PDA

View Full Version : *OFFICIAL* Sawx Take Game Two of Double Header


SluggersAway
08-24-2007, 10:40 PM
It is over, why kid ourselves?

thomas35forever
08-24-2007, 10:43 PM
You started this already? I know this game is a lost cause, but geez.

JB98
08-24-2007, 10:49 PM
Right now, it's Buehrle and Vazquez and pray for rain. The other three men in the rotation, it seems the best we can hope from them right now is mediocrity.

The Sox are about to move a season-worst 16 games below .500. I still believe this is our worst club since 1989.

Martinigirl
08-24-2007, 10:53 PM
It is obnoxious to put this up while the game is still on. Is it really that important to be the one who starts the thread?

Frater Perdurabo
08-24-2007, 10:55 PM
Right now, it's Buehrle and Vazquez and pray for rain. The other three men in the rotation, it seems the best we can hope from them right now is mediocrity.

The Sox are about to move a season-worst 16 games below .500. I still believe this is our worst club since 1989.

The 89 club played better during the second half than this one has.

I don't think it's worse than the 89 club before the All-Star break. Buehrle and Vazquez alone make this team better.

SluggersAway
08-24-2007, 10:58 PM
I could not care less about being the first, I am just highlighting how pathetic this team is this year and hoping someone in management takes notice.

Tragg
08-24-2007, 11:00 PM
Floyd needs his ass kicked. Every time he blows up it's the same thing - he loses control then tosses a few pitches right down the middle. Stop pitching like a baby. I think somehow he'll get over that, but who knows when.

Otherwise, just look at this/these lineups and it's little wonder why 4 runs were scored over 18 innings and only 1 in the last 13 innings. Only 3 hitters in the lineup - Dye, Konerko and Fields - could be described as at least average. I know Ozzie loves free-swinging slap hitters, but at some point 16 below .500 and the league's worst offense has got to say something.

Martinigirl
08-24-2007, 11:00 PM
I could care less about being the first, I am just highlighting how pathetic this team is this year and hoping someone in management takes notice.

I am pretty sure they know.

SOXandILLINI
08-24-2007, 11:01 PM
I could not care less about being the first, I am just highlighting how pathetic this team is this year and hoping someone in management takes notice.

Taking notice? uh, no.... but they are pathetic, that's for sure.

SluggersAway
08-24-2007, 11:02 PM
Sure they know, so I am not being obnoxious at all.

JB98
08-24-2007, 11:02 PM
The 89 club played better during the second half than this one has.

I don't think it's worse than the 89 club before the All-Star break. Buehrle and Vazquez alone make this team better.

Well, yeah, I do think this team is better than the '89 club. But that's not saying anything.

What I am saying is this is the worst team we've had since moving into the new park. It's brutal. Aside from Detroit, who we inexplicably own, the contending teams are just drilling us. Recent losses to New York, Seattle and Boston have been rather decisive.

kitekrazy
08-24-2007, 11:03 PM
Taking notice? uh, no.... but they are pathetic, that's for sure.

There's not much you can do to improve a team once the season starts.

SluggersAway
08-24-2007, 11:06 PM
Last time the Red Sox scored ten runs or more in both games of a doubleheader?

July 23rd, 1957!

Sockinchisox
08-24-2007, 11:10 PM
Please tell me this was Danks' last start. Or at least last start for like 2 weeks.

JB98
08-24-2007, 11:14 PM
Please tell me this was Danks' last start. Or at least last start for like 2 weeks.

Who would you like to replace him with? Gavin Floyd?

Frater Perdurabo
08-24-2007, 11:18 PM
Who would you like to replace him with? Gavin Floyd?

If that's what it takes for KW to get definitive proof that Floyd sucks and has no hope to ever become a decent MLB pitcher, then yes.

Tragg
08-24-2007, 11:18 PM
The 89 club played better during the second half than this one has.

I don't think it's worse than the 89 club before the All-Star break. Buehrle and Vazquez alone make this team better.

I'm starting to think this bunch resembles those 1968-1970 teams...they went from pennant contender in 67 (and good the prior 10 years) to terrible overnight. It culminated in 1970. This team has MB and Vasquez? That 1970 team had Tommy John, Wilbur Wood, and Joel Horlen. That team also had Bill Melton, Ken Berry and Carlos May.

Unfortunately, it also had Bobby Knoop, Syd O'Brien and Gail Hopkins


Where's Dick Allen and Chuck Tanner to pull us out of this morass?

Sockinchisox
08-24-2007, 11:19 PM
Who would you like to replace him with? Gavin Floyd?

