PDA

View Full Version : P.Rogers grinding his axe again with KW


caulfield12
01-13-2007, 10:52 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070113rogers,1,66953.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

This is getting to be like a broken record. Enough already.
We get it Phil.

Seriously, lauding the Red Sox for their acquisitions while letting Gonzalez and Loretta go, signing JD Drew (that's a GOOD move, how/why Phil?) and the gamble of the decade in Dice-K...well, I guess anything that means spending oodles of money is good.

Juice16
01-13-2007, 11:11 PM
Unfortunately I agree with him.

FedEx227
01-13-2007, 11:16 PM
How so?

The Red Sox had a terrible offseason in my opinion. They overpaid for the 78 game a year JD Drew, took a HUGE risk in Dice-K and let two of their more solid, cheaper players go.

Chisox003
01-13-2007, 11:34 PM
The "writers" at the Tribune must get paid for redundancy. It's just the same garbage over, and over, and over, and over. We get it guys, you don't agree with the moves made by Williams this offseason. Good Lord. :rolleyes:

caulfield12
01-13-2007, 11:38 PM
Unfortunately I agree with him.


About the White Sox or the Red Sox?

How many felt we were an improved team heading into 2005 without Lee, Ordonez, Valentin and Thomas' health in question?

That worked out okay. And everyone was sure KW made some great moves last offseason, with the possible exception of the Vazquez deal.

oeo
01-13-2007, 11:42 PM
About the White Sox or the Red Sox?

How many felt we were an improved team heading into 2005 without Lee, Ordonez, Valentin and Thomas' health in question?

That worked out okay. And everyone was sure KW made some great moves last offseason, with the possible exception of the Vazquez deal.

This is just Phil Rogers hoping he can say, "I told you so," if things don't work out. I hope he's prepared to eat his crow, if/when they do.

ondafarm
01-13-2007, 11:46 PM
I don't think the Red Sox are going anywhere near the playoffs in 2007. All three of the lesser teams in the AL East have improved and the Yankee$ have also improved so the Red Sox would seem to have their hands full.

The White Sox have improved considerably and I'm picking them for the World Series. The Tigers will be down, the Twins will have trouble, Cleveland may make a run.

The A's will stink up the west. The Rangers have lost their lead-off man, but still have a lot of offense. The Angels would seem to be a year away, the Mariners probably more than that, if ever.

Rogers knows diddly.

Yankee$-White Sox and Rangers. Cleveland as WC. Sox win the pennant.

Domeshot17
01-14-2007, 12:20 AM
I would say Boston is very much like us. They might be better on paper, but a lot of it is gamble (much like we have run our offseason). Their rotaton has a lot of potential with Schilling Beckett Dice-K Paplebon Wakefield and Lester. The offense is good, and if Piniero can close, they will be there. May miss the post season, but 88 wins plus.

chisoxmike
01-14-2007, 01:14 AM
I really don't understand how the Tigers "improved" their club by adding a roider that has a clubhouse problem.:?:

beck72
01-14-2007, 05:56 AM
How Rogers missed the Sox upgrading their bullpen this offseason [losing Cotts and gaining Aardsma, Masset, Sisco, not to mention Floyd if Haeger starts] shows how out of touch he is. Rogers gives points to Cle. for getting has-beens like Borowski, et al. But not the sox younger, solid arms?! give me a break.

You can expect it from a national writer who doesn't pay attention to the smaller trades. But not someone from Chicago.

southside rocks
01-14-2007, 07:35 AM
How Rogers missed the Sox upgrading their bullpen this offseason [losing Cotts and gaining Aardsma, Masset, Sisco, not to mention Floyd if Haeger starts] shows how out of touch he is. Rogers gives points to Cle. for getting has-beens like Borowski, et al. But not the sox younger, solid arms?! give me a break.

You can expect it from a national writer who doesn't pay attention to the smaller trades. But not someone from Chicago.

No, by now you also expect it from Phil Rogers.

Phil has two criteria he applies to baseball players: salary and All-Star appearances. Any player who isn't pulling down at least $10 million a year and hasn't been on the AS team at least once is a nonentity to Phil.

Sure, he could look up things like scouting reports and stats of past seasons, but come on -- you want the guy to work for his salary? By his own admission, he likes to sit in the pressbox and check the price of his Tribune stock, so I hardly think he's going to stop writing the silly puffery that his bosses expect and publish.

Why even buy or read the Tribune? Phil's stock price increases aren't through any of my support, thank goodness.

Domeshot17
01-14-2007, 07:47 AM
No, by now you also expect it from Phil Rogers.

Phil has two criteria he applies to baseball players: salary and All-Star appearances. Any player who isn't pulling down at least $10 million a year and hasn't been on the AS team at least once is a nonentity to Phil.

Sure, he could look up things like scouting reports and stats of past seasons, but come on -- you want the guy to work for his salary? By his own admission, he likes to sit in the pressbox and check the price of his Tribune stock, so I hardly think he's going to stop writing the silly puffery that his bosses expect and publish.

Why even buy or read the Tribune? Phil's stock price increases aren't through any of my support, thank goodness.


Its funny in a way. I wonder if Rogers was taking some heat from the Trib. IF you were to ask any Sox Fan who the best Trib writer for Sox Baseball is 4 months ago, 90% would say Rogers. He wrote a book on the Sox magical world series run, and seemed to really know his stuff when breaking down what made the Sox win, and lose.

I know he is upset. I have a feeling he is a Sox Fan, and is reacting much like a lot of us are. He is VERY upset by the notions of Kenny letting Buehlre and Garland walk. He is unhappy that Kenny let the main core of talented RP go and "shored" up the bullpen with kids with high cielings and no results to date. I wonder if he thinks if he can piss off enough Fans, a little heat will be put on Kenny to tie up some of these guys. Im sure Kenny hasn't read one article, but if the sox start out 40 games into the season in 3rd place, scrapping to be .500, people will start to question Kenny.

I don't agree with what he is writing, but in a way I do understand it. The Sox are in a positon to contend, and have gone a route that looks like rebuilding.

soxtalker
01-14-2007, 08:51 AM
Nice article. I can't agree with those who say it is merely redundant (though that could be expected during a lull period in the off season). Yes, Phil has made his views on the Sox winter moves known before, and there have been bits and pieces about the other teams. But I don't recall a similar round up of the competition in the AL.

caulfield12
01-14-2007, 09:33 AM
Its funny in a way. I wonder if Rogers was taking some heat from the Trib. IF you were to ask any Sox Fan who the best Trib writer for Sox Baseball is 4 months ago, 90% would say Rogers. He wrote a book on the Sox magical world series run, and seemed to really know his stuff when breaking down what made the Sox win, and lose.

I know he is upset. I have a feeling he is a Sox Fan, and is reacting much like a lot of us are. He is VERY upset by the notions of Kenny letting Buehlre and Garland walk. He is unhappy that Kenny let the main core of talented RP go and "shored" up the bullpen with kids with high cielings and no results to date. I wonder if he thinks if he can piss off enough Fans, a little heat will be put on Kenny to tie up some of these guys. Im sure Kenny hasn't read one article, but if the sox start out 40 games into the season in 3rd place, scrapping to be .500, people will start to question Kenny.

I don't agree with what he is writing, but in a way I do understand it. The Sox are in a positon to contend, and have gone a route that looks like rebuilding.


