Stephen Drew..

It is absolutely pointless to throw away seasons when you can be a contender, especially if there is a good chance your team will contend for several years after. The more chances you have at getting to the playoffs, the better your chances of winning a World Series. Dye is not going anywhere right now. KW is going to let the first part of the season play out.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Why would other teams trade away their absolute best young (and cheap) talent for high-paid veterans that don't help their team?


Maybe a team think they can resign the high price player..

I have read many reports that Alex Rios was on the trading block. that the Jays were looking for a starter in return..

Plus I bet the Mets would love to have MB pitching for them this season. So why not go out and get Milledge and Pelfrey for him

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:42 PM
Lets say the Sox fall 3 games short of making the playoffs this season and Dye and MB sign elsewhere in the offseason..

How many people do you think will be upset that we didn't trade these guys before they left.

I just think that KW has done a tremondous job this offseason getting rid of Garcia and getting Floyd and Gio who could help make the Sox get into the playoffs for the next 10 years. So why stop there just go all out and get a real young and hungry team

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 03:44 PM
Maybe a team think they can resign the high price player..

I have read many reports that Alex Rios was on the trading block. that the Jays were looking for a starter in return..

Plus I bet the Mets would love to have MB pitching for them this season. So why not go out and get Milledge and Pelfrey for him

It's arguable that the White Sox could get Milledge, but it's unlikely the Sox could get Pelfrey for Buehrle.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:51 PM
Plus I bet the Mets would love to have MB pitching for them this season. So why not go out and get Milledge and Pelfrey for him

You are drastically underestimating Pelfrey's value.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 03:51 PM
Lets say the Sox fall 3 games short of making the playoffs this season and Dye and MB sign elsewhere in the offseason..

How many people do you think will be upset that we didn't trade these guys before they left.

I just think that KW has done a tremondous job this offseason getting rid of Garcia and getting Floyd and Gio who could help make the Sox get into the playoffs for the next 10 years. So why stop there just go all out and get a real young and hungry team


1) What first/second/third year players helped the White Sox win it all besides Jenks?

2) The fanbase would rebel and a .500 finish would put us ALMOST back to square one.

3) We had Ginter, D. Wright, Myette, Barcelo, Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, Rauch, Guerrier, Corwin Malone, Josh Fogg, Kip Wells and many other present/future "stud" pitchers on our roster in 2000/01. Where are they now?

There's no guarantees with young pitching. Maybe the Liriano/Bonser/Nathan deal made every fan think it's POSSIBLE.

Those M's teams had Beckett, Willis, Burnett, Dempster, Penny...that's a TON of pitching talent. You can't begin to compare the White Sox and Marlins.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:53 PM
You are drastically underestimating Pelfrey's value.

I'm a huge minor league fan and have watched many games. So I know how dam good Pelfrey is.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:56 PM
I'm a huge minor league fan and have watched many games. So I know how dam good Pelfrey is.

Like caulfield12 said, the Mets would not trade Buehrle for Milledge and Pelfrey.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 03:57 PM
1) What first/second/third year players helped the White Sox win it all besides Jenks?

2) The fanbase would rebel and a .500 finish would put us ALMOST back to square one.

3) We had Ginter, D. Wright, Myette, Barcelo, Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, Rauch, Guerrier, Corwin Malone, Josh Fogg, Kip Wells and many other present/future "stud" pitchers on our roster in 2000/01. Where are they now?

There's no guarantees with young pitching. Maybe the Liriano/Bonser/Nathan deal made every fan think it's POSSIBLE.

Those M's teams had Beckett, Willis, Burnett, Dempster, Penny...that's a TON of pitching talent. You can't begin to compare the White Sox and Marlins.

I totally agree with you its all a crap shoot and the Sox scouting was not very good in the late 90's...

but hopefully with Floyd, Danks, Gio, Masset and maybe a few others we could be like the Atlanta Braves or Twins and have a great farm system for many years to come if its through drafting or trading high priced players

UserNameBlank
01-06-2007, 03:59 PM
Lets say the Sox fall 3 games short of making the playoffs this season and Dye and MB sign elsewhere in the offseason..

How many people do you think will be upset that we didn't trade these guys before they left.