Sure, his confidence has been shot for years, I don't want that to happen to Danks.

Frater Perdurabo
08-24-2007, 11:23 PM
What I am saying is this is the worst team we've had since moving into the new park. It's brutal.

I'm inclined to agree.

I just wish that last year we could have traded the 2006 Buehrle and Vazquez for the 2007 Buehrle and Vazquez. The Sox would have won the division and probably would have repeated as WS champs. We all gladly would have accepted that last year, even if knowing we'd go 50-112 this season.

Tragg
08-24-2007, 11:26 PM
Sure, his confidence has been shot for years, I don't want that to happen to Danks.

Both Danks and Floyd have talent. Danks has a lot fewer bad habits than Floyd. Floyd may be hopeless.
But it would be an absolute shame if this staff loses Danks and he doesn't become a major league pitcher next year.

SluggersAway
08-24-2007, 11:26 PM
I still think that breaking up the 2005 team was the worst move Kenny ever made.

I agree with the old "if it isn't broke, you don't fix it" school of thought.

That team at least deserved a chance to replicate their success.

This game is full of intangibles and for whatever reason that team clicked.

Gambling on this injury prone player or that underrated hard thrower obviously has not worked.

Frater Perdurabo
08-24-2007, 11:27 PM
I still think that breaking up the 2005 team was the worst move Kenny ever made.

I agree with the old "if it isn't broke, you don't fix it" school of thought.

That team at least deserved a chance to replicate their success.

This game is full of intangibles and for whatever reason that team clicked.

Gambling on this injury prone player or that underrated hard thrower obviously has not worked.

The 2006 team generally clicked. But the pitching staff just didn't perform when needed. Then, during September, the bats went cold, too.

Noneck
08-24-2007, 11:31 PM
I'm starting to think this bunch resembles those 1968-1970 teams...they went from pennant contender in 67 (and good the prior 10 years) to terrible overnight. It culminated in 1970. This team has MB and Vasquez? That 1970 team had Tommy John, Wilbur Wood, and Joel Horlen. That team also had Bill Melton, Ken Berry and Carlos May.






You forgot Little Looey.

palehozenychicty
08-24-2007, 11:32 PM
U-gly.

upperdeckusc
08-24-2007, 11:55 PM
I still think that breaking up the 2005 team was the worst move Kenny ever made.

I agree with the old "if it isn't broke, you don't fix it" school of thought.

That team at least deserved a chance to replicate their success.

This game is full of intangibles and for whatever reason that team clicked.

Gambling on this injury prone player or that underrated hard thrower obviously has not worked.

you could have kept the same team thru '06, and buehrle's second half single-handedly would have kept us out of the playoffs. and we wouldnt have thome's hot first few months, and rowand would have got injured running into a wall, and we wouldnt have thornton, and our offense would have been just as cold in the last 2 months of the season.

*****

kitekrazy
08-25-2007, 12:31 AM
Both Danks and Floyd have talent. Danks has a lot fewer bad habits than Floyd. Floyd may be hopeless.
But it would be an absolute shame if this staff loses Danks and he doesn't become a major league pitcher next year.

It seems Danks doesn't get enough support when he's out there. It's some error or lack of hitting.

chisoxmike
08-25-2007, 12:33 AM
The 2006 team generally clicked. But the pitching staff just didn't perform when needed. Then, during September, the bats went cold, too.

The 2006 team was a pretty damn good team that played really bad and still won 90 games. (Thanks to a stellar first half)

JB98
08-25-2007, 01:19 AM
If that's what it takes for KW to get definitive proof that Floyd sucks and has no hope to ever become a decent MLB pitcher, then yes.

I sure hope that KW already sees that Floyd sucks.

Sometimes KW and Ozzie worry me when they say the club is "not that far away" from a return to contention. We're 16 games under .500. We're far away.

The Red Sox are the best team in baseball. We didn't belong on the same field with them today.

102605
08-25-2007, 01:44 AM
Between Garland's comments he continues to spew and his performances lately that seem like he doesn't care at all about the outcome of the game, I think the time has come this offseason for him to see a change of scenery.

I don't care if the pathetic 2007 White Sox at 15+ under .500 and in 5th place. I honestly don't think he is going out there with a winning attitude for his given starts. Look at the positives Vazquez is pulling out of this mess of a season. Look at the positives Buehrle has made showing how big of a team leader he is and willing to stick with it and build another championship contenting team.

Garland? He looks like he wants to get out of the game as early as possible to go relax in the hot tub in the clubhouse and watch ESPN and play the newest version of Madden.