I didn't see anyone crying about Marte and Vizcaino when those moves were made. Cotts, Politte, Takatsu and Hermanson...they eliminated themselves.

He has brought in Aardsma, Sisco, Masset, Floyd, Vasquez, Gio...this new kid from Texas. I can't see how he (Rogers) doesn't realize that we had a ton of candidates for loogy last year (about 12-13) but none of them were quality. At least these guys have some talent and ability. We also have Haeger and Broadway. That's not half bad.

I'm surprised he didn't predict CLE and Baltimore to win their divisions with all the "high quality" veteran relievers they added.

caulfield12
01-14-2007, 09:35 AM
No, by now you also expect it from Phil Rogers.

Phil has two criteria he applies to baseball players: salary and All-Star appearances. Any player who isn't pulling down at least $10 million a year and hasn't been on the AS team at least once is a nonentity to Phil.

Sure, he could look up things like scouting reports and stats of past seasons, but come on -- you want the guy to work for his salary? By his own admission, he likes to sit in the pressbox and check the price of his Tribune stock, so I hardly think he's going to stop writing the silly puffery that his bosses expect and publish.

Why even buy or read the Tribune? Phil's stock price increases aren't through any of my support, thank goodness.

When Manuel was under fire 3 years ago, I exchanged e-mails with him "hyping" Backman as the new manager and he seemed at the time to be pushing him, so that showed a little bit of investigation into the Sox system at the time.

JRIG
01-14-2007, 10:31 AM
Phil should be happy. We have 4 starters returning who each had 180 innings of work last year.

That was his criteria for success a few years ago....still one of the stupidest articles of baseball analysis I have ever read.

ondafarm
01-14-2007, 11:20 AM
Phil should be happy. We have 4 starters returning who each had 180 innings of work last year.

That was his criteria for success a few years ago....still one of the stupidest articles of baseball analysis I have ever read.

Well said.

Daver
01-14-2007, 11:20 AM
Sure, he could look up things like scouting reports and stats of past seasons, but come on -- you want the guy to work for his salary? By his own admission, he likes to sit in the pressbox and check the price of his Tribune stock, so I hardly think he's going to stop writing the silly puffery that his bosses expect and publish.


You really should know what the hell you are talking about when you make statements like this, so that you don't look like an idiot when you get corrected. Phil writes for Baseball America, and writes the top ten prospect list for them for the White Sox, I guarantee no writer in Chicago knows more about minor league players than Phil.

Disagree with his opinion all you want, I do, but don't accuse him of lack of research or preparation.

southside rocks
01-14-2007, 11:35 AM
You really should know what the hell you are talking about when you make statements like this, so that you don't look like an idiot when you get corrected. Phil writes for Baseball America, and writes the top ten prospect list for them for the White Sox, I guarantee no writer in Chicago knows more about minor league players than Phil.

Disagree with his opinion all you want, I do, but don't accuse him of lack of research or preparation.

You're right, that was a flip comment on my part.

I disagree with the conclusions that he reached from whatever research he has done, and his recent columns read to me like they're based more on reaction than on reason.

champagne030
01-14-2007, 11:39 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070113rogers,1,66953.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

This is getting to be like a broken record. Enough already.
We get it Phil.

Seriously, lauding the Red Sox for their acquisitions while letting Gonzalez and Loretta go, signing JD Drew (that's a GOOD move, how/why Phil?) and the gamble of the decade in Dice-K...well, I guess anything that means spending oodles of money is good.

I didn't see Phil call any of the moves "good". He stated 3 teams have "clearly improved themselves on paper". Money was never in the criteria. Sure, Drew is being way overpaid, but he is a clear upgrade over Nixon. IMO, they paid way, way too much for Daisuke, but he is a better gamble than what they had.

I really don't have a beef with what was written. Sure, maybe he could have said that we have more quality arms to improve the bullpen (Aardsma, Sisco, Masset), but the 4-6 spots are a complete roll of the dice. The three guys I mentioned have been acquired this offseason and have better arms than who they are replacing, but that doesn't mean they're going to be any better. The other acquisitions are not going to be in our pen this season. Floyd was also acquired, but doesn't have the stuff of our other acquisitions and if he's in the 'pen that's because Aardsma and Masset have fallen on their faces in ST.

Hitmen77
01-14-2007, 12:02 PM
while making no significant additions at the three spots where they had second-division production—left field, center field and shortstop—

The question I have is - who does Phil suggest the Sox should have acquired to fill these holes? In center, since the Sox haven't given up on Anderson after one whole season, I don't think it's realistic that KW would trade talent to get another CF who is a good fielder and a good hitter at this point instead of stocking up on pitchers.

At SS, the problem is that good fielding, good hitting SS aren't exactly a dime a dozen. Alot of us (myself included) were dreaming of Michael Young - but it's not like Texas was going to give an all-star SS away for nothing. I'm not happy with Uribe's performance last year, but his glove would be hard to replace.

LF is actually the one position of the 3 mentioned by Rogers where the Sox had some realistic options to upgrade from Pods. But then again, who? - and remember you'd also need a new leadoff hitter if Pods goes. Soriano would have been a definite upgrade. But, does anyone around here want the Sox to handcuff them selves to a 8 year/$136 million contract for one 31 year old player? Pierre? He's really not that much better than Pods? Matthews, Jr? Should we sink a ton of money into a player coming off of a career year?

I'm not saying I'm worry-free about KW's moves. But it's easy to just say he should have filled holes at CF and SS as if good fielding, good hitting SS and CFs grow on trees.

As someone else mentioned, he ignored the fact that KW has shored up one of our big weak spots from '06 - the bullpen. I think bullpen will be much improved over 06 - however, as many have pointed out here in the past, the bullpen is such a crapshoot that it's hard to predict how well they will do.

I'm not saying I'm totally sold on the trades KW made, but I'm not sure how I would have done better. Remember the Sox payroll will still be among the top in the league (if I'm not mistaken) for '07.

The two areas that I'm most concerned about is
1) 5th starter. I think Floyd is a huge question mark. I know that KW doesn't just scout based on stats - and he's right - but I have to admit that Floyd's stats look very unimpressive. Haegar might be a pleasant surprise for us this year - we'll see

2) 4th OF who is passable at CF. Maybe there really isn't someone available, but I would be more at ease with BA if the Sox had a 4th OF who could be passable in CF if Anderson totally melts down.

In the end, like I've said many times, the key to '07 will be the same as it was in '06 - Buehrle and Contreras getting back on track. If they had pitched well throughout '06, we would have been in the playoffs. I think the same will hold true in '07.

caulfield12
01-14-2007, 12:13 PM
The Giants essentially found themselves with this dilemma vis a vis Barry Bonds.

Soriano and Carlos Lee were quickly gobbled up for ridiculous contracts. Second-tier candidates like Pierre, Roberts and GM JR were getting $8-12 million per season for ridiculous years, like 5 with GM JR.

While you could argue they could have found a rookie or unproven player, Pods' (and speed he possesses still) was just as important in the equation of returning to 2005, not to mention his "bargain basement" contract.

Pods didn't have great numbers in 2005, but he made a huge difference in the mindset and mentality of this team. You can't put a number on that.

