PDA

View Full Version : Latest Kenny Comments Sunday AM


Lip Man 1
12-23-2007, 12:38 PM
Latest Kenny Comments (as of 12/23)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-071222whitesox,1,2297543.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

gogosox16
12-23-2007, 12:40 PM
Kenny makes a good point when he says he would of had to give up all the Sox young guys and hurt their future even more. Actually thinking about it good move on Kenny not trading for Cabrera, cause 1 player can't do everything

chisoxmike
12-23-2007, 12:41 PM
"I get it," Williams said emphatically about fans' angst. "The tendency is to say, 'They didn't get this,' but the emphasis should not be on who is not here but who is here.

Kenny's going in the way back machine with this one. I remember him saying this before the '04 season.

Patrick134
12-23-2007, 05:19 PM
Kenny's going in the way back machine with this one. I remember him saying this before the '04 season.

Yeah, and that didn't turn out all bad, good point.

chisoxmike
12-23-2007, 05:28 PM
Yeah, and that didn't turn out all bad, good point.

:?:

They weren't that good in 2004.

oeo
12-23-2007, 05:39 PM
:?:

They weren't that good in 2004.

Without their best two players...

chisoxmike
12-23-2007, 05:43 PM
Without their best two players...

True, but their pitching still wasn't good.

btrain929
12-23-2007, 05:47 PM
Kenny makes a good point when he says he would of had to give up all the Sox young guys and hurt their future even more. Actually thinking about it good move on Kenny not trading for Cabrera, cause 1 player can't do everything

I don't think it was Kenny not trading for Cabrera. It was up to Florida. I'm assuming we had a package on the table that DID have those players on the table for Cabrera, but FL went with a team that could give them more. So his deal was passed on, and now he's just saying after the fact that he didn't "want" to empty the farm on one guy. But I guarantee you he was willing to during those conversations......
Either way, I'm glad that trade didn't go thru for us either. Of course, I'd prefer it was with someone other than Detroit. But if Ozzie/Miggy/the wives are as close as we here, hopefully Miggy won't sign an extension with DET after '09 and sign with us. He is definitely the kind of guy you shell the money out for. And I'd imagine we wouldn't have to worry about a team like ANA sweeping in and offering more money, because hopefully being on a team and playing for Ozzie and hitting in the Cell would play huge roles in his decision. He's going to get paid either way....why not it be with a guy you love to play with. Lets keep it in the fam, MCab.
Here's to hoping for that in the '09 offseason! :gulp:

btrain929
12-23-2007, 06:00 PM
The one thing I'm very curious about is if he is going to make any acquisitions/moves regarding our bench. In the past year, we let go of Mack, Cintron, Erstad, and AGon. They all sucked (Mack was solid), but I'm glad the others aren't here anymore. But now the bench is pretty barren. We'll have a healthy Pablo. So unless I'm forgetting anyone, it looks like...

Pablo
Hall
Uribe?
A.Ramirez?? (I think he should win the everyday starter job somewhere, and if not, start the year in AAA. I don't think being on the bench will do him much good).

So either were going to go with AAA guys like Jason Bourgeois, Sweeney/Anderson, etc, or we have to acquire one or two guys for the bench. If we acquire a legitimate CF'er, then Owens will be on your bench as your 4th OF'er/pinch runner. So that would help the depth of our bench. I wouldn't mind a move or two where we trade Uribe or some of our arms (Aardsma/Masset/Sisco) for a solid bench guy. But as of right now, it seems pretty thin.

thedudeabides
12-23-2007, 07:54 PM
The one thing I'm very curious about is if he is going to make any acquisitions/moves regarding our bench. In the past year, we let go of Mack, Cintron, Erstad, and AGon. They all sucked (Mack was solid), but I'm glad the others aren't here anymore. But now the bench is pretty barren. We'll have a healthy Pablo. So unless I'm forgetting anyone, it looks like...

Pablo
Hall
Uribe?
A.Ramirez?? (I think he should win the everyday starter job somewhere, and if not, start the year in AAA. I don't think being on the bench will do him much good).

So either were going to go with AAA guys like Jason Bourgeois, Sweeney/Anderson, etc, or we have to acquire one or two guys for the bench. If we acquire a legitimate CF'er, then Owens will be on your bench as your 4th OF'er/pinch runner. So that would help the depth of our bench. I wouldn't mind a move or two where we trade Uribe or some of our arms (Aardsma/Masset/Sisco) for a solid bench guy. But as of right now, it seems pretty thin.

I think the bench will be shored up once the decisions are made with Crede/Uribe. With both of them still on the team there are too many infielders and really no backup 1B or RF. Ramirez is a big wild card because of the apparent flexibility he brings. It seems like there still is a ways to go before the 25 man is clear. With Aardsma and Masset both out of options, they would seem like obvious trading chips for a bench player, maybe even included in a deal with Crede/Uribe.

schmitty9800
12-23-2007, 09:30 PM
:?:

They weren't that good in 2004.If it means that another WS is a year away, I'll take it :smile:

SoxxoS
12-23-2007, 09:32 PM
The only thing I really didnt like this offseason was the Uribe signing.

I would have been more pissed if they gave Torii Hunter 90 million. I was delighted that didnt happen.

What would be bad, obviously, is if he doesnt use that money he allocated for Hunter on anyone. That is my small concern.

Corlose 15
12-23-2007, 10:14 PM
The only thing I really didnt like this offseason was the Uribe signing.

I would have been more pissed if they gave Torii Hunter 90 million. I was delighted that didnt happen.

What would be bad, obviously, is if he doesnt use that money he allocated for Hunter on anyone. That is my small concern.

Yeah, but they really had no choice at that point. I guess you could argue that KW could have inquired about Cabrera but trying to negotiate a fair trade for him without a backup plan would've been difficult.

gobears1987
12-23-2007, 11:46 PM
Yeah, and that didn't turn out all bad, good point.
Yep, because if we traded young players before that season, then it is reasonable to conclude that 2005 would not have happened.

gobears1987
12-23-2007, 11:48 PM
:?:

They weren't that good in 2004.If Frank and Maggs were healthy, the Sox likely would have had a good shot at the division.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 07:53 AM
What would be bad, obviously, is if he doesnt use that money he allocated for Hunter on anyone. That is my small concern.

What would you do with the money KW had allocated to Hunter?

What free agent(s) is/are available that you would sign with that money?

What realistic trade(s) would you make that would use that money?

I'm not concerned if the money is or is not spent. I'm much more concerned with how the team is constructed, regardless of whether the payroll increases or decreases.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 07:55 AM
If Frank and Maggs were healthy, the Sox likely would have had a good shot at the division.

I think they would have won the division in 2004 even if just one of those two was healthy; they would have remained in contention and KW likely would have made a trade to add a reliever to replace Mike Jackson or Jon Adkins.

SoxxoS
12-24-2007, 09:43 AM
What would you do with the money KW had allocated to Hunter?

What free agent(s) is/are available that you would sign with that money?

What realistic trade(s) would you make that would use that money?

I'm not concerned if the money is or is not spent. I'm much more concerned with how the team is constructed, regardless of whether the payroll increases or decreases.

I am not talking that it has to be spent NOW - I just would hope that money is available for another player if he becomes available. Who is that player? I dont know. But all I know is to get better - it really helps to spend money.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 01:44 PM
I am not talking that it has to be spent NOW - I just would hope that money is available for another player if he becomes available. Who is that player? I dont know. But all I know is to get better - it really helps to spend money.

Fair enough. I agree. Let's hope that KW still is empowered to spend the money, and that he does so wisely.

Flight #24
12-24-2007, 02:31 PM
What would you do with the money KW had allocated to Hunter?

What free agent(s) is/are available that you would sign with that money?

What realistic trade(s) would you make that would use that money?

I'm not concerned if the money is or is not spent. I'm much more concerned with how the team is constructed, regardless of whether the payroll increases or decreases.

At this point, there aren't many options (or possibly any). But I certainly would have offered a bit more than they did to try and get Fukudome, and I'd have given Rowand the extra year he wanted. I believe given how long he waited around that he'd have signed with the Sox for say 5/$55. But I'd even have given him 5/$60.

I can see the argument that that's overpaying, but to me it's a question of how you improve the team. They had the $$$ available to them, so it's not about having to cut elsewhere to do it. When you have the $$$ and the choice is using it to overpay but improve the team or not using it and not improving the team, you have to fall to the former IMO. That's especially true when you have a team that is primarily built to contend now, not in 2-3 years.

I'd much rather have overpaid Rowand/Fukudome than be in the current situation with $$$ sitting unused and having a team that's IMO a few players away from even hoping to contend and/or relying on some real question marks to be above average players.

And before the inevitable "it's December" comments - I'm basing that on the team as currently constructed and the currently available options to add to it. As I see it, the only remaining options for adding involve dealing, probably from a short supply of young talent, so I'm skeptical of how well a deal like that will really end up. But if Kenny can pull a rabbit out of his hat, more power to him.

jabrch
12-24-2007, 02:32 PM
Fair enough. I agree. Let's hope that KW still is empowered to spend the money, and that he does so wisely.

Good point...

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 02:41 PM
At this point, there aren't many options (or possibly any). But I certainly would have offered a bit more than they did to try and get Fukudome, and I'd have given Rowand the extra year he wanted. I believe given how long he waited around that he'd have signed with the Sox for say 5/$55. But I'd even have given him 5/$60.

Didn't I read somewhere that the Sox actually offered the same or more for Fukudome, but Fukudome wanted to be the first Japanese player for a team, which is why he picked the Cubs?

I'm just not enthusiastic about overpaying for "good" players like Hunter and Rowand. I'm more inclined to "overpay" for true superstars. For example, I'd overpay for A-Rod, Ichiro, Santana, Pujols, etc. Overpaying for "good" or "very good" players simply means that the team therefore lacks the flexibility to sign or trade for those true superstars when they very infrequently become available.

JNS
12-24-2007, 03:25 PM
Didn't I read somewhere that the Sox actually offered the same or more for Fukudome, but Fukudome wanted to be the first Japanese player for a team, which is why he picked the Cubs?

I'm just not enthusiastic about overpaying for "good" players like Hunter and Rowand. I'm more inclined to "overpay" for true superstars. For example, I'd overpay for A-Rod, Ichiro, Santana, Pujols, etc. Overpaying for "good" or "very good" players simply means that the team therefore lacks the flexibility to sign or trade for those true superstars when they very infrequently become available.

Yep - Fukudone went to the North Side anyhow.

The only difference I would have with your point is that I consider Hunter way beyond "good." It isn't just the numbers - it's the way he plays the game, the quality of his defense, his take-no-prisoners style of play, clubhouse leadership, and "grinder/gamer" mentality. Cabrera would have been nice, but to me the big loss was Hunter. If "overpaying" means the team lacks flexibility afterwards, that's managements problem.

Anyhow, overpaying is relative. It's what the market can bare. Crying about it, as Sox management tends to do is not a productive pastime - it's meaningless because there really is no such thing as overpaying. In 1920 everyone freaked out about the price that Rupert paid for Ruth, and the $80,000 salary he got. Adjusted for inflation that amount is barely over the MLB minimum now.

My feeling is that as long as KW and JR whine about how unfair the market is, and how it's other executives and teams fault for paying too much, we have the right to call them stupid, cheap, and WAY behind the curve.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 04:42 PM
Yep - Fukudone went to the North Side anyhow.

The only difference I would have with your point is that I consider Hunter way beyond "good." It isn't just the numbers - it's the way he plays the game, the quality of his defense, his take-no-prisoners style of play, clubhouse leadership, and "grinder/gamer" mentality. Cabrera would have been nice, but to me the big loss was Hunter. If "overpaying" means the team lacks flexibility afterwards, that's managements problem.

Anyhow, overpaying is relative. It's what the market can bare. Crying about it, as Sox management tends to do is not a productive pastime - it's meaningless because there really is no such thing as overpaying. In 1920 everyone freaked out about the price that Rupert paid for Ruth, and the $80,000 salary he got. Adjusted for inflation that amount is barely over the MLB minimum now.

My feeling is that as long as KW and JR whine about how unfair the market is, and how it's other executives and teams fault for paying too much, we have the right to call them stupid, cheap, and WAY behind the curve.

If they were willing to overpay for Fukudome, then it's not a matter of being cheap or stupid or even way behind the curve, as you say.

KW chose not to pay more to out-bid the Angels for Hunter because he did not believe Hunter would make enough of a difference on the team to justify the added expense. That's a baseball decision, not a money decision, and I trust KW to make better baseball decisions than his critics.

JNS
12-24-2007, 05:06 PM
If they were willing to overpay for Fukudome, then it's not a matter of being cheap or stupid or even way behind the curve, as you say.

KW chose not to pay more to out-bid the Angels for Hunter because he did not believe Hunter would make enough of a difference on the team to justify the added expense. That's a baseball decision, not a money decision, and I trust KW to make better baseball decisions than his critics.

Of course it was a money issue.

Will our new superstar slugger from the Cuban A level league "make a difference?" How about Linebrink, the home run pitcher whose stats were inflated by the huge outfield at Petco park?

Baseball decisions, money decisions, it's pretty much the same thing. You go on about how this guy or that guy wasn't worth it, and then cherry-pick whether that was a "money" or "baseball" decision.

I mean, this is baseball, not international diplomacy - none of these guys are "worth" it, but that's what the market seems to be demanding these days.

Bottom, the Sox will have real difficulty competing in the division in 2008, for all KW's crowing about these amazing finds - Quinton and Ramirez - does anyone talk him seriously when he acts as if these guys will - as you put it - make a difference?

meanwhile, who is lead-off? Who is at 2nd - oh yeah, that veteran, proven guy Richar. Who plays 3rd? Who plays CF? Who is our LF?

I understand that it is only December, that these are a LOT of questions for any team to deal with in any off-season. Period. For KW to brag that he has gone 4 for 5 so far is just pathetic.

But don't worry - the kool-aide drinkers will have plenty of lame excuses next summer as our Sox tank.

As I have said, it is time for Sox fans to join the reality-based community.

OK, I am off to pee in my pants and stand under a dark cloud.

ilsox7
12-24-2007, 05:15 PM
How about Linebrink, the home run pitcher whose stats were inflated by the huge outfield at Petco park?



When making claims like this, it's generally a good idea to see if the stats support you.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 05:57 PM
OK, I am off to pee in my pants and stand under a dark cloud.

:rolling:

Just watch out for yellow snow! :redneck

KW's decision to offer more money to Fukudome than the Cubs were willing to pay demonstrates that the Sox were willing to overpay under certain circumstances. They just were not apparently interested in overpaying for Hunter or Rowand in particular. This is a baseball decision. It does not demonstrate an overall "cheapness" on the part of the Sox; the willingness to pay more for Fukudome demonstrates that they were willing to overpay for the right player. If not for Fukudome's own honor/pride, he'd be on the Sox now.

In addition, we cannot be certain Hunter gave the Sox an opporunity to counter (or improve upon) the Angels' offer.

Therefore, the only player for whom we KNOW it is a fact that KW was not willing to go over budget was Rowand. And who would know more about Rowand than the GM who oversaw the overwhelming majority of his career? That, my friend, is an informed baseball decision.

:smile:

Merry Christmas!

ilsox7
12-24-2007, 05:58 PM
In addition, we cannot be certain Hunter gave the Sox an opporunity to counter (or improve upon) the Angels' offer.



He didn't.

raven1
12-24-2007, 06:11 PM
Of course it was a money issue.

Will our new superstar slugger from the Cuban A level league "make a difference?" How about Linebrink, the home run pitcher whose stats were inflated by the huge outfield at Petco park?

Baseball decisions, money decisions, it's pretty much the same thing. You go on about how this guy or that guy wasn't worth it, and then cherry-pick whether that was a "money" or "baseball" decision.

I mean, this is baseball, not international diplomacy - none of these guys are "worth" it, but that's what the market seems to be demanding these days.

Bottom, the Sox will have real difficulty competing in the division in 2008, for all KW's crowing about these amazing finds - Quinton and Ramirez - does anyone talk him seriously when he acts as if these guys will - as you put it - make a difference?

meanwhile, who is lead-off? Who is at 2nd - oh yeah, that veteran, proven guy Richar. Who plays 3rd? Who plays CF? Who is our LF?

I understand that it is only December, that these are a LOT of questions for any team to deal with in any off-season. Period. For KW to brag that he has gone 4 for 5 so far is just pathetic.

But don't worry - the kool-aide drinkers will have plenty of lame excuses next summer as our Sox tank.

As I have said, it is time for Sox fans to join the reality-based community.

OK, I am off to pee in my pants and stand under a dark cloud.
These are all valid concerns, but I don't think it's "drinking the kool-aid" to still conclude that KW made reasonable efforts to improve the team, but things just haven't worked out yet. The problem with almost all of the complaints is that they don't offer a realistic alternative course of action which the White Sox could have taken. What constitutes the best offer a team is able to make is obviously a subjective call, but from most accounts KW made aggressive offers to fill the above gaps but simply got outbid or lost out to a market that offers free agents more visibility. That is very disappointing, but I would rather see the Sox wait for the best deal on their limited trade possibilites & salary room than panic & do something that would damage the team.

JNS
12-24-2007, 06:15 PM
When making claims like this, it's generally a good idea to see if the stats support you.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7542024

Item 2. And Perry is not the only one. In fairness he disses the signing of Hunter by the Angels too, but he's basing Linebrink's issue on stats.

I have no problem with the dough they paid him - it's a pretty standard amount these days - but I doubt he's the setup answer any more than McDougal turned out to be.

ilsox7
12-24-2007, 06:18 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7542024

Item 2. And Perry is not the only one. In fairness he disses the signing of Hunter by the Angels too, but he's basing Linebrink's issue on stats.

I have no problem with the dough they paid him - it's a pretty standard amount these days - but I doubt he's the setup answer any more than McDougal turned out to be.

So you cite a guy making a false argument to support your false argument? Again, go look at the stats. Namely, his home and away splits over the last few years.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 06:36 PM
He didn't.

Thank you. So let's sum it all up all the pertinent facts:

1. As Hunter didn't allow the Sox a chance to outbid the Angels, there is nothing more the Sox could have done to sign him;

2. As they offered more money than the Cubs, there is nothing more the Sox could have done to get Fukudome;

3. As the Sox didn't have enough prospects that the Marlins coveted, there is nothing more the Sox could have done to get Cabrera;

Therefore, the only player the Sox deliberately did not "go the extra mile" to sign was Aaron Rowand.