I just think that KW has done a tremondous job this offseason getting rid of Garcia and getting Floyd and Gio who could help make the Sox get into the playoffs for the next 10 years. So why stop there just go all out and get a real young and hungry team

I'm guessing most fans would be more pissed if ownership didn't try to win than they would be if ownership tried to win and failed.

BTW, the top names becoming FA next year are:
Mark Buehrle
Jermaine Dye
Ichiro Suzuki
Carlos Zambrano
Andruw Jones
Scott Linebrink
Corey Patterson
Torii Hunter
Mike Sweeney
Freddy Garcia
Bartolo Colon
Marcus Giles
Geoff Jenkins
Tom Glavine
Carlos Guillen
Ivan Rodriguez
Curt Schilling
Jake Westbrook

....and there are a TON of decent/league average players.

Teams WILL NOT be spending Cub money next year because they will NOT HAVE TO.

The Sox can probably afford to resign both Dye and Buerhle if they want to. Compared to what Carlos Zambrano, Michael Young, and Andruw Jones gets, JD and Mark could be bargains. Especially if both players have years more in line with their career numbers instead of Cy Young/MVP type seasons.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:05 PM
I totally agree with you its all a crap shoot and the Sox scouting was not very good in the late 90's...

but hopefully with Floyd, Danks, Gio, Masset and maybe a few others we could be like the Atlanta Braves or Twins and have a great farm system for many years to come if its through drafting or trading high priced players


None of those pitchers you listed are seen as consensus 1/2 starters. A lot of scouts would tell you they might be 2's or 4's and "safely" pick them as 3's (Gio, Danks).

But we keep comparing them to 2 first-ballot Hall of Famers and another likely HOF in Smoltz.

I would love to think Buehrle will stay with the Sox another decade and make the Hall, but I'm not betting on it.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 04:07 PM
I'm guessing most fans would be more pissed if ownership didn't try to win than they would be if ownership tried to win and failed.

BTW, the top names becoming FA next year are:
Mark Buehrle
Jermaine Dye
Ichiro Suzuki
Carlos Zambrano
Andruw Jones
Scott Linebrink
Corey Patterson
Torii Hunter
Mike Sweeney
Freddy Garcia
Bartolo Colon
Marcus Giles
Geoff Jenkins
Tom Glavine
Carlos Guillen
Ivan Rodriguez
Curt Schilling
Jake Westbrook

....and there are a TON of decent/league average players.

Teams WILL NOT be spending Cub money next year because they will NOT HAVE TO.

The Sox can probably afford to resign both Dye and Buerhle if they want to. Compared to what Carlos Zambrano, Michael Young, and Andruw Jones gets, JD and Mark could be bargains. Especially if both players have years more in line with their career numbers instead of Cy Young/MVP type seasons.


If somehow the Sox do re-sign MB im all for it but I have seen so many Sox players leave the ball club when they become free- agents.. So I rather trade them for top young players in the game..

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 04:10 PM
None of those pitchers you listed are seen as consensus 1/2 starters. A lot of scouts would tell you they might be 2's or 4's and "safely" pick them as 3's (Gio, Danks).

But we keep comparing them to 2 first-ballot Hall of Famers and another likely HOF in Smoltz.

I would love to think Buehrle will stay with the Sox another decade and make the Hall, but I'm not betting on it.

I could be wrong but I don't think Smoltz was regarded as a #1 pitcher in the Detroit system so thats why he was traded for Larry Anderson

UserNameBlank
01-06-2007, 04:13 PM
If somehow the Sox do re-sign MB im all for it but I have seen so many Sox players leave the ball club when they become free- agents.. So I rather trade them for top young players in the game..

Well if you trade them then they are definitely not coming back. If Mark had another year on his contract it would be a different situation IMO because he would be worth a lot more. If the Mets were or any other team were willing to pay out the ass for one year of Mark than it may very well be worth the risk. But, if the Sox only get one good prospect out of it and nothing else, I don't think it would be worth it.

Dye... who knows? But with Andruw Jones, Dye, and Ichiro all FA next year, you have to think KW is planning going hard after at least one of them.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:15 PM
If somehow the Sox do re-sign MB im all for it but I have seen so many Sox players leave the ball club when they become free- agents.. So I rather trade them for top young players in the game..