And having a Sweeney or Fields and providing them an opportunity to play at "no cost" is better than any of the five options mentioned above.

ondafarm
01-14-2007, 12:59 PM
I do take issue with a lot of what Phil Rogers has written here.

The Red Sox took a couple of big time gambles with Daisuke and JD Drew. To afford it, they let two productive veterans walk. This will cost them.

The Tigers had a miracle year last year. They are going to encounter far more difficulties in 2007 and they added a clubhouse cancer.

The Yankee$ did solidify their rotation. They will be a solid team.

The White Sox solidified their bullpen, their one big weakness last year. They added power arms, who were poorly used. Poor stats, sure, but able to do well.

If Rogers doesn't recognize all this, the question is: Why does he cover the White Sox or professional baseball at all?

nedlug
01-14-2007, 01:18 PM
The question I have is...

Hear, hear.

champagne030
01-14-2007, 01:22 PM
I do take issue with a lot of what Phil Rogers has written here.

The Red Sox took a couple of big time gambles with Daisuke and JD Drew. To afford it, they let two productive veterans walk. This will cost them.

The Tigers had a miracle year last year. They are going to encounter far more difficulties in 2007 and they added a clubhouse cancer.

The Yankee$ did solidify their rotation. They will be a solid team.

The White Sox solidified their bullpen, their one big weakness last year. They added power arms, who were poorly used. Poor stats, sure, but able to do well.

If Rogers doesn't recognize all this, the question is: Why does he cover the White Sox or professional baseball at all?

How were Sisco, Masset and Aardsma (the power arms they've acquired) poorly used?

caulfield12
01-14-2007, 01:26 PM
I guess there's the intimation that they were not utilized properly by their team, especially the Cubs with Aardsma.

Sisco started out as co-lefty with Affeldt and was totally lost at the end of the season. If he wasn't so young and a lefty with a power arm, he would have been released. The Royals just gave up on him.

I didn't see much of Masset with the Rangers. Their bullpen was a mess last year with Cordero, although Otsuka solidified it, he had his struggles as well.

ondafarm
01-14-2007, 02:40 PM
How were Sisco, Masset and Aardsma (the power arms they've acquired) poorly used?

Poor teams typically have no more manpower in the bullpen, normally six or at most seven men, than better teams. And yet their bullpens typicaly do half again as much work.

Far and away the most difficult outing for a relief pitcher is when you are out their alone. As in, it's the third inning, the starter has just blown up and your manager calls on you to " get us into the seventh kid." Sisco, Masset and Aardsma all had multiple outings like that. That's missuse of good quality arms.

caulfield12
01-14-2007, 03:05 PM
Poor teams typically have no more manpower in the bullpen, normally six or at most seven men, than better teams. And yet their bullpens typicaly do half again as much work.

Far and away the most difficult outing for a relief pitcher is when you are out their alone. As in, it's the third inning, the starter has just blown up and your manager calls on you to " get us into the seventh kid." Sisco, Masset and Aardsma all had multiple outings like that. That's missuse of good quality arms.


Sisco pitched 2 or more innings 7 times this season. However, he never pitched 3 or more and usually it was exactly 2.

However, you'll notice his ERA before they started using him in this "mop up" role was stratospheric.

They probably should have exiled him to Omaha in the first two months of the season instead of letting him continue to struggle (see White Sox with Cotts).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=6177

champagne030
01-14-2007, 03:08 PM
Poor teams typically have no more manpower in the bullpen, normally six or at most seven men, than better teams. And yet their bullpens typicaly do half again as much work.

Far and away the most difficult outing for a relief pitcher is when you are out their alone. As in, it's the third inning, the starter has just blown up and your manager calls on you to " get us into the seventh kid." Sisco, Masset and Aardsma all had multiple outings like that. That's missuse of good quality arms.

That's a nice theory, but Sisco and Masset were never used in that situation and Aardsma might have been put in that situation twice.

FedEx227
01-14-2007, 03:48 PM
That's a nice theory, but Sisco and Masset were never used in that situation and Aardsma might have been put in that situation twice.

Sisco was also mishandled similar to Burgos (their other bullpen failure) in that their release points were off all season and the Royals seemed to do nothing to fix that fact. That's why the Mets are ecstatic to have Burgos at the back end of their pen, as like us, they feel they can fix small problems in power armed pitchers.

champagne030
01-14-2007, 04:19 PM
Sisco was also mishandled similar to Burgos (their other bullpen failure) in that their release points were off all season and the Royals seemed to do nothing to fix that fact. That's why the Mets are ecstatic to have Burgos at the back end of their pen, as like us, they feel they can fix small problems in power armed pitchers.

That's bad mechanics, not misuse. I think Sisco has more problems than a release point. His body is all over the place. It's a pretty big deal to 'tighten' up his delivery, IMO. He's got serious potential, but they need to totally breakdown his delivery, IMO. He's not Thornton, where you just shorten his stride or move him to one side of the mound. I think Coop can fix him, but it's going to take some work/time. Hopefully a lot of that will happen in ST.

FedEx227
01-14-2007, 04:26 PM
That's bad mechanics, not misuse. I think Sisco has more problems than a release point. His body is all over the place. It's a pretty big deal to 'tighten' up his delivery, IMO. He's got serious potential, but they need to totally breakdown his delivery, IMO. He's not Thornton, where you just shorten his stride or move him to one side of the mound. I think Coop can fix him, but it's going to take some work/time. Hopefully a lot of that will happen in ST.

In my mind bad mechanics are a staple of the franchise itself, 2 years in the organization and nobody said "Hey Andy, shorten it up a bit, keep your body tight". Let's not forget he's a former Cubs hand and they love to not fix a damn thing.

I don't see how can you blame a guy for that? He doesn't decide if he gets called up or moved to another level. If anybody in the organization had a mind they'd attempt to fix him, all they did was kept putting him out to the lions. Why promote a guy to the majors if he obviously has bad mechanics?

SOXSINCE'70
01-14-2007, 04:28 PM
Somday,maybe in our life time,the Webster's
dictionary will print the following defintion of
the word *******:

see, Rogers,P., the entire Chicago Tribune,Mariotti,J.,
Sleaze Hack,C. and Cowley,J.

champagne030
01-14-2007, 04:53 PM
Somday,maybe in our life time,the Webster's
dictionary will print the following defintion of
the word *******:

see, Rogers,P., the entire Chicago Tribune,Mariotti,J.,
Sleaze Hack,C. and Cowley,J.

:rolleyes:

He has no axe to grind with the Sox. Disagree with his opinion, but "*******". That's silly.

dwalteroo
01-15-2007, 01:00 AM
I'm not saying I'm totally sold on the trades KW made, but I'm not sure how I would have done better.

This is the brick wall I keep running into whenever I try to argue against what KW has done this off-season. I'm not totally with him, but I get it, I can appreciate it, and I see the logic.

Great post, all around.

jandm859
01-15-2007, 09:15 AM
unfortunately, he's 100% corect. We have done absolutely nothing to improve the team for 2007. How do they expect anyone to spend money on this team this year when they didn't even want to?

itsnotrequired
01-15-2007, 09:43 AM
unfortunately, he's 100% corect. We have done absolutely nothing to improve the team for 2007. How do they expect anyone to spend money on this team this year when they didn't even want to?

