PDA

View Full Version : Who in the front office said this?


Foultips
06-18-2007, 12:54 PM
Just saw this on my White Sox RSS feed

Chicago dogs (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/06/17/2007-06-17_chicago_dogs-2_print.html)

"You want to know what's happened to us?" said one member of the White Sox brain trust last week. "I'll be honest. We're just a bad team. That's it."

Still, it is doubtful that White Sox GM Kenny Williams is willing to make that admission just yet. Those familiar with Williams' thinking say it will take a lot more losing for him to blow the whole thing up. "Besides," said one White Sox insider, "with nearly $36 million owed to him through 2010, Konerko is untradeable and how much can Kenny expect to get for Dye (who's a free agent-to-be)?"

I'm just depressed. The White Sox are supposed to make me forget the problems of the real world....:(:

Lip Man 1
06-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Foul:

What is an RSS feed? What publication is this from? How reliable is it?

Before offering an opinion, I'd like some background.

Lip

spiffie
06-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Considering the source it could be basically anyone who has ever heard of the Chicago White Sox. I wouldn't put any stock in anything they say. They being the NY Daily News.

Foultips
06-18-2007, 01:01 PM
Foul:

What is an RSS feed?


What publication is this from? How reliable is it?

Before offering an opinion, I'd like some background.

Lip

I get it from google and it filters White Sox news stories

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=white+sox&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=h&as_mind=17&as_minm=6&as_maxd=18&as_maxm=6

It is from the New York Daily News written by Bill Madden


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/madden/

Lip Man 1
06-18-2007, 02:27 PM
This is a guess without any information to back it.

If I had to guess 'who made the comment,' it would be Rick Hahn, who has always impressed me as a straight-shooter.

Lip

wealz07
06-18-2007, 11:39 PM
Hawk said it. Key is part of "braintrust" instead of front office. He has connections with Madden from when he broadcast the Yankees too.

UserNameBlank
06-18-2007, 11:43 PM
Anyone who thinks PK is untradable shouldn't be working for us because that guy is a ****ing moron.

oeo
06-18-2007, 11:48 PM
Hawk said it. Key is part of "braintrust" instead of front office. He has connections with Madden from when he broadcast the Yankees too.

I don't know if Hawk would say something like that, but it does look like one of his quotes; that's pretty funny.

You do have a point, though, that it says 'brain trust' which doesn't mean it's someone in the front office.

cws05champ
06-18-2007, 11:51 PM
A Quote from this article:

" Since completing a wire-to-wire world championship season in 2005, the Sox are 61-79 as of yesterday, and are starting to get within elbow-rubbing distance of the perennial AL Central cellar-dwelling Royals."

So the Sox have only played 140 games total since 2005? Wow this guy is informed, I am going to get myself worked up over a "quote" from a mysterious braintrust. Hey, I could be the braintrust...I have said we suck this year!!

TDog
06-18-2007, 11:51 PM
When a team is losing with the current frequency of the White Sox, it's a bad team. Anyone who doesn't believe the White Sox are not a bad team right now is simply not paying attention.

That doesn't mean the team has to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. It certainly doesn't have to mean Sox fans are in store for another decade of lousy baseball.

fusillirob1983
06-19-2007, 01:51 AM
It can't be Hawk. I can't find the word "dagummit" anywhere in that quote.

oeo
06-19-2007, 03:09 AM
When a team is losing with the current frequency of the White Sox, it's a bad team. Anyone who doesn't believe the White Sox are not a bad team right now is simply not paying attention.

That doesn't mean the team has to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. It certainly doesn't have to mean Sox fans are in store for another decade of lousy baseball.

Those are the key words. Is it a bad team? Maybe it's not a team that can make the postseason, but bad? This team is full of proven veterans that are not doing their job. It's not a bad team; they're playing poorly.

graham5
06-19-2007, 04:22 PM
In my opinion you've got to say they're a bad team.

A good team can play poorly at times, but not this poorly, for this long. I don't think we've won back-to-back games for something like a month now.

