PDA

View Full Version : Sox and Angels


LITTLE NELL
06-21-2007, 10:38 AM
It s too early to break up this team. The 2002 Angels won 99 games and a WS. In 2003 they won 77 games. Its hard to explain things like this but lets keep the nucleus intact for a while and see what happens. Number 1 thing is we need a healthy team and number 2 is to sign Mark.

chisoxfanatic
06-21-2007, 10:42 AM
The way things are going right now, 77 wins is a pipe-dream! Mor than a few changes need to be made both at the trading deadline and during the offseason. It starts with the bullpen and must filter to at least half our lineup.

SBSoxFan
06-21-2007, 10:45 AM
It s too early to break up this team. The 2002 Angels won 99 games and a WS. In 2003 they won 77 games. Its hard to explain things like this but lets keep the nucleus intact for a while and see what happens. Number 1 thing is we need a healthy team and number 2 is to sign Mark.

Why is finishing 22 games below your previous year not a reason to break up something?

LITTLE NELL
06-21-2007, 10:56 AM
Because the Angels have done well since that 77 win season.

Tragg
06-21-2007, 10:59 AM
The Angels have made a lot of changes.
In fact one of their discards is Ozzie's favorite player on the Sox.
Who would you consider our core.

LITTLE NELL
06-21-2007, 11:09 AM
Core would be Buerhle, Garland, Paulie, Iguchi, Fields or Crede, Thome, AJ, Jenks. Im not going to give up on Uribe or Vasquez yet. Maybe Dye. We connot ignore the fact that when Pods is in the lineup the Sox play over .600 baseball.

1917
06-21-2007, 11:17 AM
And getting Vladdy Guerrero and Bartolo Colon in 04, along with the emergence of K-Rod to take over for Percival helped a little too....

The Immigrant
06-21-2007, 11:30 AM
You know how many players from Anaheim's 2002 roster still play for the Angels?

5 - Rodriguez, Shields, Lackey, Anderson and Figgins. Everyone else is gone.

SBSoxFan
06-21-2007, 01:20 PM
You know how many players from Anaheim's 2002 roster still play for the Angels?

5 - Rodriguez, Shields, Lackey, Anderson and Figgins. Everyone else is gone.

Are you telling me they have relievers who've been in their pen since 2002? :o:

I thought building a bullpen was a crap shoot, and guys could never be relied on from year to year.

HotelWhiteSox
06-21-2007, 01:35 PM
I thought building a bullpen was a crap shoot, and guys could never be relied on from year to year.

I guess that's only for busts, projects, headcases, injury prone and washed up guys on the cheap. Oh yeah, that's been most of our bullpen these past years

oeo
06-21-2007, 01:46 PM
You know how many players from Anaheim's 2002 roster still play for the Angels?

5 - Rodriguez, Shields, Lackey, Anderson and Figgins. Everyone else is gone.

That's over the course of five years. Of course we need to make some changes, but a complete rebuild is not only unnecessary, but stupid as well. I remember most of WSI over the offseason thinking the Sox were doing just that and were against it. If you want to live through three or four years of being completely ****ty for the possibility to win another championship maybe five years down the road, so be it. I'd rather keep some of these guys around, re-tool and win next year. We have a much better chance of winning another championship with our core right now, than taking the huge chance of throwing it all away hoping young guys can get it done down the road.


Are you telling me they have relievers who've been in their pen since 2002? :o:

I thought building a bullpen was a crap shoot, and guys could never be relied on from year to year.

Oh wow, two guys, who not the mention, are two of the best relievers in all of baseball. Tell me who we could have picked up in the offseason that could be our Francisco Rodriguez or Scot Shields.

I guess that's only for busts, projects, headcases, injury prone and washed up guys on the cheap. Oh yeah, that's been most of our bullpen these past years

Alright, smart guy, who should they have picked up? The Orioles spent a ton of money on their bullpen this offseason (what a lot here wanted to do) and look at it...it's awful.

Lip Man 1
06-21-2007, 01:58 PM
OEO:

Not saying you're totally wrong but the reference 'who should they have picked up,' I think is wrong.

It's a no win situation and I see this 'argument' used a lot. Fans aren't being asked to do the G.M.'s job...that's why he gets paid what he does and if the fan answers your question, he or she is accused of 'second guessing.'

The bullpen hasn't worked the past two seasons regardless of the reasons why. It's Kenny's job to 'fix it.' That's his job.

Personally I think Kenny thought that Don Cooper could in a short period of time 'fix' kids who have had control issues and mediocre numbers usually in the minor leagues.

There are limits to what Coop can do.

Hopefully for the sake of the team, Kenny can figure out what has gone wrong in an important part of today's baseball, the bullpen.

If you want to go with some (notice I said some) kids, that's fine, but in my opinion you simply MUST have two or three veteran, reliable arms to help bolster and mentor those kids. When the senior guy in the pen (MacDougal) has only three or four actual years in the major leagues, due to injuries, at best, that's an issue in my opinion.

The price for such relief guys may be unjustified (in your opinion) but the market is what it is, regardless of whether Kenny or the White Sox like it, agree with it or whatever. Either they adapt or this is going to continue to be an issue short of "getting lucky."