I re-upped my season tickets.

spiffie
01-15-2007, 09:45 AM
unfortunately, he's 100% corect. We have done absolutely nothing to improve the team for 2007. How do they expect anyone to spend money on this team this year when they didn't even want to?
You're right. I can't believe what they did to this team! I mean they took a 90-win team from last year, gutted it, and cut payroll in half!!!

What? They did none of those things? They solidified their farm system while still keeping the core of a team that won 90 games while half the team drastically underacheived their career norms? Yeah, that Kenny Williams, he sure did throw in the towel on this year.

Wait a minute...."jandm"....J and M....are you actually Jay Mariotti? That would explain this post perfectly.

infohawk
01-15-2007, 10:59 AM
Sure, he could look up things like scouting reports and stats of past seasons, but come on -- you want the guy to work for his salary?
This kind of sums it up. Too many sportswriters put story, praise and criticism ahead of legitimate performance and roster construction analysis. As much as Baseball Prospectus gets criticized around here, at least they make an effort at dispassionate analysis. Their statistical stuff is good, but in my opinion they get into trouble when they try to make predictions.

Sportswriters, at least the Chicago species, limit their analysis to a few basic factors: 1) a player's "reputation;" 2) a player's perceived worth (not value); 3) a player's service time (preferring veterans over less experienced players); 4) team payroll; and 5) the number of veteran players a team acquires via trade or free agency.

Take Phil for example, and let the record show that I do like him, I'm just a little frustrated with his columns as of late. Phil looks at the Sox and sees that they traded away Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy. He also probably believes the Sox came up short last year in part because of the performances out of Podsednik, Anderson and Uribe. I'm sure Phil also recognizes that the pitching staff underperformed, but he seemed willing to run the same rotation out there for 2007 anyway. He also knows the bullpen was terrible.

These are all fair assessments, but begin with the premise that performance is static and that the previous year will most definitely carry over. There's no consideration of the possibility that 2006 saw some regression among several key players who might outperform those numbers in 2007. Podsednik could very well outperform his 2006 offensive numbers, including steals. Anderson will have had a full year of seeing major league pitching under his belt. Uribe's defense is instrumental to how the Sox try to win. It would be great if he hits, but it's not necessary. The Sox didn't lose because of their offense last year anyway. They lost because of their pitching, principally out of the bullpen. That bullpen has been completely rebuilt since the beginning of the second half of last season.

Freddy Garcia has been a workhorse starter, and started losing some velocity. He also cannot hold runners. It's poor analysis to argue that he was a good pitcher because he won 17 games, considering the offense scored a ton of runs for him. An aging pitcher losing velocity should not be signed to a multi-year deal at the present going rate for pitchers. Period. If you wait too long to trade such a commodity, you'll literally end up getting back a bag of balls. McCarthy would have likely been an effective starter for the Sox, but getting two good pitchers for him, including one who is likely just as good albeit with less experience, is a shrewd move. Here's were the concept of value comes into play.

If Gavin Floyd, Charlie Haeger or John Danks -- whomever starts -- have an ERA at or around Jason Marquis or Ted Lilly next year at a fraction of the cost, who made the best move? That's a no-brainer and it could very well happen.

2006 should have been a prime example that you can't determine a team's likelihood of success by just looking at the roster, money spent and moves made during the offseason. Obviously there has to be a certain talent level, but you can put a bunch of All-Stars on the field and see a few of them underperform. The Sox underperformed in 2006, still won 90 games and yet came in third. The lessons of 2005 are still not understood by the Chicago sports media, who probably still think the White Sox won because they played "small ball."

Corlose 15
01-15-2007, 11:09 AM
Also, something that I think people need to keep in mind about the 5th starter problem is how effective that spot in the rotation really was in 2005.

El Duque was 9-9 with a 5.12 ERA and McCarthy was 3-2 with a 4.03 ERA. Now McCarthy was very good in september but those are hardly dominating numbers out of the 5th starter spot.

The Sox were successful in '05 mostly because they had a good front four and a lights out bullpen.

They still have a good front four and have the POTENTIAL for a lights out bullpen with six very talented arms.

caulfield12
01-15-2007, 11:29 AM
Still, I don't think we could have won without Brandon and Contreras holding down the fort the last six weeks of that season...

Oh, well, the past is the past.

bryPt
01-15-2007, 12:08 PM
Who knows more about baseball? Kenny "I won a frickin World Series in Chicago" Williams or Phil "Always looking out for my 401k" Rogers.

I think we all know the answer.

I actually respect the National Enquirer more than the Cubune. The Enquirer has more journalistic integrity than the Chicago Cubune has now a days. Proof is in the pudding ( http://www.cjr.org/issues/2007/1/editorial.asp ).

To question what Kenny is doing, or not doing, is flipping nuts. The guy brings a WORLD SERIES CHAMPION to the city and is as passionate about turning Chicago into a Sox town like no other GM to ever step foot in the Windy City, and he is questioned by the Cubune. The guy has more balls than any other GM this town has ever seen. But that is ABSOLUTELY unexceptable if you are a stock holder in the Cubune and it's double A ballclub and it's single A ballpark. Why would anyone on the Cubune payroll give any props to the Chicago White Sox? This would directly effect their pocketbook! I mean, if I owned a Pizza place in my neighborhood and there was another one across the street, would I sit there and put ads for the other place in my window? So why would anyone expect the Cubune to do anything nice about their direct competitor when it may jepardize their early retirement to Arizona?

The Chicago Cubune and all their "journalists" are the laughing stock in news and reporting circles in this country, and it ain't gonna be changin any time soon.

goon
01-15-2007, 12:08 PM
i see a lot of people talking about nothing on the sox was "fixed"... nothing was fixed? what exactly was broken again?


probably the biggest problem last year was the bullpen and it's true kenny didn't make any moves for "proven" veterans. yet, they now have a pool of real young talent (unlike the lefty debacle in spring training last year) with thornton, macdougal and jenks anchoring the back end of the pen.

essentially the same starting pitchers are coming back with exception to one spot, a crew that completely underachieved last year. it's funny how according to phil that detroit has the best pitching in the AL... well coming into the 2006 the white sox were supposed to have the best pitching, tell me how that worked out.

as far as the lineup, it would have been great for KW to make a move for a LF or a SS, but it's not like this still can't happen. there were three weak spots last year, the uribe-anderson-pods portion of the lineup and uribe probably had the worst offensive season of his career, same with pods and anderson was a rookie. i really doubt they will all be as awful as they were last season.

the sox won 90 games last year, there wasn't really all that much to fix, the only things i wanted to see this season was a trade for a new leadoff hitter (hasn't happened), better arms in the bullpen and to mix better talent into the farm system.

jandm859
01-15-2007, 12:13 PM
You're right. I can't believe what they did to this team! I mean they took a 90-win team from last year, gutted it, and cut payroll in half!!!

What? They did none of those things? They solidified their farm system while still keeping the core of a team that won 90 games while half the team drastically underacheived their career norms? Yeah, that Kenny Williams, he sure did throw in the towel on this year.

Wait a minute...."jandm"....J and M....are you actually Jay Mariotti? That would explain this post perfectly.


dont quite understand, does this mean you believe they improved the team for 2007? if so, please tell us how they did it?

spiffie
01-15-2007, 12:22 PM
dont quite understand, does this mean you believe they improved the team for 2007? if so, please tell us how they did it?
As many other posters here have pointed out the biggest flaw in the team last year was the bullpen. With the midseason acquisition of MacDougal, the subtraction of spent arms like Cotts, Politte, Riske, and Hermanson, and the creation of a pool of strong live young arms to fill the pen with the likelihood of improvement in the pen's performance from last year has to be high.