So, with these facts laid bare, the only argument the PPDCs can make to support their contention that KW and the Sox are cheap and timid is to argue that they (the PPDCs) have a better understanding of Aaron Rowand's value than the team that for the last decade has scouted, drafted, developed, promoted, demoted, started, won a World Series with, and then traded him!

:o:

If KW thought Rowand would be the one player to put the Sox over the top, would he not have offered him the extra year?

Moreover, based on having a decade's worth of knowledge of Rowand as a player, isn't KW is better prepared than any other human being to decide whether or not Rowand is the "missing piece?"

Mohoney
12-24-2007, 07:03 PM
Therefore, the only player the Sox deliberately did not "go the extra mile" to sign was Aaron Rowand.

The guy I wanted was Andruw Jones, and I'm wondering if they ever considered him. If they didn't even think of Jones as an option, then I have no choice but to be upset.

We would have snagged a legit answer to the CF question at less than 50% of what we were willing to commit to Hunter. If that possibility was completely dismissed just because of a dislike of one agent, that would upset me a great deal.

I seriously doubt that there is any person here (if I'm wrong, please feel free to retort) that gets along with EVERYBODY in their line of work. Sometimes, you have to just put personal dislike aside and get things done. If you're completely unable to conduct business with people you don't like, even to the detriment of your professional goals, that's inexcusable.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2007, 07:11 PM
Mohoney:

Kenny was quoted directly (posted here at WSI) as saying the Sox were not interested in Jones in part because of his agent and also in part because he didn't do the things Kenny felt the team needed (i.e. getting on base and fewer strikeouts.)

Lip

btrain929
12-24-2007, 07:31 PM
Mohoney:

Kenny was quoted directly (posted here at WSI) as saying the Sox were not interested in Jones in part because of his agent and also in part because he didn't do the things Kenny felt the team needed (i.e. getting on base and fewer strikeouts.)

Lip

I remember the quote, and I don't remember him mentioning Boras as the problem or an issue, but the other things you mentioned (on base, fewer K's, good at bats, etc). The thing that gets me, is that the Sox went 5/75 for Hunter, but wouldn't consider A.Jones for a 2 year deal. He was coming off the worst season of his career. This was going to be our best shot to get an All-Star CF'er at a reasonable price.

Besides representation, what does Hunter do that would make him worthy of so much attraction and make the Sox not want to even take a look at A.Jones? As far as average, OBP, and K's, they are very, very similar. Jones might give you a few more K's, but he'll also give you more HR's, better defense, and a lot more stability health-wise.

If there's one thing I'm mad about with this offseason so far, it's us not making any type of run at A.Jones, when we made a huge push for Hunter. Those two are very similar in what they do. So I wasn't buying that bull**** about KW not pursuing him because he didn't fit the mold of a player giving you hard at bats and few K's, because Hunter is a very similar hitter to Jones and we showed extreme interest in him. Plain and simple, it was Boras, but KW didn't want to admit that. And THAT'S what ticks me off...

soxfanreggie
12-25-2007, 02:00 AM
I get that we upgraded a few positions we needed help at, but we still have question marks at CF, SP, and lead-off hitter.

santo=dorf
12-25-2007, 02:09 AM
When making claims like this, it's generally a good idea to see if the stats support you.
How's this?
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_4_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_0_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_0_20071001.png

ilsox7
12-25-2007, 02:54 AM
How's this?
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_4_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_0_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/564_P_season__ha_full_0_20071001.png

That's great. And it shows his home/away splits are pretty similar. Hence my point that the argument referenced above, that Linebrink's numbers were significantly helped by pitching at Petco, is false.

roadrunner
12-25-2007, 03:16 AM
That's great. And it shows his home/away splits are pretty similar. Hence my point that the argument referenced above, that Linebrink's numbers were significantly helped by pitching at Petco, is false.

You might want to reconsider your definition of "pretty similar".

ilsox7
12-25-2007, 03:39 AM
You might want to reconsider your definition of "pretty similar".

You may want to look at the data again.

I'll lay it out so it's easy:

In 2004, he had a home ERA of 1.93 and an away ERA of 2.36. Home is definitely better, but both are awesome. In 2005, he had a home ERA of 3.31 and an away ERA of 0.66. The away ERA was significantly better. In 2006, he had a home ERA of 3.19 and an away ERA of 3.92. In 2007, he split the year, so I do not have true home/away splits for just his time with SD.

Cumulatively, from 2004 - 2006, Linebrink had a home ERA of 2.75 and a road ERA of 2.29. So yea, maybe I should reconsider my definition of "pretty similar" as he was much better on the road. But I used pretty similar b/c his 2007 was poor and probably balanced out the numbers to a degree.

spiffie
12-25-2007, 10:59 AM
Mohoney:

Kenny was quoted directly (posted here at WSI) as saying the Sox were not interested in Jones in part because of his agent and also in part because he didn't do the things Kenny felt the team needed (i.e. getting on base and fewer strikeouts.)

Lip
That statement would make more sense to me if Jones didn't get on base at a nearly 20 points higher clip than Hunter, who was priority #1 this offseason, and Hunter's 162/avg K's were only 14 lower than Jones.

I don't disagree with not going after Jones. But really, don't just come out and make a statement that is factually incorrect. If you want to come out and say "We don't deal with Boras, and Jones is overpaid for a guy coming off a .220 BA season" that's cool. But to say you don't want to go after Jones because of OBP and K rate when you did everything short of standing outside of Hunter's window with a boombox blasting out Peter Gabriel even though Hunter gets on base less and strikes out nearly as often as Jones...that doesn't make sense.

kittle42
12-25-2007, 11:19 AM
Of course it was a money issue.

Will our new superstar slugger from the Cuban A level league "make a difference?" How about Linebrink, the home run pitcher whose stats were inflated by the huge outfield at Petco park?

Baseball decisions, money decisions, it's pretty much the same thing. You go on about how this guy or that guy wasn't worth it, and then cherry-pick whether that was a "money" or "baseball" decision.

I mean, this is baseball, not international diplomacy - none of these guys are "worth" it, but that's what the market seems to be demanding these days.

Bottom, the Sox will have real difficulty competing in the division in 2008, for all KW's crowing about these amazing finds - Quinton and Ramirez - does anyone talk him seriously when he acts as if these guys will - as you put it - make a difference?

meanwhile, who is lead-off? Who is at 2nd - oh yeah, that veteran, proven guy Richar. Who plays 3rd? Who plays CF? Who is our LF?

I understand that it is only December, that these are a LOT of questions for any team to deal with in any off-season. Period. For KW to brag that he has gone 4 for 5 so far is just pathetic.

But don't worry - the kool-aide drinkers will have plenty of lame excuses next summer as our Sox tank.

As I have said, it is time for Sox fans to join the reality-based community.

OK, I am off to pee in my pants and stand under a dark cloud.

I pretty much feel the same way, and I feel that is coming from as objective a point of view I can have. Unfortunately, one can't disagree with the great Kenny Williams here without getting blasted from all sides.

santo=dorf
12-25-2007, 12:43 PM
That's great. And it shows his home/away splits are pretty similar. Hence my point that the argument referenced above, that Linebrink's numbers were significantly helped by pitching at Petco, is false.
No it doesn't at all. It shows over the past two years, there is a noticable difference between pitching at home.

Last year his ERA at Petco was 2.10 and his WHIP was .9
His overall ERA was 3.71 and his WHIP was 1.32.

In 2006 his ERA at home was .83 less than it was on the Road and his WHIP was .07 less at home.

Come back to reality already.

santo=dorf
12-25-2007, 12:50 PM
You may want to look at the data again.

I'll lay it out so it's easy:

In 2004, he had a home ERA of 1.93 and an away ERA of 2.36. Home is definitely better, but both are awesome. In 2005, he had a home ERA of 3.31 and an away ERA of 0.66. The away ERA was significantly better. In 2006, he had a home ERA of 3.19 and an away ERA of 3.92. In 2007, he split the year, so I do not have true home/away splits for just his time with SD.

Cumulatively, from 2004 - 2006, Linebrink had a home ERA of 2.75 and a road ERA of 2.29. So yea, maybe I should reconsider my definition of "pretty similar" as he was much better on the road. But I used pretty similar b/c his 2007 was poor and probably balanced out the numbers to a degree.
Why are you using stats from 2004? Especially for a reliever?!?!

Here's some help; Linebrink is going the wrong direction, and the past two years support this. Neal Cotts, Dustin Hermanson, and Cliff Politte were really, really good in 2005 as well. In fact, look at their cummlative ERAs over the past three years:
Hermanson: 2.25
Politte: 4.07
Cotts: 3.64

Hey, they look like some pretty good options. Perhaps Kenny should throw $15 million at each of them. :kukoo::nuts:

jabrch
12-25-2007, 12:59 PM
Unfortunately, one can't disagree with the great Kenny Williams here without getting blasted from all sides.


Do you really not see a difference between disagreeing with Kenny and the know-it-allistic, Kenny is an Idiot, He Should Have Done XXX, crap that goes on?

You are a smart guy Kittle. I think you can see pretty clearly that nobody has a problem with "disagreeing" with Kenny.

Lip Man 1
12-25-2007, 01:43 PM
Btrain:

The quote (and perhaps you can find it here at WSI) went along the lines of, after being asked specifically by the reporter about Boras' connection with Jones, Kenny said, 'it doesn't help (meaning who his agent is) but that doesn't matter because we're not interested in him, he's not in the picture.'

Like I said I know the quote was listed here after threads popped up about Ozzie saying the Sox were interested in him.

Lip

Big Hurt #35=HOF
12-25-2007, 03:39 PM
The Hunter contract was terrible! I don't like what we offered him either.

Jones himself was terrible last year; personally I'm glad we stayed away from both of these guys.

JNS
12-25-2007, 03:42 PM
Do you really not see a difference between disagreeing with Kenny and the know-it-allistic, Kenny is an Idiot, He Should Have Done XXX, crap that goes on?

You are a smart guy Kittle. I think you can see pretty clearly that nobody has a problem with "disagreeing" with Kenny.


Nobody is saying what KW should have done or being a "know-it-all." But some of us are tired of him insulting fans intelligence.

I didn't even disagree with the guy when he said the team had "improved." In fact I agree with that. But I also said that "improvement" out of the context of COMPETING WITH THE REST OF THE DIVISION is irrelevant. It's another example of KW pointing out how dumb we are and how smart he is. THis isn't about me or anyone else calling KW an idiot - it's about HIM CALLING US IDIOTS.

"I get it," Williams said emphatically about fans' angst. "The tendency is to say, 'They didn't get this,' but the emphasis should not be on who is not here but who is here.

"I know people don't understand this [because they] hear about the pursuit of Hunter, Rowand and Fukudome, but the fact is we had five areas where we needed an upgrade."

So, OK, he's "improved" the team. But please excuse me, and a large portion of the Sox fan base who are less than impressed with a minor league Cuban utility guy, and a former #1 pick who lost his job on one MLB team, got hurt, and may or may not amount to anything with the Sox (I'm referring to Quinton).

And again, the statement about how "...the emphasis should not be on who is not here but who is here."

Well, we are emphasizing who is here. Who is here are:

-- 2 3rd basemen
-- 2 (or 3 if you count the Cuban guy) shortstops.
-- 2 totally unproven 2nd basemen (Richar and the Cuban guy).
-- A shaky back end of the rotation. At best it is unproven.
-- A bunch of unknown quantities in the pen.

OK, now let's look at who ISN'T here:

-- No proven CF.
-- No proven LF.
-- No proven 2B
-- No Leadoff man.

AGAIN, these are a lot of issues for one team to deal with in ANY off-season, period.

OK, how has KW improved the team?

-- A better SS - BUT we still have this guy Uribe.

Sorry - that's it. Maybe Quinton is the next MVP. Anybody wanna bet?

Sorry - maybe this Cuban guy is the next Joe Morgan or Nellie Fox at 2B. Anybody wanna bet?

Sorry, maybe the Cuban guy is the next Torii Hunter (or even Mike Hershberger) in CF. Anybody wanna bet?

Oh wait! Ramirez can't play 2B and CF at the same time. Oh well, maybe KW will figure out how he can - he's a genius after all. Never made a mistake, never did anything wrong.

Sorry folks, this is not about how KW is an idiot (although he sure seems insecure and defensive all the time). This is not about being a know-it-all. This is about the tough, difficult facts we, as devoted Sox fans have to face.

I'm certainly not calling KW an idiot, although I have called his words and actions pathetic. But I'm a guy who spends MY INCOME ON HIS SEASON TICKETS. EXCUSE ME KW, BUT PLEASE DON'T BE SO PRESUMPTUOUS AS TO TELL ME HOW TO THINK. I don't need KW to tell me what I should be looking at. I can do a pretty good job of that myself. I know a lousy team when I see it. Does it make me love the Sox less? No, but it pisses me off - I hate it when my team is lousy.

In the end his most depressing comment was about how (of course this isn't the case - he actually has plan Q-17 or R-23 - oh wait, that was a few weeks ago - doesn't count any more - that statement is now inoperative) HE MAY NOT MAKE ANY MORE MOVES AT ALL.

Well, if this is the case, Ozzie himself has said that "We have the starting pitchers, I don't know if we have a good enough lineup." And that's from KW's own manager.
If KW doesn't do anything else it means we will go into the season without a CF, and with 2 SS (maybe 3) without an experienced LF, and with NO leadoff man. Lookin good folks! KW is right! We are idiots, he's a genius, and the Sox will cruise in 10 games ahead of the Tigers and Indians.

People, it's time to worry.

OK, back to that dark cloud. And oh yeah, my pants are dry - time to wet them again. Those who want to can continue to move around the deck chairs on the Titanic.

santo=dorf
12-25-2007, 05:01 PM
Do you really not see a difference between disagreeing with Kenny and the know-it-allistic, Kenny is an Idiot, He Should Have Done XXX, crap that goes on?

You are a smart guy Kittle. I think you can see pretty clearly that nobody has a problem with "disagreeing" with Kenny.
The problem is the polyannas and the "it's only (this date)" folks are labeling everyone who brings up the slightest criticism of the Sox as a PPDC (by far the most obnoxious abreveation in WSI history.)

I guess you and Frater can add TornLabrum to the list.....

You have to admit the Sox depth chart looks pretty strange:
Three potential shortstops, although you know that itís Cabrera who will be starting there;
Two potential third basemen, depending on Joe Credeís recovery from back surgery (will it be Crede or Josh Fields?);
Huge question marks in left field (Carlos Quentin? Ryan Sweeny? Pablo Ozuna?), centerfield (Jerry Owens? Brian Anderson? Ozuna?), and both the starting rotation and bullpen (which weíve addressed previously).
But Kenny Williams is apparently all but finished building the 2008 White Sox. Right now it looks like itís going to be a long season.

kittle42
12-26-2007, 01:26 AM
The problem is the polyannas and the "it's only (this date)" folks are labeling everyone who brings up the slightest criticism of the Sox as a PPDC (by far the most obnoxious abreveation in WSI history.)

I guess you and Frater can add TornLabrum to the list.....

jabrich, I agree with what santo=dorf is saying here, and that was what I was trying to get across. PPDC is quite obnoxious, but not as obnoxious as those who throw it around with reckless abandon.

These are the types of comments prevalent here in the offseason with which I am fed up:

In response to valid criticism of Williams (1) failing to yet address the needs discussed elsewhere in this thread; (2) failing for one reason or another to land any of the free agent CFs; and/or (3) entering the spin zone and stating that 4/5 of his offseason plan was complete, including getting the great Carlos Quentin, while the Tigers ridiculously beef up and the Indians remain strong, these things:

"You PPDC - it is only December." Fine. Yes, there are three whole months til the start of the season, and I certainly hope Williams does not send this club into April in its current form, and yes, he has time to make moves, but most of the more talented players who were free agents or known to be on the block are already spoken for. During the short flurry of activity, the Sox' major move was trading their No. 3 starter for Orlando Cabrera (by the way, I had no problem with that move, with the caveat that they go acquire another starter). In any event, worrying about this team in its current form and worrying about what Williams can reasonably get done at this point is valid, and involves no piss in my pants.

"You PPDC - we said the same things in the offseason after 2004. We won the World Series in 2005!" I have two problems with this one. First, this is a version of what I like to call the "'85 Bears Mantra." I don't want to be talking about 2005 in 20 years because it was the last time the Sox won anything.

The second problem I have with this, as well as with "they haven't even played a game yet (which is my "Hopeless KC Royals Fan Mantra")," is that, I feel, that 2005 team was special - just a cohesive unit that escaped major injuries, got career years from several pitchers, and was able to squeak out a ton of 1 and 2 run games. Quite arguably, Williams caught lightning in a bottle that year. hey, it happens. Look at the 2003 Marlins, as well. So ok, can you go into every season and say, look, we'll just play the games out and we have as good a chance as 29 other teams. Well, that simply is not true. Top teams that contend consistently poise themselves to compete at the highest level. To Williams' credit, he did that after 2005. However, after the 2006 flop, the Sox seemingly went back to business as usual. I feel criticism of this is valid and understandable, and not "dark cloud"-ism.

We are fans. We question our teams. It's what real fans do. Does it mean we don't love our guys? Of course not. Whatever stars or bums they toss out there in April will be cheered on by all of us. If fans didn't question things like not signing certain players or in-game decisions, sports wouldn't be nearly the draw that they are.

While fandom does mean, at some level, supporting your team no matter what, that support does not need to be blind or uninformed (see Cubs, Chicago for that). I would imagine most of you here are Bears fans. A year after the Super Bowl, with the way the team has performed, are you happy? If another Bears fan questions which QB was playing, or why Thomas Jones was traded, or the Archuleta signing, is that person a PPDC? No, that person is a fan who simply wants their team to do all it can to be in a position to succeed, and I think that describes every one of us here in regard to the Sox.

So take your PPDC stuff and stick it.

/rant

JNS
12-26-2007, 02:05 AM
jabrich, I agree with what santo=dorf is saying here, and that was what I was trying to get across. PPDC is quite obnoxious, but not as obnoxious as those who throw it around with reckless abandon.