Then you should live here in KC and support the Royals, or maybe the Twins.

KC has lost/traded/hasn't been able to resign:

Beltran
Dye
Damon
Randa
Rey Sanchez (when he was a near-All Star)
Suppan
Miguel Batista

I guarantee you would be frustrated seeing young All-Star players come into their own and THEN traded out from under you right when the team is a year or two away from being a legit contender. Or try being a Twins' fan and watching David Ortiz win the World Series.

Vernam
01-06-2007, 04:22 PM
Why would other teams trade away their absolute best young (and cheap) talent for high-paid veterans that don't help their team?
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/images/2006/12/07/ewnNntms.jpg
Wait, wait -- don't tell me!

Vernam

UserNameBlank
01-06-2007, 04:25 PM
Then you should live here in KC and support the Royals, or maybe the Twins.

KC has lost/traded/hasn't been able to resign:

Beltran
Dye
Damon
Randa
Rey Sanchez (when he was a near-All Star)
Suppan
Miguel Batista

I guarantee you would be frustrated seeing young All-Star players come into their own and THEN traded out from under you right when the team is a year or two away from being a legit contender. Or try being a Twins' fan and watching David Ortiz win the World Series.

Being a Twins fan has to be far worse. How many times have they found themselves only 1-2 players away from a possible trip to the WS but gone into the offseason looking to sign players off the scrap heap? And then to think of going to all those games in that butt-ugly dome...yuck.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 04:25 PM
Then you should live here in KC and support the Royals, or maybe the Twins.

KC has lost/traded/hasn't been able to resign:

Beltran
Dye
Damon
Randa
Rey Sanchez (when he was a near-All Star)
Suppan
Miguel Batista

I guarantee you would be frustrated seeing young All-Star players come into their own and THEN traded out from under you right when the team is a year or two away from being a legit contender. Or try being a Twins' fan and watching David Ortiz win the World Series.


Free Agency has pretty much killed the game.. Going into each season about 20 teams have no chance of winning the world series...

The Royals were amazing in the 70's and 80's with one of the best players in the history of the game

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:42 PM
Free Agency has pretty much killed the game.. Going into each season about 20 teams have no chance of winning the world series...

The Royals were amazing in the 70's and 80's with one of the best players in the history of the game


Which is why the NFL and college sports are doing so well right now.

Parity.

Although I do think it's closer to 12-15 teams now that could win it.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 05:41 PM
Free Agency has pretty much killed the game.. Going into each season about 20 teams have no chance of winning the world series...

The Royals were amazing in the 70's and 80's with one of the best players in the history of the game

That free agency has "killed" the game and competitive balance is one of the biggest myths in baseball.

From 1901 to 1968, 79% of pennants in the AL were won by 4 of the 8 teams (and the Yankees won 29 of them). In the NL, 4 of the 8 teams won 75% of the pennants. So half the teams were winning 3/4th of the championships.

From 1969 to 1980 (12 years), divisional play began but the reserve was still in place (true, free agency started in 1977 but it needed time to take effect). In that time frame, 8 of the 24 teams took 79% of the divisional titles. So what happened in the next 12 years (when free agency had been around long enough to start having an impact)?

All 12 NL teams finished first at least once.
11 of the 14 AL teams finished first at least once (and 2 of the other 3 would finish first in 1995).Now take a look at repeat finishers. From 1901 to 1968, 36% of titles were won by the team that won it the year before. From 1969 to 1980, it was also 36%. From 1981 to 1992, it was only 17%. In the 13 pennants since then, seven different teams have won it in the AL and 9 in the NL. And this even includes the dominating stretch of the Yankees.

Free agency ruining competition indeed...

TDog
01-06-2007, 06:02 PM
Free Agency has pretty much killed the game.. Going into each season about 20 teams have no chance of winning the world series...