As for the rest...this team won 90 games last year. If even just 2 out of the five guys from the group of Podsednik, Anderson, Uribe, Buehrle, Contreras play even close to what we know they are capable of, combined with the improved pen, there's no reason to believe this team can't win at least 95 to 100 games.

But oh yeah, they didn't sign any big free agents or jack the payroll up $30 million, I guess that must mean they didn't improve.

rdwj
01-15-2007, 12:29 PM
dont quite understand, does this mean you believe they improved the team for 2007? if so, please tell us how they did it?

Bullpen arms - simple

Domeshot17
01-15-2007, 12:33 PM
The bullpen is still a monster question mark. It had a chance to be really good, or has a chance to have 3 guys holding down the entire thing again. We all hope Thorton and Mac keep it up, Jenks holds together for an entire season, and some of the kids fill in as needed. It could work out really well, or blow up in our face. To be honest, I don't feel safe in any of the kids but Massett. Aardsma has next to no control. Sisco is all over the place. I will do us all a favor and not even bring up Gio and Danks and Broadway because they won't be in our bullpen next year. It could be really good, or really ugly. Only time will tell.

jandm859
01-15-2007, 02:03 PM
Bullpen arms - simple

arms yes, but we're talking about contending for a championship. other then the cotts deal, everyone we got is minor league or a major work for coop. is that what they meant by restocking bullpen?? again, i'm talking about 2007. Not ,08 or 09

jandm859
01-15-2007, 02:09 PM
As many other posters here have pointed out the biggest flaw in the team last year was the bullpen. With the midseason acquisition of MacDougal, the subtraction of spent arms like Cotts, Politte, Riske, and Hermanson, and the creation of a pool of strong live young arms to fill the pen with the likelihood of improvement in the pen's performance from last year has to be high.

As for the rest...this team won 90 games last year. If even just 2 out of the five guys from the group of Podsednik, Anderson, Uribe, Buehrle, Contreras play even close to what we know they are capable of, combined with the improved pen, there's no reason to believe this team can't win at least 95 to 100 games.

But oh yeah, they didn't sign any big free agents or jack the payroll up $30 million, I guess that must mean they didn't improve.

improved pen?? you're kidding right? but hey, we all have our own opininons
I hope you're right!!

caulfield12
01-15-2007, 02:22 PM
Well, how can the pen be much worse from 4-6 from what they were last year? Sure, MacDougal could get injured and Thornton/Jenks could take a step backwards, but we at least have some talent this year, unlike the charade for the Loogy spot last year with all the castoffs and waiver "specials" we ran out there in ST.

Cotts and Politte were horrible, Tracey and Montero and Riske were not considerably better. Nelson was washed up.

Yes, Logan/Tracey/O. Perez/Masset/Floyd/Haeger/Sisco/Aardsma might have less experience, but I really can't imagine how they could be worse...and they have the potential to be appreciably better (and cheaper) for a 3-5 year time span instead of the costly "rent a veteran" approach taken by teams like Cleveland or Baltimore this offseason.

That's not even including Danks, Gio, Broadway and McCullogh in the mix.

Corlose 15
01-15-2007, 02:48 PM
The bullpen is still a monster question mark. It had a chance to be really good, or has a chance to have 3 guys holding down the entire thing again. We all hope Thorton and Mac keep it up, Jenks holds together for an entire season, and some of the kids fill in as needed. It could work out really well, or blow up in our face. To be honest, I don't feel safe in any of the kids but Massett. Aardsma has next to no control. Sisco is all over the place. I will do us all a favor and not even bring up Gio and Danks and Broadway because they won't be in our bullpen next year. It could be really good, or really ugly. Only time will tell.


Some of these questions you can ask for anyone of the Sox players thats why they play the games. Heck, Buehrle could show that last year wasn't an anomaly, Contreras could never be healthy again, and Vazquez could forget how to pitch in the 6th inning for the whole season instead of just two months.

Something that Cooper seems to work well with is getting the pitchers he has to have more control. It worked with Thornton, Contreras, and Garland. Thats part of the reason I'm optimistic, Aardsma started to figure things out at the end of last year, Sisco has previous ML success and the Sox noticed that he was tipping his pitches which is already a step in the right direction, and Masset is supposed to have outstanding stuff. Sure it could blow up in their face but so could signing a veteran reliever. This way I believe has a similar to lower risk and a lot higher reward.

Either way it certainly makes you look forward to Spring Training doesn't it?:D:

P.S. I like the way we're having these little back and forths, you're keeping it classy.:gulp:

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 02:54 PM
dont quite understand, does this mean you believe they improved the team for 2007? if so, please tell us how they did it?

The bullpen is much better. That was the White Sox's biggest weakness in 2006 and now it should be a strength.

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 03:08 PM
That's a nice theory, but Sisco and Masset were never used in that situation and Aardsma might have been put in that situation twice.

Sisco was hung out to dry 6 times last season. Aardsma nine times. It ain't theory, it's practice.

SOXSINCE'70
01-15-2007, 03:25 PM
:rolleyes:

He has no axe to grind with the Sox.

There are posters (outside of myself) who
might disagree with that statement.

champagne030
01-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Sisco was hung out to dry 6 times last season. Aardsma nine times. It ain't theory, it's practice.

Sisco's longest outing last season was 2 2/3 innings and he did it twice allowing a total of one run. Aardsma's longest outing was 3 innings and he gave up zero runs in that appearance. Their numbers were poor because they routinely gave up multiple runs in 1 inning of work. That means they weren't hung out to dry, but it was a nice theory.

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 04:39 PM
Sisco's longest outing last season was 2 2/3 innings and he did it twice allowing a total of one run. Aardsma's longest outing was 3 innings and he gave up zero runs in that appearance. Their numbers were poor because they routinely gave up multiple runs in 1 inning of work. That means they weren't hung out to dry, but it was a nice theory.


I'm absolutely thrilled that you have such a greater perspective on relief pitchers and their development and missuse. I just being a former minor league catcher and being offered pitching coach duties multiple times would have no clue as to what being hung out to dry looks like or the effect on a pitcher.

itsnotrequired
01-15-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm absolutely thrilled that you have such a greater perspective on relief pitchers and their development and missuse. I just being a former minor league catcher and being offered pitching coach duties multiple times would have no clue as to what being hung out to dry looks like or the effect on a pitcher.

Hold up, you used to play professional baseball?

:redneck

caulfield12
01-15-2007, 05:28 PM
I'm absolutely thrilled that you have such a greater perspective on relief pitchers and their development and missuse. I just being a former minor league catcher and being offered pitching coach duties multiple times would have no clue as to what being hung out to dry looks like or the effect on a pitcher.

I was at some of the those Royals games. They weren't all like the now-famous Jason Marquis fiasco against the Sox.

He was struggling from the very beginning of the season and they hoped that by giving him some extended innings, he could start to develop some rhythm and confidence, like you saw w/ McCarthy when he pitched 2-4 innings, he got better the longer he was out there.