NoNeckEra
06-19-2007, 04:28 PM
In my opinion you've got to say they're a bad team.

A good team can play poorly at times, but not this poorly, for this long. I don't think we've won back-to-back games for something like a month now.

At long last, a voice of reason.

areilly
06-19-2007, 04:45 PM
It can't be Hawk. I can't find the word "dagummit" anywhere in that quote.


:hawk

"The thing about this team is that they're not losing any games, they just haven't figured out how to out-unlose the rest of the league yet. Once they can start turning their un-winning into un-losing, they're gonna win some games and be right back in it."

:DJ

"You got that right partner, and that's why baseball is such a beautiful game. And any of you youngsters out there need to keep that in mind that it's not always about scoring more runs or pitching better, it's about not letting the other team force you into unwinning a few games."

oeo
06-19-2007, 05:32 PM
In my opinion you've got to say they're a bad team.

A good team can play poorly at times, but not this poorly, for this long. I don't think we've won back-to-back games for something like a month now.

And if by the end of the year they somehow pull of 90+ wins, is it still a bad team? I'm in no way saying that's going to happen, but this core won a championship not even two years ago; they're proven veterans that are playing poorly. How you can call it a bad team, period, I don't understand. They look pretty bad right now, but if you seriously believe they're this bad, you're being ignorant.

sox1970
06-19-2007, 05:36 PM
And if by the end of the year they somehow pull of 90+ wins, is it still a bad team? I'm in no way saying that's going to happen, but this core won a championship not even two years ago; they're proven veterans that are playing poorly. How you can call it a bad team, period, I don't understand. They look pretty bad right now, but if you seriously believe they're this bad, you're being ignorant.

Good teams win. Bad teams lose. Period. End of story.

soxinem1
06-19-2007, 05:37 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/team/broadcasters/broadcaster_cws_farmer.jpg

"Are the Sox a bad team? No. Is the season over? Well, no, you have almost 60 games left. I'm not saying its going to happen, but you never know. We all hope they can start putting it all together, and next thing you know, your back in it."

"A couple bloops and a blast and next thing you know, you have a new season."

Good teams win. Bad teams lose. Period. End of story.

Teams like your signature and the 2003 Tigers were bad teams. This team should be doing much better. On paper, no it is not bad. However, the stats don't lie, there are some bad spark plugs in this engine.

oeo
06-19-2007, 05:40 PM
Good teams win. Bad teams lose. Period. End of story.

Did you read my post? The season isn't over...when they win only 70 games, I'll call them a bad team. Right now they're a team playing poorly. That doesn't mean I think they're going to go anywhere this year, but they're still an 82-85 win team, they're not this bad.

sox1970
06-19-2007, 05:47 PM
Did you read my post? The season isn't over...when they win only 70 games, I'll call them a bad team. Right now they're a team playing poorly. That doesn't mean I think they're going to go anywhere this year, but they're still an 85 win team, they're not this bad.

Fair enough, but I'd say they are what they are. Going back to the middle of last year, this team has gone 63-80 over the last 143. This team needs wholesale changes offensively and in the bullpen.

oeo
06-19-2007, 05:52 PM
Fair enough, but I'd say they are what they are. Going back to the middle of last year, this team has gone 63-80 over the last 143. This team needs wholesale changes offensively and in the bullpen.

I hate this. We have two totally different problems from the second half of last year, to this year. Last year, our starting pitching was garbage. This year, it's the complete opposite; our offense is garbage and we've been bombarded with injuries.

The two years are separate and completely different, keep them that way.

sox1970
06-19-2007, 05:59 PM
I hate this. We have two totally different problems from the second half of last year, to this year. Last year, our starting pitching was garbage. This year, it's the complete opposite; our offense is garbage and we've been bombarded with injuries.

The two years are separate and completely different, keep them that way.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The fact is this team isn't very good, and they won't ever be very good even at 100% health. Changes need to be made.