These are the types of comments prevalent here in the offseason with which I am fed up:

In response to valid criticism of Williams (1) failing to yet address the needs discussed elsewhere in this thread; (2) failing for one reason or another to land any of the free agent CFs; and/or (3) entering the spin zone and stating that 4/5 of his offseason plan was complete, including getting the great Carlos Quentin, while the Tigers ridiculously beef up and the Indians remain strong, these things:

"You PPDC - it is only December." Fine. Yes, there are three whole months til the start of the season, and I certainly hope Williams does not send this club into April in its current form, and yes, he has time to make moves, but most of the more talented players who were free agents or known to be on the block are already spoken for. During the short flurry of activity, the Sox' major move was trading their No. 3 starter for Orlando Cabrera (by the way, I had no problem with that move, with the caveat that they go acquire another starter). In any event, worrying about this team in its current form and worrying about what Williams can reasonably get done at this point is valid, and involves no piss in my pants.

"You PPDC - we said the same things in the offseason after 2004. We won the World Series in 2005!" I have two problems with this one. First, this is a version of what I like to call the "'85 Bears Mantra." I don't want to be talking about 2005 in 20 years because it was the last time the Sox won anything.

The second problem I have with this, as well as with "they haven't even played a game yet (which is my "Hopeless KC Royals Fan Mantra")," is that, I feel, that 2005 team was special - just a cohesive unit that escaped major injuries, got career years from several pitchers, and was able to squeak out a ton of 1 and 2 run games. Quite arguably, Williams caught lightning in a bottle that year. hey, it happens. Look at the 2003 Marlins, as well. So ok, can you go into every season and say, look, we'll just play the games out and we have as good a chance as 29 other teams. Well, that simply is not true. Top teams that contend consistently poise themselves to compete at the highest level. To Williams' credit, he did that after 2005. However, after the 2006 flop, the Sox seemingly went back to business as usual. I feel criticism of this is valid and understandable, and not "dark cloud"-ism.

We are fans. We question our teams. It's what real fans do. Does it mean we don't love our guys? Of course not. Whatever stars or bums they toss out there in April will be cheered on by all of us. If fans didn't question things like not signing certain players or in-game decisions, sports wouldn't be nearly the draw that they are.

While fandom does mean, at some level, supporting your team no matter what, that support does not need to be blind or uninformed (see Cubs, Chicago for that). I would imagine most of you here are Bears fans. A year after the Super Bowl, with the way the team has performed, are you happy? If another Bears fan questions which QB was playing, or why Thomas Jones was traded, or the Archuleta signing, is that person a PPDC? No, that person is a fan who simply wants their team to do all it can to be in a position to succeed, and I think that describes every one of us here in regard to the Sox.

Very well written and articulate.

To some degree I think it is also a matter of personal style and personality. I get angry - others are more stoic. I have lots of friends who really are in the thrall of 2005 still. They think about it and feel really good. I think that's a legit POV, it just ain't me.

I was in Chinatown the other night and drove back to Hyde Park by going N on Wentworth to 47th St, and then East on 47th. When I drove by the ballpark, it almost seemed as if that huge 2005 WORLD CHAMPION banner was mocking me. Will we still be looking at it in 2025? In this, your comment about the "85 Bears mantra" is certainly appropriate.

In the end it isn't so much that the Sox seem to have yet again hit hard times, but the combative, highly spun, in-your-face attitude that the public faces (Ozzie aside) of the organization show.

And yeah, the dialectic between the fan base and management has always been part of the game. One of the more bizarre aspects of Cub fandom has been the unwillingness to look at the teams prospects as objectively as possible.

You can always love someone (or a team) and still be angry or very disappointed in them for extended periods of time.

kittle42
12-26-2007, 05:16 AM
You can always love someone (or a team) and still be angry or very disappointed in them for extended periods of time.

I know. I'm also a Northwestern fan. And a Blackhawks fan. :mad:

Grzegorz
12-26-2007, 06:01 AM
Btrain:

The quote (and perhaps you can find it here at WSI) went along the lines of, after being asked specifically by the reporter about Boras' connection with Jones, Kenny said, 'it doesn't help (meaning who his agent is) but that doesn't matter because we're not interested in him, he's not in the picture.'

Like I said I know the quote was listed here after threads popped up about Ozzie saying the Sox were interested in him.

Lip

Who cares what Ozzie thinks? KW is the GM and his voice should be the voice of the organization.

misty60481
12-26-2007, 07:33 AM
I dont think KW is the voice of the organization. KW, Ozzie, Harrelson are like puppets Uncle Jerry squeezes there back, they open there mouths but JRs words come out.

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2007, 08:46 AM
Clear-eyed realists say, "The Sox still have holes on their roster. If they don't fill them, the Sox likely will not play well in 2008."

PPDCs say, "KW has failed miserably trying to fill the holes on the roster. It's obvious he's reverting to the "cheap, timid and stupid" behavior of pre-2005 Sox teams. Because he's terminally cheap, timid and stupid, he's deluded into thinking he doesn't need to improve the roster, and therefore he won't make any improvements, and therefore the season is lost."

Catch the difference?

:cool:

TornLabrum
12-26-2007, 10:09 AM
Since I've been quoted now in this thread, I want to clarify so you don't get the idea that I'm a PPDC. I'm basing the opinions expressed in this week's column on the fact that it has been reported that KW has pretty much said that his work over the winter is nearly complete.

If that's the case, we have a pretty strange looking depth chart with some pretty gaping holes. Who knows? Something could happen today that completely negates this. But as the Sox are constituted TODAY, and based on the reports that KW is almost through dealing, it could very well be a LONG season.

The good news for me is that the sessions with KW at Sox fest could get pretty interesting and I could have some very good material for columns here.

PorkChopExpress
12-26-2007, 10:27 AM
If that's the case, we have a pretty strange looking depth chart with some pretty gaping holes.

Maybe KW's plan is to stockpile a few pieces to be traded at the trade deadline this year and replenish the farm system.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 10:48 AM
Kittle - the message board culture leads itself to labels - to their exaggeration - and then to misuse. As you are (rightfully) fed up with the misuse of the PPDC thing, you should be equally tired of the exaggerations the other way. You can "disagree with the great Kenny Williams" (I'm fed up with that nonsense) without getting "blasted from all sides" (which also is an un-truth)

Plain english isn't message-board exciting. It's a lost art. You proliferate it by talking about "the great Carlos Quinten" - when you know full well that nobody is making that case.

Part of Kenny's job is to manage the media. Most of us are smart enough to understand that - so we just ignore what he says when he is in "spin mode". There's nothing wrong with that. Williams is doing his job as a GM. We are doing ours as smart fans. Nobody believes he' has gotten 80% of what he wants. That's absurd. But there's no reason at the same time for people to be bashing Williams. He made the best play he could with the resources he had at his disposal. I can't honestly say I'd have made bigger offers for any of those CFs we are talking about. And Detroit gave up such a huge package for Cabrerra and Willis that we didn't have the ability to match it.

I know you are tired of the PPDC thing - I get that. But it happens in conjunction with the pendulum swinging the entire opposite way and having a bunch (not you) of boobs on here with a know-it-all attitude, the armchair GM crowd, who armed with a spreadsheet and the links to a few websites (ya see - I can over exaggerate to "prove" a point also) take to criticizing not what KW did, but his ability to do the job.

I have filtered out a lot of what I don't want to read on WSI. To me, I love the game of baseball and enjoy talking about it with people who either agree with me, or who can continue dialogue in a manner that is at least productive. IMHO, the PPDC label fits for those who truly go bannanas about every little thing, or those who say this team is a lock for a 90 loss season. It doesn't fit for everyone who has anything negative to say.

There's nothing wrong with not liking how the team plays. There's nothing wrong with being critical. But you'd have to admit that there is a segment of our fans who are over-the-top critical of absolutely everything. I'm not lumping you in with them - just saying that they exist. For me - I just ignore them. They do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 10:53 AM
Clear-eyed realists say, "The Sox still have holes on their roster. If they don't fill them, the Sox likely will not play well in 2008."

PPDCs say, "KW has failed miserably trying to fill the holes on the roster. It's obvious he's reverting to the "cheap, timid and stupid" behavior of pre-2005 Sox teams. Because he's terminally cheap, timid and stupid, he's deluded into thinking he doesn't need to improve the roster, and therefore he won't make any improvements, and therefore the season is lost."

Catch the difference?

:cool:

That's well said Frater.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 10:57 AM
I dont think KW is the voice of the organization. KW, Ozzie, Harrelson are like puppets Uncle Jerry squeezes there back, they open there mouths but JRs words come out.

If you think anyone can manipulate the words coming out of Guillen's mouth, you are absolutely crazy. Same for KW. Hawk is a different story - he's a company man and a guy who isn't going to sell his team's GM/Manager (who he is friends with) down the river. But it isn't because of JR. None of those three will dump on eachother because that's not what a good GM/Manager do. And Hawk is not an unbiased journalist covering the team - he is an employee of the team (figuratively - I think he is literally an employee of the stations that broadcast games) who's job description probably doesn't ask him to be overly critical. Sure - he could be. But he's not. But that's not because JR tells him what to say - he figures this stuff all out on his own.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 11:01 AM
Kittle - the message board culture leads itself to labels - to their exaggeration - and then to misuse. As you are (rightfully) fed up with the misuse of the PPDC thing, you should be equally tired of the exaggerations the other way. You can "disagree with the great Kenny Williams" (I'm fed up with that nonsense) without getting "blasted from all sides" (which also is an un-truth)

Plain english isn't message-board exciting. It's a lost art. You proliferate it by talking about "the great Carlos Quinten" - when you know full well that nobody is making that case.

Part of Kenny's job is to manage the media. Most of us are smart enough to understand that - so we just ignore what he says when he is in "spin mode". There's nothing wrong with that. Williams is doing his job as a GM. We are doing ours as smart fans. Nobody believes he' has gotten 80% of what he wants. That's absurd. But there's no reason at the same time for people to be bashing Williams. He made the best play he could with the resources he had at his disposal. I can't honestly say I'd have made bigger offers for any of those CFs we are talking about. And Detroit gave up such a huge package for Cabrerra and Willis that we didn't have the ability to match it.

I know you are tired of the PPDC thing - I get that. But it happens in conjunction with the pendulum swinging the entire opposite way and having a bunch (not you) of boobs on here with a know-it-all attitude, the armchair GM crowd, who armed with a spreadsheet and the links to a few websites (ya see - I can over exaggerate to "prove" a point also) take to criticizing not what KW did, but his ability to do the job.

I have filtered out a lot of what I don't want to read on WSI. To me, I love the game of baseball and enjoy talking about it with people who either agree with me, or who can continue dialogue in a manner that is at least productive. IMHO, the PPDC label fits for those who truly go bannanas about every little thing, or those who say this team is a lock for a 90 loss season. It doesn't fit for everyone who has anything negative to say.

There's nothing wrong with not liking how the team plays. There's nothing wrong with being critical. But you'd have to admit that there is a segment of our fans who are over-the-top critical of absolutely everything. I'm not lumping you in with them - just saying that they exist. For me - I just ignore them. They do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of the game.
There are just two things in here I think warrant any sort of disagreement/counterpoint.

1. The Carlos Quentin stuff is really all due to Kenny. When you come out and say in multiple venues that one of your main offseason goals coming off a 90 win season is to get THE Carlos Quentin, specifically pointing to this one guy, then you are heaping a lot of expectation on the guy. I thought most people here seemed pretty positive about Quentin when the trade was made, if a little unhappy that a prospect like Carter had to go. But those statements elevated the move from a decent yet small move into one of the few things Kenny really thought was needed this offseason.

2. But there's no reason at the same time for people to be bashing Williams. He made the best play he could with the resources he had at his disposal.

Isn't Kenny the guy who pretty much found/divvied up those resources. If we couldn't go more strongly after Cabrera because of a weak farm system doesn't that in the end go to Kenny's desk? If we couldn't spend the money to get (insert player here) because KW tied up Jose Contreras to a long term deal doesn't that end up on his shoulders? Unless the complaint is simply that the Sox don't spend $150 million, isn't KW ultimately the one who oversaw the Sox being in the position they are in, and thus responsible for that lack of resources, be it freed up payroll or tradeable prospects? Your statement appears to be exonerating KW as though he entered a situation he had no control of. If I'm misreading you please correct me.

JNS
12-26-2007, 11:23 AM
There's nothing wrong with not liking how the team plays. There's nothing wrong with being critical. But you'd have to admit that there is a segment of our fans who are over-the-top critical of absolutely everything. I'm not lumping you in with them - just saying that they exist. For me - I just ignore them. They do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

And you are the arbiter of how we express that? We aren't allowed to be angry? We aren't allowed to express our opinions - in my case that it isn't so much the bad moves (YES - bad moves) that KW has made, but the spin and BS he expects us to buy.

It's about insulting our intelligence and acting as if the fans will buy load of **** that is spun in our general direction. It's about being defensive, hostile, and pompous.

Sorry if some folks delicate sensibilities are offended when some of us spout about bad KW's performance has been, but it's just another opinion. Nobody is insulting you - no need to get personal about it, but some juvenile types think that getting personal and calling folks names is the best way to respond.

It not a way to get anyone to take their judgment seriously. If you think I'm going overboard in my criticism of KW, fine - argue with me - discuss it. Tell me why you think so. A few folks (Voodoo for example) have. But the PPDC stuff is just infantile - there's no point in responding to that sort of thing.

voodoochile
12-26-2007, 12:11 PM
Isn't Kenny the guy who pretty much found/divvied up those resources. If we couldn't go more strongly after Cabrera because of a weak farm system doesn't that in the end go to Kenny's desk? If we couldn't spend the money to get (insert player here) because KW tied up Jose Contreras to a long term deal doesn't that end up on his shoulders? Unless the complaint is simply that the Sox don't spend $150 million, isn't KW ultimately the one who oversaw the Sox being in the position they are in, and thus responsible for that lack of resources, be it freed up payroll or tradeable prospects? Your statement appears to be exonerating KW as though he entered a situation he had no control of. If I'm misreading you please correct me.

This argument works IF you disagree with the signings and trades that were made AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE. Big money contracts that have limited the ability of the Sox to make better offers include:

1. Contreras - hard to fault the extension he was given, even more so given the state of current pitching contracts.

2. Konerko - Team leader, big stick, fan and management favorite and again, good production for the price.

3. Vasquez - given the state of pitching contracts this one again is hard to argue with. The trade might be criticized because of Young's production and potential, but trading from a standpoint of depth to fill a position of need with a veteran pitcher is exactly what you're supposed to do.

4. Thome - Contract is up soon and his production is solid for what the Sox have been paying him. In addition, at the time of the trade it was a no-brainer.

5. Buehrle - anyone got a problem with this contract? If you do, here's a link (http://www.northsidebaseball.com/)for you.

6. Dye - again, not really a lot to question here, especially given the way he has performed while wearing the black and silver.

7. Uribe and Crede - Wish we could have the Uribe money back, but it was a deadline decision that had to be made. Crede has to be signed to be traded or the Sox get nothing.

8. Cabrera - makes the Uribe signing superfluous, but unfortunately it came a day or two late and it's actually is a major improvement over the guy he is replacing.

9. Pierzynski - For what he brings to the field day in and day out, he's a bargain.

That's roughly $80M of the $108M the Sox have to spend. If you can actually find fault with the signings/trades (again) AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED please let me know what you would have done differently...

spiffie
12-26-2007, 12:42 PM
This argument works IF you disagree with the signings and trades that were made AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE. Big money contracts that have limited the ability of the Sox to make better offers include:

1. Contreras - hard to fault the extension he was given, even more so given the state of current pitching contracts.

2. Konerko - Team leader, big stick, fan and management favorite and again, good production for the price.

3. Vasquez - given the state of pitching contracts this one again is hard to argue with. The trade might be criticized because of Young's production and potential, but trading from a standpoint of depth to fill a position of need with a veteran pitcher is exactly what you're supposed to do.

4. Thome - Contract is up soon and his production is solid for what the Sox have been paying him. In addition, at the time of the trade it was a no-brainer.

5. Buehrle - anyone got a problem with this contract? If you do, here's a link (http://www.northsidebaseball.com/)for you.

6. Dye - again, not really a lot to question here, especially given the way he has performed while wearing the black and silver.

7. Uribe and Crede - Wish we could have the Uribe money back, but it was a deadline decision that had to be made. Crede has to be signed to be traded or the Sox get nothing.

8. Cabrera - makes the Uribe signing superfluous, but unfortunately it came a day or two late and it's actually is a major improvement over the guy he is replacing.

9. Pierzynski - For what he brings to the field day in and day out, he's a bargain.

That's roughly $80M of the $108M the Sox have to spend. If you can actually find fault with the signings/trades (again) AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED please let me know what you would have done differently...
The problem is that whether you liked them or not at the time they occured, they are still his signings. They are still his use of resources. Any individual contract might not be bad, but taken together they are what they are, and that is the team we have. Even if each piece looks nice on its own, it created a team where $80 million has left us a team with some pretty noticeable holes in it, and questions about how to use the other $25 or so million to fill them. Personally, I think the bigger crime is the farm system. The major league signings are mostly at worst defensible, and at best quite good. But the Sox are hurt badly by the failings in the minors, and what happens to guys when they get up here. Like the Vazquez trade. It looked like we were trading from depth, but in the end there seems to be a decent chance the only guy out of all our young OF that were hyped that ends up playing for a long time will be Young, as Owens and Anderson are both nearing the make or break point in the organization.

And at this point KW has had his hand on things long enough that he is where the buck stops for all aspects. For instance, Uribe. Yes, practically we had to sign him. However, the lack of any viable alternative in the system is something that comes back to KW. He was held hostage by a situation that he is ultimately responsible for.

In the end KW gets more credit than likely deserved if things work out, and the flip side is he is the one who has to take the heat when they don't. The team he put together is coming off of a 90 win season with at best small improvement going into the 2008 season. And it isn't fair that Joe Crede's back, Jose Contreras being old, Paul Konerko's funk, Dye's hammys, etc. are things that get chalked up to him. But if he is going to be given a pass because of the work of others (everything guys did in 2005) then he gets held accountable for these things as well. That's the nature of the business. Hell, if anything he's probably given more rope than most considering that in 7 years he's put together one playoff team. And I don't disagree with that rope. He did something amazing, and he put together some damn good teams in the other years.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 12:48 PM
When you come out and say in multiple venues that one of your main offseason goals coming off a 90 win season is to get THE Carlos Quentin,

I think Kenny is just being optimistic and spinning as best he can. I have no problem with a GM, coach, player doing that. Heck, I wouldn't want him to be anything less than confident regardless of how confident or not I am. I won't blame him for looking to the best possible results of his moves. That's his job.