Unfortunately, he didn't do so well in the 2nd half 7th and 8th inning pressure situations, it's a role that he wasn't projected for at the beginning of the season, although an argument could be made a "good" pitcher should be able to handle anything thrown at him and relish the challenge.

champagne030
01-15-2007, 05:45 PM
I was at some of the those Royals games. They weren't all like the now-famous Jason Marquis fiasco against the Sox.

He was struggling from the very beginning of the season and they hoped that by giving him some extended innings, he could start to develop some rhythm and confidence, like you saw w/ McCarthy when he pitched 2-4 innings, he got better the longer he was out there.

Unfortunately, he didn't do so well in the 2nd half 7th and 8th inning pressure situations, it's a role that he wasn't projected for at the beginning of the season, although an argument could be made a "good" pitcher should be able to handle anything thrown at him and relish the challenge.

I hope you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

caulfield12
01-15-2007, 05:54 PM
Well, I did work for the Augusta GreenJackets for two years.

LOL.

Of course, I was only Director of PR and Stadium Operations. Not scouting director for the Pirates. Although I did keep Jose Guillen out of trouble while he was there, more or less.

I should put that on my resume...babysat perennial malcontent Jose Guillen, that should get me a job with Scioscia I hope!

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 06:01 PM
Hold up, you used to play professional baseball?

:redneck

Fairly common knowledge around here. Never got to the majors but the guys I caught are likely to cross 300 wins this year. I never caught Matsuzaka or Igawa but was there for important changes in the Japanese pitching style.

itsnotrequired
01-15-2007, 06:04 PM
Fairly common knowledge around here. Never got to the majors but the guys I caught are likely to cross 300 wins this year. I never caught Matsuzaka or Igawa but was there for important changes in the Japanese pitching style.

I felt the teal was implied.:wink:

Daver
01-15-2007, 06:06 PM
There are posters (outside of myself) who
might disagree with that statement.

I would disagree with yours.

BadBobbyJenks
01-15-2007, 08:01 PM
The Red Sox didnt improve???????


Julio Lugo, Dice, Papelbon to the rotation,Jd Drew(say what you want about his health hell fit in nicely behind ortiz and manny), Donnely and romero to the pen and people here think they have no chance....Im not following


Sounds like a dangerous team to me.


But as for the article on the white sox its a joke he ignores the additions to the pen this year.



I dont know how many agree with me, but Im pretty happy with what has happened this offseason. We didnt spend tons of money on marginal players, we dumped freddys ten million and the pen has the potential to be nasty. I also believe in a comeback from pods and Anderson hitting above 230.

Frater Perdurabo
01-15-2007, 08:13 PM
Why anyone would want in any way to provoke a disagreement with moderator is beyond me.

Daver
01-15-2007, 08:50 PM
Why anyone would want in any way to provoke a disagreement with moderator is beyond me.

You can disagree with a mod all you want, as long as you can back your debate with intelligent fact.

Frater Perdurabo
01-15-2007, 09:01 PM
You can disagree with a mod all you want, as long as you can back your debate with intelligent fact.

I disagree. :redneck Seriously, I know you welcome debate, but some folks just seem to like to pick fights because they are determined "to stand up for their right to free speech" because they don't have many intelligent facts on which to stand.
:rolleyes:

Daver
01-15-2007, 09:05 PM
I disagree. :redneck Seriously, I know you welcome debate, but some folks just seem to like to pick fights because they are determined "to stand up for their right to free speech" because they don't have many intelligent facts on which to stand.
:rolleyes:

Free speech is a relative term, WSI is not a democracy.

Brian26
01-15-2007, 09:08 PM
Somday,maybe in our life time,the Webster's
dictionary will print the following defintion of
the word *******:

see, Rogers,P., the entire Chicago Tribune,Mariotti,J.,
Sleaze Hack,C. and Cowley,J.

Wow. I think you're way off base in regards to Phil. He doesn't have an unkind bone in his body.

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/DSCN1119.jpg

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/DSCN1121.jpg

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 09:39 PM
The Red Sox didnt improve???????


Julio Lugo, Dice, Papelbon to the rotation,Jd Drew(say what you want about his health hell fit in nicely behind ortiz and manny), Donnely and romero to the pen and people here think they have no chance....Im not following


Sounds like a dangerous team to me.


But as for the article on the white sox its a joke he ignores the additions to the pen this year.



I dont know how many agree with me, but Im pretty happy with what has happened this offseason. We didnt spend tons of money on marginal players, we dumped freddys ten million and the pen has the potential to be nasty. I also believe in a comeback from pods and Anderson hitting above 230.

JD Drew is quite injury-prone. He's a great addition when healthy, but that's a huge if. Just because Papelborn was a success as a closer doesn't mean he'll be a great starting pitcher.


As for Lugo, he's a solid offensive player but replacing a solid defender (Loretta) with a sieve is not a recipe for success, not in the middle infield.

Will Matsuzaka be a solid acquisition? I never caught him but have seen him pitch and even talked with him several years ago. He can be deadly, but Fenway can be a death trap for otherwise solid pitchers. And with a middling defense, he will not be accustomed to that.

That many questions just tells me to be wary. If everything works out as they plan they could win it all. But that is a chancy proposition.

ondafarm
01-15-2007, 09:44 PM
You can disagree with a mod all you want, as long as you can back your debate with intelligent fact.

I disagree with Daver all the time.

He is always right.

UserNameBlank
01-15-2007, 10:30 PM
Julio Lugo, Dice, Papelbon to the rotation


Why is everyone doing this? The guy has yet to throw one inning in the major leagues and he already has a nickname? I thought one success was reached, THEN nicknames come.

For all we know that gyroball could end up with some serious frequent flyer miles and people will call him something much harsher than "Dice-K."

Besides, it's a stupid nickname anyway. I'd call him phone sex since he's so damn expensive to talk to.

maurice
01-16-2007, 04:29 PM
KW and Ozzie identified the bullpen as the biggest need going into '07. For a while, Rogers agreed that KW probably improved the bullpen. Now he's gone back to his old talking points. Apparently, none of the 9 pitchers KW added this offseason will do anything good for the MLB club, and none of the returning starters will improve. He also refuses to acknowledge that it just might be possible that Uribe or Podednik or Anderson maybe just might be a tiny bit better in 2007 than he was in 2006. (At the same time, he assumes that Garcia, McCarthy, Drew, Matsuzaka, Okajima, Pineiro, Igawa, Pettitte, etc. all will be very good in 2007.) Finally, he still fails to explain why extending certain guys beyond 2008 is vitally necessary to the team's chances of winning in 2007.
:rolleyes:

Get a new angle, Phil. You sound like a broken Brittney Spears record . . . same crap over and over and over.

caulfield12
01-16-2007, 04:40 PM
KW and Ozzie identified the bullpen as the biggest need going into '07. For a while, Rogers agreed that KW probably improved the bullpen. Now he's gone back to his old talking points. Apparently, none of the 9 pitchers KW added this offseason will do anything good for the MLB club, and none of the returning starters will improve. He also refuses to acknowledge that it just might be possible that Uribe or Podednik or Anderson maybe just might be a tiny bit better in 2007 than he was in 2006. (At the same time, he assumes that Garcia, McCarthy, Drew, Matsuzaka, Okajima, Pineiro, Igawa, Pettitte, etc. all will be very good in 2007.) Finally, he still fails to explain why extending certain guys beyond 2008 is vitally necessary to the team's chances of winning in 2007.
:rolleyes:

Get a new angle, Phil. You sound like a broken Brittney Spears record . . . same crap over and over and over.