SBSoxFan
06-20-2007, 08:58 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree. The fact is this team isn't very good, and they won't ever be very good even at 100% health. Changes need to be made.

You're right, they're not very good. But I agree with oeo; you have to say "at present." The season's not over, and you can't make a generalization regarding the year until the entire year is done. If they win 81+ games, what do you call them then? Are they still a bad team? Weren't the '06 Twins, the '04 and '05 Astros, and heck the '03-'06 Yankees "bad" teams at some point during those seasons (and let's not forget the A's for the first half of every year since forever). Yet those teams all made the playoffs.

Regarding how things would be if they were healthy is pure speculation ... on both sides.

sox1970
06-20-2007, 09:16 AM
You're right, they're not very good. But I agree with oeo; you have to say "at present." The season's not over, and you can't make a generalization regarding the year until the entire year is done. If they win 81+ games, what do you call them then? Are they still a bad team? Weren't the '06 Twins, the '04 and '05 Astros, and heck the '03-'06 Yankees "bad" teams at some point during those seasons (and let's not forget the A's for the first half of every year since forever). Yet those teams all made the playoffs.

Regarding how things would be if they were healthy is pure speculation ... on both sides.

We don't have Morneau, Mauer, and Santana. We don't have CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, Sizemore, Hafner, et al. And your Yankees comparison--what are you kidding me?

We have Mackowiak, Andy Gonzalez, Jerry Owens, Alex Cintron. And bad years from Konerko, Dye, Uribe, Iguchi. A crap bullpen.

This team is awful, incapable of a sustained run.

SBSoxFan
06-20-2007, 09:31 AM
We don't have Morneau, Mauer, and Santana. We don't have CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, Sizemore, Hafner, et al. And your Yankees comparison--what are you kidding me?

We have Mackowiak, Andy Gonzalez, Jerry Owens, Alex Cintron. And bad years from Konerko, Dye, Uribe, Iguchi. A crap bullpen.

This team is awful, incapable of a sustained run.

Well, I was going with your argument until I saw the names Lee and Hafner. We do have Buehrle, Garland (who I think are both better than Lee) and Thome. Hafner's been great, but inconsistent. I think he's hitting about 260 this year. The first four Sox players you mentioned are all backups, forced to play due to injuries. Sure, they look like crap when compared to the stars on Minnesota and Cleveland. That's an unfair comparison. That further takes away from your assertion that this team would still be bad if they were 100% healthy. The Sox don't have anyone to match Mauer, Sizemore, Santana (although his road stats are mediocre), or Sabathia. But I think the Sox have more depth at starting pitching.

It doesn't matter if your name is Morneau or Dye. When you suck, you suck. All I'm saying is that's not a continual state of being, regardless of how much your payroll is.

Hitmen77
06-20-2007, 09:50 AM
Just saw this on my White Sox RSS feed

Chicago dogs (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/06/17/2007-06-17_chicago_dogs-2_print.html)

"You want to know what's happened to us?" said one member of the White Sox brain trust last week. "I'll be honest. We're just a bad team. That's it."

Still, it is doubtful that White Sox GM Kenny Williams is willing to make that admission just yet. Those familiar with Williams' thinking say it will take a lot more losing for him to blow the whole thing up. "Besides," said one White Sox insider, "with nearly $36 million owed to him through 2010, Konerko is untradeable and how much can Kenny expect to get for Dye (who's a free agent-to-be)?"

I'm just depressed. The White Sox are supposed to make me forget the problems of the real world....:(:

Wow, I hope someone who is part of the White Sox "brain trust" isn't thinking that we would unload Konerko if he only weren't so untradeable. Is our "brain trust's" motto "Sell Low"? Do they really think he's going to be hitting .220 for the next 3 years?

sox1970
06-20-2007, 09:58 AM
Well, I was going with your argument until I saw the names Lee and Hafner. We do have Buehrle, Garland (who I think are both better than Lee) and Thome. Hafner's been great, but inconsistent. I think he's hitting about 260 this year. The first four Sox players you mentioned are all backups, forced to play due to injuries. Sure, they look like crap when compared to the stars on Minnesota and Cleveland. That's an unfair comparison. That further takes away from your assertion that this team would still be bad if they were 100% healthy. The Sox don't have anyone to match Mauer, Sizemore, Santana (although his road stats are mediocre), or Sabathia. But I think the Sox have more depth at starting pitching.