SpartanSoxFan
08-25-2007, 01:47 AM
And we manage to sink to new lows....

What was amazing was listening to Mike North's convo with Mr. Chairman himself. He gave an 'A' to Ozzie for his job managing the Sox this year, and an 'A-' in 2005 when they won the whole damn thing.

Me= :rolleyes::(::o::?::dunno:

Nellie_Fox
08-25-2007, 01:47 AM
Sometimes KW and Ozzie worry me when they say the club is "not that far away" from a return to contention. We're 16 games under .500. We're far away.I think that there is a certain amount of reality to the idea that the difference between a championship team and one totally out of contention is smaller than most people think. Look how fast the 2005 Sox happened. Look how fast that turned into 2007.

CubsfansareDRUNK
08-25-2007, 01:53 AM
Was Floyd EVER even close to being decent for a somewhat extended period of time? Gross. :angry:

JB98
08-25-2007, 02:00 AM
I think that there is a certain amount of reality to the idea that the difference between a championship team and one totally out of contention is smaller than most people think. Look how fast the 2005 Sox happened. Look how fast that turned into 2007.

We need to turn over roughly half of our pitching staff between now and next year. We need an entirely new bench, and I'd say we need two new position players for the everyday lineup.

Could we return to contention next year? Absolutely. But not without significant changes to the roster, IMO. This 56-72 record is well earned. This is a bad club.

Nellie_Fox
08-25-2007, 02:16 AM
We need to turn over roughly half of our pitching staff between now and next year. We need an entirely new bench, and I'd say we need two new position players for the everyday lineup.

Could we return to contention next year? Absolutely. But not without significant changes to the roster, IMO. This 56-72 record is well earned. This is a bad club.See, the problem is that when a team is winning, their weaknesses tend to be overlooked. When they are losing, their weaknesses are glaring. What I tried to say is that you don't have to fix every weakness to return to being a championship team. There are no teams without weaknesses.

JB98
08-25-2007, 02:25 AM
See, the problem is that when a team is winning, their weaknesses tend to be overlooked. When they are losing, their weaknesses are glaring. What I tried to say is that you don't have to fix every weakness to return to being a championship team. There are no teams without weaknesses.

True, but we need significant changes. KW overhauled the team after the 2004 season, and that club wasn't nearly as bad as this one.

kitekrazy
08-25-2007, 02:27 AM
I think that there is a certain amount of reality to the idea that the difference between a championship team and one totally out of contention is smaller than most people think. Look how fast the 2005 Sox happened. Look how fast that turned into 2007.

I don't know anyone who thought before the 2005 season started the Sox would win it all.

The usual 5th starter Garland won 18 games.

Some thought the trade for Pods was bad.

The Dye signing didn't impress anyone.

Some thought no signing Mags was a mistake.


It goes to show ya Major League Baseball has been very unpredictable this century.

There was no disputable evidence to deny that the Sox were the best team in baseball in 2005. They started with dominance and ended with dominance. One of the great World Series teams.

LITTLE NELL
08-25-2007, 06:05 AM
I'm starting to think this bunch resembles those 1968-1970 teams...they went from pennant contender in 67 (and good the prior 10 years) to terrible overnight. It culminated in 1970. This team has MB and Vasquez? That 1970 team had Tommy John, Wilbur Wood, and Joel Horlen. That team also had Bill Melton, Ken Berry and Carlos May.

Unfortunately, it also had Bobby Knoop, Syd O'Brien and Gail Hopkins


Where's Dick Allen and Chuck Tanner to pull us out of this morass?
The Sox were good for 17 years 1951 to 1967, 17 straight winning seasons. In that span they won over 90 games 6 times.

ode to veeck
08-25-2007, 06:45 AM
The Sox were good for 17 years 1951 to 1967, 17 straight winning seasons. In that span they won over 90 games 6 times.

Since then its also been mostly winning seasons. 2007 will likely be the 1st lsing season in 8 years, since Jerry Manual started us back up from the Bevington debacle. Prior to that there were also some less than competitive periods in the late 80s and much of the 70s (other than the highlights of the '77 hit men and Tanner's better teams).

Frater Perdurabo
08-25-2007, 07:03 AM
I sure hope that KW already sees that Floyd sucks.

I just want to be sure; let Floyd prove beyond any doubt that he's bad :o:

Sometimes KW and Ozzie worry me when they say the club is "not that far away" from a return to contention. We're 16 games under .500. We're far away.

It depends on what you mean by "far away." If by "far away" you mean the Sox need a shortstop, left fielder, center fielder, leadoff hitter, a starting pitcher and two relievers, then yes, they are "far away."