Isn't Kenny the guy who pretty much found/divvied up those resources. ...Your statement appears to be exonerating KW as though he entered a situation he had no control of. If I'm misreading you please correct me.


I'm not saying KW is blameless. If you had to pick one person, by default it almost has to be him. But I don't like blaming GMs for making reasonable moves that don't turn out. I feel like KW got far too much credit in 05 (and my sig is probably an example of that) - and is getting far too much blame now. It's a matter of judgement calls - draft Porcello and spend 8mm to sign him, or draft Poreda and not be able to afford Linebrink and Ramirez. (however the math might work out...) But at the end of the day, I know less about baseball than Kenny Williams. and I believe that the same can be said about (almost - if not each and) every poster here. So I'll roll the dice with KWs judgement - since I don't have a choice in the matter.

KW is a decent GM. He's not great - he's decent. He will be right sometimes - and wrong sometimes. If he had a greater budget, he could afford to cover up more mistakes. But I won't blame him for signing Contreras in isolation. Because he also signed Javy. I won't blame him for trading Chris Young in isolation. He also traded dozens of other guys who failed, and got pretty good players back in general for his trades. Net/Net - KW has done more good for this franchise than harm. He's had exactly one really bad season under his belt, and one could argue that a lot of things happened outside of his control that took it from what might have otherwise been an acceptable season to what it ended up being. Before piling on KW, I want to see a history of this sort of thing. Actually - I'd rather not see that - and I'd rather not pile on him for each individual decision he makes.

I know less about the game than he does. I have less information about the players and the finances than he does. So while I may have my opinions, I won't get on my soapbox and bombasticly criticize him. He's made moves that I have agreed with - and others that I have disagreed with. I'm thrilled to DISCUSS those moves - but I lose interest (and try to ignore) it when it gets from discussing a move to so regularly bashing a given player or front office person.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 12:54 PM
That's roughly $80M of the $108M the Sox have to spend. If you can actually find fault with the signings/trades (again) AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED please let me know what you would have done differently...

Nice post VC. On the whole, KW has done a fairly decent job. Sure - he could have done better. That can be said about every GM in the game with the possible exception of Theo - who has a ridiculous amount of money to be spent both at the major league level and at the minor league level. I'm just not interested in engaging in the perpetual handwringing over moves that are 100% debateable, and are all justifyable when they are made. None of us are in a position to say with any degree of surety that Williams was wrong and made a bad move WHEN HE MADE IT.

spawn
12-26-2007, 02:27 PM
I think Kenny is just being optimistic and spinning as best he can. I have no problem with a GM, coach, player doing that. Heck, I wouldn't want him to be anything less than confident regardless of how confident or not I am. I won't blame him for looking to the best possible results of his moves. That's his job.




I'm not saying KW is blameless. If you had to pick one person, by default it almost has to be him. But I don't like blaming GMs for making reasonable moves that don't turn out. I feel like KW got far too much credit in 05 (and my sig is probably an example of that) - and is getting far too much blame now. It's a matter of judgement calls - draft Porcello and spend 8mm to sign him, or draft Poreda and not be able to afford Linebrink and Ramirez. (however the math might work out...) But at the end of the day, I know less about baseball than Kenny Williams. and I believe that the same can be said about (almost - if not each and) every poster here. So I'll roll the dice with KWs judgement - since I don't have a choice in the matter.

KW is a decent GM. He's not great - he's decent. He will be right sometimes - and wrong sometimes. If he had a greater budget, he could afford to cover up more mistakes. But I won't blame him for signing Contreras in isolation. Because he also signed Javy. I won't blame him for trading Chris Young in isolation. He also traded dozens of other guys who failed, and got pretty good players back in general for his trades. Net/Net - KW has done more good for this franchise than harm. He's had exactly one really bad season under his belt, and one could argue that a lot of things happened outside of his control that took it from what might have otherwise been an acceptable season to what it ended up being. Before piling on KW, I want to see a history of this sort of thing. Actually - I'd rather not see that - and I'd rather not pile on him for each individual decision he makes.

I know less about the game than he does. I have less information about the players and the finances than he does. So while I may have my opinions, I won't get on my soapbox and bombasticly criticize him. He's made moves that I have agreed with - and others that I have disagreed with. I'm thrilled to DISCUSS those moves - but I lose interest (and try to ignore) it when it gets from discussing a move to so regularly bashing a given player or front office person.
Great post.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 04:42 PM
So much of baseball is like everything else in life. Generally in both, decisions are judged by merely results. Iíd argue that usually this type of analysis is typically flawed. In order to understand whether or not a decision was a wise one or not we must look beyond the end result but also at the thought process behind them. For example: person A decides that itís ok to drive home drunk because its 2 am and no one will likely be on the road. They do so and make it home with out incident. Just because they made it home ok doesnít mean they displayed proper reasoning. Given the severity of the risk associated with driving drunk (arrest if discovered, possibility of harming others) it would be difficult for me to believe that one could properly assess the probability of such negative results and find the risk acceptable.
Or in the case of baseball, Kenny Williams recently acquired Scott Linebrink to a deal that has made plenty of people understandably squeamish. What we need to try to understand why Williams felt that the risk was acceptable. This is of course not an exact science and we are of course not familiar with all of information Kenny Williams or any other General Manager has available to them. In the specific case of Linebrink, while I understand Williams was probably somewhat concerned about his declining K rates, I suspect Williams gauged the market and felt that the risk was appropriate given the influx of revenue in major league baseball.
Of course this becomes problematic because becomes possible to effectively argue pretty much every signing, aside from Gary Mathews Jr (I kid).

Jurr
12-26-2007, 05:50 PM
The debate on this thread is VERY good. Kudos to all.

There comes a time when you take a step back from the ultra-agressive mode and have to catch your breath as a franchise. The Sox won it all in '05. They definitely made an effort to repeat in '06, but the performances of key players (Buehrle, Cotts, Politte, etc.) disallowed that from happening. '07 happened as a result of a little TOO much optimism towards some questionable arms in the bullpen.

There has to come a time where you step back and start letting your farm talent have a shot. You have to see where these kids fit into the equation, and that might be a scary proposition. Nonetheless, it's totally warranted with the Sox.

If you look at the pitching staff and bullpen that the Sox currently have, you definitely get that '04 feel. The 4 and 5 spots are definitely 50/50 shots at being effective. The bullpen is pretty shaky, as well. Does this team look loaded and ready to compete for a WS? Nah.

Sooo...what's the expectation for '08? Well, in my mind it's to shake up the organization by letting some of this young talent get a crack. Fields, Richar, Gonzalez, Broadway, Wasserman, and the rest of the young guys need a steady chance to learn on the big league level. You're not going to win the WS every year, and sometimes you need to sacrifice postseason hope for the purpose of letting the young guys see some pitches. These guys get a chance to learn, and the veterans with unsightly contracts get moved.

My one fear of this whole process is the impatience of fans at the park. While we watch Danks, Floyd, Fields, and company grow as pitchers, will the crowds be so light that the payroll needs to drop?

If you look at the entire scope of this roster, you don't quite see enough depth, especially on the staff, to win 90+ games. The veterans are getting older. If you think that the addition of Miguel Cabrera or Torii Hunter was going to take this team right to the top, you're huffing Freon. This team is REBUILDING. Period. The Sox need a new core to build around. You find your young core this year. Methinks that's Kenny's plan.

Flight #24
12-26-2007, 07:22 PM
Net/Net - KW has done more good for this franchise than harm. He's had exactly one really bad season under his belt, and one could argue that a lot of things happened outside of his control that took it from what might have otherwise been an acceptable season to what it ended up being. Before piling on KW, I want to see a history of this sort of thing. Actually - I'd rather not see that - and I'd rather not pile on him for each individual decision he makes.

I know less about the game than he does. I have less information about the players and the finances than he does. So while I may have my opinions, I won't get on my soapbox and bombasticly criticize him. He's made moves that I have agreed with - and others that I have disagreed with. I'm thrilled to DISCUSS those moves - but I lose interest (and try to ignore) it when it gets from discussing a move to so regularly bashing a given player or front office person.

Personally, I have 2 problems with KW and have for a while.
#1 - The farm under KW has been prety uniformly poor. Who have the Sox drafted that has ended up being an above average major leaguer? After Rowand/Buehrle/Crede, the next one is.....Fields? With who exactly behind him? Gio? The Sox farm is and has been poor under his GM-ship. It's also been one in which they routinely have players who cannot execute fundamentals (despite his constant mantra about "playing the right way"). That is a massive failing of his. And because of the Sox don't have unlimited resources, it's even more important and therefore even more of a failure.

#2 - He simply cannot keep his mouth shut. Whether it's blasting players and ex-players, flapping his gums about playing "the right way" when he so obviously is lying (I judge by results on that since he controls who and how they run the development program), and carping at the media about moves that quite rightly can and should be critiqued (plus, that's the job of the media - what does he expect?). He wants to be GM, he needs to learn to ignore the media/players and shut the hell up - it comes with the territory.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 07:28 PM
Personally, I have 2 problems with KW and have for a while.
#1 - The farm under KW has been prety uniformly poor. Who have the Sox drafted that has ended up being an above average major leaguer? After Rowand/Buehrle/Crede, the next one is.....Fields? With who exactly behind him? Gio? The Sox farm is and has been poor under his GM-ship. It's also been one in which they routinely have players who cannot execute fundamentals (despite his constant mantra about "playing the right way"). That is a massive failing of his. And because of the Sox don't have unlimited resources, it's even more important and therefore even more of a failure.

#2 - He simply cannot keep his mouth shut. Whether it's blasting players and ex-players, flapping his gums about playing "the right way" when he so obviously is lying (I judge by results on that since he controls who and how they run the development program), and carping at the media about moves that quite rightly can and should be critiqued (plus, that's the job of the media - what does he expect?). He wants to be GM, he needs to learn to ignore the media/players and shut the hell up - it comes with the territory.

I wouldn't be too bothered by the 1st issue. If you look at some of the better farm systems in baseball (Tampa, LA, Boston, NY,) you can see that a lot of luck is needed in building and sustaining talent. NY in particular has been lucky in seeing several of their high risk/ high reward drafties panning out (Not many people wanted any piece of Joba Chamberlain due to his arm problems and wieght in college)

Jerksticks
12-26-2007, 07:37 PM
The debate on this thread is VERY good. Kudos to all.

There comes a time when you take a step back from the ultra-agressive mode and have to catch your breath as a franchise. The Sox won it all in '05. They definitely made an effort to repeat in '06, but the performances of key players (Buehrle, Cotts, Politte, etc.) disallowed that from happening. '07 happened as a result of a little TOO much optimism towards some questionable arms in the bullpen.

There has to come a time where you step back and start letting your farm talent have a shot. You have to see where these kids fit into the equation, and that might be a scary proposition. Nonetheless, it's totally warranted with the Sox.

If you look at the pitching staff and bullpen that the Sox currently have, you definitely get that '04 feel. The 4 and 5 spots are definitely 50/50 shots at being effective. The bullpen is pretty shaky, as well. Does this team look loaded and ready to compete for a WS? Nah.

Sooo...what's the expectation for '08? Well, in my mind it's to shake up the organization by letting some of this young talent get a crack. Fields, Richar, Gonzalez, Broadway, Wasserman, and the rest of the young guys need a steady chance to learn on the big league level. You're not going to win the WS every year, and sometimes you need to sacrifice postseason hope for the purpose of letting the young guys see some pitches. These guys get a chance to learn, and the veterans with unsightly contracts get moved.

My one fear of this whole process is the impatience of fans at the park. While we watch Danks, Floyd, Fields, and company grow as pitchers, will the crowds be so light that the payroll needs to drop?

If you look at the entire scope of this roster, you don't quite see enough depth, especially on the staff, to win 90+ games. The veterans are getting older. If you think that the addition of Miguel Cabrera or Torii Hunter was going to take this team right to the top, you're huffing Freon. This team is REBUILDING. Period. The Sox need a new core to build around. You find your young core this year. Methinks that's Kenny's plan.


Wonderful post, I couldn't agree more. I think what you are hinting at is that there are different ways to rebuild. Firesale is not the only way. We are retooling piece by piece while also remaining pretty competitive. I think we are very similar to the Yankees in this fashion. They probably won't win it all this year either, but the last few years they seem to be plugging in young guys very quietly through the system. Both of these teams have a shot to win it all every year while filtering in younger talent. It's a whole lot better than fielding a team of rookies and prospects HOPING they become superstars. What happens if that doesn't work? Wasted 3 years.

JSticks

JNS
12-26-2007, 07:57 PM
#2 - He simply cannot keep his mouth shut. Whether it's blasting players and ex-players, flapping his gums about playing "the right way" when he so obviously is lying (I judge by results on that since he controls who and how they run the development program), and carping at the media about moves that quite rightly can and should be critiqued (plus, that's the job of the media - what does he expect?). He wants to be GM, he needs to learn to ignore the media/players and shut the hell up - it comes with the territory.

This is also my main problem with the guy, but I have to go a step further and ask why he's constantly inferring that Sox fans - who in my experience are some of the more savvy fans in the game - are idiots with all this "I get it" crap.

Again, an open question to all the koolaid drinkers out there:

Why does KW seem to find it necessary to belittle anyone who has the gall to question any of his moves?

This would include:

-- You and me;
-- Frank Thomas;
-- Other "big-mouthed" baseball executives;
-- The entire media corps;
-- Scott Boras and any other agent who aggressively pursues his clients interests.

I don't see other GMs do this sort of thing. Frankly, it's difficult to take the boss of a 90-loss team seriously when he talks about how he knows what he's doing and everyone else is just plain old dumb.

As I have said before, if the Sox compete in 2008 I'll be the first to own up and eat crow - lots of it, and be happy to do so.

It the Sox don't compete, what excuses will you have? Or will you own up?

jabrch
12-26-2007, 08:38 PM
you're huffing Freon.

Never heard this one before - is this a new way to get high?

Noneck
12-26-2007, 08:43 PM
This argument works IF you disagree with the signings and trades that were made AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE. Big money contracts that have limited the ability of the Sox to make better offers include:

1. Contreras - hard to fault the extension he was given, even more so given the state of current pitching contracts.

2. Konerko - Team leader, big stick, fan and management favorite and again, good production for the price.

3. Vasquez - given the state of pitching contracts this one again is hard to argue with. The trade might be criticized because of Young's production and potential, but trading from a standpoint of depth to fill a position of need with a veteran pitcher is exactly what you're supposed to do.

4. Thome - Contract is up soon and his production is solid for what the Sox have been paying him. In addition, at the time of the trade it was a no-brainer.

5. Buehrle - anyone got a problem with this contract? If you do, here's a link (http://www.northsidebaseball.com/)for you.

6. Dye - again, not really a lot to question here, especially given the way he has performed while wearing the black and silver.

7. Uribe and Crede - Wish we could have the Uribe money back, but it was a deadline decision that had to be made. Crede has to be signed to be traded or the Sox get nothing.

8. Cabrera - makes the Uribe signing superfluous, but unfortunately it came a day or two late and it's actually is a major improvement over the guy he is replacing.

9. Pierzynski - For what he brings to the field day in and day out, he's a bargain.

That's roughly $80M of the $108M the Sox have to spend. If you can actually find fault with the signings/trades (again) AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED please let me know what you would have done differently...

1st a very nice breakdown by the poster.

My comments are for the Williams bashers. Above are 10 players so that leaves $28M for the rest of the club. How is Williams suppose to make wine out of water now? He does what he can with the resources alloted to him and with very few expendable assets. That's not an easy thing to do in the current Sox situation. Maybe the young assets are not there because of him or maybe because he wasn't given the resources to create those assets.

Daver
12-26-2007, 08:47 PM
1st a very nice breakdown by the poster.

My comments are for the Williams bashers. Above are 10 players so that leaves $28M for the rest of the club. How is Williams suppose to make wine out of water now? He does what he can with the resources alloted to him and with very few expendable assets. That's not an easy thing to do in the current Sox situation. Maybe the young assets are not there because of him or maybe because he wasn't given the resources to create those assets.

What are you basing this mythical payroll on?

There is no salary cap in baseball.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 08:47 PM
maybe because he wasn't given the resources to create those assets.

And maybe he has chosen over the last 4 years to invest more of his money in the major league roster which enabled 189 wins in two years? Had he invested more in the farm during that time, maybe 2005 and 2006 are 170 win seasons combined. We might have had one or two more prospects in the farm - but again at what cost? (not cost in dollars - cost in terms of things that happened that might not have)

I'd love to see this team have another 30mm to spend. If we did, we could spend more on player for the major league team and more on the farm. We could draft more players that are demanding big $ and we can afford to invest more in whatever it is that we aren't spending enough on. But Kenny has allocated funds in a manner that has been fairly effective during most of his career - only up until 2007. Now we may pay for 2005-2006 for many years to come. But I'll be honest - if that's the price I had to pay for 2005, I'm willing to pay it.

Remember the pre-2005 debate - would you be the worst team in baseball for 20 years to win 1 WS? I always said yes... and now maybe I am going to have to pay the piper.

kittle42
12-26-2007, 09:15 PM
What are you basing this mythical payroll on?

There is no salary cap in baseball.

Amen.

Noneck
12-26-2007, 09:23 PM
I'd love to see this team have another 30mm to spend.

Have? No, its willing to spend. You have enlightened me about me about baseball finances and it has been very interesting and informative. But there comes a time when the fan aspect of ownership should take precedence over the business aspect. As you have told me the stock holders of this organization don't need this money to put food on their families table but use it to have fun. Well now is the time to have fun. If money isn't poured in the club it will negate the strides that were made that finally got a championship after generations of futility. It sure wouldn't bother me to help the cause by paying more also if I saw them trying to right this sinking ship. I know you'll bring about being top 5 in salaries last year, that's great but dammit it wasn't good enough. The money can't stop flowing now, its the time to do it now or this club will be in the same if not a worse situation that before the championship.