The Royals were amazing in the 70's and 80's with one of the best players in the history of the game

The Royals had an amazing team in the era of free agency. In pre-free agency 1970, when there were 24 teams, the Royals didn't have a chance to win the world series. Close to 16 -- two thirds of the teams in major league baseball -- didn't have a chance to win the world series. Two-thirds of the AL West didn't have a chance, and the A's had only a slim chance to beat the Twins. The White Sox were the Royals of baseball. The Yankees might have had a chance to beat out the Orioles, but with only two divisions, they weren't going to the postseason. They finished 15 games out, and it didn't seem like it was that close. In the NL, the Reds won over 100 games, and no other team won 90. The NL East, was the only competitive race.

There were about a dozen years between the start of the amateur draft, which ended the Yankees' ownership of the American League, and the beginning of free agency, which didn't lead to an equivalent Yankees dynasty. Oddly enough, except for 1967, the small-money White Sox probably fell harder after the amateur draft than the Yankees did.

Baseball wasn't any more competitive before free agency. The rules are different now, but there were always more haves than have-nots in major league baseball.

TDog
01-06-2007, 06:09 PM
Which is why the NFL and college sports are doing so well right now.

Parity.

Although I do think it's closer to 12-15 teams now that could win it.

I don't watch football or college sports, but I find it hard to believe that people would rather watch a bunch of mediocre teams play for the championship.

Brian26
01-06-2007, 06:16 PM
I could be wrong but I don't think Smoltz was regarded as a #1 pitcher in the Detroit system so thats why he was traded for Larry Anderson

You're getting your trades mixed up.

Smoltz was traded for Doyle Alexander.

Larry Anderson was involved in the Jeff Bagwell deal.

Domeshot17
01-06-2007, 06:29 PM
Rockabilly

You have somewhat of a valid point, but you are approaching it all wrong. If the sox were not in a position the compete in tough but wide open AL Central, then yes, this is the perfect time to trade Buehlre after several teams lost out on Zito. However, we can compete, so you hold onto Buehlre and Dye now, then if/when they walk, you get your 2 draft picks for them.

If the sox are out of it by July, you trade Buehlre and CO then if resigning them doesnt look well. You have to decide if it is World Series or bust. Oakland could have gotten a kings ransom for 3 months of Zito at the deadline. However, they held on, made a run into the playoffs, lost him for the picks. They trade him, they don't make the playoffs. It is a matter of what is more important. That is up to Kenny.

I am curious to see how next year goes. If you let Dye walk, You are looking at possible OF of Pods Brian and Sweeney, none of which will hit over 18 home runs. I don't think you can have an OF with that little power when only 1 is a real burner. I think unless you get an Andruw Jones or trade for an OF who can hit 35-40 home runs a year, it will be hard to see Anderson and Sweeney in the same OF for very long. You can live with an OF with no power if he has the speed to lead off. However, its tough to have 2 OF with little power who won't steal many bases. Sweeney would possibly get a power surge. It will be fun, yet scary, to see how it all plays out.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 06:38 PM
You're getting your trades mixed up.

Smoltz was traded for Doyle Alexander.

Larry Anderson was involved in the Jeff Bagwell deal.


thanks I realized I made the mistake after I hit submit..

those two trades turn out so well for the Braves and Houston..

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 07:08 PM
Rockabilly

You have somewhat of a valid point, but you are approaching it all wrong. If the sox were not in a position the compete in tough but wide open AL Central, then yes, this is the perfect time to trade Buehlre after several teams lost out on Zito. However, we can compete, so you hold onto Buehlre and Dye now, then if/when they walk, you get your 2 draft picks for them.

If the sox are out of it by July, you trade Buehlre and CO then if resigning them doesnt look well. You have to decide if it is World Series or bust. Oakland could have gotten a kings ransom for 3 months of Zito at the deadline. However, they held on, made a run into the playoffs, lost him for the picks. They trade him, they don't make the playoffs. It is a matter of what is more important. That is up to Kenny.

I am curious to see how next year goes. If you let Dye walk, You are looking at possible OF of Pods Brian and Sweeney, none of which will hit over 18 home runs. I don't think you can have an OF with that little power when only 1 is a real burner. I think unless you get an Andruw Jones or trade for an OF who can hit 35-40 home runs a year, it will be hard to see Anderson and Sweeney in the same OF for very long. You can live with an OF with no power if he has the speed to lead off. However, its tough to have 2 OF with little power who won't steal many bases. Sweeney would possibly get a power surge. It will be fun, yet scary, to see how it all plays out.