If by "not that far away" KW and Ozzie mean the Sox need a shortstop, left fielder, center fielder, leadoff hitter, a starting pitcher and two releivers, then yes, they are "not that far away."

See, it's all just semantics. :tongue:

Frater Perdurabo
08-25-2007, 07:13 AM
We need to turn over roughly half of our pitching staff between now and next year. We need an entirely new bench, and I'd say we need two new position players for the everyday lineup.

Thankfully it's less expensive (but also more uncertain) to re-build a bullpen and find a fifth starter than it is to try to get two top-of-the-rotation starters.

I too agree the Sox need two new position players to fill three total holes (LF, CF, SS), and one of them needs to be able to lead off. If a leadoff hitter is acquired and two of those three positions are filled, I'm OK giving the third position to either a role player (like Owens in LF and batting ninth) or a player who can play great defense and bat ninth (Izturis or Wilson at SS or Anderson in CF).

If Crede returns, the bench is easy. Just bring back Mack. Let Erstad, Cintron and Gonzalez go. A bench of Fields (getting lots of starts at 3B, DH against LHP, a little LF & 1B), Mack (RF, LF, 3B, 1B), Ozuna (SS, 2B, LF), Hall (C) and a backup CF is pretty stout.

wassagstdu
08-25-2007, 09:18 AM
The Sox were good for 17 years 1951 to 1967, 17 straight winning seasons. In that span they won over 90 games 6 times.
Yes, but how many times did they lead the league in HR?

wilburaga
08-25-2007, 09:48 AM
You forgot Little Looey.

And Walt Williams.


W

The Critic
08-25-2007, 09:57 AM
Who would you like to replace him with? Gavin Floyd?

No, silly.....AARON ROWAND!!!!
(or maybe Arizona's Chris Young)

:D:

Fenway
08-25-2007, 10:25 AM
Here is a stat that blows my mind. Friday was the first time in FIFTY years Boston scored 10 or more runs in both games of a doubleheader. Last happened in June of 1957. I think KW's biggest problem is moving dead payroll. 4th biggest payroll in MLB for this? AND Brooks says they raising tickets in 2008? I fear a major churn rate in season tickets.

palehozenychicty
08-25-2007, 11:37 AM
I don't know anyone who thought before the 2005 season started the Sox would win it all.

The usual 5th starter Garland won 18 games.

Some thought the trade for Pods was bad.

The Dye signing didn't impress anyone.

Some thought no signing Mags was a mistake.


It goes to show ya Major League Baseball has been very unpredictable this century.

There was no disputable evidence to deny that the Sox were the best team in baseball in 2005. They started with dominance and ended with dominance. One of the great World Series teams.

Indeed. Before that season, I thought that if the Cubans (El Duque and Contreras) threw well that they could win the division. But that was it. Luckily I was wrong.

As far as this team goes, JB98 was right in that they need significant changes to half the pitching staff, CF, and SS. I'm not sure there's enough time in one offseason to fully address those needs. We shall see.

kitekrazy
08-25-2007, 11:50 AM
As far as this team goes, JB98 was right in that they need significant changes to half the pitching staff, CF, and SS. I'm not sure there's enough time in one offseason to fully address those needs. We shall see.

Significant changes in the bullpen are never predictable. Look at some of guys they went through from having a successful season to being released. Every team goes through this.

The "experts" claimed before the season started that the Sox bullpen would be one of the best.

Jurr
08-25-2007, 12:32 PM
Significant changes in the bullpen are never predictable. Look at some of guys they went through from having a successful season to being released. Every team goes through this.

The "experts" claimed before the season started that the Sox bullpen would be one of the best.
Yup. There's a reason why 90 percent of the guys in the bullpen are in the bullpen. They were all starters at some point, but stuff, stamina, or mentality limited them from stepping into that premier spot. They are definitely a crap shoot. We got burned.

I am floored by how miserable this team has looked. Apparently pride doesn't count for much in baseball anymore. These guys are just playing out the string, and don't care too much about finishing strong. Like I've said a million times, this team needs an enema.

HerzogVon
08-25-2007, 12:37 PM
The Sox were good for 17 years 1951 to 1967, 17 straight winning seasons. In that span they won over 90 games 6 times.

How many was it they started by losing in 1968? Ten? That was the worst time I can remember, particularly seeing as how close they had come in 1967.
No doubt '68-'70 was the low point. But this team is rapidly approaching that, at least in terms of being a pain in the ass to watch.