Ooops, Phil did it again, he played with our (Sox) hearts, got lost in the game,

Oh baby, baby (Sox pitching prospects)

Ooops!...You think he's in love with KW

That Billy Beane and Cashman are sent from heaven above

The Cubbune's not that innocent.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...Go Go Sox!!!

bryPt
01-16-2007, 04:56 PM
Wow. I think you're way off base in regards to Phil. He doesn't have an unkind bone in his body.

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/DSCN1119.jpg

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/DSCN1121.jpg
He just did that for the money.

itsnotrequired
01-16-2007, 05:01 PM
He just did that for the money.

:rolleyes:

thedudeabides
01-16-2007, 05:03 PM
Why is everyone doing this? The guy has yet to throw one inning in the major leagues and he already has a nickname? I thought one success was reached, THEN nicknames come.

For all we know that gyroball could end up with some serious frequent flyer miles and people will call him something much harsher than "Dice-K."

Besides, it's a stupid nickname anyway. I'd call him phone sex since he's so damn expensive to talk to.

I hope that catches on. :D:

caulfield12
01-16-2007, 05:52 PM
I hope that catches on. :D:

Just what we need, more of those cheesy "midnight friends" hot-line commercials with these ridiculous actors...like they play during Cheaters or those Blind Date marathons.

BadBobbyJenks
01-17-2007, 02:40 AM
Why is everyone doing this? The guy has yet to throw one inning in the major leagues and he already has a nickname? I thought one success was reached, THEN nicknames come.

For all we know that gyroball could end up with some serious frequent flyer miles and people will call him something much harsher than "Dice-K."

Besides, it's a stupid nickname anyway. I'd call him phone sex since he's so damn expensive to talk to.


because I dont want to try to spell his name and that is what boston fans are calling him so the problem is?

ondafarm
01-17-2007, 09:11 AM
because I dont want to try to spell his name and that is what boston fans are calling him so the problem is?

Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Die-sue-kay ma-t-sue-za-ka

the gooch
01-17-2007, 09:22 AM
because I dont want to try to spell his name and that is what boston fans are calling him so the problem is?
That's sad that you want to be like the Boston fans.
I guess that's how "D-Train" got his nickname. Didn't a few people want to call Tadahito Iguchi "Tadpole"? Are we going to call Johan Santana "Yoo-Hoo"? Somehow Magglio got to keep his name without it being changed to "Mr. Magoo", and Ichiro isn't named after "The Itchy and Scratchy Show".



With all the headlines coming out East about this guy people should already know how to spell his name: Dice-K Manishevitz.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2007, 09:25 AM
That's sad that you want to be like the Boston fans.
I guess that's how "D-Train" got his nickname. Didn't a few people want to call Tadahito Iguchi "Tadpole"? Are we going to call Johan Santana "Yoo-Hoo"? Somehow Magglio got to keep his name without it being changed to "Mr. Magoo", and Ichiro isn't named after "The Itchy and Scratchy Show".



With all the headlines coming out East about this guy people should already know how to spell his name: Dice-K Manishevitz.

Don't forget White Sox favorites P-Kon, T-Igu, J-Uri, J-Cre, S-Pod, B-And, etc.

:rolleyes:

Bucky F. Dent
01-18-2007, 10:13 AM
Where's the moral outrage from Rogers now as it appears that the flubs are about to go eighteen rounds in arbitration with their best and most important player (Zambrano) after throwing obscene cash at the likes of Soriano, DeRosa, and Lilly?

bryPt
01-18-2007, 11:39 AM
Where's the moral outrage from Rogers now as it appears that the flubs are about to go eighteen rounds in arbitration with their best and most important player (Zambrano) after throwing obscene cash at the likes of Soriano, DeRosa, and Lilly?

damn Bucky, you hit the nail right on the head!

Hitmen77
01-18-2007, 11:56 AM
Where's the moral outrage from Rogers now as it appears that the flubs are about to go eighteen rounds in arbitration with their best and most important player (Zambrano) after throwing obscene cash at the likes of Soriano, DeRosa, and Lilly?

Yeah, but the Cubs have the benefit of the doubt because they have a track record of doing the right things and the Sox don't. The Cubs always find a way to field a competitive team - in fact, they have one of the best records in MLB over the last 15 years and recently brought a championship to Chicago. The Sox on the other hand have a long history of 90+ loss seasons and utter futility.

.......oh wait a minute, I'm in opposite-world. My apologies.

ondafarm
01-18-2007, 01:55 PM
Yeah, but the Cubs have the benefit of the doubt because they have a track record of doing the right things and the Sox don't. The Cubs always find a way to field a competitive team - in fact, they have one of the best records in MLB over the last 15 years and recently brought a championship to Chicago. The Sox on the other hand have a long history of 90+ loss seasons and utter futility.

.......oh wait a minute, I'm in opposite-world. My apologies.

I wouldn't call the White sox ownership particularly enlightened and their track record over even the past 15 years has been fairly underwhelming. I know plenty of baseball people who still think the White Sox 2005 championship was a fluke.

caulfield12
01-18-2007, 02:05 PM
I wouldn't call the White sox ownership particularly enlightened and their track record over even the past 15 years has been fairly underwhelming. I know plenty of baseball people who still think the White Sox 2005 championship was a fluke.


You can throw out all the stats about the White Sox having the 3rd-5th winning percentage over those time periods, but the White Sox were another version of the Kansas City Chiefs (without the huge attendance) until they won the World Series.

As the post-season DVD's say, the Sox have always received "second billing," at least since the 1980's.

You do have to credit the White Sox with having the ability to put consistently "decent" teams out there with .500 or above records, evidenced by not having a Top 10 draft pick over that time (which has actually been bad...we never bottomed out enough to draft a true star player in the first round).

ode to veeck
01-18-2007, 02:12 PM
I wouldn't call the White sox ownership particularly enlightened and their track record over even the past 15 years has been fairly underwhelming. I know plenty of baseball people who still think the White Sox 2005 championship was a fluke.

I know a bunch of idiots too, but that don't make 'em right. A fluke is not one of the most dominant seasons ever (wire-to-wire, 11-1 in the playoffs, 4 CGs in a row in the playoffs, etc. )

The Sox have averaged more than 84 Ws/year over the last 15 years, with 4 1st place finishes (including the strike year), hardly underwhelming. Sure, we've had out lowlights, like Hawk at GM, treatment of Fisk and Harey Carey, botched TV plans, JR's role in the strike, the white flag trade, the '00 playoffs, Royce at SS, etc., but hardly underwhelming overall and certainly improving of late.

itsnotrequired
01-18-2007, 02:17 PM
I know a bunch of idiots too, but that don't make 'em right. A fluke is not one of the most dominant seasons ever (wire-to-wire, 11-1 in the playoffs, 4 CGs in a row in the playoffs, etc. )

The Sox have averaged more than 84 Ws/year over the last 15 years, with 4 1st place finishes (including the strike year), hardly underwhelming. Sure, we've had out lowlights, like Hawk at GM, treatment of Fisk and Harey Carey, botched TV plans, JR's role in the strike, the white flag trade, the '00 playoffs, Royce at SS, etc., but hardly underwhelming overall and certainly improving of late.