Who is CO?

Potentially, we're looking at trading Buehrle, Crede, Dye and Vazquez at the deadline...which would be a worst (or best-case scenario) for those "long-range" planners who care more about 08/09/10 than 07.

I hope Sweeney will be closer to 20-24 homers than 18, but it's all conjecture. And Anderson should be good for 13-15. But we really need to replace Pods with some power and get a leadoff hitter from 2B/SS for 2008 if Pods doesn't improve.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 07:14 PM
Who is CO?

Potentially, we're looking at trading Buehrle, Crede, Dye and Vazquez at the deadline...which would be a worst (or best-case scenario) for those "long-range" planners who care more about 08/09/10 than 07.

I hope Sweeney will be closer to 20-24 homers than 18, but it's all conjecture. And Anderson should be good for 13-15. But we really need to replace Pods with some power and get a leadoff hitter from 2B/SS for 2008 if Pods doesn't improve.

If the Sox trade all four of those guys at the deadline, they better be 60 games out. And if they're 60 games out, Ozzie should be shot.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 07:19 PM
Well, Crede and Vazquez are under our control (if we so desire) for 2008.

But either Dye or Buehrle could go...although trading either one would be unpleasant for Sox fans. With our pitching prospects being mostly AA/AAA, we would be better served getting something of immediate impact in return instead of waiting on the draft picks.

That would at least keep us in contention for 08 with Garland, Contreras and Vazquez + (Danks/Haeger/Floyd/Gio/Broadway/Masset/McCullogh).

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 07:21 PM
So are you agreeing with me now about our future to get more young star players instead of losing Dye and MB..

Just joking

digdagdug23
01-06-2007, 09:18 PM
So are you agreeing with me now about our future to get more young star players instead of losing Dye and MB..

Just joking

Seriously, this IS a joke, right? I mean this whole thread..............

spiffie
01-07-2007, 10:06 PM
1) What first/second/third year players helped the White Sox win it all besides Jenks?

2) The fanbase would rebel and a .500 finish would put us ALMOST back to square one.

3) We had Ginter, D. Wright, Myette, Barcelo, Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, Rauch, Guerrier, Corwin Malone, Josh Fogg, Kip Wells and many other present/future "stud" pitchers on our roster in 2000/01. Where are they now?

There's no guarantees with young pitching. Maybe the Liriano/Bonser/Nathan deal made every fan think it's POSSIBLE.

Those M's teams had Beckett, Willis, Burnett, Dempster, Penny...that's a TON of pitching talent. You can't begin to compare the White Sox and Marlins.
The problem with listing the failed prospects of the late 90's/early 2000's regimes is that those are not the work of our current GM. It is both insulting to his work here that brought us our World Series title and shows a lack of consideration for the changes that he has brought to the organization. Yes, previous pitching prospects failed. But if Kenny Williams thinks that Gio, Danks, Floyd, Sisco, etc. are going to be high quality starting pitchers...well I'm inclined to believe him over the talk of someone on a message board.

caulfield12
01-07-2007, 11:47 PM
The problem with listing the failed prospects of the late 90's/early 2000's regimes is that those are not the work of our current GM. It is both insulting to his work here that brought us our World Series title and shows a lack of consideration for the changes that he has brought to the organization. Yes, previous pitching prospects failed. But if Kenny Williams thinks that Gio, Danks, Floyd, Sisco, etc. are going to be high quality starting pitchers...well I'm inclined to believe him over the talk of someone on a message board.


1) Williams was still a large part of the organization at that time, along with Evans.

2) The point is that we felt at that time we were positioned to dominate for the next decade...one Wells/Fogg trade later, we couldn't find a quality fifth starter for five years. It's great that we have replenished our pipeline, but we'll be very lucky to have 3 quality impact pitchers out of our current crop. It's just the way things work. KW has mentioned it before, you need around 3 quality prospects and you're hoping that 1 of the 3 makes it. This talk of the Atlanta Braves is very premature, as these same conversations happened 5-6 years ago when we Rauch, Malone and Borchard all looking like potential superstars in the making.