Kinda stupid that I posted this now after all the FA's are gone but start doing it at the minor league level at least now and get that high priced player that can help this team if he becomes available.

Finally, I know you'll be drilling me a new ******* now but I had to say how I really feel.

Noneck
12-26-2007, 09:37 PM
What are you basing this mythical payroll on?

There is no salary cap in baseball.


Yes I know but I was basing it on last years and what I have seen so far this year.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 09:43 PM
Finally, I know you'll be drilling me a new ******* now but I had to say how I really feel.

No - I'm not into drilling anything. You are entitled to feel however you want. But this organization has a budget (which is a defacto salary cap - it isn't league imposed, but it also is unlikely to change significantly). That's not going to change significiantly. That is how it is. Kenny can chose to change how he allocates that funding. He can spend more on the minors and less on the big league club, and build for tomorrow, or he can continue to spend more (top 5ish) on the big league club and continue to underspend some of the big guys in terms of the draft and development.

Grzegorz
12-26-2007, 09:54 PM
But there comes a time when the fan aspect of ownership should take precedence over the business aspect. As you have told me the stock holders of this organization don't need this money to put food on their families table but use it to have fun.

Finally, I know you'll be drilling me a new ******* now but I had to say how I really feel.

The fan and business aspects of owning a professional sport franchise are not mutually exclusive.

Businesses do not go into the red for a number of reasons one such reason being that the future is so uncertain.

Whether the board has money to put food on the table is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the organization stay profitable to pay its employees in the near term. Building revenue allows an organization to accumulate assets. Assets are necessary for any organization to compete; not only for one season but for future seasons.

We all want the team to succeed but approaching the task of building a winner from the prospect of a spendthrift in no way guarantees a World Series title.

It has been said numerous times over the last month and it appears to be time to say it again. Anyone willing to write the Chicago White Sox off on December 26th 2007 is daft.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 10:03 PM
And maybe he has chosen over the last 4 years to invest more of his money in the major league roster which enabled 189 wins in two years? Had he invested more in the farm during that time, maybe 2005 and 2006 are 170 win seasons combined. We might have had one or two more prospects in the farm - but again at what cost? (not cost in dollars - cost in terms of things that happened that might not have)

I'd love to see this team have another 30mm to spend. If we did, we could spend more on player for the major league team and more on the farm. We could draft more players that are demanding big $ and we can afford to invest more in whatever it is that we aren't spending enough on. But Kenny has allocated funds in a manner that has been fairly effective during most of his career - only up until 2007. Now we may pay for 2005-2006 for many years to come. But I'll be honest - if that's the price I had to pay for 2005, I'm willing to pay it.

Remember the pre-2005 debate - would you be the worst team in baseball for 20 years to win 1 WS? I always said yes... and now maybe I am going to have to pay the piper.
The problem is that many of the failings of our farm system are not money based. If it were simply a matter of "we didn't spend money to get the right guys" that would be a different problem. But Daver amongst others has pointed out many times that as an organization the Sox tend to be very poor in their evaluation and their promotion of players. It doesn't cost more (well, not much at least) to keep a guy in A until he gets certain fundamentals down pat, but it seems the minute a guy can hit the ball, he gets moved up. Same with pitchers, only its when they can get a guy out. Hopefully this is something where the failing of KW is in hiring bad people and leaving them in too long (referring to the recently purged members of the organization) rather than an organizational failing that begins in his office.

Daver
12-26-2007, 10:10 PM
The problem is that many of the failings of our farm system are not money based. If it were simply a matter of "we didn't spend money to get the right guys" that would be a different problem. But Daver amongst others has pointed out many times that as an organization the Sox tend to be very poor in their evaluation and their promotion of players. It doesn't cost more (well, not much at least) to keep a guy in A until he gets certain fundamentals down pat, but it seems the minute a guy can hit the ball, he gets moved up. Same with pitchers, only its when they can get a guy out. Hopefully this is something where the failing of KW is in hiring bad people and leaving them in too long (referring to the recently purged members of the organization) rather than an organizational failing that begins in his office.

The guy that was fired is Duane Schaeffer, a long time employee as both a scout as well as a director, I have seen no move to fix the problem other than that.

But then again what the hell do I know?©

Noneck
12-26-2007, 10:13 PM
The fan and business aspects of owning a professional sport franchise are not mutually exclusive.

Businesses do not go into the red for a number of reasons one such reason being that the future is so uncertain.

Whether the board has money to put food on the table is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the organization stay profitable to pay its employees in the near term. Building revenue allows an organization to accumulate assets. Assets are necessary for any organization to compete; not only for one season but for future seasons.

We all want the team to succeed but approaching the task of building a winner from the prospect of a spendthrift in no way guarantees a World Series title.

It has been said numerous times over the last month and it appears to be time to say it again. Anyone willing to write the Chicago White Sox off on December 26th 2007 is daft.

It's a sinking ship based on last year, their minor league system, their current payroll, "expected" budget and the moves made so far this year. I can't see the future so I don't know what will happen tomorrow but as of today things are not so peachy. This board are mainly filled with optimists and realists but for some reason the optimists like to degrade the realists through name calling through demeaning acronyms rather than just stating that they appear to be acting as a pessimist. I think this is wrong but that's beyond my control.

Grzegorz
12-26-2007, 10:27 PM
This board are mainly filled with optimists and realists but for some reason the optimists like to degrade the realists through name calling through demeaning acronyms rather than just stating that they appear to be acting as a pessimist. I think this is wrong but that's beyond my control.

Just to be on the record, I am not calling you daft. I believe that trumpeting the idea that the Chicago White Sox are dead in the water on 12/26/07 is just a case of panic setting in.

For all of those participants that believe the 2008 season is destined for ruin, why continue to discuss the team on the message boards?

Noneck
12-26-2007, 10:37 PM
For all of those participants that believe the 2008 season is destined for ruin, why continue to discuss the team on the message boards?

I know I'll be laughed at and thought of as a weirdo but I'll let the world know why I do. This is the best Sox board there is, many intelligent knowledgeable baseball fans here that have supported this team for generations. I hope that someone from the Sox organization reads this board, get ideas and cares about how the true fans feel. Yea I am a weirdo, I also believed in Santa till the 7Th grade.

Grzegorz
12-26-2007, 10:46 PM
Noneck,

We've not even seen the team go through their paces in spring training. I am sorry but I just cannot get down on the team regarding the 2008 season at this point and time.

voodoochile
12-26-2007, 10:59 PM
It's a sinking ship based on last year, their minor league system, their current payroll, "expected" budget and the moves made so far this year. I can't see the future so I don't know what will happen tomorrow but as of today things are not so peachy. This board are mainly filled with optimists and realists but for some reason the optimists like to degrade the realists through name calling through demeaning acronyms rather than just stating that they appear to be acting as a pessimist. I think this is wrong but that's beyond my control.

Again, people who think next year is going to suck aren't necessarily getting called names. It's not realists and optimists. It's Pollyannas, optimistic-realists, pessimistic-realists and PPDC.

I don't see too many pollyanna's these days. Those would be people who feel everything is rosy no matter what and the Sox are destined to steamroll through the division and on into the playoffs.

I see plenty of the people who sit in the middle two sections.

I see quite a few PPDC's, though less lately. Those would be people who feel KW should be fired, the team should be blown up and that no matter what the team does, 2008, 2009 and probably 2010 are all lost causes. You can find the Roadhouse littered with threads started by these self-proclaimed "realists".

Again, most people fall into the middle section and those people can and do have solid discussions about the state of the team in 2008. You call 2008 a sinking ship. I see a chance to bounce back and consider 2007 to be more of an aberration than a progression to an inevitable crash and burn season. There have been improvements to the team and IF the players who had career bad years last year return to the form they showed in 2005-6 then the Sox might well win 85-90 games barring no other changes. Get a little lucky, make a deadline deal or a good trade with Crede as the main piece and some other talent to acquire one more nice addition, grab some lightning in a bottle with the rookies being given a chance and bang, the Sox are in the playoff hunt again in 2008.

Does it make me an idiot to see things that way? Maybe, but who actually knows whether Thome is going to put up numbers like 2006 or 2007? Who knows whether Contreras will rebound now that his personal issues are over? Who knows if Danks and Floyd will prove to be serviceable MLB pitches who will win a few more than they lose? Who knows if Owens will turn into Scot Podsednick or just another washout? Who knows if Richar will bust out and have a great season? Who knows if Quentin is the minor league phenom that KW has been pursuing or a bust?

Yeah, it will take a lot to go right for the Sox to become playoff contenders, but stranger things have happened in this crazy game. According to the stat heads, the Sox still didn't win a World Series title in 2005 or at least shouldn't have given their Pythagorean record.

So go ahead, wash your hands before it starts, call it a sinking ship and feel free to jump overboard. It doesn't make you any more of a "realist" than me (I expect about 85 wins and no playoff berth this season), it merely means you expect things to continue downward and I expect things to bounce back to closer to the previous few years and some solid performances from the kids.

But, I've said all this before and sometimes the best thing is to agree to disagree. It's a big old world wide web and that means lots of opinions, even if yours are stupid, ridiculous and blatantly wrong...:tongue:

Noneck
12-26-2007, 11:24 PM
So go ahead, wash your hands before it starts, call it a sinking ship and feel free to jump overboard.

Nope, never, Me and my bottle of brandy will go down to Davey Jones locker with them.

btw: Nice post

voodoochile
12-26-2007, 11:28 PM
Nope, never, Me and my bottle of brandy will go down to Davey Jones locker with them.

btw: Nice post

Just don't hog the brandy if you do turn out to be right...

jabrch
12-26-2007, 11:46 PM
This board are mainly filled with optimists and realists but for some reason the optimists like to degrade the realists through name calling through demeaning acronyms rather than just stating that they appear to be acting as a pessimist. I think this is wrong but that's beyond my control.

I would say that either it is optimists and pessimists, or just a bunch of different shades of realists. I don't think you can possibly accuse even the most optimistic person of being an optimist if you won't acknowledge that this board is equally as populated with the opposite personality in the form of a pessimist.

Noneck
12-26-2007, 11:47 PM
Just don't hog the brandy if you do turn out to be right...

I hope it will be used in October as my beverage, as I feast on my humble pie.

SoxandtheCityTee
12-27-2007, 12:30 AM
Rather than address the substance of Kenny's remarks I'll do my superficial thing and note that once again, and as usual, Kenny has got to be one of the most well-defended personalities in sports. It's him against the world no matter what the question; you can't call that basso profundo voice of his a whine but really that's what he's doing. Absolutely humorless, too, especially about himself.

Sure, it's a tough job; we get that. But lots of folks would love to have it. Just once I'd love to hear Kenny casually toss off a reply that shows real self-confidence instead of his version, stiff with a steady undercurrent of bristling resentment.

"Yeah, well, we'll have to see how it goes. We really like the guy we got in that trade [or whatever], I'm still working on a few things, you know how it is . . . " instead of more of his bitter booming: "People have no idea what I am doing . . ." Why yes, dear, that's why they have you on for an interview.

Maybe lightening up wouldn't make Kenny a better GM or help him make better deals. But man, listening to him makes me squirm.

JNS
12-27-2007, 02:06 AM
Rather than address the substance of Kenny's remarks I'll do my superficial thing and note that once again, and as usual, Kenny has got to be one of the most well-defended personalities in sports. It's him against the world no matter what the question; you can't call that basso profundo voice of his a whine but really that's what he's doing. Absolutely humorless, too, especially about himself.

Sure, it's a tough job; we get that. But lots of folks would love to have it. Just once I'd love to hear Kenny casually toss off a reply that shows real self-confidence instead of his version, stiff with a steady undercurrent of bristling resentment.

"Yeah, well, we'll have to see how it goes. We really like the guy we got in that trade [or whatever], I'm still working on a few things, you know how it is . . . " instead of more of his bitter booming: "People have no idea what I am doing . . ." Why yes, dear, that's why they have you on for an interview.

Maybe lightening up wouldn't make Kenny a better GM or help him make better deals. But man, listening to him makes me squirm.

Very well put.

And to take it to the next logical step, essentially what KW is doing is dissing the fans, many of whom know a fair piece about the game and aren't going to be fooled by specious comments or hyper-aggressive yet defensive bluster.

It's becoming a real problem, and it's ironic because most folks assumed that Ozzie would be the one who would get into the most trouble with his mouth. But Ozzie also has a sense of humor and is happy to admit his failings and own up to his mastakes, at least some of the time.

SBSoxFan
12-27-2007, 03:27 PM
3. Vasquez - given the state of pitching contracts this one again is hard to argue with. The trade might be criticized because of Young's production and potential, but trading from a standpoint of depth to fill a position of need with a veteran pitcher is exactly what you're supposed to do.

:o:

Save McCuddy's
12-27-2007, 04:08 PM
And maybe he has chosen over the last 4 years to invest more of his money in the major league roster which enabled 189 wins in two years? Had he invested more in the farm during that time, maybe 2005 and 2006 are 170 win seasons combined. We might have had one or two more prospects in the farm - but again at what cost? (not cost in dollars - cost in terms of things that happened that might not have)

I'd love to see this team have another 30mm to spend. If we did, we could spend more on player for the major league team and more on the farm. We could draft more players that are demanding big $ and we can afford to invest more in whatever it is that we aren't spending enough on. But Kenny has allocated funds in a manner that has been fairly effective during most of his career - only up until 2007. Now we may pay for 2005-2006 for many years to come. But I'll be honest - if that's the price I had to pay for 2005, I'm willing to pay it.

Remember the pre-2005 debate - would you be the worst team in baseball for 20 years to win 1 WS? I always said yes... and now maybe I am going to have to pay the piper.

I don't follow how we're paying for 2005-2006. You make it sound as if Kenny took bold steps and bought us a world title. If that was the case, I'd be inclined to agree that I would have sacrificed two decades pre-2005 for 1 title. However, I don't see that as the case. We pared down payroll going into 2005. The Carlos Lee deal was essentially a salary dump that somehow worked out -- unbelievably fortuitous. We saved $10 million by letting mags go and signing Dye cheaply. Contreras was subsidized by the Yankees. Hermanson and Tadahito were extremely cheap rolls of the dice as was the stop gap with Crazy Carl. Credit kenny that he took the nearly $20 million saved from Lee and Mags and he spent 8 on Freddy and 2.5 on AJ.

Nothing was done in 2004-2005 that mortgaged the future for that title, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect the team to be run effectively and aggressively in pursuit of more playoff appearances.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 04:41 PM
You make it sound as if Kenny took bold steps and bought us a world title.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what he did.


Nothing was done in 2004-2005 that mortgaged the future for that title.

Really?

So you believe that if Williams only allocoated 50mm to payroll on the major league club and 20mm more to draft and development that we still would have won the World Series?

Kenny has an organizational budget. He has been very aggressive in terms of what portion he spends on the major league payroll, to the detriment of the future. It is entirely possible that now we are paying for it in the farm because of how much we invested in payroll at the major league level for the past 10 years. In 1999, our MLB payroll was under 25mm. Today is is close to 100mm. Specifically going from 2004 to 2005, the payroll jumped from 47mm to 69mm. I'm not sure how you figure that trading Carlos Lee was a salary dump when the payroll went up by almost 50% in that offseason - but I guess you are entitled to that opinion?

it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect the team to be run effectively

We won 189 games in 2005 and 2006. We had a bad season last year. I'm not sure you can draw a logical conclusion that this team is not run effectively because we had one bad year. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. Again - your right to think that way - but it is very shortsighted and it is ingoring a lot of details about last year that you don't see if you just look at the number of wins.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 04:54 PM
No - I'm not into drilling anything. You are entitled to feel however you want. But this organization has a budget (which is a defacto salary cap - it isn't league imposed, but it also is unlikely to change significantly). That's not going to change significiantly. That is how it is. Kenny can chose to change how he allocates that funding. He can spend more on the minors and less on the big league club, and build for tomorrow, or he can continue to spend more (top 5ish) on the big league club and continue to underspend some of the big guys in terms of the draft and development.


We'll see. Kenny supposedly had somewhere between 15-20M in additional payroll to spend this year and has so far used what - maybe 2? Linebrink was covered by the Cabrera+cash for Garland deal so it's just Ramirez.

That's why his "can't spend a dollar when you have 50 cents" speech is particularly galling: He's been given the wherewithal to have a payroll of $115-120M, but he's crying cheap and using it as an excuse to cover the fact that he doesn't seem to want to play at market levels and would rather sit on the cash than for example go the extra year with Rowand.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 05:03 PM
That's why his "can't spend a dollar when you have 50 cents" speech is particularly galling

It may be galling, but it is true.

He's been given the wherewithal to have a payroll of $115-120M,


Is that true? Did you hear that # from a reputable source? I'm not disputing it - just don't recall hearing it.

but he's crying cheap and using it as an excuse to cover the fact that he doesn't seem to want to play at market levels and would rather sit on the cash than for example go the extra year with Rowand.

I don't think "crying cheap" is a fair characterization. He has made a decision not to make moves that will hamstring the team down the road just to make a move today. That very well may haunt him - but there is valid logic behind it. I understand not wanting to give Hunter what Anaheim gave him. I understand not wanting to give Aaron what he got from SF. I'm not happy with what we have, but that doesn't mean that Kenny didn't make a solid decision with logic behind it. If we added either Hunter or Rowand, and that was all we did, would we then have been a contender? Were we just one slightly above average bat and a good glove in CF away from being a winner? I don't think so. If that's the case - isn't it at least potentially logical to not sign a deal that you think is not in the team's long term best interest?

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 05:05 PM
So you believe that if Williams only allocoated 50mm to payroll on the major league club and 20mm more to draft and development that we still would have won the World Series?

Kenny has an organizational budget. He has been very aggressive in terms of what portion he spends on the major league payroll, to the detriment of the future. It is entirely possible that now we are paying for it in the farm because of how much we invested in payroll at the major league level for the past 10 years. In 1999, our MLB payroll was under 25mm. Today is is close to 100mm. Specifically going from 2004 to 2005, the payroll jumped from 47mm to 69mm. I'm not sure how you figure that trading Carlos Lee was a salary dump when the payroll went up by almost 50% in that offseason - but I guess you are entitled to that opinion?
You ignore the fact that attendance and general baseball revenues have also increased dramatically during that span (and the fact that IIRC payroll was a bit artificially depressed in 1999 because they were coming off of a rebuilding).