Maybe Kenny's magic has run out? Perhaps HE was the fluke, and not the 2005 ball club? Whatever; that team won as much by grit and determination as by talent. This club is totally lacking in fire as well as heart. Whether it's Kenny, Ozzie or the Chairman himself, something has died. It's not likely to be resuscitated by a few changes in player personnel. No, it's time for Kenny to leave.

Is Ron Schueler still available?

kitekrazy
08-25-2007, 01:33 PM
I am floored by how miserable this team has looked. Apparently pride doesn't count for much in baseball anymore.

Why would it when every contract is guaranteed? A NFL team doesn't have to put up with Contreras like performances from a player.

MLB is set up to favor teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. It's all about who spends the most money. Therefore teams like the Pirates become farm systems for other teams.

There must be some reason the NFL far exceeds MLB in popularity. Drugged up baseball players brought back some popularity.

I have no problem with what some players make. A-Rod seems to live up to his pay.

This is the first time I've seen a team with a line up that all sucks at once. It would be easy to blame Walker but these guys are veterans.

The Sox hitters are a curse on the base baths. I'd like Konerko a lot better if he wasn't the slowest guy in the league. Other members on this team do one skill well and the others are deficits. With some guys it's health. Some of that didn't exist in 2005.

Imagine how bad this team would be in the dead ball era.

Patrick134
08-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Why would it when every contract is guaranteed? A NFL team doesn't have to put up with Contreras like performances from a player.

MLB is set up to favor teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. It's all about who spends the most money. Therefore teams like the Pirates become farm systems for other teams.

There must be some reason the NFL far exceeds MLB in popularity. Drugged up baseball players brought back some popularity.

I have no problem with what some players make. A-Rod seems to live up to his pay.

This is the first time I've seen a team with a line up that all sucks at once. It would be easy to blame Walker but these guys are veterans.

The Sox hitters are a curse on the base baths. I'd like Konerko a lot better if he wasn't the slowest guy in the league. Other members on this team do one skill well and the others are deficits. With some guys it's health. Some of that didn't exist in 2005.

Imagine how bad this team would be in the dead ball era.


Pride doesn't = results on the field. It's not like a strike-out magically would have been a double if the player had more "pride". Have the sox looked defeated out there at times this year ? Sure, but who wouldn't having to go through what they have ? Winning is contagious, and as we've seen this year, losing can be too. But don't think for a second that it's a pride issue.

ode to veeck
08-25-2007, 01:54 PM
I think its really way too premature to compare the '07 team to the '68-'70 Sox, who were much much worse (50 games under 500 in '70) and whose sustained franchise underperformance extended over a much longer period afterwards. There were only Tannner's best year and the '77 hit men above .500 until just ahead of the the division winning team of the early 80s.

Sure it is painful to watch them struggle towards the end of the season here, and there's clearly a fair bit of retooling needed, but as perhaps implied by Frater and Nellie, there's not as much difference between a team that sucks and one that really succeeds as demonstrated by the successes of say the '05 SOX or better yet, the '06 Tigers, who really had been the Pathetic Kittens in immediately preceeding years.

JB98
08-25-2007, 02:31 PM
I think its really way too premature to compare the '07 team to the '68-'70 Sox, who were much much worse (50 games under 500 in '70) and whose sustained franchise underperformance extended over a much longer period afterwards. There were only Tannner's best year and the '77 hit men above .500 until just ahead of the the division winning team of the early 80s.

Sure it is painful to watch them struggle towards the end of the season here, and there's clearly a fair bit of retooling needed, but as perhaps implied by Frater and Nellie, there's not as much difference between a team that sucks and one that really succeeds as demonstrated by the successes of say the '05 SOX or better yet, the '06 Tigers, who really had been the Pathetic Kittens in immediately preceeding years.

There is no question that things can change quickly in baseball, especially in this era of massive player movement every offseason. We had a thread not too long ago asking if 2005 or 2007 were the fluke. The answer, of course, is neither. The club we have now is not anywhere near the same personnel-wise as the championship team we had two years ago. It's not comparable.

Hopefully, the 2008 White Sox will not be comparable to the 2007 team. It can change practically over night. I'm not disagreeing with you, Frater or Nellie. But I am saying that KW has some major work to do to get us to that point. He's capable. He made major changes after the 2004 season, and almost everything he did turned to gold. Hopefully, he regains the magic touch. In hindsight, many of his moves last offseason didn't work, and here we are in late August with a bad team and bad record.

Hitmen77
08-25-2007, 05:50 PM
What happened to John Danks? He looked much better earlier this year.