3) I have no idea what will happen 3 years from now. KW has a much better record of finding pitching talent from outside the organization than developing it internally. Until that changes, well, we only have his track record to go upon. We have had success with the likes of Takatsu, Loiaza, Contreras, Thornton, Jenks, Cotts, Marte and number of other gems that KW uncovered.
Cooper certainly has his work cut out for him this spring, there's no doubt about that.

Not only that, KW and Ozzie still have a lot of work to do to measure up to the Twins, because most of the young position prospects we've developed have come up woefully short in terms of being "small ball" or fundamentally-oriented players. Rowand, Crede and Anderson are not exactly Iguchi/Piranha clones, and we need our complementary players (BA, Sweeney, Anderson, Uribe, Pods) to be MUCH better in this area if we're to replicate 2005 again.

crazyozzie02
01-08-2007, 12:42 AM
So what? The Marlins could also lose 90 games in 2007. What would the Sox do with the sudden $80 million in freed up payroll anyway? Give it back to the fans? Slash ticket prices 50%? Free churros on weekdays?


I like it!!!! The Slogan could be "HEY EVEN IF WE LOSE....YOU STILL GET FREE CHURROS!!!" Every game would sell out and all teams would forfit the world series just so they could come to the games and get in on that action

ewokpelts
01-08-2007, 01:34 PM
The problem with listing the failed prospects of the late 90's/early 2000's regimes is that those are not the work of our current GM. It is both insulting to his work here that brought us our World Series title and shows a lack of consideration for the changes that he has brought to the organization. Yes, previous pitching prospects failed. But if Kenny Williams thinks that Gio, Danks, Floyd, Sisco, etc. are going to be high quality starting pitchers...well I'm inclined to believe him over the talk of someone on a message board.
David Wells
Todd Ritchie
Roberto Alomar(twice)
Carl Everett(twice, although 2005 redeemed trade #2)

spiffie
01-08-2007, 01:40 PM
David Wells
Todd Ritchie
Roberto Alomar(twice)
Carl Everett(twice, although 2005 redeemed trade #2)
David Wells got injured. And in both he and the Ritchie deals, its not like we really lost much. Sirotka never pitched again, Fogg and Wells were both mediocre at best. Alomar was a good acquisition that didn't quite pan out. And Everett was a major piece of our winning the 2005 title. So basically we traded away a couple mediocre pitchers and won a World Series is the net result of the trades you bring up to slander Kenny Williams. I'd say you didn't quite succeed.

champagne030
01-08-2007, 02:02 PM
David Wells got injured. And in both he and the Ritchie deals, its not like we really lost much. Sirotka never pitched again, Fogg and Wells were both mediocre at best. Alomar was a good acquisition that didn't quite pan out. And Everett was a major piece of our winning the 2005 title. So basically we traded away a couple mediocre pitchers and won a World Series is the net result of the trades you bring up to slander Kenny Williams. I'd say you didn't quite succeed.

I think the point of the post was to refute your claim that Kenny does make mistakes on any of his acquisitions.

Wells and Ritchie both sucked for the White Sox, so did Billy Koch and the bag of balls we got for Howry.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 02:04 PM
I think the point of the post was to refute your claim that Kenny does make mistakes on any of his acquisitions.

Wells and Ritchie both sucked for the White Sox, so did Billy Koch and the bag of balls we got for Howry.

Actually, Frank Francisco could have been one of the dominant relievers in baseball before he hurt himself and also threw the chair into the stands (in no particular order).

Arguably, he's the pitcher that COULD have had the biggest impact on the Sox had we kept him instead of trading him to the Rangers. But everything worked out okay in the end.

spiffie
01-08-2007, 02:34 PM
I think the point of the post was to refute your claim that Kenny does make mistakes on any of his acquisitions.

Wells and Ritchie both sucked for the White Sox, so did Billy Koch and the bag of balls we got for Howry.
Of course there will be prospects who do not pan out. But if Kenny Williams picks a group of guys to put his faith in, I feel that en masse, that group is going to turn out well. And we have a World Series title to speak to that. His credentials have a ring with them. What credentials do the nattering nabobs of negativity on the internet have? When any one of them can run a team better than him, let them send their resume to Mr. Reinsdorf. Until then, they can trust in their own flawed judgments, I will trust the architect of the 2005 World Series Champions.

champagne030
01-08-2007, 03:33 PM
Actually, Frank Francisco could have been one of the dominant relievers in baseball before he hurt himself and also threw the chair into the stands (in no particular order).