Time to bust out my favorite stat: The Sox have finished third or better in their division for the last 17 seasons in a row. They are the only team to have a streak this long since divisional play started back in 1969. The Braves are second with a current 16 season streak of never finishing lower than 4th.

maurice
01-18-2007, 02:40 PM
The relevant question isn't: should Sox management have a great reputation?

The relevant question is: should Cubs management have a greater reputation than Sox management?

The answer to the second question is obvious to anybody who does not work for Trib Co.

ode to veeck
01-18-2007, 02:46 PM
The answer to the second question is obvious to anybody who does not work for Trib Co.

Or that hasn't been duped by their's and the Crumb-Times' systematic misinformation. Any paper that continues to employ idiots like Cowley and Moronatti ain't even fit for toilet paper. These guys are capable writers, but maybe only for the Enquirer or the Star

GoSox2K3
01-18-2007, 02:53 PM
The relevant question isn't: should Sox management have a great reputation?

The relevant question is: should Cubs management have a greater reputation than Sox management?

The answer to the second question is obvious to anybody who does not work for Trib Co.

To the first question, I would say they should have at least a respectable reputation. They're not perfect and it's legitimate to debate how much they should be willing to pay someone like Buehrle, but all this Sox "fire sale" and "white flag" talk is silly.

...another stat: The Sox have the 2nd longest streak in the majors of not having a 90 loss season. The last such season for the Sox was 1989. Only the Red Sox have gone longer.

Also, they have five 90+ win seasons since 1990 (six if you project out their '94 winning pct.). Keep fielding 90 win teams like that and eventually you make it all the way to the commissioner's trophy. That's not a "fluke" - that's persistence.

maurice
01-18-2007, 02:57 PM
Another point about Rogers' repeated claim that the Sox biggest offseason need was more offensive production from SS, LF, and CF. The 2006 Sox were 3rd in the AL & MLB in terms of runs scored. Meanwhile, their bullpen ERA was 10th in the AL & 23rd in MLB.

The Sox were so desperate for bullpen arms in 2006 that they started the year with an A-ball pitcher in the pen, put him in 21 games, and matched him up against Travis Hafner. Even Augustin Montero pitched in 11 games. Four veteran arms were unceremoniously dumped during or after the season for general inadequacy. A prospect who pitched 75.1 innings in the 2006 pen was slated to move to the rotation (before being traded for a better prospect + 2 other prospects), thinning out the pen even more. It has been argued that the loss of Vizcaino in the Vazquez trade was seriously detrimental to the success of the 2006 club.

Explain to me again how improving the production of one of the best offenses in baseball was a bigger concern than the crappy bullpen?
:rolleyes:

caulfield12
01-18-2007, 04:13 PM
Another point about Rogers' repeated claim that the Sox biggest offseason need was more offensive production from SS, LF, and CF. The 2006 Sox were 3rd in the AL & MLB in terms of runs scored. Meanwhile, their bullpen ERA was 10th in the AL & 23rd in MLB.

The Sox were so desperate for bullpen arms in 2006 that they started the year with an A-ball pitcher in the pen, put him in 21 games, and matched him up against Travis Hafner. Even Augustin Montero pitched in 11 games. Four veteran arms were unceremoniously dumped during or after the season for general inadequacy. A prospect who pitched 75.1 innings in the 2006 pen was slated to move to the rotation (before being traded for a better prospect + 2 other prospects), thinning out the pen even more. It has been argued that the loss of Vizcaino in the Vazquez trade was seriously detrimental to the success of the 2006 club.

Explain to me again how improving the production of one of the best offenses in baseball was a bigger concern than the crappy bullpen?
:rolleyes:

I think Montero was even a notch better than Tracey, sad to say.

Nelson was obviously done, and Hermanson was a non-factor.

WSox73
01-18-2007, 08:06 PM
Another point about Rogers' repeated claim that the Sox biggest offseason need was more offensive production from SS, LF, and CF. The 2006 Sox were 3rd in the AL & MLB in terms of runs scored. Meanwhile, their bullpen ERA was 10th in the AL & 23rd in MLB.

The Sox were so desperate for bullpen arms in 2006 that they started the year with an A-ball pitcher in the pen, put him in 21 games, and matched him up against Travis Hafner. Even Augustin Montero pitched in 11 games. Four veteran arms were unceremoniously dumped during or after the season for general inadequacy. A prospect who pitched 75.1 innings in the 2006 pen was slated to move to the rotation (before being traded for a better prospect + 2 other prospects), thinning out the pen even more. It has been argued that the loss of Vizcaino in the Vazquez trade was seriously detrimental to the success of the 2006 club.

Explain to me again how improving the production of one of the best offenses in baseball was a bigger concern than the crappy bullpen?
:rolleyes:


Exactly!!!!! :rolleyes:

ondafarm
01-18-2007, 10:39 PM
A couple of things.

I never said I thought the Sox were a fluke, I said I know some baseball people who think so.

The Sox have a longer streak of finishing first second or third. Well, they should. After New York, Chicago is the best TV market for baseball. Unless you truly foul it up, see SportsVision, see also Major League Baseball Network, both Reinsdorf's ideas to squeeze more revenue out of White Sox broadcasting. Heck, even the current Extra Innings system is nothing but a way of squeezing money out of baseball fans. He still treats baseball fans as if they were professional wrestling fans. The White Sox don't understand the fundamental rule of baseball fandom that the Flubs management does. The more accessible your television broadcasts are and the better your broadcasts are, the more fans your team will have in both the good and the bad times. The Braves figured that out and put on a decent broadcast on a free superstation. The Flubs did the same, but the Sox went the opposite, restricting their broadcast to the suckers who would pay for descrambling.

Reinsdorf also seemed to believe for years that having a cheap manager who was a company guy was appropriate. It's not the division championships that the White Sox have won that convinces many people that the Sox are under achievers. It's the championships that the Sox blew to lesser teams because the Sox had a lousy manager. I have no idea what Bevington or Manuel was paid, but I doubt it was what a top flight manager would have made. In spite of saving those few bucks, maybe a million a year, each of those managers probably blew at least one division championship and possibly a trip to the world series. One extra championship and one extra trip to the World Series, even with a loss, would have brought in several million more in revenue.


Underachievers? I think it's the blown ones by being penny-wise and pound foolish that is the reputation of the White Sox.

The Sox are the only big city team in a division full of small-market teams. The Sox, just because of the extra TV money they can bring in, should be able to afford at least one extra free agent acquisition per year and they should be able to better two of four small-market teams.

Brian26
01-19-2007, 09:09 PM
He just did that for the money.

I figured someone would say that. Too predictable.

BadBobbyJenks
01-24-2007, 03:10 PM
That's sad that you want to be like the Boston fans.
I guess that's how "D-Train" got his nickname. Didn't a few people want to call Tadahito Iguchi "Tadpole"? Are we going to call Johan Santana "Yoo-Hoo"? Somehow Magglio got to keep his name without it being changed to "Mr. Magoo", and Ichiro isn't named after "The Itchy and Scratchy Show".



With all the headlines coming out East about this guy people should already know how to spell his name: Dice-K Manishevitz.



His nickname is Dice, and me using that name makes me want to be like a boston fan....:rolleyes:

Nobody outside of chicago should be able to say pods or gooch????