The Sox poor drafting record IMO has little to do with signing bonuses, etc. They just plain missed on many guys. If Kenny's allocating an extra million to the major league roster and skimping on the farm (and I think that would buy you a lot of scouts and expenses), shame on him. I don't for a second buy that the poor farm system is a matter of a discrete decision being made on resource allocation.



We won 189 games in 2005 and 2006. We had a bad season last year. I'm not sure you can draw a logical conclusion that this team is not run effectively because we had one bad year. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. Again - your right to think that way - but it is very shortsighted and it is ingoring a lot of details about last year that you don't see if you just look at the number of wins.
I don't think this was a 90-loss team. The problem is that I don't think it was a 90-win team either, and I think while Kenny's moves may have pushed it into the high 80s, I don't think that it's at all likely that this is a 90-win team now. And there aren't a lot of realistic options to improve things without robbing Peter to pay Paul (i.e. dealing from a weak farm).

Add in that you have at least 2 teams in the division that IMO are highly likely to be 90+win teams and you've got a squad that even if things go mostly but not completely right is going to be home in October and watching its core players decline for 2009.

Nothing in this world is definite, but IMO the Sox are not well positioned for 2008. I'll root for them and hope, but that hope isn't based on any real factual evidence.

spawn
12-27-2007, 05:09 PM
That's why his "can't spend a dollar when you have 50 cents" speech is particularly galling: He's been given the wherewithal to have a payroll of $115-120M, but he's crying cheap and using it as an excuse to cover the fact that he doesn't seem to want to play at market levels and would rather sit on the cash than for example go the extra year with Rowand.
I could be wrong, but I think Jerry gave him the go ahead to spend extra on Hunter. I don't think he ever intended to spend that extra money on Rowand, and I for one am glad he didn't.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 05:12 PM
It may be galling, but it is true.




Is that true? Did you hear that # from a reputable source? I'm not disputing it - just don't recall hearing it.



I don't think "crying cheap" is a fair characterization. He has made a decision not to make moves that will hamstring the team down the road just to make a move today. That very well may haunt him - but there is valid logic behind it. I understand not wanting to give Hunter what Anaheim gave him. I understand not wanting to give Aaron what he got from SF. I'm not happy with what we have, but that doesn't mean that Kenny didn't make a solid decision with logic behind it. If we added either Hunter or Rowand, and that was all we did, would we then have been a contender? Were we just one slightly above average bat and a good glove in CF away from being a winner? I don't think so. If that's the case - isn't it at least potentially logical to not sign a deal that you think is not in the team's long term best interest?

The "plan" was to trade Garland for Cabrera, sign Linebrink (payroll neutral), sign Hunter at $15M/yr ($15M increase), trade for Cabrera ($6-10M payroll increase depending on arbitration), and trade Crede ($5-6M decrease). That nets to payroll going up by Hunter's salary and the difference between Cabrera & Crede. There's your $15-20M payroll bump. No mention was made of cutting payroll anywhere else to accomodate these, and in any case it's hard to do unless you trade one or more of Buehrle, Vazquez, Dye, Konerko, AJ (which wasn't happening).

IMO Kenny had 2 options: 1) deal for the future, which meant trading guys like Dye, Thome to replenish the farm, or 2)try to improve in hopes of contending. I can't say Hunter or Rowand would have been the answer, but they'd advance you towards contention. If you have one of those 2, you're a far better team than you are today.

I wouldn't even have a problem if Kenny started dealing vets now. But IMO if he stays the course, he's got a team that's highly unlikely to make the playoffs in 08 and is positioned even worse for 09. At that point, Dye, Konerko, AJ, Thome are likely to be worse than in 08, and they still won't have any young impact players to step in (beyond possibly Fields). That's a recipe for falling off of a cliff in 2010 and being a real 79-win team.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 05:12 PM
I don't for a second buy that the poor farm system is a matter of a discrete decision being made on resource allocation.

That is a very strong input into the equation.


I'll root for them and hope, but that hope isn't based on any real factual evidence.

There's nothing wrong with that. That's what being a fan of a team is all about. I don't think that either A) Anyone is saying that there is "factual evidence" that we will be a 90 win team or B) that you need should need factual evidence to root for your team.

I don't really give a damn. I go to 25+ games, and be thrilled to be there no matter how good/bad this club is. Winning is just gravy. I've gotten my WS. If we never win another one, I'll only be disappointed that my kids who weren't born yet to see it don't get to see it. I'll be disappointed that my friends who couldn't get tickets won't get to go. And I'll be disappointed to not get to see it happen again and again. But it won't lessen how much I enjoy those 100ish hours every summer, and it won't change how I enjoy the other 1500 hours I spend watching baseball at home on TV or listening in the car on the radio.

champagne030
12-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Kenny has an organizational budget. He has been very aggressive in terms of what portion he spends on the major league payroll, to the detriment of the future. It is entirely possible that now we are paying for it in the farm because of how much we invested in payroll at the major league level for the past 10 years. In 1999, our MLB payroll was under 25mm. Today is is close to 100mm. Specifically going from 2004 to 2005, the payroll jumped from 47mm to 69mm. I'm not sure how you figure that trading Carlos Lee was a salary dump when the payroll went up by almost 50% in that offseason - but I guess you are entitled to that opinion?

You obviously didn't look at the payroll information correctly. Payroll was not $47M in 2004 and wasn't $69M in 2005 and payroll didn't increase anywhere close to 50% during that period.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 05:16 PM
positioned even worse for 09...That's a recipe for falling off of a cliff in 2010 and being a real 79-win team.


Merry Christmas Mr. Smileypants!!!!!

Your entitled to your own depressing tales of woe. I'm uninterested in it. While it is entirely possible, (I'm sure someone predicted the Titanic would sink also) that is a completely self-spun tale of disaster that I don't care for.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 05:44 PM
Merry Christmas Mr. Smileypants!!!!!

Your entitled to your own depressing tales of woe. I'm uninterested in it. While it is entirely possible, (I'm sure someone predicted the Titanic would sink also) that is a completely self-spun tale of disaster that I don't care for.

I am equally uninterested in Pollyanna or Kevin Bacon standing around saying "all is well", "anything can happen between now and then and so it's equally likely that things will be fine". That same statement could be made if the Sox were fielding a team of 9 Andy Gonzalez's playing behind 5 Jaime Navarro's. If you choose not to think beyond this year, feel free, but I evaluate a GM based on his track record and because the position is inherently forward looking, how well he's positioned the team for the near future.

That future includes a number of core players who will be in their upper 30s - a period when players decline unless they spend time in the Bay Area. It's not impossible to maintain or improve, but it's unlikely. That future also includes young players reaching their prime like.....Fields. Maybe Richar & Owens. Otherwise it's Sweeney, Anderson. None but Josh are likely to be allstar caliber. Again, not impossible but unlikely.

Turn the tables a bit: Do you have any evidence or support for your statement that they allocated resources to the major league roster instead of to the minors? I base my contention on the fact that the leverage is so much greater in the minors in terms of the cost of scouts, etc that it's unlikely to the point of being dumb if in fact they did spend an extra 1-2M in the majors and forgo the multiple scouts they could have retained instead. (And that ignores the complete lack of fundamentals consistently demonstrated by players coming out of the Sox system, which has nothing to do with $$$.)

All you've said is "it's a strong input" and other assertions. What makes you so confident other than belief and support of Kenny.

voodoochile
12-27-2007, 06:36 PM
I am equally uninterested in Pollyanna or Kevin Bacon standing around saying "all is well", "anything can happen between now and then and so it's equally likely that things will be fine". That same statement could be made if the Sox were fielding a team of 9 Andy Gonzalez's playing behind 5 Jaime Navarro's. If you choose not to think beyond this year, feel free, but I evaluate a GM based on his track record and because the position is inherently forward looking, how well he's positioned the team for the near future.

That future includes a number of core players who will be in their upper 30s - a period when players decline unless they spend time in the Bay Area. It's not impossible to maintain or improve, but it's unlikely. That future also includes young players reaching their prime like.....Fields. Maybe Richar & Owens. Otherwise it's Sweeney, Anderson. None but Josh are likely to be allstar caliber. Again, not impossible but unlikely.

Turn the tables a bit: Do you have any evidence or support for your statement that they allocated resources to the major league roster instead of to the minors? I base my contention on the fact that the leverage is so much greater in the minors in terms of the cost of scouts, etc that it's unlikely to the point of being dumb if in fact they did spend an extra 1-2M in the majors and forgo the multiple scouts they could have retained instead. (And that ignores the complete lack of fundamentals consistently demonstrated by players coming out of the Sox system, which has nothing to do with $$$.)

All you've said is "it's a strong input" and other assertions. What makes you so confident other than belief and support of Kenny.

But money will be coming available as players end their contracts. Thome won't be renewed or if he is it won't be even close to what he is currently making. Contreras contract is up after 2009 also and Cabrera is only signed through 2008 at the moment. Dye is done after 2009 too. Crede and Uribe are both gone after this year. Money will be coming back to be used again even if the team falters this year. It's not like these guys are signed in perpetuity. Things will roll over even if they aren't perfect now, the money will be there in the future and by then they'll have a better answer on Gio, Danks, Floyd, Egbert, Richar, Owens, Sweeney, Anderson, Rameriz and of course DLS and thus a better idea of where to spend their money or are you predicting the Sox are going to go back to spending $70M or less on payroll?

MyDogSnores&Fart
12-27-2007, 06:45 PM
But money will be coming available as players end their contracts. Thome won't be renewed or if he is it won't be even close to what he is currently making. Contreras contract is up after 2009 also and Cabrera is only signed through 2008 at the moment. Dye is done after 2009 too. Crede and Uribe are both gone after this year. Money will be coming back to be used again even if the team falters this year. It's not like these guys are signed in perpetuity. Things will roll over even if they aren't perfect now, the money will be there in the future and by then they'll have a better answer on Gio, Danks, Floyd, Egbert, Richar, Owens, Sweeney, Anderson, Rameriz and of course DLS and thus a better idea of where to spend their money or are you predicting the Sox are going to go back to spending $70M or less on payroll?

I see both of your points; however, the money is not always there. When the White Sox win and the attendance is up then they have the money to spend. If they lose and the attendance is down then they don't have the money to spend. If they field a losing team then the attendance will be down for another year and they won't have the same amount of money to spend as they have last year and that they have this year. IF they have another losing season then they will be depending on some of these younger guys turning into quality major leaguers and their farm system will have to turn out some quality major leaguers.

What is likely to happen is a balance of the two. It won't be all doom and gloom and it won't be all sunshine and candy canes. Some of these young guys will continue to improve and become quality or above major leaguers and the White Sox will be able to sign some really good free agents. Most likely the White Sox will be an above average team in a very tough division with the chance of catching lightning in a bottle for a year.

It just is what it is. The White Sox can't out spend anyone to get these free agents and they made the mistake of letting the farm system fall completely apart. The White Sox will remain somewhere in the middle until one of the 2 improve. With a lot of hard work and some luck it will turn back around faster than we expect.

Daver
12-27-2007, 06:54 PM
That future includes a number of core players who will be in their upper 30s - a period when players decline unless they spend time in the Bay Area. It's not impossible to maintain or improve, but it's unlikely. That future also includes young players reaching their prime like.....Fields. Maybe Richar & Owens. Otherwise it's Sweeney, Anderson. None but Josh are likely to be allstar caliber. Again, not impossible but unlikely.




There are players who have played at a high level into their late thirties and early forties that have no association with PED's, granted there is not an overwhelming number, but they do exist.

voodoochile
12-27-2007, 07:18 PM
I see both of your points; however, the money is not always there. When the White Sox win and the attendance is up then they have the money to spend. If they lose and the attendance is down then they don't have the money to spend. If they field a losing team then the attendance will be down for another year and they won't have the same amount of money to spend as they have last year and that they have this year. IF they have another losing season then they will be depending on some of these younger guys turning into quality major leaguers and their farm system will have to turn out some quality major leaguers.

What is likely to happen is a balance of the two. It won't be all doom and gloom and it won't be all sunshine and candy canes. Some of these young guys will continue to improve and become quality or above major leaguers and the White Sox will be able to sign some really good free agents. Most likely the White Sox will be an above average team in a very tough division with the chance of catching lightning in a bottle for a year.

It just is what it is. The White Sox can't out spend anyone to get these free agents and they made the mistake of letting the farm system fall completely apart. The White Sox will remain somewhere in the middle until one of the 2 improve. With a lot of hard work and some luck it will turn back around faster than we expect.

The Sox have better revenue streams to fall back on now because of their privately owned TV network and higher ticket prices, so even if they lose some attendance, they should be fine to field a team in the $80M range fairly easily without losing money. In addition, I would think JR would be paying attention and seen the increases in attendance KW has managed to create by keeping the Sox active in the big ticket FA market and would be more likely to allow the team to run in the red to open the season with the chance things will turn around if as the season progresses the team show signs of being a playoff contender.

In addition, there may indeed be money left unspent at the moment which JR might allow to be used in future years if it's the difference between looking like dogs during prime ST sales time or looking like contenders.

Again, I'd think the last few years would have made an impression on a smart businessman like JR and he'd realize he needs to spend the money to compete. I think he will regardless of what else happens because he sees the rewards now.

JNS
12-27-2007, 07:47 PM
There are players who have played at a high level into their late thirties and early forties that have no association with PED's, granted there is not an overwhelming number, but they do exist.

OK, they exist. What's your point? Thome looks like he can hardly walk right now.

santo=dorf
12-27-2007, 07:55 PM
OK, they exist. What's your point? Thome looks like he can hardly walk right now.
:?:
Honestly, what are you basing this on? Is there some video you can share or something?

Brian26
12-27-2007, 09:07 PM
But money will be coming available as players end their contracts. Thome won't be renewed or if he is it won't be even close to what he is currently making.

The Thome situation will be interesting to follow. After 2008 ends, the Sox have the choice of picking up his option for $13 million or buying out his contract for $3 million.

champagne030
12-27-2007, 09:15 PM
The Thome situation will be interesting to follow. After 2008 ends, the Sox have the choice of picking up his option for $13 million or buying out his contract for $3 million.

It's my understanding that the contract becomes guaranteed if Thome has approximately 650 PA's (1100 PA's covering '07-'08).

http://www.mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=837

Brian26
12-27-2007, 09:24 PM
It's my understanding that the contract becomes guaranteed if Thome has approximately 650 PA's (1100 PA's covering '07-'08).

http://www.mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=837

You're right, good call.

Is it total at-bats or total plate appearances?

Just checking retrosheet for his numbers for last year:

AB: 432
BB: 95
IBB: 11
HBP: 6
Total: 544

So he's almost exactly halfway there, and that was through only 130 games in '07. If he stays relatively injury-free in 2008, he should be able to get the 1100 PA's easily.

JB98
12-27-2007, 09:24 PM
OK, they exist. What's your point? Thome looks like he can hardly walk right now.

.275/35/96 with a .410 OBP is pretty good for anybody, especially for a guy who can hardly walk.

Noneck
12-27-2007, 09:27 PM
It's my understanding that the contract becomes guaranteed if Thome has approximately 650 PA's (1100 PA's covering '07-'08).

http://www.mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=837

That's not going to happen, so the 3m will paid and his salary is off the books for 09.

Oh I thought it was AB's not PA's. They are stuck with him then unless he totally breaks down.

JNS
12-27-2007, 09:41 PM
:?:
Honestly, what are you basing this on? Is there some video you can share or something?

Yes, every game he was in after he came off the DL because of a leg injury.

Don't get me wrong, I love the way the guy hits, but his legs are getting old in a hurry. If he was the only station-to-station guy on the team it wouldn't be an issue.

This will be a crucial year for Thome - he's always produced when healthy, and sometimes when not. But it's vital that he stays healthy if the Sox are going to have a shot at getting over .500.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 10:11 PM
But money will be coming available as players end their contracts. Thome won't be renewed or if he is it won't be even close to what he is currently making. Contreras contract is up after 2009 also and Cabrera is only signed through 2008 at the moment. Dye is done after 2009 too. Crede and Uribe are both gone after this year. Money will be coming back to be used again even if the team falters this year. It's not like these guys are signed in perpetuity. Things will roll over even if they aren't perfect now, the money will be there in the future and by then they'll have a better answer on Gio, Danks, Floyd, Egbert, Richar, Owens, Sweeney, Anderson, Rameriz and of course DLS and thus a better idea of where to spend their money or are you predicting the Sox are going to go back to spending $70M or less on payroll?

This is true, so it's not like they'll be replacing Konerko with Erstad. But unless Kenny makes a change in his attitude regarding FAs, I don't see the Sox getting any marquee guys via that avenue. The FAs they have gotten were either a)their own guys resigned (Konerko, Buehrle, Dye), b)guys with flaws that limited their marketability (Dye, AJ), or c)not top tier guys(Linebrink, Iguchi).

If the Sox had traded for Miguel Cabrera, I liked their chances of resigning him over the next 2 years. If he's on the open market, I don't. Plus I don't think in general that you'll see many top tier guys on the market - they'll get resigned by their teams or dealt to teams that will resign them before they've FAs.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 10:19 PM
But unless Kenny makes a change in his attitude regarding FAs,

I don't want to see him start signing players like Hunter or Rowand what the market paid them. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Ichiro his FA - but he didn't. I believe that was plan A - just not sure if he'd pay what the market would have been for him.

I am ok with not paying Hunter top tier player money for 5 years. That's really not a bad decision - is it?

kittle42
12-27-2007, 10:34 PM
I don't want to see him start signing players like Hunter or Rowand what the market paid them. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Ichiro his FA - but he didn't. I believe that was plan A - just not sure if he'd pay what the market would have been for him.

I am ok with not paying Hunter top tier player money for 5 years. That's really not a bad decision - is it?

The market is going to keep going up. If Hunter gets $15 mil, you don't think, for example, an Ichiro wouldn't ask for $20+ mil? Then what happens - Williams says "we don't pay $20 mil for anyone. That's ludicrous."

Then you are always behind the times.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 10:53 PM
I don't want to see him start signing players like Hunter or Rowand what the market paid them. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Ichiro his FA - but he didn't. I believe that was plan A - just not sure if he'd pay what the market would have been for him.

I am ok with not paying Hunter top tier player money for 5 years. That's really not a bad decision - is it?