Arguably, he's the pitcher that COULD have had the biggest impact on the Sox had we kept him instead of trading him to the Rangers. But everything worked out okay in the end.

Yes, COULD have. The orginization would've first needed to give up the thought of trying to convert him back to a starter. He was a power arm that couldn't hit the side of a barn.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 05:47 PM
Of course there will be prospects who do not pan out. But if Kenny Williams picks a group of guys to put his faith in, I feel that en masse, that group is going to turn out well. And we have a World Series title to speak to that. His credentials have a ring with them. What credentials do the nattering nabobs of negativity on the internet have? When any one of them can run a team better than him, let them send their resume to Mr. Reinsdorf. Until then, they can trust in their own flawed judgments, I will trust the architect of the 2005 World Series Champions.


"nattering nabobs of negativity"

If I want to read that kind of cutesy writing, I'll just pick a George Will or William F. Buckley column, and it will be about politics, certainly not baseball.

Second, nobody said or implied they could run the team better than KW. However, just because we won one World Series doesn't make either Ozzie or KW or even JR infallible.

maurice
01-08-2007, 07:47 PM
1. KW will not trade Buehrle or Dye now, because he intends to win in 2007 and is not cutting payroll, contrary to Phil Rogers' fantasy scenarios.

2. KW probably will not trade Buehrle or Dye at the trade deadline, because it's extremely unlikely that the Sox will be out of contention at that time.

There is a 0% chance that KW intends to "white flag" the 2007 season at this juncture. Leaving aside his psychological inability to do so, KW's conduct thus far is inconsistent with the notion that he has given up and intends to cut salary in 2007. If he wanted to cut salary, he would have put Stewart on the 25-man roster in place of Hall, and he would have traded Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, or Vazquez in place of McCarthy.

The bottom line is that the Sox won 90 games in 2006. KW probably improved the bullpen, improved the backup catcher, and otherwise brought back essentially the same team with the exception of one new face in the starting rotation. At least one of the returning starting pitchers is likely to improve on his '06 performance. In the meanwhile, Minnesota lost 2 of their top 3 starting pitchers, and Detroit's kids and old guys arguably played above their heads in 2006. Thus, while the Sox could fall out of contention late in the season, there is no reason to expect that the Sox will be out of contention by the trade deadline, much less before they play a single Spring Training game.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 10:04 PM
It's an interesting question. Theoretically, KW would seem to have more freedom to make "controversial" trades (since there's not that desperation to win a WS), but trading any of our regulars before the deadline would bring inevitable comparisons to 2002 (not much to show for these deals) and 1997.

However, the irony is that there's never been more pressure to 'win now' for the White Sox with the limited time window on the current team and the unique competitive situation vis a vis the Cubs. He's already hedging his bets a bit, but he hasn't done anything yet to fundamentally diminish the ability of this year's team to compete.

Arguably, we're a more versatile team (bench and bullpen), we've gotten a little younger and we still have roughly the same payroll as last year, which might even be a slight decrease if you factor in 3.5% inflation expectations.

As mentioned, the Hall deal would seem to run counter to those who claim we're cheap...I think we have one of the most expensive benches and rotations, still. Where we're "cheap" is our bullpen, largely because Jenks, Thornton and MacDougal are still cost-controlled.

champagne030
01-08-2007, 11:10 PM
Arguably, we're a more versatile team (bench and bullpen), we've gotten a little younger and we still have roughly the same payroll as last year, which might even be a slight decrease if you factor in 3.5% inflation expectations.

If you consider that losing Gload from the bench makes us more versatile, sure, we are. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Sisco deal, but it's the same bench (plus Hall). We still do not have a 4th OF and are hoping that a lot of plus arms add up to a better BP. And you need to consider that ticket price increases, alone, have raised revenue by at least $10M.

As mentioned, the Hall deal would seem to run counter to those who claim we're cheap...I think we have one of the most expensive benches and rotations, still. Where we're "cheap" is our bullpen, largely because Jenks, Thornton and MacDougal are still cost-controlled.