It doesn't matter if your name is Morneau or Dye. When you suck, you suck. All I'm saying is that's not a continual state of being, regardless of how much your payroll is.

I was referring to the 2005 run by the Indians, even though they came up short. I think the bottom line is the Sox are just having an awful year, and they aren't coming out of this. .500 would be a huge accomplishment at this point.

SBSoxFan
06-20-2007, 10:10 AM
I was referring to the 2005 run by the Indians, even though they came up short. I think the bottom line is the Sox are just having an awful year, and they aren't coming out of this. .500 would be a huge accomplishment at this point.

I agree :whiner:. I'm hoping for about 85 wins. If they finish 500 what do you call them? A bad team, a good team that had a bad year? It's somewhat philosophical. And then how much tinkering do you do? It all boils down to future expectations. Do you expect Konerko to hit 230 for the remainder of his contract? Then you need a change.

The more I think about all this, the more I like the thought of getting Ichiro here someway. I just looked at some of his numbers today and they are sicker then I'd imagined. Since 2006 he's 65 of 69 in steals, and has grounded into 4 DP's. :o: People talk about losing Dye, and having no power from the outfield. So what? You have Konerko, Thome, and to a lesser extent Crede/Fields, and Iguchi. Isn't that enough power? Let's get faster everywhere else.

Continue to invest heavily in starting pitching. I'm even wondering if it might not be better to look for a true ace and sacrifice some depth. Then decide if you want to change the bullpen philosophy. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.

sox1970
06-20-2007, 10:18 AM
I agree :whiner:. I'm hoping for about 85 wins. If they finish 500 what do you call them? A bad team, a good team that had a bad year?

It depends on how they do it. Normally, I wouldn't say good or bad. I'd just go with "in the playoffs" or "out of the playoffs".

If the Sox trade some veterans and young players come up and get the job done--Sweeney, Floyd, Gonzalez, etc., then I'd say most fans would be excited about 2008 and for the future. But with the second half schedule being absloutely brutal, chances are this team will lose 90. Hate to say it, but it will probably happen.

PaulDrake
06-20-2007, 10:22 AM
And if by the end of the year they somehow pull of 90+ wins, is it still a bad team? Steak dinner at Ruth's Chris on me if that happens.

Lip Man 1
06-20-2007, 12:14 PM
A lot of things would have to 'suddenly' turn around for the club to get to 90 wins including the health factor which seems to be continuing now with Thome (again) and Dye.

I still hold out "hope" for a "winning" season but even that's looking more and more remote.

Lip

oeo
06-20-2007, 01:35 PM
A lot of things would have to 'suddenly' turn around for the club to get to 90 wins including the health factor which seems to be continuing now with Thome (again) and Dye.

I still hold out "hope" for a "winning" season but even that's looking more and more remote.

Lip

Baseball is filled with sudden changes. For example, the bullpen suddenly went into the ****ter about a month ago.

The thing I'm worried about now is the starting pitching. They haven't been so hot (besides Buehrle). Sorry, but I don't see how an offense works out of a slump when every run they get ends up getting relinquished anyway. The starting pitching needs to step it up, the offense has looked pretty good lately, and the bullpen needs to do what Bukvich is doing: find ways to get outs.

Lip Man 1
06-20-2007, 05:25 PM
OEO:

The only disagreement that I'd have with your comment is the bullpen falling apart a month ago.

In fact the bullpen blew late leads in two of the first three games of the season with the Sox being able to win one of them. Then you had Bobby in the 9th inning in Oakland also early in the season. This issue started very early in the season.

I'd say perhaps a better comment would have been 'totally and completely falling apart in the last month.'

Lip