1) The market is the market. If Hunter gets $18M, someone better will get more. If Gary Matthews gets $12M, Rowand's not a bad deal at $12M. Each decision can be rationalized by saying "he's not worth that much", but when you say it for each guy in turn, then they ARE worth that much, you're just not willing to pay market rates.

2) Every offseason, there's a resounding chorus of "I'm glad we didn't sign X at $Y". If the only guys that are worth signing are those that decide to take discounts relative to market, then the only hope you have is pretty much if they come up through your system or have some connection to your organization.

3) If you don't go get top tier talent, you'd damn well better grow it internally. Otherwise, you'll have a balanced but mediocre team. This is especially true when you live within a division with teams that either know how to grow talent internally or are willing to pay market rates to buy it.

JNS
12-27-2007, 11:09 PM
2) Every offseason, there's a resounding chorus of "I'm glad we didn't sign X at $Y". If the only guys that are worth signing are those that decide to take discounts relative to market, then the only hope you have is pretty much if they come up through your system or have some connection to your organization.

3) If you don't go get top tier talent, you'd damn well better grow it internally. Otherwise, you'll have a balanced but mediocre team. This is especially true when you live within a division with teams that either know how to grow talent internally or are willing to pay market rates to buy it.

I agree - it's just cheap. Sure the Sox have the #5 payroll - that isn't the point. And for once I can't blame it on KW - this is in JR's court. He's penny wise and pound foolish. He signs a mentally ill FA. He signs Navarro. He demands a "discount" from players who want to stay. There is a lot of talk about how loyal JR is - and he is, to his toadies, not to his players or to anyone who may challenge his way of doing things.

He's a bad owner.

As you say, the market is the market, and that "correction" that Sox management talks about ain't gonna happen.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 11:14 PM
The market is going to keep going up. If Hunter gets $15 mil, you don't think, for example, an Ichiro wouldn't ask for $20+ mil? Then what happens - Williams says "we don't pay $20 mil for anyone. That's ludicrous."

Then you are always behind the times.

I believe that KW was prepared to pay the market for Ichiro. I think that was Plan A. But you and Flight are right - eventually we have to pay market for someone. Hopefully it is a Miguel Cabrera or a Ichiro and not a Hunter or a Rowand.

JNS
12-27-2007, 11:22 PM
I believe that KW was prepared to pay the market for Ichiro. I think that was Plan A. But you and Flight are right - eventually we have to pay market for someone. Hopefully it is a Miguel Cabrera or a Ichiro and not a Hunter or a Rowand.

Ain't gonna happen. If they offer the yearly rate, they won't give the extra year. They always find a way to punk out. It's really distressing.

The name of the game is to win. Teams that "overspend" and go on to win make money. Congratulating these guys on their frugality when we are staring down the barrel of a second bad season in a row is beyond comprehension.

Flight #24
12-27-2007, 11:23 PM
I believe that KW was prepared to pay the market for Ichiro. I think that was Plan A. But you and Flight are right - eventually we have to pay market for someone. Hopefully it is a Miguel Cabrera or a Ichiro and not a Hunter or a Rowand.

I'm with you on that. My fear is that you won't see those guys hit the market - you'll have to develop them or develop the assets to trade for them 1-2 years before they hit FA.

Noneck
12-27-2007, 11:50 PM
What I haven't seen anyone mention is what happens down the line if the Sox have another bad year. They currently don't pay market rates for FA's and if the Sox become a second division team the FA's aren't going to want to come here , so they will be forced to pay above market rate (which they never will). It could get really ugly.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 11:51 PM
I'm with you on that. My fear is that you won't see those guys hit the market - you'll have to develop them or develop the assets to trade for them 1-2 years before they hit FA.

That's entirely possible. We have yet to land the big whale - so evidence exists that says that it is not likely. It isn't impossible - it just isn't likely.

I'd rather take my chances and wait for the whale than settle for carp. (I really didn't want Hunter at all - I'd have been content with Rowand - although uncomfortable with the contract)

JNS
12-27-2007, 11:55 PM
What I haven't seen anyone mention is what happens down the line if the Sox have another bad year. They currently don't pay market rates for FA's and if the Sox become a second division team the FA's aren't going to want to come here , so they will be forced to pay above market rate (which they never will). It could get really ugly.

Fan rebellion. Low attendance - Sox fans have always voted with their feet when the team tanks for an extended period.

Except this time JR can't play the "we are moving" game. He'll have to improve the team or sell - there will be a lot of pressure. Or he'll retire and let his kid run it - which may or may not be a good thing.

Oh yeah, KW will can throw Ozzie under the bus and can him.

Noneck
12-28-2007, 12:04 AM
Fan rebellion. Low attendance - Sox fans have always voted with their feet when the team tanks for an extended period.



And what happens then? They will decrease the payroll in order to maintain their budget. Then the only way out is through a great minor league system which takes time and skill to create plus many years of skillful leadership to nurture these assets. Like I said it could get real ugly.

MyDogSnores&Fart
12-28-2007, 12:10 AM
The Sox have better revenue streams to fall back on now because of their privately owned TV network and higher ticket prices, so even if they lose some attendance, they should be fine to field a team in the $80M range fairly easily without losing money. In addition, I would think JR would be paying attention and seen the increases in attendance KW has managed to create by keeping the Sox active in the big ticket FA market and would be more likely to allow the team to run in the red to open the season with the chance things will turn around if as the season progresses the team show signs of being a playoff contender.

In addition, there may indeed be money left unspent at the moment which JR might allow to be used in future years if it's the difference between looking like dogs during prime ST sales time or looking like contenders.

Again, I'd think the last few years would have made an impression on a smart businessman like JR and he'd realize he needs to spend the money to compete. I think he will regardless of what else happens because he sees the rewards now.

I really hope that you are correct on this; however, fielding a team for 80 million is a far drop off from our current 100 million dollar payroll. It is getting more difficult to field a team worth a damn for 80 million dollars unless your farm system is producing quality major league ball players. I really like our young players Carlos Quentin, Josh Fields, Alexei Ramirez, Danny Richar, Gavin Floyd, John Danks, and Gio Gonzalez. I think they will all be good major leaguers, but the White Sox are going to need to eventually produce some All Star quality or elite quality young players in order to contend for a championship. That is, unless they can continue to draw more fans and outspend most teams for those types of players.

voodoochile
12-28-2007, 12:27 AM
And what happens then? They will decrease the payroll in order to maintain their budget. Then the only way out is through a great minor league system which takes time and skill to create plus many years of skillful leadership to nurture these assets. Like I said it could get real ugly.

Sure it could, but think of how ugly it could get for Detroit if they don't manage to actually win a WS in the next few years. If that team blows up and wins 85 games this year and fails to make the playoffs they are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with payroll that high. They HAVE to win and win big or they are going to lose their freaking shirt...

kittle42
12-28-2007, 12:54 AM
Sure it could, but think of how ugly it could get for Detroit if they don't manage to actually win a WS in the next few years. If that team blows up and wins 85 games this year and fails to make the playoffs they are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with payroll that high. They HAVE to win and win big or they are going to lose their freaking shirt...

They could always sell off the "talent" and re-stock. The Sox aren't even in that position yet. At this point, both teams' minor leagues are deficient. At least Detroit will be talking WS going into this year.

JNS
12-28-2007, 12:55 AM
Sure it could, but think of how ugly it could get for Detroit if they don't manage to actually win a WS in the next few years. If that team blows up and wins 85 games this year and fails to make the playoffs they are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with payroll that high. They HAVE to win and win big or they are going to lose their freaking shirt...

I'll bet on the Tigers - one of the best GMs in the game, one of the best managers, an owner who is more than willing to throw money around.

And two out of three of them could be with the Sox - they aren't thanks to Hawk.

If you don't want people to speculate on what the Sox will do before the season starts, it probably isn't a very good idea to speculate on what other teams will be doing or how their fans will react. I think we have more than enough to worry about as Sox fans without predicting what other teams fans will or won't do.

Or, to put it another way, do you really think that Detroit fans are unhappy at the moment?

Sorry, I'm a Sox fan, and I'm glad we beat then head to head (for whatever that's worth) last season, but when it comes to playing deep into October over the next couple of seasons, I'll put my dough on the Tigers.

voodoochile
12-28-2007, 01:19 AM
I'll bet on the Tigers - one of the best GMs in the game, one of the best managers, an owner who is more than willing to throw money around.

And two out of three of them could be with the Sox - they aren't thanks to Hawk.

If you don't want people to speculate on what the Sox will do before the season starts, it probably isn't a very good idea to speculate on what other teams will be doing or how their fans will react. I think we have more than enough to worry about as Sox fans without predicting what other teams fans will or won't do.

Or, to put it another way, do you really think that Detroit fans are unhappy at the moment?

Sorry, I'm a Sox fan, and I'm glad we beat then head to head (for whatever that's worth) last season, but when it comes to playing deep into October over the next couple of seasons, I'll put my dough on the Tigers.

Go for it, Sox fan...

Edit: Oh and my point was that if things go poorly for the Sox they have outs more easily available than the Tigers who are pretty much locked in to their present roster for a pretty long time. Having a big money team doesn't necessarily guarantee anything, especially when so little of it is spent on pitching. They absolutely HAVE to have high attendance to make that payroll work. The Sox have more flexibility coming sooner and higher alternative revenue streams because of their location. That's all. I wasn't trying to rip on the tigers decisions and I agree that as currently configured they appear to have a better chance at post season success than the Sox. That is still no guarantee it will happen...

JNS
12-28-2007, 01:27 AM
Go for it, Sox fan...

Please. I'm not talking about actually betting. But being a fan doesn't mean that one throws reason out the door. The truth hurts right now - it hurts me too. Snidely predicting some sort of fan rebellion if the Tigers tank - a remote proposition at the moment - changes absolutely nothing about the Sox predicament

Being objective and realistic is what makes Sox fans stand apart in this town. Otherwise we are just like the mindless zombies on the North Side. So you can get all offended if you want to, but the sooner we, the committed fans tell the organization what we think about their numerous mis-steps, the sooner they will understand that they need to do better if they want to be the #1 team in this town - something they used to be and can be again.

voodoochile
12-28-2007, 01:33 AM
Please. I'm not talking about actually betting. But being a fan doesn't mean that one throws reason out the door. The truth hurts right now - it hurts me too. Snidely predicting some sort of fan rebellion if the Tigers tank - a remote proposition at the moment - changes absolutely nothing about the Sox predicament

Being objective and realistic is what makes Sox fans stand apart in this town. Otherwise we are just like the mindless zombies on the North Side. So you can get all offended if you want to, but the sooner we, the committed fans tell the organization what we think about their numerous mis-steps, the sooner they will understand that they need to do better if they want to be the #1 team in this town - something they used to be and can be again.

I edited my previous post, so perhaps that helps explain my viewpoint better. I also am not predicting a Tiger fan rebellion, but it won't take rebellion, merely indifference to put that team in a bad position for a long time.

Yes, they can trade off some pieces, but if those pieces aren't performing for the Tigers, why would anyone give them a ton of talent in exchange for highly priced aging talent?

Oh and I don't really care if the Sox are the #1 team in town. I only care that they win. Better to feel good than to look good, no?

Noneck
12-28-2007, 01:52 AM
Sure it could, but think of how ugly it could get for Detroit if they don't manage to actually win a WS in the next few years. If that team blows up and wins 85 games this year and fails to make the playoffs they are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with payroll that high. They HAVE to win and win big or they are going to lose their freaking shirt...
Yea I know, but I don't really care about the Tigers only the Sox.

Frater Perdurabo
12-28-2007, 08:15 AM
I believe that KW was prepared to pay the market for Ichiro. I think that was Plan A. But you and Flight are right - eventually we have to pay market for someone. Hopefully it is a Miguel Cabrera or a Ichiro and not a Hunter or a Rowand.

The Sox need a leadoff hitter. I don't care if he costs $30 million or $300,000.

IF Ichiro DID make it to the open market and KW DID NOT aggressively pursue him, THEN I would criticize him.

I did NOT want to break the bank for Rowand, Hunter or Jones, because those three are not leadoff hitters.

IF the Sox fail to acquire a legitimate leadoff hitter and decide to go with Owens, and then IF Owens fails as a leadoff hitter, THEN I will be first in line to ream KW a new one.

Save McCuddy's
12-28-2007, 11:07 AM
Actually, that is EXACTLY what he did.




Really?

So you believe that if Williams only allocoated 50mm to payroll on the major league club and 20mm more to draft and development that we still would have won the World Series?

Kenny has an organizational budget. He has been very aggressive in terms of what portion he spends on the major league payroll, to the detriment of the future. It is entirely possible that now we are paying for it in the farm because of how much we invested in payroll at the major league level for the past 10 years. In 1999, our MLB payroll was under 25mm. Today is is close to 100mm. Specifically going from 2004 to 2005, the payroll jumped from 47mm to 69mm. I'm not sure how you figure that trading Carlos Lee was a salary dump when the payroll went up by almost 50% in that offseason - but I guess you are entitled to that opinion?



We won 189 games in 2005 and 2006. We had a bad season last year. I'm not sure you can draw a logical conclusion that this team is not run effectively because we had one bad year. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. Again - your right to think that way - but it is very shortsighted and it is ingoring a lot of details about last year that you don't see if you just look at the number of wins.


High Priest:

I again am completely missing the boat here. My references had nothing to do with the number of wins we totaled in 2007 or over the course of 2004-2006. You are of the opinion that Kenny boldly "bought" our World Title in 2005. I contested that opinion with actual evidence.

You ask how the Carlos Lee trade could be viewed as a salary dump. Let me illustrate. C. Lee made $8 million in 2005. He was traded for Pods who made $700,000 and Luis Vizcaino who made $1.3 million. Let's not labor too hard over the math, but that's a payroll deduction of $6 million.

Additionally I pointed out that Mags would have cost $14 million to retain in 2005 yet we chose instead to let him go and sign Dye. Fantastic move and on top of it, Dye's $4 million resulted in a $10 million savings.

While I concede that a review of Kenny's moves and judgements about his handling of the franchise constitute opinion, I sternly object to the idea that mathematical analysis of payroll is subjective. Go back and recalculate your assessment that payroll increased by 50% from 2004 to 2005. If you add the figures on baseball-reference, you'll find that the major league payroll actually decreased by more than $5 million. Your numbers are way off as payroll in 2004 was just over $81 million and in 2005 just under $75 million.

voodoochile
12-28-2007, 11:22 AM
High Priest:

I again am completely missing the boat here. My references had nothing to do with the number of wins we totaled in 2007 or over the course of 2004-2006. You are of the opinion that Kenny boldly "bought" our World Title in 2005. I contested that opinion with actual evidence.

You ask how the Carlos Lee trade could be viewed as a salary dump. Let me illustrate. C. Lee made $8 million in 2005. He was traded for Pods who made $700,000 and Luis Vizcaino who made $1.3 million. Let's not labor too hard over the math, but that's a payroll deduction of $6 million.

Additionally I pointed out that Mags would have cost $14 million to retain in 2005 yet we chose instead to let him go and sign Dye. Fantastic move and on top of it, Dye's $4 million resulted in a $10 million savings.

While I concede that a review of Kenny's moves and judgements about his handling of the franchise constitute opinion, I sternly object to the idea that mathematical analysis of payroll is subjective. Go back and recalculate your assessment that payroll increased by 50% from 2004 to 2005. If you add the figures on baseball-reference, you'll find that the major league payroll actually decreased by more than $5 million. Your numbers are way off as payroll in 2004 was just over $81 million and in 2005 just under $75 million.


I think there were other concerns that outweighed the salary considerations when it came to the Lee and Maggs decisions and hindsight has proven them to be astute moves/decisions, so I don't know why it's an issue.

According to USATODAY.com, the Sox payroll was $65M in 2004 and $75M in 2005. It was $51M in 2003 so there was a substantial jump in a short period of time, but neither of you is technically correct.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=4

jabrch
12-28-2007, 11:45 AM
I think there were other concerns that outweighed the salary considerations when it came to the Lee and Maggs decisions and hindsight has proven them to be astute moves/decisions, so I don't know why it's an issue.

According to USATODAY.com, the Sox payroll was $65M in 2004 and $75M in 2005. It was $51M in 2003 so there was a substantial jump in a short period of time, but neither of you is technically correct.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=4

Yeah - I pulled the wrong number - sorry bout that. It was a 10mm increase from 04 and a 24mm increase from 03...sorry.

But in any case - Williams has made the decision to invest more in the majors, at the expense of the farm sytsem. That's part of the reason why we won a WS and had the success that we had the following year. Had we spent 20mm less, and KW not be so bold, we'd still be talking about a drought approaching 100 years.

jabrch
12-28-2007, 11:46 AM
You ask how the Carlos Lee trade could be viewed as a salary dump. Let me illustrate. C. Lee made $8 million in 2005. He was traded for Pods who made $700,000 and Luis Vizcaino who made $1.3 million. Let's not labor too hard over the math, but that's a payroll deduction of $6 million.

You need to look at payroll as a whole, not just a few people in isolation.

Oblong
12-28-2007, 12:00 PM
I'll bet on the Tigers - one of the best GMs in the game, one of the best managers, an owner who is more than willing to throw money around.

And two out of three of them could be with the Sox - they aren't thanks to Hawk.

If you don't want people to speculate on what the Sox will do before the season starts, it probably isn't a very good idea to speculate on what other teams will be doing or how their fans will react. I think we have more than enough to worry about as Sox fans without predicting what other teams fans will or won't do.

Or, to put it another way, do you really think that Detroit fans are unhappy at the moment?

Sorry, I'm a Sox fan, and I'm glad we beat then head to head (for whatever that's worth) last season, but when it comes to playing deep into October over the next couple of seasons, I'll put my dough on the Tigers.

I'm happy but also nervous as heck. It's really WS or bust the next 2 years. Had the Tigers won the WS in 2006 then it wouldn't be so bad. As a sports fan I've always thought the ride up to the championship was the best time because once you win then it gets to be so stressful as a fan. But with the current Tigers I don't have the luxury of falling back on the "Well we got one already so it's all gravy afterwards" argument. I dread the preseason publications. Things never work out as we expect them to in sports.