I do not think we are 'going cheap'. KW, IMO, is stocking the pitching depth so that we're not completely out of options when MB, JG and JV will probably command more than he is willing to spend. KW could very well be holding the cash to make a run at these guys or locking up Crede, Dye, ect. He'll make an attempt to sign most of these guys, but will it be anything close to retain them?

thedudeabides
01-08-2007, 11:32 PM
I do not think we are 'going cheap'. KW, IMO, is stocking the pitching depth so that we're not completely out of options when MB, JG and JV will probably command more than he is willing to spend. KW could very well be holding the cash to make a run at these guys or locking up Crede, Dye, ect. He'll make an attempt to sign most of these guys, but will it be anything close to retain them?[/quote]

I agree he will take a run at signing his players. If he doesn't get them he tried and will sign others. But, he has a backup plan. Will it work? Who knows. At least theres something there. I think he has a free pass for a while. He has brought us something we haven't had for a long time. The decisions he made to get there were a gamble. If what their doing is a gamble now...I'm on board.

areilly
01-08-2007, 11:49 PM
There is a 0% chance that KW intends to "white flag" the 2007 season at this juncture. Leaving aside his psychological inability to do so, KW's conduct thus far is inconsistent with the notion that he has given up and intends to cut salary in 2007. If he wanted to cut salary, he would have put Stewart on the 25-man roster in place of Hall, and he would have traded Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, or Vazquez in place of McCarthy.



He almost did just that. Twice, in fact.

ewokpelts
01-09-2007, 02:17 AM
I think the point of the post was to refute your claim that Kenny does make mistakes on any of his acquisitions.

Wells and Ritchie both sucked for the White Sox, so did Billy Koch and the bag of balls we got for Howry.i forgot about the Koch. A triumph of Billy Beane over professor chaos.

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 09:46 AM
i forgot about the Koch. A triumph of Billy Beane over professor chaos.


However, we won the World Series with Neal Cotts' help, especially Game 2 I think it was...and we wouldn't have kept Foulke, so it all worked out in the end. Although still not a good trade, because we should have won in 2003 (if we had used Gordon all season long as closer).

Or had a 5th starter. Or beaten Detroit. Or had a legitimate manager?

maurice
01-09-2007, 12:48 PM
If he wanted to cut salary, . . . he would have traded Garland, Buehrle, Contreras, or Vazquez in place of McCarthy.

He almost did just that. Twice, in fact.

No, he didn't. He discussed trading Garland to Houston but instead decided to send Garcia to the Phils, which forced Houston to look elsewhere. Texas offered their package for Garland, but KW turned it down and agreed to substitute the substantially cheaper McCarthy in his place. Any team dumping payroll and looking to 2008 and beyond would have kept McCarthy and dumped Garland (or Buehrle or Contreras or Vazquez) instead.

maurice
01-09-2007, 12:55 PM
Although still not a good trade, because we should have won in 2003 (if we had used Gordon all season long as closer).
Or had a 5th starter. Or beaten Detroit. Or had a legitimate manager?

Or had a 1B who produced better than .234 AVE, .305 OBP, .399 SLG, 18 HR, 65 RBI, 49 R, 28 GiDP in return for his $8 mil. salary.

Or had ANY infielder who could get on base.

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 01:59 PM
You weren't enamored with the Harris/Alomar situation at 2B, or Royce Clayton? Or Mark Johnson? C'mon, what's wrong with you?

Actually, after Steve Sax, Alomar was my second LEAST favorite White Sox player...well, throw in Albert Belle and Cory Snyder in there as well.

soxtalker
01-09-2007, 02:07 PM
i forgot about the Koch. A triumph of Billy Beane over professor chaos.

Well, I think it may be a bit more complicated than simply one GM outsmarting the other. News (http://www.ktvu.com/news/9264350/detail.html) came out last year that Koch and his family had Morgellons (http://www.morgellons.com/) disease. The strange symptoms (neurological, fibers growing out of the skin, etc.) have been reported for hundreds of years, but it is only this past year that the CDC initiated a study to determine what it is. It is quite likely that neither Beane nor KW (nor team doctors) thought that he had a long-term illness, which could dramatically degrade his performance.