And personally I think the players, the organization and the fans of the White Sox deserve better then having to hope to 'get lucky' don't you?

Lip

oeo
06-21-2007, 02:20 PM
OEO:

Not saying you're totally wrong but the reference 'who should they have picked up,' I think is wrong.

It's a no win situation and I see this 'argument' used a lot. Fans aren't being asked to do the G.M.'s job...that's why he gets paid what he does and if the fan answers your question, he or she is accused of 'second guessing.'

The bullpen hasn't worked the past two seasons regardless of the reasons why. It's Kenny's job to 'fix it.' That's his job.

I know it's his job, but look at who's out there and tell me someone that he could have picked up. You can't. Look around the league, there are not many teams that have great bullpens...how was he just going to pull some guys out of his magic hat?

And you keep saying that he's used the same 'philosophy' the last two seasons. That is not true at all. He totally changed his 'philosophy' this offseason, went out and restructured the whole thing.

Personally I think Kenny thought that Don Cooper could in a short period of time 'fix' kids who have had control issues and mediocre numbers usually in the minor leagues.

There are limits to what Coop can do.

Hopefully for the sake of the team, Kenny can figure out what has gone wrong in an important part of today's baseball, the bullpen.I think most of the bullpen is a stroke of bad luck. David Aardsma, Mike MacDougal, and Matt Thornton can still be good relievers for this team. Andrew Sisco and Boone Logan are a totally different story.

The price for such relief guys may be unjustified (in your opinion) but the market is what it is, regardless of whether Kenny or the White Sox like it, agree with it or whatever. Either they adapt or this is going to continue to be an issue short of "getting lucky."Again, the Orioles went out and paid these said 'proven' veterans, and look where it's landed them? They now paid up the ass for a terrible bullpen. The reason I keep asking people to name some guys we should pick up is because the thought around here is that building a good bullpen is easy. It's not, both Kenny and the Orioles (who took two totally different routes) are proving that right now.

And personally I think the players, the organization and the fans of the White Sox deserve better then having to hope to 'get lucky' don't you?

LipI'm still against paying 'proven' relievers. Unless the guys are completely dominant over their entire career, it is a crapshoot.

Do you want to spend a ton of money, and sign these relievers to 3 or 4 year contracts, knowing that in a couple of years they might be garbage? You keep saying that we're not spending our money in the right places, well when we're handcuffed down the road because we have old, bad relievers who are getting paid a lot of money, was it really worth it?

comet2k
06-21-2007, 02:55 PM
You know how many players from Anaheim's 2002 roster still play for the Angels?

5 - Rodriguez, Shields, Lackey, Anderson and Figgins. Everyone else is gone.

But that doesn't mean they had a garage sale at the first sign of trouble. Over five years most teams will see a lot of players leave through trades, free agency, retirement, etc.

How many Sox players were with the team in 2002?

chisoxfanatic
06-21-2007, 03:02 PM
How many Sox players were with the team in 2002?
That question is irrelevent here, since the 2002 Sox were pretty mediocre. You're comparing apples to oranges.

oeo
06-21-2007, 03:05 PM
That question is irrelevent here, since the 2002 Sox were pretty mediocre. You're comparing apples to oranges.

No he's not. The point is, all teams change over the course of five years. Because the Angels only have 5 guys left from their championship team does not mean they were some special team that went out two years later and scrapped everyone. They changed, just like the Sox did, and every other team in baseball for that matter.

What's comparing apples to oranges is the 2007 White Sox to the 2007 Angels, when the two teams won championships three years apart.

PKalltheway
06-21-2007, 03:12 PM
It s too early to break up this team. The 2002 Angels won 99 games and a WS. In 2003 they won 77 games. Its hard to explain things like this but lets keep the nucleus intact for a while and see what happens. Number 1 thing is we need a healthy team and number 2 is to sign Mark.
It is difficult to explain things like that. The 1971 Reds and the 1991 A's also had those mysterious "off" seasons. Bottom line is, some good teams hit their occasional road bumps. In some rare instances, they last a whole season like the 1971 Reds, 1991 A's, and the 2003 Angels. The good ones are able to bounce back (all three of those aforementioned teams made it back to the postseason the following year), and the bad ones do not. Let's see which one the Sox fall under. My guess is that hopefully, the Sox are just hitting a road bump, and will be back next year.

comet2k
06-21-2007, 03:47 PM
That question is irrelevent here, since the 2002 Sox were pretty mediocre. You're comparing apples to oranges.

OK, then add this to your fruit salad: The Yankees won 103 games in 2002 and have seven players from that team -- Clemens, Pettitte, Mussina, Riviera, Posada, Giambi and Jeter, and Clemens and Pettitte went elsewhere in between.

Oakland also won 103 games that year and only two players are still there, Chavez and Ellis.

This has become normal attrition in MLB. By 2010, only a hanful of players from 2005 will still be on the Sox.

sox1970
06-21-2007, 03:56 PM
There's no easy way to explain why a team wins 95-100 games one year, and wins 70-75 the next. Teams get old, injuries, not as lucky, etc. That's what makes baseball a great game--because nobody has all of the answers.