The Sox are in a good position long term, assuming league average player development, because there's no long term commitments. Those with the big deals are solid players and the contracts are reasonable. The worst thing for a sports fan is when someone you really want is out there and probably willing to come to your team but you can't sign him because of financial restraints, either through bad existing contracts or a cap. Luckily baseball has no cap. How would you feel in 2 years if Cabrera is out there and the Sox were out of the sweepstakes because of Hunter/Rowand/Ichiro being on thne books for $18 a year?

JB98
12-28-2007, 02:05 PM
The Sox need a leadoff hitter. I don't care if he costs $30 million or $300,000.

IF Ichiro DID make it to the open market and KW DID NOT aggressively pursue him, THEN I would criticize him.

I did NOT want to break the bank for Rowand, Hunter or Jones, because those three are not leadoff hitters.

IF the Sox fail to acquire a legitimate leadoff hitter and decide to go with Owens, and then IF Owens fails as a leadoff hitter, THEN I will be first in line to ream KW a new one.

Here's the thing: I would rather have a quality player at every position and then try to figure out what the lineup is going to be, as opposed to acquiring a guy for a certain spot in the batting order. If you've already got a quality guy at every position, then you can afford to be that choosy. IMO, the Sox are not at that point.

We wouldn't have had to break the bank for Jones. He only got two years. That's nothing in this market. I wasn't necessarily eager for the Sox to go after Jones at the start of the offseason, but other posters have convinced me that maybe they should have. Yeah, Jones is a high strikeout guy, and his OBP isn't out of this world. But neither is Hunter's, and the Sox sure seemed eager to break the bank for him.

Save McCuddy's
12-28-2007, 02:14 PM
You need to look at payroll as a whole, not just a few people in isolation.


I'm not isolating just a few people. I'm taking the two highest paid players on the roster whose combined salaries would have comprised more than 20% of the team's payroll.

Any way you look at this, either with my numbers which show a slight drop in payroll from 2004 or Voodoo's which show a $10 million increase I fail to see how you can label the 2005 title as "bought". I also fail to see how we have mortgaged minor league resources for the good of the big league club.

jabrch
12-28-2007, 03:02 PM
I fail to see how you can label the 2005 title as "bought".

What I said was that Kenny did make a BOLD move to buy a championship. That move was made in resource allocation. He allocated very large portion of his money to the MLB roster - more than nearly any other club according to those that know this stuff better than me. He used nearly every available dollar he had to go for it - rather than to build for the future.

No - he didn't buy it by outspending teams that he can't outspend - but he invested as much as possible in today - made a few bold moves including the one you define as a salary dump, and this team, did, in fact, win a World Series.

You can say he got lucky - and that might be true. But nowhere on my (replica) WS ring or (replica) trophy does it say anything about luck.

The players earned it on the field.

Flight #24
12-28-2007, 05:13 PM
What I said was that Kenny did make a BOLD move to buy a championship. That move was made in resource allocation. He allocated very large portion of his money to the MLB roster - more than nearly any other club according to those that know this stuff better than me. He used nearly every available dollar he had to go for it - rather than to build for the future.



You equate a payroll increase with a resource reallocation from minor to major league with no supporting evidence. It could just as easily be the case that the major league increase was in tandem with attendance increases (which is what I remember).

It is possible that that is the case. It's also possible (and IMO more likely) that the increased attendance impacted the major league roster with no impact on the minor league resources. I've seen no commentary anywhere that they skimped in the minors at all relative to what they had previously been doing. If they did indeed skimp in the minors, then that's being penny wise and pound foolish because an extra $1M spent on the major league level is likely generating minimal impact whereas that money spent in the minors buys you what - 3-5 scouts+expenses?

Personally, I think that's a cop out. IMO the poor farm system is more the result of bad decisionmaking than some mythical purposeful reallocation of resources.

jabrch
12-28-2007, 05:27 PM
IMO the poor farm system is more the result of bad decisionmaking than some mythical purposeful reallocation of resources.

That's one option. I would propose to you that if more money was spent on drafting/scouting/developing players, the same drafters would have delivered better results. Either of us could be right. Kenny could be a bad GM when it comes to draft/development, or he could have chosen to allocate less resources to it so he had more to allocate to the major league level.

The other possibility is that both are true.

Daver
12-28-2007, 05:30 PM
That's one option. I would propose to you that if more money was spent on drafting/scouting/developing players, the same drafters would have delivered better results. Either of us could be right. Kenny could be a bad GM when it comes to draft/development, or he could have chosen to allocate less resources to it so he had more to allocate to the major league level.

The other possibility is that both are true.

The scouting budget hasn't gone up significantly since 2001, minor league development has no correlation to winning in 2005.

jabrch
12-28-2007, 05:53 PM
The scouting budget hasn't gone up significantly since 2001, minor league development has no correlation to winning in 2005.

Do you believe that had we had a larger portion of money allocated to scouting/drafting/development during KW's tenure that we would have had a better farm system but less money to spend on Major League talent?

I'm not looking in isolation to 2005 - rather big picture.

Daver
12-28-2007, 06:05 PM
Do you believe that had we had a larger portion of money allocated to scouting/drafting/development during KW's tenure that we would have had a better farm system but less money to spend on Major League talent?

I'm not looking in isolation to 2005 - rather big picture.

You could speculate that till the cows came home, there are to many variables there.

I do find it strange that the budget hasn't changed since KW moved out of the role of minor league operations to being the GM. Coincidence?

jabrch
12-28-2007, 06:47 PM
You could speculate that till the cows came home, there are to many variables there.

Agreed - it is speculation either way.

I do find it strange that the budget hasn't changed since KW moved out of the role of minor league operations to being the GM. Coincidence?

Not at all. MLB payroll goes up. Scouting/draft/dev stays the same. Sounds intentional to me - and sounds like a resource allocation decision made by management - not just something they stumbled into.

Daver
12-28-2007, 06:58 PM
Agreed - it is speculation either way.



Not at all. MLB payroll goes up. Scouting/draft/dev stays the same. Sounds intentional to me - and sounds like a resource allocation decision made by management - not just something they stumbled into.

Then they are working with a flawed model for success, if you can't promote low payroll from within to fill needs on an MLB roster, and you won't commit to spending the dollars required to fill all your needs through free agency you are climbing a mountain during an avalanche.

That is definitely not a plan to win consistently.

jabrch
12-28-2007, 09:33 PM
Then they are working with a flawed model for success, if you can't promote low payroll from within to fill needs on an MLB roster, and you won't commit to spending the dollars required to fill all your needs through free agency you are climbing a mountain during an avalanche.

That is definitely not a plan to win consistently.

I wouldn't disagree with that opinion. But at the same time, it was a plan that, blame it on whatever luck people want, did result in a WS win and was followed up with a 90 win season and another shot at it. I'm not sure that the same plan COULDN'T work again. But you are right - it is not an approach to build a consistent 90+ win team like the Oakland As or the Minnesota Twins both had since 2000.

Tragg
12-29-2007, 12:28 AM
I wouldn't disagree with that opinion. But at the same time, it was a plan that, blame it on whatever luck people want, did result in a WS win and was followed up with a 90 win season and another shot at it. I'm not sure that the same plan COULDN'T work again. But you are right - it is not an approach to build a consistent 90+ win team like the Oakland As or the Minnesota Twins both had since 2000.
It showed its spots last year when we needed the bench to perform and it failed miserably. We paid 1.9 million for a bad utility infielder like Cintron, we couldn't find anyone in AAA who could just catch the ball and throw it at SS for us. W were paying crummy middle relievers, instead of using our minimum salary homegrown young pitchers (presumably because our homegrowns aren't ready). Our bench was paid well over minimum salary and was a joke; and we couldn't find minimum salary players to handle the basics in our system.
You get a lot of leverage out of your payroll if you can have some productive minimum salary players....you have to grow your own. (Philosophy of the manager has also contributed to the bad leverage)

Frater Perdurabo
12-29-2007, 08:22 AM
Here's the thing: I would rather have a quality player at every position and then try to figure out what the lineup is going to be, as opposed to acquiring a guy for a certain spot in the batting order. If you've already got a quality guy at every position, then you can afford to be that choosy. IMO, the Sox are not at that point.

I agree with this philosophy, but I also think that you have to keep "lineup construction" in mind. A team needs good fielders, some power hitters, some fast runners, and some guys who can get on base, and other than A-Rod, there simply are not any MLB players who can do all of those things well. While it would be great to get Jones' or Hunters' defense in CF, either wouldn't being anything new to the Sox; both are low-OBP, high-strikeout power hitters.

I also do not think it is a good idea to overpay for something they already have in abundance. If one has the resources, it is better to overpay for something you otherwise lack.

If the Sox already had a fast, good-OBP leadoff hitter and some decent OBP elsewhere in the lineup, but didn't have Jermaine Dye or Paul Konerko to drive in runners (or planned to use one of them to trade for a leadoff hitter), I'd have no problem breaking the bank for Jones or Hunter.

JB98
12-29-2007, 01:27 PM
I agree with this philosophy, but I also think that you have to keep "lineup construction" in mind. A team needs good fielders, some power hitters, some fast runners, and some guys who can get on base, and other than A-Rod, there simply are not any MLB players who can do all of those things well. While it would be great to get Jones' or Hunters' defense in CF, either wouldn't being anything new to the Sox; both are low-OBP, high-strikeout power hitters.

I also do not think it is a good idea to overpay for something they already have in abundance. If one has the resources, it is better to overpay for something you otherwise lack.

If the Sox already had a fast, good-OBP leadoff hitter and some decent OBP elsewhere in the lineup, but didn't have Jermaine Dye or Paul Konerko to drive in runners (or planned to use one of them to trade for a leadoff hitter), I'd have no problem breaking the bank for Jones or Hunter.

Right now, I'm in the mode where I'll take anyone who can play. Hell, I got excited about Alexei Ramirez, just because I figure he'll make our bench stronger and more versatile.

Do you see the hypocrisy, though, in the Sox dismissing Jones as a low-OBP, high-strikeout power hitter while at the same time offering wads of cash to Hunter?

Your argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, is consistent and reasonable. You wouldn't take either Jones or Hunter because they are more of what we already have, and neither is a top-of-the-order hitter. KW's arguments on why he did not pursue Jones don't seem to jive with his pursuit of Hunter.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 01:38 PM
KW's arguments on why he did not pursue Jones don't seem to jive with his pursuit of Hunter.

I'm sure if you actually had the chance to sit with KW and walk through his entire logic, you'd here more than just a soundbite that he projects via the media. I'm guessing there were many reasons he didn't have serious interest in Jones. One very well might be how poorly he performed last year - and that there is a chance that not only is he historically a low OBP/high K guy, but his trend is heading the wrong way - FAST.

I have no problem with not going after Jones. If the risk is too great, I'm fine with saving the money for a better use down the road. Signing Jones feels like it would have been a move just for the sake of a move.

Flight #24
12-29-2007, 02:08 PM
I have no problem with not going after Jones. If the risk is too great, I'm fine with saving the money for a better use down the road. Signing Jones feels like it would have been a move just for the sake of a move.

Jones got a 2 year deal, I'm not sure how risky that is - potential FAs after 2008 are of the ilk of Garret Anderson, Carlos Delgado, AJ Burnett. The 2 exceptions I noted were Santana (who'll get resigned after he's dealt), and Teixeira. The rest were aging guys or maybe guys like Oliver Perez or Wily Mo Pena who've spent their careers with the "potential exceeds production" tag. On a side note, that supports my sense that you're seeing far fewer franchise guys actually hit FA which makes it even more important to have a strong farm system to develop your own guys or enable trades for franchise guys who are 1-2 years away from FA.

I'm not a huge Jones fan, but I think he significantly upgrades this team, and he lets you play Owens in LF which is far better IMO than him in CF. To me it's about upgrading the team. And with a 2 year contract, it's not about the risk, it's about the $$$ and whether you think he's going to hit .230 or .260. And at some point you have to take a chance on a guy. Jones wouldn't have been my first choice, but he's certainly a far better choice at 2/$36 than Owens & Quentin at <$1M.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 02:52 PM
Jones wouldn't have been my first choice, but he's certainly a far better choice at 2/$36 than Owens & Quentin at <$1M.

I'd rather have O/Q + 35mm to invest elsewhere.

SoxNation05
12-29-2007, 02:56 PM
I'd rather have O/Q + 35mm to invest elsewhere.
I second that.

Frater Perdurabo
12-29-2007, 03:43 PM
Do you see the hypocrisy, though, in the Sox dismissing Jones as a low-OBP, high-strikeout power hitter while at the same time offering wads of cash to Hunter?

Yes, I see the hypocrisy.

I'm OK with KW being a hypocrite as long as he assembles a winner. :redface:

I won't be pleased if Jerry Owens is the leadoff hitter and LF/CF on March 31, but I'll give him a shot to prove himself and hope that he succeeds.

Flight #24
12-29-2007, 05:24 PM
I'd rather have O/Q + 35mm to invest elsewhere.

I could argue with that if there was any sign of it being invested. Instead, so far it's been "Hunter's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Rowand's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Jones's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Hey - we got Alexei Ramirez at $1M!".

At this point, I don't see where that money's being invested anywhere. It was provided for payroll. If they use it on another player or 2, that would be fine (although that would then depend on who they use it on). If it sits because everyone's too expensive, then that's shortsighted, IMO. Esp if you're talking about a guy like Jones who was not a long-term deal.

RKMeibalane
12-29-2007, 05:43 PM
Kenny's going in the way back machine with this one. I remember him saying this before the '04 season.

He did say something like this. If I remember correctly, he was trying not cry after Steff yelled at him. :cool:

kittle42
12-29-2007, 07:15 PM
I could argue with that if there was any sign of it being invested. Instead, so far it's been "Hunter's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Rowand's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Jones's too expensive, rather invest elsewhere", followed by "Hey - we got Alexei Ramirez at $1M!".

At this point, I don't see where that money's being invested anywhere.

Williams made the choice to allocate those funds to the minor leagues instead of the major league team.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 11:29 PM
At this point, I don't see where that money's being invested anywhere.

Then there really is only one question left - do you think that either

A) It will be reinvested in the team at some point

or

B) The owners will take an extra dividend because there was no allocation of funds this year that management deemed in the team's best interest.

If you really think B is the case, that's your choice. I think that's just ridiculous.

Flight #24
12-30-2007, 12:33 AM
Then there really is only one question left - do you think that either

A) It will be reinvested in the team at some point

or

B) The owners will take an extra dividend because there was no allocation of funds this year that management deemed in the team's best interest.

If you really think B is the case, that's your choice. I think that's just ridiculous.

So your theory is that Kenny will have $30M to use next year because he didn't use $15 this year? I'd buy that, but using it will still take a change in mindset for KW because there won't be any better FAs or cheaper ones. So his choice will be next year's versions of Hunter, Rowand, Jones, etc.

So I think C). It won't be fully reinvested in the next 2 years because there won't be options to do so that Kenny chooses to take. I don't think it'll be dividended out. It wasn't a problem of resources being unavailable, it was that he didn't like the available options and instead of taking "the best of a bad lot" because it still improved the team, he decided to hold.

So for this year, while I hope the Sox allocate a small portion of it to the minor leagues (although I wouldn't bet on it because I'm still not confident Kenny runs the farm well), I think the bulk of it will sit unused.

But it's a poor use of available funds IMO to let it sit like that. In 1-2 years, the Sox will likely be in even more of a rebuilding mode with Dye, AJ, Konerko, Contreras, and maybe even Buehrle/Vazquez aging and outside of the SPs, not many internal options to replace them at this point. So that $15M IMO is much much more valuable if used to make this team better because if you address the gaping holes they have now, at least there's a realistic chance of contention (even though they wouldn't be favored). Also because another mediocre or worse season or 2 is likely to reduce the payroll budget because of falling attendance.

voodoochile
12-30-2007, 12:41 AM
I think C). It won't be fully reinvested in the next 2 years because there won't be options to do so that Kenny chooses to take. I don't think it'll be dividended out.

So for this year, I think while the Sox may allocate a small portion of it to the minor leagues (although I wouldn't bet on it because I'm still not confident Kenny runs the farm well), I think the bulk of it will sit unused. Maybe it turns into a signing bonus in a year or 2.

But it's a poor use of available funds IMO to let it sit like that. In 1-2 years, the Sox will likely be in even more of a rebuilding mode with Dye, AJ, Konerko, Contreras, and maybe even Buehrle/Vazquez aging and outside of the SPs, not many internal options to replace them at this point. So that $15M IMO is much much more valuable if used to make this team better because of the inevitable rebuilding and because another mediocre or worse season or 2 is likely to reduce the payroll budget because of falling attendance.

I imagine a good chunk of that money will be offered to Cabrera in the form of a 4-5 year offer. Whether he accepts is a different issue.

Flight #24
12-30-2007, 12:43 AM
I imagine a good chunk of that money will be offered to Cabrera in the form of a 4-5 year offer. Whether he accepts is a different issue.

If Kenny wants him to take a hometown discount to sign the deal, no way. If he's finally paying market rates, then that would be a good use of funds. But again, the key is Kenny - not any resource issue.

voodoochile
12-30-2007, 12:54 AM
If Kenny wants him to take a hometown discount to sign the deal, no way. If he's finally paying market rates, then that would be a good use of funds. But again, the key is Kenny - not any resource issue.

Did he ask Hunter to take a hometown discount?

JB98
12-30-2007, 12:57 AM
I imagine a good chunk of that money will be offered to Cabrera in the form of a 4-5 year offer. Whether he accepts is a different issue.

A 4-5 year offer to Cabrera? Orlando Cabrera? Yikes! I hope not.....

Flight #24
12-30-2007, 01:00 AM
Did he ask Hunter to take a hometown discount?

He made him a decent, but not great offer given the market. The history of guys he's signed or tried to re-sign is that Kenny is not at market levels and if guys want to play here they have to be willing to take less to do so.

Nellie_Fox
12-30-2007, 01:15 AM
He made him a decent, but not great offer given the market. The history of guys he's signed or tried to re-sign is that Kenny is not at market levels and if guys want to play here they have to be willing to take less to do so.He made him an offer that was going to be the winning offer until Anaheim came in with a last-minute topper, and Hunter signed without giving the Sox a chance to counter.

The Twin Cities papers say that part of Torii's reason was that he'd rather not play for a Twins' division rival if he could avoid it, and bigger money allowed him to avoid it. That would explain him not giving the Sox a chance to counter.